Originally Posted by rosco1
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by rosco1
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
The .300 Weatherby is a decent elk round if you don't need much reach and love recoil.
Been hittin the eggnog pretty hard? Agree on the recoil, but you pulled the rest outta your ass.
Pretty sure I use more reach on elk than most and willing to bet I have punched tags further than any .300 bee lover. laugh

Just Sayin. cool
What fantasy land are you living in, that a 215 berger at a conservative 3000 fps doesnt give you enough "reach"?


The "fantasy land" where you actually have to hit the bull in the right spot. I like to call it the Real World. wink

If you think paper or computer ballistics are the end all be all of reach then you need to shoot more and surf less. Recoil matters when discussing reach.

Originally Posted by rosco1
I agree its performance can be matched or bettered with much less recoil/powder..Thats why I dont use it.

That makes it impractical for LR,not incapable.

Merry Christmas


I never said it was "incapable". The thread title asked "is there anything better?" To accurately paraphrase I said there were better choices and it appears you agree. shocked

Originally Posted by Tanner
I want some of whatever eggnog Burnsfeld is chugging.
Tanner


Only the good stuff, Tunner.

[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by shrapnel
Not when I shot them in the head. You have to admit, you don't fit into the average hunting and shooting scenerios with the equipment you use and where you hunt.


I don't get your point? I have shot plenty of bulls in close and would argue the .300 Bee is even less optimal inside 300yds.

Elk are not exactly bullet proof if you hit the right spot. Hit the wrong spot with the .300 Bee and you will need to shoot again.

Do you think there is a place on a bull where the .300 Weatherby works and 30-06, 7mm Rem Mag, 264 Win Mag or even the .243 Win/105gr VLD bounces off?

Originally Posted by shrapnel
If there wasn't an advantage to larger calibers they would hunt elephants with a 17 Remington...
Seriously??
[Linked Image]

Originally Posted by kroo88
My favorite Montanan philosopher Teddy K. had it right when he warned against technological advances.

Sure I'll take a beating for this, but I would appreciate never having to hear-
"Oh yeah, what's its ballistic coefficient?"-again.

The last bull I killed with the 300 Weatherby was inside 20 yards. Jumped off a Colorado canyon edge after hearing him bugle. Somehow got between him and his cows and called him into that range.

Grew up reading Outdoor Life articles about putting the sneak on big bucks and bulls. Feel sorry for the up and coming hunter who will never know anything but yardages and bc's.


I don't suspect you get the hypocrisy of thinking the .300 Weatherby some sort of low tech approach to elk rifles.

Want to hunt low tech with a firearm then grab an iron sighted revolver, load bullets you cast yourself into .45 Long Colt cases and put the sneak on a bull in open country.

[Linked Image]

Originally Posted by George_De_Vries_3rd

John, no argument here over your long range success but the 300 Wby with the right bullet--a good "slippery," 200-grainer is all that's needed--a good base/scope set-up, due diligence without retinal detachment, will go as far as I am going to shoot at them which is not as far as you will. I do like rifles that speak up though. 😄

Nothing against your choices at all.


George,

Obviously the thread title is provocative and intended to spark spirited debate. Just doing my part to keep it lively. laugh

Originally Posted by BobinNH
IME You have to be just as precise with a 300 Weatherby as anything else.


Good point Bob.

Last edited by JohnBurns; 12/28/15.
John Burns

I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.