Here is a little offering from a fellow most should recognize.
He sums up a lot of what has been said by a few here. Its a good read and food for thought.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ross-seyfried-busting-the-magnum-myth/[/url]

As with most things in life, drilling them in the right place with a good projectile gets the deed done.

Not to worry though, there are still enough poop shoot drillers around that will be continually baffled as to why they can't get their gal pregnant.

There is more pure "wisdom" and experience wrapped up in that article than we can expound upon....

270 Winchester and Partition naysayers,take note.

Why I LMAO when I hear it doesn't "work"....for the real reason, look in the mirror....

Good article. Not exactly surprising, even from Ross.

I wish Seyfried would put all his writings in a book.


As much as I like the the 270 win though its no 30/06...

Dink

As much as I like the the 270 win though its no 30/06...

"DRT"

A book would be a great addition to the gun library. The sentiments of the article work just as well for the 30-06.

An excellent and very true article...

I learned what Ross Seyfried has written about the "hard way". I spent most of my 50+ hunting years using the first center-fire rifle I ever bought... namely a new Winchester Model 70 in .338 Winchester Magnum I bought in mid-1961 (obviously a "pre-'64" Model 70).

Back then, I dreamed of an Alaskan Kodiak bear hunt... which never happened, but was the reason why I bought the .338 Win. Mag. to start with.

Admittedly, the .338 Win. Mag. is a fine cartridge and I'm not a whimp when it comes to recoil, but that heavy-recoiling cartridge made even slightly MORE recoil-happy with my "hot" handloads kicked the snot outta me for over 40 years of big game hunting.

True, it put down deer and big moose with great ease, but it was never "easy" on my shoulder. While I loved to shoot, the big Winchester didn't give me a "break" and actually began to hurt me after shooting just 17 "hot" hand-loaded rounds off the bench-rest. But being "brave", I put up with it.

Finally, after one very long shooting session with the .338 during which a scope mount screw was sheared off and I ended up shooting over 40 rounds of heavy-recoiling, hunting loads in my attempts to sight the rifle in (but didn't know the screw was sheared off) before hunting season, I decided that "enough was ENOUGH" (recoil) and began to "campaign" to anyone who would listen for a new big game rifle.

I ended up with a pretty sore shoulder for the next two weeks... with my shoulder, upper arm and the right half of my chest all black & blue... deeply bruised from the .338's considerable recoil.

After listening to my complaining about my bruised body and seeing the "damage", my children and my bestest hunting buddy got together and gave me a pristine, like-new 1953 Model 99 Savage in .300 Savage caliber as a birthday present the following February.

I was happily surprised at receiving the classic, lever-action rifle with its rotary magazine and its fine, soft-recoiling .300 Savage cartridge that was more than "adequate" for the deer I then exclusively hunted which was a huge favorite of so many eastern deer hunters.

Once I shot this excellent deer rifle, the .338 was FOREVER "retired" to an honored place in my gun-safe. I'll never sell the .338 and, instead, shall pass it on to one of my sons, but I'll never hunt with it again.

Then, by chance, a year or so later... I happened on to a fine bargain in a used, but like-new rifle I've always truly admired and wanted to own since Bill Ruger first designed it, but I had always hesitated to put out the $$$ for a new one... namely the Ruger #1 International (aka "Ruger RSI")... and the one I found was a used, but beautiful little (39-inches overall length) single-shot rifle in like-new condition without a mark on its Mannlicher style stock or its deep blued barrel or action with a 20-inch barrel, great looking wood and a falling-block action in a really OLD, "tried & true" caliber... 7x57mm (aka "7mm Mauser" and ".275 Rigby") which, like the .300 Savage, performed far better with a well-placed "hit" on game than it's mild recoil indicated it would.

Now... several years later, I still wonder WHY I ever put up with the "beating" I took from the .338 Winchester Magnum when either one of these two current "big game rifles" would have taken the moose, elk or deer I hunted most of my adult life without the bone-jaring recoil I endured all those years when I sighted the big Winchester in each year prior to hunting season.

What is that old German saying?

"Too soon oldt, too late schmart...?"


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

His experiences with the 140 Fail Safe in the 270. are completely different than I have seen.I have 3/4 of a box I won't use because of how they performed on Elk and deer.

It may be because they were very new when I got mine but it is the worst bullet I have ever used in the 270 Win.

Using Noslers a guy never has to experiment or wonder or especially,learn the hard way on Elk in very steep country.

Jayco

Good article with plenty of sage advice. I owned a 270 for a while and was rather enamored with it for reasons cited by Ross. I would expand that class of middling cartridges that kill well with today's bullets. I'd include anything based on the 30-06 case - wildcat or standard - and throw in about any 7mm magnum. If a 270 shooting 150 grain Partitions is good; a 'reasonable' 7 mag of some sort with a good 150/160 should be Nirvana. Recently finished my M70 SS Featherweight, sittin' in a McEdge, weighs a skosh more than 7.5 lbs and flings 140 Accubonds at 3200 into an inch. Will get around to 160 Accubonds this winter after seasons are over.

My hunting partner this year somehow managed to kill a dang nice bull with a 165 Accubond from a 30-06 moving at 2850 or so. I still think it bounced off

Seems like pretty common-sense stuff.

Find it pretty funny though, claiming you invented something just because you wrote about it first. I doubt 'his' RUM's beat Aubrey White's Imperial Magnums to production...they were built on factory Sako barreled actions and McMillan stocks with headstamped ammunition....not many real original ideas.

Bigwhoop: Mr. Seyfried is "right on"!
I could not agree with him more.
His experiences and observations exactly match mine (except I don't Hunt Africa).
It is not "bore diameter" or "foot pounds of energy" that KILLS Game - its proper bullet placement!
I have seen first hand, numerous times, where "magnumitis" advocates have wounded/lost game that should have easily been brought to bag. And I have seen numerous times where those afflicted with "magnumitis" have basically "wounded game to death" taking several shots to accomplsh slowly what could have been done quickly with one well placed shot from a manageable Rifle!
There was a fellow who used to post hearabouts that claimed the minimum caliber he would consider using on Mule Deer was a 340 Weatherby Magnum!
That type of mentality is breathtaking in its stupidity and is exactly what Mr. Seyfried is illustrating.
Excellent article and thanks for the link.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I remember reading that one a while back and thinking there was a lot of wisdom in it. It seems to me that the better that my shooting has gotten the better I can use a powerful rifle but at the the time I care less about power because my shooting is solid.

As for his suggestion to shoot a .270 Winchester with good bullets, a .270 with 150 grain bullets worked to perfection for me on a whitetailed buck this morning. The deer just dropped in its tracks.

Yes Varmint Guy, this spelled it all out plain as day. Forty years of wandering the gun aisles, hundreds of articles, now internet yakking and it comes down to this one article.

Great read! The 270 has always been my go to rifle, even though I have a safe full of Magnums. Just surprised to see Seyfried expound it's virtues with the right bullets and shot placement. It's always worked for me as long as I did my part.

Yes, sometimes we just make this stuff way too complicated.

Ross Seyfried has come to the same conclusion as others before him. Here are a couple earlier writers:

Jack O'Connor in an article on the 7x57 in Gun Digest 1974:

"I have some more news: game is not killed by foot pounds of energy. In fact, energy has little to do with killing power. Animals are killed by putting in the right place a bullet that penetrates deep enough and opens up adequately."

Finn Aagaard, concluding an article on killing power in Rifle in the 1990s:

"Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill.

That, really, is all one needs to know about killing power."

I'm not buying it. Magnums have a place in my safe, and get used when needed. Plenty of hunting situations where a Magnum will out perform the 270 and 150gr Partition.

ok.. You sit on your ass for 5 days, and no shooter moose. Then on day 6 after you've convinced yourself that the area is devoid of big bulls, something of this size/variety steps out, head on, at 335 yards. He's standing on the edge of a swamp/lake. You don't have a boat, or a guide, so it's you going swimming if the moose does.

Would you rather have a 270 Win with 150gr Partitions or a 338rum with 225 Accubonds?

So your saying a 270 win won't break the shoulder on a bull moose?

Sure it would, at the appropriate range. When you are talking about 150lb + front quarters, I'd not have the same confidence to shoot at longer ranges and at less than ideal angles that I would with the 338 Rum.

The 338 Rum flat out kills in a fashion that a 270 can't even come close to. The magnums aren't hard to shoot. Maybe for the guys who require guides to get them on game, but not with most of the guys I run with. Maybe we are just tougher and shoot more than the guided guys that Seyfried has experience with. Who knows.

I'd love to see a guy offhanding a neck shot, in the wind at 300yds with a 150gr Partition starting at 2850. But I guess everyone has a different idea of what "wind" is.

I don't think anyone is saying that the 270 is a "muscle cartridge" in the same category with a 338 RUM....and I seriously doubt that what a guy does for a living,where he lives,and whether he hunts guided or unguided has anything to do with his ability to handle recoil..That's a function of his experience as a shooter and nothing else.....

I know some pretty tough cowboys who don't hunt guided,and have killed more big bull elk with a 270 that most on here have even seen in their lives.....they think the use of stuff like 338's of any sort is silly.And I know guys who have hunted all over,guided,who do well with stuff like 300 Weatherby's....your station in life or how you get your game has nothing to do with how much recoil you care to manage.

Sure,ideally,a high velocity 338 with good bullets is going to chop a wider wound channel,theoretically penetrate deeper, and will break heavy bone more reliably than than a lighter bullet of smaller caliber(assuming the big bullet is designed properly) and theoretically kills quicker ....but the general experience across a wide spectrum of shooters and pro hunters, is that such cartridges are more difficult to handle and shoot accurately,than one that recoils less....and a 338 RUM is over the top for most shooters, which is what Siefried was saying...

I have seen high vel mediums used a fair amount,and have noticed some spectacular kills with them on large animals....but here's the rub;bullets were always well placed...when they were not,they were no more effective than smaller cartridges.This is tough for soem to swallow, butit's true.The sooner a guy gets over the notion that big cartridges and bullets make up for careless, rotten marksmanship, the better off he is.

And it's also true that a 150 Partition through the plumbing of that moose will kill it a lot quicker than a 225 gr 338 bullet through the guts...something made easier with a shootable cartridge.

The bigger animals get, the more precise the placement has to be, relatively, because you can't overwhelm large animals with horsepower like you can a dinky 200 pound deer(I doubt it even works on them).It's a "precision" game,not horsepower.Given the fact(not speculation nor opinion) that heavy recoil degrades accuracy for many folks,dropping down on the power scale to something shootable,makes sense...that's the point of the article.

Seyfried has the experience to back up the assertion.He ain't the only one who has said it.

Good post Bob. powdr

Calvin

I have a question if you don't mind answering it as I have never hunted anywhere in Alaska let alone where you do.

Would you say more residents where you would be hunting moose would carry a large magnum rifle rather than one in a standard round. The reason I ask is from my elk hunting experience, especially in Idaho, it always seemed to me, the residents tended to use lighter rounds in a given caliber than non-residents. I myself was the same way because I figured if I don't get something today there was always tomorrow or next week. I admit I did carry magnums some while hunting elk, but mostly I used the 270, 7X57 or 30-06.

Per the norm - good post Bob.

I've said it before here, but worth it again. I am no expert, but now after 4 years elk hunting, I have seen 14 of 15 elk killed by my partner and myself. He shoots a 7RM with 160 accubonds and I shoot a 338RUM with 210 SSII. No noticeable difference in killing power. If the bullets go into the vitals, dead elk. We have both dropped them where they stood and both had them run. I continue to grab the 338 for various reasons, although I know it isn't necessary for the job at hand. I can say the wound channels are larger with the 338, but the 7 is certainly more than enough. Reminds me of the saying, "how dead is dead?"

What? People should be surprised a necked-down .30-06 case full of powder and loaded with a good bullet is easier to shoot and still kills stuff?

Lots of common sense in the article, the kind of stuff that is pretty useful to novices. It would have been somewhat helpful to me when I was on my quest for my first big game rifle back in 1982 but even then I came to a somewhat different conclusion and ended up with a 7mm RM, with absolutely no regrets.

When I purchased a rifle as a wedding gift for my son-in-law, for his first big game rifle and knowing elk would be the primary target, 28 years of experience dictated the rifle chambering be .30-06. The advantages were moderate recoil, a wide selection of ammo choices (I didn�t expect him to reload any time soon), relatively inexpensive ammo for practice, and a long proven track record on game large and small. Had we lived in an area where game smaller than elk would have been the primary target the cartridge choice might well have been different.

One thing I agree strongly with is that the better a hunter shoots the better his success rate will be. Placement is indeed almost everything.

Seyfried wrote the article aimed at hunters looking to buy their first rifle, to go on that first guided hunt. That is obvious after reading the article 3x now. I agree with 90% of what he said. What he left out is that a magnum with a good bullet, in the hands of someone who can shoot it, is a very good choice for big game. I can see his point of view though. I can imagine the horror of a guide when a new hunter shows up all starry eyed over shooting a monster elk, with brand new boots and a shiny new magnum rifle that has 4 rounds down the barrel.

Like I said, I've experienced several situations where a magnum would be a much better choice than a 270 shooting a 150gr nosler partition. I don't "detest" the RUMs, as I see them having a place in a well rounded rifle battery.

I have no idea. I don't live in moose country. When I was up in the native village, the native kid who drove me 100 miles down the river had a 300 Rum. His father in law who was a master guide had an iron sighted 338win, if I recall correctly.

Good choice on that 30-06 CH. I can understand why you didn't get him a 7mm rem mag because of the things you list in your post. I'm sure if ammo for the 7mm was as cheap (as 30-06) and the selection was greater than it was then (and now), that probably would have been your first choice. I like your sense of rationality on the choice you made and I'm sure you and your Son in law have never regretted it. By the way, I shot my new 7mm rem mag yesterday and if I had a blindfold on I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between it and my 30-06's in recoil. Groups were very inpressive as well for a crappy "hot glue" bedded synthetic classic newhaven made model 70. Walked the bullets in and the second to last adjustment I shot a .649" 3 shot group and the last group after final adjustment was 5 shots into 1.100" (factory rem corelokts). Now with that being said, I've never seen an elk shot with a 7mm rem mag but I've seen them taken out with the 30-06 and the results can be devestating, pretty much the same results as when I've taken them with my 338 win mag. Put the bullet where it's susposed to go and you have a dead critter on the ground.

I see a hell of lot more game wounded or lost by arrows than magnums...this AM's version was a doe feeding in the rye with an arrow stuck in her backstrap just behind the shoulders

learn to shoot what you carry...

very good stuff.

After seeing game hit with 180 and 200 grainers out of the 300 Win Mag and then game hit with good 140's and 150's out of 270's, 280's and 7 Mags I don't see any difference.
I have some .284" 160 TSX's that I got in a package deal with a rifle. If these long bullets can be launched to 3000+ out of any 7mm cartridge I don't see how they wouldn't work for all big game in NA,...'cept maybe stuff that can bite back.
I don't think there's any real need for anything over a 284 bore for NA.

I don't see how you guys can't see a difference. I sure have. I've always had a smile on my face after pulling the trigger with the 338Rum, just at the pure power demonstrated when the bullet impacts the animal. (keep in mind that I grab my 243ai or 25-06ai for 95% of my hunting)

The numbers are:

At 200 the 270win with 150gr has 1992 ft #s of energy. The 338 Rum with 225 Accubond has 3584 ft #s. (per federal ammo site)

Very good discussion so far with good points made all around. I was particularly waiting for a post like Calvins' who defends the magnums. Yes they are wonderful - but only for those who can master them. That is a small subset of hunters. What Seyfried says is "to be honest with yourself". Not everyone has the ability to master them. Just by having one in your safe doesn't mean you can use it properly. We all know that. What is hard for us to do is to admit our limitations. On the other hand, that doesn't mean you will never be able to master a magnum. It is going to take a lot of range time, ammo and dedication to stay sharp. Few have the ability to make that commitment.

Realize that Seyfried posted under one of his photos that his 300 Win Mag was "go to" bad weather meat gun. In the end, accuracy trumps mistakes no matter what the ballistics are.

People who quote energy figures usually have the least experience killing game IME.

What have you killed this year, brad?

Your numbers seem a little low for the 338 RUM. My 338 win mag lists 4,000 ft lbs of energy with a 250 gr. sierra GK. Didn't think you were into all that balistic gak calvin????

Calvin, because you have evidently mastered the 338RUM doesn't mean everyone else is ready to make that commitment.
If you can master the "pure power" that is great. You are in a very small group. I will say the average shooter starts to get recoil shy when approaching the 300WSM/Win Mag., especially a poorly fitting model. My three elk with a 338Win Mag and 225gr Partitions showed more visual signs of a hit than those taken with the 30-06 and 270's. In the end it didn't matter cause they all ended up in my freezer.

The consensus here is that the average hunter is better off realizing their limitations and mastering something they can handle. I am sure you agree with that too. Those who do are acting responsibly and ensure a higher percentage of good ethical hits. No one denies your energy numbers. But they become meaningless when they are applied in the wrong spot.

They aren't my energy numbers. I just copied them off of the federal ammo site to show that their is a pretty big difference between the magnums and the 270 w/ 150's. And it's demonstrated visibly, IMO, when the bullet strike the animal.

I never did consider taking a knock in the shoulder to blow a hole in something a skill I needed to master. Whether a rifle barely taps you, or hits you hard, it's what you do before the shot and the rest you have that determines if you hit the animal in the right spot. I guess if you're scared of getting punched in the shoulder or have a scope with crappy eye relief, a heavy kicker would be of a concern.

The bigger difference I have seen has been shot placement as opposed to energy. As an example, I shot a mature bull elk through the back of the lungs (12" or so behind the shoulder) and shot it three more times during the three or four minutes the bull wondered for a couple of hundred yards through the trees before going down. The load was a 168 TSX started at 3200 fps out of a .300 Winchester, so impact velocity was 3100 fps or so (and it did expand in that I could put three fingers in the exit from the first shot).

Thrity six hours later the individual I was hunting with shot a similar 6x6 at 400 yards with a 168 TSX started out of a .30-06 at 2900 fps. Not sure of the impact velocity, but I imagine it was not much if any over 2000 fps. The elk was hit an inch or so behind the shoulder and went down within 20 yards and about 15 seconds.

Above is an example of one, but in my experience animals hit right with an adequate caliber and bullet go down quickly whereas those hit on the fringes of the vitals can go a long way and once they're going, the adreline starts flowing and they get hard to put down.

If the load has adequate penetration and expansion and on non-dangerous game most anything .270 and above should with modern bullets, shot placement matters more than head stamp.

Spoken like a true champion...

1 bull elk, 1 cow elk... so far.

So what's the matter? Someone posts some numbers that show something, and you have to take a cheap shot to try to prove something in an otherwise civil conversation? I thought maybe you were frustrated with your hunting this season. I saw you made a previous post, and quickly deleted it. I figured you were trolling around waiting to take a shot at somebody but didn't have the balls to do it yet.

Nothing is the matter... stating an observation I've made over the years.

So why the cheap shot? Posting your "observation" after I posted energy numbers is obviously a shot at me. You that bored?

Is it winter already?.....laffin!

No cheap shot. It's an observation. You're resorting to a sophomoric argument in favor of your weapon of choice for moose. You want to use it and feel the need for it, that's great... this is all fun and games. However, I just find your justification's funny... especially given the fact, for their size, moose are known to be "soft" compared to elk. And I've seen more elk fall to the 270 than any other cartridge...

Energy in of itself means nothing to me.

Sho-nuff is... pretty winter day here!

So what exactly is my sophomoric argument that isn't up to your standards and not up the standards of the campfire? I've stated that I've used the 338 Rum on big game animals, I see it hit harder than non-magnums, and I see it having a place in my rifle battery. Why the typical Brad cheap shot? Is it that you now have a new 270 and that everything else is inferior?

Nope, find quoting energy figures sophomoric.

I'll happily use most any cartridge on the likes of elk and moose and won't make any energy arguments to convince myself or others as to my choices.

Here's more of the sophomoric stuff... pretty funny really.

Would add Calvin, your argument seems to be that somehow your moose is more dead than if you'd shot him in the same spot with a good bullet from a 270 (how much dead is enough dead). I've used and seen enough magnum 33's to know that ain't true.

Will say, often the bigger 33's give more of an indication of a hit (though not always), but they don't end up more dead.

Just sayin...

So basically anybody who quotes energy figures is going to be subject to classic Brad cheap shots, deleted posts, and thread derailment. You should put that in your sig line so that people be warned.

So anyways, what species have you killed with the 338 Rum to base your opinion on?

No, if you'd read what I said.. I said that I would rather have my 338 Rum than a 270 Win with a 150 Partition with a lake directly adjacent to the moose, and me not wanting to go swimming after the moose. 10 more feet and I'd have been swimming after it. Never said that a 270 wouldn't kill it, just said that I see certain situations where I'd rather have a RUM. Go back and actually read the thread.

How many moose have you shot with the 270 to form your opinion that "The 338 Rum flat out kills in a fashion that a 270 can't even come close to."..?

I've used the 338 WM on elk, and seen the 340 Wby used. That's my experience with mag 33's.

Have seen bull Moose shot in Alaska, up close and personal... they didn't especially strike me as all that hard to kill.

Moose aren't hard to kill, but they do have a habit of ending up in water, which was my point.

Didn't think you had any experience with the 338 Rum, which is basically what Seyfried's article is about. The 338 and 300 Rum. I've killed Moose, brown bear, black bear, and deer with the 338RUM. I've killed black bear and deer with the 270 to form my opinion. The 338 Rum hits harder, and creates a more devastating wound, in my experience, than the 270 win. Seyfried despises the Rums, I see a need for them in my battery.

The first year I went moose hunting, I took my 30-06 with 168gr TSX. I would not have taken a head on, 300 yd + shot if I was carrying it this year. I was confident taking that shot with the 338 Rum, based on what I had seen it do to a kodiak brown bear this spring, and other animals I had taken with it.

So using a 243/105 at 500 yards on deer is different than using a 270 on a moose at 300?

Not saying the 338 RUM isn't an awesome round... just betting a properly placed 270/150 NP would have/could have given exactly the same result, perhaps minus a little bit of the already dead moose shuddering.

I'd have thrown a 62gr TSX into it's brain pan....

And I bet it'd drop on the spot...

what is not to like about the .270? It is perhaps the only caliber I truly speak highly of out of many yrs. of hunting in my area of Alaska. I've made more 1 shot kills with the .270 and was "always" pleased with its performance using the 140 grn.Trophy Bonds yrs. back. It is only when I stepped my foot into a grizzes track that swallowed my 10 1/2 foot that I began to think about something bigger. I did not however doubt my ability to make a shot, it was the thought of possibly not being confident that such a tiny bullet is "enough". More so when in "close" as chances would likely be. The larger calibers proved to me quite adequate in re-astblishing my confidence as a shooter "with" proper caliber, bullet selection and shot placement in killing bears. Does that mean a big bear would not have gone down with my .270? Too, any long shots in regards to moose hunting have been with all to generous amounts of powder ala...magnums and good bullets.....not often though as I prefer "in close". I do carry in mind that "bigger bullets make bigger holes", I like that!

I guess Seyfriend is right tho'.....the .270 is quite managable and darn easy to use!

The 270 kicks a little and kills a lot... When I moose hunted AK on the Kenai I carried a 338 WM, not because I thought the moose needed it, but because of the Brown Bear tracks around my tent in the morning.

But that was 16 years ago and I'm older and wiser...

My point for posting the article was to let Seyfrieds' thoughts of magnums vs. standards to get some exposure and see what peoples thoughts are. Ross can't tell you or I what to use but he surely can post some cogent thoughts about his experiences.

Look at the wide disparity of thoughts here. We've got one guy who champions a 225gr Accubond out of a 338RUM and another who would use a 62gr TSX from a 223AI (I assume) for the same moose! Who is going to call one right and the other wrong?

I will make a couple of statements to see where the conversation goes and expose myself to a little flaming.

I think the average mere mortal faces a "challenge" when he snuggles up to a 30-06 on the bench with 180's onboard. By this I mean the casual shooter has a hard time with this cartridge for the once a year hunt camp. Now THAT person may not even be a member here. This is a rifle loony site after all!

Also, no one should be embarrassed as to what their own personal recoil limitations are. If you are honest with yourself you will be able to out perform someone else who is fooling themselves. For example, if you can shoot your big game rifle with the same ease of your .22 rifle, you are not over gunned.

I think most would agree that more big game is wounded by those over gunned than under gunned.

Well then do it, and get back to us. Otherwise it's just talk.

I prefer the 210 xlc at 3200, but I've only got a small amount left, so I'm saving those for later in life.

I see the value in having a 338 Ultra or another big magnum in my battery of guns though. Some guys like the 375 H&H, I like the Ultra. In 4 years when I'm hunting brown bear on the Peninsula, the 338 Ultra will be taken out of the safe and used again. If I go moose hunting again, it'll be the Ultra. I'll probably chasing white animals, black bears, and bucks till then, so it won't get much use for the next 4 years. The 25-06AI S2 combo gets the nod.

Most of what you've posted here is conjecture and talk... you've never taken a moose with a 270, let alone a dozen.

Most of us don't have the luxury of spending an entire lifetime killing game, year in and year out, to be dogmatic... that's why your 338 RUM dogmatism is ridiculous.

Spend a lifetime shooting a 270 with a 150 NP one year on moose and 338 RUM the next (for the rest of your life alternate them)... then get back to us.

I don't need to go to the north pole to know there is ice there.

How many moose have you killed? You ain't going all JO on us with an example of one are you...

So nobody is going to go moose hunting with the 62tsx? I had high hopes. Did anybody ever kill a black bear with the 223ai, or did that not happen either?

Have noticed that magnums tend to flatten the trajectory a bit--thought that it was the the point

Is that too sophomoric for this thread?

A lot have guys have shot mags really well--consider the 300WB...or the Mashburn, maybe Ross will include that in a later article.

A gunwriter has to make a living fellas...

.338 Mags aren't for everyone. Some guys will never shoot .338 accurate because of the recoil. In that case a 30-06, .270 is a great choice. Are they better? NO Can the .338 do more? Yes They can shoot heavier bullets even flatter. Shoot through more animal at different angles and deliver more power at longer ranges. The 338 ultra.338-378,.340 weatherby. 338 win mag are great rounds but a guy needs to carry what he can shoot accurately.My 338-378 that I am packing this year shoots less than 1/2 inch, 5 shots. so I am not sure how a different round would serve me better.The magnums bring more to the table,if you can shoot them well....

yep...

Yeah, like a 10 LB overall rifle weight for anyone who does not want cranial/spine damage from shooting it very much or hearing loss from a brake.

For someone who wants to pack around a heavy rifle or get them hell pounded out of them in a light rig, they are great.

My favorite "Magnum" will always be the 375 H&H... for what it is, it doesn't kick much. If you're going to use a big case, may as well throw a lot of lead.

Have had two 375's, one with a 22" bbl, one with a 24" bbl.

23" is likely "just right"...

While this is going downhill, we've got a .243 thread killing elk and all manner of big game. I think one bull went down at 762 yards. The mystery continues.

A 270 is still enough for what 99%+ of us do 99%+ of the time.

I can separate "need" from "want"... some can't.

This thread is not going "downhill".

Everything has it's pros and cons.. Same with Magnum vs smaller cased cartridges.

Nothing is perfect. Lob heavy slugs downrange at high velocity and you got to pay a price in terms of recoil and noise..

The question is how much does any individual shooter want to pay?

This statement ends the discussion.
Although I prefer the .30-06.
Same difference, really.


P

Ok, well sorry for making a judgment call.

I agree with this. Although, 22" is the "correct" legnth for an H&H

What a bunch of gack.
If it works for you, run it.

My daughter was somewhat panicked when she found out I was buying Kelan a rifle for a wedding present. First thing she wanted to know was if it was something they could afford to shoot. She was relieved to find out it was a .30-06.


Mot surprised about the recoil. Do the math and a lot of 7mm RM loads recoil less than popular factory .30-06 loads. I used to run 160�s in the 7mm RM but now that I have a bunch of .30�s I�ve started using 140�s in the 7mm.



Yup. Lots of elk have fallen to the 7m RM my fellow hunters and I have used over the years. My hunting buddy had one go 120 yards or so on a neck shot and I had a couple go 40 yards on broadsides, but no others got close to that distance. Most have taken only a couple steps or have gone straight down.


Enjoy that 7mm RM - it sounds like a good shooter.

As for me, I'm one of the guys who loves the combination of the .270 Winchester and 150 Nosler Partitions. If I was going moose hunting there is a very good chance that I would bring it or a .30-06. Properly applied it would do the job with no fuss at all.

However, if I wanted a dedicated moose rifle I'd likely buy something bigger. In fact it would likely be a Ruger #1 in 9.3x74 or 375 H&H. The extra bullet diameter, weight and power might not be necessary for humane kills but it would be more likely to leave a good blood trail if necessary. Power is never a bad thing if you can apply it properly. Aside from all of that it would give me an excuse to buy a cool, bigger bore rifle and use it to shoot big animals. What's not to like?

Nothin' wrong with the .270. It's their owners that are thowed off. Bad mouth a man's 30-06, 25-06 etc., they'll just laugh. Insult a .270 fan's rifle and they want to bow up.

Isn't that the damndest truth.

Thanks CH.

Confidence in your rifle is the key word there.
I have zero experience with a .338 RUM, but a fair amount with a 340 Wby and quite a bit with the 270. I firmly believe the 150 Partition out of my .270 has penetrated deeper than the 200 Accubonds and 225 Grand Slams out of my 340 Wby on a variety of critters. (I have actually recovered some .338 bullets, can't say that about the 150 Partition). Not moose mind you but elk and mulies.

The .277 150 Partition is a very underrated bullet.

Dog Hunter-your experience and mine closely mirror each other. I have no experience with the 338 RUM (though have been around them a bit) and a lot of experience with the 340 wby having worn out 2 barrels (which to me is fairly much the same thing. And I do have some experience with the 270.

I've found 3 Horn slugs in elk (a 140 and two 130's) and found one 150 Noz in a bruin and one 130 Noz in a elk. This is after using the round and having been around it used for pretty much 4 decades, wowsa did I just say that...ouch

Now with the 340 I found a ton load more, I mean a lot more than that in what I would call one decade of serious use. Don't have the particulars in front of me in terms of what bullets/game/range etc. But, I will say I found it interesting how many of the slugs I found in game, pretty much always in big big game like elk and bison. I used the 340 a lot for yotes, deer, black bruins and lopes and can't recall ever finding a slug which of course is no big suprise.

Point being, I seemed to find a ton load more bullets out of my 340's on game than I ever did with my .270's. Of course they were recovered out of game ready for the grill so maybe it's all moot...

As my good friend Mac says, "a .270 kicks a little and kills a lot".

Dober

Mark �

I�m going to take a guess and suggest that the extra frontal area of an expanded .338 bullet more than makes up for the extra weight when it comes to being stopped inside an animal? Again, just a guess.

Then there is the energy thing. A .338 RUM or WBY has about the same or even more energy at 300 yards as a .270 Win has at the muzzle (data courtesy the Remington, Federal and Weatherby web sites). When an animal stops a bullet, 100% of the bullet�s kinetic energy goes to deformation of the bullet and flesh/bone. Bullets that pass through may convert a lot of kinetic energy during such deformation but they also retain some amount of their kinetic energy when they exit. Given equal placement, I�d rather bet on the bullet that converts the most energy to destruction of vital function.

I know people say energy doesn�t matter but if that were really true we could all hunt big game with .22 rimfires with the same results we get with the centerfires. I think the real question is �Where is the tipping point where additional energy provides rapidly diminishing returns?� That is something someone else will have to answer.

Bullet construction comes to mind...

Pretty much each and every of the bullets I found from the 340 was of the Nozler brand (210,225,250's). We need to keep in mind though that this gun was used each and every fall for a lot of game...

Dober

Dober, what are you saying with the Nosler statement, construction or something else? Numbers killed kinda takes velocity out of it.

Have you ever measured the case capacity of your Mashburn with water?

My Mashburn case runs 90 gr. water +/-.

thanks doc

Calvin,

Ross has them in his personal battery also. The very first .338 G&A was built for him (to his specs) by Dakota and technically used what was to become the .300 RUM case but with the .338 bullet.

At the same time Ross designed the .338 G&A (from the .460 G&A) there was also a chamber drawing made for the.300 G&A using exactly the same case. When Ross showed me the chamber drawing I asked if he was going to also build a rifle in the .300 G&A and he laughed and said �What�s the point if I have the .338 G&A?�

I remember we were shooting some other stuff one day and he wanted to double check the zero on his .338 G&A before leaving for an elk hunt in Montana. He fired three shots from a cold bore at a 2 inch orange dot at 200yds and had three hits in the dot. Group was just over an inch. 225 gr bullets @ 3200fps. I don�t remember if the bullets were Failsafes or X bullets.

I think where Ross started to change his opinion was in guiding hunters who also were fans of his writing. He really promoted horse power in the late 80s/early 90s articles for Gun and Ammo but based those articles on his own shooting ability, which really is at a whole different level from the average hunter. I suspect seeing quite a few guys show up at his ranch with big cartridges (the ones he wrote about) but unable to actually hit an elk has moderated his opinion and recommendations on elk cartridges.

What BS and koolaid. I'm not drinking.

I've seen that load "fail" on two different occasions. Both bulls taking hit after hit in the chest and running off ending up in an all day tracking job.

I'd like to see Ross make those claims after hunting on public land with LOTS of hunters pushing adrenalin pumped bulls.
He has his private Shangra-La to go make kills. He might as well guide people to shoot sheep. He knows his ranch, he knows right where the game well be, and at what time.
Big deal.

If that FS bullet was so good why is it now non-existent?




Yep, I agree.

Well said. The "caliber doesn't matter it's where you hit them" expression is so rhetorical in nature it should be taught in school. NOSHITSHERLOCK, where you hit them matters, and if anybody has issues between an ass shot (which BTW works with the appropriate caliber and bullet) but tell that to a eight thousand pound hippo or twelve thousand pound elephant or even a lightweight two thousand pound buffalo after you've placed your "perfect shot" in the heart lung area with your my beloved 270 and 150gr Partitions (incidentally, my uncle took a huge lion in Angola in the 60s with one). I only have one request, can I hold your wallet? Enough already, we get it that a well placed shot in the vitals with a 270 is better than shooting the hoof with a 600NE

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthread...Number/5832163/what/showflat/fpart/3/q/1

Your post b4 this one you questioned/wondered about bullet construction. I took it as you were wondering what bullets I was using when finding them via my 340 Wby.

Guessing that wasn't your point/question?

Dober

Right, my point was that if you were finding bullets of the 340 and not 270 in the same critters over time than it probably was a function of bullet design, not caliber.

I realize that you know, and I assume that anybody who doesn't have their head in their ass also knows, that placement trumps caliber as stated in Jorge's NSS post. Apparently they are plenty of shooters needful of the NSS schooling. Will postulate that more of them go fully guided...:)

It seems reasonable to me that bullet manufacturers would generally build greater penetration potential into the smaller caliber bullets as a normal part of design to compensate to some degree for caliber selection. As long as the shot is good, they kill well on appropriately sized critters--as will anything shoved through enough blood vessels.

It's all relative.

As far as deer hunting goes, shooting meat dinks in the hay field is a little different deal than hunting big bucks out in the country.


And the answer is.....grin

Amen to that Sam!

Side note, met a fella elk hunting yesterday, he'd been around it a bit and perhaps a bit more. What was he toting, an old .270 naturally...

Dober

horseshitt--its the 280AI...:)

Hey Sam....do you need any oil sent up there from down here. I can get my hands on a bunch, and I hear that you guys are oil poor up there....or is it oil pour....anyway, if you need some let me know.

When I started reading this I thought I'd weigh in but by the time I got halfway through I decided I had nothing to add that Ross hadn't already said.

According to RS it's all about shot placement and bullet construction.
(and I'm not disagreeing)

If so, I would love to hear his thoughts on the 458 Lott as compared to the 458 Win or the 45-70 on large African game.

Are the Win Mag or Lott necessary when you have the 45-70 already, again, after all it's not about speed but shot placement and bullet construction.

I went through a big case of magnumitis as a youth. I wanted everything bigger, faster and more glamorous.

Now, I have learned there has been no observable drop-off of killing power going from a long-barreled, loaded to the max, 300 Weatherby down to a shorter barreled, moderately loaded 30-06. There is also no observable difference in going down from long barreled, hot loaded 7mmSTW down to regular loads in a mere 7mm-08.

With rangefinders - if an animal is at extreme range and I need to hold a few inches higher - I do so.

I admit that when we sit around the real campfire now, I don't get to bring out the "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" cartridges for all to ooh and ahh about any more - because I so rarely shoot them any more.

But - any negative effect on the amount of game killed, or brought home, after being shot - has been exactly zero.

Until recently, I have only had a 338WM then I bought a 450M.

My sons have had 30-06s and truly I believe the 30-06 is about the most versatile round in existence but I love my 338WM.

With a 200g bullet it is quite mellow.

I think that would be a very interesting conversation to have with him. Seyfried wrote about using a hot loaded 45 Colt revolver for hunting cape buffalo and found it quite effective. His loads were using hard cast bullets of around 330 grains at 1600 fps.

Then you would once again be wrong...

This article reminded me a lot of JB's treatise, "Kick and Killing Power".

Lots of learned folks come to the same conclusions.

FC

We had that discussion in the early 90s and he was no fan of the .458 Win or the 45-70. The Lott was a big improvement.

Of course the 45-70 was an American black powder round and was way less �cool� than the British black powder rounds of the same era and the .458 Win really did suffer early on from some pretty bad factory loads.

Funny thing was when you cornered him on the .45 Long Colt revolver he carried in Africa. He had nothing but praise for the heavy cast bullets and even killed a charging buff with that old Linebaugh gun. Kind of a medium loaded 45-70 you carried in a holster.

Ross also carried a .416 Taylor in a Blaser rifle and liked it better than the .458 Win and also used the then new .416 Remington in a M700 of all horrors.

As to whether or not power mattered I have also shot his .585 Nyeti. This is basically an improved .577 Nitro for use through bolt guns. He claimed he came up with the idea after a tight spot with elephants and a little .425 Westly Richards double gun.

Seems being surrounded by mad elephants makes one want big guns and while he did own a .577 double he was unwilling to bring it into certain African countries as it might not come back home.

The load I fired in the .585 Nyeti was a 750 gr solid at 2250 fps. This was in an 11lb gun and you could not shoot it with ear muffs because it would literally kick you out of the muffs.

In my opinion the .585 was kind of in the same category as the RUMs. Lots of recoil but no big gain in killing. Having never shot an elephant my opinion might not be worth much but I can absolutely say I would be slower to the first hit with it than something more reasonable like a .416 Rem or .458 Win.

In theory any 338 magnum would be the best choice for all North Americdan hunting. Assuming that a shooter can be accurate with it's felt recoil.

Or get yourself a 460 Weatherby magnum....

It is a little ironic, I must say, when I remember Syfried writing about the .378 Weatherby in one of the Nosler manuals; he was trying to decide whether to follow a lion, that had been shot near dark. He approached the sopt where the lion was standing, and found, as he put it, "pieces of lion clockwork". He followed and found the lion quite dead.

Here is a little more irony. While I was not there he personally related the following story to me.

Ross went on a trophy bull hunt while he still lived down in Colorado. To the best of my knowledge this was the last bull and biggest bull he killed in Colorado.

He choose an original Rigby rifle in .416 Rigby. Full power load with a 400gr bullet at 2400fps.

The difference is he could shoot it with great precision and he just plain wanted to kill an elk with that rifle.

Funny thing is the bull lived long enough from the first shot to get a second, but with with Ross the second shot comes pretty damn quick. Even the .416 Rigby doesn�t always �knock em down�.

John,

I just read a old article by Ross Seyfried and he was pissy about people shooting elk farther than 400 yards. You two ever get into it about that?....

Dink

He gave me a bit of an asschewing at the 2008 SCI show in Reno right outside of the Hornady booth.

Boiled down to I needed to be very careful on the path I was traveling as it could turn out bad.

Understand that at that time he had killed and been involved in killing quite a bit of game at ranges out to and beyond 1000yds. His point was that he had done it and knew the pitfalls and maybe promoting long range shooting at game might not be the best idea. I have no reason to believe he has changed his opinion.

We always talk when we run into each other at the shows and such but that was the only time it really came up.

Shoot what you want. Tell yourself the fiction's you want. Bottom line, a good bullet in the right spot, regardless caliber, equals death.

Why is it "silly?" I've killed quite a few elk and my 338 would be my first choice on a good elk hunt.

From where I stand you can certainly kill a bull with the .338 Win and I personally have and on more than one occasion but there are much better choices available.

Downsides to the .338 Win are a lack of reach and more recoil than is needed to do the job at close range.

dogcather: I dunno....you have to ask them...I didn't say it,they did

But I suspect their response would be about like John Burns posted above....(John has even met one of them).That fella has killed maybe 50 bulls(?)from rag horns to big 6x6's mostly with a 270,and they just don't think that elk are all that tough,to justify the big rifle.

I also think he does not like the rifle weight and recoil of the 338.They think it is a very big rifle!

Sounds similar to a good friend of mine, who has sadly passed on, that lived near Kendrick, Idaho. He had killed everything there was to hunt in Idaho and always carried a 270 that Rocky Gibbs had re-chambered to 270 Gibbs for him no matter what he was hunting. It was topped with a 4X Leupold that had an external adjustment mount. He was still shooting the old Nosler lathe turned 130 partitions in it for everything. I used to kid him about at least stepping up to a 30-06 but he would just smile at me and say "No need for anything more".

When he was 84 years old I got a call from him one night saying he had just killed a pretty heavy bodied 5 point bull elk at about 200 yards. He said the bullet broke both front shoulders of the elk and he was seriously thinking the 270 might just be too much rifle to hunt elk with. I could almost see the grin through the phone line.

He and another friend who lived in Montana are much of the reason I believe in the 270 today. The one from Montana killed the largest scoring typical elk in Montana with his 270 and Weaver K-4 scope after tracking it well over ten miles. I surely miss both of these men today and am thankful to have known them when they were still alive.

It appears that the stories from John Burns, Ross Seyfried has tempered his thoughts about cartridges and bullets. This is to be expected from someone who has had a lot of exposure to how others perform in the field. I believe he is trying to shorten the learning curve and prevent mistakes and lost game.

There's something about "big enough" that people just can't comprehend.

If our only shots were brain shots that would apply, otherwise a 270-regardless of what "good bullet" you use on an elephant's heart lung area would be foolish at best.

Seyfried is quite right about all this stuff. Placement rules above all else. One thing I seldom see in these discussions is recognition that it is an integrated system (hopefully) that directs the placement. Gun, load, and shooter. Placement can overcome ballistic shortcomings but FPE cannot overcome poor placement.

It is the shooter's responsibility to embrace the limitations of all three components of the equation and execute a set up which ensures a successful conclusion. We are stuck with the fact that the most constraining factor is the shooter with all attendant variables and weaknesses. The bullet will go where you directed it, whether or not you direct it properly.

WDM Bell knew that before Ross was born I'm guessing.

I've found shooting hogs or deer does not require a .416 Rigby, but they do need to be shot once at least.

I love my .270 and wouldn't trade it for a truckload of magnums.

That was a great read.

A dirty, rusty, beat up rifle???? I find that a clean well taken care of firearm works just as well.....in 243 Winchester.

I am so impressed I will go home and burn my 338WM --- or Not.


Snake

Do what you want....and while you're at it, call everyone who gives a shidt.....

He needs to write a companion piece about ungainly, oversized scopes that take finely balanced rifles and turns them into bricks.

jorgeI,

It appears your Buffalo remains skeptical.

Why don't people understand the 270 Winchester is a claw hammer and the 416 Rigby is a Sledge Hammer?

Pick the appropriate tool for the job

Because the wrong �tool� is normally the one picking the rifle.

As Ron White has observed, "you can't fix stupid". This seems triple for us "gun nuts"

Point taken, I'm sure I'll change my mind when he migrates to the Northeast corner of the U.S.

Why?

Best line of this whole thread.

I can find points of agreement with Ross, always have. I remember one article on a 22x284....
Calvin states the other side quite well. I believe he has discerned correctly that the main focus of Ross's article is that hunters like myself are better served with a good .270 / 7x57 of '06. I'd don't shoot Magnum rifles as these 125 pound East Texas deer don't need them. If I were ever able to hunt Moose or Elk, I think I'd carry a 7x57 loaded with slugs in the 175gr range and then get close. If I had to carry a Magnum....300 or .375 H&H. Just my opinion...

If by "wiser" you now believe it "wise" to traipse around the Kenai with any rifle smaller than a 338, I'd say you are bordering on insanity.

If one were to give me a 25-06 and tell me its the only rifle I could ever use, I would not stop hunting. However, I do have a 300 RUM and a few other Magnums, as well as an assortment of non magnum chambered guns.
I plain like the magnums for certain purposes and believe there is a difference in the way they kill game. Of course the end result of any bullet that hits the vitals is dead game, sooner or latter.
And I also know from observation that most guys cant shoot any rifle worth a damn and are even worse with a high intensity round like a RUM.
I also haven't deluded myself into thinking recoil doesn't bother me and the only way I have found to become proficient with a magnum is to send lots of lead down range and year round. Which is Ok by me as I like to shoot, but to be frank I am beginning to question if its worth it. A low intensity mag like the 7mm weatherby mag I have is a joy to shoot compared to my 300 RUM.
One other thing, and others will disagree with me, but I believe a gun should weigh around 8lbs all up and especially a magnum. Much lighter and even a -06 becomes a handful with 180gr+ bullets.

You really don't know much...

You might be right Brad, but I do know what a Hinchinbrook brownie sounds like when he takes a 8mm mag slug in the breastbone (he was on his hind legs at 17yd). They get a LOT bigger on the Kenai.

Friend I hunted with on the Kenai grew up in a log cabin in the AK bush... he "lived by the rifle" so to speak.

On the Kenai his weapon of choice when we hunted Moose was the 280 Rem. Ditto when he did his annual deer hunt on Kodiak.

He's a prime example of the difference between those that live around the animals and those that mostly read about them... hint.

Never said a 280 wasn't adequate for any ungulate, moose included, but if you think a 7mm bullet is adequate for coastal Alaskan bears, you are an idiot.

Just because people CAN do things and get by with it, doesn't mean they aren't dumb [bleep]. I used to skydive with guys who thought it was cool to smoke a doob on the climb to altitude, and often forgot their altimeters. Some had been doing stupid schit like this for years and were still in one piece. Doesn't mean they weren't dumbasses.

When I was stationed in AK many years ago, those "in-the-know" owned a 270 and a 338win/mag. If coastal bears were a possibility the latter got the nod.

Take A Knee,

Be careful now. Brad is going to go hunting on Kodiak next year with a 280. When he returns with a pile of bucks and a story of a kodiak bear he DLP'd while dragging out a deer, you are going to look like a fool.

Great article.

I have gone through the magnum phase too. And as much as I have had success with the 338WM, it is a recoiler. As is the 375H&H, although more of a big push than a sharp whack, which I prefer. Which led me to the 7mm-08Rem, 30-06 & 9.3x62. With a 30-06 N 180grs(VOR-TX) & 9.3x62 with 250grs TT's at 2300fps.
Both rifles recoil around 25lbs, which is my preferred UPPER limit these days.
I can shoot the bigger cal,s, just not as good as these!

The 7mm-08 is a real sweetheart. I need another!

Wow. Serious?

The article was not limited to a geographical area per se, merely that beaten into a pulp dead horse of the incredibly obvious dictum tha "shot placement matterts" or to put it in terms even a democrap can understand; "duh"...

East to west the average brownie increases in size. Are you sure you live in AK?

I guess you'd suggest a 223AI?

I agree the .270 is a hard caliber to beat. One of my 1st guns was a weatherby chambered in that same round and have had some success with it. Since then I have tried various other rounds such as the '06,25-06,7mm-08,450 Marlin (Not sure which end of that gun was the worst side to be on,lol) and finally ended up with a .300 weatherby. Aside from the 450 M, none of them were bad to shoot. In fact I think my Ruger in 30-06 kicked way more than my Remington chambered in .300 Weatherby. My reason for the .300 was that everyone around me was using a .300 mag of some sort or another. But for my hunting spot, it's a rather dumb gun to have for my area and I realize it now. I hunt exclusively in our swamp and each of my lanes are only 75-100 yards long. Needless to say, every deer I shot, the front quarters were always destroyed. Not a good thing if you truly like venison. This year I changed it up and bought a .338 Federal and man I can't praise this round enough. While it does have more recoil than the .270, it really isn't that bad at all and with that 200 gr fusion bullet, made for a deadly deer round. Another thing I dislike about magnum calibers is the super long barrels. My 22 inch barrel Sako handles way better for me than the 26 inch barrel for my .300 wby mag. Another round that kicks no harder than the '06 that should of been mentioned would be the 35 Whelen. I never heard of anybody saying that cartridge under performs or kicked the snot out of them. I also agreed with the article about practical target shooting. The only time I shoot from the bench is to check my zero. Aside from that, we shoot steel gongs at a 100-150 yards. We even place some steel plates between trees to simulate the tough shots. Anyway, thats just my opinion. Take it as you will.

Why isn't the .416 Rigby a magnum and the .22 WMR is? Why doesn't the .44 Mag shoot flat?

Shouldn't the original S&W .22 RF be called a short mag?

If Phil agrees with Ross to the point he chooses not to post, than we'd better sit up and take notice!

Great article, thanks for posting.

Ross is simply saying shoot what you like, like what you shoot, but most importantly..... practice so you can hit what you are shooting with a good bullet in the proper place. If recoil and muzzle blast keeps you from doing that, go smaller. Bullet diameter or case capacity. Or you can increase the physical weight of the rifle to decrease recoil.

Shot placement relegates most other discussions to secondary importance.

If some want to shoot magnums, and can do so well, that is great. Please don't thump your chest telling the world about it.
No big deal, just not impressing anyone.

My personal recoil tolerance is about 35-40 ft/lbs give or take. I can handle more, but not for many shots nor do I enjoy it as much.

I do not know a single guide that would take a bullet traveling 100-200fps faster in the wrong place over a slower one in the right place.

If you think you need a middy magnum for moose or big bear country, then have the mag and your lighter rifle set up similarly so there is no confusion under stress. Do most of your rifle practice with the lighter caliber, but shoot the mag a tolerable amount every trip to the range.

Yeah, I live here. We find a lot of humor in folks like you and your bear 'expertise'. Carry on...I can use another laugh this morning.

WOW, glad I decided to sit this one out

Sipping my morning coffee with shaky hands, relieved that I survived all those years of traipsing around the Kenai without a .338 in my hands.

Now that round is a dandy, & the reason why I'm running my 9.3's at 2300fps with 250gr TT's.......Perfect amount of thump without the extra fuss.

If I could get a 35 Whelen barrel in the R8 I would be all over it like flies to a freshly laid turd, but the 9.3x62 is a close enough cousin for me

If I'd ever go after Brown Bears whatever I'd shoot I would want an experienced Guide with the appropriate caliber gun to back me up....

And a CRF at that, preferably an M98........

Dang, I'd be off the wall if I just had an elk tag... If I couldn't find about 30 choices to shoot it with in 15 minutes then I missed the boat... If you have one gun the 270 flat works.. NO ONE here has one gun.

Funny, the arguments here all point to which cartridge works best but if you just math it out it boils down to anything over 6# scoped sucks anyway so start from there...

6# x 100 Grns powder= detached retina



40-60 grains of powder and a good bullet go very far. I will never afford to hunt brownies or anything else that will eat me. Moose every 15 years if I am lucky. Still want a 6# 338RUM and the 257 Weatherby is the best of all worlds... 7 Mag is what the 06' isn't. 270 isn't any more than the 7-08. 223 between the eyeballs is DRT.

Wish I had more time to shoot.... That would make me very happier indeed...........

W

Pretty much an "each to their own", but shootability of what one chooses, is important no matter what,,,,then bullet selection!!! In my younger days, I read and dreamed of certain magnums as well. Thought with the .300 Win Mag. 7mm Rem Mag. and .264 Win Mag's, most anything was possible with one. Never bought either however, I just kept with the .30-06. And to this day is still the fastest biggame cartridge I hunt with. A few others are slower, in the 23-2600 fps range, with middle to heavy weight's for caliber. Still the .30-06 with a 180 gr. NPT is my go to for most. If that is more than I think needed, a 7mm driving a 150 gr. NPT at 2600 fps suits me fine.
For me, it became more about just being out there, pitting my skills against the animals instincts. Getting close as possible is where the fun and challenge is for me. Yes, I have to pass sometimes, and yes I don't always fill my tag. I guess if it was a matter of putting meat in the freezer for survival, it might be another matter. But I like working in close, just cuz I know I can. And if it don't work out,,,,well, that's hunt'n!

I'd like to read a few thoughts from Mule Deer on what Ross wrote about. Clearly MD addresses this issue all the time so maybe it would be redundant. But then again, so what!

Wish I had.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger

Friedrich Nietzsche

I lucked out...grew out of my magnums years ago. Of course, if I to hunt elephants and brown bears, I would get another one.

though a few cranks to work out of it this winter, I am enthralled with my Legend stocked 375 H&H. admittedly, it is a utility built rifle and while not pretty i have every confidence it'll provide many years of valuable service.

for the time being i choose to become proficient with this one firearm until she and i are well acquainted with one another's little ways, to paraphrase John Taylor.

magnumitis? hardly. just a love of the caliber.

Your killen me

This is funny, everyone is getting caught up in the headstamp of the brass. Exactly what Ross was trying to get away from.
His point is to get you to use what YOU personally shoot well.
Newbies tend to not shoot rifles so well with heavy, sharp recoil and excessive muzzle blast. The individual cartridge does not really matter, as long at it is sufficient. Shot placement and bullet construction do.

This is like the old real estate adage: location, location, location

Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement!


Phil,
A simple question on the big bears you guide for:
A 180gr 30-06 in the boiler room or a 340 Weatherby in the guts?

What about a 160gr 6.5x55 in the boiler room vs a 375 in the guts?

Which bear would you rather follow into the alders?

To paraphrase a gun writer from another era.....if it takes a 338 to kill a 700 pound elk...what does it take to kill a 14,000 pound elephant?

A good bullet in the correct spot, shall we reference Bell? I am pretty sure we have all witnessed the big doubles in the wrong spot on the African hunting shows with the necessary subsequent follow up shots.

So if shot placement is apparently the only answer, all I need is a 270 for frontal shots on elephant?

30mm, all the way. Anyone got a Warthog I can borrow for an African trip?

Certainly not!! A 7x57 is called for in this instance.

Now that's funny, that right there. I don't care who you are

And Factual

Don't forget the need for a suitable bullet

You should follow his post in other forums, he is always good for a laugh or a head scratch with a "WTF is he talking about"

I once asked Ross about shooting game at long range and asked me to "define long range". I responded with "beyond 600 yards". Ross said that he didn't think that most people should shoot at game that far and that is as far as we got. Over time as we stayed in contact Ross opened up about the taking of game at long range and he stated that he had no problem with it as long as the individual learned how to do so properly and that he believed that I had and at that point Ross opened up on the subject. I found out that day how much Ross knew on the subject and as far as I am concerned he is EXTREMELY knowledgeable indeed. Yes Ross has taken far past 1000 yards and knows how to do so effectively

JB is spot on. Ross also believes that the better bullets of today make smaller cartridges much more viable today than in yesteryear

You all are both right, the 270 kills just fine when put in the vitals, the magnums work just fine when put in the vitals. I will say the magnums "when practiced with" will give more confidence on raking or tougher shots. I also agree they will not kill any better than smaller cartriges except when tough situations arise. This being said I think both sides should just be happy and keep hunting with what works for you. All of us have stories of lost game with regular cartridges and magnums the like. It comes down to being a good hunter and knowing your limits and the limits of your equipment. T.S.

Nah, you can probably get done with one of your Weatherby's. You have a 300 I believe. A 200gr solid into the brain would work very nicely. As long as the bullet hit's the brain, ala shot placement.

Miss the brain with the 300 or (insert cartridge) and you will need a follow up.