Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting In defense of big rifles

This is meant to be a somewhat lighthearted rebuttal to what seems to be almost a backlash against larger rifles, even for what would be condsidered "large" game animals such as elk. I've read a number of threads (not just on the 'Fire) where you'd swear there was almost a competition to see who can tout the smallest caliber as being all that is needed to cleanly take elk at, say, out to a light year, give or take. Something along the lines of:

"Dang guys, I've been loading up neutrons over .0000001 grains of H4350 for years and filling my tag. Anybody that needs more than that obviously can't hunt well enough to get close and/or is trying to overcompensate for poor marksmanship."

Ok, maybe not quite that but I bet you know what I mean.

Look, I understand the concept of "adequate" and there's not really a functional use for the word "deader" but I think more...now stay with me here I beg...can, under certain circumstances CAN be better. Let me indulge myself enough to throw this out there:

Who here would hunt, say, a Cape Buff with a .243? Why not? Wait wait sit down please! Seriously, why not? Because you don't necessarily think the cartridge is up to the task? Ok, fine, me neither. How about an '06? I will say right now I have absolutely no doubt that the '06 has killed Cape Buffalo. No, I can't cite examples but I doubt anybody else thinks it hasn't been done. Does that make an '06 "adequate" for Cape Buffalo? The late Larry Kelly killed pretty much anything that breathes oxygen...with a .44 magnum handgun. That includes the African Big Five. So a .44 will kill an elephant? Yep. Would I attempt it? Umm, no. (say guys, I must have left something back in the 'Rover, I'll be right back...not) So, if something smaller CAN kill something why would anybody ever use something larger? I think there's two reasons.

First, "larger" isn't necessarily accurate to begin with. A .300 Wby is no larger a caliber than a 30/30 but it does shoot things of that caliber lots faster. This can be a huge aid in hitting something. I loooove flat trajectory. My first rifle was a 30/30, my second was a 7mm Rem Mag. It was just silly. Ranging essentially ceased to be an issue. Point, bang, flop, clean. But for this discussion lets say the point two of bigger isn't "just" trajectory but delivering more in and of itself. I respectfully submit that the reason people tend to use, we'll say "plenty" of gun on grizzlies/cape buff and such is because somehow "adequate to kill" doesn't seem to make you feel warm and fuzzy. In fact your mind goes to the possibility of being gored/stomped on/clawed/chewed on BY something warm and fuzzy. So, again, exactly why are you carrying that .338/.340/.375/.416/.45-70? Do you expect things of it the other (lesser?) cartridges do not? If not, you're carrying them why? So...

Does whatever real or perceived advantages of those bigger cartridges simply not apply to game like elk? Perhaps it's just the fact that when things don't go exactly as planned you aren't breaking into a cold sweat and beginning to really worry about more than a long tracking job or getting a carcass out of some nasty stuff? Again, respectfully, I submit that what you're feeling when you consider what is "adequate" for elk being a whole lot less than what you would consider for a brown bear is "margin for error", or MFE. Being on the bad side of MFE with an elk is another world entirely than for a big bruin. So I put it to you, is an elk less deserving of the MFE?

OK, and now for my concessions;
I love my .340 but yeah, it kicks. It's also on the heavier side. Then again, I've got no interest in shooting a 6.5lb .340. As I grow older though it isn't the recoil as much as lugging the thing around.

It's still sinking into my head how good modern bullets have become. Less really can do more than what you once might have needed. (ok, I said it)

My last rifle purchase was a little Tikka T3 Light Stainless in...308. God help me it's wonderful.

Ok dammit! Concessions over! C'mon you Weatherby people! You .338 "anything on the continent with this one rifle" people! You guys in the woods with your 45-70's and 450's! Let me hear you!!!

uh....i pretty much agree....sorry....

guyandarifle:

I agree with a lot of what you have written but I also must reconcile that with my own limitations. I have been shooting rifles for almost fifty years and I've learned what I can safely and reliably control and what's out of my range of comfort and confidence.

On a few occasions, I have had the opportunity to shoot rifles with bigger bullets (.375 H&H, 350 grains, and .416 Rigby, 425 grains) and they are just too big for me. They nearly broke my shoulder. Maybe it's all in my head but there's just too much recoil for me to control. I saw a guy at the range shooting a .340 Rem Ultra Magnum and it looked like torture. He could only shoot seven rounds before he had to quit.

I own a Winchester 70, .338 Win Mag and I use Federal Premium HE 250 gr Nosler Partitions in it. Its' recoil is just about at the limit of what I can comfortably and safely control. In fact a box of twenty rounds, shot out of that rifle at the range, pretty much finishes me for the day. I suppose that if I ever get the opportunity to hunt any of the big five in Africa, I will use that rifle.

I much prefer my Remington 700, 30-06 with Federal Premium HE 180 gr Nosler Partitions for elk. I wouldn't have any problem using it on brown bears or moose.

I am 5'-11" tall and I weigh 210#, so I'm not a giant but neither am I a midget. I am also 61 years old, and it seems that recently even 180 grain HE ammo is giving me more trouble than I like and my patterns seem to be growing. But when I switch to 150 gr ammo, they close back up again.

I wonder if some people champion smaller calibers simply because they are afraid of the recoil associated with larger calibers but can't admit it to themselves. I know that anything bigger than my .338 is too big for me.

I also wonder if some people champion larger calibers to subconsciously enhance their own macho image.

KC

For big critters, carry as much rifle as you can accuratly shoot.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it! :-)

Guyandarifle:

Just cause you called out: I, in my VERY limited experience, hunt with a Marlin 1895 Cowboy in .45-70 (325gr Hornady Leverevolution) with tang peep and factory iron sights. I chose it because I've always wanted an old-school long-range "cowboy gun," period. Now I know its not a true "long-range" cartridge by today's standards, but in the late 1800's it was! Came to find out later it was one of those "big enough for anything on the continent" rifles, and that gives me confidence, but I have to put that big slug in the vitals or its not big enough anyway, right?

Recoil is stout, but I'm young and dumb enough to not mind I guess. Its a joy to carry in the woods, and is beautiful to look at.

I must admit that I hesitate to post because my knowledge and experience is far behind this community, so I don't consider my opinion to hold much weight, I just lurk here for knowledge and ask the occassional question.

68W

KC
Even in my most rabid state of "Bigger Is Better" there's no getting around if you can't shoot it straight it really doesn't matter much. Shoot what you can hit with...that comes first. You and your '06, keep on truckin.

68W
Some day I have simply GOT to find me a big bore lever. Thanks for chiming in!

Agreed, but there is certainly a functional and appropriate use for the phase �dead faster�.

On account of 260 class rifles being great for moose in sweden, this has been beaten to death.

On wildboar the 6,5x55 with heavies regularly fail to produce exit wounds on even small animals. I ask my danish and swedish clients to bring .308 cal. bullets and use premium, only.

Guyandarifle, get one and you'll never regret it. Something just feels right about them levers, don't know how to say it otherwise.

68W:

It's interesting that you should mention models 1895 and 45-70 caliber. I'm old enough that when I was very young and he was very old, my grandfather told me something of the history of firearms in the late 19th century and early twentieth. He started hunting for meat in his adolescence and used a Winchester model 1876, 45-70 that he got from his father. All those cartridges used black powder.

In his late teens, he bought a Winchester model 1894, 30-30 for the outrageously high price of $17. That was the first caliber that used modern smokeless powder based on TNT. He told me that when he first started using it, he was amazed by the very flat trajectory and long range. He thought that it defied gravity.

He got another education when he was issued a Springfield 30-06 to fight in WWI.

KC

I have 3 big game rifles, 375 H&H, 270 WSM and a 45-70 that's in a Marlin GG.
The 375 H&H weighs somewhere around 10 lbs, so unless we'er hunting with horse it gets left at home.
The 270 WSM is in a Tikka T-3 lite, odds are thats the gun I will carry when hunting Big Game.
If I'm hunting timber the 45-70 is my go to gun.

I shoot all 3 every well and I don't have a problem with recoil.

I've killed more Elk, Deer and Antelope with a 270 win then all these rifle combine.

You'll never hear me said anything bad about big rifles just that you do not have to run out and buy a big rifle just for elk or any big game in the west.

KC:

Very neat story about your grandpa. I love my .45-70, its a real challenge to learn its trajactory, which is enormous compared to the M16 I'm use to in the Army. I don't handload yet so for now I've decided to just use the leverevolutions, they are the flattest among the factory loads. I'm very confident I will get the confidence with it out to 300yds this year before the elk hunt in October. I am very new at hunting, last year being my first year, did a mild backpacking DIY over-the-counter antlered elk hunt. I'm going to do the same hunt this year minus the backpacking (realized it wasn't necessary). The other interesting part of that story is that my only other rifle is a Winchester 94 in 30-30 (it was my first gun, bought it for my own HS graduation present 7 yrs ago, cause I love John Wayne movies and thought it was an inexpensive look alike) someday it will bloody some North American big game. As for the 45-70, it didn't get bloodied on that hunt last year but did on a late depradation cow tag and she thought it was plent of gun to die from, she tastes great too! I like your grandfather have started out to be a meathunter, that cow has been a great blessing for my young family's grocery bill. Oh, and KC, thanks for some of your other posts on elk hunting tips, I have saved them in my computer for future reference, I need all the advice I can get! I might PM you some day for more, if you don't mind. Take care.

68W

I've played on both sides of this argument. Last year I hunted elk with the smallest diameter bullet I've ever hunted with for them (.264), but my intent was to have my .358 Norma done before elk season. Since my .264 Win Mag did the job quite well, and so have my .280 and .270 WSM, why would I need/want to step up something as large as a .358 Norma hocking 250 gr loogies at 2840 fps? Because I want to. But how do I "justify" it my own mind? I guess it's because I've had enough elk, pigs, deer and other things down to like what I see when I hit them with something powerful. So, while I've killed hogs and coyotes with a .22 mag, and deer with .22 centerfires, I knew it was only barely adequate (they're dead ain't they?), I like the comfort of using enough gun. I insist on exit wounds and like short blood trails. The game may not be "deader", but they might be "deader sooner". Meat damage never bothered me, and I like to take shoulder shots. A big fast bullet, in my mind, makes em deader sooner. Elk bones are pretty stout and while they can go a long ways on three legs, I feel they aren't going far on just two.
However, my .264 Win Mag blew through the shoulders on the bull I shot with her last year. So why do I need more? Because I want more. Why do I want more? To make em deader sooner I guess.

I know I didn't defend my position very well, but I don't have a basis for comparison. All the elk I have killed have been with been with sub .30 calibers. I've witnessed elk killed with the various .30s, but none of "elk" calibers like 8mm Rem, 325 WSM, .338 Win, .340 Wby, etc. I guess physics is what it is, and I won't deny that a more powerful round dispenses more energy onto its target. I'll have plenty of opportunity this year to make a better comparison with the .358 Norma though.

As much as I like my .300 Savage on elk, my .340 Wby flat puts them down in a big ol' hurry. I just don't like the damn recoil.


That, and I do like the macho feeling of carrying that 340 or my 375 H&H.

I think much of the backlash against the big rifles is really at the owners of such rifles. I think the folks that live in elk country and have hunted them every fall since they were old enough to walk resent reading in the Hook & Bullet rags that their .270, .30/06 7X75,et al are either less than ideal or totally inadequate for killing elk. When they have a lifetime of experience to the contrary. Then we all hear guides with stories of the dude that shows up with is shinny new Ultra Magnum topped with the latest euro uber scope that he couldn't hit a barn with if he were inside. Seems the guide has another story of another dude the same season that filled his tag at the first opportunity with tough shot using a standard caliber. Stories that follow this pattern tend to lead to the conclusion that anybody that uses a magnum anything on elk is trying to compensate for either a lack of hunting skill or shooting ability. If truth were known with regard to the stories I'd bet that the fella that couldn't shoot the big rifle couldn't shoot the smaller one either and the fella that could shoot his gun could still hit with the magnum. IMO bigger rifles provide an edge, do you need/want that edge, how big is that edge, what is that edge worth in terms of recoil ammo cost etc, that is for the individual hunter to decide for himself.

Well gents, I've been hunting near onto 64 years, and all great ones by the way. I have to agree with most but would like a few words with others. Lately (since 1998) I find myself reaching for my .340 Weatherby under most times coming out of the gun room. Don't know why, but I feel real good when I'm in the woods with that rifle. She's more or less my favorite. Whenever I call on her for a piece of game, she delivers and has never failed to produce.I am not casting any aspersions on anyone or any caliber, god knows I have most of the calibers and rifles to go with. Only passing my opinion on what hits my fancy.

That's it exactly. It's the perfect rifle for you. WHY? Because that's what you decided. Doesn't matter if you are hunting elk or pronghorn. You like the way it feels and makes you feel. The numbers folks throw around regarding ballistics can't begin to capture what you are talking about.

dont know about the "big rifle" theory but i do like heavy for caliber bullets.30 cal. i like at least 180s and prefer 200s anf fot the 338s at least 225 grainers

I personally like the big rifle caliber theory on big game species! If the recoil is to much in a particular rifle and caliber, I simply address the problem and rectify the problem one way or another.

I also have several rifles small and large in caliber. I think big game should be taken with big bullets and those that want to put you on the dinner menu should by all means get the attention of the biggest caliber rifle one can possibly shoot accurately.

Today there are several ways to handle or get around the recoil of big caliber rifles! All one has to do is simply choose a known way to exclude one from having to face the torso pounding of heavy caliber recoil. We have muzzle brakes, recoil reducers, recoil pads and extra weight to cut down recoil. Now most of these methods will cut recoil by 50 percent and that is a bunch.