Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles "Busting the Magnum Myth" R. Seyfried

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.