I read a lot about marginal shots in caliber debates. Seems like guys want a bigger caliber to increase their options when it comes to shot selection. I saw an interesting question on another forum today about this topic - Are there any shots you would feel comfortable taking with a 30-06 that you wouldn't feel comfortable taking with a 6.5 creedmoor? How about a 243 Win? This is assuming good bullet choice.

Nope.

"Assuming good bullet choice". Nope

I'd say that 99% of the deer that I kill, are shot through the lungs. Deflate the lungs, game over. That said, about 8 years ago, I was hunting with my 243 AI. I had a nice 8 point lightly quartering towards me while he popped his head out to wind check some does in the field. I ranged him at 240 yards. I hit him on the tip of the lead shoulder and the bullet exited on the back side of the opposite ham! He ran about 50 yards and piled up.

The 85 grain TTSX did its job wonderfully! Good bullets almost always do what they are supposed to do.

On deer? Maybe not. On elk or bear? I’d feel better on any shot with a 30-06 vs the other two.

No and no for deer. Monos close the gap significantly woth penetration, but I think there still has to be line for bullet mass on game larger than deer.

The Mono bullets close the gap a lot. That being said I shot a 14 pt. Buck last year on a quartering away walking off shot. I took him with a 264 Win Mag. I don’t know if I would have taken the shot with my Creedmoor. No doubt I could have put the bullet in the same place. But I knew it was going to go through a lot of critter and maybe not go through the pump house.

Even on deer when hunting thick brush I like a bigger bullet than the 243 has to offer. Shot angles are often hard to decipher when you can only see part of the deer. You can use a good 180 grain 30 caliber bullet to penetrate deep, break bone and often exit without going to mono's. I used a 6.5x55 pushing a 140 grain Hornady to 2400 fps and had great results, gave me everything I needed in a close range situation. I have passed several shots I could have taken easily with a 30-06 that I would not consider carrying a 243. In more open country and considering deer only I would use a 243 with no issues.

Nope

Nope just because it is bigger doesn't mean it will get more penetration.

Could be the opposite in fact.

Thanks for the responses. Pretty much what I was expecting to hear. I’m specifically wondering about elk but am also interested in deer. I understand moving up in power for longer range, but I’ve always been curious about people saying they’d prefer a larger caliber for marginal shots.

In my experience there’s no replacement for placement. I hunt with 243 Win and up and there isn’t a shot I would pass with my 243 that I would take with my 45-70.

Let's change the question a bit.

Are the shot's I'd take with my 7mm STW that I wouldn't take with a .243 win. Yes there are.

The higher velocity and better ballistic coefficient of the 7mm STW flatten the trajectory and improve wind performance. This reduces the circle of error probability. Consequently this will shooting conditions that would be unacceptable for a .243 Win acceptable for the 7mm STW.

Additionally, providing you hit the target, the bullet must retain the ability to do sufficient work to secure the game, especially at distance. At 1000 yards the STW gives full penetration on an antelope, I'm not sure the same could be said for the .243 Win.

Throw in the quartering shots and Texas headshots at distance and it becomes very apparent why there are plenty of shots I'd attempt with my 7mm STW that I wouldn't even consider with my 6x45.

For all you easterners who hunt from stand, or over bait, and never shoot past 100 yards, fine, for you guys it might not matter. Out here in the west in places where a "close shot" is 300 yards, its' wise to bring enough gun.

In contrast, there's plenty of shots I'd pass on with a 45-70 that I'd take with a .243 Win.

My shots are in thick woods, under 50yds is normal and 100yds is a long shot. On the rare occasion I go somewhere that gives me more range, there are absolutely shots I’d pass with the 45-70 that I’d easily take with a 243.

Just the opposite. There are some opportunities I might exploit with my 45-70 and 4 to 500+ grain slugs that I'd likely pass on with the 6mm and an 85 grain round. Being I pretty much hunt with single shots, I'll admit to putting a lot of effort into proper placement to start with.

Been reading a lot of the mid-1800 to early 1900 Africa literature lately. Some of those boys needed 20 or 30+ shots to bring down elephants, hippo, rhino, and buffs shooting 4 bores. Rather than process and eat them, I think they packed them in to be refined.

On my first hunt in South Africa some 20 years ago, I was in the middle of a very nasty divorce and I couldn't get to my guns so I borrowed a 7 mm Rem mag from a friend. I was a last minute addition to our hunting group, so I also didn't have much time to try different bullets in my borrowed rifle. My friend had some 140 grain Ballistic Tips and some 150 grain bullet loads. The 140 grainers were the most accurate so that's what I took to hunt with.

When we got to the hunting camp, the outfitter and the guides saw my 140 grain BT bullets and said they were too light for their African animals. We had a 10 day hunt and in the first few days I took a Kudu, Impala, Blesbok, and a Black Wildebeest, all with one shot kills. So I was feeling pretty good about my shooting.

Two of the animals that I had on my "list" were a Bushbuck and a Waterbuck which weren't available on the home ranch, so we had to hunt a different ranch about a 1 1/2 hour drive from the home ranch. The first day there we spotted a nice Waterbuck bull and I thought that put a good shot on him, right behind his shoulder. At the shot he stumbled, then disappeared in the bush. We spent the next 5 days returning to that ranch, looking for that wounded Waterbuck bull. All the while the outfitter gave me a hard time for not using a big enough gun and bullets. And he would say things like "My grandfather used to say 'If you can't shoot good, you should use gun and bullets big enough to kill with a poorly placed shot.' "

Several times while we were looking for my wounded Waterbuck we saw a herd of Waterbucks with a bull, but we didn't think it was the one that I shot as it was easily running with the herd and we didn't see any blood on it. And during that time I was able to shoot a Bushbuck and a Gemsbok, both with one shot kills.

Then on the last day of our hunt, the outfitter was getting pretty frustrated and said that if he had to, he would shoot my waterbuck. Late that afternoon we spotted a herd of waterbucks moving through the brush. My outfitter told me to hold on an opening and he would call the shot. He was right next to me and as the animals came into the opening he said "cow"...."cow"....BOOM his .375 H&H went off right next to my ear. The animals took off running but before the bull reached the brush I fired, and he went down.

When we got up to the fallen bull we found a .375 caliber hole in his right front foot, and two 7 mm holes in his chest. We also found the exit hole from my first shot that had completely penetrated his chest, and he had licked it clean.

Bullet placement trumps caliber almost every time.

"Yes" and "Yes".

There are also many where I wouldn't care a whit.

Shoot a couple hundred critters small to big with calibers from 22 to 45 using different bullets in locales such as the South Texas brush or eastern thickets and Western plains/mountains from distances of 10 yds to say 500 yds, where appropriate . You may form your own opinion.

Ya!


GWB

I believe some time back, there was video of a young gal shooting an elk at about 1000 yards with a.243 and it was a 1 shot kill. Fluke? Maybe. Would I recommend it? No. However,I guess it does happen

If there`s a question of "comfort" on a shot, the shot shouldn`t be taken. A properly placed bullet kills, not the head stamp.

No. I also won't take shots that I consider marginal.

Marginal shoots are cool!

If this isn’t marginal, I don’t know what is. And way past 1000 yards, what a stunt!

I guess it's good so many guys won't take what they consider to be marginal shots. The argument usually goes like this:

"Imagine it's near last legal daylight on the last day of your once-in-a-lifetime elk hunt, and you get a marginal shot at the bull of a lifetime. You're gonna wish you had (insert bigger caliber here) so that you could take the shot."

That's obviously not a direct quote, but you see it on hunting forums. I've seen it in books and in hunting magazines as well, even from some well known gun writers. Seems like a bad message to be sending, but that's just my opinion.

I suppose range is the obvious exception - a 7mm rem mag will have a longer effective range than a 7mm-08, and some shots that are marginal in terms of range with the 7mm-08 will be okay with the magnum if the shooter is good to go at that range. But I'm thinking more in terms of things like angle - quartering away, through the paunch, that sort of thing.