Suggestions for a "big and slow" caliber?

Death in the tall grass. And the aftermath. :p

Frontal shots aren't the best. This past season a frontal shot at close range with my 375 failed to put down a Bull Moose. It turned broadside and bolted when a quick 2nd leading shot hit the shoulder and severed the spinal chord. DRT.
 
Wonder why TR needed firepower? Maybe because the hunting bullets of the day were crude in comparison to what bullet design technology produces today. He probably needed to shoot an animal multiple times to kill it with bullets that didn't perform well.
 
Dogleg said:
That's where I place "big" as well; 40 cal, enough weight to get sectional density up to .300 and enough velocity to get that bullet up to 4000 foot-pounds. That would at least get it up to barely big. 5000 is better, nobody contests that as big.

I doubt that our OP wants big.
Click to expand...

While a 40cal or bigger would be dandy, I'm not a huge fan of the lower recoil options (eg 444 marlin) due to the sectional density of the light for caliber bullets. I haven't shot anything bigger than a 300win mag (unless you count my 5lb single shot 12ga w/ 1.25oz slugs @ 1550fps) so I don't want to step up to a 458 WM or 416 rem mag ect. At this time. I'd like to get there one day, but we'll be taking this one step at a time.

While a 35cal isn't a big bore per say, it's a fair bit bigger than the 270win I typically hunt with, and I feel like something like 358win or 9.3x62 would give me some experience with the wounding capabilities of mid speed medium bore rifles so I can make my own judgement as to how I like their effectiveness vs my current go to rifle, the 270.
 
Slamfire said:
Death in the tall grass. And the aftermath. :p

Frontal shots aren't the best. This past season a frontal shot at close range with my 375 failed to put down a Bull Moose. It turned broadside and bolted when a quick 2nd leading shot hit the shoulder and severed the spinal chord. DRT.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t that your 2,300fps / big .30-30 .375 H&H load? Neuters and skews things a bit not to share the full story, that wasn’t a factory .375 H&H load.
 
Ardent said:
Wasn’t that your 2,300fps / big .30-30 .375 H&H load?
Click to expand...


???Huh???

Only on CGN, where all the experts either hot-rod their .243's to use them on grizzly bears...or download their big rifles down to Nerf-gun levels to shoot tin cans or rats...or, apparently, moose...:rolleyes:
 
Suther said:
While a 40cal or bigger would be dandy, I'm not a huge fan of the lower recoil options (eg 444 marlin) due to the sectional density of the light for caliber bullets. I haven't shot anything bigger than a 300win mag (unless you count my 5lb single shot 12ga w/ 1.25oz slugs @ 1550fps) so I don't want to step up to a 458 WM or 416 rem mag ect. At this time. I'd like to get there one day, but we'll be taking this one step at a time.

While a 35cal isn't a big bore per say, it's a fair bit bigger than the 270win I typically hunt with, and I feel like something like 358win or 9.3x62 would give me some experience with the wounding capabilities of mid speed medium bore rifles so I can make my own judgement as to how I like their effectiveness vs my current go to rifle, the 270.
Click to expand...

I respect that. Years ago talking with a friend of mine, when mildly inebriated, about playing the first sport with two gals at once and recommending against it for too much is going on there in my opinion, he told me “I believe it. But I think I need to find out for myself on that one.”
 
Ardent said:
I respect that. Years ago talking with a friend of mine, when mildly inebriated, about playing the first sport with two gals at once and recommending against it for too much is going on there in my opinion, he told me “I believe it. But I think I need to find out for myself on that one.”
Click to expand...

He he
 
Right, 300gr Accubond handload at 2300 fps muzzle speed which is about 200 fps less than 300gr factory loads owing to the short 21-1/4" Sako Kodiak barrel and bulky Re19 necessitating the need to reduce the powder charge so the rather long AB bullet wasn't so heavily compressed.

Not sure if higher muzzle speed would have put the Bull down with the frontal shot. I had been calling it some rather rude names for a while until it finally left the safety of the timber to challenge a perceived competitor - me. So it was totally pumped up ready to rumble. Much harder to kill in that state as opposed to an unagitated animal.

A Bull Moose in that scenario will often turn broadside to intimidate a competing Bull with its size but this one didn't do that. If it had turned broadside giving me the opportunity for a shoulder-busting-spinal-chord-severing shot it would have dropped DRT. As it did with the 2nd shot on the run.
 
Slamfire said:
Wonder why TR needed firepower? Maybe because the hunting bullets of the day were crude in comparison to what bullet design technology produces today. He probably needed to shoot an animal multiple times to kill it with bullets that didn't perform well.
Click to expand...

The bigger the game the less shots he needed. Antelope average 9 shots at 150 yards, Mule Deer 4 shots at 90 yards average, elk and Buffalo 3 shots at 80 yards average. He writes of taking 5 antelope with 36 shots.

I think it takes some nerve for him to write that the Indians are poor shots.
 
Number of shots taken was proportional to range it seems. And aren't that far away. :p

Multiple shots are sometimes needed on targets at extreme ranges in service scenarios. Aim - Fire - Correct, etc.

:d

 
Last edited:
MiG25 said:
The bigger the game the less shots he needed. Antelope average 9 shots at 150 yards, Mule Deer 4 shots at 90 yards average, elk and Buffalo 3 shots at 80 yards average. He writes of taking 5 antelope with 36 shots.

I think it takes some nerve for him to write that the Indians are poor shots.
Click to expand...

Teddy admitted to not being the best shot.
But one must remember that he was shooting lever action rifles with poor sights at moving game coupled with a different attitude around wounding and losing animals.
 
heronfish said:
Teddy admitted to not being the best shot.
But one must remember that he was shooting lever action rifles with poor sights at moving game coupled with a different attitude around wounding and losing animals.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Not only was TR dealing with crude sights, he had poor vision which was corrected with the crude technology of the day, i.e. coke-bottle eyeglasses made of uncoated glass.

I am an unabashed admirer of TR, but despite being a man who was ahead of his time in many ways, he was not so far ahead that his attitude towards game can withstand examination under the spotlight of today's sensibilities. Different times, different values...or, at least, a different interpretation of similar values.
 
Didn't read all the posts but if I was to use something I've shot before I'd probably get a 375 H&H second pick a 375 JDJ. Personally a faster option I'd consider would be a 300 Win Mag.
 
Slamfire said:
Good of TR to admit to his shortcomings as a marksman but you would think he would have done something to improve his shooting skills??
Click to expand...

You are fully aware of course that we are speaking of an era with incredibly crude optometry, inaccurate rifles and a lack of desire to waste time and expense shooting paper right? Teddy actually thought of himself as a good shot, better than many men who only shot paper.
A lot of game was shot on the run as well. Or off a horse. Or both combined.
 
Doc Rainbow said:
Didn't read all the posts but if I was to use something I've shot before I'd probably get a 375 H&H second pick a 375 JDJ. Personally a faster option I'd consider would be a 300 Win Mag.
Click to expand...

The last thing I want (for this particular objective) is a 300wm. I want something in a bigger caliber first and foremost. Ideally I also want a gun that's lighter than my 270 as well, but that objective has some flexibility depending on the caliber I end up with. A 358 win fits the bill perfectly, and I just got dies for cheap, so I'm currently leaning that direction. When I actually have cash in hand, it very well might come down to what I find for good price at the time. The 358cal has my attention because of the ability to use pistol bullets for plinking/beginner loads though.
 
Suther said:
The last thing I want (for this particular objective) is a 300wm. I want something in a bigger caliber first and foremost. Ideally I also want a gun that's lighter than my 270 as well, but that objective has some flexibility depending on the caliber I end up with. A 358 win fits the bill perfectly, and I just got dies for cheap, so I'm currently leaning that direction. When I actually have cash in hand, it very well might come down to what I find for good price at the time. The 358cal has my attention because of the ability to use pistol bullets for plinking/beginner loads though.
Click to expand...

I have several slow goers from a 38-55 to a 45/70 to a 45 colt.
For me I solves the slow bullet problem for moose with a bolt action 3006 and 220 grain round nose bullets.
 
375/30-30 Long has adequate speed, diameter and weight to smash through heavy shoulder bone to sever the spinal chord to smash through the far shoulder bone at 200 meters broadside. So it meets requirements as a heavy (but marginal dangerous) game round. Same as the 375 H&H Magnum. Have to go high speed 40+ caliber to be a bona fide dangerous game round. ;)
 
Suther said:
The last thing I want (for this particular objective) is a 300wm. I want something in a bigger caliber first and foremost. Ideally I also want a gun that's lighter than my 270 as well, but that objective has some flexibility depending on the caliber I end up with. A 358 win fits the bill perfectly, and I just got dies for cheap, so I'm currently leaning that direction. When I actually have cash in hand, it very well might come down to what I find for good price at the time. The 358cal has my attention because of the ability to use pistol bullets for plinking/beginner loads though.
Click to expand...

Do you have a performance standard in mind for your reason to go to a medium bore? For example, I don't have a 270 but I do have a 7x57 which I don't think is an adequate shoulder buster on heavy game at 200 meters? Or even my 300 WM. Small bores have a tendency to pierce rather than smash through heavy bone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom