NorthernCX
CGN Regular
- Location
- In My House
Someone needs to cut down on caffeine
Although maybe cut down on the meth?
Hahaha!
The most efficient hunting cartridges
- Thread starter todbartell
- Start date
Hahaha!
Someone needs to cut down on caffeine
Although maybe cut down on the meth?
Yeah, you probably should, with a four post per day average over 15 years. I'm doing my best, but so far most I can manage is just under two posts a day.
NorthernCX
CGN Regular
- Location
- In My House
So now you can take a rest for the week based on this thread... relax bud.
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
Funny how a question on efficient cartridges gets so bent outta shape. What ever happened to careful stalking and/or set-up to take a critter that's not aware of yer presence?
Use a rifle and load suited to the job that ye be well in tune with and don't go long on meat critters be my motto.
Use a rifle and load suited to the job that ye be well in tune with and don't go long on meat critters be my motto.
Don't get too mad when I point out that you have the EXACT same number of posts here over the same time period that I do. Or were you guesstimating again?
What's your complaint, exactly?
Seriously, I'm not trying to bust your balls too badly - but when you jump in to the thread all Biff Tannen like about how "everything changes in the real world" and conducting SWAG ballistic calculations where even a minimal amount of preparation would prevent the need, it's entirely reasonable to get a bit of push back.
If you'd come out and said "shoot, once I got in this real bind and totally forgot my dope card in the truck and had to make do figuring it out on the fly" I suspect the response would be a lot more forgiving. Coming in and suggesting that SWAGing ballistic solutions to shoot at animals is perfectly fine, and indeed preferable to performing those "hair splitting" calculations ahead of time and then verifying them with live fire... is another story.
Last edited:
Funny how a question on efficient cartridges gets so bent outta shape. What ever happened to careful stalking and/or set-up to take a critter that's not aware of yer presence?
Use a rifle and load suited to the job that ye be well in tune with and don't go long on meat critters be my motto.
Why are you assuming the discussion precludes "careful stalking and/or set-up?"
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
That in itself is a much debated subject. Suffice to say, I've done just fine on game over the years and never shot at, or lost a meat critter past 120 yds. Varmints & target shooting though is a whole different scenario.
No, I hear ya, but I don't understand why learning your tools and being knowledgeable and choosing optimal cartridges is in opposition to stalking and being a good hunter. Like, I used to race bikes on the track and ended up in the weeds on tire composition, suspension set up, spring compression rates, gear ratios, weight distribution etc etc etc. None of that knowledge made me a worse street rider. I fail to see how cultivating knowledge and hunting skills are at all in opposition. One doesn't replace the other, it compliments it.
You've made about 90 posts in the last 10 days, mostly in rant form.
Put down the pipe, brah......
You've made about 90 posts in the last 10 days, mostly in rant form.
Put down the pipe, brah......
I'm just trying to catch up to your esteemed average. But hey, if it bugs you that much I can walk you through how to put someone on ignore. Be happy to help.
I'll decline the suggestion though - it's a most relaxing and enjoyable pastime. I'd recommend a nice Balkan mix for this time of the evening, or perhaps an English blend if that's your thing.
Good contribution though, solid stuff. 10/10 would read again.
Last edited:
nowarningshot
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Much of your experience is going to be dependent on where you live. Hunting in a tree stand where you can use a compound, use a 25-20......that's a efficient cartridge. Hunting in southern Alberta or Saskatchewan....northern BC. How efficient is a 308 shooting at a 1600 lb Moose on a seismic. You would want a cartridge that can kill a moose at 500yds.
If cost is a issue, shoot a 308 or 6.5 creedmore , if you have to go 2 days travel, use precious holiday time, spend thousands on travel》》》》use a cartridge without doubts, one decent hit equals a full freezer.
The thread is a split between meat hunters and high volume target people. Completely different.
If cost is a issue, shoot a 308 or 6.5 creedmore , if you have to go 2 days travel, use precious holiday time, spend thousands on travel》》》》use a cartridge without doubts, one decent hit equals a full freezer.
The thread is a split between meat hunters and high volume target people. Completely different.
Some of us go through lots of volume and also meat hunt!
But yes, to your point, I know a number of hunters that don't shoot much but bring home lots of meat on a regular basis. Most of them don't think about efficiency, they just use their favorite 308 or 270 or 300 magnum. And when you are shooting thousands of rounds a year at targets, efficiency often plays a part.
rifleman762
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
I'm starting to be both - I started getting more into target shooting when I began reloading. But 90% of my paper punching is with a tamer cartridge while I wait for the old 300 to cool down
. Ideally, I'd replace my Savage 308 barrel with a fast twist 243 or 6mm Creedmoor and have the same feeling rifle, same trigger, and same trajectory as my 300 WM Savage. Ron Spomer suggests having "twin" rifles for this purpose and I'm starting to think it's a good idea.I'm starting to be both - I started getting more into target shooting when I began reloading. But 90% of my paper punching is with a tamer cartridge while I wait for the old 300 to cool down
I should have questioned the adjective "high." Not sure what counts as high volume - for some it's a few dozen rounds a year, for some it's a few dozen cases. I would wager though that shooting more than 100 CF rifle rounds a year would put you in the top 10% of all gun owners in Canada. Maybe not, maybe like the top 20 or 30%, but I suspect the overwhelming majority don't shoot that much.
I think the "twin" rifle idea is highly overrated. It sounds like a far more useful idea than it is. It's not THAT hard to be proficient relatively easily shooting ANY rifle if your fundamentals are good. The only questions are zeroing it and knowing the ballistics. As for getting used to the rifle and trigger, that's what dry firing every day is for. I can't say as that transitioning between any of my rifles is any particular upset. The number one thing is to shoot. Lots. Lots and lots. Getting dope down is one thing, and obviously specific to that rifle and load, but being comfortable shooting even two widely different rifles shouldn't be that hard if you have the fundamentals of marksmanship down. In fact, for shorter range practice I'd argue the opposite - that a rifle with the same exact trajectory won't teach you as much as a rifle with the same RELATIVE trajectory will. Ie shooting a .22 LR at 100 yards will teach you more than shooting a .243 at 100 yards.
I gave up keeping reloading logs for every batch long ago. Now I just use them to keep the recipes that work. I shot just under 40 lbs of powder and around 300 lbs of cast bullets alone last year. I roughly keep track of round count by cases of primers bought.
Last deer I shot was at seven yards, with an 11" barrel 20 gauge muzzle loading shotgun, sitting on the ground, after a 30 minute hunt.
The idea that being a shooting nerd and a proficient hunter are mutually opposed is ridiculous. The answer is you can be good at both.
Last edited:
