Any real advantage?

R

ratherbefishin

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
I'm looking at the once popular for hunting 30/30,303 ,30/06 ,270 and 65 x55 swede and the new flavour of the month offerings touted as the 'must have' for the well equipped Hunter.Even the run of the mill .22 seems to have survived despite the .17 much touted greater accuracy.

I totally agree that for specialized situations,magnums,now surpassed by 'short' magnums and ultra high velocity cartridges do offer an advantage-that is if the average guy can hold the rifle straight in the field ( sans bench rest) I also agree that modern powders ,load development and bullets are valuable-but are they enough to relegate the old rifles to a permanent place in the gun rack? Seems to me an awfully lot of deer ,moose and elk ended up in the freezer notwithstanding the gun writers articles resulting in guys heading down to the gun store to replace their old stuff....

Makes me wonder if hunters with money burning a hole in their pocket are just like golfers thinking a new club will greatly improve their game....when maybe spending some time shooting in hunting conditions and practicing actual hunting skills might result in more game on the ground( I'm reminded of old Joe Gibault who told me I didn't need a brand new 338 magnum , there was nothing wrong with my 100 year old 65x55 swede for moose,all I needed to do was take my time and put one shot in the lungs and sit down for 20 minutes ,then walk up and chances are my moose would be very dead within 50 yards
 
Last edited:
There's always a bit of "Out with the old, in with the new!" phenomena to every new caliber that appears. And hunters prefer something with enough power to ensure a one-shot kill if the bullet happens to pass within 8 feet of the target. :)

I just got a lever action in .357Mag (mostly for wildlife protection on Crown lands, but also for target and plinking fun) and I saw no reason to go any heavier than that 80-years-old cartridge. Mind you, I don't expect or intend to try 500m shots, either.

There's an interesting thread about 7/08 that indicates it might just be an almost-prefect compromise of bullet weight, velocity, ballistic coefficient and recoil impulse for a "almost-do-it-all" round where you don't expect to meet a polar bear or a cape buffalo. Light recoil, flatter trajectory than .308win, and enough power to drop moose and elk in one shot.
 
I have narrowed a once vast collection of hunting rifles down to two. They are the 6.5X55 (Gustav sported made 1906) and a .303 (a Faz sported made 1954). These two have handily replaced everything from .257 Weatherby Magnum to a .45-70 Marlin. I filled my deer tag last fall with one shot from the Swede. Both will handle moose also. Need and wants are different things. I need these rifles for deer and moose hunting. The ones gone were wants.

Darryl
 
Please note I am not putting down target shooting where tighter and smaller groups are the goal,or gopher shooting( although I took my share as a kid with a single shot Cooey with open sights) ,I am talking HUNTING situations where the rifle is only PART of the process.

...and ya,my 65x55 swede accounts for virtually all my deer now,139gr surplus ammunition,too.My 'big' rifle is a 9,3x57 swede chucking a 285 soft nosed bullet in front of 46 gr of 4064 that hits like the hammer of Thor,it's considered a 'short range' 250 yard gun that happens to be about my person limit in shooting.....
 
Last edited:
If the gun mag writers and the ad men actually wrote articles and ads that told the truth like. Does it actually kill better than the old 75 year old cartridges. or that old wood stocked rifle shoots as good. Most of the new fangled gear would stay on the store shelves except for those that have a need for the newest rifles with the most add ons for stuff that really doesn't get used.
 
Hard to beat the much maligned 'bubba'd ' milsurp....which just happens to have stood the test of time ....and if you do your job,chances are it'll do its...
 
You know, the Weatherby cartridges are hovering around 70 years of age now. Granted 70 years isn't 100 but it isn't yesterday either. Doesn't that count as standing the test of time? Old doesn't have to be anemic. If it's a fad; the fad has some legs.
 
Dogleg said:
You know, the Weatherby cartridges are hovering around 70 years of age now. Granted 70 years isn't 100 but it isn't yesterday either. Doesn't that count as standing the test of time? Old doesn't have to be anemic. If it's a fad; the fad has some legs.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more...... If everyone shot that same thing, life would be boring...... And this site may be "candian270nutz"..... God forbid..... Lol.....

That being said, the .375 H&H is over 100 years old and we still get a small contingent that challenges it based on a few extra grains of powder in a platform provided by one manufacturer and ammo as scarce as hens teeth....... To each their own.....
 
What? There would be a lot less threads arguing best calibers for moose, elk, bear, deer, grizz, coyote etc. What is the fun in that. Going to my safe to look at two rifles? The more the merrier :)
 
NL-Hunter said:
What? There would be a lot less threads arguing best calibers for moose, elk, bear, deer, grizz, coyote etc. What is the fun in that. Going to my safe to look at two rifles? The more the merrier :)
Click to expand...

I agree NL....... There are guys that take the Swiss Army knife approach to everything........ I love my Swiss Army knife... It has a Phillips screwdriver on it and I carry it daily...... When my kids come to me with a toy that needs a battery change, it's handy..... But I sure as hell wouldn't want to assemble ikea furniture using it....... Could I get it done?.... Sure..... But I would prefer a more suited tool for the task....
 
I didn't say I only HAD a couple of rifles( got more than I would admit to my wife ) but when it comes right down to it,I only HUNT with a couple ,same with my 22's that I love -and generally buy on a whim....and that was my original question, is there any real ADVANTAGE to most of the newer ones?
 
'You need good 308'.....actually thats pretty close to the truth...,I was going to say '303' British which was the first rifle I started out with....and suspect many other Canadians my age ( 68) did too...if I HAD to I could get by on a .22, a 12.gauge shotgun and my 65X55 swede
 
Grawfr said:
There's always a bit of "Out with the old, in with the new!" phenomena to every new caliber that appears. And hunters prefer something with enough power to ensure a one-shot kill if the bullet happens to pass within 8 feet of the target. :)

I just got a lever action in .357Mag (mostly for wildlife protection on Crown lands, but also for target and plinking fun) and I saw no reason to go any heavier than that 80-years-old cartridge. Mind you, I don't expect or intend to try 500m shots, either.

There's an interesting thread about 7/08 that indicates it might just be an almost-prefect compromise of bullet weight, velocity, ballistic coefficient and recoil impulse for a "almost-do-it-all" round where you don't expect to meet a polar bear or a cape buffalo. Light recoil, flatter trajectory than .308win, and enough power to drop moose and elk in one shot.
Click to expand...

The problem with the opposite sentiment, out with the new and in with the old, is that your protection rifle would more likely be a .38 Special or a .44-40. While 7-08 ballistics are indeed useful, I'm not sure perfect describes them, since ballistic perfection is difficult to define. If the 7-08 is perfect, then what of the .280 Remington, Brenneke, or Ackley, each seen as an improvement over the 7X57, the 7-08's ballistic twin. The 7mm Remington magnum improved upon the shortcomings of the .280s, again touted as being mild enough to be used by everyone.

As for me, I prefer the .308 to the 7-08, the .30/06 to the .280, and the .300 Winchester to the 7mm Remington Magnum. A 7-08 cannot produce less recoil than a .308 if both are loaded with 150 gr bullets, but it does produce less recoil if bullets of similar sectional density are compared; a .30/180 and a .284/153 would both have a SD of .271. Yet when maximum loads are fired, does the difference in recoil between a 150 gr bullet and a 180 gr bullet matter very much? The difference is barely noticeable when both are fired in the same rifle.
 
Funny thing 'bout recoil.............if'n yer thinking about it, yer gonna feel it.
Ask any new hunter after knocking down a kritter how the recoil was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom