Any real advantage?

Diablo7101 said:
It's laughable that someone would state that people who shoot magnums can't shoot them.
Most of my game is taken with a .308 but it actually boots pretty hard for a .308, light rifle and a solid but plate. My Sako 300wsm is a bit snappier but not by much. It's a heavier rifle with soft recoil pad...not a big deal at all.
The 35 Whelen with 250's is a bit more of a deal again over the 300wsm, but I guess it's not a magnum so I should be able to shoot it just fine.
You never see me at the range, I do all of my shooting in the bush. I load develop for everything at 300yds and practice free hand with all my hunting rifles at 200yds, even the "magnum".
I think saying I can't shoot because I own a magnum is a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...


Yeah I never said that you can't shoot because you own a magnum. I am not saying that you can't shoot well. I said that I have never met anyone at the range that can shoot one. I have been a regular member of 4 ranges so maybe thats not enough. Eventually I may run into someone who can.

Also I realize that the rifle makes a difference in the recoil. There are certainly people with the skill and practice to shoot the hard kickers well. I stated that I have not seen one yet. If that statement bothers people, I would venture I may have hit a nerve.
 
coleman1495 said:
Sure.I realize that the term "magnum" is a marketing term.As oppose to using the term "magnum" what term would you use for the cartridges in which we are refering to?
Click to expand...

Why would it need renaming? Magnum has described a family of larger cased cartridges and their descendants quite nicely for 100 years or so. Most are quite mild to shoot.
 
coleman1495 said:
Yeah I never said that you can't shoot because you own a magnum. I am not saying that you can't shoot well. I said that I have never met anyone at the range that can shoot one. I have been a regular member of 4 ranges so maybe thats not enough. Eventually I may run into someone who can.

Also I realize that the rifle makes a difference in the recoil. There are certainly people with the skill and practice to shoot the hard kickers well. I stated that I have not seen one yet. If that statement bothers people, I would venture I may have hit a nerve.
Click to expand...

Meh maybe I'll be flayed alive for this but... my brother has a 300 mag he shoots and I have never seen him fail to hit what he was looking to hit. But he never goes to the range.

Then look at me with a 308 I have say 3 inch groups at 100 yards and I'm OK with that.... because I don't see myself needing to be any better for what I do these days.

Before we can judge someone with our rules we must first see how they are judged by theirs. Is your opinion of shooting well 3 inch groups at 500 yards or minute of moose? Some of these guys who may not shoot like professionals, still fill their freezers....

But if your at the range and seeing 10 inch groups at a 100 yards then yeah... somethings up
 
Dogleg said:
Why would it need renaming? Magnum has described a family of larger cased cartridges and their descendants quite nicely for 100 years or so. Most are quite mild to shoot.
Click to expand...

Right but I would like to describe a hard kicking "magnum" caliber such as 300 win mag. I realize that there are other "magnum" calibers that aren't necessarily hard kickers.

The term magnum comes from a magnum of wine. It kind of describes taking a large casing and necking it down to a smaller diameter. Obviously there are exceptions. A .357 mag is a straight walled case so it doesn't make sense in that case. I guess the term magnum loosely describes a casing larger that is bigger and better than previous versions, or a more necked down case. A .17hmr obviously has little recoil but is called a "magnum"
 
AbdullahD said:
Meh maybe I'll be flayed alive for this but... my brother has a 300 mag he shoots and I have never seen him fail to hit what he was looking to hit. But he never goes to the range.

Then look at me with a 308 I have say 3 inch groups at 100 yards and I'm OK with that.... because I don't see myself needing to be any better for what I do these days.

Before we can judge someone with our rules we must first see how they are judged by theirs. Is your opinion of shooting well 3 inch groups at 500 yards or minute of moose? Some of these guys who may not shoot like professionals, still fill their freezers....

But if your at the range and seeing 10 inch groups at a 100 yards then yeah... somethings up
Click to expand...

I consider acceptable shooting for hunting to be 4ish MOA from a bench assuming they are hunting within ~300 yards. Also I wonder if it maybe the majority of a skilled hunters/shooters are not typically found at the range firing their hunting rifles. I do know hunters that use a 300WSM and don't let many animals get away. These same folks aren't range flies either.
 
coleman1495 said:
I consider acceptable shooting for hunting to be 4ish MOA from a bench assuming they are hunting within ~300 yards. Also I wonder if it maybe the majority of a skilled hunters/shooters are not typically found at the range firing their hunting rifles. I do know hunters that use a 300WSM and don't let many animals get away. These same folks aren't range flies either.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, a .300 Win kicks a bit more, but that is easily handled by learning how to shoot with something else and not shooting so much at a time that they are pissing blood. My son started using one of my .300s off and on when he was 13, killed his first moose with it shortly after and has pretty much parked his .257 'bee for his own .300 for awhile now. In fairness, he shot more game before he needed to shave than most hunters are going to kill in their life. My non-hunting daughter had never shot anything bigger than her .223, yet at the old maidish age of 16 propped herself behind another of my .300s, and landed 6 out of 7 hits on my 800 yard gong. I forgot to tell her rifles kick, and she still doesn't know.;)

Recoil is 90% in your head, or nobody would ever get used to it. Its not like shooters grow a callus on their shoulder, or have naturally occuring neoprene implants installed after their thousandth box. The only thing that changes is that one day they finally realize that it isn't going to kill them. Many start to think its kind of fun. People jump in too deep too soon and convince themselves that not only can they not handle it; but that no one else can either. It probably brings them a bit of comfort, but just isn't true. The reality is that a .300 can barely scratch up enough kick to bounce on a sand-bag, and it isnt some kind of near death experience. People slap their steering wheel harder when the Roughriders screw up.:p Funny thing is, anyone who can shoot a .300 Win can shoot a .375.


Most people think that Magnum comes from wine bottles, but the reality is they both take their name from the Latin "Magnus" meaning "Great". A cartridge named by a wino is just too lame. "Great" on the other hand is pretty good. Higher praise wouldn't fit on the case-head anyway.

I don't know what kind of shooters you have where you live; but around here if a guy is shooting 4" groups from a bench we put him on suicide watch until someone gives up a stashed barrel and someone else gives up his place in line at the gunsmith. Its the compassionate thing to do.:d
 
I agree with Dogleg......recoil is all in your head! I have a similar experience with my boy and recoil. He started with a .243 for the first year he was able to legally hunt. Then the second year he moved up to a 30-06 shooting 180's at 2725 fps in a rem 700 with scope topped out at 8.5 lbs and has hammered 2 elk, 1 moose and 4 Deere in the past 3 years. Now at the age of 16 (6' 2" @ 185 lbs) he's shooting a .300 win in a rem 700 (8.5 lbs) and will hold 1- 1.5 MOA to 300 yards when shooting steel plates. He's shot and killed coyotes with a buddies 340 weatherby and didn't even mention recoil.

Just last week we were up north fishing for walleye and pike.....decided to take a rifle along and he got to choose which one ( he had the bear tag) he said " your new .375 Weatherby.....have you shot anything with it yet? " I laughed and said " its yours to christen if he wants to take it along!!!"

So there we are across the bay from a 200 lb black bear and he's resting over a fallen tree. I walk him though the shot and he smokes him quartering away at 160+/- yards with a 300 gr Sierra Game king at 2800 fps and when he comes outta recoil he's smiling and said lets go get him!!! His first bear and a proud Papa.....also happened to be my Birthday too!! Pretty sweet gift if you ask me!! Oh ya again no mention of recoil!

So recoil..... Ya it's all in your head....you got to shot and learn the "magnums". Free recoiling off the bench usually gets you the best results. But you gotta be prepared and hold the gun properly.

Had a little laugh at doglegs comment about the remedy for the 4" groups.......agree with him there too.....magnums shoot and they can shoot very tight little groups....that mentioned .375 Weatherby has produced groups in the .300"'s....got an HS Precision 300 RUM that shoots 200 gr Barnes LRX's in the high .200"s, a custom build .338 lapua that drives 265 Barnes LRX's at 2900 and change and holds 1/2 MOA to 800 yards...... All without brakes. And I have hand loaded for many large caliber rifles and have had them all shooting well under 1 MOA up to and including a pair of 416's (Rigby and Weatherby). The snappiest of them all is a Buddies .378 Weatherby....that one you just need to old her right and she shoots like a dream.

If your having trouble shooting the big guns ......find someone who reloads and get them to make some reduced loads for you and shoot the rifle till you learn it then start rolling more coal and sooner or later you won't even know your shootin full house loads.
 
Last edited:
I get lots of guests out shooting my 375 Ruger for the first time. FOr most of them, the hardest thing they shot that day was a 20 gauge 14" barrel O/U which is a bit snarky but not like the NEW KING. Most have wild eyes after shooting it, an only do it once or twice, but it's not like they couln't shoot it more if they wanted to spend more money or if they really wanted to shoot it.
A 16 year old girl went 4 for 4 on a 100m gong with it, using irons, so it's not impossible. :)
 
Meh. Both Boone and Crocket made their names with muzzle-loaders firing round lead balls with about the same muzzle energy as a current .38 Special. Bambi hasn't grown Kevlar anytime since.

I took my last whitetail with a 7x57 fired out of a sporterized Mauser made a century ago and fitted with a 50-year-old Weaver K4 scope. Bambi couldn't have been any more dead if hit with a 106 recoilless. If I needed to go after grizzly in close quarters, maybe there'd be a reason for more. Until then...
 
Admittedly it amazes me many don't grasp that during historic times, wounding wasn't much of an ethical consideration, it was just by-catch. There were no tags or limit considerations, no regs, and much of the time better equipment wasn't available or they'd have used it. Lewis & Clark didn't carry what was at the time a space age Girandoni repeating .46 cal air rifle for style. I suppose my point is we can do better these days, this isn't 1804, 1906, or 1952. If you like a challenge and choose a method that increases the challenge, I'm all for it and salute you, but to insist no improvements or developments have been meaningful in decades, or even centuries now is... Silly.
 
Yup, c'ause other 'improvement' we have is being able to shoot at targets hundreds of yards beyond the ability of the shooter to hit. And practice? Practice is expensive - and for most, painful. Note I said 'most'. I have met a few, including one 1 PPCLI sniper who was scary-good, I will take my hat off to. But most of them, it might as well be pin-the-tail-on-the-Bambi; they've let themselves get talked into buying something they cannot use properly.

And speaking of woundings, how many modern Nimrods are wounding because they depend too much on the impressive figures on paper for their new sparkly Ubermag than on developing the skills to use it?

Decades - generations - of practical experience has proved in the most simple fashion possible that anything from the .243 Win up will make reliable one-shot kills on deer and black bear - provided the shooter does his or her job. And that's the requirement - reliable game kills. Anything more is unnecessary.

For 99.99% of us, the .375 RUM, the .338 Lapua and others in their class (marvels of ballistics engineering though they be) are of no more real, practical hunting value than a .280, .308 or 7mm/08, or the hoary .30-06, .303 British or 8 x 57. And there's some reason that men are still taking the decrepit, doddering old .30/30 to hunting camps every year. You don't need a sledgehammer to hang a picture on the wall.

Don't get me wrong - if you are one of the very few who can use one of these to its potential (and I cheerfully admit I'm not among those august ranks), then go for it with my best wishes and admiration. And if you want to pay twice as much for something that makes you feel somehow more of a man, well, it's a free world. But the OP's question was if they offer any real advantages to most of us in the real world. Having twice as much energy as is necessary for a clean kill is not an advantage. Nor is being able to deliver that energy to a range at which you cannot reliably hit your target.
 
Don't get me wrong, the guys who just gotta have the latest long range whiz-bang often fund their purchase off loading their old tried and true 'underpowered' guns for whatever they can get...and being nice guys we'll take them off their hands
 
You know, before I started outfitting I held a suspicious view of ultra magnums and the like, too. Then I found it to be largely hogwash like much of the hardware store and Internet banter, as the operators of them have been by and large extremely competent. Have had a several (three last year) .300 Ultras show up and many magnums of different sorts, one of the Ultra Mags was wielded by our very own Dogleg with extreme competency. Each of those guys practiced as you expect anyone spending five figures on hunts would and were able to use their rifle's advantage, and each of them was far more competent than the average deer and black bear hunter who criticises their choice.

It has changed my opinion a good deal, I've evolved towards not judging a shooter or their equipment until I see them shoot. There are guys who cannot shoot a .303 to save their lives yet still go hunting, and same to be said for guys with .338 RUMs. For every textbook tool with an Ultra Mag we seem to forget there are a hundred with .30-30s who dust off the rifle once a year. Whenever I hear a .300 or the like "beats oneself up" I start to put a filter on the commentary afterwards as it's clear we're talking the shooter's own limitations, which they've decided apply to everyone.

Many, many a shooter I know finds a .300 just a good tool and not at all obnoxious, and in fact totally reasonable to shoot, even daily. If you can shoot a .300 Ultra like you can a .308, as many dedicated hunters and shooters like Dogleg can, what the heck is goofy or irresponsible about that? Dogleg delivered a 180gr into his Grizzly faster than a .308 delivers a 110gr, and I was glad to see the extra juice applied. It certainly didn't hurt anything but the bear, and the Ultra Mag certainly didn't affect his superb offhand shooting one iota. On deer and black bear in New Brunswick? Sure, not a useful advantage. But people shouldn't make the mistake of thinking everyone does what they do.

I think we just need to focus on our own shooting, hunting, and and competency level and avoid analysing others' choices. I've done way too much of that analyses myself and perhaps that's why I'm irritated by it, see my own misguided ideas I've learned were a waste of time and breath arguing in it.
 
Ardent said:
Admittedly it amazes me many don't grasp that during historic times, wounding wasn't much of an ethical consideration, it was just by-catch. There were no tags or limit considerations, no regs, and much of the time better equipment wasn't available or they'd have used it. Lewis & Clark didn't carry what was at the time a space age Girandoni repeating .46 cal air rifle for style. I suppose my point is we can do better these days, this isn't 1804, 1906, or 1952. If you like a challenge and choose a method that increases the challenge, I'm all for it and salute you, but to insist no improvements or developments have been meaningful in decades, or even centuries now is... Silly.
Click to expand...

If you read historical hunting articles, those by Elmer Kieth for example, you'll find descriptions of "raking shots" and other shots that today no ethical hunter would take. However, as Ardent said above, times and attitudes were different.
That said, any cartridge that worked well back then, is just as effective today, even more so given the ethical shot placement, that hopefully everyone practices.

I'm not going to put down magnums, or any other decent hunting cartridge for that matter, but, as I get older, I've found the challenge of the older less powerful cartridges quite appealing. I sold my 338WM some years ago, as I found I didn't 'need' it. I miss the cartridge. It was fun to shoot. But game I shoot with lesser cartridges is no less dead.
 
speaking of magnum we had a funny story in France. while making ready for a stalk on red deer i was shooting my 300 wea mag and my wife was here and never shot a rifle before ...

there were two guys shooting a look like ar15 in 222 and trying hard to hit bowling pins at 180m ... she took the first shot and put one down ... and they asked her what she was shooting she said no idea she was just shooting ... and she asked them if they wanted to try the rifle ... they left the range without trying ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom