I shake my head...

StevieK said:
Here I am wondering if I'm giving up too much taking my 270 over my 300 WM because my gun/scope combo is much nicer in the 270, makes that debate seem kinda silly :)
Click to expand...

I believe the recommended amount of energy needed to humanely dispatch a moose is 1800 ft-lbs. Most .270 bullets will have that amount within 200 yards. So you basically have to take the shot at closer range, but it's a perfectly capable tool for game in North America. Obviously .30-06 or .300 Win Mag would be more forgiving.
 
I shot a bull moose in Montana using a 220 swift, I belive I was using factory 48 grain winchester ammo some time around 1994. Was sitting in a stand hunting WT deer at the time, the moose was dead right there at 75 yards, could damn near stick my arm through the wound channel. Stopped using the swift for meat hunting, wasted too much meat.
Now days with monometal bullets, I wouldn't hesitate to use the 223 for anything, however it wouldn't be my first pic, know your yardage and put the bullet where it needs to go. To the op, 30 yards with a 223 placed in the lung area could have turned mister mooses heart and lungs to liquid and exited with a fist size hole.
 
Once again we're being led down the minimalist garden path. While its true that small rifles can kill elephants, just like a boy scout knife can cut down an oak tree, its prudent in either case to choose a tool better suited to the activity being considered. Why would I care what a cartridge can do under ideal conditions? Big game hunting in Canada at the time of year that moose are in season, and in the terrain where moose are commonly found, conditions are seldom ideal. Probably the weather is cold, windy, foggy, wet, or snowing, and the ground if not covered in snow, it spongy and wet, and not consistent with shooting from low supported field positions. Neither am I subsistence hunter where I have to account for every penny I spend on ammo, and I don't have to rely on the factory ammo normally carried in the Northern Store at twice the price in Cabelas.

I want a cartridge I can depend on under all circumstances. A .375 isn't necessary for moose, but neither is it excessive because the big case .375s are so versatile, even though a .375 isn't for everyone. That said, most hunters should be able to agree that general purpose big game cartridges start with the 6.5s. This is a far less arbitrary starting point and is far more beneficial a suggestion to the inexperienced rifleman/hunter than trying to figure out what cartridge works at what range because it produces X number of foot-pounds of energy, without any consideration towards bullet style or construction. Now before the quarter bore guys begin to reach for their pitchforks, because there is only a .007" difference in diameter between a .257 and a .264, when I can buy properly constructed 140 and 160 gr .257 game bullets I'll go shopping for a .25/06 or a .257 Weatherby. In the meantime, my 6.5X55 Krag is a reliable old smoke stick, much better suited to the task of killing larger than deer game, under all circumstances, across normal hunting ranges, than any .22 or 6mm. If the expert wishes to go the minimalist route as a stunt, that's his choice, but he knows that better is available. The novice can choose a gently recoiling cartridge in medium capacity cartridges from 6.5 to .30, without giving up performance when it matters.
 
Well typed Boomer.
Your explanation reminds me of dad's wisdom.
The good ole 308NM, A-5 and an old 22.
That was his arsenal.
He never gathered more than what was necessary.
And to think he made his wages with a 16 ounce hammer too.
Go figure.
 
Bartledan said:
I was talking to some native (Lil'Wat?) guys up Mount Currie/D'Arcy/Seton Portage way, and they use 22 mag for a lot of hunting as it's cheap and doesn't waste meat. They told me it's quite common, their neck of the woods.

I told them to pull the other one so I'd have two legs the same length, and they laughed and insisted they were serious.
Click to expand...

I think the real reason is, it is much quieter than a centre fire;)! They were pulling your leg:p!
 
Last edited:
Do you have any buddies who fish?
Have you ever asked them about that elusive Walleye that got away and how big was it?
Same can be said with many a hunting story.
All fishermen are Liars except Kamlooky and Me.
And I aint so sure about him ;)
Tight Groups,
Rob
 
FLHTCUI said:
Do you have any buddies who fish?
Have you ever asked them about that elusive Walleye that got away and how big was it?
Same can be said with many a hunting story.
All fishermen are Liars except Kamlooky and Me.
And I aint so sure about him ;)
Tight Groups,
Rob
Click to expand...

Laugh2............ me pense that thar izz a blanc one.
 
I agree with many of you all. The .223 is a bit light for moose, and in the right hands may work, but I wouldn't feel comfortable using it. On the other hand, the good ol" .303 British has probably taken more moose out of the Canadian woods than any cartridge known.
 
I agree and disagree with Boomer...:)

Will I purposely hunt moose with a .223? Hell no!! I've got many more rifles that are more suited to the task.

If I was sitting somewhere with my .223 and TSX bullets and a moose wandered in front of me at 30 yards while I had a moose tag? Hell YES, I'm taking the shot.

As I mentioned before, the .223 TSX wound channel and a 30-30 wound channel are very similar, in the tests I've done with wet newspaper, dry newspaper, wood and comparing shots on live animals.

I don't want to get into a debate about ft/lbs or sectional density or whatever else hunters dream up to measure killing power, but I think that it's difficult to argue that a 30-30 or any cartridge that gives similar performance won't kill a moose at reasonable range.

Then there is the "how well do you shoot what" argument. If someone can't handle a bigger gun, isn't a smaller gun with good bullets and good placement a better idea?

.223 for moose? No, if you have a bigger gun. Yes if you can't shoot a bigger gun, you have good bullets, good shot placement and the distance is short. Not my fiorst choice by any means, but you can make it work
 
Gatehouse said:
I agree and disagree with Boomer...:)

Will I purposely hunt moose with a .223? Hell no!! I've got many more rifles that are more suited to the task.

If I was sitting somewhere with my .223 and TSX bullets and a moose wandered in front of me at 30 yards while I had a moose tag? Hell YES, I'm taking the shot.

As I mentioned before, the .223 TSX wound channel and a 30-30 wound channel are very similar, in the tests I've done with wet newspaper, dry newspaper, wood and comparing shots on live animals.

I don't want to get into a debate about ft/lbs or sectional density or whatever else hunters dream up to measure killing power, but I think that it's difficult to argue that a 30-30 or any cartridge that gives similar performance won't kill a moose at reasonable range.

Then there is the "how well do you shoot what" argument. If someone can't handle a bigger gun, isn't a smaller gun with good bullets and good placement a better idea?

.223 for moose? No, if you have a bigger gun. Yes if you can't shoot a bigger gun, you have good bullets, good shot placement and the distance is short. Not my first choice by any means, but you can make it work
Click to expand...

Why is it that this makes so much sense???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom