What is the fascination with smallest caliber?

open-sights

open-sights

Regular
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Location
Aldergrove BC
I have seen over the past few years a number of posts regarding how small the caliber could be to use on a particular game species. I am curious what the fascination of this is? I subscribe to the other end of the spectrum, I like shooting with a larger caliber, so can't understand the thought process behind under sizing. Anyone want to offer an oppinion?
 
On the other hand, you can also find quite a few posts of trying to deer and other medium sized game hunt with dangerous game calibers.

I've hunted deer with both the .223 and 375H&H and a few in between. My current fave for deer is my 35Whelen with 250gr Speers. :eek:



That's why they call us GunNutz :D



SC.........................
 
perhaps to minimize pelt damage while coyote hunting... in other instances, might be like flyfishing instead of using heavy tackle...

I'm more of the concerned about the game animal. I'm not a sentimental sap but the job must be done right (animal must go down fast)... That's a concern that should be growing among us. It's all well when we explain to non-hunters that we keep the ecological balance in some species, but that argument won't hold long if downsizing calibers starts to equal in lost or slower dying game.

It's all in the hunter's jugement.
 
I don't think what you describe is a fascination, it is just a preference. I don't know what "under sizing" relates to? Is there an "over sizing" as well? :D

If one chooses to use a large caliber because they like to and it works for them, what is so different about a person using a small caliber because they like to and it works for them?

Large caliber - more powder, more bullet, more recoil, and maybe more expense.
Small caliber - less powder, less bullet, less recoil, and usually less expense.

They both kill effectively for the respective shooters or they would not be used. One shooter thinks the other is undergunned, the other shooter thinks the other is overgunned. :D
 
Last edited:
open-sights said:
I have seen over the past few years a number of posts regarding how small the caliber could be to use on a particular game species. I am curious what the fascination of this is? I subscribe to the other end of the spectrum, I like shooting with a larger caliber, so can't understand the thought process behind under sizing. Anyone want to offer an oppinion?
Click to expand...

Depends on the extream of the case. If it works leave it alone (within common sence). But when some people state that a 22centerfires are good guns for bears or moose I'd sum it up as ego. Or that someone they know killed Elk with a 223 is just plain stupid.
Like yourself I subscibe to the heavier gun/bullet as its common sence and more humain for the animal. I don't think someone needs a 45/70 for deer but I use it and it works great!! Is this ego? Maybe, but its humain and ethical beacuse it insures a quick death for the animal, not always the case when you go too small. "I'd rather have too much gun than not enough" is a good moto!:D

Cheers

Seabass
 
I'm as lazy as they come. Whether it works or not, I wouldn't use a .223 on anything bigger than a coyote on the off chance it would take even 1 more step farther away than it would if downed with what I would consider a more appropriate caliber. That would be just 1 step farther I would have to carry the meat back. No thanks.

But that's just me.

edit for spelling
 
Last edited:
fogducker said:
i,d rather be on the over kill side then on the under side:)
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me, too. I've got a 243 and people say, "That'll work on deer.", which of course it will, but when I've got a 270Win, 300WM, 303British and a 358Win in the safe, why would I use the 243?
I think cost may be a determining factor for some, though. And if cost is a factor get a bubba'd LE! :p
 
Last edited:
In the hands of a skillet hunter/marksman, a .22 rimfire will take down most North American big game, including the biggest bears.

However, with the abundant availability of larger and more powerful calibers, above the .22 rimfire, I see no excuse for not using "enough gun" that takes out, and makes up for some of the margin of hunter errors of bullet placements.
 
In the hands of a skillet hunter/marksman, a .22 rimfire will take down most North American big game, including the biggest bears.
Click to expand...
I don't even know where to start... is a SKILLET HUNTER someone who carries a frying pan when hunting...:confused: :p

If you meant "SKILLED" hunter... then this statement is even more disturbing.
I would not call the use of a .22 rimfire on big game SKILL... stupid maybe... possibly insanity... but never SKILL!:rolleyes:
 
BIGREDD said:
I don't even know where to start... is a SKILLET HUNTER someone who carries a frying pan when hunting...:confused: :p

If you meant "SKILLED" hunter... then this statement is even more disturbing.
I would not call the use of a .22 rimfire on big game SKILL... stupid maybe... possibly insanity... but never SKILL!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

BR, i think you are being a little hard here,;) after all, a .22 is considerably bigger than a .177 ca.:rolleyes: as someone claimed recently that he new a guy who hunted game with an air rifle:eek:
 
Well, didn't really get any decent answer to the question. I don't see it as a pushing match at all. I just don't understand if given the choice to hunt with what is commonly percieved as a respected caliber for the task or going with a smaller caliber for the sake of ??? (I don't know) choosing the latter. I wasn't talking about .270 vs 416 Rig. I was more looking at the threads that come up with the .22, .223 etc for use when hunting deer and larger animals.
Definately not trying to start a thread or flame war, just looking for oppinions on the thought process.
 
open-sights said:
Well, didn't really get any decent answer to the question. I don't see it as a pushing match at all. I just don't understand if given the choice to hunt with what is commonly percieved as a respected caliber for the task or going with a smaller caliber for the sake of ??? (I don't know) choosing the latter. I wasn't talking about .270 vs 416 Rig. I was more looking at the threads that come up with the .22, .223 etc for use when hunting deer and larger animals.
Definately not trying to start a thread or flame war, just looking for oppinions on the thought process.
Click to expand...


Are there stats that show the amount of damage inflicted (fatal damage) on an animal based on the weight of bullet, velocity, hitting power and amount of bone mass / hide thickness etc....? :confused:

Bone mass would have to be on average I guess because no two animals are alike but they are close
 
open-sights said:
Well, didn't really get any decent answer to the question. I don't see it as a pushing match at all. I just don't understand if given the choice to hunt with what is commonly percieved as a respected caliber for the task or going with a smaller caliber for the sake of ??? (I don't know) choosing the latter. I wasn't talking about .270 vs 416 Rig. I was more looking at the threads that come up with the .22, .223 etc for use when hunting deer and larger animals.
Definately not trying to start a thread or flame war, just looking for oppinions on the thought process.
Click to expand...



I think recoil has a lot to do with it.

Personally, I will be looking for the smallest moose calibre I can get away with in a couple of years (7mm-08??). My daughter, very small, will be looking to come out moose hunting with me and she won't be shooting anything I own now. Granted she will need to be very skillet :D with her rifle first.

I also say my 10 year old girl can outshoot anyone 10 year old son of a Gunnut with a BB gun.;)
 
Seabass said:
Depends on the extream of the case. If it works leave it alone (within common sence). But when some people state that a 22centerfires are good guns for bears or moose I'd sum it up as ego. Or that someone they know killed Elk with a 223 is just plain stupid.
Like yourself I subscibe to the heavier gun/bullet as its common sence and more humain for the animal. I don't think someone needs a 45/70 for deer but I use it and it works great!! Is this ego? Maybe, but its humain and ethical beacuse it insures a quick death for the animal, not always the case when you go too small. "I'd rather have too much gun than not enough" is a good moto!:D

Cheers

Seabass
Click to expand...

i read in the news that a group of natives were caught shooting a moose with a 22 lr they shot it about 20 times. Now crap like that really pisses me off i think the min small game cal should be a 22 lr and for deer and up a 243.
talk to ya all later
Riley
 
haggisbasher said:
BR, i think you are being a little hard here,;) after all, a .22 is considerably bigger than a .177 ca.:rolleyes: as someone claimed recently that he new a guy who hunted game with an air rifle:eek:
Click to expand...
ive shot grouse with a hi powered(1000 fps) .22 cal air rifle when i was alot younger:redface:.................. Now i got a shotgun:D
talk to ya all later
Riley
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom