" with good shot placement". Uh huh..

powder burner

powder burner

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Alberta, Canada
How many times have you read an article online and whatever the cartridge the author writes about is not a magnum.

Something along the lines of this: thanks Wikipedia..

" The .280 Remington is capable of developing energy nearly equal to the .30-06 Springfield, but with lighter bullets having a better ballistic coefficient. The .30-06 produces more energy than the .280 with bullets heavier than 180 grains, though .284" 175 grain bullets have a high sectional density of .310, compared to the 30-06 180 grain bullet with a moderate sectional density of .271. The .280 is suitable for hunting any game in North America with good shot placement. "

It's a bit of a pet peeve I see a lot. Like the author is saying, well gee I don't know. It's not a magnum so you better shoot that animal with good shot placement.

Wil 7mm08 kill a moose elk or deer? Iunno it's not a magnum better use that good shot placement stuff we always hear about.

Like if it was a 7mm mag, 300 mag, 338 mag.. well it's a magnum, should work. Forget about that shot placement, it's gonna work.

Is 22 short or 22 long rifle ok to shoot a gopher? Well gee, better use good shot placement. Oh look here's a .22 magnum and 17hmr. They are magnums!! Go ahead you are good now, cause it's a magnum.

This is a bit of a rant, meant to be read tongue in cheek. Maybe it's just me.

When the 3006 showed up, were authors all of a sudden telling people they need to make sure to have good shot placement with that ancient 30-30, cause it's not as "powerful" as a 3006?
 
It seems to me that you're assuming "good shot placement" is a standard goal for all of us shooters and need not be particularly emphasized. I may be wrong in my assumption. Personally, myself and all the people I shoot and hunt with take that as a given. That said, I've seen guys who take their rifles or shotguns out for a few minutes prior to hunting season, put 3 shots into a 10" pie plate, and then pronounce themselves satisfied. These are not folks that I hunt with (thank god), or would ever want to. On a very few occasions I've had to track a wounded animal because of bad shot placement on the part of some newbie hunter or I've come across a dead animal that was badly hit in the first place by some hunter who either lost the track or didn't even bother to try to track what he/she had shot. To me, good shot placement is a mantra and an integral part of responsible, ethical hunting.
 
LawrenceN said:
To me, good shot placement is a mantra and an integral part of responsible, ethical hunting.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, my last (and first) bad shot was a follow-up on a muley doe I thought was going to run, turns out she was just falling forward, but I was pretty new at it. My .270 win (not a magnum one) went in through the upper bone on her front leg and out through the upper bone on her back leg at about 200 yards. I'd call that pretty terrible shot placement, but how much more power do you need to turn that into a good shot?

BTW, the first shot got both lungs...
 
Like if it was a 7mm mag, 300 mag, 338 mag.. well it's a magnum, should work. Forget about that shot placement, it's gonna work.

Like I have said before , "magnum" is a marketing ploy as there are many "non-magnum" chamberings that out perform "magnum" chamberings.

That being said, so many new hunters go to purchase large capacity chamberings not realizing what happens out front of the rifle is also happening at the rear and begin to develop poor shooting habits, not all but many and many of these new uneducated hunters do honestly feel that a "magnum" gives extra performance and take marginal shots with bad shooting habits hoping the rifle will over come poor shots.

Just like the automotive industry, it is driven my telling people what they "think" they need, not what the actually need.
 
Juster said:
What round is best for really poor shot placement?
Click to expand...

Great question. No matter what round is used, shot placement is the most important factor in whether or not the animal will be recovered. Six decades of watching animals get shot has made me believe that when it gets to game animals deer sized and larger, a well placed shot from a .300 WM is likely to result in fewer yards traveled than you will get from a .243 with the same shot placement. Likely. Not certainly - but on average - likely, and I'm not talking about whether or not the animal will be killed, just how long it's final run may last.

The same is true for all the "bear defense" discussions. Any shot that will actually stop a bear intent on getting to you will have to be placed perfectly whether you use a .30-06 or a .458 WM. MANY rounds will stop a bear if the shot is placed where it must be placed to do so. Sheer power is useful at times, but proper shot placement is ALWAYS more important than kinetic energy levels. And whether or not the word "magnum" is included in the common name for the cartridge is utterly irrelevant.
 
LawrenceN said:
That said, I've seen guys who take their rifles or shotguns out for a few minutes prior to hunting season, put 3 shots into a 10" pie plate, and then pronounce themselves satisfied. These are not folks that I hunt with (thank god), or would ever want to. On a very few occasions I've had to track a wounded animal because of bad shot placement on the part of some newbie hunter or I've come across a dead animal that was badly hit in the first place by some hunter who either lost the track or didn't even bother to try to track what he/she had shot. To me, good shot placement is a mantra and an integral part of responsible, ethical hunting.
Click to expand...

"Good shot placement" can't even come into a persons thinking if they are doing a pie plate at 100. If all you are doing is a 10" circle at 100 you have no idea where your bullet is going to hit, so good shot placement is a matter of luck. I know a couple guys that put up a half sheet of plywood at 500, and if they hit it with one round out of 5 they're happy. I don't hunt with these guys. I'm not always popular where I live, because I will publicly shame these people. My rule, and I have indoctrinated both my brother-in-laws, and my neighbors, is to put 20 rounds down range before the season at 100 or 200, so that you know exactly where you are hitting
 
rral22 said:
Great question. No matter what round is used, shot placement is the most important factor in whether or not the animal will be recovered. Six decades of watching animals get shot has made me believe that when it gets to game animals deer sized and larger, a well placed shot from a .300 WM is likely to result in fewer yards traveled than you will get from a .243 with the same shot placement. Likely. Not certainly - but on average - likely, and I'm not talking about whether or not the animal will be killed, just how long it's final run may last.

The same is true for all the "bear defense" discussions. Any shot that will actually stop a bear intent on getting to you will have to be placed perfectly whether you use a .30-06 or a .458 WM. MANY rounds will stop a bear if the shot is placed where it must be placed to do so. Sheer power is useful at times, but proper shot placement is ALWAYS more important than kinetic energy levels. And whether or not the word "magnum" is included in the common name for the cartridge is utterly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

While the 300wm will likely drop the animal faster, it'll also do more meat damage. Meat is my primary goal (ok, an excuse to be out in he bush is the 1st goal, with meat following right behind it) so I have no interest in 300wm on deer. On bigger animals who have a lot more meat to harvest (elk, moose) I would be less concerned about lost meat, but at the same time a 277cal 150gr partition kills plenty good, so I don't really see a need for a magnum in the safe. (at least until I go grizzly or bison hunting)
 
rral22 said:
Great question. No matter what round is used, shot placement is the most important factor in whether or not the animal will be recovered. Six decades of watching animals get shot has made me believe that when it gets to game animals deer sized and larger, a well placed shot from a .300 WM is likely to result in fewer yards traveled than you will get from a .243 with the same shot placement. Likely. Not certainly - but on average - likely, and I'm not talking about whether or not the animal will be killed, just how long it's final run may last.
Click to expand...

The first deer I ever saw get killed (and is to this day, the largest white tail I've ever seen) was shot with a .243 firing an 85gr TSX right through its heart and lungs. That day I got rid of any notion in my mind that I needed to buy a magnum for deer hunting since this great beast of a white tail just slumped over and that was that. After dressing it out and taking it to the butcher, the butcher commented that the exit wound was so violent that he thought it was shot at point blank with a 12ga.
 
I've shot deer with 30/30, 308 and 300 win mag. None of them ever told me when i asked which one was more effective, because were are all the same. Dead.
 
Suther said:
While the 300wm will likely drop the animal faster, it'll also do more meat damage.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Bullet design plays a large role in meat damage, as does shot placement.
In theory a 50 BMG should create a ton of meat damage, and certainly with a thin jacketed match bullet with poor shot placement there is very little left to salvage. However with a bullet that is not as frangible and with proper shot placement I have shot many deer with my 50 and experienced 1/2" entry hole, 1" exit and virtually no loss of usable meat. I don't salvage hearts, lungs or ribs, so consider their loss to not count.

A 243 with a 90 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet totally decimated the entire rear half of a deer a friend of mine shot. A clear example of poor shot placement and the negative effect it can have.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
Not necessarily. Bullet design plays a large role in meat damage, as does shot placement.
In theory a 50 BMG should create a ton of meat damage, and certainly with a thin jacketed match bullet with poor shot placement there is very little left to salvage. However with a bullet that is not as frangible and with proper shot placement I have shot many deer with my 50 and experienced 1/2" entry hole, 1" exit and virtually no loss of usable meat. I don't salvage hearts, lungs or ribs, so consider their loss to not count.

A 243 with a 90 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet totally decimated the entire rear half of a deer a friend of mine shot. A clear example of poor shot placement and the negative effect it can have.
Click to expand...

The old saying about shooting deer with the 45/70 applies.

Eat right up to the hole.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
Not necessarily. Bullet design plays a large role in meat damage, as does shot placement.
In theory a 50 BMG should create a ton of meat damage, and certainly with a thin jacketed match bullet with poor shot placement there is very little left to salvage. However with a bullet that is not as frangible and with proper shot placement I have shot many deer with my 50 and experienced 1/2" entry hole, 1" exit and virtually no loss of usable meat. I don't salvage hearts, lungs or ribs, so consider their loss to not count.

A 243 with a 90 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet totally decimated the entire rear half of a deer a friend of mine shot. A clear example of poor shot placement and the negative effect it can have.
Click to expand...

If you are going to compare a stout bullet with good shot placement to a cup and core bullet with bad shot placement then yes, its going to be more meat lost on the 243.

What I mean't is the same shot with both, using bullets of similar construction, the 243 will typically do less meat damage.
 
Suther said:
If you are going to compare a stout bullet with good shot placement to a cup and core bullet with bad shot placement then yes, its going to be more meat lost on the 243.

What I mean't is the same shot with both, using bullets of similar construction, the 243 will typically do less meat damage.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the point I was trying to make is that bullet construction is a major factor to go along with shot placement.
 
And then on the flipside you have those who seem to think any cartridge with the word "magnum" in it is overkill and only used by the inexperienced. "A 223 should be sufficient for almost anything if you're a good hunter." :rolleyes:

An equally annoying mindset.
 
bearkilr said:
And then on the flipside you have those who seem to think any cartridge with the word "magnum" in it is overkill and only used by the inexperienced. "A 223 should be sufficient for almost anything if you're a good hunter." :rolleyes:

An equally annoying mindset.
Click to expand...

Followed closely by the notion that nobody can shoot higher recoiling rifles and everyone can shoot the sub-calibers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom