The objective of hunting is to cause the destruction of vital organs; e.g. heart and/or lungs. What caliber & bullet accomplishes this objective is immaterial. As long as caliber & bullet penetrates vital organs, animals will die. Nothing will live long w/o functioning heart and/or lungs. That's merely simple biology.
God only knows how many North American big game animals have fallen to surplus .303 British rifles and Winchester 94's.
If I were to begin anew I'd buy a .280 Remington and never look back. But what I knew when I did buy big game rifles wasn't what I should have known. That hindsight bromide does come into play.
The two most accurate rifles I have fired were both chambered for 7MM Rem Mag, one a 700 ADL & the other a Sako. Both shot quarter-size groups.
The benefit of .284 caliber is sectional density. .284 bullets have mystical ability to penetrate.
Hunters should buy rifles that are right for them. Some hunters don't. Last year I watched a studly dude who was probably in his mid-30's sight in his brand new .300 Win Mag. He told me it was his first big game rifle. Up until that point he used relatives' rifles. His groups were about 6" at a hundred yards. He flinched with every round. He borrowed my shooting rest. He still flinched. After nearly a box of empty cases, he told me that he couldn't continue because of shoulder pain. In contrast, I had about a .75" group a couple inches high & dead center at a hundred yards. I was shooting a .308 Win. One shot, one buck. I hope that that dude did as well.
While I love the 7MM Rem Mag, it is not necessary to kill any big game animal. The 7x57 was performing that task quite admirably before the 7MM Rem Mag came along. Whatever a .300 Win Mag will do -with very few exceptions- so will an '06 or .308 Win. It's all about where a bullet winds up. A .243 Win in vitals is a lot better than an '06 in guts.
Did I mention that were I to start anew I'd buy a .280 Rem & never look back?
I hope this helps.
There's the answer right there!
Originally Posted by Muzz
My brother shot his 6.5x.284 with Berger 140 gr going 3150fps. BC is 618 I think. I was impressed. His gun was built by a world class gunsmith.
I just had this built. For me I personally think this one's a sweetheart for what you are asking. Might be a wee bit biased though! :o
I cannot wait to get a scope mounted up and go spring bear hunting!
Now that all being said any of these work for me as being effective and reasonable.
280 Remington or .280 AI
300 Win mag
TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN, IM KINDA SURPRISED cc DOESNT HAVE THIS ON HIS LIST.
Originally Posted by Musket Man
ha, I realize this is an old thread, I do love the pre 64 win .270, but the .338 is a pretty sweet gun, you can reach out a ways with that bad boy too.
Believe it or not, I've never owned a .270. My idol (when I was young!) was Jack O'Conner and he thought it was the best all around caliber that was ever made. If I could only own one gun, LOL it would be something in the mid size like the .270 or 7mm Mag. I would probably opt for the 7mm Mag because I used to have one and it shot really well.
Originally Posted by ivorytip
Reading through this thread that has been resurrected for the first time today.
Best all around? I don't have one I guess:cool:
Otherwise I wouldn't need so many different sets of reloading dies:D
Killing is not that difficult at the distances with the majority of cartridge/bullet combinations mentioned.
Many of these cartridges are capable, IF the user can put them on target on demand from field conditions under the stress of the hunt. You cannot buy your way into this skill set.
This is what I would stress to the OP.
I love these kinds of posts. They always make for some good discussions.
But seriously, someone needing to ask what caliber they need to make a 700 yard probably shouldn't be taking 700 yard shots in the first place.
First I would select your bullet. 7 mm RM is a great choice in the 0.284 line. I have and like the 300 WM in the 0.308 line. Run the ballistics. JBM Ballistics works well. See which one gives you the ballistics you want. Personally I draw the limit at 400 yards because this is where my velocities just drop below 2400 fps. Last year my dilemma was 7 mm RM or 300 WM for a deer/elk rifle out West. I was going to use 168 grain LRX for the 7 mm RM and 175 grain LRX for the 300 WM. I ran the numbers again for this post using my real velocity for the 300 WM (2893) vs the maximum published velocity (Barnes) for the 168 grain LRX 7 mm RM (2832) at 400 yards.
300 WM: 16/2362/2168
7 mm RM: 16.4/2346/2053
Very similar. With Barnes they only have a 175 grain 0.284 in the TSX. It has a terrible bc so I never considered it. Keeping with Barnes I have the option of pushing heavier bullets with the 0.308 where their 0.284 line up is not that great. That's why it's important to select your brand of bullet first, compare the numbers, and go from their. My wife won't let my kids touch any meat which may have lead in it. So for me and my family it's all copper or I have a lot of meat to eat by myself.