# Big game technology



## russt (Apr 17, 2008)

I want to pose a rhetorical question - have the advances in deer and elk technology surpassed the advances in firearm technology??

If it is the same deer we are hunting, then why do we need more technology than our grandpa to bag a deer? 

Is the 30/30 and 30-06 really considered out dated?


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Yes, the aforementioned rounds are considered out dated as they both introduced prior to 1910, age aside their performance against similar caliber bullets falls short in both recoil and terminal ballistics. 

Understand that you grandfathers and their fathers probably equipped themselves with the best weapon available at the time, I would argue that we are doing the same thing when we select a round with superior performance. 

The hunters round of choice typically follows the development and proliferation of military munitions, now that the military has moved away from these rounds its not really surprising that the hunting world follows suit.

I personally use a .338 on elk. I'll be the first to admit that smaller round will work, but that extra mass and velocity can make up for a lot when the shot isn't exactly where it should be.


----------



## russt (Apr 17, 2008)

Good answer, but if the old 30-06 has clean barrel and is in working order. I see no valid reason to set the weapon aside. 

Up until last year I have used a sporterized 1917 Remington 30-06 on big game. It did the job very well. I purchased a new left handed Remington 700 CDL 30-06. Just for the fact that I am a lefty and tired of using a right handed gun. Difference, a clean stock, left handed, Is the action more solid than the old mauser action . . . 

I shoot one load in that gun for both deer and elk, 165 gr. Grand Slams. I have found that bullet size has the best trajectory and ballistics for the caliber. I have not opted for a larger load on elk because I hunt in spike only unit. Good sectional density and energy for the distances I think a hunter should actually be taking a shot.

I guess the real reason for my question was to soapbox an opinion of mine. I think the newer weapon technology is becoming a crutch for those that are not willing to get off their atv and hunt. Was that not the way our grandfathers hunted? Take the time to hunt in close for a clean kill? I think a young man needs to learn those things.

Also, the discussion for the .338 would be more interesting if I drew a limited entry bull tag.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

I figured thats what you were getting at. 

I agree with you in that a good gun with a high end scope is more than enough to make up for the lack of experience/skill, sure there are "harder" ways to kill an animal, but if you were really interested in really hunting wouldn't you be using a bow?


----------



## russt (Apr 17, 2008)

I have yet to pile up a deer with a bow like I can with a rifle. I feel a rifle is a quicker kill.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Well now your arguing against your own point. If a bow that your great, great, great grandfather used to feed his family (not hunt for sport) worked for him, why would you need one of those fancy guns.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

russt said:


> I want to pose a rhetorical question - have the advances in deer and elk technology surpassed the advances in firearm technology??
> 
> If it is the same deer we are hunting, then why do we need more technology than our grandpa to bag a deer?
> 
> Is the 30/30 and 30-06 really considered out dated?


What do you mean by "deer and elk technology"?

IMHO all legal firearms for big game are OK. It's just the guy that's using them that may have short comings. The 30-06 is a fine firearm, as is .338. I have three 06s and one .338, and seldom shoot the .338. The only mag I use anymore is my .257 Weatherby mag.

Todays firearms easily outshoot my tired eyesight. And I don't have the time, the mouths to feed, or the freezer space to harvest lots of big game like I did years past. So now I try to make my hunts challenging, memorable; maybe making the chase more important than the kill.

A bow kill to me is still the greatest and I'm finding handgun kills to be equally challenging. Also I have started hunting antelope and deer with my collection of old Remington pump and semi-auto rifles in .25 Rem, .30 Rem, .32 Rem, and the still popular .35 Rem. The old .30 Remington is my favorite. I have killed a few whitetails with it in Missouri.

Blah, blah, blah, Wish I had more time to hunt and shoot......and tell stories. 
Gotta get back to work.


----------



## russt (Apr 17, 2008)

I don't think I contradict myself at all. To draw my same point to archery since it was brought up. I think a recurve delivering an arrow into the vitals is just as effective as a compound. 

Same goes for rifles a 30 cal bullet from a 30-06 compared to a 300 win mag accuratly placed into the vitals. Same result. 

The gun that worked 100 years ago is still just as good today. And since the deer and elk have not changed . . . 

The only thing the newer technology has done is put some hunters further away from an animal to make up for poor hunting skills. I personally belive that pulling the trigger on an animal 1,200 feet away is not good hunting. 

I will however, bite on the claim that bullet technology has improved to make a better kill.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

We are a much more competitive society today with everybody trying to get an "edge". There is a lot of hunting pressure and an incredible amount of media. In addition, hunting is a very big business and using propaganda (okay, advertisement) to sell, sell, sell. If everybody already has a Remington or Winchester .30-06, what would sell a new big game rifle? A new "bigger, faster, deadlier, trendier" caliber of course! Bigger and/or faster is the American dream, and so is beating the other guys to bigger deer/elk - and catering to dreams sell gizmos.

Another recent example: Although it is generally understood in optical engineering that the human eye can really only utilize the amount of light that a 32mm 4x or 40mm 3-9x transmits to the eye (exit pupil diameter), the scope sales department discovered that bigger objectives sell. Simmons made a killing with its popularly-priced but bigger 44mm "44-Mag" scope. Just tacking the word "magnum" on increases sales. Leupold engineers were dumbfounded at the success of something so optically silly as a 50mm objective demanded by the sales department - but how many out there will gladly put up with a big scope that makes a top-heavy rifle, and one that is harder to get a good cheek weld with, in the erroneous belief that there is a optical advantage that will get them the big one?

All it takes is a poorly-placed hit (_after all, how can we miss? We shot our deer rifle 10 times off a bench sighting in - or shot it twice last year at a deer?_), a loose scope mount or cheap scope that won't hold a zero, or a bullet failure (_possibly because the range was either too close or too far or the penetration angle too severe for the bullet type used_), or the expectation that an elk will react like a deer to the same lung shot and is supposed to drop instantly - to make a hunter want to blame the caliber and _believe_ that bigger/faster hype he is constantly bombarded with. I have seen it many a time.

Back in the day hunters had less trophy expectations, and good-eatin' deer were a larger goal. They took the time to stalk closer for sure shots because they came from the black-powder transition era where close shots were the rule. Elk and deer were taken with calibers we think very marginal today like the 25-35 WCF or the .250 Savage with success! But they had little money and most hunters came from a rural background and were more familiar with game habits and habitat. They had the skill and time to get closer for a good shot and they just plain shot more often in general. They viewed the .30-06 as we view 300 Ultra magnums today as almost over-kill. However, in the West, the flatter shooting pointy-bullet calibers did offer an range advantage, which is why the .30-30 died out quicker here (as the _standard_ anyway) than in the wooded East. 
The .270 in 1925 was the flat-shooting wonder of the world and the conservative who already thought .30 was small bore almost had a heart attack, and the controversy continues to this day despite its proven track record. Both calibers made similar kills (according to one Jack O'Conner who liked both if you really read his writings) and Winchester found they could sell more guns - so what if we made a faster .30? or a bigger faster .33? or whatever? How many more rifles and new costlier ammo could we sell? 

With the population shift to the urban/suburban areas and the lack of easy practice close by, not to mention the loss of outdoor skills, coupled with the increase in general disposable income of the late '50s, '1960's to the present we now seem to seek to "buy" the edge that just good skill and a ordinary caliber may give us. And with so many of us being able to own so many rifles, the rifle and ammunition makers are always looking for another unfilled niche and the hype machine increases.

That is why one of my shooting buddies uses a stainless/synthetic 7mm STW magnum with a 4.5-14x 50mm Leupold scope and is so psyched about it all - he just feels like he has a major edge over the rest of us - an edge that can be bought at the store... :lol:


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

The bullet technology had to keep up with the velocities generated by the monster magnum cartridges. A solid copper expanding bullet is not necessary for good performance in a moderate velocity round. If your muzzle velocities are 2800 fps or lower, a regular old gilding metal-lead core bullet will give perfectly good performance. Take a 220 grain round nose and shoot it at 2400 fps from a 30-40 Krag, and you'll penetrate both sides of any elk at reasonable ranges. Velocity is not the deciding factor in killing game. Bullet placement and penetration is. Higher impact velocities stress the bullets too much. Slow it down, put it in the right place, and the cheap bullets will work just as well as the premium ones.


and if you choose to hunt with an "inadequate" cartridge, you might just decide you need to start hunting again and get close to your quarry.
Some day I hope to build a Browning 1885 chambered for the Krag. 28 inch barrel, iron sights, and octagon barrel. It would make a great 300 yard gun.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Frisco Pete said:


> Another recent example: Although it is generally understood in optical engineering that the human eye can really only utilize the amount of light that a 32mm 4x or 40mm 3-9x transmits to the eye (exit pupil diameter), the scope sales department discovered that bigger objectives sell. Simmons made a killing with its popularly-priced but bigger 44mm "44-Mag" scope.


*I call BS!* Simple math tells us that a 7X magnification with a 50mm objective lens yields a 7.1mm exit pupil, with a little bit of research you would have seen that the average human pupil size in low light conditions is just over 7mm. As the magnification becomes higher, the larger the objective size required to gather the necessary light also must increase. This is especially important in binos and spotting scopes where low light is the expected condition for observation.


----------



## russt (Apr 17, 2008)

Ah, marketing in the USA. Everything has become a phallic symbol. Bigger, better, faster. Some how the relics hold a firm line. 

Case in point, the Crested Butte bull was taken with? survey says . . . . a 30-40 Krag rifle!

Excellent posts!!!! Thank you for the well thought answers.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

See! Some of us have been convinced that not only has history been somewhat in error (_or millions of hunters just got lucky_) killing deer and elk since WWI with something so prosaic, if not obsolete like the .30-06, but that we have been lucky to even _see_ them well enough to shoot without the very recent advent of the 50mm objective scope. -)O(-

THEORY: With today's scope lasting a long time and working so well - what could sell more scopes to replace the "obsolete" ones already bought, and also more expensive scopes with their greater profit margin? 50+mm objectives? hmmm.... :twisted:

FACT: The scope's EP corresponds to our pupils, which dilate to a maximum of 7mm in a young person, declining to about 5mm by age 50 and another millimeter each decade after that. If a scope's EP exceeds the diameter of ours, the rim of extra light spills out onto our irises, wasted. Here is more info from a recent article:

*MYTHS AND REALITIES OF OVERSIZED SCOPE OBJECTIVES* - by Ron Spomer, Optics Editor, Rifle Magazine, July 2008:

Many Yank hunters today haul around scopes suitable for picking off vampires at 2 am in a New York sewer. Is that really necessary?

...a 10x 50mm yields a 5mm EP, while a 10x 33mm produces a 3.3mm EP. At 6x the 33mm scope will have an EP of 5.5mm - bigger than the 50mm scope at 10x. And you want to know a secret? You don't need 10x to shoot a running whitetail at 200 yards. Or even a standing one at 400 yards.

In my long experience, a high-quality, fully multicoated scope with a 28mm to 42mm objective is bright enough to place black crosshairs on anything but a black animal 30 minutes after sunset on a cloudy evening, if the EP is at least 4mm. In most cases this will work at 40 minutes after sunset. The downside to such minimal EP is that it demands perfect form. If you align your eye slightly off-center with the scope, too far forward or too far back, you'll pick up that annoying edge blackout. A larger EP leaves more edge "window" for you to wander in before the dark edges come into your vision. So if you have trouble aligning head/ey perfectly behind your scope, you might want a large exit pupil, in which case the bigger the better.

You get plenty of EP room in a 33mm or even a 28mm objective scope by dialing down power. At 4x the 28mm will yield a 7mm EP. That's as wide as most [young] human pupils can dilate. But 4x does not reveal a distant animal as well as 10x... So, if you anticipate game at the edge of dark 300 yards and beyond, you might want 10x, and 10x looks a lot brighter coupled to a 50mm or even 56mm scope than a 40mm.

The drawbacks to big objective scopes...

1. Heavy. Most weigh 17 to 24 ounces... you might not appreciate carrying it up a mountain...

2. Bulky. The diameter means the entire scope will sit atop tall mounts, so you may need to raise your head off the stock comb in order to see into the eyepiece. That slows down and compromises accuracy... A high scope will unbalance and average-weight rifle tending to pull it to the side and slowing down fast handling. The high scope will also catch on branches and be impossible to stuff into a traditional saddle scabbard. Many don't even fit standard soft cases.

3. Expensive. Glass costs. The bigger the glass, the bigger the price.

4. Less durable. During recoil, extra-heavy glass is more likely to pull loose from its moorings.

5. Rip-Offs. Huge objectives do little good if they and/or internal lenses aren't coated to minimize glare and maximize light transmission. Just because a Swarovski PV 3-12x 50mm transmits the most incredibly bright, sharp image you've ever seen doesn't mean a Cheapco XT 3-10x 50mm will match it. Some discount scope makers throw poorly ground glass onto scopes with single-layer coatings or no coatings at all. The result is so much internal glare that you can't pick out the target from the haze. To sharpen such poor lenses, some manufacturers place field stops (glorified washers) inside the objective bell behind the big objective lens. Like a small f-stop ring (diaphragm) in a camera lens, this blocks distorted light from the lens' edges. The image is sharpened, but also appears darkened. You pay for a 50mm, but get the light input of a much smaller lens (the size of the hole in the field stop).

*Choose a 50mm to 56mm objective scope if you expect to do most of your shooting at high magnification near dark with minimal walking beforehand. That's where they really shine. And insist on fully-multicoated lenses throughout the instrument.*


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

I really enjoyed that article. _Rifle magazine_ is one of the few magazines that actually print common sense most of the time. By the way, did you like the 300 Win Mag/WSM comparison?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Good posts, Pete.

I'm getting a kick out of this thread as I'm anxiously awaiting my custom made 1874 Sharps repro that cost me more money than all my other guns combined. :lol:

http://www.shilohrifle.com/

Now let's talk about those high tech deer... (I knew the DWR must have been up to something.)


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Pete,

All I got out of that article was, there are downsides to large objectives, most people don't need them and quality matters. 

I do lots of F class shooting and I can tell you from experience that anything less than 50mm is an inferior scope for that application, side by side comparisons at high magnification aren't even close. (Same manufacturer, same series of scope, just a smaller objective)


----------



## russt (Apr 17, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> Good posts, Pete.
> 
> I'm getting a kick out of this thread as I'm anxiously awaiting my custom made 1874 Sharps repro that cost me more money than all my other guns combined. :lol:
> 
> ...


As for the deer technology? Maybe the DWR collaborated with current manufacturers and they are testing the water for a new genetically modified deer that can detect humans at 10,000 feet away? Making modern weapons obsolete.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I wanted to use the most modern broad head out there, the EPEK, but it is NOT available, so I will be using Muzzy 3 blade 125 grains, which are as lethal as ANY bullet fired from ANY rifle.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Good posts, Pete.
> 
> I'm getting a kick out of this thread as I'm anxiously awaiting my custom made *1874 Sharps *repro that cost me more money than all my other guns combined. :lol:
> 
> ...


I would be _honored _to shoot that !!!


----------

