# Interesting Caliber Selection Article



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

http://www.chuckhawks.com/myth_busting_calibers.htm

since long range has been a hot button on here lately, just ignore those parts and read the rest. It was informative to me.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I read that a while back. I guess I've always been in the 300 or less camp, for all the reasons he explains, so I liked the article.


----------



## morvlorv (Mar 30, 2012)

so we should all go out and get a 260 and we will be the best hunter ever?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The main take away I got from the article, was that out to 300 yards, ANY standard hunting cartridge will do the trick for most anything you want to hunt short of polar and grizzly bears. But how fun is that? Then we'd have to agree that Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and Dodge will all get you where you want to go. Not Datsun though. Stay away. Or that blonde, brunette, and redheads are all beautiful. Or that spin and bait fishermen are every bit as intelligent as fly fishermen. And we certainly can't have any of that. 

So all of those that don't shoot a 30-06, find someone that can read and have them read the article to you. It is pretty good.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The main take away I got from the article, was that out to 300 yards, ANY standard hunting cartridge will do the trick for most anything you want to hunt short of polar and grizzly bears. But how fun is that? Then we'd have to agree that Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and Dodge will all get you where you want to go. Not Datsun though. Stay away. Or that blonde, brunette, and redheads are all beautiful. Or that spin and bait fishermen are every bit as intelligent as fly fishermen. And we certainly can't have any of that.
> 
> So all of those that don't shoot a 30-06, find someone that can read and have them read the article to you. It is pretty good.


An additional take away might be that given a scenario the rifle/cartridge combination that offers the lowest recoil may be the best. I've learned I don't deal particularly well with recoil. I have a 300 WSM that I have used for LE elk and would use for moose, but the reality is that my 270 sees far more action.


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

My .308 will handle anything I will realistically ever hunt. 
BUT, the 300WM is still a whole lot of fun to shoot! And you never know when you'll get the opportunity to hunt Polar Bear.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Wouldn't it be boring if all we had to choose from was one or two calibers of rifles? 

I like shooting my .340 Weatherby just for the power that it has and the recoil does not bother me. Then on the other hand I like shooting my .22-250 and all the calibers that I have inbetween. I would hate to have to just choose one of them and if I actually had to I would go with the .340 Weatherby.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

What should I use for a tyrannosaurus rex?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> What should I use for a tyrannosaurus rex?


Obviously, this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.577_Tyrannosaur


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

The thing that is weird is the recoil amounts d0nt seem accurate. I had a 270 WSM that had a very tolerable recoil and another Chuck Hawks page shows recoil is only 19 lbs, yet article states that it is nearly 30 with the traditional donkey kickers http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm
I had an A bolt and my brother has a Sav Model 10 and also is very tolerable. Anywho, such stuff just makes me question their other assumptions and possibly conclusions. I really do agree with the recoil line of thought that high recoil makes accuracy suck. I had a hard thumping 30-06 that I couldnt ever get to shoot worth crap, I have to think that the recoil was a factor in that.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Agreed, Huge29. I have a pre-64 Model 70 in 30.06 that beats me up as bad, if not worse, than my Model 70 .338 win mag. 

I do want to try my .338 out on a polar bear, but I guess it has to be at 200+ yards to get the most bang for the buck!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Agreed, Huge29. I have a pre-64 Model 70 in 30.06 that beats me up as bad, if not worse, than my Model 70 .338 win mag.
> 
> I do want to try my .338 out on a polar bear, but I guess it has to be at 200+ yards to get the most bang for the buck!


I packed my .340 on a grizzly hunt in British Colombia a few years ago and the only shot I had on one was a 578 yard shot that I passed on. It did however do a good job on a black bear at 318 yards.

Good luck finding a polar bear hunt for under $40K. And then you can't even bring the hide back into the states.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

Well a lot of this article is based on the assumptions of OGW being the best way to determine which gun is adequate for a given game species at a given range. The ability of a fire arm to kill an animal depends on damaged to vital tissue that's critical to survival. In large part, the amount of tissue damaged is related to the diameter of the wound channel and the length of the wound channel through a vital part of the animal. So in other words, shot placement first (i.e. vital tissue), then does the bullet penetrate deep enough to hit and destroy critical tissue such as lungs, heart or central nervous system along its path, and is the width of the wound channel wide enough to ensure a quick kill? The OGW does not take into account sectional density, which determines penetration depth to a large extent. It also does not take into account frontal area, which in part determines the diameter of the wound channel. Although I think the arguments for optimal recoil vs OGW are interesting and the results are worth considering, that is not nor should be the most important factor in choosing a cartridge. One of the more ridiculous suppositions in the article is that the most optimal round for Brown Bears (AKA grizzlies) and polar bears would be a .308. That's not the gun I'm taking in an encounter with one of those or bigger bears. I'm not saying that dudes should regularly be taking shots longer than 300 unless they have that skill, but hunting antelope and mule deer often presents longer shots. Beyond 300, flatter shooting an higher velocities does matter. Then there is the factor of ammo availability, rifle make and model in the desired caliber, and the characteristics of the gun. I suppose, what I would argue is that the optimal caliber is the highest amount of recoil one can take and still shoot accurately. The 270 win would be an example of a gun with a good mix of tolerable recoil, and combination of adequate power for a wide variety of game. And I would argue that the 270 is ballistically superior to the .308. My argument would be based on the fact that a 150 grain bullet out of a 270 is not equivalent to a 150 grain bullet out of a 308 because the 270 bullet has superior sectional density (and its not even close) for better penetration even though they are pushing those bullets at similar velocities.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> Good luck finding a polar bear hunt for under $40K. And then you can't even bring the hide back into the states.


Not legally, at least!


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

An interesting quote from the article "Based on scoring, the .308 Win is the most optimal, versatile and efficient big game caliber. This contradicts the conventional wisdom that the .30-06 holds that title. However, if you can tolerate higher levels of recoil (in the mid-20’s foot pounds) without it degrading your accuracy, then the .30-06 is indeed the most versatile big game caliber for you."

I am somewhat sensitive to recoil, so I give the nod to .308 Winchester.

But, as others in this thread have pointed out, according to the article the choice of cartridge makes less difference than most people think.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense because if the choice were clear cut there wouldn't be so much discussion on which is best. Most people would already know the answer.


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

Perceived recoil can be very, very subjective. Mainly because a properly fitted stock seems to just soak it up.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Having shoulder problems now, bursitis & arthritis, I've learned to put high quality recoil pads on my guns and add recoil reduction material as well. Now I've taken the sting out of the hardest recoil and brought them all down to a gentle nudge or push that's quite tolerable


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I agree that the charts are a good starting point to look at but all comes down to how well the gun fits the shooter. I have a Savage 110 30-06 that I can't shoot more than 5 times without getting a large bruise on my cheek and shoulder. My Weatherby 7mm mag., which is much heavier in weight. Fits me much better and I can shoot a whole box of bullets at a sitting without much discomfort.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

LanceS4803 said:


> My .308 will handle anything I will realistically ever hunt.
> BUT, the 300WM is still a whole lot of fun to shoot! And you never know when you'll get the opportunity to hunt Polar Bear.


My grandfather in law is going after them this year. He will be using a .375 Holland & Holland Magnum.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

another old article and added food for thought, though the article starts out like the intermission of an underdog cartoon:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ross-seyfried-busting-the-magnum-myth/


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

APD, I think the article you posted makes a lot of sense. Thanks for posting. I have actually thought seriously about downsizing my caliber in my main hunting rifle just so that I can improve on accuracy, even for elk. Right now I shoot 270 WSM, which I think is an excellent round, but have thought a lot about picking up a 7 mm-08 or even 260 Remington. And if I could do a re-do on the 270 WSM, I might have just gone with a .270 win because the recoil, expense of ammo, and difficulty of finding brass for the WSM does not justify the marginal advantage in velocity between the two (100-200 fps). I'm actually working on a 6.5x55 Swedish mauser build that might fit the bill.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I read an older book on long range shooting a while back. The .308 was the champ out to 800 yds. much due to wind resistance and less recoil. I think the .308 is the most under rated caliber for hunting. Magnums are an absolute waste if you're not a good shot past 300. Most of us can't shoot well in the field past 300. I was glad to see some mentioning of the 7mm 08. This is just a .308 with a 7 mm bullet. I think it will be my next big game rife. Good practical, common sense article.


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

Kevinitis said:


> I'm actually working on a 6.5x55 Swedish mauser build that might fit the bill.


 This is my "go to" rifle for just about all light to medium big game. (Just haven't had the opportunity for elk, sticking with MZ for that.)
Light weight rifles, negligible recoil and just about the best BC of any projectile out there.
Scandinavians have been using it for moose for over 100 years. Mine was built in 1900.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

I really want to finish the swede. It's going to be built on a mauser action, Richards microfit dual grip thumbhole laminate stock, glass bedded, timney trigger, new factory barrel. Once done, I think it will be sweet shooting those 6.5mm, 140 grain bullets.


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

Kevinitis said:


> I really want to finish the swede. It's going to be built on a mauser action, Richards microfit dual grip thumbhole laminate stock, glass bedded, timney trigger, new factory barrel. Once done, I think it will be sweet shooting those 6.5mm, 140 grain bullets.


Here is my Swede. Carl Gustaf, built in 1900.
It started out as a $50 barreled action from Century Arms. Shot so well, I decided to convert it. I'd like to take some weight off the barrel (lathe those steps down), but don't want to mess with the harmonics.
This has taken it's fair share of deer!


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

Nice looking gun! I appreciate you sharing. It looks like you went with the side wing safety, and did you also have to grind down the bolt? I am debating doing a safety like yours or going with a side safety on the timney. 
My barrel is from an M94 swede so its only 17.7 inches. I'm going to make it into a mannlicher style full length stock, but have it free float. I plan to leave the steps in the barrel for rigidity, but my barrel is new from Sarco Inc ($74.95). The gun was already sportered when I bought it. Being a 94 the bolt is already bent, but I have heard it still may not clear a scope. What kind of groups do you get out of yours?


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

I'm getting groups with handloads of .75. Even though it is a stock military thickness barrel (although cut and crowned), the barrel heats up after about 5 shots and it starts vertically strining.
I believe the safety is a Timney, but it is getting replaced this summer with an entire Timney trigger pack with side safety. It is a tight fit under the scope, and has been bugging me.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

LanceS4803 said:


> I'm getting groups with handloads of .75. Even though it is a stock military thickness barrel (although cut and crowned), the barrel heats up after about 5 shots and it starts vertically strining.
> I believe the safety is a Timney, but it is getting replaced this summer with an entire Timney trigger pack with side safety. It is a tight fit under the scope, and has been bugging me.


.75, that's pretty good in my opinion. I will be pretty happy if mine is under an inch. Safety fitting under the scope is something I haven't realized would happen. Might also have to go with the side safety on a timney.


----------

