270 to 300 winmag

tac foley

fitzy700 wrote: »

i hear what your saying about shot placment but to be honest he's not (kelly bachand) at 4 to 5 hundred yards your calculations are not always going to be bang on if they were none of us would ever miss thats why he wanted the bigger calibre for more energy at the point of impact to reduce the chance of an injured animal getting away

fitzy

Sir - shot placement is all - using the lesser calibre as an excuse for poor marksmanship does not wash.

A poor shot with a .300WM is not the same a good shot with a .270 - if the shooter is uncertain of his target, then the bullet should stay firmly attached to the rest of the cartridge.

That, Sir, is MY opinion.

tac

fitzy700

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - shot placement is all - using the lesser calibre as an excuse for poor marksmanship does not wash.

A poor shot with a .300WM is not the same a good shot with a .270 - if the shooter is uncertain of his target, then the bullet should stay firmly attached to the rest of the cartridge.

That, Sir, is MY opinion.

tac

tac sir im sure he is always certain that he is going to hit the target if he was'nt he more than likely would not take the shot what im saying is it does'nt always work out perfect and if he was off a small bit he would still have a good chance of bringing the deer down with the bigger calibre

thats my opinion,sir

Glensman

fitzy700 wrote: »

tac sir im sure he is always certain that he is going to hit the target if he was'nt he more than likely would not take the shot what im saying is it does'nt always work out perfect and if he was off a small bit he would still have a good chance of bringing the deer down with the bigger calibre

thats my opinion,sir

and mine.

More poweful calibres allow for a larger margin of error.

Vegeta

I have seen deer shot with both .270 (Sako 75 hunter unmoderated) and a .300 win mag (remington 700 in AICS stock with a T8 on the end).

The Sako was horrible to shoot, simply put, most uncomfortable rifle I've ever shot. I'd like to shoot a similar rifle again with a moderator to see what it's like because the .270 round itself is great. That rifle was just too light for my recoil absorbing abilities.

The .300 win mag is very mild mannered because of the weight of the rig. Very similar to steyrman2's set-up above. Easily twice the weight of the previous .270 rig but an absolute pleasure to shoot in comparison.

In terms of meat damage the worst I've seen over the years between a .243, .308, .270 and 300 win mag was from the .270. Shoulder bones of a deer completely obliterated to a gritty coarse texture. At worst, I'd imagine .300 would be as bad as a .270 depending on what you hit and what type of bullet was used but I've never seen what I'd classify as bad meat damage from the .300 win mag.

The ammo for the .300 is about the same price as quality ammo for other calibres. Maybe cheap stuff is harder to come by, we tried to get cheap PPU stuff but the supplier never came through for us, but for hunting ammo like Hornady there is very little in it.

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

I have seen deer shot with both .270 (Sako 75 hunter unmoderated) and a .300 win mag (remington 700 in AICS stock with a T8 on the end).

The Sako was horrible to shoot, simply put, most uncomfortable rifle I've ever shot. I'd like to shoot a similar rifle again with a moderator to see what it's like because the .270 round itself is great. That rifle was just too light for my recoil absorbing abilities.

The .300 win mag is very mild mannered because of the weight of the rig. Very similar to steyrman2's set-up above. Easily twice the weight of the previous .270 rig but an absolute pleasure to shoot in comparison.

In terms of meat damage the worst I've seen over the years between a .243, .308, .270 and 300 win mag was from the .270. Shoulder bones of a deer completely obliterated to a gritty coarse texture. At worst, I'd imagine .300 would be as bad as a .270 depending on what you hit and what type of bullet was used but I've never seen what I'd classify as bad meat damage from the .300 win mag.

The ammo for the .300 is about the same price as quality ammo for other calibres. Maybe cheap stuff is harder to come by, we tried to get cheap PPU stuff but the supplier never came through for us, but for hunting ammo like Hornady there is very little in it.

Bit of an off-topic aside Veg, but Ezridax was talking about Jim Griffin getting in some of the GECO stuff a while ago, and they do a 170gr soft point for the .300 win mag which I've seen advertised for about €33-36 a box on the continent. It's not the cheapest in the world, but GECO themselves advertise it for use on small and medium game. If you got a bit of a discount for buying a hundred or so it could be a viable practice round too. I think I remember you posting a photo of a recovered 180 Hornady Interlock and the entirely realistic wound channel a while ago though to demonstrate that the .300 isn't just a monster, smashing up meat.

rowa

fitzy700 wrote: »

well lads thanks for all the replys i should have said at the start of the post the reason he wanted to change to a higher calibre was we have being using two .270s and a .308 for the last two seasons with great effect but we have the use of some land that is very flat with very little cover so long shots are a must at times we have had 1 or 2 runners last season so thats what the extra power was wanted for, plus he was going to do a bit of target work aswell thats why he was worried about the recoil for the accurate long range shots

fitzy

Maybe then stick with the rifle he has and buy a ghillie suit ? Get closer and hit them right ? If the land is open and coverless thats what i would consider.

A couple of lads i know went over to scotland (very open and coverless) to stalk deer last year , they didn't bother bringing their own rifles to save messing about with the licencing paperwork, the estate rifles they were given were .243's. When they asked about the suitability of the calibre they were told if they couldn't take the deer with them they shouldn't be shooting, after all its deer stalking , not deer target practice.

tac foley

rowa wrote: »

... its deer stalking , not deer target practice.

This.

tac

tac foley

Glensman wrote: »

and mine.

More poweful calibres allow for a larger margin of error.

I guess that's where we must agree to differ.

Upgrading the calibre and therefore the effective range of your shot should never be a reason for excusing inadequate shooting skills and misjudged shot-placement.

If you are not humanely killing the beast at 500m or so, then you owe it to the animal to get nearer. Here in UK, most deer/stags are taken at ranges substantially less than half of that.

As Rowa notes, THE definitive calibres in Scotland tend to be around the 7mm bracket, where the hunter/stalker has to actually employ skill to get his shot, rather than rely on the extra range and energy that comes from a heftier round.

If this is an unpopular point of view, then so be it.

tac

Glensman

tac foley wrote: »

I guess that's where we must agree to differ.

Upgrading the calibre and therefore the effective range of your shot should never be a reason for excusing inadequate shooting skills and misjudged shot-placement.

If you are not humanely killing the beast at 500m or so, then you owe it to the animal to get nearer. Here in UK, most deer/stags are taken at ranges substantially less than half of that.

As Rowa notes, THE definitive calibres in Scotland tend to be around the 7mm bracket, where the hunter/stalker has to actually employ skill to get his shot, rather than rely on the extra range and energy that comes from a heftier round.

If this is an unpopular point of view, then so be it.

tac

Your answer is in relation to long-range shooting, a separate debate. I have never taken a deer past 330yards.

Some calibres are more efficient at killing than others. These allow a larger margin of error. That's just fact. As you said this isn't target shooting, so you can't control the variables- such as wind, rain, angle etc etc.

fitzy700

tac foley wrote: »

If you are not humanely killing the beast at 500m or so, then you owe it to the animal to get nearer. Here in UK, most deer/stags are taken at ranges substantially less than half of that.

tac

fair enough about getting closer but that was the whole idea about getting the bigger calibre to be as humane as possible at the distance,i have seen once or twice bad shot placement at even at 200 yards,can you honestly say that your shot placement has never been off a small bit

fitzy

rowa

It is said that a bullet should have an energy level of around 1,000 ft/lbs (when it hits the animal) to kill a deer cleanly, even the relatively small .243 has this much energy at 400 yards. There are a good few lads on here having good results with the humble 30-30 in lever actions.

http://www.hornady.com/assets/files/ballistics/2012CatalogCenterSpread.pdf

tomcat220t

Power is no substitute for poor shot placement .
Some of the .270 rounds have near 1500ft lbs @500 yards ...Its not lack of hitting power if your getting run-off with a .270 on irish deer !
Regards ,Tomcat.

alan270

Do half of ye on this shoot deer! I hit a fallow deer at 353 yards with 140g sst superperformance and the bullet passed right through the deer's heart and lungs, she got up and ran 70 to 90 yards. When we got her you could have put a tennis ball in the exit wound and you could see the lungs liquidised inside there, even with a perfect shot placement they can still run :rolleyes:

rowa

alan270 wrote: »

Do half of ye on this shoot deer! I hit a fallow deer at 353 yards with 140g sst superperformance and the bullet passed right through the deer's heart and lungs, she got up and ran 70 to 90 yards. When we got her you could have put a tennis ball in the exit wound and you could see the lungs liquidised inside there, even with a perfect shot placement they can still run :rolleyes:

How then would a larger round help ? The bullet passed through without transferring its all of its energy into the animal. A larger round would have done exactly the same thing.

tomcat220t

alan270 wrote: »

Do half of ye on this shoot deer! I hit a fallow deer at 353 yards with 140g sst superperformance and the bullet passed right through the deer's heart and lungs, she got up and ran 70 to 90 yards. When we got her you could have put a tennis ball in the exit wound and you could see the lungs liquidised inside there, even with a perfect shot placement they can still run :rolleyes:

Hi Alan,perfect shot placement ???...... Heart /Lung can more times than not have that effect on deer .Would a 300 WM have kept her down with that shot placement ?
Regards,Tomcat.

alan270

Well tomcat, that I don't know that's one of the reasons I asked about the 300 win mag wud it have helped with a heavier grain bullet but everyone is saying the 270 is plenty for deer which I know it is since I have it the last two seasons but I don't like it when the animal is running after getting hit, makes you think that you missed till you see it hit the ground...

tomcat220t

alan270 wrote: »

Well tomcat, that I don't know that's one of the reasons I asked about the 300 win mag wud it have helped with a heavier grain bullet but everyone is saying the 270 is plenty for deer which I know it is since I have it the last two seasons but I don't like it when the animal is running after getting hit, makes you think that you missed till you see it hit the ground...

Hi Alan,.270 might be a little pucky for some shooters,
might not be the best round in wind for some shooters,
might not be the most accurate round out there....
but ive not heard many shooters say it lacked hitting power for irish deer.
IMO,the 300 WM would not have performed any better @ 353 yards on your shot .
Heart/Lung is only one shot of many that can be taken on game .
Regards,Tomcat.

rowa

alan270 wrote: »

Well tomcat, that I don't know that's one of the reasons I asked about the 300 win mag wud it have helped with a heavier grain bullet but everyone is saying the 270 is plenty for deer which I know it is since I have it the last two seasons but I don't like it when the animal is running after getting hit, makes you think that you missed till you see it hit the ground...

Just one of those things, i don't think it would have been any different if you had used any other round. Sometimes they are dead but just don't know it.

4200fps

At the end of the day the 300winmag is designed really for big game an long range shooting for Elk,moose and buffalo shooting. Mind my spelling.
Thats really what bullet manufactures state what this round is suitable for. I'd use it on mature red deer during the rutt in this country if I had one.

fitzy700

lads we could go on about shot placement here all day,id like to be as good as some of the posters on here then i could have just stuck with a .243 and have no worries :rolleyes:,but im not and at the end of the day fact is fact and the bigger calibre would allow for a bigger margin of error if a normal person like myself were to be off a bit at any distance more energy equals more damage

regard's fitzy

tomcat220t

fitzy700 wrote: »

lads we could go on about shot placement here all day,id like to be as good as some of the posters on here then i could have just stuck with a .243 and have no worries :rolleyes:,but im not and at the end of the day fact is fact and the bigger calibre would allow for a bigger margin of error if a normal person like myself were to be off a bit at any distance more energy equals more damage

regard's fitzy

Hi Fitzy, Heart/Lung shot placement will allow the deer to run a bit ...not the CALIBER !!
Its still a dead deer but not always Bang /Flop .Deer wont live but can sill run without a lung.
Get your 300 WM and it will happen just as many times as it does with the .270 ,IMO.
Regards,Tomcat.