7mm-08 or .30-06?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I find all but laughable, are the same guys who continually tout the Jack O'Conner, "He killed everything that walks with a .270", argument, are always the same one's who are so quick to argue if you do the same thing with a .300 you're gun isn't "needed", because it's .... "played out".

In order to support this type of nonsense, they feel compelled to argue it's far better to be under gunned, than be slightly over gunned for the same purpose. I'm sorry, but when you listen to this kind of nonsensical foolishness for over 4 decades it really gets old. Especially when you look at the FACT the .300 Win. Mag. is selling better now, than it did over half a century ago when it was introduced. As always in these type of arguments, facts take a back seat to opinion.
 
What benefits do big mags offer the avg person which ONLY hunts deer at close range?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
What benefits do big mags offer the avg person which ONLY hunts deer at close range?


Simple, it satisfies his WANT if he chooses to do so. Why is it so difficult for you to separate the two?
 
Yep, no actual benefit. Only negatives like increased blast and recoil resulting in gun being harder to shoot accurately under field conditions.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
What I find all but laughable, are the same guys who continually tout the Jack O'Conner, "He killed everything that walks with a .270", argument, are always the same one's who are so quick to argue if you do the same thing with a .300 you're gun isn't "needed", because it's .... "played out".

In order to support this type of nonsense, they feel compelled to argue it's far better to be under gunned, than be slightly over gunned for the same purpose. I'm sorry, but when you listen to this kind of nonsensical foolishness for over 4 decades it really gets old. Especially when you look at the FACT the .300 Win. Mag. is selling better now, than it did over half a century ago when it was introduced. As always in these type of arguments, facts take a back seat to opinion.
What is laughable is suggesting that using anything less than a magnum is somehow "undergunned". How would you be "undergunned" hunting game (not bears) in North America with a non-magnum cartridge? You may think it nonsense, but my statements have merit--how many shots on game in North America exceed 500 yards (for that matter exceed 350 yards)? I FULLY understand the desire to shoot a magnum--if that is your cartridge of choice, I think that is great and is the reason so many variations exist.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Yep, no actual benefit. Only negatives like increased blast and recoil resulting in gun being harder to shoot accurately under field conditions.


Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
What is laughable is suggesting that using anything less than a magnum is somehow "undergunned". How would you be "undergunned" hunting game (not bears) in North America with a non-magnum cartridge?


Here is yet another thing both of you are failing to understand. I'm fortunate to have dozens of rifles in a multitude of different calibers and scope combinations, to accommodate most any game at any range or condition. Many hunters aren't so fortunate. They can't afford, or simply choose not to do that. So they select one rifle in a big enough caliber to take anything they may have the opportunity to hunt. Now, or in the future. I've come to know several hunters that fit into this category over the years.

It's common sense to select a larger than might be required caliber in that case. Back to it being better to be slightly over gunned, than under gunned. What "benefit" did Jack O'Conner realize by shooting Elephant with a .270? Today attempting such a silly stunt would not only be dangerous and foolish. It would also be illegal. He did it because he chose to. A guy whacking a deer at 100 yards in the Wisconsin woods with his .300 is doing the exact same thing, with the exception of not putting himself in danger in the process. He is just on the other end of the spectrum. It goes both ways. You're only looking at the one side you want to see.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Here is yet another thing both of you are failing to understand. I'm fortunate to have dozens of rifles in a multitude of different calibers and scope combinations, to accommodate most any game at any range or condition. Many hunters aren't so fortunate. They can't afford, or simply choose not to do that. So they select one rifle in a big enough caliber to take anything they may have the opportunity to hunt. Now, or in the future. I've come to know several hunters that fit into this category over the years.

It's common sense to select a larger than might be required caliber in that case. Back to it being better to be slightly over gunned, than under gunned. What "benefit" did Jack O'Conner realize by shooting Elephant with a .270? Today attempting such a silly stunt would not only be dangerous and foolish. It would also be illegal. He did it because he chose to. A guy whacking a deer at 100 yards in the Wisconsin woods with his .300 is doing the exact same thing, with the exception of not putting himself in danger in the process. He is just on the other end of the spectrum. It goes both ways. You're only looking at the one side you want to see.
I do not think so. I have dozens of rifles myself and use many different cartridges which is the primary reason that I handload. However, we are not talking about hunting in Africa, we are talking about North America. With the exception of a bear, give me a relevant and valid scenario where one would be undergunned using a non-magnum to hunt game here. A guy whacking a deer in Wisconsin at 100 yards with anything from a .30-30 to a .30-06 is certainly not placing himself in danger nor is he undergunned. After all, what is the required caliber to hunt deer at 100 yards? .30-30, .35 Remington, .243, .257 Roberts, .260, 6.5x55, .270, .300 Savage, .308, .30-06? I see your point and desire, but to suggest that a magnum is what is needed to exercise "common sense to select a larger than might be required caliber in that case" is frankly hogwash--particularly if you are talking about hunting deer.
 
Hunting is expensive. It's really expensive if you travel the country doing it. And even more expensive when you decide to travel to go after very large game that a .30-06 is too light for. Someone with little money buying a more expensive gun that shoots more expensive ammo so you can save money in the unlikely event you spend many thousands on a hunting trip makes no sense.
 
I had to look back to find out where this whole thing derailed. Here it is:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: BigD1

Now you have my blood boiling for a Winchester Model 70 300 Win Mag after looking around that website. My buddy has one, and it is an absolute beast even with a muzzle brake.
My ears hurt just reading this post. Magnums are so yesterday.
cool.gif


I think it's pretty obvious from BigD1's post that he wanted a .300 Win Mag for the fun factor.

Obviously most people have no need for a .300 Win Mag rifle - nobody's arguing that point. But if you want one for the fun factor, go for it.

I have a buddy with entirely too much money who bought a rifle that shoots .50 BMG. He obviously has no need for that much power. But it puts a huge grin on the face of whoever shoots it. So if you've got the money, why not?
 
Either of you have yet to address why you cannot separate "need" from want? You don't because you can't. It all goes back to personal preference. People choose .300's because of their ballistic superiority. It all come down to wanting speed and performance. There is no question Magnums offer that. There is no question they sell because of it. This regardless of how much you try to waste time stressing they "don't need it".

No one has to establish a "need" for that, regardless of how much you want to press it. Be it a .300 Magnum, or a high powered car, motorcycle, boat, or anything else. People don't always choose based solely on their "needs", but rather their wants as well. Until you understand and more importantly accept that, this is a waste of time.

And none of it retracts the totally stupid statement that Magnums have been "played out".
 
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
I have a buddy with entirely too much money who bought a rifle that shoots .50 BMG. He obviously has no need for that much power. But it puts a huge grin on the face of whoever shoots it. So if you've got the money, why not?


Exactly. You get the point....... As do I. Sometimes you just cannot teach the obvious.

 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Either of you have yet to address why you cannot separate "need" from want? You don't because you can't. It all goes back to personal preference.
I addressed it quite plainly and said exactly that in more than one of my posts--if one likes or prefers a magnum more kudos to them. You have yet to give me a scenario where a non-magnum is not equal to the task--equally you do not because you cannot.
Originally Posted By: billt460
And none of it retracts the totally stupid statement that Magnums have been "played out".
I never said that, I said they are overused meaning they are not required in nearly every hunting situation in North America. So it would seem we are at an impasse and I agree to disagree.
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
I never said that, I said they are overused meaning they are not required in nearly every hunting situation in North America. So it would seem we are at an impasse and I agree to disagree.


You didn't, hatt did. I should have made that clearer. Regardless, both statements are stupid. And as far as being "overused", that's just as dumb. How do you "overuse" a rifle? Most would argue the exact opposite. Most Magnum rifles aren't shot anywhere near enough by their owners.

Originally Posted By: hatt
Magnums are so yesterday.


Originally Posted By: hatt
So yeah, mags are played out.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
I never said that, I said they are overused meaning they are not required in nearly every hunting situation in North America. So it would seem we are at an impasse and I agree to disagree.
You didn't, hatt did. I should have made that clearer. Regardless, both statements are stupid. And as far as being "overused", that's just as dumb. How do you "overuse" a rifle? Most would argue the exact opposite. Most Magnum rifles aren't shot anywhere near enough by their owners.
OK; then let me clarify as you are interpreting the word I selected in a way I did not intend. Most magnums are used in situations where they are not required meaning a non-magnum would work equally as well. Overused in this case means used when not needed (i.e. a non-magnum cartridge is fully equal to the task. If used because it is wanted or desired is as you say a personal preference--I get that AND is quite OK. As an example, I use a 6MM BR to hunt varmints whereas most people use a .223 or .22-250. I prefer to use a 6MM BR, but I know the .17, .221 Fireball, .223, .204, .22-250, or .220 Swift back in the gun safe would also be more than enough for the task.

However, you **seem** to be saying that only a magnum can be used to hunt larger game in North America. If you are NOT saying that, then OK, I am misunderstanding what you are saying and apologies for that, but if you are, then that is an equally dumb statement. I can remember when the Winchester magnums were all the rage in the 70s and suddenly all of the other cartridges were completely obsolete. The same thing happened in the early 2000s when the WSSM calibers were debuted; funny but I would be willing to bet that all of those obsolete non-magnum calibers have taken more game than the magnums combined.
 
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
I had to look back to find out where this whole thing derailed. Here it is:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: BigD1

Now you have my blood boiling for a Winchester Model 70 300 Win Mag after looking around that website. My buddy has one, and it is an absolute beast even with a muzzle brake.
My ears hurt just reading this post. Magnums are so yesterday.
cool.gif


I think it's pretty obvious from BigD1's post that he wanted a .300 Win Mag for the fun factor.

Obviously most people have no need for a .300 Win Mag rifle - nobody's arguing that point. But if you want one for the fun factor, go for it.

I have a buddy with entirely too much money who bought a rifle that shoots .50 BMG. He obviously has no need for that much power. But it puts a huge grin on the face of whoever shoots it. So if you've got the money, why not?
If you want a 300 mag for the fun factor go for it. No one said not to. It's likely not going to help your hunting. And likely will hurt it since they take more skill to handle.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Most magnums are used in situations where they are not required meaning a non-magnum would work equally as well........However, you **seem** to be saying that only a magnum can be used to hunt larger game in North America.


I never said that. They offer ballistic superiority over non Magnum cartridges. The shooter himself makes the determination if that superiority is "needed" or not. If they, (Magnums) are used successfully, regardless of the game or the range, then they are, "used as intended".

This is nothing more than a bunch of B.S. nonsense word games anyway. I've shot deer at 75 yards with a .300 Magnum. I've also shot them at close to 450 yards with the same. Both animals died cleanly. In both cases the gun did what it was supposed to do..... Kill game. The fact I could have killed them with a .25-06, or run them over with my truck, has no bearing.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Most magnums are used in situations where they are not required meaning a non-magnum would work equally as well........However, you **seem** to be saying that only a magnum can be used to hunt larger game in North America.
I never said that.
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
If you are NOT saying that, then OK, I am misunderstanding what you are saying and apologies for that...

11.gif
 
Holy smokes guys. I made a decision. I went to my normal gun shop and bought a new Ruger Hawkeye in wood furniture chambered in .308. It should be in tomorrow. I'm kind of curious about .300 win mag now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

billt460
New Contender Barrel
Replies
3
Views
924
billt460
billt460
Is The ".30 Super Carry" Yet Another Flop?
2
Replies
23
Views
8K
mr_boring
ammolab
NM Milsurps FUN Christmas shoot Dec 23rd Albuquerque
Replies
10
Views
598
ammolab
Astro14
Range Report - Springfield Echelon
Replies
14
Views
1K
burbguy82
billt460
AR-15 vs. Mini 14 Cost
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
burbguy82
Back
Top