Do you need a magnum rifle?

[BAC]

I was listening to the OP. Reread FAs post. The podcast was spot on. FA saidf he wasn't a hunter and wanted advice for tactical stuff. I addressed the podcast and M58's very good points in thefirst part. The second was devoted to the OP. Do you need a magnum in tactical applications? My less than expert opnion is that inside of 500 yards the answer is no. No pontificating, just answering a question to the best of my ability.
FQ13

He didn't say he was looking for advice for tactical stuff.  He said he was originally going to post in the rifle section of the forum, but IT'S for tactical stuff. which is why he placed it in the Downrange Cafe.  You did get the part about him not being a hunter correct, though.

I started to place this in the rifle forum, but its purpose is for "tactical" issues not hunting. Let me state from the start I'm not a hunter, so I am not taking a position. I just think this might be something hunters on this board may find interesting.

The podcast is very short (< 3 mins) so this is an easy listen:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/guntalk/Magnum_rifles_2.15.11.mp3

-FA

[MikeBjerum]

Why 180 grain? I have yet to met a deer or hog that I couldn't drop in one shot from a .270 Ruger M77 with 130 grain Remington soft points, and the total is probably around thirty.

.270 in 180 grain would be a heavy slow moving mass that would hit hard and be slow enough to expand early, and it would do so with less recoil that the 165 grain .30 calibers.  The biggest thing I see with the fast moving bullets is that on 100 yard and under shots they pass through black bear, deer, elk and moose too easily.  Pass through means tracking.  Whitetails aren't a big issue, but I have friends that spend a day and a half tracking a moose in the Boundary Waters a few years back.  It was a lung shot with a .270 that didn't expand.  It took three more shots to put it down (once they hit the heart it dropped).  When they dressed the moose out they could not find more than a very small channel where the bullet cut through, and the lack of size and damage told them the bullets weren't expanding.  I don't recall what brand, but these guys use quality stuff.

I haven't taken the the muzzleloader to the chrony, but those .250 grain bullets with one Hogdon pellet will drop a whitetail where it stands with no pass through.

That is my train of thought on this.

[fightingquaker13]

.270 in 180 grain would be a heavy slow moving mass that would hit hard and be slow enough to expand early, and it would do so with less recoil that the 165 grain .30 calibers.  The biggest thing I see with the fast moving bullets is that on 100 yard and under shots they pass through black bear, deer, elk and moose too easily.  Pass through means tracking.  Whitetails aren't a big issue, but I have friends that spend a day and a half tracking a moose in the Boundary Waters a few years back.  It was a lung shot with a .270 that didn't expand.  It took three more shots to put it down (once they hit the heart it dropped).  When they dressed the moose out they could not find more than a very small channel where the bullet cut through, and the lack of size and damage told them the bullets weren't expanding.  I don't recall what brand, but these guys use quality stuff.

I haven't taken the the muzzleloader to the chrony, but those .250 grain bullets with one Hogdon pellet will drop a whitetail where it stands with no pass through.

That is my train of thought on this.

I agree with your points. I would say this though. I tend to shoot at 100 yards and under (I just like the stalk). I also have a very nice , but reasonably priced B@L Elite 3000 (about $350 if you can find one on Gunbroker or Ebay, same specs as the Nikon, and better light gathering IMHO) on top of the gun and was lucky enough to get an M77 that will let me hit a coke can seated on my butt at 200 yards. Its not me or the ammo, its the rifle and the glass. Like all Rugers, some are great, some are good enough. I got lucky. It will take a whitetail with one shot. A moose? I'd be shopping for high end Barne's bullets or looking at an '06 or .300 Win Mag. I guess it's about horses for courses. At under 300 yards, the .270 with 130gr soft points will do the job. When I say under, I mean like fifty feet. One shot and dead as a hammer on an 80 pound Texas deer or a 300 pound Florida pig. But if I was shooting at a 500 pound elk or an 800 pound moose? I'd bring a bigger gun. If I'm shooting at you as FA implied (I might have misunderstood his post)? Well, I'm happy where I am. My. .270 will keep him busy

[kmitch200]

And as you shorten the range will a magnum actually add speed that does not allow even the best bullet to expand and do its job?

No.
Higher velocity will enhance bullet upset at the expense of penetration.

[philw]

I compleatly get what he is saying

over here there is NO animal that can not be shot with a 308,  from Rabbits to Buffs and everything in between

however it is not a need it is more of a want

OK. What do y'all think about his statement on the .243?

no issue there,  I am a big fan of the Pope Cartridge,   



just to clarify the Pop Gun

Until I became a regular member of the Australian Hunting Net (AHN), I never realised just how hated and loved the .243 Winchester is amongst the members of that forum. To me, it was always a reliable and readily available cartridge that did the job well on pretty well all Australian game outside the big bovines. The term "Pope Gun" has now become synonymous with the .243 Winchester thanks to the many heated and often humorous and lively discussions on AHN concerning this cartridge. Everybody knows what a Pope Gun is, but the most often asked question is "how did it become to be known as the Pope Gun?"

     Well it soon became obvious that people were using their .243's on all creatures great and small from Hares to Bears and it seemed no muff was too tough for the .243. Then it was revealed that Pope John Paul II himself was a regular user of the .243 as he loved to pop Pigeons across the vast courtyards of the Vatican and having survived an earlier assasination attempt, he liked the idea of a cartridge flat enough for the courtyard but with enough grunt to say hello to any non-believers. Seems the Pope was right, the .243 was all anyone needed in this life or the next (and he should know) so the .243 was canonised and is known as the Pope Gun.
     Of course the detractors believe none of this, and would have you believe that a Rabbit will often require several follow up shots if a kid's toy like the .243 is used! The subject is a constant source of ongoing amusement on AHN and no doubt provides a good deal of entertainment for both sides of the argument. But on many occasions, those new to shooting and asking for helpful advice find it hard to navigate past the well intentioned but not very helpful responses of the obviously one eyed supporters and detractors. And so, after many requests by members to give a realistic rundown on this cartridge in the AHN journal without the distraction of ongoing arguments....here it is. And just remember this isn't a religious document, just my experience with the Pope Gun.

more of the story at the link 

http://www.australianhunting.net/AHN_Journal/Articles/008%20Saint%20Or%20Sinner.htm

[Sponsor]

[billt]

What does need have to do with it ?

However it is not a need it is more of a want.

This sums it all up. No one "needs" to justify ownership of a Magnum rifle anymore than they have to justify the "need" to own a Z-06 Corvette, or a 540 H.P. Shelby Mustang. They are avaliable, they perform well, and they they are fun to shoot. Most cannot extract the range potential from them anymore than most drivers are capable of extracting the performance of many of these high performance cars. That in itself doesn't hamper sales or demand for them.

I own many Magnum rifles up to and including the .50 BMG, even though it is not considered a Magnum in spite of the fact it outperforms most all of them. It takes more discipline to shoot a magnum rifle well because there is more to deal with in terms of recoil and blast. I find that to be challenging when compared to shooting group after group with a .223. Simply put, Magnum rifles, again much like high performance automobiles, put some excitement back into life. Life is short enough without having to live it boring. Magnum rifles, fast cars, and hot women all help prevent that. Bill T. 

[philw]

This sums it all up. No one "needs" to justify ownership of a Magnum rifle any firearm

well I still need to every time I want to..

I own many Magnum rifles up to and including the .50 BMG,

and that is why I hate you 

[MikeBjerum]

Life is short enough without having to live it boring. . Bill T. 

There used to be a commercial on the hunting shows for an air carving tool based on a dentist drill that used the tag line:  "Life is too short to hunt with a boring gun."

[bodean87]

Never shot a .243 but according to NH game laws .223 is big enough for our 200 Lb white tails. And while I would not do it I know of several old time poachers that swore by 22LR.

BODEAN, you obviously made the same mistake I did and answered the title of the thread.
Listen to the podcast he linked. It's not about "Do people need magnum rifles", the point is" is it sensible to kill mosquito's with a cannon".

FQ, listen to the podcast before you start pontificating. He's talking about for hunting, Where did you wander off into all this tactical and gaming crap ?

If I want to use a magnum to kill a mosquito thats my choice. Do I need the magnum to do it? No, but I will use it. Life is too short to use what everyone thinks you should use to hunt when you want to use something else.

As far as I am concerned the only difference between hunting and the tactical is that your game is on two feet and can shoot back. I would go for the biggest thing I can handle and it would be a magnum.  If i ever had to use it, i would want the guy next to him saying "What the f*** was that. Im getting the hell outa here."

[tombogan03884]

Phil and Bill, You are not saying anything I did not say in my first post.
THEN I LISTENED TO Gresham's PODCAST.
It has nothing to do with ownership, it is about the PRACTICALITY of using hugely recoiling cannons, when most people shoot much better, and have a much better chance of a clean kill, with lighter recoiling calibers.
The answer to what the OP ACTUALLY is asking is NO, if all you have is Grand Dad's 30/30 You have all the rifle you need TO MAKE A CLEAN  ( humane ) KILL.  You do not need to beat yourself up with with a .50 BMG to drop Bambi.
Obviously there are exceptions for long range, or African game.