Then the answer is cut and dry.
MC,
I hope the AR guys don't read that comment lol. This thread will go off topic and be closed in short order. And FYI, I do have a SA M1A. It's topped with a nice VXII and Harris Bipod (Not on top though. Kinda pointless to have a bipod on top of your gun). Plenty of firepower for anything round these parts. But shooting animals at 200, 300, or even 400 yards isn't fun or a challenge. I'm more of an "up close and personal" kinda hunter. In my last 6 years of hunting, I haven't shot an animal past 47 yards. Even with my rifle(s) (2 deer in 6 years not taken by archery).
My point about being a B&S fan is not to downplay high power S&F cartridges. It's merely to state that both have their "fans and fanatics" for good reasons. S&F has the advantage of not having high "hold over" on longer shots. And given a well placed broadside shot at those longer distances with the proper bullet, S&F= Dead critter. B&S doesn't have that advantage. But it has an already large wound channel (due to initial bullet diameter) and "great penetration from most any angle" advantage. And within the B&S's range (again with proper bullets) size, thickness, of animal doesn't really matter. Please don't bring up a texas heart shot on a rhino, or elephant. Those aren't realistic hunting scenarios.
B&S "typically" means you have to get much closer to your game. S&F (DRASTICALLY) tipped the "advantage" scale to the hunter. I prefer a more even playing field.
"Me against Mother Nature" doesn't take place at 300-400 yards.
I do have a Hakim I could rig for night hunting, 11 rounds of 8x57 Mauser fast as I can pull the trigger. Never shot anything, but paper with it,
AKElroy,
There is no one that can legitimately argue that a 100 gr. psp .243 at ~4000 fps will penetrate into an animal farther than a 405 gr. hardcast at ~1400 fps will. Penetrate enough? Sure. But farther? No. And a 405 gr hardcast will not create the hydrostatic shock/pressure wave that the 100 gr. 243 will. They are two different "screwdrivers".
Don't just watch Hickok45, bite the bullet and go get a "poor mans" big bore. You won't regret it. But don't get rid of that 30-30. It's perfect for your son.
I completely agree. And you have a great round in the 30-30. If I didn't have my 45-70, I would probably own a 30-30. But yes, there is a BIG difference in hitting a gong with a .243 (ting...) and a 405 hardcast (CLANG!!!!!)
In truth we need a lot less gun than we think. Russian hunters in Siberia, to my surprise carry SKS rifles in 7.62x39 and single shot shotguns. I would have guessed Mosins. They have the same brown bears as Alaska and they are plentiful. The Eskimos seem to favor AR rifles in .223 and shoot Brown and Polar bears with them as well as .243. In Africa the poachers kill a lot of elephants with AK-47s. SO shoot what you want. Just don't tell me your pistol cartridge the best cuse it ain't. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
I've shot plenty of game with both ranging from a 55 gr. SP running over 3800 fps MV out of a 220 Swift to a 260 gr. SWC running 930 fps MV out of a .44 Special revolver, and have seen both work very effectively. But I've also seen things first hand go wrong with small and fast which adversely affects penetration. So, the older I get, the less I feel a need for fast and light.This is a real question: I'm not trying to start a fight.
Why do the big and slow guys think theirs is better than small and fast?
And, apart from trajectory, why do the S&F guys think theirs is better than the B&S?
If you get more lbs of energy on an animal with the S&F why would you want something big and slow.
Please educate me...
Greg
peacebutready, it's not the 7.62x39 itself that's deadly on elephants. Think "full auto". That was first reported from Uganda, back in the era of Idi Amin. Mid-1970s.