Thread: 270 in a 20in barrel or 308 in 18in barrel

Originally Posted by Shearer

Who told you that?????

It is well known in the Safari Park industry, with which I am involved. As far back as we want to go with the Fiordland herd, the bulls are not recorded as moving far after being shot. Phillip Holden remarked on it

Originally Posted by Shearer

Who told you that?????

Philip Holden went on record saying they were easier to kill...which if you look at it logically is correct....very similar resistance for a projectile to GET INTO vitals and those vitals are a good 20% bigger....

A big bull Elk is twice the animal a Red stag is, that's why Americans prefer 300 and 338 magnums to hunt them. Not 243s like Holden used.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

For hunting in Europe - where our Red deer come from, the 'Minimum' impact energy is 2000 joules impact energy. This is 1475 foot pounds

but we dont wear twead coats......and do you seriously believe the rules that say crap like a .243w in minimum for roe deer are the norm????
if your thinking that aiming for the biggest vital bit isnt a good idea at any given range...well you must be some kind on demigod with a heat seeking missile if you are smacking deer in the atlas joint with a .44 magnum using subsonic loads at 500 yards(yes I know your not dumb enough to attempt that)

and NO I am not offering to buy your .44 magnum...I was pointing out that you are saying these guys are unethical because they using less than 1500ftlbs of energy when you yourself are doing the same thing..pot kettle black...glasshouses n stones.

Im 50 years old...for most of my lifetime,the hilar shot has been considered ideal on red deer..... for me if I believe the range is a tad on long side...which for me is 300-350 yards,I will place my X hair high on shoulder to allow my projectile to drop that 6-8" into my desired point of impact.taking out one if not both shoulders and the vitals,slightly too far back,good lung hit in the crease,slightly too far forward a good hillar shot or even neck... slightly high,possible spine and top of lungs,slightly low,heart.... much too low is leg..... quickly reload and be prepared to shoot again ALWAYS....

Originally Posted by Shearer

A big bull Elk is twice the animal a Red stag is, that's why Americans prefer 300 and 338 magnums to hunt them. Not 243s like Holden used.

correct,but its vitals are still bigger...and Holden ,being a culler was more likely to be shooting mostly hinds,so he was correct.....and somehow I dont think the man was a barrel stretcher as such.... one thing is for sure ,he could shoot.
there are 3-4 hunter/culler authors who used the .243 more of less exclusively and they were all fans off 100grn loads and shoulder shooting..... they killed far more animals than I will likely ever see,so I fail to see reason to doubt thier experience.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I know what I'll call you and stagstalker now, 'Dedicated followers of fashion'. https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rc...KBHSFLow_lYUnB But on a serious note, for every story of successful long range 308, 270, 243, 7mo8 there are plenty of 'It looked like a hit but we searched for ages and couldnt find blood so it must have been a miss' stories. @stug put up a link to a South African ( not a good day to raise this I concede) safari park operator discussing ethical shooting. His conclusion was that the Heart was the best aiming point because the animal was always secured and could only run a certain distance before expiring

That's the funnyest shit I've read all week!

Far out is this still going....Here is me thinking .308 had it won hands down on the first page

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I'm running some test loads on a Sako 308 for a mate, my 270 makes me store it in the other safe

I can miss just as well with both at 50 yards......
and ...shock horror..there is even a EBRG sitting in my cabinet under secure lock n key...man you should hear the arguments that go on in there during the wee small hours!!

Man there is some rubbish on this thread. You will be very happy with your 308 mate. If you want to shoot a bit further, lets say for argument sake 500m..., 168eldm/amax/tmk with a good dose of 2208 will see you right

Originally Posted by superdiver

Man there is some rubbish on this thread. You will be very happy with your 308 mate. If you want to shoot a bit further, lets say for argument sake 500m..., 168eldm/amax/tmk with a good dose of 2208 will see you right

But here you are ....... oops,so am I.....

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

But here you are ....... oops,so am I.....

I was so triggered I was baited into posting lol

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

@stug put up a link to a South African ( not a good day to raise this I concede) safari park operator discussing ethical shooting. His conclusion was that the Heart was the best aiming point because the animal was always secured and could only run a certain distance before expiring

Interesting conclusion from the Saffa. Personally, of all the common aim points, a heart shot is about my least favoured as there’s a fair chance the animal will run a considerable distance despite being dead on it’s feet, and might be difficult to find (or straight out lost). You don’t have that problem if you hit them in the scapula or hilar zone

But probably not too much of an issue on the Highveld when you have expert trackers at your disposal, and less cover to lose animals in relative to what we have in parts of our country

Originally Posted by Shearer

A big bull Elk is twice the animal a Red stag is, that's why Americans prefer 300 and 338 magnums to hunt them. Not 243s like Holden used.

@Shearer I have been thinking about why Elk are easier to knock over than Reds. When I cut up an Elk bull it is easy cutting not like a Red stag that is gristle and tough muscle. A slaughter and cooking trial was done in ChCh with female Elk / Waps ages from 1yr to 9yrs. The 9yr cow elk was as tender as the 1yr. Elk are easier to penetrate than Reds and have less connective tissue, it seems that they are more susceptible to shock.

Originally Posted by 7.62

Interesting conclusion from the Saffa. Personally, of all the common aim points, a heart shot is about my least favoured as there’s a fair chance the animal will run a considerable distance despite being dead on it’s feet, and might be difficult to find (or straight out lost). You don’t have that problem if you hit them in the scapula or hilar zone

But probably not too much of an issue on the Highveld when you have expert trackers at your disposal, and less cover to lose animals in relative to what we have in parts of our country

I agree with you on hits to Hilar. I have seen these 'Centre shoulder, High shoulder' shots go wrong. Animals hit in the top of the lungs or top of the shoulder broken. I was surprised by the Saffa's conclusion until I thought about it. A shot in the heart is a dead animal that will always die humanely within 50 - 80 metres.