What magnum do you suggest for a teen?

[Shane54]

There is a guy offering up a 300wby what do you think about that?

[Curly]

Ammo is expense.  Best to get into reloading.

[bearpaw]

To add a little confusion for the OP: 

I have never been a 270 fan but in recent years I have ended up with a 270. I was recently reviewing ballistics and loading data and decided to buy some 95 gr TTSX. I think they will perform like an extreme magnum rifle out of the 270, I'm going to find out! 

Charge Velocity Charge Velocity Load
RL 17 Powder (minimum 56.0grains, 3402 fps) (maximum 61.0 grains, 3709 fps)

Here's the philosophy I have been pursueing, due to the fact that the Barnes bullets do not lose weight on impact, you can shoot a much lighter bullet at much higher speeds which delivers an extreme shock to the target animal and gets more penetration than heavier bullets. So far this idea has been playing out as expected in various calibers. I'm really curious to see what the 95 TTSX does to an animal out of the 270.

There is a guy offering up a 300wby what do you think about that?

It's an excellent caliber, if the particular gun will shoot the 180 gr Remingtons from WalMart, you can buy then for about $40-$50ish. My gun has killed dozens of elk with those bullets from less than 100 yards to 700 yards. Guys from all over the world have killed all kinds of game with that gun and bullet combo, I loan it more than any other gun I own. But as mentioned, you need to make sure that gun will shoot that Remington cartridge well, otherwise if you don't handload you are stuck buying Wthby ammo for 100ish a box! 

[bearpaw]

There is a guy offering up a 300wby what do you think about that?

One more thing: You need to shoulder the gun and see how it feels. I love the fit of the wtby rifles, but some people don't like them, you need to see how you like them!

[h20hunter]

Dale...as a .270 shooter and handloader I'd love to hear some more at the end of the season(s) about any ongame performace with those little pills.

[bearpaw]

Dale...as a .270 shooter and handloader I'd love to hear some more at the end of the season(s) about any ongame performace with those little pills.

You bet, I am anxious to see the results myself. That bullet at that speed is going to flat smack an animal, open up fully, and go all the way through while retaining all it's weight. Best of all, recoil should be minimal so that any size child or little lady would be comfortable shooting it. 

[RadSav]

I expect to test in a similar way but with the 325WSM.  More as a result of Nosler's decision that seasonal runs for the 8mm Accubonds doesn't actually need to be available anywhere near or before hunting season   So I will be loading the .325 with the 160 grain TTSX at what I expect is near 3,300fps.  I do not expect to still have an elk tag after the early archery season, but if I do I feel confident in testing the light for caliber Barnes on a bull.  Most bear encounters are at 200 yards or less, however, at least one should fall from this combination this year.  If I get the load where I want it in the next week...perhaps two bear for a better view of what the combination can expect.


Sorry I have not written my view of energy that was expected last night.  Completed the write up last night and when I hit the "Post" option I lost it in an error message.  Was too tired to write it again.  Will try again this evening.

Site seems to be working much better today

[bearpaw]

I expect to test in a similar way but with the 325WSM.  More as a result of Nosler's decision that seasonal runs for the 8mm Accubonds doesn't actually need to be available anywhere near or before hunting season   So I will be loading the .325 with the 160 grain TTSX at what I expect is near 3,300fps.  I do not expect to still have an elk tag after the early archery season, but if I do I feel confident in testing the light for caliber Barnes on a bull.  Most bear encounters are at 200 yards or less, however, at least one should fall from this combination this year.  If I get the load where I want it in the next week...perhaps two bear for a better view of what the combination can expect.


Sorry I have not written my view of energy that was expected last night.  Completed the write up last night and when I hit the "Post" option I lost it in an error message.  Was too tired to write it again.  Will try again this evening.

Site seems to be working much better today

I think you'll like it. I probably told you about this bear, not a big bear but 340 Weatherby, 160 TTSX, 3400ish fps, dead in tracks. Less recoil than my 300 wtby with a 180 gr bullet.

[superdown]

The last deer i shot with my 325wsm was at 309 yds with winchester 220grn power points and it dropped in it tracks. I am really impressed with the round. I also think you will like it. 

[RadSav]

With archery as my primary hunting weapon I have not racked up too many animals with the 325 over the past few years.  However, of the animals I have taken with the 325 I have yet see a single step taken after impact.  In a 6# rifle it is a bit punishing at the range.  Though it appears to have zero recoil when shooting at game

The last deer i shot with my 325wsm was at 309 yds with winchester 220grn power points and it dropped in it tracks.

I need to modify my magazine before I can shoot the PowerPoints.  Recoil on the light rifle breaks the lead point right off of those.  I was surprised that they do shoot exceptionally well when I load them one at a time!  About 1.25" for cheap ammo is pretty good!

[superdown]

With archery as my primary hunting weapon I have not racked up too many animals with the 325 over the past few years.  However, of the animals I have taken with the 325 I have yet see a single step taken after impact.  In a 6# rifle it is a bit punishing at the range.  Though it appears to have zero recoil when shooting at game

The last deer i shot with my 325wsm was at 309 yds with winchester 220grn power points and it dropped in it tracks.

I need to modify my magazine before I can shoot the PowerPoints.  Recoil on the light rifle breaks the lead point right off of those.  I was surprised that they do shoot exceptionally well when I load them one at a time!  About 1.25" for cheap ammo is pretty good!

What rifle are you shooting? My A-bolt II weighs about 7.6lbs with scope,rings,bases and safari sling. the scope is VXIII 2.5-8x36.

[RadSav]

What rifle are you shooting? My A-bolt II weighs about 7.6lbs with scope,rings,bases and safari sling. the scope is VXIII 2.5-8x36.

I'm shooting a Kimber Montana I bought second hand from a member of H-W. 

While I absolutely love the Montana I have thought about switching to the Browning for one reason only.  The X-Bolt clip has an internal shoulder that stops the forward movement of all cartridges in the magazine during recoil.  That, in my opinion, is a huge advantage when shooting these light WSM's!  Recoil in the Montana box magazine was so bad I was getting the tips of the Accubonds splitting in half on the #2 round.  After polishing the box to action fit that was eliminated, but it remains a problem with lead tipped bullets.

[Jamieb]

My 300 RUM is fun to plink at distant rocks but its going to but put on the table the Lacey gun show next month.
I'm really thinning the herd and the only Deer/elk rifle I have that's not going to be on the table is my 7 rem mag.

[RadSav]

Hey rad.....whats your opinion on foot pounds of energy and how much that relates to an efficient kill on an animal ??
Maybe bearpaw could give his insite too
You guys have alot of experience using lighter than standerd bullets, prolly some longer shot stories??
Could help the op out

"I fear that between the scab and the growing popularity of accurate and long range cartridges such as the .25-35WCF, .30WCF the population of western game is in jeopardy."

"After review of my field notes I can unequivocally state that the 25-35 WCF is a high powered cartridge with no equal.  The speed and range to which it dispatched elk, sheep, bear and deer is beyond what this writer imagined possible."

"The .32 Winchester Special is undeniable as the best elk cartridge ever produced.  It's high power and extended range ability simply unmatched by comparable cartridges."

These are quotes from outdoor writers in the late 1800's and early 1900's.  While long range back then was considered 250 yards and bullet choices were limited the game they chased was and is the same today.  Yet, with improvements to gun powders and bullet designs ultimately improving these cartridges all are considered "inadequate" as big game cartridges today.  Has the efficiency of modern hunters degraded to a point we can no longer be trusted with such modest levels of performance?  Has knowledge and science proven those old writers as greatly misinformed and/or unethical in behavior?  Is it simply human nature to disregard the historical teaching of one generation in favor of our own version of superiority?  Did history and experience change immediately after Edward A. Matunas published his Optimal Game Weight Formula ?  Few ask the questions instead voicing opinion based often on the written views of journalist majors with little real world experience and self proclaimed internet experts.

 "It has been going on since the origin of hunting: the clumsy co-mingling of scientific terms and baseless speculation. We know that a bullet cannot knock an animal down, it would take a new branch of physics for that to be possible. Yet, the odd notion of 'knock-down' persists." - Randy Wakeman


I agree with Bearpaw that the Manunas foot lb minimums are probably close as a good general rule of thumb.  And while I applaud Mr. Manunas for attempting to formulate a printable standard I can't help but think he would have thrown his hands up in frustration with all of todays variations in bullet weight and construction.  It would almost be required that a new formula be created for every single design, method of construction, caliber and material composition for any resemblance of consistency to ring true as a foundation of scientific certainty.

I am not real keen on long range shooting of big game animals.  My experience leads me to believe that the volume of hunters that can routinely mortally wound animals at distances beyond 300 yards is very small.  Vastly smaller than one might think by reading forums on the internet.  Besides that fact I find very few bullets that kill quickly enough for my tastes at ranges beyond 400 yards.  I personally would rather see a young man shoot the 30-30 well at 200 yards than to see the same young man shoot an animal poorly at 500 yards with a magnum weiner measuring devise.

I like Nathan Foster's use of the term "Emphatic Killing".  I would say that is the way I like to see animals taken.  And while I like high BC bullets and have become quite the fan of Nosler's Accubond it is not much of an emphatic killer from most weapons beyond 300 yards.  As is the case of nearly all bonded core bullets at extended ranges.  Of course on heavily built animals like elk and large bear performance does extend the range at which these bonded core bullets and the Barnes bullets will perform.  However, they really can not be thought of as fast killers or emphatic killers at long range. 

In my opinion way too many hunters place too high a value on penetration and not nearly enough on quick killing.  A growing concern is the use of long range performing bullets on animals at typical ranges of under 200 yards.  Each equally poor at kill and recovery of the intended quarry.  It has been my experience that while you may have a string of great successes using both methods there usually comes a major fail.  One that could be avoided by simply concentrating on a common bullet performance at common hunting ranges.

With the right bullets I think even low velocity low energy cartridges can be considered emphatic killers.  The big plus to these low energy rounds is that nearly everyone shoots them well.  I have a number of large magnums and all are housed in extremely accurate guns.  However, when opening day arrives more often than not I am found in the woods with a 308Win.  Simply put I shoot it better day in and day out even if it is not housed in as accurate a gun as many of my Magnums.  While not emphatically I have personally killed bear and elk with the .308 at distances of 500 yards when I needed to.  In each of those cases I would have preferred to have my 7mm Rem or 300 with me in case I hit major bone.  Though neither of those magnums would have been any more emphatic a killer than the .308 at that distance since the .308 accuracy allowed proper bullet placement and avoidance of the major bones.  Due to the bullet selections I have made in my magnum rifles that same "Behind the Shoulder" placement would have likely produced less internal tissue damage than did the more appropriate for velocity construction of the .308 round.

"Realistic expectations are more valuable then most other things in life." – Kirby Allen

Duke Savora and I had a saying when the discussion of bow speed would arise.  It went something like "I'd rather kill them at 195fps than miss them at 400fps".  That same philosophy holds true with rifles as well.  Many of us like to believe we are just as good with a magnum rifle as we are with a standard rifle.  And for many experienced shooters that may very well be true.  However, when guiding I spent one heck of a lot of time blood trailing game shot with magnum rifles and very little trailing of animals shot with the 30-30, 243, 250 Savage, 257 Roberts, 308, 25-06 and 30-06.  And the longest successful shot I have ever personally witnessed on a bear was made using the .243.  So if history holds any amount of truth perhaps those turn of the century writers weren't completely wrong after all.


I apologies for this not being written at a usual level of style.  My first draft was much better but I seem to be fading too fast this evening to remember exactly how I wrote that lost first draft 

[KFhunter]

It's still a very good write up Rad.


I can't find any fault in it, obviously I must feel this way as I'm about the only one to tell the OP in this thread to go smaller rather than larger