
Originally Posted by
Arleigh
your opinions collectively display quite a collection of expirence.
To pick one calibur,one size fits all, is funny to hear from this group of gun collectors. On the other hand ,, if you can't afoard much, and it is strictly subsistance, I can understand having only 1 or 2 guns.
It seems though ,that most hunt for pleasure, a matter of choice and being able to afoard modern means of feeding the family. One whom can afoard to make the move to Alaska expecting to pay for float planes and trips, the price of the gun is a very small part of the equasion.
Who hunts big game regularly, and owns just one Gun? out of choice, not necessity(not economicly challanged). Supprize me .
To me what it boils down to is doing the best with what you have making the cercumstances work with you for the hunt.
Afraid of the game , or it is evasive,long range accuricy is the greatest concern to me.most any 30 calibur and up. Unafraid of the game ,close range brush gun is my prefirred choice. Never ever with out a side arm.44 mag. Should I venture there in Alaska, I would add to my collection a 30.06, 7mm, and a 45/70 just for because. verity is the spice of life. I have not needed them in california thus far.
To me The sport hunt is a test. of ones skill of the hunt, to each man the limits of his fear.
Subsistance hunting, is of necessity not convienience or entertainment.
A man chooses in the sport hunt,what the challange is, Hunting is not wise, it is a choice, a challange. so the question is the level of challange one is willing to expirence. would you, can you, did you, why, why not ?
So can one take a griz with a 243, what are you willing to risk? can you take an elk with a 223, what are you willing to risk ?
a quick bad shot with a 45/70 and an irrisponsible attitude about chasing down the wounded game hardly compares to the studdied patient perfectly placed shot of a significantly smaller calibur.
Which gun is righ,might be better ballanced by, what kind of hunter are you ?