# Take enough gun!



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

I *used *to believe O'Conner until I read the reprint of a 1950' article he wrote in which he called 30-06 too small for deer and the poor old 30-30 was simply too small to kill them. The reason? He had to take 6 shots at one with an 06....... while it was running away before it dropped. But a 270 was better because he killed a deer standing broadside with one shot. I threw the rag in the trash. He had an agenda.
By the way, the 06 was using the plain ole' Hornady 180 gr spire point Interlock bullet. Nothing "premium" about it.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

BR549 said:


> I *used *to believe O'Conner until I read the reprint of a 1950' article he wrote in which he called 30-06 too small for deer and the poor old 30-30 was simply too small to kill them. The reason? He had to take 6 shots at one with an 06....... while it was running away before it dropped. But a 270 was better because he killed a deer standing broadside with one shot. I threw the rag in the trash. He had an agenda.
> By the way, the 06 was using the plain ole' Hornady 180 gr spire point Interlock bullet. Nothing "premium" about it.


Somewhat ironic that you discount O'connors opinion based on his relating an anecdotal experience yet are perfectly willing to deep six the .270 as being inadequate based on a similar anecdotal experience. As has been pointed out, the problem in bullet performance relayed in your original story had little to do with the caliber and a great deal to do with the construction of the particular bullet involved and the fact that the moose was shot at a range of 8 yards.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

BR549 said:


> I He had an agenda.
> By the way, the 06 was using the plain ole' Hornady 180 gr spire point Interlock bullet. Nothing "premium" about it.



Actually the interlock is a premium bullet...by design it is not just a normal cup and core bullet. It's been around for a long time and works very well and priced right. It would not be my first, or even second choice for moose in any caliber however. I have used it on deer with great success...when I want to reload for good value and performance, I use interlocks. It may not be a super premium bullet with 100% weight retention, but it is a very good bullet.


----------



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Somewhat ironic that you discount O'connors opinion based on his relating an anecdotal experience yet are perfectly willing to deep six the .270 as being inadequate based on a similar anecdotal experience. As has been pointed out, the problem in bullet performance relayed in your original story had little to do with the caliber and a great deal to do with the construction of the particular bullet involved and the fact that the moose was shot at a range of 8 yards.


Basic reader comprehension will hopefully prevail. No, I'm not basing experience similar to O'Connor. O'Conner based his on the fact that he shot at a running deer and missed the kill zone. I based mine on broadside close range kill zone shots, 4 guides who do this for a living that have a 98% success rate and 38 clients a year. I'll take the word of the fellas who shot the moose and 4 guides who guide 37 kills a year. So you simply have to ways to go with the 270 on moose, take it, or leave it. If you take it, good luck with that.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

BR549 said:


> Basic reader comprehension will hopefully prevail.


No, hopefully a basic understanding of bullet construction and performance will prevail instead of a blanket condemnation of a perfectly good caliber based on third hand anecdotal experiences.


----------

