.223, 6mm, and 6.5 failures on big game

[IDVortex]

Nope, never said that.

Than what are you saying? You say 6mm sucks, and it keeps dog trackers busy.

I'm confused.

 

[mt100gr.]

Downright laughable, and that's being nice about it.

^^^Fact!

 

[HandgunHTR]

Nope. Fact. 6mms keep dog trackers in beer money.

Mechanical broadheads keep dog trackers in beer money.

As for your "facts" regarding the 6mm, here is a link that may help you: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

 

[gabenzeke]

Who let JVB on rokslide?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[juju]

Mechanical broadheads keep dog trackers in beer money.

As for your "facts" regarding the 6mm, here is a link that may help you: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

Mechanical broadheads for a red herring, eh. The Internet is weird.

While you were searching the Internet for definitions, instead of shot/recovery data, it's unfortunate you did not also look up 'joke' and 'funny' or at least 'pathetic' and 'attempt'.

 

[Bugger]

No. 6mm sucks, not .25. You can find data showing kills attempted and deer recovered for the various calibers. 6mm is the worst. LIterally. .25 works as well as anything assuming traditional shot placement and bullets.

Are you referring to the SC DNR study? If so, please read it again with your eyes open this time.

South Carolina Game Study

 

[eric1115]

Mechanical broadheads for a red herring, eh. The Internet is weird.

While you were searching the Internet for definitions, instead of shot/recovery data, it's unfortunate you did not also look up 'joke' and 'funny' or at least 'pathetic' and 'attempt'.

What actually is your position then, and do you have evidence you can show to support it? That's the whole point of this thread.

Some people say things like "I've had excellent results on game with the 108 ELDM," and others respond "just wait till you hit a shoulder knuckle or have to take a quartering shot or have a marginal hit and need more authority or or or." They always provide hypothetical situations but never provide evidence that bullet won't perform well.

You've made a bunch of assertions without evidence, then when pressed a bit you walked it back with deflection (the red herring comment) or by saying it was (partly?) a joke. So what is your position? And what's the evidence (doesn't have to be photo, but that helps a bunch) that supports your position?

 

[juju]

Are you referring to the SC DNR study? If so, please read it again with your eyes open this time.

South Carolina Game Study

Remove the scales of prejudice from your eyes and look at the data you linked. The biased article you referenced does cite some appropriate data. What part of the data, not the opinion of the author, contradicts the statement of mine you quoted?

Even then the biased analysis includes data showing 6mm is the literal worst and that .25 does work as well as anything.

 

[Bugger]

Remove the scales of prejudice from your eyes and look at the data you linked. The biased article you referenced does cite some appropriate data. What part of the data, not the opinion of the author, contradicts the statement of mine you quoted?

Even then the biased analysis includes data showing 6mm is the literal worst and that .25 does work as well as anything.

Maybe the fact that shot placement is not weighted in the efficacy of the different calibers. And also that it was done with only voluntary results from a good ol boy club in SC. Who’s gonna be shooting those 243’s? Mostly wives and kids… who are also more likely to come back and report bad results instead of driving past the check station to avoid a good ribbing by the other members.

 

[juju]

What actually is your position then, and do you have evidence you can show to support it? That's the whole point of this thread.

Some people say things like "I've had excellent results on game with the 108 ELDM," and others respond "just wait till you hit a shoulder knuckle or have to take a quartering shot or have a marginal hit and need more authority or or or." They always provide hypothetical situations but never provide evidence that bullet won't perform well.

You've made a bunch of assertions without evidence, then when pressed a bit you walked it back with deflection (the red herring comment) or by saying it was (partly?) a joke. So what is your position? And what's the evidence (doesn't have to be photo, but that helps a bunch) that supports your position?

The introduction of mechanical broadheads into a discussion on bullets is a logically fallacious ploy known as a red herring. It's not a joke.

If you're having problems with an ELDM it's probably just the usual Hornady inconsistency, but I haven't used it so I couldn't say for sure. That's just a guess based on experience with several other of Hornady's products.

My name isn't Google. If you're not going to take my word for it, then get to searching. I can't remember the last time anyone asked anyone for a source in a conversation outside of the internet; probably because it results in people avoiding you.

It'd be great if we stayed on topic.

 

[bmart2622]

Hes a troll, theres no reasoning with a troll, they ignore all logic that doesnt support their narrative. Hes the same clown claiming high BC bullets are garbage.

 

[atmat]

Lol classic trolling, @juju. Legitimately top notch. Bravo.

 

[WTFJohn]

Remove the scales of prejudice from your eyes and look at the data you linked. The biased article you referenced does cite some appropriate data. What part of the data, not the opinion of the author, contradicts the statement of mine you quoted?

Even then the biased analysis includes data showing 6mm is the literal worst and that .25 does work as well as anything.

That study is from 1999. I would say that there have been improvements in bullet design in the intervening 25 years.

I did pull the quotes below from the study.

Hunters are often very opinionated with respect to firearms and ammunition and similarly, there are many misconceptions related to the subject. It is still common for hunters to place more emphasis on their firearms and ammunition than on shot placement. The old saying "I use this magnum because you can hit them in the butt and blow their head off' is still common. Also apparent are skeptical remarks implying that smaller caliber center-fire firearms are less effective and result in deer running further and increased crippling rates.

Significant difference between bullet types. This study indicates that rapidly expanding bullets lead to deer running less often and less distance and when they run they leave better sign.

The final question that we addressed in this study dealt with differences in the performance of different bullet types. With the popularity of hand loading and super accurate shooting sportsmen often debate the merits of different bullet types. For the purposes of this study and because there are so many different bullet types, we placed bullets into 2 categories. Group 1 consisted of softer type bullets. In other words, bullets that are designed to rapidly expand on impact. Bullets falling into that group included ballistic tips, bronze points or any other soft point bullet that is of the appropriate weight for the caliber, for southeastern sized deer. For example, a 150 grain ballistic tip bullet in a .30 caliber rather than a 200 grain bullet in the same caliber. Group 2 bullets were just the opposite and included some of the premium types of ammunition loaded with controlled expansion bullets including Partitions, Grand Slams, Barnes X, and various types of solids. Also, bullets that are generally accepted as being too heavy for southeastern sized deer were placed in this group. For example, a 200 grain bullet in a .30 caliber weapon is generally considered too much for southeastern deer. Overall, Group I bullets could be characterized as being explosive on impact, where as Group 2 bullets were controlled in the manner they expand.


Firearms and ammunition - Bullet types

• Group 1 – Rapidly expanding bullets such as Ballistic Tips, bronze points, etc. Any soft point bullet of appropriate weight for a particular caliber for southeastern deer.
• Group 2 – Harder or more controlled expansion bullets such as Partitions, Grand Slams, Barnes X, etc. Any bullet that is heavier for a particular caliber than is generally recommended for southeastern deer.

Again, using the distance that deer traveled as a measure of performance we found that deer struck with the more explosive type bullets traveled a mean distance of about 27 yards while those struck with hard or heavy bullets traveled an average of approximately 43 yards. This represents a significant difference with deer struck by hard bullets traveling further. The second method of monitoring bullet performance dealt with the percentage of deer that were dropped in their tracks by the respective bullet groups. Again, explosive type bullets significantly outperformed the hard/heavy bullets with 58 percent knock downs compared to 40 percent. Finally, and more subjectively, we looked at the percentage of deer that ran and left poor sign. Again we found a significant difference between the two groups indicating that deer struck with more expanding type bullets left poor sign only about 12 percent of the time compared to over 21 percent for the hard/heavy group.

 

[juju]

Maybe the fact that shot placement is not weighted in the efficacy of the different calibers. And also that it was done with only voluntary results from a good ol boy club in SC. Who’s gonna be shooting those 243’s? Mostly wives and kids… who are also more likely to come back and report bad results instead of driving past the check station to avoid a good ribbing by the other members.

I don't disagree with your opinion, but that's all it is. I have some guesses as to why I think .243s are widely regarded as wound-ers rather than killers. Doesn't matter because I don't have data for it.

Your data says 6mm is the literal worst.

 

[juju]

That study is from 1999. I would say that there have been improvements in bullet design in the intervening 25 years.

I did pull the quotes below from the study.

You're pulling quotes from a biased article, not that study. If you want anything from that, just look at the numbers.

 

[WTFJohn]

You're pulling quotes from a biased article, not that study. If you want anything from that, just look at the numbers.

SCDNR - Wildlife Information

That damn SC DNR, being biased. Quotes are taken from the above link.

Charles Ruth did the study (and wrote the above quotes as well), and presented on it at the 22nd Annual Southeast Deer Study Group. Highlighted text in red may be relevant to your postings, and again is direct from Charles Ruth.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT GUNS, AMMO, AND MAN'S BEST FRIEND.
Charles R. Ruth, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Hayward Simmons,
Jr., Cedar Knoll Club, South Carolina
Harvest of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virainianus) through regulated hunting is the most
important tool available to deer resource managers. As wildlife professionals, we are often
looked upon as outlets for information concerning not only biological concepts, but also
hunting in general. The hunting community can pose unique questions and, in some
instances, hunting related information is not supported by data. The purpose of this study
was to attempt to answer questions most often posed by sportsmen. We attempted to
determine the importance of a trained dog in locating dead and wounded deer, the distance
deer traveled when shot, the effects of shot placement, and differences in the effectiveness of
various firearms and ammunition. Statistical significance was based on a probability level of
P = 0.05.
We determined that on this study site, the mean distance of shots taken at deer was 132 yards
and that there was a significant difference between shots that resulted in a deer (127 yds) and
those resulting in a miss (1 50 yds). Overall, it required 603 shots to harvest 493, deer
resulting in 8 1.7 percent shooting success. There was no difference in shooting success with
respect to antlered (8 1%) or antlerless deer (83%). Approximately 50 percent of the 493 deer
ran when shot and the mean distance traveled was 62 yards. Antlered and antlerless deer
traveled the same distances. Of the 22 1 deer that ran when shot and were located dead, 61
left no discernable sign in the vicinity of the shot. An additional 19 deer were wounded by
the shot. Using a trained dog expedited the process of recovering these 240 deer. Deer were
assigned to 3 groups depending on how difficult they were to recover. There were
significant differences in the distances deer ran depending on whether they would be
recovered; (a) easily (46 yds), (b) with some difficulty (85 yds), or (c) not recovered without
the aid of a dog (147 yds). Overall, a trained dog increased the harvest approximately 20
percent at this site because it almost totally eliminated unrecovered dead deer and crippling
loss. We determined that deer shot in the shoulder ran significantly shorted distances (3 yds)
than those shot in the heart (39 yds), lungs (50 yds), and abdomen (69 yds). There were no
significant differences in the efficiency of weapons when grouped by caliber. However, deer
ran significantly less frequently (42%), less distance (27 yds) and left sign more often (88%)
when struck with soft type bullets than when struck with hard style bullets (60'31, 43 yds, and
81 %). Management implications will be discussed.

Quote taken from this copy of the proceedings of the conference.

 

[fwafwow]

 

[juju]

@WTFJohn what are the numbers that prove 6mm isn't the literal worst?

 

[atmat]

but I haven't used it so I couldn't say for sure. That's just a guess

Doesn't matter because I don't have data for it..

Lol classic.

 

[fwafwow]

View attachment 860869

And because I know it's coming - 0.014" vs 0.01378":