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

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

Again, from Charles Ruth, who authored the study and presented on it:

There were no significant differences in the efficiency of weapons when grouped by caliber.

It doesn't seem you actually want to have a conversation around that study, you want to cherry pick things to support your position rather than taking the study as a whole and learning what the overall takeaways were. Good luck with your trolling going forward; I'm out.
 
Again, from Charles Ruth, who authored the study and presented on it:



It doesn't seem you actually want to have a conversation around that study, you want to cherry pick things to support your position rather than taking the study as a whole and learning what the overall takeaways were. Good luck with your trolling going forward; I'm out.
So, you have no data to support your position and couldn't find any. Instead you fallaciously appealed to authority.Then when that didn't work you went straight to the ad hominem.

Good grief.
 
So, you have no data to support your position and couldn't find any. Instead you fallaciously appealed to authority.Then when that didn't work you went straight to the ad hominem.

Good grief.
My data comes from watching my buddy's (landowner) son kill 1000+ inches of mule deer bucks with his Tikka 243 launching 95gr Nosler ballistic tips. These are a small sample......

You can't hide the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, can't shoot, can't choose proper bullets, etc. In your case your ignorance and shooting ability are to blame, not the 6mm/243 lame argument.

RYgm2Ju.jpgLaCjtQB.jpgJRDU8Rr.jpg0I3rSPf.jpg
 
Even then the biased analysis includes data showing 6mm is the literal worst and that .25 does work as well as anything.

Please remember that this is a "bullet failures" thread. If you want to say 257s are better than 243s, there are other places to do that (at the bottom of the page there's a 'Similiar Threads" section that has a few).

If you've got a (detailed) story or a picture of a 6mm failure, please share it and explain why you think a .25 would have done better.
 
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.

No, I've actually killed several animals with 108 ELDM's from 80-600+ and would take that terminal performance over most of the conventional and for sure monos/hard bonded bullets out of .308, 7mm-08, etc that I've seen and done, even if the 6mm wasn't easier to shoot well. No complaints or problems.

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.

The whole reason this thread was started was to try to compile evidence that supports the argument that poor terminal performance can be expected from small diameter projectiles if such evidence exists.

It'd be great if we stayed on topic.

My bad, sorry for getting us off topic by asking for examples of bullet failure in the .223, 6mm, and 6.5 failures on big game thread. Thank you for bringing us back on topic to tracking dogs, beer money, and sweeping general statements.
 
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'.

It's not a red herring. It is an example of making a wildly inaccurate statement and stating it as a fact. Similar to what you did.

As for finding statistically relevant data regarding your "fact" that 6mm bullets are "the worst" there is no readily available information to be had, other than the SC study. If you have it available, please post a link so that we can all educate ourselves.
 
It's not a red herring. It is an example of making a wildly inaccurate statement and stating it as a fact. Similar to what you did.

As for finding statistically relevant data regarding your "fact" that 6mm bullets are "the worst" there is no readily available information to be had, other than the SC study. If you have it available, please post a link so that we can all educate ourselves.
Unless I am missing something, the SC study doesn't support the claim that 6mm bullets are the worst. Here's a quote from the results, which included .243/6mm bullets:

"In order to gain some objective measure of how these calibers performed on deer, we looked at the distance deer traveled. This included all animals regardless of whether they died in their tracks or ran. We found no significant difference in the performance of these caliber groups when comparing how deer reacted. Mean distances deer traveled varied between 14 and 40 yards but there was no apparent relationship with increasing or decreasing caliber size or the inherent differences in velocity or energy that is related to the different caliber groups."

Link to study (on SCDNR website):

 
Back
Top