Considering downsizing to 6 cm from 7 PRC

[Jake Larsen]

Disagree
Who brought up heat energy as part of the equation.

Look, if you are going to refute me, show me data

Show the data or study that concludes “energy” of any kind kills. Every bit of evidence I’ve seen shows that tissue damage kills. My 475 grain arrow @ a whopping 285 fps is absolutely lethal on bull elk. Damage vital tissue = death within seconds.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Thank you very much for this.

I am seeing several deer shot in the 4-6 ribs traveling 100 + yards. Is this similar to what you have seen personally with larger calibers shooting similar bullets?

Comparing my notes of 6.5 PRC of animals shot in simlar places they seem to travel around 40 yards. Ive noticed alert animals seem to make it further. What are your thoughts?

In what I’ve personally seen on very large bodied northern whitetails, the mature does that I like to kill have always travelled the furthest when hit. This is the case from .338 down to what I also saw this year with .224.

If you look at the photos most of the hits were in the heart and lungs. Some animals drop dead from these hits and some do not. Animal size doesn’t have anything to do with it in what I’ve seen in general. More the animals will to survive or make it to cover. For whatever reason, those doe up north like to move after being shot.

I’m a heart/lungs shooter in general but there are certain shot situations where I don’t want an animal to go anywhere. A higher placed shot works wonders for this in most cases, allowing for paralysis and then a follow up killing shot when needed. This was the case on the bull a couple weeks ago but the bullet fragmentation did enough damage to lungs and heart that I could see him dying through the scope and bare eyes after, not requiring a grounded neck, head, or vitals shot.

 

[Article 4]

Show the data or study that concludes “energy” of any kind kills. Every bit of evidence I’ve seen shows that tissue damage kills. My 475 grain arrow @ a whopping 285 fps is absolutely lethal on bull elk. Damage vital tissue = death within seconds.

I’ve shown it in multiple threads. go look it up.

 

[Jake Larsen]

So that means the data I showed is false?

Show me the FBI data - happy to read it

If you cherry pick good data, your conclusions can still be wrong…

Nothing wrong with the data. Something wrong with the data analysis IMO.

FBI data - as you’ve told me and others to do, you go find and read it for yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[satchamo]

@satchamo did you check your zero when you got home? Still waiting to hear an update. I appreciate the thread.

Yup she was spot on… I have checked my ballistics 1000 times since and I was dialed 4.3 on that initial shot and that’s what jt should have been.

I’m chalking it up to nerves and just pooor execution tho I do remember where those crosshairs were when the shoot broke… but hey I’m not perfect.

 

[Cactus kid]

In what I’ve personally seen on very large bodied northern whitetails, the mature does that I like to kill have always travelled the furthest when hit. This is the case from .338 down to what I also saw this year with .224.

If you look at the photos most of the hits were in the heart and lungs. Some animals drop dead from these hits and some do not. Animal size doesn’t have anything to do with it in what I’ve seen in general. More the animals will to survive or make it to cover. For whatever reason, those doe up north like to move after being shot.

I’m a heart/lungs shooter in general but there are certain shot situations where I don’t want an animal to go anywhere. A higher placed shot works wonders for this in most cases, allowing for paralysis and then a follow up killing shot when needed. This was the case on the bull a couple weeks ago but the bullet fragmentation did enough damage to lungs and heart that I could see him dying through the scope and bare eyes after, not requiring a grounded neck, head, or vitals shot.

Funny you say that, Ive noticed does travel further than bucks. And these are little 100lb texas does. Very reassuring that you are seeing similar killing performance in distance traveled from the smaller calibers. This was kinda my last reservation before going down the small caliber rabbit hole next season.

 

[The Guide]

FBI data - as you’ve told me and others to do, you go find and read it for yourself.

I'm literally laughing out loud!

Jay

 

[Article 4]

If you cherry pick good data, your conclusions can still be wrong…

Nothing wrong with the data. Something wrong with the data analysis IMO.

FBI data - as you’ve told me and others to do, you go find and read it for yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In this case it’s not just because you disagree with it.

Cheers

 

[Jake Larsen]

In this case it’s not just because you disagree with it.

Cheers

Dude if you’re going to come on here and start appealing to “the data” you better have at least done due diligence and read it all. If you come to a different conclusion than some of us, then cool. In my opinion, the ENTIRE body of data points to tissue damage as the primary driver of lethality. And all my personal experience lines up with that. I’ve killed a ton of stuff with a broadhead. That would be inexplicable based on your read of “the data”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Article 4]

Dude if you’re going to come on here and start appealing to “the data” you better have at least done due diligence and read it all. If you come to a different conclusion than some of us, then cool. In my opinion, the ENTIRE body of data points to tissue damage as the primary driver of lethality. And all my personal experience lines up with that. I’ve killed a ton of stuff with a broadhead. That would be inexplicable based on your read of “the data”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude, lol.

We aren’t talking about broadheads. wrong thread.

All good with different opinions. you come in at the last minute with the wrong thoughts and it’s someone else’s fault. typical

 

[Jake Larsen]

Dude, lol.

We aren’t talking about broadheads. wrong thread.

All good with different opinions. you come in at the last minute with the wrong thoughts and it’s someone else’s fault. typical

Allright “Sir”…better?

A broadhead kill is perfectly applicable to bring up in this context. How does the animal die if there’s very little “energy” involved? They kill the same way every projectile kills. Tissue damage

“Come in at the last minute?” I’ve been reading and commenting on these threads from the very beginning.

“Wrong thoughts” as in, unless everyone agrees with you, they’re engaging in “wrong think?” Nice.

You’re not the only one who knows how to read a study and develop an informed opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Funny you say that, Ive noticed does travel further than bucks. And these are little 100lb texas does. Very reassuring that you are seeing similar killing performance in distance traveled from the smaller calibers. This was kinda my last reservation before going down the small caliber rabbit hole next season.

Man believe me... Despite reading all of the threads here, kill results, great evidence for the .224s I was still hesitant. I sent off several messages to folks up to just a couple weeks before I took off for Alaska in September with my 22 Creedmoor. Spent time on the phone with experienced killers asking "am I really good to go here?" haha.

It's just been engrained in our heads all of our lives that "bigger is required" when talking big game animals. It was a bit freeing this year to see what happens in real life.

 

[Article 4]

Allright “Sir”…better?

A broadhead kill is perfectly applicable to bring up in this context. How does the animal die if there’s very little “energy” involved?

“Come in at the last minute?” I’ve been reading and commenting on these threads from the very beginning.

“Wrong thoughts” as in, unless everyone agrees with you, they’re engaging in “wrong think?” Nice.

You’re not the only one who knows how to read a study and develop an informed opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allright “Sir”…better?

A broadhead kill is perfectly applicable to bring up in this context. How does the animal die if there’s very little “energy” involved?

“Come in at the last minute?” I’ve been reading and commenting on these threads from the very beginning.

“Wrong thoughts” as in, unless everyone agrees with you, they’re engaging in “wrong think?” Nice.

You’re not the only one who knows how to read a study and develop an informed opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No point in continuing. Cheers.

 

[Jake Larsen]

No point in continuing. Cheers.

I would genuinely like to see your thoughts after reading the FBI studies. They were eye opening for me. You clearly put a lot of weight in studies, and those are some of, if not the best on the topic.

You continue to appeal to certain studies/bodies of evidence while entirely ignoring others. In that context, it’s hard to take your appeal to “the data” seriously


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Article 4]

I would genuinely like to see your thoughts after reading the FBI studies. They were eye opening for me. You clearly put a lot of weight in studies, and those are some of, if not the best on the topic.

You continue to appeal to certain studies/bodies of evidence while entirely ignoring others. In that context, it’s hard to take your appeal to “the data” seriously


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

send me a link.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I have a tikka I rebarreled with a 7 PRC. After finishing an AZ elk hunt this week and having a rodeo due to not being able to spot my hits for shit from a non prone position, I’ve decided I need to downsize my caliber.

So I’m considering rebarreling to a 6cm. But have a couple questions from guys who have done this:

- will be running suppressor so want barrel to be 18 or 20 max - what velocities could I expect shooting the 108 match ammo?

- what’s the max terminal range running a shorter barrel (18-20)? I’d really like to be able to stretch to 800 on elk- is this round capable of this?

Yes.. But switch to a 115 Dtac NR and practice, practice, practice!

 

[mtnbound]

Man you are reaching for anything to discredit what is a fact.

Energy transference in rifle bullet is an undeniable fact. Period.

Gel is well recognized as the best like comparator without using actual animals or humans as guinea pigs.

The penetration of a rifle bullet into a block of ballistic gelatin is experimentally and computationally studied for enhancing our understanding of the damage caused to human/animal soft tissues. The gelatin is modeled as an isotropic and homogeneous elastic-plastic linearly strain-hardening material that obeys a polynomial equation of state. Effects of numerical uncertainties on penetration characteristics are found by repeating simulations with minute variations in the impact speed and the angle of attack. The temporary cavity formed in the gelatin and seen in pictures taken by two high speed cameras is found to compare well with the computed one. The computed time histories of the hydrostatic pressure at points situated 60 mm above the line of impact are found to have "two peaks", one due to the bullet impact

So tell me how your opinion trumps the science and explain how they aren’t comparable?

How do you know they weren’t taken at the same point in time?

Explain to me how one is temporary and the other isn’t?

Impact velocities and bullet size between a 6 and 7mm would rarely be the same. why would someone want them to be in the field? defeats the purpose of having bigger bullets moving just as fast. Which is the WHOLE-point!!

Maybe I misunderstood your first post. I agree that ballistic gel is the standard for testing. I did not say anything about the gel itself not being comparable. What is incomparable is the pictures of the bullets in the gel and the provided data.

Only one picture shows the “momentary expansion” or “temporary wound cavity,” which occurs just after the bullet penetrates. The other picture only shows the “permanent wound cavity.” This is why I said the pictures are of different times.

A "permanent cavity" refers to the actual tissue destruction left behind by the bullet as it passes through the tissue, creating a lasting hole. A "temporary cavity" is the temporary and much larger area of tissue displaced and stretched around the bullet's path due to the shockwave of impact, which quickly recoils back to its original position, causing minimal permanent damage; essentially, the "permanent wound cavity" is the actual wound track, while the temporary wound cavity is the "momentary expansion" of tissue around it. Again, this is why I said the pictures are of different times.

To have comparable wounding capabilities between different or matching calibers (which you are showing), you must match impact velocities and use matching bullet types, (ELMD to ELDM, LRX to LRX, etc.) along with several other factors. Mismatching of key control points makes the data incomparable.

I am not arguing about big or small calibers; I'm not trying to disprove anything you said; I am just pointing out that to have comparable results, you must control the variables to get any usable factual data.

 

[Runwilderness]

The article is about how ballistic gel is the best "real life" comparator to mammalian bodies. It was proposed that using gel was not a good comparator. This shows it is the best one we have.

Can you copy those sections of the results or conclusion sections that support these statements and paste them here?

I’m not arguing that gel isn’t a good medium. I am questioning if you’re citing literature correctly..

 

[Article 4]

Can you copy those sections of the results or conclusion sections that support these statements and paste them here?

I’m not arguing that gel isn’t a good medium. I am questioning if you’re citing literature correctly..

It’s in page one. First and second paragraph, take a look

 

[Article 4]

Maybe I misunderstood your first post. I agree that ballistic gel is the standard for testing. I did not say anything about the gel itself not being comparable. What is incomparable is the pictures of the bullets in the gel and the provided data.

Only one picture shows the “momentary expansion” or “temporary wound cavity,” which occurs just after the bullet penetrates. The other picture only shows the “permanent wound cavity.” This is why I said the pictures are of different times.

A "permanent cavity" refers to the actual tissue destruction left behind by the bullet as it passes through the tissue, creating a lasting hole. A "temporary cavity" is the temporary and much larger area of tissue displaced and stretched around the bullet's path due to the shockwave of impact, which quickly recoils back to its original position, causing minimal permanent damage; essentially, the "permanent wound cavity" is the actual wound track, while the temporary wound cavity is the "momentary expansion" of tissue around it. Again, this is why I said the pictures are of different times.

To have comparable wounding capabilities between different or matching calibers (which you are showing), you must match impact velocities and use matching bullet types, (ELMD to ELDM, LRX to LRX, etc.) along with several other factors. Mismatching of key control points makes the data incomparable.

I am not arguing about big or small calibers; I'm not trying to disprove anything you said; I am just pointing out that to have comparable results, you must control the variables to get any usable factual data.

I hear you

As stated - my premise has never been that a big enough hole in something kills it.

My argument is: adding large amounts of kinetic energy around the hole increases the odds of killing exponentially. Additionally, when the hole may not be perfectly placed, the large amount of energy may have a killing result when it is large enough and powerful enough to damage the organs and create shock to the system. shutting down the nervous system and in some cases liquifying the organs.

Matching was never the idea. The OP was considering going from a 7 to a 6mm. the two photos were not meant to directly compare a bunch of the same. They were meant to support that staying with bigger bullets for hunting will penetrate better, transfer more energy, and damage more tissue than smaller.