Considering downsizing to 6 cm from 7 PRC

[Article 4]

I'm all for reading studies to see how they may shed light on a topic. The list in post #179 appears to be close to the list of references from the first study you linked in post #177. In the back and forth, I've actually lost track of your hypothesis. Do you mind summarizing the hypothesis (or theory) the two articles in post #177 support?

Yeah I hear you, it happens on these threads a lot.

One of the ways I find more to read is finding a good study and then citing their references. The references often either support the finding or offer different evidence and thoughts based on the evidence, so I thought I would list some of them for others to read. Some do recycle as they are good enough for others to cite as part of their papers.

My premise has 3 parts and I am passionate about what I believe based on what the evidence tells me:

• Energy exists as part of the killing cycle of bullets. It is a complimentary affect to the hole made by the bullet and increases the probability of a kill (this is a continuing topic due to the experts on the site who have told me I am 100% wrong)
• Outside of shooting live mammals, ballistic gelatin is the best media we have to test and illustrate bullet performance
• More energy, more affect/effect. Bigger bullets carry more energy and as such are better for hunting

As far as accuracy, I support accuracy of the first shot being the most important thing, no matter what bullet you shoot. My assertions are based on, if the shot isn't perfect, what can we do as hunters to promote a more effective kill

This is why I chimed in on the OP questions. Steel targets don't care what size the bullet is. For hunting situations, if the shots aren't perfect, bigger is better. So I offered thoughts to consider that when thinking about switching from a 7 to a 6, especially reaching out to 800 on elk where the chance for a perfect shot is significantly less.

 

[willfrye027]

Yeah I hear you, it happens on these threads a lot.

One of the ways I find more to read is finding a good study and then citing their references. The references often either support the finding or offer different evidence and thoughts based on the evidence, so I thought I would list some of them for others to read. Some do recycle as they are good enough for others to cite as part of their papers.

My premise has 3 parts and I am passionate about what I believe based on what the evidence tells me:

• Energy exists as part of the killing cycle of bullets. It is a complimentary affect to the hole made by the bullet and increases the probability of a kill (this is a continuing topic due to the experts on the site who have told me I am 100% wrong)
• Outside of shooting live mammals, ballistic gelatin is the best media we have to test and illustrate bullet performance
• More energy, more affect/effect. Bigger bullets carry more energy and as such are better for hunting

As far as accuracy, I support accuracy of the first shot being the most important thing, no matter what bullet you shoot. My assertions are based on, if the shot isn't perfect, what can we do as hunters to promote a more effective kill

This is why I chimed in on the OP questions. Steel targets don't care what size the bullet is. For hunting situations, if the shots aren't perfect, bigger is better. So I offered thoughts to consider that when thinking about switching from a 7 to a 6, especially reaching out to 800 on elk where the chance for a perfect shot is significantly less.

I can see where you’re coming from.

To summarize:

Small is better camp argues shot placement trumps all else. Less recoil equals better shot placement, follow up, etc in field conditions. While a bigger bullet may destroy more tissue, it does not necessarily make up for bad shot placement, and up to a point does not mean significantly faster incapacitation.

Bigger is better camp argues they can shoot big magnums just fine and that all else being equal, a bigger bullet of similar construction will destroy more tissue giving more margin for error on borderline shot placement and faster incapacitation.



If anyone from big magnum camp wants to turn some heads, would be cool to see your shooting drill targets with magnum and non-magnum. Show us how well you can shoot the magnum.

One could argue that hunting mule deer you often have plenty of time to set up a perfect prone shot…personally that’s never been the case on a big deer for me. Which is why I need the most forgiving, trouble free, shootable from any position rifle.

 

[Bluefish]

My premise has 3 parts and I am passionate about what I believe based on what the evidence tells me:

• Energy exists as part of the killing cycle of bullets. It is a complimentary affect to the hole made by the bullet and increases the probability of a kill (this is a continuing topic due to the experts on the site who have told me I am 100% wrong)

I don’t think anyone is arguing energy doesn’t do work on the animal and cause the injury that results in death. The argument is that bullet energy 1/2mv^2 does not correlate to the energy the bullet transfers to the animal. Thus the hypothesis that energy above a certain level doesn’t matter. Bullet construction determines how much energy transfers to the animal. This energy transfer is the size of the wound channel.

A big heavy bullet has significantly more energy, but it may or may not transfer it to the animal. It is easier to make a big heavy bullet transfer enough energy to provide a fatal wound. If you start with 3000+ ftlbs of potential energy and it only takes 300 ish to kill an animal you can have a pretty ineffective bullet and still transfer enough energy to kill. Probably why there is a myth that you need a big cartridge to take big game. When there were no small caliber bullets that would provide a good transfer of energy the small cartridges didn’t work. The options were either a varmet bullet which blew up on the surface or a fmj that would pencil through.
On the flip side of this is if you use a bullet that transfers all of the 3000+ ftlbs of energy you have no game left to eat.

• Outside of shooting live mammals, ballistic gelatin is the best media we have to test and illustrate bullet performance

I have not read anyone saying gelatin isn’t the best thing we have to compare wound potential.

• More energy, more affect/effect.

I think everyone agrees on this.

• Bigger bullets carry more energy and as such are better for hunting

Many here no longer believe this. This is the crux of the argument. The form/rokslide hypothesis is that you can get enough energy on target with a smaller bullet of the correct type to ethically take an animal. The advantage of this as a shooter is you don’t have to absorb all the momentum of the larger cartridge which lets you shoot more accurately.

 

[Article 4]

I don’t think anyone is arguing energy doesn’t do work on the animal and cause the injury that results in death. The argument is that bullet energy 1/2mv^2 does not correlate to the energy the bullet transfers to the animal. Thus the hypothesis that energy above a certain level doesn’t matter. Bullet construction determines how much energy transfers to the animal. This energy transfer is the size of the wound channel.

Yes which is why I believe bigger is better. Form and others have argued against most of this ad nausea

I have not read anyone saying gelatin isn’t the best thing we have to compare wound potential.

People in this thread have said it

I think everyone agrees on this.

Yeah, not so much...in fact in this and other threads many have called my thoughts - Fuddery - again fine...don't really care. Care more about coming to my own conclusion based on more than one point of reference by reading as much as I can.

Many here no longer believe this. This is the crux of the argument. The form/rokslide hypothesis is that you can get enough energy on target with a smaller bullet of the correct type to ethically take an animal. The advantage of this as a shooter is you don’t have to absorb all the momentum of the larger cartridge which lets you shoot more accurately.

Completely fine. I hope people don't believe me actually and take the time to look things up and come to their own conclusion. That would have more impact than some coming out with "that one time in band camp" or "I saw bigfoot shoot an elk with a 25/470 nitro off the back of a unicorn while galloping off hand and it died on the spot"

 

[Bluefish]

Yes which is why I believe bigger is better. Form and others have argued against most of this ad nausea

Completely fine. I hope people don't believe me actually and take the time to look things up and come to their own conclusion. That would have more impact than some coming out with "that one time in band camp" or "I saw bigfoot shoot an elk with a 25/470 nitro off the back of a unicorn while galloping off hand and it died on the spot"

I came to Rokslide when I shot my first deer at 70 yards and it ran 100 yards or so. I was a bit surprised it didn’t just bang flop as so many say they do. So I started reading and researching. Also shot a few more deer and didn’t get the results I expected. More energy certainly didn’t result in faster kills. So I actually built a 45-70 subsonic as many shots are short range. It has resulted in far less distance traveled after being hit. Energy is 1/3 the whelen loads. Sample size is small as I just don’t get the number of shots that form or others who do culling, but my experience shows me that available energy doesn’t matter.

Now I can’t use small caliber cartridges for deer hunting (Iowa regulations) so I have not tried the normal small cartridges most talk about here. But I did build a 7prc and found I didn’t shoot it well. Same rifle with a 25 prc and I shoot it better. I built a 6 arc and shoot that even better. I would use either of those rifles for an elk hunt. I would also use my 45-70 with subs if I was hunting in an area that I knew shots would not be over 100 yards.

 

[wind gypsy]

I can see where you’re coming from.

To summarize:

Small is better camp argues shot placement trumps all else. Less recoil equals better shot placement, follow up, etc in field conditions. While a bigger bullet may destroy more tissue, it does not necessarily make up for bad shot placement, and up to a point does not mean significantly faster incapacitation.

Bigger is better camp argues they can shoot big magnums just fine and that all else being equal, a bigger bullet of similar construction will destroy more tissue giving more margin for error on borderline shot placement and faster incapacitation.



If anyone from big magnum camp wants to turn some heads, would be cool to see your shooting drill targets with magnum and non-magnum. Show us how well you can shoot the magnum.

One could argue that hunting mule deer you often have plenty of time to set up a perfect prone shot…personally that’s never been the case on a big deer for me. Which is why I need the most forgiving, trouble free, shootable from any position rifle.

TK421 guy scrubbed his posts but back in the day i'm sure he'd have posted up some 7rm targets. Haven't really seen it from others though?

 

[fwafwow]

People in this thread have said it

Which post(s)?

 

[Flynhunt]

Small is better camp argues shot placement trumps all else. Less recoil equals better shot placement, follow up, etc in field conditions. While a bigger bullet may destroy more tissue, it does not necessarily make up for bad shot placement, and up to a point does not mean significantly faster incapacitation

I would say both camps think shot placement trumps all, with small camp being able to deliver a second shot quicker, big camp thinking a second shot may not as likely be necessary

 

[Article 4]

Which post(s)?

I think are are referencing ballistic gel?
Post 13 - 19 at the beginning and a few others have eluded to it

 

[Formidilosus]

@Article 4 instead of long worded circular posts, let’s make this as simple and straightforward as possible, asking and answering one question only at a time. They are simple and direct questions that should be able to be answered with a “yes” or “no”. If you need more than that, please keep it simple and direct.


First question:

1). Can you know what a bullet will do in tissue, without shooting it in tissue or tissue simulate and measuring the physical wound created?

 

[Article 4]

I came to Rokslide when I shot my first deer at 70 yards and it ran 100 yards or so. I was a bit surprised it didn’t just bang flop as so many say they do. So I started reading and researching. Also shot a few more deer and didn’t get the results I expected. More energy certainly didn’t result in faster kills. So I actually built a 45-70 subsonic as many shots are short range. It has resulted in far less distance traveled after being hit. Energy is 1/3 the whelen loads. Sample size is small as I just don’t get the number of shots that form or others who do culling, but my experience shows me that available energy doesn’t matter.

Now I can’t use small caliber cartridges for deer hunting (Iowa regulations) so I have not tried the normal small cartridges most talk about here. But I did build a 7prc and found I didn’t shoot it well. Same rifle with a 25 prc and I shoot it better. I built a 6 arc and shoot that even better. I would use either of those rifles for an elk hunt. I would also use my 45-70 with subs if I was hunting in an area that I knew shots would not be over 100 yards.

Cool,
Love my 6CM and my results have been good with it. I have no evidence with it shooting elk sized animals, on purpose. Not to say I have not shot my 7 or 30 just as well.

Have had tons of 1 shot kills with every single caliber in my bag. Have had some not die with first shot, unfortunately, and have had to follow up, no matter what caliber - I have not timed the follow up shots but they didn't "feel" any different from a time perspective.

Sometimes I try to find a flaw in my thinking. perfect shots, If I shot something with a toothpick, it would make a whole but would the animal die? Best guess is maybe. If I shot it with a 50 cal and made a bigger hole, would the animal die. probably.
Not perfect shots create more variables that I want to eliminate if I can.

If I have the chance to make a bigger hole and impart more of everything. I am going to do it

 

[Article 4]

@Article 4 instead of long worded circular posts, let’s make this as simple and straightforward as possible, asking and answering one question only at a time. They are simple and direct questions that should be able to be answered with a “yes” or “no”. If you need more than that, please keep it simple and direct.


First question:

1). Can you know what a bullet will do in tissue, without shooting it in tissue or tissue simulate and measuring the physical wound created?

No - bad question gets a bad answer. How could someone?

Lets say I made a bullet, could I know what its going to do without shooting it?

Funny, you use half statements, omissions, circular posts, generate long lists of citations, and anecdotal Form evidence in tons of posts @Formidilosus - its completely fine for you but it wrong for anyone else.
Which is it?

Your turn - first question:
1) Do you believe that your evidence is the ONLY answer to any of the questions propose on bullet holes, energy and how it affect killing cycles?

 

[fwafwow]

I think are are referencing ballistic gel?
Post 13 - 19 at the beginning and a few others have eluded to it

I’m not seeing that.

 

[Formidilosus]

Funny @Formidilosus - you did it to me in previous posts and it was just fine...now its not.
Which is it?

I didn’t state that you did anything wrong.

That’s precisely the reason I asked to keep it short and direct. Will you answer the question?

 

[Article 4]

I didn’t state that you did anything wrong.

That’s precisely the reason I asked to keep it short and direct. Will you answer the question?

I did - look again

 

[Article 4]

I’m not seeing that.

Post 13 refers to energy of bigger bullets
post 19 refers to ballistic gel not meaning much
post 20 talks about energy being false
Post 82
Post 87 refers to it - gelatin as a measure of performance
Post 122 -

maybe there is more but I dont have the want to read the entire thread over

 

[Article 4]

I didn’t state that you did anything wrong.

That’s precisely the reason I asked to keep it short and direct. Will you answer the question?

While i have you, can you answer my question in Post 100?

 

[Gobihawk]

Lots of good info. Don't forget to practice on becoming a better hunting as well. Your kill rate will go up because you won't have to shoot as far.

 

[Article 4]

I didn’t state that you did anything wrong.

That’s precisely the reason I asked to keep it short and direct. Will you answer the question?

Appreciate that -

Let me clear the air. I respect what you do. I am glad someone has the vehicle and passion to do it at that level.

While I disagree with some of it, as you do with me which is fine...the rub comes in when you/we get away from a productive conversation and use words and tactics that are finite and seen as bullying and emotional name calling.

Ill do my best to stick to the data and evidence as we move forward.

 

[Runwilderness]

@Article 4, for the record I’m not arguing that ballistics gel is bad or that a bigger cartridge doesn’t add any additional wounding capability. Your initial posts, however, came across as a throwing out technical jargon to appear to have a strong case, but actually pulled that jargon from a non-ideal source which had the result of weakening rather than strengthening your argument.

The WP review article in post #179 is on point to your argument regarding pressure waves and trauma. How to extrapolate from a 500 ft/lb enables shock conclusion to how the OPs experience would have gone had he shot a 300 RUM or had he used a 6 Creed instead of his 7 PRC is ultimately the question.

I am not a terminal ballistics expert nor do I expect to ever become one.

I jumped into this thread when I read your post that had a bunch of technical jargon, but seems to use that jargon as a hammer to impress, while the background source seemed less then ideal for answering the OPs question.

I’m not refuting your argument as meritless. But if we’re going to use ‘expert’ data, then those data should be explained in relatable terms to the non-experts here. And if you or I or anyone else can’t explain how an elastic-plastic strain-hardening model for gel deformation helps the OP decide if a smaller vs larger caliber would have helped in his situation, then we shouldn’t be writing those words.

Pretending to be an expert by using big words gets my hackles up since I assume you’re pulling the wool over my eyes. Clearly being able to explain how the data and the science explain the OPs results and how a bigger (or smaller, or broadhead, etc) would have resulted in a better outcome demonstrated true expertise.

Been fun chatting back and forth, but now back to my day job where my boss consistently expects me to be a ‘expert’ in what I do. Sadly it’s not hunting.