Considering downsizing to 6 cm from 7 PRC

[huntnful]

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.

Well said Will. Suppressors also seem to pair really well with the smaller cartridges/calibers also. And they seem to be an exceptional benefit as well!

 

[Article 4]

@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.

Appreciate that

I am not an expert and don't propose myself as such. Those words have never come out of my mouth on these subjects. Nor do I pretend. Sorry about your hackels, mine get up from time to time too I guess. F-ing human traits LOL

I do post a lot of my experience and a lot of what I research - I find it to be valuable and I share it. Much as some others do. If that means using terms that some don't get or think is fine, so be it...hope it motivates them to look it up and find out.

Big words are a relative term. Since no one is an expert, you or me, is setting an expectation of how I "should" present it realistic?

I did explain the thought process - is there an expectation that it is tailored to each person? Probably not gonna happen

Relatable terms? I guess I wonder what that would be as everyone has a different level of understanding.

Yeah, I have a day job too and sometimes that gets in the way - dang it.

 

[JollyRoger]

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?

I went through a similar progression over a few more years. Started a few years ago with a Tikka 7mm Rem Mag that I really liked. But ended up seeing how beneficial smaller calibers were. Eventually I had a 6CM built and I absolutely love this thing.

My set up has a 20” barrel, with suppressor. I’m getting ~2866 at the muzzle with factory 108 ELD-M. So far I’ve killed a nice buck and a few coyotes with it. I took it elk hunting but didn’t get any shots on them this year.

One thing to note, I believe you’ll need a new bolt for the 6CM since your PRC uses a magnum bolt face.

 

[Article 4]

I went through a similar progression over a few more years. Started a few years ago with a Tikka 7mm Rem Mag that I really liked. But ended up seeing how beneficial smaller calibers were. Eventually I had a 6CM built and I absolutely love this thing.

My set up has a 20” barrel, with suppressor. I’m getting ~2866 at the muzzle with factory 108 ELD-M. So far I’ve killed a nice buck and a few coyotes with it. I took it elk hunting but didn’t get any shots on them this year.

One thing to note, I believe you’ll need a new bolt for the 6CM since your PRC uses a magnum bolt face.

6 cm and PRC have different bolt faces. 473 and 532 respectively

At 800 yards if you hit vitals, likely kill. Hit big bone, maybe and if you believe in energy as a determinant around 850 +/- lbs
Likely somewhere in the high 2700 to mid 2800s

 

[mlevimadden]

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

What makes your prefer the 115 DTAC NR's over the 108 ELDM's?

 

[WyldGoose]

...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.

lol

 

[LONE HUNTER]

Well said Will. Suppressors also seem to pair really well with the smaller cartridges/calibers also. And they seem to be an exceptional benefit as well!

Not going deaf is mucho awesome. Anyone with severe tinnitus and hearing loss likely will agree!

 

[fwafwow]

In post 183, @Bluefish said "I have not read anyone saying gelatin isn’t the best thing we have to compare wound potential." You replied "People in this thread have said it" and I asked in which posts.

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

I don't think any of the above question the use of ballistic gelatin as a simulate. A couple of the posts you cite do question your use of pictures of balistic gelatin, and whether how you showed pictures was accurate or not.

[snip]

Here is another good study to read about it

Influence of impact velocity and impact attack angle of bullets on damage of human tissue surrogate —— ballistic gelatin - PMC

Terminal performance of a bullet in human body is critical for the treatment of gunshot injury and optimization of bullet design. The effects of the impact velocity (v0) and the impact attack angle (δ0) of the bullet on its terminal performance was ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Talks about gelatin, both temporary and permanent cavities, and angles affecting the outcome. Uses some measuring equipment as well.

I'm not trying to nitpick, and maybe my reaction to you posting studies was similar to @Runwilderness - in that it suggests (at least to me) that you can say fairly clearly and succinctly "study x analyzed whether y happens under z circumstances and the authors demonstrated a, b and c - please see text accompanying footnotes 1, 2 and 3."

I decided to start with the first study you posted. I'm about 3 pages in and I'm not (at least yet) seeing how this study relates to the three parts of your premise (other than this study uses ballistic gelatin, and I don't think anyone is really questioning the use of gelatin as a way to try to simulate real world results). Do you mind dumbing it down for me - maybe pointing me to the language or the page, and which of the other two parts of your premise it supports?