Enough gun?

[Reburn]

I mean. Come on guys.

The OP has 0.2 posts a month or 2.4 posts a year.

Dont let other people get you spun out.

 

[Formidilosus]

In all fairness, it was falsely stated early in this thread a wound channel from a bigger cartridge was no bigger than one from a .223.

In a lot of instances that is very much correct. The 77gr TMK creates a larger permanent wound than lots/most normal hunting bullets, and all deep penetrating bonded and copper bullets from even magnum 30cals. It does not create as large a wound as a 178gr ELD-M, though most don’t want that as you stated.


As for the thread and “opinion”: an opinion is-

“A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof”

There is no reason at all for opinions about terminal ballistics. No one, I would bet including you would say it’s ok for someone to repeatedly state their opinion without being challenged that- “bullets tumble through air the whole way to the target, and you never can know what or where they will go” My supposition is that you and everyone else would call them out for stating erroneous things that are objectively false, no? Well, it’s the same here.
What bullets do in tissue is an observable, demonstrable, and objective thing- “opinion” about how and why bullets do what they do in tissue is just ignorance. There are facts- stating the facts and then saying “I understand the reality, however I prefer”- is an opinion that can be shared even though it differs. Stating incorrect and false things about how bullets kill, then using that as a basis to build an opinion is “ignorance”.

It is in fact the “small bullets bad” people that consistently state erroneous things parroting them as fact or “opinion”, and then acting as if a victim being attacked when people tell them they are incorrect.

 

[Jason Snyder]

There is no reason at all for opinions about terminal ballistics. No one, I would bet including you would say it’s ok for someone to repeatedly state their opinion without being challenged that- “bullets tumble through air the whole way to the target, and you never can know what or where they will go” My supposition is that you and everyone else would call them out for stating erroneous things that are objectively false, no?

Absolutely. My point is, civility can and should be part of the equation.

There are plenty of threads I skim by and don’t respond to because it’s like Groundhog Day and I don’t currently have the patience to not be a dick about it.

 

[roadrunner]

Stating incorrect and false things about how bullets kill, then using that as a basis to build an opinion is “ignorance”.

As well as the role that mechanics/dynamics play in bullet performance. Those components (aka "variables") most definitely and undeniably matter. To say they don't is, well, you know...

There is also a difference between "ignorance" and inaccurate reasoning, whether it's inductive or deductive. To state one general or specific premise to arrive at a conclusion with some old or outdated information is an inaccuracy in one or the other. It does not mean ignorance.

An ignorant person relative to terminal ballistics would be someone from a background that has never read anything about ballistics or even fired a round. A naive person would believe everything and anything heard or read about it, whether or not the reasoning behind it were sound.

 

[PathFinder]

You are wrong . A 3006 with 178eldm will make wound channel substantially larger than a 108eldm from a 243. If you belive otherwise you should invest time and money into ordinance gel as I have to see for yourself.

Taken in full context when I said it's just as likely that the .243 is making wound channels just as big...it depends on the bullet. You're right about the ELD, but what about a 180 Partition or TSX?
I've got way too many things going on to be messing with gel, but the testing you've shared has been great. I think we live fairly close to each other, I'd be happy to contribute some deep cut 115 DTACs and other 6mms at 6UM velocities if you're interested.

 

[ElPollo]

We don’t all have to have the same opinions. The OP clearly stated it was his opinion and did not try to parlay it as fact.

It used to be, people could have differing opinions and agree to disagree while being civil about things.

Opinions are all fine until people start comparing them and particularly if someone infers having a given opinion is a bad idea. For example when someone starts a discussion by arguing that their opinion is somehow more ethical than the opinions of others people have have a tendency to have a bit more chilly discourse. And if the original person makes those same assertions without supporting data, the receiver of those assertions may either respond more strongly or they may immediately categorize the speaker as someone who is not worth responding to at all.

 

[Jason Snyder]

For example when someone starts a discussion by arguing that their opinion is somehow more ethical than the opinions of others people have have a tendency to have a bit more chilly discourse.

Ethics are pretty much an opinion in and of themselves, no? Everything I’ve written is just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Each of us make our own decisions on how to act.

 

[roadrunner]

Ethics are pretty much an opinion in and of themselves, no?

They absolutely are. I'm pretty sure the ethics thing was misconstrued to be lecturing in nature where the intent was stating why he did what he does because of his own ethics, and quite possibly, those of others that shared his own, bringing about the conclusion.

An idea that is old, made on what data and understanding at that time was available, does not necessarily make that idea wrong. That's where reading and understanding in context comes in handy, a skill some apparently seem to lack. Others may refer to it as reading comprehension...

 

[ElPollo]

Ethics are pretty much an opinion in and of themselves, no? Everything I’ve written is just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Each of us make our own decisions on how to act.

Didn’t intend that as anything negative towards you. Ethics may be based on opinions and change over time. But if the OP makes an argument that anyone is less than ethical, they should be ready to defend that opinion with hard data or prepare for less than friendly discourse.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Didn’t intend that as anything negative towards you. Ethics may be based on opinions and change over time. But if the OP makes an argument that anyone is less than ethical, they should be ready to defend that opinion with hard data or prepare for less than friendly discourse.

I certainly didn’t take it as anything negative.

Please don’t take this as anything negative towards yourself, but it’s pretty easy for humans to justify being a dick to someone because they didn’t like how the other person came across. I do it myself. We all do, but it doesn’t make it okay, in my humble opinion.

 

[Choupique]

I shot a coyote with a .338 last year.

Magnum fudds unite!

I dont do it for margin of error. I do it for the giggles and the great big kabooms.

 

[Archer86]

Good lord. This thread is out of hand

Once the formies start its over......

 

[roadrunner]

Didn’t intend that as anything negative towards you. Ethics may be based on opinions and change over time. But if the OP makes an argument that anyone is less than ethical, they should be ready to defend that opinion with hard data or prepare for less than friendly discourse.

Nowhere did the OP state that anyone's ethics were less than his, nor did he ever state that any one else's ethics were subpar.

He did clearly state that we as hunters owe it to the animals we take to do so in as an ethical manner as possible, whatever that is for you [and your setup].

His ethics involve the "margin of error" he defined for himself should a shot go little array.

 

[Macintosh]

ehhh...a dig coated in honey is still a dig.

 

[ElPollo]

I certainly didn’t take it as anything negative.

Please don’t take this as anything negative towards yourself, but it’s pretty easy for humans to justify being a dick to someone because they didn’t like how the other person came across. I do it myself. We all do, but it doesn’t make it okay, in my humble opinion.

Was not intending to be a dick or support the behavior in others.

 

[roadrunner]

ehhh...a dig coated in honey is still a dig.

If it's a dig, then was there any "truth" to what was said? If not, then it's petty to get worked up over it...

We all do it and it's okay to admit it.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Was not intending to be a dick or support the behavior in others.

Hopefully that didn’t come as specifically directed towards you, because it was t meant to be. Apologies if it did.

 

[Macintosh]

No, its the same thing we get weekly, in different packaging. It addresses part of the topic and completely ignores the meat of the issue, while insinuating that others have an ethical failing for not having “enough insurance”, in this case equal to 1500 ft lb. Its so much the same as normal as to be yawn-worthy, in this case it's just hiding behind sort of flowery-sounding but condescending verbiage (“Maybe I have these opinions because I’m older than you and the odds are high I am. Been around a long time.…As time passed and rifles came and went, I learned a few things. Like you folks are now…”). I didnt respond because it gets old and frankly I have better things to argue over than a self-professed old mans inability to see positive change for what it is. My response now is only because Im surprised a few folks are defending it as “only stating his personal opinion”—the judgement was dripping, I hardly think it took much reading into it to see that. I apologize if I completely misread it, but the original post actually struck me as a particularly underhanded approach to go out if his way to call the folks using smaller cartridges unethical hunters. Still reads that way to me. And no, I dont think there’s a shred of truth to it.

 

[Choupique]

Yall are missing the whole point to everything.

The point is to have the coolest rifle. Do like me, don't ever actually shoot it at anything. Just have the coolest rifle. When I go hunting out west I dont even need to bring ammo. Saves weight. I won't see anything to shoot it at anyway. I look cool af walking around with my SWFA equipped 26" barreled .338 though.

 

[MattB]

No, its the same thing we get weekly, in different packaging. It addresses part of the topic and completely ignores the meat of the issue, while insinuating that others have an ethical failing for not having “enough insurance”, in this case equal to 1500 ft lb. Its so much the same as normal as to be yawn-worthy, in this case it's just hiding behind sort of flowery-sounding but condescending verbiage (“Maybe I have these opinions because I’m older than you and the odds are high I am. Been around a long time.…As time passed and rifles came and went, I learned a few things. Like you folks are now…”). I didnt respond because it gets old and frankly I have better things to argue over than a self-professed old mans inability to see positive change for what it is. My response now is only because Im surprised a few folks are defending it as “only stating his personal opinion”—the judgement was dripping, I hardly think it took much reading into it to see that. I apologize if I completely misread it, but the original post actually struck me as a particularly underhanded approach to go out if his way to call the folks using smaller cartridges unethical hunters. Still reads that way to me. And no, I dont think there’s a shred of truth to it.

Yeah, he clearly ties using more gun than necessary ("insurance") to ethics, which by implication calls into question the ethics of those who don't. All the while providing no justification other than personal anecdotes as to why that is the case.