Is a 30 cal big game rifle needed anymore?

Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
2,466
Location
Timberline
Maybe we should start referring to bullet performance in horsepower. That should be entertaining

The bullet might only need 250lb force to mushroom/fragment but that doesn't necessarily mean if it started out with 350 it should exit. There is plenty of energy 'lost' (transferred) to the elastic nature of tissue that doesn't directly increase the size of the wound or aid in incapacitation. The increase of the drag on a mushroomed bullet uses a lot of that remaining energy as well.

250 ftlbs to go 20". That means after 20" there is a remaining 100 left to do whatever. That 250 accounts for the elasticity of organic media. As the bullet goes deeper, there are opposing and equal forces. It may indeed only take 75 or 100 ftlbs to deform the bullet.

It's the total energy of the system; the conservation of energy.
 

WCB

WKR
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
3,638
I'll add anecdotal .50bmg usage. Had clients kill Antelope and a Deer with 50 BMG FMJs. Most underwhelming kill shots I have ever seen. Antelope just stood there...didn't even hunch up. 2nd Antelopes back end dropped out but its front legs stand planted...thing stood up walked a little ways and dropped. Deer did almost the same thing. Insides were basically intact. Saw MANY Deer and Antelope get hit by lightening (22-250s) from 100-300 yards. Legs folded not a twitch and jelly inside.

If bigger is not always better why has the FBI gone back to 9mm? I bring that up since the FBI and their criteria are some of the first evidence that has been presented.
I would assume you meant to say If bigger IS BETTER...? If not... why has the FBI went down in caliber? They have gone bigger but came back down. But Why? because in the main duty calibers 9, 40, and 45. There is enough data to show that their is not enough of a statistical difference in wound channels/energy to balance out round count, controllability/ease of shooting, cost etc.

Standard pistol calibers are pretty anemic and until velocities get over a certain threshold (like rifle cartridges) the tissue in the body recovers really well. Above that velocity the body is not elastic enough/can not recover fast enough.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
453
Location
AR
250 ftlbs to go 20". That means after 20" there is a remaining 100 left to do whatever. That 250 accounts for the elasticity of organic media. As the bullet goes deeper, there are opposing and equal forces. It may indeed only take 75 or 100 ftlbs to deform the bullet.

It's the total energy of the system; the conservation of energy.
I'm not arguing against the conservation of energy. I'm just simply exploring why we would see recovered projectiles if there is leftover energy after expansion/fragmentation. It is obviously transferred to something in the system, it would be interesting to know the amount lost to heat and sound.
 

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,753
im guessing there is some energy lost to heat, sound, “squishiness”, etc, but probably not enough to matter. What is enough to matter is the difference in force when all all 500 ft lb is transferred to the animal versus when 100ft lb is carried out the other side so only 400 is available to do “work” on the animal. Or, the difference in peak force applied to tissue as the same 500ftlb decelerates over 12” versus over 20”, ie the same amount of “energy” is dumped almost twice as fast, and in a more concentrated area. Or better yet, compare the peak force of 500 footlb dumped over 12”, PLUS fragmentation that cuts muscle fibers as it is stretched…compared to 1000 ft lb that is spread out over twice as long a period, with half of it lost out the far side as the bullet keeps going…

Put a dozen eggs on the passenger seat of your car. Now speed up to 80mph and slam the brakes on suddenly, and compare that to applying the brakes more gently to stop the car gradually over hundreds of feet—same
total amount of energy dissipated to stop the car, but one resulted in a dozen broken eggs and whiplash. Now tell me that peak force doesnt matter.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
2,466
Location
Timberline
We need a Ballistician on staff or have one write-up a good article for RS members. Settle a lot of misinformation and these ongoing debates.

I am not one but I focus on velocity not energy AND matching bullet to caliber and game I'm hunting and knowing my max distance. I have a few 30 cals and I bought some 6.5 PRC bullets but have yet to pick the rifle.

Except that energy is a function of velocity. A light bullet traveling fast will dissipate that energy at a faster rate than a slower heavier object will.

Now we're talking about the principle of conservation of momentum.
 

Robobiss

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 3, 2024
Messages
200
We need a Ballistician on staff or have one write-up a good article for RS members. Settle a lot of misinformation and these ongoing debates.

I am not one but I focus on velocity not energy AND matching bullet to caliber and game I'm hunting and knowing my max distance. I have a few 30 cals and I bought some 6.5 PRC bullets but have yet to pick the rifle.
Funnily enough, we may as well have them with some of the experience here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we actually do, some of the guys around here are pretty mysterious.

More times than anyone can remember guys on RS have presented legitimate data (not opinion) and hundreds, (if not thousands now) of tests conducted over and over again at various ranges with various headstamps and projectiles with conclusions that are also backed up by legitimate laboratory data. There are guys here that seem to have almost made it their life’s mission to experiment with this stuff and are nice enough to post the data here for all to consume.

There is truly so much expertise on this site (not me) that it isn’t even funny. I’m into this stuff, I’m into it quite a bit. There are many members here that have forgotten more than I’ll ever know about external and terminal ballistics, and I like to think I know a lot more than your average shooter, certainly more than your average rifle hunter.

The problem is, and why these “discussions” come about so often is that despite the data and countless necropsy photos with the impact velocity posted (and other members there to back up the claim in some cases) in everyone’s face people bring their own opinions, their grandpas opinion, their great uncles opinion, and the meat processor down the roads opinion into the mix and tout it as factual information when it is no more than anecdotal evidence.

Paraphrasing something I have seen Form ask in various threads with similar discussions is along the lines of “nice. Now tell me how many animals you have shot with the 223 and 77TMK and seen failure?” (Or other bullet and headstamp, I’ve seen it asked more than once). The responses are usually pretty dissapointing. Rarely has anyone conducted their own experiment, instead they tell the story of their grandpas drunk friend in the 60’s (or even their brother in law) shot at XYZ animal with XYZ inferior cartridge and never recovered the animal but he KNOWS he smoked it.

Many people are making opinionated statements, some backed up with their own experiences (but only partly so) and touting them as fact. When in reality they only shoot a 300WM because grandpa could only afford surplus 30-06 back in the day. When their dad was a kid he asked grandpa why they shot 30-06 instead of a .270 and he responded “because anything less than a 30-06 is a girls gun” so their dad not wanting to be outdone went out and bought a 300WM and told his kids as children that anything less won’t make it through an elk shoulder.

I bring this example because I’ve lived this example and grew up in a 30-06 household where anything else “just wasn’t going to kill what you shot at” which I have proved the old man wrong with time and time again.

To this day I have a friend that thinks a .308 is an underpowered option compared to a 30-06 inside 200 yards on Whitetails and he can’t be convinced otherwise, in his opinion there’s a huge different in power and killing ability. Guess what? His father, grandfather, uncle, great uncle, all shoot a 30-06. His kid killed a deer with a 300BLK this year, that must have really blown his mind…

Your average hunter hasn’t the slightest clue about terminal ballistics and every year dozens if not hundreds of “your average hunter” join this site and others and speak their minds. Discussion is good, data is good, opinions don’t have a dog in the fight when we are speaking even in the slightest realm of “scientifically”.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 17, 2016
Messages
1,310
Location
ID
Except that energy is a function of velocity. A light bullet traveling fast will dissipate that energy at a faster rate than a slower heavier object will.

Now we're talking about the principle of conservation of momentum.
Understanding my bullet and the velocity needed for the bullet to perform as needed is all the info I need. If you want to throw in the E variable, for your parameters, all good. I don't find it helpful. A good academic discussion for physics class, perhaps.
 
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
2,466
Location
Timberline
im guessing there is some energy
lost to heat, sound, “squishiness”, etc, but probably not enough to matter. What is enough to matter is the difference in force when all all 500 ft lb is transferred to the animal versus when 100ft lb is carried out the other side so only 400 is actually available to do “work” on the animal, and the difference in peak force applied to tissue as the same 500ftlb decelerates over 12” versus over 20”, ie the same amount of “energy” is dumped almost twice as fast, and in a more concentrated area.

When speaking to the conservation of energy, the required energy spent of the system has been utilized.

This is why downrange energy available matters at the target, to ensure the balance of the system is adequate for the bullet to perform as designed, or "advertised".

If a particular bullet is given an optimal performance velocity of 3,000 fps to 1,200 fps, it is so there is enough available at whatever distance a bullet of a particular mass has to properly mushroom or defragment to cause as much internal disruption of tissue as it can.

Going back to the .50 cal, it would likely be better to use at longer ranges than shorter ranges. At distance, an ultra-heavy bullet would do better at tissue disruption if that energy could be dissipated more efficiently, i.e., going slower. At some point, there is a maximum efficient relationship of M1V1 = M2V2. At this efficient relationship, the .50 cal would do more than a simple pistol wound channel.

In terminal ballistics for maximum tissue disruption, you want the two variables of mass (bullet and target) to be as an inelastic collison as much as possible.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
884
Location
Lyon County, NV
Funnily enough, we may as well have them with some of the experience here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we actually do, some of the guys around here are pretty mysterious.

More times than anyone can remember guys on RS have presented legitimate data (not opinion) and hundreds, (if not thousands now) of tests conducted over and over again at various ranges with various headstamps and projectiles with conclusions that are also backed up by legitimate laboratory data. There are guys here that seem to have almost made it their life’s mission to experiment with this stuff and are nice enough to post the data here for all to consume.

There is truly so much expertise on this site (not me) that it isn’t even funny. I’m into this stuff, I’m into it quite a bit. There are many members here that have forgotten more than I’ll ever know about external and terminal ballistics, and I like to think I know a lot more than your average shooter, certainly more than your average rifle hunter.

The problem is, and why these “discussions” come about so often is that despite the data and countless necropsy photos with the impact velocity posted (and other members there to back up the claim in some cases) in everyone’s face people bring their own opinions, their grandpas opinion, their great uncles opinion, and the meat processor down the roads opinion into the mix and tout it as factual information when it is no more than anecdotal evidence.

Paraphrasing something I have seen Form ask in various threads with similar discussions is along the lines of “nice. Now tell me how many animals you have shot with the 223 and 77TMK and seen failure?” (Or other bullet and headstamp, I’ve seen it asked more than once). The responses are usually pretty dissapointing. Rarely has anyone conducted their own experiment, instead they tell the story of their grandpas drunk friend in the 60’s (or even their brother in law) shot at XYZ animal with XYZ inferior cartridge and never recovered the animal but he KNOWS he smoked it.

Many people are making opinionated statements, some backed up with their own experiences (but only partly so) and touting them as fact. When in reality they only shoot a 300WM because grandpa could only afford surplus 30-06 back in the day. When their dad was a kid he asked grandpa why they shot 30-06 instead of a .270 and he responded “because anything less than a 30-06 is a girls gun” so their dad not wanting to be outdone went out and bought a 300WM and told his kids as children that anything less won’t make it through an elk shoulder.

I bring this example because I’ve lived this example and grew up in a 30-06 household where anything else “just wasn’t going to kill what you shot at” which I have proved the old man wrong with time and time again.

To this day I have a friend that thinks a .308 is an underpowered option compared to a 30-06 inside 200 yards on Whitetails and he can’t be convinced otherwise, in his opinion there’s a huge different in power and killing ability. Guess what? His father, grandfather, uncle, great uncle, all shoot a 30-06. His kid killed a deer with a 300BLK this year, that must have really blown his mind…

Your average hunter hasn’t the slightest clue about terminal ballistics and every year dozens if not hundreds of “your average hunter” join this site and others and speak their minds. Discussion is good, data is good, opinions don’t have a dog in the fight when we are speaking even in the slightest realm of “scientifically”.

Extremely well said.

Genuine experts also generally have a very limited tolerance for participating in forums for very long, because of the way forums behave.

Some basement-dwelling neckbeard with 30,000 posts since 2004 will comment with the authority of being the authority, on stuff they have zero experience with at a professional level, often in a way that is dismissive and abrasive of the genuine expert's provided info and expertise. It's based on all the things you said above, plus the consumption of whatever fuddlore or Tactical Timmy Tales they've been immersed in on the forum since 2004, mostly provided by other alpha neckbeards on the forum. And because they've been around forever on the site, they're assumed to be a genuine expert by the rest of the forum's members because of all the opining and referencing they've done on there for literally a decade or two.

The genuine experts get tired of that $h*t, and go back to actually doing things offline.

It's the very rare genuine expert that shares their real-world offline experience and expertise on a forum, and keeps doing so despite how they're treated. They've usually just got far better uses of their time in the real world, instead of regurgitating the stuff other people think they know.
 

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,753
When speaking to the conservation of energy, the required energy spent of the system has been utilized.

This is why downrange energy available matters at the target, to ensure the balance of the system is adequate for the bullet to perform as designed, or "advertised".

If a particular bullet is given an optimal performance velocity of 3,000 fps to 1,200 fps, it is so there is enough available at whatever distance a bullet of a particular mass has to properly mushroom or defragment to cause as much internal disruption of tissue as it can.

Going back to the .50 cal, it would likely be better to use at longer ranges than shorter ranges. At distance, an ultra-heavy bullet would do better at tissue disruption if that energy could be dissipated more efficiently, i.e., going slower. At some point, there is a maximum efficient relationship of M1V1 = M2V2. At this efficient relationship, the .50 cal would do more than a simple pistol wound channel.

In terminal ballistics for maximum tissue disruption, you want the two variables of mass (bullet and target) to be as an inelastic collison as much as possible.
I actually cant tell if you are agreeing with me or not. Could you clarify?
 

RobHazmat89

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 13, 2024
Messages
139
Location
Michigan
My initial response was deleted for being “condescending,” so I’ll try again. If you go back and read on ballistics gelatin testing, you’ll see that there are protocols to test for different types of scenarios. Overall, these represent a standardized and approximate representation of tissue damage.



Totally agree that each of us gets our own opinion. But the comment I replied to stated that there are significantly more issues with “undergunned” than “overgunned” — which appeared to be a statement of fact not opinion. That’s why I responded with my opinion/experience that I’ve seen the opposite.

You may hang around with better shooters than I do, and that may be the difference. But most hunters I know aren’t skilled marksmen, and don’t handle high recoil rounds well.
Ok, but how do gel tests account for a structure like the rib cage working against the tissue expansion. This is what you're not getting. The gel block has complete freedom to expand as it needs to in order to absorb the energy. The human torso does not. It's kind of like letting the same power firecracker go off in an open hand vs a closed hand. Ones gonna give you a slight burn, the other is going to require a prosthetic.
 

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,753
Ok, but how do gel tests account for a structure like the rib cage working against the tissue expansion. This is what you're not getting. The gel block has complete freedom to expand as it needs to in order to absorb the energy. The human torso does not. It's kind of like letting the same power firecracker go off in an open hand vs a closed hand. Ones gonna give you a slight burn, the other is going to require a prosthetic.
It is not designed to be a perfect simulation, its designed to be a pretty good approximation of human muscle tissue. in order to compare different tests and use as data it has to be uniform. Fbi testing also utilizes different barriers in front of the gel. So for how it is used its more important that it is uniform and you can make reliable predictions and comparisons from it, than it is that it is a perfect reproduction of the human body.
 

Honyock

WKR
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
987
Location
Edmond, OK
Not to get sidetracked but then why is the Army or for that matter the FBI and law enforcement for that matter using 30 cal and larger sniper rifles?
I might be mistaken but I believe that USSOCM has adopted the 6.5 Creed for snipers. I believe it had to do with improved accuracy.
 

atmat

WKR
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Messages
3,192
Location
Colorado
Ok, but how do gel tests account for a structure like the rib cage working against the tissue expansion. This is what you're not getting. The gel block has complete freedom to expand as it needs to in order to absorb the energy. The human torso does not. It's kind of like letting the same power firecracker go off in an open hand vs a closed hand. Ones gonna give you a slight burn, the other is going to require a prosthetic.
See below:
It is not designed to be a perfect simulation, it’s designed to be a pretty good approximation of human muscle tissue. in order to compare different tests and use as data it has to be uniform. Fbi testing also utilizes different barriers in front of the gel. So for how it is used it’s more important that it is uniform and you can make reliable predictions and comparisons from it, than it is that it is a perfect reproduction of the human body.
 

Bluefish

WKR
Joined
Jan 5, 2023
Messages
673
Not to get sidetracked but then why is the Army or for that matter the FBI and law enforcement for that matter using 30 cal and larger sniper rifles?
Probably the same reason really long range shooters use them. Better BC and more powder so they can go further before going too slow for the bullet to work. I don’t think modern sniper rifles are ultralight 8 lb rifles either.
Even those who suggest using a 223 know it won’t make a 800+ yard lethal shot on an animal.

I am a convert after reading a few threads and am now building a smaller bore rifle (25 cal) for longer range and out of state hunting. I realize I don’t like recoil and my limit is around 24. I find I shoot much better with a rifle that is down around 12. Unfortunately if I want longer range and be legal for deer there is no way to get around recoil.
 
OP
Article 4

Article 4

WKR
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
550
Location
The Great Northwest
This is a long one, but I will be unwatching after this. There’s nothing of value coming out of this thread any longer.

Idk where you were taught to interpret studies as blanket statements of fact. These in particular wreak of a Google search with confirmation bias. They are highly isolated in their applicability to hunting due to the number of variables that must be controlled. There are some points that must said:

1) peer review is debated among academics. Many argue it’s relevance because it’s a form of gatekeeping. Those who review can be biased, and uneducated in the field, and can have final judgement over an obscure topic. There have also been many hypothesis postulated that are not peer reviewed, but have validity, and are shot down due to politics or personal reasons. This is especially true in physics. Where one persons work could perhaps undermine and disprove another’s entire life’s work which happens to be the status quo of the time. This forms a conflict of interest. All peer reviewed means, is it was evaluated by peers. You know nothing of who those peers are or if there is a conflict of interest. Don’t let “educated” do the thinking for you. Galileo would not have been peer reviewed and went to his death for contradicting his peers and their nonsense. It’s the entire reason studies are structured as they are. You can recreate the experiment yourself and don’t need it to be interpreted by others.

2) theory vs hypothesis. Most people get this wrong:

Hypothesis- A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Theory- A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Hypothesis come first which postulate an idea. It can become a theory if the results can be readily reproduced predictably. A larger body of mass of equal velocity will have more energy than a smaller one under the same conditions. That is a theory.

What it does to living tissue is a hypothesis. If you can’t give me exact requirements of bullet size, velocity, shot placement, end etc, and I can’t recreate it predictably, it’s a hypothesis… I will concede this immediately, if you can tell me which bullet, at what velocity, in what caliber will give me an incapacitating hydrostatic shock on a real living thing EVERY SINGLE TIME… if you can’t, it is not a proven theory. It’s a hypothesis that may one day be proved to be correct, when more variables are controlled. If it’s only predictably under a very narrow subset of criteria when impacting a living thing, that is the opposite of granting more forgiveness. However it is a variable to consider if it interests you… As one of my old science teachers use to say: “I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you are not right.”

3) you are putting far too much emphasis on who is and is not a scientist. Everyone is a scientist. Children are the biggest scientists of all. Do you try to find predictable patterns in your life? Great, you’re a scientist. Some of the greatest “scientists” have no academic background. If you want your hypothesis of “energy advantage on living organisms under field conditions” to be correct, do the scientific thing and isolate/verify these variables yourself, and prove it. There are no holyier than thou ordained scientists. That’s a fallacy.

3) bigger is better??? In a vacuum maybe. If every shot is perfect as is as it is intentionally meant to be in your studies. What about recoil? What if I can get two 6mm 108s on target faster than one 180g 762? That’s 216g vs 180. More energy. Bigger is better right?… well yes, but it proved a smaller rifle was better at putting more energy on target in a shorter amount of time.

That’s not even touching on every nuance of the person shooting it and all of their flaws and inadequacies. I have a much better chance of killing an elephant with a 22 vs a 5 year old with a 338 win mag… In a vacuum of all other variables, bigger IS better. That is in fact what your studies are attempting to prove. Blatantly controlling all other variables… not a representation of life on Earth btw.

4) To the original question… 30s were never some superior do-all. Roughly the entire male population of the US was conscripted during ww2, and when they came back they naturally chose the same round they were issued and drilled with. It inspired confidence and was cheap and readily available. They promptly had kids which were the largest generation of Americans who were then also raised on 30s… they’re not magical or inherently more versatile as a do all. Just like 6.5s and 7s in Europe, or 303s in NZ or Canada, they were cheap and convenient, and to a generation that lived through the depression, cheap and convenient was highly favored.

Ironically that same group that came back that had the “do-all” figured out, would balk at how much money is put into obscure and expensive wonder magnums for something like as simple as hunting. Some people really like pushing the envelope, and it’s ok to like things. However, there is a thing called efficiency. The animal kingdom rewards the species that can accomplish its niche with the least amount of effort (economy). So again, no, even from a predatory standpoint. Bigger is not better. Enough to get the job done is the basis of life on earth… that’s a theory.

Quite frankly, I think you’re here to argue, seeing as how something like 4 other threads were also started by you, all positing a similar line of questioning that could be navigated to the same argument. You then posted the exact same study’s that were conveniently ready and waiting to be dragged into the discussion. I think your mind has been made up from the beginning and you are not interested in discussion. You desperately what your line of thinking to be fact.

I say this all with constructive criticism. Rather than see the same devolved argument take place, I would be far more interested if you posted an If-then hypothesis along with your controls and attempted to prove your argument with data. That would be very interesting and I would love to read it and continue to that discussion.

BTW you would enjoy Nathan Fosters work. Lots of field experimentation with live animals. In don’t agree with all of his conclusions but I very much enjoy reading is work. He too is a proponent of hydrostatic shock.

“Period… END” sorry I couldn’t resist 😆
I’ll let me help you then

I was classically trained as a biological scientist with a business degree thrown in for good measure. I worked for 21 years with multiple science based companies developing and interpreting studies for the NEJM - JAMA and other scientific journals. Oh, and developing prescribing information for US and 28 other countries products.

I know of Nathan Foster and didn’t cite him. I share your opinion of his work.

I helped start a well known barrel company. You might shoot with one in your rifle. Lots of folks do which is why I weigh in to help people understand specific arguments around the technology.

I also have a rifle company that I build custom rifles with. Small. Fun

I am a disabled combat veteran

Your opinion of my motives, as misplaced as they are - are inconsequential. My opinion is mine. Whether desperate or not is your opinion.

I come here in an anonymous fashion to exchange ideas. Maybe learn a few things. Enjoy the discourse and share info. A lot like everyone else.

Thanks for the additional education though.

Enjoy
 
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
2,466
Location
Timberline
Probably the same reason really long range shooters use them. Better BC and more powder so they can go further before going too slow for the bullet to work. I don’t think modern sniper rifles are ultralight 8 lb rifles either.
Even those who suggest using a 223 know it won’t make a 800+ yard lethal shot on an animal.

I am a convert after reading a few threads and am now building a smaller bore rifle (25 cal) for longer range and out of state hunting. I realize I don’t like recoil and my limit is around 24. I find I shoot much better with a rifle that is down around 12. Unfortunately if I want longer range and be legal for deer there is no way to get around recoil.

I've adequately taken [cow] elk at 300 +/- yds a few times with a 25 caliber.
 
Top