Is a 30 cal big game rifle needed anymore?

[Choupique]

can't look away

Me either. I love it. It's genuinely fascinating. As a self proclaimed Fudd who shoots small game with big guns, I love reading about the folks out there blasting elk at long range with .223's. Before lurking around here I'd have never even attempted to shoot a whitetail with my AR.

Alas, I already own my big rifle and I like it a lot so I will continue using it. My kids likely going to start with an AR15 though, something I'd have thought was ludicrous a couple years ago.

 

[Beaverbuck1986]

Great question, yes! All of mankind should own one .30

 

[sharps54]

I used to own a number of elephant guns (CZ550 and Winchester Model 70 in 375 H&H, Winchester Model 70 in 416 Rem Mag, Weatherby DGR in 458 Lott) but ended up having to sell them at a low point and I'm never going to get to Africa now so it is hard to justify one these days. I may pick up a 45-70 or 450 Bushmaster just to play with but I know I don't need one to hunt with, especially here in the southeast. The smartest hunting rifle I could buy is a 243 or 6.5 Creedmore since I can't use a 22 centerfire in my state and because ammo is so readily available.

The big bores do have an allure though...

 

[Macintosh]

@Article 4 , since you have a science background—I have read your posts on this topic here and read and reread some of the links, including some of the references. Im still left thinking that your conclusions as I understand them are not necessarily supported by those studies, or at least that that those studies do not contradict the small cartridge folks either. You said you were refuting my points with evidence, but rereading I still dont see it. It appears you are extrapolating quite a ways from the conclusions in the studies you linked. Are you referring to studies you did not provide a link to? One key point is the significance of this ballistic pressure wave—at no point that I saw did they say it was a significant factor, they simply said it exists and likely contributes to incapacitation. It also does not equate incapacitation with death—many of us have seen big game hit with a cns effect, go down HARD and appear to be dead, only to get up and run off a long moment later, so incapacitation alone in the absence of physical trauma is also looked at suspiciously by many folks. Earlier you wrote the below regarding the significance of this pressure wave in incapacitation and death (versus from lack of oxygen to the brain from blood loss):

The statistical significance of that extent is well established. Its about the endpoint of the study. The outcome has been referenced as support for incapacitation, especially in the brain and nervous tissue. Measuring it in models is a relative term which is why scientists talk about it prospectively as a non-statistically significant outcome.

Since I was not able to find this, where are you pulling out that the pressure wave plays a MAJOR role in incapacitation and death, such that it is “well established” as a major contributing factor in faster incapacitation and death?

The other point I made that you said you countered, was with regard to the variation in terminal effect from different bullets. Both from an energy standpoint as well as from a tissue damage and blood loss standpoint. The articles you cited on energy were clear that fragmenting bullets created more of a pressure wave than non-fragmenting bullets, and another of the references clearly stated that a bullet creating a narrower and longer wound channel also created less of a pressure wave. So with those saying a big .30 isnt necessary almost exclusively advocating fragmenting bullets, those are precisely the bullets that will result in the highest pressure wave for a given amount of total possible energy transfer, in addition to creating the largest physical wound channel possible. With that specifically called out in those studies Im curious what is the evidence you are referring to that precludes such a smaller fragmenting projectile from having a equal or greater terminal effect than a larger mono or bonded bullet that, by virtue of its construction, creates a narrower wound channel and therefore does both less physical tissue damage as well as creates a smaller pressure wave?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Iowa has a 35 cal minimum for white tail

Smaller centerfires can be used during January antlerless seasons in southern Iowa.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

So let’s say I have my 30-06 built out the way I want it, 1,000’s of 30-06 cases, well stocked on .308 bullets and powder. Would you all still recommend going with a smaller cartridge for the benefits?

I'm a tight ass by nature, and no, I wouldn't switch over given all the components and familiarity you have with this rifle.

 

[BigNate]

I'm a tight ass by nature, and no, I wouldn't switch over given all the components and familiarity you have with this rifle.

I wouldn't avoid using a bigger caliber. It's just not "needed" really.

I have a .338wm that will stack the first five and still use it for elk for the most part. The reason is its accurate and I have enough components to use it until I die most likely.
I have also squirreled away enough. 308" I'll never run out. But I find myself using a 25-06 even for elk most of the time lately because it's effective, and it isn't as heavy.

 

[Article 4]

@Article 4 , since you have a science background—I have read your posts on this topic here and read and reread some of the links, including some of the references. Im still left thinking that your conclusions as I understand them are not necessarily supported by those studies, or at least that that those studies do not contradict the small cartridge folks either. You said you were refuting my points with evidence, but rereading I still dont see it. It appears you are extrapolating quite a ways from the conclusions in the studies you linked. Are you referring to studies you did not provide a link to? One key point is the significance of this ballistic pressure wave—at no point that I saw did they say it was a significant factor, they simply said it exists and likely contributes to incapacitation. It also does not equate incapacitation with death—many of us have seen big game hit with a cns effect, go down HARD and appear to be dead, only to get up and run off a long moment later, so incapacitation alone in the absence of physical trauma is also looked at suspiciously by many folks. Earlier you wrote the below regarding the significance of this pressure wave in incapacitation and death (versus from lack of oxygen to the brain from blood loss):



Since I was not able to find this, where are you pulling out that the pressure wave plays a MAJOR role in incapacitation and death, such that it is “well established” as a major contributing factor in faster incapacitation and death?

The other point I made that you said you countered, was with regard to the variation in terminal effect from different bullets. Both from an energy standpoint as well as from a tissue damage and blood loss standpoint. The articles you cited on energy were clear that fragmenting bullets created more of a pressure wave than non-fragmenting bullets, and another of the references clearly stated that a bullet creating a narrower and longer wound channel also created less of a pressure wave. So with those saying a big .30 isnt necessary almost exclusively advocating fragmenting bullets, those are precisely the bullets that will result in the highest pressure wave for a given amount of total possible energy transfer, in addition to creating the largest physical wound channel possible. With that specifically called out in those studies Im curious what is the evidence you are referring to that precludes such a smaller fragmenting projectile from having a equal or greater terminal effect than a larger mono or bonded bullet that, by virtue of its construction, creates a narrower wound channel and therefore does both less physical tissue damage as well as creates a smaller pressure wave?

Thats fine, you are more than welcome to disagree. My interpretation of the cited studies stands.

My assertion has always been "There are such a thing as energy and it creates pressure waves, cavitation, and both temporary and permanent cavities which do have a significant affect on killing through hydrostatic shock." One of the reasons I post it is due to the misconception that many have, including some so called experts here that say it doesn't not exist or matter. I am not going to list every citation but had you read them you would have likely read the following:

Citation 1 NIH study: Three terminal effects will present after a projectile penetrating the ballistic gelatin, respectively temporary cavity, permanent cavity, and the cracks. Of note, when permanent cavity is not formed in ballistic gelatin, the term “permanent track” should be used instead. For high speed rifle bullets, previous study and our experiments both documented the formation of permanent cavity. Keep reading, its about 15 pages long

Citation 2, West Point Paper which is the most significant and has multiple sections and passages supporting the abstract statement: This paper reviews the scientific support for a ballistic pressure wave radiating outward from a penetrating projectile and causing injury and incapacitation. This phenomenon is known colloquially as “hydrostatic shock.” The idea apparently originates with Col. Frank Chamberlin, a World War II trauma surgeon and wound ballistics researcher. The paper reviews claims that hydrostatic shock is a myth and considers supporting evidence through parallels with blast, describing the physics of the pressure wave, , and remote evidence for remote cerebral effects in the spine and other internal organs. Finally, the review considers the levels of energy transfer required for the phenomenon to be readily observed.

When we discuss size of the bullet, there are too many variables. Speed, Weight, Sectional Density, Target composition, whether the bullet stays inside or passes through etc...I think about it this way, I would not use a 223 to kill a grizz, cape buffalo, or elephant...there is a reason we use 375 of larger, which is stopping power. Stopping power comes from kinetic energy, unless there is enough, the potential bullet hole becomes inconsequential.

I agree, that a 30 isn't always necessary however continue to use one for larger game. I do enjoy that you are deeply involved in this conversation and actually took the time to make a good discussion better. Thanks, it doesn't always happen here.

 

[tater]

In my "alternate reality fantasy" Bob Milek, Jack O' Connor, Skeeter Skelton and Elmer Keith are here on RS and we are watching them debate this all in real time as opposed to waiting month by month for them to argue about it in print...

I remember when a certain Colonel that thinks you need a .338WM as a minimum for elk (and whose wife shoots dink rams) started writing and he took a run at Milek for consistently shooting everything in the West with a 25-06.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Macintosh]

Thats fine, you are more than welcome to disagree. My interpretation of the cited studies stands.

I have never made any assertion around small cartridges specifically so there would be no conclusion based on that. To date you haven't offered a single piece of study or well designed data to support your thoughts; yet you continue to make assertions that my interpretations are wrong based on your opinion without ANY standing through study or citation that refutes what I shared. This leads me to conclude that you are more interested in sharing your opinion and making your baseless claims. Do you have any data that supports your assertions specifically? If so, send it. I would enjoy reading it.

My assertion has always been "There are such a thing as energy and it creates pressure waves and they do have an affect on killing." One of the reasons I post it is due to the misconception that many have, including some so called experts that regulars here that say it doesn't not exist or matter. The studies support that claim.

I agree, that a 30 isn't always necessary however continue to use one for larger game. I do enjoy that you are deeply involve din this conversation and actually took the time to make a good discussion better. Thanks, it doesn't always happen here.

Im not interested in my opinon or baseless claims even a little, I apologize if you took it that way. I have replied because I think there is misinformation being tossed around a topic (hunting) I care about. I enjoy these esoteric conversations, but I am doing this because its something I have stumbled on for years myself and I want to get it right. I am learning, and also hoping to either pass along what I have learned or be corrected in what is wrong. Ultimately I am absolutely not targeting "you", but as the OP, and as a frequent contributor to this thread who has posted some statements that I dont think add up, and because you have the background you outlined and will influence people, I do think to get the info straight its worth calling out. I hope you dont take it personally, it's not meant to be given that way.

The statements you made that I believe are erroneous are to the effect of these three points below--
I can type out a couple of the statements if you'd like, but your posts #154, post #216, and post#237 all contain statements to this effect which as far as I can tell are not supported or are directly contradicted by the links you posted.

1) raw BULLET energy, defined only by mass and velocity, being predictive of faster killing (as opposed to TRANSFERRED energy, which is different, this differentiation being supported explicitly by your own links),
2) energy making up for poor shot placement (there is ambiguous info in your links on this with some statements that a pressure wave from a very remote impact can be detected that is correlated to a physiological effect, but also an explicit, seemingly contradictory, statement that the effect was limited to very close proximity to the wound channel; and with no indication of how significant this effect is overall, or what the connection to actual death is as opposed to only incapacitation; also did not see more than correlation of pressure wave and physiological effect, ie did the paper even claim causation? I'm not certain it did) ,
and combined with
3) multiple statements defining the TRANSFER of energy as being determined only by bullet weight and velocity (which is counter to your own links, which explicitly state that transfer of energy is also dependent on bullet-type due the bullet-type being the major factor in how much of the total bullet energy is transferred to the animal at all in the case of a pass-thru, and also on what the resulting peak force on tissue will be and where that force is directed based on depth and width of wound channel).


I've so far cited only the links you posted, although I did post a link to one of the references from your first link--since those links support what I said I did not feel adding new ones would be helpful. The original links plus the one I added all support what I said, and I previously specified verbiage line by line from those links that supports my conclusion, which is simply that raw kinetic energy based only on bullet mass and velocity is not predictive of terminal performance--either from a pressure wave or from a tissue damage perspective--instead, that different bullet construction creates differences in energy TRANSFER that results in differing terminal effect, such that a lighter bullet that transfers energy more efficiently and differently can have equal or greater terminal effectiveness than a bigger bullet that does not transfer its energy completely or efficiently. Your links explicitly support this conclusion as I lined out previously, as do other studies I have read when this topic comes up here (you can refer to many of the studies linked in the match/target bullets for hunting thread as well as numerous other threads), and it is also supported by my personal observed results as well as those pictured in 3 or 4 different terminal performance threads on this site.
At no point have I said a pressure wave does not exist--I asked to see the links, read them at face value, and said the links did not contradict the smaller cartridge advocates, which I still believe is true. It would be odd if a pressure wave did not exist at 3000fps when a solid object hits a largely liquid one, the question is how significant that is toward actual DEATH and to a lesser degree toward incapacitation, which I was not able to find in the links you posted. This is why I asked again what evidence you were referring to, since you told me you were refuting my claim with evidence, and when I went back and re-read your links it still was not there that I could find--as far as I can tell the evidence showing that a pressure wave is a major contributing factor toward death, or even a major factor in incapacitation that might lead to a measurably higher recovery rate, isnt contained in those links. This is not something I'm being petty about it, I'd like to know if I'm misreading or missed something, I just dont see it there.

Yes, I believe energy matters. Yes, I absolutely, wholeheartedly support using a gun and bullets that kills quickly. I'm with you 150% there.
Where I differ is that everything I have experienced and read, including the links YOU posted, ties that at least in part to bullet type, and cites differences in terminal bullet performance related to construction as the reason. Raw energy alone clearly matters, if it isnt there it cant be used--but based on my experience and what I have read, it's clear energy TRANSFER matters as much, and the links in this thread demonstrate that is also determined by bullet construction. Energy that passes thru an animal is not transferred at all--1500ft lb minus the 1000ftlb it's still carrying after passing through=only 500ftlb transferred to the animal. And, energy that is transferred slower and along the pullet path lowers the Fmax applied to tissue around the wound channel and reduces the pressure wave, which is also stated explicitly in the reference I cited from your link. And even more, bullet fragments also physically increase the permanent cavity in a way that isnt linked directly to energy, and your link suggests that also increases the pressure wave as well. All of this is supported by the data you posted, and all of this supports the folks who are saying bullets matter more than headstamps.

 

[Lou270]

Haven’t followed the whole thread but will add a couple points for discussion

1) Kinetic energy defines the volume of the wound. The more energy, the more wounding potential.

2) Rate of energy transfer decides the diameter of the temporary cavity. Rate of energy transfer is proportional to drag. In fluid dynamics drag is proportional to surface area and v^2. So the the faster something is going, the more the drag, the faster the energy transfer, the wider the wound. Same with widest diameter / surface area The temp cavity is widest at point of max energy transfer. If a bullet does not expand much or lands with low velocity it may not make as big a wound as you want it to since energy transfer will be lower

2) Terminal sectional density and velocity determine how deep a bullet will penetrate. This is the final shape of the bullet after it deforms. If is a shredded mess it may not penetrate as deep as you want it to

4) Fragmentation combined with energy transfer/temporary cavity is what does significant wounding. Fragmentation alone adds little to wounding but pokes tiny holes that cause larger tears when the flesh stretches from temporary cavity. High energy rifle bulllets show this effect but low energy handgun do not, for ex. And yes, 223 is considered high energy in this instance. A temporary cavity alone may not cause a big wound without fragmentation (some tissue more susceptible) though other things like bone fragments serve a similar effect

Personally, I like a cartridge/bullet that has ample weight for game I am hunting so can lose some for fragmentation/increased damage but maintain a nice mushroom after for continued straight penetration in case need it

Lou

 

[Article 4]

Im not interested in my opinon or baseless claims even a little, I apologize if you took it that way. I have replied because I think there is misinformation being tossed around a topic (hunting) I care about. I enjoy these esoteric conversations, but I am doing this because its something I have stumbled on for years myself and I want to get it right. I am learning, and also hoping to either pass along what I have learned or be corrected in what is wrong. Ultimately I am absolutely not targeting "you", but as the OP, and as a frequent contributor to this thread who has posted some statements that I dont think add up, and because you have the background you outlined and will influence people, I do think to get the info straight its worth calling out. I hope you dont take it personally, it's not meant to be given that way.

The statements you made that I believe are erroneous are to the effect of these three points below--
I can type out a couple of the statements if you'd like, but your posts #154, post #216, and post#237 all contain statements to this effect which as far as I can tell are not supported or are directly contradicted by the links you posted.

1) raw BULLET energy, defined only by mass and velocity, being predictive of faster killing (as opposed to TRANSFERRED energy, which is different, this differentiation being supported explicitly by your own links),
2) energy making up for poor shot placement (there is ambiguous info in your links on this with some statements that a pressure wave from a very remote impact can be detected that is correlated to a physiological effect, but also an explicit, seemingly contradictory, statement that the effect was limited to very close proximity to the wound channel; and with no indication of how significant this effect is overall, or what the connection to actual death is as opposed to only incapacitation; also did not see more than correlation of pressure wave and physiological effect, ie did the paper even claim causation? I'm not certain it did) ,
and combined with
3) multiple statements defining the TRANSFER of energy as being determined only by bullet weight and velocity (which is counter to your own links, which explicitly state that transfer of energy is also dependent on bullet-type due the bullet-type being the major factor in how much of the total bullet energy is transferred to the animal at all in the case of a pass-thru, and also on what the resulting peak force on tissue will be and where that force is directed based on depth and width of wound channel).


I've so far cited only the links you posted, although I did post a link to one of the references from your first link--since those links support what I said I did not feel adding new ones would be helpful. The original links plus the one I added all support what I said, and I previously specified verbiage line by line from those links that supports my conclusion, which is simply that raw kinetic energy based only on bullet mass and velocity is not predictive of terminal performance--either from a pressure wave or from a tissue damage perspective--instead, that different bullet construction creates differences in energy TRANSFER that results in differing terminal effect, such that a lighter bullet that transfers energy more efficiently and differently can have equal or greater terminal effectiveness than a bigger bullet that does not transfer its energy completely or efficiently. Your links explicitly support this conclusion as I lined out previously, as do other studies I have read when this topic comes up here (you can refer to many of the studies linked in the match/target bullets for hunting thread as well as numerous other threads), and it is also supported by my personal observed results as well as those pictured in 3 or 4 different terminal performance threads on this site.
At no point have I said a pressure wave does not exist--I asked to see the links, read them at face value, and said the links did not contradict the smaller cartridge advocates, which I still believe is true. It would be odd if a pressure wave did not exist at 3000fps when a solid object hits a largely liquid one, the question is how significant that is toward actual DEATH and to a lesser degree toward incapacitation, which I was not able to find in the links you posted. This is why I asked again what evidence you were referring to, since you told me you were refuting my claim with evidence, and when I went back and re-read your links it still was not there that I could find--as far as I can tell the evidence showing that a pressure wave is a major contributing factor toward death, or even a major factor in incapacitation that might lead to a measurably higher recovery rate, isnt contained in those links. This is not something I'm being petty about it, I'd like to know if I'm misreading or missed something, I just dont see it there.

Yes, I believe energy matters. Yes, I absolutely, wholeheartedly support using a gun and bullets that kills quickly. I'm with you 150% there.
Where I differ is that everything I have experienced and read, including the links YOU posted, ties that at least in part to bullet type, and cites differences in terminal bullet performance related to construction as the reason. Raw energy alone clearly matters, if it isnt there it cant be used--but based on my experience and what I have read, it's clear energy TRANSFER matters as much, and the links in this thread demonstrate that is also determined by bullet construction. Energy that passes thru an animal is not transferred at all--1500ft lb minus the 1000ftlb it's still carrying after passing through=only 500ftlb transferred to the animal. And, energy that is transferred slower and along the pullet path lowers the Fmax applied to tissue around the wound channel and reduces the pressure wave, which is also stated explicitly in the reference I cited from your link. And even more, bullet fragments also physically increase the permanent cavity in a way that isnt linked directly to energy, and your link suggests that also increases the pressure wave as well. All of this is supported by the data you posted, and all of this supports the folks who are saying bullets matter more than headstamps.

It would be a rare occurrence for any study to provide and absolute. Especially when there are a large number of variables. Finding a comprehensive study would likely be an astronomically big check.

Glad you agree about energy. Glad you agree that the right cartridge is a big factor in an energetic kill. Glad we agree on why we do this. Passion for the sport and the best ethical kill we can make.

Appreciate your thoughts. Cheers

 

[BigNate]

...and we're off...again.

 

[fwafwow]

Im not interested in my opinon or baseless claims even a little, I apologize if you took it that way. I have replied because I think there is misinformation being tossed around a topic (hunting) I care about. I enjoy these esoteric conversations, but I am doing this because its something I have stumbled on for years myself and I want to get it right. I am learning, and also hoping to either pass along what I have learned or be corrected in what is wrong. Ultimately I am absolutely not targeting "you", but as the OP, and as a frequent contributor to this thread who has posted some statements that I dont think add up, and because you have the background you outlined and will influence people, I do think to get the info straight its worth calling out. I hope you dont take it personally, it's not meant to be given that way.

The statements you made that I believe are erroneous are to the effect of these three points below--
I can type out a couple of the statements if you'd like, but your posts #154, post #216, and post#237 all contain statements to this effect which as far as I can tell are not supported or are directly contradicted by the links you posted.

1) raw BULLET energy, defined only by mass and velocity, being predictive of faster killing (as opposed to TRANSFERRED energy, which is different, this differentiation being supported explicitly by your own links),
2) energy making up for poor shot placement (there is ambiguous info in your links on this with some statements that a pressure wave from a very remote impact can be detected that is correlated to a physiological effect, but also an explicit, seemingly contradictory, statement that the effect was limited to very close proximity to the wound channel; and with no indication of how significant this effect is overall, or what the connection to actual death is as opposed to only incapacitation; also did not see more than correlation of pressure wave and physiological effect, ie did the paper even claim causation? I'm not certain it did) ,
and combined with
3) multiple statements defining the TRANSFER of energy as being determined only by bullet weight and velocity (which is counter to your own links, which explicitly state that transfer of energy is also dependent on bullet-type due the bullet-type being the major factor in how much of the total bullet energy is transferred to the animal at all in the case of a pass-thru, and also on what the resulting peak force on tissue will be and where that force is directed based on depth and width of wound channel).


I've so far cited only the links you posted, although I did post a link to one of the references from your first link--since those links support what I said I did not feel adding new ones would be helpful. The original links plus the one I added all support what I said, and I previously specified verbiage line by line from those links that supports my conclusion, which is simply that raw kinetic energy based only on bullet mass and velocity is not predictive of terminal performance--either from a pressure wave or from a tissue damage perspective--instead, that different bullet construction creates differences in energy TRANSFER that results in differing terminal effect, such that a lighter bullet that transfers energy more efficiently and differently can have equal or greater terminal effectiveness than a bigger bullet that does not transfer its energy completely or efficiently. Your links explicitly support this conclusion as I lined out previously, as do other studies I have read when this topic comes up here (you can refer to many of the studies linked in the match/target bullets for hunting thread as well as numerous other threads), and it is also supported by my personal observed results as well as those pictured in 3 or 4 different terminal performance threads on this site.
At no point have I said a pressure wave does not exist--I asked to see the links, read them at face value, and said the links did not contradict the smaller cartridge advocates, which I still believe is true. It would be odd if a pressure wave did not exist at 3000fps when a solid object hits a largely liquid one, the question is how significant that is toward actual DEATH and to a lesser degree toward incapacitation, which I was not able to find in the links you posted. This is why I asked again what evidence you were referring to, since you told me you were refuting my claim with evidence, and when I went back and re-read your links it still was not there that I could find--as far as I can tell the evidence showing that a pressure wave is a major contributing factor toward death, or even a major factor in incapacitation that might lead to a measurably higher recovery rate, isnt contained in those links. This is not something I'm being petty about it, I'd like to know if I'm misreading or missed something, I just dont see it there.

Yes, I believe energy matters. Yes, I absolutely, wholeheartedly support using a gun and bullets that kills quickly. I'm with you 150% there.
Where I differ is that everything I have experienced and read, including the links YOU posted, ties that at least in part to bullet type, and cites differences in terminal bullet performance related to construction as the reason. Raw energy alone clearly matters, if it isnt there it cant be used--but based on my experience and what I have read, it's clear energy TRANSFER matters as much, and the links in this thread demonstrate that is also determined by bullet construction. Energy that passes thru an animal is not transferred at all--1500ft lb minus the 1000ftlb it's still carrying after passing through=only 500ftlb transferred to the animal. And, energy that is transferred slower and along the pullet path lowers the Fmax applied to tissue around the wound channel and reduces the pressure wave, which is also stated explicitly in the reference I cited from your link. And even more, bullet fragments also physically increase the permanent cavity in a way that isnt linked directly to energy, and your link suggests that also increases the pressure wave as well. All of this is supported by the data you posted, and all of this supports the folks who are saying bullets matter more than headstamps.

I think you bent over backwards here and previously to be polite and ask questions that reasonably follow from reading the cited studies.

 

[BigNate]

"raw kinetic energy based only on bullet mass and velocity is not predictive of terminal performance" - Truth

Why are people still hung up on KE or ft lbs of energy numbers? It's a calculation that means very little by itself. It doesn't determine anything without transfer.
Like a roadster with a 1000hp engine, power glide trans, traction bars, limited slip, etc. It has the potential to be quick in a quarter mile. But if the tires can't transfer all that energy to the track it's just a smoke show.

This thread demonstrates why so many are still using large cartridges and heavy bullets all the while complaining about poor performance.

Selecting both bullet and cartridge based on need, or desired outcome, still seems to mystify.

 

[Wilderlife]

I made a thread recently about how my 7.7lb .300WM isn't particularly pleasant to shoot, but I handle it fine and it's a great rifle and cartridge.
For most of my hunting, I don't need the .300WM, but it's nice to have and definitely useful when I go chasing larger critters.
I sit in both camps at times. I often like the idea of 'less is more' and regularly shoot medium game animals with smaller cartridges, but I also like to use a lot of power sometimes when I feel like something different.
Same with my bows. Sometimes I take out a sub 50# trad bow and sometimes I take out my 77# compound.

 

[JDBAK]

I have a 20” barreled suppressed 300wsm with 208 gr ELDMs to hunt blacktails and goats coastal AK brown bears country.

My reasoning for it is larger wound cavity gives a little more margin for error to stop a bear up close, and a higher BC bullet is more forgiving in the wind at long range.

Shooting suppressed, the recoil isn’t punishing. It’s too much to spot shots though, and slower to make a follow up shot.

So is it worth it? Not so sure anymore.

Putting wind aside, I might well be faster and more reliable stopping a bear up close with an AR run hard. 0.2 second splits of 5.56 vs maybe 1.5?

 

[fwafwow]

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

This post was one of the best of recent memory.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

This post was one of the best of recent memory.