Is a 30 cal big game rifle needed anymore?

[Wiscgunner]

The line is the biggest caliber that I own for hunting. Currently it is a 30 Nosler running 210 ABLR's. Why ABLRs? Cause it is the most accurate and fastest bonded projectile that my rifle likes. I generally prefer a bonded bullet for heavier game

JAMA did a study on 511 bodies sustaining gunshot wounds in 2018 and found quote " Shootings with larger-caliber handguns were more deadly but no more sustained or accurate than shootings with smaller-caliber handguns." Meaning in general words, Bigger bullets do more damage and are no less or more accurate than smaller calibers or if you like - Big bullets kill better.

You do realize you are discussing 2 ENTIRELY different killing methods, correct? A study of subsonic, non-fragmenting rounds has no correlation to supersonic, fragmenting rifle bullets...at all. That is some fuddy-duddy misunderstanding of science and logic right there. I would, by far, rather be shot with a .45 caliber bullet than a .224 bullet when choosing between a 45acp and 223 because velocity is a real thing and "bigger is better" is not a real thing. However, "Bigger is SOMETIMES better" can be a thing.

In other news, indisputable proof from recent studies show that lemons and mustard both taste like yellow.

 

[Article 4]

You do realize you are discussing 2 ENTIRELY different killing methods, correct? A study of subsonic, non-fragmenting rounds has no correlation to supersonic, fragmenting rifle bullets...at all. That is some fuddy-duddy misunderstanding of science and logic right there. I would, by far, rather be shot with a .45 caliber bullet than a .224 bullet when choosing between a 45acp and 223 because velocity is a real thing and "bigger is better" is not a real thing. However, "Bigger is SOMETIMES better" can be a thing.

In other news, indisputable proof from recent studies show that lemons and mustard both taste like yellow.

Ever hear of the quote "When the person resorts to name calling, that person has lost the argument"

Yes, I do realize that I am citing two different kinds of energy transfer studies to proved my first principle, energy exists and has an affect on killing, the form it takes is irrelevant, but thanks for pointing out what is obvious.

In your own words - "You do realize" that Energy is always evolving because it can change form and transfer between objects, even though the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. This is the first law of thermodynamics regardless of round type or action upon impact. Again why I used to different studies.

Your inaccurate thought has been gone over multiple times in this thread. Two objects made of similar materials of different weight moving at the exact same speed will carry different amounts of energy at impact. The larger object will make a larger hole and transfer more energy. So you wanna speed up the 45 to the same speed as the 223, be my guest and you will get what is equivalent to an african dangerous game rifle which uses both a hole and a MASSIVE energy transfer to kill. One reason why we don't use a 223 to kill dangerous game.

Now to talk about fragmenting bullets specifically, the energy transfer happens but with a different transfer mechanism which I like. Berger states "Our hunting bullets are designed to penetrate a few inches into the vitals and begin to expand and create a massive wound cavity" Which many here say doesnt matter, which is very narrow minded when it comes from Litz directly. Berger further states "This delivers maximum organ/tissue damage and extreme hydrostatic shock aiding in and ethical kill" - Continuing to prove my point and outlining the flaw in yours.

Take a look and collect your thoughts, perhaps try again afterward.

I love mustard!

 

[Duh]

Bro, it’s so hard to take a guy serious when all he posts is other peoples work/theory/opinion, without showing any of his own personal proof/evidence/kills. Back up your opinion with some legit proof and not some articles.

I want to learn from dudes who are consistently killing and showing it. Go out and kill a lot of stuff yourself, with a bunch of different weapons.

Not saying I’ve got more experience than the OP here but you give me a rock to kill a deer, bear, elk, mammoth, Bigfoot etc, I’m gonna go out and kill with that rock instead of posting someone else’s ideas on killing shit with a rock.

These threads suck.

 

[Article 4]

Bro, it’s so hard to take a guy serious when all he posts is other peoples work/theory/opinion, without showing any of his own personal proof/evidence/kills. Back up your opinion with some legit proof and not some articles.

I want to learn from dudes who are consistently killing and showing it. Go out and kill a lot of stuff yourself, with a bunch of different weapons.

Not saying I’ve got more experience than the OP here but you give me a rock to kill a deer, bear, elk, mammoth, Bigfoot etc, I’m gonna go out and kill with that rock instead of posting someone else’s ideas on killing shit with a rock.

These threads suck.

Not your Bro.

 

[Duh]

Not your Bro.

Obviously. I only hang out with killers

 

[Wiscgunner]

Ever hear of the quote "When the person resorts to name calling, that person has lost the argument"
Not sure this is directed at me since I didn't resort to "name calling" but if your skin is that thin....

Yes, I do realize that I am citing two different kinds of energy transfer studies to proved my first principle, energy exists and has an affect on killing, the form it takes is irrelevant, but thanks for pointing out what is obvious. Energy transfer is what everyone else has been saying , thank you for acknowledging that the transfer of energy is more important than the amount of energy. Welcome to the other side.

In your own words - "You do realize" that Energy is always evolving because it can change form and transfer between objects, even though the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. This is the first law of thermodynamics regardless of round type or action upon impact. Again why I used to different studies.

Your inaccurate thought has been gone over multiple times in this thread. Two objects made of similar materials of different weight moving at the exact same speed will carry different amounts of energy at impact. The larger object will make a larger hole and transfer more energy. So you wanna speed up the 45 to the same speed as the 223, be my guest and you will get what is equivalent to an african dangerous game rifle which uses both a hole and a MASSIVE energy transfer to kill. One reason why we don't use a 223 to kill dangerous game.

Now to talk about fragmenting bullets specifically, the energy transfer happens but with a different transfer mechanism which I like. Berger states "Our hunting bullets are designed to penetrate a few inches into the vitals and begin to expand and create a massive wound cavity" Which many here say doesnt matter, which is very narrow minded when it comes from Litz directly. Berger further states "This delivers maximum organ/tissue damage and extreme hydrostatic shock aiding in and ethical kill" - Continuing to prove my point and outlining the flaw in yours.

Take a look and collect your thoughts, perhaps try again afterward.

I love mustard!

My thoughts are still quite collected but thank your for your concern. I am not eating pudding in the oval office.

At no point has ANYONE said energy is not needed or energy doesn't matter. Many however have said the energy figure on the box is irrelevant, which I agree with. And at no point did I tell you that I don't understand basic laws of energy conservation/conversion. You, almost solely, do not seem to get your own arguments and really seem to be “digging your feet in” so to speak. You have promoted the bigger is better, energy is king mentality but then quote Litz/Berger who are all about BC and fragmentation not raw energy. In fact, many people don’t like Berger bullets for how explosive they are without enough energy to pass through while others love them for the ability to drop down a caliber or two (smaller is better) and be just as effective. Perhaps you reference Litz/Berger as a sign to the rest of us that you are finally accepting the better/small bullet camp or at least bi-curious?


I don't think there is a single person in this thread that would disagree with "Two objects made of similar materials of different weight moving at the exact same speed will carry different amounts of energy at impact.". The entire discussion is not and has not been about momentum or mere "energy existing", it has been about "enough energy for the task" and better bullets transferring more potential energy to the wound. You keep going on about same side bullets yet reference fragmenting bullets. The very nature of expanding projectiles makes them behave like larger projectiles upon impact. you seem to struggle with this modern advancement but if you are a civil war reenactor, by all means stick with old tech.

Hunting bullets are NOT all about penetration or momentum just like race cars are not all about speed. If this were the case we would all be "hunting" with 10,000fps, 1000gr, .10cal depleted uranium projectiles. We have all, including some of your conflicting arguments, been advocating for a combination of features and what is necessary for the task of efficiently murdering living creatures. The argument you are now making is the very argument you have been fighting against. Smaller bullets with better design, behave like larger bullets upon impact thus the requirement for larger cartridges/calibers is no longer necessary. Modern bullet design negates the need for the excessive energy available in large cartridges with inferior bullets and when those same excessive cartridges are loaded with modern projectiles we suffer more wonton waste.

Energy is only a starting ingredient in this combination of features. A few commenters have already mentioned or alluded to parameters of what is needed for murdering food vs murdering people. The FBI has quite clearly stated what they choose to set as THEIR standard for murdering human animals effectively and efficiently. Obviously, a nuclear warhead is about the most effective weapon known to man but not many people would say that is efficient for home defense just because "bigger is better".

We, as an industry, do not have such established standards for food animals as the FBI does for murdering humans. Also these FBI standards do not necessarily apply to various other forms of life in their different shapes and sizes. FORM has talked about this as have a few others but as a community we do not seem to have a consensus on the effective performance of our murder weapons ie Depth of penetration, minimum and maximum (temp. and/or permanent) wound cavities, etc.

Instead of listing chest dimensions of various lifeforms we wish to unalive and/or eat, people list irrelevant arguments about undisputed ideas instead of addressing actual real world requirements. To me it is utterly ludicrous to start with a weapon (girth, potency, stamina, etc) BEFORE considering the work necessary. This is like grabbing an 18" machete first before looking upon your victim with a grin (or a grimace). This is backwards thinking. That machete is excessive for a peanut butter sandwich and entirely inadequate for taking down a 300ft Sequoia. Picking a particular caliber (insert .30, .22 or whatever is your lucky number) and saying it is better before defining the parameters of the job is just an absolute waste of oxygen.

 

[Wiscgunner]

For some reason, irrational people like to argue these points to self-affirm their decisions. “I own a .30 so it must be the right choice”. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The real discussion should be about defining parameters and then the caliber/cartridge/bullet choices are pre-determined. Feelings about the cartridge/caliber/bullet choice then become meaningless and those with poor choices become obvious.



What is the range of vital diameter for accuracy purposes?
- Shot placement is first and foremost if we are ruling out explosive projectiles. Weight of the system vs total energy produced. Less excess means more accuracy.
- Size of vital zones vary from animal to animal as well as with shot angle. Practicing smaller is better here because the vital zone can only deviate smaller than full size in the field.

What is the range of vital zone depths?
- are we looking for people size penetration? Frontal or broadside?
- what is the shoulder to shoulder width of blacktail vs moose?
- are we planning on full body penetration texas style?
- is 1/4ing the max distance of penetration?
What is the min/max of wound channel accepted?
- is the consensus looking for 4" diameter wound channel or 24" diameter wound channel?
- Varmint hunters often look for 100%+ of body size wound channel ie exploding prairie dogs. Do we want elk blown in 1/2 like prairie dogs? Remember some FEEL bigger is better.
Is over-penetration required?
- if so, excess energy needs to be retained beyond the vital zone
- is the over penetration necessary or just insurance against bad shot placement or bullet selection?
- If not required, what is the measured minimum penetration to reach vitals in various animal positions? See above.

What is the range of distance this needs to happen?
- Does the cartridge have enough power to push said bullet that far and retain acceptable performance in the above metrics?


Using a ballistic calculator to determine retained energy and velocity at the distance parameter, does the bullet of choice produce penetration and expansion in a test media within these industry standard tolerances?







Pretty easy to use the power of the internet and specifically the data of this forum to compile a list of useful data for new shooters (or old shooter looking to learn).

Animal​	Max Vital Target Size (Broadside Diameter)​	1/4ing Vital Size​
Black Tail Deer
White Tail Deer
Mule Deer
Lower 48 Moose
Alaska Moose
Elk
Black Bear
Grizzly
Brown Bear

Animal​	Minimum Vital Depth (Broadside)​	Max Vital Depth (1/4ing Penetration)​
Black Tail Deer
White Tail Deer
Mule Deer
Lower 48 Moose
Alaska Moose
Elk
Black Bear
Grizzly
Brown Bear

Bullet​	Muzzle Velocity​	Twist Rate​	BC​	Distance Verified​	Notes​
​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	​

Bullet​	Impact Velocity​	Neck Length​	Temp. Wound Diameter​	Permanent Wound Diameter​	Penetration Depth​	Weight Retention​

Just my take on real killing versus useless mathematical masturbation.

 

[BKM]

A good shot kills fast and a bad shot kills slow or not at all. Small caliber to large this is true.

I’m moving to less recoil cartridges because i shoot them better , if I shoot better I hit vitals a higher percentage of the time and kill more effectively

I shot a 300wsm starting the year it came out then moved to a 308win. Should be less effective right? Not for me, not one lost or wounded since. Not because it made a bigger longer wound but because I shot it better.

I’m now onto a 6.5cm and would not hesitate to go smaller. I just want good wound characteristics and what is most likely to hit vitals, it doesn’t really matter what the energy is.

 

[HandgunHTR]

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.

They went back to the 9mm because they made the determination that it was better to hit a bad guy with a smaller. lighter bullet than to miss them with a bigger/heavier bullet.

In essence, they found that their people couldn't shoot as well with the .40 as they could with the 9mm. Imagine that.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Not that it is going to help anything, but I believe the point was made a couple of weeks ago.

Nobody is disagreeing that energy has a role to play in terminal ballistics. It is required to overcome inertia as the bullet enters the target (penetration). It is also required to upset the bullet (fragmentation).

The problem that I believe everyone is fighting over is how much is necessary? I believe that the answer is "it depends". Each animal is a new variable. As has been proven over many years both methods work. What has changed in the past few years is the addition of heavy for caliber, frangible but not explosive bullets becoming available for the smaller calibers. These provide enough energy at distance to reliably penetrate into the vitals from a variety of angles, and have enough energy left over to cause bullet upset. These bullets also come apart in large enough chunks to cause multiple permanent wound channels, which (as proven in the multiple studies, some of which are linked) are much more effective at killing than the temporary wound channels caused by hydrostatic shock. Again, I am not saying that temporary wound channels or hydrostatic shock don't contribute to killing an animal. I am saying that it isn't reliable from animal to animal. Permanent wound channels are reliable, each and every time.

So, with that being understood, it now comes down to the fact that it is easier to be consistently accurate with lower recoiling shooting platforms. Not quite as many studies out there to pull from, but enough to make a pretty good argument. If you happen to be one of those who shoots a heavy recoiling rifle as good as a lighter recoiling rifle, great! However you are under the tail of the bell curve, and statistically speaking, you don't matter. It is those under the middle of the curve that matter.

At the end of the day, shooting a heavy for caliber bullet in one of the smaller caliber chamberings will provide more than enough energy to reliably kill thin skinned game out to "normal" hunting distances (600 yards and in) just as effectively as the larger calibers in bigger chamberings. The second is just leaving more on the table when all is said and done, and in my opinion, why would you do that?

 

[mtnbiker208]

I like big calibers and I can't deny!
I shoot big animals and they die!

 

[atmat]

 

[Article 4]

My thoughts are still quite collected but thank your for your concern. I am not eating pudding in the oval office.

At no point has ANYONE said energy is not needed or energy doesn't matter. Many however have said the energy figure on the box is irrelevant, which I agree with. And at no point did I tell you that I don't understand basic laws of energy conservation/conversion. You, almost solely, do not seem to get your own arguments and really seem to be “digging your feet in” so to speak. You have promoted the bigger is better, energy is king mentality but then quote Litz/Berger who are all about BC and fragmentation not raw energy. In fact, many people don’t like Berger bullets for how explosive they are without enough energy to pass through while others love them for the ability to drop down a caliber or two (smaller is better) and be just as effective. Perhaps you reference Litz/Berger as a sign to the rest of us that you are finally accepting the better/small bullet camp or at least bi-curious?


I don't think there is a single person in this thread that would disagree with "Two objects made of similar materials of different weight moving at the exact same speed will carry different amounts of energy at impact.". The entire discussion is not and has not been about momentum or mere "energy existing", it has been about "enough energy for the task" and better bullets transferring more potential energy to the wound. You keep going on about same side bullets yet reference fragmenting bullets. The very nature of expanding projectiles makes them behave like larger projectiles upon impact. you seem to struggle with this modern advancement but if you are a civil war reenactor, by all means stick with old tech.

Hunting bullets are NOT all about penetration or momentum just like race cars are not all about speed. If this were the case we would all be "hunting" with 10,000fps, 1000gr, .10cal depleted uranium projectiles. We have all, including some of your conflicting arguments, been advocating for a combination of features and what is necessary for the task of efficiently murdering living creatures. The argument you are now making is the very argument you have been fighting against. Smaller bullets with better design, behave like larger bullets upon impact thus the requirement for larger cartridges/calibers is no longer necessary. Modern bullet design negates the need for the excessive energy available in large cartridges with inferior bullets and when those same excessive cartridges are loaded with modern projectiles we suffer more wonton waste.

Energy is only a starting ingredient in this combination of features. A few commenters have already mentioned or alluded to parameters of what is needed for murdering food vs murdering people. The FBI has quite clearly stated what they choose to set as THEIR standard for murdering human animals effectively and efficiently. Obviously, a nuclear warhead is about the most effective weapon known to man but not many people would say that is efficient for home defense just because "bigger is better".

We, as an industry, do not have such established standards for food animals as the FBI does for murdering humans. Also these FBI standards do not necessarily apply to various other forms of life in their different shapes and sizes. FORM has talked about this as have a few others but as a community we do not seem to have a consensus on the effective performance of our murder weapons ie Depth of penetration, minimum and maximum (temp. and/or permanent) wound cavities, etc.

Instead of listing chest dimensions of various lifeforms we wish to unalive and/or eat, people list irrelevant arguments about undisputed ideas instead of addressing actual real world requirements. To me it is utterly ludicrous to start with a weapon (girth, potency, stamina, etc) BEFORE considering the work necessary. This is like grabbing an 18" machete first before looking upon your victim with a grin (or a grimace). This is backwards thinking. That machete is excessive for a peanut butter sandwich and entirely inadequate for taking down a 300ft Sequoia. Picking a particular caliber (insert .30, .22 or whatever is your lucky number) and saying it is better before defining the parameters of the job is just an absolute waste of oxygen.

Your sentence - "At no point has ANYONE said energy is not needed or energy doesn't matter."

YES!!!! In fact some of the most documented and related so called expert contributors on this site have said it!

You are stating nearly every point that has already been discussed and proved. Cheers

 

[ARK_Ginger]

 

[ElGuapo]

22-250 is the new .300 I hear on Rokslide……

 

[sharps54]

22-250 is the new .300 I hear on Rokslide……

What’s old is new again, at one time .220 Swift was the best deer killer out there.

 

[fwafwow]

View attachment 730067

Especially when well reasoned and rational points/questions remain without response or answers.

 

[MaraviaDave]

30 cal big game rifles are no longer needed…. ‘cause we have lots of options in larger calibers, along with their respective cartridge choices.​

 

[sharps54]

30 cal big game rifles are no longer needed…. ‘cause we have lots of options in larger calibers, along with their respective cartridge choices.​

Larger alternatives aren’t new, Elmer Keith was a proponent of them a lifetime ago.

 

[87TT]