Is a 30 cal big game rifle needed anymore?

[Article 4]

Do you have a link? Id like to check that out. So far everything I have read suggests that there are multiple factors at play, energy being one that, while relevant, is only relevant if it is expended (ie bullet does not pencil or carry energy out the other side), and is highly dependent on 1) how and where within the wound channel it is expended and 2) if there is additional mechanism that isn’t related to energy (such as bullet fragments causing additional injury during the temporary stretch cavity while tissue is near its elastic limit). In other words, what I have read is that everyone already agrees energy is relevant, but none of the resources I have read claim energy is predictive of good performance by itself, none even ask how much damage is “enough”, and no one looking holistically says energy is the only thing thats relevant. Which aligns perfectly with what the “little gun advocates” here are saying. If someone legit is saying otherwise Id like to check that out.

We talked about this several months ago in very heated debate you can find here. Yes I think nearly everyone in the community would agree, shot placement matters. This article does talk a bit about predictive performance in lbs of energy observed to disrupt tissue and organs.

Nearly every piece of peer reviewed and well documented data that I can find in the past 10-20 years or so corroborates the effect of energy. The notion that is doesnt goes back to WWII and other eras where the data was not collected well or tested to a scientifically supported premise.

For me, I will accept the educated and proven quotes and data from Brian Litz (berger), Dave Emery (hornady), Jayden Quinlan (hornady), Steven Rinella (meateater), multiple statistical scientists, West Point ballisticians, like Michael Courtney, PhD Ballistics Testing Group, at West Point, Amy Courtney, PhD Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, and all the other scientists who are quoted as saying it matters and its true.

Specifically - read this and notice the opening abstract talking about original studies going back to WWII as being false: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA526059.pdf


Then take a look at this. I video of a bullet going through ballistics gel - which is used to test what it would do to a live animal/person etc. That gigantic wave you see is energy

 

[Article 4]

Please site the reference.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA526059.pdf

 

[eightyeight mag]

Meanwhile…back at the .223 elk camp

 

[S-3 ranch]

Ladies don’t get your pantys all up in a wad over such trivial matters
Most calibers are pretty generic energy wise till you reach .30 cal +

And the .223 for elk , moose, bear is so anemic it like watching a corn hole match on the radio

A .308 will be forever used as a hunting caliber end of story because it meets all the criteria for hunting, both man & beast

 

[Shō[t]gun]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA526059.pdf

The recommendations chapter at the end does not support your comments.

 

[RobHazmat89]

Please site the reference.

Cite*

 

[Article 4]

The recommendations chapter at the end does not support your comments.View attachment 724663

You appear not to know what you are quoting or reading. The clip above SUPPORTS the premise as does the entire study

For those who dont wanna read the entire thing, here is the abstract premise on page one

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, evidence for remote cerebral effects, and remote 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.


Read the entire thing

 

[Shō[t]gun]

You appear not to know what you are quoting or reading. The clip above SUPPORTS the premise as does the entire study

For those who dont wanna read the entire thing, here is the abstract premise on page one

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, evidence for remote cerebral effects, and remote 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.


Read the entire thing

At sea level even the meager 223/77 maintains 500 ft# out to 500y, at 8k feet it stretches to 700y. It creates ~16-18” long wound channel and fragments to transfer all energy to the target along a wide diameter path. How does that not qualify?

I’m not even a 223 addict but it’s a great example to use as an extreme opposite when people lean on feelings over stats.

 

[Article 4]

At sea level even the meager 223/77 maintains 500 ft# out to 500y, at 8k feet it stretches to 700y. It creates ~16-18” long wound channel and fragments to transfer all energy to the target along a wide diameter path. How does that not qualify?

I’m not even a 223 addict but it’s a great example to use as an extreme opposite when people lean on feelings over stats.

No idea what you are trying to say. Maybe collect your thoughts and try again

 

[Shō[t]gun]

No idea what you are trying to say. Maybe collect your thoughts and try again

Really not sure where the hang up is. You’re arguing for a specific caliber minimum and maximizing energy, yet the study you referenced states much less than that. So back to your original post of what’s needed, the study answers that pretty well.

 

[Article 4]

Really not sure where the hang up is. You’re arguing for a specific caliber minimum and maximizing energy, yet the study you referenced states much less than that. So back to your original post of what’s needed, the study answers that pretty well.

I agree, The study does prove scientifically supported evidence for Hydrostatic energy. Thanks for confirming it

YOU asked for evidence. I provided it. That you cannot understand it is on you.

Good luck.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Evryone has their own opinion on which is the best the best all around cal. Every cal. has its strong points with a few maybe bad points, like over kill. Shot what you like or have, just remember, shot placement is the most important thing. Growing up, I saw a guy kill a white tail with a .22, granted it was only about ten yard shot, shot placement.

 

[TaperPin]

I interviewed an expert in smack down power (the junior high school kid that picks up dog poop and mows the lawn) and thought what he had to say was quite convincing that more power is in fact more deadly.

Through the ring doorbell I simply asked, “What would hurt more, one of your sisters smacking you in the face, or both doing it at the same time?” No question about it, even someone without a high school diploma who has risen to the title of head dog poop picker understands clearly and without a doubt, double the energy makes a difference.

 

[Macintosh]

@Article 4 , thanks.
I actually have read that. It says exactly what I had understood, which is that energy absolutely does matter, but with a caveat, the caveat being that the exact form of how the energy is applied makes a huge difference, and also that bullet fragmentation is on top of the basic energy, ie it is an additional mechanism of wounding that is addative with the energy you are referring to. I think this debate always gets overly simplified, but if you look at the folks who are leading the charge on advocating for smaller cartridges, they are very specific that they are only referring to very specific bullets, and when they say the small cartridge is sufficient, they are only making a comparison between “Small bullets with maximum damage potential” (ie explosively frangible lead bullets, ie energy PLUS fragmentation damage leading to a large-for-caliber wound channel), compared to “large bullets with minimum damage potential” (ie bonded lead or mono with a small-for-caliber wound channel). The same people are providing photos of large caliber wounds utilizing the same frangible bullets, which in most peoples opinions seem to cause excessively more damage than anyone wants—NO ONE in this debate that has been really following it is claiming that a small cartridge creates the same wounding effect as a large cartridge if the same bullets are used.
Overall, I guess where I’m going from this, is that the studies you provided and the quote you provided, do not contradict what the small-cartridge folks are saying. That citation doesnt have any specifics, but at the level of specificity provided it only reinforces the point that so many people here are saying, ie a small optimised bullet causes about as much damage as a large minimized bullet, and from a wounding perspective it doesnt really matter if your baseline is a .308 cal bonded lead or mono bullet.

In other words, use a .30cal if you want, it clearly works…it’s just not NECESSARY.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

I agree, The study does prove scientifically supported evidence for Hydrostatic energy. Thanks for confirming it

YOU asked for evidence. I provided it. That you cannot understand it is on you.

Good luck.

Carry on, I don’t think you need anyone else present to maintain an argument.

 

[Article 4]

@Article 4 , thanks.
I actually have read that. It says exactly what I had understood, which is that energy absolutely does matter, but with a caveat, the caveat being that the exact form of how the energy is applied makes a huge difference, and also that bullet fragmentation is on top of the basic energy, ie it is an additional mechanism of wounding that is addative with the energy you are referring to. I think this debate always gets overly simplified, but if you look at the folks who are leading the charge on advocating for smaller cartridges, they are very specific that they are only referring to very specific bullets, and when they say the small cartridge is sufficient, they are only making a comparison between “Small bullets with maximum damage potential” (ie explosively frangible lead bullets, ie energy PLUS fragmentation damage leading to a large-for-caliber wound channel), compared to “large bullets with minimum damage potential” (ie bonded lead or mono with a small-for-caliber wound channel). The same people are providing photos of large caliber wounds utilizing the same frangible bullets, which in most peoples opinions seem to cause excessively more damage than anyone wants—NO ONE in this debate that has been really following it is claiming that a small cartridge creates the same wounding effect as a large cartridge if the same bullets are used.
Overall, I guess where I’m going from this, is that the studies you provided and the quote you provided, do not contradict what the small-cartridge folks are saying. That citation doesnt have any specifics, but at the level of specificity provided it only reinforces the point that so many people here are saying, ie a small optimised bullet causes about as much damage as a large minimized bullet, and from a wounding perspective it doesnt really matter if your baseline is a .308 cal bonded lead or mono bullet.

In other words, use a .30cal if you want, it clearly works…it’s just not NECESSARY.

Appreciate your take on it. Thanks for making such a well designed post.

 

[pacoalcracker]

Jack O. and Winchester had it right for the past 70 years. The 270 Winchester is the rifleman's rifle. It's just as good as any 6.5 PRC at any reasonable range of 600+, light recoil, the ammo is less expensive and everywhere. Jack killed everything on the NA continent with that 270 and ammo/bullets are far better today.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA526059.pdf

This is long but bear with me. It pertains to recommendations for new hunters.

None of this data within this study is relevant to the end user. All it states is a hypothesis of ballistic pressure waves inducing injury and incapacitation, but it’s not a consistent metric for the end user. Bullet spin induces variances of damage as well, so does sectional density, every physical feature of the bullet and its impact. Depending on the bullets construction and size, the energy figure is all over the place. It makes no sense for an end user to calculate, and is a waste of time. Especially for a NEW end user.

This is 3 sceneries with 3 outcomes:

1) new end user buys a 308 and uses energy as the marker of effectiveness. This user will have success with some but not all projectiles, because the energy cutoff of say 1000ft/lbs is worthless with FMJ and other stout projectiles (also innacurate depending on levels of fragmentation). End user might become confused as to why their energy figure is not performing consistently across all calibers and bullet types… High confusion, low confidence.

2) new end user buys a 308 and uses the velocity cut off points stated by the manufacturer as the marker of effectiveness. This user will have success with most all projectiles that have been advertised correctly and aren’t defective. End user will have a good understanding of which bullets perform at what velocities… Low confusion, high confidence.

3) new end user buys a 308 and uses the velocity cut off points stated by the manufacturer, as well as a 1000ft/lb cut off point as the marker of effectiveness. This user will have nearly identical success to end user 2, however there will be certain instances he has unnecessarily limited himself in range due to the energy figure. As your study states, fragmenting projectiles require a lower energy figure… low confusion, high confidence.

There is an additional problem with new user 3. Many new hunters likely already have a gun; statistically speaking, probably an AR. By including the energy figure as a requirement, this user will now have to spend an additional $700-1500 on a new rifle and optic to meet that energy requirement, when there is heaps of evidence that the AR they always have is adequate at the ranges a new user would shoot. They’re not going to know all the little exceptions to energy requirements based on fragmentation. Clearly we don’t even fully understand it, just that there is a correlation. That person could have used that money for other equipment, ammunition to practice, or some other improvement in their life. The only difference that energy figure adherence did vs example 2, was cost the end user an unnecessary purchase of $600-1500 for perceived security. No change in reality of outcome.

This begs the question… why? It may be relevant to a ballistician but why does it even matter to the end user? If the results will be nearly identical between user 2 and 3 why pay attention to it? Why waste the time to calculate the required energy for every bullet type and caliber? Clearly based on bullet upset it changes, as in the case of fragmenting projectiles only requiring 500ft/lbs… well how much fragmenting? Does one require 650ft/lbs, another 700? They don’t all fragment the same. TMKs have thicker jackets with wider hollow points than ELDMs. OTMs are different still. 55g 556 will fragment unpredictably above 2700fps, but they’re not one for one the same, therefore between 500-1000ft/lbs, for fragmentation there would be variance. There’s also variance of fragmentation based on impact speed and target resistance (full stomachs, bone, etc).

Bullet spin has an effect on impact, 8.6 blackout shows this. Why not calculate that as a cut off too? Or sectional density which affects penetration. Or lubricity. Or any other variable?… because it’s not consistent, we have better metrics for consistency, its a waste of time.

Running just a few calculations from 223, 6.5, and 338 shows energy cutoff values are wildly different across the velocity spectrum. Ammunition manufactures provide velocity cutoff points as the most convenient marker for bullet performance, because why complicate it? It’s the same number across all bullet sizes of a single bullet type. There’s not a single box of ammunition that states a minimum energy requirement, because it’s complicated.

Anyone’s free to apply energy figures to their requirements. You can apply anything that helps your confidence level. However It is not logical to imply that a new shooter should too. Paying attention to velocity alone will deliver the exact same results with less data. If you just want the bullets to perform as designed, pay attention to velocity. Leave energy to the ballisticians, it’s just unnecessary noise to the end user. It just adds confusion, the proof of which is the endless debating of its relevance. There is no debate on velocity relevance, it’s essential.

Keep It Simple Stupid. Velocity is not the only marker of wounding, but it is the most stable and consistent metric we currently have.

Having said this, I’ve hunted with a lightweight 16” 308 exclusively for the past 6 years. I use AMAXs and TMKs, both in the 160 range. I would NOT recommend it to a new user with the options we have today.

 

[TaperPin]

Having said this, I’ve hunted with a lightweight 16” 308 exclusively for the past 6 years. I use AMAXs and TMKs, both in the 160 range. I would NOT recommend it to a new user with the options we have today.

I’ve often joked with 308 shooters that their bullets move at the speed of smell, but to be fair that’s only 250ish yards behind the 300 win mag. An animal shot at 350 with a 308 would feel no different than a 300 mag at 600. That’s not bad - and doesn’t seem like overkill to many whitetail hunters.

I’ve had a few 308’s, although I’ve never hunted with either. With a laser rangefinder in everyone’s pocket, I can see how it continues to have great sales, even out west. It’s one of the calibers I’m looking forward to shooting more this year.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

You appear not to know what you are quoting or reading. The clip above SUPPORTS the premise as does the entire study

For those who dont wanna read the entire thing, here is the abstract premise on page one

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, evidence for remote cerebral effects, and remote 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.


Read the entire thing

This paper seeks to support the notion of ‘hydrostatic shock’, but it fails to prove how meaningful it is to incapacitate as it relates to time since it is just simply a review of the existing literature on ballistic pressure waves. It even fails to prove that hydrostatic shock would be the correct terminology for the observed effect, since ballistic pressure wave is a much more accurate description.

If someone wanted to use this paper to ‘prove’ hydrostatic shock exists I guess you could. I think it would be more accurate to say that it shows there is research measuring tissue damage from ballistic pressure waves/the temporary stretch cavity and cause damage at energy transfer levels above 300ft/lb and is more evident above 600ft/lb, but how this aids in time to incapacitation is undetermined currently.