Is a 30 cal big game rifle needed anymore?

[atmat]

Humans aren't made out of gel. And if you think your skin can stretch as much and as as fast that gel did without bursting, you're in for a surprise lol

You should legitimately spend some time reading up on ballistics gelatin. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_gelatin

 

[FredinBoise]

Depends on what you're hunting and whether or not you want to chase a wounded animal.
Yeah, I know about the value of bullet placement, but if you hunt on public land and don't want the bugger 200 yards down the trail to pot your wounded elk, you need a .30 cal bullet of at least 180 grains AND good placement. 300 mag is hard to beat but an '06 with a good bullet will do it. A case can be made for 7mm, but my experience has not been impressive with this caliber other than on mulies. Same with the 270.

I've gotten to the point where I'm too old to chase anything, but an '06 or 300Win are hard to beat out to 400 yards. Beyond that you shouldn't be shooting.
Also, their components will always be available versus some of the more exotic newer little birds.

 

[RobHazmat89]

A gel test is anecdotal? That’s an interesting take.

Humans aren't made out of gel. And if you think your skin can stretch as much and as as fast that gel did without bursting then you're in for a surprise lol

You should legitimately spend some time reading up on ballistics gelatin. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_gelatin

Ballistics gel doesn't have bone, lung tissue, vessels, etc. It's all the same medium. That's not how our bodies work.

 

[Dobermann]

Obviously for a 6.5 creedmoor 6 GT

If you're going to sledge, sledge appropriately! Sheesh.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

but if you hunt on public land and don't want the bugger 200 yards down the trail to pot your wounded elk, you need a .30 cal bullet of at least 180 grains AND good placement.

No.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

I've gotten to the point where I'm too old

Cleaned it up for ya.

 

[S-3 ranch]

.30 cal has been the best work horse for the last 100+ years
Yes a .22 will do the job
But if you’re moving sand bring a shovel, not a teaspoon
My 2ct

 

[sharps54]

People have been killing deer with .22 center fires since the beginning of last century. With today’s bullet technology they can more effective than ever with the right shot placement, which is what this thread has been circling the whole time. The lighter recoil and cheaper components allow you to practice more which is always a plus. That said if you shoot less than a box of ammo a year, pulling your rifle out of the closet at the beginning of deer season and only verifying the zero prior to the hunt a larger caliber and shoulder shot might be the best strategy. As a wise San Francisco homicide detective once said, “A good man knows his limitations.”

 

[yeti12]

.30 cal has been the best work horse for the last 100+ years
Yes a .22 will do the job
But if you’re moving sand bing a shovel, not a teaspoon
My 2ct

Why stop with a shovel? Bring a skid steer or a loader. Bigger is better.

Right?

 

[Robobiss]

Not that I can share. .50 BMG FMJ’s are not designed to upset, have very thick jackets and tend to not upset at all in normal animals.

However Jerry Miculek did a video with clear ballistics gel that shows it well with 750gr AMAX (which is much more frangible than FMJ, and it still sucks). It’s a pistol wound for 18+ inches.

View attachment 725252



The myth of the 50 BMG and “ft-lbs of energy” go hand in hand. There are multiple US mil personal that have been shot by 50 bmg’s from ND’s at near contact distance and are perfectly fine. One tried to attack the guy who did it- after he took a round through the hip. It’s all BS.

I have shot and seen shot enough living things with .50’s that I would 100% rather use a fragmenting varmint bullet from a .224, than any 50cal FMJ.

As someone who has spent a lot of time behind a M2, (never shot anyone with it though) this isn’t even remotely difficult to wrap my head around. The .50 BMG first and foremost is an anti material round. They are meant to penetrate like a SOB to turn cover into concealment and disable vehicles and not much else. The projectiles are long, slender (relative to diameter) fairly effecient, and pointy. It’s not hard to imagine that they just whistle through flesh with little to no resistance.

It’s also not hard to imagine that because of bullet design (and obvious lack of upset) that they don’t even take a .50” chunk out of whatever fleshy being they hit.

Take the same cartridge, same bullet that doesn’t upset, same jacket thickness, but somehow chop it at the ogive (without exposing the lead, impossible) to make it a WFN like you would shoot out of a 45/70 and the wounds would be much more ugly with the same lack of upset. Without upset the pointy tip just (not gently of course) “moves” the flesh out of the way like driving a nail into wood, creating a relatively small when compared to projectile diameter permanent wound channel, we all know how flexible flesh is. It doesn’t matter that it’s 700 grains and cooking right along, it’s doing less damage than the same diameter bullet, half the weight, going half as fast, with a meplat many times larger.

The BMG shooting the hypothetical WFN even without upset would require much more resistance to move through flesh without the pointy tip moving it out of the way, would expend more “energy” (love that word) in the target, and actually be more likely to remove a .50 or larger chunk of whatever it is penetrating.

It doesn’t matter how big, fast, or heavy a projectile is if it moves through flesh with little/no resistance. All things being equal bullets that kill the fastest encounter the greatest amount of resistance and slow down the fastest (by passing through and damaging more tissue) in flesh. This is very obvious with fragmenting bullets, when they come apart inside flesh the surface area increases exponentially. More surface area, more ragged edges, more flesh being touched by bullet throughout the event, more damage.

Thanks for bringing up this point with the BMG, maybe it will help others wrap their heads around the “bullet design before headstamp” school of thought.

 

[Article 4]

@Article 4 , I hear what you are saying about using enough gun, but do realize there is more than one way to skin a cat, and both physics and terminal ballistics support both large and small bullets as effective for making big holes in critters. In multiple places you and others are making leaps from the papers you cited to support your views, info that is either misinterpreted and/or extrapolating to conclusions that arent reached in those papers. Equating energy in a projectile, with energy transferred to a target, while discounting variations in if or how that energy is transferred, is just one example. It may seem like a fresh perspective, but it more and more seems like the thread is a degree away at best from rehashing whats been beat to death here many, many, many (many) times already. I dont think rehashing this for what seems like the 17th time is going to somehow make bullets kill differently.

The truth is that a 30 cal has never been “needed”. The ubiquitous popularity and proven success of the 270 win for close to the past century, for all NA game, is proof enough of this to say that the answer to your post is unequivocally NO. The success on large game of the 6.5x55 is further proof. The fact that people are reliably and ethically killing big game with even smaller cartridges than those two is further proof—if a 30cal was a requirement (ie “needed”), this would not be happening…but it IS happening, has been for a long, long time, and Ive watched it happen quite a few times myself.

If energy is what you believe is necessary, keep doing that, Im sure it works well for you. Just dont make the mistake of thinking that a heavy hitter is “needed” if your only goal is to quickly and ethically kill an animal, or that science only supports the bigger=deader approach.

I agree however I hope you recognize that there is a point of diminishing returns as you go smaller. I too have taken a lot of critters with smaller projectiles. My 22-250 ai is devastating at certain distances and can leave a huge hole however I would never attempt to apply that to and elk sized target. Especially at longer distances. Would you want to shoot a 75 grain bullet as your go to to kill an elk at 500 or 700 yards?

In a perfect shot, maybe. My thing is this - Overgunning is rare to have a bad outcome where undergunning brings a bad outcome significantly more into play in hunting situations.

That is with hunting and non-armor piercing projectiles. As stated in a few of the studies I have cited, that take home is that in these conditions (hunting and affect on mammals, larger is almost always better.

Energy isnt necessary, it is critical and cannot be discounted. Heavier being "needed" is a choice we all need to make and Ill keep doing my thing....thanks. The evidence supports it

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Why stop with a shovel? Bring a skid steer or a loader. Bigger is better.

Right?

To a point. There's a point when the bravado stoking becomes ridiculous to even the most machismo man.....somewhere around 338 lapua and up I think....

 

[atmat]

In a perfect shot, maybe. My thing is this - Overgunning is rare to have a bad outcome where undergunning brings a bad outcome significantly more into play in hunting situations.

I have seen far more problems from “overgunned” shooters than “undergunned.”

 

[Robobiss]

I’d also like to add to the thread, unlike most members I actually have a .50 BMG that I could hunt with (from a blind because it weighs as much as I do)

With enough donations I will shoot a doe with it with FMJ’s for science.

Who’s in?

 

[Article 4]

I have seen far more problems from “overgunned” shooters than “undergunned.”

To each their own

 

[Article 4]

I’d also like to add to the thread, unlike most members I actually have a .50 BMG that I could hunt with (from a blind because it weighs as much as I do)

With enough donations I will shoot a doe with it with FMJ’s for science.

Who’s in?

As long as it is purely for science LMAO!!!

 

[Macintosh]

… My thing is this - Overgunning is rare to have a bad outcome where undergunning brings a bad outcome significantly more into play in hunting situations.

That is with As stated in a few of the studies I have cited, that take home is that in these conditions (hunting and affect on mammals, larger is almost always better.

Energy isnt necessary, it is critical and cannot be discounted. Heavier being "needed" is a choice we all need to make and Ill keep doing my thing....thanks. The evidence supports it

Youre still missing the point. Bigger is NOT always better. Take 2 examples of a single 300 win mag cartridge, same bullet weight, same velocity, etc. Everything the same, except one bullet is a FMJ that pencils through leaving little more than a caliber-sized hole, and zips out the other side and keeps going…versus an expanding bullet that mushrooms much larger and dumps all that “energy” into the animal. I think its obvious most of us will say we’ll hunt with the expanding bullet because it does more damage, kills faster, etc—all the things we’re talking about. Well, now take a 200 gr fmj and a 180 gr expanding bullet—the 200 gr fmj is still going to pencil thru and do much less damage even though its “bigger” and has “more energy”. This is a plain as day example where bigger is NOT better, and its clear the projectile has more to do with the “big hole in the critter” than does the raw measure of “energy”.

If this difference makes sense to you, then we can have a conversation about widening the gap between examples, and fine-tuning the nuance of how “energy” is transferred into work and made into an actual benefit (that’s the big hole we’re looking for), and the differences between various expanding bullets—after all, if the difference between an fmj and expanding bullet makes sense, it should also make sense that different types of expanding bullets will also have differing levels of energy transfer, different physical means of causing trauma, and correspondingly different levels of damage caused.
Then we can talk about how much benefit (ie how big a hole) is “enough”, since once dead is achieved there is no such thing as “more dead”.

We may not agree on where the minimum and maximum cutoffs are or should be, but if the above principle makes sense to you, that would cut through 90% of the emotionally-driven argument in this topic.

 

[KenLee]

No.

Just take that Texas heart shot

 

[philos]

Lmao. Put the meth pipe down

The guy you are attempting to insult here likely has more general firearms knowledge that you will ever accrue in a single lifetime.

Please keep your rebuttals more respectful to all members.

 

[Article 4]

Youre still missing the point. Bigger is NOT always better. Take 2 examples of a single 300 win mag cartridge, same bullet weight, same velocity, etc. Everything the same, except one bullet is a FMJ that pencils through leaving little more than a caliber-sized hole, and zips out the other side and keeps going…versus an expanding bullet that mushrooms much larger and dumps all that “energy” into the animal. I think its obvious most of us will say we’ll hunt with the expanding bullet because it does more damage, kills faster, etc—all the things we’re talking about. Well, now take a 200 gr fmj and a 180 gr expanding bullet—the 200 gr fmj is still going to pencil thru and do much less damage even though its “bigger” and has “more energy”. This is a plain as day example where bigger is NOT better, and its clear the projectile has more to do with the “big hole in the critter” than does the raw measure of “energy”.

If this difference makes sense to you, then we can have a conversation about widening the gap between examples, and fine-tuning the nuance of how “energy” is transferred into work and made into an actual benefit (that’s the big hole we’re looking for), and the differences between various expanding bullets—after all, if the difference between an fmj and expanding bullet makes sense, it should also make sense that different types of expanding bullets will also have differing levels of energy transfer, different physical means of causing trauma, and correspondingly different levels of damage caused.
Then we can talk about how much benefit (ie how big a hole) is “enough”, since once dead is achieved there is no such thing as “more dead”.

We may not agree on where the minimum and maximum cutoffs are or should be, but if the above principle makes sense to you, that would cut through 90% of the emotionally-driven argument in this topic.

Not missing your point at all. Refuting it with evidence, not emotion. There are multiple points of well designed, supported, and peer reviewed prospective and retrospective study evidentiary support in this thread and many others.

End