Is a 30 cal big game rifle needed anymore?

[Shō[t]gun]

Not to get sidetracked but then why is the Army or for that matter the FBI and law enforcement for that matter using 30 cal and larger sniper rifles?

because people hide behind body armor, helmets, windows, doors, and walls. Deer usually don’t, although the 50cal thru the tree to kill a deer story earlier kinda disputes that lol

 

[Article 4]

I think I’ve seen you and others bring this up before. But just a heads-up, @Formidilosus isn’t on staff at Rokslide.

Interesting that his name came up when I never used it.
He may not be formally staff - however he is referenced as part of the team and runs a lot of the testing etc

 

[Remington92]

Having shot many deer with 20ga and 12ga lightfield slugs that mushroom to the size of a half dollar or better and comparing to something like a 257 weatherby I will whole heartedly support the right small and fast bullet gives tremendous quick killing effect. That 115gr NBT is the fastest killing round Ive personally seen out in the wild even compared to that of a 300wm.

 

[roadrunner]

I think you understand what I said.

Been saying that consistently I believe.

There is a direct relationship to the amount of energy (aka work) required to deform a bullet on impact. That same amount of energy is passed along into the target (aka "hydrostatic shockwave"). The leftover energy is what causes the bullet to exit.

If a bullet only required 250 ftlbs to fragment or mushroom to a depth of 20", then 350 ftlbs at the target is all that would be required and the bullet shouldn't be found in a deer size animal, or it might be found in the offset shoulder when skinning an elk.

Hydrostatic is a misleading term, as hydrostatic means a column of fluid that is not moving. Hydrodynamic would be more correct.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

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

You seem to be ignoring some of the evidence in the papers you've provided when it comes to the extent of the ballistic pressure waves/hydrostatic shock and it's measurable effects on incapacitation.

 

[S-3 ranch]

I think I’ve seen you and others bring this up before. But just a heads-up, @Formidilosus isn’t on staff at Rokslide.

Yeah he gets on my nerves sometimes, he my not be staff but does have major
Delusions of Grandeur about his own opinions

 

[jimh406]

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

Right?

No, just use the teaspoon.

The reality is that moving dirt ... bigger is better as long as the bigger machine can get there.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Been saying that consistently I believe.

There is a direct relationship to the amount of energy (aka work) required to deform a bullet on impact. That same amount of energy is passed along into the target (aka "hydrostatic shockwave"). The leftover energy is what causes the bullet to exit.

If a bullet only required 250 ftlbs to fragment or mushroom to a depth of 20", then 350 ftlbs at the target is all that would be required and the bullet shouldn't be found in a deer size animal, or it might be found in the offset shoulder when skinning an elk.

Hydrostatic is a misleading term, as hydrostatic means a column of fluid that is not moving. Hydrodynamic would be more correct.

Maybe we should start referring to bullet performance in horsepower. That should be entertaining

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

 

[RockAndSage]

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?

Seriously - if you'll do some WFN experiments, I'd donate to see what would happen with both ballistics gel and doe, hog, etc.

 

[Article 4]

You seem to be ignoring some of the evidence in the papers you've provided when it comes to the extent of the ballistic pressure waves/hydrostatic shock and it's measurable effects on incapacitation.

Not at all. Especially in the West Point study as well as to some extent in the others.

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...

That aside - if that is your take fine. Mine is well established to Ill leave it there. No need to beat this with a stick LOL

 

[Robobiss]

Seriously - if you'll do some WFN experiments, I'd donate to see what would happen with both ballistics gel and doe, hog, etc.

It would certainly be interesting. The easy way to do it would literally be to chop an FMJ and leave the tip pretty close to caliber diameter. But it would be a half assed experiment because lot of the lead core would be exposed and it would be pretty likely to nuke when it hit an animal at close to muzzle velocity (I would think), which would be screaming because the projectile would be losing quite a bit of weight by getting chopped.

The point of the experiment really was going to be to show what happens with a .50 FMJ in a critter at face value with wound photos because someone said they would rather the .50 FMJ than a fragmenting 223. I still think the .223 would do more damage, personally.

Just for the heck of it I was looking just now at some .510 projectiles on midway similar to the construction I was looking for. They seem to exist but I haven’t found any load data anywhere, lol.

I don’t mind going “off the book” for regular cartridges a little bit and doing a little experimenting and witchcraft, but turning a 35 pound rifle into a pipe bomb trying to do some really strange stuff with a .50 BMG isn’t at the top of the list despite them being much lighter projectiles than data exists for. I could only imagine Mumma explaining to my newborn son how dad kicked the bucket…

Tell you what, no donations required (I said that for comedic value anyways). If I end up doing it I’ll post the results here assuming the thread isn’t locked by then .

 

[cjdewese]

As a new hunter myself I think asking the question of what are you going to hunt in the next 5-10 years is a great question to start with. I myself am so new to hunting that the idea of spending money on an out of state hunt while I am just learning how to get the wind right, shoot across canyons and in general finding deer seems really expensive.

So for me, that means medium bodied deer out to around 400.

For that I don't need a 30 cal, bought a 243 so I can learn better shooting mechanics while I am learning without developing a flinch. That along with boots in the ground trying to understand game and how to get to them is where I will be for the next few years.

If I decide to go out of state and hunt bigger critters I may decide to buy a 30 cal, but hoping that as I get more experience behind the 243 and shooting different animals I should either feel really good about the 243 for other animals or feel like I need a little more gun, at that point it will be my decision though, not someone else's.

 

[Robobiss]

As a new hunter myself I think asking the question of what are you going to hunt in the next 5-10 years is a great question to start with. I myself am so new to hunting that the idea of spending money on an out of state hunt while I am just learning how to get the wind right, shoot across canyons and in general finding deer seems really expensive.

So for me, that means medium bodied deer out to around 400.

For that I don't need a 30 cal, bought a 243 so I can learn better shooting mechanics while I am learning without developing a flinch. That along with boots in the ground trying to understand game and how to get to them is where I will be for the next few years.

If I decide to go out of state and hunt bigger critters I may decide to buy a 30 cal, but hoping that as I get more experience behind the 243 and shooting different animals I should either feel really good about the 243 for other animals or feel like I need a little more gun, at that point it will be my decision though, not someone else's.

I think you made a good choice

 

[atmat]

Interesting that his name came up when I never used it.

How is it “interesting” when you intentionally alluded to someone and people know who you’re talking about?

No need to beat this with a stick LOL

Then why post a thread when there’s plenty other convos about the same topic?

 

[eric1115]

Interesting that his name came up when I never used it.
He may not be formally staff - however he is referenced as part of the team and runs a lot of the testing etc

Why is that interesting? Were you referring to someone other than him? It is a pretty straight line to follow back through the series of replies to see that's who you're talking about (started with a direct reply to him saying his opinion is the result of a meth habit).

He's blunt and not overly concerned with protecting people's delicate feelers, but he's not mean spirited or into personal insults the way some are.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Not at all. Especially in the West Point study as well as to some extent in the others.

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...
That aside - if that is your take fine. Mine is well established to Ill leave it there. No need to beat this with a stick LOL

The reason I keep beating this stick is because the bolded part is false with the available studies we have. The west point study fails to elaborate on the (measured) effect these pressure waves have on the time to incapacitation. The other study you referenced stated the tissue damage only extended a few cm from the wound cavity, I've attached the highlighted image again from that one.

For something to be statistically significant you're going to need more than a singe paper (or a paper with a large and varied data set that measures incapacitation times) coming to the same conclusion that these ballistic pressure waves aid in incapacitation. Maybe one day there will be some study(s) done to prove that.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

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

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

 

[Mule3006Elk]

We need a Ballistician on staff or have one write-up a good article for RS members. Settle a lot of misinformation and these ongoing debates.

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

 

[sharps54]

We need a Ballistician on staff or have one write-up a good article for RS members. Settle a lot of misinformation and these ongoing debates.

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

Having a well written article, podcast or video to point people to instead of a huge thread would be a plus, some people just aren’t going to mess with a hundred plus page forum thread.

 

[Macintosh]

Also, as long as we're cherrypicking our favorite tidbits from studies and then extrapolating to our pre-concieved notions, if someone wants to take the rabbit hole on hydrostatic shock, one of the references in the first paper cited in this thread has formulas to quantify it. It's above my mathing ability, but perhaps someone could do the math using a range of actual bullets...from small to large? Ought to be good for another 17 pages? Have we gotten into peak force versus average force yet?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701267.pdf

For example, a bullet impacting with a kinetic energy of500 ft-lbs and penetrating a depth of 12” (1 foot) exerts an average force of 500 lbs on the medium.The peak of any variable force is larger than the averagevalue. The peak force usually occurs during or soonafter expansion, and most bullets have peak to averageforce ratios between 3 and 8. Bullets that do notexpand, penetrate deeply, do not tumble (or tumble late)and lose energy gradually have a peak to average ratioclose to 3. Bullets that expand rapidly, lose a lot ofenergy early, erode to a smaller diameter and thenpenetrate deeply have a peak to average ratio close to8. Nosler Partition rifle bullets with their soft lead frontsection which expands rapidly and erodes away quicklyleaving the base containing roughly 60% of the original3mass at little more than the unexpanded diameterprovide an example of large peak to average force ratio.

In other words, it is the
local rate of kinetic energy loss per unit of penetration
depth. Losing 100 ft-lbs of kinetic energy in 0.02 feet of
penetration would create a force of 5,000 lbs because
100 ft-lbs/0.02 ft = 5,000 lbs.

it also says monos create less of a hydrostatic effect than explosively fragmenting bullets:

The important parameter when considering blood loss as
an incapacitation mechanism is the permanent crush
cavity, which represents the crushed tissue that is left in
the wake of a bullet. It can be estimated (FBI method)
as the frontal area of the expanded bullet times the
penetration depth. For predicting bullet effectiveness,
this expanded area and penetration depth are commonly
measured in 10% ballistic gelatin. The volume of the
permanent crush cavity measured in this way is
designated Vpcc and is proportional to the penetration
depth.
The fact that Vpcc is linearly related to the penetration
depth and that P"1 is inversely related suggests that
there might be a tradeoff between the two mechanisms
because increasing penetration typically increases the
crush volume while decreasing the pressure wave.