Is a 6.5 PRC enough? Do I need a 7mm?

I've often thought that we'd be a better nation if no one could tell which side of an argument was endorsed by the R's, or the D's and they had to really think about it and make up their own mind. Similarly, we'd probably be smarter hunters if we could stop talking about chamberings and just talk about what bullet and how fast it's moving. Sigh...
 
BCDJR said:
I was replying to Jack who dismissed Jim Shockley and suggested Jim did not know ballistics. So go back to your Taylor Swift video.
Click to expand...
Stop posting. Go listen to those podcasts, read the forums. You need to be reformed! Stop being a jackass! You dont know it now but im helping you out.
 
Packmansion said:
Stop posting. Go listen to those podcasts, read the forums. You need to be reformed! Stop being a jackass! You dont know it now but im helping you out.
Click to expand...
He clearly just views things from a different lense and has formed an OPINION. Just like we all have. It's no big deal. Let the older generation have some communication on the forums. I understand the frustration, but not everyone needs to consume every piece of information and adhere to every little piece of data. I feel like he just communicates how my dad would on the forums lol.
 
huntnful said:
ALSO energy is the shit :cool:
Click to expand...
Didn't we have a thread that got seriously derailed by all of the Roksliders' new terms for 'knockdown power' - 'Thwackwhump power' or other options?

I forget what the hive mind seemed to coalesce on, but I think we should adopt that instead of the ol' 'energy' schtick ... then when we use the 'Bangflop power' or whatever it was (@fwafwow or @Reburn, or someone - help my failing memory out here), then at least we'll all know that we're talking silliness on purpose ...
 
Dobermann said:
Didn't we have a thread that got seriously derailed by all of the Roksliders' new terms for 'knockdown power' - 'Thwackwhump power' or other options?

I forget what the hive mind seemed to coalesce on, but I think we should adopt that instead of the ol' 'energy' schtick ... then when we use the 'Bangflop power' or whatever it was (@fwafwow or @Reburn, or someone - help my failing memory out here), then at least we'll all know that we're talking silliness on purpose ...
Click to expand...
Wallop?
 
Dobermann said:
Didn't we have a thread that got seriously derailed by all of the Roksliders' new terms for 'knockdown power' - 'Thwackwhump power' or other options?

I forget what the hive mind seemed to coalesce on, but I think we should adopt that instead of the ol' 'energy' schtick ... then when we use the 'Bangflop power' or whatever it was (@fwafwow or @Reburn, or someone - help my failing memory out here), then at least we'll all know that we're talking silliness on purpose ...
Click to expand...

Are you trying to remember JVB and wallop? AVB shoot the leg offs older brother.
 
Dobermann said:
Didn't we have a thread that got seriously derailed by all of the Roksliders' new terms for 'knockdown power' - 'Thwackwhump power' or other options?

I forget what the hive mind seemed to coalesce on, but I think we should adopt that instead of the ol' 'energy' schtick ... then when we use the 'Bangflop power' or whatever it was (@fwafwow or @Reburn, or someone - help my failing memory out here), then at least we'll all know that we're talking silliness on purpose ...
Click to expand...
Hahaha yeah there was probably something agreed upon.

I don’t mind the term energy personally. It definitely gets used incorrectly, or even received incorrectly when someone uses it. But it’s a thing. I don’t think it affects the end result too much (death), but I do think it can, and normally does affect the reaction upon impact. Mostly just animals dropping or hunching up in immediate sickness, and then just tipping over. Smaller bullets of similar style get more hop and galloping animals immediately after impact. They still don’t go far, but looks almost like an archery reaction.

And also, I notice it mostly on bigger deer, because I think they are the proportional size to see the difference. Smaller animals (whitetail does or something) can still get tons of DRT’s from the blazing fast 22’s. And elk just about soak anything up without much reaction.


 
BigCountry49 said:
If a bullets energy and size don’t kill animals, then what does?
Click to expand...

Blood loss or direct damage to the nervous system that controls vital functions. Pure and simple. Even Nathan Foster agrees with that. He also includes damage to vital organs and Septicemia or asphyxiation, but in my opinion those are just functions of the first two items.

So, with that being said, one has to ask themselves what is actually needed to get that result. It honestly doesn't take that much "energy" to cause one of those two outcomes. I know a lot of people want to argue that gun hunting and archery hunting are completely different in "how they kill", but they really aren't. The objective is to get something sharp into the animal to cut up and destroy stuff. The main difference between the two is that archery uses a projectile with much less velocity, more mass, and leads with something very sharp at the tip so there is less resistance to the projectile when encountering flesh. That being said, it doesn't take a lot of energy to get that broadhead to an area where it can cause lethal damage.
So, with gun hunting, all you really need is enough to overcome the energy lost due to deformation and fragmentation (which is considerable) and the resistance encountered in the animal (which goes up in accordance with frontal area of the bullet).
What does that mean in a practical sense? With modern cartridges and bullet designs, as long as you keep the impact velocity at or above 1800 fps, you will have "enough" to do just that, regardless of "shot angle" or other made up variables to try to "prove" that something will or won't work better.
 
I get a kick out of the love of heavy for caliber bullets and focus on speed on Rokslide, but god forbid someone uses a measure that includes speed twice along with bullet weight! Bigger bullets going faster can do more - it’s a silly argument to argue against basic physics. *chuckle*

There was always a group that used small lightly constructed bullets, so Rokslide is nothing new, many of us just like bigger things.

Use something that barely works at a minimal level if you want to. I get groceries with a one ton pickup and never once thought twice at what the dude with a Smart Car is thinking or that he is right. Minimalists seem to cry the loudest that anything more than needed is a waste. I don’t doubt the Smart Car dude is have his morning coffee as we speak talking crap about my 1985 Ford. I prefer an over powered gas lawn mower, while our electric Makita mower cuts well enough to get the job done with the elegance of a cordless drill.

That being said shooters should progress from smaller rifles to larger ones only if they shoot well and want to. If someone shoots so little they barely function with a small rifle that makes the decision an easy one. Also this strange trend to only have a single rifle almost requires the shooter to have something better suited to practice than one rifle for practice and another good pure hunting rifle.

Make fun of fudds all you like, we were killing things just fine back then and my 1960 Remington with wood stock still shoots better than the vast majority of junk that Tacticool dudes are shooting at the range. Needed or not, our old energy rules of thumb worked well. We didn’t have to have hundreds of posts convincing each other with autopsy photos - we knew what worked because we killed stuff. Take your Smart Car off my lawn!
 
BCDJR said:
I was replying to Jack who dismissed Jim Shockley and suggested Jim did not know ballistics. So go back to your Taylor Swift video.
Click to expand...
I’m not dismissing Jim at all. He’s a good guy and very accomplished hunter. That doesn’t change the fact that large caliber bullets with “knockdown power” are not needed for most big game animals at any kind of reasonable hunting ranges. That doesn’t mean a big magnum won’t work, it’s just more than needed.
 
This is all that’s needed to drive to Scheels for more primers. Anything larger is just old Fudd thinking. Lol

IMG_0940.jpeg

These are all you need for fireworks - sounds like a popcorn fart, or can on your 223.

IMG_0941.jpeg
 
If you shoot an animal with a 50 cal 500 grain solid bullet with a 1000 pounds of energy, what does energy have to do with it? If it still has 800 pounds of energy left upon exiting, did the animal only get 200 pounds?
 
Dan Carey said:
If you shoot an animal with a 50 cal 500 grain solid bullet with a 1000 pounds of energy, what does energy have to do with it? If it still has 800 pounds of energy left upon exiting, did the animal only get 200 pounds?
Click to expand...
Yes, the animal absorbed 200 ft-lbs from the original 1000 ft-lbs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
20 vs 24 inch 6.5 prc
Replies
13
Views
394
Packmansion
P
L
Is a 20 inch 6.5 PRC enough for elk?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
4K
Pistolpete28
Pistolpete28
The Guide
7mm Backcountry, does BC stand for best choice or bad cartridge? Let's test it!
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
khuber84
K
D
Just one rifle owner's experience...
Replies
2
Views
414
JackButler
J
H
Is the Browning xbolt 7RM magazine the same size as a xbolt 6.5 prc magazine?
Replies
1
Views
123
WKR
WKR

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top