Is There Ever a Time to Hunt with Magnum Calibers?

[TaperPin]

…it sounds like we were on the right track that heavy weight heavy for calibre bullets are for way out there…

Generations of timber hunters would disagree. Jumping elk in the timber, which are quickly moving away from you in any number of extreme angles, has been a popular place for 175 gr 7mm, 200 gr 30 cal, and 225/250 gr 338/35 cal, because they work.

Apparently during rifle season all the talk seems to be focused on shooting past 500 yards, like all the fun videos show. It’s like timber hunting doesn’t work - why would someone hunt timber and not be able to use a dope card or bipod. Crazy right. An all around hunter should be able to kill something from 25 yards to as far as they can shoot and judge wind. I’ve wondered how many new hunters walk right by big benches loaded with elk on their way to a high vantage point to glass for the same elk when they come out to feed.

The man who only owns a hammer thinks everything is a nail. It may not be elk 101, or long range elk shooting, but a well rounded elk hunter will be well served to learn timber hunting and have a rifle setup that can hammer a running elk at a bad angle at 25 yards or standing in a meadow at 500 yards like a Hornady advertisement.

Internet hunting is operating normally. Carry on. *chuckle*

 

[JPW13]

Generations of timber hunters would disagree. Jumping elk in the timber, which are quickly moving away from you in any number of extreme angles, has been a popular place for 175 gr 7mm, 200 gr 30 cal, and 225/250 gr 338/35 cal, because they work.

Apparently during rifle season all the talk seems to be focused on shooting past 500 yards, like all the fun videos show. It’s like timber hunting doesn’t work - why would someone hunt timber and not be able to use a dope card or bipod. Crazy right. An all around hunter should be able to kill something from 25 yards to as far as they can shoot and judge wind. I’ve wondered how many new hunters walk right by big benches loaded with elk on their way to a high vantage point to glass for the same elk when they come out to feed.

The man who only owns a hammer thinks everything is a nail. It may not be elk 101, or long range elk shooting, but a well rounded elk hunter will be well served to learn timber hunting and have a rifle setup that can hammer a running elk at a bad angle at 25 yards or standing in a meadow at 500 yards like a Hornady advertisement.

Internet hunting is operating normally. Carry on. *chuckle*

I really appreciate this perspective—timber hunting is an art form, and it’s great to see it getting some well-deserved respect in the conversation. I’ve always loved still hunting myself, and until two years ago, my longest shot on an animal was a coyote at 200m, despite the fact that I regularly practice out to 1,000m. For me, the joy of hunting has always been more about the stalk and the challenge of getting close than setting up for long-range shots.

My personal favorite cartridge and action type is the .45-70 in a lever gun. There’s just something about the history, simplicity, and effectiveness of that setup that keeps drawing me back. I’ve taken bears with it in the spring and deer in the fall, and it’s my go-to when I’m still hunting in thick timber or brush. But I also enjoy experimenting and learning, which is why I’ve branched out into smaller, faster cartridges like the 22 Creedmoor. I love seeing how different tools perform in the field, and it’s taught me a lot about the versatility of modern bullet and cartridge designs.

As for your analogy about the hammer and the nail, I’d argue that a frangible .224 is more like a well-equipped toolbox—it gives you the flexibility to handle a variety of situations, from 80 yards to 800. A bigger caliber or magnum cartridge can feel more like the hammer, where everything is a nail, because while they’re undeniably effective at certain tasks, they lack the adaptability of a smaller, faster bullet in a broader range of scenarios.

That said, I absolutely respect the point about having a setup that can handle everything from a 25-yard shot at a running elk to a standing shot in a meadow at 500 yards. A well-rounded elk hunter should be prepared for all scenarios and I'd suggest based on my own experience and the pages of evidence here that the CORRECT small bullet will work just fine without the recoil. The beauty of hunting is that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, and what works for one person might be completely different for someone else. At the end of the day, it’s about finding what works best for you, your style, and the conditions you hunt in. That's the art of it - the science seems to suggest you can save your shoulder, spot your shots, and put meat on the table. If you want to shoot 900-1100 better go big - real big. And even if I can regularly practice, that's a longer shot than I'm likely to make.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts—this is exactly the kind of discussion that keeps hunting interesting for me!

 

[aschuler]

Except that mass isn't part of BC. SD is, which has mass in it, but there's absolutely nothing that says a 160gr 7mm will drift less than a 140gr 7mm everything else equal. A 140gr bullet can have a higher BC than a 160gr bullet. Launched from the same case, the 160 will drift more at every distance.

Every formula I've looked at for BC includes mass. Am I missing something here?

Mass is the main reason why these two bullets have almost identical G1s

 

[JPW13]

Every formula I've looked at for BC includes mass. Am I missing something here?

Quick google seems to agree mass is part of the formula for calculating BC. It doesn't tell the whole picture, but definitely seems to play a part. Seems to make sense if you consider making something heavier when the calibre is constrained means it has to get longer and generally making things longer seems to help BC?

 

[TaperPin]

A well-rounded elk hunter should be prepared for all scenarios and I'd suggest based on my own experience and the pages of evidence here that the CORRECT small bullet will work just fine without the recoil.

It seems everyone has ballistic gel - I’ve had fun looking at new small caliber combinations compared with old school larger caliber combinations. I don’t see the appeal of smaller bullets with limited penetration, when some shots really need decent penetration. The argument of just letting an animal go if the angle is questionable sounds good until you’re watching a years worth of preparation walk away.

The same arguments for 25-06 and 257 Roberts vs bigger heavier combinations in the timber have been made since great gramps was in diapers.

Lightly constructed small caliber bullets are nothing new - large bc’s are new, effects on game aren’t. Comparing new high bc bullet gel tests with old school small caliber gel tests will confirm that for the internet age. I don’t know that this kind of penetration makes for a great all around combination.

 

[Wyobohunter]

Quick google seems to agree mass is part of the formula for calculating BC. It doesn't tell the whole picture, but definitely seems to play a part. Seems to make sense if you consider making something heavier when the calibre is constrained means it has to get longer and generally making things longer seems to help BC?

Yes. How long the thing is, vs. the diameter (cross-sectional area) is a huge part of the formula. Same reason a long boat is naturally faster than a shorter boat with the same beam. Bonus, sectional density increases as well.

 

[JPW13]

I don’t see the appeal of smaller bullets with limited penetration, when some shots really need decent penetration.

I hear you on the skepticism around small-caliber bullets, and I totally get where you’re coming from when it comes to penetration. However, I approach ballistic gel tests a bit differently—I don’t use them to determine real-world terminal performance directly. Instead, I use them as a way to compare one bullet to another in a consistent medium. Gel provides a repeatable baseline for how different bullets behave under identical conditions, which helps when narrowing down choices for hunting.

That said, my perspective on small calibers has shifted a lot after experimenting last season. I spent time testing small calibers after reading through the massive .223 thread on this forum, where there are literally hundreds of critters, small and BIG, taken cleanly with .224s going moderate to fast. Inspired by that, I started experimenting with .224s like the 88 ELD-M and was honestly surprised by how well they performed in real-world scenarios—not just on perfect broadside shots, but in situations where penetration and proper bullet construction were critical.

I’m not saying small calibers are the answer for everything. A lightly constructed bullet in the wrong scenario can fail, but that is regardless of caliber. But modern, high-BC .224 bullets with the right design (and velocity) can penetrate surprisingly well and perform consistently in the field. For me, it’s been more about testing and learning in real hunts than relying solely on internet gel tests or preconceived notions.

As for your point about letting an animal walk away on a bad angle, I agree it’s situational. The right tool for the job matters, and I think it’s less about caliber size and more about matching the bullet to the conditions you hunt in. Have you had a chance to test any of the new high-BC small-caliber bullets in the field? Would love to hear your experience if you’ve experimented with them!

 

[rayfrugg]

I've asked this is previous threads: how does one quantify this "margin of error"? Asked another way: how badly can you miss and still get sufficient results? Is it relative to the bullet diameter (caliber)? Or the bullet weight? Or the charge weight of the cartridge? Or do guys just know that this big gun will bail them out if they f#*k up? I see this justification for magnums tossed around a lot but no one has been able to say how this margin of error is put into practice with confidence.

Please be the first to answer this question.

It’s a question that has debated for years. Elmer Keith vs Jack O’Conner. Plus the gun has something to do with it, weight and fit. Had my daughter shoot a 270, 300 savage, and 7mm rem mag, she thought the 7mm had the least recoil, it actually weighed a little less, but had the nicest recoil pad.

Have seen two different deer killed by having a leg shot off, .50 cal muzzle loader, the other was 7mm rem mag. Not sure a .223 would do that. Does it need to be a monster magnum, no. There was a podcast about a person living off the land in Alaska, they used a .243 win for everything. It worked for them.

It’s the comfort of the individual, plus the opportunity to sell (or buy) more guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eric1115]

Quick google seems to agree mass is part of the formula for calculating BC. It doesn't tell the whole picture, but definitely seems to play a part. Seems to make sense if you consider making something heavier when the calibre is constrained means it has to get longer and generally making things longer seems to help BC?

Close(ish). If you make a bullet more streamlined, it almost certainly gets longer. Move material from a round nose and long bearing surface out to a long pointy nose and long boat tail and you improve the coefficient of drag (and therefore BC) without changing mass or diameter/frontal area (the two components of sectional density).

Alternatively, if you take a given bullet shape and increase the density of it (imagine identical size/shape bullets, one with a lead core and one all copper), the additional mass of the denser bullet increases its BC.

Mass is already baked in to BC, so it doesn't need to be added in again for wind deflection or velocity decay. A .223 80 grain .500 G1 bullet will retain velocity and deflect in the wind the same as a .30 cal 180 grain .500G1 bullet. The mass is already accounted for in the BC number.

 

[JPW13]

Close(ish). If you make a bullet more streamlined, it almost certainly gets longer. Move material from a round nose and long bearing surface out to a long pointy nose and long boat tail and you improve the coefficient of drag without changing mass or diameter/frontal area (the two components of sectional density).

Mass is already baked in to BC, so it doesn't need to be added in again for wind deflection or velocity decay. A .223 80 grain .500 G1 bullet will retain velocity and deflect in the wind the same as a .30 cal 180 grain .500G1 bullet. The mass is already accounted for in the BC number.

Right. So mass is part of the calc, but BC is BC regardless of how heavy it is. The mass might mean more damage, more penetration, etc, but it isn't going to make a 30cal 180grain buck the wind better than a .223 80 grain (as per your example).

 

[aschuler]

Close(ish). If you make a bullet more streamlined, it almost certainly gets longer. Move material from a round nose and long bearing surface out to a long pointy nose and long boat tail and you improve the coefficient of drag without changing mass or diameter/frontal area (the two components of sectional density).

Mass is already baked in to BC, so it doesn't need to be added in again for wind deflection or velocity decay. A .223 80 grain .500 G1 bullet will retain velocity and deflect in the wind the same as a .30 cal 180 grain .500G1 bullet. The mass is already accounted for in the BC number.

This exactly.

It's also why there is a practical upper limit for BC based on caliber.

 

[Wyobohunter]

Close(ish). If you make a bullet more streamlined, it almost certainly gets longer. Move material from a round nose and long bearing surface out to a long pointy nose and long boat tail and you improve the coefficient of drag (and therefore BC) without changing mass or diameter/frontal area (the two components of sectional density).

Alternatively, if you take a given bullet shape and increase the density of it (imagine identical size/shape bullets, one with a lead core and one all copper), the additional mass of the denser bullet increases its BC.

Mass is already baked in to BC, so it doesn't need to be added in again for wind deflection or velocity decay. A .223 80 grain .500 G1 bullet will retain velocity and deflect in the wind the same as a .30 cal 180 grain .500G1 bullet. The mass is already accounted for in the BC number.

But the terminal ballistics (penetration) of the .30 cal bullet will be better, all else equal. There isn’t any magic to get around it.

 

[eric1115]

Right. So mass is part of the calc, but BC is BC regardless of how heavy it is. The mass might mean more damage, more penetration, etc, but it isn't going to make a 30cal 180grain buck the wind better than a .223 80 grain (as per your example).

Correct. BC does tend to increase with diameter, since mass for a given form factor increases more than frontal area as diameter goes up. There is no practical way to make a 6mm spear with a long enough nose/boat tail and enough mass to hit something like the .800+ G1 numbers that can be achieved with the very heavy .30, .338, and larger bullets (especially when you start thinking about how to stabilize such a projectile).

 

[eric1115]

But the internal ballistics of the .30 cal bullet will be better, all else equal.

Can you expand on that? Internal ballistics is what a bullet does between impact of the firing pin and exiting the barrel. Do you mean terminal performance?

 

[wyosam]

#4. Sorry still learning how post just a portion.

I have seen several times,even with well placed shots that without a good exit hole there would not have been enough blood to track and recover the animal. I prefer larger and heavier for pass throughs with less meat damage. Two instances that stick out.
#1 Hunting partner made a good shot on a buck with an early made 27 caliber ballistic tip. Bullet destroyed front right shoulder,did massive heart damage and exited just behind left shoulder. It looked like the bullet had grenaded in chest cavity but had just enough left to make a decent exit hole.
How that buck went over 400 yards though thick woods I will never understand. What I do understand is we would have never recovered him had that bullet not exited. Even though smaller modern bullets are better and more effective than ever, I still haven't seen the consistent pass throughs as I have with larger bullets. If y'all are getting the consistent damage with pass throughs with 22--25 calibers at nearly any angle out to 700 yards please let me know what cartridge and bullet.
Seriously let me know, because that is a big reason why I prefer larger rounds.


#2 Probably the most bizarre kill I have made with a Magnum That I feel certain a smaller round would not have done. I shot a 252lb sow(pig) with my 7mag. Distance was about 100 yards and bullet hit square on the shoulder. If I remember correctly bullet was a 140 grain Hornady interlock,pushed as fast as possible with good accuracy.At the shot she dropped on the spot without a single twitch. Loaded her up to make sausage. While cleaning I was checking the damage/ bullet performance. The bullet totally disenagrated on the shoulder. I could not find one single entry hole or fragment inside the chest cavity. The entire shoulder was destroyed. The only explanation I have come up with is that there was enough energy transmitted that it stopped her heart instantly. There have been some documented cases were people with bullet proof vest on died from being shot even though the vest stopped the bullet. That is why most vest now use a trauma plate.

I agree that in most cases destroyed tissue resulting in blood loss and lack of oxygen kills. What I don't agree with is people totally dismissing the role that energy plays. I also agree that only transfered energy counts. But the bottom line is bigger heavier bullets driven the same speed as smaller lighter bullets have more energy to transfer.

Can absolutely stop a heart without entering the chest. Occasionally happens to kids with a baseball, bike handlebar etc. adults in car wrecks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wyobohunter]

Can you expand on that? Internal ballistics is what a bullet does between impact of the firing pin and exiting the barrel. Do you mean terminal performance?

I misspoke. Terminal ballistics. I caught the mistake after you read/quoted.

 

[eric1115]

But the terminal ballistics (penetration) of the .30 cal bullet will be better, all else equal. There isn’t any magic to get around it.

All else is rarely equal though, and more may not be needed. If you hit a fly with a hammer, it does more damage than a flyswatter. Does that make it a better fly killing tool?

You know this intuitively (assuming you don't hunt deer with a .375 CheyTac).

 

[KenLee]

Totally agree. "Magnum" might have been a bit "click-bait"y. It really is just small heavy for calibres vs big heavy for calibres and velocity is the equalizer until you start getting further out there than people hunt. So the question could easily be when should you prioritize a big heavy for calibre over small heavy for calibre? Really far out there might be one? Would monos be another?

I shoot light for caliber bullets out of almost everything except a couple 6.5 Creeds.
Don't shoot over 400 yards these days and I like fast bullets and carnage.

 

[KenLee]

It seems everyone has ballistic gel - I’ve had fun looking at new small caliber combinations compared with old school larger caliber combinations. I don’t see the appeal of smaller bullets with limited penetration, when some shots really need decent penetration. The argument of just letting an animal go if the angle is questionable sounds good until you’re watching a years worth of preparation walk away.

The same arguments for 25-06 and 257 Roberts vs bigger heavier combinations in the timber have been made since great gramps was in diapers.

Lightly constructed small caliber bullets are nothing new - large bc’s are new, effects on game aren’t. Comparing new high bc bullet gel tests with old school small caliber gel tests will confirm that for the internet age. I don’t know that this kind of penetration makes for a great all around combination.

View attachment 817951

Sh** if I could manage 9.5 inches of penetration, I'd probably take out a TV ad.

 

[TaperPin]

I hear you on the skepticism around small-caliber bullets, and I totally get where you’re coming from when it comes to penetration. However, I approach ballistic gel tests a bit differently—I don’t use them to determine real-world terminal performance directly. Instead, I use them as a way to compare one bullet to another in a consistent medium. Gel provides a repeatable baseline for how different bullets behave under identical conditions, which helps when narrowing down choices for hunting.

That said, my perspective on small calibers has shifted a lot after experimenting last season. I spent time testing small calibers after reading through the massive .223 thread on this forum, where there are literally hundreds of critters, small and BIG, taken cleanly with .224s going moderate to fast. Inspired by that, I started experimenting with .224s like the 88 ELD-M and was honestly surprised by how well they performed in real-world scenarios—not just on perfect broadside shots, but in situations where penetration and proper bullet construction were critical.

I’m not saying small calibers are the answer for everything. A lightly constructed bullet in the wrong scenario can fail, but that is regardless of caliber. But modern, high-BC .224 bullets with the right design (and velocity) can penetrate surprisingly well and perform consistently in the field. For me, it’s been more about testing and learning in real hunts than relying solely on internet gel tests or preconceived notions.

As for your point about letting an animal walk away on a bad angle, I agree it’s situational. The right tool for the job matters, and I think it’s less about caliber size and more about matching the bullet to the conditions you hunt in. Have you had a chance to test any of the new high-BC small-caliber bullets in the field? Would love to hear your experience if you’ve experimented with them!

Once an 88 gr eldm hits the animal, do you think it will perform much differently than a 90 gr. 6mm? I’m trying to wrap my head around why the first 88 gr bullet is magically deadly while the second, which has been around for well over 50 years in every conceivable jacket thickness, has worked, but not as well as larger setups. I think it’s trendy.

Out where extra high bc bullets begin to shine, most rifles can barely group well enough to stay within the kill zone, let alone field accuracy and wind call errors. All the 30 round zero groups of 1-1/2 MOA mean on a 500 yard shot there’s only a 1-1/4” ring around the kill zone or shots start dropping into less lethal areas - about a 1 mph wind call error under ideal conditions, let along quick shots. I guess it’s fun to think about, but there’s a lot of selective reporting on the real world failures in the field past 500.

I’ve had 50 gr of a 100 gr. 6mm bullet fragment while the other half continued out the far side of the rib cage. The cow went 300-400 yards. Not very impressed with that.

Like many guys in my social circle, we don’t feel the need to change our primary hunting rifles, to compare notes on if our Partitions or Accubonds will bounce off anything, or wonder if a 7 or 300 mag is an effective killer. Still, we’re gun nuts and trying new stuff is a normal part of life - we kill meat animals with everything from muzzleloaders to pistols to small caliber rifles - it seems this year everyone, including myself, has a 22 Creed and we’ll be killing things with it soon enough. I don’t expect a 22 bullet to be magically as good as a 6mm or 25 caliber, but it should be obvious if it is. I wouldn’t say any 6mm combination we’ve seen is better than a good 25 cal combination, and 25 cal rifles don’t blow the doors off a 270 or 7 mag. Hunting and shooting has obvious results when shot side by side with other combinations - time will tell. I can see heavy 22’s taking the traditional place of the standard weight 243, and heavy 6mm’s taking the place of standard weight 25 cal setups, but it’s not magic. Most shooters can’t shoot well enough to extend the range of the traditional cartridges, but it’s fun to play with. We think of heavy bullets in the creed as better long range coyote guns, like a fast twist 22-250 has been since heavy bullets first came out, and it does have less recoil for kids and those in the family that don’t shoot much.