Is There Ever a Time to Hunt with Magnum Calibers?

[Maverick1]

@JPW13
Q: "Is There Ever a Time to Hunt with Magnum Calibers?"
A: 1994?

 

[pacoalcracker]

Oh my...those RUMs. My 300 RUM is a wicked rifle, on both ends. Fast, flat and hits like a freight train.....nothing like it. A friend, last day and last hour shot a last chance grizzly with his. 600 yards with a texas heart shot and it was DRT. You aren't doing that with a 223 or 6cr or any other pip-squeak cartridge, regardless of what bullet you are pushing. Sometimes, you really do want the horsepower.

 

[pacoalcracker]

Balderdash....you need a 350/450 truck to pull a large track-loader and tilt-bed trailer....around 14K and a hilly NE Pa.

 

[Hoosker Doo]

I still want someone to explain why energy does not pertain to tissue/organ "damage" but velocity does. Energy is define as "work being done" as in the bullet destroying the tissue as that is the "work being done". Velocity isn't doing the "work", the energy is. Velocity may be facilitating the work being done, but it isn't doing the work.

My admin lines up and plans my work...but I physically do the work. She is the velocity facilitating the work, but i'm the energy doing the work. She cannot get the job done without me being the energy to do the work...aka destruction of tissue. Velocity isn't the worker, the energy is. Makes total sense to me.

Of course energy is important and necessary for a bullet to kill. However knowing the amount of energy wont tell you if the work done in the animal is adequate to kill.

Im going to run with your work example here. If you show up to dig a trench for me, I don't want your admin to tell "he has 10,000 joules of energy. That should be plenty to finish that trench today." What if half that energy is used up in a pushup contest with a passerby (ends up in the hillside after passing through). I want to hear your boss say "He digs 5 feet per hour, so your 30 foot trench will easily be dug before the end of the day."

Knowing your bullet's velocity and minimum expansion velocity helps determine if the energy of the bullet will be applied effectively to the task at hand. If you are below the bullet's expansion velocity, energy is not going to be adequately applied to the task you "employed" the bullet to perform, even if the amount of energy the bullet has looks good by itself.

 

[z987k]

Great points, and I appreciate your perspective on wanting everything in your favour when hunting dangerous game—totally valid, especially if life’s on the line. I’ve had some experiences that align with your thoughts but also challenge them in specific situations, particularly with the concept of "knock-down" versus energy and velocity.

I’ve taken several bears under 100m with a .45-70, and the results have been dramatic. For example:

My largest black bear (6'5") was taken at 125m with a hard-cast bullet to the chest. It penetrated all the way to the rear ham with minimal expansion, and the bear was literally knocked on his butt!

Another bear, just over 6 feet, was taken at 50m with a middle-of-middle shot. It was knocked over onto its side on impact—again, a .45-70 doing what it does best up close.

On the other hand, a third bear I shot with a 168 TTSX from a .308 (2750 fps muzzle velocity) at under 100m didn’t leave the same impression. I found only a couple of small drops of blood and never recovered it. It acted like a broadhead is my guess. That experience made me question how energy and velocity are related. The TTSX would have had about 2300ft/lbs according to my ballistic software, whereas the big slow .458 would have been around 1400ft/lbs. I did a lot of reading on the subject, mostly guys using the good ol' government in africa and their take away is a big flat meplat penetrates straight and true and works. I now wonder if that flat meplat displaces tissue and despite the "slow velocity" and "minimal energy" it's creating a significant temporary and permanent wound channel as a result of how much tissue is "displaced". Would a big spire point 30 cal do the same at low velocity? Is that a use case for shooting a heavy for caliber 30 cal?


As for energy vs. velocity, I see your analogy, but the way I interpret it is that velocity determines how effectively the energy is delivered. A fast-moving bullet (velocity) facilitates focused energy transfer by ensuring proper penetration and/or expansion at the right depths. If a bullet is too slow, it might over-penetrate without transferring enough energy to vital tissues. Conversely, a high-velocity bullet with insufficient weight or improper construction might fragment too early, failing to cause critical damage.

To your case for using a magnum: I absolutely agree they have their place, particularly with dangerous game. The ability to deliver heavy bullets at high velocity creates a margin for error that can be critical in high-stakes situations (... so are follow-up shots?). But from my experience, bullet construction and placement often trump energy on paper. Is that why I’ve seen a .45-70 physically “knock over” bears at close range, even though its ballistic energy is significantly less impressive than some magnums.

Those bears were no more knocked over than you were when you fired the gun.
You disrupted the CNS.

 

[dieselchessy]

I primarily hunt with solid copper bullets. For them frontal area and velocity seem to be important. They dont have the greatest BC’s so a little extra launch speed is handy.
Id guess that the 223 and other such rounds wouldn't be as desirable for hunting with non-lead bullets.
But still probably no necessity for a magnum.
Magnums can be kind of handy for extending point blank range.

 

[Scoutfan]

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.

Just my opinion/experience. Certainly not 100 percent (nothing is). #1Larger caliber bullets that leave larger holes on p-poor shots allow for a little more "leakage" for tracking.#2 larger heavier Berger/eldm style bullets have a bit more and heavier fragments that can penetrate a little more from "fringe areas" into more vital areas.#3 When apples to apples bullet types and velocities then bigger heavier bullets will usually transfer more energy into an animal which sometimes allows a little bit more time for a follow-up shot. The downside is it can take longer for a follow-up shot from a higher recoiling round. #4 Larger heavier non fragmenting bullets normally have more penetration than lighter ones.

If I couldn't shoot my larger calibers effectively then I would much rather use a smaller round that I could shoot better. Proper shot placement is way more important.

 

[Balderdash]

I primarily hunt with solid copper bullets. For them frontal area and velocity seem to be important. They dont have the greatest BC’s so a little extra launch speed is handy.
Id guess that the 223 and other such rounds wouldn't be as desirable for hunting with non-lead bullets.
But still probably no necessity for a magnum.
Magnums can be kind of handy for extending point blank range.

Mono's maybe the best justification for "magnum" use these days. IME, if you need/want to use a mono and you want to take advantage of longer range opportunities, the higher you keep impact velocities, the happier you'll be with your set up.

 

[Article 4]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, everyone! I want to clarify my original question and add some context from my experience.

First off, I’m not here to argue against magnums—I own and shoot several, and I enjoy hunting with them. In 2023, I took a mule deer at 600m with my .300 WSM, and before trying out the .224s, I dropped a bear at 700m with my 7 PRC. I also regularly take spring bears with my .45-70, which is a completely different kind of experience but one I genuinely enjoy. I shoot a lot of rounds each year, and I’m comfortable with heavy recoil. I’ll hunt with what makes me happy, but success in the field makes me happiest of all—and that’s where I’m trying to understand if there’s still a practical case for magnums.

A few take-aways from all the replies:

1. "If it were better, it would be obvious":I agree—if something is clearly better, it usually doesn’t take long to notice in the field. But by my own experience the 88s have killed just as dead with as quick a time to incapacitation as the 175s or 212s. Are there cases where a bigger bullet somehow aids in lower expansion velocities for longer range success in a way a small caliber can’t replicate?
2. "Shoot what you can handle":Absolutely valid. A magnum is only advantageous if the shooter can handle it accurately. Heavy recoil and infrequent practice lead to missed shots and wounded animals. That said, I might not shoot as tight a groups with a magnum, but I do tend to still ring still with the same frequency as a smaller calibre and sight picture is maintained because I don't use high magnification.
3. "Magnums are never wrong; they’re just more of a good thing":I hear this argument, but if the difference in wind resistance or terminal performance between a magnum and a fast .224 is minimal, is "more of a good thing" just a theoretical benefit? Or does it manifest in real-world hunting conditions where that slight edge has made the difference?
4. "Shoot what you want, there’s no right or wrong":I get the sentiment, but I’m trying to explore whether magnums still hold a practical, hunting-specific advantage. Does anyone feel they’ve seen an outcome where a magnum clearly succeeded where a smaller caliber might have failed?

@Formidilosus has talked about shooting magnums - but I think it was just for fun or work, I don't remember a hunting example where it benefited?"

To sum up, I’m trying to move past “personal preference” and dig into whether there’s a functional reason for magnums in modern hunting. So far, the advantages seem minimal or situational, but I’m open to (and sort of hope to be) convinced otherwise. Looking forward to more insights!

I am well documented in my personal belief that bigger is better. II am not a fan of smaller is right for every application.
I believe faster is better and more is better. So this won't be a surprise and my focus here is NOT to get into a discussion that derails - it is to share my thoughts. Put a hole in an animal in the right vitals, the animal dies - and we all want to make a perfect shot...there are times we dont and there are some animals that should never be shot with small non-magnums. Ever

Point 1: There are some cases where it is better. The larger the animal and the thicker the bone/hide, a magnum does offer more penetration and better terminal ballistics - all the affect numbers are higher and in some cases the bullet gets there faster. This is an advantage at longer ranges

Point 2: Yup - if you cannot shoot it accurately at your effective range, it matters not what you shoot. The issue here is these days is nearly anything with a "magnum" bolt face is considered a magnum = no matter how much powder is in the case or size of bullet being shot

Point 3: Magnums ARE more of a good thing for hunting applications. Target shooting is completely different. I am a firm believer through studies read and my own personal experiences that if all other things remain the same, a magnum shooting a larger bullet moving at a similar rate will do more damage and will be more effective.

Point 4: Magnums shooting longer and larger bullets do hold advantages in BC, terminal ballistics, and DOPE adjustments. Magnums are more appropriate for hunting applications. I have shot animals and seen animals shot where I fully believe that if a smaller bullet had been used, the outcome would have been different. There is a ton of data out there on both sides but that has been debated ad nausea so not gonna get into that.

At the end of the day, if you shoot an animal through the vitals, they die, no matter the caliber. MY THING is if you are off a bit in hunting situations, more is better. Additionally if I can get a bigger bullet there, just as fast or faster, with less DOPE adjustment (Wind call etc...) in a hunting scenario, I have a better chance to put the bullet where it belongs and killing that animal.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

ELR

 

[Athens]

I shoot an X-Bolt in 7MM Mag and wouldn't use any other round for big game. I've killed bull elk with one round. That said, I'm obviously bias and I'm a hunter, not a big range guy. My buddy has a Christensen Arms in 7MM and it shoots nice. For me, unless you're into competition shooting, you should stick to the 7MM; however, I've read that the 6.5 Creedmore is better for long-range target shooting (less energy). I have zero experience with the 6.5 but did read that it's better for barrel longevity. For what it's worth, accuracy is more about the shooter than the gun. Just my .02

 

[JF_Idaho]

Finally a thread breaking new ground.

This one will go much better than the other 13.

 

[Mike D Texas]

Yes, whenever I feel like it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Northpark]

I guess for me it depends. Guns are like golf clubs and each one has a job. For most of my big game hunting I grab my 7-08ai. It’s plenty of gun for most things. Just going deer hunting I’ll sometimes grab my .223 loaded with 63gr monos. It kills just fine. Planning on killing an elk at 800 yards? I’ll grab the .300 Win Mag with 212 ELDX in it. Why? Because for killing elk I prefer to use a big high BC bullet that retains plenty of velocity and gives me every advantage on wind calls I can get. Every little thing you can do to increase chances of hits at long range adds up. I also actually shoot my .300 Win mag regularly meaning I learned how to handle recoil.

 

[greyghostnw]

Think about your approach to your hunt and what you want out of it as well… personally i prefer high country as that is where i like to be, i like to work hard to get to where i like and then spend less time moving around there after… nature only permits a short window to be up there in summer conditions. Having a magnum provides more shot possibilities from a position be it distance and less impact from conditions. The ability to anchor that animal down in high country terrain is something anyone needs to think about regardless of caliber. With a proper brake you wont have much recoil, i spot shots with my 300 rum, weighs 10 pounds kitted out everything included ammo. That would be the only downside i can think of, little more weight in hand but price you pay for shot distance and condition improvement. Once again depends on your style and approach and how much time you have up there how much time you want to move around. You get out of it what you put into it… good luck.

 

[JPW13]

Finally a thread breaking new ground.

This one will go much better than the other 13.

Fair point—this definitely feels like ground we’ve covered in other threads! I think I’ve read through almost all of them, and they do tend to break into two camps:

1. Small caliber advocates: Backed by 500 pages of evidence, ballistic charts, and personal success stories with well-constructed bullets heavy for caliber .224 and .243s.

2. Large caliber advocates: Relying on their own experience, often distrustful of smaller calibers efficacy, and rooted in the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “more is better” mindset.

I respect both perspectives, but I’m trying to dig a little deeper here. Instead of focusing on preferences, I’m trying to suss out whether there’s a specific hunting scenario where a larger cartridge—particularly a magnum or even something in the ultra-magnum category—provides a clear and significant advantage.

From what I’ve seen (and shot), the newer “ultras” and Noslers don’t seem to provide a huge ballistic advantage over fast, heavy-for-caliber small bullets at ranges under 1000m. If that’s the case, where does a larger cartridge’s advantage become noticeable? And if the answer is beyond 1000m, how far beyond, and does that push into territory where ethical, practical hunting shots become questionable?

It’s a nuanced question that doesn’t seem to fit neatly into either camp, which is why I’m hoping this discussion can break some new ground. Looking forward to everyone’s input!

 

[hereinaz]

JPW, I am a season hunter but to be honest if I were hunting game that can kill you pretty quickly, I would be hesitant to use anything but a heavier magnum. 7mm Mag at the least with 175's. Moreso if I wasn't backed up by a competent person with a heavy magnum. There may be some risk adverse hunters out there, but I like life... a lot. I want everything in my favor. That is my case for using a magnum.

I still want someone to explain why energy does not pertain to tissue/organ "damage" but velocity does. Energy is define as "work being done" as in the bullet destroying the tissue as that is the "work being done". Velocity isn't doing the "work", the energy is. Velocity may be facilitating the work being done, but it isn't doing the work.

My admin lines up and plans my work...but I physically do the work. She is the velocity facilitating the work, but i'm the energy doing the work. She cannot get the job done without me being the energy to do the work...aka destruction of tissue. Velocity isn't the worker, the energy is. Makes total sense to me.

Energy is a number and doesn’t tell you anything by itself. Just like velocity. Energy doesn’t work…

A slowly rolling car and bullet can have the same energy. What matters is how the energy is applied.

There is no practical way to quantify and say, this mono bullet with this energy is equal to this lead bullet with this energy.

You need to know velocity and bullet construction.

The basic reason to use velocity is it dictates whether the bullet expands/works and that same number applies to bullets of the same design regardless of energy.

All bullet manufacturers give you velocity for it to work…

In your example, velocity is how much you pay your admin. If you pay her $2.00 an hour she isn’t going to work… She might show up, but the work she does won’t make you money.

If you pay her the “minimum” that gets her motivated to work, then the jobs gets done. You could pay her twice as much as her minimum, but the job won’t get done twice as good.

Get a person that is twice as smart and pay them the same, it doesn’t matter because you can only work so fast typing, moving, calling, etc. that’s like using a magnum.

 

[Touchdown88]

I would feel a lot more comfortable hunting dangerous game in Africa with a 375 H&H than I would if I was carrying a .223.

For 99%+ of the hunting done in NA, you can decide for yourself. You're a consenting adult and should make the decision you feel is best. But once you are on the menu, you'd feel more comfortable with something more powerful

 

[Article 4]

Fair point—this definitely feels like ground we’ve covered in other threads! I think I’ve read through almost all of them, and they do tend to break into two camps:

1. Small caliber advocates: Backed by 500 pages of evidence, ballistic charts, and personal success stories with well-constructed bullets heavy for caliber .224 and .243s.

2. Large caliber advocates: Relying on their own experience, often distrustful of smaller calibers efficacy, and rooted in the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “more is better” mindset.

I respect both perspectives, but I’m trying to dig a little deeper here. Instead of focusing on preferences, I’m trying to suss out whether there’s a specific hunting scenario where a larger cartridge—particularly a magnum or even something in the ultra-magnum category—provides a clear and significant advantage.

From what I’ve seen (and shot), the newer “ultras” and Noslers don’t seem to provide a huge ballistic advantage over fast, heavy-for-caliber small bullets at ranges under 1000m. If that’s the case, where does a larger cartridge’s advantage become noticeable? And if the answer is beyond 1000m, how far beyond, and does that push into territory where ethical, practical hunting shots become questionable?

It’s a nuanced question that doesn’t seem to fit neatly into either camp, which is why I’m hoping this discussion can break some new ground. Looking forward to everyone’s input!

A couple of thoughts:
Point 1 - 500 pages, if that is the real number, great. Evidence is subjective and consider the source, there have been ballistics charts for nearly every single caliber available, large and small. This is NOT just a small caliber thing

Point 2: The documentation is available in thousands and thousands of pages, articles, anecdotal evidence and more than 300 years of hunting and shooting. It may not all be here but you dont have to look far to find it.

To your larger question than yes, a standard 30 Nosler provides ballistic advantage over a standard 243. Period dot.

There are places that a large caliber is critical - taking it to the highest level, I would not want to hunt a charging grizzly bear or a Cape Buffalo with a 223. Ever...

If both bullets hit the same spot, my question has always been the same - why is it bad to have more of a good thing?

 

[aschuler]

I have a clarifying question because everyone on this thread is conflating two things.

OP are you talking about moving up in caliber size? Or moving to a "magnum" case ie more powder behind the same caliber?
Those are two different things!

For instance if you're shooting a 100 grain bullet in a 6ARC at 2800fps you could choose to move up to a magnum, a 240 WBY might shoot the same bullet at 3200.