Is There Ever a Time to Hunt with Magnum Calibers?

[JPW13]

Everything matters. Some matters more. But, to say that something is a smaller factor and therefore can be ignored is a fallacy.

You may make that judgement call, but I judge differently and will take the inches and benefit.

When targets are inches, inches matter.

Apologies if it came across that 10 inches can be ignored (it definitely matters). It was more a case of at that distance the skills required might mitigate some of the advantage and with so many other factors coming into play is what you gain more than what you lose in the recoil?

Your point on looking at the inches is valid and I had a similar discussion with a buddy when shooting some long range steel. My 308 vs his 6.5. The inches are significant, but that might only translate to .1 or .2 mil of a hold, we're not talking much on our end to make a "big" difference at the terminal end.

 

[Bluefish]

After going down the rabbit hole of how animals die and small calibers/heavy bullets, I would say all a magnum offers is almost any bullet works. Thus no education of the consumer is needed. They can go in and buy any hunting ammo and it will do the job at under 300 yards. Using a 223 or 6mm bullet selection is more critical and many hunters are not into the details enough to know what works and what doesn’t. Go read the stuff said at a gunshop thread to know who the average hunter is and what they know.

I can say for certainty that big heavy bullets going slow with little energy work. The downside is drop becomes an issue quickly. Also time of flight is long even at shorter distances. Lighter faster bullets work too, but in the end it’s shot placement that makes it work.

 

[JPW13]

Can you post pics of the ballistics?

Can you post pics of the ballistics?

Sure - let me give it a try...

 

[JPW13]

After going down the rabbit hole of how animals die and small calibers/heavy bullets, I would say all a magnum offers is almost any bullet works. Thus no education of the consumer is needed. They can go in and buy any hunting ammo and it will do the job at under 300 yards. Using a 223 or 6mm bullet selection is more critical and many hunters are not into the details enough to know what works and what doesn’t. Go read the stuff said at a gunshop thread to know who the average hunter is and what they know.

I can say for certainty that big heavy bullets going slow with little energy work. The downside is drop becomes an issue quickly. Also time of flight is long even at shorter distances. Lighter faster bullets work too, but in the end it’s shot placement that makes it work.

Great point! You're totally right, this is why I have often recommend a 308 for the more casual hunter, 300m and in, factory ammo.

If I couldn't reload and didn't like nerding out on the science and ballistics I think you're absolutely correct.

 

[hereinaz]

Had a second, made two charts.

Here is 180 VLD at 3050, my gun and 22creed with 88s at 3200.

The red line is 1800 fps. My 7 is lethal to 1000, and that is a reason to choose it, because the 22 can’t.

But, notice the 22 has better numbers inside 500. It’s therefore “better” ballistically and I choose small calibers for typical hunting distances.

As for why I would choose my 7mm, it’s a small sample size, and anecdotal, but my gun has shot at two elk at 1000 yards and killed those two elk at 1000 yards, and many between 450-650. Every elk my gun has shot at has been killed with three hits or less, and all were fatal (except one got a little western when I wasn’t there and a friend borrowed it). Only one ran, all died quickly.

Time and distance give opportunity to set up comfortably, to dry fire, and get breathing under control. That equalizes the light recoil benefit of the 22 creed.

I NEVER would have taken my 7mm out to 1000, but I have the confidence in my gun, my dope, and the shooters. I proved it in the field before going hunting.

I also know the conditions and don’t shoot when they don’t allow. In AZ, wind often gets very calm in the evening and morning during prime time.

Because I can build a position to shoot a higher recoiling gun, I can choose it and get the benefits.

That’s when/why I shoot a magnum. Doesn’t have anything to do with terminal performance of the bullet, the toughness of the game, etc.

It has everything to do with precision at the extended long range that is beyond the capability and capacity of the vast majority of hunters.

Shooting long range is simple, but it isn’t easy.

 

[LIWolverine]

Yes.

I’ve said it before, there isn’t a PH/guide/outfitter in the world that carries a small caliber for dangerous game.

Going back to your previous comment “it would be obvious”: The fact above is more than obvious enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hereinaz]

Apologies if it came across that 10 inches can be ignored (it definitely matters). It was more a case of at that distance the skills required might mitigate some of the advantage and with so many other factors coming into play is what you gain more than what you lose in the recoil?

Your point on looking at the inches is valid and I had a similar discussion with a buddy when shooting some long range steel. My 308 vs his 6.5. The inches are significant, but that might only translate to .1 or .2 mil of a hold, we're not talking much on our end to make a "big" difference at the terminal end.

No offense taken, it’s getting to the nitty gritty…

I took your comment for what it was. You are clearly thinking about things, not just asking the same question like others…

Only at extended ranges does a magnum make ballistic advantage for precision necessary to kill.

 

[roadrunner]

When?

My upcoming NM oryx hunt on WSMR.

 

[Article 4]

Yes.

I’ve said it before, there isn’t a PH/guide/outfitter in the world that carries a small call for dangerous game.

Going back to your previous comment “it would be obvious”: The fact above is more than obvious enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree - common sense - they do it for a reason, their life depends on it. Wonder how many people getting charged by a bull moose at 50 yards and have a 6mm bolt gun would have rather had a 30 cal bolt gun for that first shot when that moose is stomping their insides into the ground.

 

[Axlrod]

Agree - common sense - they do it for a reason, their life depends on it. Wonder how many people getting charged by a bull moose at 50 yards and have a 6mm bolt gun would have rather had a 30 cal bolt gun for that first shot when that moose is stomping their insides into the ground.

How many hunters get charged by a bull moose? And get their insides stomped into the ground? I googled it and came up with zero.
There is a bird hunter that got charged by a cow moose in Idaho last may. He fired his shotgun in the ground, and the moose ran away. So in case your imaginary scenario ever comes to pass, a 12 gauge works 100% of the time.

 

[Bluefish]

Agree - common sense - they do it for a reason, their life depends on it. Wonder how many people getting charged by a bull moose at 50 yards and have a 6mm bolt gun would have rather had a 30 cal bolt gun for that first shot when that moose is stomping their insides into the ground.

I would rather have a 6 arc in an AR over any choice in a bolt gun. 2nd choice would be a lever gun in 45-70. I shoot sass and know I can run a lever fast, but Not as fast as an AR.

 

[roadrunner]

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.

The phenomenon you should focus on is the rate of change of velocity to know the effective range the bullet should perform in.

A bullet that retains [most] of its energy has a low rate of change in velocity. Velocity is a dependent variable relying on the chemical energy released by the powder burn and pressure build up followed by the aerodynamics and mass of the bullet.

When you witness cars colliding at an intersection, you don't think and interpret in terms of energy, inelastic/elastic collisions, or how the momentum of each car was (or wasn't) conserved. You simply tell the officer on scene as a witness that "car A" was traveling really fast when it hit "car B" that was just getting started through the intersection.

To verify that, the investigator will measure displacement of each vehicle at impact to final resting places (and/or skid marks). Knowing how much each car weighs, they can then conclude that "car A" was indeed traveling at a higher rate of speed and can now cite that driver at fault and with reckless/careless driving.

Bullets that maintain their momentum [normally] will penetrate deeper than bullets with "more energy", both of which share a relationship between mass and velocity, the later determined by the rate of change in velocity.

 

[hereinaz]

Bullets that maintain their momentum [normally] will penetrate deeper than bullets with "more energy", both of which share a relationship between mass and velocity, the later determined by the rate of change in velocity.

This statement is too general, IMO, because it is confounded by the type and construction of the bullet. It is only true under certain circumstances.

A mono with less momentum and energy can penetrate more than a varmint/plastic tipped bullet.

 

[RockAndSage]

I’ve said it before, there isn’t a PH/guide/outfitter in the world that carries a small caliber for dangerous game.

You're right.

The problematic counter-truth though, is there also isn't an ivory poacher in the world who carries anything but small caliber for dangerous game, if AKs, Enfields, and FALs qualify as small caliber.

 

[roadrunner]

This statement is too general, IMO, because it is confounded by the type and construction of the bullet. It is only true under certain circumstances.

A mono with less momentum and energy can penetrate more than a varmint/plastic tipped bullet.

I said maintain. Not whether or not is has more or less.

There is a difference.

Another word is conserves.

 

[RockAndSage]

Velocity reigns inside 500ish, but BC starts to matter more beyond that.

This is something that tripped me up when I first came across the small caliber debate here, when I saw people "bashing" traditional larger cartridges, or some of the newer hotrods like 6.8 Western. I've long known things like .220 Swift and .22-250 were deer slayers, and was fine with that, but it didn't invalidate the good ol' 30-06, either.

When I looked at actual data though, out to about 400 yards none of the cartridges had any notable advantages in drop, velocity, wind drift, etc.

Out to about 300-350 yds, virtually any centerfire allows you to just "hold hair" with any other Fudd.

For all intents and purposes, differences in cartridge ballistics just didn't matter a damn bit short of 400yds - and almost nobody discussing cartridge capabilities was even remotely capable of first-round hits in real-world conditions beyond that. So, just shoot what you like, right?

But I've personally shifted over to smaller cartridges. The biggest part of what won me over to small caliber inside that 400yd window?

Practice.

The undeniable truth is that I often practice by the half-case with .223, and by the box with big guns. And because of that volume difference, I'm just far better with guns chambered in smaller cartridges. Between cost, shootability, flinch prevention, and a number of other factors, you just get better, faster, and in a wider variety of conditions if you're shooting high volumes in focused practice simulating real-world conditions, as often as possible.

At this point, I've largely started thinking about magnums the way pilot trainees think about high-performance jets. It's something you build up to after hitting very specific performance benchmarks on smaller platforms, and you don't move up until you've both proven yourself to be exceptionally competent and have a need for that additional performance.

So yeah, OP, while I come at the debate from this perspective, I'd just repeat what a few others have said in answering your question: the place for magnums is found at the intersection of both need and personal capability. And under 500yds or so just isn't it.

 

[TaperPin]

2. Large caliber advocates: Relying on their own experience. . .

I think you’ve misunderstood the basis on which we choose larger calibers. Hunters since the beginning of time have obsessed over what to clobber animals with - that’s not the sole domain of small caliber shooters. Unlike the heavy for caliber 22 bullets that have only been in existence a decade, the good old 7 mag has been factory loaded since 1962, the 300 win mag since 1963, the 338 and 264 since 1958, and the Weatherby and -06 cartridges are much older than that. 2 million big game animals are killed in North America every year, so there’s a long history of what has worked and what hasn’t.

The small caliber crowd often repeats the idea that the only information on reliable kills is on rockslide and everyone else is guessing or delusional.

My older mentor that turned me onto the 7 mag hunted with it a decade before meeting me, and it existed a decade before he first picked it up. I choose the 7 mag after 50 other experienced hunters before me either in print or in person had good results and recommended it highly. In the 40 years since picking up my first one, I’ve probably met or talked with 100 others who would recommend it. Today someone who picks up a 7 mag has 100s of guys like me to recommend it.

 

[PathFinder]

Like most things in an engineer's brain, firearms fall into a category of things to be optimized. Just like backpacking gear, vehicles, etc.
For a hunting rifle, the attributes to be optimized are wound channels, external ballistics, shootability, and weight. For most of my hunts that rifle is a 6UM at about 7.5 lbs scoped (current one is 11.5, so another will be built).
The following is based on western hunting and plains game, in generally quite open terrain. This use case prioritizes external ballistics at long range without giving up the ability to achieve sufficient penetration at any reasonable shot angle.
Common magnum cases don't truly optimize 7mm+ bullets. They have the capacity to optimize up to ~6.5mm bullets. As mentioned above, it takes a really big case to optimize a big bullet. Lapua Improved, XC, HCM, etc. They have a place on hunts where difficult winds and extreme ranges are the rule. At that level, the extra recoil comes with an actual advantage over the 6UM.
Mid-capacity 7mm-338 magnums just don't offer anything in terms of terminal or external ballistics vs the 6UM for these types of hunting. The recoil is detrimental, and there is no advantage to go with it.
An extreme capacity magnum that comes in a little under 16 lbs is on my wish list, but that's about my only practical use for a big magnum.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[hereinaz]

This is something that tripped me up when I first came across the small caliber debate here, when I saw people "bashing" traditional larger cartridges, or some of the newer hotrods like 6.8 Western. I've long known things like .220 Swift and .22-250 were deer slayers, and was fine with that, but it didn't invalidate the good ol' 30-06, either.

When I looked at actual data though, out to about 400 yards none of the cartridges had any notable advantages in drop, velocity, wind drift, etc.

Out to about 300-350 yds, virtually any centerfire allows you to just "hold hair" with any other Fudd.

For all intents and purposes, differences in cartridge ballistics just didn't matter a damn bit short of 400yds - and almost nobody discussing cartridge capabilities was even remotely capable of first-round hits in real-world conditions beyond that. So, just shoot what you like, right?

But I've personally shifted over to smaller cartridges. The biggest part of what won me over to small caliber inside that 400yd window?

Practice.

The undeniable truth is that I often practice by the half-case with .223, and by the box with big guns. And because of that volume difference, I'm just far better with guns chambered in smaller cartridges. Between cost, shootability, flinch prevention, and a number of other factors, you just get better, faster, and in a wider variety of conditions if you're shooting high volumes in focused practice simulating real-world conditions, as often as possible.

At this point, I've largely started thinking about magnums the way pilot trainees think about high-performance jets. It's something you build up to after hitting very specific performance benchmarks on smaller platforms, and you don't move up until you've both proven yourself to be exceptionally competent and have a need for that additional performance.

So yeah, OP, while I come at the debate from this perspective, I'd just repeat what a few others have said in answering your question: the place for magnums is found at the intersection of both need and personal capability. And under 500yds or so just isn't it.

Yes, inside 300 yards, it makes very little difference what a hunter uses, which is why the small caliber “debate” is a little over wrought IMO.

Ballistically, between 300 to 600, there is some separation of ballistic performance based only on velocity and BC.

It’s not until past 600 that bullet velocity, BC and WEIGHT starts to matter.

At 800 to 1000 yards, you have to have crazy high velocity or you have to be a high BC bullet and over 150 grains to buck wind.

Past 1000, the level of precision is nigh impossible for high confidence shots on elk.

For anyone looking at reasonable “handloaded” numbers out to 1000, run the 6.5mm 156 Berger at 3050 fps and 7mm 180 VLD Berger at 3050 fps.

Any crazy hot cartridges loaded with heavy, high BC bullets like the 6 UM, 7 RUM, 300 Norma have everything maxed out with the foot standing on the gas pedal. They will be flat and long.

 

[Wyobohunter]

I don’t even have an man bun.