Large caliber vs. small caliber debate

[KHntr]

You missed pinheads comment earlier in this thread. “Big guns kill things faster”. You, also, clearly are not smart or experienced enough to understand this.

Lol, read my post closer! I even put that in quotation marks.

Not sure I want to kill stuff much faster than my Mouse Rifle does though. Sometimes I like to at least have the chance to *think* I’m going to get a second shot. After all, the shooting is the fun part.

 

[Marshfly]

Our kids and wives kill things out to 450 yards with the 243 with everything from factory cup and core, Partitions, to Ballistic tips, to Interbonds. I think it’s a great round if the shots are broadside.

The bias against the 243 seems to be localized around your social circle.

That comment is made by most hunters across the country. Get out more. I see it literally every time the 243 is brought up on any forum or Facebook group about hunting except this one from multiple people. It's repeated ad nauseam.

That said, the more animals we pile up with 108 ELDMS out of the 6ARC the more people pay attention.

 

[wind gypsy]

So, assuming we don’t have a flinch, then the first shot from an equally accurate 300 RUM, or a 6 Creed, could theoretically impact a buck in the same spot at 682 yards, across a canyon…..

Seems you're still willfully ignoring the whole recoil happening while bullet is in the barrel thing.

I guess this is why I don’t buy any of these blanket statements, that everyone is more accurate with smaller guns…. That’s nonsense. What’s actually being stated is that most PEOPLE handle smaller calibers more consistently. Same reason the FBI ditched the 10MM, and created the 40 SW. Because many officers couldn’t consistently handle the recoil of the 10. Doesn’t make the cartridge less accurate, or effective.

That's exactly what it means practically. It is harder for humans to effectively place bullets where they want them when it matters, that means humans are more accurate and effective with lower recoiling alternatives.

I'm not trying to argue that you would be more effective hunting with smaller cartridges. That might not be the case at all. Heck it might be the opposite for your purposes. I'm only arguing that recoil impacts peoples ability to place shots where they want them more than just due to flinching, the extent to which is debatable on each given scenario.

 

[TaperPin]

You cannot approach pinhead with logic, it just doesn’t work that way .

Your logic is for me ignore anything other than what you want me to believe? That’s funny.

 

[TaperPin]

That comment is made by most hunters across the country. Get out more. I see it literally every time the 243 is brought up on any forum or Facebook group about hunting except this one from multiple people. It's repeated ad nauseam.

That said, the more animals we pile up with 108 ELDMS out of the 6ARC the more people pay attention.

It’s funny - you argue for and against a 6mm in the same breath.

 

[Marshfly]

It’s funny - you argue for and against a 6mm in the same breath.

I never argued against it. I simply said most people handicap it with crap bullets and blame inadequacies on the caliber when they should be blaming the bullet. You should reread my posts with an emphasis on comprehension. I could say something about your social circle but that would be too easy a low blow.

 

[TaperPin]

I never argued against it. I simply said most people handicap it with crap bullets and blame inadequacies on the caliber when they should be blaming the bullet. You should reread my posts with an emphasis on comprehension. I could say something about your social circle but that would be too easy a low blow.

lol - you can talk about my social circle all you want - my skin is pretty thick and I find it funny when adults talk like Junior High kids.

Good ideas will succeed if there are forums full of guys pushing the idea or not, and will fall flat if not effective. Thinly constructed 100 to 120 gr bullets that fall apart aren’t anything new - first started killing things back in the 1920’s in the 250 savage. The new bullets fly farther, but once they reach the animal there isn’t any magic.

 

[ElGuapo]

Seems you're still willfully ignoring the whole recoil happening while bullet is in the barrel thing.

That's exactly what it means practically. It is harder for humans to effectively place bullets where they want them when it matters, that means humans are more accurate and effective with lower recoiling alternatives.

I'm not trying to argue that you would be more effective hunting with smaller cartridges. That might not be the case at all. Heck it might be the opposite for your purposes. I'm only arguing that recoil impacts peoples ability to place shots where they want them more than just due to flinching, the extent to which is debatable on each given scenario.

I’m not willfully ignoring “the whole Recoil while in the barrel thing”….. If this were of any significance, then it would be impossible for a “insert whatever big caliber” to shoot tiny groups off the bench…..

You think about it…… I asked specifically, if you took the human element out. I, personally have a very very accurate, unbraked (actually a couple of them) in larger calibers that will consistently shoot sub half minute 3 shot groups. How is this possible since they “Recoil while the bullet is in the barrel”.?

I’ll wait…. According to your theory, it would be impossible for a large caliber, fast recoiling magnum to be consistently accurate. We all know that is false.

 

[ElGuapo]

You missed what he said. It’s not necessarily flinching, although that contributes a lot of times. The main point is: You have to be much more consistent in pressures and positions with a heavy recoiling rifle than light recoiling rifles to see the same degree of accuracy. Which moves an equal weight rifle more? A 75 gr @ 3000, or a 200 gr @ 3000? Obviously, the 200 gr. So if you’re not consistent behind the gun, with the same technique, the heavy recoil rifle won’t be as accurate, because it’s moving more before the bullet exits the barrel. We aren’t talking shooting from a bench, or rock solid perfect prone. We’re talking about varied & awkward shooting positions.

Thank you. This is ACTUALLY a valid point.

 

[Schmo]

Thank you. This is ACTUALLY a valid point.

This is all we’re getting at! Yes, a 338 Lapua can technically be as accurate as a .223 Rem, but not with a shooter behind it unless in absolutely perfect form.

 

[Schmo]

And hunting almost never allows for a perfect form.

 

[Schmo]

So for field hunting conditions, a smaller caliber is more accurate.

 

[Choupique]

everyone is more accurate with smaller guns…. That’s nonsense. What’s actually being stated is that most PEOPLE handle smaller calibers more consistently

Youre saying the same thing.

Stuff starts happening before the bullet leaves the rifle. Its why heavy bullets often shoot higher. The meat bag behind the gun has to control it the same way every shot for maximum accuracy. The more recoil there is, the more the inconsistencies are multiplied, and the worse the accuracy gets.

You can be totally immune to the psychological effects of recoil, but the physics still matters. Its why the people who teach shooting classes make blanket statements that everyone shoots softer recoil rifles better. Its physics, and no amount of practice can overcome physics.

 

[ElGuapo]

You’re right…. Cheers

 

[Birch1996]

Id just go 308 call it a day...all purpose cal

 

[Bluefish]

A lot of the discussion is recoil and flinch which can be trained out and/or after a lifetime of shooting is ignored. Honest question and observation. When in the field shooting at animal or fowl have you ever thought about or felt recoil? In 50+ years of hunting squirrels and rabbits with a 22LR to grizzly with a 300PRC and geese with a 10 gauge I can honestly say I have never thought about or felt the recoil of the gun. My hunting buddies all say the same thing. Let's not bring the physics in, as that is what it is? But Is felt recoil or thinking about recoil really a thing in a hunting scenario?

At some point a flinch becomes subconscious. Long term trap shooters can have to resort to release triggers due to really bad flinches that they can’t overcome.

I don’t disagree that for a single shot a flinch can be pretty much a non issue provided you have not shots 10’s of thousands of rounds. I know I start to get one if shooting several heavy recoiling rifles or handguns. That doesn’t mean I don’t like shooting them sometimes, but I can also see that I shoot less recoiling guns better.

My issue now for Iowa deer is how do you step down recoil for a 35 cal and still have 150-200 yard range. I tried a lighter bullet this year and so far it’s 2 for 2.

 

[MCS]

I used a 6.5 creedmoor for a lot of years and I switched back to the 7mm for deer and 30 cal for elk. Smaller caliber bullets don't put down deer and elk like a big 7mm or 30 cal. They do kill but not as fast or at as long of range. Some bullets also perform better then other. The 180 berger in the 7mm. The 208 and 225 eldm in the 30 cal put animals down fast.

Anyone who says a 6mm will kill just as fast as a big 30 cal is lying or using a crap bullet in the 30 cal and a good bullet in the 6mm.

 

[roadrunner]

I can tell you what causes the a bullet to fragment/mushroom based on bullet construction and velocity at time of impact. I don’t have to know the weight of the bullet or energy.

The answer to your question goes back to the original issue in discussion, whether the energy transfer of a buttstock on tissue/bone is mechanically different than the energy transfer of a bullet on tissue/bone.

To say again in a different way. the effect of the bullet on game primarily depends on bullet construction and velocity. This is true because energy varies between weight/caliber but the fragmentation or mushroom correlates to the impact velocity into tissue.

The effect of a buttstock upon recoil from every rifle is same effect to the fabric and shoulder, compression forces and nothing more. You can add more padding to the rifle or the shoulder, but all that does is allow the rifle to decelerate slower and spread the energy over time, reducing how the recoil feels to the shooter and preventing crushing damage at the cell level (bruising) or at worst breaking bone.

The buttstock energy is transferred the same with every rifle, pushing with no penetration or permanent change to the stock.

The method of bullet energy is transferred differently depending on bullet construction. That seems without dispute.

Bullet energy/weight comes into play when discussing the total penetration and wound channel size.

That's not what I asked....