Peterson 's Hunting - Small caliber article

[Aussie Dan]

Trying to understand your logic, a 25-06 shooting a 128-135 grain bullet would be inadequate for elk but a 270 with a 130-150 grain bullet is fine. How does .02” and at most 15 more grains change the equation for you?

Its the same kind of "logic" which suggests that a 243 is a great starter "do it all" cartridge for kids and women, but once someone is bigger and ostensibly stronger and supposedly more able to handle recoil, then suddenly the 243 becomes anaemic and doesn't have sufficient "wallop" and "knock down power"

That one always make me giggle

 

[Big_wals]

Its the same kind of "logic" which suggests that a 243 is a great starter "do it all" cartridge for kids and women, but once someone is bigger and ostensibly stronger and supposedly more able to handle recoil, then suddenly the 243 becomes anaemic and doesn't have sufficient "wallop" and "knock down power"

That one always make me giggle

That’s what got me started down the small caliber rabbit hole. I read two articles several months apart, by the same author no less, one recommending a minimum 150 grain 30 cal for elk and the other saying .243 was just fine for a kids “starter” elk gun. Made me realize how very little actual info there is in hunting magazines these days. Most articles are either a story for entertainment, or written to play into the main audience’s bias. Because that’s what sells.

 

[huntnful]

I just like the idea of shooting the heaviest for caliber frangible bullet, at the fastest speeds you personally can; while giving up no detrimental amount of precision or ability to spot hits and make follow ups. There’s no downsides to it.

So it’s dependent on the shooter, the possible field positions, the rifle weight and the muzzle device.

Definitely no one size fits all, and there doesn’t need to be.

 

[Tom-D]

Shot and seen shot heaps of big mud caked boars with literal 40 grain varmint bullets. The concept of a heavy for cal bullet not penetrating enough to hit vitals is crazy to me.
Still yet to see a crater on a shoulder from a bullet blowing up on impact but i have seen hunting bullets pencil through with no damage

 

[Forkasauras]

That’s what got me started down the small caliber rabbit hole. I read two articles several months apart, by the same author no less, one recommending a minimum 150 grain 30 cal for elk and the other saying .243 was just fine for a kids “starter” elk gun. Made me realize how very little actual info there is in hunting magazines these days. Most articles are either a story for entertainment, or written to play into the main audience’s bias. Because that’s what sells.

I was in the same boat. My opinion was informed by gun writers....opinions. Facts and evidence were lacking and it turns out all that garbage about bullet failure and penetration are just marketing by bullet companies.

It all came down to one question I could not answer. Having shot dozens of whitetail with a 140gr ballistic tip from a 7-08, and seeing both shoulder sustain massive meat damage despite intentionally not shooting them in the shoulder, I asked why wouldn't that same bullet make the same wound on an elk. When you realize they aren't 3 feet thick with 10 inch thick shoulders, there is nothing to support the belief it would be inadequate.

 

[mad_angler]

My thought process? It’s pretty simple, actually. Larger, heavier bullets driven at reasonable velocities create a larger and deeper wound channel and do more damage to internal organs and heavy bones than small, lightweight bullets. The farther the distance, the tougher the angle and bigger the animal, the more important this consideration becomes.

There are two parts there... internal organs and heavy bones

Internal organs: I think the data would show that a TMK would do more damage to internal organs that a "tough" bullet. Consider a perfect broadside shot. The TMK would completely destroy the heart and lung cavity. A 180 grain core-lok would create a 1" hole completely through the chest and take much of it's energy with it as it exited the other side of the chest. (The elk would still be dead. It would just take longer for the elk to realize it).

Heavy bones: Here, the big, heavy, tough bullet might do a better job getting through the bones and getting to the vitals.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

This dumb argument is like big block heavy poor handling muscle car folks who like the looks and loud rumble being pissed that lots of EVs are objectively faster acceleration and darn near any car today handles better that the original steering/suspension design of those classic cars. Feel free to like the loud rumble, just don't try to gas light others that your loud poor handling car is "better" at accelerating or driving around in every day life. I'm sure its fun as shit to driver around in on the weekends though. Everything has its place in a freedom of choice world, no need to get a bruised ego.

I don't hunt 223, I don't hunt a big magnum and shoot animals up the ass either. I literally hunt in the middle ground and my observation is one side seems but hurt and has difficulty comprehending context while reading all words written and trots out BS, the other side really only speaks up to counter act the narrative that has been pushed as gospel. The real cult following is the fact folks who have never hunted the west have been convinced that a 300win mag is absolutely needed...

It is OK to acknowledge how using the correct bullets in XYZ cartridge can kill well while also choose to personally shoot something different.

 

[DLSJR]

Trying to understand your logic, a 25-06 shooting a 128-135 grain bullet would be inadequate for elk but a 270 with a 130-150 grain bullet is fine. How does .02” and at most 15 more grains change the equation for you?

One has to draw an arbitrary line someplace and for me that bottom caliber line is at 6.5/.264. For you it may be lower. That’s fine by me. I’ve been involved with a number of elk shot with my .264 Winchester, even though I wasn’t pulling the trigger. I’ve seen 4 or 5 elk shot with that rifle as friends like to borrow it. All the elk died. But, I don’t consider it optimal even though it’s more than adequate. Yeah, I think a .270 is a better elk cartridge than a .25-06. Your opinion seems to disagree. I’m okay with that. You do you.

I wonder how many old, big bodied bulls that weigh 900+ pounds have been shot and lost by the .22 caliber crowd. My expectation is damn few. And I’m thinking some advocates are keyboard warriors with a lot more experience typing than killing elk.

I’ll stick with my .338 since I’ve been hunting with it since 1985 and I know how good it works.

 

[LongWayAround]

I wonder how many old, big bodied bulls that weigh 900+ pounds have been shot and lost by the .22 caliber crowd. My expectation is damn few. And I’m thinking some advocates are keyboard warriors with a lot more experience typing than killing elk.

Your expectation of "dam few" bulls over 900lb being lost is probably right. I would bet it's probably pretty close to zero. Show me a verified Rocky Mountain bull weighing over 900lb. Last time I asked you about that claim, you never responded. In fact, I believe you claimed something to the effect of bulls weighing 1,000lb was common in some mystical area.

Do you wonder how many bulls have been lost by guys shooting big boomers who flinch because they're scared of their gun?

 

[cbuck516]

I'd like to know what the "wrist size" bone is above the shoulder knuckle. There's a shoulder blade, but I would never describe that as a "wrist size" bone.

Maybe JVB has really dainty wrists?

Unfortunately, I had to read this article several times to follow his story-telling. He claims 10-14" of penetration before hitting ribs and he does say that this shot was "quartering strongly to". At that angle, I do think his numbers are possible. However, at the angle he is describing (for his numbers to be possible), there is an elevated risk of only hitting a single lung. He does say that the bullet "got inside the vital cavity", but never describes the extent of the damage to the lungs, heart, liver, etc.

To me, it sounds like a story that is intended to stir your emotions and persuade you to believe what you are being told. There really isn't any real data here other than some questionable campfire stories.

I perceive JVB's argument for high power cartridges as his justification for taking risky shots like he describes in the article. I personally find that argument highly unethical and hypocritical to his main argument about smaller calibers being inadequate. If you have to use a specific 7mm or 30cal bullet to get the desired result, how is that any different than choosing a specific 22cal bullet to get the desired result?

• The small-caliber crowd has identified a niche combo that kills effectively (with lots of objective evidence) for certain use cases.
• JVB has identifed a high-power cartridge combo that kills effectively for certain use cases.

The two points above are different solutions to different problems. Neither solution is ideal for all possible situations as many here have already pointed out and it is important for each hunter to understand the limitations of their chosen equipment and personal skills.

I consider myself an eternal student and am continually seeking to expand my knowledge on this subject and increase my skills as a hunter.

 

[Hondo64d]

Interesting article:

Small Cartridges For Big Game Hunting: Fantastic Or Foolish? - Petersen's Hunting

The debate on small cartridges for big game hunting wages on. Learn about the pros and cons.

www.petersenshunting.com

Pretty much what you would expect from someone deeply involved in the hunting business for lots of years..

My takeaways are:
- They claim that small cartridges could never go through a big bone and then reach the vitals. There might be some truth there.
- They say that neither big nor small could go through a full paunch. Probably some truth there.
- Criticize small caliber folks for ignoring problems getting through big bones.
- Similarly commit the same error themselves by ignoring the problem of a very small wound channels on good but not great shots.

I would really like to know the specifics of how smaller cartridges failed the author when taking deer sized or larger game…

John

 

[Quandary]

I find it ironic that the story he tells to prove his point is "busting through the shoulder" on the steeply quartering Elk is with a 127gr bullet which isn't exactly big. Heck that's smaller than the 133EHs and 145 BHs that I shoot in my 25-06AI. Seems to me this is demonstrating that bullet construction is more important for the shot you take than the size of the bullet.

 

[BuckSmasher]

I find it ironic that the story he tells to prove his point is "busting through the shoulder" on the steeply quartering Elk is with a 127gr bullet which isn't exactly big. Heck that's smaller than the 133EHs and 145 BHs that I shoot in my 25-06AI. Seems to me this is demonstrating that bullet construction is more important for the shot you take than the size of the bullet.

Nobody (or very few) are against 130-150 grain bullets for elk. Lightly constructed 77 grainers though...

 

[BuckSmasher]

I would really like to know the specifics of how smaller cartridges failed the author when taking deer sized or larger game…

John

I can tell you one. .243 Win Texas whitetail. 95 grain ballistic tip. Shot entered around the last rib on near side angling up into chest on far side, deer quartering away. Dropped at the sound of the shot, then got up and ran 10 yards or so before finally dying. Large hole in diaphram but no bullet was ever found. A few specs. No exit wound. How much deer would it have had to go through to exit? I don't know if a Texas buck is 8-10 inches wide broadside maybe 17-20 inches would have been necessary to exit? Of course if I had known 10 years later I would be telling folks on the internet penetration is important.....

Lesson learned is not that .243 headstamp isn't adequate on whitetails. Penetration is. Same shot on an elk would it have made it to the diaphram? Likely, but I don't think it made it much further than that on the deer.

Contrast that with a HUGE sow hog in river bottoms east Texas. Same rifle 80 grain TTSX. Broke ribs, blew out the far shoulder and kept on going. Maybe still is.

.223s failed to side to side penetrate on hogs for me MULTIPLE times. Even with 62 TTSX. Not an elk round unless you shoot it close and broadside and miss the shoulder.

 

[cbuck516]

Nobody (or very few) are against 130-150 grain bullets for elk. Lightly constructed 77 grainers though...

Opposing an idea is different than being able to prove an idea is incorrect. Can you prove that small diameter bullets are not effective on elk?

 

[Hondo64d]

I can tell you one. .243 Win Texas whitetail. 95 grain ballistic tip. Shot entered around the last rib on near side angling up into chest on far side, deer quartering away. Dropped at the sound of the shot, then got up and ran 10 yards or so before finally dying. Large hole in diaphram but no bullet was ever found. A few specs. No exit wound. How much deer would it have had to go through to exit? I don't know if a Texas buck is 8-10 inches wide broadside maybe 17-20 inches would have been necessary to exit? Of course if I had known 10 years later I would be telling folks on the internet penetration is important.....

Lesson learned is not that .243 headstamp isn't adequate on whitetails. Penetration is. Same shot on an elk would it have made it to the diaphram? Likely, but I don't think it made it much further than that on the deer.

Contrast that with a HUGE sow hog in river bottoms east Texas. Same rifle 80 grain TTSX. Broke ribs, blew out the far shoulder and kept on going. Maybe still is.

.223s failed to side to side penetrate on hogs for me MULTIPLE times. Even with 62 TTSX. Not an elk round unless you shoot it close and broadside and miss the shoulder.

So the .243/95gr BalTip combo failed you when the buck only went ten yards?

John

 

[roosiebull]

Sounds like the author was successful in getting everyone to read his article

Not this kid

 

[BuckSmasher]

So the .243/95gr BalTip combo failed you when the buck only went ten yards?

John

Thats what the people said in the last thread about .223s for elk.

1. A Texas buck is drastically smaller than an elk.
2. Bullet had to only penetrate maybe 3 or 4 inches before it got to diaphram, how much further it went than that I honestly don't know.
3. Same shot on a bull elk probably 6 or 7 inches just to get to the diaphram.
4. A 95 grain ballistic tip from a .243 is a lot more bullet than a 77 TMK from a .223.

I love my .243. Very accurate rifle. IF I were to hunt elk with it though it would be with ttsx or accubonds. Why would I when I have more powerful rifles and elk are big? I do like to hunt deer with it. Total HOGWASH that a 30-06, .308, or .270 will result in the loss of accuracy in the hands of the same shooter vs a .223.

 

[MTlan66]

Total HOGWASH that a 30-06, .308, or .270 will result in the loss of accuracy in the hands of the same shooter vs a .223.

I personally have not tried that comparison, but I can assure you that I shoot my 6.5 Creedmoor far better than I ever shot my 300 Win Mag, or 30.06.

 

[BuckSmasher]

I personally have not tried that comparison, but I can assure you that I shoot my 6.5 Creedmoor far better than I ever shot my 300 Win Mag, or 30.06.

Maybe they were inaccurate?

And a 6.5 Creedmoor is a FAR cry from a .223