Peterson 's Hunting - Small caliber article

[KHntr]

However, none of this covers a margin of error, a shanked shot or misjudge distance. To me a margin of error speaks to a shot placed in an unintentional location. If I screw up with my .300WM and dump one in the leg or guts, whats that .300wm got in terms of margin of error over the little .223?

Depends on your bullet. If you are tossing a 212 ELDm, then more tissue damage for sure and a bigger margin. If you are throwing a 180 TSX, then less tissue damage and less room for shot placement error.

 

[ZAK13]

Use what makes you happy. I am a bowhunter. It's sufficiently adequate for the task. I also pick my shots. So why wouldn't a .223 or 243 work the same? Foot pounds of energy? That's nonsense, for years I've questioned why ammo manufacturers use FPS minimums for reliable expansion, but never foot pounds of energy? I scratch my head with some of these claims. Use what you are comfortable with and accurate with.

 

[B Harrison]

And this applies to all calibers. I do believe that a lot of elk are lost annually by shooters who don’t bother to go look for evidence of a hit, especially when the distance is long and the bullet is small.

This is all animals and all hunters as a group.
Far too many new hunters just do not look hard enough to find evidence of a hit, or a proven miss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tobe_B]

Depends on your bullet. If you are tossing a 212 ELDm, then more tissue damage for sure and a bigger margin. If you are throwing a 180 TSX, then less tissue damage and less room for shot placement error.

But what is the margin? Is it two inches? Three inches? Ten inches?

It is generally accepted that an elk has a sixteen inch kill zone bracket. Bullets placed confidently in that window will contact major life giving organs and create critical life taking damage.

So what is the quantifying margin of error larger cartridges offer? Clearly it should be something progressive. Moving from .24 bullets to 6mm to 6.5mm to 7mm and so on so forth, should offer varying ranges and percentages of room for error. But there’s never a quantifiable number attached to it. Just anecdotal comments and theory speculation.