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.

 

[Livedog]

I’ll offer a few observations as a newer convert with a koolaid mustache. I’m only 3100 posts deep on the 223 thread, and I’ve listened to Form 6-7+ hrs on various podcasts.

A few Cliff notes for those who won’t read it:
One thing that clicked with me was Form painting the picture of a football sized wound channel vs a 1-2”, narrow, pass-thru wound channel. The football width actually has more room for error, not less.

Then the scapula myth. They are actually transparent and not all that tough.

I think in many cases folks equate the 224 caliber with varmint bullets that explode on contact with bone. Not the case with heavy for caliber TMKs (and the short list of others). The TMK is a phenomenally performing instrument of death.

Bullet design and construction is actually different than what you shot 20 years ago (or less). The headstamp is not the measure of performance.

 

[KHntr]

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.

There’s never been a number attached to it, because that isn’t how it works so far as I’ve seen. I should probably temper that a bit, before someone shows up with a demonstrable formula…

Bullet construction/shape/composition/twist rate are vastly more important than diameter when it comes to tissue damage.
From what I have seen personally , the difference in damage from a 6mm to a 7mm (or .224 to .284) when all else is equal, is an incremental step. There is likely some difference there, but you probably won’t be able to discern the difference visually on a regular basis between a 6 and a 7.
Once you get a bullet that rapidly exceeds the stretch capability of tissue you are already doing as much damage as you can do within the confines of the animals structure. Doesn’t matter if you pop a balloon with a sewing needle or a knitting needle, that balloon can’t get any more popped than it is.

The difference in damage when going from one type of bullet construction when all else is equal is a major leap. (ie traditional mono versus a heavy for caliber softer bullet).

Bullets matter. Headstamps don’t.
The only interaction that you have with an animal is the bullet, unless you really F it Up and have to beat him to death with your rifle.
And in that scenario I’m definitely going to want my 26” barreled laminate stocked 300 RUM over my 21.5” Kimber Montana 223AI, so I can get a better swing and more Whallop.

 

[Wacko]

First I want to say I love these threads...they are entertaining to say the least.

I only have 1 gripe about any of the comments I frequently see. "Tell us how many _____ you have killed with a 223 to know your experience"....

Well, since I hunt in Colorado where a 22 centerfire is illegal to hunt with...my personal experience will be zero. Which is also why I don't post any experience with same. I've seen pigs shot with various 223 bullets...I wasn't impressed really. Don't think any were the 77 TMK though or bullets optimized for 223 killing. No matter I'm not against it or for it. I'd love to try it and see for myself!

Let's call out some facts...

First is an optimized bullet in a larger caliber creates a larger wound channel. Form has stated most would find an optimized 30 cal wound horrific or something like that.

Second is people shoot lower recoiling rifles better. "Lower recoiling" rifles nowadays can be made by adding weight, brakes, suppressors, suppressors with brakes etc. So the real issue is what set up makes you grin and just shoot?

Third is bullet composition and form factors have changed. That means smaller calibers can do big work now too. I mean 120 grain 6mm bullets now? That's a lot of pencil to wear down!

Fourth is most things are not that hard to kill. Do things go wrong sometimes - even with good shot placement? Yes. Does a pattern of 1 mean the combo sucks? No. There is a lot of evidence to suggest almost every caliber from 223 on up will have sufficient penetration to do the job on game.

As has been stated in this thread...use what you want, shoot it well, and hunt honest.

 

[Tobe_B]

There’s never been a number attached to it, because that isn’t how it works so far as I’ve seen. I should probably temper that a bit, before someone shows up with a demonstrable formula…

Bullet construction/shape/composition/twist rate are vastly more important than diameter when it comes to tissue damage.
From what I have seen personally , the difference in damage from a 6mm to a 7mm (or .224 to .284) when all else is equal, is an incremental step. There is likely some difference there, but you probably won’t be able to discern the difference visually on a regular basis between a 6 and a 7.
Once you get a bullet that rapidly exceeds the stretch capability of tissue you are already doing as much damage as you can do within the confines of the animals structure. Doesn’t matter if you pop a balloon with a sewing needle or a knitting needle, that balloon can’t get any more popped than it is.

The difference in damage when going from one type of bullet construction when all else is equal is a major leap. (ie traditional mono versus a heavy for caliber softer bullet).

Bullets matter. Headstamps don’t.
The only interaction that you have with an animal is the bullet, unless you really F it Up and have to beat him to death with your rifle.
And in that scenario I’m definitely going to want my 26” barreled laminate stocked 300 RUM over my 21.5” Kimber Montana 223AI, so I can get a better swing and more Whallop.

This is in essence where I stand on the “room for error” mindset. There isn’t, as far as anyone I know, a way to quantify what the margin of error is and how it is beneficial in overcoming poor shooting. In most instances almost anyone on this forum will say well placed shots matter more than any other factor. I think people should hunt with what they shoot best and with the most confidence.

I believe the average shooter and hunter would be more lethal with a milder recoiling rifle that removes the margin of flinch, however they go about achieving that.

I hope I never have to beat one to death with my rifle. I don’t want to add that to the scope eval threads.