Questions for Form and other "small caliber for big game" folks

[Flynhunt]

@Formidilosus Ive poured through hundreds of these pages now. Very interesting and I appreciate the info. I’m wondering how you are able to have the hundreds of hunts and kills? I’m not questioning integrity or if it’s true. Just wondering how it’s possible as a lot of us feel lucky if we manage to pull a couple tags a year, let alone the time involved to go

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus Ive poured through hundreds of these pages now. Very interesting and I appreciate the info. I’m wondering how you are able to have the hundreds of hunts and kills? I’m not questioning integrity or if it’s true. Just wondering how it’s possible as a lot of us feel lucky if we manage to pull a couple tags a year, let alone the time involved to go

Some states the bag limit is multiple deer per day, every day for over three months- with 30-40 deer per square mile densities. That’s one way.
Another way is to get on crop damage/depredation permits- in some areas it can be dozens of deer a night, every night.
Or hunt as many states as possible, with as many tags as possible- which means doe/cow tags, not buck/bull tags generally.
The last way is, for one reason or another- culling animals.

 

[amassi]

I am not sure where I sit on this debate, I think both sides have valid points, but this contradictory statement to me is wild.

1. You love your .223 and you shoot it very well and you are convinced that the bullet you have selected will quickly and efficiently render the target incapacitated due to the large wound cavity that is 14-16" deep from a fragmenting bullet. - Obviously I have to believe this is true as you took it on an elk hunt.

2. You shot an elk FOUR times even though it only made it 8 yards and you spotted impact on all FOUR shots. - If true, how can this statement possibly follow the first?

If I trust my rifle (6.5 PRC, 147 ELD-M) which I do, I shoot once and if I spot my impact, which admittedly is not as often as I like (+1 point for small caliber folks). But for the sake of argument I do spot it and that sucker is 3" behind the shoulder, mid body in both lungs, the only thing I am thinking about is watching the animal tip over. The last thing I am thinking about is putting 3 more shots in it to potentially ruin more meat, which those match bullets certainly will do if I don't put it behind the shoulder where I want.

Some people don’t like to let elk run down into blowdown canyons so we shoot them to the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bergie]

Some people don’t like to let elk run down into blowdown canyons so we shoot them to the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Understood. Slightly less work is worth ruining more meat. I guess the more meat you ruin the less you have to pack out so its a win win for you.

Good argument for smaller calibers.

 

[DagOtto]

For general situational awareness- Nathan’s work is known by the terminal ballistics communities, and in in general is viewed with a heavy grain of salt as he is lacking in key basic terminal ballistics, and medically validated wounding mechanisms, and often attributes wounds or reactions to ideas or beliefs that have repeatedly been shown to be false. It doesn’t mean it’s all useless, but it does make it where ones has to really know what they are reading.

Thanks for your detailed response, and for all of the information you share and the research you do. I appreciate it greatly.

Can you comment as to who is furthering research in the field of terminal ballistics and hunting bullet research currently? You refer to the "terminal ballistics communities," and those who "really know what they are reading" and I'm wondering if there is a group, an organized academic effort or key individuals beside yourself who are continuing to push for more knowledge. So much of the research is quite old at this point. And is any of their work available for public consumption or is it all confidential military or industry stuff?

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks for your detailed response, and for all of the information you share and the research you do. I appreciate it greatly.

Can you comment as to who is furthering research in the field of terminal ballistics and hunting bullet research currently? You refer to the "terminal ballistics communities," and those who "really know what they are reading" and I'm wondering if there is a group, an organized academic effort or key individuals beside yourself who are continuing to push for more knowledge. So much of the research is quite old at this point. And is any of their work available for public consumption or is it all confidential military or industry stuff?

The FBI is the lead entity in the world on continues terminal ballistics testing. Certain parts of the DOD have off and on participated- generally with the FBI.

There is currently no real non military, non LEO entity that is doing legitimate terminal ballistics research on hunting projectiles.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Some states the bag limit is multiple deer per day, every day for over three months- with 30-40 deer per square mile densities. That’s one way.
Another way is to get on crop damage/depredation permits- in some areas it can be dozens of deer a night, every night.
Or hunt as many states as possible, with as many tags as possible- which means doe/cow tags, not buck/bull tags generally.
The last way is, for one reason or another- culling animals.

Yep, back in 2000, when I was stationed at the Weapons Station in Goose Creek, SC, I had the occasion to shoot 86 deer between crop damage permits, Weapons Station tags, general hunting, and a cull hunt.
Between my two best friends and I we killed over 300 deer that year. I am pretty sure we were solely responsible for all of the meat donated to the Berkley County food bank that fall.

 

[wawa]

This is very well explained.

When I first stumbled upon what Form was writing I was lockstep with him on several subjects. I had already been using 6.5 and 6mm match style bullets on big game for years. Most of my fleet of guns were Sako and Tikka. I taught folks on 17 and 22 rimfire guns as a baseline because I saw and knew all the benefits from shootability. I also had multiple hundreds of big game kills experience, was a shooting instructor, shot thousands of varmints a year, shot thousands of target rounds per year, etc. Based on what he typed and recommended for folks on Rokslide, proved to me that what he was saying was legitimate and fact/real life based, because of having such similar experiences personally. Yet I still thought “my knowledge and experience” with certain subject couldn’t be “wrong”.

Where I disagreed was on scopes and made some very brash and harsh claims here, on why throwing guns around is pointless when you’re going to zero check anyway after a significant enough “drop”. Once my slow brain realized it’s not about throwing guns on the ground, but the overall approach was aimed at helping folks realize how easily scopes lose zero, from flawed designs, to ring torque, to paint penning things in, etc. Now all of my scopes, rings, bases, etc are Form approved models, and guess what. Mysterious loss of zero has all but been eliminated.

My second stance wasn’t a disagreement but more a question of, does this really work? Going down from 6.5 and 6mm to .224, I was still hesitant. Despite reading every page of PNWgators .223 kill thread I was nervous going out this year with my .223 and .22 Creedmoor guns. The .223 now has 3 big game kills and the 22 Creedmoor is up to 7, both in just a little over 2 months of hunting. Another “idea” from Form that just flat out works when you actually go out and try it and apply it.

Coming into threads with “I’m always going to choose the bigger diameter bullet, or magnum” should be a very hard look in the mirror for folks with zero experience killing with .224 bullets. Open your mind, give something a try, and report back.

I'm new here, came to this via Exo podcast w @Formidilosus and the .223 thread thanks to @B_Reynolds_AK , so apologies in advance - where do I find the scope thread of Form's y'all mention here? I've listened to the Exo episodes at least 5 times and just built three .243s, so am quite interested in what Form says on scopes. Thank you!

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I'm new here, came to this via Exo podcast w @Formidilosus and the .223 thread thanks to @B_Reynolds_AK , so apologies in advance - where do I find the scope thread of Form's y'all mention here? I've listened to the Exo episodes at least 5 times and just built three .243s, so am quite interested in what Form says on scopes. Thank you!

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

 

[Marty]

I'm new here, came to this via Exo podcast w @Formidilosus and the .223 thread thanks to @B_Reynolds_AK , so apologies in advance - where do I find the scope thread of Form's y'all mention here? I've listened to the Exo episodes at least 5 times and just built three .243s, so am quite interested in what Form says on scopes. Thank you!

Try this link out: https://rokslide.com/forums/forums/rifle-scope-field-evaluations.133/

 

[wind gypsy]

If I trust my rifle (6.5 PRC, 147 ELD-M) which I do, I shoot once and if I spot my impact, which admittedly is not as often as I like (+1 point for small caliber folks). But for the sake of argument I do spot it and that sucker is 3" behind the shoulder, mid body in both lungs, the only thing I am thinking about is watching the animal tip over. The last thing I am thinking about is putting 3 more shots in it to potentially ruin more meat, which those match bullets certainly will do if I don't put it behind the shoulder where I want.

The problem in my opinion, experience, and what i've seen from others is - what you think happened with the shot isn't always what actually happened. Animal might have been quartered more or less than you thought, you might have not hit where you thought you saw hit, there might have been a weird deflection, and i'm sure many other scenarios. Even if everything went well as a guy thought, it can still mean a longer than desired tracking job.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

The problem in my opinion, experience, and what i've seen from others is - what you think happened with the shot isn't always what actually happened. Animal might have been quartered more or less than you thought, you might have not hit where you thought you saw hit, there might have been a weird deflection, and i'm sure many other scenarios.

Potential for zero meat, or potential for some "messed up meat". I know which one I am picking every time.

 

[WRO]

Some people don’t like to let elk run down into blowdown canyons so we shoot them to the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What’s your plan hunting thick timber, shooting cows in big herds, shooting elk in general in bigger herds when you have 1 shot to make it count and blood trails can be hard to find?

 

[Jake Larsen]

What’s your plan hunting thick timber, shooting cows in big herds, shooting elk in general in bigger herds when you have 1 shot to make it count and blood trails can be hard to find?

Shoot a rifle that I can practice with often and shoot really well, so that my one shot goes right into the boiler room. I’ve seen multiple mature bull elk die within 30 yards of taking an arrow WHEN it’s placed in the right spot. A well placed bullet of any caliber discussed on this thread will do the same or better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WRO]

Shoot a rifle that I can practice with often and shoot really well, so that my one shot goes right into the boiler room. I’ve seen multiple mature bull elk die within 30 yards of taking an arrow WHEN it’s placed in the right spot. A well placed bullet of any caliber discussed on this thread will do the same or better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My personal experiences reflect differently..

We’re only talking about 25 elk though..

I’ve also seen double lunged elk go 200 yards with an arrow though both lungs, the nice thing is you have a decent blood trail which these small bullet tend to lack on elk.

 

[Jake Larsen]

My personal experiences reflect differently..

We’re only talking about 25 elk though..

I’ve also seen double lunged elk go 200 yards with an arrow though both lungs, the nice thing is you have a decent blood trail which these small bullet tend to lack on elk.

There’s no question that not all “double lung” shot placement are created equally. I’ve also seen elk go a long ways hit with classic “elk killing cartridges” There’s no absolutes in hunting. But that area just above the heart where all the lobes come together into a mass is the off switch. Every animal I’ve seen hit with any projectile in that spot dies real quick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hereinaz]

Understood. Slightly less work is worth ruining more meat. I guess the more meat you ruin the less you have to pack out so its a win win for you.

Good argument for smaller calibers.

For me, with a light recoiling caliber, the follow up bullets are going into vitals again (not meat), in that pause as the animal stands there—not destroying large muscle groups. I find they stand there when hit only in vitals and rarely move until they start to feel effects. Hit in muscle group, they take off running like a cat but them out of reflex.

I am not always shooting “until they are down” when they start running/walking away to risk damaging good meat, if I know I got a couple good vital hits.

With effective precision and accuracy, in part, I personally see it as more ethical to shorten the death by follow up shots. As well as the chance for a bad hit or rare bad bullet performance. Nothing is 100%.

 

[bergie]

For me, with a light recoiling caliber, the follow up bullets are going into vitals again (not meat), in that pause as the animal stands there—not destroying large muscle groups. I find they stand there when hit only in vitals and rarely move until they start to feel effects. Hit in muscle group, they take off running like a cat but them out of reflex.

I am not always shooting “until they are down” when they start running/walking away to risk damaging good meat, if I know I got a couple good vital hits.

With effective precision and accuracy, in part, I personally see it as more ethical to shorten the death by follow up shots. As well as the chance for a bad hit or rare bad bullet performance. Nothing is 100%.

Hard to argue anything stated there. My original comment was against the 'shoot em till the fall so they dont run a little farther'. Pretty tough for me to get on board with that when I think my initial shot was well placed. When the lungs look like this, I am not sure that another bullet (or three if you can work that bolt fast enough) is going to shorten the time to death all that much. The pic is from the deer that I was talking about in my original comment.

If I don't think my initial shot was well placed, damn right I'm putting more down range.

 

[hereinaz]

Hard to argue anything stated there. My original comment was against the 'shoot em till the fall so they dont run a little farther'. Pretty tough for me to get on board with that when I think my initial shot was well placed. When the lungs look like this, I am not sure that another bullet (or three if you can work that bolt fast enough) is going to shorten the time to death all that much. The pic is from the deer that I was talking about in my original comment.

If I don't think my initial shot was well placed, damn right I'm putting more down range.

Yup. No need for follow up.

I don’t count on perfect performance every time, that’s why I follow up. But, I agree with you, it’s not necessary the vast majority of time and the risk of a bullet failure is small.

For the record, I have never been aware of any bullet failure during any hunt, whether my tag or not.

But, I haven’t been able to perfectly call good hits.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hard to argue anything stated there. My original comment was against the 'shoot em till the fall so they dont run a little farther'. Pretty tough for me to get on board with that when I think my initial shot was well placed. When the lungs look like this, I am not sure that another bullet (or three if you can work that bolt fast enough) is going to shorten the time to death all that much. The pic is from the deer that I was talking about in my original comment.

If I don't think my initial shot was well placed, damn right I'm putting more down range.

Until you get a bullet that does something weird (almost always failure to upset) and then you have a rodeo. Or, the shot isn’t exactly where you thought it was- because no one can call the shot correct 100% of the time.

I have watched a bunch of animals that were “hit perfectly” with the shooter refusing to shoot again- get up and run off. Most were found after chasing, some weren’t. I am uninterested in chasing wounded animals.