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

[huntnful]

That matches my experience—most recent right here doesnt sound quite as bad as that, but similar. The common denominator when Ive had this happen is lots of little bone shards in the shredded meat.
Post in thread 'Best Mono Bullet for Hunting/Effective Kills'
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/best-mono-bullet-for-hunting-effective-kills.363241/post-3891506

Yeah, these were much more trauma than in those photos. But also the meat wasn’t cleaned and REALLY assessed like in your photos.



This shot was the follow up shot to the lengthwise ribcage shot. It didn’t hit any bone. “Grazed” the front shoulder before going back into the edge of the lungs/guts.



This was the aftermath of the ribcage shot

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Not to a “discernible” effect. 2,700 compared to 3,100- yes there is a bit of difference between the amount (width) of permanent tearing or bruising from the temporary stretch cavity on average- however it does not seem to cause any notable difference in time to incapacitation.

Thanks, understood.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Thank you form, that clarifies. So the change from 1” to 1.5” wound is mainly a function of velocity. I think that means that in a traditional mono you would advocate for the fastest bullet on impact, regardless of caliber or bullet weight then, because a 1.5” wound will incapacitate faster (bigger hole) than the slower bullet. Is that correct?

That has been my understanding, go for the highest impact velocity. But the highest impact velocity depends on range because while the slower ones start faster they slow down faster so its a balancing act unless you're shooting everthing close range. I tend to shoot medium calibers and in turn shoot mid weight monos.

For example I shoot the 145lrx in my 280ai as a balance of velocity and BC. Recently there are some newer higher BC 160gr monos that I'd not mind trying depending on the velocity because again that higher BC might tip the scales a bit. I am not gonna shoot a 120gr ttsx in a medium caliber 7mm cause I think it gives up too much further out and I'm not gonna shoot the 168gr lrx cause it starts too slow in my opinion. A magnum 7mm caliber would be a different analysis.

 

[Anschutz]

Speaking only to the 6mm discussion, I haven’t seen a .243 partition stay in the annimal after at least a half dozen deer and a big pig, I imagine monolithic copper bullets also generally exit. In regular cup-and-core and bonded bullets I’ve seen that it’s about 50/50 whether it exits or not. The furthest I’ve seen a deer run after a hit from a .243 or 6mm was 75 yards, and that includes a couple gut shots. Double lung shots have all either dropped or run less than 50

I've taken 7 deer with the .243. All with 100gr Win PPT and never caught one. Granted, all were 60 yards and in.

As for the comment earlier in the thread about dry-fire. I used to run in the same circles with some recent Olympic shooters. I personally liked dry fire when coming off of a break from shooting or hooked up to a Scatt to see how minor changes in positions affected my hold. The only other time I did it was as part of my pre-practice/pre-match routine. I'd have a burr the size of Alaska in my .22 chamber or a barrel of broken firing pins if I dry-fired 10x my live fire.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

You read that incorrectly, or didn’t state it correctly. All the standard monos have a range of wound channel size that they exhibit. In general that is normally between slightly smaller than caliber size, to around 1.5”- regardless of caliber. The difference in wound size per caliber is about the difference in actual caliber size- half the diameter of the bullet difference. If .224 LRX creates a 1” wound, a 30cal LRX is creating a 1.1” wound (ish).

If this is the case, then would all the arguments for shooting smaller/lighter calibers still hold if we’re talking about monos/bonded bullets? Thoughts? For instance, a .243 with nosler partitions is functionally the same as a 300WM with nosler partitions, in terms of killing capability on the same exact shot/bullet placement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

If this is the case, then would all the arguments for shooting smaller/lighter calibers still hold if we’re talking about monos/bonded bullets? Thoughts?

I am not understanding what you are asking. My post that you quoted was specifically about mono’s.

For instance, a .243 with nosler partitions is functionally the same as a 300WM with nosler partitions, in terms of killing capability on the same exact shot/bullet placement?

Partitions are really their own thing. “Killing capability”- yes. They both will kill animals easily when put in the front half. However, due to the partition and the fragmenting front part- Partitions vary widely in wound channel size based on how far back the Partition is, which determines how much bullet can fragment. That varies between each bullet weight in the same caliber.
The 180gr 30cal Partition does create a larger wound than the 100gr .243 Partition as there is a relatively large difference in the amount of lead that can fragment in those two designs.

 

[Jake Larsen]

I am not understanding what you are asking. My post that you quoted was specifically about mono’s.





Partitions are really their own thing. “Killing capability”- yes. They both will kill animals easily when put in the front half. However, due to the partition and the fragmenting front part- Partitions vary widely in wound channel size based on how far back the Partition is, which determines how much bullet can fragment. That varies between each bullet weight in the same caliber.
The 180gr 30cal Partition does create a larger wound than the 100gr .243 Partition as there is a relatively large difference in the amount of lead that can fragment in those two designs.

I should have separated the question out for monos and bonded bullets.

Unless I misunderstand you, there’s very little functional difference between the wound channel created by something like a 6mm LRX and a 30Cal LRX

I’m wondering the same thing about some of the old standard “elk killing” type bonded bullets. Such as partitions, hornady interlocks, ect.

You got the gist of it with your answer on partitions. Sounds like it’s bullet specific.

IF the general answer to this question was “no” there’s not a functional difference in wound channel/killing ability between the smaller caliber choices and the larger caliber choices REGARDLESS of bullet selection, that’s quite the pill to swallow. I’ve been thinking about this discussion specifically to match bullets. As in, the wound channel of the smaller match grade bullets is sufficient to kill in comparison to the larger match grade bullets. Which makes sense, because of the substantial tissue damage created by match bullets of any size


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I should have separated the question out for monos and bonded bullets.

Unless I misunderstand you, there’s very little functional difference between the wound channel created by something like a 6mm LRX and a 30Cal LRX

Correct.

I’m wondering the same thing about some of the old standard “elk killing” type bonded bullets. Such as partitions, hornady interlocks, ect.

You got the gist of it with your answer on partitions. Sounds like it’s bullet specific.

It is bullet specific. Think of the monos on one end- all the way choked down in wound width- not much functional difference.
On the other end are the heavily fragmenting tipped bullets, there can be quite a bit of difference in tissue destruction- however the large caliber bullets are not maximized for that generally. The net result is that while yes, the larger fragmenting bullets can and do create more tissue damage, because they are not engineered to maximize the wound, they often aren’t creating that much more functional damage.


The reason that you aren’t getting a massive difference between the caliber is because the bullets aren’t engineered for that. Look below and ask yourself how happy hunters would be if those were the consistent results of a bullet? No. And so, manufacturers artificially limit upset with bullets.

IF the general answer to this question was “no” there’s not a functional difference in wound channel/killing ability between the smaller caliber choices and the larger caliber choices REGARDLESS of bullet selection, that’s quite the pill to swallow.

No- not regardless of bullet choice. It is possible to get this out of a 30cal bullet-







But, nobody wants that.

I’ve been thinking about this discussion specifically to match bullets. As in, the wound channel of the smaller match grade bullets is sufficient to kill in comparison to the larger match grade bullets. Which makes sense, because of the substantial tissue damage created by match bullets of any size

Pretty much.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Correct.





It is bullet specific. Think of the monos on one end- all the way choked down in wound width- not much functional difference.
On the other end are the heavily fragmenting tipped bullets, there can be quite a bit of difference in tissue destruction- however the large caliber bullets are not maximized for that generally. The net result is that while yes, the larger fragmenting bullets can and do create more tissue damage, because they are not engineered to maximize the wound, they often aren’t creating that much more functional damage.


The reason that you aren’t getting a massive difference between the caliber is because the bullets aren’t engineered for that. Look below and ask yourself how happy hunters would be if those were the consistent results of a bullet? No. And so, manufacturers artificially limit upset with bullets.






No- not regardless of bullet choice. It is possible to get this out of a 30cal bullet-

View attachment 802382

View attachment 802383



But, nobody wants that.





Pretty much.

You see where I’m going with this line of logic though?

The discussion of small caliber is always paired WITH match bullets.

If we’re ALSO saying the evidence shows we can get the same results with mono bullets, and Maybe with some bonded bullets, then the arguments for ever choosing something above roughly the 6mm/.243 caliber would be??

Talk about blowing the lid off conventional wisdom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[omicron1792]

After listening to @Formidilosus on a podcast, I concluded that what he was saying made a lot of sense. Consequently, I decided to take a sip of the Kool Aid this year.
- I bought a 223 Tikka Lite to hunt and plink with. Unfortunately, I did not get my rifle in time to work up a good hunting load in time for my hunt.

Experiment: I went on a S Texas white tail hunt and took a 6ARC rifle and a 280AI.

My daughter took her first deer at 100 yards using the 6ARC and I took a buck at 150 yards with the 280AI. Both of us made nice shots.

Looking at the two wounds while dressing them out, I concluded that the more powerful 280AI didn't make my deer more dead than hers.

The little 6ARC is so easy to shoot well, my daughter easily made a nice shot despite minimal training. For Texas deer, it is the better choice imo.

Plan for next year:

I want to help my son a deer using the .223 Tikka. He has never shot a rifle, but I am confident I can get him shooting well enough by next fall. I now have some 77g TMKs to load up.

I'll keep my 280AI and 6.8W, but I know they aren't really needed. They do suppress well though.

How old is your son? Both mine (10 and 8) took their first whitetail with 223 and 77TMK this year. It made shooting fun for them, with no flinch or recoil fear.

It is a cool thing helping your son take his first deer. Good luck!

 

[Formidilosus]

You see where I’m going with this line of logic though?

The discussion of small caliber is always paired WITH match bullets.

Pretty much any discussion I have is with optimum bullets for all calibers. I’m not interested in yanking spark plugs because the V8 is too fast.

If we’re ALSO saying the evidence shows we can get the same results with mono bullets, and Maybe with some bonded bullets, then the arguments for ever choosing something above roughly the 6mm/.243 caliber would be??

Talk about blowing the lid off conventional wisdom

I think the argument for all calibers is because they’re fun. If you are asking for a completely objective, rational look at it, true ELR is where bigger caliber than 6mm come in. I have no more issues with a 900 yard shot on an animal with a 6mm than I do with a 338cal given correct bullets with both. But, once you go past 1,100’ish yards or so, the more observable trace and increased splash of missed rounds with big 30’s and 338’s help greatly.



The irony of the big caliber/small caliber discussion is where you see the most difference with caliber size is on small to medium game like normal sized deer. The max temporary stretch cavity of the most destructive 30cal bullets starts to exceed the total tissue stretch ability of deer sized game- that’s why you get the massive wounds as above. The max TC can be so large, that the TC affects the spinal cord nearly no matter where it is placed in the body cavity- but the same is not true of elk. As you go up in animal size, the difference between the calibers becomes less and less.

 

[Jake Larsen]

The irony of the big caliber/small caliber discussion is where you see the most difference with caliber size is on small to medium game like normal sized deer. The max temporary stretch cavity of the most destructive 30cal bullets starts to exceed the total tissue stretch ability of deer sized game- that’s why you get the massive wounds as above. The max TC can be so large, that the TC affects the spinal cord nearly no matter where it is placed in the body cavity- but the same is not true of elk. As you go up in animal size, the difference between the calibers becomes less and less.

Makes sense. And is literally the exact opposite of the way we’ve all been taught to think about “energy” and caliber selection for elk sized game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LONE HUNTER]

Makes sense. And is literally the exact opposite of the way we’ve all been taught to think about “energy” and caliber selection for elk sized game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I started out bow hunting before I picked up a rifle. And it always used to just bug me how caught up dudes were with "energy" when I was killing elk with 50 ft lbs and a sharp stick. Tissue damage. That's the beginning middle and end of it.

 

[Jake Larsen]

I started out bow hunting before I picked up a rifle. And it always used to just bug me how caught up dudes were with "energy" when I was killing elk with 50 ft lbs and a sharp stick. Tissue damage. That's the beginning middle and end of it.

That was my lightbulb moment as well. I grew up doing both. But had a grandpa that was a big gun magazine reader and reloader. We learned all the conventional wisdom from him, although funny enough, he was a big fan of the 6mm Remington and the .260. He killed a lot of stuff with both, and we did too growing up, up to and including elk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UnckleBob]

How old is your son? Both mine (10 and 8) took their first whitetail with 223 and 77TMK this year. It made shooting fun for them, with no flinch or recoil fear.

It is a cool thing helping your son take his first deer. Good I think the luck!

My son is 11, but on the small side. He should love it.

 

[DagOtto]

Form et al,

One aspect of terminal ballistics that I am curious to get your take on is what I think some have called "hydrostatic shock" and maybe also related to the term that I see used here called "temporary stretch cavity," and also sometimes referred two as "temporary wound channel," and maybe to the mythical and derided term, "Knock Down Power."

I've read hydrostatic shock described as displacement of water within tissue caused by the transfer of energy from bullet to tissue. And I've also read that velocity has a major affect on the size of this temporary wounding mechanism.

I'm sure I'm butchering this, so please help me understand!

I'm confused as to 1) Are these terms really all the same and 2) Does larger of inflicted hydrostatic shock cause faster incapacitation (either permanent or "stunning.") If the answer to 2) is "yes" then a follow-up question: 3) Do bullets of larger caliber create a functionally larger affect.

I have the strong sense that the answers from the small caliber crew will be 1) Who cares because 2) This wounding mechanism doesn't have any affect on time to incapacitation and 3) heck no.

But I'm also sneakily suspicious that the "big calibers for big game" crew will say otherwise.

Has FBI or any other terminal ballistic researcher published any data about this wounding mechanism?

The reason I am curious about this is because while I'm pretty-much convinced that smaller caliber bullets create permanent wound channels that are functionally on par with larger calibers. But I'm also noting that it's common for animals who are double lung and/or heart shot to travel 50+ yards and sometimes much longer. So far this year I've witnessed or taken 6 heart/lung shots and 3 were DRT and 3 went 50, 25 and 25 yards +/-.

Faster and DRT always the goal!

Thanks!
DO

 

[mtnbound]

Form et al,

One aspect of terminal ballistics that I am curious to get your take on is what I think some have called "hydrostatic shock" and maybe also related to the term that I see used here called "temporary stretch cavity," and also sometimes referred two as "temporary wound channel," and maybe to the mythical and derided term, "Knock Down Power."

I've read hydrostatic shock described as displacement of water within tissue caused by the transfer of energy from bullet to tissue. And I've also read that velocity has a major affect on the size of this temporary wounding mechanism.

I'm sure I'm butchering this, so please help me understand!

I'm confused as to 1) Are these terms really all the same and 2) Does larger of inflicted hydrostatic shock cause faster incapacitation (either permanent or "stunning.") If the answer to 2) is "yes" then a follow-up question: 3) Do bullets of larger caliber create a functionally larger affect.

I have the strong sense that the answers from the small caliber crew will be 1) Who cares because 2) This wounding mechanism doesn't have any affect on time to incapacitation and 3) heck no.

But I'm also sneakily suspicious that the "big calibers for big game" crew will say otherwise.

Has FBI or any other terminal ballistic researcher published any data about this wounding mechanism?

The reason I am curious about this is because while I'm pretty-much convinced that smaller caliber bullets create permanent wound channels that are functionally on par with larger calibers. But I'm also noting that it's common for animals who are double lung and/or heart shot to travel 50+ yards and sometimes much longer. So far this year I've witnessed or taken 6 heart/lung shots and 3 were DRT and 3 went 50, 25 and 25 yards +/-.

Faster and DRT always the goal!

Thanks!
DO

I think if you read post 151, it will answer your question about larger bullets and their wounding potential.

 

[DagOtto]

I think if you read post 151, it will answer your question about larger bullets and their wounding potential.

Thanks for the reference.

However, I meant for this question to focus specifically on hydrostatic shock rather than permanent wound channel and I believe that post is focusing on PWC. (and massive ones at that!)

As a note, I've heard Form talk about temporary stretch cavity as a phenomena of bullet performance (a new term that I have not read others use,) but everything I've been able to listen to or read from him has focused solely on PWC in comparing different bullet and caliber terminal ballistic performance.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form et al,

One aspect of terminal ballistics that I am curious to get your take on is what I think some have called "hydrostatic shock" and maybe also related to the term that I see used here called "temporary stretch cavity," and also sometimes referred two as "temporary wound channel," and maybe to the mythical and derided term, "Knock Down Power."

I've read hydrostatic shock described as displacement of water within tissue caused by the transfer of energy from bullet to tissue. And I've also read that velocity has a major affect on the size of this temporary wounding mechanism.

I'm sure I'm butchering this, so please help me understand!

I'm confused as to 1) Are these terms really all the same and 2) Does larger of inflicted hydrostatic shock cause faster incapacitation (either permanent or "stunning.") If the answer to 2) is "yes" then a follow-up question: 3) Do bullets of larger caliber create a functionally larger affect.

I have the strong sense that the answers from the small caliber crew will be 1) Who cares because 2) This wounding mechanism doesn't have any affect on time to incapacitation and 3) heck no.

But I'm also sneakily suspicious that the "big calibers for big game" crew will say otherwise.

Has FBI or any other terminal ballistic researcher published any data about this wounding mechanism?

The reason I am curious about this is because while I'm pretty-much convinced that smaller caliber bullets create permanent wound channels that are functionally on par with larger calibers. But I'm also noting that it's common for animals who are double lung and/or heart shot to travel 50+ yards and sometimes much longer. So far this year I've witnessed or taken 6 heart/lung shots and 3 were DRT and 3 went 50, 25 and 25 yards +/-.

Faster and DRT always the goal!

Thanks!
DO

Have you read this thread?

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/why-match-target-bullets-for-hunting.203770/

 

[wyosam]

Beating on the horse a bit on monos... Most of us all agree velocity is key and notable more velocity than barnes states is needed for "full" expansion, along with shot placement that a narrow wound channel will rapidly kill. With that out of the way do you have any thoughts/observations on velocity vs internal damage. IE 2700fps vs 3100fps with the same bullet (both are well into the effect velocities), is the faster one tearing up more soft tissue internally in any discernable magnitude due to the forces radiating outward perhaps tearing more tissue or do things top out once the bullet is at full expansion?

I've shot quite a few things in the past with a 7mm 145lrx from 50-700yds which all fell and died relatively quickly if not bang flops but I cut nearly everything gutless and paid little attention to the internal damage, I'd break a rib or reach through the diaphragm to grab the heart if it wasn't hit. The damage on meat was all pretty similar and was only increased if bone fragments was involved. I can't readily say too much about the internals unfortunately to comment about the above question.

There is a guy in Australia (and a few others) that do testing for Hammer, and it varies a little bullet to bullet, but at least with petal shedding monos, velocity (and rpm) both significantly add to internal damage, both to permanent and temporary wound channel. They note several “steps”, from lower and minimum impacts, to normal fast to say 2800-3k, then a big jump in destruction as speeds go up from there. Varies by bullet some. I recall some necropsy photos from impacts in the 3500+ range that were far more damage than anyone hunting meat probably wants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk