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

[ElPollo]

In both cases, it’s about having to shoot THROUGH alders as it’s getting away, or getting closer.

Unfortunate that ass-shooting got brought up again. However, there is no credible evidence that deflection rates differ between any calibers using spitzer-type bullets.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Okay, thanks for the answers and feedback to my questions. Here is another one I've been stewing on:

4)

Since listening to Form's podcasts and reading more from all of the "smaller caliber for big game" pundits on Rokslide I've been trying to align a classic hunting trope about bullets with this newer information in my head.

We have all read that Alaska Grizzly Guides and Dangerous Game hunters in Africa will load their giant caliber rifles with solid non-expanding bullets in case they need to shoot charging Grizzly Bear or Buffalo in self defense at very short range.

Where is the logic in that strategy?

Would the Rokslide Small Caliber crew suggest a different bullet choice would be more affective?

To extend the question to the other end of the spectrum, wouldn't these guides and hunters have a better chance of protecting themselves from the charging beast using a 4:10 shotgun shell loaded with buckshot? (is that the ultimate frangible bullet after all?)

Thoughts?

P.S.-- I don't think Peter Hathaway would have liked what ya'll have to say!

Have you heard the very latest episode with Form? It goes into defensive situations a bit.

MM 239 | "Form" Answers Your Questions on Rifles & Ballistics

Podcast Episode · The Hunt Backcountry Podcast · 11/02/2024 · 1h 5m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Ozarkansas]

Alaska Grizzly Guides and Dangerous Game hunters in Africa will load their giant caliber rifles with solid non-expanding bullets in case they need to shoot charging Grizzly Bear or Buffalo in self defense at very short range.

Where is the logic in that strategy?

I’ve always seen them argue that straight, deep penetration is important- since you can only stop an animal with a CNS hit or by breaking some major bones, something that follows a predictable path all the way through the animal allows you to take shots at really steep angles (such as charging at your client or running away for cover) and break anything in line with that bullet.

Is that a better strategy than mag-dumping an AR, particularly since an AR can also be loaded with deep penetrating solids? Probably not, but there is at least some logic involved in their decision

 

[Hnthrdr]

My 20" 6CM hits about 1800 FPS at 825 yards using factory 108 ELD-M. That is with an Ultra 7 on it and at an elevation of 5500ft.

Self imposed 550 yard shooter, but I love hearing the effective range on game of the 6cm, the rifle won’t be in service this year but next year I’ll be excited come deer season!

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

You have to accept carbon barrels will pit without cleaning - that fact of life hasn’t changed since Lewis and Clark were still in diapers.

What Carbon Fiber gear did Lewis & Clark have?

Or did you mistakenly think OP meant Carbon Steel?

 

[TaperPin]

What Carbon Fiber gear did Lewis & Clark have?

Or did you mistakenly think OP meant Carbon Steel?

You’re right, the old geezer in me mistakenly assumed blued steel. Disregard. *chuckle*

Subconsciously, I’m not quite able to accept them as legitimate, even though they are. I do have to admit when I’m wrong.

That probably means I should buy ice cream for everyone.

 

[RockAndSage]

Okay, thanks for the answers and feedback to my questions. Here is another one I've been stewing on:

4)

Since listening to Form's podcasts and reading more from all of the "smaller caliber for big game" pundits on Rokslide I've been trying to align a classic hunting trope about bullets with this newer information in my head.

We have all read that Alaska Grizzly Guides and Dangerous Game hunters in Africa will load their giant caliber rifles with solid non-expanding bullets in case they need to shoot charging Grizzly Bear or Buffalo in self defense at very short range.

Where is the logic in that strategy?

Would the Rokslide Small Caliber crew suggest a different bullet choice would be more affective?

To extend the question to the other end of the spectrum, wouldn't these guides and hunters have a better chance of protecting themselves from the charging beast using a 4:10 shotgun shell loaded with buckshot? (is that the ultimate frangible bullet after all?)

Thoughts?

P.S.-- I don't think Peter Hathaway would have liked what ya'll have to say!

Early on when I started digging into this, like you, I had a bunch of questions that weren't so much about "can it be done", but what the limitations were with small caliber. Before the big magnum craze of the mid/late 20th century, there were mountains of deer taken with .220 swift and 22-250, so there was plenty of evidence for me already in my life that small and fast work very well. My biggest issue on the Rokslide threads I was digging into was finding out what the limitations were.

There was one thread in particular where I pressed Form quite hard on this. He provided quite a bit of "data" in the form of animal, distances, number of shots, etc - we're talking dozens if not hundreds of animals. While interesting, it did also cause me to question the veracity of it - who the hell has any opportunity to shoot that many big game animals per year, let alone log that data, or have it all in computer to just copy and paste? Then he shared experiences with .223 77gr TMK killing elk out past 700-800yds. That was an inflection point for me, because it literally brought everything he'd said up to that point into question for me as complete BS. I went from open-minded but with a critical eye, to being right at the cusp of wondering just how much of this was just yet another g*d@mmed gun guy on an internet gun forum taking a grain of truth and wrapping his identity around it so hard that it turned into a mountain of crap.

So I called him out on the 700yd+ elk with a .223 claim, and essentially said "pics and affidavits, or it didn't happen".

And...

Photos were provided, with two separate Roksliders who witnessed the shot verifying his claim and data.

Again, an inflection point. Since then, I've taken the position that Form is most likely just uncommonly obsessed with understanding truth, has a scientist's need to document and isolate viables, and has the courage to put up with a mountain of BS piled on him by internet randos, without wavering in his integrity for learning, recording data, and sharing it with those of similar disposition or interest in learning.

What almost always gets lost in this conversation, however, is that he underwent his own conversion. He didn't start small-caliber - he steadily went that direction, following the evidence of what works better. And what the limitations are. What also gets lost is that he isn't advocating just any bullet - bullet selection is very specific, for very detailed reasons.

Of particular interest to me in learning about his own journey on all this were the photos he shared of tremendously excessive damage from match bullets on animals from .30 cal cartridges - and how that seems to have led him to the sweet spot of .77gr .223 TMKs. He didn't start there. He started with traditional deer and elk cartridges, experimented with different bullets, and kept changing variables one at a time. Eventually, it seems he settled in on .77gr TMK and similar - after seeing bigger bullets just do far more damage than necessary, and all the other lessons learned about recoil, human factors, and field shooting realities.

Regarding your question about traditional grizzly bear cartridges - based on the damage many people here have now shared photos of, of what larger caliber match bullets do on large animals...

In a grizzly encounter I'd feel a lot better about having a carbine-length AR-10 loaded with long, heavy-for-caliber tipped match bullets than I would a bolt-action in something like .416 Rem Mag.

 

[KHntr]

Unfortunate that ass-shooting got brought up again. However, there is no credible evidence that deflection rates differ between any calibers using spitzer-type bullets.

The question wasn’t about spitzers. It was about dangerous game calibers and solids and why they get chosen in that application.

 

[ElPollo]

The question wasn’t about spitzers. It was about dangerous game calibers and solids and why they get chosen in that application.

Spitzter or not. There have been tons of efforts to try to document how one bullet type or another of a given caliber reduces deflection. Show me a good one that has repeatable results. I don’t think the potential for bullet deflection is a meaningful reason for using large caliber solid bullets on anything.

 

[KHntr]

Spitzter or not. There have been tons of efforts to try to document how one bullet type or another of a given caliber reduces deflection. Show me a good one that has repeatable results. I don’t think the potential for bullet deflection is a meaningful reason for using large caliber solid bullets on anything.

JFC.

I can’t tell if you are looking to argue or just have poor reading comprehension.

Dude asked WHY TF african and big bear guides load solids in dangerous game calibers for follow up. I’ve read that some of the aforementioned folks in those particular fields load SOLIDS for the thought that they might have to shoot through thick brush AND break big bones.

If you want to argue fast versus slow versus big versus little spitzers and tests in brush, fly at it. But it ain’t gonna be with me.

 

[ElPollo]

JFC.

I can’t tell if you are looking to argue or just have poor reading comprehension.

Dude asked WHY TF african and big bear guides load solids in dangerous game calibers for follow up. I’ve read that some of the aforementioned folks in those particular fields load SOLIDS for the thought that they might have to shoot through thick brush AND break big bones.

If you want to argue fast versus slow versus big versus little spitzers and tests in brush, fly at it. But it ain’t gonna be with me.

Not arguing. Merely stating. He asked why anyone would use big calibers and solids for dangerous game. It has nothing to do with deflection from brush. The only reason to use them is if you need 3+ feet of penetration to get to vitals. Choosing the soild prioritizes depth of the wound channel over width. So for North American big game and even North American dangerous game that don’t weigh 2+ tons, there really isn’t a reason to do so.