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

[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.

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

What also gets lost is that he isn't advocating just any bullet - bullet selection is very specific, for very detailed reasons.

I agree this gets lost on people. The "margin for error" people keep claiming as an advantage of large bullets sort of applies in terms of bullet selection. A 180 grain 30 cal is a whole bunch of bullet, so even a less than optimal bullet construction (Core Lokts from Walmart, Monos, etc) will still probably give a pretty good wound and a recovered animal. Using a 223 or similar you have a much smaller quantity of bullet, if that makes sense, so the design/construction of the bullet becomes more critical.

Any old 223 ammo you found at Walmart (FMJs, OTMs, Monos, Varmint bullets, etc) may not reliably give you the on game performance and success that the heavy tipped fragmenting match bullets do.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I agree this gets lost on people. The "margin for error" people keep claiming as an advantage of large bullets sort of applies in terms of bullet selection. A 180 grain 30 cal is a whole bunch of bullet, so even a less than optimal bullet construction (Core Lokts from Walmart, Monos, etc) will still probably give a pretty good wound and a recovered animal. Using a 223 or similar you have a much smaller quantity of bullet, if that makes sense, so the design/construction of the bullet becomes more critical.

Any old 223 ammo you found at Walmart (FMJs, OTMs, Monos, Varmint bullets, etc) may not reliably give you the on game performance and success that the heavy tipped fragmenting match bullets do.

Yep, you would never hear guys arguing for 55 grn FMJ’s the bullet matters far more than the headstamp; that saying gets tossed around a lot here

 

[DagOtto]

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.

Thanks so much for this thoughtful response.

I can tell you that for the last 5 or 6 months I have been going through a very similar process as it sounds like you went through in terms of Form's "data" and my own beliefs.

My first reaction upon listening to Form's first podcast with the Exo Mtn Gear guys was to call B.S. and be defensive.

I've written this before, but if what Form stated in that podcast about the "toughness" of penetrating a large bull elk or Alaska moose is correct, it literally wipes out 70 years of commonly held "best practices" for hunting rifle cartridge and bullet selection; and essentially makes hundreds of Guides, PHs and hunting journalists flat-out-wrong. Frankly, that still makes me skeptical. Hence the question regarding African dangerous game and Grizzly defense guns. Could all of us have gotten things so wrong as to be sending African PHs into the bush with the wrong bullet in the wrong caliber rifle?

I even shot off a shitty email to Mark basically accusing him of joining a cult. (little did I know about the cult of Rokslide!) But I had grown to appreciate Mark and Steve's podcast because of their scientific and level headed approach to all things hunting..... and after listening through the podcasts a second time I stopped a .308 Win. build I was in the middle of and ordered a 6.5 CM proof barrel instead.

While I will remain a healthy skeptic, Form and his minions have profoundly changed my approach to becoming a better, more humane and more successful hunter. And for that I am really, really grateful.

Sounds like I'm not the only one on this kind of journey.

 

[DagOtto]

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.

I think this does get to the root of my "Question number 4." Is it safe to say that African PH's and Alaskan Brown Bear guides carry large-ass calibers with hard-ass bullets because they may be taking "emergency" shots at charging animals and they want to insure that the bullet will penetrate deeply into vitals and skulls no matter the angle? If that is the generally accepted reason for this, than then next question is: is that logical and really the best practice?

And a follow-up question regarding "brush-busting" bullets. Is there any data/ studies out there that you've seen to show that different bullets deflect less when hitting branches while in flight? And likewise, is there any data out there that shows that different bullets do a better job of going through wood and still maintaining trajectory and velocity?

 

[DagOtto]

Question 5- Form, in a different thread a few weeks ago you indicated that there is no real-world difference between the wound cavity created between a 6mm CM, 6.5 CM, or .308 at normal impact velocities using the same type of bullet.

You can’t tell a functional difference with the same type of bullet with any caliber.

But in your podcasts with Exo Mtn. Gear I thought I understood you to say that using frangible bullets with larger calibers leads to permanent wound cavities that are way too large. (You referenced the diameter of a coke can as being the optimal sized wound cavity with larger wound cavities resulting in extra meat loss without much faster time to incapacitation.)

And another poster in this thread mentioned the following about your transition from larger to smaller calibers:

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.

I'm wondering if you can clarify.

I continue to assemble rifles for folks and since we tend to use non-lead bullets I am still wondering if I should be leaning to slightly larger calibers (understanding that we get to deal with the recoil issue) but wanting to assure that wound cavities will get close to that 2 1/2" "sweet spot." Am I correct that your experience has shown you that a 6mm versus .308 wound channels would be close enough that I shoudl stick to the smaller caliber and gain the shooter comfort and accuracy benefits. Nothing over 600 yards ever, and assuming DRTs.

PS- Thanks for the advice in this week's pod with Mark. I shot both tests at the range today. Didn't totally suck, but as you hinted at, it's hard to face the truth of our limitations and be honest about it.

 

[Bowfinn]

And a follow-up question regarding "brush-busting" bullets. Is there any data/ studies out there that you've seen to show that different bullets deflect less when hitting branches while in flight? And likewise, is there any data out there that shows that different bullets do a better job of going through wood and still maintaining trajectory and velocity?

Here is an article by @bearcreekbandit on the topic.

The Best Brush Busting Bullets Put to the Test

Brush rifles and brush bullets have been a topic of conversation for decades, but how effective are they at punching through thickets?

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[ElPollo]

Here is an article by @bearcreekbandit on the topic.

The Best Brush Busting Bullets Put to the Test

Brush rifles and brush bullets have been a topic of conversation for decades, but how effective are they at punching through thickets?

www.outdoorlife.com

Read that article and like and respect what Tyler does. The take home of that article is “don’t try to shoot through brush” and “bullets deflect”, which I wholeheartedly agree with. But he makes statements about how velocity, bore size, and bullet construction affect deflection rates and doesn’t even include the data he is using to make those conclusions or discuss how those variables are interrelated.

I’m not trying to crap on his work, but his article leaves me with more questions than answers. A better approach would be to look at the effects of varying one variable (velocity, bore size, or bullet construction) while you hold the others constant. That would make a much better dry, nerdy science article, but is something that Outdoor Life probably wouldn’t fund or publish.

I think this is the unfortunate realities of ballistics science. Folks like Martin Fackler were funded to do what they did because the military and police had a need for answers on bullet performance in their own use context. Questions like bullet deflection don’t have enough funding inertia to get adequately studied. I totally support and enjoy what Tyler is doing, but I also think it’s dicey to make a lot of conclusions from it beyond “bullets deflect” and “try to not shoot through brush”.

 

[bearcreekbandit]

Read that article and like and respect what Tyler does. The take home of that article is “don’t try to shoot through brush” and “bullets deflect”, which I wholeheartedly agree with. But he makes statements about how velocity, bore size, and bullet construction affect deflection rates and doesn’t even include the data he is using to make those conclusions or discuss how those variables are interrelated.

I’m not trying to crap on his work, but his article leaves me with more questions than answers. A better approach would be to look at the effects of varying one variable (velocity, bore size, or bullet construction) while you hold the others constant. That would make a much better dry, nerdy science article, but is something that Outdoor Life probably wouldn’t fund or publish.

I think this is the unfortunate realities of ballistics science. Folks like Martin Fackler were funded to do what they did because the military and police had a need for answers on bullet performance in their own use context. Questions like bullet deflection don’t have enough funding inertia to get adequately studied. I totally support and enjoy what Tyler is doing, but I also think it’s dicey to make a lot of conclusions from it beyond “bullets deflect” and “try to not shoot through brush”.

What additional data would you like to see? I can see if I still have it. Of course it would be nice to do a completely exhaustive test, but results are genuinely so bad with all bullets that I’m not sure there’s any conclusion to make other than: don’t try to shoot through the brush. Sample size was definitely too small to draw concrete conclusions. Rather, I was pointing out some trends like mono bullets universally showing less deflection and failure, and lighter, faster, pointier bullets weren’t necessarily worse, which is what O’connor concluded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RockAndSage]

Thanks so much for this thoughtful response.

I can tell you that for the last 5 or 6 months I have been going through a very similar process as it sounds like you went through in terms of Form's "data" and my own beliefs.

My first reaction upon listening to Form's first podcast with the Exo Mtn Gear guys was to call B.S. and be defensive.

I've written this before, but if what Form stated in that podcast about the "toughness" of penetrating a large bull elk or Alaska moose is correct, it literally wipes out 70 years of commonly held "best practices" for hunting rifle cartridge and bullet selection; and essentially makes hundreds of Guides, PHs and hunting journalists flat-out-wrong. Frankly, that still makes me skeptical. Hence the question regarding African dangerous game and Grizzly defense guns. Could all of us have gotten things so wrong as to be sending African PHs into the bush with the wrong bullet in the wrong caliber rifle?

I even shot off a shitty email to Mark basically accusing him of joining a cult. (little did I know about the cult of Rokslide!) But I had grown to appreciate Mark and Steve's podcast because of their scientific and level headed approach to all things hunting..... and after listening through the podcasts a second time I stopped a .308 Win. build I was in the middle of and ordered a 6.5 CM proof barrel instead.

While I will remain a healthy skeptic, Form and his minions have profoundly changed my approach to becoming a better, more humane and more successful hunter. And for that I am really, really grateful.

Sounds like I'm not the only one on this kind of journey.

Regarding the info Form provides, I'd have to summarize my current default position is that what he says is true and should just be trusted, unless something specific is demonstrably proven otherwise, with evidence. It didn't start that way.

But as I learned more, and more of my own experiences started matching up with what I began understanding him to say...I just started defaulting to him being an instructor, with vastly more experience successfully killing big game and long-range field-reality precision rifle shooting than me, and all but the rarest hunters. He's human, nobody's perfect, he's made mistakes, but he's also a trove of info - with the courage to speak truths while being vilified by some. We're just not likely in this era to ever find a higher volume of real-world data on the results of shooting small-caliber on North American big game, including number of shots per kill, distances, and time for the animal to go down. All that gets magnified even more by his experiences as a shooting instructor, and seeing what happens to a person's shooting accuracy in simply switching from smaller or larger cartridges.

I'm definitely not saying this as a fanboy - I'm saying this as someone who has been the expert on a couple of things in my own life, and who has had the privilege to instruct on those issues.

There are always partially-experienced but righteously vehement people who just don't know how ignorant they are, arguing against your superior expertise, experience, and cumulative wisdom. The more I discovered Form wasn't just some internet rando, but had a substantial background on the claims he was making, the more I realized he seemed to be in this position himself, on what he shared here.

People with no background, cultural biases, or preconceived ideas are the easiest to teach - it's the people with just enough experience to be immersed in the Dunning-Kruger effect that are the problem.

There's a learning curve, where the people with the least experience, and the people with the absolute most experience, are the easiest to teach. It's the people in the middle that can be such an absolute pain in the ass.

Form would have zero problem teaching his experiences and wisdom to new shooters and new hunters, and would get them up to speed far quicker than he could your average hunter. And he would likely have a similarly easy time teaching his stuff to former Delta or CIA Ground Branch people - who are used to trying on new ideas, even if they go against their current preferences or understandings. They're comfortable with that, as professional students, and seek it out. It's the people who think they know more than they actually do that are the problem. Especially when those people's dispositions blind them to negative-evidence of their beliefs. I've experienced this over and over when instructing, until those middle people experience enough pain for the realization of their mistakes to crack through their mentality. And I've been on the wrong side of it myself once or twice as a kid, too.

The dude goes through a tremendous amount of crap here, sharing his knowledge and experience, when other people of similar expertise would have bailed on it a long, long time ago.


EDIT: In case clarification is needed, the Dunning-Kruger stuff wasn't directed at you. It's clear you're uncommonly good at learning and following truths.

 

[RockAndSage]

Thanks so much for this thoughtful response.

I can tell you that for the last 5 or 6 months I have been going through a very similar process as it sounds like you went through in terms of Form's "data" and my own beliefs.

My first reaction upon listening to Form's first podcast with the Exo Mtn Gear guys was to call B.S. and be defensive.

I've written this before, but if what Form stated in that podcast about the "toughness" of penetrating a large bull elk or Alaska moose is correct, it literally wipes out 70 years of commonly held "best practices" for hunting rifle cartridge and bullet selection; and essentially makes hundreds of Guides, PHs and hunting journalists flat-out-wrong. Frankly, that still makes me skeptical. Hence the question regarding African dangerous game and Grizzly defense guns. Could all of us have gotten things so wrong as to be sending African PHs into the bush with the wrong bullet in the wrong caliber rifle?

I even shot off a shitty email to Mark basically accusing him of joining a cult. (little did I know about the cult of Rokslide!) But I had grown to appreciate Mark and Steve's podcast because of their scientific and level headed approach to all things hunting..... and after listening through the podcasts a second time I stopped a .308 Win. build I was in the middle of and ordered a 6.5 CM proof barrel instead.

While I will remain a healthy skeptic, Form and his minions have profoundly changed my approach to becoming a better, more humane and more successful hunter. And for that I am really, really grateful.

Sounds like I'm not the only one on this kind of journey.

Regarding African dangerous game guns and cartridges, it's a great question that I've wondered about quite a bit myself. I'm definitely a cartridge geek, and personally love big-bore guns. But I've also questioned different parts of the inherited wisdom about them at times.

Here are a couple of points that come to mind...

The first is that many of the "stopping cartridges" still used today, were invented during the black powder era - things like .577 Nitro Express, etc. Their designs were excellent for the task, with the propellants and bullet tech of the era. It was proven to work. Why change what works, right? Especially now if it works better, with smokeless powder!!

From there, you also get human factors cementing those cartridge ideas in place - the extreme money needed, with upper-class Brits leading the cultural charge of what "hunting Africa" entailed, combined with the romanticization of it all through hunting memoirs and fiction. That gets you to some form of culturally dictated..."One simply does not hunt the dangerous game of the dark continent without a proper large bore double-rifle, ol' boy. It would be quite unseemly." Culturally, large-bore gets hardwired, and the more expensive the gun, the better the hunt. At least until Hemingway and other writers got Americans more interested in the 1950s, and the plebian mass-produced guns we'd bring with us, while still pining away for a Westly Richards in .500 Nitro Express.

Combined though, I suspect you essentially have PHs mostly going with what they know has proven to work on dangerous game - mostly just grandfathered in, with little to no interest in risking their lives in a very real way to test small-caliber themselves. Those norms get advised to clients, and many of those clients come with their own big-bores out of a combination of inherited wisdom and romanticization of an Africa hunt. PH norms may change if they observe enough small-caliber success from their clients, over time...but likely only from the comfort of having a big-bore double rifle in their hands as a "stopping gun", while they observe.

There's also the seemingly genetically hardwired human behavior of tying how big your weapon is with how mighty and manly you are as a person. Which is absolutely playing a part here in why people push back with such emotional violence against Form's small-caliber truths - it's hitting them in the man-card. A man uses a proper man's gun, not a women's and kids' cartridge, right?

Keep in mind - Form is not the first person to advocate small-caliber. An Africa hunter named Walter Bell killed over 1100 elephants with 6.5 and 7mm cartridges - and was absolutely meticulous in analyzing and documenting the results of that performance when cutting into his game animals. His most emphatic points revolved around the importance of shot placement. But he also noted that .303s and other small caliber guns would often kill just as fast as big bores when the bullets went in the same place.

 

[ElPollo]

What additional data would you like to see? I can see if I still have it. Of course it would be nice to do a completely exhaustive test, but results are genuinely so bad with all bullets that I’m not sure there’s any conclusion to make other than: don’t try to shoot through the brush. Sample size was definitely too small to draw concrete conclusions. Rather, I was pointing out some trends like mono bullets universally showing less deflection and failure, and lighter, faster, pointier bullets weren’t necessarily worse, which is what O’connor concluded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey thanks for the response, Tyler. If you have the data on keyholing and deflection rates by bullet type, it would be pertinent to this discussion.
It would also be interesting to see this repeated keeping bullet type consistent across calibers from 22-33. This article came up in a discussion that was asking about reasons one might select larger calibers for hunting. Brush deflection and large or dangerous game are factors that are often cited to support that decision. There has already been a lot of discussion on this site about how bullet construction can have a larger effect on wound channel size than caliber.

 

[Flynhunt]

Great thread. I read a ton of the posts on small caliber hunting for big game. While I may have been swayed a little, I still am skeptical and can’t jump on board, especially for elk. Here’s my thoughts:

Scenario #1: I’ve got a trophy bull at 500 yds (although distance probably doesn’t matter). I’ve got 2 of the exact same guns sitting there, except one is a big 7mm/30 cal., and the other is a 6mm. I’ve got 1 shot. I’m going to pick the big magnum every time.

Scenario #2: I’ve got a grizzly charging. Same options on the guns and 1 shot. Again, no question I’m picking the big mag. Why?, because I feel like the mag has the best chance at stopping the animal and causing the most damage.

So if it the magnum has the best likelihood at stopping the grizzly, how would it not also remain true with the elk? What I cannot wrap my head around is a 115 gr bullet vs a 200ish gr bullet. Assuming they both perform as expected, either mushrooming or fragmenting, how is it possible that the bigger, wider, heavier bullet does not cause more damage? Now at this point I’m sure someone is itching to tell me shot placement. I’ve come to hate that saying. Not because I disagree, of course it’s important, but because it seems so blatantly obvious it doesn’t need to be said again and again. Like telling someone you need to “shoot good”, well of course you do. I start to wonder if some of the people hooked on that phrase have ever actually hunted? While you may shoot perfect clover leaf groups at 100 yds, things become a whole lot different in the hills. Wind, moving animals, bushes, poor rest, etc. With perfect shot placement through the eye or ear canal into the brain, you could probably kill everything with a 22lr, but of course that’s a silly idea. So on the days when my shot isn’t perfect, I want a bigger mushroom, or more shrapnel moving to hopefully gives me better odds at hitting a vital organ.

Im not denying there has been a good argument put forward along with evidence of successful kills, by people with a lot of experience and knowledge here. I find it very intriguing. But I also think no one wants to put out there when it didn’t go right. I certainly get the arguments of reduced recoil, easier to spot impacts and follow up shots, and flinching. However I can’t recall ever noticing the recoil when taking a shot on an animal. On LRO the mods insist that the 215 Berger is the best elk medicine, and they too seem to have extensive experience on hunts. So are they wrong? It seems that if you happen to still prefer your magnums and aren’t on board, you’ll get hammered on here.

Not trying to start an argument, or saying I’m right, just where I’ve fallen on the issue thus far. Maybe I’ll be convinced otherwise eventually, and that could save me some money on powder!