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

[RockAndSage]

BINGO. Did you read that african hunting forum thread where they talked about Ryan shooting the giraffe with the 6UM? One dude seriously said Ryan wasn't even dressed appropriately... I think it was wind gypsy that said they're basically playing dress up/LARPing with their african hunts and obviously you MUST have your big bore to be authentic.

Oh man, no, but that's absolutely hilarious. If you have a link I'd love to go through it.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Oh man, no, but that's absolutely hilarious. If you have a link I'd love to go through it.

Video of giraffe harvested with 6mm

Where I would disagree is the ability to place a good shot with 375 vs smaller cartridge. I think most shooters would struggle with that Why? I’m happy to say l shoot most of my 25 or so rifles equally accurate from a field position at the distances that we hunt.

www.africahunting.com

"Besides, shooter in video is not even dressed as hunter. No dress code, no ethics with inappropriate calibers, etc... "

 

[Marty]

It would be so incredible to have some real "statistically significant" data sets together to help to answer these questions with real information. But I haven't seen it. Granted, as other's have commented, it is difficult to document terminal ballistic performance on actual animals because of the large variance in environment, animal behaviour, and shooters' recall. But there are those who are working on it. Portland State University has an ongoing study which needs all of our data:

www.bit.ly/AmmoPerformance

I myself have started to compile a spreadsheet of the necropsy reports on this forum. I hope to complete that data entry project and publish the results sometime soon.

I hope that by gathering larger and larger sets of actual terminal ballistic field results trends will be identified.

I do give a lot of weight to those who have seen thousands of animals killed in the field. But the only two I know of who have shared their findings are Nathan Foster and Form. (Any others out there?) And although much of what they document and say is similar, (ie.. frangible/ soft bullets are a "must" at slower impact velocities and mono coppers wound less and need speed.) They do seemingly disagree on the value of larger caliber bullets on larger game.

Nathan's writings can be found here and I highly recommend his books:

Extensive Field-Tested Rifle & Cartridge Research - BallisticStudies.com

Expert rifle & cartridge research, carefully compiled through extensive field-testing & freely offered to the firearms community.

www.ballisticstudies.com

The only thing that is close to actual scientific data that I've been able to find is the online ballistic data from Hornady's law enforcement site. It has lots of test data for different bullets.

Attached you will find screen shots of various ELD-M bullets which shows an interesting trend. There is a clear tendency for the larger and heavier ELD-M bullets to penetrate more deeply and expand to create larger wound cavities.

225 gr. ELD-M in .308 @2888fps; 15" penetration and 8" dia. Max. Cavity
178 gr ELD-M in .308 @2894 fps; 14.25" penetration and 8.25" Max. Cavity
155 gr. ELD-M in .308 @2856 fps; 13.75" penetration and 6.00" Max Cavity
147 gr. ELD-M in 6.5mm @2646; 16" penetration and 5.5" Max Cavity

(Note the 6.5 bullet was traveling 200 fps +/- slower at impact which explains the deeper penetration. But the three .308's all impacted at very similar velocities.)

It "feels" logical to me that when comparing the same bullet: more weight, more diameter and more speed will equal more wound cavity and that at the same impact velocity a heavier, bigger bullet will also penetrate more deeply. But many on this site swear that isn't the case and I have less field experience then them so I'm left confused and deeply unsatisfied with the lack of data around an issue that would be easily "provable" in a properly orchestrated study. I've heard Form say that a bullet could be designed in .308 caliber that would produce massive soccer ball sized wounding, but have also seen him write that there is no significant difference in wounding created by .223 vs. .308 bullets. (not exact quotes, sorry.)

Bottom line is that I feel that this should be "settled" with real data for every hunting bullet on the market so we could move on to arguing about some other crazy hunting nuance. (or god forbid, by going to the range and shooting more!)

Also, I think it would be preliminary to look at this Hornady data and claim that it offers clear proof that there is an advantage in wounding and penetration by larger caliber and heavier bullets. Hornady doesn't state how many test shots were fired and I'm left with a sneaky suspicion it might have just been one of each bullet. To do this right, I think you'd need to do a larger sample size of each. And it would be important to test each at various impact velocities. The velocity of impact for all of these tests is pretty high at 2580-2730 which doesn't tell us how this bullet performs at lower velocities which is absolutely key for choosing a hunting bullet.

Interestingly, the comparison of the various CX mono copper bullets in the same publication does not yield the same trend of heavier, larger bullets creating more wounding.... Food for thought.

Before someone else points this out, let me state that it is very clear when one dives deeply into this that what really matters by a VERY large margin is bullet placement. In the hundreds of necropsy entries I have entered data for so far it is clear that if you hit an animal in the heart/lung complex with a well placed shot you are very likely to recover it within 40 yards of impact. No matter the caliber or projectile.

However, for reasons that others have pointed out: 1) debunking the lies that we've been fed 2) striving to be more ethical hunters 3) desiring exiting for blood tracking in heavy cover 4) balancing meat loss vs. quick killing and more,,, I will argue that this subject has real value and merit to pursue.

Wow, great response. Thank you.


Tip of the hat for dedicating your time to compile all those necropsy reports, and analyze what the data says! I’ll look forward to seeing your results.


Thanks for sharing Nathan Foster’s work. I’ll take a look at his website in greater depth over the coming days/weeks. Always good to have multiple perspectives to consider. For others reading this, I started off by reading Mr. Foster’s article titled “Effective Game Killing” (Effective Game Killing). Plenty of parallels to opinions being shared on this platform.


To your comments with respect to Hornady’s data, thank you for sharing. I poked around their website a bit. With some of Form’s comments in the background of my thoughts, there’s a real mix up between terminal performance and how bullets are marketed. For other readers, check out this link (hornadyle.com/rifle-ammunition/#!/) and give it a look for yourself. Be sure inspect both the ballistics and gelatin tabs on the left side of the screen for a given cartridge load you select.


Thank you for your response, your additional conversation below, and @Formidilosus ’s responses to our community’s curiosity. Cheers!

 

[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.