Smaller Calibers-Where/Why To Draw The Line?

[cbeard64]

Obviously the small caliber trend is the hot topic these days. We all have seen the discussions ad nauseam at this point. No doubt the allure of using smaller calibers for big game is undeniable.

But, as with everything, benefits come with costs. Sensible lines must be drawn. After all, you wouldn’t take a .22 LR on a big game hunt.

So here are my thoughts:

There can be no argument that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a larger bullet traveling at the same (or faster) velocity will perform better in the field. Simply put, with identical bullets, the heavier one will do the job better if placed in the same spot on an animal. A .264” ELDX will perform better than a .243 ELDX on game. That’s just unarguable physics. Any argument to the contrary is simply logic-defying word salad of a person in denial on the subject.

So how to draw the line?

Boiled down, the main arguments I see over and over and over in favor of smaller calibers is that less recoil leads to 1)better accuracy and 2)better shot tracking ability. The problem I have is where many draw the lines. Because those arguments apply all the way down to the .22LR.

Regarding medium sized game, is the recoil of a .264 caliber rifle so much more than a .243 caliber or even a .223 caliber rifle that it significantly affects accuracy? Are most competent big game hunters significantly affected that much more by the recoil of a 6.5 Creedmoor over a 6mm Creedmoor or .223? So much so that their accuracy suffers in a meaningful way?

IMHO? No.

Are the benefits of more accuracy so important that they outweigh the benefits of larger calibers on big and/or dangerous game like moose,elk, and grizzlies? Does an honest cost/benefits analysis really shake out in favor of, say, using a 6.5 Creedmoor over a .300 or .338 Win Mag (or even a .270 win or 7mm Rem Mag) for grizzly? Really?

Again, IMHO? No.

What about the “tracking the shot” argument?
My take? The importance of the first shot can hardly be overstated. Because any experienced hunter knows that the vast majority of the the time all bets are off after the first shot. Most of the time the animal is on the move after the first shot. If the game stays put, you are lucky. Even then, being human, most rush follow up shots. All the “planning” done in the comfort of book study or at the range then goes out the window. Making a caliber choice on this basis is planning for failure. And planning for failure is never good. Ever.

My point: beware of “fads” because often they dispense with a HONEST cost/benefits analysis - overemphasizing some factors and downplaying others to reach a desired conclusion. It was the same years ago when giant magnums were all the rage for the “flat-shooting wind bucking” abilities of 200 plus grain bullets. Back then, concerns about recoil were scoffed at as “unmanly” and “sissified”.

IMO after 50+ years of big game hunting moderation and balance will always be the right place to be when all the costs and benefits are honestly considered. Use the largest caliber you can comfortably and accurately shoot tailored to the animal you are hunting. That should always be mid-range calibers for medium sized game and possibly stepping up (or possibly not depending on your recoil tolerance) some for larger/dangerous game. It’s been that way for over 100 years now for good reason. No matter how much ink is spilled, how much guffawing takes place, or how vehement the arguments, fads are fads - they come and they go. They are fads because they tend towards extremes one way or the other. The best options are always balanced.

JMHO. Thanks for reading this far.

 

[svivian]

A short synopsis of the above for those who don’t want to read that much….

We all have seen the discussions ad nauseam at this point.

 

[juju]

Let your budget be your guide. The smaller cartridge you can afford as much of as you want for practice and plinking is 223. And that's all.

If you want to add 22lr to the discussion, go down to the end of your street and find the big red sign. You can argue with it as much as you like.

 

[justinspicher]

It doesn’t really matter what you use or want to use caliber wise, if you don’t practice with it, your accuracy and range will suffer, thus you as a shooter will have limited yourself on capacity and capability.

 

[LeftyWilbury]

i could use a .177 pellet on squirrels but i prefer a .22 pellet. you can tell by the sound it makes it's more better.
also more funner.

 

[steelheadmike]

Since I haven't listened in a while, how have the JVB podcasts been lately?

 

[Davidson51]

i could use a .177 pellet on squirrels but i prefer a .22 pellet. you can tell by the sound it makes it's more better.
also more funner.

In this particular scenario, the. 22 will technically deliver more wallop, making it clearly more effective.

 

[MuleyFever]

i could use a .177 pellet on squirrels but i prefer a .22 pellet. you can tell by the sound it makes it's more better.
also more funner.

I mean, you can kill them with an arrow so I dont see why you need the .22.

 

[KyleR1985]

There can be no argument that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a larger bullet traveling at the same (or faster) velocity will perform better in the field. Simply put, with identical bullets, the heavier one will do the job better if placed in the same spot on an animal. A .264” ELDX will perform better than a .243 ELDX on game. That’s just unarguable physics. Any argument to the contrary is simply logic-defying word salad of a person in denial on the subject.

This discounts two major variables:

- “identical” bullets of different caliber, as you’ve described: do not always have the exact same construction across different calibers. There’s no guarantee about how they’ll perform without tissue/tissue simulant testing. And manufacturers won’t tell you the differences. And if they did, you’d still not know without the testing.

- “identical” bullets don’t have same SD; they have different diameters so even at the same speed they have different forces acting on front of each bullet; switching to having different velocities but equal forces acting on the different sd/mass bullets would probably get closer to “apples”, but not quite.



It’s not unarguable physics.


There are too many variables to try and math this out, because it goes against bullet manufacturers incentives to remove the variables. So what we have is shooting critters or FBI gel to confirm how bullets perform.




TLDR: some bullets of same design but larger caliber do sometimes cause more tissue damage than smaller caliber bullets of that design. Nothing can be learned from knowing that besides knowing that.

 

[cbeard64]

This discounts two major variables:

- “identical” bullets of different caliber, as you’ve described: do not always have the exact same construction across different calibers. There’s no guarantee about how they’ll perform without tissue/tissue simulant testing. And manufacturers won’t tell you the differences. And if they did, you’d still not know without the testing.

- “identical” bullets don’t have same SD; they have different diameters so even at the same speed they have different forces acting on front of each bullet; switching to having different velocities but equal forces acting on the different sd/mass bullets would probably get closer to “apples”, but not quite.



It’s not unarguable physics.


There are too many variables to try and math this out, because it goes against bullet manufacturers incentives to remove the variables. So what we have is shooting critters or FBI gel to confirm how bullets perform.




TLDR: some bullets of same design but larger caliber do sometimes cause more tissue damage than smaller caliber bullets of that design. Nothing can be learned from knowing that besides knowing that.

Show me the “math” that proves any minute differences between identical smaller caliber bullets vs. a larger bullet outweighs the benefits of having more mass traveling at the same speed when it comes to bullet performance on game.

Hint: It does not exist. Because those minute differences are not, in fact, major variables. They are,at best, minor and in all reality minute variables.

At some point we need to get out of the weeds and let a little sunshine in the discussion. Again, fads exist because folks convince themselves extremes are somehow better than balance.

 

[steelheadmike]

Show me the “math” that proves any minute differences between identical smaller caliber bullets vs. a larger bullet outweighs the benefits of having more mass traveling at the same speed when it comes to bullet performance on game.

Hint: It does not exist. Because those minute differences are not, in fact, major variables. They aren't best, minor and in all reality minute variables.

At some point we need to get out of the weeds and let a little sunshine in the discussion. Again, fads exist because folks convince themselves extremes are somehow better than balance.

If you were to read through the 223, 6mm, and 6.5mm threads, could you tell those wounds weren't caused by a larger caliber bullet? I couldn't.

Could you look a picture of a giant hole through an elk shoulder and be able to if it was from a 6mm 108 ELD-M or a 7mm 180 ELD-M? Not me.

With that in mind, what downside is there in being able to deliver a bullet more accurately and more consistently by shooting a lighter recoiling cartridge? If you say recoil doesn't matter, you are a better shooter than me and probably 90% of hunters out there.

Not one person is saying a smaller bullet has better TERMINAL ballistics than larger calibers. But, if there are only minor, nearly imperceptible differences between the two (regarding terminal ballistics), isn't there an argument to be made that shooting a cartridge that makes getting the bullet where it needs to go easier and more consistently is better?

 

[KyleR1985]

Show me the “math” that proves any minute differences between identical smaller caliber bullets vs. a larger bullet outweighs the benefits of having more mass traveling at the same speed when it comes to bullet performance on game.

Hint: It does not exist. Because those minute differences are not, in fact, major variables. They are,at best, minor and in all reality minute variables.

At some point we need to get out of the weeds and let a little sunshine in the discussion. Again, fads exist because folks convince themselves extremes are somehow better than balance.

I don’t generally disagree with your point that picking either end of a spectrum of actions is not the best path to the top of the bell curve of outcomes.

I also don’t see the need to insert physics into that concept.

And I don’t shoot little bullets at deer to increase my opportunity for a follow up shot. I shoot little bullets at deer because “the recoil is so low that I can stay on target for a follow up shot” which means, in practical terms, “the recoil is so low I can visually confirm where I hit the animal on the first shot most of the time.” Which means, in practical terms, “the recoil is so low I hit where I aim most of the time.”

And if that little bullet has proven over a large data set to create the type of damage necessary to kill animals quickly, I don’t see any reason to shoot a larger one. Even if in some cases it does create more damage. And especially if in some cases it does not produce more damage.



The Overton window has shifted. The Internet killed the gun writer.

 

[Macintosh]

You can argue this all you want, but the answer isnt math, it’s based on results combined with subjective criteria.

My answer is that your definition of “better” is not universally correct. More is not always better. You didnt address that. “Enough” is what I want. “More than enough” is not “better”, because it starts wasting meat thats valuable to me, and it comes with a cost. Even if the cost (recoil, noise, $, whatever) is negligible, it’s still a negative. Why would I accept this cost when something else is “enough”?

“Better”=the optimum that combines “enough” with maximizing all my other criteria.

 

[cbeard64]

If you were to read through the 223, 6mm, and 6.5mm threads, could you tell those wounds weren't caused by a larger caliber bullet? I couldn't.

Could you look a picture of a giant hole through an elk shoulder and be able to if it was from a 6mm 108 ELD-M or a 7mm 180 ELD-M? Not me.

With that in mind, what downside is there in being able to deliver a bullet more accurately and more consistently by shooting a lighter recoiling cartridge? If you say recoil doesn't matter, you are a better shooter than me and probably 90% of hunters out there.

Not one person is saying a smaller bullet has better TERMINAL ballistics than larger calibers. But, if there are only minor, nearly imperceptible differences between the two (regarding terminal ballistics), isn't there an argument to be made that shooting a cartridge that makes getting the bullet where it needs to go easier and more consistently is better?

If you were to read through the 223, 6mm, and 6.5mm threads, could you tell those wounds weren't caused by a larger caliber bullet? I couldn't.

Could you look a picture of a giant hole through an elk shoulder and be able to if it was from a 6mm 108 ELD-M or a 7mm 180 ELD-M? Not me.

With that in mind, what downside is there in being able to deliver a bullet more accurately and more consistently by shooting a lighter recoiling cartridge? If you say recoil doesn't matter, you are a better shooter than me and probably 90% of hunters out there.

Not one person is saying a smaller bullet has better TERMINAL ballistics than larger calibers. But, if there are only minor, nearly imperceptible differences between the two (regarding terminal ballistics), isn't there an argument to be made that shooting a cartridge that makes getting the bullet where it needs to go easier and more consistently is better?

So the argument boils down to ignoring physics because your eye trumps everything and thus there is no practical difference in the performance on game of identical 108 vs. 180 grain bullets?

That’s way too deep in the weeds and outside the bounds of reality to provide a basis to make a good decision on caliber choice. A classic example of going with the fad for its own sake IMO.

 

[The Harbor Master]

TL;DR

3 points for making me reply though

 

[wyosam]

[QUOTE="KyleR1985, post: 4094756, member: 34177"
The Overton window has shifted. The Internet killed the gun writer.[/QUOTE]

Just the opposite- the internet is full of gun writers (or bloggers/vloggers/influencers..). People were killing big game with small bullets and telling others about long before the internet came to be. It’s just never been as concentrated as it is now with this forum. Used to be everyone had one crazy uncle that hunted everything with a 220 swift. That guy generally tended to kill what he shot at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eric1115]

So the argument boils down to ignoring physics because your eye trumps everything and thus there is no practical difference in the performance on game of identical 108 vs. 180 grain bullets?

That’s way too deep in the weeds and outside the bounds of reality to provide a basis to make a good decision on caliber choice. A classic example of going with the fad for its own sake IMO.

Wouldn't the flip side of this coin be, you're ignoring actual in-the-field successful terminal performance and improved hit rates because your interpretation of the physics involved tell you that there should be a benefit even if you can't demonstrate that it exists?

 

[eric1115]

Show me the “math” that proves any minute differences between identical smaller caliber bullets vs. a larger bullet outweighs the benefits of having more mass traveling at the same speed when it comes to bullet performance on game.

Hint: It does not exist. Because those minute differences are not, in fact, major variables. They are,at best, minor and in all reality minute variables.

At some point we need to get out of the weeds and let a little sunshine in the discussion. Again, fads exist because folks convince themselves extremes are somehow better than balance.

I would describe that math as follows: a. 108 6mm berger hybrid and a 215 Berger hybrid that impact at the same 2400 fps, will have generally similar wound channels, both completely adequate to kill any elk in the world. The 215 might make a wound that's 7-8" wide instead of 6", and 24" long instead of 20".

20% more width and 20% more length, for 100% more recoil to start them at equal MV. To me that seems like minor difference in performance for major shootability benefit for the 6mm.

 

[steelheadmike]

So the argument boils down to ignoring physics because your eye trumps everything and thus there is no practical difference in the performance on game of identical 108 vs. 180 grain bullets?

That’s way too deep in the weeds and outside the bounds of reality to provide a basis to make a good decision on caliber choice. A classic example of going with the fad for its own sake IMO.

What physics? A 67% percent larger bullet doesn’t produce a 67% larger wound channel.

Either way, yes, I am ignoring the “physics”. An elk doesn’t really care if the hole in its side is 4” or 6”. I care that I can more reliably and consistently put said 4” hole in the side of said elk.

You’re basing your whole premise on theoretical “physics” that simply does not play out in vivo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElPollo]

Obviously the small caliber trend is the hot topic these days. We all have seen the discussions ad nauseam at this point. No doubt the allure of using smaller calibers for big game is undeniable.

But, as with everything, benefits come with costs. Sensible lines must be drawn. After all, you wouldn’t take a .22 LR on a big game hunt.

So here are my thoughts:

There can be no argument that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a larger bullet traveling at the same (or faster) velocity will perform better in the field. Simply put, with identical bullets, the heavier one will do the job better if placed in the same spot on an animal. A .264” ELDX will perform better than a .243 ELDX on game. That’s just unarguable physics. Any argument to the contrary is simply logic-defying word salad of a person in denial on the subject.

So how to draw the line?

Boiled down, the main arguments I see over and over and over in favor of smaller calibers is that less recoil leads to 1)better accuracy and 2)better shot tracking ability. The problem I have is where many draw the lines. Because those arguments apply all the way down to the .22LR.

Regarding medium sized game, is the recoil of a .264 caliber rifle so much more than a .243 caliber or even a .223 caliber rifle that it significantly affects accuracy? Are most competent big game hunters significantly affected that much more by the recoil of a 6.5 Creedmoor over a 6mm Creedmoor or .223? So much so that their accuracy suffers in a meaningful way?

IMHO? No.

Are the benefits of more accuracy so important that they outweigh the benefits of larger calibers on big and/or dangerous game like moose,elk, and grizzlies? Does an honest cost/benefits analysis really shake out in favor of, say, using a 6.5 Creedmoor over a .300 or .338 Win Mag (or even a .270 win or 7mm Rem Mag) for grizzly? Really?

Again, IMHO? No.

What about the “tracking the shot” argument?
My take? The importance of the first shot can hardly be overstated. Because any experienced hunter knows that the vast majority of the the time all bets are off after the first shot. Most of the time the animal is on the move after the first shot. If the game stays put, you are lucky. Even then, being human, most rush follow up shots. All the “planning” done in the comfort of book study or at the range then goes out the window. Making a caliber choice on this basis is planning for failure. And planning for failure is never good. Ever.

My point: beware of “fads” because often they dispense with a HONEST cost/benefits analysis - overemphasizing some factors and downplaying others to reach a desired conclusion. It was the same years ago when giant magnums were all the rage for the “flat-shooting wind bucking” abilities of 200 plus grain bullets. Back then, concerns about recoil were scoffed at as “unmanly” and “sissified”.

IMO after 50+ years of big game hunting moderation and balance will always be the right place to be when all the costs and benefits are honestly considered. Use the largest caliber you can comfortably and accurately shoot tailored to the animal you are hunting. That should always be mid-range calibers for medium sized game and possibly stepping up (or possibly not depending on your recoil tolerance) some for larger/dangerous game. It’s been that way for over 100 years now for good reason. No matter how much ink is spilled, how much guffawing takes place, or how vehement the arguments, fads are fads - they come and they go. They are fads because they tend towards extremes one way or the other. The best options are always balanced.

JMHO. Thanks for reading this far.

I don’t care what anyone else decides what is appropriate to hunt with. Most western states currently say a 22 centerfire is legal for big game. Why do we need another thread that is trying to second guess them?