Smaller Calibers-Where/Why To Draw The Line?

[Grizzle]

When a small bullet has been clearly and consistently proven to provide a lethal wound channel there's no need to go bigger to make more mess.
It's been said over and over that a large caliber magnum pushing tmk/eldm will cause more damage than required or desired, hence the reason many neuter them with mono's or bonded bullets reducing the damage which completely negates any benefit to there "more power" unless you enjoy unnecessary recoil and component cost. Bigger doesn't automatically equal better. The fact remains, enough IS enough. Draw the line wherever your comfort and ethics tell you to.
Saying that if you've actually absorbed the ingormation and examples already covered at length on rs and are still starting this thread its pretty obvious your just bored and looking for an argument.
My best response and advice is to stop wasting time typing and go shooting its more fun and much more productive.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

I know where to draw the line here in WA, it's .24. Least legal caliber for big game.

 

[justin davis]

In Colorado where I live .224 is illegal to use for big game. So that helps draw a line for me. Has to be bigger than 6 mm

 

[Schmo]

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.

Take a look at this picture. This is two different TMK bullets. According to math, the 77TMK shouldn’t be able to produce near the wound channel that it actually does. The 175TMK out of the 308 is 98 grains heavier, well over double the weight of the 77, but doesn’t produce double the wound. Either is completely adequate to take medium game, and large game too.

 

[Bugger]

I’m confident the caliber argument will finally be settled in this thread.

 

[Schmo]

My only point was the OP is trying to boil it down to simple math, and that’s not how it works. I’m not attacking the OP, just stating a fact.

 

[Bugger]

My only point was the OP is trying to boil it down to simple math, and that’s not how it works. I’m not attacking the OP, just stating a fact.

At least you got it in before ENERGY entered the chat. I treat these threads like used TP, you know it’s gonna be shit but ya still have to look in case something funny is going on, then throw it in the toilet where it belongs.

 

[Schmo]

Well, now that you mention it, better calculate the Whallop factor

 

[WTFJohn]

In the testing below from Hornady's Law Enforcement Ammo Test & Application, the 6mm 106 gr TAP (functionally an ELDM) is 1,2,1,2,2 in each category minus final expanded diameter (4th). The 168 gr ELDM is 4,1,3,2,1, and first in final expanded diameter. You can hit the links below and find .223 and 5.56 info as well if you care to. There are also plenty of picture driven threads you can dive into. You can find the data for other bullets if you learn the terms to search for, and actually give a shit other than trying to stir things up.

Clear Gel vs Calibrated Organic Ballistic Gel - Good primer of the importance of calibration.

Basics of the FBI Protocol

Hornady Law Enforcement Ammunition & Test Report Application Guide - This is like a ballistic bible for a lot of Hornady ammo. From pistol to rifle to shotgun.

 

[eoperator]

the 6mm 106 gr TAP (functionally an ELDM)

106 tap is basically eldx

 

[HandgunHTR]

That’s just unarguable physics. Any argument to the contrary is simply logic-defying word salad of a person in denial on the subject.

In your own words, please describe what "unarguable physics" are at play here.

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.

What is your definition of "meaningful"? A 1MOA difference in accuracy due to recoil, plus a 1 MOA rifle system, plus a 2MOA shift in accuracy due to poor field positioning and/or wind means that you could be off by as much as 8 inches at 200 yards. That shrinks to 6 inches if you remove the recoil factor. That is the difference between hitting the liver/back of the lungs or hitting the guts. Seems like a pretty big deal to me.

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 is the downside of using said 6.5 Creedmoor on a moose, elk, or bear? How hard do you think they are to kill?

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.

Being able to see your shot has a ton of benefits beyond "planning for failure". When I see the bullet enter the vital-V, I know I can pack up my stuff and call for the meat wagon. It is just a matter of getting over to where the animal was and find it. If I see it hit a bit back because I flubbed the wind call, I know to make a very solid mental note (or pin it on OnX) and back out for a while before I go busting in to find the animal, potentially sending it into the next county when it could have just walked 100 yards and bedded down.
On the whole "planning for failure" subject, if you don't plan for when things go wrong, you are a fool. You train for success, you plan for failure. Otherwise you will not know what to do when things go wrong. And if you haven't had anything go wrong when shooting an animal, you haven't shot enough animals.

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”.

And my point is a lot of things were labeled "fads" by people who refused to change and those things are now accepted as common.
Automobiles for example. Most people at the time couldn't conceive of anyone needing to travel faster than a good horse team could pull you in a day.
What you are labeling as a "fad" is simply people showing empirical evidence that something works.

It’s been that way for over 100 years now for good reason.

It hasn't been that way for 100 years. 100 years ago, people were killing elephants with 7mm Mausers, and elk with 30-30s, and big ol' whitetails with 25-35s. The popularity of the 30-06 started in after WWII due to the massive amount of surplus firearms and ammunition. It wasn't until the late 50's/early 60's that the "magnum" craze started taking hold, predominantly driven by 1) gun companies, 2) gun writers, and 3) more disposable income in American households.
Also, your statement really only applies to America (and Americans hunting abroad). The Scandinavians have been content to kill moose with 6.5X55s for a long time and don't seem to need a 7RM or 300RM to get it done. Russians have been killing big ol brown bears for a century using the 7.62X54.

So, no, there really isn't a "good" reason why a lot of hunters have that opinion.

 

[Pharmseller]

It seems to me the OP’s premise relies on the concept that there exists degrees of dead.

Dead is dead. Dead in 20 yards is the same as dead in 40 yards.

If the cartridge causes death quickly enough then more energy/weight/velocity is unnecessary.

Like heating water. Anything over 212 F is wasted.





P

 

[Parkerpusher]

Accurate and comfortable. Comfortable as in stock geometry fits so good you can’t wait to get behind it, and doesn’t beat you up to the point you won’t shoot it often enough to be proficient. That’s going to vary some by every different person. And there’s psychosomatics, a word I might be misusing in this context, but basically if it’s a rifle or caliber you believe you shoot well then you will. Mind over matter.

There’s no answer to this for everyone, we each have to find our own. And also, I can’t believe I got baited into a caliber size thread and I really hope I don’t regret it