Smaller Calibers-Where/Why To Draw The Line?

[JackButler]

Sure a 300wm delivers more power than a 22cm. The point for me though, is that extra power is not needed in the situations most people take game. Which is under 500 yards. Mostly under 300 yards. It’s like saying what happens if Mike Tyson in his prime hits me with an uppercut or a cross. Both will have me unconscious (at best).
If a guy is taking large game at very long ranges, as much as I love small calibers, the larger calibers can be an advantage.

 

[FredH]

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.

If the data is the 223 big game thread then well yes with perfect hits it does well. I saw too many pictures where the far lung had a hole barely 1/2 inch in diameter in it to think it is the perfect deer rifle . I notice very few people bother to post anything about poor hits or deer traveling a long ways and lost animals. Many of us hunting public land want more than that, especially thick brushy country. So yes I easily see that using a larger cartridge is preferable at times.

"I can stay on target for a follow up shot" because of recoil being an issue with your ability to place a shot? Recoil doesn't happen until you pull the trigger. I have no problem hitting where I aim with any cartridge so far. I don't have to see where my bullet hit because I was looking through the scope when I pulled the trigger, knowing exactly where the crosshairs were when the gun went off. With my 7-08 I have often seen blood fly out the far side of the animal shot in a spray when the light is good. Unless you are shooting a semi auto or pump you will get out of the scope to cycle the action.

As for the practice angle, yes cheap ammunition is a plus but I generally reload and only use the "cheap" stuff for blasting with my AR. My actual practice is hunting coyotes where the 223 does shine.

Tell me when a larger cartridge shooting a bullet at the same velocity with the same construction ever does not produce more damage.

 

[FredH]

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.

Why does the comparison have to be a 223 versus a "large caliber Magnum"? Why not a more reasonable comparison say between the 6.5 Creedmoor, 7-08, 260 remington class of cartridges? Monos? Why not compare more traditional well designed hunting bullets instead of fragile match style bullets?

 

[Grizzle]

I take it your bored again and looking for an argument. Go shooting instead you'll feel better at end of day

 

[WyoWild]

I thought the FBI gel tests from Hornady were interesting to look at.

FBI Gel Test Wound Volume

Keep in mind these look at the TEMPORARY WOUND CAVITY. There is definitely a trend that bigger bullets of the same general construction delivered at similar speeds produce bigger wound channels.

223 wound channel volume is about 30-40% less than the 6mm/6.5mm channels. The 6mm/6.5 wound channels were very similar. However once you get up to 300 Win Mag the wound volume is about twice as big as the 6/6.5 but that comes at the expense of about four times more recoil.

For me I find 6mm/6.5mm cup core tipped bullets (ELDX/TMK) hitting the target animal between 2000-2700 fps to be the ideal compromise of easy shoot ability and adequate terminal performance. Can still spot shots very well with a 8-9lb hunting rifle which is important for me and I personally would not go bigger and have not reason to go smaller.

 

[KyleR1985]

If the data is the 223 big game thread then well yes with perfect hits it does well. I saw too many pictures where the far lung had a hole barely 1/2 inch in diameter in it to think it is the perfect deer rifle . I notice very few people bother to post anything about poor hits or deer traveling a long ways and lost animals. Many of us hunting public land want more than that, especially thick brushy country. So yes I easily see that using a larger cartridge is preferable at times.

"I can stay on target for a follow up shot" because of recoil being an issue with your ability to place a shot? Recoil doesn't happen until you pull the trigger. I have no problem hitting where I aim with any cartridge so far. I don't have to see where my bullet hit because I was looking through the scope when I pulled the trigger, knowing exactly where the crosshairs were when the gun went off. With my 7-08 I have often seen blood fly out the far side of the animal shot in a spray when the light is good. Unless you are shooting a semi auto or pump you will get out of the scope to cycle the action.

As for the practice angle, yes cheap ammunition is a plus but I generally reload and only use the "cheap" stuff for blasting with my AR. My actual practice is hunting coyotes where the 223 does shine.

Tell me when a larger cartridge shooting a bullet at the same velocity with the same construction ever does not produce more damage.

My reference to little bullet causing as much damage as big bullet was not two of same construction - it was that there are little bullets that cause more damage than may commonly used big “hunting” bullets. Missing some context there.

Below is my contribution of 3, with 2 “not perfect” shots. One resulted in a confusing rodeo. One resulted in a bang flop. I guess you’re saying that shooting a bigger bullet would’ve changed either outcome? Or that a different bullet construction changes either outcome?

I’m really in the middle on this stuff, but are you saying that you shoot and spot shots as well with your 7-08 as you do with your .223?

If so, that’s awesome. I don’t.

Post in thread '6mm /.243 hunting success on Big Game'
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/6mm-243-hunting-success-on-big-game.284525/post-4032816

 

[Thegman]

So here are my thoughts:

There can be no argument that, ....

I haven't read past the second post yet, but I'm guessing that this important part of your initial thesis was incorrect.

(Actually, pretty much any time someone starts with the fallacious assertion that "There can be no argument", well, there can be an argument.)

I take the above back...I actually forgot about looking at and even commenting on this thread. I wonder why? Well, my conjecture was spot on, anyway.

Oh...I see...this thread was Fredsurrected...all makes sense now.

These questions must keep you awake at night, @FredH

 

[WoodlandCritter]

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.

Completely fallacious. Lets say you apply the same logic to killing something with a knife. If a knife blade sharpened to a width of 0.4microns works well, an edge of 3" across must perform better! The results of a bullet striking a living animal are a result of an incredibly high number of variables, and trying to quantify it would result in a differential equation with several orders of complexity. There is zero guarantee that the effects of bullet diameter on game scale linearly.

Furthermore your definition of "do the better job" is obviously not one I would ever agree with. I would never, ever shoot a deer with a 20mm ELDM. I'm out to hunt, not kill animals. For me, doing a better job means killing an animal in an amount of time that I find morally acceptable while simultaneously minimizing damage to meat.

It seems your grasp of physics and semantics are both pretty poor.

 

[Wprinkle]

I swear JVB has like 10 burner accounts on here.... the same rhetoric almost word for word by the same accounts....

 

[dsotm]

Fuddtastic

 

[youngbuck96]

My suppressed .308 WIN is 1/2 MOA accurate, has minimal recoil, affordable ammo, allows me to track my shots, and flings a 150 gr pill at 2900 fps, perfectly capable for me considering my longest hunting shot in 15 years has been 212 yards. Additionally, blood trails have been much better with my .308 WIN than my 6.5, although they both kill equally as effective. I don't have a reason to go any smaller. Everyone has grown so recoil sensitive over the years it's crazy! People these days tell me .308 WIN is recoil heavy, yeah, maybe if you're a toddler.