The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting "Small Caibers" Adequate For Big Tough Game? Yes Or No?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| "Small Caibers" Adequate For Big Tough Game? Yes Or No? | Login/Join |
| <leo> |
Well, a very small wound channel(no arteries destroyed) on a very large animal could clot-up before the animal got into serious trouble; maybe. They would however no doubt expire eventually do to infection, etc. | ||
|
Moderator |
It depends if one bases there caliber selection only on armchair ideals, or on real world realities. In the real world we don't always shoot as well as we should, the game doesn't always react as expected, and sometimes, game must be tracked and finished off. In those situations, the added terminal performance of a larger would channel, produced by a larger, not faster, bullet, is a real benefit. Yes, bigger guns produce more recoil, so the shooter does have to become competent with his or her rifle, whether it be small or big. | |||
|
| one of us |
I agree with Paul's first sentence in particular. There are a lot of people that say, for example, that the 150grain 308 bullet is better than the 140 grain in the 6.5x55 launched at the same speed. I would disagree with this and I have used both extensively. I don't think the .044" will make that much difference, but I do think the better ballistic coefficient (.533vs.499) and the better sectional density (.287vs.226) will have a greater impact on penetration and wound channel. If deer is the game animal in question, it is a moot point. If Elk is involved, I would probably move to larger grain weights in both calibers. Even at that, would I feel undergunned with my 264WM and a 160 grain bullet? No Way! The real world says that is a more than adequate moose round, even in the 6.5x55. To me, that equates to the 30-06 with a 200 grain bullet with their similar sectional densities (328 for the 264 and .301 for the 308), again, given the same launch speed. But at these diameters, it is pretty much academic. From the 264 to the 308 I have never seen a bit of real world difference and I have used both extensively. Now when you compare the very small against the very large, then there is no question. Will a 22-250 do as much damage as a 458? No way, even if the 458 is launched 2000 fps slower. There the wound channels would be very different because the 22 is not even capable of the 458 wound channel. Third, the construction of the bullet has as much to do with adequacy as does the caliber. I personally would take a 243 100 grain partition over the 308 110 grain varmint bullet when hunting...well anything. If I take my examples above, I would still take the 140 grain 264 partition over the 150 grain sierra just because of construction and if the bullet types were reversed, so would I. Now, if we go to very tough animals such as Cape Buffalo, wound channel discussions ALMOST go away because the bullets are almost always solids and above 338 caliber. In conclusion, I don't think the mere fact of caliber being bigger or velocity being higher makes a bullet or round better. In the real modern world (Bell shooting elephants with a 7x57 not counted) there are too many very large animals killed very cleanly with "smaller" calibers to say the 308 and larger are always better. But everyone has their prejudices. That is what good discussions are made of. If we all agreed, we might all be shooting 30-06s. ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
I have never been able to get everyone on the same course when one mentions small calibers, minimum calibers etc...minium varies from person to person. To me, a minimum caliber is the least caliber that will work efficiently on the animal hunted under controled condition, that meaning under average conditions... An example is that I feel the 9.3x62 and 375 H&H are perfectly capable under 99% of the hunting condition for Buffalo or Elephant in my hands, and yes even in a charge situation. HOWEVER, neither would be my first choice, preferring a 40 cal. of some sort. Under ideal conditions, and this is controled by the hunter, the 338, 300, 30-06, 308 and 7x57 will surfice for Buffalo providing you pick your shot at very close range, place your bullet exactly and hopefully have the common since to notice which tree is the best for a quick exit. One might extend this to elephant with solids, as a brain shot is a brain shot and regardless of caliber a miss is a miss on elephant and I have never been of the school the biggies knock them unconsious, I do not now, nor have I ever bought off on that theory unless the bullet actually touched inside the brain cavity. I have seen an elephant killed with shoulder shot by a 7x57 solid and that elephant bled like a stuck hog and died after about 150 yard run, about what one would expect with a 458 Lott or .470. What do I recomend to clients, a 375 or larger, preferably larger if they can handle the recoil, but even smaller if they cannot. Good shooting is absolute. I have noticed some ladies and youths normally kill Buffalo very cleanly with very minimal calibers (yes they are backed up with big bores)while I have seen many men get in trouble with a real big bores.. Just some ideas for thought and not trying to make or prove a point. ------------------ | |||
|
| One of Us |
quote: Agreed. | |||
|
| one of us |
Something BBBruce and I agree on oh my. It has allways been a about bullet placement. | |||
|
one of us |
I agree with Ray.Hunters should use the caliber they are most likely to make a killing shot with.A larger hole only works faster if it is placed in the vitals.That said we should use the largest round we can effectively hit with on tough animals. | |||
|
| one of us |
I am not a fan of small calibers on Big Game. While I am sure they can kill an animal if in the correct hands, I suspect more often than not the animal will wander off to die slowly when not shot correctly. I have seen several instances of an animal dead and half rotted in the woods during the hunting seasons, obvious examples of someone's poor shooting. I consider these a waste. A bigger caliber (no I am not advocating mortar size rifles) would drop the animal sooner and there would be less likely to wander off (given the fact that during hunting conditions our shooting is not always 100%). Use your head and use a caliber appropriate to the game you are hunting and your own shooting abilities. just because you hear about some idiot shooting deer with a .22, doesn't mean that you need to try it. I recommend that if you want to shoot small calibers at big game, that you start with dangerous game. This way either your shooting abiility improves dramatically or you are removed from the sport and we won't have to find your wounded animals rotting out in the woods. | |||
|
| one of us |
I am just curious. How many animals are lost from someone shoooting a rifle they can't handle. If a 30-06 is the most the average hunter can handle, then wouldn't the average hunter be better off with a 270 over a 300 Magnum. With all the hype about the super magnums, and once a year shooters, could that be one reason for wounded and lost animals? | |||
|
one of us |
First off lets find out what most here call "BIG GAME"! In the North American fields there are only three animals that I would consider to be big game. They are the Moose, Elk, and the Large Coastal Brown bears. The polar bear, and American bison are big game, but not hunted that much by many people, and the Bison being a shooting trip more than hunting, in most cases, for this reason, these I will exclude. Of the three that are hunted regularly, the only one requireing a real stopper is the Brown Bear, while the other two can be handled quite nicely with a 30-06 or there abouts. The 300 mags, no matter which one make good Elk rifles simply because the shots tend to be long on him. The moose can be taken with just about anything that is legal, but the old 30-06 is just about right for him as well. The brown bear,(and Polar) require some safety margin, for the stopping that may be needed. Here I place the bottom choice at the 338 win mag, and I would prefere a 375 H&H or larger if any alder, or rain forest are invloved. A full 90% of the people mauled, in Alaska, after they shot a Brown and did not stop him, were useing some sort of 300 magnum rifle. Like Ray, I consider "BIG GAME" to start with an African lion, and top out at the African elephant. with the cape Buffalo being the most hunted, and in some cases the hardest to stop, simply because once wounded he can take a tremendous pounding to put down, and once he charges he will seldom be turned by your shot. This is a death sittuation, meaning he will die, or you will, but death is the outcome, it just depends on who wins. The bears hit hard will some times turn and run, as will an Elephant, takeing a hard hit anyplace in the head, he will usually call off the charge. The Buffalo will not, he will use his last breath to get to you! These animals take real rifles to hunt safely. There rifles start at 9.3, and go up the scale to the biggest thing you can shoot, and survive the recoil. The best compromise is, IMO, a 400 to 500 cal rifle that you can shoot well. So, for REAL big game I think the bottom is a good 9.3 on up, for North America, a 338 win mag will handle anything here, I do not consider any deer, other than ELK, and Moose, to be big game, and anything from a 243 with a 100 gr bullet up will handle the deer fine. ------------------ | |||
|
one of us |
You can loose an animal if you hunt with a small caliber rifle, most of the time the bullet diameter don't make that much a difference if it is kind of close, like the 30-06, it don't kill any better than the 270 winchester, but if you make it a big difference like 270 against 9.3 or 375 H&H, than it makes a difference. I have once shot a Kudu bull which showed a bullet wound behind the shoulder which went throught his lungs, he healed very well and seemed not the worse for wear. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:
I would suspect a lot LESS animals are lost due to wounds from larger caliber weapons than from wounds from pea shooters. I agree that for North American Big game starts with Moose/Elk. I have shot/killed moose (and NEVER lost them) with my 30-06, and would not hesitate to do so again but prefer a bigger caliber , My father took lots of moose with his 270 but never picked it up again for moose after we got him a .300 WM (he still uses it for whitetail). | |||
|
| <Don Martin29> |
When the floor your standing on was built or the next bridge you drive over was designed you can count on it having a safety factor of many times what is required. If it fails you can go after the builder. It's too bad the opposite is true of someone plinking a game animal with a weak bullet because then they get away with it. It's so because the animal runs off! | ||
|
| One of Us |
quote: Are you trying to be funny, BBBBruce? You don't know your butt from a hole in the ground about guns. Go back to miscellaneous and talk crap where you belong. [This message has been edited by Pecos45 (edited 05-18-2002).] | |||
|
| one of us |
IMHO those carcases you find in the woods are the result of poor shooting as opposed to being underguned... Big bore or small bore, all shots have to be placed correctly, no ifs, ands, or buts about that....If you shoot an animal shallow then a 375 H&H argueably won't kill any better than a 06 or 308 IMHO....If you shoot them center, the results are the same. I have culled Kudu cows with a 375 and a 308 I did detect a difference in the two while observing the culling of Buffalo, at least I think I did.. What I have come to believe is there is not as much difference in most of our calibers as we believe there is, or at least that is my thoughts today, they may change tomarrow simply because its just not that cut and dried. I have bounced back and fourth many times in my opinnion of this over the years. ------------------ | |||
|
| <leo> |
DUGABOY, I think you should add the caribou and inland grizzily to the list of bonafide big game. Caribou may be a bit soft but the size is there. | ||
|
| one of us |
Ray you are correct, the caracasses are probably more bad shooting than too small a gun. I suspect though that you have a larger margin of error when you use a bigger caliber. Unfortunately my Big game experience is restricted to North America. I prefer that the animal get knocked down and die quickly rather than wander off, requiring trailing to find it. (or worse have it wander out into a swamp) [This message has been edited by rockhead (edited 05-20-2002).] | |||
|
one of us |
While I myself prefer as my nick indicates, I have always seen that caliber, and hyper-velocity for that matter, are only part of the picture when it comes to killing animals. Foremost in my opinion is shot placement, followed closly by proper bullet construction for impact velocity. If you get those two right, caliber and velocity are just tools to use to expand your repetoire of hunting abilities. Get either one wrong, and you may have more hunting than you originally anticipated. ------------------ BTW, lots of laws and regs are sponsored by people whose agenda has nothing to do with hunting or effective killing of animals. In fact, IMHO, many of those people suffer from CRI (cranial/rectal inversion. [This message has been edited by 8MM OR MORE (edited 05-20-2002).] | |||
|
| <Don Martin29> |
Say for example that a bullet hits an animal in the hind quarters from almost any angle except from straight behind. Such a hit is quite posible. First do most agree that the hit with say a orindary 6.5 mm would be fatal? If you agree that it would then you cannot argue against that a larger bullet at a similar velocity would do more damage! Do we agree so far? If we do then do we agree that the trailing of the animal in terms of distance due to blood loss and a easier to follow blood trail are all in favor of the larger bullet? That is the crux of the matter. It's the safety factor. The money in the bank. The back up. Like the famous author said "use enough gun" | ||
|
| one of us |
Don, You are basing your theory on the shooter making an error-like punching game through the hams with anything other than a "Texas heart shot". First,with as much as I don't like to use this word,unethical to make a shot like that.And no,it doesn't happen by "accident". Yup,I shot a buck in the ass like that once,and it was my own damn fault-I got in a hurry,and didn't take the time to try to tell if I was looking at the top of the bucks shoulders or his butt. Keep a cool head,place your shots where they are supposed to go (in front of the diaphraghm),and don't take "hail mary" shots,and any reasonable caliber will do the job. If you decide you don't want to pass up shots on game due to bad shot angles,by all means pack the biggest gun you can shoot adequetly. ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
Don, I think I will disagree with the caliber size hit in the hams, if no pelvic bone is shattered, he will go just as far with any caliber IMO. A high velocity 300 Wby may stop a deer quicker than a 458 or a 30-30 with that shot, and I think its probably too close to call because too many varible come into play and I think you know that. There may, in fact, be some difference but myh question I guess is: is it decernable. ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
Each game animal has a commonly accepted range of sporting cartridges with which it may be taken. Something in the middle both in calibre and bullet weight is hardly ever going to cause a problem. Something towards the end can cause problems but these may be offset WITH EXPERIENCE and indeed may even do a better job in certain circumstances. So the experienced hunter with a 6.5x55 that is used daily in his own country may do a better job with his own rifle loaded with 156gr Oryx or Swift than someone with a 338WM taken out once a year. He might also come unstuck due to local conditions he was unaware of eg boundary crossing, other hunters, range considerations, dangerous game etc etc. The perfect world is another identical rifle in form and function in a bigger calibre that is at the high end of acceptable in his own country with a similar trajectory which can be used regularly in his own country and about which there is no argument in the host country - enter the 9.3x62 with 232gr Oryx If I was invited to the US for elk I would dearly love to use my 6.5x55 - I'm certain I could make it work but I'm also certain that the locals have good reasons for not favouring it and even more certain that out hunting is not a place to try and prove something. [This message has been edited by 1894 (edited 05-20-2002).] | |||
|
| one of us |
Quoted from Donmartin29 on Strangest Thing thread:- I let a shot go from offhand and it looked good. Maybe a tiny bit high but on. The rifle was a 7mm Rem Mag so the recoil took me off of the target and when I looked I saw nothing. Don - do you not think you might have part answered your question? | |||
|
| one of us |
1894, Actually (referring to your post) the locals in Idaho would not think a thing about your using the 6.5 or any light caliber....they, mostly use the 270, 30-06, 308 etc. and still a number of 30-30's being used on elk. The local gun nuts use the magnum calibers, the 300 and 7 mag being the most popular... I'd say the 270 and 30-06 account for 50% or more of the elk shot in Idaho...just a guess. ------------------ | |||
|
| <Don Martin29> |
1894, I never had the ability to keep my shooting eye open after a shot. I can call a shot however but not long enough to see the bullet hit. I never even thought someone could see a bullet hit until a friend mentioned it when he said that he could see it hit from his standard weight .270 but not his light .358 Win. Now he is much bigger than normal at 6'3" and I am average size at 6' 185 lbs. I think it's our respective nervous systems however. But that's not what I ment when I said the deer was gone! It was walking at the limits of visibility and had reached a apex of distance to me also. So by good fortune I saw it in a opening as it was passing. I called the shot on but maybe a center hit in the ribs. Maybe the shot hit a twig or went high. The downward angle was about as steep as earth can get with out falling off of the rocks. It seems that with the deer coming back to me that the shot did go high and also there could be a echo with that land shape. I did not mention it but a similar thing happened within 50 yards of the same spot years ago. The rifle was a Ruger #1A in 7mm Rem Mag loaded with the 140 Sierra and a modest load. I would try to find the load but it was no more than what a .270 puts out. The rifle weighs 8 lbs with it's scope. So the recoil is about average. But I would not bet a million dollars on calling a shot with a #1. It has a slow lock time like the Mausers, MS's and many other rifles. They are no 700 Remington for sure. I hope I have explained to you that I called the shot before recoil took me off of the target. | ||
|
| one of us |
A lot of the Colorado natives use .30-30's for elk as well. I'm talking about the guys that have lived there their entire lives, not all the transplants such as myself. I once hit a Georgia whitetail on the left rear hip from a broadside shot with a .30-06. I hit a small one inch sapling about 15 feet in front of the deer which I believe threw off my shot. It left a nice blood trail with a few bone chips for about 100 feet, then nothing. Most people aren't saying a .30 caliber bullet is too small for Georgia whitetails but I still lost that deer. Found it a week later over 1/2 mile from where the blood trail ended. Bullet placement is everything. If you can't hit where you aim bullet size will make very little difference. A .22 to the head is more deadly/quicker than a .50 bmg to the hip! Not that I condone that type of shot but you get the idea. | |||
|
| one of us |
As a boy growing up and in old Mexico on a ranch for a time...I hunted deer for meat about as often as we could eat one...I used a Win. Mod 63 22 L.R. automatic...Two quick shots in the heart lung area from the saddle of my horse at 25 to 50 yds max and the deer never made over 50 yds. as I recall and most of the time just stood there for a bit and flopped over, as long as I was still...I never came close to losing one and many I just head shot. I killed a huge black bear with that same rifle with a head shot at 13 steps..that was a long time ago and what a wonderfull time it was. The bottom line is that any caliber is a deer gun if one modifies his hunting style to match his caliber... ------------------ | |||
|
One of Us |
Where does respect for our quarry and for the privelege of sport hunting enter in? I didn't have time to read all the posts on this thread right now--I'll do that later. If that has been addressed, then please accept my apology. Good Hunting, ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
quote: Yor right of course, but if you think about it the caribou is about the same as the Elk as far as bullet selection goes, and the inland grizzily is the same animal as the coastal brown bear, the Brown just being the bigist Grizzily. Alaska lists the two bears as the same animal. The Brown Bear is generally declared to be any grizzly from the coast to 50 miles inland, and the Inland grizzly from 50 mile from the coast inland, but both the same bear. The costal just gets a lot of protene rich salmon, while the inland grizzly has to work very hard to make a liveing on the tundra. I do find the inland grizzly, though smaller, are more aggressive than the browns as a rule. I hunt caribou with a 375 H&H, because where I hunt there is a large population of very large BROWN BEARS! The Grizzily (BROWN BEAR), and the polar are the only really dangerous game animals in North America, and do require some killing, on occasion! ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
quote: Thank God! ------------------ | |||
|
| One of Us |
quote:
I never had that ability either until I learned to shoot handguns. I started by putting a piece of Scotch tape on the lens of my non-shooting eye. After a few practice sessions, my brain ignored the extra rear sight and target, even with the tape off. Anyhow, I don't think many deer carcasses and skeletons you find in the woods are due to people using under-powered guns. In most cases, I think it was either bad shooting or (something I haven't seen mentioned on this thread) lazy hunting. If we could talk to the man who has all the answers, I would bet he'd say 90% of those deer didn't run 200 yards before they fell down and died. I think a lot of guys don't know enough or aren't motivated enough to do a decent job of tracking after they take the shot. H. C. [This message has been edited by HenryC470 (edited 05-23-2002).] | |||
|
one of us |
Read "Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter" by W.D.M. Bell. Granted, hunting conditions were different then, he was an exceptional marksman, etc. but his favorite rounds for elephant were 6.5 Mann, 7x57 & 318, including frontal brain shots. | |||
|
| one of us |
HenryC470, brings out a little talked about thing that I believe is far more prevelent than most would think, by even some who are guilty of it! The LAZY SHOOTER. I substituted "SHOOTER" for the word hunter, because, IMO this is one of the bigest reasons for lost, and wasted game. Some times forums like this one are to blame for this phenominon. You will always have a group on every one of these things that wants to brag about their 800 yds shots, with their Shortened, fattened, necked down to 13 caliber from a Browning 50 cal, shot out of a whiss bang push feed shooter, that will for sure get 18000 fps with a 23 gr bullet, that will shoot absolutely flat for a quarter mile, then start to rise! This does no harm to the veteren hunter,he can seperate the Bull shit from the real thing, but their are a lot of kids who read these posts, and the BS that is dumped on them only gives them a license to try the 800 yd shots on live animals, as long as they can buy those numbers they hear on the net. I have personally found deer, and Elk the next day after I saw somebody shoot at them from 600 yds away across canyons, and never go to the spot where the animal was standing. On one occasion I saw hair fly off an elk's belly side,on my side of the canyon, and the shooter looked with his binoculars for a few minutes, and went on his merry way. They didn't go because they gut shot the animal, and it didn't act like it had been hit. They gut shot the animal because they were shooting too far. This is the reason I call these guys shooters, and not hunters. A "HUNTER" first off, will not shoot farther than is necessary, and will always go to check for evidence of a hit, a shooter is only interested in his rifle, and to hell with the animal. So they go on their way, and probably shoot two or three more the same way, still going home empty. Too many blame the rifle,for this, when it is the rifleman that is guilty! Gentelmen, we owe the animals, we hunt, the courtesy of makeing clean kills, with as little pain to the animal as is possible. Additionally, we at least owe them a follow up after we shoot! The rifles you use are right if they are legal, but legal doesn't absolve you of your responsibility, to place your bullet right, and to finish the job you start. Just my $.02 ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
Don, to get back to your last question and set of circumstances, I do not agree with most of your premises. For example, If I were to take the walking away shot as you mentioned, which I would not because of the personal ethics involved, but if I did, I do not agree that the 150 grain bullet launched at the same speed as a 140 grain 6.5 bullet will do as well just because it has more frontal area. In fact just the opposite would be my choice because of the aforementioned sectional density. The 6.5 bullet would penetrate farther and therefore have a better chance of hitting the vital organs than the 308 bullet would. Would the 308 do more damage...possibly in terms of meat damage to the hams which would provide a better blood trail, but if the bullet stopped sooner because it looses energy faster and never hit a vital organ, you had better hope you hit the large artery in the leg or you have just done a big disservice in wounding the animal. For bad shots such as this one, I want the bullet that will penetrate the farthest and to equate to the 140 6.5 bullet you need to step up in grain weight to match the penetration ability or increase the velocity given similar bullet construction. If the question was 140 6.5 Failsafe or Partition or Barnes vs the 308 Sierra or Speer, there is no question in my mind which I would take this shot with and it will not be the 308 at the same speed. Again, sectional density is not everything, but with all else being relatively equal, I will take it over 44 thousanths of an inch in diameter. If you make that 308 bullet a 180 grain then the answer could be different. ------------------ | |||
|
| One of Us |
Larry, aren't you ignoring bullet performance...or at least assuming this performance is a function of SD? Let's rethink this and assume these two bullets have IDENTICAL performance when they hit the animal. If the bullets produce identical expansion, etc, then doesn't this get down to a decision whether you want a TINY bit more penetration with the 6.5 bullet (in theory at least) or do you want a slightly larger wound channel offered by the larger, heavier .30 cal bullet? Penetration doesn't do a lick of good if it doesn't chop some vital parts. By the way, I once had a mule deer buck do a fast 180 turn on me just as I fired. I was hunting with my 30/06 and for some bizarre reason 205 gr bullet. (Hornady I believe) The bullet hit the deer in the rump, totally penetrated the deer, chopped thru four ribs on the opposite side on it's way out and then blew off the opposite leg! Not trying to rain on your post here, just saying we need to compare apples to apples. | |||
|
One of Us |
Most here seem to agree that taking large game nessesitates a bullet large enough to make an "efficent" kill, but what about sub caliber loads on larger than varmint game? Say .20-.17 cal on game as large as perhaps a small black bear or a whitetail deer? Is this essentially the same question or is there a difference? Would there be a higher success ratio under these cirumstances as compared to, for instance, a 270 ww on dangerous game or no? | |||
|
| one of us |
Elk were nearly cleaned out once with 30-30s, now we're admonished not to use them. I dunno. Tom | |||
|
| one of us |
Pecos, given your EXACT performance criteria, I would still go with the bullet that penetrated the farthest and had the best potential to reach the vitals. The larger diameter bullet (308) may not penetrate as far as the higher SD bullet (264) and therefore may not have the opportunity to kill at all given the (poor) shot we are discussing. Again, I don't think there is that much difference between the 264, 284 and 308 bullets at the same speed anyway. I think they are all quite adequate for anything up to Moose, obviously. I also believe shot placement and waiting for the proper angle is also required. I am also old enough to not be too worried about trophies, so if I never got a broadside shot, or pretty close, on a 350" bull elk, I would pass it up at ant range. (I will admit a 60" Moose might get my attention). | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting "Small Caibers" Adequate For Big Tough Game? Yes Or No?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
