Big and Slow vs Small and Fast


PDA






ExAgoradzo
February 15, 2014, 01:18 AM
This is a real question: I'm not trying to start a fight.

Why do the big and slow guys think theirs is better than small and fast?

And, apart from trajectory, why do the S&F guys think theirs is better than the B&S?

If you get more lbs of energy on an animal with the S&F why would you want something big and slow.

Please educate me...:confused:

Greg

If you enjoyed reading about "Big and Slow vs Small and Fast" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Abel
February 15, 2014, 01:25 AM
Speed kills effectively, as does foot pounds and large holes. A 223 is plenty to kill deer, and a 45-70 is more than enough. I think that most folks can agree that somewhere in the middle is great. A 6.5mm on up through 7.62mm is a happy place for most applications.

WestKentucky
February 15, 2014, 01:31 AM
They each have their place. In situation A small and fast wins. In situation B big and slow wins. In situation can intermediate wins. In situation SHTF big and fast takes it.

Jackal
February 15, 2014, 01:44 AM
Would you rather be hit by a sports car doing 120mph or a freight truck going 60?

ugaarguy
February 15, 2014, 01:50 AM
These are very general terms, and there are plenty of exceptions, but:

Light and Fast tends to wound with hydrostatic shock and / or rapid, violent, expansion - fragmentation.

Heavy and Slow tends to wound with deep penetration from momentum, and doesn't need to expand as quickly because it's already starting at a large diameter.

Heavy and Fast does both, but heavy and fast equals huge amounts of energy, and that leads to very heavy recoil. So, heavy and fast hurts to shoot or requires a really heavy rifle to tame the recoil. Heavy and fast is also way too much for most game other than true dangerous game like heavy African animals, Alaskan / Western Canadian Brown Bear, and perhaps the biggest Alaskan moose. On the other hand, if you want to hunt big things like Elk at really long ranges, get a .50 BMG rifle, join the FCSA (Fifty Caliber Shooters Association), and go have fun.

d2wing
February 15, 2014, 02:06 AM
Oh gosh, this was settled over 100 years ago. Bigger and faster with proper bullet construction is better most of the time. Some jobs require fast accrate bullets with high energy like varmints. But big and slow is required for shotgun shooters and since some big cartridges will get the job done some guys like them. Cowboy shooters have boosted interest, history buffs and some of us just like old guns. Then there is the irrational idea that some moderate slow cartridges are anti tank guns and just right for Godzilla with bullet performance, the explosive power of high speed expanding bullets ignored. And thinking because a bullet makes a hole it kills.
In truth we need a lot less gun than we think. Russian hunters in Siberia, to my surprise carry SKS rifles in 7.62x39 and single shot shotguns. I would have guessed Mosins. They have the same brown bears as Alaska and they are plentiful. The Eskimos seem to favor AR rifles in .223 and shoot Brown and Polar bears with them as well as .243. In Africa the poachers kill a lot of elephants with AK-47s. SO shoot what you want. Just don't tell me your pistol cartridge the best cuse it ain't. That is my story and I am sticking to it.

d2wing
February 15, 2014, 02:14 AM
I wonder about the value of a large subsonic round. Just thinking so far. The idea that a large slow round penetrates without lots of tissue damage has got me thinking. Good for meat hunters if well placed at close range. But then that is what millions of shotgun hunters do each year.

murf
February 15, 2014, 02:50 AM
remaining energy at long distances. shooting varmints at 500 yards requires a bigger bullet to perform effectively.

murf

briansmithwins
February 15, 2014, 09:57 AM
The other thing fast gets you is better practical accuracy.

A flat trajectory makes range estimation much less critical. That slow, big slug and its rainbow trajectory require very good range estimation or misses high or low result.

BSW

Elkins45
February 15, 2014, 10:26 AM
Big and slow has the advantage of momentum, light and fast has kinetic energy. Momentum and a large diameter bullet makes a large diameter hole even if the bullet doesn't expand, and it will punch deep into the vitals or usually completely through. Light and fast can sometimes fail if the bullet fails to do the trick of imparting all that kinetic energy through expansion. So there's a simplicity advantage to big and slow. Historical evidence from the wholesale slaughter of the bison tells us a heavy 45 caliber bullet will kill a mighty big animal. I don't know that I would want to shoot a bison with my 257 Weatherby and a 90 grain GMX, but I would be much more willing to do so with my 444 Marlin and a 300 grain cast bullet.

On the other hand, last year I shot a doe at a measured 349 yards. I know I don't have the skills to calculate the considerable holdover needed to lob a slow mover across to the next hillside. With the 257 I just held dead on and the laser beam trajectory of a 3600 fps bullet meant it still landed in the vitals.

There are two distinct types of hunting on my farm: 75 yards visibility in the the deep woods or hillside to hillside sniping in the cleared pasture areas. For the deep woods you are likely to catch me with a 358 Winchester or 444 Marlin loaded with cast lead. For the pastures it will be a 257 Weatherby or 270 Win.

Horses for courses.

jmr40
February 15, 2014, 10:55 AM
Broken body parts are what kills game, and that means deeper penetration.

Back in black powder days all loads were essentially the same speed. The only way to increase a bullets penetration was to go heavier. The only way to make a round ball heavier, was to make it larger in diameter.

When gun makers figured out how to make conical bullets they could make them heavier by keeping the same diameter and making them longer. This placed all the weight in a smaller area and really increased penetration and bullets effectiveness. I'm not convinced that bullet diameter is all that important. It is just easier to get heavier bullets the larger you go in diameter. You can only make a bullet so long.

The invention of smokeless powder meant much faster speeds were possible.

Ever since smokeless powder became the norm calibers have gradually gotten smaller, but early bullet technology couldn't take advantage of the speed. Early small fast bullets worked fine on smaller game, but would often fall apart before adequate penetration was reached on larger game.That problem was largely solved by the 1940's, and bullets have only gotten better over the years. But hunters and shooters are a very traditional bunch and are often slow to accept new technology. Many guys today are still trying to solve 21st century problems with 1800's science and technology.

Large slow bullets work just as well as ever. The momentum of the heavier bullets will give good penetration to drive deep to vitals. What many fail to understand is that todays better small light bullets no longer break up and will penetrate just as deep and cause just as much damage. And do it with far flatter trajectory and less recoil. A modern 243 will do the damage of a 1920's era 30-06 load.

Both methods work just fine. Large and heavy works with old school technology, but with increased recoil and arched trajectory. Small and fast works just as well, but depends on modern technology and bullets that in rare cases fail to work as designed. Or are misused by shooters who don't fully understand how they are designed to work.

I'm not convinced the hydrostatic shock actually "kills" any faster with light fast bullets. I believe the shock may well stun an animal and cause it to drop to the ground faster, But don't think it dies any sooner. It is the effects of the internal damage that kills it.

stiab
February 15, 2014, 11:15 AM
If you get more lbs of energy on an animal with the S&F why would you want something big and slow.

I think you have gotten your answers already, but if you are going to eat what you shoot there is significantly less meat wasted with big and slow.

Nom de Forum
February 15, 2014, 11:35 AM
Why would anyone limit themselves to a choice of either one or the other when you can have both choices available with a .30-06?:D

Skribs
February 15, 2014, 11:43 AM
From a home defense perspective, there are many benefits to light-and-fast (and trajectory isn't even one of them):

Higher capacity
Lower recoil (faster follow-up shots and easier on the shoulder)
Less likely to overpenetrate through walls

Art Eatman
February 15, 2014, 11:53 AM
Let's don't go off-topic about self-defense. Irrelevant.

d2wing
February 15, 2014, 01:06 PM
Many here ignore the vast difference in wounds between slow and velocity expanding bullets. Hydrostatic shock or cavitation destroys much more tissue it can cause more damage to the cns. Shock radiates from the wound cavity instead of being confined to the wound channel and a small area close around it. This is a very well established fact. Those that only believe in penetration without radial damage do not shoot many critters with different guns and have no knowledge of accredited studies for over 100 years. A lot is said that has no basis in unbiased science. But if it works for you fine. Every type of animal has been killed with the old Black powder before high velocity was invented.

3212
February 15, 2014, 01:44 PM
I started out shooting deer with a 30-30 because its what I could afford. I used 170 grain bullets to take 16 deer.After 25 years I was offered a deal on a friends Model 70 in .243.I've taken about 50 with it.Heaviest deer with both rifles were about 150 lbs.I had deer that dropped with both rifles.But I have had a higher percentage of drop on the spot kills with the .243.

MCgunner
February 15, 2014, 01:52 PM
I like either approach, but the small/fast at short ranges in the woods where I'm hunting now seems un-necessary. .30-30s are more popular around here than .30-06s, hands down! I kinda like my 50 caliber Wolf 209 primed front stuffer. It kills like lightening under 100 yards putting up big numbers, 385 grain bullet at over 1800 fps and it's very accurate.

First deer I ever killed 50 years ago was done with a .257 Roberts and, truth be told, it's all I really ever needed, though I own other rifles. I shot one this year, with it, 50 years after the first. Did it just for the anniversary. :D Shot was 50 yards with a 100 grain Sierra game king to the shoulder, muzzle velocity 3150 fps. DRT, just like the big 50.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Use what floats your boat....I do. :D

Mike1234567
February 15, 2014, 02:46 PM
OT but "somewhat" related: Big Steel Telephone Pole Bunker Bomb (http://www.g2mil.com/meteor.htm)

ExAgoradzo
February 15, 2014, 03:08 PM
Thanks guys, some of these were very good answers: I appreciate the thoughtful responses.

I have both, but for the most part like my S&F because I don't take enough time/money to get good with my 45-70 for longer than MPBR shots. I take it that my lack of skill is my fault not the caliber/rifle.

The main reason I started this thread was because I've read (I'm sure you have too) posts that believe in some mojo in the B&S rounds that doesn't exist in the S&F. No one here seemed to put that, so I'll just stick with the common sense approach here. I guess we've all got our favorite beliefs in the mojo of our favorite round. Kinda like the .357 mag is the greatest pistol round of all time in every situation ;).

Thanks again,
Greg

Andrew Leigh
February 15, 2014, 03:18 PM
They all kill deer but I like to manage risk a little.

A lot of our shooting can be in very heavy brush to limit the effect of deflection slow and heavy has the edge. A lot of the bush shooting is sub 150yds so trajectory simply is not an issue.

I watch the boys with their .243's and .270 throwing more meat away than me, and as we pay for every thing we shoot the cost and time taken to butcher damaged meat is for me not worth it. We also pay full price for everything wounded and not recovered.

Some African antelope are notoriously tough and penetration is key.

I also like the knowledge that if the animal moves at the last minute and puts some heavy bone in the bullet path that I can smash through that as well and then get into the chest cavity.

It is also my personal experience that loads not at the max are more accurate in my rifles. Every time I have pushed the limit I tend to be all over the place the only exception is my .375 which is close to maxed out.

saturno_v
February 15, 2014, 06:47 PM
"Big & Slow" and "Small & Fast" as stand alone terms have no meaning whatsoever if we are not taking in consideration bullet construction, shape, SD and energy.

Mostly B&S and S&F are matter of opinion and preference too often with no real scientific/technical backing.

Hydrostatic shock has never been scientifically proven without doubt to contribute to quick death, small local hydrostatic shocks (and only in very high velocity rounds) have been observed, how they contributed to lethality is a very open question.

As we said in another thread before the only undisputable facts is that bullets kill destroying tissue along their path and penetrating enough to reach vital organs. The contributing factors are, bullet diameter, velocity/energy, bullet sectional density, shape and construction, all the rest is speculation.

Speed kills more indeed, all else being equal...nobody is going to dispute that a modern 45-70 loading at 2000 fps is more lethal than its original BP counterpart at 1300 fps, the first is considered a decent Arican load the second is not.

The real equation and question to think about is, when you fire a "big and slow" bullet compared to the "small and fast" in a specific scenario is what bullet is going to destroy more tissue and penetrate the most, the one that does that is the most lethal indeed.

So in that specific scenario if the small and fast bullet is going to espand to a larger diameter (sectional density constantly changes when a bullet expands) than the bigger pill and penetrates more, technically the small and fast is more lethal, period.


That said, finally, every shot at an animal is different and odd things happen sometimes.

Mike1234567
February 15, 2014, 07:10 PM
RE hydrostatic shock: What about blunt trauma to the chest? There's no hole and no blood... just a bruised and damaged nonfunctional heart.

What about severe trauma to the brain, i.g. concussion resulting in death? No hole and no blood... just bruised and nonfunctional brain.

Kidnies... lungs... liver...

stringnut
February 15, 2014, 07:30 PM
As has been pointed out tissue destruction is what makes the kill. You have to get a slug through to vital organs period. A big slug makes a big hole if of proper design. A flat nose, or, a bullet that expands a bit is a devastaing projectile. However, a large slow moving round nose that is too slow to expand doesn't do as much damage. Contrary to popular belief even fairly slow moving bullets cause some hydrostatic shock. Below a certain speed this goes away. Light and fast does cause more damage due to speed. Going too light can be a problem. Just because you can drive a 100 grain bullet out of a 30/06 at 3300 fps doesn't mean it is good for much. Even if made to big game standards it still will not penatrate very well due to lack of sectional density. The point of my ramblings is that you have to get a hole through something the animal can't live without. How you do it is up to you. Between family, friends, and personnel experiance I have seen or heard about several hundred big game animals being taken. All kinds of different calibers and slugs have been used. From this I have determined the old saying " it's where you hit them , not what you hit them with, that counts" is very true.

Mike1234567
February 15, 2014, 07:38 PM
A slow-moving knife or other stabbing instrument penetrates and a fast-moving hammer smashes and bruises vitals. Finding an effective balance is all that matters. IMO, something that penetrates "nearly" all the way through and explodes the vitals during its journey (the innards between the usable meat) is the ultimate.

ZeroJunk
February 15, 2014, 07:40 PM
I have killed several deer including my largest bucks with 250 Grain XTP hollow points going maybe 1500 FPS . They without exception ran 60 or 70 yards and dropped over dead.

Contrast that to several deer I have killed with a 150 grain Spire Points starting out at close to 3500 FPS and they fairly reliably drop deer dead in their tracks.

Both do the job.

saturno_v
February 15, 2014, 07:41 PM
RE hydrostatic shock: What about blunt trauma to the chest? There's no hole and no blood... just a bruised and damaged nonfunctional heart.

What about severe trauma to the brain, i.g. concussion resulting in death? No hole and no blood... just bruised and nonfunctional brain.

Kidnies... lungs... liver...



Yes, correct but blunt trauma has nothing to do with hydrostatic shock though....

Mike1234567
February 15, 2014, 07:48 PM
Yes, correct but blunt trauma has nothing to do with hydrostatic shock though....

I completely disagree. They are far too similar.

MCgunner
February 15, 2014, 10:08 PM
As has been pointed out tissue destruction is what makes the kill.

In part, but there's more to it than that. Don't care to go there. Everyone's a hard head on the subject, been there, done that.

saturno_v
February 15, 2014, 10:45 PM
I completely disagree. They are far too similar.


They may have similar visual effects (and I'm not sure about that either)
Hydrostatic shock is the theory that states that a high velocity projectile generating a ballistic pressure wave is going to quickly displace fluids in an organism and generating hemorraging and vessel bursting even at distance from the impact.


Taking a frying pan in your head (blunt trauma concussion) is totally different and it has nothing to do with hydrostatic shock.

stiab
February 16, 2014, 12:38 AM
Hydrostatic shock or cavitation destroys much more tissue
You are making my point for big and slow in post #12, if you are going to eat it, less meat is destroyed.

Andrew Leigh
February 16, 2014, 02:13 AM
There is no right or wrong answer. It is a philosophy that I believe one develops during the process of learning to hunt. Whatever camp you mentor was in he would have instructed you accordingly.

The two camps will never agree so we should get used to it.

I think that your type of hunting will also determine what your philosophy will be. You don't want to be shooting mountain goat at 500yds with huge bullet drop. Alternately you want a slow and heavy bullet when trying to interrupt the CNS of a charging Buffalo or Elephant (not that I have done this).

Bullet construction also should change ones philosophy. When we had non bonded soft points we shot those slow, to stop them disintegrating too much. We now have mono's that unless you chase the hell out of them will not deploy the petals, a little behind them are the other premium bullets. In this case you need to be conversant with your average hunting distance and load you bullets to a speed that will guarantee deployment of the petals / mushroom.

So there is no one definitive answer. One should plan the hunt, I load differently depending on where and what I hunt. You CAN, and in my opinion, and should do both. You DONT have to have your foot firmly planted in on or the other camp.

On my grandbuddies first hunt I loaded 120gr. Sierra Pro Hunters in the 6.5mm for the explicit reason that if they hit the engine room at 100m the Impala would drop in its tracks due to the fragmentation of the bullet. The strategy worked perfectly but I did cut away a lot of bruised meat. They wanted to shoot my 130gr. Accubonds that would whistle through at 100m and we would end up tracking due to their inexperience / poor shot placement / buck fever.

As a slow and heavy disciple this really was heresy in my books but the right thing to do. I am now considering Barnes for the 6.5mm specifically for long shots on Springbuck, another heresy :). These bullets I will chase accordingly.

Finally, the modern bullet allows us to increase speeds beyond what I would call necessary. Reloading techniques and software have also allowed us to push the limits and we now Ackley or Weatherby many calibres in the pursuit of speed while seldom will the average hunter shoot out past 200m. Again it is about fitness of purpose, if you are shooting at 400m at larger game then for example you may want to trade you 30-06 for a 300WinMag.

Choose the right calibre, bullet and load (speed) for the target species in question and then see if it falls into the "light and fast" or "slow and heavy". I think to start the other way around is wrong. Don't try turn your calibre into what it is not.

ExAgoradzo
February 16, 2014, 02:20 AM
Thank you Andrew.
Greg

T.R.
February 16, 2014, 10:18 AM
I've been deer hunting since 1970 and have taken many deer. I started out with a Winchester 30-30 and 170 grain ammo. I had no problems with this outfit. But in the late 1970's and all through the 80's I hunted with a Marlin 44MAG carbine. Shots were generally less than 100 yards. I loaded the Hornady 200 grain hollow tip because it produced the best accuracy with this rifle. Wound channels tended to be both wide and quite ghastly; the bullet was always found flattened out against the hide. In short, terminal performance was quite impressive.

In the 90's Dad and I hunted in western South Dakota nearly every year. I had good luck with my .308 and 150 grain ammo. Another very excellent rifle I use is a Remington in .243 with 95 grain bullets. Both are truly long range cartridges that hit hard and produce much chest organ damage.

So there you have it. From .243 to 44MAG, I've witnessed the performance of small vs large and fast vs moderate bullet impact speeds. The animals all died and none got away. Lethality is largely a matter of shooting the right bullet into the right spot. Diameter of the bullet before impact is irrelevant. But diameter of wound channel after impact is relevant.

TR

Art Eatman
February 16, 2014, 10:32 AM
Seems like they both work just fine. :)

ZeroJunk
February 16, 2014, 11:18 AM
The one in the middle is small and fast, the other two are big and slow.



http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn259/ZeroJunk1953/IMG_0544.jpg (http://s306.photobucket.com/user/ZeroJunk1953/media/IMG_0544.jpg.html)

critter
February 16, 2014, 01:51 PM
The two kill game in very different ways. Both work-WELL.

MCgunner
February 16, 2014, 10:30 PM
The two kill game in very different ways. Both work-WELL.

Yup...nuf said...

Corn-Picker
February 16, 2014, 11:40 PM
First, let me say that I believe when you select a new rifle the thought process should go something like this:

1) What rifle(s) fit your body and style?

This will limit the availability of calibers. Next question:

2) Do you reload?

If you don't reload, you should probably stick with a 308 or something equally ubiquitous, because IMO the ability to practice with 50 cents a round ammo will make you more effective than a few hundred FPS in a caliber you can't afford to practice with as much.

All that being said, if I could choose any caliber, I lean towards small and fast. There are several advantages:

Longer MPBR
Less lead on running game
More energy for a given recoil level
Ability to kill via hydrostatic shock

A big and slow bullet can kill in two ways:
1) Blood loss
2) CNS hits (e.g. you clip the spinal cord).

A small and fast bullet can kill by those two mechanisms, and it can also kill via hydrostatic shock. There are a lot of great references in the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock). To make a long story short, animals shot in the ass will have brain damage if the bullet is traveling fast enough, because the shock wave will cause damage very far from where the bullet hit.

The literature is in line with my anecdotal experiences, slow bullets will cause death, but they don't cause bang-flops (unless you hit the CNS). Fast bullets can cause bang-flops even when the CNS isn't directly hit.


Finally, is there any proof that bigger slower bullets are less affected by brush? I actually suspect that the opposite is true, and that smaller, faster moving bullets are less likely to be affected by brush. For one, they're less likely to hit brush (smaller cross section), and secondly, the object they are colliding with probably imparts less redirection energy to the bullet (because the material being hit is being deformed at a higher strain rate and therefore acts more like a brittle material than a plastic material).

Andrew Leigh
February 17, 2014, 02:55 AM
A good list but as number 1 I would have;

What do you intend shooting, without this calibre choice is difficult.

MCgunner
February 17, 2014, 09:40 AM
A big and slow bullet can kill in two ways:
1) Blood loss
2) CNS hits (e.g. you clip the spinal cord).

A...say .45-70, is big and slow, but it's still packing as much energy as a .308. It can kill via ballistic pressure wave considering the energies it's putting up. Velocity doesn't create the pressure wave, energy does. Makes no difference whether that energy comes from the mass of the bullet or the velocity squared.

If only one gun, I'd pick small and fast simply because it's more versatile. I't'll kill just fine in the woods and it will reach out 350-400 yards across that New Mexico canyon, something that's tough to do when you have to elevate 45 degrees and lob a 400 grain bullet like a howitzer.

Finally, is there any proof that bigger slower bullets are less affected by brush? I actually suspect that the opposite is true, and that smaller, faster moving bullets are less likely to be affected by brush. For one, they're less likely to hit brush (smaller cross section), and secondly, the object they are colliding with probably imparts less redirection energy to the bullet (because the material being hit is being deformed at a higher strain rate and therefore acts more like a brittle material than a plastic material).

I totally agree that I want a smaller, faster caliber in brush, but for the following reasons. Give me a very accurate flat shooting rifle to shoot between those branches. NO caliber can "buck brush". Once that bullet loses stability, it's going where the good Lord takes it. "Brush bucking calibers" are a myth. Even a shotgun slug can't plow through brush and hit anything beyond it.

Now, there's no reason, if the range is under 100 yards and the rifle is MOA accurate, that's I'd care what caliber I'm shooting for reasons of brush. But, the faster, better BC bullet will shoot straighter/flatter even at 200 yards. The idea is to not hit brush.

Loyalist Dave
February 17, 2014, 11:17 AM
This doesn't seem like a worthwile argument for either.

You need a load that will cause the projectile to deliver a fast acting, mortal wound. Period. Large and "slow" will do this, as will smaller, and faster....

IF there is sufficient accuracy. THIS is the key.

Once you have a load that will deliver the fast acting, mortal wound at X distance, for all rounds have a maximum, effective range..., you MUST be able to place the projectile into the animal where it will properly accomplish its task.

My antique tech, patched round ball, 225 grains and .530 diameter, launched at 1500 fps, will go through a deer broadside at 100 yards... and with my iron sighted rifle I can consistantly hit the deer in the heart lung region out to 100 yards. Down they go. It probably has enough energy to destroy both lungs and the heart in a deer out to 200 yards though won't exit the chest cavity, but I can't place a shot there at that range... so I will never know.

One can argue with me that their .223 Remington, or .308 Winchester, .30-06, .35 Whelan or what have you is "better" at 100 yards than my patched round ball..., but the deer fall over for me at my max range or less, the same as for those cartridges. Same results = moot point.

NOW..., say we're talking at an unknown distance... somewhere between 200 and 300 yards..., and add a scope, faster and lighter would be the way I would go. A nice 165 grain SBTHP from my .308 would be what I would use, for it would forgive a lot in my range estimation error, and the scope would vastly help me to place the shot, and I have a scoped rifle in that caliber and very accurate rounds for it.

These discussions, from what I have observed, often stem from some of us in the hunting community that try to make up for poor marksmanship with velocity. I have heard so called "experienced" hunters that swear a .30-30 or even a .30-06 "won't take deer", and a .300 Winmag or a .338 Winmag was needed, although the shots being discussed were no more than 100 yards in some places and no more than 300 yards in other places... clear, no brush, and in Pennsylvania vs. whitetails. :eek:

For whitetails:
My late grandpa loved his .30-30
My Dad loves his .30-30 but for pronghorn and elk out West, he used his .30-06.
One of my neighbors is an older fellow who loves his .44 mag, Ruger semi-auto.
Another neighbor swears by his .25-06, and another absolutely adores his .243.
One fellow at the gunshop loves his .270, and another won't use anything other than a .35 Whelen.
I don't use anthing other than my .54 flinter with a patched, round ball.

In EVERY CASE these fellows have found a rifle and cartridge load combination that is very accurate at the distances that they hunt. The most devastating round ever invented means nothing if you miss.

So while it might be interesting to discuss, bottom line if my rifle goes BANG and the deer falls down, and your rifle goes BANG and the deer falls down, we both have venison (and maybe a trophy mount) and a good story..., why is there an argument? :confused:

LD

3212
February 17, 2014, 01:01 PM
Well said.

buck460XVR
February 17, 2014, 04:24 PM
"Big & Slow" and "Small & Fast" as stand alone terms have no meaning whatsoever if we are not taking in consideration bullet construction, shape, SD and energy.

Mostly B&S and S&F are matter of opinion and preference too often with no real scientific/technical backing.

B&S and S&F are also relative terms. Not just because of the subjectivity of the user, but because of the different game they are used on. Whether one kills something deader than the other is also pretty subjective. Whether or not one or the other is more appropriate comes down to the individual hunter, his game and the way he hunts......not because it works better for someone else.

The one that always make me laugh is the guy who claims the 250 gr slug fired at 850fps from his .45 Colt revolver will pass completely from head to tail in a bull elk, but a 220 gr from a 30-06 will blow up without getting to the vitals.

Mike1234567
February 17, 2014, 05:42 PM
I suspect at least half the population much prefers B&S vs S&F.

MCgunner
February 17, 2014, 06:49 PM
I suspect at least half the population much prefers B&S vs S&F.

Really? Maybe if you consider the .30-30 "B & S". It's neither big, nor REAL slow. :D .270, .30-06, .25-06, .243 even .22-250 are quite popular for hunting deer in Texas. I don't even know anyone that uses a .45-70. Knew one guy that used a .44 mag carbine. But, I know of no polls and I suspect the .30-30 rules the woods of the east more so than in Texas.

ZeroJunk
February 17, 2014, 07:04 PM
I suspect at least half the population much prefers B&S vs S&F.

Luckily many have never tried B&S.

BigBore44
February 17, 2014, 09:20 PM
It also remains unspecified what the determining factors are for B&S and S&F. Of course I would consider my 405 gr hardcasts at ~1500 fps B&S. But I don't consider my .30 180 gr psp's at ~2700 fps S&F.

It still (as has been stated) comes down to the game pursued, shooter, and bullet selection. Preference in a particular cartridge is just that. Preference. I'm strictly speaking for game like whitetail, muleys, hogs, elk, and moose. None of those animals require any cartridge with the name "magnum" to take effectively. But, the "magnums" will do the job just as well. Just at a greater expense to the shooter.

stressed
February 17, 2014, 09:26 PM
Funny I'm reading this. I just posted a thread where I believe there is hydrostatic damage done to the lungs from a high velocity bullet. Big and slow is recipe for maximum penetration. It depends on what you are shooting as well. I like both. They have different purposes.

Example in 9mm, you can get a +P 50 grain fragmenting round at over 2000 FPS, or a 158 grain FMJ at under 1000 FPS.

d2wing
February 17, 2014, 10:05 PM
It is untrue that velocity doesn't matter. Many studies show that velocities over 1000 fps wound more than those under. When tissue cannot expand or compress as fast as the bullet a pressure wave builds up. There is a much bigger threshold at 2500 FPS when a high pressure shock wave radiates from the bullet. Also the higher the bullet speed the more drag as tissue cannot be displaced faster than the bullet moves. Thus creating a shock wave and more tissue destruction. There have been many studies that show this and so far facts are still facts, myths are still myths. The reason slow bullets penetrate so well is that at slow speeds tissue can more easily be displaced and stretched so tissue damage is localized and the bullet slides through doing less damage.
That said caliber doesn't matter much compared to shot placement.

jgh4445
February 17, 2014, 11:08 PM
What was a decent African load in 1875?

MCgunner
February 17, 2014, 11:29 PM
It is untrue that velocity doesn't matter. Many studies show that velocities over 1000 fps wound more than those under. When tissue cannot expand or compress as fast as the bullet a pressure wave builds up. There is a much bigger threshold at 2500 FPS when a high pressure shock wave radiates from the bullet. Also the higher the bullet speed the more drag as tissue cannot be displaced faster than the bullet moves. Thus creating a shock wave and more tissue destruction. There have been many studies that show this and so far facts are still facts, myths are still myths. The reason slow bullets penetrate so well is that at slow speeds tissue can more easily be displaced and stretched so tissue damage is localized and the bullet slides through doing less damage.
That said caliber doesn't matter much compared to shot placement.

Let me guess, you're a .45ACP fanatic?

jgh4445
February 18, 2014, 09:16 AM
No, I just look at the fact that Russians and a lot of Alaskan Natives shoot almost everything with a 7.62, or a .223. I look at the idea that the 30.30 has probably killed more game than any modern caliber, I guess cause there were so many folks hunting with them. I look at the pure fact that for 300 years flintlocks ruled in war and game taking. I know that in Africa black powder killed more animals than anything cause for so long it was all that was available. I think black powder reigned for a longer period of time than smokeless has even been available. I guess the point is, until we invented sports writers and marketing, the best gun for a particular game was whatever you had in your hand at the time the game animal chose to wander into your sights. You are very right in that shot placement is the most important aspect of killing game, not caliber or speed.

skoro
February 18, 2014, 11:20 AM
If you get more lbs of energy on an animal with the S&F why would you want something big and slow.

Please educate me...

Short answer: energy isn't the best measure for terminal performance. Momentum is better, but it's a considerably smaller number for all calibers, so it isn't favored by marketeers and thus is rarely published and readily available. It gives equal weight to mass and velocity, whereas energy gives a much greater emphasis to velocity and lessens the contribution of mass.

ExAgoradzo
February 18, 2014, 12:26 PM
Skoro
Isn't momentum another way of saying energy?

I appreciate this idea of penetration, and I may be overthinking this one, but if I've got an SPBT hitting real fast it makes sense that even as it opens it will still 'cut' better than a chunk of lead with a giant meplat.

Again, I'm wanting to learn here not argue...
Greg

d2wing
February 18, 2014, 02:43 PM
The momentum theory has no basis in actual science. It is another pet idea of poeple that make stuff up. It is like the penetration myth which means a bullet did not hit hard enough to expand or create shock due to drag. Try hitting water with a flat paddle hard. You can break a paddle that way. Then shove it in slowly. That is the difference. But, as jgh4445 said we are pretty much overgunned with any modern cartridge comparedj to our forebears that did more with less. Yes I actually do like the the 45 ACP. I never said the big and slow doesn't have it's place. It is great for pistols since they aren't going to be fast enough for cavitation anyway.

Mike1234567
February 18, 2014, 03:11 PM
Penetrate to the "appropriate depth" and no/little more... cause the most damage to the unused/wasted vitals via expansion/fragmentation and hydrostatic shock during that process. It's "both" depending on the size and toughness of the game. I've no practical experience but I tend to be logical. Of course, there's leeway and error either direction but reasonable logic should be considered. IMO, an "average middle ground" should be used.

ZeroJunk
February 18, 2014, 04:51 PM
Momentum is no theory it is a law. If the bullet had no momentum it would fall straight to the ground when it fell out of the barrel.

saturno_v
February 18, 2014, 05:19 PM
Momentum is no theory it is a law

Linear momentum alone does to mean anything in terms of a bullet capability to penetrate and destroy..energy, sectional density, bullet construction and shape plays a role.

d2wing
February 19, 2014, 12:40 PM
No comment

JJHACK
February 19, 2014, 03:03 PM
These are always interesting conversations. Many with theories have no mathematical background to back up opinions. However that stops nobody from having an opinion!

Muzzle Energy is a measure of energy, but not fully applicable to a bullets performance on tissue. So those using it as a reference are factually handicapped in the discussion. It was a SAAMI design to compare cartridges against each other, not on the tissue of game animals.

A rifle that has 3000 FPE cannot move 3000lbs. It's simply a formula that puts the priority of the result in velocity, not the weight of the projectile. Velocity is squared in the formula not weight. Velocity squared times bullet weight divided by 450240

Momentum is Mass times velocity, As an example:

180 grain bullet ( mass), times 3000fps ( velocity) = 540,000 divided by 7000 (7000grains in a pound) = 77.1lbs of momentum or impact force.

That means that the bullet would actually move anything lighter then 77.1 pounds upon impact. It's why 3000FPE cannot move a deer, or any living big game from impact. No shoulder fired arm can shoot a projectile that will lift a big game animal off it's feet. Those who claim so have seen an animal jump at impact but they have not seen a big game animal thrown from impact.

So that this math riddle is cleared up for the basics. What does matter speed or diameter? Really depends upon the species. I've never seen a Cape Buffalo, rhino, hippo, elephant, bison, wild cattle, Giraffe, impressed with velocity. They do however show a significant respect for bullet weight and diameter.

Two different things cannot occupy the same place at the same time. This is what causes so much trauma when very high velocity impacts something small or fragile. When the High Velocity bullet impacts a coyote for example. The tissue moves out of the path at nearly the speed of the projectile. The cavity will stress the surrounding tissue as it's compressed against the outer hide. Many times this hide will rupture and leave you with the exploded coyote or other small creature. As body mass increases the hide can contain the rapidly expanding tissue and hold it together. This compresses the tissue into a huge hematoma. Or what folks refer to as blood shot meat.

On very large animals, the tissue or muscle density can contain this rapid expansion to the local region and reduce the trauma to only a small area. It's why the bigger species do not realize the same trauma from High Velocity as the smaller Species do. Its about body mass. Hence the reason for large heavy projectiles in Africa back in the day. It was recognised that deep penetration was the ticket to success. Those 500 grain and 700 grain bullets would drive deep into and often out of anything in it's path.

Using the momentum formula for my 458 Lott

500 x 2350= 1175000 (divided by 7000 grains in a pound) 167 pounds of momentum on the surface of a .458 diameter bullet. You can probably envision the amount of penetration this would have.


Now there is very good news here in all of this. The decision for HV or heavy weight is coming to a very good compromise with todays monolithic projectiles. Penetration can be achieved with lighter bullets that retain all their weight and still expand.

in the late 50's when the 300 win mag was introduced it was to be the king of all hunting cartridges on earth! Every single writer, outfitter, guide, and Professional hunter was very impressed and believed this cartridge to be the apex of ballistics engineering for the big game hunter.

The cartridge could shoot a 180 bullet at 3100fps. This was a massive lethal combination. But lets think about this. Upon impact the bullet would go to pieces. The cup and core technology was not in step with the case capacity that provided the extreme velocity. How could any manufacturer produce a different bullet when the same one needed to be used in the 30/06 with a much lower speed. With 1000's of 30/06 rifles to every new 300 win mag, nobody was going to make their bullets just for the 300 win mag speeds! Nosler Partitions were made which helped quite a bit, but even so they still lost half the weight/ mass and were better, but not good enough to make use of the 3100fps speeds.

Today, a 30/06 with modern rifles, modern powders and the monolithic bullets, like the TSX far exceed the lethal performance of the 300 Winchester Magnum of the 60's.

The 30/06 today shooting a 165 grain bullet at 2950 on paper is not better. However in practice this bullet retains all its weight upon impact. So thinking back to the momentum calculation which will penetrate better?

165 grains or the crumbled mass of the cup and core bullet which may be at 90 grains after impact if it's lucky? More likely there would be many pieces in the 25-40 grain weight

I guess the real answer to this question is not whether faster or heavier is best. But rather which retains it's weight better when the projectile comes to rest.

d2wing
February 19, 2014, 08:02 PM
JJ, you do realize that while that formula is useful, it is not scientific for terminal ballistics. Momentum is not used to determine ballistic effects by any accredited scientist. However it is a useful shorthand used by some to discuss stuff just like this.

BigBore44
February 20, 2014, 03:07 PM
^^Ok, so while it doesn't scientifically explain terminal ballistics, JJ's explanation is so far the most detailed answer we've been given in the whole thread. Considering the huge amount of variables associated with all the different shot angles taken at all the different varieties of game, that have so many different densities of meat and bone, it seems pretty difficult to give a "Right" answer. Energy, velocity, momentum, bullet material construction, bullet weight, bullet diameter, type of bullet, type of game, angle of shot taken on said game, all play a role.

Another member on here (he has a sticky thread about feral hogs) went from using a 7-08 for hogs to a .458 Socom. Why? Because he wanted to be able to shoot them from any angle and still get effective kills. Big and slow allows the shooter more shot angles without fear of lack of penetration to the vitals or CNS and doesn't tear up as much meat. You also have to be a more skilled hunter to use big and slow. Or be really skilled and hunt with stick and string.

MCgunner
February 20, 2014, 03:24 PM
Here, plenty of science to read in this link. I'm not expert, but these guys are.

http://ballisticstestinggroup.org/woundballistics.html

For as hunting goes, I have few biases, just use a tool that works if I put it where it CAN work. Old school black powder to .25 caliber screamers, I find they both work pretty danged well. The biggest advantage to S&F is range.

MCgunner
February 20, 2014, 03:34 PM
BTW, .458 SOCOM is a way to make an AR a bit less worthless. I'd rather shoot hog with a high powered rifle. If I want firepower, how about an M1A? Pricey, though. I do have a Hakim I could rig for night hunting, 11 rounds of 8x57 Mauser fast as I can pull the trigger. Never shot anything, but paper with it, but it does have POWER and firepower. Kinda reminds me of a semi-auto BAR, heavy, long, powerful full battle cartridge.

d2wing
February 20, 2014, 04:03 PM
Agreed Bigbore. Either work well depending on knowing the strength and limitations of each.
I used to think the big and slow was totally obsolete but through these discussions and data
From various sources I see that it has it's uses. Especially if you cast and roll your own,
Now that I understand the dynamics of penetration. As you said, accurate bullet placement is critical but then it is with all calibers.
I always said bigger and faster is better. But I see that not all that fast can be good in the right circumstances. Please consider that my opinions are colored by my affection for Ma Duece. The .50 cal machine gun from action in Vietnam.

BigBore44
February 21, 2014, 04:15 AM
MC,
I hope the AR guys don't read that comment lol. This thread will go off topic and be closed in short order. And FYI, I do have a SA M1A. It's topped with a nice VXII and Harris Bipod (Not on top though. Kinda pointless to have a bipod on top of your gun). Plenty of firepower for anything round these parts. But shooting animals at 200, 300, or even 400 yards isn't fun or a challenge. I'm more of an "up close and personal" kinda hunter. In my last 6 years of hunting, I haven't shot an animal past 47 yards. Even with my rifle(s) (2 deer in 6 years not taken by archery).

My point about being a B&S fan is not to downplay high power S&F cartridges. It's merely to state that both have their "fans and fanatics" for good reasons. S&F has the advantage of not having high "hold over" on longer shots. And given a well placed broadside shot at those longer distances with the proper bullet, S&F= Dead critter. B&S doesn't have that advantage. But it has an already large wound channel (due to initial bullet diameter) and "great penetration from most any angle" advantage. And within the B&S's range (again with proper bullets) size, thickness, of animal doesn't really matter. Please don't bring up a texas heart shot on a rhino, or elephant. Those aren't realistic hunting scenarios.

B&S "typically" means you have to get much closer to your game. S&F (DRASTICALLY) tipped the "advantage" scale to the hunter. I prefer a more even playing field.

"Me against Mother Nature" doesn't take place at 300-400 yards.

BigBore44
February 21, 2014, 05:01 AM
d2wing,
Obsolete should never be because there is something "better". Is the .22, .243, 25-06, 7-08, .308, or 30-06 "obsolete" because of the invention of the magnum cartridges? I think not.

My B&S cartridge is, wait for it, a 45-70. Wasn't that a shocking revelation? I didn't know much anything about the cartridge when I had the rifle given to me 5 years ago. But when I started reading and reloading, it opened my eyes to what I really had.

Art Eatman
February 21, 2014, 11:48 AM
Back when I was a kid, my mother had a square-faced hammer in the kitchen. Had blunt teeth on the face, maybe a pattern of 4x4 or maybe more. Anyhow, she'd buy cheap round steak and then beat on it to tenderize it.

Lotsa threads remind me of that. :D

Reckon this thread is tender enough, yet? :D

buck460XVR
February 21, 2014, 01:07 PM
Back when I was a kid, my mother had a square-faced hammer in the kitchen. Had blunt teeth on the face, maybe a pattern of 4x4 or maybe more. Anyhow, she'd buy cheap round steak and then beat on it to tenderize it.


Just used one of those the other night Art while preparing Pheasant for stir fry. Not really to tenderize it, but to make sure there was no pellets left in the meat.

As for the thread....lot more civil than I imagined it would be as compared to most this vs that threads.

KC45
February 21, 2014, 01:58 PM
Big and slow works and small and fast works too.
Small and slow doesn't work.

rbernie
February 21, 2014, 02:46 PM
Back when I was a kid, my mother had a square-faced hammer in the kitchen. Had blunt teeth on the face, maybe a pattern of 4x4 or maybe more. Anyhow, she'd buy cheap round steak and then beat on it to tenderize it.
So - does that count as big-n-slow or small-n-fast? :evil:

BigBore44
February 21, 2014, 08:13 PM
^^Depends on what type of metal the hammer was made out of and if Art had been a good boy that day:neener:

sage5907
February 22, 2014, 03:58 PM
Nom De Forum quote: "Why would anyone limit themselves to a choice of either one or the other when you can have both choices available with a .30-06?"

Best answer so far. All you have to do is listen to a 165 grain bullet hit a deer in the shoulder and you understand the killing power of a bullet going 2,850 fps and penetrating completely through the animal, breaking the shoulder and ending up against the far skin. It's a big whap and dead right there!

JJHACK
February 22, 2014, 05:54 PM
Sage, there is a very good reason we use 30/06 rifles with 165gr TSX bullets in Africa for our loaner rifles.

My personal 30/06 used by clients has cleanly harvested well over 1000 big game around the world. I can count on one hand those lost in 20 years. Everyone of those was hit poorly though. Not the fault of the gun or bullet.

Under 500 yards there is no reason in my experience to shoot anything more powerful. Unless dangerous game is on the agenda. It's a pussy cat to shoot so practice is easy.

I have had 10 year old boys use it, 110 lb ladies, an 80 year old man, 16 year old girls. It's an old boring un-exciting bland lethal accurate killer.

No superpower, no glitter, no fancy name or belted cartridge. Just does exactly what you expect of a hunting rifle.

Oh yeah...... You can find ammo just about anyplace on earth as well, even in the most remote non English speaking corners of this planet.

Art Eatman
February 22, 2014, 09:21 PM
'06? http://dvc.org.uk/jeff/jeff4_13.html

Scroll down to the poem. :)

BigBore44
February 22, 2014, 11:22 PM
^^Nice poem Art. Thanks. Quite true.

twofifty
February 23, 2014, 12:22 AM
Worthwhile thread!

MCgunner
February 25, 2014, 10:36 AM
Well, .30-06 rhymes better than .257 Roberts...what I got from my grandpa. :D

One of my mama's favorite old wisdoms was "there's more'n one way to skin a cat."

Nom de Forum
February 25, 2014, 12:15 PM
It is almost a constant of the Universe that given enough discussion of a rifle/cartridge selection question, the .30-06 is often agreed upon as one of the best answers and often THE BEST ANSWER.

Here is just a quick and dirty posting of a link that partially explains why:

http://www.ballistics101.com/30-06_Springfield.php

The size and velocity range shown on this link incompletely illustrates what is perhaps the greatest range of weight/velocity of any commonly available commercial rifle cartridge:

112gr. @ 3650fps / 220gr @ 2410fps

It is an incomplete list because loadings lighter than 112gr. and heavier than 220gr. are out there.

AKElroy
February 25, 2014, 04:35 PM
My 12 year old is obsessed with this topic. He is always asking me which is "more powerful", IE: 45-70 vs a .243, or any and all other comparisons imaginable. Usually the answer is fairly apparent, but in the example listed, not so much.

How do we measure "power"? Is is ft. Lbs of energy at the muzzle? That's a "per square inch" measurement. The .243 wins, right? Not so fast; the 405 gr flat nose has nearly twice the frontal area to impart that energy.

But wait, the .243 shooting a properly mushrooming 100 gr. projectile may likewise expand to 1/2", so it is more powerful.

But wait, what about those extra 305 grains? That has to count for something. Surely there is a concrete measurement for "knock-down power"?

But wait, that .243 is hustling way yonder twice as fast, think of all that hydrostatic damage! But what if it fails to penetrate given the quick loss of momentum being so much lighter?

But wait, how can anyone hit anything at more than 10 yards with a basketball sized projectile barley falling from the barrel?

But wait, long-distance shooters are still setting records with the good oi' sharps rifle in .45-70.

I remain confused. Oh yea, Eskimos are still killing polar bears with .243's. What a screwed up world.

So "daddy, which one is the most powerful?" Heck if I know, kid.

BigBore44
February 25, 2014, 07:34 PM
^^AKElroy Lol. Gotta love kids. I think it depends on how you define power. Is it tissue damage, or penetration? You have a great opportunity to have a very informative discussion with your son. Ask him which he he thinks is the determining factor. Then the answer is cut and dry. But be sure to explain the pros and cons of both and how both are important. And explain that neither one can make up for a poorly placed shot.

JJHACK
February 25, 2014, 07:59 PM
It's kinda like a screw driver

The bigger the phillips head and the longer the shaft the more torque you can apply to the head.

However it does not fit all the Phillips heads so even with all the power it's not gonna help you. You need the right size to do the job.

A 375HH shooting a 300 grain solid at 2650fps max load will deliver 4679 fpe

A 243 shooting a 100 grain Ballistic tip at 2800fps delivers 1741 FPE

Now shoot a 125 pound antelope, or white tail deer clean through the lungs with each one. What happens?

With the 4679FPE 300 grain solid bullet, the antelope or deer runs 80-100 yards and dies someplace in the bush. Get your tracking shoes on. The bullet zips right through with the animal not really understanding that it has been shot, and with almost no "explosive" terminal damage at that instant. The perforation will cause it to slowly drown in it's own blood over a minute or so.

With the 100 grain 1741 FPE .243 soft ballistic tipped bullet the deer will die in a few steps with everything inside now being a big bubbling mass of purple bloody goo.

Which one has more power?

Gotta use the right screw driver

AKElroy
February 25, 2014, 10:07 PM
Then the answer is cut and dry.

Really? 4 pages and I don't see cut and dried. I read a lot, and I get the numbers behind ballistic coefficients, muzzle energy, sectional density, on and on. It all goes out the window when hammering a gong at 80 yards with that big loafing 405gr slug vs. a .243. There is more to assigning power than simple math; there are variables at play that vastly effect the definition of "power" that go beyond the numbers on a page.

To quote the great western philosopher Rango, "It's.......a complicated."

MCgunner
February 25, 2014, 10:51 PM
MC,
I hope the AR guys don't read that comment lol. This thread will go off topic and be closed in short order. And FYI, I do have a SA M1A. It's topped with a nice VXII and Harris Bipod (Not on top though. Kinda pointless to have a bipod on top of your gun). Plenty of firepower for anything round these parts. But shooting animals at 200, 300, or even 400 yards isn't fun or a challenge. I'm more of an "up close and personal" kinda hunter. In my last 6 years of hunting, I haven't shot an animal past 47 yards. Even with my rifle(s) (2 deer in 6 years not taken by archery).

My point about being a B&S fan is not to downplay high power S&F cartridges. It's merely to state that both have their "fans and fanatics" for good reasons. S&F has the advantage of not having high "hold over" on longer shots. And given a well placed broadside shot at those longer distances with the proper bullet, S&F= Dead critter. B&S doesn't have that advantage. But it has an already large wound channel (due to initial bullet diameter) and "great penetration from most any angle" advantage. And within the B&S's range (again with proper bullets) size, thickness, of animal doesn't really matter. Please don't bring up a texas heart shot on a rhino, or elephant. Those aren't realistic hunting scenarios.

B&S "typically" means you have to get much closer to your game. S&F (DRASTICALLY) tipped the "advantage" scale to the hunter. I prefer a more even playing field.

"Me against Mother Nature" doesn't take place at 300-400 yards.

Oh, I hear ya, sorta why I like muzzle loading and, if I could see worth a toot in my right eye, archery. Of course, archery offers early season hunting when the deer ain't so wise to hunters in the woods. I've about decided to buy a crossbow and top it with a low power scope. Now, that's legal in Texas and would keep me from wounding a buck because I can't see those damned pins in the shadows of the woods with my worthless right eye. I would shoot the crossbow left handed like I do my rifles and shotguns, not something I can do with a bow. I'd put my good eye behind that scope.

Anyway, I just never got into cartridge black powder. I prefer the front stuffer, one shot counts or go home empty approach. I class a 50 cal front stuffer as "big and slow". :D It'll kill anything a 50-90 sharps will kill just as dead.

Here ya go, big enough? :D ......

http://i46.tinypic.com/14l26ac.jpg



I do have a Hakim I could rig for night hunting, 11 rounds of 8x57 Mauser fast as I can pull the trigger. Never shot anything, but paper with it,

I need to amend this. This weekend I attended a Taurusarmed.net Texas meet up. One of the things we shot was an old computer. I went to town on it with that Hakim and some old surplus ammo. :D They have something against computers I suppose, blew one up with Tannerite. AND, there was a full auto...select fire....Class 3 M14 there. The tacticool AR kids were droolin'. LOL!

AND, I shot that computer with my Hawken a couple of times just to put 50 caliber holes in it. :D

BigBore44
February 26, 2014, 12:04 AM
AKElroy,
There is no one that can legitimately argue that a 100 gr. psp .243 at ~4000 fps will penetrate into an animal farther than a 405 gr. hardcast at ~1400 fps will. Penetrate enough? Sure. But farther? No. And a 405 gr hardcast will not create the hydrostatic shock/pressure wave that the 100 gr. 243 will. They are two different "screwdrivers".

AKElroy
February 26, 2014, 12:26 AM
AKElroy,
There is no one that can legitimately argue that a 100 gr. psp .243 at ~4000 fps will penetrate into an animal farther than a 405 gr. hardcast at ~1400 fps will. Penetrate enough? Sure. But farther? No. And a 405 gr hardcast will not create the hydrostatic shock/pressure wave that the 100 gr. 243 will. They are two different "screwdrivers".


I'm not making that argument, good buddy. I have a safe full of mostly light and fast rigs, but lately I've come to prefer my .30-30, which is in a new category of being neither heavy and slow or light and fast. It seems to kill a bunch of stuff for me, so I don't dwell on it much.

I just find it interesting that regardless of what the math may say, nothing bangs and rocks that 80 yard gong like that hard cast 405. I don't own one, but I hope to remedy that soon enough. Until then, I'll just keep watching Hickok45 do his thing on YouTube with that guide gun. Ooh, except for those 1,000 grain fosters....

BigBore44
February 26, 2014, 12:36 AM
AKElroy,
I completely agree. And you have a great round in the 30-30. If I didn't have my 45-70, I would probably own a 30-30. But yes, there is a BIG difference in hitting a gong with a .243 (ting...) and a 405 hardcast (CLANG!!!!!)

Don't just watch Hickok45, bite the bullet and go get a "poor mans" big bore. You won't regret it. But don't get rid of that 30-30. It's perfect for your son.

AKElroy
February 26, 2014, 12:44 AM
Don't just watch Hickok45, bite the bullet and go get a "poor mans" big bore. You won't regret it. But don't get rid of that 30-30. It's perfect for your son.

He has his own model 94, and will one day have 3 more .30 WCF's, including my 336. They have been multiplying. I check all the usual on-line haunts for a clean pre-rem guide gun from time to time. Prices are pretty steep for clean examples, so I'm too sure the "poor mans" big bore still applies........

BigBore44
February 26, 2014, 12:56 AM
Remember, they don't make them anymore and odds are they aren't ever going to get cheaper. Think about how long you've had your other rifles. The great thing about quality firearms is they rarely lose value if maintained properly. Pre '64 Winchesters for example. A pre-Rem Marlin will likely go a similar route. But, I don't own guns for value. I own them to shoot them. That's where the value lies for me. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, I will have that gun, and my S&F guns till my last day.

MCgunner
February 26, 2014, 11:11 AM
I completely agree. And you have a great round in the 30-30. If I didn't have my 45-70, I would probably own a 30-30. But yes, there is a BIG difference in hitting a gong with a .243 (ting...) and a 405 hardcast (CLANG!!!!!)

That's called momentum, what you want playing games that involve knocking over steel. But, deer aren't made of steel plate. Still, a 45/70 makes upwards of nearly 3000 ft lbs with a good load in a strong rifle. Just keep it within your range, which might not include 400 yard shot across canyons in New Mexico, and you'll be fine. BUT, that don't mean my .257 Roberts will bounce off a deer. It's killed dozens over the years for me and quite a few for my Grandpa before that, with a lowly 100 to 117 grain bullet pushing over 3000 fps in either case. It's a 1/2 MOA gun and I can put it where it counts with no shoulder bruising as a bonus.

Again, more'n one way to skin that cat.

BigBore44
February 26, 2014, 11:11 PM
MC,
Absolutely agree. Deer aren't armor plated animals that need magnum AP rounds any more than a hog do. "Preference" and "Proficiency" are all it takes.

gamestalker
February 27, 2014, 01:08 AM
If fast and flat is necessary, such as hunting for game or in terrain where the likely shot will be beyond 300 yds., I will use lots of slow burning powder, and a mid weight bullet from a 7 mag or similar capable cartridge. For instance, antelope hunting has put me in shots that range out to 600 yds. +, so shooting my 7 mag I will run with a 120 gr. bullet at 3400 fps..

OTOH, if hunting elk, bear, or similar game, and the projected shots will be under 200 yds., I would probably go with a 7 mag and a 168 gr. pushed with as much velocity as I can, and a super good bullet capable of sticking together at 3000 fps. while penetrating heavy bone. And a better option at least in my opinion, is a 338 WM with a big heavy bullet. That combination right there can actually fill the bill for long shots as well though, considering.

In conclusion, I guess I'm a high velocity freak, per say, cause I just don't care for the really big, really slow cartridges. If I were hunting in Africa I could see the need for big and slow, but here in NA I just don't see the need to reduce my options to one or the other. I'm the guy who will argue that the 7 mag will effectively handle anything on this continent, with the right load. And better yet, a 338 WM or like, will definitely perform well for any conditions in America, long shots as far as one can take, and up close and personal if need be, and I wouldn't ever feel under gunned.

GS

peacebutready
February 27, 2014, 01:24 AM
In truth we need a lot less gun than we think. Russian hunters in Siberia, to my surprise carry SKS rifles in 7.62x39 and single shot shotguns. I would have guessed Mosins. They have the same brown bears as Alaska and they are plentiful. The Eskimos seem to favor AR rifles in .223 and shoot Brown and Polar bears with them as well as .243. In Africa the poachers kill a lot of elephants with AK-47s. SO shoot what you want. Just don't tell me your pistol cartridge the best cuse it ain't. That is my story and I am sticking to it.

There's a .223 soft point that will penetrate enough for brown and polar bears?

Taking elephants with the 7.62x39 seems inhumane but I guess the poachers don't care.

BigBore44
February 27, 2014, 02:33 AM
peacebutready,
Yes, a FMJ .223 will penetrate a bears skull. Through the ear, base of the skull.

Art Eatman
February 27, 2014, 09:47 AM
peacebutready, it's not the 7.62x39 itself that's deadly on elephants. Think "full auto". That was first reported from Uganda, back in the era of Idi Amin. Mid-1970s.

35 Whelen
March 2, 2014, 07:26 PM
This is a real question: I'm not trying to start a fight.

Why do the big and slow guys think theirs is better than small and fast?

And, apart from trajectory, why do the S&F guys think theirs is better than the B&S?

If you get more lbs of energy on an animal with the S&F why would you want something big and slow.

Please educate me...:confused:

Greg
I've shot plenty of game with both ranging from a 55 gr. SP running over 3800 fps MV out of a 220 Swift to a 260 gr. SWC running 930 fps MV out of a .44 Special revolver, and have seen both work very effectively. But I've also seen things first hand go wrong with small and fast which adversely affects penetration. So, the older I get, the less I feel a need for fast and light.

Then there's the trajectory argument, which is pretty much quashed with the ease of use of rangefinders. If you know the range of the target and you know the projectiles trajectory as you should, what difference does the range make?

Oh, and one other thing I've learned, bullet energy doesn't kill, holes in vital organs does.

Think PHYSICS. A .224" bullet, no matter how high the quality will never penetrate like a bigger, heavier bullet of like construction simply because the former is lighter and therefore more quickly and easily slowed down.

35W

peacebutready
March 2, 2014, 11:51 PM
peacebutready, it's not the 7.62x39 itself that's deadly on elephants. Think "full auto". That was first reported from Uganda, back in the era of Idi Amin. Mid-1970s.


That's inhumane.

BigBore44
March 3, 2014, 12:42 AM
^^Umm.... Poachers don't care about "humane". They care about ivory.

Art Eatman
March 3, 2014, 10:27 AM
I don't see where either is better, since they both work. And that pretty well summarizes these four pages: They both work.

If you enjoyed reading about "Big and Slow vs Small and Fast" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!