Adequate....?

[BigBore44]

CraigC,
In the moose thread, you said you've seen a brown bear soak up four, .416's before going down. Now the .416 is typically an African cartridge. Should be able to take anything in North America without a problem. So was the cartridge "inadequate"? Or was it the skill of the hunter that was lacking? Because no one can dispute the .416 is not only bigger, but more powerful than many lesser cartridges that have taken brown bear with a single, well placed shot.

DeepSouth,
Comparing cartridge performance to one's work ethics is....well I'm not sure what it is. Even if you swap "ethics" for "performance" it still doesn't pass muster because a cartridge/bullet cannot perform past "dead". This isn't The Princess Bride. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M

 

[CraigC]

It was a case of the wrong bullet in the wrong place. If you're going to use solids in the .416, it needs to break a shoulder or hip.....or both. A roundnose solid through the boiler room went unnoticed and only hastened the bear's pace.

And there's always the unforeseen, that no matter what a critter is shot with, he's not ready to go down easy that day. Like the Cape buffalo that took five .577's before it gave up the fight. By any measure, the .577NE is an elephant cartridge supreme but bringing the biggest gun to a fight is not a guarantee of instant success. It's just a means of stacking the odds in your favor, which is all we can do. Which is why I don't think the `06 is a cartridge for 1500lb moose or 800lb bears. Sure, it might work great 90% of the time but I'd rather get as close to 99% as I can. "Minimum" or "adequate" might be "good enough" for some, especially when it comes to their pet cartridge they're so starry-eyed about but I'm not much of a gamblin' man. Especially when blood is spilled, man or beast.

One thing that I've learned from these discussions is that everybody has their own idea of success. Some measure by the presence or absence of a dead critter, regardless of what the bullet did or how well. The critter might drop dead as a door knob but if the bullet didn't do what I need or expect it to, I have a problem.

 

[BigBore44]

CraigC,
So the limiting factor of the .416 WAS the hunter. He knowingly chose the wrong bullet for the animal persued. Also the Cape Buffalo taking five .577NE's. Well that has to be shot placement. Again, limiting factor is the hunter. I realize animals don't always DRT on the first shot. But 5? Sounds like that hunter stacked the odds in his favor and it still didn't work out. But there's no way the .577NE cartridge was inadequate. I realize you're not a fan of the '06. And that's perfectly fine. This thread isn't about the '06. It's really about almost every cartridge and why some say one is merely adequate, while others say it's better than acceptable. And the more I read, the more I lean to the conclusion that the cartridge's naysayer's limiting factor is the person sending it down the barrel.

 

[CraigC]

The .416 wasn't inadequate, it was improperly applied. That's the problem with a lot of folks who hunt deer with rifles, getting them to hit a shoulder.

The .577 was properly applied at close range by someone who knows how. The buffalo just didn't want to cooperate. Just like the deer that runs a mile with an exploded heart, critters don't read ballistics tables....or message boards.

 

[BigBore44]

The critter might drop dead as a door knob but if the bullet didn't do what I need or expect it to, I have a problem.

Ummm..... I'm lost. Apparently no matter the outcome, you have a problem. A bullet drops an animal dead as a door knob. What more can you expect or hope for?

 

[CraigC]

Why is that difficult to understand? If the critter drops dead in its tracks but the bullet comes completely unglued in the process, especially on a broadside shot that doesn't involve shoulder bones, I need a better bullet. Because next time, I might not be so lucky.

 

[BigBore44]

Ok, but that's not what you posted. Now it's if this happened or that was involved. But also now, by your own admission, it's not the cartridge, it's the bullet. You're also basing everything on a shoulder shot. I have no issue with shoulder shots. But they are no more lethal than a broadside behind the shoulder shot. And they do not keep an animal from running off.

Winchester's 165gr Ballistic Silver Tip (the only ballistic tip ammunition I've used other than 40gr V-Max on yotes) comes unglued in the 6-7 deer I shot with them. Never hit a shoulder. Wasn't aiming at it. But their vitals came unglued too. And they all DRT'd. Just like your compadre that used .416 solids on a brown bear, you should choose the right bullet. And YOU should know what the right bullet is for a shoulder shot. Others may not. So rather than saying it's merely adequate, why not say with the right bullet it's capable? Because it is. Discounting the entire cartridge due to poor bullet selection, is a lack of knowledge on the hunters part. It's not the inadequacy of the cartridge.

 

[CraigC]

Ok, but that's not what you posted.

Uh, what?

But also now, by your own admission, it's not the cartridge, it's the bullet.

Sometimes, sometimes it's both.

You're also basing everything on a shoulder shot.

No, I'm not.

But they are no more lethal than a broadside behind the shoulder shot. And they do not keep an animal from running off.

If you're using a heavy rifle on critters like brown bear, a shoulder shot should be taken. Because yes, it does hinder their movement, which might be in your direction, for a fight. Affecting their ability to move is the entire point of a shoulder shot. In the bear example, the point was that if you're going to use a solid, use it as intended, to break bones. If you're going to just make a double lung shot, use a bullet designed for expansion.

On deer, a shoulder shot is preferable if you're using a handgun with a bullet capable of breaking the shoulder and passing through the vitals before exiting. Same reason.

Winchester's 165gr Ballistic Silver Tip (the only ballistic tip ammunition I've used other than 40gr V-Max on yotes) comes unglued in the 6-7 deer I shot with them. Never hit a shoulder. Wasn't aiming at it. But their vitals came unglued too. And they all DRT'd.

That's why I don't use ballistic tips on big game. That's why I traded my .243 and it's why I switched from the 100gr Core Lokt to the Barnes TSX in the .250. Some folks are satisfied with being limited to perfect broadside shots that don't involve bone and no exit wound. I am not. I want the option of taking the critter from any angle, with high odds of an exit wound. That's the handgun hunter in me.

So rather than saying it's merely adequate, why not say with the right bullet it's capable? Because it is. Discounting the entire cartridge due to poor bullet selection, is a lack of knowledge on the hunters part. It's not the inadequacy of the cartridge.

So what are we talking about now???

 

[DeepSouth]

This just isn't a complicated thing, if you have a scale of caliber's going from .17hmr all the up to .50bmg their is essentially a minimum acceptable caliber up to a maximum acceptable caliber. The word "adequate" is generally used to refer to bottom of the scale, therefore the negative connotation......which was your question.

Some caliber's are just a better choice for certain game than other smaller (but still adequate) caliber's. The problem you seem to have is how to compare caliber's, you must compare the with all other things being equal. When comparing caliber's shot placement simply doesn't figure in. I'd rather hit an attacking grizzly in the eyeball with a .22lr than in his toenail with a .50bmg. You just can't put endless variables into a problem and auctually get an accurate conclusion.

When compared on equal ground, some caliber's simply barely make the cut, others easily make it. To complicate things "appropriate" caliber's at both ends of the scale are based on opinions.

 

[buck460XVR]

What I'm coming away with from this thread is something I already knew. That gun/calibers that are adequate for the intended purpose generally do not fail, it's the projectiles and the thought that pulled the trigger that fails. This is why the argument over what is "Adequate" or "Minimal" continues to rage on forever. While there are hunters that use more gun than needed, it does not mean they are trying to make up for any inadequacy, it probably means they are just widening the margin of error, due to Murphy's law, and giving their quarry the benefit of added potential for a quick death. Those folks that use less than adequate firearms, either are foolish or highly skilled hunters that know the limitations of said firearm. IOWs, what is adequate for me, might not be adequate for you, depending on technique and skill level. This is something serious handgun and archery hunters understand. In the long run, one should use what has been proven in the past to be effective and become proficient with it. That's what's really adequate.

Just like the deer that runs a mile with an exploded heart, critters don't read ballistics tables....or message boards.

When I hear statements like this, I tend to question the knowledge base. There has been, nor will there ever be, a deer than runs for a mile with an exploded heart. Just like those folks that claim over and over they double-lunged a deer, lost the blood trail after 100 yards and never recovered the deer because their bullet failed. Sorry, but these are stories created by folks making excuses for poor shot placement. Every deer I have ever shot thru the heart with a bow has died on the run within 50 yards, and arrows do no more damage to the heart that a solid/non-expanding bullet. Same with archery double-lung shot deer, with the exception they may go another 25 yards. Still the blood trail can be seen before one gets outta the tree and becomes heavier as the deer runs and blows blood out their nose. Even if the entry and exit holes close up, the blood blown out the nose is enough for a blind man to trail. It's human nature to find an excuse when something doesn't work out. The fisherman that breaks his line on a big fish will claim the line must have had a nick in it when it was probably inept drag adjustment. The animal didn't cooperate? Now that's a new one for explaining poor shot placement. It's impossible for an animal to physically cooperate or not, when they are hit correctly. It has nuttin' to do with ballistics or message boards, but biology/anatomy.

 

[CraigC]

When I hear statements like this, I tend to question the knowledge base. There has been, nor will there ever be, a deer than runs for a mile with an exploded heart.

I guess it never occurred to you, in your fervor to find a hole in my "story", that that might have been an exaggerated example?

Personally, the longest I've had one run is about 100yds, straight uphill. A buck I shot 3-4yrs ago with a .54cal muzzleloader. Perfect placement, heart and both lungs with an exit.

The animal didn't cooperate? Now that's a new one for explaining poor shot placement. It's impossible for an animal to physically cooperate or not, when they are hit correctly. It has nuttin' to do with ballistics or message boards, but biology/anatomy.

So you do not believe that some critters have more fight in them? Or that some are just tougher to kill than others? Every critter you ever shot did exactly what you expected? If that's the case, I have to question YOUR knowledge base. Have you hunted much Cape buffalo? Consensus among those who do (often) is that perhaps 20% drop with one shot.

And now you have the arrogance to question shot placement, with no more information than you have on hand?

And sometimes "it" happens and you have to deal with the aftermath of a poorly placed shot. I know that's a foreign concept to you, for you not only have more experience than anyone else but all your shots are always perfect, every single time.

 

[Sam1911]

(Ahem...guys, find some common ground please. Don't look for how many different ways you can DISagree. Thanks.)

 

[X-Rap]

Should be a semantics section on this forum that these discussions can be moved to.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[entropy]

What I'm coming away with from this thread is something I already knew. That gun/calibers that are adequate for the intended purpose generally do not fail, it's the projectiles and the thought that pulled the trigger that fails. This is why the argument over what is "Adequate" or "Minimal" continues to rage on forever. While there are hunters that use more gun than needed, it does not mean they are trying to make up for any inadequacy, it probably means they are just widening the margin of error, due to Murphy's law, and giving their quarry the benefit of added potential for a quick death. Those folks that use less than adequate firearms, either are foolish or highly skilled hunters that know the limitations of said firearm. IOWs, what is adequate for me, might not be adequate for you, depending on technique and skill level. This is something serious handgun and archery hunters understand. In the long run, one should use what has been proven in the past to be effective and become proficient with it. That's what's really adequate.






When I hear statements like this, I tend to question the knowledge base. There has been, nor will there ever be, a deer than runs for a mile with an exploded heart. Just like those folks that claim over and over they double-lunged a deer, lost the blood trail after 100 yards and never recovered the deer because their bullet failed. Sorry, but these are stories created by folks making excuses for poor shot placement. Every deer I have ever shot thru the heart with a bow has died on the run within 50 yards, and arrows do no more damage to the heart that a solid/non-expanding bullet. Same with archery double-lung shot deer, with the exception they may go another 25 yards. Still the blood trail can be seen before one gets outta the tree and becomes heavier as the deer runs and blows blood out their nose. Even if the entry and exit holes close up, the blood blown out the nose is enough for a blind man to trail. It's human nature to find an excuse when something doesn't work out. The fisherman that breaks his line on a big fish will claim the line must have had a nick in it when it was probably inept drag adjustment. The animal didn't cooperate? Now that's a new one for explaining poor shot placement. It's impossible for an animal to physically cooperate or not, when they are hit correctly. It has nuttin' to do with ballistics or message boards, but biology/anatomy.

Your personal experience and mine vary. I had a deer I took the aorta off of at 75 yards with a Nosler 165 Partition .30-06 run full bore 75 yards and hide under a log. The bullet went through both lungs also, and was found inside the skin, mushroomed just like the ads. Was it a failing on my part? no. Was it a failing on the bullet's part? No. That deer had been chased through a swamp for miles by an idiot who thought he could "sneak up" on it; it came up out of the swamp on to the fire road I was walking, and I shot it. He was so jacked up on adrenaline that it took that long for him to die, and he still had the wherewithal to hide himself under a log. Wasn't hard to find him, the blood trail was something they should train crime scene investigators with.

There are just too many variables involved. I've shot deer that weren't alerted, and they dropped in their tracks. I've shot a buck running to rattling antlers that only took a couple steps and dropped. The only deer I didn't hit the aorta on was a doe I hit 2 inches above the aorta, solid double lung shot at 125 yards with a .50 cal. 385 gr. HBHP conical. She went 25 yards lay down, and could barely pull her head up when I approached her. Put her out with a slug (I had an 1100 for backup) in the top of the neck.

That being said, I've passed up a lotof deer others would have shot at, because I couldn't get the shot I wanted.

 

[gspn]

None of what you posted addresses the OP's original question either, it's just an argumentative attack against what I posted.

Patently false. Everything I wrote in posts 2 and 4 addressed the OP's question. Not until post 5 (your thoughtless tangent on armchair snipers etc) did I address an issue other than the OP's question.

Your inability to follow the concept being discussed basically forced things a bit off topic.

Out of respect for the OP's topic, I'll be done addressing anything further you've got to add...it's simply not worth the bandwidth.

 

[Sam1911]

And on that note... Closed.


I suppose when one starts a thread asking, essentially, why people argue over a term it is probably too much to expect that they won't see that as an invitation to argue over it anew.