Hunting guns and miltary guns.

[okiewita40]

I am thinking that some guys/gals think that shooting anything less than .30 cal magnum just makes you a sissy. Go ahead and shoot your ubermagnum big bore. I'll stick with what I am comfortable with. I didn't know there were any centerfire firearms that were made in a kids caliber. I guess I'll have to ask for the childrens caliber's the next time I am at the sporting goods store.

 

[Tirod]

The tool has to fit the user - I would no more recommend folding a 6'7" frame into a Smartcar than suggest the Kimber Youth to be perfectly stocked for their use.

It's also should be obvious a car with appropriate interior space has little to do with what size engine or how many pounds it weighs - just like what size caliber and action has anything to do with Length of pull or cheek weld. You don't need a 3/4 ton club cab with 7.3 diesel to get to work any more than you "need" a 8mm Mauser to shoot deer. It's done, but others do it with 5.56, too.

In MO, the reg's allow ANY centerfire rifle cartridge. How you use a .204 Ruger would be the tipping point of whether it's enough to get the job done - not a blanket statement it can't be.

Anecdotal stories do not change the fact that if a shot does not land where intended there is a much lower chance of a humane kill than with other calibers. And in my anecdote, the gun with 40% less power, shot at twice the distance, was entirely sufficient to do the job. Since many hunters report those conditions actually are the norm, just like in combat - 150 pound targets at less than 300m - why shoot something that's bigger, heavier, harder to rapidly operate, has more recoil, and imposes negative reactions by the shooter when they use it?

There is a specific reason the .30-30 has been America's #1 hunting load for over one hundred years, and ranked in the top ten all that time. It's a relatively intermediate cartridge with maximum 200m effective pointblank range, which seems to have suited a huge demographic of hunters from it's introduction until now. That specific caliber and it's use in leveractions is notably absent from this discussion, and frankly, puts the lie to the assumption only a large bolt action is sufficient to do the job. If anything, the bolt action has been a minority player for a long time, especially stacked against the additional semi autos - sold since the 1920s, pumps, and other firearms, like shotguns.

Goes to my point, asserting the bolt gun in a .30 battle caliber as the minimum necessary is, at best, an elitist assumption. Having used HK91's, levers, and bolt guns like 98K Mausers and a Rem 700, there are plenty of alternatives that can suit specific hunting conditions. Suggesting they aren't adequate only plays to the politics of prohibition - which is already bad enough. Ask shotgun only hunters what they think about that.

 

[JustinJ]

"Anecdotal stories do not change the fact that if a shot does not land where intended there is a much lower chance of a humane kill regardless of caliber.

I fixed your post."

No, you didn't. The more damage a round does to tissue the higher probablity of humane kill. There is a smaller window of where you can shoot and make a clean kill with a .223 than other calibers. Its that simple.

 

[Sam1911]

The more damage a round does to tissue the higher probability of humane kill. There is a smaller window of where you can shoot and make a clean kill with a .223 than other calibers. Its that simple.

Not really "that" simple.

A bad shot is a bad shot -- you might wound and lose an animal, or have to track one for hours.

A good shot is a good shot -- a .223, or a .300 Wthby Mag, will kill a deer, dead-right-there.

A "marginal" shot is where the questions lie. Thinking that a shot that strays into the guts or hits a leg, etc., is better if it's a 30-'06 than if it had been a .223 is probably not a wise sort of thing to count on. Is there some level of an advantage? Sure. Is it worth adding to your calculations? Probably not. How will you use that extra "fudge factor?" Will you take a marginal shot with an '06 that you wouldn't take with a .223? Then you should be shooting the .223!

Shooting a large cartridge really can't fix your mistakes.

 

[JustinJ]

I would not advocate any "fudge factor" regardless of caliber but things don't always go as planned. The key word to my comments is "probability". There are certainly hitsthat would quickly kill with a .308 or other round that would not with a .223 and it is for these that i say err on the side of caution.

 

[sig220mw]

Hey RC you just gave me a good laugh too. My 2 sons are vidiots and if not for shooting with me, the games would be their only source for firearm types.

I have military guns and sporting guns and I use them all for hunting. The big difference or I guess I should say what I notice the most is the difference in weight and length. The sporters are easier to carry and much easier to get into a small tree stand for instance.

As for caliber, the smallest I use is a 22-250 (head and neck shots only) and the biggest so far is the 323 (8mm).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Anecdotal stories do not change the fact that if a shot does not land where intended there is a much lower chance of a humane kill regardless of caliber.

I fixed your post."

No, you didn't. The more damage a round does to tissue the higher probablity of humane kill. There is a smaller window of where you can shoot and make a clean kill with a .223 than other calibers. Its that simple.

Actually, he did fix your post and now you are arguing a new point. Off target is off target regardless of caliber. You can miss the heart by a 1/2" with a .223 or with a .45-70. Either way you have missed by a 1/2".

Now you are saying that because the .45-70 is so much bigger, it is more likely to hit the target, in this case, the heart. If it hits the heart, then the bullet went where intended, did it not, hence not a miss or not "land where intended."

However as Sam1911 pointed out, a larger caliber won't necessarily solve your problems. I have to admit, never in my life have I heard an instructor say, "That guy can't shoot very accurately. Give him a larger caliber."

 

[JustinJ]

"Actually, he did fix your post and now you are arguing a new point. Off target is off target regardless of caliber. You can miss the heart by a 1/2" with a .223 or with a .45-70. Either way you have missed by a 1/2"."

I really don't know how to say this any clearer. My points are exactly the same in both posts. Since a direct hit to the heart is NOT the only way to kill something the more damage a bullet does (call it a larger "wound channel" if you like) there is a higher PROBABILITY that other vital tissues will be damaged so a faster death is more likely. This is the exact same reason expanding hollow bullets are preffered. If the shot misses the heart but hits an artery death will be quick and clean. The PROBABILITY of severing said artery is higher when more tissue damage occurs.

 

[DammitBoy]

What is this "missing" you people speak of?

 

[helotaxi]

A large caliber shot poorly, which is more likely since recoil will make practice unpleasant and possibly lead to a flinch as well, is less likely to hit anything vital. Instead you end up with either a complete miss or a maiming wound that may cause the animal a lingering death and resulting in an animal that you never recover. I don't ever hear about guys losing animals with smaller calibers or even having to track them much. I wonder why...

You want to talk about probability, OK. The probability of making a shot through the vitals that kills an animal quickly is higher with a gun that is shot a lot and shot well. Relying on a larger caliber and more powerful cartridge to make up for lack of marksmanship/patience/hunting ability is irresponsible. The probability of taking a high percentage shot when you know that you have make the shot count is also higher. Having an overly powerful cartridge encourages reckless hunting because one might be able to get away with it. But it's still a game of probabilities. The more one comes to rely on having a massively powerful cartridge letting them "get away with one," the higher the probability that they will take questionable shots. A person who hunts might need a big gun, a hunter does not; there is a difference in the two. From a practical standpoint the only reason to go with a bigger cartridge is to increase the effective range on larger game.

If you don't think you can get the job done reliably with a .243, maybe you should resign yourself to carrying only a .375 RUM. Of course a bad shot with that is still a bad shot and you'll have ringing ears and a sore shoulder as a reminder.

 

[Kliegl]

There are some people that hunt and think, well, I'll only take a perfect shot, and all my shots that I take will be perfect shots, so I only need a .223, or a .243 to do the job. Then, there are people who hunt that think, well, maybe I won't make a perfect shot, or, sometimes the rest won't be the best, or, sometimes the sun/wind/rain will interfere, or sometimes the giant buck will be over 300 yards away, or some other factor will make a less than perfect shot probable.

Now, for all those of you that only make perfect shots, this won't apply, but, for the rest of us, a couple examples make the following clear.

Example 1: A buck is facing a very muddy swamp, maybe 25 yards away. You are pretty close, say 100 yards. A less than perfect shot will make him run, straight for the swamp. I don't know about the rest of you all, but I would prefer to bring him down BEFORE he gets 100 yards deep in the mud, so I'll take the bigger round.

Example 2: It's a windy day. There's a buck 200 yards off. Even a perfect shot will be affected by the wind. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a heavier round less likely to be blown significantly off course so I don't have to apply as much Kentucky Windage.

Example 3: It is near dark, and the Boone and Crockett Record Beating buck steps out from behind a bush 400 yards away. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a gun that has enough killing power and doesn't need to be aimed a foot high to do the job.

Example 4: A buck is standing 100 yards away, in the hill country of Texas, with a whole lot of rocks and hills. A less than perfect shot will make him run immediately out of your field of vision. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer the entry and exit wound to be as big as they can be, so I can have the most amount of blood to track by.

So, there are some arguments for bigger rounds for hunting. What are the arguments for the smaller rounds? I mean, like real arguments, not "it's all I need." I only take a few rounds with me, so it can't be ammo weight. Likewise, my deer rifle doesn't weigh much more than my Colt AR, so it's not that either.

 

[helotaxi]

Example 1: A buck is facing a very muddy swamp, maybe 25 yards away. You are pretty close, say 100 yards. A less than perfect shot will make him run, straight for the swamp. I don't know about the rest of you all, but I would prefer to bring him down BEFORE he gets 100 yards deep in the mud, so I'll take the bigger round.

If you've practiced with a rifle, that shot should be a no brainer. If it has to be a "perfect shot" caliber and cartridge are essentially irrelevant. Any adequate cartridge will drop said buck like a bolt of lightning and he won't take a step.

Example 2: It's a windy day. There's a buck 200 yards off. Even a perfect shot will be affected by the wind. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a heavier round less likely to be blown significantly off course so I don't have to apply as much Kentucky Windage.

The difference in wind drift (10 mph wind) between a .243 100gn and a .30-06 168gn is 0.1" in the .30-06 favor. Swap that for a .308 and the .243 has a 0.4" advantage. Weight in and of itself has no bearing on wind drift.

Example 3: It is near dark, and the Boone and Crockett Record Beating buck steps out from behind a bush 400 yards away. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a gun that has enough killing power and doesn't need to be aimed a foot high to do the job.

If I were hunting where a 400yd shot was a real possibility, then a cartridge capable of carrying sufficient energy and ensuring reliable bullet upset at that range would be in order. That cartridge doesn't have to be a big boomer though. A .264 Win Mag shoots almost identically to a .300 Win Mag with only slightly more than half the recoil. Both require more than 1 foot of holdover at 400yds. 18.2" for the 300 and 20" for the .264.

Example 4: A buck is standing 100 yards away, in the hill country of Texas, with a whole lot of rocks and hills. A less than perfect shot will make him run immediately out of your field of vision. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer the entry and exit wound to be as big as they can be, so I can have the most amount of blood to track by.

Choosing a caliber based on making a big wound so you could track a wounded animal easier is akin to choosing a car based on how easy it is to tow when it breaks down.

What are the arguments for the smaller rounds?

Other than ease of shooting and a greater chance of making a good shot because of a combination of practice and lack of apprehension about recoil?

 

[DammitBoy]

What's so hard about waiting for the perfect shot? If you don't have the shot, don't make it.

 

[caribou]

"What's so hard about waiting for the perfect shot? If you don't have the shot, don't make it."

Dammitboy, yer right..........~LOL!!~

 

[Kliegl]

Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

 

[Sam1911]

Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

If you don't get the shot you trust, why would you shoot? Someone said...

Will you take a marginal shot with an '06 that you wouldn't take with a .223? Then you should be shooting the .223!

(This is going to sound very judgmental, and I REALLY mean no offense or condemnation: )

Counting on a heavier cartridge to make up for deliberately poor shot placement doesn't seem to be ethical hunting practice.

...

It seems to me that good shots with smaller cartridges are a whole lot more effective than some folks will believe -- and that bad shots with a .30-'06 are a whole lot less effective than many hunters think they are. Just my opinion, though.

I understand that a larger bullet going faster will damage a bit more tissues and/or structures, thus providing some narrow margin of error. But when that margin of error translates into an imaginary inflated vitals zone in the minds of big cartridge fans, we're making an error.

 

[fragout]

If Sam 1911 is correct, then why worry about expanding tip bullets?

Instead of comparing 223 to 308 or 30-06....... simply compare FMJ to an expanding tip load in same caliber.

If a specific load of FMJ shoots better through a given rifle vs expanding tip ammo, then would this not be the better route for hunting ?

It seems that the lawmakers(most states) consider a larger wound channel to be of enough importance to outlaw FMJ for hunting. I believe that OTM (open tip match) bullets fall under this same rule.


In a direct comparison........ 223 hunting ammunition vs 308 FMJ.........
Which bullet leaves the bigger hole, provided that both exit?........ Or ...which creates the bigger wound channel?

If this does not matter, then please explain?

BTW..... Interesting topic.

here is my hunting rifle btw.....


11B

 

[JustinJ]

"I don't ever hear about guys losing animals with smaller calibers or even having to track them much. I wonder why..."

Probably because most people don't like to brag about poor marksmanship or decision making.

"If you don't get the shot you trust, why would you shoot?"

I completely agree except no matter how much one trusts their shot a miss is possible. Counting on a caliber for poor marksmanship is not what i am advocating. But given that deer and other game are not static targets, no matter how perfect one thinks their shot is, unplanned for events happen. For example, a deer can get spooked and start moving as your sqeezing the trigger. A scope could fail and loose it's zero. And in said events a .308 is much more likely to ensure a clean kill. And if you one can't shoot a caliber larger than .223 without flinching, learn how to shoot proplerly before you go hunting. And lets not forget that many people over estimate their shooting abilities. I'm sure thats nobody here though.

This arguement reminds me of people who say caliber and capacity are irrelevent for LE or SD because of "proper shot placement". As if every encounter will entail the bad guy standing still, never shooting at them, with a bulls eye over his heart.

 

[Tirod]

Why is it assumed the larger caliber automatically has a larger wound channel?

That is a dangerous and false assumption.

Taking the point that a close miss with a large caliber would likely create enough damage to still put the animal down completely ignores the construction of bullets and the dynamic impact of what they do.

It still goes back to application - not only the caliber and platform, but much more importantly, what bullet. And choosing the CORRECT bullet is far more important than the overall diameter. More so, smaller diameter bullets tend to keep their velocity further - extending the range of delivered, lethal threshold power. That's considered a good thing up to the point where human inability overcomes accuracy.

And, taking the relevant point that the perfect shot becomes in the few split seconds of flight, a slight miss, and a wounded animal, which gun do you prefer? A manual bolt action that 1) forces you to lose the sight picture jacking another round in the chamber, 2) requires you to get another sight picture AFTER you find the quarry in them, again, 3) have the time to do that without watching it slink off in the woodlands to suffer?

Or, would a self loading firearm that simply cycled and kept the sight picture and cheek weld constant for the next shot - without delay - be better?

If it's possible to wound one - and it certainly is with a bolt gun - then why is the bolt gun with it's deliberately obtuse manual loading better? I see it as LESS humane in the circumstance, because it creates delay and a less accurate followup shot. Which the military proved by extensive study over the last one hundred years. It's definitely a major advertising feature of civilian self loading actions since their introduction in the 1920's.

"When one shot won't do, why be stuck with one?" as a large and enraged grizzly bears down suddenly on the surprised explorer.

Since it's entirely possible to wound any animal with a misplaced shot - why then support the one gun that's the least capable of a quick and humane followup shot? I go back to my anecdote of one - the bolt .30-06 failed (very much my bad shot,) the SKS put the animal down.

Who was the better equipped hunter who properly dispatched the animal and prevented it suffering further?

It was asked why you don't hear about semi auto shooters losing game. Maybe it's because they don't.

 

[Sam1911]

no matter how perfect one thinks their shot is, unplanned for events happen.

Oh, absolutely! And that's why I said larger calibers may allow more margin of error. But capitalizing on that to expand the conditions under which you will take a shot would seem unwise. Maybe no one is advocating that, but what is written and what is intended (and what is understood by the reader) aren't always exactly the same.

 

[Sam1911]

If Sam 1911 is correct, then why worry about expanding tip bullets?

Instead of comparing 223 to 308 or 30-06....... simply compare FMJ to an expanding tip load in same caliber.

That seems to be taking a whole different tack. A laser-beam hole .308" diameter through-and-through doesn't accomplish a whole lot more than a laser-beam hole .224" in diameter. Expanding bullets make a LOT more difference than caliber choice.

 

[DammitBoy]

Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

Then don't take the shot. That's the point.

 

[JustinJ]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kliegl
Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

Then don't take the shot. That's the point."

That arguement has already been soundly defeated. Again, things don't always go according to plan.

Bullet selection is absolutely important and i sort of assumed that we were talking about expanding bulllets regardless of caliber as i can't imagine one would hunt with anything else.

 

[Sam1911]

I certainly wasn't advocating that and I believe I was the one that got this thing going. I never said anything of the sort. I would never do that.

For my part, I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to this:

Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

A statement which was ambiguously phrased -- which I why I added my caveat that perhaps the implication that one could lean on the big-bore factor to solve the problems of poor shot presentation was not what had been intended.

Some readers just add things in to make their argument look better and other people see what those readers said and they follow along as if someone actually did advocate something as wrong as justifying taking bad shots because they have a bigger caliber rifle.

That's casting pretty strong aspersions which really are circular. You're adding as much to several members' arguments as you are accusing them of doing.

English is a very precise language.

Whoo boy. No, no it isn't. English is highly nuanced, and the same statement can be said -- or read -- to indicate many things, purposefully intended or not. Don't make the same mistakes you're accusing others of.

 

[Sam1911]

Again, things don't always go according to plan.

Absolutely. Now the question becomes, does the actual, physical, increase in the safety margin afforded by, for example, a .308 over a .243 justify choosing one over the other for hunting common medium game animals?

Seems like a mighty personal choice as I don't know of any way to actually measure how great that difference is. I would think in terms of a hypothetical "expanded" vital zone wherein a stray shot is still effective in .308 but ineffective in .243. How much larger could that effective kill zone be? An inch overall? Or is it 3" in either direction? More?

Is there any (other) empirical way to measure this? Or do the vagaries of hunting reality make cartridge choice a moot point within certain bounds?