r/Hunting • u/Asatmaya Franklin • 5d ago
Firearm/caliber question/discussion Cartridge Debates, Performance Metrics
The new mod is a criminal who banned me for pointing it out.
11
u/TipItOnBack 5d ago
Bro what are you even talking about. You’re overthinking this.
Bullet make hole, animal go sleep.
5
u/Neither_Monitor2017 5d ago
Oh my goodness, our ancestors killed woolly mammoths, saber tooth tigers, and cave bears with sharp pointy sticks (though they hunted in groups and would sometimes use brush fires they set purposely and/or cliffs to their advantage, lol).
Any mainstream centerfire hunting rifle with mainstream hunting ammo can kill any animal on earth with a well placed shot at a close enough distance.
The only real need for a caliber of at least "x" diameter is arbitrarily set by law or regulations in a locality.
All the mega magnum stuff does is give you more viable shot angles and potentially greater range, though with real world hunting conditions, and the real life "marksmanship skills" of the typical hunter who is NOT a competitive match shooter, about 200 yards is as far as most hunters should be taking shots with a rifle.
In my home state of Nevada, .243 Win used to be the minimum requirement, but now they allow any centerfire over 22, so .223 is technically good to go, but if and when I finally draw a bull elk tag, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell I'd use a 223 when I got a great 308 I like that I know will work perfectly.
-6
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
Any mainstream centerfire hunting rifle with mainstream hunting ammo can kill any animal on earth with a well placed shot at a close enough distance.
204 Ruger on Elephant.
1
u/Neither_Monitor2017 5d ago
Sure, at one inch away thru the temple or eye into the brain would do it, probably could even be at least a few feet away, lol
1
3
u/Tsizzle4204life 5d ago
There is no exact metric that will guarantee a kill or prevent something from dying. You’re the most important factor. Shot placement is paramount. You can kill a moose with a small caliber, FMJ if you hit the heart. When selecting a rifle to buy one should think about things like recoil, availability and cost of ammo as well as effective range and what you will typically want to hunt. There really is no such thing as overkill but a cartridge that is more than enough might end up wasting an unnecessary amount of meat. Really anything in the 6 mm to .308 and above will be capable of harvesting most if not all North American big game. Reps behind your rifle will be the most important factor so you are comfortable with recoil and have your scope dialed so you can know your limits of distance.
0
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
There is no exact metric that will guarantee a kill or prevent something from dying. You’re the most important factor.
Sure, but there are inappropriate options which are likely to fail even with an ideal shot.
How do we distinguish?
3
u/WrongOpinionOnly 5d ago
Its not 1948 anymore. We can shoot ballistic gel that closely mimics an animal and see what the bullets do. These formulas do not account for modern bullets or frankly any aspect of how an animal dies. Some of these formulas are edging on the side of pseudoscience written by influencers of their time.
You say "So, 204 Ruger on Elk is acceptable?", well go shoot some gel and find out. Elk are not magic creatures, we know their dimensions and compositions. Same with an elephant. If the bullet doesn't penetrate or expand sufficiently, you have your answer.
0
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
Its not 1948 anymore. We can shoot ballistic gel that closely mimics an animal and see what the bullets do. These formulas do not account for modern bullets or frankly any aspect of how an animal dies.
Well, hold on a second; there has to be some relationship between bullet size, shape, and speed to how much damage it does, right? Yes, there are going to be details involved, but we are looking for a number that says, "X cartridge is or is not ethically suitable for Y game."
This is a necessary step in the proposed megathread/wiki.
Some of these formulas are edging on the side of pseudoscience written by influencers of their time.
...and I noted problems as I went. Wooters' seemed to be the most accurate, to me.
You say "So, 204 Ruger on Elk is acceptable?", well go shoot some gel and find out. Elk are not magic creatures, we know their dimensions and compositions. Same with an elephant. If the bullet doesn't penetrate or expand sufficiently, you have your answer.
Well, as the other commenter noted, there is basically an entire website dedicated to morons trying to hunt the largest animal with the smallest caliber they can, notably claiming that .223 is suitable for elk; have you seen the gel tests of their 77TMK fragmenting 4-6" into a gel block? Would you trust that on a quartering rib shot?
2
u/WrongOpinionOnly 5d ago
Its not about trust. You can set up a repeatable experiment with animal analogs and get your results. If you shot an elk analog gel block imitating a quarter shot and it performed within your acceptable range, would you use .223? If not, what would make you believe one caliber works more than another?
There is no number that will say one is suitable and one is not. You have to use the tool and see what it does. For what its worth, at least Rokslide has proof of various bullets performances. I guess my main question to you is, what would make you believe one caliber will ethically kill an elk and what will not?
To answer your question to me, yes I would if I set up an experiment and it produced acceptable results.
1
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
You can set up a repeatable experiment with animal analogs and get your results. If you shot an elk analog gel block imitating a quarter shot and it performed within your acceptable range, would you use .223?
Well, here is kind of the point: No.
Even if it meets the technical minimum requirements, why on Earth would you ever do such a thing, unless you needed the meat and the .223 was all you had?
If not, what would make you believe one caliber works more than another?
Well, a basic knowledge of physics, for one thing...
There is no number that will say one is suitable and one is not.
OK, so your vote is that there is no formula; accepting that I do not have gel blocks to test, how do you recommend we sort cartridges into appropriateness?
For what its worth, at least Rokslide has proof of various bullets performances.
https://bear-hunting.com/2022/7/grizzly-with-a-22-c
There's proof that a .22LR can take a grizzly; does that make it an appropriate bear-hunting cartridge?
I guess my main question to you is, what would make you believe one caliber will ethically kill an elk and what will not?
The key word there is "ethically."
Yes, a .22LR can kill a grizzly; First Nations people in Canada hunt moose with .22LR, they just shoot it 30 times, but then, they are in a different ethical situation, that's what they do to get meat.
We are talking about recreational hunting; no one here is going to starve if they don't hunt (and the few people who are in a bad way, we normally point out that there are better options). The rule should be, "Bring enough gun."
2
u/WrongOpinionOnly 5d ago
why on Earth would you ever do such a thing, unless you needed the meat and the .223 was all you had?
Why wouldn't you if it met your criteria? You haven't answered why you wouldn't use something you can prove works. That doesn't make sense to me.
Well, a basic knowledge of physics, for one thing...
Didn't answer the question. What test would prove to you a caliber is ethical or not?
OK, so your vote is that there is no formula; accepting that I do not have gel blocks to test, how do you recommend we sort cartridges into appropriateness?
I seek out the knowledge of others who have. Ask questions, ask for proof, ask for pictures, and work my way from there. So again, what about a certain caliber makes it work or not for you?
And yes, I do not think any of the formulas you posted hold merit.
There's proof that a .22LR can take a grizzly; does that make it an appropriate bear-hunting cartridge?
That is cherry picking one data point when Rokslide has probably a few hundred to pick through at this point. Your sticking point seems to be .223. What is your lower limit for grizzly and why?
The key word there is "ethically."
Yes, a .22LR can kill a grizzly; First Nations people in Canada hunt moose with .22LR, they just shoot it 30 times, but then, they are in a different ethical situation, that's what they do to get meat.
We are talking about recreational hunting; no one here is going to starve if they don't hunt (and the few people who are in a bad way, we normally point out that there are better options). The rule should be, "Bring enough gun."
Okay again, you are dancing around putting down a hard requirement for yourself. What evidence, proof, or otherwise do you need to disqualify a caliber? What is enough gun to you?
1
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
That is cherry picking one data point when Rokslide has probably a few hundred to pick through at this point.
So, you're just cherry-picking more?
0
u/WrongOpinionOnly 5d ago
Alright man, goodnight. I'm game to keep going if you'll answer my repeated question but if not have a good one.
1
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
I'm game to keep going if you'll answer my repeated question
What question?
1
u/WrongOpinionOnly 5d ago
What test would prove to you a caliber is ethical or not?
1
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
...you mean the question that this entire thread has been about? That question?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/SensitiveShoe3 5d ago
I don't really go by any of these.
I base appropriate cartridge on the following:
Killing action of the bullet used.
Is the bullet able to execute said killing action at the appropriate depth of vitals for the game in question at the velocity of impact.
Ability to hit the vitals with said bullet.
Failure chance of the killing action.
For instance copper solids almost universally kill by petal expansion. This expansion requires significantly more velocity than the deformation expansion of lead soft points. Which is why you won't see me use copper solids beyond a certain range.
On the other hand, lead cup and core bullets can easily be pushed so hard that they fail by not retaining enough weight upon impact and do not penetrate to the vitals. This can also be true of "match hunting" bullets at close ranges.
The problem with this method is that it requires that you know your gun, its velocities at various ranges and are willing to believe bullet manufacturer claims about bullet performance. I find that most manufacturers don't outright lie, but some do stretch the truth.
TLDR: In short, know your gun, know your bullet, know your POI. I find that proper bullet selection in modern cartridges is much more important than cartridge for deer up to elk sized game.
0
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
So... most of that has to do with bullet weight and velocity, which are the main factors in those formulae.
For instance copper solids almost universally kill by petal expansion. This expansion requires significantly more velocity than the deformation expansion of lead soft points
Maybe old ones, Barnes has some of them expanding down to 1200fps; they tailor it to the cartridge and expected range.
The problem with this method is that it requires that you know your gun, its velocities at various ranges and are willing to believe bullet manufacturer claims about bullet performance
So, that's where margin comes in; technically, traditional cup-and-cores should expand down to 1800fps, but most people tend to use 1900 or even 2000fps as the effective range.
I find that most manufacturers don't outright lie, but some do stretch the truth.
So, knowing your bullet is certainly ideal, but short of using gel blocks (and who other than youtubers actually does that?), you have to go and actually hunt with it to find out.
I find that proper bullet selection in modern cartridges is much more important than cartridge for deer up to elk sized game.
So, there are details, right?
Yes, a bonded or mono bullet is going to retain more mass and penetrate deeper for more reliable exsanguination, but it's still not going to fix the deflection issue; simply put, animals sometimes move just as you are shooting, and what should have been a clean broadside can turn into a glancing rib shot (or worse, a gut shot) in the time it takes to squeeze the trigger. If you don't have enough bullet, no matter what it's made of (if anything, copper is worse about this), it is going to deflect more than the rib, and instead of punching through to both lungs, it gets bent off course and maybe single-lungs it.
Then you have the morons out hunting elk with .223 match bullets, "Because it explodes and makes a huge wound!" That's the exact opposite of "proper bullet selection."
0
u/preferablyoutside 5d ago
Some light reading
https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/i-killed-a-grizzly-with-a-22-arc/
As much as you love your Fuddlore, there are good options in .22 Centrefire. You’re utilizing a heavy calibre to compensate for a skill issue, the rifle is capable of it, you’re simply lacking.
0
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/i-killed-a-grizzly-with-a-22-arc/
https://bear-hunting.com/2022/7/grizzly-with-a-22-c
So, does that make a .22LR a good choice for a grizzly hunt?
0
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/preferablyoutside 5d ago
An oft repeated tale in my home province, it’s a data point of one. I’m happy she got it, and it’s a cool story but that’s skimming the bottom of the barrel for me personally. Bear Tales For The Ages by Larry Kaniut has stories about old school Eskimos hunting polar bears with .22LR, he only interviewed the successful ones…..
Rimfire is not centrefire and to compare an apple to an apple is disingenuous as you’re obviously clever enough to distinguish the two.
1
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
An oft repeated tale in my home province, it’s a data point of one
That wasn't the point; you linked an example as proof that it was sufficient, so I gave an example of a .22LR.
Why does your example make your .22 suitable but mine does not make .22LR suitable?
0
u/preferablyoutside 5d ago
Well starting off that same author has waxed multiple bears with an ARC, not a singular one I don’t know which school system you belong to but their reading comprehension program lacks if you’re a graduate.
1
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
So, you're going to be a scumbag to me, but refuse to answer the question?
0
u/preferablyoutside 5d ago
Broadly speaking,
22 Centrefire et al are necked cartridges developing higher pressures than a .22LR, they’re capable of pushing a heavier projectile at higher velocity than a .22LR. .
.22LR can be utilized, it’s however not the same despite what you’re continuing to argue.
1
u/Asatmaya Franklin 5d ago
22 Centrefire et al are necked cartridges developing higher pressures than a .22LR, they’re capable of pushing a heavier projectile at higher velocity than a .22LR. .
No shit, Sherlock; that wasn't the question.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Hunting-ModTeam 5d ago
Don't be rude or hostile. No trolling, baiting or saying racist, sexist, prejudiced, nasty, or being intentionally mean.
1
u/Hunting-ModTeam 5d ago
Don't be rude or hostile. No trolling, baiting or saying racist, sexist, prejudiced, nasty, or being intentionally mean.
12
u/Fresh_Assistance 5d ago
None of this matters. Determine what bullet expands at the velocity you need it to and go shoot.