Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What Does a Bigger Cartridge Get You?

In one class of rifle cartridges with similar velocities, sectional densities, and quality of bullet - say 6.5x55 to 30-06 - what benefit do we get from shooting the bigger one?

I know the disadvantages - more recoil, more cost, and close to my heart (and ringing ears) recently, more noise.

I've always assumed until recently the balancing advantage was that it killed better and more humanely, but recent articles and references make me wonder. I think Mule Deer's article a couple of years ago on low-recoiling rifles made me begin to look at it seriously, followed by his recent Rifle Magazine article on the 7x57 in which he describes the penetration and wound channels of tested cartridge/bullet combos as not too dissimilar. The Scandinavian studies of alg hunts with 10,000 instances of shot animal tracking distances bolstered my confusion with little differences among the various cartridges used. Then more recently, Phil Shoemaker (I think, though I can't find the reference) referred to the 6.5 Swede to the 30-06 as a class of cartridges performing similarly. Finally, though the issue was not a 6.5x55, but a 270 Winchester, JJHACK indicated that he saw no real killing difference between the 270 and the '06, but the '06 left a better blood trail.

I've seen no real difference between the 6.5 and the '06 on deer, so I assume any difference shows up with bigger animals. So, what is the observed difference in effect that makes the '06 a better choice than the Swede on elk or kudu, say?

Jaywalker

I think bullet construction and shot placement are the two most important factors in putting game down humainly. Big fast bullets tend to upset an animals nervous system better than the alturnative, I guess that they hurt more. My experience is , all things being equal the big bullet will knock down better. This is why the '06 based mid-bores won't go away. They seem to have the right balance.

Something to talk about 'round the campfire!!

I think horse1 has it pretty close. Besides the added "fun" of more blast and recoil, the chief advantage (in my own VERY personal view) is greater magnosterone bragging rights.

Mostly dead on.....

If I was to never shoot at an elk more than 300 yds away, or never take a Portuguese brain shot, the 243W with 100gr Partitions would be all I need................little recoil and low muzzle blast makes it very appealing.

Casey

Whether are not a larger cartridge kills faster is open to debate,but it does offer some advantages.....

1- the Animal will have a more visual reaction to being hit
2- bigger calliber bullets are easier to hear the impact when you are the shooter( at least to me anyway)
3- Larger diameter exits and ussually mean a better blood trail if needed
4- On realy large game a better chance of acctualy breaking bones rather than shooting caliber size holes through them ( yes I have acctually seen this on Very Large Bear ,and on Moose bullets were Partions)

Maybe no other advantage, but an advantage none the less

If seventy percent of the bullet's energy is expended in the hillside behind the animal, I doubt there is much performance difference between an 06 with a 180 or a 260 with a 100.

But when one uses a bullet which delivers most of the available energy to the target, well in my meager experience the game reacts a lot differently to a larger cartridge. At least when the game is deer. I have not killed enough of anything else to make any valid comparisons.

I can state with firm conviction that a deer hit in the vital liver-heart-lung region gets real sick, real fast when the bullet is a 30 cal 165 bt at medium velocity. I can not say the same for the deer I have shot with smaller cartridges such as the 7x57 or 22-250. The deer died quickly, and were recovered easily with the smaller cartridges, but there certainly was not the same visible reaction to the shot.

Instead I would compare the reaction of the deer to the smaller calibers to the reaction of the elk I killed with the 06 and 165's. The elk fell over dead and was fully bled out within forty yards, but still it showed no reaction at the shot. If I had not been so confident in the rifle and my prone position, I would have sworn I had missed cleanly with both heart shots.

While I have hunted Africa and North America and taken game the size of zebra, wildebeest, cape buffalo, kudu, etc multiple times, I am sure my sample size is too small to be statistically meaningful.

On my African trips have used a lot of different cartridges and bullets ranging from 243 Winchesters and 7 x 57 Mausers to 378 and 460 Weatherbys to 500 Nitro Expresses. Bullets include Hornady softpoints, Nosler Partitions, Swift A-frames, Trophy Bonds, Woodleigh soft and solids, etc.

For some reason, perhaps personal, still respect the thoughts of Elmer Keith and Bob Hagel figuring their experience level was pretty high. I had the opportunity to talk to both of them extensively and that may prejudice my thoughts. Realize there have been some bullet technology improvements since Keith's and Hagel's prime time.

Have a little experience tracking wounded game over a day or more of rough terrain and chasing (not tracking) a wounded cape buffalo across umpteen miles with many ought-to-be fatal wounds from a 500 Nitro Express. Not entirely defendable, but was wishing I had a 585 Nyati or 577 Nitro as I put more holes in him that day and he ignored me.

One time I designed a fractional factorial Multivariable Test (MVT) involving bullet weight (175 v 300), bullet construction (Hornady v Trophy Bond), bullet velocity (2500 v 2800), animal (zebra v wildebeest), etc and enlisted other hunters to help me execute the MVT. We carried laser rangefinders, GPS system, and stop watches to measure distances between the shooter and the animal when shot and for the distance and time the animal traveled after being shot.

More trips to Africa are needed to enlarge the sample size, but no one seems to have the time and patience for large scale experimentation any more. Too much time taken away from golf, I guess.

A distant second approach would be to enlist the authors of Rifle Bullets for the Hunter (the bullet book) to help execute a well designed MVT with similar factors to the above African test. Whereas we will not be measuring time and distance traveled by a real animal, we can measure depth, breadth, and volume of the wound in The Bullet Test Tube and pretend it is a plumbing problem for blood and oxygen. With that, we can determine the plumbing leak rate and have some sort of measure of destructive value.

Logic has nothing to do with hunting campfire time, but we might stretch it a little and think there is a relationship between plumbing loss and time to expiration. I myself can cite field exceptions to this idea (two cape buffalo in particular coming to mind), so maybe it is not worth the time.

Well designed experiments are far superior to unorganized data collection, but no one likes to do the work necessary.

Seems like with all the government grants handed out for nonsense, we ought to be able to get enough for a five-year study involving extensive culling operations around the world.

Oh, well, back to analyzing other data on a Sunday afternoon.

Bring your 243 and I'll put you on point for our next grizz hunt in the thick alders.

Wayne

As you know, the order of an experiment's execution has to be random in order to be valid.

I just checked my random number table and my next grizz has to be taken with nothing less than a 340 Weatherby with 250-grain Nosler Partitions. Furthermore, the table says if the range is closer than 150 yards for the first shot, a minimum of a 375 H&H with 300-grain NP is required, preferrably a 458 Win Mag with 500-grain Trophy Bonds.

Sorry 'bout that. But science requires following the rules.

Anyone take you up on the offer?..............

JWP:Larger bore sizes have an undeniable advantage on the larger game,since they make larger wounds, destroy more tissue,and break heavy bones more reliably,as you point out.Difficulties with quantifying all this is that,while our cartridges and bullets get bigger,faster,penetrate better,etc.,the game animals themselves have not changed and many of our big game cartridges from,say, 6.5mm and up (have to draw the line somewhere)are capable of inflicting serious wounds in vital organs that most mammals can't survive for very long.

Put a bullet through the lungs with a 6.5mm and cetainly a lethal wound has been inflicked.I don't disagree,but the question was what do you get with a bigger caliber and I believe that you do get an advantage,how much faster can you kill animal with a bigger caliber,I don't know. I just know that I would rather have a much larger bore diameter than a 6.5mm,if I were face to face with a coasstal Brown Bear,wouldn't you.....

So, we have the audible "thump," the visible reaction from being hit, and increased blood trail. We also have a feeling that bigger is better.

I have no point of view here - just the basic question - but I wonder if the visible reaction isn't more related to the bullet type than the caliber. JJHACK's bullet reports showed reaction from the Hornady InterBond, but little from the TSX, both in 30-06.

As for larger wounds, I used to believe that, too, until recently. Penetration and wound channel tests seem to be very similar, if I understood the articles and posts right. Also, if the bullet/wound increased, wouldn't we expect to see a difference in time and distance it took the Scandinavian alg (Alces alces) to tip over and fall?

Jaywalker

Don't forget the ability to brake bones on realy large game rather than shoot a cliber sized hole through it.

Oh yea one of my favorite calibers is the 30/06 ..........

Caliber (and to an lesser extent velocity) being the same--I entirely agree. I have seen too many varying responses by the same species with essentially the same calibers at the same velocity to think that caliber makes a big difference within a specific "range" of calibers and velocity. On those particular species with those calibers, plain 'ol bullet performance is the biggest factor.........

Casey

heres a basic fact...
Ive had a lot more guys in camp useing .338-.375 bullets in the 250-300 grain range leave exit wounds on ELK than the .257-.308 cals in the 100-150 grain range and while good hits from either result in dead ELK, I can,t believe anyone thinks the larger calibers don,t hit harder and do more damage with similar bullet designs.
I sure noticed a differance in how fast ELK dropped when swapping from a 30/06 to a 340 wby!(notice I didn,t say it killed better, but it sure tends to get a more noticable reaction on bullet impact)
I think we are discussing this ONLY because ELK don,t generally get VINDICTIVE,seak out and KILL hunters when wounded, if they tended to react like cape buffalo or lion do at times I doubt we would be even thinking about useing the lighter calibers. ITS only because ELK tend to run off and drop dead rather than charge IMPALE and shread thier tormentors with those large pointed racks, when wounded that makes this even a subject too discuss!

one of my friends refers to this as the bucket theory" you can shoot a 5 gallon steel bucket full of water with a 22 hornet or a 458 win and the water(life) will still all drain out, the differance is only in the exit wound and time it takes for the water to drain, either gets the job done if draining the water is the only goal."

Your table appears to be much like my own. Sometimes I have to work pretty far down in the table to find the correct random number, but it's usually there. It's always reassuring to be following proper protocol.
--Bob

As "unscientific" as this may sound, it makes perfect sense to me. A larger bullet makes them drain out faster. It accounts for the advantage in bullet size, but it does not address the advantage of increased velocity. What about that, 340mag? Do you have a simple explanation for the advantages of increased velocity?
_