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?
_

JWP: Absolutely,I agree. I was in a bad situation once; even though I knew a 375 was enough gun, it felt pretty small at the time!These rifles shrink when the pucker factor kicks in!

...but would you have hunted those things with a 30-06? Sure, there are things you should hunt with a 338/340/375, but but they're in a different class of cartridges than the 6.5x55 to 30-06. The question is not whether the 340 WM is more powerful than the 6.5x55 - it certainly is - but whether the critters we choose to hunt with the 30-06 show any greater effects with the '06 than the 6.5.

I always believed the bigger hole made a quicker kill, but look at Mule Deer's 24 Jan 07 post on the Scandinavian alg study (the comments are his):



There doesn't appear to be any real difference between the 6.5x55 and the 30-06, which is why I asked the question - what effects make the '06 preferable?

Jaywalker

remember the Scandinavian moose is quite a bit smaller than the Alaskan Yukon Moose. Also Moose are not aggressive after being shot. I am in the minority and believe that the only advantage of a 300 Winn over a 30/06 is a longer effective range and I also believe that if one needs a bigger cartridge than an 06 then a larger caliber is in order. Keep in mind shot placement in these surveys don't seem to be factored in.The larger bores do in my experience give a slight margin of error, (and I do mean SLIGHT) in shot placement.If this advantage is only one percent in margin of error then I will still want that one percent on my side when hunting or protect my self from animals that bite back

that chart is interesting but Ive always wondered about how close the shot placement and range the game was shot at was?
keep in mind that the average guy does NOT tend too hit as well with a heavy recoiling rifle, and tends to think the extra velocity allows shots from greater distances, and while the results stayed amazingly similar ,Ive always wondered at the ranges and shot dispersal differance that led to the results.
IF the ranges and hit placement were similar Id be MORE AMAZED at the results, but Id tend to think both the care in precise shot placement and possiably the range differance tended to vary on average, ( average on both was not identical)

There is absolutely a place and a need for big honking cartridges throwing big honking bullets. That griz in the alders is a perfect example, with similar examples from other continents equally valid.

But the guy who never hunts anything but deer and simply HAS to have a .349 Poundapowder Magnum? Well, that's the magnosterone brag factor, the Tim Allen effect, at work. And there are a LOT of those guys at the range.

If you are talking nothing bigger than Deer then thier is no discusssion..........

Killing an animal and dropping one in its tracks are two differant things. A little story about that: my hunting partner and i were looking accross a small lake at a bull moose, 330yds away, he was standing facing us as he could hear us, partner says wait until he is broad side for the shot, I can kill him with this shot but unlikely he will fall at the shot. So i aimed direstly at the point off his nose directly head on, a 250 Barnes X, out of a 35 whelen, at that range drops about 9 inches at my sight in. The moose folds at the shot. It takes 2hours to get the canoe, send my wife and daughter over to get it so we could pull it across the lake with a rope.This was the only legal moose we saw in a week of hunting. The bullet was found under the skin next to its anus. As usual a well placed heavy bullet works on large game. I would not have made this shot with anything less than the 35.

The moose study is interesting (and gains most of its validity) by the sheer numbers, which tend to even out ranges, bullet placement, etc.

But larger cartridges obviously do have some advantages. Heavier bullets tend to break bones (especially heavier bones) and keep penetrating into the vitals more reliably than smaller bullets, everything else being equal. This is more important on game that may be approaching (charging or otherwise) than anything else.

Also, diameter does have something to do with how hard a bullet hits. Once you get up around .40 caliber this really starts to have a definite effect. Combine that diameter with heavy bullets for penetration, and there is a decided difference.

Exactly where this difference begins, and what uses it has, are always going to be subject to debate. There are also hundreds of examples of angry, wounded large beasts taking a pile of .375, .416, .458 or even larger bullets before keeling over.

We must also keep things in perspective. To the average deer hunter who has used, say, a 7mm-08 most of his life, a .300 magnum may appear huge. But a .300 with 180's only uses a bullet 28% heavier and 8% larger in diameter than the standard 140-grain 7mm-08 load. Yeah, there's a difference in velocity, but only about 200 fps in .300 WSM and .300 Winchester factory loads.

Once we get up to something like a .375 H&H, however, even the 270-grain bullet is almost twice as heavy as the 7mm-08's 140, and it's 32% fatter. Muzzle velocity is almost the same. Yeah, it is going to a hit a lot harder--than either the 7mm-08 or the .300 magnum.

On the other hand, I have shot enough deer-sized game with the 7mm-08 and .375 to know that .375 does not kill deer twice as well as a 7mm-08. It might not even kill an elk twice as well, whatever that means.

Another study, done on the National Bison Range here in Montana in the 1950's, had the same shooter (a very good one) culling elk with the .30-06 and .375. The ammo was 220- and 300-grain Win. Silvertip, respectively. Quite a few elk were killed, with bullet placement noted, the elk weighed, etc. All of this was observed by Dr. Philip Wright of the University of Montana zoology Dept., who write it up in AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. (I know this partly because Phil was one of my professors, and gave me a copy, which hung around for years but eventually was lost.)
He also noted how long the elk stayed on their feet after being hit, how far they went, etc.

I cannot remember exactly the statitsics, but do remember that there wasn't a hell of a lot of difference in time on their feet, and how far they went. The only noticeable difference, Phil concluded, was that the bullets from the .375 went all the way through more often, leaving a blood trail.

Now, this was with Silvertips, which are not anything like the great bullets we have today, and in my experience not nearly as reliable as Hornady Interlocks.

Phil was an avid life-long elk hunter himself, and when I know him used a 7mm Remington Magnum and 175-grain Nosler Partitions or Bitterroot Bonded Cores.

I also cannot help but note that a 220-grain .30 bullet has a sectional density of .331, and a 300-grain .375 of .305. Sectional density does not totally make up for bullet weight, even in bullets of the same basic construction.

JB

Since it takes about 6 seconds for the oxygen in a grizz's brain to BEGIN to deplete, he can run the 40 yards between you and him in 4 seconds and still have a couple of seconds to get even with you even if you blow his heart up. Better have enough gun to break the sholder or you may be in for a long day.

Wayne

Big bears in this question are kind of beside the point, since the question involved elk and kudu in one class of cartridges, the 6.5x55 - 30-06. Still, there are places where grizzlies and elk co-exist, and a bigger bore could be useful there, maybe bigger than the '06. Also, gemsbok have been known to charge, and I do plan to use the '06 there, if and when, so the charging issue isn't completely out of the question.

Okay, I'm answered - the bigger bore tends to be able to break bones better and will tend to leave a larger blood trail. The "bone break" thing is a little bit of a surprise, though, based upon my reading of the dry newspaper penetration test results, but since it was Mule Deer's tests I was reading, I have to assume I misunderstood their results.

Thanks.

Jaywalker

Any media test is only a rough guide to what might happen when a bullet hits something. Dry newspaper is harder on bullets than wet newspaper, or almost any sort of gelatin, wax, etc., but it is not bone. It is also not bone held together by tough tendons, like the big shoulder joint of an elk or Cape buffalo.

One interesting rule of biology is that bone mass increases at twice the rate of animal weight. Thus a 500-pound elk has bones that are not just twice as heavy as those of a 250-pound deer, but 4 times as heavy. Elephants have incredibly heavy leg bones, and they are solid bone, too, not bone surrounding some sort of core, like those in lighter animals. So a bullet's ability to break bone (and keep penetrating in the same direction) gets much tougher an animal size gets larger.

On the other hand, it does not take much bullet to penetrate the shoulder blade of even some pretty big animals, and especially not the rib cage. So the big penetration advantage of really heavy bullets is lost there. A pretty light bullet (say a 120-grain from a .257 Roberts) will typically penetrate all the way through a typical elk's chest on a broadside shot. The bullet may not pop out the other side--and elk's hide is tough and stretchy--but it will get through the vitals.

So the answer is--it depends.

JB

Jaywalker: Yes, I have seen that survey before and I also agree that something over 338 in caliber is starting to get pretty specialized, and only for certain species. Like MD has said, ( I am paraphrasing him here,and maybe taking some license)there is not a universe of difference in lethal effect between a whole slew of cartridges in a general category,say 6.5 through 30/06 (?). I dunno where the line is.

Just a half-assed observation, but I have noticed little difference in the way a 7/08-270-280-7mag kills;270-7 mag are my favorites,mostly because I use them a lot.Next threshhold TO ME, seems to be the 300's with heavy bullets (180-200). I see bigger holes and deep penetration (larger wound channels)on elk-size stuff, and I lump them with 338's,performance-wise. Next up is 375, where everything sorta changes, wound channels get real big (yes,bigger than 338's,IME).They seem to hit very hard.

So, I guess I do not see a big difference on a lot of the things we hunt between comparable cartridges. An 06 makes a bigger hole (I think)than a 6.5 but hit well with either, the game is Kaput,and it will be tough to tell the difference.

It's hard to ignore the similarity of results, both media and animal, between the 6.5x55 and the 30-06 - 5600 alg kills make a pretty convincing argument. OTOH, there could be unexpresseed differences - alg (moose) not being a representative animal, or a higher level of skill in the Scandinavian hunters, or something else.

It's "hard to ignore," but not impossible.

Thanks,
Jaywalker

What does a bigger cartridge get you?

Chics! What did you think!

Best reason to use them!

That's been my experience almost exactly.

To me, it's simply a proportional proposition: The bigger and tougher the animals are that you want to hunt, the more cartridge and the more bullet you need.

I don't insist on making a 270 Win. do the work that is best done by a 338 Win. Mag. I'd rather hunt deer with a 270, and I'd rather hunt elk with a 338, pure and simple.

When in doubt, I take a 300 Win. Mag loaded with premium 180s. It shoots flat enough for any realistic hunting situation, and based on rather extensive personal experience it, that cartridge good for 98% of the world's big game.

So where's the complication, anyway?

AD

It's offseason, with nothing else to do?!?

That's true!

I rather like discussions of this sort. It's all about fun, and I'd like to think we're all friends here, even if it doesn't always sound that way!

AD

The wildebeest that I have shot with 300-grain Swift A-frames fired from a 378 Weatherby at under fifty yards have tended to drop faster than the wildebeest that I have shot with 100-grain Nosler Partitions fired from a 243 Winchester carbine at similar distances.

Sample sizes are small.

Your results may vary.

The kudu I have dreamed about shooting with my pre-64 .30-06 have dropped DRT to my not yet loaded 165 grain TSX, while the yet to be purchased pre-64 300 H&H shooting the 180 grainer drops them 0.28 seconds faster. That's in my dreams, YMMV.

My favorite modern era study of bullet effects is Mike LaGrange's work when he was shooting control in Zimbabwe for the Parks Department. His subsequent monograph Ballistics in Perspective documents his experience shooting thousands of heads of game (6,000 elephant and uncounted numbers of smaller animals). He also conducted experiemts shooting boards and soap for penetration and wound diameter for softs and solids.

Mike writes (p.20): "Experience over the years has indicated that there is a significant difference between the effect of calibers below .300 to those above. A 7mm caliber weapon (equivalent to .280 of an inch), seems to have considerably less effect than a .308 Win even though it is as powerful in terms of energy produced."

He also says on p.a5: "As a rue of thumb, sectional desnity should never be reduced to improve velocity. Instead use a caliber with a larger capacity case and slow burning powder, as used in the larger magnums."

I like to shoot plains game with the .308 Win because I have also found it to be effective. I have been using 180 gr premium bullets in Africa, and have finally started to use the 150 to 165 gr bullets over here.

Remember it is cross-sectional area of the penetrating bullet, and the volume of the resulting wound channel that counts. Bigger cases can throw bigger bullets.

jim

Mike LaGrange, Ballistics in Perspective, 2nd Edition, 1990, ISBN 0-9624807-2-X

The skill of the Swedish hunters would be uniformly high as they are required to do the running moose target before being allowed to hunt. I can think of three writers who confirmed this, Jeff Cooper, Layne Simpson and some other writer whose name escapes me.

I do tend to agree with his observations as that is what I have observed as well.

Jim, where can I obtain a copy of this book?........

jwp475,

amazon.com says they have it:

http://www.amazon.com/Ballistics-Perspective-Mike-Lagrange/dp/096248072X

jim

Thanks.............

HJ,

My experience doesn't quite bear out Mike's point on the sub-30, over-30 difference. I do see differences between 30s and under and over-30s, though. When it comes to deer sized animals, I don't see any difference at all. When it comes to caribou sized animals, it seems that the 30s (300wm, '06, and 308) and my .270 work about the same. Even in musk ox, talking with those who've used 300WMs, '06s and the like, their experience has been nigh identical with my wife's .270 and her mox. But, in caribou and larger animals, (sorry, I can't say about mox because I haven't drawn for that yet ), it does seem to me that the 338s and up kill the animals just a bit faster. My experience with the 338 & 358 magnums is limited, but what little I have seen hasn't convinced me that they kill any faster than the varieties based on the '06 case.

So, I do see a difference, but at slightly larger sizes than .308, and I'm starting to believe the old Brits has something with their thoughts on medium velocities rather than real screamers.

Years ago there was a series of books by Paul Matthews concerning using cast bullets and 45-70s on deer. Think he said they killed West Virginia whitetails pretty good. Don't know whether they would work on bigger ones.

Allen:Deep down inside,I have to admit that the 300 magnums,as a class are at the top of the heap as an all-round,go anywhere,shoot-anything big game cartridge.They flat work,and really well,too,on any soft-skinned game I can think of.My experience has been with the Winchester,Weatherby,and H&H.They are easy to get to shoot accurately .I no longer own any,not because they aren't great,but because I no longer enjoy shooting them.It's an "age" thing and I want less recoil,so have backed off to the 7 Mag and 270 (second tier IMO,but still very good) almost exclusively,unless I feel I need more, in which case I just "cowboy up" and shoot the 375.But if you can't get 'er done with a Big 30,it's gonna be tough to do it with anything.

"What Does a Bigger Cartridge Get You?"
Id say, CONFIDENCE BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE,
What I see in the real world is that a good deal of the effectiveness of a firearm ,in any hunters hands will be related too the familiarity he has with it,and the amount of previous practice and confidence he has with that firearm.
As Ive stated in other threads I started my elk hunting experience using a 30/06 760 slide action, it killed every elk I shot ,lethality was never an issue, but I had little confidence in that rifle because the first few elk I shot ran after being hit (and hit well at fairly short distances BTW) being young I just KNEW I needed a bigger caliber and bought a 340 wby, I practiced extensively and hand load, and while the recoil had increased it was never a personal issue I considered objectionable.
Your obviously going to ask?
Did things improve?
well it depended on what your looking at,the next couple Elk I hit with the 340wby loaded with a 250 hornady sure reacted differently, most acted stunned, or staggered then fell, rather than running and falling like they did with the 30/06, but from a pragmatic view, a single shot from either rifle resulted in a dead elk rather rapidly.
I tend to TRUST the 33-45 caliber rifles loaded with 250 or heavier projectile,so thats what I carry my late hunting partner rarely carried anything but a 358 win BLR, and he killed 16 elk over 37 years we hunted together before he passed, so power is secondary to the CONFIDENCE YOU HAVE IN YOUR EQUIPMENT, and I could no more select the correct rifle for you than a wife or truck you want!

Hell, those guys OWN the range, and it's just as true today as it was back in 2007 when you wrote that.

Bigger doesn't matter, until it does.

If you can fire the bigger round as accurately as the smaller round then the larger round simply gives you a larger margin of error.

No matter how good the hunter, for a variety of reasons bullets end up landing slightly off the aiming point. If you're shooting a bullet that produces a 2" dia wound channel vs a 4" dia wound channel, the bullet that produces the 4" dia wound channel can be an inch further out from the aiming point and still do damage to the vitals.

If you're convinced you'll never place your shots around the edges, then a .223 or a .243 is all you need for NA game. If however you wish to have a bit of reserve terminal performance for those times that things don't go quite as planned, bigger is better.

Must be off-season. Again!

I have shot approx 20 white tails. I have never failed to recover one of these. I agree that a 7mm or larger Magnum is basically never needed. I do think that 06 based rounds give much more flexibility and confidence for quartering and longer shots. I am planning to hunt with a 260 some this year. I will be more selective with my shots than have been with a 280AI. To each is own.

The one I like most is speed and the accompanying flatter trajectory. I.e. 30-30, 308, 30-06, 300 Win, and then up to the 30-378.

That speed buys you range. I still consider the 06 the most efficient 30 for myself. doing all I need to 300+ yards. As I get older I am less enamored with the need for velocity.

I've noticed a greater reaction to 250 gr bullets from my 35 Whelen than with smaller calibers. Except, there was one deer that caught a 100 gr. bullet from my .243 and dropped instantly. Probably because the bullet hit broadside, about an inch below the base of its antler.

I'll use a bigger cartridge for various reasons: practice with a rifle that I plan to use on bigger game, a second license for bigger game and want to carry only one rifle, hunting on the prairie where there will be strong winds and more distant targets plus a larger deer.

Trajectory is a non issue with rangefinders.

If you have to worry about trajectory, then you likely should be worrying more about what the wind is doing to the bullet... IMHO.

Agreed, but.... Do you have enough punch to take down big game at long distance with a mild cartrige? Let's say you pull the shot or misjudge the wind and impact a little back on the animal. In this case you would want all the energy possible. Not the time for a 22-250 with heavy for caliber bullet.

They need to do that because 95% of the Moose are shot on drives and anything thats brown is down.Its a meat hunt.

You can always load the cartridge down, if needed. Some people are only happy with top loaded ammo all the time. But say you want to start your son with a center fire for deer hunting. He starts hunting in farm groves and such and after perhaps ten years he's in the mountains hunting bigger animals and at longer distance.
You can load a 300 Win Mag to 300 savage level to start and up to 300 Win Mag when needed. Of course there's others that like more rifles, such as me. But getting a bigger cartridge is more flexible.

Bigger is better.Ask the ladies!!

To answer the op get a copy of
African Rifles and Cartridges by
John Taylor. The Gun Room Press
copy right 1948 Reprint 1977
whelennut

Just my $.02 but I think we should really look at rifles in therms of game classes. For example in the NA we really only have two classes of "Big Game" and I would group them as medium which would be deer, blk bear, sheep, goats, caribou and elk. Other than those we really only have 4 heavy game animals: bison, muskOx, moose and the great bears. On the medium class a larger cartridge really gets you marginal increments in results because most of our medium capacity rounds say .243-30-06 are more than enough to handle them effectively. On the heavy game animals bigger probably gives you some additional edge over the medium capacity rounds but within the larger rounds say from 300 mag to 375 you probably have plenty of oomph to take any of the heavy game so the incremental results are probably not that great. Now we can argue a bit over the very extremes such as a .243 on really large elk or maybe 30-06 on key deer in Florida etc. but if you want to argue 6.5x55 vs 7mm08 or 30-06 well you are probably wasting time you s/b hunting.

I

I agree with most of this.... Can you really hunt a Key Deer? Would a 243 be enough on a kinda large Elk?

200 gr Partitions at 2700 fps in a cool pre-64 Super-Grade rifle would do it for me.

To come up with a decent answer to this question we're looking at the wrong end of the cartridge/game spectrum.

Look at the little critters and shooting them with different guns and you can see more clearly how this works and why.

A chipmunk shot with a pellet gun will often just have a hole through it with even "fast" pellets and caliber doesn't seem to matter between .17, .20 or .22. You get some with a hole through them and some run off.

Start shooting them with .17 or .224 bullets and speed will vaporize them. As you move up through squirrels, chucks, porcupines, raccoons and coyotes, things begin to change. Even a 30-06 with fragile bullets won't reliably vaporize a porcupine or raccoon like a 35 grain VMax will a chipmunk or red squirrel.

What we're really trying to discuss is when does killing power move from reliably adequate to reliable overkill. Relatively fragile bullets in 50 BMG or 20/30 mm would probably be pretty hard on deer of any size, but might be noticeably less hard on moose and bigger. They would likely produce results more inline with small varmints and .224 center fires on smaller things like raccoons and porcupines. I know a 30-06 with even fragile bullets won't vaporize them like a red squirrel.

When you drop below the reliable overkill threshold, then a lot of other factors begin to come into play. There's nothing in NA that I couldn't kill with a .223 and today's tough bullets. Discussions of people having a bad time of it with large dangerous things like polar/brown bears must of necessity be selective for poor/excellent use of the weapons involved.

Recoil, mussel blast, and more powder usage..

Billy

Lot of assumptions here. Some good and some maybe not so correct. One only has to compare the numbers on the study for some answers. One thing is very clear though, all the results were provided by hunters whose marksmanship abilities met or exceeded a proscribed std. You can't shoot ,you can't hunt period for moose in Sweden. Next as to the answer to the OP's question on whether there is any difference in lethality between the 6.5x55 and the 30-06 not much ,it took the same amount of rds per animal with these 2 cartridges but the ones shot with the SWEDE got dead quicker. 4 whole yards traveled less. A little higher rds per animal with the 308 than the 06 or the Swede but even less travel with the 308. Your basic toss up. Simply amazing but blaringly right in print from the study results is that to increase your lethality from 6.5x55 you have to step up in caliber and down in in caliber from 30 to yes the 7mm Rem Magnum. Fewer hits needed by far and less traveled distance from the shot. You want to improve the 7mm Rem Mag's lethality you have to jump to the 338 Win Mag or the 358 Norma. It's all in the study, read it. The study shows the 375 is never wrong, fact is the study shows all mentioned are adequate. Why do you suppose that the study does not list any weeny guns and magic bullets? A lot of opinions on this forum badmouthing the 7 mm Mag when the blame for it not being used effectively should be on the shoulders of those not competent in Marksmanship using it. I find it somewhat amusing that the 7 mm detractors are all sleeping in or out to lunch on this thread. Magnum Man

Real magnums start at 375 and above!!!

Of the animals I have dispatched with a .284 140 TTSX there was no apparent reaction from the hit. They croaked, yes.

Any cartridge selection has "wiggle room" either side of it, which is the GACK component popular on the internet.

Also, people love to read an article that praises their chosen cartridge and makes them feel superior in their choice and wisdom on the matter. Endorsement builds following, hence the two ballistic theorem popularized by JOC and Keith.

Then, there is observation that instills opinion.

I "see" 3 thresholds where bullet impact meets a new point in visibility. They are:
1. .30/06
2. .375 H&H
3. .460 Weatherby.

Interestingly, they all approximate each other in velocity ranges therefore the real difference between them is caliber and bullet weight.

Yes, critters show more "reaction" to a quicker-expanding bullet in any caliber than the monos. I'm not convinced that they die any quicker, but they stagger more.

For sure.

Placement matters. Sometimes reaching...vitals - only takes 1/3 the potential

Well, if you put it in those terms, even a ............handgun will work.

Generally speaking....with a variety of bullet types, my experience has been that caribou will tip over quicker with something like a 7mm-08 than they will when shot with a 6mm/243. (And I’ve killed a couple truckloads, at least, with both.)

I’ve only run 7 or 8 bullets from 6.5x55 or 7mm-08 into 3 moose - and they died without undue drama. However, the 30-06 which I’ve used on over a dozen moose with a variety of bullets - generally in the classic ribcage type location- has been significantly more positive in effect.

FWIW as it relates to Scandinavian moose hunts, there seem to be a fair number of rather smallish (600-800 pound) animals in the mix. Smaller moose are nowhere near as formidable when it comes to the projectiles needed to get well inside. Neither are the smaller animals as difficult to put down. It seems to me that once a certain threshold is met, more ‘power’ really doesn’t get much additional effect, perhaps until you reach a scale where by you’re beginning to simulate prairie dog type energy effects.

Of course a person who makes brainer shots is not going to see any difference between the 223 and the 460 (although he might shoot a bit less precisely with the latter from time to time for a variety of reasons.)

One of my favorites, is the 9.3X62 also have used the 6.5X55 and 6.5X57. All work well. At higher velocities the smaller rounds cause more meat damage. More explosive hits. With the 9.3X62 I do not have too much recoil, and it has proven to stop most game in it's tracks with little to no meat damage. At least for Whitetails and Mule Deer. Have also used the 8mm Mauser and 30-06. It really depends on the bullet, velocity, and the game one is trying to take. For myself I have found for the most part in woods hunting where long range is not an issue bigger is indeed better.

Maybe I can tag along and clean up the gut pile!
Larry