Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Lethality Index, which one is the best/

By using velocity, rather than velocity squared, AND multiplying by 'caliber', the small-caliber high-velocity rounds are 'double penalized'. For example, a .257 Weatherby Mag shooting a 100 grain bullet at 3600 fps would only score 13.22. A 22-250 shooting a 60 grain bullet at 3600 fps would score a lowly 6.91. There's another thread on .22 centrefire for hunting deer. While not my first choice, some have experienced success with it. Any relatively 'simple' formula is necessarily going to be missing important 'pieces of the puzzle'.

It kills just like coming out of a Win Mag, just 150 yds further or so than your Federal is shooting, still dead out most normal ranges game is taken.

I agree with Texas and seen those TKO values from long ago.

7STW, I think PO Ackley praised the 220 swift for a fast, maybe his fastest deer killer 'DRT' and also the 17 Rem it seems, was it Burros he shot many, or someone did? Skimmed those volumes a decade or two ago.

Simply more ways than one to skin a cat, The 'Elmer Keith Way' w/high TKO bullets, minimal meat damage, and the 'Roy Weatherby Way', sometimes instant Deerburger like my first deer, 30 yds, 145 BTSP/7Mag, on shoulder DESTROYED! Never seen so much deer meat destroyed, large 8-pt buck, still got 74 lbs of weighed meat from what was left! Damn thing even jumped 3-4 leaps before down! Never again wanted to invoke that kind of damage on a deer.....and now avoid shoulders as well where possible.

Dropped back to a 160 BTSP, at 2800 range, father in law shot a few deer in TX around 200 yds, no problems.

I agree on the comment, a 338F is right there next to a fine 358.

You guys are my kind of people!

Perhaps my statistical sample is too small; I'll say that out front. Having killed 6-8 deer with a 7mm-08 and 6 with a .358, the .358 is considerably more decisive about the whole thing. No breaking of bone required... no TSX required... just shoot them in the vitals and that's it.

I'm trying to think of a way to express it properly, and running into the usual suspects here. Different bullet types, and every deer you kill is of course an event unto itself... etc. The best way I can describe it is that the deer I've shot with my .358, except one, just really gave up and admitted they were dead noticably sooner than with the 7mm-08.

A big ol' hole is a good thing. As long as you have the horsepower to drive the bullet nice and deep, it's hard for me to see a downside to frontal area in a bullet...

This is the one deer that didn't just fall over and die when I shot him with a .358. As you can see he was well hit and the bullet did some damage, to say the least. This young buck ran over 200 yards after this shot! I was astounded. He was jacked up on adrenaline when I shot him... another of those variables that makes this question a tough one... that said, I NEVER got exits like this from my trusty 7mm-08.

A zebra's heart would round this thread out.

It'll prolly come nite's still young.

All I ever got from 7/08's were carcasses......WHAT is the big deal with exits...I mean..does it really matter??? If I get them fine,but if I don't who cares?It has nothing to do with killing effectiveness of a load..mostly urban myth.

Where does this "exit" business come from? I mean, all the important stuff is wrecked before the exits happen.....the stuff you need to destroy is INSIDE the deer,not outside.....no?

We need a new lethality index.......The Exit Lethal Factor....can we reduce this to a formula???

Bob I can't remember the last time I pulled a bullet from a animal.Always a pass through.

TFF. Ain't that the truth. I need to make a deal with JWP, I'll never post this poor little dink again, if he never posts that damn zebra heart!

Bob, I never lost a deer with 7-08, but I did have a couple of what Dober calls rodeo's. Could be the bullet I was using (150 NP; it's what the rifle liked and who was I to argue?)...

I'm turning my other 7-08 from safe queen to lean mean killin' machine so maybe I'll get some more data points with other bullets. I'm thinking 140 AB, or if I get REALLY wild... the 120 BT.

thanks for all your comments. The real drive here is to compare my wifes 280 Remungton Mt rifle, 175gr hornaday @2650fps against the 338 Federal, I can get a Sako 85 at reduced price as they are unpopular around here. trade the remington off on a sako

Well that complicates matters <g>....

she needs convincing

Hmmmmm....guess it comes down to what you want to convince her to choose. Could make a pretty good argument for either rifle as far as "lethality", but remember "figures don't lie, but liers do figure sometimes". The difference is how you juggle the numbers.

I believe you will find the .338 Fed. will be a just a bit more dramatic in "lethality" at close range (under 200 yards or so). This is not too surprizing when the TKO values at the muzzle are compared (26.26 for the .338 and 18.82 for the .280).....not a tremendous difference, but noticable.

However, due to the better ballistic coeffecient of the heavy-for-caliber .284" bullet (as compared to the relatively light 210 gr. .338) this "edge" will disappear as range increases. Remember, the TKO value drops as velosity does.

The .280 also has the advantage of using much lighter and faster bullets to increase effective range, while the .338 is already using a light-for-caliber bullet at near-max speed.

Soooooo..... if you really want the .338 Fed., then argue with the wife that it hits harder and is more lethal at "normal" hunting ranges (most animals are killed well inside 300 yards).

Or......if what you are aiming for is a new .280, then argue that the .338 is only "slightly" better (26.36-vs-18.82 TKO) at close range, but at longer distance (where a trophy "might" appear) the .280 is more "deadly" and is easier to hit with due to better trajectory.....while the "slow" .338 basically limits you to shots under 300 yards.

While both arguments are "true" according to the statistics, both are slanted to favor the rifle of choice. Seems to me you can't lose this one no matter which way you argue.

Don't pass up this opportunity......it's damn seldom that a man will find himself in a "can't lose" situation when dealing with women!!!

Makes me think of the Scandinavian study thats shows almost no difference between cartridges ranging from the 6.5X55 to the .375H&H in the number of shots required or the distance traveled by thousands of moose (European elk) shot by hunters.

did somebody say zebra?

If you believe the 'TKO' metric cited provides a useful basis upon which to base a decision, then you might want to consider some other options. While the highest value quoted previously was I believe under 27 for the .358, a .50 cal muzzle loader scores over 40 while a 1 ounce 12 gauge slug over a 3 inch shell rates over 80! So there's your answers - 3 inch 12 gauge slug gun tops just about any centrefire rifle.

Mike: Sure I understand it happens; I get them,too.But it's getting hungup on them as an element of bullet effectiveness that confuses me,because it really makes no difference whether it passes through or stays inside.

I'm wondering here who wants the 338 Federal; Furprick or his wife?LOL! The differences between the two cartridges will not show on a lethality index of any sort,if you use good bullets in both.

I'll side with the wife and keep the 280.

If she likes the 280 I would let her keep it. Isnt the Sako 85 a bit heavier of a rifle than the Rem mtn. rifle? The 280 seems more versatile to me as well.

Maybe it does for some applications,when I hunted Alberta their grizzly response team used Remington 870s with 12 gauge slugs(Brennekes,I think)to go after bears that were known to be dangerous. I remember pictures of a very large boar that they killed with that load,there are worse choices for big bears and cats than a good slug load.

So this thread has gone on for 4 pages now. All the old arguments and formulas have come up--and apparently nobody has noticed that NONE of the gun writers has posted.

It took me longer to quit believing in formulas on this subject than it took me to quit believing in Santa Claus. That's because I received irrefuatble evidence that Santa Claus didn't exist long before I could observe lots of big game being taken with various cartridges. In general, there isn't enough difference between what we consider "general" big game cartridges to argue over.

Finally Furprick admitted the real question: How can he talk his wife into trading off her favorite .280 for a .338 Federal?

Having a wife who hunts, and not believing in Santa Claus, I vote for the .280.