Some folks like the "big bores" and that is what the .358 Winchester represents... a caliber capable of throwing a larger diameter, heavier bullet compared to a .308 Winchester bullet.
Frankly, I've noticed that according to the tales guys have told in these forums, the big, heavy bullets tend to put game "down" and keep them there more often than lighter, faster bullets.
According to what they write, a 250 grain bullet with a starting diameter of .358" may be MORE likely to stop the deer in it's tracks compared to a 150 grain, .308 diameter bullet. At least, THAT is the general claim among the "big bore" advocates.
I, personally, don't know that to be true. I think it's BULLET PLACEMENT that wins-the-day in most cases, but what happens when both sizes/weights of bullets are placed in EXACTLY the same place?
As an example, many years ago, my eldest son borrowed my o/s Ruger .44 magnum carbine and went deer hunting down in Kentucky. He shot a relatively large 225 lb. whitetail buck just behind the shoulder at 60 yards with one of my hand-loaded 240 grain Nosler JHP bullets that had a chronographed muzzle velocity of a little over 1800 fps... and the big deer dropped like the hammer of Thor had descended upon him... and he never moved.
Now... how many times have you heard a hunter say or seen it written that he shot a big buck in the "vital zone" with a 150 grain bullet out of a .30/06 at a similar distance and the buck ran for almost 100 yards before "piling up"?
Yet, the calculated muzzle energy of those two rounds (a 240 grain .44 magnum bullet & a 150 grain .30/06 bullet) aren't even CLOSE... the .30/06 bullet (handloaded at over 3,000 fps) would win the foot/pounds "race" by a VERY wide margin.
So should we "overhaul" the way we determine muzzle energy so that it gives a more representive image of what are the REAL facts? And, after his experiences, whatta think my eldest son believes?
His brother, my other son, used his 7mm Remington Magnum with a "somewhat-heavy-for-the-caliber" 150 grain bullet to "down" some deer, but those deer sometimes dropped immediately and sometimes ran for 50 or more yards before they went down. Go figure, eh?
Some of the old gun-writers like Elmer Keith insisted, during their whole career, that "big, heavy bullets" were just-the-ticket for big game... and even now, there's a movement towards "heavy-for-the-caliber" bullets which SEEM more effective on big game because they drive DEEPER into the vital areas of the game animals... just like the heavier, larger diameter bullets from the larger caliber rifle often do.
Some knowledgable gun-writers have, over the years, told us over & over again that the way bullet energy is calculated is wrong... and that too much emphasis is given to muzzle VELOCITY as opposed to bullet WEIGHT & bullet DIAMETER. Muzzle velocity is "squared" which tends to give extra validity to muzzle velocity while bullet weight is only given the actual amount of "difference" in weight... ie., if bullet weight is doubled, the energy is doubled (but not "squared").
Could it be that the gun-writers are "right"... or is/was Roy Weatherby's way (high velocity, lighter bullets) correct?!? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />
Each method has it's "champions"... and both can illustrate their stands with "real life" examples that showcase their argument. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Me? I use a medium weight .308 caliber bullet weighing 150 grains at a relatively modest muzzle velocity of 2680 fps out of my old (1953), but pristine Model 99 Savage "EG" in .300 Savage caliber... and it works "just right" for me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Strength & Honor...
Ron T.
