Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Bullet diameter for big game?

Not a case where bullet diameter per se makes a difference, but a 130 TTSX or TSX out of a 30-06 or 308 at 3150-3300 FPS give or take is not what would classically be described as a deep penetrating bullet. I have killed a lot of deer with them and seen an lot more killed with them. They have never shown me much deference to bone. They seem to go through bone every bit as easily as they do soft tissue. I have no doubt that bone can deflect one of them, and may be capable of and by itself at normal impact velocities of breaking off petals though I Have only seen that happen once at that was out of a 300 WM at 25 feet. That said though, If I have to stop something big that is intent on doing me harm That bullet in a Remington 760 with a full magazine behind it Is what I want in my hands. That speed makes a difference in not having to worry so much about a moving target. The recoil is considerably reduced whit just plain makes any follow up shots faster and more accurate. With the possible exception of elephant I cannot see a modern mono not being able to penetrate the bone necessary to stop anything in it's tracks if it's 80 grains or heavier. I would not expect a 70 grain TSX in .224 diameter out of a .223 being enough different than a 130 in 30-06 that I could see a difference.

Were I looking to just shoot one, I would prefer a different load. If I am going to double lung something that might hurt me I want the ability to take out both shoulders and the heart along with the lungs, I would opt for a little heavier bullet.

The monos are very accurate and very dependable after impact. Dependable enough that only the best of the bonded premiums even come close, and then they will not normally match the penetration of the monos.

So in a nutshell, what kills better? Monos or "premium" bondeds, cud and core?

my thought is : bigger is usually better and people that brag about all the animals they kill with smaller diameter bullets like a 223 cartridge ,i wonder just how many animals they wound ,the real truth ? i like what 1AKshooter posted and agree if it might eat me i want my 338 Winchester Mag. too !

Monos. Every time. In my hands they will go where I want them, which is not a certainty with cup and core bullets of any type.

Speaking of mono's. One of the Pastor's at my church is a pretty successful moose slayer and two of his children hunt with him. One of the rifles he has for his son is and old Mod. 99 in .300 Savage. He asked me about bullets and I told him to try a 130 grain Barnes TTSX. They hunt from tree stands and he said his son fired three of those X bullets at the moose at about 250 yards and the moose ran off and they tried for two days to find it before giving up. He was sick about it and said he is done with X bullets. I also was sick about it and wish I had not recommended any bullets to him. He could not say for sure where the moose was hit, but was certain the first shot was in the lungs.

I was just trying to suggest a load that would not beat his small son to death and still kill the moose. Maybe the first bullet did not expand and maybe the son missed the moose on the two follow up shots, ya got me.

I didn't ask which bullets your rifles shoot better, I asked which bullets killed better. If you don't know just say "I don't know".

I think his meaning was straight line penetration in the animal.

I believe monos kill best by a good margin and I no longer use anything else whether I am shooting a ML rifle or regular centerfire at deer.

How difficult is it to understand a one word sentence? The two word sentence might make better sense with comprehension issues on the fire, but even given taht, it is still small unambiguous words.

I believe monos kill best by a good margin and I no longer use anything else whether I am shooting a ML rifle or regular centerfire at deer.

I know a couple of younger Alaskans who have killed several moose and grizzlies with .223's, partly because they grew up in the bush so weren't exposed to Internet sites, so didn't know they couldn't. Was introduced by Phil Shoemaker, who can vouch for them, if he cares to. But often Phil is a long way from Internet access, and too busy to bother.

After doing some big game hunting here and there, which also involved watching a lot of other people shooting various animals, I have become less convinced that bigger bullets make all that much difference for most hunting, as long as the bullets expand and penetrate the vitals. Among other things have seen elk of all sizes crumpled by lung shots with bullets fired from cartridges not only considered inadequate by many Campfire members, but some cartridges illegal for elk in more than one state. The quickest-deadest bull moose I've killed was taken with a lung shot from the dreaded .270 Winchester, and the hunter didn't even use a magic monolithic, but a 150-grain Nosler Partition at a boring 2850 fps.

I also know a woman who, on her very first big game hunt, killed three African plains-game animals--an impala, gemsbok and blue wildebeest--with one shot each from a .243 Winchester. Many Internet experts think the .30-06 with monolithics is "adequate" for gemsbok and wildebeest, but a .338 is better. She used a .243 Winchester with 85-grain Partitions, and I suspect she thinks the .243 is one of those really powerful cartridges often mentioned here.

Also just got word from another friend (who's on a safari right now) that his wife took her first animal, a zebra stallion with one shot from the dreaded 6.5 Creedmoor, and not only didn't use a monolithic but not even a Nosler Partition. Instead the bullet was a 143-grain Hornady ELD-X. But of course we ALL knows that's impossible....

You ain't done much killing then...