Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "A Study In Stopping Power" Rifle 95

"A Study In Stopping Power" Rifle 95

After reading this article from 1984 I wonder if anyone has done more testing like this.

Many newer bullets/loads exist today that seem to have the potential to give results somewhat better than the loads shown.

Thanks for your help,
Gary

https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr152.pdf

I only briefly scanned this article....seems they place a lot of weight on bullet expansion when current thinking tends to be that CNS hits are necessary for the desired effect, thus favoring penetration above all.

One problem with this so-called test is the specifics of the bullets are pretty much limited to brand of factory ammo.

Phil Shoemaker has been involved in killing as many big bears as anybody I know of, and has done numerous more meaningful (if not as formal) tests with a LOT of different firearms and ammo. He might weigh in here, but may not--at least not very soon--because it's fall bear season on the Alaska Peninsula.

Though I am sure he likes the test's ranking of the .458 Winchester Magnum....

Phil’s Ole Ugly is one of the fugliest rifles I have ever seen! 😂

This pamphlet is primarily directed towards employees of various Federal government agencies and not hunters in general. As such, factory ammo will be the norm as I don't know of any agency which promotes the use of personally handloaded ammunition. There may be those agencies that do but I'd look closely at the fine print, footnotes, addendums, et al as I would expect doing so would exempt the employer from liability in the event of injury and place that liability on the person who loaded the rounds.

It is also mentioned in the pamphlet that an increasing number of employees are not familiar with firearms and have to be trained in their use. Expecting such people to also take up Handloading would not be a likely occurrence. And getting someone to load rounds and accept the liability might be problematic.

Stopping an action is not just disrupting the CNS and killing the animal instantly, it can also occur by dropping blood pressure. An expanding bullet can cause greater bleeding than a non-expanding one which would stop an action quicker, especially if vital areas are reached. It is the principle an arrow works under and why it kills pretty quickly with shots to vital areas.

Overall, I found it to be an interesting pamphlet geared towards those who are not familiar with firearms. That it recognized the limitations of bullet design in regards to velocity is well known today but not widely thought of back then. The biggest take away seemed to reaffirm that which has been preached for a decades now- use what you are familiar with and can handle with adequate bullets for the task. Today, that opens up a lot more options than back when the pamphlet was written.

Simple, straight forward and effective. The 20" bbl is a great length for improved handling.

few years back, a certain rifle owned by a rather well known gun writer was in the shop. he hunted dangerous game in alaska as well as africa. interesting rifle.
short barreled, i think 20 inch, bolt action in a fiberglass stock, i think a peep or buckhorn, don't remember, in .416 remington.
i remember thinking it needed shock asorbers for the recoil, but probably pretty effective crawling into the weeds after a wounded lion.

I read this article about a dozen years ago, and then again a couple years ago, and now. It seems to be filled with the kind of ridiculousness typical of government agencies in general.

There is no magical gun nor ammo, just an adequate gun/ammo combo and cool-headed shooting. All of the 458's, 460's, and 375's in the hands of relatively inexperienced shooters aren't going to provide the outcome desired.

Phil Shoemaker has caused me to rethink this several times over since before being a member here on the Fire. It isn't so much the gun as it is the shooter, and the biggest guns aren't going to save you by "stopping" an aggressive, huge predator if you hit them badly, or miss. Penetration is only going to be of benefit if it breaks down the right structures. Seems guys would be better off packing 7x57 with heavy Partitions or 308 with heavy Partitions, and shooting for the CNS than dicking with guns that most can never learn to shoot well, such as a light full-length magnum with a cut-down barrel.

It's a common tale that the Inuit preferred 22 cal centerfires and head shots. Seems like that would work better than lightning and thunder, and a miss.

That old "study" was not bad, it was simply done by gov't employees attempting to sort out which caliber and rifle would be best for workers, who had little experience, to carry in the field.
And why I found many things to complain about it when it originally came out, mainly the omission of premium bullets which were not as common then, it was an honest and fair attempt.

I remember that article and I think for the time it was a good one. The old article showed what many have known for many years and what has been proven to work in up close situations. That is the 30-06 and a 220 grain bullet, especially a tough 220 grain bullet kills big bears.

I think Hosea Sarber, the Bear Hunting Judge Richard Folta and others poked decisive holes in many a bear with a 30-06 and I think at one time the worlds largest brown bear on record was killed with a 30-06. The Fires own resident big bear expert and Alaskan Guide Phil or ".458 Win." speaks highly of a 30-06 and 220 grain Partitions when stuffed in the beautiful Mauser 30-06 Todd Ramirez built him. I want to shoot that rifle.

Any time one of my 30-06 rifles, a Pre-64 featherweight or a Mauser 1640 Lite is stuffed with 5 of those big slugs in the magazine I know I am well armed with a proven killer.

What the article didn't do or use was a study of what we all call "super bullets", Partition, Swift, Barnes X, Bitterroot, Bear Claw, etc. There are lots of hunters that never have and never will have to deal with or bump into big salmon fed coastal brown bears or interior grizzlies trying to make a living before the long hibernation.

Another thing is the .375 H&H. When I came to Alaska in the 60's most of the ones I saw, including my Dad's, were Pre-64's and they held 4 in the magazine. For some reason I never warmed up to the .375, then again I never was a big bear guide.

As much as I like a good rifle and all the other great gear we have access to, it is the bullet and how it performs that has captivated my attention since I first read about one of Elmer's "raking shots" long ago. I have used the raking shot on bears, moose and caribou. All with Nosler Partitions and Barnes X bullets of some flavor. I really couldn't tell a difference between the bullets as far as the critter goes. Then again mine is a small sample.

One thing I find interesting was the notion that in America we needed short barreled rifles to deal with big bears in the "pucker brush", but in Africa there was and is a bunch of long barreled Mauser bolt action magazine rifles used for every type of dangerous game. Guess it depends on what a guy wants.

Good shooting guys.

The primary difference between African and Alaskan use is that most African hunters travel primarily by vehicle, in flat country, during the day while Alaskans carry their rifles all day and at times much of the night , in rugged country, often for weeks at a time. Even though long barreled rifles with iron sights, may be easier to hit with , Carbine length rifles are easier to pack all day

Makes sense Phil. If I ever win the lottery I would love to sit on me back side and be driven around Africa looking for critters. My main hunting rifle, a .338 has a 23" tube, but the 45-70 I carry the most when not hunting has a 21" tube. .

If you don't mind me asking, do you want your clients aiming for a shoulder or a double lung shot?