Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 10,000 Swedish Moose died to teach us this lesson.

Canuck ,if the Moose shot with the .300 AND the lesser rounds are ALL DEAD ,how in the heck can the.300 be "more deadly"???.

Methinks you've been drinking too much eggnog.

Merry Christmas and enjoy your "mighty" .375s...

Statistic's are often something you can reach any conclusion you want from...

I agree, lighter recoil likely has some bearing. The fact that the 6.5x55 was the Swedish Army's round for most of the 20th century doesn't hurt, either. In fact, my second centerfire rifle ever was a Swedish military surplus 6.5x55 that I picked up for less than fifty bucks. (My first was a surplus .303 SMLE which I sporterized in my basement and used to take my first deer.) When my son decided he wanted to learn to shoot a centerfire rifle, I started him with that old Swede. He was a skinny 10-year-old at the time, but the easy-kicking 6.5 was the perfect choice. He went through the fifty mil-surp rounds I had with me and still wanted to shoot more.

Part of the hunting success of the 6.5x55 in Sweden is that the standard hunting round in that caliber is a 148 gr round from Norma. The bullet is VERY long for caliber. I don't know what the BC or sectional density is on that bullet, but it puts deer and moose down with authority, in my experience.

As for how far the moose walked after being hit, the difference between 15 meters and 47 meters is academic. You've still got a lot of work ahead of you gutting, quartering, and carrying that sucker out of the swamp. As we used to say when I was young: "Nothin' spoils a moose-huntin' camp faster than some damn fool shootin' a moose!"

The Swedish guy who sent the study to Wolfe Publishing (I will try to run it down) warned us about the results from the .300 Winchester, and to a certain extent the .338. In his experience, at least 100 kills is necessary to even START to come to any conclusion about "killing power," and more is a lot better.

His conclusion was that the results from the .300 Winchester are statistically invalid, due to a too-small sample. I would suggest he is right. If, as 378 suggests, the .300 Winchester would OBVIOUSLY be a better moose killer because of higher kinetic energy, then shouldn't the .375 H&H show up a lot better than it does, since it develops a lot more kinetic energy than the .300? But it does not.

I have not seen as many moose die as this study, but have seen a few here and there. Maybe 378 is right about all this--but his mere Campfire name would suggest that he is a little prejudiced. My own observations suggest that moose die when hit in the right place. I have seen some pretty quick kills from rounds like the .338, but the "quickest deadest" I have ever seen a bull moose killed was with one shot from a .270 Winchester.

The longer I hunt, the less I believe in kinetic energy as any sort of indicator of kiling ability. A big, heavy bullet can penetrate better, especially through bone, but even that advantage has diminished with the many bullets available today. I also know somebody here in my home town who has killed 7 bull elk, all sizes, with one shot each from a 6.5x55. He recently tried a .338-06, and lo and behold, he said it killed "about like the 6.5x55." He was somewhat disappointed, given all the hype he'd heard. But of course that was just a sample of one, which is statistically meaningless.

Nevertheless, I would say that several thousand moose are probably not statistically meaningless.

I have never hunted in Sweden, but did hunt in Norway about 10 years ago, doing red deer drives with about 25-30 Norwegian hunters. NONE of them carried a 6.5x55. The most popular cartridge was the .308 Winchester, but there were some .30-06's as well.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

John, that was my point in my response... should have just come out and said it!

Merry Christmas!

Why is it that everyone that I talk to that owns one says that a 260 Remington kills deer better and they run less than when they are shot with a 30-06? Is it shot placement or something magic about this caliber? Merry Christmas as well!

Well I'm not at 100 moose kills personnally but have been involved with around that number. One of the most dramatic kills was with my cousin and his 270, but I have followed a few 270 blood trails with no conclusion as well. The placement of the bullet is all important but from heated field conditions placement becomes a challenge, the experienced will have better success than the novice over time. The biggest eye opener for me is when I switched from a 7mm mag to the 35Whelen. The 7 would kill them for sure but only had 3 knock downs out of about 12 moose, and bears always ran. Out of about 20 moose with the 35 only a few stood at the shot, one was 1300+ lbs, he never moved but would not fall over right away. So the conclusion for me is a good medium or medium + in a rifle the suits you and success will be yours

Statistics are fine. You can go the route of finding the standard deviation of results, the mean, the mode, the median or find #s of any means and we come up with results that are all drawn from invalid conclusions. That meaning you'd have to shoot the animal in the same spot, lungs, heart, shoulder, liver, in order to put accuracy in the final theory. Is an '06 better than some other caliber for shooting a moose.....you'll be burning the midnight oil with statistics.

Sure 10,000 moose is a great sample size and a general conclusion can be made only because of the sheer #s which IMO, basically mean that a moose shot in the correct vital area will succumb to this: a moose will die when shot with a rifle.

The endless debate will go on but I'm not complaining.

This thread reminds me of an old quote.....

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

People select their hunting rounds on emotions, (the average hunter, not refering to people like 458Win or Mule Deer), not any concrete evidence of superior killing power. Then, when that particular round slays a deer or elk in short order, they seem to believe that is concrete evidence that no other cartridge would have worked as well. As time goes on, each kill becomes more spectacular in memory. I have witnessed two examples in the last three years of animals needing two shots to be rendered sufficiently dead to be skinned, and the said hunter describing the kill emphatically as a "one shot instant kill". I think by now, both believe it.
Sometimes, emotion butts heads with fact, reason and reality as in this study, and feelings are hurt.
Mule Deer, I wish that concept of at least 100 kills being required to even begin a study of killing power be started could be chiseled in stone here on the Campfire. Over and over, I see people here that have killed less than 50 game animals in their entire life hold themselves out as experts on several cartridges and many bullets in each cartridge on several species of game at all ranges- What was surprising to me, was the answer to your survey on the 338- From the vehement arguments that are posted here, I expected to see a lot more people that had taken a large number of animals with the cartridge.

Sorry to the Swedes about my comment-And on Xmas day too.
Sensibility will prevail. I've seen a native drop elk with a 22 magnum and some of my bow hunter friend kill lots of Elk with there arrows. My first big rifle was a 30-06 (17 years old)because as I said earlier it was the cheapest rifle out there and the ammo was also cheap and it seemed everyone had one. I chased a few wounded moose around and lost some shooting the cheap ammo of the era-didn't reload then.
I moved up to a 300 mag and I hardly ever chased moose very far and seldom. I wanted to go hunt in Africa so I got a bigger rifle, since the two afore mentioned weren't allowed. I went over to Africa and shot some animals. Came back to Canada and liked that rifle so much I figured I'd try it out on critters over here and I found that it worked well. So I got rid of the 30-06 and kept the other two since my 1st wife was bitching about all the rifles I had. What gets me is these surveys that really don't tell you much other than a certain caliber killing more moose simply because there is more of them out there.
It's wrong to gather that the 30-06 is the best, rather you should gather that it is more popular-that's it that's all.

Without the raw data, you can't do a whole lot to statistically analyze the data.

In practically all endeavors, there is an element of random variation. The question to be answered is, is the result I'm seeing easily explained by just random variation? If it is not, then we are justified in assigning some cause other than normal random variation.

As nearly as I can tell, that question cannot be answered with the summary data table.

Until we get the raw data, or a new data set, or one of us figures out how to wring a better conclusion out of the existing data, it is pointless to debate whether one cartridges kills alg better than another. We do not have enough information to answer the question. So far, we do not have a basis for saying that one cartridge kills more quickly than another.

The problems of different sample sizes for different cartridges, and different shot placement from event to event are easily handled. In a perfect world, we would have information about bullet weight and shot placement, but you can reach solid conclusions without that.

denton,

As I noted earlier, I will try to find the original report, as submitted to the magazine. But from whbat I recall, the number of moose was around 7800, and moose in Sweden are almost all hunted on drives, the moose often moved by alg-hounds. The shots are mostly at closer ranges, and many at moving animals--which is why moose hunters first have to pass a test on a running moose target.

One of the reasons the guy who submitted the data suggested that 100 was a minimum number of any reasonable conclusion is that when at least 100 animals were shot with rifles chambered for the same cartridge, variables such as shot placement tended to even out. In other words, if enough moose were shot, then "good" and "bad" shots tended to show up in some consistent proportion.

I seem to also remember that the shooters were required to submit the information. I don't know how such a bunch of kills could have been recorded otherwise.

At any rate, I have not seen 7800 big game animals killed, but have seen quite a few, and the results have made me lose faith in the magic of any one cartridge or bullet, or muzzle velocity, fot-pounds, pounds-feet, Taylor Knock-Out Values or whatever. The Swedish study just tends to reinforce this.

Before reading in a later post in this thread about what bullet was used in the 6.5x55, I was thinking how superficial and shallow comparing mere energy figures alone is, not to insult anyone, but the bullet does the job, not by a mathematical representation of it's speed, energy, etc. but how it penetrates and damages tissue along its path.

I'd venture to say, there are a few key variables to why a moderate 6.5 kills well.

1) Shootability (mild recoil plus commonly seen high level of rifle/load accuracy), as accuracy must be priority #1 PROPER PLACEMENT!

2) Bullet velocity in a range that even w/o a premium bullet, one often gets consistent controlled bullet behavior, save real light high speed bullets at close range on bone, something I doubt happens much in Sweden, as they often use heavy bullets at modest speeds likely 2300-2600 mv range.

3) Because the bullets used often hold up well, and begin with a high SD, straight line penetration is often very high I would assume giving higher probabilities than bullets that don't, and this enhances the likelihood of getting into the vitals.

There is no magic here, although people often propose better than ballistics would indicate killing power.

I'd presume any round, loaded with a similarly constructed bullet, similar SD as well, same shot placement, at similar velocity range to give that combo of penetration, with expansion, but w/o a bullet vaporizing would yield very similar results.

This would say put a 150-160 grain or higher in 7mm, and 200 grain 30 cal more on equal footing. Albeit higher recoil if using same velocities w/higher bullet weight.

Funny in America, Big Block engines and fast quarter miles ruled the muscle car era. As it is in rifle cartridges, the average joe blow wants a large cubic inches (Magnums) combined often with a light high MV projectile yielding flat trajectories, they often in their own right, kill well due to great hydrostatic shock and the resulting damage, yet velocity does drop quicker over time/distance, so often up close one needs PREMIUM bullets to withstand the higher speeds, yet at very long range one loses potential higher 'retained velocity/energy levels' but w/in shorter distances BC is not always as critical as some maintain-as it becomes very apparent at LONG distances more commonly seen punching paper, but less so in normal hunting distances that the common hunter will take game.

All one has to do is look at what handgun hunters have known and capitalize upon.....use heavy for caliber bullets and place the shot, straight line penetration is about a given, and a say hardcast flat nose bullet takes care of the rest, inside the animal as well as leaving a blood trail by exiting, should you need it. So it is with a mild heavy for caliber bullet, high penetration, which increases odds of hitting vital organs inside animal after you visualize where you need to put the slugs path, and squeeze the trigger on a rifle that you are not prone to flinch.

If you can find the data, I'll be glad to post an analysis. May have to put on my asbestos underwear before posting.... May not reach a popular conclusion.



Sorta. Having only a couple of dozen data in some subgroups probably isn't going to be a problem.



I'm a lousy hunter, and admit it. But everything I've learned about ballistics supports your conclusion, for North America at least.

65BR, I think you have posted some very wise observations.

So JB,

In regards to the moose being driven would you conclude from the study that the moose are moving with adrenaline, nervous fear of death energy?

Get a bull elk jacked up on adrenaline and moving hard to his basin hideout and I'll play magnum card.

I guess I could accept that study as is except for one nagging issue. Not all of those hunters were exactly alike in terms of hunting under pressure. That's where analysing the raw data comes in. I'd bet some bread that some of those guys shooting Moose there are ringers, guys who are the best hunters in Sweden. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, there are guys who can not put a killing shot together, which means all of their kills take several shots. Also, what bullets were they shooting?
I'm having a tough time wrapping my arms around the meaning of all of that data.

Don

I assume the distance traveled is in meters. So the diff between the 16m with an 300WM vs the 47m with a 30-06 is the distance a moose can travel at a trot in about 2-3 seconds

So yeah, the random variation factor may play a big factor here. And John B noted that the author thought a sample size of a minimum of 100 kills for each cartridge is required.

I speculate a P value could be found that would at least produce a smallish confidence (say 80%)?


Casey

Can't tell, without the original data. That's the problem.

The sample size required is a function of how small a difference you are trying to detect against a background of how much un-accounted for variation you have, plus, of course the statistical risk you can tolerate.

Sometimes you only need 4-5 data per subgroup. Other times 500 isn't enough.

Hunter skill, shot placement, and distance to target all get lumped with the un-accounted for variation. The more data you get, the more un-accounted for variation you can tolerate.

Moose , IME, rarely take off when hit well. They mostly stand around until they die. Some just take longer. I have shot most moose I've killed with the '06 and bigger stuff. I do think they kill quicker overall even if the distance traveled is little, if any, different. I will say the single moose I've killed with my 6.5 Swede - all four partitons- was taking his jolly time standing in generally the same spot while waiting for his lungs to fill or blood pressure to give out - until my partner let the air out with a single 180 Core-Lokt from his '06.

I think the one obviously "better" cartridge is the "other" Swede:





I'm sure glad I sent a 338 off to Norm Johnson to get it bored out to proper size!