Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Levels of power/tissue destruction based on cartridge

Let's not forget this guy killed every big game animal in NA with the now 100+ year old 30-06 with 165s before bullets got high-tech (I think he used Nosler Partitions).

One Man, One Rifle, One Land - book

Well, fast twist certainly ups the killing power if you have a rifle to push it. Bullet construction certainly does likewise with a rifle that can spin it fast and push it fast.

KodiakHntr killing moose with a .223 is a good enough example. So, that would seem to indicate that it takes a combination of fast twist, enough case capacity to get somewhere at or above 3200 FPS and a bullet that doesn't come undone all the way through the target. I betcha did Roy Weatherby have a nice sturdy monometal tipped bullet for his .257 he'd have raised hell with all manner of big stuff.

It all depends on which bullet(s) one plans to shoot. There is a world if difference between a 168 gr .308 ttsx going 2800, and a .338 160 ttsx going 3100fps. The latter is wayyyy more forgiving on less than ideal shot placement.

With all the "new" this and that, it's not really "news" that a fast, well-constructed .22-caliber will punch a hole through a moose's shoulder bones as it had been done in Auckley's time and before that. Auckley himself went on rants over what the 220 Swift could do - almost suggesting nothing more was needed for any kind of game shooting. After all, moose or bear or whatever are not armour plated, and a 223 Rem or 22-250 or 220 Swift will shoot through 1/2" of steel (if it's soft enough), along with a .30-06 or a .375 H&H. The BIG difference is in the diameter of the holes left behind! There's little comparison in that. I've seen at least one example of that kind of thing, and held in my my hands: The .223 left about a 1/2" hole and the .375 H&H a 2" diameter hole! In area, that's over 3 sq-inches for the .375 and 0.196 sq-inch for the .223.

I'm convinced that there are several physical isssues involved that can be quantified, without adding a touch spices to them, being that if I'm hunting moose under any and all conditions, I'll choose the .375 H&H over the .223, that in one personal situation, a 5 lb groundhog stopped a 53gr Nosler BT from my .223 Rem at 35 yds. It killed the groundhog without any physical evidence (blood, bullet hole entrance or exit)! In sharp contrast, I killed a mature coon that was stealing our bear bait with my Ruger #1 in .45-70 with a long throat. The load was equivalent to a .458 Win - a 500gr Hornady at 2185 fps instrumental, The coon at 20 yds exploded with bits and pieces hanging from branches of trees.

I got rid of my .223s because the groundhogs in this area were whipped out several years ago by land development, dogs and poison. But I still have at least one big bore and a few mediums. They'll be the last to go.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Starting over today with purchasing rifles and starting with the 223 Rem I would go to the 6.5 CM/260 Rem or maybe the 25-06 Rem. Next up the scale to the 30-06 then on to the 375 H&H.

I think you would see a difference in the tissue destruction at each step with those four at normal hunting ranges, say less than 400 yards.

In fact I have all of those plus a few others to fill in the gaps.

To clarify, I’m using Hornady 88 gr ELD M pushed to around 2740 fps at the muzzle from a 1:7” currently.
That particular combination is giving a permanent wound channel that is bigger in diameter than what I was seeing with 150 TTSX/280 AI and 168/180 TSX/ 300 Ultra on moose and elk, albeit shorter by a foot or two. (So far I’m seeing 3’ plus with 88’s, versus 5’ with TSX/TTSX.)

Softer bullets spun fast at a velocity that doesn’t stress them outside of their construction window kill way outside of what conventional ’wisdom’ would indicate.

Likely has some correlation as to why guys who have embraced the 6.5 Creed/147 ELD M combination are killing big critters so effectively compared to what conventional thought would indicate is a good minimum.

Spin ‘em fast, push ‘em reasonably, break some bones, and worry less about what the headstamp says.

So in that category, if it does create such a big wound channel, is it more effective on grizzlies?

Might it do that much damage yet not stop or kill as quickly?

Is it spin, damage, or foot pounds?

I'm trying to draw lines here but I can't quite put it in the right words

To answer your question: I would not advise someone with a 6.5 Creedmoor to get a .308 Winchester for any hunting-related reason. If you have a 6.5 Creedmoor, the only reason to have a .308 is that in a "worst-case scenario", there will probably be a [bleep] of ammo around for it.

In my experience, there is no appreciable difference on North American non-dangerous game between a .257 Roberts, .25-06, .270, 7x57, .30-06, or 8x57. I have used them all at one point or another in my life (been hunting for 40 years now). They all get the job done at usual hunting ranges and conditions. And I would expect much the same of any other cartridge within that range. If I had to limit myself to one rifle out of that list, I would pick the .25-06 for sentimental reasons. But it would be almost entirely sentimental. There's something about my .25-06 with 75 or 120-grain bullets that just makes me happy. It hates every weight in between them, but it puts those two weights into tight little clusters that give me immense confidence every time I use the rifle. But if I was stuck with any one of those rifles, I would feel perfectly comfortable.

I think of hunting rifles as existing in three tiers:

1. .223-.243
2. .257-.323
3. .338-.458

An average hunter could comfortably hunt anything in North America with any Tier 2 rifle. There are some who can comfortably hunt anything in North America with rifles in Tier 1. And there are some who won't hunt anything at all unless they are using a Tier 3 rifle.

Within each tier, in my mind there are specific bullet weights that are ideal for that caliber (e.g. 120-grain .257 bullets or 198-grain .323 bullets). That's why I would pick that caliber versus another. Of course, that's almost entirely subjective.

If I had to stick with three rifles, I'd pick one in each tier. My .22-250 (or a .223). My .25-06 (or a .308). And my 9.3x62 (or a .375 H&H) if I wanted the option to go after heavier/more dangerous game.

The biggest grizzly I have encountered in a couple decades (and that includes hunting them for years before they closed our opportunity) I accidentally snuck up on to 30 yards, and that was 800 yards from my deck. The last grizzly that I encountered was a 3 year old that charged in from 60 yards or so out till he turned a bit at 15 yards to run past me, coming in to cow calls last September. That was about 700 yards from my deck.
I live/work/play in grizzly country 7 days a week.

Last fall I the only time I wasn’t carrying a 223AI/88’s was a couple of days in September hunting elk as I carried Dads custom 300WM that was his only rifle for nostalgia reasons, and 10 days in August for Stone sheep because my 7 lb 223AI wasn’t back from getting a 1:7” yet and I wasn’t into carrying the 8.5 lb 223AI.

This year it will be 100% 88 ELD m’s for the season.

When it comes to bears, there are an awful lot of theories out there when it comes to stopping them during a dedicated charge where the bear means business. And the only way to stop one for sure is to scramble his eggs, and it doesn’t take much penetration to get to the brain.

A fringe hit on a bear doesn’t matter what it’s made with if he is intent on getting to you it won’t matter, he’ll get there.
If you stop a “charge” from 30 or 40 yards out with a fringe hit or chest cavity shot, then he wasn’t serious about it in the first place.
At powder burn range, I’m just as happy with a 223 from a rifle I point well because you’ll only get once chance anyway.

If you are talking intentionally hunting grizzlies, you have to remember that soft bullets kill faster than hard bullets, and predators have lighter bone construction than prey animals.

Not many animals can shake off having their lungs sloshing around in a puddle.

I gotta disagree. New bullets, faster twists, and heavier bullets all do some things to mitigate the failures that were more common with previous setups, but it still doesn’t make them perform on game as well as much larger bore, much heavier bullet loads. You can argue monos, etc….but you still don’t get the expansion AND penetration of something heavier, on game. A 270 can lose nearly half its weight and still be more bullet than a 77gr 223 mono. Same with a 338 vs a 270. It’s worth remembering with ‘old’ cup and core bullets: Something got wrecked to cause that weight loss.

Does it make some stuff more viable on game and increase performance windows? Sometimes in a big way. It doesn’t change the world. Closest thing to turning stuff on its head these days?….Tungsten in shotguns.

We all have our personal comfort zones. I like the 6.5 and it's my primary hunting rifle for deer and elk because I feel really confident in my shooting and, like others, I've seen the effects and have been satisfied with them. It's at the lower limit of what I prefer for elk, however. My backup rifle is a 243 - I feel fine using it for just about anything, but there's a reason it's the backup instead of number 1.

I've shot a wad of deer/antelope size game with 22-250s, 220 Swift, almost all the 6mms, and a one hot 6.5/284. Only 6.5 I have now is this new to me .264 WM. I would use it and the 120 mono's on elk right now. I like "faster cartridges" than the 308 cased rounds, no matter the caliber. Just my own personal MoJo gets a thrill out of them. My "Main" elk rifle is always one that rocks their world. This year is a Mark V ULWT 338/06 Ackley Improved with the 175 Hammer. I can easily push it faster than I get any 175 from a 24" 7mm Rem Mag. Less noise/less recoil. Flat Shooter. Sweet. And mono's tear up much less meat.

Finn Aagaard wrote that for a satisfactory two-gun battery in regard to NA big game, he would suggest pairing a .270 WCF with a .338 Win. Mag.—90% of the shooting being accomplished with the .270.

Gunwriters never agree on anything . . .