Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters How is Optimum Game Weight Calculation done?

It really sounds like you have little use for Professor Quackenbush! I myself was enthralled regards his extemporization regards the "killing power of fast twist".

Also I want no part of a 338 WM!

Using your weather scenario killing power formulas are like statistical circulation models that try to predict the future from what happened in the past. Isn't past experience what makes someone an expert hunter? You seem to be saying that it's impossible for an experienced hunter to pass on useful information to others if it's in the form of a formula.



So now you're saying we should believe experienced hunters who says any such formula is indeed BS, even though such formulas are based on the experience of other hunters. One could conclude from that, that all experienced hunters are BSers, or that BSers claim to be experienced hunters.



So how do you know if they are undergunned? The problem with claiming killing power can't be quantified is that you're stuck with not being able to determine what caliber/load should be used on any game. Just grab the biggest rifle you can consistently hit a 12-inch target with. I need to get a 50 BMG for white tail season this year.

Matunas got around a lot of the specific objections you cite by using the word "optimal" in the name of his formula rather than the word "absolute". Matunas' formula gives you the optimal game weight for a given caliber/load at a given range. That's like saying the optimal room temperature is 72 degrees F. It doesn't mean everyone will be uncomfortable at 71 or 73 degrees F.

At what range? Were the moose in a pen and shot in the head at point blank range? What about trying that experiment at 500 meters and/or with some poor shot placement. If there's no difference between a 6.6X55 up to the 375 H&H then there should be no difference between a 222 Rem and a 6.6X55. We can just hunt moose with 22 rimfire if larger calibers are no more effective than smaller calibers.

McLorry I have seen enough elk killed with the 338's 300's and 7 mags to at least get the impression that we should really be discussing bullet placement and construction in lieu of a formula which tells us what to use,and what is
"optimal".

You are an engineer I take it, and I am not,having bogged down quantitatively decades ago...

....and all I know is that Matunas's formula, while maybe offering some guidance,is "off"...because when we kill animals we are performing a surgical function at a distance....just like a doctor with a scalpel....we are not killing the animal by overwhelming it with power, or knocking it down;we are destryong its' vital organs and breaking its' bones on the way to those organs

....so that when we destroy vital tissue,so long as we destroy enough of it, the animal dies....and therefore,a 7 mag or 30/06 shot into an elk's organs at 400 yards,if it penetrates sufficiently,and expands adequately to destroy vital tissue,will do to an elk what a 338 bullet in the ham or guts will not do.

I have seen vitual lights out elk kills with...338's,300's and 7 mags, among others...mostly big bulls....so long as the bullet was placed properly,and pentrated and expanded,through vital organs, the elk was quickly killed.But the fabulous results always only came,with very good shot placement.This is why a 270 in the right place will do what a 338 in the wrong plae will not.

Larger calibers MIGHT make bigger wound channels,but that tends to depend on the bullets used,and the distances involved.

But you know all this.....

How all of this is reduced to a formula or table, I don't know.
But I doubt the tables can tell us.

MacLorry,

The Swedish study included over 8000 moose, taken during the fall hunting season. Hunters participated by noting the range, how many hits were made, and how far the moose traveled after the initial hit. Oh, and the cartridge and bullet. Such a large sample is more than adequate for the purposes, though the compiler noted that at least 100 animals taken with a certain cartridge was the minimum to get a good idea of what that round would do in comparison to others.

There have been other controlled studies of cartridge/bullet combinations over the years. One made during elk culling on the National Bison Range in Montana compared the .30-06 to the .375 H&H. The only difference noted was that the .375 was somewhat more likely to leave a blood trail. Otherwise the results were pretty much identical--with good bullet placement.

Other studies have been published with various animals from Texas whitetails to elephants in Africa. I have personally been on numerous cull hunts in several countries in the past decade, and the basic conclusion I've come to is that bullet placement is at least 90% of the equation. I'd rate bullet construction at 9%, and the actual cartridge at 1%.

Of course, there's a difference between culling whitetail does in Texas and 500+ pound animals, whether in Sweden, Montana or Africa. But I've never been able to discern any difference in the "optimal" cartridge/bullet/range. The big difference is bullet placement, as Bob so eloquently pointed out.

I have discussed this with engineers before, and they never seem to be able to grasp the fact that a bullet that expands and penetrates through the center of both lungs, just above the heart, kills very quickly no matter the bullet diameter, weight, foot-pounds or range.

Now, if you have seen hundreds or thousands of animals shot with various cartridge/bullet combinations, and have found a strong correlation between the Matunas formula and field results, then I'd love to see the report.

Don't waste your ink fellas, MacLorry likes to argue to exercise his superior cerebral capacity. After all, he is from another planet and places more importance on theory than real world experience.
While the likes of Mule Deer and BobinNH are field dressing their elk, MacLorry is calculating the coefficient of drag times the sine of an overhead vapor trail.

Ed Matunas of Lyman was a proponent of OGW. I never understood it, except to thing "big game, big bullet".

I am sorry I opened this bag of crap now, I intended to start a discussion as its summer, hot, and no hunting. I guess the old expression "its time to shoot the engineer's and start the project" has some relevance here.

arguing the word optimal is like debating the meaning of the word "is" with ex Pres Bubba Bill.

[quote=jimmyp

I am sorry I opened this bag of crap now, I intended to start a discussion as its summer, hot, and no hunting. I guess the old expression "its time to shoot the engineer's and start the project" has some relevance here. [/quote]

Now that's funny right there !

Sorry, but the Swedish study doesn't qualify as controlled. It's a survey of the hunter's impressions, which means it's anecdotal. I'm not saying it doesn't have value, but studies of this type are overturned regularly in other disciplines, such as medical research.



Not at all surprising given the Federal 30-06 HE load launches a 180 grain bullet at 2880 fps and has an OGW of 511 lbs or better out to 400 yards. Unless they are risking misplaced shots by shooting at ranges of more than 400 yards the 30-06 is more than adequate for the job and dead is dead. Let them try the same experiment with a 6.5x55 and see if they duplicate the Swedish results.



Carful, you're getting close to coming up with a killing power formula yourself.



And a bullet through the brain kills faster than the nerves can transmit the pain. Problem is the target sometimes moves just as I'm squeezing off my shot and I can't always get ideal shot placement. Now I can worry about my comfort and use an easy to carry low-recoil rifle/load, or I can anticipate such a misplaced shot and use a caliber that can punch through thick bone and take out the vitals on the other side. I don't believe in being a minimalist when it comes to taking game, nor do I want overkill that destroys too much of the meat. I find the OGW formula strikes a good balance.



I don't see where anyone is saying the Matunas formula would lead someone to use an inadequate caliber/load, only that following it requires using more gun than is needed with good shot placement and the loss of accuracy due to heavy recoil may preclude good shot placement.

Hitting a 12-inch target depends a lot on the range and the range depends a lot on where you hunt. I sometimes hunt in the Great Lakes region where you seldom get shots over 100 yards and sometimes the range is so close you could take deer with a bayonet or more often with your pickup truck. The problem is that shots often involve cutting through brush and the bullet has to be big enough to stay on course, not fly apart, and arrive with enough velocity to do the job. Culling elk in Montana likely doesn't apply under such circumstances.

MacLorry, how about some photos of game that you have taken. Or do you just theorize about it?

Now he's into brush-busting bullets.

I should have left this degraded thread at least two posts ago, but now I am gone.

Sorry, jimmyp.

Here's a group of my hunting buddies on one of our recent hunts. I'm the guy in the back



Sorry, but if I wanted my picture posted I would use it as my avatar rather than a cylon. If you just want pictures of dead animals I can post those, but what's the point?

Theory's is your bag I see

I think you got it, Mac.



Done some of that brush busting myself and found that heavy and slow are the way to go. I like a 12 gauge slug for the brush, something those who have only hunted on the open range don�t understand. Great accuracy is not important in conditions where no gun is going to be accurate.

Or perhaps anonymity is his bag as it seems to be for most members.

John,

You're not prone to painting with a broad brush, but the statement above comes close. The difference between engineers who are convinced that big magnums are better and other people with the same idea is that the engineers are prone to try to support their beliefs with numbers and formulas. There are a lot of non-engineers who also don't grasp the fact in the above quote, and I suspect there are more than a few engineers who understand that bullet placement and expansion trump other factors (I can tell you at least one engineer understands that).

OK. Good point, and I plead guilty.