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

A gut shot is a gut shot caliber not with standing

There was a tme when I felt the same, but over many years gaining more experience and knowledge I have changed my position

Is that you Gath? Just kidding, but you do have a point about having extra capacity to deal with abnormal conditions. Like anything else, a person can go overboard depending on either great accuracy or great power. I think a balanced approach is the best option and I don't find the OGW formula to be either BS or grossly wrong.

Bryan Litz covers Lethality in detail in his book including the OGW formula and few would argue that Bryan doesn't know about accuracy. Nevertheless, some here would cite his engineering background to claim he just doesn't understand shot placement.

It really comes down to opinion and everyone has their own and won't be dissuaded by others. Likely that's one reason for so many seemingly overlapping calibers.

it's not the extra power that is wrong...
in fact, if you're gonna use a heavy rifle for anything, i'd guess that most here would encourage you to use it on everything...
more practical experience with any rifle is a good thing...

but... espousal of any formula that tries to quantify the ability of a heavier rifle to make up for poor shots is gonna be a hard sell here...

Where can I get me one of them?

That�s an understatement! Guess we�ll just have to blindly proceed.

I started out as a teenager using smaller calibers that were just enough to cleanly kill at the range I felt comfortable with. Over time I�ve moved up to higher and higher power calibers. I don�t think there�s much dispute that calibers like the .338 Lapua Mag increase the range at which you can take game, but I�ve also noticed an increased killing power when I screw up a bit and don�t make a perfect shot. When I gut the game it�s obvious the .338 does a lot more damage.

Maybe you�re right and it really doesn�t make any difference, but I know what I�ve seen and experienced and that leads me to another conclusion. Hope you can accept that.

Bullet choice IMHO and experience is more important than caliber choice

Can you prove that more damage means quicker kills, I can't

Nope, I can�t prove it beyond question, but neither can you prove the opposite. We�ve arrived at different opinions based on our different experiences. Seems like a good place to leave it.

This Deer was shot with a 338 Lapua and he ran

Entrance




Exit



I've seen them drop with the same shot placement drop on the spot with much less powerfull weapons

Once one has enough, more doesn't mean better

Well it died from that wound, but how much further would the deer run if shot in the same place with a .270 win? Impossible to know as each situation and animal is different. I don�t think you can claim less tissue damage increases to odds of the animal going down and staying down with such a shot, or even claim it makes no difference how much damage is done.

Maybe we should try that shot with the 20mm Mac seems to think I have and see how far the deer flies and in how many directions.

Did you read my above post? I stated tha I have seenthem drop on the spot with the same or simular shot placement with much smaller calibers, such as the 243.

So are you claiming the .243 is more lethal with such a shot than the .338?

This has been fun, but I think we are at an impasse with different opinions of the value using a larger than necessary caliber.

Again you miss the point and jump to conclusions. What I am saying is that enough is enough and that every animal is a biological sample one and they all do not give up the ghost at the same rate no matter what they are shot with. That is obvious IMHO
No amount of power will make up for poor shot placement to belive so is ioncorrect with so much evidence to the contrary

A 243 through the liver will kill just like a 475 through the liver. All of the blodd in the body runs through the liver and the animal will bleed out. A large enough wound to do this is a large enough wound and a larger wound makes little to no difference in the time of death as all of the field studies the MD posted have shown, I concur because it is what I have seen as well

No one on this thread has offered any evidence to substantiate any such claim. The studies are for good shot placement as evidenced by most being one shot kills. Find me a study where game was purposely shot outside the kill zone to gage the effect of different calibers. None exist as they would be unethical. What we have is opinion. You have yours and I have mine.

There are plenty of studies....if you have hunted and shot any significant number of BG animals, or witnessed them being shot,with a broad variety of calibers and bullets...... guys like Mule Deer,JWP,and many others on here have seen more than the ordinary number of BG animals killed with a significant variety of combinations....including both good, bad, and indifferently or marginally placed shots.

I find it curious that a guy with the experience level of Mule Deer is argued with and contradicted to the point he is driven off the thread,when he posts something on the subject,simply because his answers don't correspond with the pre-conceived notions of those who want a different answer.Likely, those advancing the agenda could not polish his boots when it comes to actually killing game animals and knowing what it takes.

My general observation in all of this is that those bemused by numbers,killing quotients,and reducing killing effectiveness to quantitative measure tend to be the least experienced when it comes to actually killing game.They are constantly in search of the mystical, the magical, combination that will guarantee(to the extent possible)anchoring hits with sloppy placement.

The more experience a guy has the less value he places on such stuff,and the more likely he is to just grab something reasonable and go hunting,his last concern being whether he has enough power or not....he will be successful regardless of what he shoots within reason.......mostly because he knows how to do it,and also knows if an animal gets away wounded,it was not for lack of power, but lack of proper shot placement....no formula will make up for sloppy shooting.

I like this the best.

If you want to get scientific, ask an optometrist. They can treat poor vision so that hunters can place the shot where it needs to be.



Here's the late Julius Sumner Miller. Please note that he's wearing glasses.

Those aren�t studies, they�re stories. Everyone has them and they don�t rise to the level of a �study�.



As experienced as Mule Deer is, he�s not the only expert who has an opinion on the subject. In fact, many of the formulas came from vary experienced hunters who didn�t have an aversion to using numbers to explain the lethality of high powered firearms. Mule Deer says they are all BS and that settles the debate for many of his followers.

Mule Deer wasn�t driven off the thread by any nasty or personal insults, but by questions an �expert� should have answers to. Truth be known it was Mule Deer who implied that MacLorry�s profession of engineer was some sort of mental defect that prevented him from understanding the importance of shot placement, when in fact it�s that technical training that found the flaw in Mule Deer�s argument. Go back and look. Mac asked how Mule Deer knew someone was undergunned, and that�s when Mule Deer decided to leave the thread. Obviously, there�s an answer to that question, but it requires admitting some means of quantifying killing power, all of which was pronounced to be BS.



Sounds like you�re promoting ignorance. We only have our modern society because some among us were able to measure and quantify the physical world. And yes, they are always in search of a better bullet, a better drug, a better source of energy, etc. Lets denigrate them for that.



Sounds like the lazy-man�s solution to me. Just tell yourself you don�t need to carry that heavy magnum because it won�t help if your shot is a bit off.

Naw, I didn't leave the thread because of your questions. I left it because you (and MacLorry) obviously weren't going to accept any evidence, no matter what it consisted of, because it wasn't "scientific" enough.

Here's a deal for you: I'll answer your question about "undergunned" if you post this: Your own evidence that the Matunas formula is correct. I'll accept anecdotal evidence from your own experience on big game with various cartridges, bullets, etc. This doesn't have to only include the animals you've taken, but the big game you've seen killed by other people.