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

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.

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.

Characters like MacLorry and Gath Sten are who like to debate from an esoteric framework. They believe that a mathematical formula will explain how a cartridge works. Any real world experience is "subjective" and not cerebral enough. However the likes of many here would rather marinate a backstrap than a calculator.

BTDT with the heavy magnums,Gath.....your post is more horseshidt....just like Matuna's tables.

If I had measured the distance traveled on all the game I've shot or been around when shot, then averaged it according to cartridge used, I would venture to say that "Magnum" type cartridges have resulted in a longer overall average distance that game has traveled after the shot when compared to the standard 243's, 270's and '06's. This is due to the fact that a significant percentage of the gut shots, azz shots, and legs blown off have been with 300 Weatherbys, 7mm Mags, and the like. With similar shot placement, sure they will drop game as fast, maybe even a bit faster than your standard 270 class rounds. But when one factors in the miles spent tracking because somebody decided they needed a 338 Win Mag for a mule deer, then proceeded to ass shoot it after missing it three times and scoping themselves twice, it kinda blows the overall average. The simple fact is, most folks just can't shoot these big rounds (not counting everyone here on the fire, we are all He-Man types that are impervious to recoil ).

That, to me, is the biggest problem with the OGW calculations. It doesn't take into effect the most important part of the equation: The Shooter.

More power is fine, as long as you can handle it. Most of us, once our rifles hit 18lbs. of recoil or thereabouts, have reached a limit.

As far as experience goes, I may not have seen as much dead schit as some folks here (I'm 28), but I've guided, killed, or personally seen somewhere around 20-30 head of big game go down every year, for as long as I can remember.

In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I got to say about that".

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.

If I had measured the distance traveled on all the game I've shot or been around when shot, then averaged it according to cartridge used, I would venture to say that "Magnum" type cartridges have resulted in a longer overall average distance that game has traveled after the shot when compared to the standard 243's, 270's and '06's. This is due to the fact that a significant percentage of the gut shots, azz shots, and legs blown off have been with 300 Weatherbys, 7mm Mags, and the like. With similar shot placement, sure they will drop game as fast, maybe even a bit faster than your standard 270 class rounds. But when one factors in the miles spent tracking because somebody decided they needed a 338 Win Mag for a mule deer, then proceeded to ass shoot it after missing it three times and scoping themselves twice, it kinda blows the overall average. The simple fact is, most folks just can't shoot these big rounds (not counting everyone here on the fire, we are all He-Man types that are impervious to recoil ).

That, to me, is the biggest problem with the OGW calculations. It doesn't take into effect the most important part of the equation: The Shooter.

Gee, Bob! I believe you are fired up. Excellent point, and well put too.

John....It's easier and cheaper to read a table than it is to bust your ass paying for hunts,building and buying rifles in different calibers to see the differences in the field on animals,taking time from work to go on hunts,etc.

It's easier to read tables than it is to put in the range time and round count to practice so that you can put a bullet where it belongs under hunting conditions...

Not that all this isn't fun mind you! But it is expensive and time consuming......a labor of love so to speak.

Many today want instant gratification and short cuts;easy answers to complex questions......they want to be told that such and such a caliber will guarantee results even if they do a lousy job of shooting;that certain scopes will guarantee hits at any distance;certain bullets will kill if indifferently placed,and powerful cartridges will kill notwithstanding the skill sets of the user....guys who depend on this stuff are the real "lazy" one's...

.....there has to be a dozen questions on here a month that could be very easily answered if the OP's just got out and shot and killed some animals...

Which is why it cracks me up when someone gets on here and tells us that field experience is "worthless" (because they are "stories"),and not scientific enough because the conditions are not "controlled"....bull shidt....hunting is not a "controlled" circumstance,and all shooters are not created equal...which is why some hunters want to put a touching faith in "tables",and others never even look at them,except for home amusement....

Rant over...not directed at you of course.....

It is plucked out of the air, probably on moonlit nights.

I’ve personally seen a badly misplaced gut shot on an elk at 600 yards with a .370 Sako Mag that took the animal down, and while it didn’t dye immediately, it never got up. With a 30-06 there would have been a wounded animal heading for cover. I know it’s a controversial topic, but massive injury anywhere in the body can cause the onset of shock that kills even with all the vital organs intact. It’s similar to how blunt trauma kills.

Im still wanting to hear more on this one...what kind of shock would that be? Hemmoragic, neuro, what? If it was a hemo based shock a vital organ or artery had to be damaged at some point to cause the blood loss? Short of damage to the brain itself all death is brought about by a lack of perfusion to the vitals, whether it is caused by damage to the circulatory, respiratory system or a loss of fluids.

I feel proper bullet construcion and placement is far more important that a couple thousands of bullet diameter or a belt on the case. I have seen people get into trouble because they could not control what they thought was the best choice of weapon but I have yet to see anyone saved because their poor shooting was offset but a larger caliber, more speed etc.

I�ve personally seen a badly misplaced gut shot on an elk at 600 yards with a .370 Sako Mag that took the animal down, and while it didn�t dye immediately, it never got up. With a 30-06 there would have been a wounded animal heading for cover.