Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Meat Damage

I saw somewhere a while back that John claimed he'd seen to noticeable difference in killing power in cartridges from .25 to .33 calibre. Is this reflected also in meat damage for the most part? I always figured bullet design would play about as much part in meat damage as the cartridge it's fired from, at least, but there seems to be a pretty widespread opinion that cartridges like the 7mm and .300 magnums will obliterate enormous quantities of meat while something like a .270 or a .308 won't.

I know range plays a big part in determining how fast a bullet is travelling when it hits game, but since we don't tend to carry three different rifles on a day's hunting to use depending how far away an animal appears, I guess I'm looking for an experience to reflect a broad range of circumstances. Say, on shots ranging from 30 or 40 yards in scrub to 400 yards across open hillside, are you really going to notice more meat damage as a rule from say a .300 win mag over a .270?

The background to this is that, here in Ireland, there's not a whole pile of big country as such, and you might find yourself fighting through thick brush one minute and hiking across a few miles of open hillside the next, and so shots can range from short to long pretty quickly. While our predominant deer species (sika) aren't large, they're quite tough to put down and certainly not prone to giving up the ghost without a scrap, so rounds like the .270 that can hit hard at range are quite popular. However, I was talking about a .300 mag as a good all-rounder and a lot of guys think it's going to destroy a lot of meat. Personally, I don't think it'll destroy more than a .270 at a given range, assuming a good quality projectile is used, and while it'll kick harder, it's still easy enough on the shoulder.

The rifle would have a secondary use as a travelling rifle, the intention being that it would get a lot of use at home and be very familiar, rather than being specifically used to hunt in Europe and Africa and not used much at home. As such, while I know it's not necessary for sika stags at home, it's not going to kill them too dead, but will it render a lot of meat wasted? I know a much more moderate round might be much kinder, particularly at short range, but as compared to the likes of a .270 or a .30-06, which would be other favourites here, is it going to make a whole lot of difference?

I'm posing this here because of what JB said about sample sizes and their relevance, and I figure that he might have something to offer in terms of a broad analysis.