One more post to separate the subjective from the objective.
No one can say concisely, in quantitative terms, how well a particular cartridge will perform on a particular animal at a particular distance. We can make educated guesses based on past performance which are often quite different result wise. For the most part we can make a fairly good guess, but when we approach certain limits like "opening velocity" of a bullet, etc, we are starting to roll the dice.
Your parameters are on or near "the edge" of both cartridges you are considering.
What is not up for debate is the proven ballistics and the terminal effect potential of each cartridge based on hard facts such as bullet size. Physics is physics. Science is science.
It is reasonable and rational to say that a bullet with 20% more mass has a greater potential for killing power. It is also reasonable to say that potential is proportional to the difference.
What is subjective, is how those numbers translate down range in a given situation. But there can be no rational argument that assumes the smaller will equal or out perform the larger, all else being equal.
Other factors and constraints such as recoil, costs, etc are certainly important and should be weighed. However, those factors may also affect desired end goal.
The question is, where are the priorities?
Actually Physics is a science. It's the scientific study of how gravity affect different things, including velocity.
You keep throwing out this subjective from objective....What are you quoting someone's physics paper they wrote? Just using scientific words doesn't prove you know anything. LOL
Just b/c I know how to check your pulse, temperature, and use an EKG doesn't mean I'm a doctor...
You are trying to win this thing WAAAAY too hard. I guess you have something to prove to yourself. Cause whatever you're doing is proving to me the opposite of what you are trying to do.
I don't want to be enemies with anyone on here. I love a healthy debate, but this debate has long lost it's sensability, logic, and reasoning. All of the scientific data in the world can tell you one thing. But just when you think you know it all, you'll be proven wrong. Science is science. Most physics is theoretical, with the exception of the stuff we know as facts vs theories.
If I told you there was, for a fact, a flying spaghetti monster hovering above you right now, would you believe me? Of course not! B/c I can't physically prove it.
I'm just saying that sure, generic scientific thought process mixed with mathematical principles would tell you that a .308 caliber bullet of heavier mass would do more phycial damage......But until you shoot them side x side at the same time, you will never know. Just b/c sceince & math says so-and-so is correct, doesn't mean that when applied to real-world circumstances, that the math & science can't be proven to be completely wrong. Its happened alot in the past. How do you think that everything man made has a trial and error. Just b/c the calculations add up, doesn't mean in an applied physics situation that it will do precisely that. Lots of other external factors can play a part in things that people sometimes don't think of.
I would love for someone to be able to prove me right, or you right. But I have a feeling that even if someone showed you 100% factual evidence in front of your face, you still would try to argue with it.
And for that, I have no further input other than humorous commentary and quips for this thread.
