I am a fan of getting the best shot placement that I can . That is why I study how to make my rifle shoot it's best and then study how to load my ammo so that it fires and groups the best that it can in my rifle . I also think it is my responsibility to treat the animal with respect and make as good a kill shot as I can . A good clean kill is my main concern . With the advancement in bullets that has come about by the increased interest in long range shooting and hunting in the last few years knowing where your bullet will impact , if you have done your part, shouldn't be a problem . We have access to wind meters , range finders , angle finders ect. so that if we don't get excited and forget to use these or we don't get in to a situation where we rush things shot placement should be good and we will not feel the need for larger then needed calibers to compensate for shot placement . We all have a responsibility to the animals we hunt to study and fine out for ourselves what we feel to be our own rifle caliber of choice for the hunting we do . The day of everyone only having one rifle for all hunting shouldn't be a problem these days . Me saying what my preference for this or that is just that my preference based on my study of the intended use and hopeful out come . I believe that to be the reason a lot of people come to this site to study others thoughts and figure out what they want to try for themselves without spending a lot of money and time to get it right . We want to learn from the experience of others and be able to trust in that experience . I personally am glad that we choices of calibers ect. I wouldn't want for all of us to still be using 45-70 .
Do larger calibers really compensate for bad shots?
- Thread starter PredatorSlayer
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
woodsmanlw
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 24
Each round has its own ability to affect the animals systems and ultimately its demise. The thing is, sure you can shoot a larger round and have, potentially at least, a greater affect on the animal. But a lot of what we are talking about is "How bad of a shot?" If you gut shoot something then it's going to be difficult to see much difference in small vs large but the closer you are to vitals the more pronounced the affects of the larger (well any actually) rounds will be. To really make the point about taking into account how bad a shot think of it this way. If you shoot a deer with a 223 and blow its leg off below the knee will shooting it with a 50 BMG have made any difference? Then we get to just how much of the animal are you willing to waste? You can punch giant holes in animals and waste good meat when you can get just as humane a kill with something smaller. But this is the long range hunting forum after all and we are assuming longer shots needing to retain energy at those distances so larger rounds are assumed. So my take on the original posters question is yes larger rounds help but there are a number of qualifications associated with that premise.
robert l
Well-Known Member
now thats what i mean long range hunting,but no meat left.bigger is always better?
I shot a 5x5 elk in Wyoming with a 7 mm mag using 175 grain Sierra game kings with 62 grains of IMR 4831 first two where right in the boiler room he just stood there third round hit him in the spine then he went down when we took him to the meat locker the butcher gave me back two of the rounds both where kill shots him and a friend of mine that lives in Doubis Wy and was with me said if I would have waited he would have went down. The way I look at it is if he is standing I'm shooting later that after noon another guy shot a bull with a .270 that elk dropped immediately while he was messing with his gun the elk got up and was gone. They found him after a 4-5 hour chase that 7mm is now a .338
... No, they do not.
Exactly.......
I've seen a jack rabbit hit twice by a 30-30......not in the bloom of health by any means.....he was gonna die but still moving away.
I decided to answer for myself to this permanent question by a real test in SAF, 48 gnus reserved, I selected 3 calibers, a 375 HH (Blaser), a 416 REM Mag (Blaser) and a 458 Lott (Mauser K98) and for each caliber two weight of bullets, light and heavy, 8 gnus per test to obtain a significant result.
This test took place with Mark Dedekind, PH, at a same shooting distance of 200 meters, full side shoulder shot, the objective was to answer to the double question :
. is a bigger caliber more efficient,
. is an heavy bullet more efficient than a light.
The bullet used were GPA's bullet, father of Barnes'one which forms 4 petals to increase the lethal efficiency with the rear forming a final solid core for the penetration.
All the shoots have been recorded and the animals autopsied...great work.
The result was :
. the key factor is the placement, more important than any other in reasonable limits,
. the terminal speed is the second key factor with a blast effect on the animals due to a large temporary cavity,
. the weight is determining factor for the penetration, important factor for big 5, heaviest animals, Elephants, Rhinos, Hypo, Buffalos...
So if I had to resume :
. select a caliber with which you are able to sustain less than 1 MOA on field,
. select a bullet giving a final speed of 800 m/s at shooting distance,
. select a bullet structure allowing a wide temporary cavity with a core allowing a long pemetration,
. try to limit you to 2 rifles in order to know perfectly their ballistic performances !
In these conditions th 375 HH did perfectly, the 416 REM mag was a little bit slow, I would have prefered the 416 Wby, as far as the 458 Lott is the perfect caliber for the big 5 heaviest even if a perfectl shoulder shot in 375 HH is the good medecine for the first right shot on a buffalo's.
In these conditions I did 85 % of my animals with one bullet, which is my average rate of success on my present hunter life, the accuracy of my rifles beeing very close to 0.5 MOA which give a high level on confidence !
This test took place with Mark Dedekind, PH, at a same shooting distance of 200 meters, full side shoulder shot, the objective was to answer to the double question :
. is a bigger caliber more efficient,
. is an heavy bullet more efficient than a light.
The bullet used were GPA's bullet, father of Barnes'one which forms 4 petals to increase the lethal efficiency with the rear forming a final solid core for the penetration.
All the shoots have been recorded and the animals autopsied...great work.
The result was :
. the key factor is the placement, more important than any other in reasonable limits,
. the terminal speed is the second key factor with a blast effect on the animals due to a large temporary cavity,
. the weight is determining factor for the penetration, important factor for big 5, heaviest animals, Elephants, Rhinos, Hypo, Buffalos...
So if I had to resume :
. select a caliber with which you are able to sustain less than 1 MOA on field,
. select a bullet giving a final speed of 800 m/s at shooting distance,
. select a bullet structure allowing a wide temporary cavity with a core allowing a long pemetration,
. try to limit you to 2 rifles in order to know perfectly their ballistic performances !
In these conditions th 375 HH did perfectly, the 416 REM mag was a little bit slow, I would have prefered the 416 Wby, as far as the 458 Lott is the perfect caliber for the big 5 heaviest even if a perfectl shoulder shot in 375 HH is the good medecine for the first right shot on a buffalo's.
In these conditions I did 85 % of my animals with one bullet, which is my average rate of success on my present hunter life, the accuracy of my rifles beeing very close to 0.5 MOA which give a high level on confidence !
Tikkamike
Well-Known Member
Spot on memtb
Ranger Rick
Well-Known Member
In 30 years of hunting elk with a 7mm mag and a 270, I always pass on questionable shots. The result: 20 one-shot kills and 2 two-shot kills. 0ne elk lost after 6 hours of trying to find him. This year I'm going to try a new 6.5 Creedmoor. So I'm going down not up. My old faithful bullet ... Nosler partition.
Wade Phipps
Member
Larger calibers allow you to shoot through internal structures that a small caliber light bullet can not. A .30-06 or .270 Winchester can break a shoulder on most animals with a properly constructed bullet and still reliably get good penetration to the heart lung area while a .243 would not. You just need to know the limitations of your caliber bullet combination, stay within them, know your own limits under field conditions and if you are not sure then do not take the shot no matter how nice the animal is. You need to balance recoil, rifle weight and caliber to what you can handle. I shot all of my elk with a .270 Winchester though I had to stalked close due to terrain and vegetation. I shot one at 15 feet, but the rest were 100 yards or less. Deer have been the same due to my hunting location. Also took a black bear with .270 Win. Every bullet has gone completely through side to side. All I shoot is 150 grain bullets. Also fast is great if you know that you will take mostly long shots, but if all you take is short shots then it just ruins meat.
-Wade
-Wade
Well, probably shoulda weighed in on this one earlier, as it kinda ties into the "Deer that wouldn't die" thread. I recall hurling lead at 3-4 does at about 350 yards with a buddy of mine. I had a 700 bdl in .30-06 and he had a .280 and was shooting core- locts. I scored a head shot on one of them with a 125 Nosler, but he was south of thoracic cavity on another, between the rib cage and the hip and that core-loct blew 24" of bowel out the other side of that doe - not pretty. Mercifully, however, it did expire quick. As much of a fan as I am of the .243, I think we would have lost that deer with the 6mm, so yes, I think a bigger caliber can make up for a poorly placed shot.
PredatorSlayer
Well-Known Member
To me, this seems to be more of a product of the impact velocity, sectional density and bullet construction than bullet diameter.
The only things that compensate for poor marksmanship are higher rates of fire and deeper magazines.
