Larger diameter bullets allow more room for error?

[Elkeater]

Ok this is my take. I think it's important to match the round to the game you're hunting. For example my belief is that you shouldn't be hunting elk with a .223. Has it been done? Yes. Did it work? Yes. Would it do the job if something went wrong? Probably not is my guess. Now is a .300 winny appropriate for elk? Depends. With a 125 gr varmint bullet ? No. With a tough mono or bonded bullet designed to break an elks shoulder and keep going? Yes.

I think that the larger frontal diameter of different calibers makes a difference. Obviously there is less difference between a.264 and .308 bullets assuming they are constructed the same and hitting with the same amount of energy. But I still think it's the way they that the bullets transfer their energy.

Example. On paper a 26 Nosler with 140 accubond should hit with a force equalish to a .300 win mag with 180 accubond when compared at 500 yards. And while they will both kill an elk at 500 yards I think that bullet placement being equal the .300 will kill quicker due to a difference in the size of the wound channel and the way the energy is transferred.

So does the size of an animals vital area change depending on caliber chosen? No. But let's say for example that I had to compare the 26 Nosler and the .300 WM described above on an elk at 500 yards. I misjudge the wind and hit the back of the lungs instead of center punching them. Due to a the way the energy seems to transfer different and maybe a larger wound channel I think the elk would go down faster with the .300 WM. Maybe only a few seconds faster but faster nonetheless.

I have no scientific evidence to back any of this up just having killed or witnessed the kill of 40ish elk with rifles from .270win, 7mm mag, .308 win, 6.5 creedmor, .30-06, 35 Whelen, 45/70, .300 RUM and .300 WM would say that the bigger bullets just seemed to hit harder.

 

[nmbarta]

I killed an elk this year with a 175 eld-x out of my 7x300wm mv of 3150fps, impact velocity of about 3000fps.
It was a quick off hand shot at about 120 yards (I need to practice these shots a bit more than I do) Quartered to me, I missed my mark by a few inches and hit the shoulder bone dead center just above the knee, the bullet shattered the shoulder bone, destroyed the heart, both lungs, went through the diaphragm and stopped somewhere in the guts ( I didn't look for it) the elk took a few steps and died. I'm quite sure this would have been a disaster if I was shooting my .243 or .260.
I'm not advocating for crappy shooting, but there is absolutely no doubt that a big heavy well constructed bullet moving at high velocity increase your odds of recovering your animal if you make a less than perfect shot.
Stuff happens in the real world, I don't know anyone that intentionally takes bad shots, I also don't know anyone that hasn't made a bad shot.

 

[FIGJAM]

Let's assume same bullet construction in all of the following:

What if the bullets were identical weights in each caliber? So you were shooting a 150gr 264, 150gr .284 and a 150gr .308...

I have always looked at energy numbers for its potential effectiveness on game. So I have always believed if a 264 bullet generates the same energy at a certain yardage that a .308 bullet does at the same yardage, the margin for error is limited to the difference in diameter due to the larger bullet possibly clipping the vitals on a poor shot - in this case it would be .044".

And I have always believed that the bullet with the higher sectional density will pentrate better for those tough quartering away shots. Am I crazy?

 

[HARPERC]

......Bullet diameter is just one part the "system"......

Terminal velocity, bullet construction, and sectional density all weigh in, but yes I do believe given reasonably comparable variables bigger will play a role.

No if hit in absurd place like a hoof, both are equally useless. A hip? My .375 has always had a more visible negative effect on such structures, and beyond than I've observed with 7mm's.

Prove it I can't, but change the question to a save your behind shot, on dangerous game, and the responses seem to favor more, and that isn't a particularly recent idea.

 

[Elkeater]

I think in this case comparing all bullets at the same weight and velocity you are correct. Though I think the margin of error would be of the temporary wound channel and I'm not sure how to measure that without ballistic gel.

What I'm getting at is that when comparing a 180 .308 bullet at 3050fps to a 140 .264 bullet at 3200fps I think there is just a difference in how the energy is transferred even though on paper the energy is about the same I think the bigger bullet will kill faster and in the event that both bullets hit a bone ( assuming an identical shot which isn't realistic but for this exercise we'll just go with it.) there is more bullet left with the 180 to continue to drive through.

This is all just my opinion

 

[Elkeater]

Wow are we a bunch of nerds!! Spending our Saturday deciding what kills a critter 5 seconds faster using terms like sectional density and kinetic energy. Maybe they should have used this type of discussion in high school. I might have paid more attention.

 

[FIGJAM]

I think in this case comparing all bullets at the same weight and velocity you are correct. Though I think the margin of error would be of the temporary wound channel and I'm not sure how to measure that without ballistic gel.

What I'm getting at is that when comparing a 180 .308 bullet at 3050fps to a 140 .264 bullet at 3200fps I think there is just a difference in how the energy is transferred even though on paper the energy is about the same I think the bigger bullet will kill faster and in the event that both bullets hit a bone ( assuming an identical shot which isn't realistic but for this exercise we'll just go with it.) there is more bullet left with the 180 to continue to drive through.

This is all just my opinion

I guess that is what I am wondering - does the additional .044" create some sort of exponetial increase in in the diameter of the wound channel?

Or is the wound channel more a product of the energy at and through impact generated by a particular cartridge?

 

[Elkeater]

This is from Hornady website. It's the internet and with marketing and such take it for what it's worth but it seems to state a larger diameter bullet (in this case as the bullet expands) creates a larger wound channel both permanent and temporary. It doesn't say if it's exponential or not but I guess it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

 

[Canhunter35]

In my mind, of course it does.
Let's not compare bullets only a few hundredths difference in diameter but take a 22cal vs a 30cal, take similar bullets at similar speeds. The 30 cal will always be more effective and when shot placement is less than ideal will do more damage. Like an experienced hunter said to me, if you ever do hit the animal in the hip it's nice if you have something that will break the hip and slow them down

 

[FIGJAM]

In my mind, of course it does.
Let's not compare bullets only a few hundredths difference in diameter but take a 22cal vs a 30cal, take similar bullets at similar speeds. The 30 cal will always be more effective and when shot placement is less than ideal will do more damage. Like an experienced hunter said to me, if you ever do hit the animal in the hip it's nice if you have something that will break the hip and slow them down

I guess I used the others because it was possible to increase velocity to the point where energy could be the same. As I think through this, the better question could have been is bullet diameter more important than energy?

 

[dmj]

All the calibers mentioned will more than do the job if put into the kill zone. Personally I do like the larger bullets for elk and even some large mule deer can be fairly tough. One question I have is. Doesn't the wind effect larger bullets less than smaller? Another words a 230gr. 30 caliber bullet would drift less than a140 gr. 26 caliber bullet. If my thinking is correct (and it probably isn't) couldn't this alone come to play in the margin of error?

 

[Canhunter35]

I guess I used the others because it was possible to increase velocity to the point where energy could be the same. As I think through this, the better question could have been is bullet diameter qmore important than energy?

I think there's a middle ground to that question:
A bullet needs sufficient energy to perform on game as it does also need sufficient diameter.

 

[BigGrizz]

I guess I used the others because it was possible to increase velocity to the point where energy could be the same. As I think through this, the better question could have been is bullet diameter more important than energy?

The increased surface area transfers energy more efficiently. Sectional density, IMO, is a poor terminal performance metric when we are talking about speed and mass. At a certain point SD is only going to get you so far. But like anything in shooting, there's some give-&-take and overlaps in performance.

 

[FIGJAM]

T

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase.html

this is a really good resource. Under bullet diameter he states:

Bullet diameter
The fourth factor is bullet diameter and put simply, the wider the caliber, the less need there is for high velocity to initiate shock.

As I read through that website I am thinking that higher velocities can compensate for smaller diameter bullets....