What hits harder?

[338 bruce]

I'm going to suggest using the 30-06 again, only this time use a 180 grain or heavier in an accu-bond, sst, partion, mono metal, or soft point (bear claw, hot-cor, SGK). Betcha see a difference in impact and damage. You should also get pass through with these bullets and get the elk to notice. I would never suggest a 165 ballistic tip for elk. That was one of the down falls of the ballistic tip when they first came out. People liked the accuracy, but didn't like the results when moving from varmint and target, to big game.

Tank

The 165 ballistic tip performed very well with both bullets exiting, both lungs destroyed and holes thru both shoulder blades. The only recovered bullet entered the rear quarter stoping against the hide by the ribs. Last year my wife killed a large six point bull with her 308 winchester 180 gn accubond at 2650 fps. The first shot was from 450 yds hitting in the guts from wind drift. I watched it lay down and a shot from 20 yds thru the lungs knocked it down again. Twenty minutes later it tryed to get up again, another shot to the lungs from 20 feet knocked it down again it tried to get up again and a shot to the neck finished it for good. The recoverd bullets looked like perfect mushrooms. She now wants to rebarrel to a 338 something.

 

[4LClover]

I agree with you there. The .338 is hard to beat for elk. you have velocity, diameter and weight. I wouldn't consider bullets hitting the dirt "wasted energy" though. I like to think of that as insurance if you hit a large bone or if you are in bear country. No such thing as too much gun in my opinion.

If anybody wants to know what bullets are best etc. then read a few reloading manuals. I like to think that companies like Hornady, Speer, Nosler, Barnes, etc. know what they are talking about. They spend millions of dollars developing and marketing big game bullets and all agree on the same philosophy.

Bullets that mushroom well over an acceptable range of velocities, penetrate deeply, and retain most of their weight are the bullets most recommended for large animals. A-frames, bonded bullets and all copper bullets have long been a mainstay with big game hunters for a reason. I rarely run into veteran hunters that use anything else on large animals.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Simply put. There is no such thing as "knock down power" in a shoulder fired rifle. I comes down to penetration and permanent damage. Most all of this stuff is campfire legend type stories.

If you want to know how it works, look up 'Shooting Holes In The Wounding Theory'. You must have a long attention span and somewhat of an ability to comprehend physics. Also a personal desire to understand exactly what happens when a bullet impacts a living animal.

Steve

 

[meatyrem]

I agree with you there. The .338 is hard to beat for elk. you have velocity, diameter and weight. I wouldn't consider bullets hitting the dirt "wasted energy" though. I like to think of that as insurance if you hit a large bone or if you are in bear country. No such thing as too much gun in my opinion.

If anybody wants to know what bullets are best etc. then read a few reloading manuals. I like to think that companies like Hornady, Speer, Nosler, Barnes, etc. know what they are talking about. They spend millions of dollars developing and marketing big game bullets and all agree on the same philosophy.

Bullets that mushroom well over an acceptable range of velocities, penetrate deeply, and retain most of their weight are the bullets most recommended for large animals. A-frames, bonded bullets and all copper bullets have long been a mainstay with big game hunters for a reason. I rarely run into veteran hunters that use anything else on large animals.

I would have to side with 4Lclover, I think you said it best. The heavy 338 has the drive through energy for penetration at the same time slowly expanding. If the bullet remains inside then that "dumped" energy is what you have. If from a high speed light for caliber "soft" constructed bullet hits and "blows up" then there you have your "dumped" energy if you hit something hard before the vitals. Heavier and slower doesn't usually expand violently, hence the smaller wound channel. My thoughts are the more tissue damage; the quicker the death. Any animal will not run far at all when their lungs/heart or both are liquified. I do believe there is a certain amount of shock that kills. That shock is from bullet expansion and destroying vital tissue from driving through at a high speed. I shot a wild hog once with a 22-250 tucked in behind the shoulder,(a balistic tip) no exit wound but he only ran 50yds.

 

[sp6x6]

Shot placement has alot to do with the perceived knock down. Like on Best of the West they use the high shoulder shot and have alot of one shot knock downs. My dad started me on a 243, he had a 300WM. When elk hunting, with me being a kid, and on the rifle team, he told me to head shoot them, bang flop, I shot half my game for years that style, we meat hunted. I visited with a PH in SA and they would go out in a night and drop 20-30 impala for herd control, 223 all head shot, then process them

 

[tuck2]

Over the years I have killed a few elk ,all lung area hits with the 270, 308 Norma Mag, and 340 Weatherby. None went over 50 yards after being shot, but for any game animal I would rather be over gunned than under so the 340 wouid be used, it hits harder. For mule deer, I have made clean kills using the 22-250 Rem, 243 Win, 257 Roberts, 25-06 Rem, 264 Win Mag, 270 Win and 308 Norma Mag. The only animal lost was a pronghorn shot with the 308 Norma Mag. It ran over a hill, never did find it but that was do to poor shot placement. A 165 Gr bullet out of the 308 Norma Mag will hit plenty hard for shooting pronghorn and mule deer ,but they must be hit in a vital area.

 

[Moosetracker]

After 45 years of hunting deer, moose and bear with all kinds of calibers and bullet types, I could present many stories of effective and ineffective terminal ballistics. But that would merely add to the pile of contradictory anecdotal evidence.

As some have mentioned, it is critical to match caliber and bullet type (weigh and construction) to the animal being hunted within a distance range. In doing so I am guided by the findings and conclusions described in the following series of articles on terminal ballistics.

Terminal Ballistics

Merry Xmas and happy reading.

 

[RoadKill]

I once demonstrated the importance of proper projectile selection to a friend by busting two liter water filled plastic bottles at one hundred yards with a .308 Win. The bottles were on their side with the base showing and there was a paper backer about two feet behind them. The 165 grain of game construction blew the bottle nicely and expanded in the water to leave a 1/2" to 5/8" hole in the backer. The 130 grain of varmint construction produced more cloud but no hole in the backer. The neck of the bottle separated intact and when I picked it up from the ground it still contained much of the 130 grains in the form of tiny fragments missing only the base.

My friend did not want to believe that my dangerously hot .357 Mag. 120? grain gapping HP loads from a 6" Model 27 had made a huge but too shallow surface wound on the chest of a 50 pound trash can spreading mutt followed by one miss during my own disbelief and then four more equally too shallow hits in the rear as it drug itself off towards the trees. I had to run grab a .25-06 and a 120 grain Core-Lock to put the finish on the poor critter's career.

 

[4LClover]

My kids are playing with their toys so thanks for the reading. That is a good article. My favorite sentence was, "It is not the energy itself that kills, it is the character of the work done by it." That is a good explanation of why Karamojo was so successful hunting elephants with a 7X57.

The mechanics of cavitation section along with illustrations is something that should be taught to everybody who takes a hunter safety class. That knowledge along with good marksmanship would really cut down on the amount of wounded animals every hunting season.

Merry Xmas

 

[elkaholic]

There are so many variables involved here that to simply make a case for one round or another would be way over simplifying! I think the truth is, animals are killed by tissue damage (trauma). Foot lbs. of energy alone, do not have much to do with killing. That being said, and all else being equal, a larger diameter bullet (more frontal area) will do more damage than a smaller diameter. I think most of the arguments are caused because of bullet selection. Example:will a 25-06 with fast expanding bullet kill a deer quicker than than a .338 with a solid? Probably so! If you had a bullet that expanded as rapidly in the .338? Probably not! It still always comes down to bullet choice for the intended target, providing the round has enough poop to get where it needs to go. My opinion............Rich

 

[rscott5028]

"What hits harder?"

Heavier, faster, more frontal surface area equates to hitting harder. ...at least by one definition. However, expansion plays a huge role in creating surface area. But, proper expansion varies greatly depending on bullet construction, impact velocity and the target.

Regardless, lethality is all about damage to vital tissue and organs whether that be thru (a) shot placement, (b) energy transfered, or (c) hydrostatic shock.

A 22LR to the spine at the base of the skull will drop most animals faster than a 338 thru the shoulders.

There's a lot of room for error with soft skinned game. So, lots of calibers are effective. For tougher targets and especially dangerous game, it's best to stack the odds in your favor.

As others have already stated... match the right ammo to your objective.

--Richard

 

[meatyrem]

4LCLOVER
ELKAHOLIC
RSCOTT5028
Well put by all! I am of the same conclusion as all three of you. Each bring up excellent pionts. All to which I Agree to. I think there are too many variables in every situation. Every fired bullet may very well have a different outcome to the next, esp. when it comes to a specific animal that has hard tissue to really soft tissue and everything in between., then, the bullet passes through it all. It has to be able to handle it all.

 

[meatyrem]

Energy? That is what I think that a given cartridges capability is as far as potential goes. I don't believe in wasted energy when a bullet passes all the way through and ends up in the dirt behind the target. I look at it as if it expanded as it was designed to and exited; it did it's job and so did the cartridge, and the shooter if it was a properly placed shot.