bullet weights and diameter

[jmad_81]

I have taken two elk with 260 AB out of a 375R. Bullets were traveling 2880 fps. One was at 242 yards and one was at 40. The 242 bull was hit high and just in front of the back leg. The angle of the shot put it threw the off side lung and off side shoulder. The 40 yard bull was shot just in front of the close shoulder and out the middle of the offside shoulder. On both elk there was less blood shot meat than on anything I have ever shot or saw shot. I am a very firm believer in bigger heavier bullets, for penitration, knock down power, and because they don't ches up any meat.

Had I made either of those shots with my 270 WSM the 242 bull would of not just stumbled to the side and put his head down about ready to fall over. Sure with a good 130 ET the bullet might of got to the lungs, but I will bet my rifle that there is no bullet in any gun .308" (excluding solids) and under that will waste less meat than a good .338 or .375 bullet.

 

[Guy Miner]

I'm mostly a mule deer hunter, with only one bull elk taken. That said, yeah, I'm more comfortable with a 7mm or a .30 cal for elk. They can be mighty tough animals I hear. Used a 7mm mag with a 175 Nosler Partition for the bull elk. No problem. I think my .308 or .30-06 with a good bullet would have done just as well.

For deer, I see little advantage to anything over a 6mm or a .25 caliber, with a decent bullet. No problem using a bigger cartridge, and I have, but I haven't seen any advantage in the bigger cartridges. Instant death is pretty tough to beat.

Regards, Guy

 

[DrMike]

Guy,

I was not responding specifically to your post on this thread, but rather I was responding to the topic in general. I indeed used examples of a couple of tough customers (grizzly and elk). Not every animal drops at the shot; some can run a surprisingly long distance. A "dead" grizzly can do major damage in a matter of seconds as it is dying. Elk are not bullet proof, but they do have strong bones that can deflect lighter bullets.

Similarly, I know that a .22 will kill a deer, but most jurisdictions have (correctly, I believe) debarred hunters from using anything smaller than a .24 calibre bullet. For hunting in British Columbia, the Ministry of the Environment sets both energy and calibre restrictions for hunting. The same situation prevails in most states. The decision to restrict some hunting situations to the use of a minimum energy and/or calibre is based on scientific studies and not mere emotion.

I certainly agree that even for grizzlies and elk, I would rather see a hunter use a 30-06 that he or she shoots well than a 243. The '06 is enough rifle in either of these situations, provided the hunter can shoot the rifle and knows the limitations of his or her ability and the limitations of the load. However, the 243 would be better than a stick in the eye. You are correct that the use of a smaller calibre rifle will benefit from a premium bullet in these instances. The reason for this is not that they are more accurate or somehow more lethal, but because they are designed to maintain weight integrity when pushing through tough bone and/or hide.

We are on the same team when it comes to long range hunting. The hunter needs high BC, good velocity and excellent accuracy.

Longranger,

Frontal area does not refer to the amount of exposed lead, but the bullet diameter. Everything else being equal, higher frontal area means a larger wound channel and hence a higher degree of lethality. More mass (in a bullet of the same calibre) means that likely a larger proportion of the bullet (assuming similar construction) will penetrate to the vitals.

 

[Guest]

I'm mostly a mule deer hunter, with only one bull elk taken. That said, yeah, I'm more comfortable with a 7mm or a .30 cal for elk. They can be mighty tough animals I hear. Used a 7mm mag with a 175 Nosler Partition for the bull elk. No problem. I think my .308 or .30-06 with a good bullet would have done just as well.

For deer, I see little advantage to anything over a 6mm or a .25 caliber, with a decent bullet. No problem using a bigger cartridge, and I have, but I haven't seen any advantage in the bigger cartridges. Instant death is pretty tough to beat.

Regards, Guy

I just read an artical about the right bullet. Check it out. Seem to me that
the right bullet is worth more than a bigger caliber. My wifes uncle thinks a 7mm Rem. Mag. is needed over a 06 longer range. But if a bullet is designed for short and long range due to it's softer frontal area to perform at loner range with lower velocity, then that's, like ya said, beats another rifle in the cabinet.

http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/mar96premium.html

 

[DrMike]

I would not hesitate to use a 7mm RM to hunt elk (and I have done so). Certainly, anything the 7 RM will do, the 30-06 will do, the primary difference being the increased frontal area and a negligible difference (potentially) in bullet mass. I would be willing to hunt elk with my .280 or a .270, but I would take into account the bullet weight and velocity to adjust the range in which I would be comfortable taking the quarry. I have no difficulty recommending the quarter bores for mule deer and northern whitetails. Undoubtedly, the 243 and the 6mm Rem work quite well on deer. However, as I observe more game taken by a variety of bullets, I find that the higher mass/increased frontal area bullets moving at somewhat slower speeds work quite well in taking big game without destroying meat. In this, I agree with jmad_81.

 

[Guest]

I would not hesitate to use a 7mm RM to hunt elk (and I have done so). Certainly, anything the 7 RM will do, the 30-06 will do, the primary difference being the increased frontal area and a negligible difference (potentially) in bullet mass. I would be willing to hunt elk with my .280 or a .270, but I would take into account the bullet weight and velocity to adjust the range in which I would be comfortable taking the quarry. I have no difficulty recommending the quarter bores for mule deer and northern whitetails. Undoubtedly, the 243 and the 6mm Rem work quite well on deer. However, as I observe more game taken by a variety of bullets, I find that the higher mass/increased frontal area bullets moving at somewhat slower speeds work quite well in taking big game without destroying meat. In this, I agree with jmad_81.

so in a nutshell, the larger frontal area is a better bone penetrator then
smaller diameter bullets. It's the opposite of snow shoes....LOL

 

[DrMike]

Ultimately, the bullet must cause internal damage to kill game. Assuming that the shot is in the heart/lung area (ignoring the possibility of damage to major neurological structures), tissue damage, shock resulting from blood loss and loss of the ability for oxygen exchange due to fluid accumulation in the lungs, are all involved in the death of the animal. Ultimately, any hole through the lungs is detrimental to the continuation of life.

Exsanguination will ultimately lead to death as the vital organs shut down and the brain is deprived of oxygen. However, because we seek the quickest death possible for the game we hunt (partly because none of us are sadists and partly because the quicker the death the less gamy the meat), we seek the maximum damage to vital organs. To accomplish this, we must have a bullet that penetrates to the heart/lung region and that causes shock (both hydrostatic and from blood loss).

 

[Guest]

Ultimately, the bullet must cause internal damage to kill game. Assuming that the shot is in the heart/lung area (ignoring the possibility of damage to major neurological structures), tissue damage, shock resulting from blood loss and loss of the ability for oxygen exchange due to fluid accumulation in the lungs, are all involved in the death of the animal. Ultimately, any hole through the lungs is detrimental to the continuation of life.

Exsanguination will ultimately lead to death as the vital organs shut down and the brain is deprived of oxygen. However, because we seek the quickest death possible for the game we hunt (partly because none of us are sadists and partly because the quicker the death the less gamy the meat), we seek the maximum damage to vital organs. To accomplish this, we must have a bullet that penetrates to the heart/lung region and that causes shock (both hydrostatic and from blood loss).

I understand all you explained, but you didn't answer my question about
bone penetration as a secondary shot. I always go for the broadside shot,
but I know someday I won't have those most ideal oppritunity. Unless you advise to pass up the game without a braodside shot.

 

[Richracer1]

There is no replacement for displacement.The bigger the diameter, the heavier weight bullet you can use.

The heavier bullet at a "higher velocity" will ensure you reach the vitals from a hard angle and/or through heavy bone.

JD338

JD.... your statement above kinda contradicts your signature.

Not really, his signature relates to load development. For example, he achieved a .5" group with his first 338RUM 250AB load. He stopped there. He could have tried more powder charges for more velocity, but he may not have achieved the same group size results - hence his signature. I'm the same way with my load development - more concerned with accuracy than velocity. This also relates to my first post - I pick a specific bullet weight for a specific caliber to achieve MY personal requirements/goals.

Very interesting topic indeed - gets everyone thinking. :grin:

 

[JD338]

There is no replacement for displacement.The bigger the diameter, the heavier weight bullet you can use.

The heavier bullet at a "higher velocity" will ensure you reach the vitals from a hard angle and/or through heavy bone.

JD338

JD.... your statement above kinda contradicts your signature.

Not really, his signature relates to load development. For example, he achieved a .5" group with his first 338RUM 250AB load. He stopped there. He could have tried more powder charges for more velocity, but he may not have achieved the same group size results - hence his signature. I'm the same way with my load development - more concerned with accuracy than velocity. This also relates to my first post - I pick a specific bullet weight for a specific caliber to achieve MY personal requirements/goals.

Very interesting topic indeed - gets everyone thinking. :grin:

longranger

I will take accuracy over velocity every time. As Richracer1 points out, sub .5" groups at 2950 fps is pretty good. Another 100 fps may or may not improve accuracy and the energy level there isn't going to buy me anything.

The heavier bullet at a "higher velocity" will ensure you reach the vitals from a hard angle and/or through heavy bone

No contradiction in my comments. The reason for choosing a magnum caliber for elk and moose sized game is that heavier bullets from a magnum will outperform lighter bullets from a standard caliber. Heavier bullets with a higher BC (from the same cartridge) will also catch up to lighter, lower BC bullets down range. It may take 400-500 yds to do it but they will while retaining more energy and penetrating deeper.

JD338

 

[Guest]

There is no replacement for displacement.The bigger the diameter, the heavier weight bullet you can use.

The heavier bullet at a "higher velocity" will ensure you reach the vitals from a hard angle and/or through heavy bone.

JD338

JD.... your statement above kinda contradicts your signature.

Not really, his signature relates to load development. For example, he achieved a .5" group with his first 338RUM 250AB load. He stopped there. He could have tried more powder charges for more velocity, but he may not have achieved the same group size results - hence his signature. I'm the same way with my load development - more concerned with accuracy than velocity. This also relates to my first post - I pick a specific bullet weight for a specific caliber to achieve MY personal requirements/goals.

Very interesting topic indeed - gets everyone thinking. :grin:

longranger

I will take accuracy over velocity every time. As Richracer1 points out, sub .5" groups at 2950 fps is pretty good. Another 100 fps may or may not improve accuracy and the energy level there isn't going to buy me anything.

The heavier bullet at a "higher velocity" will ensure you reach the vitals from a hard angle and/or through heavy bone

No contradiction in my comments. The reason for choosing a magnum caliber for elk and moose sized game is that heavier bullets from a magnum will outperform lighter bullets from a standard caliber. Heavier bullets with a higher BC (from the same cartridge) will also catch up to lighter, lower BC bullets down range. It may take 400-500 yds to do it but they will while retaining more energy and penetrating deeper.

JD338

According to speer 1000 ft. lbs is minimal for a decent kill.

at 500 yards you 338 is double as far as energy to 06 or 270. beyond 500
yards 338 is droping out for proper energy. I don't have tables to go beyond 500 yards. But I wouldn't doubt that the standard cartridge is that far behind.

 

[JD338]

longranger

The higher the BC, the better the bullet can move through the air and retain speed down range.
The 338 RUM with a 250 gr AB (BC .575) is impressive-

MV 2950 fps ME 4831 fpe
500 yds 2564 fps with 3650 fpe
1000 yds 2201 fps with 2680 fpe

http://www.biggameinfo.com/

and 250 grs will get you to the vitals from any angle. :wink:

It is still about accuracy and shot placement, thats paramount! High velocity, high energy, bullet weight, etc doesn't make up for a bad shot.
I think Elmer Keith once said, "An elk shot in the guts with a 375 H&H is still a gut shot".

JD338

 

[Colin]

I wonder what Keith and O'connor would say with the advent of the new "premium" bullets. Would their opinions change?

 

[Guy Miner]

I suspect they'd both like the wide variety of truly impressive bullets we've got available to us these days - but from what I've read neither one was prone to change their minds... I think Elmer would still like his big bore rifles with heavy bullets, just because he was Elmer Keith! :grin:

But who knows?

Yeah, I like the premium bullets myself. Always have. I think I bought my first Nosler Partitions in '74 or '75, looking for a bullet that would hang together if it impacted game at high velocity. I still like premium bullets for the same reason.

There's about a gazillion cartridge/bullet combinations that work well on game, in the right situations. Doubt if there's a dime's worth of difference on common game (thinking deer again) between the 6.5's, 7's, and .30's... But different bullets sure perform differently. Some expand real fast and don't penetrate real well, others do just the opposite. Expansion and penetration are at odds with each other...

Regards, Guy

 

[Guest]

I suspect they'd both like the wide variety of truly impressive bullets we've got available to us these days - but from what I've read neither one was prone to change their minds... I think Elmer would still like his big bore rifles with heavy bullets, just because he was Elmer Keith! :grin:

But who knows?

Yeah, I like the premium bullets myself. Always have. I think I bought my first Nosler Partitions in '74 or '75, looking for a bullet that would hang together if it impacted game at high velocity. I still like premium bullets for the same reason.

There's about a gazillion cartridge/bullet combinations that work well on game, in the right situations. Doubt if there's a dime's worth of difference on common game (thinking deer again) between the 6.5's, 7's, and .30's... But different bullets sure perform differently. Some expand real fast and don't penetrate real well, others do just the opposite.


Expansion and penetration are at odds with each other...




Regards, Guy

You have a really good point.




[/b]

 

[Lou270]

I wonder what Keith and O'connor would say with the advent of the new "premium" bullets. Would their opinions change?

Actually, the Nosler Patition was around during both of their primes. I think O'Connor got bullet construction a bit more than Keith did. O'Connor quickly adopted the Nosler Partition for his .270 work, especially after seeing the 130 version consistently exit on game like Zebra on one of his Safaris. Elmer still hung onto the heavier .338 bullets (275/300 cup & core) despite even writing how the 300 gr was coming apart and lacking penetration on game on one of his Safaris. However, I think Elmer would have preferred premiums so long as the were in the heavy weights he loved, but the Nosler stopped at 250 gr.

Lou

 

[Guest]

I wonder what Keith and O'connor would say with the advent of the new "premium" bullets. Would their opinions change?

Actually, the Nosler Patition was around during both of their primes. I think O'Connor got bullet construction a bit more than Keith did. O'Connor quickly adopted the Nosler Partition for his .270 work, especially after seeing the 130 version consistently exit on game like Zebra on one of his Safaris. Elmer still hung onto the heavier .338 bullets (275/300 cup & core) despite even writing how the 300 gr was coming apart and lacking penetration on game on one of his Safaris. However, I think Elmer would have preferred premiums so long as the were in the heavy weights he loved, but the Nosler stopped at 250 gr.

Lou

Dang... you mean Jack dissed his life long bud Vernon Speer..... The Partition must be one heck of a bullet, then. I take it he used a 130 grainer for all his work?

 

[Antelope_Sniper]

Guy and Dr. Mike, and JD covered most of this area very well.
It's my opinion that a 150gr Nosler AB launched at 2700+ can bring home any North American game on a 100 yard broadside shot. I've seen plenty of 100 yard broadside shots on deer, but that got me thinking.....I've never seen a 100 yard broadside standing shot on an elk during regular rifle season on public land. NEVER. By the time rifle season rolls around they are done with the Rut, they've been chased for a month by the bow hunters, and another two weeks by the muzzle loaders. So what kind of shots do you mostly see on elk. Running shots, raking shots, a piece through the trees shots, oh yea, and a lot of white piece of fur heading away from you shots. Under these conditionshaving sufficent displacement, mass, velocity, bullet construction, and the practice to make that unusual shot all become very important. Does it matter so much if it's an .338/8mm/.375 Win/RUM/H&H/Ruger Magnum with a 225/250/260gr AB/Partition/e-tip. So long as you can shoot all the way through the critter the long way at 300 yards, you are covered.
When you are faced with that 300 yard butt shot and everyone else with a marginal combination of rifle, bullet and shooting skills are fretting over it....oh my...what do I do....do I take the shot... do I not take the shot....oh...I just don't know....You on the other hand, visualize the vital, put your crosshairs on then, pull the trigger, and fill out your tag. In the end, you might not always need a big magnum with a premium bullet, but in the long run, they can sure prevent alot of problems.

 

[Lou270]

I wonder what Keith and O'connor would say with the advent of the new "premium" bullets. Would their opinions change?

Actually, the Nosler Patition was around during both of their primes. I think O'Connor got bullet construction a bit more than Keith did. O'Connor quickly adopted the Nosler Partition for his .270 work, especially after seeing the 130 version consistently exit on game like Zebra on one of his Safaris. Elmer still hung onto the heavier .338 bullets (275/300 cup & core) despite even writing how the 300 gr was coming apart and lacking penetration on game on one of his Safaris. However, I think Elmer would have preferred premiums so long as the were in the heavy weights he loved, but the Nosler stopped at 250 gr.

Lou

Dang... you mean Jack dissed his life long bud Vernon Speer..... The Partition must be one heck of a bullet, then. I take it he used a 130 grainer for all his work?

O'Connor used the 130 weight for most of his work, but often used 150s when heavier game was the only thing on the menu. For example, O'Connor was a dedicated sheep hunter and he liked the flat trajectory of the 130s for that purpose. On the same pack trip for Sheep, O'Connor would bump off a Moose or two with 130s because that is what he was using for a Sheep load. It seemed when he was going after only larger game, such as dedicated Elk hunt, he loaded 150s (which were mostly Speers or Noslers). Jack also used 160s in the .270 early on before he shot too much game with the 130s and was worried about penetration. After killing some larger game like Moose & Grizzly with the 130 load and getting adequate penetration, he seemed to stop worrying about switching to heavier bullets. Jack mentioned a variety of 130s he liked including the Speer, Bronze Point, Core-lokt, and old Winchester Pointed Expanding, but seemed to settle on either the SilverTip or Nosler for most of his later hunts.

Lou

 

[Antelope_Sniper]

One of Elmer's favorite bullets was the old 275gr speer round nose in .338. At 300 yards he shot through almost 9 feet of Polar Bear. Not that I'm big on round nose bullets, but it's hard to argue with those results.