Food for thought

[filmjunkie4ever]

I write a weekly outdoor sports/shooting column for our local newspaper. I’m writing a piece right now explaining the difference (my opinion of course) between Adequate cartridges and Ideal cartridges.

To me practically any cartridge can be adequately used in the field, especially with premium bullets and headshots on close range undisturbed game animals. Ideal cartridges are ones which still work well in spite of some distance, awareness of animal, less than perfect shot angle, etc.

I know this is a can of worms but just wanted to open this up for discussion, how do you differentiate between adequate cartridges/calibers and ideal cartridges/calibers for your hunts?

 

[DrMike]

I believe you have a good handle on the subject. I've read of Inuit peoples using a 22-250 to kill polar bears. It is definitely not ideal, but it is obviously adequate. I know of natives here in the north who kill moose with a 243. Again, it is not ideal, but it is obviously adequate. For years many moose were taken with a 30-30 or a 303 British throughout Canada. What is not often stated is that many moose were wounded with a 30-30 or a 303 British throughout Canada. Obviously, either of those cartridges work, but they are far from ideal. I have had few ideal shots in the field. It is far more common that I have a very short time to take the shot and it would be at a distance or the angel would be less than ideal. At such times, I wanted to be armed with a cartridge that would punch through a shoulder if that was where the impact was, delivering sufficient hydrostatic shock as the bullet passed into and possibly through the body. I wanted sufficient kinetic energy to ensure penetration into the body cavity with a full disruption of vital organs in the animal. That meant that before I ventured into the field, I gave some thought to the cartridge I would carry and whether I was capable of handling the rifle that would deliver the bullet with a degree of precision.

 

[NYDAN]

I believe you have a good handle on the subject. I've read of Inuit peoples using a 22-250 to kill polar bears. It is definitely not ideal, but it is obviously adequate. I know of natives here in the north who kill moose with a 243. Again, it is not ideal, but it is obviously adequate. For years many moose were taken with a 30-30 or a 303 British throughout Canada. What is not often stated is that many moose were wounded with a 30-30 or a 303 British throughout Canada. Obviously, either of those cartridges work, but they are far from ideal. I have had few ideal shots in the field. It is far more common that I have a very short time to take the shot and it would be at a distance or the angel would be less than ideal. At such times, I wanted to be armed with a cartridge that would punch through a shoulder if that was where the impact was, delivering sufficient hydrostatic shock as the bullet passed into and possibly through the body. I wanted sufficient kinetic energy to ensure penetration into the body cavity with a full disruption of vital organs in the animal. That meant that before I ventured into the field, I gave some thought to the cartridge I would carry and whether I was capable of handling the rifle that would deliver the bullet with a degree of precision.

Well written, DrMike.

 

[Slimfinn]

Well written, DrMike.

+1

 

[RL338]

I’ve taken several deer with my 416 Wby and my daughter has taken several with her 22/250. None of them ever took a step.
The biggest critter we have in WI to hunt is black bear , both of these in my opinion are both adequate.

 

[filmjunkie4ever]

I believe you have a good handle on the subject. I've read of Inuit peoples using a 22-250 to kill polar bears. It is definitely not ideal, but it is obviously adequate. I know of natives here in the north who kill moose with a 243. Again, it is not ideal, but it is obviously adequate. For years many moose were taken with a 30-30 or a 303 British throughout Canada. What is not often stated is that many moose were wounded with a 30-30 or a 303 British throughout Canada. Obviously, either of those cartridges work, but they are far from ideal. I have had few ideal shots in the field. It is far more common that I have a very short time to take the shot and it would be at a distance or the angel would be less than ideal. At such times, I wanted to be armed with a cartridge that would punch through a shoulder if that was where the impact was, delivering sufficient hydrostatic shock as the bullet passed into and possibly through the body. I wanted sufficient kinetic energy to ensure penetration into the body cavity with a full disruption of vital organs in the animal. That meant that before I ventured into the field, I gave some thought to the cartridge I would carry and whether I was capable of handling the rifle that would deliver the bullet with a degree of precision.

Precisely. That’s my take on it as well.

I do know folks that use a cannon as an excuse to take poor shots as well however, I don’t take shots (meaning presentation of the animal, not distance per se) with a .338 magnum that I wouldn’t take with a .30-06 or .270.

And you’ve made my exact points on adequate vs. ideal choices. Thanks for the reply Doc!

 

[RL338]

Not to go sideways on your post , but last couple of years I heard horror stories from neighbors and people at work of the younger crowd hunting with their MSRs with FMJ on deer. The ammo shortage has some to do with this as that is all that is on the shelves the past couple of years.

 

[filmjunkie4ever]

Not to go sideways on your post , but last couple of years I heard horror stories from neighbors and people at work of the younger crowd hunting with their MSRs with FMJ on deer. The ammo shortage has some to do with this as that is all that is on the shelves the past couple of years.

Not sideways at all. Part of my closing comments are going to be about the importance of using a bullet designed for the game we pursue. I too have seen folks try to use improper bullets in a .308!

 

[DrMike]

I have passed on more than a few shots, and I have regretted not passing on other shots throughout the years of my time afield. I didn't have a mentor to guide me in the early years, so I was compelled to actually think about how best to bring game home. As is true of most true hunters, I did not want an animal to suffer through my negligence. Also, and especially in those earlier days, I had no desire to learn tracking through the necessity of finding a wounded animal. Necessity forced me to be a student of the art of hunting, and that meant a lot of time with the rifle and learning all that I could concerning ammunition. I will say that I am not enamored with velocity, but I am greatly interested in terminal ballistics. Thus, I do pay some considerable attention to the projectile that will be used and the necessary velocity limits for ensuring proper expansion and penetration.

 

[TexasLife]

If the animal would just die on the spot all would be equal, adequate and acceptable. I've killed more animals with fmj's than any other bullet, whether it be from a handgun or a rifle. Mostly small game, but those pesky hogs don't run from a fmj (m193, 855 or m80).

 

[JD338]

Well said Mike. My go to rifle for crop damage deer hunting is a 338 RUM with a 250 gr AB.
Way more gun than needed but it works well.
Adequate is what is in your hands IF you shoot it well, wait for the right shot and put the bullet where it needs to go.

JD338

 

[KinleyWater]

If I may, I think one of the common threads of the comments is that the ideal cartridge is also about the shooter. It has to do with hunting style, recoil tolerance, what shots they are, or are not willing to take. A lot of factors.

For me; I love the 35 Whelen. I love loading for it, I love shooting it, I love hunting with it. It kills very, very well, but I know that I am unwilling to take a shot with it at more than about 300 yards. If (and it's a big if) I wanted to hunt at 400 yards, or more, I would use a different cartridge with better ballistic efficiency. Whereas in my backyard, where shots aren't going to be more than 110 yards, a 45-70 would be a really nice choice. I mean, I still use the Whelen, because Whelen.

 

[wvbuckbuster]

Lot of good comments. Guess the determining factor lies with the ability of each hunter as previously stated. Then again Bob Hagle was credited with a statement that said something along the lines of " Don't use a gun that will do the job when everything goes right. Use a gun that will handle the job when everything could go wrong". I guess a little over kill is better than some less. Dan.

 

[filmjunkie4ever]

Lot of good comments. Guess the determining factor lies with the ability of each hunter as previously stated. Then again Bob Hagle was credited with a statement that said something along the lines of " Don't use a gun that will do the job when everything goes right. Use a gun that will handle the job when everything could go wrong". I guess a little over kill is better than some less. Dan.

Exactly. I mean if shot placement was truly the only thing that matters, we could all theoretically use a .22 LR for all of our hunting everywhere. Obviously that’s not possible as shot placement is only part of the equation.

There are some folks I know who believe the bigger of a gun they use, the less import that shot placement has. As such they buy big cavernous magnums and recite the Lord Robert Ruark’s prayer “use enough gun.”

The truth as usual is somewhere between the two polar opposites.

Pick a gun you can place your shots well with, and pilot a bullet designed for the game you’re pursuing and you’ll probably have an ideal gun for that endeavor.

 

[hunter24605]

And cartridges that were once considered marginal for a particular game, take a step up in performance as bullet technology increases. It's an ever evolving deliberation.

 

[ShadeTree]

A lot of good points. So many factors come into play, a lot of what can come into play has already been correctly pointed out.

It's very difficult also with a cartridge to have a bullet that covers all bases ideally. Even in the much admired 30-06's I shoot........the bullet type and weight that would be absolutely ideal for whitetails, would in most cases be lacking with some type shots on a big tough black bear. Go smaller in bullet diameter and those differences between ideal and failure can become even more pronounced. Our seasons run concurrent here in my state and I've seen that play out with numerous people I know. Loaded for whitetail and encountered a bear......got the bear in all instances but wasn't pretty at all about both the time, and the number of shots required to seal the deal.

A 6mm, a 7mm RM, and a 243 are three I can think of off the top of my head of people I know that were used on bear while whitetail hunting. By any standard they were all an abysmal failure on those days, but truth is the bullets used were the biggest culprits.

 

[lefty315]

By any standard they were all an abysmal failure on those days, but truth is the bullets used were the biggest culprits.


well stated Shadetree. Ironically that’s the very reason this particular forum exists. Had it not been for bullet failure, Nosler itself may not exist and we wouldn’t have this exact place for those discussions. We were elk hunting many years ago and a buddy shot an average body sized mule deer with a .270 Weatherby Magnum and a very light bullet from about 30 yards. The bullet destroyed the entire shoulder but best we could tell it barely sent fragments and shattered bone into the vitals and never even broke through the opposite side of the body cavity. I told him to make sure and shoot behind the shoulder if he has a chance at an elk because I didn’t trust the bullets to penetrate deep enough. I guess there’s adequate and ideal bullets that probably need to be in the equation too.

 

[ShadeTree]

Lefty, I agree. The Nosler Partition in particular in my opinion all these years later, is still the premium bullet by which all others are measured when it comes to producing both immediate internal trauma and penetration.

But in the interest of not painting all other standard cup and core bullets with 1 broad brush, in my opinion the failures on those days was the particular bullet being used. There were and is plenty of cup and core bullets that would've done the job much more effectively.

The bear shot with the 6mm was average size...........was hit 6 times if I remember correctly, and was shot with the sierra 100 gr BTSP. A soft and frangible bullet. A really good bullet for whitetail, but for toughness and penetration not nearly in the same league as the Sierra PH or Rem Core Lokt, etc.

The bear shot with the 243 was a large bear........it was hit 11 times total. I will not say what bullet was being used as I cannot confidently say now, but obviously not a optimum bullet even in C&C design.

The bear shot with the 7 RM was also a larger bear. It was hit 7 times. The 139 hornady IL was used. Nothing wrong with that bullet, but at close range and at 7RM speeds on a bear that dressed out well over 300 lbs and on a day where it rained all day, it was asked to do something beyond it's design.

That bear had 4" & 5" of fat at places and was soaking wet. All that thick hair on a bear sopped up with water is like shooting through a gallon jug of water before you ever get started. Then through all that fat when already fully expanded, then trying to penetrate heavy muscle and bone.

Very hard for most cartridges and calibers to have equally good results on a 400 lb live weight bear under those conditions, that it does on a thin skinned, light muscled, and light framed whitetail with the same bullet. Particularly at high speed and lighter weight.

 

[ShadeTree]

I've thought about this very thing even before this topic came up. In something like a 308 or 30-06 there are C&C bullets that I'd have more than enough confidence in to handle a large black bear effectively. But I also know using that same bullet on a behind the shoulder lung shot whitetail, would be far from ideal.

There would be other cartridges and bullets that could straddle a large span of body weights and toughness of animals, but for me within it's effective range the 35 Remington I use accomplishes both with one bullet. I've seen it's effectiveness on whitetail, not black bear, but have talked to others that used them to kill bear and they had high praise for it.

Nathan Foster says of bullets like the .358, 180 Speer FP, that with it's low sectional density of .201 it should not penetrate like a 180 gr .308 Sierra PH or Speer HC, with a S.D. of .271, but yet it does.

I've seen the results with both the 180 Speer FP and the 200 RNCL on whitetail albeit at a good bit more speed than factory rounds, and would have full confidence with both on a large black bear, on up to elk within it's range. Moose might be less than ideal, but probably not a really poor choice.

As you can tell within it's range I've become a big fan of the 35 Remington. Does everything I need it to do at any angle, and if a deer does run off it's a short and heavy blood trail. Low recoil, easy to shoot, and highly effective in my experience. What's not to like. The bad thing is if you don't already have bullets, good luck buying 35 caliber bullets at most places today.

 

[wvbuckbuster]

I've thought about this very thing even before this topic came up. In something like a 308 or 30-06 there are C&C bullets that I'd have more than enough confidence in to handle a large black bear effectively. But I also know using that same bullet on a behind the shoulder lung shot whitetail, would be far from ideal.

There would be other cartridges and bullets that could straddle a large span of body weights and toughness of animals, but for me within it's effective range the 35 Remington I use accomplishes both with one bullet. I've seen it's effectiveness on whitetail, not black bear, but have talked to others that used them to kill bear and they had high praise for it.

Nathan Foster says of bullets like the .358, 180 Speer FP, that with it's low sectional density of .201 it should not penetrate like a 180 gr .308 Sierra PH or Speer HC, with a S.D. of .271, but yet it does.

I've seen the results with both the 180 Speer FP and the 200 RNCL on whitetail albeit at a good bit more speed than factory rounds, and would have full confidence with both on a large black bear, on up to elk within it's range. Moose might be less than ideal, but probably not a really poor choice.

As you can tell within it's range I've become a big fan of the 35 Remington. Does everything I need it to do at any angle, and if a deer does run off it's a short and heavy blood trail. Low recoil, easy to shoot, and highly effective in my experience. What's not to like. The bad thing is if you don't already have bullets, good luck buying 35 caliber bullets at most places today.

I still got them Rem 200gr Cl and you still got that RL26 Dan.