I'm sure I'll be corrected as wrong if I am, but momentum is how arrows work as they have probably less than 50 ft/lbs of kinetic energy.
Energy, momentum, friction and inertia are all real measurable things in science.
Your experiences on medium/big game with .243 cal rifles?
- Thread starter Joel
- Start date
I'm sure I'll be corrected as wrong if I am, but momentum is how arrows work as they have probably less than 50 ft/lbs of kinetic energy.
Energy, momentum, friction and inertia are all real measurable things in science.
Well said
Yes but it doesn't mean they actually kill. Colour is a measurable phenomenon but I don't think blue bullets kill better than red ones.
But I can see the case for how momentum kills now. Penetration. If it means reaching the vitals vs not reaching the vitals. Or exiting while breaking a leg on the other side etc. That can be anchoring besides killing.
I dunno if it kills any faster IF its not a tough angle shot, but sometimes they are
Last edited:
So now we aren't mathing our quarry to death...but the dang things somehow die so we have to figure out a mathematical explanation for it?
How about this: When a hole is created in the animal's body, it will suffer damage to internal structures and lose blood. The bigger the hole, the more damage. The deeper the hole, the more damage, up till the point where the hole goes all the way through. And the faster the object creating the hole moves through the body, and the more it expands and deforms on its journey through the body, the more damage and blood loss.
Did momentum kill the critter? Well, momentum is the tendency of a body...in this case, a projectile...to remain in motion. Moving through the body of an animal exerts a lot of friction on the proectile, and forces it to cut or punch through a great deal of tissue, bone, etc. All of this acts to slow down and stop the projectile. If the projectile possesses sufficient momentum, it will overcome this opposing force and continue on further through the body. If it possesses insufficient momentum, it will come to a stop before penetrating nearly as far. That heavy, high-momentum .45-70 bullet just plows through with momentum to spare; the expanded lightweight .243 bullet, with little momentum, can't begin to match that performance.
A deer standing broadside? No problem; the .243 is perfectly capable of complete penetration, and so the fanboys go "OOOH! Look at that! My .243 kills just as fast as the big gun! Quick, let's math the crap out of this phenomenon!"
But, again, things aren't always so perfect. The deer is standing square facing the hunter, or maybe very slightly quartering toward...or perhaps it's quartering away from a hunter on day 7 of his one-week hunt. Complete penetration on this shot...the only one he "has"...requires the bullet to traverse four feet or more of bone and tissue. That .45-70 still just keeps on trucking and sails off into the sunset...but the 80- or 100gr .243 opens up into a flat coin trying to push its big flat insubstantial face through the animal in the most difficult way possible...and it fails miserably. Maybe it will manage to go deep enough to cause enough damage that the critter is killed...maybe on the quartering-to shot...but there's a more-than-decent chance that it won't, especially on the quartering-away shot or one that hits big bone. In this case, the .243 simply isn't even adequate for deer...but then we will probably hear that the guy didn't "do his part" correctly. That's true, he didn't. He picked a cartridge that had inherent limitations, and then he attempted to exceed those limitations.
But that's an exaggeration; a .243 isn't going to expand to .50-caliber. It will expand some, it will penetrate some more, but its lack of weight and also frontal area won't let it match a larger cartridge that starts out bigger, weighs more and also expands to a similar degree.
So use a .243, and limit yourself to .243-capable shot presentations. Or, do your part and choose a gun that will allow you to capitalize on all ethical shot presentations. You won't even need a calculator.
How about this: When a hole is created in the animal's body, it will suffer damage to internal structures and lose blood. The bigger the hole, the more damage. The deeper the hole, the more damage, up till the point where the hole goes all the way through. And the faster the object creating the hole moves through the body, and the more it expands and deforms on its journey through the body, the more damage and blood loss.
Did momentum kill the critter? Well, momentum is the tendency of a body...in this case, a projectile...to remain in motion. Moving through the body of an animal exerts a lot of friction on the proectile, and forces it to cut or punch through a great deal of tissue, bone, etc. All of this acts to slow down and stop the projectile. If the projectile possesses sufficient momentum, it will overcome this opposing force and continue on further through the body. If it possesses insufficient momentum, it will come to a stop before penetrating nearly as far. That heavy, high-momentum .45-70 bullet just plows through with momentum to spare; the expanded lightweight .243 bullet, with little momentum, can't begin to match that performance.
A deer standing broadside? No problem; the .243 is perfectly capable of complete penetration, and so the fanboys go "OOOH! Look at that! My .243 kills just as fast as the big gun! Quick, let's math the crap out of this phenomenon!"
But, again, things aren't always so perfect. The deer is standing square facing the hunter, or maybe very slightly quartering toward...or perhaps it's quartering away from a hunter on day 7 of his one-week hunt. Complete penetration on this shot...the only one he "has"...requires the bullet to traverse four feet or more of bone and tissue. That .45-70 still just keeps on trucking and sails off into the sunset...but the 80- or 100gr .243 opens up into a flat coin trying to push its big flat insubstantial face through the animal in the most difficult way possible...and it fails miserably. Maybe it will manage to go deep enough to cause enough damage that the critter is killed...maybe on the quartering-to shot...but there's a more-than-decent chance that it won't, especially on the quartering-away shot or one that hits big bone. In this case, the .243 simply isn't even adequate for deer...but then we will probably hear that the guy didn't "do his part" correctly. That's true, he didn't. He picked a cartridge that had inherent limitations, and then he attempted to exceed those limitations.
But that's an exaggeration; a .243 isn't going to expand to .50-caliber. It will expand some, it will penetrate some more, but its lack of weight and also frontal area won't let it match a larger cartridge that starts out bigger, weighs more and also expands to a similar degree.
So use a .243, and limit yourself to .243-capable shot presentations. Or, do your part and choose a gun that will allow you to capitalize on all ethical shot presentations. You won't even need a calculator.
Sooooo....it does fine when it reaches the vitals, but heavier/bigger bullets go through more animals?
Glad we finally established that!
Kidding, kidding lol. It seems to chafe you in some way people might like physics/figures though?
Edit: ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10HpKGDnRVE
GMX bullets from a 6mm ARC opening to .499 and .475. So maybe not .50 but close! A 45/70 isn't .50 either. This still offers an even wider meplat than 44 mag, 45/70 etc.
And thats from a relatively slow 6mm ARC. What about at faster speeds from 243 Win, 6 Creedmoor, etc etc. What about an even softer bullet like a 95gr LRX? Are there others that open wider? Probs. I would't be super confident about the "it wouldn't open up to .500" bit.
Do 100gr Partitions and similar really flatten out like coins? hard to believe.
Glad we finally established that!
Kidding, kidding lol. It seems to chafe you in some way people might like physics/figures though?
Edit: ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10HpKGDnRVE
GMX bullets from a 6mm ARC opening to .499 and .475. So maybe not .50 but close! A 45/70 isn't .50 either. This still offers an even wider meplat than 44 mag, 45/70 etc.
And thats from a relatively slow 6mm ARC. What about at faster speeds from 243 Win, 6 Creedmoor, etc etc. What about an even softer bullet like a 95gr LRX? Are there others that open wider? Probs. I would't be super confident about the "it wouldn't open up to .500" bit.
Do 100gr Partitions and similar really flatten out like coins? hard to believe.
Last edited:
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Few points in gentlemanly debate,
-All bullet holes are small, the biggest of them the diameter of a pinky fingertip. We get bent out of shape about tenths of an inch, it only seems bigger to the shooter. The real function of a bigger bore is bullet weight, the utility of that for what you’re doing is the question. Maybe at an inch and a half projectiles, I don’t know. If it was what people think it is, Brenneke slugs would rule the world. A .270 makes them look pretty tame on game however.
-Expansion isn’t about making the bullet bigger at all, it’s about dumping energy, and turning that into pressure waves which damage tissue. This effect is drastically increased at 2200fps impacts and above.
-There isn’t an animal in Canada below bison that can’t be taken on any hunt at any ethical angle with the .243, .260, 7-08, .270 etc.
-Shot opportunities favour the .243, not the .45-70. It’s the other way around from how you have it the .45-70 is the one more limited on shots, and by good measure. Try taking a 300 yard mountain goat or Muley with a .45-70 after climbing mountains for a week carrying it.
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
Tell that to Jim Shockey. He managed a pile of records world wide with a 50 cal muzzle loader.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
You can kill them all reliably with well under a hundred ft-lbs of energy pushing a broadhead, too. That doesn’t mean a broadhead or a .50 cal muzzle loader is the pinnacle of terminal ballistics, just that they work if that’s your preferred challenge. Few would argue either give you physical advantages over a modern rifle. That’s not a knock, my future hunting is likely to contain a good deal of recurve.
I’m biased when it comes to hunting rifles, in the old job quick kills where they stood were really important. We got that far more reliably from chamberings that toyed with 3000fps. I had archery clients, even a .450 Marlin guy. I’d never say no long as it was legal it was their hunt, but if they asked my opinion it was something reasonably quick that you don’t mind carrying lots.
Some Americans struggled to understand a .300 was substantially more gun than a .45-70 on a grizzly. It was the bigger hole mentality, the difference of .15” is trivial. The speed however, is not.
I’m biased when it comes to hunting rifles, in the old job quick kills where they stood were really important. We got that far more reliably from chamberings that toyed with 3000fps. I had archery clients, even a .450 Marlin guy. I’d never say no long as it was legal it was their hunt, but if they asked my opinion it was something reasonably quick that you don’t mind carrying lots.
Some Americans struggled to understand a .300 was substantially more gun than a .45-70 on a grizzly. It was the bigger hole mentality, the difference of .15” is trivial. The speed however, is not.
No one posts about the lost animals with under powered rounds… I have seen the 243 and creed both fail to drop average deer at 250. If all the stars align they work great. When you want a guarantee on a larger deer or moose a .223 wld not even be a contender in my list of rounds. The only reason most of those modern rounds are out in .223 is because the AR platform is used so much in wooded areas in the US. Suitable for 100 meters I guess. Ideal… certainly not.
They should start sticking elk rib bones in ballistics gel
Maybe us math haters are just bored of the same equations being related over and over to try to reduce a complex system to single variables
What is gained by using the smallest round you possibly can?
If we can agree that speed kills, are we losing anything when you add higher bullet weight to the equation besides the interest of the recoil sensitive?
What is the optimum shot placement for 243's on coastal grizzlies and walruses?
Maybe us math haters are just bored of the same equations being related over and over to try to reduce a complex system to single variables
What is gained by using the smallest round you possibly can?
If we can agree that speed kills, are we losing anything when you add higher bullet weight to the equation besides the interest of the recoil sensitive?
What is the optimum shot placement for 243's on coastal grizzlies and walruses?
Are you seriously implying that a 250yd shot on a deer with a .243win / 6 Creed is stunt shooting??? ... C'mon now...that's a bit of a stretch!
The majority of deer I've seen hit with a .243 either get electrocuted, or the few who don't promptly do the double-lung dash of 50yds like when hit by a dozen other of our favorite cartridges.
Last edited:
Lol, agreed, and I certainly did a poor job of making my point there. I mentioned earlier that I prefer to forego ranging capability, rather than bullet diameter and weight. That combined with the mention by another poster of the comparison to the .45-70 makes it sound as though I am saying that the bigger gun makes a better all-around deer rifle than the 6mm. While I would likely choose it in many circumstances due to personal preference, I don't suggest that the .45 is a more versatile all-rounder than the little guy.
I do suggest that when used at ranges that allow accurate shooting with it...and those are farther than many seem to think...the .45 is more effective on non-ideal shot angles than the .243. I also absolutely would suggest that a .30-caliber bottleneck is unquestionably more versatile, more lethal, and just all-around better...especially on the larger critters...at any range!...than the .243.
My use of the term "presentation" was meant to refer to shot angles at non-broadside animals, without considering range. Maybe that's my misinterpretation of the term; in any case, I was referring to the effectiveness of the big bullet hitting at less than optimal angles and still making it all the way into the vitals. I totally agree that the .243 will allow hitting at much longer ranges much more easily...and, again, on a broadside deer, it will be very effective. On an angled non-broadside shot, as might be taken by an excited hunter who can't or won't wait for the broadside shot...I do believe that the bigger bullet will be much more likely to penetrate as far as needed to hit the vitals.
A bigger gun will make some shots ethical that would be silly to attempt with a .243.
I don't think anybody said that...but the original question posed by this thread regards the use of the .243 on medium and big game. A moose or elk at 250 yards with a .243? No, maybe it's not a stunt...maybe...but too often it seems to be a case of "See how little a gun I can kill this critter with?" If it were all I had...I'd use it and carefully allow for its limitations. Would I pull it out of the safe in preference to a larger rifle? Not a chance. Would you? Would anybody?
Simple follow-up question to those who consider the .243 adequate: given the choice between it and a .30-06 for a moose or elk hunt...i.e. big game, not deer...who would grab the smaller gun?
Last edited:
I wasn't offering any input on any game other than mule deer, of which I have seen the .243win take cleanly many times both small and large bodied.
I don't even hunt with the cartridge and it doesn't personally excite me but I won't stand idly by while someone tries to suggest that if the "stars align" you can take an average deer with it.
The .243win with the proper bullet is a deer killing machine and an especially superb choice for the Western hunter along with about a half dozen other cartridges similar to it.
I don't even hunt with the cartridge and it doesn't personally excite me but I won't stand idly by while someone tries to suggest that if the "stars align" you can take an average deer with it.
The .243win with the proper bullet is a deer killing machine and an especially superb choice for the Western hunter along with about a half dozen other cartridges similar to it.
Last edited:
It’s always a stark reminder, reading these threads, is that you can present the same facts to 3 different people and yet one or two might draw the wrong conclusions.
Anyone who has done a post mortem and applied critical thinking to it after assessing ALL the factors simply cannot come up with the assessment that bullet speed and bullet construction are the only things that matter when it comes to the hunter/quarry interaction. (And, from what I personally have seen, twist rate also likely has a bigger input than previously understood)
And this will ruffle some feathers, but level of experience definitely plays a factor here. Someone who maybe gets the opportunity to kill a deer every year, or every other year or two even, simply doesn’t doesn’t see enough bullet damage across a range of cartridges and impact velocities.
Having shot a LOT of deer, big deer, with a 243/6mm, bullets matter the most. What you started it with matters less. And by far and a away, a medium soft bullet with a high impact velocity kills stuff way faster than a bigger bullet slower that holds together better. Pair a medium soft bullet with a fast twist and a high impact velocity and enough bullet construction to hold together and you can shoot any deer at angle and fold him up.
In fact, I’d say that a round through the gut with a fast and soft bullet from a 243 is going to have a MUCH bigger impression on ANY animal than something like a 225 grain TSX or Grandslam from a 338. Tissue damage fold animals up quick. Not straight line holes.
Anyone who has done a post mortem and applied critical thinking to it after assessing ALL the factors simply cannot come up with the assessment that bullet speed and bullet construction are the only things that matter when it comes to the hunter/quarry interaction. (And, from what I personally have seen, twist rate also likely has a bigger input than previously understood)
And this will ruffle some feathers, but level of experience definitely plays a factor here. Someone who maybe gets the opportunity to kill a deer every year, or every other year or two even, simply doesn’t doesn’t see enough bullet damage across a range of cartridges and impact velocities.
Having shot a LOT of deer, big deer, with a 243/6mm, bullets matter the most. What you started it with matters less. And by far and a away, a medium soft bullet with a high impact velocity kills stuff way faster than a bigger bullet slower that holds together better. Pair a medium soft bullet with a fast twist and a high impact velocity and enough bullet construction to hold together and you can shoot any deer at angle and fold him up.
In fact, I’d say that a round through the gut with a fast and soft bullet from a 243 is going to have a MUCH bigger impression on ANY animal than something like a 225 grain TSX or Grandslam from a 338. Tissue damage fold animals up quick. Not straight line holes.
Last edited:
Some interesting discussions came out of the South African War (1899-1902) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Basically that once the new (at the time) smallbore rifles dropped below 2000fps, the wounds were more survivable than those from the old big bores (until longer ranges where the big bores were in the dirt). Some of this is directly applicable today with the proliferation of unleaded bullets which below 2000fps seem to show little expansion.
And that velocity, followed by bullet shape and contruction were the main factors in lethality.
While I think the 45-70 may be the most overrated cartridge, beyond 300 yards it is probably better than the 243 (if one can hit with it), but both are spanked badly by a 7mm or 300 as the range increases.
It's all a trade off, it's obvious that most shoot lower recoiling rounds better and that every gun is lethal, there's far too much evidence of 243 or even 223 on Big Game to ignore.
And that velocity, followed by bullet shape and contruction were the main factors in lethality.
While I think the 45-70 may be the most overrated cartridge, beyond 300 yards it is probably better than the 243 (if one can hit with it), but both are spanked badly by a 7mm or 300 as the range increases.
It's all a trade off, it's obvious that most shoot lower recoiling rounds better and that every gun is lethal, there's far too much evidence of 243 or even 223 on Big Game to ignore.
