Say all three of these bullets were fired at 2750fps, and at 200 yds impact. How many here think that a black bear, elk, or moose would know the difference? Assume you don't gut or azz shoot it...
I'll post the cals and weights later...
I would say that diameter has less to do with it then let's say, bullet construction. All of those bullets being partitions, I would say there is a chance that the bigger may kill faster, but in the end, they are all dead.
To generalize and state the any bullet/cartridge combination will "kill them stone dead" can be misleading to those who would expect the same result from their own rifles. No game animal will drop dead with the same results every time. There are too many variables to generalize like this.Have shot bears, moose and elk with .338 accubonds and they kill them stone dead. Never recovered one.
Rant On:
Yes, anything shot in the heart is dead, but don't assume a smaller caliber and lighter bullet even placed properly will penetrate a legbone, or even a heavy rib. Simple fact is in some cases they won't, period.
No matter what brand of bullet you use and despite what some would say. Pore over your ballistic tables and know where you're at with different ranges energy wise.
"Can", and "should" are two distinct words.
People ask me about hunting moose I tell them minimum 30 caliber. A bull weighs 1500lbs and has rib bones the size of my wrist.
At least anywhere I've hunted elk it requires long accurate shots and therefore a bullet with sufficient energy to do the job at that range. In my own opinon, a 300winmag or a 7mm are likely choices.
Yes, you "can" feasibly put down a charging rino with a .22, but I don't think that you "should", even if you did pay 2.00 per bullet.
About 30 yrs ago I shot a running animal in the heart broadside,....except it was running and the second the bullet struck it's leg was "back", meaning the bullet struck the front leg, shattering it, and having absolutely NO penetration into the chest. My bullet placement was PERFECT.
I eventually got the animal, but the lesson was learned, and it will never happen again in my lifetime.
You guys do what you're comfortable with. Myself, this sept will be hunting moose from about 60 yds with a 450 marlin pushing a 400grain hawk at over 2000fps, my wife will be carrying a 375 winchester pushing a 220grain hornady at just under 2000fps; she'll then be hunting a 240lb mule buck from around 100 yds with a 30-06 and a 150gr lead, I'll be after a mule doe with my .54 percussion roundball and won't shoot it past 50 yds, even though I can shoot bullseyes all day with it from 120 yds.
Don't really mean to sound snarly or condescending, but I get a little tired of reading how it's dandy to shoot a moose from 12000 yards with a 22-250 as long as you use a certain bullet. To be honest I worry new hunters without a mentor will take such garbage as gospel. Quite frankly I question how much hunting some of the posters have actually done.
Rant off.
Incidentally, it was an antelope with a .243 shooting an 87gr hornady at warp 9. At that time saying I was an excellent shot with it is almost an understatement. I love a 243, and have nothing against a 22-250; I was merely trying to make a point that in my Own Personal Opinion a 243 is not a proper choice for moose, despite what you may have read. Feel free to disagree, you just won't be hunting with me.
Rant On: A bull weighs 1500lbs and has rib bones the size of my wrist.



























