Big Game Calibers - Math vs Experiences?
- Thread starter wasa
- Start date
I didn’t take pictures. Didn’t think I’d have to prove it to the internet. When will I learn.
Heart resembled something that was beaten with a tenderizer hammer. Lungs were just soup.
No exit. Found a few fragments of bullet in the soup.
32g v-max
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Scandinavian Moose (Alg) Study, per John Barsness in 24-Hour Campfire 24-Jan-07
This is not about bullet construction. Here are some of the numbers from the Norwgian moose survey:
Cartridge Animals # of Shots Moose Travel*
6.5x55 2,792 1.57 43
7mm Rem. Mag. 107 1.32 40
.308 WCF 1,314 1.67 41
.30-06 2,829 1.57 47
.300 Win. Mag. 27 1.83 16
8x57 575 1.53 57
.338 Win. Mag. 83 1.20 31
.358 Norma 219 1.16 19
9.3x57 134 1.50 41
9.3x62 449 1.50 34
.375 H&H 211 1.33 31
*how far moose went after first shot
This tells you that many moose that were shot and recovered in Norway were killed with a variety of calibers. Without properly analyzing the mathematical statistics for significant differences, it looks like the differences are not very significant! ;-)
I personally like "large" cartridges for hunting moose. It gives me confidence. A bigger / tougher bullet might help to avoid bullet breakup/low penetration as a result of hitting the humerus/scapula joint, or if a quick second shot is advisable on a wounded / running animal. But I haven't experienced much difference in "killing power" between the several moose I've taken with .308 win / 180 gr. vs. .375 H&H / 300 gr. or even the one this year I shot with a .450-400 3" Nitro Express / 400 grain.
This is not about bullet construction. Here are some of the numbers from the Norwgian moose survey:
Cartridge Animals # of Shots Moose Travel*
6.5x55 2,792 1.57 43
7mm Rem. Mag. 107 1.32 40
.308 WCF 1,314 1.67 41
.30-06 2,829 1.57 47
.300 Win. Mag. 27 1.83 16
8x57 575 1.53 57
.338 Win. Mag. 83 1.20 31
.358 Norma 219 1.16 19
9.3x57 134 1.50 41
9.3x62 449 1.50 34
.375 H&H 211 1.33 31
*how far moose went after first shot
This tells you that many moose that were shot and recovered in Norway were killed with a variety of calibers. Without properly analyzing the mathematical statistics for significant differences, it looks like the differences are not very significant! ;-)
I personally like "large" cartridges for hunting moose. It gives me confidence. A bigger / tougher bullet might help to avoid bullet breakup/low penetration as a result of hitting the humerus/scapula joint, or if a quick second shot is advisable on a wounded / running animal. But I haven't experienced much difference in "killing power" between the several moose I've taken with .308 win / 180 gr. vs. .375 H&H / 300 gr. or even the one this year I shot with a .450-400 3" Nitro Express / 400 grain.
- Location
- Saskatchewan
I apologize for the crappy formatting of that table. I tried, but can't get things to line up.
- Location
- Saskatchewan
tried formatting again... can't delete
<cough> Good catch! Mea Culpa!
Let's say closer to 4K than 2K?
If only barely! Yeah, busted, me!
Fair cop, and I'm busted or running my mouth when I shoulda been checking my facts!
The doe WAS delicious and tender though! Wish I could find the pictures, as I took a bunch, showing how "I" open and clean out a deer! And I lost maybe a quarter pound of burger in the processing...
Still gonna stand on the side that "Explodes on the skin", is hooey!
Had it not been for that I had a clear shot, at short range (35-40 yards), and a pretty good idea that I could get an accurate follow-up in, I would not have tried what I did.
In truth, the results actually surprised the hell outta me, esp., the travel of the bullet (or fragments of same) through the doe's body to end up stopped on the far side. Because I had read 'what was known to be'!
Turns out, it was assumed to be, rather than known!
I'd do it again, without any fears!
Have read often, comments by the guys shooting big, heavy , and slow bullets, that they can eat, right up to the edge of the hole. That matches what I have seen, for both good and bad. The good, being Muzzle loader hunting, and barely having to trim around the hole.
A hunting partner shot a smallish doe with his hot .300 Win Mag loads, and it would have been as fast and effective, to have just sawn off the near side front quarter and left it in the field. 25 yards, and through the shoulder. Massive mess of bloodshot meat! On a not very big deer to begin with, he would have been a lot better off with a .458 loaded to 45-70 (and light for that!) levels! That's the bad...
Depends on the varmint bullet in question I guess. If the bullet can explode on a grape skin it can probably explode on a deer skin.
https://youtu.be/fS9jUssrS-M
I’ve shot deer with 338 wm 200 and 225 loads, they did less damage than on the small bear (like, did you have to wipe the milk off it’s mouth? Jokes small) I had to shoot twice with cheap 270 130s
Anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal
Re disintegrate on the hide? Doubt it. Cause a huge amount of damage and not exit? Almost certainly, that’s what varmint bullets do. With a “ perfect shot” I imagine some varmint bullets would be quite effective on deer
Longwalker that is interesting; I don’t know if it is the same study but another I saw had 458 as the caliber the moose travelled least for
I don’t about the data set but that really says something about the 358 Norma, outperforming both the H&H and the 338 win mag
Edit: here is a link to write up but the link to the study no longer works
https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/guns/224223-effect-gun-caliber-moose-nordic-study.html
Last edited:
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Found this thread late, I should have sensed it. Dogleg nails it above for the outline, there’s a lot of old ideas in terminal ballistics that are hard to shake. One of the biggest with regards to our thin skinned game on this continent is that big, heavy and slow relates well to knockdown power.
From what I saw guiding, speed kills. I went in as a Taylor fan and came out thinking more like Roy. Consistently the most effective rounds on our game were the .270s, 7mm Mags, and .300s. Worth remembering everything on this continent except bison is thin skinned game, even the biggest. We also tend to shoot long in the mountains and rivers and speed really helps there too. There’s a whole deal with regards to impact velocity relative to effectiveness I’ve repeated too much, but what I saw bore it out without question.
I had one client bring a .450 Marlin, after that I suggested clients bring their elk rifle if they had one. .450s and .45-70s are 100% lethal, just not as quickly. Generally those elk rifles if they had them were .300s, and they performed substantially better.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
That was interesting, the Mags stand out in lower shots taken, shorter distances travelled. The .300, albeit with very a small sample size in comparison (1% of the 6.5x55’s data), is the one anomaly at 1.8 shots per. That wasn’t my experience guiding it, and I’d suggest that’s recoil getting to the shooter if looking for an explanation, except .375 H&H is there with 1.3 shots per. More likely a handful of shooters who happen to shoot more were over represented in the data, as in 27 cases it’s hard to average that out. Otherwise the .300 stands out as the shortest distance travelled, again however with a small sample size.
Stats are fun.
About what I expected. The slow and fat bullet cartridges like 357, 44, 45-70 are going to run out of steam quickly. The very fast 7RM with the light and frangible bullet is going to eventually disintegrate. The 30-30 is going to out penetrate the other lever actions due to extra speed and narrower bullet. And the heavy bullet in the 6.5 Creed that is going a moderate velocity out penetrated the, all. Had the 7RM had a TTSX bullet in it instead, then I would have expected deeper penetration.
the more interesting is to see how in norway an hunter can go hunting big game.
to any rifle he needs first to go to the range 6 times officially and having a shooting test on both running and standing moose target and that will be recorded for every rifle he wants to use and that is each and every year.
that rifle needs to be at least for moose:
a) ammunition whose bullets weigh between 9 and 10 grams (139 and 154 grains) must have an
impact energy of at least 2700 joules (275 kg/m) at a range of 100 metres, E 100 .
b) ammunition whose bullets weigh more than 10 grams (154 grains or more) must have an
impact energy of at least 2200 joules (225 kg/m) at a range of 100 metres, E 100 .
they re collecting for the whole norway between 25000 to 40000 moose a year.
many methods are using for hunting them will it be beaters and dogs and shooters on high seat or stand, more quieter one called drucken where dogs are pushing the game and then another one where dogs located the moose and shooters came closer.
i have some friends in norway but never hunted there but i hunted in finland and sweden where they are processing the same way and of course with an annual shooting test ...
most of the hunters i know personally are using the 30-06 and 308 nowadays and two are using on top of that the 9.3x62/74r when going after bears.
As others have said, don’t overthink it. Shoot an appropriate rifle and cartridge for your animal. It’s more important that you can shoot it well than ballistics charts that have very little to do with real-world hunting situations. What good is a rifle that can hit hard 500 yards out if you can only accurately and consistently shoot 300 yards. Most hunting happens well inside of 200 anyway (except on YouTube where all the superstars are). That said, I am impressed with the 6.5prc and have been playing around with one lately mostly for long range target shooting.
I like a 257 roberts or my 6.5swede for deer, the same 6.5 or a 30-06 for moose, and a 30-30 or 45-70 lever in the thick brush.
I like a 257 roberts or my 6.5swede for deer, the same 6.5 or a 30-06 for moose, and a 30-30 or 45-70 lever in the thick brush.
Last edited:
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I recall a test I read many years ago where they shot high velocity light bullets ala .257/.270 or something and heavy bullets ala .45-70 through brush at obscured targets. Both deflected equally, they determined brush busting cartridges were a myth. This said I get a short handy iron sighted lever gun for thick woods, and understand they often happen to come in .45-70.
I’m on a program long term to standardize my cabinet first on .30 cal, then ultimately hopefully end up with just .308s. I do debate whether a .307 fits in there, as it’s so close. Having trouble eliminating .257 and .375 though, but I digress. 6.5PRC had it come along earlier in my hunting career would have been a problematic one for me, as it has the .25 cal speed, recoil moderate enough to shoot from a 6lb mountain rifle in hunting conditions, and good factory ammo. 6.5-284 was tempting for many years but just too much of an oddball.
At the end of guiding I’d been fully convinced speed is very beneficial, as is moderate recoil in light guns. That’s what got me onto .25s and .308s. Too bad the .270 isn’t more popular in Europe and wasn’t included in the moose observations, its results would raise a few eyebrows in the good direction.
Like the many, many similar videos out there, it's completely irrelevant with respect to hunting applications. It shows relative penetration and bullet deformation for eight random loads from seven different cartridges, which is kind of interesting in and of itself. But they use paper as the test medium, and there's no way to know how paper correlates to animal tissue. There's a reason that ballistic gelatin is used for that purpose.
The video DOES provide some useful information regarding barrier penetration, when the barrier is something like the wood fibers in paper.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
You know as well as I do that the "I'vE nEvEr NeEdEd A sEcOnD sHoT" type people generally haven't killed enough game to fill an apartment style freezer nor are they inordinately endowed with firearm knowledge.
nothing stop you to try your own stats with bc and asking to report the caliber used like they re doing in yukon for bears but never disclose the info.
why they will use a fast 150 grains when over 155 grains worked for them for decades ...
so true.
