- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
computer trigger problems!! :lol:
Bullet Choice vs Caliber Choice
- Thread starter BIGREDD
- Start date
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
:shock:
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
Kombi, I would imagine that there was lots of that stuff going on ( there still is today ), but I was talking about a head on shot on an animal that was not running away!
Roosevelt, O'connor, and many more had publicly made statements that these days are considered not good form.
Even Howard Hill was discredited with some lion and leopard kills, plus elephant kills.
My main goal is "one shot, one kill". I was raised with this philosophy by a family that practiced the same, using a decent weight of bullet at a reasonable velocity, delivered to the best possible location, once.
If a follow up shot is needed, so be it, but as of right now in 40 odd years of hunting there have been very few ( 3), along with two complete misses. That is not including birds, but big game.
I have forgotten many of the one shot kills I have made but have NEVER forgoten those misses or second shots
Cat
Roosevelt, O'connor, and many more had publicly made statements that these days are considered not good form.
Even Howard Hill was discredited with some lion and leopard kills, plus elephant kills.
My main goal is "one shot, one kill". I was raised with this philosophy by a family that practiced the same, using a decent weight of bullet at a reasonable velocity, delivered to the best possible location, once.
If a follow up shot is needed, so be it, but as of right now in 40 odd years of hunting there have been very few ( 3), along with two complete misses. That is not including birds, but big game.
I have forgotten many of the one shot kills I have made but have NEVER forgoten those misses or second shots
Cat
BIGREDD said:Your feeble dissertation can only be interpreted as a juvenile attempt to discredit this poll in retaliation for my criticism of yours.....
Sorry you feel that way BIGREDD. The 'disseration' was simply based on fact. I was merely trying to indicate that contruction can be made irrelevant if enough damage is done by any foreign body. No size game or type of shot was given. The refrences I made are all historically based accounts. After all prior to DWMs developement of the Compound Geschosse, lead was king. So a shot in the 'vitals' was all mattered.
I suppose by your above statement I am simply missing your point as you are mine. Likely my fault. Most sorry :?
kombi1976 said:
Reading stuff form O'Connorts time, I'm not even that sure that he or his contemporaries were that concerned abotu humane kills, either.
Jack O made many references to "I sat downa nd took a whack at the distant deer" etc.
Well, he was a good shot, but there is a very good chance that he wounded a fair amount of game, too. Although it's not like that has changed alot.... :wink:
Certainly when you read ALOT of the old hunters, they were seldom if ever really concerned with a 'drop 'em on the spot shot'. Most were accepting of the idea that you would invariably have to spend time tracking etc, and a hit was a hit.
The notion of a perfect shot, broadsides, taking out the heart and lung is a realtively recent idea (in a general sense). As an example, the old African Safari stuff, such as I alluded to earlier, made it clear that people like Taylor were a bit of the odd ducks. To Taylor it was financially advantageous to not spray ammo, as well as to not have to track game for hours or days. So one good shot was key. On the otherhand it is well documented that numerous hunters, particularly of the late 18 and early 1900s were willing to pepper game with hole until general bloodloss won the day. (There was one account of a British soldier who took time for a Safari hunt which I once read, where he and a colleague peppered an Elephant with over 50 shots). Thus the idea of a bullet that would break both shoulders, or the such doesn't really seem to catch on until after WW2. And before then the idea of something 'big and slow' was still acceptable, as long as the desired results were achieved.
The notion of a perfect shot, broadsides, taking out the heart and lung is a realtively recent idea (in a general sense). As an example, the old African Safari stuff, such as I alluded to earlier, made it clear that people like Taylor were a bit of the odd ducks. To Taylor it was financially advantageous to not spray ammo, as well as to not have to track game for hours or days. So one good shot was key. On the otherhand it is well documented that numerous hunters, particularly of the late 18 and early 1900s were willing to pepper game with hole until general bloodloss won the day. (There was one account of a British soldier who took time for a Safari hunt which I once read, where he and a colleague peppered an Elephant with over 50 shots). Thus the idea of a bullet that would break both shoulders, or the such doesn't really seem to catch on until after WW2. And before then the idea of something 'big and slow' was still acceptable, as long as the desired results were achieved.
Interesting observations... could it be that technological advances with regard to hunting firearms, ie: bullets, powders, optics etc... have contributed to the evolution of "hunting ethics" in modern society. :?:
There is an idea for a Poll :wink:
There is an idea for a Poll :wink:
Now there's an interesting thought - and in my mind it quickly becomes a chicken or the egg argument.. Did tech advances lead to ethics, or did ethics push the drive to create the tech? Or both?
Certanly in the old days, like the bison days of the states, 'ethics' as we know them today weren't practiced. Most people thought nothing of killing an animal for the value of the hide and leaving the meat - etc.
Perhaps it was also the need for conservation. At the turn of the last century Ducks unlimited started up to deal with the fact that duck wetlands were going to vanish, in order to preserve the numbers needed for hunters for example - and as other 'game management' programs started up hunters probably found they didn't get as many chances at animals as they did when there was no rules. They'd have likely become more interested in the concept of one-shot-one-kill, and probalby wanted to be able to be more sure that when they saw an animal they could hit it, because they'd get fewer chances. Ethics and conservation would therefore be pushing tech.
But the other side of it may be that as we industrialized, there was less time to DO any hunting, there was more hunting pressure, etc. And to ensure that people had a chance to participate tech improved and hunters bought guns with more range and better hitting ability because there wasn't the time or opportunity, and 'ethics' grew out of the need to make sure a handfull of guys didn't clean an area out, leaving nothing for the next guy. In that case - tech would have pushed eithics.
I don't know - that's a real brain tease. You'd have to think about that a bit to figure out which came first i think.
There have been lots of polls recently on this caliber vs that caliber... and it always seems to come back to the same argument.
The proponents of the lighter calibre or the one with the least case capacity will offer up bullet type and construction as an equalizer.
I really believe that more us consider bullet selection first when choosing a killing package for most any type of game!
The proponents of the lighter calibre or the one with the least case capacity will offer up bullet type and construction as an equalizer.
I really believe that more us consider bullet selection first when choosing a killing package for most any type of game!
Caliber choice to me is more of a luxury than a necessity for North American Game, and we are MUCH too concerned with caliber choice as opposed to bullet selection and most importantly... shot placement.
There is not a big game animal that I have ever taken that could have realized the difference between a good bullet from the 260 Rem or the 375 H+H.
I have had the opportunity to have taken and seen BIG GAME taken with the following calibers:
22-250 Rem
6mm Rem
25-06
260 Rem
270 Win
7mm-08
7x57 Mauser
7-08AI
280 Rem
280 AI
7mm Rem Mag
30-06
300 Win Mag
300 Wby Mag
338 Win Mag
35 Whelen
375 H+H
45 Colt
45-70 Gov.
Not one single cartridge stood out as "THE ONE" when it came to killing game... so long as a GOOD BULLET was used and placed in the vitals. Critters shot included (Black Bear, Grizzly, Whitetail, Mule Deer, Elk, Moose, Goat, Stone's Sheep, and a number of smaller critters). Critters hit all showed identical reactions regarless of caliber, and died in varying distances from Bang Flop to 30yds on avg (one Heart shot bear went 60yds).
I can HONESTLY say that I would comfortably hunt ANY North American critter (yes... Grizz and Bison too where legal) with any cartridge from the 260 Rem and Up and the results will be identical (with a PREMIUM Bullet). Critters hit will die within 20yds on average.....
Lately I fret more about what to wear for the field photo than what caliber I grab from my gun safe (GRIN)!!!!!
280_ACKLEY
There is not a big game animal that I have ever taken that could have realized the difference between a good bullet from the 260 Rem or the 375 H+H.
I have had the opportunity to have taken and seen BIG GAME taken with the following calibers:
22-250 Rem
6mm Rem
25-06
260 Rem
270 Win
7mm-08
7x57 Mauser
7-08AI
280 Rem
280 AI
7mm Rem Mag
30-06
300 Win Mag
300 Wby Mag
338 Win Mag
35 Whelen
375 H+H
45 Colt
45-70 Gov.
Not one single cartridge stood out as "THE ONE" when it came to killing game... so long as a GOOD BULLET was used and placed in the vitals. Critters shot included (Black Bear, Grizzly, Whitetail, Mule Deer, Elk, Moose, Goat, Stone's Sheep, and a number of smaller critters). Critters hit all showed identical reactions regarless of caliber, and died in varying distances from Bang Flop to 30yds on avg (one Heart shot bear went 60yds).
I can HONESTLY say that I would comfortably hunt ANY North American critter (yes... Grizz and Bison too where legal) with any cartridge from the 260 Rem and Up and the results will be identical (with a PREMIUM Bullet). Critters hit will die within 20yds on average.....
Lately I fret more about what to wear for the field photo than what caliber I grab from my gun safe (GRIN)!!!!!
280_ACKLEY
I find it interesting that many people think that it does not matter as long as you hit the vitals.
My take on this is that in many hunting circumstances it is not just important to make a killing shot... but to anchor the animal immediately.
Lots of animals die a long way away from where they were shot , even when shot in the vitals... some of them after bouncing 1000 feet straight down a mountian... others after running dead 500 yards out into a swamp... and many just running off without an adequate blood trail to follow. And many of these animals even though dead are not retrieved and are wasted.
I am thinking that bullet sellection should be a factor even when you hit them right in the vitals... a properly constructed bullet that is well matched to the game and the circumstances should prevent many lost and wasted animals... don't you think
My take on this is that in many hunting circumstances it is not just important to make a killing shot... but to anchor the animal immediately.
Lots of animals die a long way away from where they were shot , even when shot in the vitals... some of them after bouncing 1000 feet straight down a mountian... others after running dead 500 yards out into a swamp... and many just running off without an adequate blood trail to follow. And many of these animals even though dead are not retrieved and are wasted.
I am thinking that bullet sellection should be a factor even when you hit them right in the vitals... a properly constructed bullet that is well matched to the game and the circumstances should prevent many lost and wasted animals... don't you think
I'll agree with 280_Ackley....almost. Any caliber up to the 30mags, haven't seen the slightest bit of difference. In fact, I rebarreled a 300Wby a few years back as I couldn't see the slightest difference on game between it and a neat little 284Win I had.
I remember one bison hunt I was on. Using the 300Wby, I hit it through the ribs at 40 yards with a 200-grain Swift A-Frame handloaded to 3050 fps. That bull went over 2 km before I chased it down. I believe the bullet went through the "hole" over top of the lungs and below the spine. But I distinctly remember the disenchantment with the 300 mag on a shot that should have brought the animal down within a few seconds.
My one caveat with what he said is with the larger calibers. That 300Wby is now a 358 Norma, and although I havent' used it on game that much yet, I believe I do see a more dramatic effect on game with it. On a broadside shot through the ribs, maybe not. It still takes a few seconds for the animal to fall over. But on a shot at a more oblique angle like through a shoulder, it definitely has more smack that a smaller caliber.
In either case I agree that too many guys talk up their hell-breathing 300 Winchesters, that they use with the cheapest ammo they can find on sale at Crappy Tire. A good bullet means a lot more than a few thou in bullet diameter.
I remember one bison hunt I was on. Using the 300Wby, I hit it through the ribs at 40 yards with a 200-grain Swift A-Frame handloaded to 3050 fps. That bull went over 2 km before I chased it down. I believe the bullet went through the "hole" over top of the lungs and below the spine. But I distinctly remember the disenchantment with the 300 mag on a shot that should have brought the animal down within a few seconds.
My one caveat with what he said is with the larger calibers. That 300Wby is now a 358 Norma, and although I havent' used it on game that much yet, I believe I do see a more dramatic effect on game with it. On a broadside shot through the ribs, maybe not. It still takes a few seconds for the animal to fall over. But on a shot at a more oblique angle like through a shoulder, it definitely has more smack that a smaller caliber.
In either case I agree that too many guys talk up their hell-breathing 300 Winchesters, that they use with the cheapest ammo they can find on sale at Crappy Tire. A good bullet means a lot more than a few thou in bullet diameter.
Last edited:
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
This years big mulie 4X4 was hit at 94yds with a 270 launching a 150gr SST at 3000fps. The entrace hole, just behind the shoulder, 1/2 way up the chest was 2" X3" and the exit (diagonally across the boiler room) was 3"X3" (yes, that is a very big hole). This rather large deer bolted at the shot, ran approx 40yds leaving quite a blood trail.
Jelloed lungs. Three ribs busted on each side. Couldn't hit it any harder. Can't make it anymore dead, yet it ran quite a ways.
The only way to anchor any game is with a brain or CNS shot. That creates its own problems, especially if you miss.
The boiler room shot (proper heart/lung placement) is 100% fatal - not 100% recoverable. It is the hunters responsibility to know if that shot should be taken and if so, to recover the game.
Hunting in the very thick brush or swamps or other nasty terrain can limit the ability to recover game. Should we stop hunting there? Since that is where many animals live, I guess not. However, that creates an opportunity for lost game.
Put a proper bullet in the right place and the ballistics we agonize over really don't matter. Now getting that game out of the woods is the big chore.
Maybe, instead of spending thousands on the shooting side, we should spend that on the recovery side of the equation.
Jerry
Jelloed lungs. Three ribs busted on each side. Couldn't hit it any harder. Can't make it anymore dead, yet it ran quite a ways.
The only way to anchor any game is with a brain or CNS shot. That creates its own problems, especially if you miss.
The boiler room shot (proper heart/lung placement) is 100% fatal - not 100% recoverable. It is the hunters responsibility to know if that shot should be taken and if so, to recover the game.
Hunting in the very thick brush or swamps or other nasty terrain can limit the ability to recover game. Should we stop hunting there? Since that is where many animals live, I guess not. However, that creates an opportunity for lost game.
Put a proper bullet in the right place and the ballistics we agonize over really don't matter. Now getting that game out of the woods is the big chore.
Maybe, instead of spending thousands on the shooting side, we should spend that on the recovery side of the equation.
Jerry
death-junky
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Moose Jaw SK
shot placement is the most important but a good bullet dose help allot.
talk to ya all later
Riley
talk to ya all later
Riley
I am not in disagreement with Ackley at all... I actually agree with his statements totally.
I was looking at the poll results and I noticed that almost half the respondents considered a vital hit the most important factor over bullet selection.
I have seen the results of many vital hits and this does not always guarantee a quick kill.
I certainly don't advocate head shots but I have seen many DRT's (Dead Right There!) on Heart/Lung shots. And most of these were the result of a well constructed bullet doing exactly what it was supposed to do.... delivering enough energy to kill instantly.
I realize this is not always possible and I agree that hunting is not a sport of guarantees ... that is why we call it hunting... not killing.
I was looking at the poll results and I noticed that almost half the respondents considered a vital hit the most important factor over bullet selection.
I have seen the results of many vital hits and this does not always guarantee a quick kill.
I certainly don't advocate head shots but I have seen many DRT's (Dead Right There!) on Heart/Lung shots. And most of these were the result of a well constructed bullet doing exactly what it was supposed to do.... delivering enough energy to kill instantly.
I realize this is not always possible and I agree that hunting is not a sport of guarantees ... that is why we call it hunting... not killing.
Hmmn where have I heard this one, its not the size of the tool its how you use it?
Yes, the debate on caliber vs bullet type or design is one that can and may keep us up all night in front of the fire, wether there is fact or fiction that spurs them on...
I feel the bottom line is shot placement. You can have any cannon out there and you can be lucky if the hit is hard and the placement is off. Your meat will die most likely a less than preferred death. There could be sever trauma associated with the force of a big bullet hurled at astronomical speeds, waisting a large portion of steaks and roasts. On the other hand you can use a smaller caliber and still have similar results. Neither is OK in my mind. Worse yet no shot placement an no meat. Respect and honour be given the hunter who waits and patiently takes his shot resulting in a quick kill and a full freezer...
joe-nwt was on the mark with his comment.
Yes, the debate on caliber vs bullet type or design is one that can and may keep us up all night in front of the fire, wether there is fact or fiction that spurs them on...
I feel the bottom line is shot placement. You can have any cannon out there and you can be lucky if the hit is hard and the placement is off. Your meat will die most likely a less than preferred death. There could be sever trauma associated with the force of a big bullet hurled at astronomical speeds, waisting a large portion of steaks and roasts. On the other hand you can use a smaller caliber and still have similar results. Neither is OK in my mind. Worse yet no shot placement an no meat. Respect and honour be given the hunter who waits and patiently takes his shot resulting in a quick kill and a full freezer...
joe-nwt was on the mark with his comment.
