Favorite Deer Calibre/bullet?
- Thread starter M12shooter
- Start date
Ballistically an almost perfect round, you could stretch it slightly by going up to 160 or 180 grains but why if it works.Dogleg said:I don't get it.
the most stable round is the 160 grain 6.5 swede. They got it right a long time ago!
frist mule deer EVER!!!!!!!!!(vernon bc)
my tool:
*tikka T3 ,7mm-08
the load:
*IMR 4350,154gr SST Hornady.(still alot of testing).
hay what do you guys think about this cal. for my backup gun for moose?i would load it with 162 SST Hornady...
Last edited:
TimC said:
Nope, I'm not getting any wiser here.
I understand that the 160 grain 6.5 bullet has a sectional density of .327, putting it in the same category as the .45/500 grain, .416/ 400 grain, and maybe the .375/300 grain though that one is a little short at .305. I even own the last two. Most shooters recognize these calibers as those that have a reputation as super penetrators. Sectional density is calculated as the weight of the bullet in pounds divided by the diameter of the bullet in inches. Game animals get halfway through the math and then just die of boredom. On a solid that is somewhat more important than on softs, where construction rules.Anyway, a 140 grain .284 bullet has a section density of .248 which puts it firmly in the "ordinary" class. It works, sure. It's even a favorite of mine. I just don't understand what is so mathematically perfect about it. I don't doubt that you can clue me in though.
Dogleg
.30-30 rocks for deer! All you need!
I must be in a time warp here, but except for Levi Garrett, I seem to be the only one using the tried and true .30-30 in my Marlin 336. Got two already this year and can't see why anyone needs a cannon for deer. .30-30 rocks, low report, low recoil and dead is dead!
I must be in a time warp here, but except for Levi Garrett, I seem to be the only one using the tried and true .30-30 in my Marlin 336. Got two already this year and can't see why anyone needs a cannon for deer. .30-30 rocks, low report, low recoil and dead is dead!
Ok Dogleg, when everyone in the west was picking 30 and upwards for their military rifle calibres only a few thought about the ballistic efficiency. Penetration was what it was all about, add the stability in flight right out to volley fire distances and you get the perfect round. The wise countries were the swedes, the japs, the US navy and the Italians. The stability of a bullet is enhanced by the mass of the bullet being wholly or mainly retained in its cylinder section. This is why a longer slim bullet is better than a big fat one!
The Spanish and Soth Americans, Boers etc came very close with the 7mm Mausers. They werent the best battle rifles but certainly were amongst the most accurate!
The penetration part is a bonus in the play off stakes with stability, if you use a tungsten core dart or DU penetrator core then you can cut through just about anything out to spectacular distances. The balance needed here is that of imparting energy to the target so it will roll over and die!
Tanks etc brew up when penetrated by such dart ammo but a balanced wound is needed for flesh.
The sectional density is part of the equation, match that to a good ballistic co efficient and you should have the ideal round. Obviously then you need to get that round to travel the distance you want. sadly the 6 and 7 mm arent cut out for very long range work so thats where the 338 etc comes in!
The Spanish and Soth Americans, Boers etc came very close with the 7mm Mausers. They werent the best battle rifles but certainly were amongst the most accurate!
The penetration part is a bonus in the play off stakes with stability, if you use a tungsten core dart or DU penetrator core then you can cut through just about anything out to spectacular distances. The balance needed here is that of imparting energy to the target so it will roll over and die!
Tanks etc brew up when penetrated by such dart ammo but a balanced wound is needed for flesh.
The sectional density is part of the equation, match that to a good ballistic co efficient and you should have the ideal round. Obviously then you need to get that round to travel the distance you want. sadly the 6 and 7 mm arent cut out for very long range work so thats where the 338 etc comes in!
TimC,
That's quite the circle that you're talking in. Really now, using examples of heavy for caliber military bullets to prove that a light for caliber bullet like a 140 grain 7mm is somehow "mathematically perfect" doesn't make any sense. A 160 grain flat-base roundnose FMJ 6.5mm is as unlike a 140 grain boat-tailed spire-point monolithic hollow-point 7mm as it is possible to for two bullets to be. Which one was perfect again? your logic escapes me.
Since you're not having much luck educating me with words, perhaps you can just show me the math? That way when I go out culling mule-deer does tomorrow with my "Mathematically perfect" 140 grain TSX 7mm bullets at a highly "imperfect" speed of 3550 fps I'll know where I went right or wrong.
For what it's worth, I think that the 140 TSX is a fine bullet, I'm just not buying into this mathematical perfection B.S..
That's quite the circle that you're talking in.
Really now, using examples of heavy for caliber military bullets to prove that a light for caliber bullet like a 140 grain 7mm is somehow "mathematically perfect" doesn't make any sense. A 160 grain flat-base roundnose FMJ 6.5mm is as unlike a 140 grain boat-tailed spire-point monolithic hollow-point 7mm as it is possible to for two bullets to be. Which one was perfect again? your logic escapes me. Since you're not having much luck educating me with words, perhaps you can just show me the math? That way when I go out culling mule-deer does tomorrow with my "Mathematically perfect" 140 grain TSX 7mm bullets at a highly "imperfect" speed of 3550 fps I'll know where I went right or wrong.
For what it's worth, I think that the 140 TSX is a fine bullet, I'm just not buying into this mathematical perfection B.S..
The heavy mil stuff was just to illustrate the way that it goes to achieve the same stability and penetration over the longer range.
You are right though, the deer dont know or care, in fact neither do many of us.
The maths was illustrated by a nice ballistician from Shrivenham, the Royal College of military science (I wanted to study there but being thick at secondary school prevented me!), he showed with bc, sd and graphs showing arcs of rounds travelled. The maths to be honest was reasonably simple if you were tuned in but for a 2 hour lecture of which 30 minutes was q & a it was too quick for me to learn. I had the papers from the handout and it looked ok to me.
This was backed up with radar plotting of bullet paths using mortar and small arms locating radar on a range over a lake to reduce the ground interference. The radar work was done in Belguim and started with 577 calibre working down through thehistoric calibres of interest to the assoc'n.
The end result of both demos was to prove stability, flat shooting and "Ballistic Efficiency"! This was achieved he explained in about 1890 ish with the swede. All we weve done since is reinvent the wheel.
You are right though, the deer dont know or care, in fact neither do many of us.
The maths was illustrated by a nice ballistician from Shrivenham, the Royal College of military science (I wanted to study there but being thick at secondary school prevented me!), he showed with bc, sd and graphs showing arcs of rounds travelled. The maths to be honest was reasonably simple if you were tuned in but for a 2 hour lecture of which 30 minutes was q & a it was too quick for me to learn. I had the papers from the handout and it looked ok to me.
This was backed up with radar plotting of bullet paths using mortar and small arms locating radar on a range over a lake to reduce the ground interference. The radar work was done in Belguim and started with 577 calibre working down through thehistoric calibres of interest to the assoc'n.
The end result of both demos was to prove stability, flat shooting and "Ballistic Efficiency"! This was achieved he explained in about 1890 ish with the swede. All we weve done since is reinvent the wheel.
