Interesting study on shot placement and caliber.

When one attempts to determine bullet/cartridge/shot effectiveness on game through a statistical analysis, the results are often confusing and troubling. This particular study does not appear to stand out as the exception. Some questions that might be considered are:

Which caliber bullet and in which weight and style was used with each particular shot placement?
How many bullets were too strongly constructed for deer, resulting in little upset?
Which shot placement resulted in the fastest death as opposed to distance travelled?
Which shot produced the most pain and what was the effect on the distance travelled?
In the author's opinion, is a fragile bullet that proves exceptionally effective with a broadside lung shot equally effective in the shoulder or quartering shot?
Would the distance traveled for the deer shot with small bore rifles remain higher if as many deer had been shot with small bore rifles as with full bore?
 
You Don't Get What You Pay For

The thing that jumps out for me is that the study reports that cheaper bullets like the Ballistic Tip and Bronze points out performed the more expensive Barnes X and Particians on deer.

It reminds me of what Jack O'Connor said about hunting deer. I recall him writing that the 7 mm 120 grain bullet was one of the most deadly deer bullets on the market, when fired at high velocity from a 7 mm Mauser. Jack believed that rapid bullet expansion meant greater shock and tissue destruction than harder types of bullets that penetrated further. I think Jack concluded that increased penetration often does not pay when you are hunting deer.
 
Yes, I've always thought that a soft lead tipped cup-and-core bullet like a Sierra Gameking was better suited to deer than a Barnes. Deer are thin skinned and aren't terribly thick. You don't need crazy penetration unless you're hitting the southern-most end of a northern-bound deer.

They separated the data by caliber used, but not by actual chambering. The .284 could be 7RemMag, or 7-08. The 30 cal could be 30-30 or 300 Win Mag. I'd like to see how the numbers played out with regards to that.
 
One thing caught my eye, which was that .25 caliber significantly seemed to register the lowest yards traveled.

I've taken deer with a .303, 25.06, 30.06 and 300 WM...and by far the 25.06 dropped more game in their tracks DRT, often shockingly so, than any of the others.

Always used Federal Premium 117 Sierra GameKings.

I maintain, if I had only one caliber for hunting deer, I just don't think it gets any better than the 25.06.

FWIW.
 
First off let me say that I regard the .25/06 a top ranking cartridge for antelope, deer, sheep etc. The problem I have with taking that .25/06 data at face value is two fold. First the .270 didn't show nearly as well, which is a little suspicious as the two cartridges are similar and secondly, there was a smaller number of .25/06 armed hunters to get data from compared to those who chose full bore cartridges. If we consider that .25/06 riflemen tend to be rifle enthusiasts rather than seasonal hunters, and a fellow who shoots year round is apt to be a better shot than the once a year hunter, we can see there might be a problem with the statistics. There are many rifle enthusiasts who like the .30/06, 7mms, and the .270 but there are also plenty of less sophisticated shooters who are inclined to choose those cartridges without giving much if any consideration to which bullet they use on what game; so its not an even playing field. I wonder what the stats would look like if you found 500 .25/06 shooters and compared their results on game to 50 riflemen who chose the .280 Ackley.
 
I would be interested in seeing how the .264 stacks up. Anecdotally I have had more bangflops with a 6.5x55 than with any other caliber. A 7-08 with ballistic tips (I prefer 120 grain) also has worked extremely well. Interestingly enough, deer seemed to travel the furthest with the various .30 cal. rounds I have shot. I don't have a huge sample size (30-40 deer), and admittedly my notes are not meticulous. This trend though is something I have noticed for years.
 
ALFREDS said:
The thing that jumps out for me is that the study reports that cheaper bullets like the Ballistic Tip and Bronze points out performed the more expensive Barnes X and Particians on deer.

It reminds me of what Jack O'Connor said about hunting deer. I recall him writing that the 7 mm 120 grain bullet was one of the most deadly deer bullets on the market, when fired at high velocity from a 7 mm Mauser. Jack believed that rapid bullet expansion meant greater shock and tissue destruction than harder types of bullets that penetrated further. I think Jack concluded that increased penetration often does not pay when you are hunting deer.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly true, instant kills are almost always the result of massive hydrostatic shock.
Years ago, a study on instant kills on elephants confirmed that all of them had suffered massive hydrostatic shock damage to the brain!

I'm a big fan of 270WSM 130gr at 3280fps and can tell you that it does to deer what 22-250 does to varmint: frequent lightning type kills.
(It also burns a barrel up fast but that's never a hunting issue!)

The only big downside to light and fast bullets is that they can blow up and fail completely if a large bone is hit or make quartering shot impossible.

Alex
 
sir_springer said:
One thing caught my eye, which was that .25 caliber significantly seemed to register the lowest yards traveled.

I've taken deer with a .303, 25.06, 30.06 and 300 WM...and by far the 25.06 dropped more game in their tracks DRT, often shockingly so, than any of the others.

Always used Federal Premium 117 Sierra GameKings.

I maintain, if I had only one caliber for hunting deer, I just don't think it gets any better than the 25.06.

FWIW.
Click to expand...

A hardy "+1" to that!

I noticed that stat, too, but I figured it must just be something to do with a smaller sample size and questionable statistical significance. Although I have also noticed that many of the animals I shoot with the .25-06 go straight down...
 
Jordan Smith said:
Although I have also noticed that many of the animals I shoot with the .25-06 go straight down...
Click to expand...

I have had more bang/flops(excluding spine/neck hits) with faster small calibers than I have with 30 cal and up. Even though I am a big fan of the 280 rem, and have taken a pile of game with that cal, I have found that game hit with a 25-06 dies quicker...Not sure why, and doesn't really make alot of sense to me, but thats my findings.
 
small vs larger cals

I agree that the smaller high velocity cals give some awsome results on deer size game. I used a 6MM rem and a 270 win for years, I also destoyed more meat than I care to remember!! With the small high velocity cals, the shock to the meat was very bad. I started useing a 300 win mag and the wasted meat went way down. The animals were just as dead, and I got what I was out for, The Meat....The worst shock I have ever seen ,without hitting a major bone, was on a elk that was shot with a 25 06, yes It died fast, but what a waste..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom