Because they have and it can be doesn't make it a good idea though.
Killing Power?
- Thread starter Cranborne
- Start date
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
Yes but not as far.....lol
Plenty have been lost also, that includes other calibres but not as many as the .22.
Having shot a fair few deer with a fair range of calibres I really know from my own experience that the wallopers out wallop the non wallopers.
Caliber increase just gives a slightly bigger hole ( provided it impacts at a high enough speed to expand ). The thing is though with an increase in kinetic energy , we get increased recoil and this needs managing via a good "stance/ position / hold" and "a heavier gun" to handle the
recoil. To increase the carry weight increases fatigue in the person carrying it . If you dont think this matters try shooting a real nice group off hand straight after 20 good push ups!
Stepping out of a truck and shooting off the bonnet with a bag / bipod etc is one thing carrying it up a steep face is quite another matter . Taking fast off hand standing shot opportunities after exercise another .
Light rifles , less recoil , lighter bullets with a bullet that is going to do the job if you do is my way . Its certainly true a heavy gun firing a heavy bullet can stem a lot of the recoil but its an SOB to shoot fast and accurate off hand, kneeling or fast improvised positions and they certainly sap your energy and tire your muscles.
To say a heavier gun is more accurate is true that's why weight limits are applied in most competitive shooting . Carry a heavy bench gun up a long steep face and try a standing shot with it though? .... !
recoil. To increase the carry weight increases fatigue in the person carrying it . If you dont think this matters try shooting a real nice group off hand straight after 20 good push ups!
Stepping out of a truck and shooting off the bonnet with a bag / bipod etc is one thing carrying it up a steep face is quite another matter . Taking fast off hand standing shot opportunities after exercise another .
Light rifles , less recoil , lighter bullets with a bullet that is going to do the job if you do is my way . Its certainly true a heavy gun firing a heavy bullet can stem a lot of the recoil but its an SOB to shoot fast and accurate off hand, kneeling or fast improvised positions and they certainly sap your energy and tire your muscles.
To say a heavier gun is more accurate is true that's why weight limits are applied in most competitive shooting . Carry a heavy bench gun up a long steep face and try a standing shot with it though? .... !
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Aye, going up in level above standard cartridges definitely gives more whallop John, I get that.
I'm refering to the splitting of hairs between the standard cartridges often used here. Not much in it then.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Aye, the common average range for most deer shot in the UK is probably under 100 yds.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Aye, your right, like the post of a large bullet you posted the other day found in a healthy deer and my reply of my account of finding a 22 in a deer.
**** happens...
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
One doesn't have any thoughts of any of the above when the pi$$ed off thoroughly enraged Cape Buff is closing quickly.
Btw the OP was about 'killing power"
Too true my friend, knowing no better, days of youth and all that.
harrygrey382
Well-Known Member
100%. I’ve got a taxidermist friend who accidentally pierced her rib cage with a long very thin needle - she felt completely fine but went to hospital and they confirmed it just kissed her heart, but no damage was done. If she’d done the same thing with a sharp bit of 5/8” rod she wouldn’t have failed so well. Marksmanship is obviously important but to claim wound channel is irrelevant makes you appear ignorant
I think no one would argue that if you put a bullet in the right spot, the animal falls over.
The confusion begins (1) when you start trying to define what the right place actually is; and (2) when you start trying predict what happens when the shot isn’t in the right place.
I’m willing to believe there is some sort of effect that roughly approximates to what people mean when they talk about ‘knockdown’ power. I have a short barrelled Creedmoor that shoots factory ammo at a rather slow 2550fps. If I shoot roe deer in the chest (not hilar, not shoulder) out to about 100m, they usually collapse instantly unless alert. If I shoot them in the same place beyond about 150m, they usually run a bit. Same bullet, same shot placement. Sample size in the hundreds now. Since the only change is the terminal energy of the bullet, then the difference must be caused by less energy being imparted to the carcass. I have no idea how that difference translates to causing the animal to collapse or not.
The confusion begins (1) when you start trying to define what the right place actually is; and (2) when you start trying predict what happens when the shot isn’t in the right place.
I’m willing to believe there is some sort of effect that roughly approximates to what people mean when they talk about ‘knockdown’ power. I have a short barrelled Creedmoor that shoots factory ammo at a rather slow 2550fps. If I shoot roe deer in the chest (not hilar, not shoulder) out to about 100m, they usually collapse instantly unless alert. If I shoot them in the same place beyond about 150m, they usually run a bit. Same bullet, same shot placement. Sample size in the hundreds now. Since the only change is the terminal energy of the bullet, then the difference must be caused by less energy being imparted to the carcass. I have no idea how that difference translates to causing the animal to collapse or not.
FWIW neither is velocity alone, or at least the velocity we get from standard hunting rifles, a killer. Elmer Keith did some field tests using lathe turned solid bronze bullets in what was, back then, the fastest smallbore centrefire. Possibly the .228 Savage. He found the bullets accurate but that they did not kill or in many of the rabbits he shot or he claimed even cause them to seemingly react to the shot.
Having said that I attended a talk thirty plus years ago on conclusions of gunshot wounds from the Falklands War. The first part of which was to begin the lecture with the speaker picking up a .303 No.4, that the Falkland Islands Defence Force were equipped with, and saying that that could be discounted as nobody was actually shot with one. His conclusion was that best killing effect was a fast AND heavy bullet.
But if the choice was one or the other that a fast light bullet was better than a heavy slow bullet. This was because the fast bullet was more likely when it hit bone to shatter the bone and cause that to become secondary projectiles. And that if the bullet broke apart then, again, the shards or jacket and core from a fast bullet would cause more damage than the same from a slow bullet.
Although interestingly he also noted that the "myth" of the lethal velocity alone destructive power of the 5.56mm was just that. A myth. That the worst case wounds seen with 7.62mm NATO were always worse than the worse case wounds seen with the 5.56mm. His last words of advice were to "fight naked" in that (wearing) thick webbing was not your friend if it got hit with a bullet.
Having said that I attended a talk thirty plus years ago on conclusions of gunshot wounds from the Falklands War. The first part of which was to begin the lecture with the speaker picking up a .303 No.4, that the Falkland Islands Defence Force were equipped with, and saying that that could be discounted as nobody was actually shot with one. His conclusion was that best killing effect was a fast AND heavy bullet.
But if the choice was one or the other that a fast light bullet was better than a heavy slow bullet. This was because the fast bullet was more likely when it hit bone to shatter the bone and cause that to become secondary projectiles. And that if the bullet broke apart then, again, the shards or jacket and core from a fast bullet would cause more damage than the same from a slow bullet.
Although interestingly he also noted that the "myth" of the lethal velocity alone destructive power of the 5.56mm was just that. A myth. That the worst case wounds seen with 7.62mm NATO were always worse than the worse case wounds seen with the 5.56mm. His last words of advice were to "fight naked" in that (wearing) thick webbing was not your friend if it got hit with a bullet.
Last edited:
5.56mm in military terms is intended to enable a man to carry more rounds (30 rd mags rather than 20 with 7.62) and then incapacitate the enemy, not necessarily kill him (two further men to carry the wounded man away). 7.62mm - bigger holes and more impact, "if it doesn't kill the enemy it at least knocks bits off them", as a Para said to me post Falklands. Same reason I prefer a larger calibre for deer.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Or just make him madder!
I’ll just leave this little illustration here.
Attachments
.357mag are legal for roedeer in Sweden, works for short distance shots driven by shortleged dogs.
For me its ok if a roedeer or moose has run up to 150m which is normal after a lungshot with popular calibers between 6,5*55 to 9,3*62.
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
Its quite simple really, whacking big stag bodies with a .338 win mag rather than a 6.5 wonder cal results in 'bigger is better'. But then we have the " I've shot lots of deer with a .22."......ok!
I had my .308 Norma mag with me as I was taking his pic, a calibre with 'wallop'
Take two 180 grain projectiles used in two proprietary calibres.
There is no doubt a .308 Winchester 180 gr would also do the job but when the foot pounds difference of the Norma 308 Mag enters the field the extra 800 odd ft-lbs certainly makes a difference. The bigger magnum calibres do have more of the knockdown effect.
Frontal area of projectile is the same.
Bigger can be better.....Tyson hit harder than middleweights.
I had my .308 Norma mag with me as I was taking his pic, a calibre with 'wallop'
Take two 180 grain projectiles used in two proprietary calibres.
There is no doubt a .308 Winchester 180 gr would also do the job but when the foot pounds difference of the Norma 308 Mag enters the field the extra 800 odd ft-lbs certainly makes a difference. The bigger magnum calibres do have more of the knockdown effect.
Frontal area of projectile is the same.
Bigger can be better.....Tyson hit harder than middleweights.
I agree and dis agree with most of the comments above. Yes, shot placement is vital. Correctly placed you do not need a large calibre or more and more bullet weight to make a clean kill. My point though, is that not every shot goes where you want it to all the time. A slightly "wayward" shot from a smaller calibre, or less weighty bullet, may not result in an instant kill. A larger calibre, and/or heavy bullet has more room for error.
Similar threads
