I suspect that those who suggest a given rifle is the perfect rifle haven't shot much else. Most arguments in favor of one could be used to promote another.~Muir
Is the 308 the best rifle for all purposes
- Thread starter Galwyn
- Start date
I suspect that those who suggest a given rifle is the perfect rifle haven't shot much else. Most arguments in favor of one could be used to promote another.~Muir
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I don't see how any single rifle could possibly be "the best rifle for all purposes", but I am happy to concede that the .308 is one of many that makes a good all-rounder...
Are we up to 20 pages on this yet?
Who's attitude? You would do well to not make assumptions about what I know or don't know.
I agree with what NigelM says and it reiterates what I'd said earlier which you obviously missed. Shot placement is the deciding factor. The pics of the deer I posted were to show that the .308 is more than capable of holding it's own, which I get the impression from some on here is somewhat lacking in ballistics. Some of those deer were shot at nearly 400 yards.
For several decades many government deer cullers in my country used the .222 on Red deer. Certainly not the ideal choice for a novice, however quite deadly in the hands of a cool experienced professional up to 250 yards or so. Then we have the many tens of thousands of Red deer which were and still are shot by helicopter shooters with a .223 military style weapon.
A small segment in not so rugged country compared to most. These deer are only neck or head shot. Hardly sport though it does show the effectiveness of light high velocity rounds in the hand of a good shot.
Last edited:
very funny ! I know I usually don't let that kind of chopper rile me but our colonial friend '10' ringpiece got on my tits with his attitude after only 9 posts !
sorry admin , my bad !
Oh, I get it now, one can only have an opinion (translated to attitude your case) if one has 1,880 posts. Your sophomoric and somewhat arrogant comment is quite amusing.
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
i think as a lover of 308 I can safely say it's great but does put big holes in smaller game... really big holes if you're an a-max fan
tackb
Well-Known Member
you just don't get it do you?
Good day to you sir.
if you fancy taking this further please do it by pm rather than spoil this rather splendid forum with your rantings.
Hold on.... All that talk of cull targets against time pressure with the elements against you means you must be a stalker rather than a killer..... Oh hold on perhaps a killer not a stalker...???
Of course you had to add "rantings" to your little message above. Rather juvenile and reinforces what I said earlier, don't you think?
You really shouldn't get so upset over next to nothing and should expect people to answer you in the same manner that you addressed them. It's not good for your blood pressure. Learn to relax and appreciate that the world has many different shades of grey. I'm 62 and have been deer hunting since I was 16 and there's always something to learn and that's what makes the sport so interesting.
Quite happy for you to reply by PM if you care to. In the meantime hot barrels to you.
Vipa
Well-Known Member
And what is the retained energy of each at 250 yards? ballistics is not just about the arc of bullet flight..
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Oh quite so, the 243 is significantly faster and flatter but the 308 has a retained energy of about 1700n to the 243s 1400?
rick6point5
Well-Known Member
Huh?
Seriously, just stop. I suspect that you have very little hunting experience because if you did, you would not reference "killing power" or "kill faster". Get off your armchair and get out and hunt. With time, you will gain some insight and wisdom and stop with your silly immature posts.
Just so other posters don't think I am blowing hot air, there is a very large on-going government funded study in Northern Europe on the effect of cartridges on moose (and so-called killing power). They measured the distance from where the moose was shot to where is laid down. They also took into account shot placement as a variable. Here is a link to the results graciously translated into English: http://www.kifaruforums.net/showthread.php?t=10343
I understand there are problems with said study in inferring any kind of conclusion regarding "remote wounding" or other terminal effects or variables such as bullet construction, etc.. However, what can be said, without doubt, because there is a large enough sample, is that the chosen cartridge, from 6.5x55 to 460 Wby Mag has very little practical effect on killing power when it comes to soft-skinned game in normal hunting situations and when the shot is placed appropriately. This coincides with my own experience.
While I still hunt with different cartridges, it is usually because the cartridge/rifle combination best suits the type of terrain I am hunting as opposed to the type of game--generally speaking.
Last edited:
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Largely anecdotal evidence and nothing that hasn't been stated before. I'm not getting into this stupid debate once again. My experience in conjunction with the scientific consensus has put this issue to bed. Go on to jstor and check it out for yourself. I'm not saying remote wounding effects do not happen. However, I tend to believe that such "phenomena" is not so-called "pressure waves" and is actually closer to what rick6point5 alludes to. However, I think in practice this is largely fluff and completely irrelevant to our goals. Out of the many animals I have culled, big and small, with good shot placement the difference in killing power between a 300 win mag and a 7mm-08 is nil. The difference in salvageable meat, however...
I still think it is funny that the user who uploaded that goat video attributes the instant kill to "hydrostatic shock", yet also states that the bullet passed through and broke the spine.
Edit*** Don't take this as me being gruff. Please, go on Jstor and review the literature yourself. There are many people who disagree with the authors of that paper you cited.
Surely less slavageable meat as you put it denotes that more of the animal has been damaged/injured?
Maybe you don't agree with the term hydrostatic shock but tempoary cavitation is real and widely understood in wound ballistics. A bullet that delivers more energy into a given animal will cause more damage. If the tempoary cavitation is larger than the surrounding tissue can accomodate then permenant damage will occur even if the permenant wound channel is the same size. If the tempoary cavitation is so great that it overcomes the surrounding tissue then it will "blow it apart" to put it bluntly. If you've ever seen something living hit with a military .50 cal round you will know that there is more than a .50 inch hole through it.
I never said temporary cavitation is not real. Permanent cavitation is the most important wounding mechanism, however.
Put on your critical thinking hat for a second. Reference that study I posted. Now let me ask you:
If you were to shoot an animal with the choice of two cartridges, both of which will result in the exact same thing, but one with less meat damage, which would you choose?
Bruising/bloodshot meat is a real problem with ultra high velocity cartridges--it ruins a lot of good meat.
More energy might equate more damage, but that does not equate a more expedient kill, and that is the heart of the matter. People arguing for one cartridge over another. They all have their place, but all, with the proper bullet and shot placement, will kill dead the same. Maybe people are uncomfortable with this notion? The idea that their beloved or esoteric super duper magnum is not really any more effective than a lowly .243 or the boring .308. It shakes their belief system, so they need to defend and justify. People want to feel special in their choice.
Doesn't matter much because the smart folks are staying out of this rabbit hole of a thread while the truly ignorant keep spouting their erroneous understanding of ballistics and energy transfer. No reason to believe that they will quit.
Despite agreeing with some of your posts I would like to point out that you are very much in this thread. The above paragraph implies you are calling yourself ignorant, un-smart and your ideas erroneous.
This simply isn't true. Everyone has their ideas, everyone has evidence and experience to back it up. Your ideas just differ to those who favour faster cartridges and believe in hydrostatic shock.
Me? Hydrostatic shock/remote wounding or whatever is largely myth. Temporary and permanent cavitation is 100% fact and there is no doubt that faster bullets cause greater temporary wound channels. This comes at the expense of meat damage (in some/most cases).
I don't use a super fast thing but more power to those who do.
Oh I am very much aware of this, and I am all the more an idiot for partaking in it
My remark was tongue-in-cheek, but was an observable fact that those peoples' posts who I enjoy most on these forums rarely comment on such silly threads such as this--guess I am just a sucker.
mchughcb
Well-Known Member
This is a very interesting post and thanks for the reference. My experience with moose hunting with guys that hunt about 40 per year is that while the 6.5x55 is the minimum it depends where you shoot it. They all like using semi auto 300 Win mag and bigger. I like bigger bullets not just for knockdown but for the likelihood of a bigger blood trail that is easier to follow or for the dogs to follow. If you are hunting hard core terrain, real northern european wilderness in the artic near Kiruna , it is a lot difference from a plot next to the local farm at Orebro. If you don't find the Moose you can spend hours looking for it. Also the stats don't indicate how many got away which is even more relevant.
The deer man
Well-Known Member
Yes Chasey , I hope some others read this article which I have read before along with a few others. I was always under the impression that 'hydrostatic' related to fluid not tissue hence 'hydrostatic shock' is a rather misleading description.
'Pressure wave' would be a more accurate description in the same way a bullet is often described incorrectly as a head when in fact the head is the end of the brass cartridge case where the primer sits!
So I would be very interested to hear what people think the bloodshot bruising of a carcass in way of the bullet hole is caused by?
My wild guess (after inspecting 100's of shot deer with different calibres) is it's not caused by a slow heavy bullet that pushes through the outer body and dumps it's energy inside the animal but a (generally) light very fast bullet that dumps it energy on the outer body of the carcass creating a pressure wave that bruises the meat.
. . . so what's this got to do with killing ability - nothing so long as whether slow or fast (big or small calibre) the bullet hits a vital organ and that's down to the marksmanship and experience of the hunter.
I've seen animals shot through the heart with calibres ranging from .240 to .30 calibres run a 100 yards or more, you can't argue shooter and calibre were wrong in such instances! It happens, possibly natures great survival instinct to run from danger no matter what.
Similar threads
