howa243
Well-Known Member
Well its taken 80 posts but we got there.
6.5x55 or .308
- Thread starter Jimmy.jim86
- Start date
Well its taken 80 posts but we got there.
AN DU RU FOX
Well-Known Member
hi eddie if you dont mind mate what rifle did you get please,atb doug,
It was a Tikka T3 Hunter, with what was reckoned to be less than fifty rounds through it before I got it, for the pricley sum of £525.
So bargains are out there just not very often!
Ed
The deer man
Well-Known Member
As you have said using the wrong bullet could be disastrous but that goes for any calibre and singling out the 6.5x55 as being the only culprit is an inadequate conclusion. But I would agree the lighter 120's do work well on smaller deer. I find on Reds the 140's are excellent however I only use standard soft points (Sierra GK) not solids, monolithic copper or super hard premium bullets as they are just not necessary or correct for this weight (140gr) in this calibre. The "softer" soft point with the high SD allows for more than enough expansion, penetration and tissue/organ destruction. Strangely when shooting Muntjac I prefer the heavier 140's to the faster 120's which I find become too destructive on the very small animals (but very good on foxes!).
Just how much power is enough? There is a point within normal stalking ranges that whatever legal calibre you use, light and fast or heavy and slow the performance is enough and the outcome the same assuming correct shot placement and bullet selection for the calibre and game you are hunting. A gut shot deer is likely to run just as far whether shot with a 243 or 270 unless . . .
. . . power and destruction is the primary requirement and we all use 50BMG!!!
On the other hand maybe Bewshers hammer would be cheaper!
AN DU RU FOX
Well-Known Member
thanks ed ive found an hunter same as my 223 and not much difference on your price but im waiting on word back about a sako 75,i think it will be the tikka as ive not heard back,cheers doug,sorry back to discussion,
Last edited:
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
I am not sure where the analogy is ...but as you put it earlier..
In my case first hand experience of animals that have no blood loss, no structural spinal breakage or CNS damage...but are stone dead.
not incapacitated or unconscious.
Dead.
this in both foxes and deer with several calibres
That document link has been floating around for years and is largely based on debunking a principle on the grounds that the words used to describe it do not confirm to literal physics and engineering language.
The author does little if anything to add to data already out there and almost all of the quotes are from over 100 years ago
Written by an author who claims to be: "a Liberal Arts (English) and Mechanical Engineering graduate of Auburn University, drawn equally by Imagination and Reason. Possible future careers include (but are not limited to): professor of history, novelist, archeologist or paleontologist and independent film director. Life is too short... Some of these I may not get around to."
Also describing himself as "an extreme environmentalist" and "being slightly obsessive about Western films"
Sounds like just the guy to debunk theories on wounding in hunting.....
He does not discuss physiology as the main variable of wound lethality. but quotes:
"I haven't yet seen any cases in which a wound that did not reach to the vital organs resulted in death - except as a result of septicemia."
so because he has never seen it it doesn't exist....right?
I have never seen the Taj Mahal....
Also having not only spent some time working in a large pathology lab for a consultant Forensic Pathologist, but also spent much of that time reviewing his case notes on numerous, ACTUAL murders I can also now say I have seen this in humans...foxes and deer.
Hammers, bricks, paving slabs, baseball bats and on one occasion a bowling ball.
All used to kill without penetration! without the massive skeletal damage you would think is required to kill.
You bring cavitation (temporary or otherwise) into the discussion but state:
Seriously?
In all your years of hunting and the....
?
You quote physics and engineering principles but are saying you can't envisage or have never seen the damage caused by a high velocity object passing in close proximity to a major CNS pathway creating a multiple calibre diameter void that expands and contracts within a fraction of a second?
Ever been knocked out, concussed or otherwise stuck by something large and hard?
Ever been winded?
if you have now imagine that force 100-1000x higher
It is.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I was not trying to explain all of them...or any of them for that matter,
But your man Rathcoombe is trying to do just that. in reverse...without making reference to any animal he has shot himself or first hand evidence...or for that matter any practical evidence
He attempts to discredit an observed effect with a theoretical argument.
I will personally stick to taking advice and reviewing information on terminal ballistics from actual data and first hand experience
if you want some non theory based reading on actual results read here:
Knowledgebase
Oh and OP....if you are still here....(and god knows I would be surprised!)
Get whichever rifle you can find that fits you and you can feed reliably on locally sourced ammo!
the deer don't know what they get shot with and they all fall over if you put it in the right place....
or just get a .270
I am not sure where the analogy is ...but as you put it earlier..
In my case first hand experience of animals that have no blood loss, no structural spinal breakage or CNS damage...but are stone dead.
not incapacitated or unconscious.
Dead.
this in both foxes and deer with several calibres
That document link has been floating around for years and is largely based on debunking a principle on the grounds that the words used to describe it do not confirm to literal physics and engineering language.
The author does little if anything to add to data already out there and almost all of the quotes are from over 100 years ago
Written by an author who claims to be: "a Liberal Arts (English) and Mechanical Engineering graduate of Auburn University, drawn equally by Imagination and Reason. Possible future careers include (but are not limited to): professor of history, novelist, archeologist or paleontologist and independent film director. Life is too short... Some of these I may not get around to."
Also describing himself as "an extreme environmentalist" and "being slightly obsessive about Western films"
Sounds like just the guy to debunk theories on wounding in hunting.....
He does not discuss physiology as the main variable of wound lethality. but quotes:
"I haven't yet seen any cases in which a wound that did not reach to the vital organs resulted in death - except as a result of septicemia."
so because he has never seen it it doesn't exist....right?
I have never seen the Taj Mahal....
Also having not only spent some time working in a large pathology lab for a consultant Forensic Pathologist, but also spent much of that time reviewing his case notes on numerous, ACTUAL murders I can also now say I have seen this in humans...foxes and deer.
Hammers, bricks, paving slabs, baseball bats and on one occasion a bowling ball.
All used to kill without penetration! without the massive skeletal damage you would think is required to kill.
You bring cavitation (temporary or otherwise) into the discussion but state:
Seriously?
In all your years of hunting and the....
?
You quote physics and engineering principles but are saying you can't envisage or have never seen the damage caused by a high velocity object passing in close proximity to a major CNS pathway creating a multiple calibre diameter void that expands and contracts within a fraction of a second?
Ever been knocked out, concussed or otherwise stuck by something large and hard?
Ever been winded?
if you have now imagine that force 100-1000x higher
It is.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I was not trying to explain all of them...or any of them for that matter,
But your man Rathcoombe is trying to do just that. in reverse...without making reference to any animal he has shot himself or first hand evidence...or for that matter any practical evidence
He attempts to discredit an observed effect with a theoretical argument.
I will personally stick to taking advice and reviewing information on terminal ballistics from actual data and first hand experience
if you want some non theory based reading on actual results read here:
Knowledgebase
Oh and OP....if you are still here....(and god knows I would be surprised!)
Get whichever rifle you can find that fits you and you can feed reliably on locally sourced ammo!
the deer don't know what they get shot with and they all fall over if you put it in the right place....
or just get a .270
You must have magic bullets
We are discussing ballistics relative to ethical hunting practices. I don't shoot a whitetail in the ass on some false promise that my super whizz bang magnum will remotely incapacitate the animal. Likewise, I have never seen in my entire life hunting all across Canada an animal culled that does not have either a) CNS damage or b) blood loss either from a vital hit or elsewhere.
You like to cite blunt force trauma, and this is where your analogy falls flat on its face. A 1000gr 2 1/2" round baseball bat swung at 45mph is a lot different than a 140gr 7mm bullet traveling at 2700fps. You should know the difference between blunt force trauma and penetrating trauma, 1-1 transfer ratio, etc., shouldn't you? Energy figures, when it comes to penetrating projectiles, are misleading for this very reason.
And "Terminalballisticsresearch" is a [very] far cry from a reference on ballistics. I'm not going to go out of my way by belittling your sources character and point out things that have no relevance to the topic (that's just poor reasoning). Instead, I will provide you with a couple more sources to alleviate your angst with my first source (despite the fact that there is a lot of valid information in it and you did absolutely nothing to address or discredit any of it, good job
)http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/terminal_ballistics_bs.htm
Terminal Ballistics - Part I
Most evidence in support of remote wounding is anecdotal in nature. Never have I ever seen anything remotely close to the phenomena in the field even with some ultra magnums.
Too much focus is on kinetic energy. A bullet can blow up and shed 100% of its energy, and not penetrate enough to barely wound an animal, so a balance must be struck. The other measure of energy ignored by most, because it is not cited on the packaging and advertising, is momentum. A heavy bullet moving at lower velocity can have the same kinetic ( ft-lbs) of energy as a much lighter and faster bullet, but the heavy bullet will have more momentum. It will usually penetrate well, in a straight line, deform less, and perhaps transfer much more of its energy to the target, even if it exits the other side. And it may very well make a hole 4 or 5 times its diameter, just from the hydraulic pressure.
Sectional density is not very relevant for bullets expending to 2x shank diameter and shedding 25 to 50% of their weight. That SD number went to Hell in the first few inches of penetration.
Sectional density is not very relevant for bullets expending to 2x shank diameter and shedding 25 to 50% of their weight. That SD number went to Hell in the first few inches of penetration.
MARCBO
Well-Known Member
The bison I shot in December 2013 was taken at just over 200yds with a 50-70 firing a 450gr lead bullet at close to 1300fps. Bullet hit the spine literally knocking the buff over, went over like a tea cup. Very good sample of Energy (kinetic) transfer. The bullet did not expand at all and the entrance wound was undetectable even after skinning the animal. Only found the bullet when the spine was split, it was lodged on the far side.
SS
I've never actually seen a tea-cup fall over. I think the centre of gravity is too low for it to be a common occurrence.
That aside, I wonder how much of the effect would have been the bullet physically pushing the animal over, compared to the effect of its depriving it of control of its limbs by destroying the spine?
I suppose we need to think about the weight of the beast and the remaining energy of the bullet at 200yds.
Kinetic energy of course exists otherwise bullets with penetrate, obviously. The nature of this and its effect on wounding (or remote wounding if you are a believer) are what is being contested. A 450gr pill has a large meplat and a lot of momentum behind it (along with good SD). Smashing through a buffalo spine should be no issue as you know.
howa243
Well-Known Member
Not true when comparing the same bullets at same impact velocities.
For example, at the same velocity the .264 130gr Barnes TSX will out penetrate a 130gr 30 Calibre TSX.
With all variables equal, the higher sectional density bullet will always penetrate further while the larger caliber will most likely leave a slightly larger wound channel.
Doesn't really matter on small deer, but moose, elk, caribou and bear I will take heavy for caliber.
Last edited:
howa243
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that the swede is the calibre of choice for you when you go moose, elk or bear shooting?
Not always. It largely depends on the terrain and time of year (pressure on the animals as well as on me). I have taken over 8 heads of moose, 3 elk and 2 black bear and dozens of deer with my 6.5x55. On moose with 156gr Oryx I have never recovered a bullet on broadside shots. Vitals were always liquified, and I had very little meat damage. I've taken about equal as many moose with the .30-06 180gr and usually recover the bullet(s) far side hide or shoulder. No difference in so-called "killing power". Same goes for 7mm Rem. Mag., 375H&H, .45-70, .338 win mag (not really a true magnum) and a few others I've seen friends shoot.
.30-06 is a fantastic cartridge for large and/or dangerous animals in North America, but to equal the ballistics of a 140gr .264 caliber you have to move up to 200+gr bullet, and everything else that comes with that. If you care about that kind of stuff. 180gr. .308 bullet has been killing all species of game in Canada for a very long time. It does the job, albeit it is not esoteric enough for many, and some (myself included) see the brilliance in certain cartridges such as the 6.5 and so we prefer them.
There is no wrong choice here I can promise you that much.
Last edited:
What is the SD of the .264 and the .308 bullet after both have fully expanded in the first two inches ( as claimed by Barnes)?
That is is why you cannot make such blanket statements about what a bullet will do after impact and deformation, based on its stationary, pre-launch sectional density. In my first post on this topic, I referenced my own test of a some 170-gr .321 inch and 180-gr SPT .323 inch 8mm bullets fired into wet, solid, pottery clay at 1,300 fps ( to recover and measure rifling and bores of .318 and .323 rifles). Penetration of the undeformed bullets were all about 23 inches, and for 18 of that, the diameter of the hole was at least 1 inch. I believe any of them would completely penetrate any deer at that same impact velocity, and mid chest hit would drop them right there, based on experience with the .30-30 on deer, bear, boar and a .357 Magnum on an elk at that velocity.
They don't state, but this would still be the case all other variables being equal.
You're right, though, that SD will not tell you much about penetration relative to other bullet/cartridge/load combinations because bullet construction/expansion will be the ultimate deciding factor. However, all factors being equal, the higher the SD the better the penetration--basic physics--and this applies to expanded bullets too (provided the small caliber does not expand to a greater diameter than the larger caliber, which it shouldn't provided they are equal).
BTW, have you tried out the Barnes VOR-TSX 150gr .30-30 loads? Did some ballistic gelatine tests and they out penetrated the 170gr silvertips and 170gr. partitions, retained 100% weight and textbook expansion. Velocity within 100fps of each other.
Last edited:
Similar threads
