Find the flaw in my logic .300wm vs .338wm (Benelli R1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there a point? I have already told you the truth. Whatever I say you will have a contrary remark. You are funny but not that funny.
 
d2wing said:
Is there a point? I have already told you the truth. Whatever I say you will have a contrary remark. You are funny but not that funny.
Click to expand...
It ain't the truth. You only repeated the conventional "wisdom" about energy that is in serious need of an enema. It's okay, a lot of folks still believe the old wives tale, no matter how much contradictory evidence is flung at them.
 
I do know that a 3/4" garden hose sprays a lot more water than a 1/2". Wonder if that's applicable to blood loss? ;)

I also know that a 140gr 284" at ~2,400fps impact velocity projectile placed at a high shoulder on an antelope at 430 yards will put it down like lightning.

I also know a 250gr .452 projectile at 1,700fps impact velocity will punch through a whitetail shoulder destroy the heart and dislocate the offside shoulder and dump the animal as well.

It is also known to me that both the aforementioned experiences could be experienced in utter failure, just the nature of hunting and determination of living the animal has.
 
CraigC said:
Not much on actual discussion, huh?
Click to expand...
I think the reason people reply "Lol" to you is that you are unnecessarily argumentative, bordering on insulting. You also make statements that are plainly untrue, because you have wildly overstated your case, and then you make statements that contradict your previous pronouncements and don't even realize. All the while giving off an air of superiority. You have stated that energy is a useless number. You then later stated that "There has to be enough velocity to get the job done but there also has to be a properly shaped, properly constructed bullet of appropriate diameter and weight, specifically the balance of weight and diameter, i.e. sectional density." I agree with this statement entirely, but the bolded part contradicts your earlier statement. Why does there need to be enough velocity to get the job done? Well to turn this into actual physics, the bullet will have to do work as it plows through the animal. The ability to do work is, literally, energy. The bullet has energy because it has velocity. So your statement is that the bullet needs to have enough energy to get the job done. Yes, exactly. Energy is not useless, it is in fact very important.

The problem with published energy numbers is twofold. First, they are often quoted as muzzle-energy which is only relevant if the animal is at the muzzle. What is relevant is the energy at impact. The second, and bigger problem, is no one really discusses or publishes data on how much energy does a given bullet need to harvest the animal (or fully penetrate).

I agree with you almost completely - you have to pick the bullet (size and construction) for the job and then go from there, not pick a cartridge based on published energy. But you have to pick a cartridge that will deliver that bullet at your expected distance with enough energy (velocity) for the bullet to do what it needs to do.
 
wombat13 said:
You then later stated that "There has to be enough velocity to get the job done but there also has to be a properly shaped, properly constructed bullet of appropriate diameter and weight, specifically the balance of weight and diameter, i.e. sectional density." I agree with this statement entirely, but the bolded part contradicts your earlier statement. Why does there need to be enough velocity to get the job done? Well to turn this into actual physics, the bullet will have to do work as it plows through the animal. The ability to do work is, literally, energy. The bullet has energy because it has velocity. So your statement is that the bullet needs to have enough energy to get the job done. Yes, exactly. Energy is not useless, it is in fact very important.

The problem with published energy numbers is twofold. First, they are often quoted as muzzle-energy which is only relevant if the animal is at the muzzle. What is relevant is the energy at impact. The second, and bigger problem, is no one really discusses or publishes data on how much energy does a given bullet need to harvest the animal (or fully penetrate).

I agree with you almost completely - you have to pick the bullet (size and construction) for the job and then go from there, not pick a cartridge based on published energy. But you have to pick a cartridge that will deliver that bullet at your expected distance with enough energy (velocity) for the bullet to do what it needs to do.
Click to expand...

And herein lies the question and debate that has ensued, what is the correct relationship between velocity, mass, frontal area, sectional density to best predict animal expiration. We need to solve this, then we can move onto less contentious :) discussions whether or not to shoot the shoulder, slip it behind and through the lungs, high shoulder CNS, head shot, neck shot or heart shot.

Haha, half of that was to lighten the mood, but the first part is serious, I believe that energy numbers on cartridges fail to completely represent actual work done on the animal towards it's demise. There are really good examples that have been given comparing two projectiles, velocities and mass that seemingly on their face contradict the energy numbers as to what will work the best in a hunting scenario.

I guess I see it both ways, it's a good discussion and shows why there are those in the hunting and shooting worlds that have tried to come up with their own formula to "better" predict efficacy of a cartridge on game.

I find the difference between ft/lbs of energy and Taylor Knockout Factor interesting. No doubt TKO was formulated to try quantify/appreciate the benefits of larger bore effect on game. Given the example @CraigC posted previously between a 44mag and 30-06 it is interesting to see the discrepancy between ft/lbs and TKO.

44MAG, 300gr, 1,450fps
1,400 ft/lbs
27.34 TKO

30-06, 220gr, 2,400fps
2,813 ft/lbs
23.23 TKO

Which one is "more right?"

Obviously, efficacy of the above rounds are dependent on range to target as the 44MAG will start to bleed velocity and thus energy at a quicker rate than the 30-06. The above two ways of looking at efficacy of cartridges are propped up by their respective sides. Foot pounds serves the higher velocity, better bullet technology with expanding bullets, etc., whereas TKO serves the, "there's no replacement, for displacement" crowd of larger bores. And their respective formulas play to each of those beliefs.
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
It ain't the truth. You only repeated the conventional "wisdom" about energy that is in serious need of an enema. It's okay, a lot of folks still believe the old wives tale, no matter how much contradictory evidence is flung at them.
Click to expand...
Like I said.
 
I wonder about people that promote the ballistics of muzzle loaders. Like they want us to use short range, inaccurate, slow rate of fire and ineffective weapons. Maybe a basement communist in NYC? I wonder. Nobody like me that has fought in a war would fall for that nonsense. Some folks never have to face reality.
 
I have a 44 Mag and a 30-06. No way in anything is the 44 Mag remotely as powerful as a 30-06. You must believe the movies when shooting someone with a shotgun will blow them across a room. Maybe some of you should read why the Military is required to use FMJ bullets because of the battle in Dum-Dum, India in the 1800's.
 
Bullet energy is useful only in comparing the performance of bullets of similar caliber, weight, construction and velocity. You can argue all you want, and you can believe what you want, but bullet energy is nothing but a number.

If bullet energy were truly an accurate metric by which to measure the performance of a bullet on game, then we wouldn't have to select bullets based on the game we're hunting. That is, a .224" 62 gr. Scirroco Bonded Spitzer, a .224" 62 gr. Nosler Varmageddon, .224" 62 gr. Barnes TSX and a .224" 62 gr. Hornady FMJBT at a given velocity would perform exactly the same because they have the same energy at a given velocity.

Likewise, if bullet energy were truly an accurate metric by which to measure the performance of a bullet on game, then a .172" 25 grain HP bullet at 4100 fps, a .308" 150 gr. SP bullet at 1700 fps, and a .430" 250 gr. SWC bullet at 1325 fps and a .50 caliber 177 gr. round ball at 1950 fps would all perform the same, since they all have about the same amount of energy at the velocities given.

If the above examples don't help a person see the absurdity in using bullet energy as a way to determine bullet performance or how a bullet will perform on game, then they're beyond help.

35W
 
Last edited:
d2wing said:
No way in anything is the 44 Mag remotely as powerful as a 30-06.
Click to expand...
Upon what do you base this statement?


wombat13 said:
I think the reason people reply "Lol" to you is that you are unnecessarily argumentative, bordering on insulting. You also make statements that are plainly untrue, because you have wildly overstated your case, and then you make statements that contradict your previous pronouncements and don't even realize. All the while giving off an air of superiority. You have stated that energy is a useless number. You then later stated that "There has to be enough velocity to get the job done but there also has to be a properly shaped, properly constructed bullet of appropriate diameter and weight, specifically the balance of weight and diameter, i.e. sectional density." I agree with this statement entirely, but the bolded part contradicts your earlier statement. Why does there need to be enough velocity to get the job done? Well to turn this into actual physics, the bullet will have to do work as it plows through the animal. The ability to do work is, literally, energy. The bullet has energy because it has velocity. So your statement is that the bullet needs to have enough energy to get the job done. Yes, exactly. Energy is not useless, it is in fact very important.

The problem with published energy numbers is twofold. First, they are often quoted as muzzle-energy which is only relevant if the animal is at the muzzle. What is relevant is the energy at impact. The second, and bigger problem, is no one really discusses or publishes data on how much energy does a given bullet need to harvest the animal (or fully penetrate).

I agree with you almost completely - you have to pick the bullet (size and construction) for the job and then go from there, not pick a cartridge based on published energy. But you have to pick a cartridge that will deliver that bullet at your expected distance with enough energy (velocity) for the bullet to do what it needs to do.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just arguing and I'm arguing about ballistics, while others, yourself included, want to make it personal. I have overstated nothing, i'm trying to make a point and if folks would actually take the time to understand my points, rather than just figure out how to confirm their own beliefs, we might get somewhere. I'm sorry though, I know the rifle forum is usually a safe space for energy believers.

Because there has to be enough velocity to get the job done. Plain and simple. A .45 bullet at 100fps is obviously not going to do anything. Same bullet at 1000fps will obviously do a lot more. How much energy is generated in the process is irrelevant.

We all know the physics involved. We KNOW that energy is being generated and used, that isn't in question. The question is how do you apply a very basic concept as kinetic energy to terminal ballistics? In my opinion, based both on heaps of experience, a good application of logic and reasoning, you can't. As I already said, until you can differentiate how much energy is being used to destroy tissue versus what is absorbed by the body or wasted on the ground, there no point in even bring it into the conversation. Because, and this is the fundamental question that NO ONE has answered, with the examples I've given, what does it tell us about the cartridges and loads in question?

"Case in point, the vaunted .30-06.

150gr at 3100fps = 3200ft-lbs.
220gr at 2400fps = 2800ft-lbs.

That's 400lbs in favor of the lighter bullet. If the 150 is only good for deer but the 220gr is good for any and all on the North American continent and much of Africa, of what use is the energy calculation? It ain't worth jack spit."
I'll re-ask another.

"Meanwhile, a 300gr .44 at 1450fps produces 1400ft-lbs. Exactly half that of the 220gr .30-06 but is more suitable to critters like this than any .30 caliber rifle. Does it not at least tell us to question the validity of energy as a means to measure terminal effect?"

IMG_066613.JPG



The above water buffalo was not some stunt or one-time fluke. As a group, we shot dozens of similarly sized critters with revolvers from the .41Mag to the various .500's. Specifically to test bullets. So we shot them post-mortem to test more bullets. Not just once or twice Again, the same energy that the .22-250 generates was used to fully penetrate 2000lb water buffalo. After a single hit, both ran about 100yds and laid down. Broken shoulder and destroyed heart/lungs. The buffalo above coughed up a blood clot the size of a fire hose.

032.JPG


Recovered bullets, from just under the hide on the off side. From loads generating the same energy as the world's most popular varmint cartridge. Does 1000ft-lbs more out of the .30-06 make it that much more effective? In my opinion, no.

C94DD6F0-735B-4AF2-BC5A-A84EE57AE6AD.jpeg
 
BreechFace said:
And herein lies the question and debate that has ensued, what is the correct relationship between velocity, mass, frontal area, sectional density to best predict animal expiration. We need to solve this, then we can move onto less contentious :) discussions whether or not to shoot the shoulder, slip it behind and through the lungs, high shoulder CNS, head shot, neck shot or heart shot.

Haha, half of that was to lighten the mood, but the first part is serious, I believe that energy numbers on cartridges fail to completely represent actual work done on the animal towards it's demise. There are really good examples that have been given comparing two projectiles, velocities and mass that seemingly on their face contradict the energy numbers as to what will work the best in a hunting scenario.

I guess I see it both ways, it's a good discussion and shows why there are those in the hunting and shooting worlds that have tried to come up with their own formula to "better" predict efficacy of a cartridge on game.

I find the difference between ft/lbs of energy and Taylor Knockout Factor interesting. No doubt TKO was formulated to try quantify/appreciate the benefits of larger bore effect on game. Given the example @CraigC posted previously between a 44mag and 30-06 it is interesting to see the discrepancy between ft/lbs and TKO.

44MAG, 300gr, 1,450fps
1,400 ft/lbs
27.34 TKO

30-06, 220gr, 2,400fps
2,813 ft/lbs
23.23 TKO

Which one is "more right?"

Obviously, efficacy of the above rounds are dependent on range to target as the 44MAG will start to bleed velocity and thus energy at a quicker rate than the 30-06. The above two ways of looking at efficacy of cartridges are propped up by their respective sides. Foot pounds serves the higher velocity, better bullet technology with expanding bullets, etc., whereas TKO serves the, "there's no replacement, for displacement" crowd of larger bores. And their respective formulas play to each of those beliefs.
Click to expand...
And here's the problem with TKO. A major league baseball (2.9" diameter, 5 oz) thrown at 50 mph (even I can do that) has a TKO 66.45. That ain't going to kill even a whitetail deer, let alone a cape buffalo. Energy overstates the value of velocity and understates the value of mass and diamter. TKO is exactly the opposite.
 
wombat13 said:
And here's the problem with TKO. A major league baseball (2.9" diameter, 5 oz) thrown at 50 mph (even I can do that) has a TKO 66.45. That ain't going to kill even a whitetail deer, let alone a cape buffalo. Energy overstates the value of velocity and understates the value of mass and diamter. TKO is exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...

Agreed, they both have their issues. That’s what I was alluding to in my previous post.
 
JFrank said:
What a mess, you guys arguing over pistol vs rifle and energy blah blah should just go start your own thread. This one’s a truck fire.
Click to expand...
You are correct, our little peeing match has gotten way off topic. To answer the OP's question, I guess it depends on a few factors because neither is clearly better than the other (see the ongoing debate above):

1. Do you really want one or the other? If so, go with that.
2. Do you reload? If so, then maybe you want to go with the .300WM because you'll already be buying .308 bullets and both the .338WM and .300WM prefer faster powders.
3. Why do you think that you need something more than the .308 win? Is it to extend your range? If so, .300WM will definitely do that or it let's you shoot a bit heavier bullet the same range.
3. If you want something more than the .308 because you think you need a bigger bullet, then look at the ,375 ruger. It let's you shoot 260+ grain bullets quite effectively and uses some of the same powders as .308win.
 
wombat13 said:
And here's the problem with TKO. A major league baseball (2.9" diameter, 5 oz) thrown at 50 mph (even I can do that) has a TKO 66.45. That ain't going to kill even a whitetail deer, let alone a cape buffalo. Energy overstates the value of velocity and understates the value of mass and diamter. TKO is exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...
The only problem with TKO is people taking it out of its proper context, like you just did. TKO is for comparing big bores to each other. No more, no less. In that context, it's actually a useful number. Not for baseballs or smallbores.

The distinction here is that energy is applied universally, without regard for any other factor.

This is not off topic but very much on topic and I still don't have an answer to my questions. Which is typical. When you buck the conventional "wisdom" on energy, folks are quick to tell you you're wrong but it seems to be impossible for them to actually prove it. Also, if you believe in energy then you must also agree that the .338WinMag is a bigger hammer than the .30-06.
 
d2wing said:
Alaska DNR tests confirm this conclusion. Physics and terminal ballistics have not changed since then. We all know that Craig is a contrarian that believes velocity and energy have no meaning. He believes a .22 LR and a .223 have the same power as well as .38 Special and .357 Magnum. I believe jmr40 is correct and is supported by real experts.
Click to expand...

This study??


That ranks the 7x57 175 grn load above the 300WM, 8mm Rem Mag, and 12GA slug IAW their testing protocols?

and also lists the top 10 cartridges they tested in order as as:

#1458WM
#2 460 Weatherby
#3 375 H&H
#4 338WM
#5 375H&H (different load)
#6 338WM (different load)
#7 338WM (different load)
#8 338WM (different load)
#9 338WM (different load)
#10 375H&H (different load)

The above is the only ballistic testing I could find linked to bear defense. IF you guys have another source, by all mean please post it.

Their summary is pretty good, but you'd have to read the entire report to get to that point:

There is no well-defined distinction between combinations of weapon and ammunition that are adequate or inadequate for protection against bears. The final decision on adequacy must be made by each individual and should include consideration of weapon size and weight, recoil, and the person’s experience with firearms. Our data can, however, be used as a general guide to the effectiveness of the weapons and ammunition tested. A rifle in .375 H & H Magnum caliber in the hands of a person who can comfortably tolerate the recoil is a much better choice thana .30-06 or comparable caliber. A .30-06 with 220-gr bullets, however, might be a better choice for a person sensitive to recoil, who may shoot the lighter caliber weapons with more confidence and accuracy.
Click to expand...
Based on our tests, four cartridge-bullet combinations appear superior for protection against bears:* .458 Winchester Magnum, 510-grsoft-point bullet. For a shooter who can handle the recoil of this cartridge, a bolt-action rifle in .458 Winchester Magnum is the surest weapon available.*
Click to expand...

.375 H & H Magnum, 300-gr softpoint bullet. The recoil of a rifle in this caliber, although considerably less than that of the .458 Magnum, is still severe for many people. Our tests indicate that the 270-gr soft-point bullet in this caliber is only slightly less effective than the 300-gr bullet and has only slightly less recoil.*
Click to expand...

.338 Winchester Magnum, 300-grbullet. This combination appears to be a good choice. Recoil is somewhat less than that of the .375 Magnum, and our tests indicated that effectiveness would not be much less than that of the .375Magnum. If the 300-gr bullet cannot be obtained, the 200-gr bullet should be used
Click to expand...

.30-06, 220-gr bullet. Mild recoil, compared with that of the large- and medium-bore cartridges, even in alight weight rifle, makes this cartridge a strong contender for shooters who are sensitive to recoil. The .30-06 also has other advantages. It can be found in several rifle actions - bolt, pump(slide), semiautomatic - and can be obtained as, or customized into, a short, handy, lightweight weapon.
Click to expand...
 
Chuck R. said:
This study??


That ranks the 7x57 175 grn load above the 300WM, 8mm Rem Mag, and 12GA slug IAW their testing protocols?

and also lists the top 10 cartridges they tested in order as as:

#1458WM
#2 460 Weatherby
#3 375 H&H
#4 338WM
#5 375H&H (different load)
#6 338WM (different load)
#7 338WM (different load)
#8 338WM (different load)
#9 338WM (different load)
#10 375H&H (different load)

The above is the only ballistic testing I could find linked to bear defense. IF you guys have another source, by all mean please post it.

Their summary is pretty good, but you'd have to read the entire report to get to that point:
Click to expand...
That's the only one I know of. Note it's dated 1983, older than I remember. I can't count the number of people who have read the following and argued that handguns are useless.

"The superiority of the .44 Remington Magnum makes it the cartridge choice for a backup weapon. A revolver using this cartridge should not be considered a primary weapon for protection from bears."

It is interesting to note, however, that even the lowly 240gr SWAGED semi-wadcutter penetrated 11", while the .375H&H only went 14". The .444Marlin penetrated exactly the same but was rated much higher at #13. There's a .338 load that went 0.7" deeper than the .44 but was rated #7. This is a very outdated, highly flawed test but obviously some people still rely on it and even quote it as gospel. I guess it fits certain narratives. ;)
 
I’m sure Alaska outfitters have plenty of stories about the customer that just wouldn’t listen and bring the suggested rifle, along with wounded game that charged both hunter and guide. I know of one for sure, the guide ended up damn near dead over some jerk “ya butt” know it all.
 
Find a flaw in this logic. These are all comparisons I have heard on this very site. Granted this is a literal oversimplification but it illustrates the trap we can fall into when we say things like 308 is just as good as 30-06 even though 30-06 goes faster. There isn’t much difference but there is a difference.

If you start believing things like the general ideas (and maybe a bit hyperbolic) of 243 being just as good as 6.5 CM and then 6.5 CM being just as good as 270 and 270 being just as good as 30-06 and incrementally on and on to 500 NE, it becomes very difficult to really sus out just what is what.

243 is not equal to 500 NE. Everyone knows it. The steps it took to get there though paint a different picture where everything is just as good as everything else.

I find arguments about how 308 is just as good as 30-06 even though 30-06 is faster but somehow 300 WM is definitively better than 30-06 even though it is about as faster yet than 30-06 as 30-06 is faster than 308. Yes, this is also a bit oversimplified but the general idea of how these things get blown out of proportion very quickly with this line of thought.

As to shot placement, just learn how to shoot and hit your target. Use enough gun to reach the vitals at whichever angle you are shooting the game animal at whichever distance you are shooting from. If you want to use the smallest possible cartridge, then you are going to need to wait for a more ideal shooting angle. I like being able to reach vitals from as many angles as possible for whichever game animal I am after.
 
CraigC said:
That's the only one I know of. Note it's dated 1983, older than I remember. I can't count the number of people who have read the following and argued that handguns are useless.

"The superiority of the .44 Remington Magnum makes it the cartridge choice for a backup weapon. A revolver using this cartridge should not be considered a primary weapon for protection from bears."

It is interesting to note, however, that even the lowly 240gr SWAGED semi-wadcutter penetrated 11", while the .375H&H only went 14". The .444Marlin penetrated exactly the same but was rated much higher at #13. There's a .338 load that went 0.7" deeper than the .44 but was rated #7. This is a very outdated, highly flawed test but obviously some people still rely on it and even quote it as gospel. I guess it fits certain narratives. ;)
Click to expand...

It's that whole reading comprehension thing... or better yet "selective" comprehension.

My favorite "indicator" was ranking #18 the 308Win with a 180 grain (SD .271, MV 2430) higher than #20 the .358Norma with a 250grn (SD .279, MV 2730), this alone should raise the possibility that something's amiss and that maybe bullet construction of their available loads played too big of a role in their testing.

We used ammunition manufactured by several companies, chosen solely on the basis of availability, and made no attempt to compare similar loads of different manufacturers. The ammunition and barrel length of the weapons tested are included in table 1 in the
Click to expand...

IMHO, the guys that did the study did the best they could with what they had at the time. They actually admitted most of the flaws in their testing, especially when it came to using the loads that were available, VS optimal. Problem is, that's never what gets quoted... Their caveats are pretty much spot on as far as effectiveness VS recoil.

The issue isn't really the data, it's how it's applied, especially when not viewed in context.
 
To me, the greatest irony in this thread is jmr's signature.

"Most people don't really want the truth.

They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth"

It's the truth and very insightful. The irony is in the source. People love to have things settled in their minds and most are very resistant to changing it. It's why this energy myth is so hard to bust, people are invested. Most of us grew up listening to the same rhetoric about energy and handguns vs rifles. I know I did. I came up believing a lot of crap I found later to be untrue, or at best misleading. You have to have an open mind and be open to changing it to make that realization. I was literally a child when I became interested in handgun hunting and started doing it. My family leased land for raising cattle and pork. As an 8yr old I, would go into the barn with a Crosman Python pellet pistol and shoot rats. Then I rigged up a scope and started hunting small game with it. At 16 I got a .44Mag Redhawk and it all went downhill from there. When you get into that aspect of things, you have to face this nonsense about energy head-on. Because as soon as you start reading JD Jones, Larry Kelly, Bob Milek, John Taffin, Elmer Keith, Ross Seyfried, etc., you quickly learn that the energy metric is all wrong. If all you ever hunt with are rifles, you can easily avoid confronting the myth. Many obviously do, for a very long time. It's difficult to change a person's mind when it's been made up for decades.
 
CraigC said:
To me, the greatest irony in this thread is jmr's signature.

"Most people don't really want the truth.

They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth"

It's the truth and very insightful. The irony is in the source. People love to have things settled in their minds and most are very resistant to changing it. It's why this energy myth is so hard to bust, people are invested. Most of us grew up listening to the same rhetoric about energy and handguns vs rifles. I know I did. I came up believing a lot of crap I found later to be untrue, or at best misleading. You have to have an open mind and be open to changing it to make that realization. I was literally a child when I became interested in handgun hunting and started doing it. My family leased land for raising cattle and pork. As an 8yr old I, would go into the barn with a Crosman Python pellet pistol and shoot rats. Then I rigged up a scope and started hunting small game with it. At 16 I got a .44Mag Redhawk and it all went downhill from there. When you get into that aspect of things, you have to face this nonsense about energy head-on. Because as soon as you start reading JD Jones, Larry Kelly, Bob Milek, John Taffin, Elmer Keith, Ross Seyfried, etc., you quickly learn that the energy metric is all wrong. If all you ever hunt with are rifles, you can easily avoid confronting the myth. Many obviously do, for a very long time. It's difficult to change a person's mind when it's been made up for decades.
Click to expand...
How close to an angry Grizzly bear would you need to be to reliably kill one with your 44 mag ?
Same question for a Bull moose ..
 
JFrank said:
How close to an angry Grizzly bear would you need to be to reliably kill one with your 44 mag ?
Same question for a Bull moose ..
Click to expand...
The last several big game animals I shot with a handgun were moving at 40-70yds. If you can hit a little crackhead blackbuck on the move through the brush at 70yds, you can hit a 1000lb bear or moose.

012b.jpg
 
Chuck R. said:
This study??


That ranks the 7x57 175 grn load above the 300WM, 8mm Rem Mag, and 12GA slug IAW their testing protocols?

and also lists the top 10 cartridges they tested in order as as:

#1458WM
#2 460 Weatherby
#3 375 H&H
#4 338WM
#5 375H&H (different load)
#6 338WM (different load)
#7 338WM (different load)
#8 338WM (different load)
#9 338WM (different load)
#10 375H&H (different load)

The above is the only ballistic testing I could find linked to bear defense. IF you guys have another source, by all mean please post it.

Their summary is pretty good, but you'd have to read the entire report to get to that point:
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the study referred to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top