Why does firearm choice for hunting often stir so much controversy?

[MCgunner]

Bullets kill destroying tissue along its path and penetrating to vitals, the factor influencing this are bullet diameter (including expansion in the equation when solid are not used) the velocity/energy duo and bullet SD, shape (for solids) and construction. That much is proven and not debatable.

Is not a theory, these are observable facts....I think we can all agree that if exactly the same shot is taken with a .22 cal bullet vs a .50 cal bulet (same shape) the .50 cal will destroy more tissue along the way and that if you do not reach the vitals (or break bones) an animal is not going down.

I guess I give the ballistic pressure wave theory more clout than you seem to. I know crush cavity is a wounding mechanism, but especially at rifle energies, the energy plays a bigger role than I think you give it credit for. This is JMHO supported by Courtney's research. Matters not what makes that energy, big/slow bullet or smaller, faster bullet, the pressure wave will be the same, at least according to Courtney. He claims and supports that bullets over 500 ft lbs start showing these effects. I find more arguments over this on pistol boards than hunting. Most have seen the effects of a magnum rifle on these boards, the remote tissue damage that can be done. I've seen the lungs of a doe simply vanish when hit by a 7mm Rem Mag at 50 yards. I was astonished at the damage. I've seen a 3" diameter wound path along the wound track from a .357" SWC bullet at 80 yards fired from a rifle. Energy was only about 800 ft pounds at that range. It was a lung shot, died inside 25 yards from where shot. I've seen a spike drop so fast into the grass from a high lung shot from a .30-30 contender, I'd af first thought I missed. Shot was 90 yards. I could go on and on. None of this is explained by simple crush cavity. Energy does play a role, I'm quite convinced.

 

[MCgunner]

And, now, I think I'll go squirrel hunting and come back and read the infuriated debate later. You see, squirrel season never ends, here...C YA.

 

[saturno_v]

I guess I give the ballistic pressure wave theory more clout than you seem to. I know crush cavity is a wounding mechanism, but especially at rifle energies, the energy plays a bigger role than I think you give it credit for. This is JMHO supported by Courtney's research. Matters not what makes that energy, big/slow bullet or smaller, faster bullet, the pressure wave will be the same, at least according to Courtney. He claims and supports that bullets over 500 ft lbs start showing these effects. I find more arguments over this on pistol boards than hunting. Most have seen the effects of a magnum rifle on these boards, the remote tissue damage that can be done. I've seen the lungs of a doe simply vanish when hit by a 7mm Rem Mag at 50 yards. I was astonished at the damage. I've seen a 3" diameter wound path along the wound track from a .357" SWC bullet at 80 yards fired from a rifle. Energy was only about 800 ft pounds at that range. It was a lung shot, died inside 25 yards from where shot. I've seen a spike drop so fast into the grass from a high lung shot from a .30-30 contender, I'd af first thought I missed. Shot was 90 yards. I could go on and on. None of this is explained by simple crush cavity. Energy does play a role, I'm quite convinced.

Very localized hydrostatic effects with high velocity, high energy rifle calibers have been observed indeed...hwo this help you more in taking down an animal is debatable....maybe some organs respond more to this as per your observation.

 

[buck460XVR]

Very localized hydrostatic effects with high velocity, high energy rifle calibers have been observed indeed...hwo this help you more in taking down an animal is debatable.

I sometimes think that when butchering/processing deer Hydrostatic shock damage looks a lot worse than it really is. I've butchered deer where the animal was hit in the spine above the front shoulders and the shock from the bullet impacting solid bone produced blood meat and bruising in the backstraps all the way to the hind quarters. While it looked bad and took away from the quality of the meat, I doubt that it did much to put the animal down or that it would have considerably increased the odds of retrieving the animal if the principle wound from the bullet did not do it's job. Other damage to tissue from other wound locations on other deer, shows similar bruising and blood swelling, but it's always been hard for me to tell, if the superficial damage around the primary wound channel, really contributed anything more than just making a mess. Yes there was more blood loss, but was it enough to make a difference? I've yet to retrieve a deer where damage to muscle was the primary cause of death. Direct damage to organs of high blood flow or main arteries generally, along with good bloodtrailing of animals with poor hits and broken bones, finished off with a quality shot is always how I have gotten them.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I have killed deer with arrows, buck shot, round balls, pistol bullets, and assorted usual suspect center fires. I bought a 300 Weatherby a few years ago and shot about a dozen deer with it. Every deer I shot was a literal DRT except one. On average quite a bit quicker kill than even a 30-06. Now, would I have gotten the deer with many others ? Sure. Do I suggest a 300 WBY for deer ? No. But, there is no way all the extra energy in more powerful cartridges is wasted. Not necessary is fine.

 

[saturno_v]

But, there is no way all the extra energy in more powerful cartridges is wasted. Not necessary is fine.

I claim that in some situations the extra energy could be indeed wasted or even couterproductive....

Like hitting a deer at short range a deer with a 300 Weatherby and having the bullet literally explode on impact generating only a large and non fatall surface wound where a 30-30 would have mushroomed beautifully and do the work...happened more than once...another variation is hitting the same small deer with the 300 Wby and the bullet does not even have the time to open up properly and all the extra energy is wasted in the background environment.

 

[Art Eatman]

Just shoot 'em in the danged white spot and quit worrying about it.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Just shoot 'em in the danged white spot and quit worrying about it.

On which end?
;-)

 

[MCgunner]

On which end?
;-)

You don't really have to ask...right?

 

[Savage99]

The puny 223 was chosen to wound the enemy soldier. That makes even more trouble on that side.

The 22's are not legal in most places because they are not big enough to be humane.

That's the crux of the issue. They are not humane!

 

[AKElroy]

Why anyone needs a scope for a 75 yards shot is beyond me.

Astigmatism. Some of us love to hunt, are very good shots, all while looking through an evil scope due to the fuzziness associated with traditional sites and astigmatism.

Sitting in front of me is a beeman air rifle with a 3x9x40AO scope. It is zeroed for 10 meters. I can drive pellets into one hole with boring regularity, and I love to shoot. The scope enables my inner marksman that my eyes would have retired a long time ago.

I believe the OP is making the point that one mans equipment, assuming he is effective with it, is his own business. Can we please extend that notion to optics? This is maybe the bazillionth thread containing the ubiquitous "What idiot needs a scope to...."

All I know is I have a full tag and a full freezer. So I guess I'm that guy who needs it.

 

[AKElroy]

The 22's are not legal in most places because they are not big enough to be humane.

That's the crux of the issue. They are not humane!

Humane for what? In my neck of the woods, pigs are dropping to .223's likely more than any other round. I have an adjacent ranch mowing down pigs from helicopters with AR 15's. The pigs are apparently dying OK; those boys are raking in the cash.

I personally prefer more gun, and I do not own an AR. That said, I have many times hunted with a gentleman that fills his tag just fine with a savage bolt gun in .223.

 

[AKElroy]

Like hitting a deer at short range a deer with a 300 Weatherby and having the bullet literally explode on impact generating only a large and non fatall surface wound where a 30-30 would have mushroomed beautifully and do the work...happened more than once...another variation is hitting the same small deer with the 300 Wby and the bullet does not even have the time to open up properly and all the extra energy is wasted in the background environment.

I've never heard of a 300 weatherby, or any center fire rifle cartridge "exploding on impact, creating a non-fatal surface wound".

I have taken many deer and hogs with .243's, .30-30's, .270's, .308's, 7mag's, and I have had some run, some DRT, some, even the .30-30's, exhibiting massive tissue damage and monstrous exit wounds, while others run from a boiler room shot from the 7mag. I can honestly say I have not seen faster kills between any of the cartridges I listed above. While two animals is hardly a pattern, the .243 is the only one of the above rifles that has never had a whitetail take a second step.

Ballistics are a complicated study in the real world. So many variables make broad general statements on either side kind of silly.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Like hitting a deer at short range a deer with a 300 Weatherby and having the bullet literally explode on impact generating only a large and non fatall surface wound

Not sure where you read that, but a 150 grain bullet going 3500 FPS is not going to splatter on a deer They do splatter the deer on the trees and bushes behind it.

another variation is hitting the same small deer with the 300 Wby and the bullet does not even have the time to open up properly and all the extra energy is wasted in the background environment

.

I had that happen one time out of twelve. The other 90 some percent of the time it was nice to have the deer right where I shot it.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I actually have shot a deer at close ish range (75yds) with a 300wby and the results were quite....well...odd

The deer was VERY drt, but upon field dressing it became evident that the bullet behaved very strangely.

The shot was on the shoulder with IIRC a 180g CT silver tip. There was one small exit wound ON TOP OF and behind the shoulder blade on the entrance side. There was no puncture into or damage WHATSOEVER into the chest cavity.

I had the deer processed so no further investigation was done.

Earlier this year I shot a big doe with a 55g game king from a 22-250 at around 100yds facing me head on right in the chest (white spot) the mrs pulled a complete (and quite thick) bullet jacket out of the heart as she was slicing it up to fry. So even non premium 22cal bullets have the potential to penetrate surprisingly well

 

[saturno_v]

I've never heard of a 300 weatherby, or any center fire rifle cartridge "exploding on impact, creating a non-fatal surface wound".

Not sure where you read that, but a 150 grain bullet going 3500 FPS is not going to splatter on a deer They do splatter the deer on the trees and bushes behind it.

Oh yes it has happened.....bullet not holding up and exploding on impact, hitting a bone at a certain angle, etc....as AKElroy said, Ballistic is a complicated matter and bullets sometimes behave oddly....

I also remember a story of an Alaskan hunter that had that sort of thing happened to him (300 Weatherby) against a big brun shot at 10 yards or so.....bullet fragmented on impact and he had the most interesting 5 minutes of his life.....

H&Hunter is aware of this as well.

Here you go another similar story from an Alaskan bear hunter

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/138071-barnes-for-grizzly


I killed a lot of bears with Barnes TSXs, with 180s out of a 300WM, only issue I had is they do not leave that large of an exit, great for food, not so great for bears. When the tipped TSX came out I thought they would be better for long distance. Shot a brown bear and when we got to him, he did not know he was dead, tried to eat us, shot him several more time to remind him. The TTSXs fired at 25 yards exploded on impact, only penetrated a few inches and grenaded. That was my last time using them, as I said killed lots of critters with them, just found Accubonds to work better for me.

 

[BigBore44]

The caliber debate is something that will never be settled. Because of the advancement in recent years "most" calibers are pretty much equal in terms of lethality, assuming the shooter does his job properly. I have seen deer drop from a .223, 22-250 Ackley, .243, 7x57, .260, .270, .280, 25-06, 30-30, .308, 30-06, 300WM, 300RUM, 35 Rem, .357, .44 mag, .454 Cas, 45-70, and a .500 S&W..... Why do I mention all the these? Because they all killed quicky and effectively and they vary greatly in diameter, weight, and velocity.

 

[Davek1977]

The puny 223 was chosen to wound the enemy soldier. That makes even more trouble on that side.

The 22's are not legal in most places because they are not big enough to be humane.

That's the crux of the issue. They are not humane!

Well, first of all, while I've heard the claim the .223/5.56 was designed to wound, not to kill, I've never, ever seen anyone be able to prove that claim with any sort of valid documentation. Its an urban legend with no actual basis in truth that anyone can provide. If you want to believe hearsay, I won't be the one to tell you to stop. As for the other claim, that the .223 is not "humane" I disagree. I've shot both mule deer and whitetails with it, and they both died just as dead as any deer I've shot with my 7mm. Mag. The average deer isn't armor plated, and tend to die when a bullet is placed in their vitals. If you can't do that consistently with a 223, or aren't willing to limit your shots to what is effective, you're right, it isn't humane, but neither would any other caliber....If you can't put the bullet in the vitals, it doesn't matter if you are hunting with a .22 or a .50BMG. The 223 will work perfectly fine on deer, but as with any weapon, the shooter needs to be ware of his...and the cartridge's....limitations.

 

[Jason_W]

It's also worth pointing out that it is untrue that .22 centerfires are illegal for medium game hunting most places. In fact, most states allow them or have no cartridge restrictions at all.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Oh yes it has happened....

I got away from Barnes X type bullets as well because of failures. But, it was from a 280 .

I saw where a kid got hit in the head by a meteorite a while back.

A rare failure is no reason not to use a cartridge that by any measure is a more powerful and reliable killer on average.

 

[MCgunner]

Astigmatism. Some of us love to hunt, are very good shots, all while looking through an evil scope due to the fuzziness associated with traditional sites and astigmatism.

Yup, let some of these anti scope youngsters grow up a little and they'll be in the market for optics. I'm getting to where I can't even see irons back in the shade of the woods, relented to putting a scope on my 10/22! Blasphemy! Scopes, though, even if you still have good eyes, extend the day, especially in heavy cover.

I've given up the idea of bow hunting. Tried it this season and, hell, I can't see the pins and the sun is still up, low, but up! Thinkin' of getting a crossbow and putting a scope on it. Gotta check the rules, though, not sure they're legal iin bow season, think they are now. Sure a lot of shops around selling 'em now days. Part of my problem with a bow is I shoot right handed and ain't really wanting to try to shoot lefty. I changed over with firearms at age 8. My bum right eye was the obvious problem even then.

That guy Ruark wrote a WHOLE BOOK on this subject? I can sorta see how these threads turn into a book, but who was he arguing with? Is the guy schizo or something?

 

[jmorris]

Why does firearm choice for hunting often stir so much controversy?

1. Ever since the first cave man killed something with a club vs just running them off a cliff there has been debate on what to use to get meat to eat.

2. People don't have anything better to do.

 

[T.R.]

That's a very good question. I believe that some guys have an agenda to preach and that's why posts about .243 and 30-30 get so many mixed statements.

When a good bullet is shot through the chest organs, death is soon the follow. Some cartridges have more reach but that doesn't make them any better than others.

TR

 

[ZeroJunk]

Yeah, but they are fun or they wouldn't be the most popular threads.

 

[Jason_W]

And people are often completely immovable from their preconceived notions.

For example, I could hunt deer for the next decade with something like a shotgun loaded with buckshot, never lose a single deer, and there would still be a chorus of naysayers who will take the time their uncle Pete's friend's cousin wounded a deer with buckshot back in 1954 as all the evidence the need that buckshot is inadequate for deer. Replace buckshot in the above statement with any "marginal" round and it still holds true.

We implicitly trust any citizen over 18 to own and operate a firearm, but we do not trust that they will know the on-game capabilities and limitations of their firearm in the field.