The .30-06 vs the .300 Win Mag

The reason I haven’t owned a .30-06 since 1985 is primarily because there are cartridges that do the same tasks better — that are often assigned to the .30-06. And I’m a handloader.

I started my handloading adventures with a .30-06 in 1978 and continued with another until the end of 1985, a total of seven years. So apart from more and better bullets and powders available on today’s market, and the purchase of my first chronograph in 1988, I’m confident that I know what handloads in 2020 could give me from any ordinary 22″ .30-06.

Yet from a 24″ .30-06 I’d expect somewhere between 2800 and 2900 fps from several 180gr bullets, and between 2900 and 3000 fps from 165s, and 3000 to 3100 fps from 150s (Nosler’s manual #6 confirms all that). In my view, however, if I’d be hunting moose, elk or bears, I’d choose one of Nosler’s 200 grainers – the Partition as my first choice, or the Accubond if I felt the need for a longer range shot.

There’s little doubt that with today’s handloading components one could make the venerable .30-06 in a 24″ approximately what the .300 H&H was in times past (nominal 2880 fps from a 180gr). It’s that close to “magnum punch” of a bygone era, and as such it could be successfully used on most big game of North America under most conditions. That’s “most”, not “all”. But someone armed with a handloaded .30-06, who is very familiar with it, and practices, or uses it regularly for most big game hunting would not be under-gunned if it were used with some discretion. Range and angle of presentation of the game being of primary consideration — as in all hunting regardless of firearm — and in using premium bullets.

While I like a versatile cartridge and rifle, such as a .458 Win Mag (see recent pic of the Ruger #1 in .458 WIN above while hunting bear this past fall.), I prefer to use a single load (bullet + powder + velocity) for most BG hunts from the same rifle. For instance, a premium pointed 400gr in .458″ would be my first choice as a single bullet for most thin-skinned animals from a .458 WIN.

<(Is that a .30-06 in hand?) It seems that most who use a .30-06 do so for small to medium game and choose a 150gr or 165 in “premiums” at 2900 fps and 2800 fps respectively — sometimes thinking that is so without actually checking their loads over a chronograph. Those would be more than adequate for whitetails under “normal conditions” — i.e., range and angle. But the .30-06 is capable of far more, as I think we all know. Using 180s, 200s and 220s, it has brought to bag the likes of Alaskan bull moose and brown bear, as well as a multitude of African fauna. And it is better than ever employing today’s powders and premium bullets. For instance, the 200gr Partition at 2700 fps looks like this:

SD = .301

BC = .481

MV = 2700 fps/ 3237 ft-lbs

100 = 2517 fps/2813 ft-lbs

200 = 2340 fps/2431 ft-lbs

300 = 2172 fps/2095 ft-lbs

400 = 2009 fps/1792 ft-lbs

500 = 1854 fps/1526 ft-lbs

*Nosler’s  Reloading Guide #6 shows 2688 fps for their 200s from a 24″.

Back-in-the-day, when I went to pick up my moose license at an MNR office in Toronto, I dropped in on a class of wannabe moose hunters and listened to a CO giving a lecture on adequate ballistic requirements — a .30-caliber was inferred as most often a .308 Win to a .300 Win Mag was the number used for illustration, including the .30-06 — for the termination of a bull moose, assuming “a good hit”. The lecturer stated that under “normal conditions” 2 ft-lbs of energy for every 1 lb of moose would be adequate at impact. Therefore, using the data above from a “premium load” as a guide for a .30-06, if the bull weighed 1050 lbs, 300 yards would be the absolute limit to meet such criteria.

Of course, most moose are shot closer than that and are not necessarily that heavy, but some are farther and heavier. So, whatever we might think of such advise, and of course there are exceptions, I personally have chosen a rifle and load in hunting moose that exceeds what might be considered “normal” or average simply because few situations actually turn out to be “average”, because “average” takes in large differences in both range and physical conditions in hunting BG anywhere from “in your face” to 500 or more yards. And the same is true of angles of shot and weight or size of game.

(A .458 Win Mag for a moose hunt? Yup!)>

As I age, and if I had a serious case of arthritis or other physical impairments that limited what I could shoot and handle with comfort and confidence, I wouldn’t complain too much if all I had was a .30-06. I’d be thankful that I could endure it’s 22 to 26 ft-lbs of recoil and hold it steady! But so far, and thanks to the Almighty, I can still manage a .458 Win Mag and its 10.75 lbs of weight. But I surely don’t expect that from many 84 year-olds! In all of North America, I may very well be the only hunter at 84 years who still hunts with a .458 Win Mag! However, if I were 50 to 60 again, where most N.A. hunters seem to be these days, something like a .300 WIN or .338 WIN would not be a second-rate recommendation !

Let’s, then, have a look at the .300 Win Mag as it is today in prime form using the best of handloading components. Employing the same Nosler 200gr Partition, a 24″ barrel will fire that projectile at a top MV of 2960 fps employing RL-22, which was my pick for several .300 Win Mags. From a 24″ Savage I actually exceeded that. But we’ll use that as a realistic MV from the 200gr NP (SD=.301; BC = .481)

MV = 2960 fps/3890 ft-lbs

100 = 2772 fps/3412 ft-lbs

200 = 2592 fps/2984 ft-lbs

300 = 2419 fps/2599 ft-lbs

400 = 2253 fps/2254 ft-lbs

500 = 2093 fps/1946 ft-lbs

However we may choose to judge matters, there’s no denying that the .300 Win Mag has a 150 yard advantage over the .30-06 by developing the same velocity and energy at 400 yards as the .30-06 does at 250 yards. However good it is, the .300 Win Mag is better.

Recoil? That’s a matter of taste. Some like plain vanilla ice cream. Me? I like Carmel-Chocolate-Fudge! (But I shouldn’t have it – not good for my diabetes! But then, neither is plain vanilla!)

Seriously, as my young hunting buddy (younger than I) exclaimed the first time he fired my M70 XTR in .300 Win Mag, “That hardly kicks at all!” Then he went out and bought a new Browning A-Bolt in .338 Win Mag! Before all that, his favorite BG rifle was a BLR in .308 Win. Yes, he too was (and is) a handloader. (He shot a good bear at one of my sites employing his new .338 Win Mag. < Bullet was a 210gr Nos. Partition at 3000 fps/4196 ft-lbs. That’s a good moose load as well!)

 

210gr 3000 fps/4196 ft-lbs

100 = 2763 fps/3559 ft-lbs

200 = 2539 fps/3005 ft-lbs

300 = 2325 fps/2520 ft-lbs

400 = 2122 fps/2099 ft-lbs

And the AccuBonds would improve all those numbers.

500 = 1929 fps/1735 ft-lbs

So, while there is not a lot to complain about if all one has is a .30-06 (using the best handloads), it’s fairly obvious that it can’t keep up with the .300 magnums or the Mediums.

And, of course, I’m convinced that the cross-section-area (CSA) of a bullet adds or detracts a further dimension of effectiveness at bullet impact. All else equal (i.e. – construction, shape and energy), a larger diameter bullet will produce a larger cavity than a smaller one, thus greater effect.)

Seven years hunting and handloading experience with America’s favorite rifle cartridge has not persuaded me that it’s the “best” all-around cartridge for BG, including black bears and moose under all conditions. There are better, and yet “best”.

Next: How to determine what rifle is “best” for the game we hunt, and for any future plans.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

< That’s my 9.3 x 62. One and done using the 250gr/9.3 AccuBond at an MV of +2700 fps. Range was 85 yards.

Is the Sectional Density of Bullets Trivial? – P2

<(That is a 286gr, 9.3mm Swift A-Frame) We’ve considered the sectional density (SD) of expanding bullets in P1 from a general perspective of its influence in terminal effect (TE) on game in two dimensions: 1) Its final mass and shape, and 2) Impact velocity resulting from MV, BC and range to the target animal.

By way of illustration, I now want to give some comparative results from bullets of different weights fired from the same rifle at nominal MV as recorded in the Nosler Reloading Guide 6.

Cartridge: .308 Winchester

Barrel : 24″ Lilja

Bullets: 165gr NP vs 180gr NP  (165gr NP/ SD = .248, BC = .410); (180gr NP/ SD = .271, BC = .474)

165gr = 2910 fps/3102 ft-lbs (best max load = 52.5 grains Big Game @ 114% density)

180gr = 2718 fps/2952 ft-lbs (best max load = 44 grains IMR4064 @ 104% density)

For the purpose of our illustration, let’s assume that those loads translate into reality from our .308 Winchester rifle that actually has a 24″ barrel.

Our target animal is a mature 7-point bull elk at 400 yards that weighs 800 lbs.  The profile of animal is 1/4 away. Aim point is offside shoulder. Tough shot, eh? But it’s the only one if we want that trophy! And that 165gr at 3100 ft-lbs starting out is very tempting, and would in 9 out of 10 choices be selected. And the Partitions are selected over the AccuBonds as they would be considered better for penetration on tough game. Let’s see how that works out:

165 NP @ 400 yards = 2123 fps/1651 ft-lbs

180 NP at 400 yards = 2056 fps/1689 ft-lbs

Then, the 180 also has greater momentum and a 9% better SD which translates into a better BC by 15%, which caused the 180 to better the 165 in every department, even at 300 yards. In momentum, even at the start, the 180 is better than the 165. Trajectory concerns? The difference at 400 yds is 2 inches!

Remember that our big bull elk is quartering away and a hit in the short ribs must reach the opposite-side shoulder — the 180 would be my choice, hands-down!  The TE (Terminal Effect) of each is 30.3 TE for the 165 and 33.9 for the 180. I’d like, under those conditions, a TE of 50. 50 x 18.5 (1/4 away shot) = 925 lbs approximately. For more broadside shooting I use 20 x TE. (“I use” = my guide.)

Ambient conditions for that simulated hunt: Temp.= 58*F/elev. = 2000 ft.

Thus, I don’t consider a .308 Winchester to be the best choice for such a shot — in fact, my TE numbers suggest neither the 165 or 180 to be adequate at those impact velocities to “dump” a big mature 800 lb animal under the conditions described. And even a .30-06 shooting the same loads at the same velocities wouldn’t measure up either! That is unless you have a chance to pump more shots into the animal. On the other hand it might have taken a step or three into a thick tangle of brush, alders or timber. Let the search begin!

So make mine a .300 magnum or a Medium!

Let’s have a look at that for the same animal quartering away, and conditions:

This time the rifle cartridge is a .300 Weatherby (or its equivalent), shooting the same 180gr NP at 3200 fps (Yet, the 200 NP would be better.). That’s at least 400 fps faster than a .30-06, and 500 fps faster than a .308 Win.!

At 400 yards it’s making 2415 fps/2330 ft-lbs (Nosler’s manual) = 46.7 TE x 18.5 = 864 lbs! Perfect!

Yet another rifle and load: My Tikka in 9.3 x 62: a 286 NP (SD = .305; BC = 482). At 400 yards = 1950 fps/2414 ft-lbs = 77 TE x 18.5 = 1430 lbs! Hit it in the rump if you want! Good for a big Alaskan moose at 400 yards angling away!

That’s better than a .375 Ruger or H&H using the 300gr NP at that range. Why? Because the BC of the 300gr  Nosler Partition has a BC of only .398. Why is that so? To be able to keep COL at 3.60″ it has a more blunt profile. That affects downrange ballistics. That’s  one of the reasons why I chose 9.3 (.366) over .375″.  A .398 BC can’t compete with a .482 BC if starting MVs are the same or similar.  The SDs of a 300gr/.375 and a 286gr/.366 are identical, but the bullet’s nose profile of the .366 (9.3mm) is distinctly sharper enabling it to maintain its speed better to collision with flesh and bone.

To be fair, there is now a 300gr AB/.375 with a BC similar to the 286 Partition. But would it be as good as the Partition for heavy, tough game? I don’t know as I’ve not read any reports on it from a Ruger or H&H. The 250gr AB in 9.3mm did work very well for me in the termination of a healthy black bear. But a black bear is not an Alaskan/Yukon moose!

One more try. We’ll compare two distinct cartridges, one being a Medium and the other a Big Bore. The Medium will be hot-loaded and the Big Bore will be loaded to equal the kinetic energy(KE) of the Medium at impact! To let you in on something I already know, I’d still choose the Big Bore. Why?

We’ll choose two common cartridges and rifles. The conditions are at the location of one of my traditional bear-bait locations on a spring hunt. Typical ambient conditions:  Elevation = 1150 ft; Temp = 58*F; angle = -10*; Range = 100 yards.

This describes two of my hunts at that location. One rifle was a .35 Whelen shooting a 200gr X-Bullet at 2800 fps MV, and the other was an 1895 Marlin in .45-70 firing a 405gr Remington at 2110 fps. Impact from the 200 – X bullet was about 2600 fps/3001 ft-lbs; the 405gr Rem impacted at 1835 fps. Energy from each was about equal — which would you choose?

First of all, we know that a 405gr (405gr Rem to the right of the tall 450gr -X) is about twice the weight of the 200gr, and it has a cross-section-area of .165 sq-in vs .101 sq-in for the .358-caliber. Regardless of bullet weight or profile/construction, it is invariably true that a .458-cal has a 64% increase in cross-sectional-area (some say “frontal area” – which is not exactly the same thing) over a .358-cal, and more than twice that of an 8mm (.323). So, starting out, that counts considerably more than most imagine!

<(The 200gr – X is 5th from left. 4th from L is a 225gr – X. L-click on pic for better view.)

Secondly, the momentum of a 405gr at 2110 fps is about 35% greater than a 200gr at 2800 fps. But due to the 405gr having a relatively low BC (due to its “blunt” nose) both bullets at 100 yards carry about the same KE of around 3000 ft-lbs — certainly more than adequate. But the momentum of the 405gr at impact equals that of a .338 Lapua firing a 250gr at the muzzle! That too counts for a lot more than imagined by most shooters/hunters. The 200gr/.358 is lost somewhere in the dust, fire and smoke of the .405’s impact! And, by-the-way, the bruin hit by that 405 Rem was literally flattened in a going-away shot on the left side and making exit just behind the shoulder on the right. The .35 Whelen showed up in poking a hole through the right ribs and that 200-X was lost in the bushes as it took out the left shoulder leaving bone fragments in the exit that measured over 2-inches! But that bear – smaller than the other – still made 10 yards before it bawled! The other was dead before it hit the ground.

The difference? 137 TE for the .45-70, and 68 for the .35 Whelen! Now 68 is plenty for the biggest bear on the planet! That’s assuming a good bullet! But 137 is adequate for the largest bison roaming the woodlands of Northern Alberta, assuming a proper 400 – 405gr bullet — which the 405 Rem is NOT!

How did I arrive at such numbers? Let me explain one more time, and sectional density plays a role, as does momentum.

And I need to add one more significant matter: My “formula” was refined many times over a period of about a decade as it was “tested” against dozens of field reports, not including some of my own.

An example of that: I’ve had some correspondence with some notable gun writers who also have had far more field experience than myself, including the late John Wootters and Phil Shoemaker, whom I greatly respect.

Phil, as “we all know” has considerable experience with many rifles, including his pet .458 Win Mag (“Ole Ugly”) and a custom .30-06. One time he wrote up a story of following up a huge brown bear that had been wounded by a client. On his own, Phil followed this bear into a thick tangle of brush where visibility was limited to a few yards. And he did it with his favorite .30-06, not with his .458 WIN! Why? Because he knew it’s ballistic capabilities at close range! At around 10 – 15 yards the wounded brown bear confronted him! Phil is a sharp-shooter and can manage a bolt-action repeater nearly as fast as a normal man could use a semi-auto! If I recall, he put the first shot into the shoulder-neck area, followed by a second, and a third as insurance. (DON”T try that!)

Anyway, I was intrigued by the account and tested my formula using a 220gr Nosler Partition (knowing Phil uses those plus the 200gr NPs as well). Some assumptions were made somewhat based on his information:

<(That’s a 220gr Nosler Partition to the left of a 450gr A-Frame in .458-cal.)

Bullet: 220gr NP (SD = .331; BC = .351)

Range: 15 yards

MV = 2560 fps

Bullet impact = 2520 fps/3102 ft-lbs

TE @ 15 yards = 76 – adequate for a 950 lb to 1400 lb soft-skinned DG!

950 lbs is for the worst case scenario from a single well placed shot. The bear that Phil shot on that day was approximately that weight.

I’m not Phil, nor is anyone else reading this, unless of course it might be Phil!

But that does answer some questions about the adequacy of the venerable .30-06 in good hands, and also having adequate experience.

For DG in your face where any shot may be very good to very poor, I use TE x 12.5. For a 1/4 shot I use 18.5, and 20 for a “normal” shot into heart/lungs. For spine it’s 25, and brain shots = 50.

I don’t take spine or brain shots on purpose, so usually I use 12.5, 18.5 or 20 X TE (Terminal Effect). So how do I arrive at TE? It’s been given a few times over the past ten years, but for the sake of those who haven’t yet seen it, here goes one more time:

TE= KEI x SD x CSA

KEI = kinetic energy at impact

SD = sectional density

CSA = cross-sectional- area in sq-in.

That’s it!

Isn’t there a better way of doing it? Sure! Why don’t you give it a try!

Best wishes to all in 2020, and great hunting!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL 

Is the Sectional Density of Bullets Trivial? – P1

Any answers, of course, will depend largely on what is implied and how it is interpreted by the reader. There are several ways of framing the same question. For example: Does S.D. matter in ballistics? And the response may depend on whether it’s a ballistic engineer or some hobbiest, or perhaps a physicist who give their views from where they’re sitting.

Ballistic engineers will give a qualified “yes”. Hobbyists are typically unsure, but tend to follow what they believe is the majority opinion — so that’s not really helpful.

My position is with the ballisticians, with a qualified “yes”. I’ve reviewed the comments of those who oppose the notion of SD playing a significant role based on the argument that expanding bullets loose their shape and likely some weight on impact with flesh and bone. Therefore, SD changes and cannot be included in any calculation of ballistic results. I understand that thinking but, nonetheless, I’ve included SD in my formula of ballistic results for hunting purposes.

Why would I do that? There are those who might agree that SD is important in the use of solids that don’t deform, or loose weight on impact, but disagree with the idea that SD is still significant in the use of soft-point expanding bullets.

I believe that the sectional density (SD) of any particular projectile still has a distinct influence in the outcome of hitting flesh and/or bone.

How do I justify such a conviction?

In the following paragraphs an attempt will be made to clarify my concepts on the matter. Entirely aside from the fact of professional ballistic engineers’ results in ballistic gelatin giving proof that SD of expanding projectiles matters in penetration, I will try to present a mental image of what happens when a bullet meets and penetrates ballistic gel, wet print, water, or whatever. These, of course, are not hide, flesh and bone, but they do give clues, hints and information on what may be expected and why.

As I’ve noted in several blogs, I’ve done several types of tests that have informed me in distinct ways about bullet construction, toughness, penetration and weight retention. I don’t profess to have anywhere close to all the answers, but nothing I’ve experienced firsthand, or witnessed, or read (or heard) in reports denies or contradicts my ballistic concepts.

What is a concept? A concept is a mental construction of an idea, or vision, of what is happening, or happened, in a particular experiment, test, incident, accident or development. In addition to scientists and others, it’s used by detectives, lawyers, economists, politicians, entrepreneurs and inventors — not to mention by those with evil intentions.

“CONCEPT” – “a generalized idea”; “abstract notion”. The details are filled in once the general idea is conceived. Some come to a dead end, while others have resulted in flying machines, Fords, and landing on the Moon!

<(On the left are three Nosler Partition bullets: The two dark ones were retrieved from the moose described below. They both retained 178 grains. The shorter one in the middle is the one that impacted from relatively close range, and has a slightly larger frontal area. The one on the right was taken from the bear described below.)

I’ve previously shared the following but without detailed analysis: Picture with me what happened to a 250gr Nosler Partition when fired from a .340 Weatherby  at 3000 fps MV, hitting a 1000 lb bull moose broadside through the lungs at 165 yards.  There was full penetration, with blood and lung tissue blown across twenty feet of underbrush on the far side of the moose. It staggered, but remained on its feet in a very shaken and unstable condition. It would have died within a few steps if left alone. That bullet was never retrieved, and I would never have known its remaining condition in the brush and trees beyond. But I did shoot the moose twice more — once after the first shot as it was obvious to me that it was about to make a feeble attempt to get away.  In starting to turn away from me, the second 250 Partition was a quartering-away shot that hit behind the short ribs on the left side and stopped under the hide about 3 – 4 inches from the first exit wound on the right side just behind the shoulder. That bullet was retrieved by my son. It weighed 178 grains or 71%. My third shot was from about 35 yards into its rump as it tried to stand when spooked by my son getting too close. That bullet was found by the butcher in the front part of the chest cavity. It too retained 71% of initial weight. The moose went down to stay.

Those two Partition bullets kept 71% of unfired weight, so I think it may safely be assumed that was the result of the 250gr NP’s construction and design. One was fired from 165 yards and the other at 35 yards. One impacted at 2680 fps and the other at 2930 fps, yet they both performed in an identical manner — the first, that was found by my son, had penetrated about 3 and 3/4 feet. The latter found by the butcher had penetrated about 6 feet. So the faster impact bullet penetrated more than the slower impact bullet by around 2 feet and it had to go through the pelvic region, intestines, stomach and lungs to implant itself in the front part of the rib cage.

There’s no way to account with any certainty why the faster impact bullet penetrated farther than the slower impact 250gr Nosler, other than by the increased impact velocity of about 250 fps. Any argument to the contrary is not convincing since both retained identical weight, and, if anything, the one from the rear end of the beast had many more obstacles to confront in its path than the quartering-away shot!

Having then settled that… Weight retention, frontal area of the expanded bullets, AND impact velocity (energy) were the main factors in that ballistic encounter. Logically, therefore, initial bullet weight which governed the SD of those .338-caliber bullets (.313 SD) played a very significant role in the outcome.

Had that been 210gr Nosler Partitions (.263 SD) at an MV of 3000 fps, would results have been the same if they had only kept 71% of initial weight at 149 grains? Yes, agreed, that bullet has proven itself on many moose and other large game, but that is NOT the point. The point is that SD contributes immensely to the bullet’s final state as SD is an expression of its initial weight in relation to its diameter. If the SD is modified by collision with flesh and bone, so is the diameter in relative proportion. So in one sense it’s a “write off” — what is subtracted from the SD is added to the cross-sectional-area, not numerically but proportionally.  But also the BC of the bullet is greatly influenced by its SD. That means that not only will the heavier 250gr Nosler retain its velocity better than the 210gr, if both are started at identical velocities (3000 fps is common for the 210gr from a .338 WIN), creating greater energy at impact, but will also have greater mass resulting in better penetration, assuming they had the same, or similar, nose profiles and expansion characteristics.

I think we could calculate any premium brand of bullet by the same method. Some, like the Swift AFs will retain more weight at about 95%, but being a “softer” bullet will have a greater frontal area that will slow the bullet down quicker in flesh and bone, likely resulting in less penetration. And any loss of weight, in either brand, will go somewhere into flesh that will do the animal no good! So loss of weight, short of fragmentation, isn’t always a bad thing.

Accordingly, I start with a fresh bullet that takes into account it’s caliber and weight, expressed by its sectional density, MV and BC. When I know those matters, I use an external ballistics computer program to predict IMPACT VELOCITY, KINETIC ENERGY at IMPACT, CROSS-SECTION AREA of bullet (before penetration) and SECTIONAL DENSITY to have a realistic handle on expected results.

The expansion of a particular bullet will therefore be related to its constructon, material encountered, impact velocity AND it’s initial CROSS-SECTION AREA (caliber). So what if an expanding bullet increases in a predictable manner to 1.6x its caliber, and looses a predictable amount of its weight? I’ve fired two 286gr/.366″ (9.3mm) that were retrieved. One was into a tough test media from five yards. It was quite deformed but retained 210 grains and the front lost its core but measured 1.6x its caliber. The other 286gr Partition was fired at the same speed, from the same rifle, into a black bear at 87 yards. It penetrated from frontal chest to the right side flank, just in front of the hip. It kept 211 grains, lost its front core, and measured 1.6x its caliber. The one in test media impacted at about 2612 fps, and the other 286 NP hit at about 2500 fps. What chance was there that both would retain near identical  weight and measure exactly the same at 1.6x their caliber at the front end, unless that was predictable? THAT is RELATED to, and results from its initial weight and caliber (SD), as well as its design. The media was different, the range was different, and bullet impact was significantly distinct! As a result, I use the SD of any and all bullets to start with because that is a major part description of the bullet which affects greatly what it does and LOOKS LIKE after impact and penetration.

(This is a 400gr Speer taken from a trophy bear. Fired from my 1895 Marlin Classic at 1865 fps, and impacting at 100 yards at 1560 fps/2160 ft-lbs, it retained 90.5% of initial weight and measures 1.055-inch at its widest part. From such examples I’ve concluded that bullet diameter and weight (SD), and impact velocity are NOT TRIVIAL matters assuming bullet construction is ideal.)

More to come…

 

 

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Killing Shots on Big Game – P4

So far, in considering classes of rifles for any and all hunting purposes, I’ve proposed a Big Bore, a Medium and a Sub-Medium to be adequate for the three general classes of game: small, medium and large/dangerous. As in P3, I recognize that quite often divisions of both animals and rifle cartridges might be classified under two distinct assignments, such as a .375 H&H being suitable for medium game as well as for large-dangerous animals. Of course, there are several rifle-cartridges in suitable rifles that could fulfill such classifications — and have.

<(A decade ago this was my companion for a moose hunt in N. Ontario, a CZ550 in .458 Win Mag loaded with the 350gr TSX at 2700 – 2750 fps.)

Nonetheless, taking all factors into account, I’d want, and have chosen, a true Big Bore for the largest and most dangerous game, and it could serve quite adequately for lesser game in the medium class, the North American whitetail deer being one example when suitably handloaded. My choice, NOT a phantom choice, but a REAL already-in-possession choice, is a .458 Winchester Magnum.

My choices for a Medium have been multiple, from  .338 Winchester Magnums to  .375 H&H magnums. In between those I’ve owned a .340 Wby, a couple of .35 Whelens, two .350 Remington Magnums and a 9.3 x 62. Apart from a few idiosyncrasies in each rifle (not the cartridges), they were all suited for sub-medium, medium, large medium, and larger bodied game including many of the dangerous sort — when loaded appropriately and fired within a sensible range of the target animal. When and where permitted, they have all taken the likes of Cape Buffalo, Water Buffalo, lion, crocs, leopard, brown bear, grizzly, moose, elk, etc. An argument could be made that this class of rifle is the most useful for most hunts. As most of you know, I’m happy with my 9.3 x 62, and it has replaced all other Mediums.

So, there’s one class remaining: That being for smaller game, including some predators, larger varmints and the occasional deer and wolf. A majority would likely suggest a .243 Winchester, and many have experience with that cartridge. I’ve never owned a rifle in .243 Winchester, and never expect to. But I did recommend it to my youngest son (now in his mid-fifties) who was into coyote hunting in Western Canada at the time, saying he had no plans for the (large) whitetail of the region. The .243 Winchester is also the firearm of choice by a former hunting buddy for the numerous coyote that frequent his sheep farm. I have no arguments over that, but I do for it’s use on the larger whitetail of our region. And, by the way, he NEVER uses it for whitetails! His choice is a BP of .50-cal. for the 250 to 350 lb bucks that endanger themselves when they cross his fields!

Despite what may be arguments in favor of a .223 Rem (of which I have considerable experience in shooting varmints with handloads) or even the .243 Win, my choice is something a bit larger and more powerful. There are several in .257-cal, but among those make mine a .25-06. “Plenty” is a nice word for that cartridge in its intended purposes. “Dual-purpose” is another expression that’s very suitable in my view. Despite some using it on elk, moose, bears, etc., I’d limit it to big whitetails at the top end and coyote on the bottom. And it has reach…

Mine was a new M70 Winchester with a 22″ barrel. It was very accurate and fast — but too heavy for my purposes. Yet I loved the way it responded to good handloads of 100gr, 117gr and the 120gr NPs. No problem at all in pushing the 117s and 120s out the muzzle at 3185 and 3175 fps, respectively, into sub- moa. In my judgement it was the quintessential cartridge for wolf that might go up to 150 lbs. I measured the tracks of a wolf one winter, in  snow that had just fallen on a thick crust of snow. I did it in using my rifle as the “yard stick”, knowing its length. From tip of tail to nose it would have been over seven feet, and it was only fifty yards or so ahead of me in thick brush and timber not allowing a clear vision for a shot. How heavy was the animal? It was breaking through the crust about every fourth or fifth step, which I was not breaking through — and I wasn’t on my snowshoes. The thick brush and alders he went into forced an abandonment of the chase. The rifle being toted for wolf on that occasion was my Ruger 96/44 — in .44 Rem Mag. Ideal for those conditions, but not for ranges beyond 150 yards or so. Had that large wolf appeared across the barren frozen bog at around 350 yards, that rifle would have been no better than a BB gun! But a 25-06 would have been perfection. My rifle at that time for long shots across the bog, or end of the lake, was a .300 Win Mag.

A 117gr Hornady BTSP leaving the muzzle at 3185 fps (actual) would have impacted a large wolf at 350 yards at 2276/1345 ft-lbs. (Ambient conditions 1150 ft, -10*C, 50%RH.) That’s plenty for a large lone wolf (which it was – the one I was tracking was black and alone. I’d seen his tracks in that area on a number of occasions. On one of those, he watched me from cover and once I’d passed by he crossed the trail behind me in fresh snow. He killed deer for a living as well as some smaller stuff). A .243 firing a 100gr Hornady BTSP at 3000 fps would have had about 300 ft-lbs less under the same conditions at 2153 fps/1029 ft-lbs, and more drop at that range. Surely enough for a good marksman with a hit in the vitals — but nothing to spare. I’ll have a .25-06 Rem any time over a .243 Win. A 6.5 x 55 Sako replaced the Winchester in .25-06, and in my experience that was a mistake. While I liked the Sako rifle better than the M70 Winchester for their intended purpose, the ballistics of the .25-06 was superior in the same bullet weights. I was getting 2900 fps from a 120gr Nosler BT from the 6.5 and 3175 fps from the 120gr Nosler Partition in the .25-06. That’s on the heels of a .270 Win shooting a 130gr.

What some writers and hunters seem to be unaware of is that a wolf cannot always be retrieved by a snow machine or ATV if thick timber and brush are involved — or the ice is still too thin on a lake, or parts of it.

So my choice of three for all classes of game would look like this: .25-06, 9.3×62, and .458 WIN. Note that none of those are recent innovations. The first is based on the .30-06, the second could have been, but pre-dated the .30-06 by one year. So maybe the 9.3 x 62 is the grandparent of the .25-06, and older brother of the .30-06. The .458 is turning grey-headed at sixty-three and qualifies for senior benefits — but it has not lost its vigor! Indeed, it has more zest, strength and liveliness than ever! It’s like aged wine! So don’t turn your back on it in favor of something with less aptitudes.

Nonetheless, there are other possibilities of three classes of cartridges (and hundreds of rifles) for the three general classes of game — small, medium and large.

You might like something like this: .257 Roberts, .300 WSM, and .375 H&H. (To each his own.)

But, please, don’t open the can of worms that the .458 Lott is superior to the aged .458 Winchester Magnum — ’cause it ain’t so! Look again at the numbers I’ve published for the .458 WIN. In some reloads they are superior to the Lott!

And if someone still wants to argue, go to The Accurate Reloading Forum, Big Bores, .458 Winchester thread. There you’ll find over 160 pages explaining and showing the true capabilities of the venerable .458 Winchester Magnum. Yes, you’ll have to “wade through” some initial deniers, and some nonsense, but they soon disappear into oblivion when hard facts show the fallacy of that presumption.

<(Do I need a 500gr at 2300+ fps for anything. No, not yet anyway. This was from a 500gr Speer AGS from my Ruger #1 in .458 WIN. Add 14 fps for correction to MV).

But a 350gr TSX, 400gr-X, 450gr TSX, might come in handy for a moose or bear at these respective MVs: 2750 fps, 2590 fps and 2400 fps, don’t you think? But perhaps more temperate MVs from the likes of a 405gr Remington at 1800 to 2000 fps would make matters more agreeable for a whitetail buck or black bear hunt inside timber. And I do have such a load from my current Ruger #1 in .458 WIN. All that and more is easily done from the well aged and experienced .458 Winchester Magnum.

This will be my last blog before 2020. I wish all of you God’s blessing at this Christmas time, and good health and His true riches in the living Christ Jesus that gives true peace and joy in the New Year.

For those who enjoy good, contemporary Christian singing and music, you’ll find great spiritual refreshment in hearing the Getty couple and their Irish band.

Go to: http://www.gettymusic.com. where a preview of “An Irish Christmas” is presented.

And go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZo6_rgklxc&feature=youtu.be

 

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Killing Shots – P3

Fantasies are mental images of what could, or could not, become realities. As that concerns potential hunting activities, most hunters dream of a hunt prior to the reality itself. If that were not so, likely no North American would venture on an African safari.

I dreamt of a bear hunt a year or so before I experienced my first — but not my last. Those who have been on an African safari usually express a desire to return because of fond memories. Also, the first experience etches lessons into the psyche that will remain as life-long teachers for any other typical experience. In its turn, that will add to the composite repertoire of hunting knowledge wherever that may take us.

So I write about rifles and bullets of which I have fond memories in the exercise of their applications in both the hunting and shooting sports.

With fondness, I well recall one of my early bear hunts with my outfitter Norm Easto. I had already taken a couple of bears with him, but this would be my first hunt using a newly acquired Ruger No.1 in .45-70. Never taking a new-to-me untested rifle for a big game hunt, this rifle had been long-awaited for, and multiple test and practice loads had been tried ere it went on this adventure. I settled on a 500gr Hornady at 1800 fps/3600 ft-lbs. That was the max speed according to the Hornady manual, but not the maximum load that had been developed in and for this rifle. I had shot it multiple times at 2000+fps employing that same 500gr Hornady, and, moreover it had been tested for me at the Accurate Arms facility whose powder was being used. I was quite sure, however, that 1800 fps would be more than ample for this hunt. It was sighted to zero at 100 yards. Most bear hunts over bait with Norm proved to be an average of around 65 yards from shooter to the bait setup. If a bear was shot at near that range from that load, it was calculated to absorb about 3000 ft-lbs from a .458-caliber bullet. I figured that to be ample for the largest bruin roaming Ontario’s timberland from any imperfect angle. (The physical conditions of that hunt were similar to those of this photo.)

As it turned out, I never had a chance on the bear of my dreams to be taken with that rifle on its inaugural excursion, but the landscape was unforgettable. I can still picture it in my mind almost as though it were just yesterday! I’ve never felt more secure and prepared for any bear since, than on that occasion. My attachment to a Ruger #1 Big Bore dates from that experience. The reasons cannot be fully justified or even explained — but there you have it! Oh yeah, I can identify some of the rationale, but there’s a warm “fuzzy feeling” that’s mostly inexplicable. There’s something in my psyche that says, “One is enough from .458-bore!”

But then, there are other options, and I’ve tried a cross-section of most. I stated near the beginning of this series that a world-class hunter of game  should or could get by with a pair, or three at the most — that is classes of rifles for the three classes of game: small, medium and large. Yet, there is an overlapping of classes of game and of rifle cartridges. So, methinks that a pair would do even though I’ve suggested we’ll have a take on three.

For large and dangerous game I’ve proposed a .375 H&H as a starting point. As pointed out, it has served admirably for lesser game as well. What about the “super .375s”, or those “improved”, like the .375 Weatherby? I almost had my Browning A-Bolt in .375 H&H improved to the Weatherby version. But the problem with the off-center bore sunk that idea. Then, of course, there was the Ackley Improved, and numerous others that added 150 fps or so. Weatherby “improved” the situation still further by introducing the humongous .378 Weatherby in 1953, a case with a belt that appeared to be borrowed from the “beltless” .416 Rigby. And that in turn became the parent case for the .460 and .416 Weatherbys. There are numerous others based on the .404 Jeff, like the Remington .375. But they all shoot the same bullets from the same manufacturers,  just at differing speeds.

Regardless of how great the displacement of the cartridge case, a .375-cal is only and always a .375″ bore. Nothing more. Some will reach out somewhat farther than others, but there’s an inescapable price to pay in several dimensions! Surely, no one is going to be firing away at a brown bear or Cape buff at 600 yards,  even IF a 300gr/.375″ might be making 2950 fps/5796 ft-lbs  MV from a .378 Weatherby. At 400 yards in 115*F conditions, it would still be making over 2400 ft-lbs from a 300gr TSX FB. Recoil would be about 67 ft-lbs, but with a brake around 57 ft-lbs from a 10.75 lb rifle. I’d, personally, still choose my .458 WIN shooting the 400-X (I still have a few) at 2590 fps/5957 ft-lbs that would carry more momentum and KE at any range with 20% less recoil from 42 grains less powder at the same weight rifle!

What other options might there be that satisfies smaller medium, medium and larger medium species of game animals — that also might include some of the hazardous sort? Let’s keep in mind that several caliber-cartridges can usually fulfil multiple roles. They are not necessarily limited to one job or class of game. So what would you choose? If you only had two centerfire rifles for anything from smallish, 100 lb wolves to 2500 lb bison, what would they be?

I’ve chosen a number of sub-medium and medium bores for game from 40 lb coyotes to 1400 lb moose. That would/might include anything else within that approximate range, including brown bear.

In sub-mediums I’ve gone on record as wanting nothing less than a .300 magnum these days for anything I might hunt — or want to — in North America if limited to a couple of rifles. That could be a .300 WSM, the .300 Winchester or Weatherby, though I’ve never owned, to date, a WSM. But others might like a .30-06, a .308 Win or a 7mm magnum, etc. Any of those could cover 75+% of hunting chores on this continent, and probably most others. Also, of those I’ve never owned a .308 Winchester though I made handloads for one that belonged to a close friend. I’ve owned several 7mm magnums, and a 7-08. Of the .300s, I’ve owned six Winchesters, a Weatherby and a Norma.

However, my choice today (and has been for the past 20 years or so) would be a medium as a second rifle. I have a true Big Bore, so a medium seems “normal” as a second firearm. I’ve owned most of what is offered from factories, have handloaded one and all, so have a pretty good idea of what to expect from them with the best they can offer. For the past decade (no surprise to anyone who reads these blogs) mine has been a handloaded 9.3 x 62. It’s the basic equivalent of a .375 H&H on the upper end and a .338 Win Mag on the lower. It has done, and can do, whatever those numbers have done or can.

I enjoy using my computer programs to compare numbers. There’s an old sayin’, “Numbers don’t lie.” But sometimes liars do use numbers! Yet in studying and comparing ballistics from similar, yet different, rifle cartridges based on available data relating to the various bullets employed in them, it’s very hard NOT to come to some firm conclusions.

For some concrete examples, I’ve compared known handloads from my Tikka in 9.3 x 62 with others recorded for the .338 Win, .375 Ruger and H&H, to conclusively verify that one would have to choose  the best numbers available, with longer barrels than my 9.3 x 62, to see minimum ballistic improvement over my results from the 22.4″ barrel of my Tikka. Barrels of equal or less than 22.5″ sees no improvement, and often less depending on components used. I’ve provided detailed examples of that in the past, so will only do so again in providing one: That being a well-tested and used  hunting load, suitable for any big-game animal in North America, including Alaska-Yukon moose and brown bear.

Cartridge: 9.3 x 62 (cases= Hornady)

Primer: WLRM

Powder: RL-17

Bullet: 286gr Nosler Partition(SD = .305; BC = .482)

COL = 3.37″

Rifle: Tikka T3 Lite (22.44″ barrel)

MV = 2631 fps/4395 ft-lbs (average of two year’s shooting the same load)

100 yds= 2457 fps// 3832 ft-lbs// 123 TE

200 yds = 2289 fps/3327 ft-lbs// 107 TE

300 yds = 2128 fps/2876 ft-lbs// 92 TE

400 yds = 1974 fps/2474 ft-lbs// 79 TE (same result as .375 H&H w. 300 Nos.)

500 yds = 1827 fps/2119 ft-lbs// 68 TE

*Data is based on +P loads, the equal of psi in a .338 Win Mag.

To give a fair comparison, the .338 Win Mag data is taken from Nosler’s Reloading Guide No.6. In a 22.5″ barrel, MV should be reduced by about 50 fps.

Cartridge: .338 Win Mag

Bullet: 250gr Partition (SD = .313; BC = .473)

Primer: Federal 215

Powder: H4831

Barrel: 24″ Wiseman

MV = 2780 fps// 4290 ft-lbs

100 yds = 2588 fps// 3717 ft-lbs// 104 TE

200 yds = 2404 fps// 3208 ft-lbs// 90 TE

300 yds = 2228 fps// 2755 ft-lbs// 77 TE

400 yds = 2059 fps// 2353 ft-lbs// 66 TE

500 yds = 1917 fps// 2040 ft-lbs// 57 TE

*Data from a 24″ barrel.

As I’ve made clear in several blogs, ft-lbs of KE is only one factor; others are SD and cross-section area of bullet (which I now plan on delving into in a followup to the current theme).

But while the 9.3 x 62 may have an advantage on large-dangerous game over the .338 Win Mag, yet any practical distinction may depend more on the shooter and the bullet than anything else. If my only option was one or the other of those two, I would not hesitate to use either on any of North America’s largest and most dangerous game with the Nosler bullets mentioned (while my first choice would still be an appropriately loaded .458 Winchester Magnum).

Indeed, all of the mediums have merit when rifle weight and recoil are the main considerations. And with the right component bullets at near top velocities, placed in a vital area, no suitable game animal should be lost due to the cartridge and bullet. The full responsibility rests on the hunter to decide what “suitable game animal” has reference to in this context. For myself, that would exclude the “Big Five” or “dangerous six” of Africa since I have another option — the .458 WIN.

Till the next… In a set of three rifles, what would I choose for larger varmints and coyote? And I might want to use it on a wolf or whitetail… and surely for shooting a target now and then!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

Killing Shots – P2

Most hunters from Central and Southern Ontario hunt in pairs, or groups of 3 to 6. A minority hunt solo, and in the case of bear hunters over bait, it’s mostly solo — that is, while others may be involved, the hunter is usually solo in a tree stand or blind.

<(I was on my own in  deciding to shoot this boar bear with my 7 Wea. Mag. loaded with 175gr Nosler Partitions @ 3000 fps MV. Range was 65 yards. It was a DRT. No other hunter or help was within three miles. I was in my mid-fifties.)

So I’m thinking of my experiences of the past where I, alone, was responsible for making a shot on a deer, moose or bear. But, well before the fact of making such choices, I had to think over the possible consequences of NOT making a killing shot. In the vast majority of cases, I would be surrounded by wilderness-like physical conditions; rarely in a farmer’s field. Though during the last five bear seasons, I did hunt on private property that bordered a provincial park and wildlife sanctuary.

The reality of the physical conditions of the hunt managing in large part our choice of a firearm, is a fact of life for any hunter anywhere on The Globe. That could be in some remote Asiatic mountains for a rare species of goat, or hunting antelope on the upper mid-west Prairies of the USA. So a possible killing shot is most definitely related to our choice of the rifle and load for a particular hunt, and our familiarity and expertise in its employment.

Therefore, let’s examine some of the best for a few  common hunts undertaken yearly by North American hunters, some of which might also apply to hunts in Asia, Africa or Australia.

And here, I’m not necessarily wanting to choose a different rifle for each and every hunt. Rather, I’m thinking of classes of game based on weight and temperament. Of course, one could choose a Big Bore like a .416 Ruger or .458 Winchester, but, I think, while they certainly could kill anything from gopher (good for practice) to elephant, most of use would likely choose from a battery of two at least, to as many as three or four at most — that is classes of cartridges (not to mention types of rifles). Personally, I think a pair would do, or at the most three, such as in .257, .358, and .458. Or, for a pair it could go as 7mm and .375; those being examples only. I did write a manual on that theme many years ago, but never published it — though much of it was suggested in various blogs. With that in mind, I, at one time, did trade three rifles for two — a twin pair of A-Bolt Brownings (LH) in .300 Win Mag and .375 H&H. That would have been “the cat’s meow” except that the .375 had a serious flaw from the factory — the bore was off-center!

Now back to possible killing shots from the rifles of choice: Of course, “We all know” that “you” could kill an elephant with a .22LR if you’re confident, and could place a shot in each eye within about 4 seconds… that would blind it, and eventually it would die of starvation or predation by lions, hyenas, etc. But, surely, we’d want something more appropriate, so I’d suggest a .375 H&H as minimum, and it could be useful on plains game, lion, leopard, crocs, etc. Plus, on this side, it has well established credentials on the likes of moose, bear (all kinds), elk, etc. All in all, the .375 H&H (or Ruger) has proven its worth on medium to large and dangerous game throughout the world. It’s probably not the best choice for mountains, plains (antelope) or DG in tight quarters (wounded elephant, Cape buff or grizzly/brown bear, etc.) A majority would choose a Big Bore for such conditions. So would I — the .458 Win Mag in particular.  And a healthy dose of well-earned confidence on the part of the shooter is required in addition to a qualified rifle and cartridge.

While a .375 H&H might be the number one choice of a majority of experienced shooters for large and dangerous game, it isn’t the only, or necessarily the best choice. To stress it again — physical conditions and the experience, mind set and physical status of the hunter are all possible limitations in the effective use of any rifle. In literature applicable to this subject, a majority of writers state that a .375 H&H is likely the effective upper limit for most hunters who only occasionally hunt large or dangerous game.

For myself, the upper limit of effective killing shots would be in .458-caliber and 5000+ ft-lbs. 5700 – 5900 ft-lbs at the muzzle isn’t the measure of effective killing shots out at 300 yards! Depending on what part of the world we’re discussing, and its ambient conditions, that might be 3200 ft-lbs at 300 yards in Alaska, but 3500 ft-lbs in Africa from the same load. And 3500 ft-lbs is potentially much more effective from a 450gr/.458″ than, say, from a 300gr, .375″. I say “potentially” so, all other matters more or less equal. Why?

Because of the momentum factor and a 50% greater cross-sectional area in .458″. They each have about the same SD at .306 for the .458″ and .305 for the .375″.

As an all-around load for my .458 WIN in hunting large game on this continent or Africa, it would likely be the 450gr A-Frame or 450gr TSX. The following load is realistic in a hot climate:

The 450gr Barnes TSX at 2400 fps. Ambient conditions: 115*F; elevation = 1200′.

SD = .306

BC = .369

MV = 2400 fps// 5754 ft-lbs

100= 2210 fps// 4877 ft-lbs// 246 TE (terminal effect)

200= 2028 fps// 4109 ft-lbs// 207 TE

300= 1856 fps// 3441 ft-lbs// 174 TE

400= 1694 fps// 2866 ft-lbs// 145 TE

Those ambient conditions might be in Africa. In Canada the temperature would be much cooler at an average of spring/fall hunting around 50 – 60*F./10 – 15*C.  But the 450 TSX would still make over 1600 fps at 400 yds.; enough for some expansion on large-tough game such as large bear in the spring or moose/elk in the fall, according to Barnes.

Following is the approximate comparison of a .375 H&H/.375 Ruger shooting a 300gr TSX at 2650 fps. Ambient conditions same as above.

MV = 2650 fps// 4695 ft-lbs

100= 2447 fps// 3987 ft-lbs// 134 TE

200= 2248 fps// 3367 ft-lbs// 113 TE

300= 2059 fps// 2824 ft-lbs// 95 TE

400= 1880 fps// 2353 ft-lbs// 79 TE

Notice a couple of significant distinctions in this comparison:

1.) The .458 WIN not only generates greater KE, but…

2.) Much greater TE that’s due to the effects of much greater KE, momentum and 150% cross-sectional area of the .375-caliber bullet.

However, there’s still plenty of what it takes on any live soft-skinned animal for the .375 to be effective at reasonable ranges. For example: a TE of 79 (at 400 yds.) is plenty for a large bull moose using the 300 TSX with a solid hit to shoulders or lungs/heart region. And it will shoot “flatter” than the 450gr/.458 at most distances with about 47 ft-lbs recoil from a 9.3 lb rifle vs. 60 ft-lbs from a 10.75 lb .458 Win Mag. In my Ruger #1 that 60 ft-lbs of recoil is reduced to 51 because of the Mag-Na-Porting, or by 15% — reflected also in the speed of the rifle recoiling and resultant momentum:

.458 WIN = 16 fps for recoiling rifle; momentum @ 174 lb-fps.

.375 H&H= 18 fps for recoiling rifle; momentum @ 168 lb-fps.

<(That’s from a 300gr TSX fired in my Ruger #1 in .458 WIN. Corrected to MV = 2979 fps/5911 ft-lbs. Taking into account the Mag-Na-Porting, felt recoil is about 44 ft-lbs – or no more than the above .375 H&H 300gr load. My 2019 fall bear load was the 300 TSX at 2778 fps/5140 ft-lbs. Felt recoil was about 36 ft-lbs, or less than a lighter .375 H&H shooting a same weight bullet at 2650 fps/4695 ft-lbs.)

And finally, if you must shoot a wounded, departing 2000 lb Water Buffalo going away at 200 yards, which would you rather have, the TE of the .458 at 207 or the .375 at 113?

Shooting any big game from the rear, or angling 75% away, the bullet would have to penetrate at least twice as far to reach vitals as in a broadside stance. So I would 1/2 the TE number and multiply by 20 lbs (my guideline).

207 x .5 x 20 = 2070 lbs. (Good for a Water Buffalo)

113 x .5 x 20 = 1130 lbs.  (Good for a bull moose)

All that assuming “a best hit”. There may, or may not be, time for another followup.

However we may want to slice it, while there are some advantages to each,  make mine a .458 WIN as recoil is not a deciding factor for myself, but ballistic versatility is. And nothing “out there” is more flexible than a .458 Winchester Magnum for the broadest possible range of medium to big game possibilities.

Next time we look at some other options for “Killing Shots”.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

 

Killing Shots on Big Game – P1

In re-reading some very detailed quasi-scientific papers on this theme — reviewed by myself up to four times — I’ve come to several conclusions that I think can’t be stated as a single judgement, or final dictum. In other words, nothing in ballistic studies or wounding science should be stated in absolute terms — everything must be qualified.

One of the goals I pursue in my blogs is to be as knowledgeable, and yet practical, as possible in the presentation of physical facts and their application. And within reason, I seek to illustrate the principles by personal experience, or the experiences of others who have credibility in my eyes.

The issue of “killing shots”  therefore involves many details including: 1) the shooter; 2) the rifle; 3) aiming device; 4) accuracy; 5) the cartridge; 6) the bullet; 7) velocity at impact; 8) the animal; 9) it’s class; 10) its distance; 11) its angle; 12) it’s temperament; 13) elevation; 14) ambient conditions; and 15) physical conditions.

All of which are directly involved explicitly or implicitly.

So, do I really want to even attempt to deal with all that is implied or directly involved, when thousands of thesis have already been researched and developed by scientific minds? Or, on the other hand, by those with less theories but more practical experience.

Personally, I try to harmonize the two and have come up with my own theory, or two, and even three or more! And I make no claim to having resolved anything, other than as personal guidelines.

I have tested bullets in both game and media, and have no theory about either. I go by what “seems” suitable for the job, if I do my job in placing the bullet somewhere close to where I want it.

And some bullets from some cartridges, that others would deem unsuitable, have worked wonderfully. A 165gr Sierra BT hitting a big buck a bit far back did its task admirably. Why? Because range was only 65 yards and the hit was into the diaphram and guts of the buck that was turning away from me, and that bullet fully penetrated to the offside hind leg, hitting the hip joint, turned 90* downward and exited the knee joint in at least two pieces! The deer went down on that hip, got back up and hobbled 20 yards into the bush where I found him comatosed in a simulated going to sleep position. I walked up to within 8 feet and gave a finishing shot between the eyes from my .30-06.

Sierra said THEY were surprised by that performance since that bullet should have “blown up” in the guts! Then, how much do they know? The velocity was right, at about 2800 fps — impact velocity was around 2700 fps –, but the design/construction was suggested for big-game starting at 100 yards IF that bullet hit the “boiler room”! The left-side ham was wasted, by-the-way. And that wasn’t a puny whitetail from the south of the USA — it was a Canadian northern buck!

That’s to illustrate what I’ve stated at the outset — “I have tested bullets in both game and media, and have no theory about either. I go by what “seems” suitable for the job, if I do my job in placing the bullet somewhere close to where I want it.”

Not many of the pro authors praise Sierra bullets, but obviously they must work since Sierra is still in business, and there must be thousands who find them suitable. The reason I was using that bullet in that situation was due to the fact of being on private property that permitted a large variety of possibilities. I was seated on the side of an old logging road that extended 160 yards to my left and 400 yards to my right. And word from a frequent visitor to that land was the presence of a 400 lb buck who lived there too. (The following year I did get a chance on him).

The point? I used what “seemed” appropriate considering that Nosler Partitions (at that time) were twice as costly, and less aerodynamic for a potential shot at 400+ yards. The following year I did use a 165 Nosler BT on that monster buck at 150 yards and it broke up on the shoulder. That’s what I mean by “testing bullets on game”. The idea isn’t to purposely “test them on game”, but the result is useful as “a test”. We form convictions that way.

There have been many presentations of comparing bullets in tests. I’ve done some of that and find it useful as long as the physical conditions are the same for each bullet. For example, I found that a 350gr TSX/.458″ completely penetrated my test setup, and was stopped just inside the final panel of the last cardboard box, whereas a 500gr Speer GS SP was stopped after 6.5″ inside the first box. The 350 TSX retained 100% of its weight at full expansion while the 500gr Speer retained 62% at 310 grains. That’s not to condemn the Speer bullet, (The Speer on ^ far left and the 350 TSX on far right) but to realize that as far as weight retention and penetration is concerned, I might be better off with that Barnes 350 TSX than the 500gr Speer GS, depending, of course, on the game being hunted and the terrain.

Moreover, that was more or less confirmed by a shooter-hunter from Saskatchewan. A few years ago he went to Australia on a cull hunt of Water Buffalo. Using his .458 Win Mag loads of the 450gr Swift A-Frame, a 420gr CEB and the 350gr TSX, he said the 350gr TSX did about as well as the 450 AF at distance and better than the CEB. The MV of the 350 TSX was 2650 fps. In planning a return visit he thought he’d take more of the 350 TSXs than on the initial visit, and not take any CEBs.

That was an important test on big live game. I pay close attention to any reports of that nature. In making any judgement calls on “killing shots” the shooter’s ability is number one, the cartridge is number two, and the final crux of the matter is bullet construction. Why not bullet placement? That comes under the heading of the shooter’s ability, which is number one. If he has knowledge and experience, he’ll choose both cartridge and bullet. If he lacks some knowledge or experience, he’ll research it — or should.

Those associated with the design and manufacturing of the CEBs, apparently did so mostly on the basis of theory, and experience limited to close-range shooting. The Saskatchewan shooter said they worked fine for close shots — but no better than the others — but do to a very poor BC at longer ranges (200 yards) they were like “a hard thrown bag of leaves”.

So, killing shots are very much a significant result of bullet construction and shape (profile), which affects the shooter’s ability to place the bullet where intended as well as in terminal results. Especially is that so in a case of significant differences in both ranges and animal weights. There IS an important distinction in potential effect between hitting a 250 lb soft-skinned animal at 200 yards or meters, than a 1250 lb soft-skinned animal with the same load and bullet at 300 yards!  Happy is the hunter who is equipped and prepared  for either in the same hunt with the same rifle and ballistic profiles.

A killing shot is not usually by accident. It takes research, practice, planning and confidence. Confidence is largely the result of research, practice and planning. Yeah, I know there are some types who “know” they can pick up any rifle, load it up and go shoot themselves a “BARE!”

But what I’m referring to is a somewhat “normal” hunter.

RESEARCH: I’ve researched every rifle cartridge I’ve ever owned or used. In starting out, it was by reputation. Both the 7×57 Mauser and .30-06 Springfield had excellent reputations for anything I thought might be on my “bucket list” from fox to moose — and that impression was about spot on. The same impression has applied to other big-game rifles/cartridges. I began handloading with my first .30-06 that involved a lot of research. I loaded 165s, and 180s mostly as I didn’t envision much moose or any bear hunting. After that it was a 7 Remington Magnum which digested mostly 160s and 175s, followed closely by a .300 Win Mag and a .338 Win Mag. By then I was serious about bear and moose hunting so went heavier in the choice of projectiles.

That seemed quite “normal” to me. And in the development of loads and practice at the ranges, I developed confidence in my ability to produce very good loads for each rifle and in the shooting of them without fear of their recoil. I could squeeze the trigger on the most potent of them without batting an eye — up to and including a .340 Weatherby, .375 H&H and yes, even the formidable .45-70s and .458 Winchester Magnums. All that was a process, resulting in shooting thousands of rounds in practice before ever venturing afield for big game. How old was I? In my fifties and sixties. I could shoot the .340 Weatherby as well as a .223 Remington. When I shot my first bear I was 54, and that with my first .45-70 — a 400gr Speer at 1865 fps. My first moose (and only) was shot with the .340 Weatherby when I was 66. I never noticed the recoil. I had squeezed off three shots of a 250gr Nosler Partition leaving the muzzle at +/-3000 fps before the game was over. Recoil was on the order of 54 ft-lbs — it was never noticed. First shot at 165 yards and it missed aiming point by 1-inch. Second shot was from the same position as the moose had just started to turn away from me. It hit the short ribs and came to rest just behind the offside shoulder at 4″ from the first exit wound. The bull went down.

The point? Recoil never entered my mind. Neither did worry over point of aim or accuracy. That rifle was as natural to me in shooting as if it were a .22LR. Yes, absolutely, I believe in practice shooting hundreds of rounds BEFORE going hunting with said rifle and load. It did exactly what I expected. Very little offhand shooting had been done previously. Almost practically none. But I had carried the rifle into woods areas and simulated shooting with it, and had handled it constantly prior to the actual moose hunt. Nothing surprised me. It worked as planned, the result of practice and research — I had confidence it would work on any moose no matter the conditions to 500 yards. That’s confidence both in myself and the rifle/cartridge/bullet load.

Any reasonable killing shot can be made by a knowledgeable, practised, confident hunter who knows his rifle and load like he knows his favorite hammer.

More next time…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL