Get good with my .308, or buy a 300 Weatherby Magnum?

[JagerDog]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

That is a very interesting/informative site. Thanks for posting the link.

You can get lost in it for hours. His factoids are based on 1000's of animals killed vs. anecdotal experience or even what one man could kill in a lifetime.

In my view, it's essentially the bible. Granted it's not up to the minute with the latest and greatest, but largely, the more things change, the more they stay the same in concept. Not every cartridge has it's own treatise, but for the most part there's going to be something that performancewise is extremely similar.

If you pull up the "Effective Game Killing" blog it touches on the ethics (that I adhere to). It briefly discusses "long range hunting", but doesn't expound (need to buy the book).



https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Kno...e+Killing.html

[chicoredneck]

The ballistic studies site is a pretty great resource for depositing and viewing field observations. However, I think it’s a better resource for comparing the behavior of a certain bullet construction at a certain velocity than for comparing one cartridge vs the other. I can look up a type of bullet on their site and see what others have experienced with it.

One thing that cracks me up is some of the conclusions drawn. All the observations are of dead and recovered animals - the end goal of hunting. Yet, some bullets are deemed unacceptable as if they didn’t achieve their desired goal, even when it plainly states in the text body that the animal dropped on the spot or only ran 50 yards and died.

[slamfire1]

I'll admit I haven't killed a bunch of elk. But I've been a hunter for going on 50 years. I learned to respect my quarry. I've never come across any respectable authority/article that professes shooting elk at 1000 yards with a .257 Roberts.
And just because you can, doesn't mean you should..

+1

This sort of advertising I still find upsetting.



You don't need marksmanship skills, you don't need to place your shot, the wallop will take care of it. And it is amazing how many people believe crap like this.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by JagerDog

You can get lost in it for hours. His factoids are based on 1000's of animals killed vs. anecdotal experience or even what one man could kill in a lifetime.

In my view, it's essentially the bible. Granted it's not up to the minute with the latest and greatest, but largely, the more things change, the more they stay the same in concept. Not every cartridge has it's own treatise, but for the most part there's going to be something that performancewise is extremely similar.

If you pull up the "Effective Game Killing" blog it touches on the ethics (that I adhere to). It briefly discusses "long range hunting", but doesn't expound (need to buy the book).

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Kno...e+Killing.html

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

[JagerDog]

Originally Posted by chicoredneck

The ballistic studies site is a pretty great resource for depositing and viewing field observations. However, I think it’s a better resource for comparing the behavior of a certain bullet construction at a certain velocity than for comparing one cartridge vs the other. I can look up a type of bullet on their site and see what others have experienced with it.

One thing that cracks me up is some of the conclusions drawn. All the observations are of dead and recovered animals - the end goal of hunting. Yet, some bullets are deemed unacceptable as if they didn’t achieve their desired goal, even when it plainly states in the text body that the animal dropped on the spot or only ran 50 yards and died.

When reviewing bullets, I find it interesting that at times the "same" bullet in a different weight performs so differently.

I haven't looked at a lot of individual dead animals there, but rather the general performance. You can have an animal be DRT, but when reviewing the wounds, possibly see you got kinda lucky. I don't know another site with involved wound analysis like this.

[JagerDog]

Originally Posted by chicoredneck

Using the logic being followed by some in this thread, we should all be using recurve bows to hunt in order to be more sporting, but we shouldn’t because the energy delivered on target using archery equipment is only a few hundred pounds. There are those who say, but arrows and bullets are designed to wound differently so can’t be compared. I agree, and energy measurements is a poor indication of killing potential as demonstrated by comparing bullets to arrows. Bullets also vary vastly in how they are designed to function and wound.

There are a lot of contradictions that get made when someone tries to discuss morals, killing power, and energy when discussing hunting.

People should be allowed to hunt the way they want within the confines of the law and their own abilities free of judgement. Hunting is a sport and we all choose to partake for enjoyment and for many also food. The enjoyment of hunting may be derived from different methods for each individual. I personally enjoy hunting big open country and shooting animals at long range. I find it both fun and rewarding and am very successful. I have never lost an animal and have filled every tag over the last 10 years except 1, averaging 3 big game animals a year. One of my best friends is almost a strict archery hunter. We are both successful and enjoy hunting equally. Is one of us more right or moral than the other. No!

I have no intention of trying to make your hunt any different than you enjoy. I'm not going to lobby Fish and Lame, but I'm not going to celebrate it either.

I do find it (ultra long range with minor calibers) to be against my ethics regarding down range energy...and to be honest beyond where I'm comfortable with my skills and hardware. I'm fine with my hunting rifles being 1 MOA off a bench and keep my range accordingly. I can only hope you continue your success to lose no animals...and that includes wounded animals you don't know are wounded.

I'm sure I do some things afield across someone else's line. I mostly hunt birds and train my bird dogs nowadays. I'll use penned birds and wounded wild birds to reinforce lessons. I rationalize as the dog likes it, the dog learns and it's a bird. The bird is not happy about it and generally succumbs to the abuse.

[NapalmCheese]

Originally Posted by JagerDog

When reviewing bullets, I find it interesting that at times the "same" bullet in a different weight performs so differently.

I haven't looked at a lot of individual dead animals there, but rather the general performance. You can have an animal be DRT, but when reviewing the wounds, possibly see you got kinda lucky. I don't know another site with involved wound analysis like this.

While it typically (but not always) lacks real world wounding photos, the Nosler forum has some very good comparative analysis of a lot of different (not just Nosler) bullets.

Between Ballistic Studies and the Nosler forum I have learned a lot.

I started a project where I 3d print a holder so I can section bullets to exactly 1/2 their diameter, I started on on bullet with hand tools before deciding I'd rather take it to the belt grinder. I haven't revisited yet, but I find sectioned bullets to also be a useful tool for predicting bullet performance. The difference between the 120 grain and 140 grain NBT is pretty dramatic.

[tsmithson]

Originally Posted by slamfire1

+1

This sort of advertising I still find upsetting.



You don't need marksmanship skills, you don't need to place your shot, the wallop will take care of it. And it is amazing how many people believe crap like this.

I knew it! I knew it!
I’ve never seen that fact filled advertisement before.
But, I always knew my Weatherby's had special magical powers others lacked.

Got burned on a new Remington 700 back in 2002 that wouldn’t shoot better then 3” MOA(Factory authorized repair shop verified 3/4” MOA at 25 yards). Switched to a Weatherby 30-378 and printed clovers all day long, magical leprechaun, I knew it!!!

[JagerDog]

Originally Posted by slamfire1

+1

This sort of advertising I still find upsetting.



You don't need marksmanship skills, you don't need to place your shot, the wallop will take care of it. And it is amazing how many people believe crap like this.

There's actually some truth to it. Hydrostatic shock can disrupt things it didn't actually hit.

[180ls1]

Originally Posted by JagerDog

There's actually some truth to it. Hydrostatic shock can disrupt things it didn't actually hit.

And margin for error.

Just because your F150 can tow 11,000lbs on the sticker does not mean that you shouldn't use the F250.

[chicoredneck]

I’ve never seen an animal drop from a high velocity hit unless bones and/or spine were hit. Hits through the top of the heart will cause an animal to barely go anywhere, but they don’t just drop like a dead weight like a spine, shoulder, or pelvis hit.

The one exception to this that I have seen is with small sized hogs. I remember shooting 2 small hogs at about 10 yards once with a 25-06, both behind the shoulder shots through the lungs. Both pigs just dropped and didn’t move. I think because they were so small that the hydrostatic shock or whatever it is effected their spinal column and they died before their nervous system could recover. But even then, I’m not so sure there wasn’t rib fragments that blew into their spine or something to that effect. Bottom line, the only 100% hydrostatic shock causing immediate incapacitation I’ve witnessed is shooting small varmints with fast center fires that make them explode.

What I’m saying is, animals die when you hit them in the right spot. Hit them poorly and hydrostatic shock isn’t going to help you in IME.

[MJB]

^^^^
WTF?

[chicoredneck]

Originally Posted by MJB

^^^^
WTF?

I don’t know, what are you confused by?

[FatCity67]

Yes.

[NapalmCheese]

I have, at least as best as I can tell.

A small buck at 190 yards with a 7mm 110 TTSX started at 3200 fps. High lung shot passed under the spine. The deer didn't buck, lurch, or lunge; just flopped over on its side.

A doe antelope at 240 yards with a .243 Federal Fusion. The round hit in front of onside leg and passed through behind the offside leg, didn't hit any bone that I recall. She dropped straight down. All four legs tucked up under her, head straight out.

A doe whitetail at 200 yards, same TTSX load. Passed behind the onside shoulder, through the high lungs, out in front of the offside shoulder. She flopped over like the other deer. I think I caught a rib on that one.

A small doe whitetail at 100 yards with a .257 caliber 100 grain SGK. Hit broadside smack in the middle of the lungs. The onside ribs were broken but didn't seem to have a hole through any of them. Either way her front two legs collapsed quickly followed by her rear legs. Found her about like the antelope from above.

The theory I've heard is that hydrostatic shock close enough to the spine can cause a hydraulic hammer effect that knocks the animal unconscious while it bleeds to death making it look like they were instantly lights out.

Originally Posted by chicoredneck

I’ve never seen an animal drop from a high velocity hit unless bones and/or spine were hit. Hits through the top of the heart will cause an animal to barely go anywhere, but they don’t just drop like a dead weight like a spine, shoulder, or pelvis hit.

The one exception to this that I have seen is with small sized hogs. I remember shooting 2 small hogs at about 10 yards once with a 25-06, both behind the shoulder shots through the lungs. Both pigs just dropped and didn’t move. I think because they were so small that the hydrostatic shock or whatever it is effected their spinal column and they died before their nervous system could recover. But even then, I’m not so sure there wasn’t rib fragments that blew into their spine or something to that effect. Bottom line, the only 100% hydrostatic shock causing immediate incapacitation I’ve witnessed is shooting small varmints with fast center fires that make them explode.

What I’m saying is, animals die when you hit them in the right spot. Hit them poorly and hydrostatic shock isn’t going to help you in IME.

[CVShooter]

Shock isn't everything but it isn't nothing. I had a bad muzzleloader shot pass clean through under the spine of a buck, hitting no vitals in its path. Likely, it was a deflection off some brush that was nearly impossible to see (open sights). Buck dropped like a rock but was still alive because his back half was paralyzed. Needed a follow-up to end it. ML shots don't impart nearly as much shock as high-velocity centerfire. But that bullet did something to his spine without actually hitting it. Call it shock. Call it "knock-down power," or whatever you want. The bullet hits one thing and something else nearby got destroyed.

I've seen it with pigs and other deer with centerfire. Hit somewhere in the vitals or even just near the vitals and the animal drops. Sometimes, not always. I've dropped a running deer and 2 running pigs with lung shots. My first CA deer was a textbook lung shot at just 30 yards -- buck reared up like a horse & fell stone dead. Do I want to count on it? No. Do I want to try for it? No. After all, I've also had a deer hit well in the lungs & take off running like it was hit with an arrow. But I'll take it and appreciate it when it happens.

And I appreciate not having to do any tracking because, to me, tracking a little is to be expected every single time. If I don't want to do it that day, then I hang it up and don't take any shots. Last season, I put the bow away & just went for a short walk & a sit while the bow sat in the tent. It was hot. I was tired. I knew I didn't have it in me to do the work until I had a good rest. That's hunting.

[180ls1]

Originally Posted by chicoredneck

I’ve never seen an animal drop from a high velocity hit unless bones and/or spine were hit. Hits through the top of the heart will cause an animal to barely go anywhere, but they don’t just drop like a dead weight like a spine, shoulder, or pelvis hit.

The one exception to this that I have seen is with small sized hogs. I remember shooting 2 small hogs at about 10 yards once with a 25-06, both behind the shoulder shots through the lungs. Both pigs just dropped and didn’t move. I think because they were so small that the hydrostatic shock or whatever it is effected their spinal column and they died before their nervous system could recover. But even then, I’m not so sure there wasn’t rib fragments that blew into their spine or something to that effect. Bottom line, the only 100% hydrostatic shock causing immediate incapacitation I’ve witnessed is shooting small varmints with fast center fires that make them explode.

What I’m saying is, animals die when you hit them in the right spot. Hit them poorly and hydrostatic shock isn’t going to help you in IME.

So a 300 blackout will be just as effective as a 300 ultra mag in your book? I don't understand your comment and it seems somewhat circular.

[chicoredneck]

Originally Posted by 180ls1

So a 300 blackout will be just as effective as a 300 ultra mag in your book? I don't understand your comment and it seems somewhat circular.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying hydrostatic shock isnt everything and is over hyped.

[JagerDog]

Hydrostatic shock is real. Most who have studied it scientifically believe it. Those who don't, deny it because they don't see broken bones and such. That doesn't mean it doesn't shock and incapacitate the CNS. Or argue the mechanism of hydraulic vs. blast. Seems very potayto potahto to me.

I've shot deer in the broiler room (no major bone, spine, etc) with a .264 that fell so hard they broke their neck.

But it takes velocity. You're not going to see it in significant amounts with handguns (some of the denial data) and you're not going to see it much below 2500 fps (who knows what fps was on a battlefield...more of the denial data). Larger animals are going to soak up more than smaller animals and hits in "wet" areas are going to be different than major motive bones.

The "controversy":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.3051.pdf

[slamfire1]

Got burned on a new Remington 700 back in 2002 that wouldn’t shoot better then 3” MOA(Factory authorized repair shop verified 3/4” MOA at 25 yards).

It was around this time that a Match Director bud, who was also a gunsmith told me he was pulling barrels off new M700's and finding that the receiver threads were so poorly machined, that Remington was using some white thread compound on the barrel shanks, I assume to keep the barrels from unscrewing.

The barrel was not firmly, mechanically, attached to the receiver. The end result was that barrels were moving left, right, up and down, each shot. So your scope is looking downrange in a fixed location, but the barrel is pointing randomly in another!

I’ve never seen an animal drop from a high velocity hit unless bones and/or spine were hit. Hits through the top of the heart will cause an animal to barely go anywhere, but they don’t just drop like a dead weight like a spine, shoulder, or pelvis hit.

A bud of mine is an avid hunter. He spent 65 days in the wood last year. He prefers a 308 Win with 150 grain SST's. He has shot them out to 600 yards at CMP Talladega and verified their stability at long range. Not all bullet remain stable out to 600 yards, and it is surprising to find out what tumbles.

tumbling, tumbling, tumble weeds. Damn bullets were going 2700 fps at the muzzle, and tumbling by the time they got to 600 yards. Surprise, surprise, never read that in any periodical.



Anyway, he has given up with the behind the shoulder shot. Too many deer ran off, in the declining dusk hours, and were found 200 yards away the next morning, all eaten by coyotes.

Turns out the SST was not expanding with ribcage shots, even though the shots were generally under 80 yards, most of them, about 35 yards. So Bud has learned, through trial and error, to place his shot between the shoulder and neck, where there is dense bone, and shoulder muscle. He claims that will knock them down, and he watches the legs kicking in the air till they stop, which verifies a quick and positive kill.

None of these deer are the Elk sized 700 pounders of legend, a 120 pound deer is good sized, and a 200 pounder is a big deer around here.

He won't show me the head shot picture. He beaned one around 300 yards away, and he thinks the image is too gross to share. I have a smiling dead coyote picture from him, the thing looks happy. Maybe the coyote was having a good day dream before eternity hit.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by chicoredneck

I’m saying hydrostatic shock isnt everything and is over hyped.

Originally Posted by JagerDog

Hydrostatic shock is real.

So - maybe I'm doing it wrong, but.....

Every big game animal I've shot (pigs, deer, pronghorn, no elk), has been through the thoracic cavity. I am always aiming for the heart - sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't. But in every case, the animal has died and the lungs have turned to soup. Liquefied. If that isn't the result of a shockwave, then what is it? Any animal that cannot breathe is going to die very quickly. I used to live in CA, so I used the Barnes TTSX bullet. It doesn't expand much, doesn't shed petals, and almost always passes through. It damn near relies on shock to get the job done, and it works very well in my experience. So well that I'm still using it here in Idaho.

I try to avoid big bones like the front legs and shoulders, because I don't like ruining meat and picking fragments from my meal. In full disclosure though, I try to keep my hunting shots to 300 yards or less. I figure if I can't get at least that close, the animal doesn't deserve to die.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

So - maybe I'm doing it wrong, but.....

Every big game animal I've shot (pigs, deer, pronghorn, no elk), has been through the thoracic cavity. I am always aiming for the heart - sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't. But in every case, the animal has died and the lungs have turned to soup. Liquefied. If that isn't the result of a shockwave, then what is it? Any animal that cannot breathe is going to die very quickly. I used to live in CA, so I used the Barnes TTSX bullet. It doesn't expand much, doesn't shed petals, and almost always passes through. It damn near relies on shock to get the job done, and it works very well in my experience. So well that I'm still using it here in Idaho.

I try to avoid big bones like the front legs and shoulders, because I don't like ruining meat and picking fragments from my meal. In full disclosure though, I try to keep my hunting shots to 300 yards or less. I figure if I can't get at least that close, the animal doesn't deserve to die.

Yep. MPBR is a good rule of thumb for maximum range on a live animal. Too many people confuse marksmanship with woodsmanship. If you can't get that close, then it really needs to live and spread it's clearly superior genes. Appreciate your thoughts.

[deckhandmike]

Huh, my last pig shot with my 6.8spc/ttsx was in the lung area and did the pass through without sudden death. He was milling around and needed a shot to the head. I’m thinking of switching to neck shots so I get some meat and bone for more expansion from the copper ammo. I just don’t get that “thwack” sound when I shoot them in the chest cavity.

[JagerDog]

“Huh, my last pig shot with my 6.8spc/ttsx was in the lung area and did the pass through without sudden death. He was milling around and needed a shot to the head. I’m thinking of switching to neck shots so I get some meat and bone for more expansion from the copper ammo. I just don’t get that “thwack” sound when I shoot them in the chest cavity.”

At muzzle, you’re at the threshold of hydrostatic shock.

Barnes needs speed and/or resistance to perform.

[deckhandmike]

I’m aware. The head shot worked. It’s not like a good double lung doesn’t work. I just don’t like chasing them.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by deckhandmike

I’m aware. The head shot worked. It’s not like a good double lung doesn’t work. I just don’t like chasing them.

Head shots always work. Unless, you're a little off and blow the lower jaw out. Then they run away to die where you can't find them. I'm not dissing you or the headshot - I used to be all about shooting them in the head. It's just that I came around to the thought that it is a lower percentage shot to hit the head than the chest cavity, and if my shot is slightly off it still has lungs, heart and spine up top to put a hole in.

Also - the Barnes TTSX has been a reliable and proven killer for me, but my bullet is traveling just over 2,900fps when it leaves the gun. Gives me a nice margin to work with.

[deckhandmike]

So, faster bullet does more damage.

And if elk live in your backyard a .308 will do.

There you go OP.

[slamfire1]

Originally Posted by deckhandmike

So, faster bullet does more damage.

And if elk live in your backyard a .308 will do.

There you go OP.

That depends on bullet integrity. A New Mexico Elk hunter I know told me of a bad experience he had with one brand of bullets. I forget the bullet brands, but in his 308 Win, the bad bullets broke up on the skin of the Elk and did not penetrate. The hunter said his max range was 300 yards, and that was the furthest he could keep all bullets in a paper plate. A good criteria.

Any he changed bullet brands to something that penetrated, and then expanded.

[180ls1]

Originally Posted by deckhandmike

So, faster bullet does more damage.

And if elk live in your backyard a .308 will do.

There you go OP.

When you look at bloodshot meat its pretty east to extrapolate what that bullet would also do to a lung or any other organ even if its not visible. Shock is real.

[theduracellbigd]

.308 will work just fine , and any expanding deer bullet of 150 grains or more will be fine. Do your part as a good hunter and keep shots 400 yards and under. Some people like to overthink things.

[Calif Hunter]

Regarding the effect of shock, I once shot a large boar hog with a .44 Mag revolver at about 20 yards or less. I hit it squarely on the thick gristle plate with a Win 240 gr Hollowpoint Softpoint. We were surprised to find the perfectly expanded bullet on the outside of the gristle...it never penetrated more than that inch or two, yet the pig dropped instantly and died.

I never used those bullets again for hunting and stuck to better bullets. There's an example, too, of a bullet that killed the game but did not, in my opinion, perform well.