Campfire Debate_Ultimate NA Big Game Calibre Sans the big bears

[Don_Parsons]

Be careful with the 243 talk since Elmer Keith is at this bon fire.

He's been known to pitch in the burning flames. Ha

Don

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons

Be careful with the 243 talk since Elmer Keith is at this bon fire.

He's been known to pitch in the burning flames. Ha

Don

True 'nuff Don, but I think most of us have 243's or 6mm's that would turn Elmer green with envy. They rate a lot higher in the Big Game category than they ever did in his time .. as do most other cartridges he was familiar with making the modern rankings pretty much the same as they did back then.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Again, who was doing that comparison .. you or me ?

It shouldn't matter who is doing the comparison, you claimed that heavy for caliber bullets were such an advantage, so it should be easy for you to demonstrate situations where it would be a significant advantage over the light for caliber TTSX out of a similar cartridge case. And lets stick with the 0- 500 yard parameters set by the OP.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Not to be difficult here, but I had a shoulder hit with a 165gr ttsx coming out of a 300wsm and that deer was still alive 24hrs later, you can find the full version of that story in the archives of the hunting section. So I think the difference in your outcomes were better shot placement rather that the caliber of the hole, I actually know it was the difference.

Wow - a good shoulder hit with a 165 mono out of a .300 WSM at ---? yards and you didn't recover a Deer? Not to doubt, but quite an anomaly I would say. Crappy Stuff happens.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Wow - a good shoulder hit with a 165 mono out of a .300 WSM at ---? yards and you didn't recover a Deer? Not to doubt, but quite an anomaly I would say. Crappy Stuff happens.

Yup. He dropped on the spot and never moved for over 5min. Then he stood up, tried to run and did a nose dive, plowed face first through the snow for about 15 feet then started to hobble with a busted front left shoulder. It was right at dark and I figured he'd be dead right there in the morning.

Next morning come to find out he'd crossed the athabasca river on very sketchy ice. Long story short, after 2 days tracking I never did find him.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Yup. He dropped on the spot and never moved for over 5min. Then he stood up, tried to run and did a nose dive, plowed face first through the snow for about 15 feet then started to hobble with a busted front left shoulder. It was right at dark and I figured he'd be dead right there in the morning.

Next morning come to find out he'd crossed the athabasca river on very sketchy ice. Long story short, after 2 days tracking I never did find him.

That's a tough one.
My guess would be that the shot was a wee bit ahead and just missed the front lung(s), while taking out the one shoulder .. but that's just a guess.
Haunting, to say the least.

[Don_Parsons]

From what I recall about Elmer Keith articles, he was not a fan of the 243.

Elmer was a advocate of big bore.

I'm guessing that he might of owned or shot a 243, pretty sure he would of never attempted to take one hunting.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/rifle...s-elmer-keith/

Elmer was stead fast on his big bores, even to his last days.

One might not want to under estimate the Jack O'connor's descriptions of the 270/ 30-06.

Ahhhhhh,,, the posted article will cover this.

Don't forget, this was many years ago, and many bon fires have been burnt.

Kinda like this thread.

Burn baby burn.

Don

[Kurt505]

With all the talk about how great the 30-06 is at knocking stuff over, and all the talk about how the 270 is such a flat shooter, doesn't it just make sense that the 280 is the best of both worlds?

[Don_Parsons]

After reading the Elmer Keith and Jack O'connor story I see what was missing in the day.

BULLETS

Yuppers, the bullets of the day weren't that grate.

It would be interesting if they were still alive today to hear what they would say.

Today's bullet technology has come along ways, this is a game changer, the many shapes and forums,,, cartrages allow these new bullets to go fast,,, and some faster.

Of course recoil factors into to this in some ways.
Even that can be addressed with todays design and technology.

Recoil pads, stock design and development, recoil body pads or muzzle brakes.
Even the inner stock hydro shock system.

Anyways,,, I'm guessing that the articles of then """would or could""" be different today.

This bon fire chat would be interesting fore sure.

Another thought comes to mind.

Jack & Elmer might not of been keen on what we think of long range game Harvesting in todays world as it was back then.

How would they feel about this, and what would they say.

Would both of them take advantages of what we have today, or would they stay with their iron sights.

Again,,, what was working back then might not apply in todays world.
In some ways yes, but in other ways no.

We have all taken advantages of shooting sports like no others in our time frame.

Quality rifles, superior optics, bullets that perform in most cases, and availability of them.
The rifle powders and primers along with quality brass like Lapua and the new Sako premium.

I bring this up since the bon fires from then to now are the same, but times have changed along with the hardware we use and how we use it.

A good bon fire is spent with friends,,, I agree that this bon fire thread should be no different,,, just a IMO only thing.

Pal Don. LOL

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It shouldn't matter who is doing the comparison, you claimed that heavy for caliber bullets were such an advantage, so it should be easy for you to demonstrate situations where it would be a significant advantage over the light for caliber TTSX out of a similar cartridge case. And lets stick with the 0- 500 yard parameters set by the OP.

If I have to demonstrate to you the advantages of higher sectional densities and fragmenting bullets in most any situation , I'll have consider the exercise a waste of time .. . There really is more to terminal performance than a lighter mono bullet (TTSX or otherwise) in any caliber... but don't take my word for it. Ask around...or better yet, try it yourself.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

If I have to demonstrate to you the advantages of higher sectional densities and fragmenting bullets in most any situation , I'll have consider the exercise a waste of time .. . There really is more to terminal performance than a lighter mono bullet (TTSX or otherwise) in any caliber... but don't take my word for it. Ask around...or better yet, try it yourself.

I have used Ballistic Tips, Partitions, Trophy Bonded, Jensen, standard cup and core bullets of several kinds and weights, as well as a few different monometal bullets, and I settled on the lighter for caliber TTSX for high velocity cartridges, and the medium for caliber Accubond for medium velocity cartridges, because they have been the most consistent performers for me, and my hunting partners. If we were back in the 1950s and 60s, when bullet design was much less developed, sectional density would be a major consideration, but in the 21st century, modern bullet design has pretty much made sectional density a non issue as far as on game bullet performance is concerned.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons

From what I recall about Elmer Keith articles, he was not a fan of the 243.

Elmer was a advocate of big bore.

I'm guessing that he might of owned or shot a 243, pretty sure he would of never attempted to take one hunting.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/rifle...s-elmer-keith/

Elmer was stead fast on his big bores, even to his last days.

One might not want to under estimate the Jack O'connor's descriptions of the 270/ 30-06.

Ahhhhhh,,, the posted article will cover this.

Don't forget, this was many years ago, and many bon fires have been burnt.

Kinda like this thread.

Burn baby burn.

Don

Yes he was a big bore fan and I concur with his philosophy. Thats why I like my Mid Bores .. . .338,.35 and .336. Can't say he was wrong, compared to J O'C

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have used Ballistic Tips, Partitions, Trophy Bonded, Jensen, standard cup and core bullets of several kinds and weights, as well as a few different monometal bullets, and I settled on the lighter for caliber TTSX for high velocity cartridges, and the medium for caliber Accubond for medium velocity cartridges, because they have been the most consistent performers for me, and my hunting partners.

There you have it ..TTSX for high velocity cartridges . and that pertains to terminal velocities, not muzzle. From my viewpoint, your selection of the Accubond for medium terminal velocities is bang-on and suits a wide array of currently popular hunting cartridges of all calibers... and the bigger, the better.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have used Ballistic Tips, Partitions, Trophy Bonded, Jensen, standard cup and core bullets of several kinds and weights, as well as a few different monometal bullets, and I settled on the lighter for caliber TTSX for high velocity cartridges, and the medium for caliber Accubond for medium velocity cartridges, because they have been the most consistent performers for me, and my hunting partners. If we were back in the 1950s and 60s, when bullet design was much less developed, sectional density would be a major consideration, but in the 21st century, modern bullet design has pretty much made sectional density a non issue as far as on game bullet performance is concerned.

Elk, you gotta be kiddin . Sectional density is the largest contributor to the formula that determines ballistic coefficient. Without high SD there can be no High BC. SD is also know as a major contributor to a bullets penetration capabilities .. and yes, Mono bullets would be included.

Not exactly a non-issue... even in the 21st Century.

[270person]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

Have you ever considered that a 150 grain bullet such as a Game King launched from a 7-08 will only be 100+/- fps slower at 1000 yards than the same bullet launched from a 7mm Rem Mag?

Uh no I haven't quite simply because anyone that would try a 1000 yd shot on an animal is an idiot.

Have you ever considered that one of, if not the, largest grizz ever shot in Alberta succumbed to a .22?

Neither mean much is my point.

[270person]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

If my wife wanted to hunt I’d get her a 270. Since she doesn’t I’ll leave them in the store for the rest of the women to buy.

So your kids get the 7-08's then?

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by 270person

So your kids get the 7-08's then?

Maybe for my daughter but more than likely not.

[270person]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

With all the talk about how great the 30-06 is at knocking stuff over, and all the talk about how the 270 is such a flat shooter, doesn't it just make sense that the 280 is the best of both worlds?

Might be but I'd stay with one of the named 7's. We're all nitpicking and standing up for our favorites which is natural.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Elk, you gotta be kiddin . Sectional density is the largest contributor to the formula that determines ballistic coefficient. Without high SD there can be no High BC. SD is also know as a major contributor to a bullets penetration capabilities .. and yes, Mono bullets would be included.

Not exactly a non-issue... even in the 21st Century.

Have you ever looked at solids which are designed to penetrate with no expansion? They tend to be flat points with a very low B.C. B.C. is a factor in how much velocity the bullet impacts with, but once the bullet reaches the animal, a higher B.C. of the unfired bullet does not mean more penetration.
In fact more impact velocity can mean more expansion, and less penetration ,while lower impact velocity usually means less expansion, which can result in more penetration.

[270person]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Maybe for my daughter but more than likely not.

Whatever they can shoot well.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Elk, you gotta be kiddin . Sectional density is the largest contributor to the formula that determines ballistic coefficient. Without high SD there can be no High BC. SD is also know as a major contributor to a bullets penetration capabilities .. and yes, Mono bullets would be included.

Not exactly a non-issue... even in the 21st Century.

Have you ever looked at solids which are designed to penetrate with no expansion? They tend to be flat points with a very low B.C. B.C. is a factor in how much velocity the bullet impacts with, but once the bullet reaches the animal, a higher B.C. of the unfired bullet does not mean more penetration.
In fact more impact velocity can mean more expansion, and less penetration ,while lower impact velocity usually means less expansion, which can result in more penetration.
As well, a 140gr monometal , will often penetrate more than a 175gr cup and core bullet even though the SD of the unfired bullet is much lower. I have seen this several times, as a hunting partner used to like 175gr bullets in his 7mmremmag, until he saw that my 140gr TSX/TTSX bullets penetrated as much or more. Bullet construction is much more of a factor than SD when it comes to penetration.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by 270person

Whatever they can shoot well.

Agreed.

[Pathfinder76]

Sectional density, unless talking about solids, means less than nothing.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Have you ever looked at solids which are designed to penetrate with no expansion? They tend to be flat points with a very low B.C. B.C. is a factor in how much velocity the bullet impacts with, but once the bullet reaches the animal, a higher B.C. of the unfired bullet does not mean more penetration.
In fact more impact velocity can mean more expansion, and less penetration ,while lower impact velocity usually means less expansion, which can result in more penetration.

A flat nosed solid has a lower BC due to it's form factor .. another component of the BC formula. Re-shape that same soild to a Spire Point and watch the BC go up. I agree that BC has zero effect on penetration. Sectional Density does it all at any given velocity while bullet construction does the rest.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by chuck

Sectional density, unless talking about solids, means less than nothing.

Care to expand on that ?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Care to expand on that ?

Sectional density becomes completely altered upon impact. Kinda when it matters most as meaningful measure of its ability to penetrate against another projectile. Again, it is completely meaningless.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by chuck

Sectional density becomes completely altered upon impact. Kinda when it matters most as meaningful measure of its ability to penetrate against another projectile. Again, it is completely meaningless.

Once the bullet expands to larger than it's unfired diameter, the SD starts to decrease. And as a bullet sheds weight, it's SD also decreases. A 140gr monometal that retains 90% of it's weight , will actually have a higher SD than a 175gr cup and core bullet that sheds 40% of it's weight. So which is more important, the unfired SD, or the expanded/remaining SD?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by chuck

Sectional density becomes completely altered upon impact. Kinda when it matters most as meaningful measure of its ability to penetrate against another projectile. Again, it is completely meaningless.

If you say so Chuck. Try killing something with a bullet without any SD -then try a bullet with some SD and yet another with much more SD than the second one. Report back when you get if figured out.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

If you say so Chuck. Try killing something with a bullet without any SD -then try a bullet with some SD and yet another with much more SD than the second one. Report back when you get if figured out.

The truth is the truth. Outside of a solid, no bullet that expands does not have its SD completely altered during the work portion of its flight. If you want to hang onto SD measure it once it’s finished. Then you might have an argument. This is not rocket science and I propose that you are completely wrong in your thinking. If you’re not, give me a good argument to the contrary.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Once the bullet expands to larger than it's unfired diameter, the SD starts to decrease. And as a bullet sheds weight, it's SD also decreases. A 140gr monometal that retains 90% of it's weight , will actually have a higher SD than a 175gr cup and core bullet that sheds 40% of it's weight. So which is more important, the unfired SD, or the expanded/remaining SD?

In the same caliber, at the same terminal velocity and the same POI and meeting the same resistance , the same bullet design, but with the higher SD will penetrate farther. Period. Also, check out momentum .. another key factor. SD and Momentum are the workhorses, regardless of bullet design.

What happens in the 2 or 3 milliseconds after impact is the result of bullet construction.
Some like their bullets to pencil thru, others like them to shed some fragments enroute, while others like them to do both. Those are matters of a shooters bullet choice. That's why every bullet available isn't a TTSX or other monometal. They have their place - just not every place.