Thread: A question for the doubters

Just had a brief look through the article that Gimp mentioned on page one. What I took out of that was, all things being equal, a bullet carrying more energy has the potential to create a larger wound wherever it hits a deer than a bullet carrying less energy. I believe that is indisputable. All you fellas that swear by your little bullets keep on using them by all means. This thread seems to be aimed at making us fellas who use bigger bullets feel inadequate because somehow we seem to be wasting energy in some way. Please accept my apology from the rest of us if somebody laughed at your little gun in the past.

Originally Posted by Mararoa

Just had a brief look through the article that Gimp mentioned on page one. What I took out of that was, all things being equal, a bullet carrying more energy has the potential to create a larger wound wherever it hits a deer than a bullet carrying less energy. I believe that is indisputable.

Can you quote the bit that leads you to believe that ?


Here's one of many quotes from that paper, and many others, that has led me to form the conclusion that I have -

Fig. 9.2
Wound profiles according to Fackler [1, 2, 21] of two stable spheres depositing roughly the same amount of energy in gelatine blocks but producing strikingly different wound cavities. In the case of the fast, small and light-weight steel sphere (478J), most of the kinetic energy is used up in the stretch mechanism, producing a large temporary cavity and a small permanent tract. In contrast to this, most of the large and heavy but slow sphere’s energy (430J) is used up in crushing of tissue, thus producing a large permanent tract but a small temporary cavity. This sharp contrast already demonstrates that gunshot injuries cannot be adequately described by terms like energy or energy deposit. The energy transfer of the fast sphere is also higher than that of the slow one

I suppose "all things being equal" you mean diameter, mass and construction. The only variable affecting energy would be impact velocity. Depending on construction you may end up with a larger or small wound? If a projectile fully fragments early on and does not penetrate, due to increased velocity (energy) it may have a small wound volume in total ?

all depends on construction - more predictive than the quantity of energy

Originally Posted by Mararoa

Just had a brief look through the article that Gimp mentioned on page one. What I took out of that was, all things being equal, a bullet carrying more energy has the potential to create a larger wound wherever it hits a deer than a bullet carrying less energy. I believe that is indisputable. All you fellas that swear by your little bullets keep on using them by all means. This thread seems to be aimed at making us fellas who use bigger bullets feel inadequate because somehow we seem to be wasting energy in some way. Please accept my apology from the rest of us if somebody laughed at your little gun in the past.

On the contrary - all power to you if you can shoot your big gun well! I can’t, so I use a small gun and feel more confident of a hit with it.

Apologies the start of the thread gave you the impression that I was hoping to belittle anyone. I was interested to know what physical evidence it would take to get others to believe what I and some others do. I think it’s probably about as difficult as convincing someone there are moose in NZ, even if you killed one.

Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick

On the contrary - all power to you if you can shoot your big gun well! I can’t, so I use a small gun and feel more confident of a hit with it.

Apologies the start of the thread gave you the impression that I was hoping to belittle anyone. I was interested to know what physical evidence it would take to get others to believe what I and some others do. I think it’s probably about as difficult as convincing someone there are moose in NZ, even if you killed one.

I think, judging from what I have read, that No one is doubting the 223 works for you and others. The unknown factor is how each of you chooses too use such a rifle and if it differs from how id use my, bigger rifle. Subconsciously bullet placement might well be different for. Gimp Talked about high shoulder and spine for example.

But I have a question in return. I dont suffer from recoil weariness, or flinch etc. Ill shoot my 270 just as well as I will my 223, when I had it. As far as I can remember, Ive only lost 1 animal in the last 7 years wounded.
What calibre would you recommend I pick up to take hunting, and why?

Originally Posted by whanahuia

I think, judging from what I have read, that No one is doubting the 223 works for you and others. The unknown factor is how each of you chooses too use such a rifle and if it differs from how id use my, bigger rifle. Subconsciously bullet placement might well be different for. Gimp Talked about high shoulder and spine for example.

But I have a question in return. I dont suffer from recoil weariness, or flinch etc. Ill shoot my 270 just as well as I will my 223, when I had it. As far as I can remember, Ive only lost 1 animal in the last 7 years wounded.
What calibre would you recommend I pick up to take hunting, and why?

That's an easy one. Bit like my decision to take 270 today. Bush stalking equals normally a quick shot and not perfect placement and windy as fook. If goats and or fallow your MAIN target species,yip take 223. If going for quiet walk on calm day to target meat for freezer,so not really after big staggypooh,yeah if want to take smaller rifle go for it,but be prepared to wait for good shot placement. Watch any of the videos tahr has put up.....that wait for good shot is a common theme,I'd just about bet rushies left nut a gun camera on gimps rifle would show the same delay/wait for best shot to present itself

Originally Posted by whanahuia

I think, judging from what I have read, that No one is doubting the 223 works for you and others. The unknown factor is how each of you chooses too use such a rifle and if it differs from how id use my, bigger rifle. Subconsciously bullet placement might well be different for. Gimp Talked about high shoulder and spine for example.

But I have a question in return. I dont suffer from recoil weariness, or flinch etc. Ill shoot my 270 just as well as I will my 223, when I had it. As far as I can remember, Ive only lost 1 animal in the last 7 years wounded.
What calibre would you recommend I pick up to take hunting, and why?

If you haven’t previously used a 22 centrefire with 77TMK, 73, 80 or 88gr ELD-M, then take one of them hunting. Why? Well it’ll do the job, and you may just enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick

If you haven’t previously used a 22 centrefire with 77TMK, 73, 80 or 88gr ELD-M, then take one of them hunting. Why? Well it’ll do the job, and you may just enjoy it.

That didnt answer my question.

I enjoy hunting. Im confident with whatever i'm using. Im after an unbiased opinion given the parameters Ive laid out. 270 or 223 given Ill shoot either as accurately.

Originally Posted by Mararoa

somebody laughed at your little gun in the past.

I bet theres a correlation between phallus size and gun size

Originally Posted by Brad S

I bet theres a correlation between phallus size and gun size

Inversely proportional?

Originally Posted by Brad S

I bet theres a correlation between phallus size and gun size

....odd thing to bet on

Originally Posted by Brad S

I bet theres a correlation between phallus size and gun size

Its not the size its how you use it that counts