Mule Deer,

I saw on another thread you now favor lighter bullets in the .338 win. I’m looking at 200-210 grain loads for a dedicated plains game rifle. The rifle currently has a 26 inch barrel but Im considering cutting it back. What are your thoughts on 210 partition, ttsx, or Scirocco II or even 185 tsx for that purpose? I’m also wanting to stick to the most temp stable powders since I will be working up loads in PA in the winter/spring. Ive always used H4350 in .338 with lighter bullets, have you tried RL16?

I know a lot of people think anything less than a 250 in .338 is a waste, but I don’t think they are optimal for a 1 rifle pg hunt.

Thanks.

Not MD but Ed Matunis had some thoughts on the 210 vs 250 Nosler for Africa. Hagel liked the 210 for Elk but at that time there was no 225 and the 250s were semi spitzers.
For me the deciding factor would be if Eland are on your list if so I would pick the Barnes or a 225 NP or Accubond just for added peace of mind. If Eland are not on the list any of the bullets you mentioned would do fine. I think Connie Brooks used the 185s in her 340 Weatherby to good effect in Africa a couple of times.

The 250s do not loose out all that much to the lighter bullets and are never a bad choice. Jack OConner lamented there were no good 180 grain bullets for the 338 at that time, but we all know what recoil wimp he was. He used one of the early 338 in Africa for a number of plains game. I think Winchester loaned him a prototype.

Enjoy and I am envious.

FWIW, I used a 338WM firing 225gr NP for a one rifle safari. Animals included Eland, Gemsbok, Kudu, and Hartmann's Zebra. Three bang flops and the Kudu covered about 100 yds before piling up. I would use the same set up again.

405wcf

I've used the 200X in a 35 WAI (going 2970fps; 338 territory) for zebra and black wildebeest. I used the 210XBT in a 340W for zebra, Impala, Blesbuck, and the big Namibian gemsbuck. I also killed a big cow elk with the 185XLC from a 338 winmag. I'd pick the 210 TTSX and go forth with shouts of glee and anticipation! Have a ball Pard!

jmh3,

I haven't tried RL-16 yet. Have been using RL-15 with 200-210's in the .338 for many years, with superb results. It's somewhat more temperature-sensitive than 16, but on a plains game hunt it wouldn't matter.

Used to use heavier bullets on bigger game, such as the 230 Fail Safe on an Alaskan bull moose, and the 250 Partition on a bull eland, but question whether they'd be any more effective than a monolithic 200-210 even on those really big animals.

While I've used a variety of 200-210's on "medium" game, my favorite's the 200 Ballistic Tip--or these days the Combined Technology Ballistic Silvertip, which is the same thing in different colors. The bullet's mostly jacket, so is similar to a monolithic with a sliver of lead behind the plastic tip. It kills very well, but also penetrates very deeply. Once shot a bull gemsbok in the right shoulder as it stood almost facing me at around 150 yards. The bull went right down, and the bullet was recovered from under the hide of the left ham--several feet of penetration.

Why a 338 when smaller guns will get the job done

Thanks for the info guys.

Why the .338? I guess because I’ve always used one (30 years) for anything bigger than deer and I’m confident/comfortable with the cartridge. I’ve used the 250 partition almost exclusively, but there has been a lot written about lite for caliber .338 bullets lately so I was curious.

I’ll be curious to see if anybody has tried RL 16.

Why Not! memtb

Mule Deer,
What's your experience with the 200 grain Accubond? Does it perform similarly to the 200 grain BT?
Thanks,
bowmanh

Haven't tried it on game bigger than deer or pigs yet, so dunno. But have had good results with Accubonds in several other cartridges from the .260 Remington to 9.3x62.

Heck yeah! I dig my 338 Win. It may not be needed but it might be my most grabbed main battle rifle for serious hunts.

I’ve taken a few Elk now with the 200 AB, 210 Partition and one this fall with the 210 Swift. I can’t think of much I wouldn’t hunt with any of them. They will all penetrate and crush big bones. The 210 Partition is the penetration champ in my book but the wound channel on the Swift this fall was amazing.





I’ve used a bunch of RL17 with the 210’s. This load with the Swift’s runs about 2935 FPS but man it flys well and seems to hit hard.

What bullet is pictured?

I was gonna show a picture of a 225 Barnes (TSX or TTSX) from my wife’s .338 WM.....but we haven’t recovered one yet!
memtb

That’s a lot of frontal area on that Swift. How far did it penetrate? Looks sort of like the way a Woodleigh weld core expands only wider.

I happily used my .338 for plains game because I liked the additional margin for error with animals where the trophy fees ran $1000-3000. Remember, if you have wounded it, you have paid for it. I didn't think the logic of "how small a gun can I use" made any sense with the stakes that high. I would rather have two holes so that we had better odds for a blood trail. I also was not on a "shoot several animal a day" budget, so I didn't think that I would get recoil fatigued--if I was on an impala cull hunt I think a .264 of some flavor would be my maximum And lastly, I loaded it down a bit so that the recoil was not as sharp.

210 partitions for me.

Why use a smaller gun when a .338 with get the job done?

You sound like a guy with a little teeny pecker causing major locker room insecurity. Suggestion: worry more 'bout your own problem and spend less time criticizing others' choices. If you can't, uh, rise to the occasion, you'd be wiser to sit quietly in the corner and hope nobody notices than talking a lot and making sure they notice. Of course, it IS up to you, I'm just trying to help you save a little of your dignity.

Tom

This. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, why comment at all?

The bullet pictured is the 210 Swift Scirocco. Shot was 151 yards give or take a couple steps since I didn’t range prior to the shot. Bullet broke the near side leg on entry and was buried in the hide on the far side behind the front leg. Been shooting BBCs and Swift’s a little more the last few years and they tend to do the same thing, expand wide and wreck everything real decent but they will be found in the far side quite often. I’m okay with that. No animal from either Bullet has wandered more than 25-30 yards. Most are laying right where I hit them.

Not a 338 WM, but a 338-06 question, I shoot 250 gr NPT's and SAF's in my 338 WM, love em, I have a re-bored pre-64 M-70 that was a rusty bored 270 WCF rifle outta Oregon, JES worked his magic on it, it is now a very accurate 338-06 that fires 210 gr partitions to 2800 fps, my 'Smith installed a stainless M-70 trigger and cerakoted all the steel, question is, do You or MuleDeer or any of the other experienced elk hunters think this would make a good backup elk rifle?

I love heavy or even extra heavy for caliber bullets, what I'm reading here is the 210 NPT may be plenty, the rifle in question wears a 3.5-10x40 matte Leupold scope in Leupold DD rings and bases, it all sits nicely bedded in an old Pacific Research stock, and most likely weighs less than 8lbs all up.

Thanks in advance.

Your contribution of this info here several years back was responsible for first developing my interest in the 338WinMag. My dad and I both used that load data with a Ruger M77 and Remington 700 that were cut back to 22", and we've had great results with it. The 200gr Ballistic Silvertip is his favorite, although I've been playing with some 210 and 185 TTSX bullets. We were recently at a Whitetails Unlimited auction and put a lowball bid in on a 10 day safari in RSA, and we wound up winning it. We're thinking that the 338 rifles will likely accompany us for plains game in 2019. 59gr of H4895 and the 185TTSX is so easy-shooting in my Ruger that I may just go with that. Kudu and Oryx shouldn't shrug one off.

JPro, congratulations on the hunt! Hope you have a great hunt. That .338 will “do ya good”! memtb

Gunner, I would run that 338-06 with 210 Partitions without a danged thought. It easily has the ability to get to 400 Elk holding on hair with a good 250 yard zero. I have 0 issues with the magnificent 210 Partition. I shoot other stuff from my 338 now cause the silly Partition just left dead Elk behind for a couple of years. It’s a hammer on Elk. I ran that 210 at 3050 and I shot a couple young bulls at 400’ish yards. It was a CRUSHER.

So yup, I’d carry that one hands down for the rest of my elk hunting life never feeling like I was handicapped.

And good luck keeping one in an Elk. They penetrate like crazy. I think you’d have to hit both front leg joints on a broadside bull to keep one there. Or shoot corner to corner. In my bit of testing they don’t give up much of anything to the 225’s or 250’s. My opinion of them is if they typically exit an Elk I don’t need the heavier Bullets.

Hell of a deal, Thanks for the vote of confidence Beretzs, I appreciate it, it's sure a good carrying balanced light rifle, recoil is off the charts manageable too, got a BC cap for the front and some camo tape around the tube with a nice light BC sling too, guess it's sitting on go and ready.

Have about 200 rounds loaded up in necked up W-W '06 brass.

BTW, just installed a new Wolff extra power 25 pound firing pin spring yesterday, bring on 10 degree hunting, bet she'll still go BOOM!

Gunner,
I agree 100%, I sold my last 338-06 to a good friend with the caveat that I have first right of refusal if he ever sells it.

I have all the pieces for another, just waiting for the smith to call and say he has time put it all together. Model 70 classic stainless, shilen #3 stainless 1:9, mickey hunters edge, aluminum PTG bottom. Will get threaded for a suppressor.

I have played with all bullet weights, but my hunting loads were 200gr Hornady IL's which are fantastic on deer/antelope. 210 gr NP's and TSX which I could not keep in an elk. I did recover one 210 NP that hit the lower front leg of an cow elk that was bedded.

There is nothing on this planet, save a couple of the big five that I would not shoot with a 338-06 or WM.

PS
If you are EVER interested in selling that rifle, shoot me a PM!

Thanks for another vote of confidence and experiences CRS, don't know why I can't get my head around using light to mid-weight weight for caliber bullets, seems the 210 Partition will be a used exception to the rule.

LOL on my rifle, I just fired off a cell pic to Beretzs earlier so he could have a look at my setup, and yes, if I ever decide to sell it, you'll get first shot.

I have a 338 I have never used.
When I got to looking at data, my 300 had plenty of snot up close, and did better for long range.
If you are going to shoot light bullets from a 338, what makes it better than a 300?

This is not an argument, it is a question.

For me Dillon, I too love the 300 mags with 180-200 grs, but in 338/35 WAI, the 180/210 shoot as flat as can be in the field , recoil less ( if that's an issue) but penetrate while cutting a bigger hole, usually two! Its just "satisfying to my soul" to shoot a heavy critter ( or big hog) with a Medium bore, ha. Necessary? Of course not, I've used the 300WM/180XBT and seen it used on little springbuck to big Blue Wildebeast/zebra. I have no doubt that load (or similar) would work on Eland too. But I noticed I had to really focus and break bones with the 300 that I did not have to with the Whelan/Weatherby or 338 RUM. Close to them was devastatingly effective. Just a thing...

Dillonbuck, Having run both, The only thing that might make a 338 "better" is caliber and the effect on target real or imagined.
Where I hunt that can be something that can color your decision on what to use, but since an aging shoulder has decided for me that a 338WM is no longer an option?

Dillonbuck,

Please allow me a chance to answer.

I went through the same thing when looking at longer-range computer ballistics with the .300 and .338 Winchester Magnums years ago, both of which I've used extensively over the decades. It seemed the .300 would indeed be superior with bullets around 200 grains, but when actually shooting both rounds with 200-grain bullets there just wasn't any noticeable difference, either in wind-drift or trajectory, out to 500 yards. And that's far as I've ever shot at big game. (Might shoot longer in the future, but maybe not.) This was somewhat puzzling, but eventually I concluded the 200-grain Ballistic Tip's BC was higher than listed by Nosler. Or at least it is in typical hunting conditions in my part of Montana.

Built my .338 in the 1980's, because like a lot of hunters (including Gunner :-) I thought heavier bullets had to be superior on heavier game. I'd also heard the .338 kicked HARD with 250-grain bullets, so initially built the rifle on the heavy side, around 9 pounds with scope.

Eventually discovered the .338 doesn't kick nearly as bad as most people suggested, so started "whittling" it down. Replaced the medium-heavy barrel with a slimmer one, and the stock with a lighter model. Eventually it weighed 7-1/2 pounds with scope, and while I initially used heavier bullets, I also started using lighter bullets because, well, that's my job. Discovered (unlike Gunner) that lighter bullets made right will do the same things as heavier bullets, and maybe better for most hunting.

This was partly because my .338 kicked less than the .300 Winchester Magnums I've hunted with, when using 200-grain bullets. This wasn't due to stock shape, because one of the .300's used the same Bansner High Tech stock as on my .338--and weighed a half pound more. But with 200's at the same 3000 fps, the .338 seemed noticeably milder. I assume this is because of using somewhat less powder, plus the reduced "rocket effect" of the muzzle gas in the bigger .338 bore, but there it is.

Now, I don't hunt all that much with either .300 magnums or the .338 Winchester anymore, having found that with good bullets, smaller rounds are totally adequate for elk and similar-sized African game. I regard my New Ultra Light Arms .30-06 as my big rifle anymore, like my wife did almost 20 years ago when she took it to Africa and killed gemsbok, blue wildebeest and kudu easily with 165-grain Fail Safes. Since then Eileen has dropped even lower: Her last two elk, both mature cows, were taken with the .257 Roberts and the 100-grain Barnes TTSX and the .308 Winchester with the 130 TTSX. One dropped on the spot, and the other went 25 yards before falling, both with angling shots, one quartering away and one quartering toward. The cow taken with the .308 was a big one, and the "little" bullet broke the near shoulder and was recovered barely hanging from the ribs on the opposite side.

That said, I am thinking about using my .338 again, mostly because in the past few years we've had grizzlies move into the mountain ranges on both sides of our Montana valley. At my stage of "middle age" I appreciate my .338's light weight even more, and if the odds go against me while hunting the local mountains, and somehow a grizzly gets actively involved, I'd like the .338 in my hands a little more than my .30-06. But I also know, from having shot it alongside the .300 Winchester Magnum that it doesn't give up anything at any of the modestly longer ranges I might shoot at an elk. I know it wouldn't be any more effective on a grizzly than any of my .300's, but it weighs and kicks a little less.

Now, all of this is indeed rifle-loony nitpicking, but it's why I would personally use my .338 over any of my .300's.

Thanks MD,

Big stuff up close was the only place the 338 seemed to have an advantage.
Like most things, there are needs, and the there are desires.

My opinion and only a fairly modest amount of Elk, bear and deer taken with the 338 and Whelen but bigger animals like bull Elk and even cows seem to make few if any tracks when hit with a great Bullet like the Swift’s or Nosler’s and probably the Barnes as well (haven’t used them in a few years). I’ve seen them take the hit and basically stand there and die. Most of them seemed to be mighty sick and didn’t wanna wander too far.

In full honesty though I’ve seen the 300 RUM and Wby do about the same when stoked with that AWESOME 200 grain Accubond. Most everything I have took myself or been part of has had a near or far side front leg broke. I’m sure if both front legs were pinned nothing would have gone anywhere.

My only real experience with smaller Bullets that have the same effect were three Elk with the 7mm Mashburn with the 175 Bitterroots. Two Elk caved on the spot without a twitch on pure rib shots while the 3rd was a small bull in Oregon that took the BBC at 75 yards while moving, that bull took the bullet in the near side ribs and it blew out the opposite front legs. He managed to make it about 25 yards but was stone dead when I walked up on him.

So, I’ll take the wider expansion and speed of a lighter bullet in the 338 happily. I just haven’t seen it let me down. They penetrate plenty far and fly pretty well too.

For me, your question suggests a misunderstanding. If I had a very good .300 that I was completely happy with, I wouldn't go out and buy a .338, at least not similarly packaged. It's kind of like having a .270, deciding you need bigger, and buying an '06. WTF? No. If you need more, you don't get 1% more, you go get 10-15% more ... at least. If you have a .270 and want more, get a .300 or .338. If you have a .300 and want more, get a .375 or even a .416. Don't waste time and money with improvements that are marginal at best when real improvements, if you need improvement, cost the same as the marginal ones.

However, if I had a .300 in a Sendero or the like, and wanted a sporter to pack around, too, I might go with either a .300 WSM or a .338 Win Mag. I haven't had good luck interchanging ammo unless they're custom rifles cut with the same reamer by the same gunsmith. In that case I'd actually avoid buying another rifle in the same chambering I already had just to keep stuff separate.

Tom

The 338 was an older Sako bought at a good price.
Once I started studying the numbers, I came to my conclusuions.
Now, I have an investment that doubles as stabilizing weight in my gunsafe.
I have made money on it, I guess. Of course, $500 dollars in the markets in the mid 90's would have done much better. Probably.

In my experience with 300's vs 338's, the 338's just plain hit harder. Simple matter of physics.

Dead is dead though.

Small sample though, with 10 or so large animals shot with each.

One that sticks out is a raghorn 6 point bull elk that I shot at 275 yards with my 338-06 and 210gr TSX, quartering towards, shot on the point of the shoulder, broke the ball socket into pieces, exited behind the ribs. Punched a hole through the liver that had fissures radiating out from the bullet path. Bull staggered turned broadside and put another through the ribs. Second shot was not needed.

I thought for years that there is no way a 200 grain .338 Ballistic Tip/Accubond has a .414 BC if a 165 .308 version(basically same SD) is at .475. I even made a thread asking about it at one point, but no one had any real world results back then. Since then, Bryan Litz has tested the .338 200 Accubond at .461. He also shows the .308 165 at .446, .308 180 at .482, and the 200 grain .308 Accubond at .524.

This is pretty refreshing to hear in that a lot of grief is given when someone selects a 338 WM over a 300. A lot of times my choice in a cartridge has to do with what I am already shooting above or below it. A 338 WM is just ANOTHER cartridge with a whole stack of pros and cons to it like any other cartridge.

CRS,

A lot of people believe the .338 must hit harder. I did too when I first started using it, but the longer I've witnessed field results with a wider variety of cartridges, the less difference I see--within certain broad limits.

My wife shot a big cow elk this fall at basically the same range and angle as the raghorn you describe. She's pretty quick with a bolt handle, but there wasn't time for another shot, because the cow staggered a little ways and fell. The cartridge was the .308 Winchester and the bullet a 130-grain TTSX. The only difference is the bullet didn't exit. I found it under the hide behind the ribs on the far side.

Cow elk aren't that hard to kill and small cartridges will do it right all day long.

Bigger bulls getting over 700 lbs and things change a bit. Especially a public land hunt that is pushing bulls around.

After a 10 year hiatus I'm back in the 338 camp. I just like the cartridge! It's a hammer and I prefer 225's and 250's.
The 338's are very easy to get accuracy with.

Of note with the 338-06, the 338 RCM with a 20" barrel and 13" LOP is one very handy rifle, I have one of those in the stable too.
It dotes on 200's and 210's.

In regards to 338 recoil, it's all in the mind. They are not that bad.

This cow was as big as most raghorns, which is why I made the comparison. Have also seen cows go a long way when hit a little wrong, or with an inadequate bullet. But I haven't found mature bulls all that hard to kill with good bullets in smaller cartridges either--as long as the bullet hits the right place.

Have found the same thing with other supposedly tough game in other countries as well. Not that there's anything wrong with the .338. As noted, I've used it a lot, both in North America and Africa. It works very well when shot well.

The .338 with the 185 grain TTSX at 3175 fps (RL 17) is a hammer and the recoil is very manageable. I wouldn't hesitate to use it on any plains game. With monos, it would be a heck of a lot better than most plains game cartridges if you happened into a PO'd buff, elephant or lion.

Gotcha....



Yeah, I know about that. Only elk I ever lost was cow hit with the old X bullet out of 708. Smacked her solid in the chest at 60 yards, never found her.

I have read your posts on this subject previously.

Without listing a lot of anecdotal examples, I will stand by the statement that bigger diameter bullets hit harder. If the only variable changed is bullet diameter, laws of physics dictate that.

Jerry,

I have killed three bull elk with my 338-06, two with the 210 gr Partition at 2800 fps and one with the 185 gr TSX at 2950 fps. All performed the same (as did the 260 gr Partition via 375 H&H, the 225 gr TSX via 35 Whelen and 140 gr TSX via 270 Winchester) so if you like the 210 gr Partition go kill stuff with it.

They all kill regardless of diameter. Trust me

Yes, they do. I'll stand with that.

Then why don’t we all “high velocity” sewing needles....there would be a lot less recoil! memtb

What does "hit harder" actually mean?

How does this change killing?

I worked up to similar velocities with this and the TSX version and got impressive accuracy using 760/H414 Haven't taken game with the combo yet but did use the 175gn X bullet in the .340 during the 90's and that was rather impressive on medium game at long range.

I also have a 26" spare barrel in .300 Win to fit one of my Model 70's but I certainly would not set it up when the above option is working so well.

John

Hitting harder for me is a visual image that provides a vision that can be remembered as opposed to a more common bang flop.
It does not mean the animal has reached a new level of dead, but there is an impression made that is observed. (Most readers will note this as the often mentioned power differentiation level for cartridges where the most experienced people state that cut off is where the .375 H&H enters the cartridge debate.)

Once shot a feral goat with the then new .416 Weatherby using 400gn Hornady RN loaded at 2745fps. These feral billies usually weighed in the 170 to 200 with a few that went larger than that but when that Hornady hit the ribs when aimed for the off shoulder from about 50 yards, there was a physical vision of impact that was recorded in my mind to this day.

On another occasion, I had a guide that was considerably blase' about cartridges until I slammed a 550gn Woodleigh loaded to 2509fps from my .460 Weatherby into a buffalo at 60 yards whereby his response was a very audible, "Good Lord"!

The answer is yes, sometimes you can see it as well as hear it but there is absolutely no tracking. I have shot thousands of animals so have seen it a few times. It is not that common, as you won't see it in every kill even with the same combination.
John

CRS,

Let me start my reply to your claim "bigger diameter bullets hit harder. If the only variable changed is bullet diameter, laws of physics dictate that" by pointing out that .338 bullets are .03 of an inch larger in diameter than .308 bullets. Wrapping a stiff business card around a .308 bullet will add that much.

This slight extra diameter does not contribute anything tangible to "hitting harder" or "killing power." Instead the diameter that really matters is the size of the "mushroom" on expanding bullets, because that's what makes the hole in big game vitals.

This varies far more than 3/100ths of an inch in bullet diameter. In fact I've measured the expanded diameter of recovered bullets that started out as .308's or .338's, by averaging the narrowest and widest points of the mushroom, and can't find any significant difference--except between brands. In other words, a .308 bullet that expands into a wide mushroom (say a Swift A-Frame) will be wide than a .338 caliber bullet that doesn't expand as widely. As a result, the difference in expanded diameter between .30 a .33 bullets overlaps considerably, and so does the amount of internal damage they do.

Let me also present a little history of the .338 Winchester Magnum. It was essentially the result of Elmer Keith's insistence that heavier, moderate-velocity bullets killed large game better than lighter, faster bullets. This was certainly true with the cup-and-core bullets he grew up with, and was the reason he eventually helped develop the several .33-caliber wildcats that resulted in the commercial .338 Winchester Magnum. But even Keith made no vast claims about the additional "killing power" of the slightly larger bullet diameter. Instead he settled on .33 because of older British .33 cartridges, which allowed 250-grain spitzers and 300-grain roundnoses to be used, much heavier than anything that worked in .30 caliber. These penetrated deeper than .30-caliber bullets, because they were slower and heavier.

In fact, Keith was originally a fan of .35 caliber, using the .35 Whelen considerably before going with .33, because .33-caliber bullets had higher ballistic coefficients so worked better at longer ranges. The SMALLER diameter bullets of the .338 Winchester Magnum were a solution to the deficiencies of cup-and-core bullets and long-range ballistics.

Now let's skip ahead to 2018, 60 years after the .338 Winchester was introduced. There are so many "premium" (or if you prefer, "controlled-expansion") bullets available these days that most .338 users don't even choose 250-grain bullets, instead using various lighter premiums. The recent elk-rifle poll on the Elk Hunting Forum reflects this: The average weight of bullets chosen by .338 Winchester magnum users was slightly under 220 grains, because of the large number of hunters who chose 200-210 grain bullets over the small number who chose the "traditional" 250-grain bullet, picked by Elmer Keith as the minimum suitable for .338. (When Winchester first introduced the .338, they asked Keith whar bullets they should load. He suggested a 250-grain spitzer for long-range shooting, and 275-300 grain roundnose for moderate ranges. Winchester also added a 200-grain spitzer at 3000 fps, and Keith just about went ballistic, if you'll pardon the pun.)

Most .338 users now choose 200-210 grain bullets, which don't have any particular advantage over premium 200's in the .300 magnums, because today's premium bullets of both diameters penetrate more than deeply enough on elk. We can argue about the tiny difference in initial bullet diameter (or the tiny difference in ballistic coefficient) which favors the .30's, but in reality they're very close to the same thing, bullets of around a third of an inch in diameter, weighing around 200 grains, shot at around 3000 fps.

This doesn't mean I believe bullet diameter doesn't make a difference in "hitting power." I just don't believe there's any noticeable difference between .30 and .33 in cartridges of about the same external ballistics, because of observing the results of each a LOT over the past 30 years.

However, the same observations have led me to believe that MAYBE there is a difference once bullet diameter is over, say, .35, especially when combined with heavier bullets in the 250-300 grain range Keith felt worked so well. I emphasize MAYBE because the animals I've seen such several 9.3mm and .375 cartridges used on do not always act overwhelmed. These have ranged in size from African springbok (a little smaller than American pronghorn) to some animals well over 1000 pounds, including plenty in between.

"Negative" examples would be a pair of springbok taken on a cull hunt in South Africa with a .375 H&H, using a pre-production 260-grain bullet at 2700 fps. They showed up about 100 yards away, and since this was partly a commercial meat hunt I aimed behind the shoulder of one. It dropped, and the other springbok ran a few yards and stood there, confused, so I shot it in the same place. That one ran about 100 yards before falling. Both had holes through their chests that would accommodate one end of an American football.

Another was an Alaskan caribou killed with a .378 Weatherby Magnum. It was hit several times by the shooter, a big guy who once played for the NFL, before finally succumbing. All the bullets landed forward of the diaphragm but around the edges of the lungs, probably because he was flinching, due to being eyebrow-battered on almost every shot by the scope. That's also just one of a number of instances that makes me doubt the common claim that magnums help make up for poor shot placement.

My old zoology professor at the University of Montana, Phil Wright, once got to go along and record the results a killing power experiment in the 1950's, where elk needed to be culled on the National Bison Range near Moiese, Montana. The shooter was a very good shot, and they decided to use two Model 70 Winchesters, one in .30-06 and the other a .375 H&H. Back then the only "premium" bullet available was the Nosler Partition, which few hunters had even heard of. They used Winchester factory ammo loaded with 220 and 300-grain roundnose bullets, both getting around the same moderate muzzle velocity. A dozen elk were shot with each rifle, from mature cows to big bulls.

Phil wrote up the results in an AMERICAN RIFLEMAN article that appeared in 1958. He gave me a reprint of the article, which recorded shot placement and damage, how far each elk traveled after the hit, and other details. The conclusion was the .375 H&H's only discernible advantage was more frequent blood trails, which might be needed, because the .375-killed elk traveled a few yards further before falling. (I lost the reprint a while back, but since then have collected old AMERICAN RIFLEMAN's going back to the 1920's, including the issue with the article.)

Above .40 caliber and there's more often a noticeable difference in how hard bullets hit, partly because they're bigger in diameter, but also because they're heavier.

I also don't think most hunters are very analytical about shooting results, often remembering "examples of one" that prove their prejudices about various rounds (and bullets), and especially the results of different shot placements. Examples of one don't mean much when compared to the results from far more animals, which tend to even out the vagaries of shot placement, and how individual animals react to the shot.

I was surprised that the 250 grain Partition is listed as "Limited Production" at Midway and is out of stock at most other online outlets.

Thanks Ed, I'll go ahead and use it like I would a 250 NPT or SAF in my 338 WM, hope that little fugger will dig!

So MuleDeer, guess I was relatively close in my explanation to a Bud after I checked zero on my 50-90 Sharps with 750 gr bullets and zeroed his 243 Win with 100 gr NPT's at the bench one day when he ask me about the striking difference's between the two, i explained it would be akin to me throwing a golf ball and hitting him in the back or using that red brick laying on the table.

To "me" it seems that 338/35/375 calibers "stun" then more than the smaller calibers. I'm talking game bigger than deer but to include big hogs. The faster, lighter calibers seem to stun deer/smaller critters better...again, to my observation. I base this on Barnes Monos, Failsafes, and the same stun factor with the 300gr Sierra/375 on cow elk and big plains game. I have also seen these same calibers used and the game showed absolutely no reaction to even being hit, lol. Miniscule, ultimately meaningless observation, but one that "satisfies my soul"...ha.

An old elk hunter I had the chance to meet said he used his Ruger .338WM (red pad /tang) and 250 NP's. He hunted in red plaid wools and stayed on his trail/overlook post all day, with his lunch and thermos of coffee. His kids would make big drives (public land) and eventually drive an elk toward him. He said at his age he didn't want any trailing rodeos and the dead elk never "complained". Oh and rolled his own - Bugler, while on his stand. He was a beauty from a past era.

Maybe it's all in my imagination, but my .338WM with my all around 225-grain bullet hits moose at lot harder than my friend's .300WM and 180-grain bullets. Maybe the small diameter difference between the two bullets doesn't make a lot of difference? Does the added weight of the heavier bullet makes a difference? Who knows, but I always end-up thinking about bullet SD, and get all confused

I did find an error on the Midway site, I think error, the 338 250 gr Nos Partition Gold were 10 cents a shot.
I don't know what year that was I got a lifetime supply, but I do know I bought two Browning BAR 338 WM rifles in 2008.

With a modest charge of IMR4350 and a large grind to fit Limbsaver left unground, I can get good groups and 2500 fps without any pain in the recoil.

I have seen zero difference how bull elk react to being hit with the 338 WM w/ 210 NP at 2,940, vs 300 WSM w/ 180 NP at 2,980.

I've had DRT shots with both, and seen elk travel a bit having been hit with both. I don't believe there's any difference, whether elk are aware of or ignorant of "the laws of physics."

I do however know the 300 WSM kicks less... but I prefer something like a 7-08, 308 or 30-06 at most.

So, hypothetically, if a middle-aged recovering rifle looney, that doesn't care much for recoil anymore, wanted to put together a mild kicking rifle for elk to moose, what would be a sensible cartridge choice?

That's what I'm thinking.

I am in the camp that believes that a medium bore or larger many times will produce a more visible reaction on game. This is based more on the 375 H&H as I have not hunted with the 338s. Even Jack O'Conner said a good big gun beats a good little gun every time, with the caveat "If you can shoot it'" I'm sure MD and others are correct in saying that most of the difference between the 300 and 338 is between the ears of the shooter at least with similar weight bullets. The 35 Whelen is another that seems to shoot beyond it's paper ballistics.

If I ever hunt Elk again it will be a toss up which rifle I'll use. I might go as light as the 6.5x55 or 270 WSM as both are lighter weight rifles these especially for cow Elk. The 280AI would be great but is on the heavy side. 7RM was made for Elk and is the most used for this purpose. The 300 is on the heavy side, the 375 feels right in the timber and will hopefully be used on Nilgai soon. In bear country especially with ones that have the Pavlovian conditioning of coming to the shot I would be happier with something 300 plus caliber.

If I were building a Mt. rifle I would think long and hard about the 7x57 in a light weight package.

Great post, John. Thanks! My experience has led me to similar conclusions about the terminal effects of neighbouring calibers, even many neighours that are two doors down

Original post I stated " dead is dead."

Hitting harder is a visual, and response at the impact.
Many variables, but with all things being equal I stand by my statement.

Having killed over 30 elk with a 280 Remington shooting 160 Partitions at 2,900 mv.

THEN shooting another 30 plus elk with 300 mags/200 Partitions at 3,000 mv... and the 338 Win shooting 225 and 250 Partitions.

There is a VERY marked visual and auditory distinction on elk when hit with the mags.
Far more brutal.

Wither larger dia. or more bullet weight at higher speeds it's there.



I agree.

There are very few sounds as satisfying as the SMACK of a medium bore magnum striking an animal the size of an elk.

As is typical with discussions of elk hunting cartridges, there still remains a wide variation of opinions. But it appears that most will agree that a quality bullet in the right place rises above the debate of bullet diameter and weight.

We had the same type of experience when in Africa using my 300 H&H, 330 Dakota, two 338's and two 375's. Every animal shot with my 300 died, but individual animal response was different with the bigger diameters. This was with 36 animals ranging from steenbok to eland.

I have seen the exact same thing with elk, 243 through 375. A couple dozen observation.
Same with deer/antelope using 22 calibers through 50 cal muzzleloaders. Hundreds of observations.

Visual “smack” or not, most elk travel a bit and keel over, no matter what they were shot with. I had elk fajitas tonight that came from a nice 7x7 I shot with a 308. Funny how bullet quality and shot placement trumps sheer horespower. Horsepower is not a bad thing, it’s just that rifles chambered for “hard hitting” rounds usually weigh more than anything I want in my hands on a mountain. And they kick more.

When it’s all said and done, the old 30-06 is about the perfect blend of power and portability. It can weigh well under 8lbs all-up, have a 21 or 22” barrel, and still not kick too bad. The Everyman’s-Elk Rifle. Ditto the 308.

I used a 338 WM for a number of years. Nothing in the world wrong with it. But If you think you need that level of power, then you do...

Yeah, that's not been my observation whatsoever. Caliber doesn't much matter.

Thank you for your response. I have seen the difference with my own eyes and have many examples of one that I could list just like you did above.

With the elk cull study, I would be more than interested in seeing the response of the shot animals, not just distance traveled. We have all seen animals that stagger and stumble the prerequisite 50-100 yards to die. The other side is the animal that is shot, shows little to no sign of being hit and does the death run.

For some, the latter is a little disconcerting, and are reassured by the visual evidence and subsequent behavior of the animal being shot. Some may even enjoy it, not my cup of tea, but to each his own.

I am quite used to the little visual evidence and death run as I prefer monometal bullets and shoot for the ribs to preserve meat.

John, you are a man after my own heart.

Folks tend to see whatever supports what they already believe to be true despite other contradictory evidence.

Then there's old geezer (me) that can not forget light weight bullets failing to penetrate to vitals, even though experts and evidence shows that the light weight bullets work well today. The 264 WM was one of my first rifles as was a 6mm/244. The Nosler partitions were not available in 6mm then but were in 6.5. One of the first deer I shot was with a too lightly constructed bullet and the range was less than 50 yards - the cartridge the 264 WM. I had a two tag license and the other deer was shot at about 5 yards (he ran up and stopped next to me) with a 220 grain RN Rem CL in a 30-06. Guess which one ran away - I lost that deer and I think it was the only one ever for me. I never used anything but Partitions (cut on a screw machine) in that 264 after that on deer, but mostly it was a jack rabbit and crow shooter from then on.

I used a 30-06 for many many years. Then I shot a doe in the shoulder with a too lightly constructed bullet at 165 grains at ~~ 20 yards. The bullet didn't enter the rib cage and was stopped by the whitetail doe's shoulder. A second bullet to the head finished her.

So heavier better constructed bullets were used and 180 grain Hornady IL's and 180 grain Rem CL's never failed in the 06.

This year I shot my first deer with a mono bullet 130 grain 270. Worked well.

But I still have 6 or 7 boxes of 338 NPT's (250 grains).

For centuries people believed that Aristotle was right when he said that the heavier an object, the faster it would fall to earth. Aristotle was regarded as the greatest thinker of all time, and surely he would not be wrong. Anyone, of course, could have taken two objects, one heavy and one light, and dropped them from a great height to see whether or not the heavier object landed first. But no one did until nearly 2,000 years after Aristotle's death. In 1589 Galileo summoned learned professors to the base of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Then he went to the top and pushed off a ten- pound and a one-pound weight. Both landed at the same instant. The power of belief was so strong, however, that the professors denied their eyesight. They continued to say Aristotle was right.

CRS,

Unfortunately, Phil Wright was a scientist, and as I recall didn't record anything except measurable, non-subjective information.

I find it interesting that SU35 includes the .300 magnums with the .338 as producing "hard hitting" results, but you don't.

Had an interesting talk the other night over dinner with a New Zealand outfitter, in the U.S. for a sports show. He naturally sees a lot of animals taken with a wide variety of rifles and bullets, and his observation is that monometal bullets often result in more evidence of the hit than other bullets, though like others (including me) he's also noticed the animals lung-shot with monos often travel a ways before falling over. (He's also noticed, as I have, that Bergers result in animals traveling less after lung hits--but as he noted, they often just stand there until falling over, or maybe stagger a short distance.) The specific bullet certainly may contribute to "hard hitting," whether the sound or the animal's reaction. Two of the elk that I've seen react most to the hit were shot with the .257 Roberts and a 100-grain TTSX and the .308 with a 130 TTSX.

Glad you saw such consistent hard-hitting results in Africa. However, on one month-long safari in South Africa I saw almost twice as many animals killed with a wider variety of cartridges and bullets. Have been on a few other African trips as well, also specifically meant for culling large numbers of animals--as has RinB, who's been on far more, using a variety of cartridges and bullets. Between us the total is a lot more than 36 animals.

I have on occasion seen some cartridge/bullets seem to consistently produce the "hard-hitting" reaction. On a trip to Tanzania in 2011 I used a 9.3x62 with 286 Partitions as my "light" rifle. It killed a variety of plains game, including such supposedly hard-to-kill animals as zebra and blue wildebeest, hitting so hard that my hunting partner (whose light rifle was a .300 Winchester) immediately bought a 9.3x62 when we returned to the U.S. One animals that particularly impressed him was the blue wildebeest, shot as it quartered toward us. The bullet hit the big shoulder joint, and bull shuddered and staggered less than 25 yards before falling.

But I have used the .375 H&H just as much, of not more, than the 9.3x62, including as my only rifle on one safari, my big rifle on another, and my light rifle on yet another, and haven't seen the same consistent "hard-hit" results. I suspect the Tanzania "evidence" was due to my hitting almost all the animals in the shoulder. On that month-long cull hunt in South Africa I deliberately shot another blue wildebeest with a prototype monolithic 180-grain bullet from the .300 Winchester Magnum, also in the shoulder joint s it quartered toward me (a common stance for wildebeest). The results were basically identical to those with the 9.3x62, with visual and auditory evidence of a hard hit, and the wildebeest going about 24 yards before falling.

Then there was the eating-size mule deer buck I killed my first fall with the .338 Winchester Magnum, 1988. It was the last day of the rifle season and time to make meat. The buck and a few does were slowly feeding through a semi-open aspen patch, and luckily sufficient fresh, soft snow had fallen to soften the sound of my boots. I got within 50 yards and put a 250-grain Partition around the rear of the right ribs as he angled almost directly away, about to walk behind a small patch of aspens. The buck didn't react at all, just kept walking slowly, but when he emerged from the other side, a few second later, he started to stagger a little, then as I was about to shoot again lay down gently in the snow. The bullet had hit where I'd aimed, angling through both lungs before exiting just inside the right shoulder, and from the interior evidence had opened normally.

Basically, I regard "hard hitting" attributed to caliber as something like "hard hitting" attributed to high velocity, which many hunters think is due to that rather nebulous phenomenon "hydrostatic shock." I've also seen a bunch of animals taken with bullets leaving the muzzle at 3200+ fps, on up to 4300, and some of them immediately showed a huge reaction, including a broadside mule deer buck that flipped over on its back when shot through the lungs with a 100-grain TSX from a .257 Weatherby. But I've also seen many animals hit with super-zappers act much like that mule deer buck shot with the .338. As a result I don't count on seeing such reactions from any cartridge, instead depending on less subjective evidence of a good shot.

Dammit, John, I sure like your writing, and the way you connect ideas to form conclusions. The idea streams are not only easy to follow, but logically constructed. I don't want to brown-nose, but even the writing you do here on the Fire is top-notch. I'm glad I get to read these interactions.

Everything in life is that way, for one tends to believe what one experiences. Some of us feel that the larger caliber guns seem to provide a bigger "smack" on the animal being shot at than smaller caliber guns, while the other side does not. However, no one side's comments can be considered "evidence" since the whole thing is based on perceptions. One thing for certain: most hunters in bear country tend to pick larger-caliber rather than small guns

Ya Ray, including this guy.....

Mule Deer,

Thank you for your wonderful insight and great writing.

Maybe after a few hundred more animals a couple more trips to Africa I will change my subjective opinion.

There are lots of variables from bullet diameter, velocity, bullet construction, and of course shot placement that factor into an animals physiologic response to a shot.

I have come to rely on the monos for predictable and consistent results. The muzzle velocities are in the range of 3050-3100. There is plenty of penetration. In Africa the little hunting dogs easily find animals leaking from two holes.

That said, I have noticed that “regular” cup and lead core bullets with muzzle velocities in the 2600 range often result in animals going less distance especially with lung shots. I used some Speer Hot-Core bullets that worked very well. Same with Hornady SST’s. All were well placed. The fragmentation ruined more lung tissue than a similar hit with a mono.

Very good shot placement rules. Bad shot placement will treat you to a rodeo regardless of the cartridge/bullet combo unless you plan on shooting things less than 15-20 pounds.

Oh, if I was dealing with a grizzly that was coming closer, I would prefer a 308 Win with a 150 TTSX over a 300 magnum with a soft cup and core. There the goal is to penetrate to disable the nervous system or break down locomotion. Plus I might get in more than one well placed shot.

It is my subjective opinion that the cup and core bullets hit harder than the monometals, probable due to more energy being lost in the animal resulting in more tissue destruction.

I shot 130gr NBT's out of my 270 this year with no performance issues. But between my Dad's 130gr Hornady SP, son's 243 -90gr NBT, other son's Federal blue box 100gr 243, and friends 150gr Ballistic silvertip on an elk. Found more lead fragments while processing than I have in a lot of years.

Yes, poor shot placement=rodeo, period.

As long one uses a suitable bullet for the job, shot placement is number 1 priority.

If one wants the best visual of a hit,
-bigger diameter
-higher velocity
-softer bullet
-CNS or structural skeletal compromise

I feel ( of course this is subjective) that one of the reasons the monos seem to kill big animals well is the wound channel is longer, usually the same size all the way through. Look at pics of ballistic gel shot with them and then with cup n core...granted, on lung shots, that big, initial cavity/fragmentation does a number...but then the wound channel becomes smaller, even if it does go all the way through. Then the mono will have that high velocity, big initial cavity but the rest of the channel is much larger than the cup n core. Just an opinion, but it really shows up when you hit big bones ( secondary fragments). I have had some slower kills with smaller than 30cal monos on lighter game (deer size and exotics) I learned to take out high shoulder or neck/shoulder junction. I shot a lot of game with the 220 Swift and the 55gr Trophy Bonded one year. It visibly "shocked them" so hard they fell, then got back up or were trying to before I hit em again. ( axis, blackbuck in Texas, mule deer in Utah) One 300# hog at 25yds dropped with a head/neck junction shot with a .224 TTH 75gr Swift Scirocco, but the bullet fragmented on the spine, no matter. I made a 184 yd neck/shoulder junction broadside shot on a big Scimitar Horned Oryx with a 85gr XBT going 2900fps from a long barreled 6x47mm ( 222 mag necked up) complete pass through, DRT. I then later that afternoon shot two jackrabbits at 50yds that acted like they were never hit, shot them both 2 times! So...monos need more resistance to open well ( the bigger "X" or mushroom, so to speak). I shot a medium sized cow elk at 200yds with a Sierra 300 SBT/2600fps from a 375 H&H ( I just "had" to! :)) made a 4" exit but she just humped up and froze, then I popped her on the high shoulder ( there was a godawful ravine just 40yds from her!) It tore a huge hole in her of course.
I was getting ready for a South Africa trip, had run out of time so just used the Winchester 270 Failsafe factory load there. I killed a running warthog "instantly" with a shot through the hips at 75yds! No wasted meat either!
I also shot a zebra on what I "thought" was the shoulder ( he was standing in dappled shade and those stripes messed me up!) Anyhow,he was turned further away and I hit his shoulder but just the front lobe of his left lung. This was with my friends 300 Winmag and 180 XBT (right at 3100fps) at 150yds. The thick hide closed on that 30cal entrance hole, made no exit. He ran off with the group ( about a dozen) we followed for 6 hrs! The only blood was when he brushed his side against brush ( very little blood) the first 60yds, then just little specs...and every now and then a big "gout" of blood when he coughed. I had exchanged my friends ( he wanted me to try it) 300winmag for my 35 Whelen AI (250X@2550-2600fps) when we caught up he was limping straight away around 125yds. I popped him at the root of tail, bullet ran alongside the spine for about 2.5ft, he dropped, flopped and got back up in a dead run, broadside and I hit him again, behind the shoulder (lung high heart) and he rolled over like a jackrabbit, done for! The 35 cal holes "stayed open, blood everywhere! So, for "me"...I'm convinced bigger is better, ha.

Amen! If a guy or gal can handle one, use it. It will work very well on elk sized critters....

gunner, that sounds like the perfect elk rifle to me... I'd shoot the 210's and rock on man...

Good post. The highlighted portion is something some people just don't get. One of the reasons I choose the 338wm over the 300wm as well...

My first rifle was a Remington 600 in 6mm. I weighed about 100lbs at the time, the rifle had no recoil pad, and the stock didn't fit me. Because I was new to hunting and needed to practice, my dad would reload 4 or 5 boxes at a time and I'd shoot 80-100 consecutive shots from the bench, sitting, prone, etc.. Despite the small caliber, I developed an intolerance to that particular rifle's recoil. I still have the rifle for sentimental reasons, but I don't hunt with it because, to this day, I have to make a conscious effort not to flinch. Ten years later when I got my first real job (and was 6'2" and 200lbs) I bought a properly fitted .338 with a recoil pad. The subjective "feel" of the recoil was so different that my mind did not associate it with the flinch that I had developed with the 6mm. I've never had an issue shooting a .338 with any projectile. My point is, there is no objective measurement to justify my different reactions to the two calibers. Sometimes in all of our efforts to quantify everything as "scientifically" as possible, we lose sight of the fact that hunting is a very subjective experience. I personally enjoy shooting medium bore rifles. I also like the "SMACK" that a medium bore rifle makes when it hits something. Is there any objective justification for any of it? No. Does it enhance my experience? Yes. For those of us who aren't in the industry and aren't responsible for educating others, our own experience is the paramount consideration. So, to answer the question, "Why a .338 when a smaller gun will get the job done?", because that's what I enjoy.

jmh3,
Very similar experience to yours. First rifle was a Remington model 788 in 243. Middle of summer, plastic butt plate, tank top, no hearing protection, shooting factory 100gr. Did I mention that I was a scrawny 12 yo kid, small for my age. Ears ringing, bruised shoulder, not a very good first rifle experience.

Hated that rifle, first year shot a buck that we lost after 5 miles, second year shot a spike in a cornfield that went back to eating, and acted like it was not even hit. Traded that rifle for a Remington 700 BDL 270 and never looked back.

Now, both my boys have 243's, aargh! Never have gotten over that first one.

SU35,

I also might use my 9.3 Barsness-Sisk for elk hunting in the nearby mountains where grizzlies have started to increase in number. It's even lighter than the .338, about 7-1/4 pounds scoped, but gets basically the same velocity out of 250-grain bullets. (Plus, it's already taken a grizzly in Alaska.) The only trouble with the 9.3 is it's not as useful for hunting more open country as the .338 with 200-210 grain bullets.

But in open grizzly country I have also hunted quite a bit with rifles chambered for lighter cartridges, so far with no problems, despite bear signs (and sometimes bears) being quite evident. Once I backpacked a load of caribou meat to a boat tied up on a lakeshore in the Northwest Territories, with the rifle in my hands a single-shot .308 Winchester. A sow with cubs had been seen in the same general area the day before by some of my hunting companions, but I'd also just climbed up the open hillside I was packing the meat down three hours earlier, and hadn't seen any bear sign. The .308 didn't seem ideal, but it was a long way from being unarmed, and the odds leaned strongly against any sudden surprises.

Does this mean bigger is better hits harder?

when we have hunted in grizzly bear country for elk, for the ease of a small group we all carried a 338 win. mags,only so we all had the ability to share ammo with all in the party , my old friend wanted it that way and it was his tent and I was fine with it .

jwp,

Maybe, though I doubt one of Montana's mountain grizzlies would refuse to fall after being hit in the right place with, say, a 165-grain monolithic from a .30 caliber. I simply don't have enough personal experience on grizzlies to make a judgment, so using the .338 or 9.3 would be more for psychological comfort than any conviction that it would work better than, say, a .30-06 with the same shot placement.

As noted, my one grizzly was taken with the 9.3, a 7-1/2 foot fall bear heavy enough that, after it died in a slight depression, required both me and the guide to roll it over for skinning. I put two shots into the bear, one at about 65-70 yards, and another at maybe 50 yards as the bear turned and ran angling slightly closer past us. I did not see any evidence of a "hard hit" on either shot, perhaps because while both bullets were well-placed, and either would have killed the bear, neither hit major bone. However, I also know the 9.3 will definitely penetrate a good-sized grizzly more than sufficiently with the load used.

On that same Alaskan hunt my hunting partner took a bigger grizzly with the .308 Winchester.

Phil Shoemaker has performed more back-up on really big brown bears than anybody else I know, using a wide variety of rounds, I believe up to the .505 Gibbs. He still prefers the .458 Winchester he acquired many years ago for stopping wounded bears, but has stopped quite a few with the .30-06, the last one maybe 3-4 years ago with 220 Partitions. And it was a lot bigger than any grizzly I might encounter around here.

He also killed a charging brown bear last summer with a palm-sized 9mm semiauto. It wasn't what he considered the ideal gun for the job, but it was what he had--and he'd thoroughly tested the ammo beforehand, finding it penetrated deeply. And one of the 147-grain bullets that killed the bear went through both shoulders before stopping under the hide on the far side.

The two most experienced bear guides I personally know are Phil on brown bears, and Jim Shockey on black bears. I've discussed bear rifles and bear shooting with both considerably (Jim on a hunt I did with his outfit on Vancouver Island, where the black bears are plenty big) and the most interesting thing both said is they don't advise their clients to shoot for bone to break a bear down. This is because they've seen too many clients become so fixated on breaking a shoulder, they forget to aim for the interior vital organs!

Does this mean “bigger hits harder” or “kills better”? No matter how ever so slight.

Physics is physics.

Bigger will always hit harder, all other things equal.

Of course, that does not mean more = better.

Or we’d all hunt with 50 BMGs.

jorge's bullet theory: like tits, the bigger the better....

jwp,

As noted somewhere earlier in this thread, the longer I hunt the less difference I can see in how different cartridges kill, given bullets that penetrate and expand sufficiently.

Might add that I started off believing the opposite, because so many other people did. It took quite a few animals before that started to change.

kill is kill

Then there is KILL is KILL! I like this one.

That Nula 06 loaded with a 200 NP would suit me just fine in Montana griz country.

Yeah, it's actually probably what I'll end up carrying, because it's lighter than my .338 or 9.3! (Even with its new 3-10x Nightforce SHV...)

I’ve carried .243’s, 6.5 Creeds, 7-08’s, etc in Alberta grizz country, and certainly didn’t feel helpless...

Thanks BSA, 2800 from a 210 on an '06 case is plenty efficient to boot.

There are exceptions, but given the choice most big game hunters will choose larger handguns and rifles when moose hunting in bear country. Being helpless has nothing to do with that. For example, a hiker may feel just fine with a can of bear spray.

Exactly. And the VAST majority of those hunters have never, and will never, have to shoot a grizz while moose hunting. The choice to use a big rifle and a big handgun is mostly an emotional one, instead of being based on pragmatic evidence or experience, just like the hikers that "feel" just fine with a can of bear spray.

Phil Shoemaker has more experience killing grizz than anyone else I know of, and he's mentioned carrying around a .30-06 more than once. That tells me that he must not think the '06 compromises his probability of survival, even though he has larger rifles.

Jordan,

I've been hunting in Montana's grizzly country for 50 years, and until relatively recently never was really concerned, though I'd run into a couple while hunting, and had them come through my hunting camp during more than one night. They were pretty unusual back when I started hunting (though a high school friend killed one on his family ranch not far outside of town) and were legal game until the early 1990's so were leery of humans.

But our grizzly population has grown considerably since, all in a relatively small area in the western part of the state. Alberta grizzly numbers have grown too, but it has fewer grizzlies spread out over more country. Plus, a large proportion of Montana grizzlies live in and around Glacier and Yellowstone Parks, where they've learned not to fear humans.

Not only have a couple more people been killed by grizzlies in Montana than in Alberta since 1980, but attacks are becoming more common. Four people were attacked by grizzlies in the state in 2017, three of them hunters. Two manage to kill the bears, while the third (a bowhunter) was mauled severely. Attacks and close encounters have become far more common during the past few years, and while many people like to point out that humans are more like to be killed by lightning than a grizzly, since 2010 that hasn't been true in Montana.

Have also spent plenty of time hunting in other grizzly country outside Montana, even some in Alberta, plus a plenty in Alaska, the Northwest Territories, and British Columbia (where I was followed by one younger bear, and had a bigger bear try to take away a moose I'd just killed). Obviously I'm not all that nervous about it, since I keep hunting (and fishing) among 'em, but the chance of meeting an aggressive grizzly has increased a LOT in Montana recent years, the reason I'll be packing both bear spray and at least a .30-06 with 200 Partitions when I hunt the local mountains next fall.

Is a 338 really going to kill a charging grizzly bear any better with a CNS shot compared to say....a 270 with a 150 Partition? With such a hit, the bear will die with either. With a hit around the fringes, either ought to penetrate far enough to hit vitals, or potentially take out a shoulder.

The bigger gun for bear country thing kinda reminds me of Easterners thinking they need a bigger gun for hunting elk, or old fat white guys who live in the suburbs carrying two double stack handguns and a bunch of extra magazines just in case they get in a gunfight during their monthly trip to Costco. Most of the need only exists in one's head.

I sometimes carry a larger gun in grizzly bear country, but it's just an excuse to carry a big gun, because I like guns and without a good excuse like "bear defense" there wouldn't be much point in keeping a big gun around. Honestly I'd be better off with the regular hunting rifle which I practice with more and thus shoot better. Plus getting munched by a bear sounds like a better way to go than dying in bed of a combination of rectal cancer and Alzheimer's, so maybe I'm a bit fatalistic about the subject of bear guns.

Billy,

Good question.

I have seen a 150-grain Partiton from a .270 Winchester deflect somewhat on a cow elk's leg bone. Haven't seen a .30 caliber 200 Partition do the same thing, either from a .30-06 or .300 magnum, and I've used one to shoot a 6-point bull at 75 yards in the big shoulder joint.

When it comes to grizzlies I think about good bullet far more than the cartridge. Give me a Partition or Accubond or TTSX in a 270 or 30-06 instead of a Berger in a 338 of some sort for example

If we’re wanting to split grizzly hairs, I’d rather have five down in a 308 than 3 down in a 338... I don’t just day hunt in grizzly country, I spend the night in it and don’t worry about it. Had 6 bag nights this fall... grizzly’s are an overrated worry in rifle season.

I can only tell about Alaska, but in here most are hunting moose, caribou, and sometimes bison (the lucky ones who win a permit). The most popular calibers in Alaska are the .30-06, 300WM, .338WM, farther down the 7mm Magnum, farther down is the .375H&H. The latter is more popular by the coastlines, and Kodiak. Most bears killed with rifles by the hunters I mention above are usually killed with those most popular calibers. Some large bears have also been killed with handguns and pistols, but usually in self-defense situations. What I meant to say in my previous post is those moose hunters tend to choose larger caliber rifles starting with the .30-06 loved with 180-grain bullets/loads. There have been several guides that in the past used the .30-06 with the heavier bullets to kill bears. There is a book about such a person that if I well remember is titled, "The Alaska Wolf Man." But nowadays hunters and guides have a lot more choices than the .30-06.

Now, I have never hunted bears, but read all I can about very experienced bear hunters and guides of the past, and present. However, these people aren't just the average hunter who occasionally kills a bear or two, but people who know bears and the habitat like the palm of their hands.

Hi John,

While I'm not sure about your statement that AB has fewer grizzly bears than MT (according to the gov't of MT website the estimate is 625 max, while Parks Canada website estimates AB has 691), I definitely agree with everything else you said. Despite that, I still stand by my statement that VERY few hunters will ever have to shoot a grizz out of self-defense. Like you, I've come across my fair share of grizzlies while out hunting, yet I've never yet had to defensively shoot one. This includes AB, BC, and NWT. One season I ran into 16 different grizzly bears, as close as 10 feet. I've also spent a lot of time hiking in Kananaskis and Banff, two of the highest-density grizz areas that I know of, and with a little bit of education and awareness, haven't been mauled so far (knock on wood). None-the-less, I am very cognizant of suspicious "bear areas" when hunting, and am aware of potential encounters. Despite grizz numbers and problems/attacks rising, largely due to the fact that there has been no grizzly season in AB for around 15 years now, I still think that with reasonable precautions the vast majority of hunters will never shoot one. How many hunting licenses were sold in MT last year? Attacks on 3 hunters, given the number of hunters out there, is a very remote likelihood of being attacked. And 1 attack on a non-hunter, considering how many tourists, hikers, etc, are roaming the Yellowstone and other grizzly-inhabited areas in MT, is pretty darn low. IMO, carrying a large rifle because you're worried about bears is like swimming with a Bang Stick every time you enter the ocean, because you're worried about Great Whites.

You've sort of supported my point in a round-about way- if you were REALLY worried about having to defensively shoot a grizzly bear, and you really thought that a bigger rifle would mean life or death over a smaller rifle, you'd be carrying a .375 rather than your .30-06 this next fall. I'm not saying it's a guarantee that it'll never happen, but clearly you feel that, given the likelihood of needing it, the .30-06 would be sufficient to preserve your hide

I personally feel confident that if I have a problem bear to deal with, any one of my hunting rifles is better than a knife or handgun, and I'm sure a 6.5 Creed with a 140 PT or 120 TTSX (maybe even a 147 ELD) would penetrate enough from any probable angle to destroy CNS or vitals. I don't let fear control my decision about what rifle to carry on any given day, considering the very low probability of something like that happening.

There is nothing wrong with the .30-06 and a 180-grain controlled expansion bullet, and even better for closer ranges with a 200-grain Partition or such a bullet. The heavier slug has the potential to penetrate deeper. The same for a .300WM with the same bullet weights, or a .338WM starting with at 225-grain to 250.

Ray,

We see the same trend around here, with similar statistics and chamberings for guys hunting moose, elk, bison, etc. But those popular chamberings aren't chosen based on experience by guys shooting grizz with them, but based on rumour and emotion, as I mentioned before. I'm guessing the same applies up your way. The popular choice isn't often determinged by guys with experience, but by the average Joe reading an article or two and making a choice.

Having said that, none of those chamberings are bad for the application, and the only time that I thought I might have to shoot a grizz out of self defense was when I was holding a 7Mag, which felt like a Daisy BB gun in my hands in that situation. Though I doubt a .375 would have felt any bigger in that exact moment.

I'd be curious to know if those trends hold true over dozens of samples with each...

Agreed. Most years during hunting season alone, I spend at least a few weeks sleeping in grizz country. You're right to point out that during rifle season activity is much lower than earlier in the summer/fall.

Nothing wrong with those choices at all. But to choose them mainly because of a concern about bears is a bit overzealous, IMO, except for guys who routinely come into contact with them due to work, etc, of course.

I was just using the 150 Partition as an example - how about a 6.5 Creedmoor with a 127 LRX? Or a good 175 out of a 7x57? Or any of about a dozen other medium cartridges with bullets meant to penetrate deeply? Or for that matter, just use the 200 grain Partition and call it good?

For me, the bear thing is just not something worth specifically arming myself against, especially after spending time in big bear country working for the Forest Service and having no gun for protection.

Jordan,

Choosing a hunting rifle is usually done according two the type of game being hunted. In here most hunters use the calibers I mentioned before, not necessarily because being concerned about bears. I imagine that Canadians probably do the same. The fact is that any of these calibers is appropriate for moose hunting, all the way to bison (with the proper bullet, of course). Also, people tend to choose guns that are already the most widely used in the area, and ammo availability. The word of mouth goes a long way, "when something works, why changing it."

I have no use for any of the 6.5s, but some would be pretty nice to hunting wolves, and caribou in the interior of Alaska.

I'm trying to find ANY soft point bullet in ANY cartridge/caliber that will penetrate with my 50-90 Sharps, I just shot a bedded 1800 ln bull Eland in the right ham at 60 yards, the skinners found the 750 gr cast lead bullet in the front of his left shoulder, that's near nine feet of straight line penetration.

The bullet has a 770" expanded nose and still weighs 743 grains.

Probably has to do with that bullet's SD, and the medium (or flesh, guts, whatever) the bullet traveled through. Heavy per caliber bullets tend to penetrate deeper, and so solids.

10-4 Ray, 750 grains twisted up tight by a 1-22 ROT from a 30" barrel certainly had to help keep the slug spun up tight and kept on axis, I have 750 and 570 gr TSX's for 577 and 500 Nitro double guns, I don't know if they'll dig that deep, hoping MD or some of the other heavy [African] game hunters will chime in.

I have to say I was thouroughly floored when that skinner kept cutting and dug to the hide in the front of that shoulder and handed me the bullet.

I'm really thinking that the 243 with an 80TTSX should be a great do-it-all in Western North America.

Back East, it seems the 223 with a 64BSB or TSX should be perfect.

Am I on the right track, given the increase in bear, wolf, cougar encounters on both sides of the Big River?

Both are great for "killing" ( given the skills to put it where it goes, sure) both are a "terribly poor choice" to "stop" something trying to hurt you...even a big feral sow! LOL That's the diff...:)

Oh yes they will.
Sectional Density is negated in expanding bullets because construction can change the performance and penetration even though the bullet weight is the same per caliber.

I have obtained over 5 feet of penetration with thd old 400gn Barnes X bullet and as little as 1 foot with the 550gn Woodleigh both using the .460 Weatherby to drive them. JB has been trying to explain this for years, because the expanded frontal area is an inhibitor to penetration even though bullet weight may be enhanced through those same design characteristics.

The heavy weight Barnes bullets you have will be terrific on anything you can afford to point them at. The only regret anyone could have is not being there to watch them hit.

John

Jordan,

Dunno where you found that 625 population estimate for grizzlies in Montana, but it's no doubt for only one of the two major areas. Western Montana contains parts of two of the federally designated grizzly ecosystems, the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide. The latest population estimate for Montana grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide system alone is 765, but there are also plenty of bears around Yellowstone.

The Yellowstone region's estimated overall population is 700, but I haven't found any numbers for the three states containing the park--Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. More bears live in and around Wyoming, because most of the park is in Wyoming, and it's border with the park is longest. The least live in Idaho, because only one small corner of the state abuts the park. The second-most live in Montana, where a reasonable estimate would be 250 bears, which when combined with the Northern Continental Divide population makes a total of around 1000.

But that doesn't include the bears outside those "official" ecosystems. There are also around 50 bears in the Cabinet Mountains in extreme northwestern Montana, and a number of bears in between the ecosystems, including the two mountain ranges bordering the valley I live in. They've been on the west side for at least 20 years, due in part to relocations of "trouble" bears, but in the past few years have also shown up in the range to the east.

I don't know how many "uncounted" grizzlies live between the two ecosystems, and neither does the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department. For many years people have been reporting seeing grizzlies in parts of the state where there supposedly weren't any, and when they told FWP, essentially got patted on the head and were told they'd seen a brown-phase black bear. But in the past decade FWP has finally been taking the reports seriously, partly because so many people take pictures with cell phones--though FWP still doesn't "officially" acknowledge the grizzlies until they get a photo on one of their game-cameras, which they only set up after reports start coming in.

As I noted in one of my previous posts, I have been hunting in grizzly bear country since I started hunting over 50 years ago. Have lost count of the grizzlies I've encountered while doing so, including two that followed me for quite ways, both younger bears who were apparently curious, one in Montana and one in British Columbia. I've also been charged twice, both by sows with cubs, which both luckily turned out to be bluffing.

Also once stood about 15-20 feet from another big sow, without cubs, which had just been harassed by a dumb-ass woman on a creek I was fishing on the Alaskan Peninsula with my wife and Phil Shoemaker. Eileen was further downstream so didn't get involved, but Phil and I had been fishing a pool when the bear came running down the bank from upstream, looking over its shoulder. The woman followed close behind, with a little point-and-shoot camera, shouting at the bear to stop. The bear ran into the willow brush behind me and Phil, whereupon the woman cursed and turned back upstream.

Within a few seconds the bear came out of the willows close to me and Phil. I even took a few photos, then quit as the bear saw us and slowly moved closer. Phil drew both his bear-spray and handgun as it came, its head angled to the side but eyes looking directly at us. Phil spoke quietly to the bear, and eventually it finally turned and walked back into the brush and disappeared. He said that when they have their head averted, they're only thinking about charging, when they turn their face toward you, they're coming.

Have also had grizzlies visit my camp several times at night, with no problems, though one did tear a wall tent apart after my outfitter buddy and I rode out to pick up a paying client. And I hunted in grizzly country several times this year in Montana, including in a part of the state closer to Yellowstone that has far more bears--carrying a .308 Winchester. Have also jumped grizzlies a couple of times when bird hunting in brush, which happens now and then in Montana, and other places. Luckily both times the bear ran the other way, but they don't always, as some hunters have discovered.

But just because I've never been mauled doesn't mean I'm not going to be aware and at least slightly concerned about grizzlies, any more than I've been unaware and unconcerned when hunting amid elephants, buffalo and lions in Africa. Have been seriously charged by a cow elephant over there, and been lying in bed at night when other elephants were ripping the branches off a tree next to my tent, and a pride of lions started fighting over scraps around the skinning tent, less than 100 yards away. I admit to keeping my .416 pretty close in both instances, but none of that has prevented me from going back to wild Africa to hunt Cape buffalo, and also didn't prevent me from helping a friend follow-up a leopard he'd wounded. He'd shot the leopard at last light, so the follow-up occurred in the dark--and yes, I did carry enough gun. We found the leopard twice, thanks to flashlights revealing its eyes, but both times it decided to run instead of charge, and eventually the blood trail disappeared.

Phil Shoemaker is also not unconcerned about brown bears, though he's hunted them, and fished and lived among them for decades. Despite our close encounter with the harassed bear while fishing, he'd never had a real charge from a bear during fishing season, the reason he usually usually carried only a handgun and bear spray. Then in 2016 a good-sized boar decided to really charge, from only a few feet away. Luckily he managed to kill the boar with several shots from his handgun, but admitted afterward he'd rather have had a rifle. I did notice that when he went with me and Eileen to photograph bears one day during our fishing visit, along a salmon stream popular with larger bears, he brought along his .458, along with spray and a handgun.

Yes, the chance of being attacked by a grizzly while hunting is miniscule, as is being killed when hunting dangerous game in Africa. But that doesn't mean I'll ignore the possibility, or hunt mule deer in the local mountains with a .243.

Very good stories and advise, Mule Deer.

A few years ago a Biologist in Alaska, Tom Smith, had a webpage that showed the Alaska human and bear confrontations for the past 100 years, but for some reason the page was deleted. Anyway, we have perhaps one human fatality every two years or so if one averages the number of fatalities. Most of the encounters don't result on injuries, however. But the number of injuries from bear attacks compared to fatalities is probably about 5 to 1. Two years ago a black bear killed a man from Fairbanks, Alaska. He was walking to his cabin with his wife and a friend, and the bear charged him from behind. His wife and friend manage to reach the cabin while he defended himself from the bear, but for some reason he could not fire his rifle (if I well remember the rifle jammed). He was carrying a .30-30, which by the way is quite popular around the traplines. Last a year or two ago we had a few mauling (s) and fatalities:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/27/bear-attacks-alaska-deaths-anchorage

People like Phil (mentioned on your accounts) are a rarity in that they have a vast experience relating to bear behavior and habitat. We have had a very few people who have possessed such admirable qualities.

John,

I got my info from the Gov't of MT F&W website here: http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/grizzlyBear/

They list roughly 500 in the NCD area, and 90-125 in the CY area. Like most things, it probably depends on who you ask, though. We see the same thing in AB. Our F&W dep't estimated over 900 grizzlies in the province about 5-10 years ago after doing extensive chopper counts and tracking, and the true number of grizzlies has only increased since then. For some reason (I think it's because of the political agenda being pushed by the left, which is currently in power), the Parks Canada website only lists 691. Out of curiosity, what numbers do you have for AB, and where did they come from? There's a lot of disagreement about the true number of grizzlies in AB, given their political significance over the past 15 years, or so.

It sounds like we're basically on the same page. Intentionally hunting and following up wounded DG is not the same as hunting deer, moose, and elk in grizz country, with the remote possibility of having a chance problem with a bear. I don't deny that bears are around, but IME they tend to avoid people more than pursue or seek encounters with us. It seems like we both tend to be aware of the potential presence of bears when hunting in their habitat, and we both choose a rifle that we're comfortable carrying, knowing that there's a tiny possibility that we'll have to shoot a bear with it.

My question for you is- through the beginning of this thread, it was your position that the more game you see killed, the less you believe that caliber makes a significant difference in how quickly animals drop after being shot (within reason, I'm guessing). Now you're implying that the .243 would be insufficiently effective on bear, as where a rifle a few calibers larger (.308") would be your choice. So where in between those two calibers do you draw the line? And why wouldn't this apply to elk or moose dropping quickly, as well as bear? Always appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thanks.

Jordan,

The Alberta number I got was the same as you quoted.

I dunno where Montana FWP is coming up with their numbers. Nobody else believes there are that many grizzlies in the Cabinet-Yaak, or that few in the Northern ecosystem. I so suspect FWP likes to lowball numbers, for whatever reason.

My point is that the more time we spend hunting in grizzly country, especially when the numbers of bears are increasing, there's more chance, statistically, that a sudden encounter will result in a serious charge--just as one finally did with Phil during fishing season.

Gotta agree with you there! More time plus more bears, equals higher chances and frequency of encounters.

Not sure if you saw this part, as I added it a few seconds after posting the main body of that post, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts:

"My question for you is- through the beginning of this thread, it was your position that the more game you see killed, the less you believe that caliber makes a significant difference in how quickly animals drop after being shot (within reason, I'm guessing). Now you're implying that the .243 would be insufficiently effective on bear, as where a rifle a few calibers larger (.308") would be your choice. So where in between those two calibers do you draw the line? And why wouldn't this apply to elk or moose dropping quickly, as well as bear? Always appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thanks."

Thanks AGW, that's great news, however, the 50-90 bullet went from a 330" meplat to a full 770" mushroom and only lost seven grains, it's gonna be tough for me to beat that, but yes, I'll have a damn fun time trying ;]

Jordan,

Every hunter has a different set of experiences relating to the type of animals or game hunted and type or caliber of the weapons used to hunt. The ones with the most hunting experience, for example, hunting in numerous locations around the world, possesses a greater number of experiences relating to hunting animals that aren't the norm at home. It does not mean that a deer hunter, for example, does not possess a greater sense of experiences about hunting deer, however. Then there is this thing about one choosing the right gun and load (or even the right bow and arrow) pertaining to the game to be hunted, and also one's familiarity with one's weapon's choice, the latter which is very common with "one gun hunters."

While Mule Deer may be fine with a .308 plus the right ammo hunting moose or elk in bear country, there is not way that I feel confident at all with the same gun ammo choice, because of my own set of experiences. Another example, lets say that I live in the lower-48 States and decide to hunt Kodiak bears in Alaska. In this case I better ask the guide about gun and ammo choices he or she recommends. The same if I decide to hunt in Africa, or even bison in Alaska. If you are confident about hunting in bear country with your 6.5 Creed, then you have your bases covered. All amounts with your level of confidence.

I would tend to agree although anecdotally, not analytically. I’ve taken 12 bulls with the 340Wby and a few more with various other cartridges, so don’t have the contrasting experiences with the usual standard cartridges, or have really taken enough number-wise.

However, in a fine, semi-custom rifle, and various bullets, albeit all premiums, those 12 bulls acted very impressed. The longest travel after a hit was about 20 yds, but it was broken down and stumbling from the first step. The rest were DRT, down-like-an-elevator, effects and some of these were not far under the 500 yard mark.

So, this makes me think a “big bullet going fast” must make a difference over a “smaller bullet going slower” most other things being equal — say like comparing the 338-340 to a 308. Some of these dramatic effects formed the mental picture AGW describes. What we are discussing here is where this difference starts to become noticeable and consistent and I’ll never have enough experience to be sure about where that is. Or, whether it makes any real difference in making clean kills.

Whether the difference is that great among commonly used standards and the usual magnums, or whether my impressions of the 340 being the hammer I think it is would lessen with more numbers I don’t know.

Ray,

Agree that we're all a product of our experiences, and honestly I feel confident carrying a 6.5 Creed, 7-08, .308, 7WSM, and anything larger. Like MD said early in this thread, and I agreed with, I've just not seen enough terminal difference between closely neighbouring calibers for me to really think that one has a great advantage over another.

All good, but when hunting moose in bear country, are you confident that you will stop a large moose from reaching water, or stop a bear charge? I just don't have that level of confidence with other gun calibers other than the .338WM. I am one of those crazy "one gun hunters"

While I have other guns, I have become used to the .338WM (I call it "my lucky rifle").

The 338 Win hits like a loaded freight train. I'm actually quite impressed even though my sample is fairly small.

Mine own experiences relate to moose hunting in Alaska where I live. While sometimes we I have seen grizzly bears not too far, the closest has been around 150 yards, at least with bears that I have seen ahead of time. The problem could be any bear close-by in the brush I am not aware of. Moose often use the same trails hunters walk on, and very often both sides of the trails are lined with brush. Every now and then stories about hikers and others being mauled by the trails are published in the local paper, and in numerous instances it has been said that the mauling was caused by a bear (s) that were protecting a food cache near the trail.

I hunt moose along a couple of friends. I joined then after retiring from the military in 1994, and for several years I went out early in the morning and killed a moose while they stayed in the campsite asleep in their tents. But in the last few years we let a couple of younger hunters and friends get early and do the shooting while we enjoy sleeping

Anyway, I have shot moose from 50 to 250 or so yards from a stationary point on a rocky knob. This spot is surrounded by two open fields of relatively low growth of birch, and willow. Because I am a firmly believer on bullet SD, I have settled down on the 225-grain TTS-X, but have shot moose with the following factory bullets/loads: Winchester 230-grain FS (Lubalox-coated), Federal 250-grain NOS Partition (2650 fps) and 250-grain NOS HE (2700 fps), 250-grain A-Frame, 225-grain 3-Shock (not tipped).

Once I shot a moose with a 230-FS that was broadside about 200 yards way, just the it reached up to a spruce branch. The bullet clipped the top of the heart, traveled through the lungs, broke the far shoulder bone, and stopped at the hide (one of my friends found it when skinning the moose). This moose dropped on the side like hit by lightning. Another time, from the same rocky knob, I shot a moose that was about 50 yards away. It was eating away. I had seen the moose in the same spot the afternoon before the season opened, so I never imagined that I would see it again the morning of the opening day. Anyway, I shot it through the lungs with a 225-grain 3-Shock, and thought about reloading the chamber with another round while looking at a bunch of blood being pumped by the heart on the brush behind the moose, but by then the moose collapsed and died.

There had been a wildfire that burned the fields I am referring to, so there are a lot of dead but standing spruce. It means that sometimes the bullet can hit a tree before the moose. This time one of my friends and I were watching a moose that was walking through the trees toward the trail. He was using his favorite 7mm magnum, while I was using my .338WM. He said, go ahead and take the first shot whenever you see an opening, so I shot a 250-grain Partition at the moose with my rifle, and heard a big "thump," but the moose kept on going (the bullet had hit a tree). He took the next shot, but we have no idea what the bullet hit. Then the moose stepped on the trail, right in the open, and I shot it through the lungs one time. When the bullet hit the moose hunched its back and turned around on the spot, then dropped after taking a step or two. This was the easiest moose to skin and quarter since we got the ATV's right next to it without getting off the trail. The distance was a tad over 200 yards.

From the same rocky know I shot another moose with a 250-grain NOS HE. My rifle was supported by a wooden tripod made of dry spruce branches, and the shot was over 200 yards as the moose hesitated or decided not to cross the trail. I shot it through the lungs, and it dropped almost on the spot (took maybe a step or two and then dropped). When we opened the moose we realized that the bullet had fragmented like a hand grenade and cut the lungs to pieces (there was lead and jacket everywhere), and some of it passed though, leaving a hole behind. We took the moose meat home to precess it, and then returned to the campsite. My friends were to continue moose hunting, while I would just enjoy the camping and maybe kill a black bear. This morning one of my friends and his son rode their ATVs to their hunting spots a few hundred yards away, while I stood on my favorite spot. About 15 minutes after they rode past the spot where I had shot the moose I saw something moving down the a shallow ravine what I thought was the top area of a caribou (light brown color moving down across my view and about 150 yards away). I have no idea why I thought is was a caribou, and right then I realized that it was a big grizzly bear. By the time I thought about looking through the scope to shoot this bear, it was gone. But I was quite apprehensive about having to shoot a bear with the same bullet and load. I really believe that a 250-grain loaded so hot is not the best for a shot to stop an animal. For a lung shot it should be OK, but I don't think a bone-braking shot is the best.

I have had several one-shot moose kills with my .338s and the bullets mentioned above, but I had three that have walked around 20-30 yards after the first shot. One was the first moose I killed on a September 13th after a snow storm. This was an incredible experience that i will never forget. I was standing on a cat trail on the side of this hill and saw a moose moving toward me, then turning broadside and walking on another trail to my left. You can only imagine how my heart was pounding in my chest at that moment as I tried to hold the scopes crosshairs on target from 150 yards or so away. I took one shot then the second, and the moose kept on going. I just could not find a place to support my rifle, and the moose was moving away. I am trying to steady my heart beats and to control my breathing, but all of that was impossible at the moment that I took the third shot, and right then the moose disappeared! I didn't even think about keeping my left eye open while looking though the scope with my right eye, but I knew that I had injured the moose. I started tracking the moose from the spot it stood when shot the last time, and was in a pretty much state of panic thinking that I would have to track that moose by myself that evening. Anyway, when walking on the trail I heard a grunt about 20 yards from I had seen the moose the last time, and found it very much alive in a large depression on the ground. The last bullet had hit the moose below both front knees, so it could not stand up. I moved back a few yards, supported the rifle on a spruce branch, and shot it on the head. Form that moment on I decided to never approach a moose I had shot until it was dead.

The second moose that walked past 20 yard was shot with two 225-grain Barnes X from around 175-200 yards away. This was the biggest moose I have ever killed, and didn't realized that it was walking away dead as it moved away from me parallel and perhaps 20 yards from the spruce at the trail's edge. It was around 9:30 PM, but with enough sunlight left on the ridge's trail. I could not take a second shot until I thought that it has turned slightly broadside again, at which moment I did without realizing that what I had seen through the trees was the side of the moose's hind legs just behind the guts. The moose dropped there, but by then it was getting too dark to see. My friend came over and I told him to ride hist ATV on the trail and park about 300 yards, then walk through the spruce from the trail about 20 yards, and to walk down in my direction looking for the moose as I pointed a flashlight bean in his direction. He found it shortly after. It was 10:30 PM by then, but we never leave moose meat unattended in bear country. We got all the needed gear from the campsite 500 yards away, including a generator and lights, and worked on this moose until 5:00AM.

The story is already too long to tell you about the third that walked past 20 yards after the shot.

Jordan,

There's a big difference between shooting game that's unaware of you (or at least not very alarmed), more-or-less broadside, and shooting when they're facing you, especially when they're full of adrenalin and coming hard. At that point I want a bullet that I KNOW will penetrate deeply and straight, even through heavy bone. One of those bullets is the 200-grain, .30 caliber Nosler Partition, because I've seen it do so many times since first starting to use them 40 years ago. While smaller bullets may do the job, especially monolithics (and I've used several enough to know they sure might), I prefer using something I KNOW will work for frontal shots on heavier game.

Good point I can agree with.

I feel the same way about the .33-caliber's tough bullets starting at 225 grains (the lower SD), to the 250-300 grain bullet (higher SD). Also the .375 with 300-grainers.

I’m with John on this. I see it kinda like waterproof matches and a 2nd set of tire chains. Maybe will never need them but one less thing to worry about.

I’ll save my .243 for other spots.

I'm gonna embrace 'the rebel' and buy a 338 now! *



*notice how I justify a new rifle purchase.

John,

Thanks for your reply. I have similar confidence in several models of TSX/TTSX, having seen a whole lot of them penetrate very deep and very straight through 3-4+ feet of bone and flesh on quartering and facing toward/away shots on large deer, bear, caribou, elk, moose, etc. My experience with other monos is limited, but I have a lot of faith in the X/TSX/TTSX, particularily the 140 TTSX and 160 TSX 7mm variants.

FWIW, when I’m hunting in grizz country, I’m usually chasing something large, like elk or moose, possibly in addition to deer, so I tend to carry something 6.5mm or larger, which if stoked with a TTSX, I feel fine with in the event that I need bone breaking penetration. Come to think of it, even when I’m exclusively after sheep, my lightweight sheep rifles are 6.5 and 7mm in caliber, as well...

JMO....
If you have time for more than one shot.....you weren’t truly in danger! memtb

From my years in the military I have always relied on bullet SD for penetration, but in reality the Germans relied on ballistics' SD for bunker-busting projectiles. While penetration can also be achieved by making the projectile tougher or harder, its SD I can't ignore. In other words, a harder bullet provides more penetration, but a harder bullet of the same construction plus a higher SD can potentially penetrate even deeper. It all means is that one can use a lighter bullet that is tougher than a heavier bullet that is also softer to achieve similar penetration. I am not trying to convinced anybody in this forum, just stating what I always consider ballistics when choosing the ammunitions I use for hunting, or just for target shooting.

.243 (5mm): 100-grain bullets provide the greatest SD as long as you stop at 100 grains (SD of .242)

.264 (6.5mm): 160-grain bullets (SD of .328). This is an outstanding SD from such a small caliber.

.270: 150-grain bullets for an SD of .279.

.30-caliber: 220-hrain bullets for an SD of .331 (outstanding SD)

8mm: 220-grain bullets for an SD of .301

.33-caliber: 250-grain bullets for an SD of .313

.375-caliber: 300-grain bullets for an SD of .305

.416-caliber: 400-grain bullets for an SD of .330

As you go up on the large calibers, some may have lesser SD, but all quite sufficient to provide the utmost penetration, plus bigger holes than the holes from smaller calibers.

Had a grizzly come screaming off a moose kill from the night before south of Pink mountian early in 2000 or so. It sucks you only get one chance. Luckily one 7 STW shot in the head with 150 Partition saved my azz. It happens so fast it didn't hit me till 5 minutes after what could of happened. And yup the moose was done.Buried and covered in bear piss.

Of all the accounts about bear chargers where the person has told the story, one has to be extremely lucky to be able to take one shot when a bear charges from a close range. By the time the person recognizes the danger, one has to be extremely fast to adjust and take action, something that most people aren't able to do. But an experienced or trained person who is lucky enough to see the bear a little ahead of time may be able to do something. We have had guides tracking client-injured bears mauled during the tracking process. I don't have much experience with bears other than the ones I see from a distance, but in my view-after reading forever about bear encounters and people's reactions-it's very difficult to tell how a bear is going to react once you invade its safety zone. The people who really know about bear behavior are very rare indeed.

sooooooo, bullet diameter does make a difference?

Or does it just makes a difference on grizzly bears?

Pardon the sarcasm

There is a difference on deer between a 243 and 270 caliber (BTDT)
There is a difference on elk between 30 and 338 caliber (BTDT)
There is difference on buffalo between 375 and 416 caliber (in print from many PH's)
There is a difference between 9mm and 45's (plenty of lethality studies)

Phil Shoemaker carries a 458, and is a huge 30-06 advocate. Speaks volumes

JB, you state for grizzly protection you would carry a 30-06 with 200gr partitions, I would choose a 338-06 with 210gr as a minimum, or my 9.3x64 Brenneke, 375 H&H, or 404 J.

Bigger diameter hits harder, but dead is dead. If you want something that hits harder, choose a bigger diameter. Once again, simple physics.

All my experience with grizzly's has been in WY, ID, and Alaska. Never had any problems, some encounters. Was usually carrying my longbow as a primary weapon with bear spray or a 44 with 300gr hard cast bullets.

I spend many hours reading medical studies, therefore I am no stranger to scientific methods.

All my experience is subjective observations. Maybe I should have documented all my experiences, but even with detailed documention, there are too many uncontrolled variables with in the field "testing".

I certainly agree with you relating to bullet size, weight, and construction. The differences between bullet diameters or calibers, regardless of how minuscule the differences may be, still make a difference overall. It's a matter of physics, something that can't be exact by field testing, since every bullet shot does not go thought the same space and time, nor exact medium. That's why I rely on ballistics first. If bullet diameter would not make a difference we all would be shooting the same caliber for all hunting (there would not be a minimum gun caliber), and there is no gun out there that can tackle all types of game, from the smallest to the largest and most dangerous.

If you are truly in danger, you may have time for one shot....most don’t! Yes, more rounds would be nice....but in all
likelyhood, you will not have the time to reload. Maybe with a semi-auto! If you have the time for a reload....you did pretty darn good with the first round. Meaning.... you stopped or slowed the threat considerably. If it was indeed a threat, and the shot didn’t “break” him/her down....you likely won’t reload! JMO! memtb

Good points gentlemen, if indeed diameter, weight, construction and momentum didn't matter, then why pray tell are we not punching fortified targets with the feared 17 rimfire gatling guns?

The 50 BMG, 20 and 30mm's are certainly a wasted of powder and lead ;]

This is sort of how I imagine a bear encounter where I actually have a chance of survival, down to the headshot and the adrenaline dump that would distort reality. Good shooting!

CRS,

OK, we'll go over this again.

If you go back and read my posts on this subject, you'll find I never said there wasn't a difference between calibers in their effect on game. Instead, this started with my stating I've never seen a difference in killing power between the .300 Winchester Magnum (and similar .300's) and the .338 Winchester Magnum when using bullets in the 200-grain weight range. This is after using both cartridges, and witnessing other people use them on many animals, both in North America and Africa. I also stated why I thought that was so: The difference in diameter is about the thickness of a stiff business card.

I also stated a few pages back that it's intersting you claim their's a definite difference between the "hitting power" between the .300 and .338 Winchesters, yet SU35 thought they were both hit equally hard, after using both considerably.

I also stated that in my observations MAYBE there's a difference in "hitting power" in calibers over .35, because I've seen it--sometimes--but hadn't seen it consistently enough to count on it.

I did cite a pretty controlled experiment on the National Bison Range that didn't find any significant difference in "killing power" between the .30-06 and .375 H&H. But I didn't cite the Swedish survey of nearly 8000 moose hunters, looking at how far moose went before falling after being hit by a wide variety of cartridges and calibers. That study found no significant difference between the 6.5x55 and .375 H&H.

I also stated there's definitely a difference in "hitting power" in calibers over .40.

Then we went through a big debate about the difference between "hitting power" and "killing power," where I (and several others) stated they'd never seen a major difference in killing power between most of the common calibers used for big game.

If you go back and read my posts about grizzly bears, you'll note that I stated that I was considering using my .338 or 9.3 more for local hunting, though not because I had any concrete faith in either "stopping" a grizzly quicker but because they might make me feel better.

This is partly because I didn't see any significant "hitting power" when shooting my one grizzly with 250-grain 9.3 bullets, at pretty close range. It dropped the bear in perhaps 5 seconds, during which I shot the bear twice through the center of the chest vitals, but the bear didn't flinch, or jerk, or manifest any other reaction to the striking bullets--except for after running a few yards, turning its head to nip at the entrance hole of the first bullet, as bears often do. The other reaction was dropping dead a few yards after the second bullet struck.

Would the results have been different if I'd use a .30-06, with say 200-grain Partitions? Maybe, and maybe not. From what I've observed on various similar-sized animals shot with that combination over 40 years, probably not.

I also stated I might use my NULA .30-06 when hunting in grizzly country, rather than the .338 or 9.3, because it weighs less. But I also have great faith in the penetrating power of the 200-grain Nosler Partition, and have seen lighter, smaller-caliber premium bullets not penetrate as deeply, or deflect, so the .30-06 with a 200 Partition looks to me like a pretty good minimum--not because it "hits hard" but because it penetrates great.

JB,
What I am talking about is the subjective observations from impact to death. Hitting harder, with visual evidence of the hit. How incapacitated an animal is from that impact to death.

Bigger diameters hit harder, incapacitate better. Time to death may be the same. But what happens during that time.? Difference between a deer traveling 100 yards into a swamp, and elk going into a hellhole, a grizzly getting a few swipes at you and a buffalo stomping you.

I have ZERO experience with grizzlies or buffalo. Is physics going to change because the species changes?

I think I have seen the difference, you think you have not. You have more experience than I, maybe in another 10-15 years my attitude will change.

Past fall, adult mule deer buck, shot through the ribs with a 90gr NBT out of 243. Buck flinched, looked around. Few seconds later, a 130gr NBT out of 270. Three inches apart, marked difference in the reaction of the deer. Visually stunned, staggered and tipped over in seconds.

CRS,

Both you and Ray have mentioned physics. What physical quatity are you referring to? If you’re talking about a larger diameter bullet doing more damage, and consequently leading to greater incapacitation, you’ll have to be more specific regarding the mechanisms by which that is true. If I shoot a gopher with a .224 50gr VM and a .243 55gr VM, the incapacitation is the same. If I shoot a piece of AR500 plate with a .224 75AM and a .308 208AM, damage done is nearly equal. If I shot a cape buff with a .17 Fireball and a .224 Fireball, assuming similar bullet construction, incapacitation would like be similar despite a caliber difference of 0.052”, or about 30%, which is greater than the difference between a .300 and a .338. The “physics” involve a lot more than simple caliber differences.

I’ve related this experience before, but I’ll do so again to illustrate that bigger calibers don’t always have a more visible effect on game:

One day when I was guiding a couple of caribou hunters, I saw something that served as another piece of evidence that supported the notion that big guns don’t always hit harder and kill quicker. One of the hunters was using a .25-06, the other a .338WM. Both shot caribou at ~250 yards. Bull caribou can exhibit similar vitality to elk if they're not put down right away with the first shot. The bull hit with the 100gr .257" bullet dropped at the shot, a very dramatic reaction to the shot. The bull shot with the 225gr .338" bullet showed no visible reaction at the first shot. Nor at the second shot. The herd started to wander off when the shooting started, and the targeted bull turned around this way and that, looking nervous about his friends walking away. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Finally he started to slowly feed in the direction the herd went. It took 4 hits through the vitals from various angles to finish the job, and one of those was a finisher when we finally walked up on it. All hits were through the shoulders/lungs ranging from broadside to quartering, and the bull showed no reaction to any of them. Internal damage to the vitals was catastrophic. Unfortunately, physics can’t currently predict the vitality of each individual animal, so there is no way to know how an animal will react to a shot, regardless of the caliber used, short of physically dismembering the critter, as in my gopher example.

Good example, Jordan.

I also pointed out earlier in this thread that original bullet diameter has little to do with internal damage, at least with expanding bullets. (It also varies in "solid" bullets, due to shape, but hopefully we won't get sidetracked with that here.) Conventional expanding bullets start to expand when they hit skin, and are fully expanded by about the time they penetrate one bullet length, or a little more.

They also expand in widely varying diameters, depending both on make and the individual bullet, yet another reason a .338 doesn't necessarily "hit harder" than a .30 caliber. Why would .03" in initial bullet diameter make a significant difference when the bullet immediately expands to anything from, say, .4" to .8" wide?

One thing I've been meaning to do since this thread started is measure the expanded diameters of various recovered bullets in my collection. Might measure a few today.

I’ve got a few I could measure as well, just to throw up here.

The examples you have told have nothing to do with ballistics (physics), but more than likely shot placement. There are too many variables. There was a story about two hunters in Alaska, one who was using a .375H&H loaded with 300-grain Partition ammo, and the other a .338WM with 250-grain Partition. Both shot several times at the bear, but it ran into the brush. About 30 minutes later they started tracking the bear following the blood trail. During the tracking process the bear charged, and again both fired their rifles at the bear and dropped it a few feet in front of them. I remember asking this question: "when you opened the bear, did you figure how many times the bear was hit through the vitals?" I never got an answer, but these two hunters were dead-set to never use a .338 nor a .375 for bear hunting again.

And there is no way that anybody can convince me that there is no difference in bullet "thump" from one cartridge to the next. If there were no differences, then the 6.5 would duplicate the .30-06, and this one would duplicate the .338WM, a .338WM would shoot like a .375H&H. Why would anybody need a .375H&H when the .338 outshoots it? Why would there be caliber "minimums" for hunting certain game species in Africa? Why would the Alaska F&G recommend a certain caliber and ammo as a minimum to hunt bison?

It seems like this thread is moving nowhere. Are we really going to argue the validity of sensible minimums now? I'm sure, with an accurate 223 and the right bullets, that I could stop any grizzly mid-charge with a shot in the head.

That's right. A long time ago I was looking at some photos of a very large bear skull that had very small holes on the bone right in front of the ear canal. According to the story, a Native lady had shot and dropped the bear with a .22LR. No idea if the story is true or not. But this one is: a few years ago and older fellow had to go to court over an illegal kill of a moose in his backyard. The guy was bothered by the moose eating some of the plants in his garden, so he shot it on the side, by the lungs, with a pellet gun. The pellet traveled between two ribs, and got lodged in the lungs. Shortly after the shot the moose bedded, and a few hours later it died.

So a sensible minimum is a rimfire 22 cal... I think we're all good with our regular hunting rigs against dangerous game, as long as we can make the headshot.

Gunner, let me tell you right now, when the big 50 starts chopping car parts and walls down around Haji they put their heads down a little more than with the 5.56’s...

Ray,

The .375 H&H minimum for dangerous game in Africa was established in British colonies back when both expanding and solid bullets were primitive. It doesn't apply in many other countries, where if there is a minimum (sometimes there isn't) it's usually something like the ballistics of the 9.3x62, mostly because hunters found it worked well on buffalo and elephants, even with relatively poor bullets. (There's also the question of why a .375 H&H would be necessary for leopard hunting, which apparently was the regulation in Kenya, because leopards were considered dangerous game.)

But plenty of African hunters have used much smaller rifles on buffalo. I know three African PH's who've killed quite a few with the 7mm Remington Magnum, .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum, using modern premium bullets. One of those guys killed several hundred with the .30-06 and 180-grain Partitions, mostly using chest shots, when culling on a big ranch in Zimbabwe.

When I started hunting big game in my home state of Montana it had a long-standing minimum requirement of .23 caliber, mostly because of the .220 Swift, which some people had started using on deer and other big game. This upset the guys who made up the game commission, even though I doubt any of them had ever even seen a .220 Swift used on big game, because "everybody knows" a .22 isn't enough for deer.

However, the regulation was quietly dropped a number of years ago, probably because more people started using the .220 Swift and, especially, the .22-250 on deer, and found they worked fine. In fact I knew an older game department warden who preferred the Swift for culling elk that were tearing apart ranchers' haystacks, and know an ex-outfitter who prefers the .22-250 for his elk hunting these days. Mostly he hunts cows for meat, rather than the bulls he used to guide for, because cows tend to live in herds, these days often in bigger herds, and he found his 7mm Magnum shot through an elk too often, risking wounded another. So these days he shoots cow elk with his .22-250, and the bullets don't go through--but kill elk just fine. He can do that legally because eventually the game department realized that hunters will use cartridges that work, regardless of a few hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter.

Quite funny, but that's not the point I was trying to make. In my view there aways are differences from one cartridge to the next, and that the bigger or more powerful ones provide greater or bigger punch. A second point that I was trying to make is that most moose hunters in bear country lean toward bigger gun calibers rather than small calibers.

I understand your points 100%, specially about gun calibers such as the .30s and larger being used in Africa. After gun and load has been decided for the game to be hunted, shot placement is paramount, and that's why I mentioned in one of my posts that the fact that a caribou was dropped with a 100-grain bullet from a .257 and one was not with a 225-grain from a .338WM had nothing to do with ballistics, but probably with shot placement.

In relation to hunting very large animals with smaller caliber guns, the majority of hunters more than likely are going to choose a gun and ammo that is more suitable for the game being hunted (on the bigger side) which in the case in Alaska. As I mentioned before, the .30-06, .300WM, and .338WM are the most popular with Alaska hunters. That some hunters decide to use the smallest caliber guns for hunting moose in bear country is the exception.

You bet!

Yea I think I would duck a little lower if I was being shot at with a 50.
Here is about everything their is on the 338 WinMag. And a lot more about other calibers
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.338+Winchester+Magnum.html

Great subjective example Jordan

Way too many variables and unknowns to draw any valid conclusions.

Cow elk shot with a150gr 270, took off like it wasn't hit. Found 125yards later down in a hole.
Cow elk shot with a 225gr 338 WM, hit, stunned staggered and died within yards.
Running Cow elk shot with a 140gr, 270, could not even tell it was hit, followed herd tracks in the snow, found dead.
Cow elk shot with 210gr 338-06, drop in it's tracks.
Cow elk shot with 100gr 243, went back to feeding, 3 more shots and it finally slumped to the grounds.
Cow elk shot with 210gr 338-06, jumped a little, stumbled 20 yards and tipped over.
Cow elk shot with 180gr, 300 Win Mag flinched at the shot and ran with/lost in the herd until she t-boned an aspen tree.
Bull elk shot with 225gr, 338 WM, tried to take off with herd labored behind and peeled away from herd tipped over.
Cow elk shot with 150gr, 270, spun at the shot and ran like nothing happened.
Bull elk shot with 210gr, 338-06, bull visibly shaken, stood in place, turned broadside and took another, went down.
Bull elk shot with 150gr, 300 WSM, spun at the shot and ran 60 yards.
Cow elk shot with 225gr, 35 Whelen, staggered at the shot, visibly shaken, went less than 10 yards.

Big bull caribou shot with 150gr, 270, stiffened at the shot, locked up. Second shot, swayed him and tipped over.
Big bull caribou shot with 150gr, 270, jumped at the shot and started spinning circles in place, two more shot not 4 inches apart. Bull died within feet of initial shot.

Mule deer buck shot with 210gr 338-06, locked up in place and tipped over.

Spike whitetail with 100gr, 243, did a little hop at the shot and went back to eating in the cornfield. Thought it was a miss.
Whitetail buck shot with 117gr, 257 Roberts, spun at the shot and covered 100 plus yards out of sight.

I have too examples of 222 and 22-250 on deer to list. They will show little to no reaction, run and die. Unless skeletal structure is broke down.
I have too examples of 130gr with 270 on deer to list, but have never questioned a hit or a miss. The reaction makes it very clear.

I intentionally left out, shots that caused skeletal structural damage, that changes everything.

How is that for subjective examples of one?

There are many factors that influence the response of the animal at the shot. Bullet diameter is one of them. But you have to eliminate all the other variables to have a valid statistical study that will stand up under scrutiny.

Nobody here has performed that study on live animals.

But that was the point that I made, Ray, while you continue to bring up irrelevant things. With every animal, every time, what you hit them with is nearly irrelevant compared to where you hit them.

That's a very comprehensive article. It most have taken a lot of time for the author to write it.

Good points. I just misunderstood.

Ray their is a bunch of info on bullet performance of other calibers too. Lots of info.

Hell of a report CRS, Thanks.

I have plenty of examples where smaller diameter bullets showed great reaction, and large diameter bullets showed little reaction. For instance, the cow elk I shot with a 223 this fall stumbled maybe 15 yards and died. A whitetail doe shot a couple seasons back with a 338-06 ran a good quarter mile; I tracked her on hands and knees through the Russian Olives, finding her with a hole in the lungs and liver.

Those are extreme examples, but in general my experience has shown that initial bullet diameter is one of the last factors that matters in killing game. Bullet construction and placement are far more important factors affecting how an animal dies, along with an individual animal's tenacity.

Thanks. I will take a good look to the articles. Lots of useful information in there.

Some good stuff there and worth reading. He does have a couple of biases that shine through at times but overall it is excellent.

It’s rarely the case the 338 WM doesn’t generate a lot of verbiage when it headlines in a thread. My own experience with it leads me to a pretty straightforward conclusion; anything you can do with a 338 WM, you can do with a 30-06.

If I want more than the 30-06 I’d skip right over the 338 WM and get something bigger.

Negative, I broke down all animals personally, and the .257”-hit bull did not have CNS or major skeletal damage. It was simply a case of a “wimpy” animal versus an extremely tough one.

Thank you, that’s my point exactly. So anybody saying that they can draw a direct correlation between caliber and animal reaction to the shot is fooling themselves, unless more controlled experimentation is conducted. I have not personally seen anything that would lead me to conclude that a strong correlation between similar calibers and animal reaction exists, but I can’t say conclusively that it doesn’t exist. We’re all just reporting our experiences.

FWIW, the reports are anecdotal, but not subjective. We’re objectively reporting what we witnessed, unless of course some of the reports are influenced by a bias.

I had an outlier with a 225gr, 338 Win Mag on a mature whitetail buck. I knew from his reaction, that I hit him. He did a kick then took off after the doe he was with. I watched him run about 100 yards and jump a fence like nothing was wrong. He continued another 40 yards out of sight. He easily went 250 yards with a 338 through the ribs.

The one contrary anectdotal experience I remember.

I do not remember on the dozens of deer and antelope we have stunt shot with 22 or even 243 caliber where I thought, wow that hit them good. Knocked them for a lopp, unless skeletal structure was broken down.

I do not ever remember shooting deer with 270 on up where I questioned the shot, with the one exception stated above. Where I knew he was hit, but questioned the response to the shot and how far he traveled.

I can say the same thing on elk with the line being drawn between 30cal and 338 cal. I do not ever remember being impressed by 30 cal and below. The closest was the bull listed in the previous post that was shot with the same 225gr, 338 Win Mag. Knew he was hit, took off with the herd but lagged behind, then peeled off from the herd and died. 225gr Federal Trophy bonded factory load circa 1997.

What I am specifically talking about is the animals response from impact to death. Having that visual affirmation is good IMO, not necessary, but good.

Having bowhunted for 30 plus years, I have no issues with shooting an animal and watching them run off.

I have no personal agenda, just stating what I have seen and my thoughts.



I cannot disagree with you.

Most studies throw out the extreme examples for statistical validity.

Pretty much true. What I find funny is how much effort is put forth in convincing other people how owning a 338 is wrong. I’ve been a medium bore nut for decades and will be the first to admit there isn’t much earthshaking about them. That being said... you are in great company owning a 338 WM. Like EVERY cartridge the 338 WM isn’t perfect and has a whole heap of pros and cons, it’s just another cartridge. I often wonder how popular a 338 WM would be as a one gun choice in Africa if it was legal for buff and what not.

Awhile back I shot some 225's and 200 grain Accubonds (338 Win) into jugs along with the 150 Bitterroots and 175 Bitterroots from my 270 WSM at 3100 and 3050 from the Mashburn. What I found sorta enlightening was the BBC's expanded wider than the 225 and 200's, retained more weight, but didn't quite penetrate as far, but not a bunch less either. I guess that is when I sorta saw that bullets make the "hitting harder" observation versus just sheer caliber. I have taken a few elk with all of them (BBC's) and haven't seen any of them act much differently than a handful of elk taken with the 338 with Partitions, Accubonds and this year with the Scirocco. I will say I think things stop much faster with a wider expanding bullet that destroys more animal parts. I do like the way the wide expanding 338 bullets work, but no more than similar great bullets in the 270 and 7mm's.

beretzs,

Wouldn't the same process continue working if you used BBC bullets in the 338? Even bigger expansion with adequate penetration messing up even more of the insides?

Heck yeah it would be. So far I haven't had the opportunity to run the 225 BBC's into an elk from my 338, but maybe this year I will get it done. The ones I have tested have darned near expanded to .900". I have to think those would shut stuff down in a hurry.

I was just saying that comparing how a regular 338 bullet that expands to .600"-.650" or so, (like a Partition or Accubond) won't show me too much different than a 150/175 grain Bitterroot or similar run at nearly the same speeds that expands to .700-.800"ish. The 175 BBC is a bad SOB out of the Mashburn for my use..

I don't find owning a 338 WM "wrong" - I've had five of them. What I find interesting is the contorted arguments some 338 owners will offer to convince others (it's really about convincing themselves) that the 338 WM is a vastly superior cartridge to "lesser" rounds. That's just not been my experience with it. I'm all for whatever anyone wants to use, I just object to non-critical thinking.

I think the 338 is a dandy round, especially in a 22" bbl'd bolt rifle. I think that's its ideal barrel length and what helps separate it, in a useful sense, from other "magnums." A 22" bbl'd 338 WM, 7.75 lb to no more than 8lb (scoped, w sling and rounds), may just in fact be the "ultimate" elk rifle. I just don't happen to want to carry a rifle that heavy, nor deal with that level of recoil anymore, given my own experience with lighter recoiling rounds on elk.

That could very well be true.

In Montana we have a couple areas open to elk with a firearm during the bow season. One is a portion of the Bob Marshall. A friend of mine was rifle hunting there for elk two years ago and had a big old boar grizzly pop out of the brush and charge him. The first shot (7mm RM / 175 gr CoreLoc) went in the eye socket and entered the brain. That didn't even phase the bear and it kept coming until a few feet away was stopped with a chest shot. At that it fell momentarily, popped up and ran off to die in the brush. The shot to the eye socket and just circumnavigated the interior of the skull... it didn't exit.

Brad I totally agree, including the points about the 7.75lbs 338. My whole point was that among medium magnums the 338 isn’t a right or wrong choice but just another med Mag with its own set of pros and cons. I find it harder to justify carrying med mags these days anyways for the same reasons. The older I get the deadlier the 270 becomes

SM, I understood you for sure

Which reminds me; "the older I become the smarter Jack O'connor gets!"

John,

I am planning on shooting a wood bison this year. I have plenty of "big rifles" , but have a wild hair and want to take one with my 1895 win.

Planning on using my 30/40 Krag and hand loaded 200 or 220 Nosler partitons.


Lefty C

Well, here's some more stuff to chew on:

Got out my collection of recovered bullets yesterday and measured the expansion of .30's and .338's. I measured the widest and narrowest part of the "mushroom" on each bullet, then averaged them--unless there was some anomaly like a missing "petal" on a bullet like a Barnes X, Fail Safe or E-Tip. With those I measured only the widest expansion.

There were more .30's in the collection than .338's, though not by a vast amount. Their original weight ranged from 150 to 180 grains, and they were shot from .308's, .30-06's, .300 WSM's and .300 Winchester Magnums. The brands included Barnes TSX; Federal Deep Shok; Hornady Interbond; Norma Oryx, Nosler AccuBond, E-Tip and Partition; Speer Hot-Cor and Winchester Fail Safe. The animals ranged in size from around 250 to 800 pounds.The average expansion was .659 inch.

The .338's all were fired from .338 Wiinchester Magnums, and originally weighed 200 to 225 grains. They included the Hornady Interlock Spire Point; Nosler AccuBond, Ballistic Tip and Partition; and Winchester Fail Safe. The animals ranged in size from around 200 pounds to 1300. The average expansion was .620 inch.

However, the .30's included several Hornady Interbond and Norma Oryx bullets, which like the Bitterroot Bonded Core noted by Beretz expand widely. These averaged .735 expansion, and none of the .338 bullets were Interbonds or Orxyxes. With those eliminated from the list the .30's averaged .631 expansion, very similar to the .338's.

The smallest mushrooms in both calibers were .571 inch, both bullets taken from blue wildebeest, a 180 Fail Safe .30 caliber, and a 225 AccuBond .338.

Since caribou have entered the discussion, here's a another list of field results from mature bulls taken from northern Quebec, central Canada and Alaska. The rounded-off ranges are estimated or paced, the precise ranges lasered. Caribou often "lock up" when hit, much like elk, standing there as if semi-paralyzed, but then after standing there often make a short death run, with their head getting lower and lower until their nose plows into the ground. In the notes, this is called a "nose-plow." About half the bulls were taken by me, the others by my hunting companions as I watched:

.280 Remington, 139 Hornady Interlock Spire Point @ 3100, range 100 yards. At the shot the bull trotted off in a semi-circle about 30 yards across before falling. The bullet went through both lungs behind the shoulder, and the only reaction to impact was a tuft of hair flying into the air.

.280 Remington, 160 Nosler Partition @ 2900, range 350 yards. The first shot landed behind the shoulder, going through both lungs, and the bull took a few steps and stopped. A second shot landed a couple inches from the first, and the bull fell. One bullet exited, but the other was recovered from under the hide on the far side.

.338 Winchester Magnum, 200 Nosler Ballistic Tip @3000, range 200 yards. The bull stood turned slightly away, and the bullet landed just behind the shoulder. It went through both lungs and broke the leg on the far side, just above the big joint. The bull dropped straight down, landing on his belly with legs folded, ready for the trophy photo.

.338 Winchester Magnum, 210 Nosler Partition @ 2900, range 300 yards. The bullet landed just behind the shoulder of the broadside bull. The only reaction was running 50-some yards before collapsing.

.30-06, 180 Federal Deep Shok @ 2750, range 400 yards. The bullet landed just behind the shoulder with the bull turned very slightly toward me. He locked up, and just as I was about to shoot again, fell. The bullet went through both lungs and exited.

.30-06, another 180 Deep Shok, range 450 yards. The first shot landed just behind the shoulder, through both lung and the top of the heart. The bull locked up, a few seconds later nose-plowing the tundra.

7mm Rem. SAUM, 140 Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded @ 3150, range 225 yards. The first shot went through both lungs behind the shoulder, and the bull took a few steps and stopped. A second shot went through both shoulders, dropping him.

Same 7mm SAUM load, range 90 yards. The bull was walking toward me, head and neck held parall to the ground. The bullet entered the lower part of the chest, and the bull locked up, a few seconds later doing a nose-plow.

Same 7mm SAUM and load, range 250 yards. This bull had been previously shot twice with a .300 SAUM and 150-grain CLU bullets, which landed too far back due to a howling wind, around the rear of the ribcage--then was missed with a third shot. The bull took a few steps after each shot, then stopped. The 7mm SAUM bullet went through both shoulders, dropping the bull.

.270 Winchester, 150-grain Hornady Interlock Spire Point, range 369 yards. The bullet landed just behind the shoulder, and the bull trotted a little way, then slowed before dropping, a total of about 40 feet.

.308 Winchester, 150-grain Nosler AccuBond @ 2850 fps, range 35 yards. The bull walked up a hill to me, where I sat with my rifle. Eventually he noticed me sitting there, and stopped, head up. The bullet entered the "dimple" at the base of the throat, clipping the bottom of the spine before penetrating through the chest and into the abdomen, where it couldn't be found. The bull dropped right there.

.270 WSM, 140-grain Nosler AccuBond @ 3200 fps, range 200 yards. The bull was standing in some willows up to the middle of his chest, and the bullet went through the top of the shoulders and the spine, dropping him.

.270 Winchester, 130-grain Nosler Partition @ 3100 fps, range 100 yards. The bullet went through both shoulders and the spine, dropping the bull.

.270 Winchester, same rifle and load, range 200 yards. The bullet went through both lungs, broadside, and the bull trotted about 30 feet and fell.

.300 Winchester Magnum, 180-grain Nosler Partition @ 3000 fps, range 100 yards. The bullet hit the spine just behind the shoulders, and the bull dropped.

.22-250 Remington, 55-grain Winchester factory load, range 250 yards. The bullet landed just behind the shoulders and went through both lungs, exiting. The bull dropped right there.

.30-06, 180-grain Nosler Partition @ 2700 fps, range 150 yards. The bullet went through both lungs and the bull dropped right there.

.300 Winchester Magnum, 180-grain Nosler Partition @ 3000 fps, range 300 yards. The bullet landed just behind the shoulders, and the bull locked up for a few seconds before doing a nose-plow.

.30-06, 165-grain Nosler Partition @ 2900 fps, range 250 yards. The bullet hit the base of the neck and the bull dropped.

.30-06, 180-grain Nosler Partition @ 2700 fps, range 325 and 350 yards. The first bullet landed low, due to a faulty range estimation on the part of my hunting partner's guide, breaking a front leg above the knee. The bull gimped around away about 25 yards, then stopped broadside. The second shot went through the lungs behind the shoulders, and the bull staggered about 50 feet before falling.

.280 Remington, 140-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip @ 3000 fps, range 200 yards. The bullet landed in the middle of the neck as the bull stood facing away, dropping him right there.

300 Rem. SAUM, 150-grain Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded @ 3200 fps, range 212 yards. The bullet landed in the lungs behind the shoulder, and the bull staggered 30 yards before falling.

7mm Rem. SAUM, 160-grain Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded @ 2900 fps, range 138 yards. The bull stood quartering toward the hunter, and the bullet landed in the shoulder, then passed through both lungs. The bull dropped right there.

7mm Rem. SAUM, same load, range 219 yards. The bullet landed in the lungs behind the shoulder, and the bull trotted 40 yards before dropping.

.270 Winchester, 140-grain Barnes TSX @ 3000 fps, range 162 yards. The bullet went through the top of the lungs and the bottom of both scapulas. The bull staggered 10 yards before falling.

.308 Winchester, 150-grain Remington factory, 175 yards. The hunter shot the bull three times around the rear of the lungs before finally centering them. The bull moved a few yards after each of the first three shots, then fell at the fourth.

7mm Remington Magnum, 140-grain Nosler Partition @ 3250 fps, range 250 yards. The first shot landed too far back, around the rear of the ribs, and the bull walked around a little before stopping again. The hunter put a second bullet second bullet at the top of the shoulders, dropping the bull. (I'd previously watched him miss another bull three times at around 400 yards.)

Gunner, let me tell you right now, when the big 50 starts chopping car parts and walls down around Haji they put their heads down a little more than with the 5.56’s...
[/quote]

You just gotta love the Ma Deuce! Of course, it can be pretty "rough" on the "meat"...:)

These two are my favorites, and they represent extremes in caliber at a really standard range. They also represent extremes in cup & core bullet fragility.

I'm more and more sold that the 22 cals, when used properly (well-placed shot with the proper bullet), are quite effective for most killing. I've also found that placing the shot well is really easy while burning small charges of powder in a light-handling hunting rifle that produces a mild report. I love watching bullet impact in the scope, which never happens for me on bigger animals unless I'm shooting a 22 CF.

Great information, John. As always, thank you for taking the time to engage in discussion and present detailed data.

At least three PHs I have talked with indicated they thought the 338 was a very good cartridge for a mixed plains game hunt. Several indicated it was enough for Buffalo and was a good second gun on a dangerous game safari. A father son PH team said the 338 was one of the best yet they did their hunting. culling and back up with 300 WMs clients had given them. They used Speer Hot Cores because they were the cheapest and worked. When they would come to the US they would buy exactly 49 lbs. of bullets to bring back to be within the maximum flight weight.

It is probably a case of seeing what you want to but it seems to me bullets over 250 grains do produce more of a reaction rifle and pistol. But I have had hogs shrug off hits with 260 .375 grain bullets like nothing happened ditto for 250 grain 45 Colt bullets. John Wooters and Jack Carter used their 7 RM as well as the 375 on Buffalo. With the TBBC they thought the 7 RM may have killed quicker even on Buffalo. I asked Jack what he thought was the maximum game for the 175 7mm and with no hesitation he said Eland. Even though I think there is a place for the medium bores I also subscribe to P O Ackley's claim that if you shot 100 deer with a 30-06 and a 100 with the 220 Swift the swift would produce more DRT reactions. So which is it? I dunno.

There was a survey done of African PHs and their recommendation for a "two gun" Safari (I think it might have been in a Boddington book). I believe the nod went to a 338/416 combo.

Pretty much my thoughts.... my buddy thought he would once... his boss hit a 4 inch tree in front of a good size black bear, killed the bear and hit another willow or such about same size after exiting the bear... alas, still no bullet recovered.
Run 210 in my 338-06 FWIW.

The only issue on dangerous game is when its all going right, its all ok, but when SHTF even my guide buddy on big bears says bigger is better. And this from him that carries a 338 win mag most of the time....until he feels that the situation may call for his 416.

You just gotta love the Ma Deuce! Of course, it can be pretty "rough" on the "meat"...:)
[/quote]

LOL, yes, the recently de-limbed departeds would be better presented for funeral services standing out in the open flying a defiant FU finger rather than hiding behind, then having to eat all the chit the big material rifles blow through ya on the way by.

That sounds good, been thinking your old pre-64 300 H&H for Leopard and a Browning Safari 458 for Buff myself.

Sounds bout perfect, Brother!

You bet Jorge, gonna try to get on em hard and fast in Moz. then take Wifey on east to the beaches.

Pemba Beach hotel....

Jorge, I know that the 338/416 combo had the most votes from the PHs when Boddington conducted his first survey for his first "Safari Rifles" book since that is the exact combo I followed. Of course, I think that survey was done in the mid to late 80's when we hadn't yet had the premium bullet development firestorm that we've seen in the last few decades. However, I believe his results were a bit different when he came out with his second addition, "Safari Rifles II" which was published in 2009. I cannot remember the results exactly, but I do think the PHs moved away from the .338 and went toward the .300 magnums. I also can't remember if the .416s continued in the top spot for the heavy rifle or surrendered to the .375s.

I will submit what I have been told by three very experienced African PH’s.

#1 “I prefer that my buffalo hunters use a 338 rather than a 375 because, on average, their shots are more likely to be well placed. A 250 partition in the right place, dead buffalo.” He prefers a 416 for really thumping buffalo but said very few visiting hunters can shoot it well enough.

#2 “I use a 308 Win with Federal Fusion ammo for backing up my buffalo clients and can’t see anything bigger adding much.”

#3 “The guys who bring 338 Wins usually have trouble with shot placement and have more problems with wounded animals than those who use 30/06’s.” His best client for animals down quickly was a little 12 yo using a cut down Ruger 250 Savage.

There you go...take your pick.

Thanks Buddy.

Pemba

In my experience larger diameter projectiles of heavier hit harder, you actually hear the difference. That being said doesn’t means kills quicker. Once a large enough hole through the heart to instantly bring the blood pressure to zero is as equally effective as larger hole.

Probably true, but what I like about the heavier or the tougher bullets is that one can break heavy bone and muzzle after passing through the lungs, and drop large animal right there. I have done that to moose several times. The only problem when the shoulder bone is broken is that rolling the moose to skin and remove the legs, then the neck and rib meat, and finally the back straps from one side and then the next, the broken leg makes it a little more difficult. We tie a rope or the winch cable near both hooves at the far side, and roll the moose toward the ATVs.

By the way, I could be wrong, but I don't think small animals such as caribou and deer offer much resistance to the tip of the heavier .338 bullets. The bullets may expand, but not as much as one would think. I believe that for caribou and deer a lightweight bullet around 185 grains-driven fast-is a better choice. The heavier bullets, unless driven very fast, may not expand as much on small game past 200 yards. I could very well use a much smaller gun to hunt caribou, but instead I just have enough ammo for different uses, and so far that has worked.

I remember a time when a friend of mine while checking his trapline asked me to shoot a large marmot that was very much alive, but caught in one of the traps (I also had a trappers license). Anyway, he told me, "don't worry about it, because that 230-grain FS in your chamber is not going to expand." Sure enough...I shot the thing from about 75 yards away, and it didn't even moved, so I thought that I have missed. He said, "don't shoot again. It's dead," and when we looked at it there was a very small entrance and exit hole. I would have had to force a pencil through it just to make the hole larger. I always remember that shot, because it was hard for me to believe that the poor thing would not blow up when the bullet hit.

Again, I could be wrong.

jorge and test1328,

If you're thinking of Craig's two SAFARI RIFLES books, the .338/.416 combination was NOT the professional hunter's choice for clients to bring on a 2-rifle safari. It was Craig's choice as the perfect combination in the first book, published in 1990, but the top five choices of PH's were:

7mm Remington Magnum + .375 H&H (19 votes)
.300 magnum (unspecified) + .375 H&H (18)
.30-06 + .375 H&H (13)
.270/.280/.308/7x57 + 375 H&H (15)

After that the votes dropped off rapidly, with the next combo (.300 magnum +.458) only getting 6 votes. The .33/.416 combination favored by Craig got one vote.

In SAFARI RIFLES II, published in 2009, the results were a little different:

.300 magnum + .416 (27 votes)
.300 magnum + .375 (20)
.30-06 + .375 (16)
7mm magnum +.375 (4)

In 2009 the .338/.416 combo got two votes.

You people over think way too much. If you let science dictate a bear charge your alll foocked period.

61+ years in Grizzly country, many L/O seasons alone far from quick rescue in event of injury, supered bush camps of 75 workers in forestry from the early 70s on to the early 90s and NEVER lost a bit of skin or a worker.

I totally agree with the above, from another experienced BC bush worker and I happen to prefer packing .338s, 9.3s and used to use .,375s, all with heavy for caliber Npts at fastest safe velocities in my handloads.,

I do this largely as MD does because they make me feel better. I have and would pack .30-06s and prefer 200 Npts.

Simple, the major issue is a good bullet, properly placed and learning to handle and shoot your particular rifle very well.

Would I carry a .308Win.......have and love it and with a 180 Npt at 2600+ and the light weight and low recoil, it is easy to shoot and perhaps the best option for those who cannot shoot a .338WM fast and well. Plus, packing a very light rifle may mean you have it with you when schidt happens where you may have left your 338 or 375 in your tent.

.404s, .458s and all that, had one and could shoot it, BUT, these are actually fantasy time for most hunters/bush workers.

Thanks, John. I knew I'd read it somewhere and as always, you are correct.

Interesting surveys, John. The 7mm as the outlier, I guess. Any thoughts as to why?

I'll proffer my opinion: Most of the PHs surveyed grew up in the 60s-70s when the 7Mag was all the rage. Also, it is my opinion most PHs are really not that savvy on ballistics & bullet performance of the more modern stuff.

LOL, yes, the recently de-limbed departeds would be better presented for funeral services standing out in the open flying a defiant FU finger rather than hiding behind, then having to eat all the chit the big material rifles blow through ya on the way by. [/quote]

So what bullet is rough on animals? I've only shot stuff with ball because it was supposed to be just fine. Hole in, hole out, zero extra damage. Animals ran a long ways before falling over with a hole (big) in the lungs.
I need to buy a press and dies one day and load for the 50. Have one box of barnes X for it, but thats as far as I got. Amax will open? Other choices?

We mainly shot ball, raufoss, and SLAP rounds through our M2's and then whatever the match bullet was for the Barrett. Mainly saw the effects of the M2 with ball on people and it was usually pretty much done for them. A chest hit with one and I never saw anyone limp away. Can't say how they worked on animals as I never saw/did any of it, but the 50 is brutal on soft skin things. With the SLAP rounds it was brutal on metal or hardened targets.

You've also recommended on this forum to shoot charging bears under the chin...

tomk,

I agree with what Jorge said. In 1990, when the first SAFARI RIFLES books appeared, the 7mm Remington Magnum was still popular, but it was incredibly popular during the 1960's, 70's and 80's. It's hard to imagine for hunters who weren't there during the peak of the 7mm RM hoopla, but it's popularity was far more than the recent .300 WSM and 6.5 Creedmoor combined. One of my fellow gun writers worked at a local sawmill here in Montana in the 1970's, and joked, "Every worker had a hard hat, lunch bucket and a 7mm Remington Magnum."

Its popularity also extended to Africa. When I hunted Namibia in 1999 with father-son team of PH's, both had 7mm Remington Magnums, and really believed in them. Have run into several other, older PH's who'd been using the 7mm RM as their general plains-game rifle for decades, and more than one had taken buffalo with his.

In fact, many American fans thought the "Big Seven" was far more powerful than ordinary rounds like the .30-06, and many didn't know other 7mm rounds existed. Some hunters from that generation still go into a sporting goods store and ask for a box of "seven em ems," and when the clerk asks what 7mm cartridge, don't know what to say. Some hunters even believed the 7mm Remington Magnum was somehow more powerful than .300 magnums, because there was "something magic" about .284" diameter bullets--and a few gun writers even promoted that theory.

The 7mm Remington Magnum's popularity started declining in the 1990's, perhaps because so many new premium bullets appeared in factory ammo, and really took a nose-dive when the .300 WSM appeared in 2002. For the next few years I saw a BUNCH of used 7mm RM's on the used rack at Capital Sports & Western Wear, the local gun store I frequent. Mostly they'd been traded in for .300 WSM's, because it was the latest hot round. At its peak the .300 WSM's popularity was somewhat similar to the 7mm Remington Magnum's, but only last 3-5 years, instead of decades.

Ray,

Unless an expanding bullet doesn't open up for some reason, it starts to expand when it hits skin, and normally totally "mushrooms" by the time it penetrates its own length, or a little more. This is why the most tissue damage occurs around the entrance hole and just beyond it. I've seen enough "deer-sized" game taken in both North America and Africa with the .338, various .35's, 9.3's and .375's, to know this to be true, but it's also been demonstrated in test media many times.

Thanks for the correction, JB. I guess I "misremembered" what I had read many years ago! Guess I followed Craig's advice and ignored the PH's!

After thinking a bit about what I used in Africa and the effects/differences between a .338 and a .300 Mag I would have to agree that I haven't seen a big difference between the two on elk. I didn't own a 300 mag when I went to Africa, so that wasn't a choice for me at the time. Since then, I've killed a handful of bull elk with both the .338 and 300 Mags and cannot honestly say that I thought one hit harder or put elk down quicker. I always used the 225gr. Accubond or 225gr. Hornady Interlock in the .338 Win. Mag for elk. I also always used the 180 gr. TSX in the .300 Wby Mag for elk. So I suppose the selected bullets may be why I didn't see any difference. I'm still a sucker for the .338, but I would never not use the 300 mags if that was my only option. I've also killed quite a few elk with the 30-06 and will say that both the .338 and .300 mags seemed to have a bigger effect on the elk, i.e. their initial reaction when shot. The .30-06 always killed them just fine, but I would often see little or no reaction to the shot and then they would run off and die. I went with the .338 over the 30-06 because of the mental anguish I hoped to alleviate by hopefully dropping the elk closer to where I shot them. It did seem to help in that regard.

If I was hunting in Grizzly country, whether in the lower 48 or in the AK interior, I think the 300 Mags would be just fine and I wouldn't have a second thought about using them (provided you were using a good 180 gr. or larger bullet). Hunting on the AK coast for big Brown Bears, I have always opted for the .338 Win. Mag. but using 250gr. bullets. I've also carried the 375 H&H for Brown Bear, although I've never had the opportunity to shoot one with that cartridge to date. Those big bears give me enough pause to use the larger calibers. Then again, I hunted with a bear guide up there who carried a 7mm Rem. Mag. and didn't think twice about it. To each his own.

Thanks John & Jorge.

Interesting stuff...the anomaly is a trend...:)

Yeah here too. Marketing. We had to have them for deer hunting in the 70's as they were the answer to having to track deer and all that 500 yard shooting. Of course too, 175g bullets were absolutely necessary to buck brush. Had a light Rem 700 which was great at realigning neck vertebra. That wasn't enough gun, I guess, so eventually moved on to a lightweight 338 to continue my penance.

Just booked a PG and MAYBE buff with Wintershoek Safaris in 19. Taking the 338 w 225TTSXs for Sable and gemsbok. The 300 Weatherby (my favorite rifle) will stay home..

What?!
You use the 300 on an elk and take the 338 to Africa?

Sheesh.

Because I can. Besides, the 300's been twice. I'm also taking a Safari Grade in 300 WIN.Question is, do I take the Mauser or Sako action? (rhetorical question )

test1328,

Plenty of people follow Craig's advice! When I went to Botswana in 2003 to hunt the Okavango Delta, I asked Craig if he had any advice. He said to buy two pairs of high-top canvas basketball shoes for wading the swamps, so one pair could be drying out while I hunted in the other. I bought two pairs of Chuck Taylor Converse All-Stars at a local sporting goods store, and Craig was exactly right--though in my camp they also washed the "wet" pair I left in front of the tent each day, and even ironed the laces.

There will never be anything to replace the Chuck Taylors!

Only guys with game can get away with ironed laces!

I really like Sakos, but it seems like Mauser actions and Africa just go together!

HA! Love the ironed laces!

Oh yeah, Jorge... you suck!

Agree. But in my view more expansion takes place when the heavier and tougher .338 bullets have more tissue to go through; moose for example. The deeper set of lungs behind the hide offer more resistance than a tiny chest cavity and lungs such as in deer and caribou. I feel that a small and fast-driven .338 bullet that is designed to expand has a greater chance to expand the most for small deer and caribou shot thought the lungs. But in reality it is my theory. All I know is that I have only been able to recover a 230-gran FS, and one 250-grain A-frame from moose, and only because both broke shoulders and got stuck on the hide at the other side. The rest, just have been pass-troughs on lung shots.

Lungs are the least bullet-resistant part of any animal's chest.

I have recovered several bullets from moose, but most were from smaller calibers, a 150-grain .270 Partition from a Shiras bull my wife killed here in Montana, and a couple of 160-grain North Forks from a 7x57 on a bull I got in Alberta. The bigger bullets recovered were a 286-grain Nosler Partition from a 9.3x62 from a northern British Columbia bull, that went through the meat of both shoulders but missed any bone, and a 230-grain Fail Safe from my .338 on an Alaskan bull.

The 230 Fail Safe was interesting. The moose came splashing down the edge of a small salmon river, and I sat down and aimed. The guide said, "He doesn't have enough brow tines to be legal!"

I said, "The hell with the brows tines! Is he over 50 inches wide?"

The guide, kinda startled, looked for a couple seconds and said, "Oh, yeah! But don't shoot him in the damn river!"

The moose evidently heard some of this whispering, and left the river, walking across a narrow gravel bar and then a steep bank maybe 10-12 feet high. The top of the bank was covered with thick alders, so when the bull's front hooves hit the top and he paused, quartering strongly toward me, I quickly shot him just inside his left shoulder, to angle the bullet through his chest. He stood up on his hind legs like a horse, then fell over backward, rolling down the bank and across the narrow gravel bar back into the shallow edge of the river. It looked for a moment like he would die right there, but evidently the cold water revived him, and he rolled once again into deeper water, then started splashing and staggering into even deeper water, trying to cross the river.

"Don't shoot him in the water!" the guide yelled. I hadn't intended to, so we both hoped he'd make it the 30 feet to the other side. But he didn't, sinking into the deepest part of the pool. All that remained above the surface was a few inches of one antler tine.

The guide had a long rope in his jet boat for tying it up, and I grabbed the loose end and started wading toward the moose, while the guide started the boat and followed me up the river. I got a loop around the antler, anbd we used the boat to pull the moose downstream below the pool. where the water was shallower.

About that time the camp's 18-year-old meat-packer returned with a load of caribou meat, and the three of us heaved on the moose until it's nose was in about 6-8 inches of water, and started butchering from the top down. When we'd get a good-sized chunk off, we'd grab his antlers and pull him a little more toward shore. It was early in the season, with mosquitoes chewing on us the entire time, but after five hours we finally got the last of the meat carved off and hung up in a rack we made in the nearby alders.

During the butchering we found the Fail Safe resting against the pelvis near the right hip, on the opposite side from where I'd shot him. It had lost one petal and weighed 221 grains. After getting home I called the bullet guy at Winchester, who'd sent me the bullets before the hunt because they'd just introduced them. Apparently my bullet was the first 230 Fail Safe anybody had recovered from a big game animal, and he was very interested in seeing it. I mailed it to him, and he sent it back with a note saying he was pretty happy with the performance. I was too--but that was one bull moose that made it into the water after being shot with a .338.

I've also had to get another moose out of the water, a cow my wife killed a few miles north of town a few years. It ran maybe 60 yards into a nearby swamp, but the cow was a lot smaller than that Alaska bull, and the water only a foot deep! The bull she shot here was taken with the the recovered 150-grain Partition. It stood quartering away at around 125 yards, and took a step-and-a-half before folding up like a cheap card table. The bullet entered the left ribs and was found in the right shoulder.

So what bullet is rough on animals? I've only shot stuff with ball because it was supposed to be just fine. Hole in, hole out, zero extra damage. Animals ran a long ways before falling over with a hole (big) in the lungs.
I need to buy a press and dies one day and load for the 50. Have one box of barnes X for it, but thats as far as I got. Amax will open? Other choices?
[/quote]

LOL, I have no experience on four leggers with the big guns Rost ;]

Thanks Jorge and Congrats on the new booking.

You have never done a dam single thing without your hand being held by a guide. What the foock do you actually know. Please explain in detail

Mule Deer,

Not trying to argue with you, but after reading and reading what bullet manufacturers have to say about their individual bullet constructions or designs, most medium to big game hunting bullets are designed to penetrate a few inches before they expand (some of the Berger bullets, for example). These bullets offer great expansion at lower velocities, and are good for long distance shots. But the same bullet at close distance can expand rapidly without the desired penetration. There are numerous written articles about the differences between the degree of expansion versus penetration between several hunting bullets, and one of this articles is the one about the .338WM, link which was posted on this thread. There is another of such articles that was published on the Interned by Burger bullets.

Now, most of the bullets used to shoot varmint are designed for almost explosive expansion and little penetration, so I can understand that such a bullet would expand pretty close to the hide. I mentioned before how I shot a very large marmot for a trapper friend of mine, and used a 230-grain FS, how the animal hardly moved when the bullet hit, and how small the entrance and exit bullet holes were. I am not an expert, but in my view small animals the size of deer and pronghorn shot through the lungs with the heavier bullets-from 150-200 yards and beyond-offer little resistance to the bullet's nose as it passes through, with in turn reduces the likelihood of expansion. in this case a lightweight bullet that is driven fast would be my choice.

Ray,

Most medium to big game hunting bullets are NOT "designed to penetrate a few inches before they expand." Bergers do, but they are far from most bullets, and in fact are an rare exception.

Instead this trait was accidentally discovered when some hunters started using what were then called Berger Match Grade VLD bullets. The reason it happens is the so-called hollow-point is actually closed so tightly you can't even push the tip of a safety pin into the hole. But behind the tip there's an air-space, because the lead core ends well behind the tip, and after the bullet penetrates a couple of inches the thin-jacketed tip collapses, and the bullet expands violently. Some other target-type "hollow-point" bullets also tend act this way when shooting game, for the same reason, but they also were NOT designed that way.

All these bullets can "over-expand" if they hit something very substantial at close range, but it's not nearly as common as many believe. I was among the writers who thoroughly field-tested Berger Match Grade bullets when Berger started thinking about marketing them as hunting bullets over a decade ago.

One of the field tests involved shooting a bunch of feral goats in New Zealand, something that's regularly done over there to reduce their numbers, because there aren't any natural predators in NZ. After killing one particularly big billy goat weighing around 200 pounds, I deliberately shot the big shoulder joint from a few feet away to see if the bullet (a 168-grain .30 at about 2900 fps) would penetrate the bone. It did, and did NOT expand until after it went through the bone. There were several other instances of the same sort of performance.

But Bergers (and other closed hollow-point match bullets) are exceptions. Expanding hunting bullets with actual hollow-points, soft-points or plastic tips do indeed start to expand as soon as they hit skin--and those are vast majority of expanding bullets.

As noted in my earlier post, this has been proven over and over again, in both media and game. The difference between "varmint" and "big game" bullets is not in when they START to expand, but how much of the bullet fragments. Varmint bullets are designed to totally fragment, the reason for their shallow penetration, though a few do have a heavier jacket-base, such as Nosler Varmint Ballistic Tips, that penetrates somewhat deeper, useful on larger varmints.

Lead-cored big game bullets all fragment to some degree as well, the reason "cup-and-core" bullets with relatively thin jackets can totally disintegrate if they encounter enough resistance, say the big shoulder joint of a bull elk, or similar-sized animal.

But other lead-cored bullets only partially disintegrate. Hornady Interlocks and Nosler Hunting Ballistic Tips typically lose about 50% of their weight, due to the front end disintegrating but the rear end holding together, due to Hornady's Interlock ring, the the Ballistic Tip's heavy jacket base. Nosler Partitions usually lose 20-40% of their weight, exactly how much depending on the design of the specific Partition and what it encounters.

But the front end of all three of those bullet will expand violently on small varmints like ground squirrels and prairie dogs that are only 1-2 inches thick, because they do start to expand immediately on hitting skin. I know this from shooting a bunch of those small varmints with such bullets in calibers up to .375, and seeing the results. In fact Nosler Partitions from can explode prairie dogs very much like "varmint" bullets, because their front core is relatively soft lead alloy, to insure expansion.

But even lead-cored bullets designed to retain 90% of their weight also start expanding as soon they hit, as do bullets designed to usually retain all their weight, like Barnes TSX's. The difference between them and varmint bullets is, again, not when they start to expand, but the lack of fragmentation. This is exactly why the marmot you shot with your .338 Fail Safe didn't fly apart, and only had small entrance and exit holes. But I would bet serious money that if you'd opened up the marmot, you'd have found the bullet did considerable interior damage, because it had indeed expanded.

Barnes TSX's, Nosler E-Tips, Hornady GMX's and yes, Fail Safes, will readily expand on lighter big game. They don't do as much interior damage as lead-cored softpoints, or damage as much meat, but they definitely expand, often at extended ranges. In fact I prefer such bullets for hunting pronghorns, because there's only about 40 pounds of meat even on a big buck, and I want to ruin as little as possible. Over the years I've shot a pile of pronghorns with TSX's and similar bullets, with fine expansion out to 400 yards, as far as I've ever shot them with such bullets.

Now, occasionally TSX's don't expand, but it's unusual, and normally occurs only with smaller-caliber, hollow-point bullets from 6mm to .30 in cartridges that recoil somewhat, probably due to the small-hollow-point being battered shut on the front end of the magazine box during recoil, essentially turning them into solids. When it happens, they fail to expand at any range, even very close up, one reason my wife and I switched to Tipped TSX's and the similar Nosler E-Tip years ago.

It doesn't happen, however, with .224-caliber hollow-point monolithics. Or at least I haven't seen it happen, and neither have any friends who've used cartridges like the .223 or .22-250 Remington on pronghorns and deer. Which is another indication that magazine-battering can close the hollow-points: Neither the .223 or .22-250 recoils even as much as a .243 Winchester. I've also never seen or heard of a TSX above .30 caliber fail to open, probably because the hollow-point is much larger, so is impossible to batter closed.

The way I understand cartridge history.

The 308 Norma was a necked down 338 win mag to fit the 30 06 Springfield action.

The 300 win mag was a case expanded neck lengthened 308 Norma so more bullet selection could be used.

The less restriction in the " neck" of the cartridge the easier the transfer of " no I am sorry" kinetic energy is transferred to the projectile.

Some authors claim tissue damage is correlated to meplat diameter.

In my opinion there are not many " repeated " harvest events with necropsy data to muddle through any real conclusions.

Smaller calibers need velocity and are relied on to " expand".

Larger caliber solids are marketed for " dangerous game"

To analyze the minutiae we expound upon, it seems the more " open a cartridge is in relation to powder column versus projectile caliber
The more pleasant to shoot and tolerant of powder charge" they become.

The excellent performance of monolithic and newer bullet technology has made these basic thereoms of cartridge behavior perhaps a historical mute point of Ballistic minutia.

Thank you Mule Deer for the thorough explanation about bullet impact and expansion.