Do larger calibers really compensate for bad shots?

[WildBillG]

Great info Pat. Shows we probably all need to rethink how we shoot. Nice to here a Barnes style bullet wasyour bullet of choice.

 

[Rick Richard]

Not taking recoil in consideration as part of this discussion since I have no issue with recoil on my rifles, I prefer larger and heavier projectiles. I want to ANCHOR the animal where he stands. I don't want the animal to flee and possibly enter an area where it is off limits to my pursuit. Just the way I roll.

 

[DJ Fergus]

I've shot many white tails, used 243, 257, 264, 270, 284, & 308 calibers & all types of bullets from Barnes solid, partitions, Berger's and many many more. Bullet construction does make a difference. My opinion is that larger usually kills faster. That being said, I am still partial to 7mm and yes I think 30 Cal's kill quicker usually. It's all very subjective to hundreds of variables though. The original question is not something that can adequately be answered in one paragraph and cover all of the bases.

 

[Ingwe]

Case in point. A 10" bull Nilgai at 210 yards wheeled at the shot and took the Barnes 210 "X" travelling 2700 ATM just in front of the left hip, travelling to the right shoulder, where the bullet was later found. We played "HECK" trying to recover that guy. There was not one drop of blood that could be detected between the point of the hit and 20 yards before the place he lay dead, which was a half-mile away. The guide was a great tracker, and needed to be. The .338-06 wasn't up to that particular task. If I had been shooting a .338 Mag. and had an exit wound, the trail would have been a lot easier and faster to follow. We were actually really lucky to have found him at all. A very frustrating 3 hours spent in recovery. Don't use "just enough" gun, or bullet.

What organs were hit? I heard that Nilgai's are tough but that's a long way to before he dropped

 

[Hiking300ultra]

I have seen this mentioned in several threads lately. My experience has been a gutshot animal with a 338 is just as bad as a gutshot animal with a 243. I am not convinced bigger calibers allow for a materially greater margin of error, especially if you are shooting a berger type bullet or one that expands well. What are y'alls thoughts?

The damage might look the same. The differance comes with cosmetic energy. The larger heavier bullets carry more energy.

 

[Gcan]

I have seen this mentioned in several threads lately. My experience has been a gutshot animal with a 338 is just as bad as a gutshot animal with a 243. I am not convinced bigger calibers allow for a materially greater margin of error, especially if you are shooting a berger type bullet or one that expands well. What are y'alls thoughts?

I'm not sure, but I do know there are few substitutes for horsepower. I'm a believer in hydrostatic shock. Hydro kills. Period. I'd like to say after being alive 65 years and hunting for 59, I had never made a bad shot. I have. I have made some marginal shots that made no contact with anything immediately vital and had animals fall like shut off by a switch. Ive opened up animals shot broadside behind the diaphragm and had jellied lungs and organs pour out. Having said that, a bad shot with a 458 Lott that breaks a leg or paunches the animal is likely to have the same result as one with a 6.5 Credemore.

I do believe that a 30 cal hunting bullet weighing 200 grains going 2800 fps is a far better killer than a 140 grain hunting bullet 6.5 going 2900 fps, regardless of placement.

SIZE:

I have only one absolutely empirical case where bigger was better.

Years ago I had a 50bmg built for an article we were working on. It had everything you could want in a custom gun. It shot one ragged hole at 300 yards with 750 Amax hand loads. Having a unique sense of humor, I liked to take it to egg shoots for two reasons. (Until the banned 50s) The first was when I pulled the trigger and enough compressed air to float the Hindenburg was redirected right and left down the firing line, the bench guns with 2oz triggers would do really funny stuff.

Secondly, an egg is approximately 1-5/8" wide. With a .224 bullet and egg becomes 2-1/6" wide. But with a .510 bullet that egg becomes 2-5/8" wide. (2.5moa). So in this case bigger was lots better and lots FUN-ER!!

 

[cynicrit]

NO. Only fools and Frenchmen try to use a big bullet to compensate for little skill.

 

[Sam Summey]

I have seen this mentioned in several threads lately. My experience has been a gutshot animal with a 338 is just as bad as a gutshot animal with a 243. I am not convinced bigger calibers allow for a materially greater margin of error, especially if you are shooting a berger type bullet or one that expands well. What are y'alls thoughts?

A larger caliber does not make up for poor marksmanship. As a matter of fact a larger caliber can make a poor shot a poorer shot. Marksmanship is an acquired skill, and must be learned and honed to a fine edge with practice.

 

[memtb]

Seemingly, to several folks posting....they appear to be convinced that larger-bore, higher recoil rifles cannot be shot accurately. I believe that both are possible!

 

[Don A Parsons]

Grab the rifle and go hunting...

Life is just that simple... Ha

Biggest challange for me this morning is waiting for a Elk to step with into the bow zone...

Yum Yum

 

[TravisLH]

I have seen this mentioned in several threads lately. My experience has been a gutshot animal with a 338 is just as bad as a gutshot animal with a 243. I am not convinced bigger calibers allow for a materially greater margin of error, especially if you are shooting a berger type bullet or one that expands well. What are y'alls thoughts?

I'd have to say both yes and no.... in terms of a bad but still lethal shot the bigger heavier rounds will have far more energy resulting in a lot more tissue damage. So that gut shot deer with a 6.5 Grendel will run much farther than one gut shot by my 338lapua.
A bad shot is still a bad shot so in a lot of cases where a deer would survive that 6.5 Grendel he'd also survive the 338 so long as no heavy bone or internals are hit.

 

[Tony Formicola]

For me, It's not that a tougher bullet or larger caliber will make up for a bad shot. But those things may just allow more shot opportunities by providing the power to punch through a quartering shoulder or front on shot given the right circumstances.

 

[GeorgeS]

Someone posted this on a while back.

This guy insists that the "vacuum" from the .50 "sucked the eyes out" of the doe and killed it. That is totally unjustified by the evidence. It is more likely that the bullet went through both eye sockets and the internal concussion dropped the doe. The doe was broadside to the shot, and it's not unreasonable to assume that the bullet, in passing through the eye sockets, did not upset nor encounter sufficient tissue to show evidence of damage, but the internal shock, so close to the CNS center, instantly killed the deer. Were the case otherwise, would not every .50 BMG bullet passing through a paper target shred it?

 

[JungleBoogey]

I have seen this mentioned in several threads lately. My experience has been a gutshot animal with a 338 is just as bad as a gutshot animal with a 243. I am not convinced bigger calibers allow for a materially greater margin of error, especially if you are shooting a berger type bullet or one that expands well. What are y'alls thoughts?

Amen brother. A bad shot is a bad shot is a bad shot. That larger caliber bullet is not gonna expand on just the side you want it to... unless of course you're shooting one of those 50 caliber so called "Smart" bullets invented by DARPA