Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Do larger calibers really compensate for bad shots?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wraith Hunter" data-source="post: 1706867" data-attributes="member: 107141"><p>When harvesting an animal the size of the animal and the hide makeup are what causes me to choose which weapon I shoot.</p><p></p><p>If I were looking to kill an Elk or Deer sized animal I would use a bullet that has considerable hydrostatic shock, .257 Weatherby Mag or .300 Weatherby Mag. However, neither of those two would instantly drop an Elk or Deer if they were gut shot. If I were to hunt an animal with thick skin, such as Elephant, Rhino or Cape Buffalo, I would use a caliber that would penetrate deeply into the target with sufficient terminal energy to cause rapid incapacitation. .460 Weatherby Mag. Again, shot placement is critical.</p><p></p><p>I believe, in North America, where animal skins are thin and chest cavities are not deep, any caliber with high hydrostatic shock will work. I personally prefer the Weatherby .300 Mag and the Weatherby .257 Mag. My wife made a very low gut shot on a deer with her .257 Weatherby Mag and the deer ran approximately 200 yards before it died.</p><p></p><p>A few years ago I shot a 410 pound bear with my .300 Weatherby Mag, with a 180 grain SP BT, high the lungs. The bear fell with no additional movement or sound. The hydrostatic shock instantly killed the animal!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wraith Hunter, post: 1706867, member: 107141"] When harvesting an animal the size of the animal and the hide makeup are what causes me to choose which weapon I shoot. If I were looking to kill an Elk or Deer sized animal I would use a bullet that has considerable hydrostatic shock, .257 Weatherby Mag or .300 Weatherby Mag. However, neither of those two would instantly drop an Elk or Deer if they were gut shot. If I were to hunt an animal with thick skin, such as Elephant, Rhino or Cape Buffalo, I would use a caliber that would penetrate deeply into the target with sufficient terminal energy to cause rapid incapacitation. .460 Weatherby Mag. Again, shot placement is critical. I believe, in North America, where animal skins are thin and chest cavities are not deep, any caliber with high hydrostatic shock will work. I personally prefer the Weatherby .300 Mag and the Weatherby .257 Mag. My wife made a very low gut shot on a deer with her .257 Weatherby Mag and the deer ran approximately 200 yards before it died. A few years ago I shot a 410 pound bear with my .300 Weatherby Mag, with a 180 grain SP BT, high the lungs. The bear fell with no additional movement or sound. The hydrostatic shock instantly killed the animal! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Do larger calibers really compensate for bad shots?
Top