Larger diameter bullets allow more room for error?

[FIGJAM]

So I have heard this said multiple times on multiple threads. Do larger diameter bullets really allow more room for error?

I am genuinely curious what everybody's opinion is. Lets talk elk and deer calibers, no need to bring up the 50 BMG.

For example, do you guys believe bullets in 308 expands the kill zone in a game animal vs a 264 or 284?

Edit: I have always believed that energy at impact is king given equal bullet construction, not bullet diameter. Therefore if a 284 or 264 bullet arrives at the elk or deer with the same energy as a 308 caliber bullet I believe the difference in performance would be immaterial. Is bullet diameter really king?

I am not sure I buy into it...what are your thoughts?

*I edited this to take out specific cartridges and focus on bullet diameter. Trying to avoid cartridge bias

 

[WildBillG]

My thought is no. Yes they should create a larger wound channel on a bullet beyond its expansion limits. They will likely be heavier to drive deeper through an animal on an awkward angle shot. This still does not negate the fact that a gut shot broadside animal is still gut shot. The animal will need time to lie down and get weak no matter what the bullet diameter. Just like magnums do not allow us ro be poor shots neither do large diameter bullets.

 

[MagnumManiac]

A hit in the right hip with a small caliber is no different to a hit in the same place with anything smaller than a Howitzer. It will do nothing other than a wounded animal needing a second properly placed bullet.

So, no, I do not think bigger bullets leave more room for error.

Bullet size does not make up for poor marksmanship.

Cheers.

 

[.300H&H]

Vitals on game don't change their size, no matter what pills you're tossing. Done over 100 autopsies on ungulates, seen a few wound channels and the narrowest were the slowest dying. Not always a fault of the caliber size as bullet construction can sway the odds in your favour in certain situations, for example I'll take a fast frangible 6.5 over a heavy slower .308 mono for long range. But all else being equal a larger caliber creates a wider wound channel, and a heavier projectile has the potential for more fragmenting and weight retention for penetration. I believe this is desirable. Another advantage to the larger diameter is to help initiate expansion at lower velocities, smaller diameter pills tend to be slower on this front. But this is just my experience. I run a 264 for everything I hunt, but I would never preach it's an ideal caliber size for any game larger than Mule deer. Sufficient yes, ideal no.

 

[.300H&H]

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase.html

 

[Deputy819]

A hit in the right hip with a small caliber is no different to a hit in the same place with anything smaller than a Howitzer. It will do nothing other than a wounded animal needing a second properly placed bullet.

Have a story that demonstrates this. Couple years ago while deer hunting I was afforded the opportunity of a shot on a coyote at 278 yards. Not a "long" shot by any means, but awkward from a tree-stand and a branch for a rest. I felt good with the shot, but must have pulled it a little left and hit him in the right hip. It knocked him down in his tracks, but I had to climb down, walk over and close the deal with .22 cal pistol. Rifle bullet was a 225 gr BTSP w/muzzle velocity @ 2700 fps (338-06).

 

[Bravo 4]

Going off of what some of the responses have been I would think that if you are going to say "NO" and then say that the larger bullet has the potential to penetrate deeper, then you are contradicting yourself. A less than broadside shot to the lungs/heart, say quartering too on the front shoulder of an elk (accidental or purposely... whatever, that's another subject), will require a lot out of a bullet. Would a .308 caliber bullet penetrate that heavy hide and thick bone more reliably to do more damage to the vitals than a .264? If you say "yes it will" then you are saying that, as to the OP's question, the larger diameter can create a larger would channel and in essence "expand the kill zone".
Bullet diameter is just one part the "system".

 

[swarbt119]

I believe the thinking behind this has less to do with bullet performance and more to do with bullet diameter. I shot 3D archery for many years and a ton of guys shot extremely fat arrows, they call them line cutters. The reason being on an imperfect shot the diameter of the hole is larger and may still nick a vital as opposed to a clean miss. I'm not sure if it translates to guns with today's bullets, but I think that's probably the direction of that argument.

 

[just country]

morning SPEED KILLS justme gbot tum

 

[AZShooter]

The Knowledgebase link (posted above) does a good job of explaining how a larger diameter bullet helps kill better than a small diameter bullet. Worth reading. This guy has killed a lot of animals!

Found under the heading BULLET DIAMETER:

"net result is that a medium or large bore can break all the rules we are familiar with when using small bores and with or without high velocity, produce very fast killing."

There is a caveat: " having a wide bullet cannot in itself fully compensate for or overcome any issues as a result of bullet construction."

I have taken 23 elk to date. I have had the best results with the 300 RUM and 230 Bergers. Great combination of velocity, reasonable bullet diameter, delayed expansion and enough mass for an exit. Also shot a few with a 338 magnum with 225 and 250 gr bullets with excellent results. Not so much with the 7mms and lighter weight 30 cal bullets.

Naturally the bullet has to hit a vital part of the animal.

 

[L.Sherm]

Theres a reason P.H's in Africa dont let you hunt Cape buffalo and elephants with 6.5's. That being said my go to is 6.5x300wsm and 140 bergers. If taken bulls from 80yds to 600 with it, shot bulls with a 280 Rem. and 338 WM the bigger bullets sure seemed to hit harder, deader no. My marine sniper nephew watched me shoot a couple bulls with my 338WM and he nick named it the punkin slinger.

 

[johnnyk]

"Do larger diameter bullets really allow more room for error?"
I have always felt that the philosophy, or thinking, behind this is that the larger caliber bullet puts more smack down, i.e. kinetic energy, on an animal. More energy will obviously kill an animal quicker, right? It's whats referred to as "stopping power".
This may be true somewhat if shots are only placed within the vital zone on an animal but some "numb-skulls" think they can shoot an animal in the rear end, center mass or anywhere you can place a bullet as long as you see hair in the scope. This is ignorant thinking, sloppy shooting and unethical hunting.
I agree with Magnum Maniac, "Bullet size does not make up for poor marksmanship".

 

[Greyfox]

Some viewpoints, not gospel, just opinion.
-Given the different bullet calibers have comparable sectional density, expansion characteristics optimized for the specific game, and velocity, are placed in the "kill zone", the larger caliber bullet will deliver more energy which will create more tissue damage and trauma. Too little is not good, too much for a given animal has diminishing returns and costs.
-I have observed little to no difference in the effective killing power(time to expire) between caliber sizes on deer sized game with bullets meeting the previously described parameters on shots made to the kill zone. Likewise, I have had no less difficulty in recovering game when a "bad" shot is made with the larger calibers.
-Deer and elk hunting are frequently combined uses when choosing a rifle cartridge. The average weight of a deer at 250# is roughly a third of the average weight of an elk at 725#. While elk can be effectively killed with shots made to the "kill zone", with the 3000FPS+ 6.5's with properly constructed bullets, a larger caliber bullet makes more sense if elk are a frequent target, and shot at the longer ranges, the increased energy is better matched to the mass/size of the vitals and overall weight of the animal, and can better reach and damage the vitals with angled shots. This is my idea of improving "margin of error".

 

[BigGrizz]

Everybody seems to be hitting the nail on the head, but maybe I can summarize it.

A 6.5 may expand to .338, but a .338 ain't getting smaller.