Light and fast vs Heavy and slow?

[oic0]

A discussion on another forum about .223 vs .357 (From carbine) got me to thinking about this. A full house .357 load from a carbine has more energy out to a certain range than a .223. The main controversy was whether or not a slow fat heavy round would do less damage than a small fast round. I thought that if the projectile were designed to properly expend all of its energy inside the target then it didn't matter. Am I wrong? is fast really better than heavy because of the way it expends its energy? does it create better pressure waves or something?

[COSteve]

And so it begins . . . . . . . . . .

[Idiot]

I would rather be shot by 30-30 Winchester 150 grain soft point bullet going 2,200 fps than a 45 Colt 310 grain bullet going 1,000 fps. Why? Because the 30-30 bullet would kill me a lot faster than the 45 Colt bullet and I don't want to suffer. Either way, in a few minutes I'd be just as dead.

Light fast (2,800 fps) bullets (.280 cal.) create massive tissue damage via penetration and high kinetic energy.

Heavy slow (900 fps) bullets (.45 cal.) create sufficient tissue damage via penetration and some kinetic energy.

Heavy wide fast bullets (.45 cal. at 3,000 fps) create extreme tissue damage via penetration and very high kinetic energy.

Penetration is the common killing factor, and velocity increases tissue damage usually resulting in a quicker kill (assuming the right bullets are used in all instances).

As far as the comparison between the extremes, .223 fast and .357 slow; well, that discussion is more academic than practical and usually results in nothing more than a hand full of sand to show for the effort.

Have "fun, fun."

[76/444]

And so it begins . . . . . . . . . .

Yup,... I'll play!!

I approach this stuff from the point of view that ALL CALIBERS are limited by SAAMI pressures.

Soooooooooo,... without getting into the really fine line details of design and unique functions,...being small and fast usually equals out to large and slow,... with exceptions.


Exceptions,....

Large and slow (in my opinion) will carry the day for distance penetration.

Fast and light will cary the day for flat trajectory.

BUUUUUUUUUUT,.. the ABSOLUTE bottom line for me, is PENETRATION, whether it be light and fast or slow and heavy, makes no diff to me! Annnnnnnnnd,... in conjunction , or should I say slightly more important than penetration is PLACEMENT! There are only TWO places on a living creature that results in ONE SHOT STOPS! The brain and spinal column. Which is why penetration counts as much as I stated.

So, it is basically a pick you own particular poison, gentlemen!

[oic0]

What about equal kinetic energy?

What if that 310 grainer were going 1530fps instead That's where I am lost. Some claim higher speed, even with equal overall energy, causes much greater damage. That left me a bit puzzled. Energy is energy right? does a faster bullet impart that energy in a more damaging way for some reason? or is that just hype?

[76/444]

From what I have learned "kinetic energy" is basically voo-doo science.

If you are looking for a KILL performance,.. I would study up on SECTIONAL DENSITY and how it effects PENETRATION.


just one man's opinion.

[Grizz]

aw, be nice Steve. this is the start of a 10 page opinion pole. I'm gonna start off with a short video that not every one on this site has seen. yet.

I'll show you mine, you show me yours.

http://beartoothbullets.com/WMV_Files/45-70-525.wmv

525g bullet. 1440 fps. watch the plank, it's the hydraulic shock reaction.

The questions I ask about this are: what load exist that will penetrate that much water. And what loads will raise that plank the same amount. I can jump on the board without flexing or budging it. But the passage of the bullet thru the water creates enough force to bounce it hard. Why is that?

Let's see the comparables.....

Grizz

[oic0]

I've also always wondered why the army uses .223... Is it because its low recoil and cheap? and because it tumbles to cause larger wound channels as a loophole around the ban on expanding projectiles?

*derailing my own thread lol*

[rjohns94]

nice video. I just know that somehow, My truck panels would have a hole in them instead of the jugs.

[n2t]

Light and fast for me, means shoot them in the soft parts, expansion, penetration, and dead animals think .243. Slow and heavy for me means shoot them in the bony parts, it will still kill with a lung shot, but not as fast as something that causes more trauma to that area, but..breaks bones much better than light fast bullets. Even garret rounds say to shoot heavy slow bullets into the shoulder(think 45 colt or 405grn .45/70 type rounds. Then we have the mid range, where bullets won't blow up on shoulders but will expand in soft lung tissues, think 30-30, 6.5x55, and most of our standard hunting rounds with med to heavy bullets per cal. Works on both types of shots unless pushed to extremes. It's really complicated imho and add to that bullet construction plays a huge roll (300grn hornady HP from a 45/70 works different than a 540grn cast bullet) and it gets interesting. Just my way of seeing it.

[L_Kilkenny]

To me it's really an apples to oranges comparison when you are so far apart. Take a 12ga. slug (foster). I'm amazed at the lack of damage that big ol' chunk of lead doesn't do. It punches a big hole but usually does very little damage to the surrounding tissue and many times will not exit a deer. Now look at a rifle like .30-30. IME, the damage to surrounding areas is actually worse and can damage a lot more meat. Example: Take 2 milk jugs and shoot one with the 12ga. and the other with 150gr SP .30-30 and you'll get 2 different reactions. The .30-30 will tend to blow up the jug and send it flying in the air where as the 12ga. will punch a big hole in it but is not nearly as impressive as the .30-30. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a 12ga. slug have more energy and much of it is expended in the deer?

IMO, fast and small can be more damaging than big and slow. You also have the added advantage of a flatter trajectory. But more times than not I prescribe to the big enough is big enough theory, Dead is dead.

LK

[JReed]

I've also always wondered why the army uses .223... Is it because its low recoil and cheap? and because it tumbles to cause larger wound channels as a loophole around the ban on expanding projectiles?

*derailing my own thread lol*

Several reasons we use it Low recoil, light weight ammo (can carry more), flat shooting, and will put holes in people at 500 yards. The idea in warfare is not to just kill people for every one wonded it takes two to give first aid and get them off the line.

As far as what works better just remember this 2 to the chest 1 to the head. After that it don't mater what you are shooting.

[WCF3030]

.

[Pisgah]

> I thought that if the projectile were designed to properly expend all of its energy inside the target then it didn't matter

I have not yet figured out what difference it makes whether all of a bullet's energy is expended within the target or on the far side of the moon, as long as it gets the job done. Any time anyone brings up energy in a ballistic argument I smell red herring. Drop a 5-pound feather pillow and a 5-pound 1/2" steel rod sharpened at one end from heights sufficient to give both equal velocity by the time they hit you in the head. Same energy, but the rod will spit you like a suckling pig while the pillow just annoys you -- even though it has "expended all it's energy in the target", while the rod has not.. Energy is strictly a secondary consideration.

[Halfbreed]

223 great at wounding, 357 great at killing. I use my 223 for small rodents, my 357 for bigger game.

[oic0]

> I thought that if the projectile were designed to properly expend all of its energy inside the target then it didn't matter

I have not yet figured out what difference it makes whether all of a bullet's energy is expended within the target or on the far side of the moon, as long as it gets the job done. Any time anyone brings up energy in a ballistic argument I smell red herring. Drop a 5-pound feather pillow and a 5-pound 1/2" steel rod sharpened at one end from heights sufficient to give both equal velocity by the time they hit you in the head. Same energy, but the rod will spit you like a suckling pig while the pillow just annoys you -- even though it has "expended all it's energy in the target", while the rod has not.. Energy is strictly a secondary consideration.

Now youve got me thinking about how to kill someone with a pillow... If it were in a vacuum you could defeat air resistance and get some energy from the pillow... the lbs would still be spread over a large surface so there would be no penetration but it could break your neck

[Barcelona Rick]

Many years ago I was able to read some very interesting data from the Siege of Vicksburg during the War of northern agression...it was written by a surgeon that treated many wounded on both sides. He made extensive notes and line drawings. The wounds caused by big and slow were unbelieveable....most were not "quick" killers. The .58 thru .62 caliber lead minis and balls would many times remove their diameter of bone/muscle etc....death was slown and very painful...the high velocity small projectile weight is as much about the "hydrostatic shock" factor as it is the ease of carry and flatter trajectory....however, I use 170 grain 30 WCF, 150 grain '06 and the heaviest handgun ammo available off the shelf...

jumbeaux

[Old Time Hunter]

The idea in warfare is not to just kill people for every one wonded it takes two to give first aid and get them off the line.

That only works if your enemy has the mind set that the wounded are worth trying to save. The Japanese would shoot their own if they stopped to help one of their own wounded. The "human" wave attacks by the Chinese/North Koreans' during the Korean War did not even bother attacking with guns, do you think they might have been concerned for their wounded? During Russia's battles in Afganistan, the Taliban threw their wounded infront of the Russian convoys to slow them down. My point is, not every enemy proscribes to the McNamara school of thought of residule effects causing the enemy to consider the point of diminishing returns, therefore big and heavy might be the answer. Slow painful death might be a bigger deterent than a quick one for Allah.

By the way, what has more "kinetic" energy, a 3000# Toyota going 10mph or a 300000# locomotive going 1mph....their the same. But I'll bet you can probably stop that Toyota by holding it back, but not that locomotive. Or a better analogy, if they both hit the same brick wall, which one would most likely knock it down?

[Jacko]

Kinetic energy has little to do with penetration or clean kills though it is part of a complex equasion. Some other factors that are not considered buy the marketing crowd when they are pushing the Kinetic energy myth are way more important. Speed sells, it's sexy and this misconception has grown to the point of Dogma. Its not even close to the whole story. Cant work out why critters could be killed dead by my Great Grandfather with a 44.40 that cant be killed today without the latest Lounderboomer.

In no particular order

structural integrety of the projectile

stability in flight

mechanical advantage - ie metplat

diameter

mass

profile

Forward of centre of the projectile is part of projectile stability

note - FOC / mass / profile / metplat / structural integrety could be lumped into bullet design as they are all factors.

Momentum

velocity

kinetic energy

Effective range is the combination of all these factors and the suitability of the cartridge for the job at hand. Personnelly I'm Biased towards the .357 as it suits my close range hunting style and the game I hunt. A mate prefers to hunt the same game with his .223 out to 200 yards , both are sudden death inside these paramiters

Easy answer , work out the physics taking the above into account and probably a few factors I've forgotten and this debate ends.

regards Jacko

[4t5]

To answer the question...an angry bear is charging you and you have two single shot rifles on a log in front of you, a .243 (100gr bullet,2960 fps) having a muzzle energy of 1945 ft /lbs, or a 45/70 (405gr bullet,1330 fps.) having a muzzle energy of 1590 ft/lbs....which one are you gonna grab?

[JReed]

The idea in warfare is not to just kill people for every one wounded it takes two to give first aid and get them off the line.

That only works if your enemy has the mind set that the wounded are worth trying to save. The Japanese would shoot their own if they stopped to help one of their own wounded. The "human" wave attacks by the Chinese/North Koreans' during the Korean War did not even bother attacking with guns, do you think they might have been concerned for their wounded? During Russia's battles in Afganistan, the Taliban threw their wounded infront of the Russian convoys to slow them down. My point is, not every enemy proscribes to the McNamara school of thought of residule effects causing the enemy to consider the point of diminishing returns, therefore big and heavy might be the answer. Slow painful death might be a bigger deterent than a quick one for Allah.

I know I never said it was my idea. If it was up to me we would be using .308 hollow points. . But since that is against the rules the shoot thrice rule takes effect.

[n2t]

yep, big lead stuff breaks bones better, but expending energy is nice too. Both have their place, I'm sticking with my basic rule though, slow and heavy breaks bones, light and fast shreds lungs, and most things in the middle do both decently. When a bear attacks you want to stop the charge, killing is secondary, first is to break something that will make mr bear unable to kill you.

[CEMENTHEAD]

Hunting animals: I like big and slow, I break 'em down.

Offense/Defense against 2 legged animals: light and fast, Mozambique drills work marvelously.

just my .02¢............thanks, Tom

[Barcelona Rick]

When my wife and I got married almost 33 years ago our best man was a Navy Seal.....we served on a gun together....his training was kinda shoot fast and accurately but fill the bad guy with many rounds....

jumbeaux

[Bogie35]

As has been said, Kinetic Energy and Hydrostatic Shock are simply myths that don't hold up scientifically. People who have been shot will usually tell you that they didn't feel any "shock wave" traveling through their body. In fact, they often were not even sure that they had been shot until they felt the burning sensation and saw the blood.

Assuming similarly designed expanding bullets, the reason high velocity small caliber bullets do so much damage is because they expand and fragment much more violently than slow large caliber bullets. If penetration is not an issue, like in shooting terrorists, then small and fast is very effective. But if penetration IS an issue, like in big game hunting, then big and slow is very effective. It's not hard to get to the vitals of a man, but it can be difficult to get to the vitals of large game animals.

Small and fast might be quicker in most scenarios, but big and slow is more reliable in all scenarios.

PENETRATION does the killing, while EXPANSION/TISSUE DAMAGE determines how quickly.

Read Paco's article, "Why Don't They Fall?":

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/why.htm

bogie

[m.wun]

Im grabbin both them rifles,45-70 for the bear and if that dont work use the 243 for myself..

[76/444]

Well said Bogie,... but, even stoping a man can use the extra penetration. You never know when you have to send a slug from knee cap to left ear and through all kinds of layers of denim and leather. I don't remember the year,... but, I think it was a little shootout in Miami/Dade county that sent the FBI falling all over themselves to try and issue 10mm's to their agents.

[spaceman spiff]

I know I never said it was my idea. If it was up to me we would be using .308 hollow points. . But since that is against the rules the shoot thrice rule takes effect.

I like the way you think Gunny.......

[L_Kilkenny]

Might also add that both "big and slow" and "small and fast" are way ahead of "small and slow" (i.e. .22lr) but I still like the idea of "big and fast" (i.e. 50bmg). Now were talking serious damage right there.

LK

[86er]

There are too many variables to use a blanket statement that one is better than the other. You kill something by cutting off O2 to the brain, and you can kill or stop something by cutting off the brains circuitry. Whatever bullet causes the most disruption of the plumbing causes the fastest death. You must get the blood pressure to drop so it does not carry the 02 sufficiently. You can also stop the lungs from processing 02 from the intaken air. Any bullet that gets to the brain will disrupt the circuitry but the one that does the most damage there will shut everything off instantly where less damage will shut off some functions. A variable outside of the bullet itself is the size of the animal and the state it is in - just took a deep breath, just exhaled, aware and releasing adrenaline, relaxed...

Look at the same caliber in light fast and slow heavy with the same bullet and with different bullets.
45-70 300 grain soft point at 2300 fps
45-70 400 grain soft point at 1650 fps
45-70 500 grain soft point at 1425 fps
All same bullet construction.

Use a 500 pound animal as a baseline. All the bullets can penetrate through the lungs or forward chest area.
The 300 grain will open up to .70 diameter (or bigger). The 400 grain will open up to .60 and the .500 grain will expand to .525 (on average). The surface area of damaged tissue is greater with the 300 grain, next 400 grain and lastly 500 grain. The penetration beyond the pulmonary system is mostly irrelevant because the damage will not significantly expedite the loss of blood since it starts cutting into only small veins and capillaries.

Now change the bullets. Make the 300 grain a jacketed or monolithic solid. The penetration may increase but the surface area of tissue damaged will decrease overall, so the onset of disability and death will be slower than the 400 grain soft point above and is slightly below the 500 grain also. The faster the blood loss or the more air that is restricted from leaving the lungs, the quicker the disability and death. Nonetheless, each bullet will inevitably cause death with the same shot placement on the same animal.

Now increase the animal size to 1000 pounds. Now the penetration required for the bullet to traverse the pumping station is increased proportionatelly. Go back to the 3 softpoints above. Now the 300 grain has less momentum and will encounter greater resistance due to the larger frontal diameter from expansion. In this case the 400 grain or 500 grain will out-perform the 300 grain as far as how fast it imparts death on the animal because the surface area of damaged tissue within the system is greater when you add the expansion plus more penetration of the heavier (but slower) projectiles.

Take the brain shot. The 300 grain bullet will expand quite a bit and loose a lot of momentum when encountering the hard skull (and maybe it went through a boss or other piece of horn on a very large animal). It may reach the frontal lobe of the brain, causing incapacitation. The 400 grain will penetrate more due to the smaller frontal diameter and greater momentum. It may cause incapacitation or instant death. The 500 grain will penetrate even more and is most likely to create the quickest reaction because with the brain shot the greater the amount of disrupted tissue, the more body function that lose "power" to run.

Back to the original equation of the post: 223 vs. 357.
My experience with both is limited to deer and antelope no further than 100 yds. I have a lot of clients that use both calibers. My own "cull gun" is a 221 Fireball (50 grain bullet at 2850 fps- similar to .223). In my observation and experience, a heavy jacketed or controlled expansion .22 caliber bullet causes about the same amount of tissue damage as standard cup and core JHP from a 357 Mag at standard velocity from 125-158 grain from a short barreled rifle. From a 10" or less barrel handgun, the 357 as above actually causes a little less but (noticable) amount of tissue damage. It is pretty common for deer sized game to drop when shot in the lungs with my 221 Fireball at ranges usually at 50 yds. I've shot the same kind of animals with 357, 44 Spl and 45 Colt under the same circumstances with similar behind-the-shoulder shot placement (we can sell the capes of the animals if the hole is far enough back for the taxidermist to work with, so shots are intentionally further back than a hunting situation would warrant). Each ended up just as dead but the ones shot with the 357, 44 and 45 took a little while longer to go down and/or expire entirely.

So it is a lot more about the bullets characteristics and behavior as well as shot placement and animal size than it is about velocity or weight.

I hope this gives a different, realistic perspective. This is based on my personal observations over the years.

[Old Savage]

There is energy and there is tissue destruction and and what tissue is destroyed. All have an effect. Depends on all of these things.

[Chuck 100 yd]

There ya go!!! And how much energy does it take to kill one of them Kinetics any way. We don`t have them around here. Are they big like a Deer or small like a Possum???

[Paul Jenkins]

Anyone heard of the Taylor Facktor?

[JReed]

Anyone heard of the Taylor Facktor?

Ah yes the Taylor Factor while a good paper formula it will always succumb to the simple fact that critters can't read and most bad guys ain't never heard of it but it is one of the better ones.

To share a personal test I performed. I shot an armor plate that goes in our body armor with my Enfield at a distance of 50 yards with a 180gr @2450fps. The plate stopped it cold the bullet was destroyed buy the plate. The 5.56 we use is designed to punch through body armor. Which would you rather have big and heavy that stops on armor or small and fast made to punch through?

[Paul Jenkins]

Mr. reed,
I believe we are discussing hunting situations. I only suggested the Taylor facktor because it was developed by African professionals after over 100 yrs of experience on what kills best. I suggest it because they have more experience than I, or, for that matter, anyone on this board. I don't mean to diss anyone on the board, I sorta thought a hundred yrs of really BIG game experience is more convincing.

[JReed]

Mr. reed,
I believe we are discussing hunting situations. I only suggested the Taylor facktor because it was developed by African professionals after over 100 yrs of experience on what kills best. I suggest it because they have more experience than I, or, for that matter, anyone on this board. I don't mean to diss anyone on the board, I sorta thought a hundred yrs of really BIG game experience is more convincing.

No don't get me wrong it is a great formula and actually is more effective then the rest. I have referred to it in the past and I like it. What I was trying to say is that Murphy is a hard master and what works on paper don't always work in the real world. I meant no offense.

[AJMD429]

If something large and menacing is moving quickly towards me to do me harm, whether it be a grizzly or a murderer, I think that between the 'ultimates' realistically able to be shoulder-fired, I'd choose the heavy/slow vs. the light/fast. Say between these two:

7mm Remington Ultra Magnum - Bullet Weight: 140 gr - Muzzle Velocity: 3245 fps - Muzzle Energy: 3275 ft-lbs

500 S&W Magnum - Bullet Weight: 440 gr - Muzzle Velocity: 1625 fps - Muzzle Energy: 2581 ft-lbs

I'd settle for either, but if everything else were identical, I'd take that .500 S&W - way less energy, but a wide meplat, and a really large hole. Sounds silly since the diameter hole is only 0.216" difference, but somehow it just 'seems' the big slow one would do better.

Do I have a scientific study or plausable theory to explain my preference? NO.
Do I have any experience shooting large dangerous things? NO.

Do I think either round would fail to stop the bear? NO.

I hope I never find out the hard way that either choice would be bad.

To share a personal test I performed. I shot an armor plate that goes in our body armor with my Enfield at a distance of 50 yards with a 180gr @2450fps. The plate stopped it cold the bullet was destroyed buy the plate. The 5.56 we use is designed to punch through body armor. Which would you rather have big and heavy that stops on armor or small and fast made to punch through?

Yep. If I knew the bear had a steel suit on, I'd pick that 7mm, or even a .204 Ruger, over the 500 S&W.

Most of the bears I worry about have fur instead of armor, but your point is well taken.

If I REALLY knew I were going to be bear-attacked, I wouldn't use either gun. I'd be running too fast!
If running weren't an option, I'd truthfully rather have a GE-MiniGun in 20mm. Fast and Heavy...

[madman4570]

How about -----------Like me"Big and Fast"

Ok-------Everyone can stop laughing now!

Really in my younger years speed/ballistics was everything with the weight also playing a role as to energy/game to be taken etc.
Early on the .264 Win Mag floated my boat.
Now I am more of a big dia/ heavy /deep penetrating/caliber knd a guy.

That .500 S&W in a Lever would do nicely.
Same with the .454 Casull/45-70/.475 linebaugh/.460 S&W etc.
Anything else--------7mm Mag will do

[Grizz]

7mm mag, while able to kill bears in the harvest sense, are decidedly not a good choice as a preferred bear STOPPER.

Lots of brown bears in Alaska are killed with 30-06 and .270, which as everyone knows is 'almost as good' as a 30-06. But the guys I know who've had to kill wounded or tee'd-off bears with 7mm were adamant that it isn't what you really want to do.

Some of it has to do with frangible bullets hitting at nearly point blank range. Now days there are solids that probably can survive the impact stresses and maybe those would produce different results.

86er's experience is instructive.

I've boiled it down to this: I hunt deer in areas infested with coastal brown bears. I can easily kill deer with a 25-20, but I cannot easily stop a mad brown bear with it.

I can stop a brown bear with my guide gun loaded with the 525g cast bullet featured in the video, AND it's a perfectly good deer load as well. So for where and how I hunt I don't ever want to be going around those huge stinking nasty bears with little bitty bullets again.

I'm just saying

Grizz

[shooter]

Slow and heavy will penetrate further. Light and fast will tear up more tissue with an expanding bullet. It's got a lot to do with bullet selection and function. For me, it depends on what I'm hunting and how big it is. For deer I'll use either. A .44 mag cast bullet going 1200 fps. won't expand that much and won't tear up that much meat, but with a well placed shot the animal will be just as dead as if it is shot with my .243 going 2800 fps.

[dbateman]

it comes down to\projectile selection and shot placement
I have shot and killed water bufflow with one shoot kills with 222 and 223 i even shot one with a 22mag that
took three shots from my old ruger single six (back in the day when you could hunt with a hand gun in NT)
but much prefer to use 308 with 180gr silver tip have not shot one with my 45colt but have no dout that it would perform fine select the right tool for the job
Dave
BIG HEAVY LEAD KILLS STUFF

[Bogie35]

dbateman,
I love your signature!

bogie

[76/444]

One last point from here,..as I have already given my opinion on penetration and placement, let me finish with the attributes of thru and thru penetration which falls into MadMan's camp site!!

Bottom line for me, man or beast,... if I can't get the head or spinal column, then the LARGEST hole, IN and OUT/thru and thru will result in the quickest loss of blood/blood pressure. Two holes bleed better than one gentlemen. Now, this is not MY ideal, since it can take many more minutes than I prefer,... but, I'll take what ever I can sometimes!



Great thread,... learning a lot, here!

[Bogie35]

In comparing these VERY different strategies, there's apparently far too many unknown and/or uncontrollable factors that come into play. After reading Paco's "Why Don't They Fall?" again, some things in the real world just don't make theoretical sense. From some personal experience and vast research, I am perplexed as to why a 35 Remington seems to drop deer in their tracks more often than a 30-30 or a 45-70. That should get some heated responses! But, I've never read of or seen a deer travel more than 50 yards after being hit well by a 200 grain 35 Remington. Maybe the 35 has simply chosen me as its favorite audience!

The truth of the matter, IMO, is that there aren't too many cartridges today that won't kill a man reliably, and fewer than we think that won't kill a big game animal reliably. Historically, more men and animals have been killed with pointy sticks than bullets. I don't think guns were invented because bullets were more reliable. They were probably invented because they made it easier to kill things from a safer distance.

In the late 19th century, when the 44-40 was THE cartridge with its somewhat slow and unsophisticated and "light for caliber" bullets, nobody really complained that it didn't kill men or game well enough. From what I've read, the major complaint came from mountain men who said that it didn't stop bears well enough.

Like it or not, many of us have been lulled into the "super-duper powerful" propaganda of the last 50 years.

bogie

[madman4570]

7mm mag, while able to kill bears in the harvest sense, are decidedly not a good choice as a preferred bear STOPPER.

Lots of brown bears in Alaska are killed with 30-06 and .270, which as everyone knows is 'almost as good' as a 30-06. But the guys I know who've had to kill wounded or tee'd-off bears with 7mm were adamant that it isn't what you really want to do.

Some of it has to do with frangible bullets hitting at nearly point blank range. Now days there are solids that probably can survive the impact stresses and maybe those would produce different results.

86er's experience is instructive.

I've boiled it down to this: I hunt deer in areas infested with coastal brown bears. I can easily kill deer with a 25-20, but I cannot easily stop a mad brown bear with it.

I can stop a brown bear with my guide gun loaded with the 525g cast bullet featured in the video, AND it's a perfectly good deer load as well. So for where and how I hunt I don't ever want to be going around those huge stinking nasty bears with little bitty bullets again.

I'm just saying

Grizz

Grizz,
Ya, The 7mm Mag I listed as the anything else gun was for the Long Range stuff---way out there stuff, Mule Deer/Antelope/heck woodchucks / Got to say cause after popping a 6X6 Elk at 385yds with a 175gr Nosler Partition and completely passing through and dropping it "right where it stood" I have to say Elk too.
I certainly prefer it over a .270 or a 30-06 for sure "at least for me".


A 7mm Mag as a Big Bear Stopper??? (Would much rather have a heavy 45-70 for me),but with the right bullet construction/weight that 7mm Mag is not too bad.I have liked the 175gr Nosler Partition.
But for a lot of stuff way out there distance wise I love the 7mm, I leave the Winchester 300 Mag home.
Gun calibers are like cars "some people like certain ones and some people don't????????
But after seeing what it did to the Elk,it's got my respect. My buddy got the next day of that hunt a 5X6 at 270yds and he made a good first shot also but it took two more .338 Win Mags to seal the deal ???Went about 175yds and ended up deep in this big ravine.
Now I know every animal/every kill is different so I take it as just that. But I did bust him all the way home
"should have taken a 7mm Mag, a real gun" He would just look at me smiling saying "shut up"

Want to go back out in 2012 and "will be taking the 7mm Mag"
Nothing like being in those aspens.

[rimrock]

seems it depends on where you're confidence and skill are. The longer shot you can take allows for smaller and faster. And, do you want 2 holes or 1 for blood tracking? most of what I've read says big and slow is 2 holes while small and fast is 1 hole. I do enjoy the old fashioned stuff, and remain impressed with the skill of people like Billy Dixon. Some of the killing shots with the Barrett .50 in Iraq are truly amazing. This just one reason why I want to learn to use both types of tools.

[AJMD429]

I suppose the ultimate in 'defense' projectiles in the heavy/slow category would be a bowling ball at about thirty feet per second. Gotta figure that would physically knock an adversary over. Dunno what 'gauge' shotgun that would require though.

It seems like the issue of 'shot placement' always comes up, and it seems like for a light/fast bullet that placement may be more important than with the slow/heavy ones. It also seems like the bullet construction may be more critical in the light/fast situation than the slow/heavy one. Both those criteria favor the slow/heavy, but if you are shooting a really 'hard' target, that light/fast round can really do better IF the bullet is a 'penetrator' type of bullet (as in the military .223 examples cited above), and further, that if you're shooting at a range where the distance is such that a slow/heavy would be dropping alot per 25 yards, shot placement is likely to suffer more than with a 'flat' shooting light/fast bullet.

For all-around use, though, it's hard to beat something like the .444 Marlin - yes it drops fast once it gets 'out there' but for the first 300 yards it's trajectory is plenty useable, and as far as 'hard' targets, look what I did to my 100-yard gong (I thought "Gee, I'm just using .44 Mag 'pistol' bullets, and the .44 Mag even out of a rifle doesn't harm the gong..." ).

[76/444]

The truth of the matter, IMO, is that there aren't too many cartridges today that won't kill a man reliably, and fewer than we think that won't kill a big game animal reliably. Historically, more men and animals have been killed with pointy sticks than bullets. I don't think guns were invented because bullets were more reliable. They were probably invented because they made it easier to kill things from a safer distance.

bogie

Hmmmm,... hey Bogie, haven't you heard?

Guns don't kill,.... people do!

Seriously,... I know guys I would put up against an armed target,... with just a knife,.... and bet on them winning! It never was the tool,... it always was and always will be the man.



just one man's opinion.

[madman4570]

The truth of the matter, IMO, is that there aren't too many cartridges today that won't kill a man reliably, and fewer than we think that won't kill a big game animal reliably. Historically, more men and animals have been killed with pointy sticks than bullets. I don't think guns were invented because bullets were more reliable. They were probably invented because they made it easier to kill things from a safer distance.

bogie

Hmmmm,... hey Bogie, haven't you heard?

Guns don't kill,.... people do!

Seriously,... I know guys I would put up against an armed target,... with just a knife,.... and bet on them winning! It never was the tool,... it always was and always will be the man.



just one man's opinion.

There is a lot of truth to that!
Not much worse than let's say a ticked off Navy Seal with his MK3 MOD 0 knife after you in the night!

[76/444]

I suppose the ultimate in 'defense' projectiles in the heavy/slow category would be a bowling ball at about thirty feet per second. Gotta figure that would physically knock an adversary over. Dunno what 'gauge' shotgun that would require though.

It seems like the issue of 'shot placement' always comes up, and it seems like for a light/fast bullet that placement may be more important than with the slow/heavy ones. It also seems like the bullet construction may be more critical in the light/fast situation than the slow/heavy one. Both those criteria favor the slow/heavy, but if you are shooting a really 'hard' target, that light/fast round can really do better IF the bullet is a 'penetrator' type of bullet (as in the military .223 examples cited above), and further, that if you're shooting at a range where the distance is such that a slow/heavy would be dropping alot per 25 yards, shot placement is likely to suffer more than with a 'flat' shooting light/fast bullet.

For all-around use, though, it's hard to beat something like the .444 Marlin - yes it drops fast once it gets 'out there' but for the first 300 yards it's trajectory is plenty useable, and as far as 'hard' targets, look what I did to my 100-yard gong (I thought "Gee, I'm just using .44 Mag 'pistol' bullets, and the .44 Mag even out of a rifle doesn't harm the gong..." ).

Yup!!! Dont'cha luv it!!!

I really like the way my 444 just melts through my 1/2 steel plates (hmmm or are they 3/8ths?), with just Hornady factory 265gr. FN ammo ... I guess I have to take some pics!!!