Rifle hunters can hardly be in trouble, as an objectively weak cartridge is. Issues are manifested by an anticipator that a shooter thinks a given caliber will perform something which it cannot do when a given bullet is fired, at a given impact velocity, in actual wind, off a real rest. Commonly the most tenacious myths in caliber are those that are technical, in terms of energy numbers, sectional density graphs, one-MOA bragging rights; yet they tend to overlook those things that are important in the sport, such as terminal performance at the animal, practical accuracy, predictable shot placement.
1. “Foot-pounds are the ethical truth meter”
Energy limits are like choruses, particularly the usual 1,000 ft.-lb. talking point on deer. The issue is that energy is a math product, as opposed to a direct indication of tissue disruption. Terminal ballistics, which is how the bullet injures the vital circulatory, neurological, or respiratory systems, is the thing that makes a hunt complete, and that is not a matter of one energy number. Hunters can run bullets out of their acceptable performance range when they use energy as the sole means of justification is distance or cartridge choice. A more consistent method is to match the construction of the bullet to the game and ensures that the impact velocity at desired ranges promotes the expansion and penetration behavior of the bullet as designed as stressed in the terminal ballistics point.
2. “Sectional density on the box predicts penetration”
Sectional density (SD) See a penetration guarantee. The greater the sectional density, the deeper the holes are. In non-deforming solids, SD is able to follow penetration fairly well. In the case of expanding bullets that most hunters are currently hunting with, initial SD is not a strong predictor since the shape and mass of the bullet dramatically alter upon impact.
The critical factor is the afterfire profile of the bullet such as the recovered diameter and the left-over weight since this is what propels terminal sectional density following expansion. In a practical experiment with two 150-grain bullets, one of the Barnes that were deformed to 0.600 inches, and retained its mass, and the other of the Power Point deformed to 0.634 inches and lost weight; at the same velocity of impact, the Barnes went into the target approximately a fifth as far, because of its greater terminal sectional density. The difference is reflected in terminal sectional density, which is not the unfired SD in the catalogs.
3. “Heavier bullets always penetrate more because SD is higher”
One can readily imagine that in a particular caliber, the heaviest bullet will necessarily be the penetration pick. Practically, the velocities of impact vary, the bullet designs vary with weight, and frequently the manufactures tune lighter bullets to survive faster velocities. The interacting variables may moderate the anticipated differences. Gel tests indicate that bullets of similar family and varying weights might give almost equal penetration when fired at their normal velocities, although their initial SD values may be different. A simple solution of treating weight will result in unnecessary recoil, a decrease in practical accuracy, and not an actual increase in ending impact on the hunted animals.
4. “Caliber choice matters more than bullet construction”
Carridge diameter is still being talked about by many hunters as a determinant of results. It is regular that bullet construction is more important. Conventional cup and core bullets may perform splendidly on ribs, yet they may also tend to fragment violently, particularly on bone, and their penetration to vitals diminishes and the amount of bloodshot meat rises. Bonded and monolithic bullets are shaped to stay together and penetrate deep and in most cases create pass-throughs where controlled enlargement occurs. The partition-style bullets introduce structure so that the rear of the projectile does not fragment and form a powerful mushroom of the front. The theme that is constant is that a larger caliber with a weak bullet can perform worse than a medium caliber with a hard and proper hunting bullet as it has been expounded on the differences of bullet construction.
5. “A one-MOA rifle stays one MOA at any distance”
The linear group size assumption silently compels hunters to enter shots of which they cannot redraw. A rifle which, at a distance of 100 yards, will print one-inch groups, does not necessarily scale to predictable groups at 300, 500 or more, since the wind, variation in velocities, and sloppy zeros increase with range. There is a distance at which even small cross winds can have huge impacts. A 165-grain load of .308 Win. in the crosswind, 5 mph, will cause a drift of about 3.5 inches at 300 yards, and a 15 mph wind will cause a drift of more than 10 inches and at 500 yards the difference between the two winds is immense. The fact of that and the fact that certain rifles are on at 100 and off at 300 until checked invalidate confidence in caliber, and support the necessity of distance checking in actual group size.
6. “Straight-wall equals short-range, so details don’t matter”
Cartridges with straight sides usually receive a dismissal as being a priori constrained, leading to either one assuming that they are either useless, or assuming that they are just a straightforward point and shoot answer. In the real world, these cartridges are on a controlled shelf where practical range is dictated by the trajectory, bullet BC, recoil control and the capability of the hunter to put shots in the same place. They may also work well as deer implements when used in the envelope in which they are intended to be used, but the same principles hold: check the drop on paper, test the zero of the rifle at the real distances, and select bullets that are designed to work at the impact velocities which those cartridges will produce.
7. “Fast-and-fragile long-range bullets are interchangeable with hunting bullets”
The culture of accuracy has led several hunters into designing sleek match-like bullets, which are not all of high-BC bullets that offer consistent terminal performance on big game. Thin jackets and those designed to work best on paper can be unpredictable on bone and at different impact velocities particularly when the distance shortens to push the speed towards the limits of successful expansion. This is where caliber myths become dangerous: hunter can dive in thinking that a magnum chambering simply will be able to take care of a bullet selection that is ill-suited to the shot angle, the size of the animal, or the probable impact velocity.
It is a safer trend to use known hunting construction bullets and check the performance expectations at the hunted ranges. Caliber debates remain loud, since one can argue them with ease using charts. Field results are more difficult: they live in the wind calls, the confirmed zeroes, and cases of stable positions, as well as bullets, which are predictable in tissue. By hunters substituting myths with quantifiable checks of impact velocity appropriateness, actual group sizes at range, and construction to fit the task, most so-called caliber problems will cease to be manifest at all.
