So I’m sure this will stir the pot a bit but I recently came across a YouTube video by Exo Mountain Gear discussing the host’s 6mm Creedmore rifle he was planning to use on a moose hunt. As part of this video he referenced a podcast called the ‘Experience Project’ where he and another host interviewed a guy who goes by ‘Form’ (on the Rokslide forum) regarding his take on hunting caliber/bullet selection (Jim you also get an unnamed shoutout for the milk jug challenge regarding folks over-estimating their capability with a larger caliber).
Podcast (Part 1&2 are up and just saw when copying the link that there’s now a 2hr episode with audience Q&A)
I listened to it about a week ago so mostly pulling this from memory at this point but he brought up some very interesting points in his framework for cartridge/bullet selection with his main thesis being (at least my translation of it) that if folks hunted with smaller calibers and selected the appropriate bullet for the hunt, the net impact would be more successful hunts (less misses/wounded game).
I’ll list some of the high points below but I thought it was interesting because his main points were argued from a data science perspective and associated fallacies that go along with it. For example, he discusses the idea that - given prevailing wisdom that can generate biases - people often tend to misattribute what caused a failure to kill an animal depending on the caliber they are shooting. His key theme is that this misattribution is mainly because the vast bulk of hunters have a sample size entirely too small to effectively diagnose (which I’d definitely believe).
I won’t try to type up the whole podcast here as it’s an interesting listen but some of his key points from parts 1 & 2 are below. Since I haven’t looked at all his data and potential issues, I can’t say whether I think he’s correct but I do think he’s got some points worth considering about approaching the discussion through data and thinking more thoroughly about how animals are killed:
We’ve used rules of thumb such as terminal energy to estimate the ability to kill an animal when we should be thinking about how the bullet design creates its wound channel and how that wound channel kills the animal. He goes through the whole anatomy of a wound channel to discuss this and talks through it using popular bullets such as the ELD-X and the CX and has a lot of wound channel comparison photos on the Rokslide forum.
Hunters tend to worry more than they should about under penetration (e.g., tough hide, etc.). Assuming you’re hitting at the speed the bullet is designed to be used at, there is very little of the animal that can stop most bullets. Instead its failed expansion that is more likely the culprit of failing to kill the animal
All bullets have a certain actual failure rate (i.e., the bullet fails to perform as designed even if you do everything right) and in those cases, hunters have a tendency to attribute a failure to the design of the bullet more generally (rather than just being an inherent fact of any bullet that some % will not perform properly)
Hunters tend not to gather enough data as they tend to bench a rifle/cartridge that fails to kill an animal once/twice rather than taking the time to diagnose
Hunters tend to forget/discount misses made by larger calibers when forming thoughts around caliber selection
All things equal, even recoil insensitive shooters will always shoot a smaller caliber cartridge better (he discusses the decrease in hit % when jumping calibers)
When shown photos of two different wound channels, many will mistake the smaller caliber wound channel for the larger caliber
Lastly, while i can’t say I’ve looked at his evidence/data enough to validate the claims, I think the inarguable point he makes is that - while we all tend to respond with “my experience is X…” - there’s always a chance you’re right but your also a limited data point.
Curious if others heard about this podcast and what their thoughts were!
We’re on the tail end of 150 years of people missing their target and blaming the cartridge instead of their marksmanship, and that shaping perception of what caliber is ‘sufficient’ for game (in my opinion).
Well, it would be interesting to hear the view point of folks who primarily hunt large animals, and large animals that can hurt you when they get angry.
People in Europe routinely hunt moose with a .308, or so the internet tells us.
I wonder what Jim Shockey would say on appropriate caliber to use on a moose, as he possesses real experience.
Wonder what a big game hunter from Africa would say, an not an American that flies over to hunt, but someone that lives there and has real experience.
Seems to be a bit of a useless data point of figuring out what is the smallest caliber, weight, and velocity round will kill an animal. You can shoot a deer within 30 feet, right in the top of the head where the skull suture joints meet, with a .22 LR, and it will drop them so fast the tendons in their legs tear; but not recommended, even though there is no threat of recoil impacting the shooter. Physics does matter, that is why a tank round, at 20lbs, moving 5900 fps will penetrate 20 inches of homogenous steel (weight + mass + velocity).
Interesting podcast. It popped up in another thread that was actually discussing 6.8 Western v 7 PRC. Rather than re-enter my take, I’ll just link to it.
Bottom line, I found Form contradicted himself at times and often drew upon annecdotes to support points. I was unconvinced that trying to find the smallest caliber/lightest shooting cartridge possible is the way to go. It’s the same mistake in reverse as thinking you have to get the biggest magnum with the heaviest bullet to be effective. Rather, I look for a middle ground based on the quarry, enough bullet weight, velocity, and energy, but one I can still shoot well.
Physics is physics and let’s face it, shot placement can be a little off even with lighter “easier to shoot” cartridge, so I think having a little more energy and bullet weight/energy will be to the hunter’s advantage.
I think it’d definitely be interesting to hear those view points and how the calculus changes for “dangerous game.” My cousin lives in Alaska and was discussing with me for example why he hunts moose with a .375 H&H. His answer was that it wasn’t for the moose, it was for the grizzly that can comes after the moose.
That said, I think this brings up some good points for clarification:
In the podcast, he’s not saying we should be finding the smallest caliber that will kill the animal for the sake of finding the smallest caliber. Instead, he’s saying there’s a tradoff that typically isn’t considered or is poorly analyzed between increase in damage of a larger round (which he asserts can be a more marginal increase than assumed in his discussion of wound cavity) and the likelihood of a miss that results in a lost or wounded animal (which he suggests the bulk of hunters discount)
While Jim Shockey is definitely a prolific hunter with a much bigger sample size than probably any other individual hunter out there, the point of the podcast is that he’d still only represent a small % of the shots taken at animals. For example, how many times has he tested taking an Elk with a 6.5CM vs. a .300WM? Has Jim tallied up all his misses with each caliber to add that to the equation? What influences Jim’s decision making on caliber/bullet selection and how has that changed as he gained experience?
I think his main interesting point is that everything is anecdotal (he even acknowledges that his individual hunting experience isn’t enough to make a call) until you have enough hard data (which he seems to be attempting to collect/document) and factor in misses (both full misses and those where missing is the cause of a wounded animal rather than bullet failure) to the success equation.
Some good points were made. I did try to recognize that in my earlier post on the podcast. It just felt a little to me like the long range craze where people were talking about 600, 700+ yrd shots on animals as if that is perfectly routine. I also think he overestimates the increased likelihood of a miss with a larger caliber, if one practices with their gun. I do get his point that we all tend to (over)value our individual experience, but I would also call on the “wisdom of the crowd” theory. If a lot of hunters come to a similar conclusion over a long period of time about general classes of cartridges for a particular game animal, their might be something to it. You can think of it as a large scale distributed decision making model. Sure there will be extremes on either end, but the middle ground might just have some validity.
That’s a very valid counterpoint (and one as an aside i find myself using a lot at Church when discussing the difference to 2000 years of doctrine but I’ll send that over to the ‘Other Man Stuff’ category for further discussion). Sometimes, old rules are entrenched for good reasons. New/more data should have a vote but so does time.
All, your discussion points are great; but the guy is working his way into convincing himself that hunting moose with a 6mm bullet is fine…and to confirm or deny that idea…he is going to shoot “A” moose…which he has never done before with a 6mm…and the result of “A” moose going down cleanly or not, is going to validate what? It is the same circle he is decrying about a data pool of measurable results not being available to come to a conclusion. So, my ire is totally directed towards a, at least in my opinion, a misguided thesis which is about to be tested by shooting a very large animal with a very small bullet. I don’t get that part of it. The only thing he might add would be to state that the shot will only be taken at 600 yards or further…
Thanks
We do have a fairly decent set of data in the form of gel tests that seems to be largely ignored. While yes, it is not indicative of real world results on an animal, it does provide a tool to benchmark various calibers against one another (this is borne out in studies of 9mm defensive rounds for example). Browsing through some Black Hills ammo where you can find gel tests of various cartridges and projectiles does seem to confirm his statement that projectile choice is much more important than the size or power of the cartridge.
Well, if gel tests were the answer, then the military would not be moving from a 5.56 to a .277 round. There would be no need for rounds of any type above a certain caliber, bullet design, weight, and velocity. Does the penetration for a 9mm indicate it could be used on a moose from, say 10 yards or closer? Could be, but would still be a bad choice. Are we going to begin saying that shooting on the low side of capability fits into dispatching an animal cleanly? Going down this road means the attitude out there in the prevailing hunting world, and what is the current marketing strategy, is that farther is better if the ballistics say so, when in reality, people should be back peddling, using rounds proven to work on larger game, and bonded partition soft points to take game at ranges of 400 yards or closer. The proposition that people are not cleanly killing animals with large bore weapons, is because they are scared of recoil is a strawman. Today’s weapons of most any ;hunting caliber in North America can be had with an effective muzzle brake…recoil is not the issue anymore. Anyone still shooting a magnum that beats the crap out of them, is choosing that route. Recoil impacts a novice, and someone who has not worked with a weapon system enough to be comfortable, and knows the limitations of their ability and the system. When the Barrett .50 cal was first issued to the military, we got to shoot them a lot. It definitely was an initial learning curve to trust the buffer spring and the muzzle brake in preventing that weapon from driving you into the ground. But after a few rounds, you see that isn’t going to happen, and you go back to the fundamentals. Again, what is going to be his recommendation if the 6mm moose hunt is successful? That everyone should run to the woods to shoot that large of an animal with that caliber? Within what range to be effective? With what type of bullet? It is a race to the bottom. If we were talking about a valid look at the 6mm for medium game, ok. But, anyone seriously going to recommend to his inexperienced buddy going to Alaska to pack the .243 with some good solids for the moose hunt of a lifetime?
The military is allegedly moving to .277 to defeat plates, not for its effects on soft tissue. More recoil has a demonstrable effect on lowering accuracy for all shooters, and its not something that you can fully compensate for with training as it has to do with barrel shift before the bullet exits. As far as recommending things, I have no idea; the “idea” of what a reasonable cartridge is for game has shifted so far towards the extreme over time that its impossible to set a decent baseline. I will note that apparently the Canadian rangers consider .308 a sufficient defensive caliber for polar bears, so take what you will from that data point (C19, or Tikka Arctic rifles).
The point of the .277 is penetration against resistance. I do not see any big game people recommending that punching through bone and muscle, to reach vitals on the largest mammal in north america, besides a bison, go with a 6mm or any design. Your points a good ones, but if we tell people not to trust internet hand loads; can’t see referencing the results of the “1 moose shoot with a 6mm” as being a recommendation either.
Being the guy that I am, went looking for some data on what moose hunters recommend. The link above gives a good discussion, like we have been having, covering everything from a .22 on up the caliber list.
Thanks
Interesting post to be sure. What I learned from killing 28 bison in 3 days is that cartridge absolutely makes a difference. It was undeniable. HOWEVER, nothing else matters if you don’t hit the vitals!
What I learned from the 1 MOA hoax and milk jug challenges is that few people can shoot as well as they hope.
So my opinions on cartridge have shifted down this year. Where I used to recommend a 300 win, I now recommend a 30-06z. Where I used to recommend a 7 PRC, I now recommend a 280 AI, etc.
Nobody shoots high recoil as well as they shoot low recoil.
I have shot one moose in my life. Therefore am an expert. I used an 8mm RM with 200 gr partition. I suspect that most moose are 100 yds or in - given they are not plains animals and live in alder thickets. Dropped in its tracks. Now in this moose country there are grizzlies, one which tried to bluff me off my moose. That is when I would really want the 6mm backing me up. My question is a short one. Why? What are you trying to prove? The ol’ 8 kicks like a mule but has a brake and accurate out to moose ranges. Certainly though you do not need an 8mmRM.
Well, having burned a lot of energy on this topic, gonna close it out this way.
It generated enough interest for me that I went looking for specific comments from moose hunters; since I am not.
What I found was that there is a continuous stream of people from places like Alaska, and other locations, that state emphatically that people shoot moose with .223s, .243, .6mm, .6.5, all smaller than what “I” would have thought. The use of those calibers on such a large animal just cuts against everything I have ever learned, or experienced in shooting whitetail deer.
The .243 was specifically named as meeting the requirement as long as you use good, bonded, bullet that will hold together.
Many of the articles stated right up front that moose are not difficult animals to bring down; although in more than one article the writer stated that “the first shot brought the animal down, but a finishing round was required, once he walked up on the animal”.
I still emphatically disagree with the opinions stated on the impact of recoil. If taken from the perspective that "excessive recoil exists for all shooters that use large calibers’, then ok. But, in fact, recoil is mitigated out by trained shooters to the extent that whatever “flinch” they may still exhibit, it is negligible to the point of having no measurable impact on their ability to place a round on target. If excessive recoil was un-managable for shooters, then we would not have the ability for people to shoot accurately at long distances using magnum calibers. Even if the position is taken that it is a mechanical response by the weapon and the amount of dwell time in the barrel for the recoil to change the point of the rounds departure from the muzzle, it still is not enough to impact the trained shooter. Anyone flinching to the point it causes the continuous erratic placement of rounds, is using a weapon they are not capable of mastering, does not care about learning the principles associated with shooting, and has no business hunting, they are a hack.
So, the research tells me that a person can indeed kill a moose with a .223 on up, but I would never go to the field with that caliber when we have other choices.
“Killing 28 bison in 3 days…” Was that part of “population” control?
Did you get to keep any of it or not?
How did you get selected to be part of this hunt?
Did you have to buy lottery tickets for it? If yes, how much was the entry fee?
Fascinating.
I am by far probably the least experienced hunter here (whitetail) but the part of this I am super interested in is “How a specific bullet works”…They all are a function of velocity.
That part of Form and the Rokslide group is extremely interesting. I use to only shoot Hornady Interbond in my 308. A few years ago I switched to Eldm’s. Now listening to these podcasts my wound channels make so much more sense. Now its only whitetail, but the part of velocity verse Ft/lbs is starting to make sense.