Tweet
I don't know if this has been posted before, but I found it interesting:
The conclusions are food for thought, as is the caliber discussion.
Notice that no .264 calibers were part of this data, but that .257 stood out as the most DRT-producing caliber, while .284 had less average travel distance than .277 and .308, and .243 was the worst with a statistically significant average travel distance much higher than the other calibers.
My experience and hypothesis is this:
Weapon recoil and projectile weight, followed by sectional density and trajectory factor largely into the outcome of shot placement and terminal performance.
As we lean to the heavier projectiles, recoil increases, which is proportional to the decrease in how often we train with that weapon, and the increase in anticipation of the recoil. Recoil anticipation + decreased practice = a larger cone of marksmanship error
If the shooters were using a lot of .257 Roberts and .25-06's, those are very low-recoiling, flat-shooting cartridges. They're just fun to shoot when you think about it. A gun that is fun to shoot is easier to be accurate with. On top of that, they have decent weight pills for the .257 bore for medium game in the 100-117gr class, so with common construction, you're getting a potent little cartridge.
What if we could provide lower recoil than the .243 or .257 Roberts, with the projectile weight class of say a .257 and .270, with the ballistic co-efficients of the heavier 7mm pills, that's fun to shoot, with the sectional density and a huge selection of bullets that plow through animals, but bucks the wind way better than a .243?
Yeah, we have that. It's called...
The 6.5 Grendel
The conclusions are food for thought, as is the caliber discussion.
Some information is known regarding the weapon used in 444 of the 493 kills. The weapons used are grouped by caliber against the mean distance traveled for all kills (including instantaneous kills).
In general, trends by caliber are weak, as might be expected. However, there are differences that must be considered significant, statistically speaking (if in no other sense). The smallest bore, .243 (6 mm) caliber, accounted for 10.8 % (48/444) of the documented kills, with an average distance traveled of 40 yards. This compares with 31 yards for .277 caliber (84/444, or 18.9 %), 26 yards for .284 (7 mm) caliber (160/444, or 36.0 %), and 33 yards for .308 caliber (116/444, or 26.1 %). Clearly, there is a slight increase in the mean travel distance for the .243 bore.
Surprisingly, there is also a significant (statistically) difference between the .284 caliber and the .277 and .308 calibers, which are essentially the same. I am at a loss to explain this, particularly given the sample size.
Even more striking is the case of the kills involving the .257 caliber, which make up only 8.1 % (36/444) and which have a mean travel distance of a mere 14 yards! Now to a certain extent this can be attributed to the small sample size. But it also clearly reflects some bias of behavior by the shooters or the weapons used in this caliber. Unfortunately, no further information is available on specific cartridges used or cross-correlations between calibers and hit locations.
In general, trends by caliber are weak, as might be expected. However, there are differences that must be considered significant, statistically speaking (if in no other sense). The smallest bore, .243 (6 mm) caliber, accounted for 10.8 % (48/444) of the documented kills, with an average distance traveled of 40 yards. This compares with 31 yards for .277 caliber (84/444, or 18.9 %), 26 yards for .284 (7 mm) caliber (160/444, or 36.0 %), and 33 yards for .308 caliber (116/444, or 26.1 %). Clearly, there is a slight increase in the mean travel distance for the .243 bore.
Surprisingly, there is also a significant (statistically) difference between the .284 caliber and the .277 and .308 calibers, which are essentially the same. I am at a loss to explain this, particularly given the sample size.
Even more striking is the case of the kills involving the .257 caliber, which make up only 8.1 % (36/444) and which have a mean travel distance of a mere 14 yards! Now to a certain extent this can be attributed to the small sample size. But it also clearly reflects some bias of behavior by the shooters or the weapons used in this caliber. Unfortunately, no further information is available on specific cartridges used or cross-correlations between calibers and hit locations.
My experience and hypothesis is this:
Weapon recoil and projectile weight, followed by sectional density and trajectory factor largely into the outcome of shot placement and terminal performance.
As we lean to the heavier projectiles, recoil increases, which is proportional to the decrease in how often we train with that weapon, and the increase in anticipation of the recoil. Recoil anticipation + decreased practice = a larger cone of marksmanship error
If the shooters were using a lot of .257 Roberts and .25-06's, those are very low-recoiling, flat-shooting cartridges. They're just fun to shoot when you think about it. A gun that is fun to shoot is easier to be accurate with. On top of that, they have decent weight pills for the .257 bore for medium game in the 100-117gr class, so with common construction, you're getting a potent little cartridge.
What if we could provide lower recoil than the .243 or .257 Roberts, with the projectile weight class of say a .257 and .270, with the ballistic co-efficients of the heavier 7mm pills, that's fun to shoot, with the sectional density and a huge selection of bullets that plow through animals, but bucks the wind way better than a .243?
Yeah, we have that. It's called...
The 6.5 Grendel
Comment