Cartridges that kill better than they are supposed to?

[Questor]

Every now and then I read about cartridges that "kill better than they are supposed to". Examples include the 6.5JDJ, the 30-30 with 170 grain bullets, the 6.5 Swedish Mauser, the 7mm Mauser, and the 44 magnum.

Why do they kill better than they're supposed to?  Are there cartridges that kill worse than they are supposed to?  Who is doing the supposing and what-- apparently faulty-- assumptions are they using to predict whether a cartridge is effective or not?

Doesn't it come down to bullet construction, penetration, and bullet placement, regardless of the cartridge?

Or on the other hand, is there some magic related to relatively slow-moving bullets of a certain design that makes them more effective than faster bullets?

[Dragon31]

I don't think there is a magic bullet or caliber. However, one caliber and bullet that I have alway been impressed with is the .22 cal long rifle.  I've personally watched it kill every thing from squirrels to 450 lbs hogs.  I even knew crew chief on a chopper in SE Asia that went to the Marksmanship detachment and signed out a .22 for marksmanship "training", of course he was a very good shot and carried a brick of .22's on board (neither he nor I cared much for the 1911A1 for non body armor individuals, and he didn't have to pack the extra weight that I did).  
In the 50's, 60's and 70's my uncle owned and operated a slaughter house in Ky.  On many days I watched him put down 10 hogs from 150 to 450 lbs with one shot from an old rusty .22.  Of course he knew where to place his shot.  To emphases his point on shot placement he alway told customer that since I lived north of the river he could not let me do the shooting cause I didn't know one end of a hog from the other.  I never argued with my uncle.

[jhalcott]

this is a terrible question! So many things go into the equation. The size of bullet(weight-diameter)speed of bullet,intended use,etc.! A small dia bullet can be very effective because it can be designed to tumble in the target. This will cause lots of internal damage.On the other hand, a fat bullet may become unstable at high velocity and fail to penetrate enough to make a quick kill. Some times just changing the bullet will make a POOR killer a very deadly one.

[Old Syko]

There's no magic to it that I'm aware of.  It's just that most of the supposing is being done by people who have something to sell like new guns, bullets, ammo, or first and foremost glossy pages.  Bullet placement is first and foremost and everything else is just way down the list.  That's why we practice, to improve our ability to place that 1 slug where it has to be.  Yes most of us work with different calibers, powders, bullets, etc. but in this day and age most of us do it for pleasure not out of necessity.  

In a time when it was a necessity, you used what you had.  Although I don't recommend it, deer and other critters can be taken quite efficiently with nothing more than a sharp stick, but due to excess availability there just isn't much profit there for the supposers.  I would rather use any caliber you've mentioned as long as I could handle it well, but if I couldn't put the slug in just the right place I'd be as well off to whittle down the stock to a sharp point.

[1GLOCK]

In my oppinion its all about placement. A shot placed directly behind the lower ear with a 22lr will kill anything or through the eye or at the base of the skull. I think the larger heavier calibers just give the shooter more options on placement at longer ranges.

[Dan Chamberlain]

I think comments that you are referring to concerning some of the more antiquated cartridges descend from the fact that many people believe they are obsolete.  The 6.5X55 is a wonderful "killer" because it's mass is way out of proportion to its caliber.  It's long and slim...like an anti-tank missile.  It penetrates very deeply into heavy muscle and is not detered by bone.  So while we here in the US feel a 6mm bullet has to be a varmint round, in Europe the 6.5 is used to take moose and Siberian bear!  As for the .30-30, I've heard more than one person state that it's a deer wounder!  These same idiots will take a .243 and load it up with 80 grain varmint bullets and go after a northern Wisconsin bruiser whitetail, and wonder why they didn't get a blood trail...must have missed!

There are cartridge/bullet combinations that perform worse than they should, but it's a matter of mating the right projectile to the right velocity and range and game!  Not magic, just common sense.  As for me, give me the obsolete cartridges every time!  There is no research and development necessary.  They have already proven themselves over decades of trial and error.  That's why my gun safe is loaded with guns chambered for cartridges like the .45-70 and the .35 Whelen...and yes, the .30-30!  I gave my 6.5X55 to my best friend for his birthday!

Dan C

[CJ]

No magic, just what works minus factory hype. I've killed deer with everything from a 25-06 to a 45/70, my best performer for short to medium range is an "obselete .35rem. Sometimes people just forget what works.

[Castaway]

As stated, bullet placement is the most improtant thing, but the right bullet at the right speed can make up for a lot of inaccuracy on the shooters part.    My foavorite pistol cartridge, the vaunted 45 Colt, is the king caliber in my safe.  A 255 grain or heavier bullet with a wide meplat, oaded to over 1,000 f/s in a modern handgun or rifle, is a pig/deer killing medicine.

[44 Man]

Amen on the .45 colt.  As Skeeter Skelton used to say, it kills all out of proportion to it's paper ballisics.  And the .35 rem just plain works! (besides, it's available in God's own proper rifle; a lever action)  What can any of these new fangled calibers do that the old 30-06 hasn't already done.  Of course with a well built gun lasting a life time+, how could they sell new guns without convincing us that we needed these hot new calibers?  Besides, I don't need much of an excuse to buy more guns!   44 Man

[kciH]

Questor,
when someone, usually a gun writer, says that something kills way better than it should it because they lack the perspective of people who used and use the old cartridges and KNOW that they work.  There is so much hype over velocity and energy in the marketing of new rounds, those less then 80 years or so old, that it is common belief amoung many that if it doesn't have so many pounds of energy, or so much velocity, that it just won't kill.  There are many benefits to the newer, faster cartridges, but there are many downfalls as well.  Most of the downside to high velocity, smaller bore rounds have been negated by the ingenuity of bullet designers over the years.  Much of the ignorance in killing power is based on energy figures.  This simple example will show you a good example of something "killing way better than it should" from the perspective of a shooter that bases everything on energy and velocity.  Don't get me wrong, I like cartridges of most all types, this is just an example to show you where relying on paper ballistics can make even a "expert" look foolish.

100gr 6mm @3000fps=1999 ft/lbs of muzzle energy
330gr 45 @ 1000fps=733 ft/lbs of muzzle energy

When our "expert" drops a bull elk at 50 yards with a complete pass through shot to the chest with a heavy cast bullet out of a .45 with a paltry 733 pounds of energy, he's going to say it kills all out of proportion.  What is out of proportion is what we have been led to believe it takes to actually kill game via the marketing of new cartridges by gun companies and the writers who earn their living acting as a unnoficial mouth piece for those companies.

Of course, it could be said that the smaller round kill way out of proportion to the diminutive size of it's slug.  

It's nothing more than a cliche that is used
High velocity rounds enhance the ability to hit at long range with little skill in range estimation, and do a very good job of it with proper bullet selection.  If you hold yourself to only good shots, under 200 yards, you could probably go your life shooting deer with a 30-30 and a 170 grain bullet and never lose an animal, or many less than you would with the 6mm @3000fps if a poor bullet choice was made.

In summary, it's an overused cliche by writers who can't think of anything original to say or to just give us the facts on the performance of a cartridge without dressing it up.  As I pointed out with the example, it can be used on either side of the small bore-high velocity/big bore-lower velocity argument.

[Paul H]

I think in reality the issue is, it doesn't take that much to kill a critter if you now it's anatomy, and place the shot properly.  Perhaps its that some of the older cartridges are used by folks that know where to shoot, how to shoot, and they make their shots.  They don't know what their guns can't do, and care less about what gun writers say.

The real issue is, bullets kill, cartridges don't.  A 30 caliber 180 gr bullet will work fairly well between 2000-2700 fps, the only difference between a 30/30, 308, 30-06 and 300 mag is the distances over which the bullet will hit an animal in that impact velocity window.

Let's face it, gunwriters are supposed to help sell guns, accessories and the services of hunting guides.  Doesn't do them much good to say that in the last 100 years, there really haven't been any advancments in cartridges, which truth be told there haven't, the only thing that has changed is the packaging.

If I had to, I'd do all my hunting with a 22 hornet, but given the choice, I wouldn't be willing to live with the limitations of that round, and use something a tad bigger.