Small caliber vs large caliber

[petemi]

Ya know, now that I think about it, my .356/.358 will toss a 200 gr. slug at the same 2550 fps as Land_Owner's .270 is running a 150 gr.  Assuming the same bullet type is used in both, the wider, heavier bullet has to equal a larger wound channel.  Deader than dead?  Huh??

Pete

[keith44]

The original question was to compare a 243 & 45-70 for use in Texas. The 243 is easily good out to 200 yards. The 45-70 (and any other sub 2000 fps muzzle velocity rifle) is fine to perhaps 125 yards. After that the projectile is dropping like a rock. Hunting in Texas offers the possibility of long shots on a solid rest, because of mostly private land hunting where feeders are allowed.

From the Exterior Ballistic charts in the back of my Speer manual, based on running a Hornady 300 gr HP or 350 gr RN to 2,000 fps (lever action safe loads) 


If zeroed at 150 yards the 45-70 will be 6.5 inches low at 200 yards. The trajectory shows it to be no more than 2.5 inches high out to the 150 yard zero.  Easily making the 45-70 a capable 200 yard gun.


Now if shooting standard pressure loads, with 405 grain bullets you are correct.

[FPH]

If you know what you are doing, a .45-70 is good for over a 1000 yds.

[keith44]

If you know what you are doing, a .45-70 is good for over a 1000 yds.

You just hit the nail on the head.  Under field conditions (ie hunting) I would not take a shot over 200 yards with the 45-70, and not over 400 yards with anything shoulder fired.  Too easy to wound due to mis-calculation of range and drop.  Now if I could practice out to 1,000 I might try to extend that range.

[knight0334]

If you know what you are doing, a .45-70 is good for over a 1000 yds.

It certainly is. 

However most shooters today do not know how to shoot a rainbow trajectory or how to figure in Kentucky Windage. They are used to using scopes and/or flatter shooting cartridges/guns - which takes much less skill.

[SHOOTALL]

Since everyone discussed the poorly placed large vs small caliber voiced their opinion,lets try another aspect.
Which do you think kills faster with a properly placed shot?
1 - A small caliber high velocity round (Example   243 Win)
2-  A large caliber  low velocity round (Example   45-70)
Modification:
 I think I did not give enough information for my post
I am a firm believer in the hydrostatic shock theory of a small caliber high velocity round creating more tissue and organ damage than a large heavy bullet that passes thru with albeit a large wound channel and exits leaving a blood trail which does help trailing, but I do not like to trail .Here in Texas we have too many things that have thorns to enjoy a trail.

Please speak from personal experience not from magazine articles from biased gun writers
Thanks
George

My 7X30 waters has taken alot of deer none have traveled over a few steps (most were running) after the shot. It is a 120 gr FP at 2700 fps. My 50 cal. BP gun has about the same record 1/2 the time the other half I trail some. My 2506 drops them right there. I once lost a big buck that was shot thru. the chest with a 12 ga slug at 20 yards . I would suggest shot placement means more than anything else.

[Empty Quiver]

They both have their place.
Like I said if I have reason to believe shots will be relatively close, the 45-70 is the choice. It kills plenty fast (faster than the 300wm in my limited experience) and there is not the internal goo to deal with, or the giant wound channel to cut away.
If distances will likely be over 150 yds there is no reason to complicate the hunt with ballistic tables and holdover calculations. I own a perfectly capable solution to any problem inside 1000 yards, the venerable .300 Winchester Magnum ( I do not profess to be able to utilize it at that distance ). I will tell you though if it is within 300 yards, I hold dead center and the bullet arrives 3" low or high and the critter tips over, no muss, no calculus, no spiritual mind links with long dead ancestors. I put the forend on my pack, relax and stroke the trigger.
 
Get the .243 now and enjoy, later add another gun in .xx big and slow. Best of both worlds. I was not willing to give up easy 300yd shots, I can not in good conscience tell you to do the same. 

[SHOOTALL]

Don't forget shot placement is easier the less the gun kickes for many .

[dwalk]

I realize an animal and a human are different in terms of what it takes to stop them.  However, our soldiers found out that the .223 is not nearly the stopper as a .308.  An enemy shot with a .223 is likely to drag himself out of the line of fire before he croaks, where as the M14 round puts him down NOW.  Both projectiles being hardball.  Same thing applies to the military's switch to the 9mm from the .45.  Now you might be thinking if the smaller calibers don't work as well, why don't they switch back?  Because the little guns are easier for the girl soldiers to hit with, they can carry more rounds, and they can comply with NATO.  All silly reasons IMO.

this argument has persisted since the introduction of the 5.56/.223 in the capacity of a COMBAT cartridge; namely in vietnam.
the military responded recently with the development of the 6.9 SPC for LONGER RANGE engagements.
if you notice, you'll see many of our troops carrying the in M14 rifle in Afghanistan and the USMC just announced a few days ago they are purchasing 12,000 new colt .45ACP pistols.
the military has finally awakened to the fact the 5.56 is 'adequate' within a 400 meter range...beyond that, it's more of a "Shoot and holler S&%#" proposition with the 5.56, especially when engaging hard targets. proof of that is that Gen Petraius himself, was shot in the chest with a 5.56, at point blank range, in a training accuident at Ft. Bragg...he survived to become head of the CIA...but that's not very good testimony for th 5.56, is it?
it's simple...bigger projectiles make for more damage/impact/KE/momentum and the faster you can move them, the more damage they are capable of. why do you think the 45-70 has more energy at approximaely 2/3 the speed of a .223?
tissue damage and penetration have to work hand-in-hand...broadhead arrows are a good example of that...i've shot arrows thru big animals that left wound channels and massive bleeding beyond belief...the arrow mass/weight forces the razor sharp broadhead thru tissue at no where near the power of a firearam...the broadhead severs arteries, major tissue and organs and, induces massive bleeding. a bullet must do the same.
caliber? it's directly related to the mission undertaken: the bigger the target, the bigger the caliber needed (speaking in a hunting scenerio)