Old 12-27-2004, 08:53 AM
  #71  
zrexpilot
Nontypical Buck
 
zrexpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
Default RE: Is the Ruger 204 Big enough for Whitetail

ORIGINAL: driftrider

zrex,

That's an interesting link you provided to some VERY interesting and enlightening analysis on terminal ballistics based on real science, not trumped up pseudo-scientific jibberish.

But I also see that you mentioned much earlier on that you know others who use .224cals with success (the .22 Hornet is what you mentioned I believe), and regularly take head and neck shots, so I suggest that you read the entire article, including the section where your cited author condemns the use of .224cal rifles for deer hunting and even questions the wisdom of using the .243.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...s/methods.html

Scroll down to Section 5 on this page to see what he thinks about this perticular topic.

Mike
I read that, it was one of the first things I read. he dont care much for the .243 as do many here. I love it, never had any problems but then again here in texas our deer rarely get over a 150 lbs, maybe that has something to do with it.
What i couldnt understand is he complains about lack of penetration with the .223 and .243 and small calibers in general, but then shows in his chart 10.5 in. of penetration for the .223 and 13" for the .243. those numbers are comparibale to some of the bigger guns. bullet selection and velocity seem to be a deciding factor on penetration. theres one bullet fired from the .7 mag that only got 9 inches of penetration. Seems the slower the bullet the more penetration. Pretty wierd huh ? but then shows that higher velocity's with a descent bullet leave bigger wound chanels and cavitation. So it's a toss up on what you want to do I guess.
zrexpilot is offline