From a recent Sam Fadala article. He refers to an American Rifleman survey from 1947. Based on survey results , bullets were s

[MLH]

From a recent Sam Fadala article. He refers to an American Rifleman survey from 1947. Based on survey results , bullets were studied for rate at which they dropped a deer in its tracks with hits in the heart area. The results, in order from least effective to most effective at dropping a deer in its tracks, were .30-30/170gr, .30-06/220 gr, .32 Win Special, and by a very wide margin, the .300 Win Mag. At the very top of the list, the lowly .30-30/150gr. Have modern bullets changed this? Time for a new survey?

[shane]

I have a Model 94 in 32 Win. Spc., and there is no way that it's as effective as a .30-06. Same for the .30-30. The guys with the bigger guns must have been crappy shots.

[rrmont]

I would have to say that it's time for a new survery.

[ishawooa]

That was the year I was born but I just can't remember back that far to say one way or the other.

[steve182]

Who shoots 220 gr '06 for deer? Not this guy. Haven't shot a deer with my .32 winSpl, but i will soon, out of curiosity.

[teufelhunden]

It is hard to believe that the last time this survey was done was 1947. I think the first commercial ballistic tips did not hit the market until 1948. I would say that it is way pass time for a new survey.

[Beekeeper]

That would be an interesting survey, Speed versus bullet mass, wonder who would win...? Bet the old 30/30 would still be in there some where!

[MLH]

So, editors ... any knowledge of recent surveys? Worth doing another through F&S?

[ken.mcloud]

This would be an EXTREMELY difficult study to draw meaningful conclusions from.

In experiments you want to hold everything constant except the variable you are testing (in this case, the type of bullet) This is impossible unless you have a time machine, so you have to try to keep all the variables known to significantly effect your outcome constant. Height, weight, body fat, age, blood pressure etc.. of the deer, the exact same bullet trajectory, the same impact speed, and apparently even the state of the deer's heart valves at the moment of impact.

It might actually be easier to build a time machine than to hold all those variables constant. So, in situations like this you have to abandon the concept of a traditional experiment and go to statistical observations.

With a statistics based study you would accept that you can't hold everything constant, so you take a whole crap load of data (1000's of shots). Then, you have to look at the averages of each bullet and how scattered their results are (standard deviation).

After all that work, you can only conclude that one bullet was more effective than another if the averages are separated by more than the scatter for those two bullets.

It would be A LOT of work, and you probably wouldn't finish with any meaningful results.

Sorry for getting so technical, but I'm an engineer, so this is what I do for a living. (And I love this stuff!)

I'm more than willing to run such a study if someone can get funding for it. Stimulus money maybe?

[steve182]

I agree with Ken. Too many variables. If you can get money for the study i'd like to participate as a hunter/shooter!

[MLH]

Would a survey finally bring us all the answers? Probably not, since many of us (me included) tend to continue to believe what we believe and question the data and the analysis. After all these beliefs have been passed down for generations. And what a loss it would be if the issue was finally determined and we could no longer debate it. But I think it would be a fun thing to do, and I am sure most every hunter would participate.

And we don't need all the variables - just looking for certain real life observations. Most will likely wash out in the data anyway. Setting up a controlled experiment by culling a deer farm is feasible, but let someone at Deer & Deer Hunting do that.

I was an engineer, too - mechanical, materials, and processes. Spent part my first five years doing statistical work on auto field studies and plant emissions (SAS was my expertise). That's why I critically look at any study. And, no, I do not volunteer to help design the experiment and analyze the data. Would have to pay me and I would have some brushing up to do.

[Elmer Fudd]

Sam Fadala, wow

[rudyglove27]

Agreed with ken.mcloud answer above and A + 1 for you sir!!!