22-250 for big Montana Mulies

[1972RedNeck]

You can load a .22-250 and a .45-70 to identical ft/lbs energy. Which one would you want in your hands if the job was stopping an angry 800lb bovine?

I'd bet that more bovidae have been killed with 22 caliber head shots than any other caliber or shot placement.

I'd take the 45-70 personally, but bigger is always better for me when it comes to bullets.

[Pumpkin]

I know a one 410 with #6 shot in the south end of a north bound bovine will make that fence destroying bugger run faster than it ever thought possible. They even learn how hearing that little pump handle go back and forth precedes something really bad.

[44 AMP]

I'd bet that more bovidae have been killed with 22 caliber head shots than any other caliber or shot placement.

Since a headshot with a .22 has been a frequent method of killing beef cattle for well over a century I'd venture to say you're right.

However I don't see what that has to do with the discussion, other than the mention of a .22 caliber.

I shall rephrase the question. Since the .22-250 and the .45-70 can be loaded to identical energy it certainly has enough energy to put down a big mule deer. Which one would you prefer to have in your hands if facing an upset bear, or buffalo (bison)???

My choice is in my signature line.

[1972RedNeck]

Since a headshot with a .22 has been a frequent method of killing beef cattle for well over a century I'd venture to say you're right.

However I don't see what that has to do with the discussion, other than the mention of a .22 caliber.

Mainly because I enjoy your nit picking of details and was returning the favor.

The discussion started about the effectiveness of 22 caliber rifles - specifically on deer, (which are Cervidae).

Not 45-70s and Bovidae.

[Nathan]

The issue is simply bullet mass and frontal area. No matter what you do, the .22 starts out with less, and very likely ends up with less, as well.

I agree with this in theory. I think there is a ton of data out there saying this is correct, but it is historical in nature. Historically, we had many bullets fail to expand and fail to penetrate. The resulting trends were for more powder, more bullet weight and more diameter.

In the last 10-20 years, I think we’ve seen bullet expansion reliability and penetration reliability increase dramatically. This has caused the bigger, faster, flatter race to go from 28 Nosler introduction and flop to wild success with the 6.5 Creedmoor, 6 Creedmoor, 22 Creedmoor and 6.8 western.

Why do I want bigger if I can buy better?

[Jim Watson]

There used to be a "velocity kills" school of thought.
P.O. Ackley sold into that market. He had a 50 gr .224" bullet for medium game made by swaging 10 grains of lead nose into 40 grains of copper body.
For jurisdictions not allowing .22s on game, he offered a .23 caliber outfit.
Google is not helping me find details of his .22 and .23, I don't think they are simply AIs of something common.

There was a very brief fad for a true 6mm firing a .236" bullet.

There was a speaker at an NRA convention in the 1970s who hunted the world over with a .257 Weatherby and nothing but the 87 grain varmint bullet. I don't recall how big his biggest game was, likely "plains game" not Big Five.

[Ricklin]

The presentation is pretty easy when putting down beef cattle. A mulie in the dark woods, not so much.
22-250 is illegal in both Or and Wa for big game. I'm quite OK with those laws.