Ever hear this from your buddies?

Bullet failure as stated in another post here is not always the fault of the bullet, but also the fault of the choice of bullet. No bullet today has more asked of it then the .308 diameter bullet does. The great majority of rifles, probably more then all others combined are in the .308 and 30/06 cartridge.
Bullet manufacturers create products just like everyone else does. To make a product that appeals to the majority. With that said, and the majority of users known you can see what happens to a reloader that has a 300 magnum but uses a 150 grain .308 diameter bullet which must also work with a .308 rifle.

The velocity of that .308 rifle, or the 30/06, or the 300 savage, will have a completely different requirement then a 300HH, 300 win mag, 300 weatherby, etc. Yet they all use the same bullet. It's prudent when loading an over bore cartridge to choose your bullet very carefully. I should also add into this that nothing I write here is specific to deer hunting. Deer are one of the softest easiest to kill of all the big game in the world, and they are not living in big herds to complicate tracking or follow up.

We ask a lot of a bullet today to expand at longer ranges of 300-400 yards, yet we also ask them to stay intact at 50-100 yards. That's a very tall order! One that was insurmountable just 15 years ago. Today there has been new technology used to produce bullets that can get us just to the edge of the performance we need to have the "perfect projectile".

As I wrote above, the comment we hear all the time about "At what point during the animals death did the bullet fail"

That comment is just plain silly, and would never be used by anyone with experience of hunting truly big game. If a bullet breaks up, it was a failure of the bullet, or the choice of the person loading it. Bullets should not break apart or go to pieces inside an animal. If they do that choice was wrong, or that bullet failed to stay intact. Bullet mass is what penetrates deeply, bullet shrapnel not only losses penetration, but losses strait through direction. The question was asked above what does a bullets retained weight tell you? It was stated "Who cares how much retained weight there is if the result was good"

Well I'll tell you that the retained weight of the bullet is the only single thing that will show how well that bullet functioned with your cartridge, it's velocity, and your shot placement. If that bullet crumbles on a broadside shot and you recover bits of lead and jacket inside that dead animal, how would it work at a steep angle? Through a Humorous or scapula? From behind? From the front between the front legs? If the broadside shot was on a deer how would it have worked on the gristle plate of a wild boar? With the 4" fat layer of a black bear? Into the chest of an Elk or mountain goat A moose?

Some will say well I would have a different load for each one of those animals or conditions. That's fine and dandy, but that also avoids the question. It's unrealistic to have a load for each species and then re-zero and or redevelop everything you do for each species you hunt. Once a load is developed for a particular rifle it’s used for long periods to allow the shooter to become very familiar with that combination. Hunters who are continuously redeveloping loads for a rifle are never great with any of them. I know this as I see 20-30 hunters a year through my camp and the ones who come with a specific load for one animal, and a different one for another animal have nothing but trouble with all the animals! Some may think they have a special talent or skill in this area but I have never seen it in over 300 hunting clients now. Not a single one has made this system work properly. Yet every excellent marksman and hunter in my camps has created a single functional load focused on the most difficult animal, which then allowed it to work on everything smaller.

A bullet’s weight retention is an important key to fully understanding the way it worked for you. If that bullet stays in one piece you have a good match to your load and velocity window. If it went to pieces you're driving it to fast, or using too small a bullet. Going to pieces is without a question a bad situation. When you find bullet bits and jacket bits inside the body, you have a significant problem. Just because you were lucky enough to blunder into the dead animal does not mean the operation was a success. Why on earth would you risk that same bullet again on another animal? The next time you hit a bone and the bullet explodes into bits leaving you without an exit blood trail, and a large but superficial wound in the animal which runs off. Do you just shoot another one because you did not find the first one? Now you have punched the tag twice! I rekon that if folks only got to shoot a single bullet per season rather then a single animal people would catch on to this concept quicker!

The real debate which I still struggle with now and then, is should the bullet exit or stay inside? I'm a bullet recovery junkie.........no question I want to see recovered bullets to know they remain intact. However, I also know in my heart from 20 years experience as a Professional Hunter that an exit hole is highly desirable to locate game that runs off after the shot. Entry holes pull hair and fat inside plugging the bore diameter entry hole. This blocks internal body cavity blood flow from getting to the outside of the body. Exit holes are created by the expanded bullet pushing out tissue and blood which create the only fully functional blood trails. I know this as fact in my business. With nearly15 years as a professional hunter in South Africa. We track a hella lotta wounded game and have seen some very high resolution on what cartridges work well and what bullet performance should be. When you see 100-150 animals over 300 pounds and some up to 8000 pounds shot each year during two months of hunting your understanding of good performance becomes very clear. What you would like to see your hunters to use becomes very clear. What does not work and what causes you nightmares and panic becomes very clear. If after this experience, these things are not pretty darn obvious, I suppose a different line of work is in order!

I'm not sure how to explain this further where bullet weight retention is thought of as a non-issue. It's simply put..........Everything that is important in a bullets function after impact!

Without high retained weight you have limited penetration, penetration that is not straight through, no exit holes, and very likely will fall short of the intended internal organs you wish to disrupt. There is another thread on this site which shows some results from 51 animals my hunters shot using my 30/06 loaner rifle this year in South Africa. I tested the Federal Fusion bullets and the Barnes TSX bullets among others. Just to show a perfect real world example here.

A waterbuck was shot with the federal fusion bullet that was a bit high. The water buck took off and we had a hella long tracking job. By GPS indication we had gone just shy of 6 miles when we finally had sight of this waterbuck well ahead of us in the bush. I had reloaded that hunter’s rifle with the Barnes TSX bullets exactly the same weight bullet, just using a Barnes bullet rather then the Fusion bullet. At the second shot that bull fell and was dead when we arrived after walking 100 yards. The entry hole was about 4 inches from the first shot. That TSX bullet traversed the length of the bull and exited the scapula and left the body with a 1" diameter exit hole. The entry holes were just in front of the hind quarter on a steeply quartering away angle.

At the skinning shed the Fusion bullet was badly distorted and was driven into the flesh just under the spine. It ran out of steam and had such a bizarre shape that it did not penetrate straight. Had that been the Barnes TSX bullet it would have carried on through the spine and exited. Leaving that big bull waterbuck dead where it was standing, or at a minimum unable to walk. Shot placement here was also an issue but even with bad shot placement that TSX bullet retained more weight, integrity, and penetration potential then that fusion bullet did. Yet both are 165 grain bullets shot from the same rifle.

One other thing to mention. In regard to bullets staying inside the body being the better idea. Most people have the mistaken belief that this will allow all the "shock" to kill the animal. If the shock did not kill you when you felt the recoil then it will certainly not kill the animal. The impact an animal feels from the bullet cannot be much more (very little) then the recoil you felt when pulling the trigger.

For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. The recoil energy of that rifle is exactly the same as the impact energy the animal will realize minus the reduction in velocity for the distance the bullet travels. The Muzzle energy formulas used are for perfect energy transfer in a lab environment and for total energy that can be measured in a perfect set of conditions. It's not the actual momentum the bullet impacts the body with. Which most folks don't understand when reading ballistics regarding the ammunition and guns they are interested in. If that 300 magnum has 3000FPE and the bullet does not exit how come a 150 pound deer is not lifted and thrown through the air? You know like Hollywood would have us believe!

To grasp the bullets impact ability properly you must multiply the speed times the bullets weight, and divide by 7000(grains in a pound) As an example a 3000 fps speed times 180 grain bullet provides about 75 pounds of impact force. That's why it cannot lift and throw a 150 pound deer into the air, or for that matter even budge it off it's feet. Those of you thinking about the math here might say .......well my 300 mag does not have 75 pounds of recoil force. That's correct! you have to also do the math to reduce that by the weight of the rifles mass. It should work out just right for you then.

It's kind of sad when I hear a fellow "hunting sportsman" use this absurd phrase posted in the heading. Every time I hear that in conversation the credibility of that guy becomes suspect for everything else he says!

I guess I am just plain STUPID but if the projectile kills the animial how can it have failed. It may not have preformed flawlessly but it did not fail to compelete its mission.

Well said Jim.

I had only shot about 6-8 deer when I discovered the whole bullet preformance thing. And exit wound versus staying in the body.

After having to track a deer that was perfectly shot quartering towards me, through the scapula and both lungs, bullet lodged in the ribs not the hide. Not blood trail and very little evidence of tracks. It was the longest 100 yards (approx.) of my very young hunting career.

It was then and there that I decided that I wanted a bullet to hold together, retain mass and exit the animal the majority of the time.

Since then, I have switched to a premium bullet and have never looked back.

But I only shoot that 1 type of bullet for everything.

Yes I tell people when they ask that 180 gr. might be a little big for shooting Pronghorn Antelope. But I don't have time to resite my rifle every time I am going hunting for deer and then again for moose.

And none of the animals have complained about using the same bullet.

If people spent as much time practicing shooting as they did working up different loads for their rifles, I think they would be alot better off.

Graylake-you learned something at a young age it has taken many of us a career of experience to learn-one bullet designed for the max you think may occur and let the other more tolerant uses be served by it's performance.

JJ,

"At what point in the animals death did the bullet fail." was a quote from one of the famous bullet makers and was then printed in a gun-rag somewhere and is now parroted by weekend warriors the world over.

I have to tell you however, that I completely agree with everything you've just said. I use the same concepts. I have one load worked out for each caliber. A 180gr TSX @ 2700fps for the 06 a 270gr TSX @ 2700 for the .375H&H. Not only is my holdover almost identical at all ranges. I also know what my bullet is capable of at any angle on any animal, there is never a question.

This really simplifies your shooting and hunting choices.

Great thread!

JJ,

Good post. I have had two bullet failures both times I was able to recover the game, but I think luck played into these recoveries as much as did skill. I will never again shoot a bullet that I feel gives me a coin toss of a chance at recovering the game.

If people spent as much time practicing shooting as they did working up different loads for their rifles, I think they would be alot better off.[/QUOTE]

AMEN to that.

JJ,

What has been your experience with Partitions? Certainly, penetration is the overarching measure of lethality, but wounding from fragmentation must be tremendously helpful (though generally only when penetration is sufficient).

When I spoke with a tech guy at Nosler, he was quite clear that, after penetration, fragmentation was the next most desired effect.

fwiw,

friar

You may well have a good point -a 300 grain Nosler Partition followed by 300 grain TSX Barnes from my 375 H&H is the recipe for Buff I intend to use

JJ,
Surely bullet placement is the key here. We are asking an awful lot from our bullets if we dont place them in the right spot. I have shot a fair amount of game with a variety of bullets and have found that when I did my bit correctly the animal died. I once shot a zebra and hit it too high, with a Barnes X, 300gn in 375 and after a day and half tracking. blood trail dried up and never found the animal. So my take on this is, place the shot correctly and you're in business.
cheers
Ed

quote:

At what point in the animals death did the bullet fail?

This is typically written by someone who does not wish to invest some intellectual effort into understanding bullet performance.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

At what point in the animals death did the bullet fail?

This is typically written by someone who does not wish to invest some intellectual effort into understanding bullet performance.

I've personally heard Steve Hornady say this exact statement several times.

I've wanted to say....."at the point the f****** jacket separated from the core!"

But this is one person that one tells nothing to.

In all fairness to Hornady bullets I've never had an interbond or interlock fail me, I consider them top shelf bullets for intended game.

*disclaimer.....I've never used their solids for anything except rolling rocks in a gravel pit.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
At what point in the animals death did the bullet fail?

When my friend found his bull Elk 3.5 miles from where he shot it four days later, with an 8" diameter wound, 3" deep on his left shoulder.

I sure miss that old Avatar!!!!!

Why rehash bullets all the time? A 180 grain Partition will kill any plains game you can name. The front half fragments, the rear half penetrates, and except for the Texas heart shot, penetration is more than enough.

If a TSX penetrates deeper, it can only do so at the expense of less expansion and less tissue damage. Physics eschews free lunches.

Knock down ability is momentum, and the momentum imparted to the animal is identical to that imparted to the shooter by recoil. What energy does is destroy tissue. The more energy, the more tissue destroyed. If two bullets do not exit, the one with the most energy will destroy the most tissue and kill better.

Indy, wrote:

quote:

What energy does is destroy tissue. The more energy, the more tissue destroyed. If two bullets do not exit, the one with the most energy will destroy the most tissue and kill better.

Please explain to us how does 'energy' destroy tissue?

But first read this article.

quote:

quote:
At what point in the animals death did the bullet fail?


This is typically written by someone who does not wish to invest some intellectual effort into understanding bullet performance.

Or by someone selling crappy bullets.

Jason

quote:

Originally posted by Indy:
Why rehash bullets all the time? A 180 grain Partition will kill any plains game you can name. The front half fragments, the rear half penetrates, and except for the Texas heart shot, penetration is more than enough.

If a TSX penetrates deeper, it can only do so at the expense of less expansion and less tissue damage. Physics eschews free lunches.

Knock down ability is momentum, and the momentum imparted to the animal is identical to that imparted to the shooter by recoil. What energy does is destroy tissue. The more energy, the more tissue destroyed. If two bullets do not exit, the one with the most energy will destroy the most tissue and kill better.

Indy,
That's the whole point of the TSX though. THe design gets round this trade off thhat you are correct about in the case of lead core bullets.

The copper construction just retains weight so it penetrates further and more importantly truer without as much deflection.

I do however entirely agree with you that there can be too much obsessing about which bullet this... or which bullet that..... If it shoots well in your rifle and is in the correct weight range for the biggest game you persue then it will do the job.

And of course itf the man/woman behind the gun can do his bit too.

FB

I think it was J.D. Jones who said "any bullet that doesn't exit is a failure." That may be an overstatement but it's hard to dispute the benefit of two bleeding holes rather than one! I agree that premium bullets are worth the extra cost. Above my desk is a 175gr. 8mm bullet recovered from the hind quarter of an impala after passing nearly through from the front of the animal. Other than rifling impression and a skinned up nose it looks like new! It's the result of 8x57 use of an 8mm Mag. designed bullet - my mistake, and one that cost me the biggest ram I ever saw three days earlier. Never again!

Let's start with some basics which this topic is in serious need of, you need to define the following:

1. Bullet failure
a. Lack of expansion
b. Lack of penetration
c. Insufficient retained weight
d. Over penetration
e. Too much damage to meat
f. ....

2. Animals death
a. Did animal cover too much distance before death
b. Did animal suffer after shot
c. Did animal injure others after shot
d. ...

3. Speed of death, how long
a. 5 seconds or less
b. 60 seconds or less
c. 5 minutes or less
d. 60 minutes or less
e. 60 minutes or more
f. ...

4. Cause of death
a. bleed to death
b. shock
c. damage to internal organs
d. damage to Central Nervous System (CNS)
e. ...

5. Bullet placement
a. Did it strike vital internal organs (heart/lungs)
b. Did it strike central nervous system
c. Did it strike non vital internal organs(stomach/intestines)
d. ...

In the hunting world people discuss items in a very haphazard method using anecdotal evidence to support prejudices that they hold dear to his or her heart. In the Armed Forces of the world there has been much study on ballistics. Let me define some terms, so we're on the same page.

Internal ballistics - the measurement and analysis from the initiative of the firing process inside the firearm until the bullet (projectile) leaves the rifle.

External ballistics - the meaurement and analysis of the bullet from the time it leaves the barrel until the bullet strikes an object.

Terminal ballistics - the measurement and analysis of the bullet once it hits an object.

The above are general defintions to help understand what we are discussing. Also, here's general info. on anecdotal evidence:

Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is.

* "information that is not based on facts or careful study"
* "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"
* "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"
* "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
* "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

..............

I see a lot of statements and presumptions, which I don't believe have been proved. If you want to get into a campfire discussion about I like this and this is why, fine. But don't try and say you had this result and it proves anything, particularly when it's all anecdotal evidence.


LET THE FIREWORKS BEGIN

As JJ knows, shot placement is everything. Any discussion of bullet performance takes for granted that the bullet was placed reasonably well. Thereafter, the issue is not just did the bullet kill, the point of the statement, but did it do it efficiently.

Efficiency is a nuanced word with regard to bullets. If you are hunting dangerous game, efficient is the immediate incapacitation and rapid death of the animal. If it killed the buffalo after it gored you and ran over a couple of the trackers, it was very efficient. With plains game, one can settle for reasonably rapid death and a good blood trail.

In either case, penetration is the key to efficiency. The bullet has got to get to the vitals to do its job. Upset (bullet enlargement) is nice, but if the bullet penetrates and was well placed, you'll have a short tracking job and meat at the end of it.

cs273 wants to discuss statistics and such. I love the old saw, "There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians."

In today's world, it is a lucky man who shoots one lion, and if the bullet does not kill efficiently, it may be the only one he shoots for reasons other than quotas or money. The same is true for any of the big five and some other animals.

It is very, very hard for the individual to derive any meaningful personal "statistics" in today's hunting environment. This is why the reports of various hunters and ph's on boards like this are important. Those reports, at some point, cease to be "annectotal" and become statistics.

Even then, while statistics are nice predictors of performance, you'd sure not want to be on the short end of the probabilities when facing a wounded lion, elephant or buffalo. This is why you use the biggest rifle you can shoot well, and bullets with a reputation (annectotal? statistical?) on a board like this for killing things DRT. Even then, you can get hurt, but that is part of the risks of hunting such game.

This "argument" is a rehash of the old debate regarding velocity and bullet weight. The one side argues speed and shock will kill. The other side, argues bullet weight (and penetration.) The argument will go on as long as we gather around the fire, but it is interesting how many of us old guys, who have seen the elephant, want those heavy (for caliber) bullets and penetration. Kudude

I don't get it, I guess.

All I need are two holes, with vast vital damage in between, and a lot of blood, on the spot, or on the trail to a dead animal nearby.

Less is bullet failure. More (blood, not holes) and less (distance to dead animal, not holes) is better.

MR
After reading all these threads and posts, you are finally someone I can agree with.

By the way, for most guns I prefer Partitions. I have also had excellent results from Barnes and will not hesitate to use them if a particular gun shoots them better. I have heard stories of X bullets zipping through game like a solid and not doing much damage in the process, but I have had no problems like that.

I measure success by how well they kill, not retained weight. I simply laugh every time I'm at the range and someone tells me that whatever trendy bullet they are currently loading is so far superior to a Partition simply because they retain 95-98% vs. 65-70% of my "old-fashioned" Noslers.

quote:

I simply laugh every time I'm at the range and someone tells me that whatever trendy bullet they are currently loading is so far superior to a Partition simply because they retain 95-98% vs. 65-70% of my "old-fashioned" Noslers.

I agree!

Here is an example of two bullets I have used. Both killed their intended animals, but, because there are better performing bullets available, I am not going to use those two.

1. Winchester Silvertip, 300 grain 375 caliber in a 375H&H. I shot a warthog with it. The bullet disentegrated on his shoulder, without penetrating into his chest cavity. He ran for a bit and died.

2. Swift A-Frame 160 grain in a 7.21 Lazzeroni.

Shot an impala and a waterbuck with them. Both animals died. But, we found the bullets had lost all the led from the hole in the bullet's base.

After these two experiences, I have decided to avoid using any bullet that does not have a solid shank. Or better still use only bullets that are made of copper with a hollow point.

quote:

Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is.

I've yet to recover a Barnes X or TSX from any of the elk/deer I've shot. They have all died. Statistically that's 100% performance.

Now we can get into all the criteria for scientific studies, but it just isn't needed.

Their are studies that are done using anecdotal information gathering. That's why survey's are done. It's the way the information is analyzed that's makes it scientific or not.

quote:

Please explain to us how does 'energy' destroy tissue?

But first read this article.

Here are two examples: Suppose you are playing billiards (pool). It's your turn to break. the harder you hit the cue ball, the more you will scatter the other 15 balls. The only difference is kinetic energy.

Similarly, a bullet fired from a 300 Weatherby magnum will destroy more meat than the same bullet fired from a 300 Savage or a 30-30. Isn't that why a lot of people complain about magnums after all? But "meat" is muscle. You WANT to destroy meat (or lungs, or whatever). Again, the only difference is kinetic energy.

Suppose you take a .308 diameter drill and drill an Impala carcase through the shoulder and spine. You will make a pencil hole. But shoot the Impala with a 300 magnum and a Nosler Partition (which I did on a live Impala) and you will remove a 3" chunk of the shoulder and another 3" chunk where the spine used to be. Bang-flop.

That's what kinetic energy does.

Obviously the energy has to be applied in the right place, and the bullet has to hold together well enough to get to that place.

Kinetic energy is a real-world aspect of physics which has been known for about 300 years. It is an identical quantity to applying a force over a distance, or "the ability to do work" on matter.

Why do some hunters use a different bullet for the first shot ? If the next 3 are better constructed and you feel they would stop a charge then why not just use them to begin with.

JJ, great post and I agree 100% the TSX puts game on the ground right now!!!!!!!!

What discussions of energy usually ignore is that the destruction of the projectile also consumes energy. Drop a raw egg and a boiled egg from the same height into soft mud and see which one penetrates more. Or launch a frangible bullet and a tough bullet with equal energy into a heavy leg bone and see which one is more likely to make it all the way through. Any meaningful discussion of bullets and impact energy has to include that consideration.

Indy, suggest you read that article as well as the other articles referred to in it once again!!!

Out of that you will learn that kinetic energy is only a useful man-invented rating system and as such can cause no event at all.

The following tells you what is the real cause of events in hunting.

quote:

..... source of energy the rifle hunter has available "is caused by the release of chemical energy of combustion, causing force, causing acceleration of the fired bullet's matter, resulting in a closing velocity being established between the fired bullet and the target".

Good post JJ , that the animal dies is not the measure of the bullets / shooters performance, especially if it dies 6 miles from impact. The animal needs to go down as quickly / humanely as possible, as close to every time as possible. Your are right, it's a tall order but bullets today are better than they have ever been. The Nosler partition is still a great measuring stick & one I trust for all of my hunting so far except the exc. NorthForks I haved used in my .404j.
I also don't like the phrase "overkill". That one gets used a lot by the small bore guys.

quote:

Indy, suggest you read that article as well as the other articles referred to in it once again!!!

Jagter, it simply doesn't matter, but I doubt whether the author could pass a freshman exam in physics. The application of kinetic energy is the ONLY way in which matter can be moved (as in a bullet p[enetrating something). And the other quote you posted is simply the conversion of potential to kinetic energy.

But all of that, including the article, is theoretical gobbledegook.

Here's why.

Shoot plains game with Nosler Partitions and you kill them. Shoot them with TSXs and you kill them. For any two bullets of the same mass and velocity, the one that exits will destroy less tissue than the one that doesn't. You pick.

I shoot partitions because everything I have shot with them died and only one failed to exit.

quote:

Originally posted by kudude:
cs273 wants to discuss statistics and such. I love the old saw, "There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians."

I don't want to talk about statistics. Maybe you should reread my post about 50 more times and then go look up in a dictionary what statistics is. I'm talking about the scientific method. Without it we'd still be in the dark ages. People on these forums cntinually use anectodal evidence as proof. It's not, it's basically nonsense. I was hoping to elevate some disussion on what constitutes bullet failure, etc. Everyone says bullets fail but then don't have any intelligent definition about what they mean by it.

People don't understand the most rudimental concept. Let me start by some:

There are three main ways to kill an animal in a hunting situation, they are as follows:

Instant incapacition/death:
a. Shutting down Central Nervous System (CNS), usually by driving high speed projectile into the brain cavity

Short term death (2-5 minutes)
a. Maasive damage to vital internal organs
1. Heart and Lung area

Moderate term death (5 minutes or so)
a. Massive loss of blood(severe)
1. Damage to internal organs
2. Severing of veins, arteries
3. Damage to muscles

Long term death (hour or longer)
a. Massive loss of blood(small to moderate)
b. Small or moderate damage to organs, etc.

....
I can sure tell there aren't mamy people around here that have taken many courses in logic, reasoning or the sciences.

quote:

Originally posted by SDhunter:

quote:

Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is.

I've yet to recover a Barnes X or TSX from any of the elk/deer I've shot. They have all died. Statistically that's 100% performance.

Now we can get into all the criteria for scientific studies, but it just isn't needed.

Their are studies that are done using anecdotal information gathering. That's why survey's are done. It's the way the information is analyzed that's makes it scientific or not.

Surveys are part of the scientific method. It's a research method. So you're saying if I can find two examples of anything working in the world that there is sufficient proof that it will always work. That is the "generalization" fallacy of logic.

So, what is bullet failure to you. Define your terms.

quote:

Surveys are part of the scientific method. It's a research method. So you're saying if I can find two examples of anything working in the world that there is sufficient proof that it will always work. That is the "generalization" fallacy of logic.

Two of anything is not a statistically significant sample. But add another two, then one, then a few more and pretty soon you have a significant sample.

My definition of bullet failure is when it doesn't do what it is suppose to do. What is that?

Ie: a varmint bullet that doesn't blow up, a FMJ that expands or doesn't penetrate in a straight line.

I know you guys don't like this statement. But when the critter doesn't die from a well placed shot, obviously the bullet failed.

The definition of a hunting bullet is a little trickier, because if it blows up or fails to expand it is considered a failure. Regardless of the final outcome.

I think every person has their own idea of how they want their hunting bullet to perform. That's one of the reasons that there are so many to choose from.

I have come to some personal conclusions from my anecdotal evidence Re:experience.

I like controlled expansion bullets. In my experience they expand and penetrate completely (my preference). I have only recovered one, a NP (338 caliber 210gr) that I found stuck in the lower front leg bone of an elk after complete penetration of the chest cavity. The front was missing, the back completely intact. That is what they do. If you don't like that, then don't shoot NP's.

I don't think they do as much damage as a regular cup and jacket bullet because they don't fragment. I have gotten away from the cup and jacket bullets for hunting because of the tissue damage, ie meat loss. I also don't like finding bullet fragments when processing my meat.

But I also find that I've yet to seen a wound channel by a Barnes X or TSX that wasn't completely shredded. Albeit not as visually impressive as the fragmentation that can occur with some bullets.

quote:

I've yet to recover a Barnes X or TSX from any of the elk/deer I've shot. They have all died. Statistically that's 100% performance.

I forgot to mention that that I've shot close to 20 deer with a 53gr TSX out of a 22-250. Along with some deer/elk shot with 140gr 277 caliber and 210gr 338 caliber both NP's and TSX's.

Is my sample large enough to be statistically significant? I don't really care, because I KNOW the TSX's work from my "anecdotal" evidence.

Do I think a hunting bullet should expand and have complete penetration? ABSOLUTELY!!

Indy, since you have hopefully passed the 'freshman exam in physics' and the fact that you said:

quote:

The application of kinetic energy is the ONLY way in which matter can be moved (as in a bullet p[enetrating something).

Please tell us from what source does your 'kinetic energy' gets the force from to eventually cause the events you refer to?
Take into account that KE= ½M x V² - Só, the bullet has the mass (M), what source provides the velocity (V) in this man-invented rating system that makes up KE?

Secondly, your statement:

quote:

For any two bullets of the same mass and velocity, the one that exits will destroy less tissue than the one that doesn't.

Dr M.L. Fackler, M.D. found that the one that exits destroy more tissue!

Lastly,

quote:

Comment from Dr. Fackler:

quote:
The KE fallacy is so pervasive that it needs to be corrected as often as possible.

Actually SDH, I find the NP does fragment the front core if impact vel. is high enough, say over 2600fps or so. This is seen in the typical "wiping" or loss of the front core after expansion. So you may only get 65-70% wight retention, but you get the fragmentation of a cup core bullet w/ extra penetration.

CS,

I did not mean to be discourteous or dismissive, but I really don't think statistical analysis of the nature you propose will assist us very much.

Only a large number of reports of each shot to include a great many details (caliber, muzzle velocity [estimated or chrono'd], bullet weight, bullet type, make, range, target, target aspect, number of shots, entry and exit wounds, and target reaction) would be necessary in assessing a particular bullet at a given velocity and range.

The point of my post was that in today's world few if any single person has the opportunity to personally "test" various bullets on the many game animals that compose our targets. Only when we look at the experiences of many hunters and many ph's that we can move from the annecdotal to "statistical probability" of successfully taking an animal.

I understand your proposed approach, but believe its isn't relevant to the efficiency of a bullet in real terms. If, you shoot a lion and it lives 2 minutes, but spends those two minutes giving you its full attention, you've had a bad day.

One of the theories (nota bene, Tanoose) of using a soft point on an animal is that it will turn and run from you and you don't have to worry about over penetration and hitting other animals in the herd. If well hit in a relatively large target zone, it will run a short distance (+ or - 100yds) and expire. If you shoot a buffalo, and it does exactly as desired and expires 40 yds away in one minute, is the bullet less effective than a solid in the head, which is a higher risk shot, but kills it in its tracks when it works?

Add to these factors that a higher percentage of us use Nosler, Woodleigh or Northfork, etc. than Speer, Sierra or Hornady, etc. for shooting dangerous game. Therefore, "annecdotally" certain bullets are reported to have performed "better" than those that were never tried. Therefore, success breeds success, or at least reports of success.

What is as important as reports of success, are the reports of failure. I give failure reports much more weight and consideration than success reports. Statistically, this isn't appropriate, but if it happened once, it can happen again, and probably to me!

Maybe some statistician out there would consider making up a survey form which we can fill out on line for each animal we shoot with the information contained in paragraph 2, above, and report (1) if the animal was taken, (2) if anyone was hurt by the animal after it was shot, (3) what was the elapsed time from first shot until the animal was bagged, (4) cause of taking-Central Nervous System Hit or death due to bleed out, (5) where bullet was recovered, and (6) if so,(a) did bullet mushroom, (b) diameter of mushroom or (c) loss of mushroom or petals.

If we each prepared one of these reports after every hunt, we might eventually have some "statistics," and reach more "scientific" conclusions about our experiences. Then all we'll have to do is get the "also ran" bullet companies to pay for a couple of trips to boost their reporting numbers. Hornady, Sierra, Speer- you can contact me through this web site. I'm ready when you are! Kudude

quote:

Originally posted by kudude:
CS,

I did not mean to be discourteous or dismissive, but I really don't think statistical analysis of the nature you propose will assist us very much.

No insult taken. I just wanted to get some objective data taken, which you realize.

When an individual said a bullet failed, but then doesn't explain how I get curious. Above sdhunter said, "I know you guys don't like this statement. But when the critter doesn't die from a well placed shot, obviously the bullet failed".

The corollary of that statement is that if the animal died the bullet didn't fail. Which is different than this topic states curious animals dying and bullet failing.

I just wanted to get an idea of what different people consider to be bullet failure. Also, Jagter quoted Dr. Fackler concerning kinetic energy. Anyone who has read much about bullet terminal ballistics and wounds in people know that Dr. Fackler in considered to be the foremost expert on the subject. He studies wounds from a very analytic approach. Not letting personal opinion get in the way.

Although people and animals aren't exactly the same, we still shared the same reactions to our vital organs, bleeding and central nervous systems. Much can be gain from looking at what stops people and relating that to animals.

Much of the data is what people have determined over the years, bullet placement and bullet performance are essential. The fuzzy part gets into what people feel in adequate bullet performance.

You say you give failure reports much more weight and consideration than success reports. I couldn't agree more, but I want to know what constituted a failure, what didn't work right and why. Unfortunately most individuals let they subjective opinions cloud the descriptions about what went right and what went wrong. That's why be need more objectivity into the study.