I read an article in either Outdoor Life or Field and Stream back between 1964 and 1966. The writer field tested loads through bush, firing small fast bullets then larger slower bullets, up to and including 12 gauge slugs. Ranges were short and his test was key-holing in the targets. His conclusion was "neither". Both produced about the same amount of grief. Instead he found that medium weight bullets at around 2300 - 2500 fps were most consistent. The old Brit muzzle velocity in .303 was around 2450 - 2500 in whatever bullet weight they used. All the above is from memory. Some or all is likely faulty. Any thoughts?

It is obvious that if our bullet strikes an object before the intended target that it will deflect or change its trajectory in some form or fashion. Depends on how large and hard the object struck is. A little twig or blade of grass will effect the bullet different than a larger limb.

To many variables to come to any real conclusions. Little bullets, lots of brush, find another shot. Big bullets, little brush, target close to brush, better odds for sure.

I believe most testing of this sort has pretty well established that no projectile can escape the deflecting effects of brush. So the brush-busters are figments of the imagination only!

As I recall - about 30 years ago I read about a test in a gun magazine. In their test, the 7mm Remington Magnum 150 gr. had the least deflection. You need both speed and power.

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:
I believe most testing of this sort has pretty well established that no projectile can escape the deflecting effects of brush. So the brush-busters are figments of the imagination only!

roger

wanna sure brush buster?
use a shotgun.

There's no such animal. As far as brush bucking bullets---BBB!

Either hunt somewhere else, or cut a shooting lane, too much chance of wounding a precious game animal.

I saw a program once where they took a slow-mo movie of a bowling ball being deflected by bowling pins! Who'd a thunk it? So much for the heavy and slow argument!

quote:

Any thoughts?

Yeah. Think of a Smart Car hitting a glancing blow on a sand filled highway barrel at 70 mph. Then think of a loaded dump truck hitting the same barrel the same way at 70 mph. Think of an identical car and truck hitting that barrel at 40 mph. All four would be deflected but which would be deflected least?

Moral; Heavy AND fast will be deflected somewhat less than heavy and slow OR light and fast, every time. Inertia/momentum has a value all it's own.

if that bowling ball weighed less it would deflect more, given equal speed for both weight balls.
the answer to your question is that a heivier projectile at a reasonable speed will deflect less than a light projectile at the same speed.
light/fast vrs. heavy/slow is apples and oranges type comparison.

I remember that article. The thing to remember is that the faster the bullet strikes a given obstruction, the higher the deflecting impulse will be. The heavier the bullet striking, the less that impulse will deflect that bullet. So there is some point at which bullet speed and weight combination will produce the least deflection. A heavier bullet with a certain momentum will deflect less than a lighter bullet with the same momentum. The lighter bullet will have more energy and will impart more energy to the obstruction which will in turn exert a greater impulse on the bullet.

quote:

Think of a Smart Car hitting a glancing blow on a sand filled highway barrel at 70 mph. Then think of a loaded dump truck hitting the same barrel the same way at 70 mph. Think of an identical car and truck hitting that barrel at 40 mph. All four would be deflected but which would be deflected least?

Your analogy might be more compelling if the projectiles in question were roundballs from a smoothbore, or if your vehicles were spin stablized and traveling between Mach One and Mach Three.

The empirical evidence suggests that bullets that hit branches want to tip over, come apart, or both. Have deer died of being hit by a bullet flying sideways? Sure. Is a sideways 405 gr .458 a better killer than a fragmented 87 gr .257? Probably. Like Grizz sez, pick another deer or cut wider shooting lanes.

quote:

Originally posted by sunrise:
I read an article in either Outdoor Life or Field and Stream back between 1964 and 1966. The writer field tested loads through bush, firing small fast bullets then larger slower bullets, up to and including 12 gauge slugs. Ranges were short and his test was key-holing in the targets. His conclusion was "neither". Both produced about the same amount of grief. Instead he found that medium weight bullets at around 2300 - 2500 fps were most consistent. The old Brit muzzle velocity in .303 was around 2450 - 2500 in whatever bullet weight they used. All the above is from memory. Some or all is likely faulty. Any thoughts?

Not to comment on the heart of the matter....I think 303Guy has covered that accurately and well with his force vector comments.

BUT...I'm really glad you started this thread the way you did. I was living here in Oregon when that article came out. I read it and never forgot it.

In 1968, I was living in northern Alberta, had just gotten my limited Guide's license, and was very anxious to develop a good, reliable moose load for my .30-06. Also wanted it capable of dealing at least to some extent with angry grizzlies in possible unexpected encounters.

Based on the tests covered in that article, I ended up using 55.0 grains of 4831 (it was all "H"-4831 in those days) pushing the 200 gr. Nosler RN Partition...the old one with the belt cut around the middle. That charge pushed that bullet just under 2,500 f.p.s. from my prewar standard-weight Model 70 (and my Remington 740 Carbine too).

It never, ever, failed me in years of hunting/shooting in the Northern Alberta bush. Never had to kill a Grizz with it, but shot a lot of Moose and other stuff. I could probably have gotten more velocity, but I had bought my first chronograph back in the 1950s from Hollywood Gun Shop, and used it to intentionally find an accurate load at that velocity. Pressure was also very mild from all indications. I still have that rifle, and somewhat less than 50 rounds of that ammo from those days.

(An aside...though the load worked well, I hated paying $6 or so for a box of only 50 bullets, when I could buy other makes like Hornadys for $3.50 or less per hundred. So, with gas at about $0.30 per gallon, I'd drive to Bend, Oregon every couple of years and stock up on several thousand Nosler Partition "seconds" in various sizes. What I didn't use I could always sell at a profit back in Alberta. At least, that's what I told my wife. I don't think I ever did sell any.)

This will be an interesting thread to read, after all of the gun mags telling us for the last couple of decades that there is no such thing as a good load for brush.

Best wishes

quote:

Originally posted by Harold R. Stephens:
...Depends on how large and hard the object struck is. A little twig or blade of grass will effect the bullet different than a larger limb. ...

And how close to the Beans, Brush, or trees the Game happens to be.

Where I hunted the majority of my life, you are often faced with a potential shot through Beans, Brush or Trees. We really try our best to avoid the Trees, but occasionally a miracle will occur and the Game is Killed.

Buddy in Raleigh using a 30-06 and 165gr PMC factory ammo heard a Deer headed toward his stand being pushed by dogs. He spotted the Deer a good ways off because the leaves were off and it was slowly working toward him making big circles. The dogs were having a difficult time with the circles and the Deer reduced speed to a slow trot. The circle was going to put the Deer about 25yds ahead of Phillip if it kept going in the same arc. So, Phillip got the rifle up(he is a crack Skeet Shooter) began his follow through, shot and the Deer was dead in mid-stride. As he looked back toward the Stand from the Deer, he noticed a hole through a 6" tree. He had dead-centered the tree and the Deer was just on the other side of it. Not a shot he wanted to make and not one to recommend.

That Standard Grade bullet simply collapsed the nose so it was cylinder shaped, drove on through the green tree and on through the Deer. I encouraged him to cut that section out of the tree for a Conversation Piece.

As for the Beans and Brush, conditions have to be just right and the Premium Nosler Partitions we've used have been Heavy for Caliber. If you are in a Stand and the Deer is out in the Beans, you may have to drive the Bullet through some of them in a single row. Normally no problem, but it can't be done with weenie calibers using Inadequate Bullets.

Same for Deer moving through our Man-Eating(Green) Briers. If the Deer, Hog or Bear is close to the Briers, a Heavy for Caliber Partition will drive on through and normally do fine.

This is not something to recommend to people who have not been in these same situations, because it gets into, how far from the obstacle, how dense, how big is the bullet and all the rest. And I agree with the folks who recommend against it.

As for me, if I'm in a Stand overlooking Beans or Briers, I feel a lot more confident with a good old Heavy Partition than I would with a 90-150gr Standard Grade Bullet. But, I use more of the Standard Grades than the Partitions, and often have to pass on shots due to that.

quote:

remember that article. The thing to remember is that the faster the bullet strikes a given obstruction, the higher the deflecting impulse will be.

I remember it too. Din't buy it then, still don't.

How fast might a bullet have to go to force it to deflect 90 degrees? NOT!

------------------------------

"Your analogy might be more compelling if the projectiles in question were roundballs from a smoothbore, or if your vehicles were spin stablized and traveling between Mach One and Mach Three."

The analogy wasn't submitted as a scientific, 1:1 relationship. It's only an easily grasped illustration of momentum/inertia due to mass and velocity in a general way. Simplistic yes, but it does it without belly-button contemplations of such esotoric side issues as gyro-stablization, etc.

NOTHING - but Superman - can pass thorugh obsticals without effect but Heavy fast bullets will be less affected than any thing lighter or slower. And the nose shape has no significant difference in how it reacts at impact.

Sounds like it's about time for someone to do a 2009 tumble weed deflection test or two. I'm really surprised at what I'm reading here. Thought I knew the answer but quite possibly I do not. roger

Problem for really valid testing by any of us is the virtual impossiblity of setting up the test for sound results. It can take hundereds of rounds, fired precisely at identical "limbs" with dozens of bullet weights and velocities. That's not easy to accomplish!

I dimly remember seeing a film several decades ago in which one of the military services did it. They had a high-speed camera looking down on vertical wood dowel rods of various sizes to show the immediate effect of impact. Sheets of paper placed behind the "targets" then recorded the degree and direction of the deflections. And EVERYTHING deflected!

The movie showed some interestingly results. While slight glancing hits turned away from the impact, as we would expect, those hits where the meplat struck the dowel actually caused the base of the bullet to shift away and that turned the bullet's path in the other direction!

Naturally, those impacts hitting the middle of the dowels shifted least but even they deflected some, and then in unpredictable directions.

Sunrise, what I remember about that period was a series of articles by Francis Sell with "brush busting" results exactly as you remember. He wasn't a prolific writer but what he did write was worth reading and heading.

Sell's "The Deer Hunter's Guide" (Stackpole, 1964) remains the BEST such book I've ever read on deep woods and mountain hunting. Unlike many other popular writers, both Sell and Keith WERE hunters, not just shooters following pro guides around.

As a young gunner in the 60s, I was impressed with Sell's respect for the Marlin 336/.35. It took me another 15 years to get one but it's every bit as good a deer rifle as the old man said! That 200 gr. slug has pushed through a few bushes very effectively for me and to the detriment of deer on the other side.

Wow! I'm amazed that other guys remember the article, how many remember and how much they remember. I forgot to mention something others have reminded me. Targets and brush in the article were close together. The article was about the buck right behind the bushes, not bushes halfway out to the buck.

I remember thinking then about the .303 British. I don't recall whether the author mentioned it, saying that the military must have done research and developed their load logically, or if it was just because that's what my dad shot. It was something about muzzle velocity in the 2500 fps range. ABCanuck seems to substantiate this. I've been thinking about doing some load development for my .270 in 150 grain NPT in that neighbourhood, ditto for my .300 in 200 grain Barnes X.

I'm also thinking about getting a .303 just for that load. Not that its a really logical reason to buy a new rifle, just a nifty rationalization, but it'd be cheaper to drop a .303 war surplus rifle out of a canoe than to do the same thing with a .300. Keep the .300 for long range, dry land shooting. (Argument for wife. )

The last test I have seen done on these, they put a 12" target ,"if memory serves me" somewhere like 10' behind the small branches and none of what they shot hit the target. I may be off a little on the distance, but they concluded nothing "rifle bullet" will reliably shoot through brush. To me a brush gun is a quick handling repeater that will drop them before they run back in the brush.

quote:

it'd be cheaper to drop a .303 war surplus rifle out of a canoe

And they are rugged, throw about rifles!

Hey sunrise, Just to be clear, I do not remember reading the specific article you mentioned, but may have. What I posted is from first-hand experience, but it is still inappropriate to recommend because of all the variables.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

This is all pretty academic. No one has mentioned Newtons Laws. My physics stinks but considering ever action has an equal and opposite action you should consider how far and how much brush (twigs?) between you and the critter. You need a healthy math calculation to cypher this humdinger out.

I'd put my money on the heavy, takes more to deflect by twiggy type stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by 2ugly2shoot:
This is all pretty academic. No one has mentioned Newtons Laws. My physics stinks but considering ever action has an equal and opposite action you should consider how far and how much brush (twigs?) between you and the critter. You need a healthy math calculation to cypher this humdinger out.

I'd put my money on the heavy, takes more to deflect by twiggy type stuff.

Maybe Newton should have read the article. There were no math calculations. Just plain old 'here's what happened when I did it.'

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove much, but can make for interesting stories.

When I was living in Arizona (one of several times), I had a friend who hunted everything with a .458 Win Mag set up in a short, mannlicher-stocked, '03 Springfield-actioned carbine with a post-reticule Lyman Alaskan military surplus scope in a double-lever G&H side mount.

His deer camp friends used to include a famous gun writer who was the gun editor for Sports Afield. (Pete Brown, IIRC.) They used to rag my friend pretty badly about his choice of deer rifle.

So one year, he told them, I'm gonna show you guys why I carry this thing, and love it!

The next morning he had a couple tag along with him while he hunted, including Brown. Eventually, they spotted a nice North Kaibab mulie standing behind a pine tree. My buddy simply raised the .458 (he used 500 or 510 grain factory bullet loads) and shot right through the 10-12" diameter tree. Killed the deer DRT. There was a column about it in Sports Afield a few issues later. His hunting buds didn't rag him about his gun after that.

Doesn't prove ANYTHING, but I can think of a number of cartridges and bullets I wouldn't have ever attempted that with.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
wanna sure brush buster?
use a shotgun.

amen to that...

what I use to hunt No Wisc and No MN..all my hunting buddies were always trying to figure out what was the best rig to use on deer drives thru the swamps...

I just threw the old Rem 870 12 gauge in the truck, for times like that...with some good old double 00 or triple 000 buckshot...