There is something strange going on here! If you read my posts and Redhawks answers you will see we agree on everything except an arrow. If you read Whitworths posts and Redhawks answers, you also see similar thoughts. Redhawk even agrees with JWP.
Can anyone tell me why Redhawk has a chip on his shoulder?

I don't see a chip, I just looked in the mirror and there was nothing there....

quote:

Originally posted by GSSP:
With my up and coming hunt to Alaska this fall, I plan on packing my S&W 625-9 Mountain Gun in 45 LC as a back up to my rifle, which will be my primary weapon.

I have two loads which are both accurate and powerful. I wanted to get your opionions on the subject.



My EXBAL ballistic program will not give vel/ft lb energy less than 25 yds which is fine w/ me since the revolver will only be used as back -up or as the primary weapon only if the stars are in alighment and the bear presents himself to such a short range shot.

265 gr WFNGC Cast Peformance Bullet @ 1251 fps with an ES of 6 and Sd of 2. 25 yd energy is 838 lbs.

282 gr Keith style SWC, RCBS 45-270-SAA, cast by Mt Baldy Bullets of Cody, WY @ an honest 1010 fps. 25 yd energy is 610 lbs.

The larger bullet is not as consistent at the smaller, 265 grainer.

I know the heavier bullet might penetrate more but the smaller is really romping on the speed and energy by 228 ft lbs.

Thanks,

Big al

I think either load might work well, but I'd save the last round for myself.
Grizz

Doesn't take long to figure out which of you guys failed your Physics classes in high school, and even less to tell who's ever hunting in an area where the big bears roam. I couldn't help but laugh at the guy chirping about "muzzle jump" and "getting off multiple shots". LMAO Are you kidding. In a situation where you are forced to resort to your "backup gun", it had damned well better be able to do it's job regardless. The chances of a followup shot diminish logarithmically with a grizzly. (A fool I went with one time lamented that if we had to shoot a bear through a tent wall, we'd be blinded by the muzzle flash. BLINDED? Now there's the LAST thing I'd be worried about with a grizzly chewing on my toes.)

I'll admit I'm not a handgun hunter as I like the comment I heard at the S&W School. " A pistol is only good for holding trouble off until you get to your rifle." So I don't know who these so called "experts" are who made those dumb comments or what they'd been drinking when they made them. Arrows kill by hemmorhaging and bullets kill by hydraulic shock. If you want an animal to stay down, the last thing you want is a bullet looking for open spaces after it hit an animal. If all that energy is released inside the animal (instead of outside like the football player fairytale), then the bullet has done what it's designed to do. Your'e talking about a ton of extremely well muscled and heavy boned animal intent on killing you that cover almost 30 yards in ONE SECOND (there goes the football player). How many of you could even FIND your backup gun in less than a second, much less fire it? And when you do fire it, the animal must be stopped immediately or else you're going to play Timothy Treadwell. As the African PH said when asked why he shot a .600 Nitro, "Because the don't make a .700". There's a serious lesson that you guys who flunked Physics should get from that.

Strong words, George. Tell me this. Does a .22 LR kill by hydraulic shock? Or does tissue damage/disruption cause bleeding/hemouraging? I don't think the contoversial hydraulic shock comes into play unless a projectile is travelling at some significant velocity. Does it come into play when a projectile is travelling at 1200 fps as is more often than not the case when a handgun is called into question?

You said it yourself, you are not a handgun hunter........

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Doesn't take long to figure out which of you guys failed your Physics classes in high school, and even less to tell who's ever hunting in an area where the big bears roam. I couldn't help but laugh at the guy chirping about "muzzle jump" and "getting off multiple shots". LMAO Are you kidding. In a situation where you are forced to resort to your "backup gun", it had damned well better be able to do it's job regardless. The chances of a followup shot diminish logarithmically with a grizzly. (A fool I went with one time lamented that if we had to shoot a bear through a tent wall, we'd be blinded by the muzzle flash. BLINDED? Now there's the LAST thing I'd be worried about with a grizzly chewing on my toes.)

I'll admit I'm not a handgun hunter as I like the comment I heard at the S&W School. " A pistol is only good for holding trouble off until you get to your rifle." So I don't know who these so called "experts" are who made those dumb comments or what they'd been drinking when they made them. Arrows kill by hemmorhaging and bullets kill by hydraulic shock. If you want an animal to stay down, the last thing you want is a bullet looking for open spaces after it hit an animal. If all that energy is released inside the animal (instead of outside like the football player fairytale), then the bullet has done what it's designed to do. Your'e talking about a ton of extremely well muscled and heavy boned animal intent on killing you that cover almost 30 yards in ONE SECOND (there goes the football player). How many of you could even FIND your backup gun in less than a second, much less fire it? And when you do fire it, the animal must be stopped immediately or else you're going to play Timothy Treadwell. As the African PH said when asked why he shot a .600 Nitro, "Because the don't make a .700". There's a serious lesson that you guys who flunked Physics should get from that.

As I posted ealier about a 450 Nitro round that did not exit with 5374 FPE yet had no effect, because it failed to put a hole through a vital organ. Perhaps you can explain WHY the so called Hydrolic Shock didn't work.Maybe you can explain why the animals that I have shot and seen shoot all had massive bleeding caused by bullets

Yes, I agree with you in the fact that you can sure tell who doesn't have much game killing experience on big game with different weapons...

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

As I posted ealier about a 450 Nitro round that did not exit with 5374 FPE yet had no effect, because it failed to put a hole through a vital organ. Perhaps you can explain WHY the so called Hydrolic Shock didn't work.Maybe you can explain why the animals that I have shot and seen shoot all had massive bleeding caused by bullets

Yes, I agree with you in the fact that you can sure tell who doesn't have much game killing experience on big game with different weapons...

jwp475, you are giving ONE example, anything could of happened. I shot a Water buffalo with a 416 Rigby, check out the fpe on it. It went through both shoulders. There is a lot of variables that play into what a bullet does.

I have shot black bear with a hard cast bullet and the bullet broke apart on the second shoulder, I have also shot one with the same hard cast bullet, that the bullet went right through the shoulders. Bullets do funny things some times, just because you witness your ONE example does not mean it is going to happen every time.

I have been hunting for over 35 years, I have used, bows, handguns, rifles and muzzleloader's. I have hunted all over the United States including Alaska and Canada. So I think I have a good idea what my guns are capable of doing. "I am a handgun hunter"

An I agree with you also, you can tell who doesn't have much game killing experience on big game with different hunting implements..

You know, I should know better than to argue with fools as someone may not be able to tell the difference. Whitworth, when's the last time you shot a grizzly with .22? And to answer your question, YES IT DOES. Shoot a starling with that .22LR and tell me about the big chunk of meat missing. If you don't believe there's a shock, just get shot with one. YES I HAVE. It leaves one helluva bruise beside the bullet hole. That bruise was not hemmorhaging, it was HYDRAULIC SHOCK. I can introduce you to people who've shot lots of animals with huge rounds that showed absolutely no signs of the hit. I've done it myself. Ask the Cape buffalo guys. Does that mean I'd use a lesser round to shoot it again? NO! Does that mean they want to shoot one with a .22-250? Get real here. There are LAWS of Physics that are inviolate. If you didn't learn about them and you want to argue with them, then that's your loss. Do your REALLY think things like "velocity", "pressure", "energy", and "sectional density" would even be considered by gun and bullet makers if it meant nothing on the receiving end?

JWP, I've shot and killed every big game animal in North America except the BIG bears and a cougar. I've even shot a moose with a .270 which did a superb job, but had it been the firearm of choice (I was bear hunting when it ran in front of a logging truck and had it's back leg broken), it damned well wouldn't have been a .270. So try some other tactic other than "mine's bigger than yours". How many grizzlies have YOU shot with your .45 Long Colt? It seems more obvious that it is you with little experience. A "vital organ" is not where I'm placing a shot to put a dangerous animal down. In fact, I don't shoot deer in "vital organs" unless you think the skeletal structure right above the shoulder is one of them. I save "double lung" shots for my bow. Shooting any animal in the liver or the heart simply means that you hope it runs back towards the truck. Otherwise you have a long tracking job and a longer haul than necessary.

And the original question was about a BACKUP firearm. I have an North American Arms miniature compact .22 WMR and if that's ALL I had in a struggle with a grizzly, then you're damned right, I'd use it. But I'm not stupid enough to GO into grizzly country with a .22 WMR.

George, you missed my point entirely and, you have lousy manners. You made a blanket statement about hydraulic shock being the event that causes a bullet to kill an animal, and somehow you tied the .22 LR and grizzly together........ No matter what causes the size of wound channel, the permanent wound channel results in blood loss which in turn results in a pressure drop, and ultimately death. A shoulder shot has the ability to often catch the heart and lungs as well -- they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Why can't this discussion be civil?

Whitworth, that is positively, unequivocably WRONG. Have you ever butchered your own cows and pigs? One shot to the head kills them, but you quickly cut the throat so that the heart muscle will pump the blood out. I can shoot a deer with a high shoulder shot and there not be much more than a few drops of blood shed. Shoot one in the spine and there's no blood loss. Shoot one in the heart and your animal will be filled with blood as there's no pressure in the arteries or veins to pump it out.

And the "discussion" can be civilized. I think if you'd read back you'll see the comments of JWP and you, yourself in denegrating my comments over my admission of not being a "handgun hunter". As Tom Selleck said Quigley Down Under, "Never said I didn't know how to use one. Said I never much cared for them." I'm also a very strong believer in science and trust in it, biology and physics. I spend more time over dead animals than most of you put together, so I've seen a few things that I wasn't directly responsible for as well. I teach Hunters Ed and Delaware Master Hunter programs. I try, sometime like this in vain, to dispell of wives tales and plain fantasizations about science and physics. This one touched a raw nerve as I often hear students tell others, "I want that bullet to go all the way through so I can have a blood trail." I tell them that if they hit the animal right and all that bullet energy has to be absorbed by the body tissues, the animal won't NEED to be bloodtrailed. It's still a hard point to drive home and this posting shows that there's still a very long way to go if we ever hope to achieve that.

You guys had better be good or your posts will be pulled and sent tp the Moderator Que like mine was by the "pulling fairy" or whatever its called on here. Oh wait it mine that is pulled everyone else is privileged to act as they want. Sorry.

Yes, George, by your post I see that the old energy dump myth is alive and well. I'll take two holes in my intended game every chance I can get. Guess I'll just have to continue to work dispelling this misunderstanding of how things actually work in the real world.

Me_Plat, if you weren't so argumentative, I believe you'd have a better overall experience on the board.

Whitworth, the discussion can be civil, but it turns when people try to say an arrow kill like a bullet. It gets ugly when others try to make someone look like they have no idea about what they are talking about, and the person making ignorant comments without any real knowledge on how bullets work.

Now I do not claim to know everything, but I dam sure know how a bullet kills and how an arrow kills.

If you don't think bullets cause hydraulic shock, shoot a water melon with a 44 Mag or some other big bore gun. It will explode, that is hydraulic shock and it does the same thing inside of an animal. Now take an arrow and shoot a water melon, you just slice right through it, NO Hydraulic shock.

If energy transfer did not mean any thing then please explain why PH's use big guns as back up weapons to there clients? I'll give you a clue, they want to transfer as much energy into the animal and be able to penetrate the vitals from any angle.

What people here are missing here is, we are talking dangerous grizzlies charging you, not a hunting situation.

So, George, by you own admission you don't like two hole in the animal? You don't think they bleed faster from two holes? That Elmer Keith had quite a lot to say about complete pass throughs........ Personally, I want two holes.

There is a big difference between stopping and killing. PHs use big guns to stop dangerous game because of the big bullets they can use with these big cartridges. Big bullets penetrate better and break down the skeleton more effectively to stop the animal quicker.

Pondoro did discuss in depth the greater potential to knock out or stun an elephant with a larger cartridge over the ability of a smaller cartridge. Finn Aagard just explained it as the primordial instinct to grab the bigger club.

Personally, if I knew I was going into big bear country, I'd pack something that started with a ".5" and pay real close attention to what was going on around me at all times.

When I want two holes, I just shoot twice. If I wanted one projectile and two holes, I'd use my bow. Works well and expect to trail an animal. If you shoot an animal with 10,000 FtLbs of energy and it zips right through the animal without expanding or exerting any hydraulic shock, then you're better off using full metal jackets just like the Geneva convention mandates (perhaps you don't want to know that reason either. Sectional density is easily explained when you compare the FMJ bullet to the spitzer.) If, however, you wanted that 10,000 pounds of energy to stay with the animal, it would look just like Redhawks melon. Of course, we're talking silly extremes here, but the science is the same.

Now do you see where the incivility comes from. You're presented with validated factual scientific information and you want to use Elmer Keith to justify you opinion. Elmer should have been satisfied with the .38 S&W instead of lengthening the case and adding powder to make it a .357 Magnum or botheing to invent the .44 Magnum using your reasoning with him. Today, most ethical hunters think that both those rounds in a handgun are "marginal at best" and should be used at very short ranges for deer sized animals. The reason is that they loose energy exponentially with distance. Speed doesn't kill, energy does. Like the joke about falling. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop.

I wish I could show you my Water buffalo video. I made a text book shot on him at 135 yards, perfect broadside shot, the bullet never exited the animal, I found it on the opposite side just under the hide. The buffalo stood there about 15 seconds but never went 5 steps and fell over.

No exit hole and no trail job was needed. Shot placement, correct bullet selection and total energy transfer. Gun was a 416 Rigby and 300 gr. Barnes X bullets. 2400 fps and over 4500 fpe.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
There is a big difference between stopping and killing. PHs use big guns to stop dangerous game because of the big bullets they can use with these big cartridges. Big bullets penetrate better and break down the skeleton more effectively to stop the animal quicker.

Pondoro did discuss in depth the greater potential to knock out or stun an elephant with a larger cartridge over the ability of a smaller cartridge. Finn Aagard just explained it as the primordial instinct to grab the bigger club.

Personally, if I knew I was going into big bear country, I'd pack something that started with a ".5" and pay real close attention to what was going on around me at all times.

Thanks MS Hitman, that has been my point all along.

I think that we actually agree on more than we disagree. That said, I mention Elmer Keith in that he was a firm proponent of pass throughs -- meaning full penetration as animals tend to bleed out faster. I do believe Elmer took his fair share of game in his time. A lot can be said of him and most of it positive. He is not a bad person to reference. But, I digress. I still believe -- as do many more accomplished hunters, in complete penetration (by complete penetration I mean that there is also an exit hole) no matter what caliber they are shooting. Now, having shot game with both .45 Colt and .454 Casull (actually with the Casull loaded down to .45 Colt levels -- hey, I was experimenting!), with similar weight and constructed bullets, the extra 300 fps (and the increased muzzle energy as a result of the speed increase) doesn't seem to contribute any in the speed of the kill. These handguns don't produce much kinetic energy to start with, and I think it doesn't play the big role that many believe. This is where the argument began and somewhere along the way went off on several tangents........

Wait, what were we talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Now do you see where the incivility comes from. You're presented with validated factual scientific information and you want to use Elmer Keith to justify you opinion.



George, for every one of your arguments there is one that runs counter that can also be called "scientific fact". What you presented is the side of the arguement that you personally agree with. The kinetic energy theory (and a theory is what it is), is far from dogma.



Today, most ethical hunters think that both those rounds in a handgun are "marginal at best" and should be used at very short ranges for deer sized animals. .

George, have you ever seen what some of these handgun calibers are capable of? You underestimate their effectiveness. I don't feel that I need to limit my .475 Linebaugh's use to deer-sized game.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
I wish I could show you my Water buffalo video. I made a text book shot on him at 135 yards, perfect broadside shot, the bullet never exited the animal, I found it on the opposite side just under the hide. The buffalo stood there about 15 seconds but never went 5 steps and fell over
No exit hole and no trail job was needed. Shot placement, correct bullet selection and total energy transfer. Gun was a 416 Rigby and 300 gr. Barnes X bullets. 2400 fps and over 4500 fpe.

You should have seen the Asian Buffalo that Jack Huntington took with his 500 JRH revolver, as it went down as fast as yours with a complete pass through of both shoulders. The bullet a 425 grain Flat point hard cast at 1375 FPS for 1784 FPE.. WOW no difference.

Since I started hunting with a shotgun at the age of 9, I have 47 years of hunting experience. Since my Dad made his living raising Cattle I have also seen my fairshare of cattle slaughterd.
George I am glad that I have taken a truck load of game before you killed[B]every Big game animal in North America except the big Bears. I also lived in Alaska for 7 years and I have acctualy taken a Big Bear in self defense with a big bore revolver, and it worked perfectly. You claim to know the facts, well whose facts and where did you find these facts? Your facts certainly fly in the face of Dr. Martin Factler's facts. By all means carry on with your misrepresentation of the facts to your clueless students......

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Now do you see where the incivility comes from. You're presented with validated factual scientific information and you want to use Elmer Keith to justify you opinion.



George, for every one of your arguments there is one that runs counter that can also be called "scientific fact". What you presented is the side of the arguement that you personally agree with. The kinetic energy theory (and a theory is what it is), is far from dogma.



Today, most ethical hunters think that both those rounds in a handgun are "marginal at best" and should be used at very short ranges for deer sized animals. .

George, have you ever seen what some of these handgun calibers are capable of? You underestimate their effectiveness. I don't feel that I need to limit my .475 Linebaugh's use to deer-sized game.

Of course not the 475 is perfectly capable of taken any big game animal in North America including the big Bears cleanly and very effectively. The unknowing shgall remain the unknowing...

Barnes bullets recently performed a test to determine how much energy is "wasted" by a bullet exiting. They made a 7"X 7"X 24" block of ballistic gelitin and shot it with a 30-06 and a 300 RUM at 100 yards. They set a chronograph in front of the block to record impact velocity and one at the end to record exit velocity. Barnes used federal factory loaded ammo in both the 30-06 and 300 RUM, loaded with the 180 TSX for both. The muzzle velocity for the 300 RUM was 3250 FPS in it's 23.05" barrel. Muzzle velocity for the 30-06 was 2854 FPS in its 25.76" barrel. Impact velocity for the 300 RUM at 100 yards was 3007 FPS. Impact velocity for the 30-06 was 2628 FPS. Exit velocity for the 300 RUM was 47 FPS for 1FPE certainly such a vast amount of wasted energy. The exit velocity of the 30-06 was244 FPS for 24 FPE certainly a lot of wasted energy

You two are incorrigible. Those aren't MY LAWS OF PHYSICS. I didn't make them up and no one inside or outside the gun community has ever dispelled a single one of them. Hell, I met Elmer Keith. He was a grouchy old fart like I am now, and twice as opinionated. I was taught to shoot a handgun by one of his "student's". That being what it is, as I continue to TRY and educate you two: If the bullet passes THROUGH and animal it obviously must have had energy left over that wasn't used IN the animal. During Elmer's time, the 30-30 was the standard deer gun and Jim Jordan had killed a worlds record with a .25-20 or something absolutely silly. The .30-06 was as big as it got and the old black powder carry overs of the .45 and .44 pistols were about it.

And I MOST CERTAINLY DO KNOW what the modern pistol will do. Why is it that you guys need some bells and whistles to understand that I don't HUNT with pistols, but I'm a certified Smith & Wesson pistol instructor for the state Master Hunter Program. I own a .500 S&W Mag and a .460 XVR Smith. I did own a .454 Casull but gave it up when I got the .460 to shoot that round for me. I KNOW WHAT A HANDGUN ROUND WILL DO, but I'm also aware of what it WON'T DO. I have half a dozen other pistols here that I shoot often but I expect each one of them to perform within the confines of science and physics. I can't change those laws and I guess I won't ever change the way you two insist on believing differently. I'll stop now. You take your .45 LC as a backup and I pray that you never have to use it. I don't have any doubts you're going to get swatted around a bit before that animal dies of a "fatal hit in a vital organ" probably about 30 seconds after you die of blunt force trauma and bear bites.

Good grief!! I was trying to say that loaded with the same bullet, the .460 or .454 Casull will not be any more effective -- oh forget it! I guess we can agree to disagree!

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
You two are incorrigible. Those aren't MY LAWS OF PHYSICS. I didn't make them up and no one inside or outside the gun community has ever dispelled a single one of them. Hell, I met Elmer Keith. He was a grouchy old fart like I am now, and twice as opinionated. I was taught to shoot a handgun by one of his "student's". That being what it is, as I continue to TRY and educate you two: If the bullet passes THROUGH and animal it obviously must have had energy left over that wasn't used IN the animal. During Elmer's time, the 30-30 was the standard deer gun and Jim Jordan had killed a worlds record with a .25-20 or something absolutely silly. The .30-06 was as big as it got and the old black powder carry overs of the .45 and .44 pistols were about it.

1-And I MOST CERTAINLY DO KNOW what the modern pistol will do. Why is it that you guys need some bells and whistles to understand that I don't HUNT with pistols, but I'm a certified Smith & Wesson pistol instructor for the state Master Hunter Program. I own a .500 S&W Mag and a .460 XVR Smith. I did own a .454 Casull but gave it up when I got the .460 to shoot that round for me. 2- I KNOW WHAT A HANDGUN ROUND WILL DO, but I'm also aware of what it WON'T DO. I have half a dozen other pistols here that I shoot often but I expect each one of them to perform within the confines of science and physics. I can't change those laws and I guess I won't ever change the way you two insist on believing differently. I'll stop now. You take your .45 LC as a backup and I pray that you never have to use it. I don't have any doubts you're going to get swatted around a bit before that animal dies of a "fatal hit in a vital organ" probably about 30 seconds after you die of blunt force trauma and bear bites.

1- I don't think that you do.



2- I don't think that you have any idea what a properly loaded handgun is capable of.


To stop instantly any charging animal a central nervous system hit is required and a properly laoded 45 Colt is more than capable of that..

Read this on handgun wounding


http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm


It will require Acrobate Reader

That's a good piece you listed there. You should read some of the footnotes referenced there as well as understanding what "temporary cavitation" means. Whether YOU think I know what I'm talking about is irrelevant to me. I'm done arguing with you. I just hope others reading this are smarter about handguns than you imagine yourself to be.

Unfortunately I do understand what temporary means.. And you you should be done argueing since you have no legetimate argument...

I guess you think your the only one right here, are you trying to convince others and just trying to convince yourself?

It is not rocket science here, one day you might get it right...lol

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
I guess you think your the only one right here, are you trying to convince others and just trying to convince yourself?

It is not rocket science here, one day you might get it right...lol

I hope that you get it....

Posted by Phil Shoemaker on 24 Hour Campfire;

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php...13576/page/1/fpart/2



458Win
Campfire Regular


Registered: 01/04/05
Posts: 512
Loc: Circle Hot Spring, AK


The bears today are no larger or tougher than the bears of 50 years ago when the 30-06 was by far the most popular rifle carried by Alaskan guides. Andy Simms and Hosea Sarber and a hundred others found nothing wanting with the 30-06 then, and now, with the bullets we have today, the 30-06 is even better.

Contrary to some opinions, guides who recommend 30 calibers for bears do so to insure that they do not have to shoot their client's bears.

ANYONE WHO CLAIMS THE 30-06 IS INNEFFECTIVE HAS EITHER NOT TRIED ONE - OR IS UNINTENTIALLY COMMENTING ON THEIR MARKSMANSHIP.
_________________________
Phil Shoemaker

When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging...

I am tired...

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging...

I am tired...

Good advice heed it............

Wound caused by a projectile produceing 2700 FPE 180 grain from a 300 win mag with am impact velocity of 2600 FPS





A wound in the same Elk as above only this time from a 500 JRH 440 Grain Flat Point Hard Cast at a muzzle velocity of 950 FPS for 888 FPE






It is apparent to most that the projectile with the least amount of energy produce the most damage...

By all means keep digging...

SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT. A bigger bullet diamiter is going to make a bigger hole. What a homer.

I am done here. Keep talking to yourself....

GSSP, do what I do use the rifle and carry a hangun with a wide meplat and velocity that you can handle.

I would opt for the 300grn from Beartooth. I use 345's from Beartooth in my 45 Colt, a Ruger Bisley 4 5/8's. They were left overs from my Casull adventures and they are accurate and heavy enough for my use.

Still use a rifle and have not needed to use my handguns. A couple of close calls but never yet. I would not hesitate if the need arose....

regards,

I have to see if I finally have this right! A revolver bullet creates a small permanent wound channel, needs penetration and kills by blood loss.
An arrow creates a small permanent wound channel, needs penetration and kills by blood loss.
Naw, the FBI has it wrong as do all the handgun hunters and archers with any experience.
All the animals I have taken did not die from the puny gunshot or arrow, they died of fright.
The huge blood trails do not mean a thing, what I wanted to do was blow up the inside of the animal instead.
I admit being wrong and will only use a .600 nitro with fragmenting bullets from now on and I need to find explosive arrows.
I guess being run through with a sword or spear won't work either---NO ENERGY!
Maybe my .475 will work if I step it up to 4000 fps. Chincy .44 just won't work anymore!
All of you that claim to have killed game with the .357 are just dreaming---Can't happen. It will only blow up tweety birds!
What you really want is a tiny entrance hole, a huge explosion inside and no exit hole. When all the blood stays inside, it kills faster, better learn to run as fast as the animal so you don't lose it.
I am sorry I sold my rifles, I sure miss the bloodshot meat and chewing bullet fragments. Darn funny they went the same distance as a revolver hit deer. Let's see, a .50 BMG costs how much? Bang-flop is not enough, need bang-fly.
I will never understand the deer I shot with the Ruger Old Army and a round ball. Standing next to my fence, I hit it and it went over the fence and fell in a heap on the other side. Someone must have shot it with a .300 at the same instant I shot. Or the smoke cloud scared it to death. Darn gun must have 10 tons of energy!
I appreciate the knowledge I learn here. Makes me want to give up hunting because my guns are not big enough.
Shrapnel from a grenade won't kill either, you have to stuff it down the enemy's throat first. Energy dump, you know!

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
1-SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT. A bigger bullet diamiter is going to make a bigger hole. What a homer.

2-I am done here. Keep talking to yourself....

1- My point is that ealier you and George stated that FPE was the Holy Grail of wound ballistics and that is not so.. Now do you get the point.

2- There is no dought as to that point, I'm glad that you finaly realized it......

Exit hole in Zebra Hide made by a 338 Federal at 100 yards shooting 210 grain TSX





Damage to Zebra's heart by the 210 grain TSX





According to rehawk1 and Gearge this zebra would have died sooner with a rifle that had more ENERGY and shooting a bullet that FRAGMENTED and did not exit. I do not subscribe to thier THEROY (and that is all that it is), because the HEART is destroyed already even with the Paultry amount of energy produced by the 338 Federal and the WASTED energy of the exiting bullet