Nor do I care about energy figures standing alone. But read my next blog and you'll see that momentum is used plus cross-section area of bullet and sectional density. They all count depending on placement and bullet construction.

But given equal construction and placement, I'll choose the 9.3 X 62 over the .338 Win for 1000 lb game on up because it has more momentum and 17% more cross-section area.

Then, as with any cartridge, it can be down loaded both in velocity and bullet weight.

I bought the 9.3 X 62 over a .338 RUM on purpose. I was familiar with the ballistics of a .340 Wby, and knew what it could do. The 9.3 X 62 is not as flat shooting as either a .338 Win or Wby, but it shoots flat enough for a large animal at 500.

BTW, my second son has an M700 Rem in .338 Win., and I've owned a couple of 'em. In .338", I prefer the .340 Wby.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

There's one other thing I'll mention in passing: The idea of case volume being a guarantee that the more powder one case can hold over another in the same caliber will create more energy or velocity from the same bullet is NOT always true!

There are too many variables. "If all things were equal", maybe, but they never, or rarely, are.

If anyone knows, tell me how it is possible to load a 24" #1 Ruger in .45-70, firing a 500gr Hornady RN at 2100 fps at a COL of 2.83" at somewhat less than 64,000 psi! It's doable, has been done, and tested at a reputable powder company in the USA!

Then, how is it possible that I'm getting 150 fps more MV from 286s in my 9.3 X 62 than what I could get using RL-15, and at less pressure? It's being done!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
AC

It is all about energy ! caliber, bullet design, velocity, whether the bullet deforms, fragments, tumbles, penetrates straigt..... all are just ways to manipulate how energy will be delivered to the target.

The response of the target, whether there is a big wound, small wound whether it lives or dies on the spot..... all the result of where the energy was delivered and what that specific target does with the energy delivered.

This is fundamental to how guns, bullets or even spears, arrows etc work.

ALF,

One can have a load of energy, but in-sufficient projectile momentum to do the job,..correct?
One can have less energy but still sufficient projectile momentum to do the job,... correct?

An object can contain a load of energy but not be moving in any direction[no momentum],..correct?
-So how can it be all about energy?

A projectile must have momentum in order to be able to travel in a specific linear path,
in order to be able to do its job.
Even if I simply drop/release a projectile, the fall/force of gravity gives it momentum.

If I released a 1000gn broadhead from the ceiling and a 1000gn hunting bullet from the ceiling,
I know which would cause the more severe trauma to my bare foot.



If I fired a broadhead through an animals heart and it exits,
or if I had fired the same broad head and it impacts identically at two or three times the speed,[closer range]
and it also exits after the heart,....would the respective difference in velocity,energy & momentum of the arrow
[going on to travel completely through the animal in both cases],
make any real different to the killing effect on the animal?

the only way they match up is with cast bullets.

Thank you, Alf.

It is all about energy, but the transfer of energy is affected by the shape of the incoming object, its integrity/malleability/strength, size and weight, and the elasticity, size, internal composition, current health(vitality) and location of impact in the living being.

In other words, while energy transfer is an ultimate abstract trait that can be discussed in varying degrees of precision, alot more goes into hunting considerations. We all know that a bullet in the chest cavity has a much greater potential for lethality than a tackle by an American footballer.

Point of impact, animal, bullet shape and size, bullet composition, momentum, and energy all play a role in evaluation. Nevertheless, you are correct to point out the silliness of ignoring one of these factors, especially something as ultimately basic as "energy."

It seems to me that the consideration of energy as a primary focus of the ability to drop your quarry was commonly applied back in the day before the Magnum craze really took root, when standard calibers and cup and core or a simple solid were the norm. And generalizations like "minimum of 1000 fs to effectivly kill an Elk" were relativly applicable, and bullet design wasnt as much of a contributing factor as long as you had enough of a bullet.

But the magnum craze and the resulting premium bullets opened up a whole nother can of worms. Now it is frankly uncommon for a lack of "energy" to be an issue, and exreme penetration can be had from much lesser slugs now. Not a lot of 30-30 hunters left for example, and most modern rifles surpass that old standby by a good margin. In other words, most modern rifles seem to be powerfull enough that energy is not really an issue, generaly speaking. And so now we have evolved to the point where some claim energy doesnt kill. Wrong..

Alf is right. Try killing a Grizzly with a pellet gun and you'll develop an appreciation of a rifles ability to deliver energy real quick.. (not that Ive ever tried it)

The points made about energy expelled into the quarry is a good one that many folks seem to overlook today.

Here is an intresting bit from chuck hawks.com reguarding energy and bullet design;

"I would submit that among modern bullets, over penetration is a bigger problem than under penetration. In order to advertise that "Brand-X Bullets retain 99% of their original weight," manufacturers have created a generation of bullets that expand minimally at modest impact velocities, leave a narrow wound track and expend most of their energy on the landscape beyond the animal. Even when perfectly hit, the all too common result is a wounded animal that runs a long way before expiring. Naturally, this substantially reduces the hunter's chance of recovery".

Same reason expanding bullets as opposed to solids were designed in the first place.

Im going to go get on my welders suit to repel the flames now.

Oh, the perfect compromise between a 338 and a 9,3 is clearly a 35 Whelen or a 358 Norma..

I never heard of the 9.3x62 until I shot a lion with one in Namibia using 285 gr factory bullets. It worked fine. I rented the gun from the PH.

For long distance, I would go with the .338 or .300WM.

458 Only,
In your 3rd paragraph you mention that the .338 does, in fact, shoot flater than the 9.3x62, and that is all I am saying or said.

I agree that SD and cross section of bullet are determining factors in killing large animals and they work pretty darn good even on rabbits for that matter.

As to 500 yards, thats just getting out of my comfort zone with either caliber on big game as I worry about doping wind and drop out that far so I pass on it..I know my capabilities..400 yards with a good rest, lots of time and a broad side shot perhaps, but mostly I depend on my ability to get at least within 300 yards and even closer and it works 98% of the time. Add to that that I can hunt every day of the hunting seasons if I so choose, makes it easier to turn down those iffy shots.

So like my original posts I prefer the .338 Win to my 9.3x62 at extended ranges over 200 yards, as I opt for the 210 Nosler at 3020 FPS as like you said it will shoot flater, and I have never had any problem with killing power at that distance. In fact I have not had an issure with killing power with either caliber, even on Cape Buffalo, but there I'll opt for the 9.3x62.

Your note on the 340 WBY being balistically better than the .338 Win. Without a doubt that is true, in that it is somewhat better, but not enough for me to justify the additional and snappy recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

Here is an intresting bit from chuck hawks.com reguarding energy and bullet design;

"I would submit that among modern bullets, over penetration is a bigger problem than under penetration. In order to advertise that "Brand-X Bullets retain 99% of their original weight," manufacturers have created a generation of bullets that expand minimally at modest impact velocities, leave a narrow wound track and expend most of their energy on the landscape beyond the animal. Even when perfectly hit, the all too common result is a wounded animal that runs a long way before expiring. Naturally, this substantially reduces the hunter's chance of recovery".

Same reason expanding bullets as opposed to solids were designed in the first place.

Im going to go get on my welders suit to repel the flames now.

Hawks claims that bullets that expand minimally and penetrate more,... are responsible for more incidences of unrecovered game?
Why is it then PHs have solids stacked underneath their soft,for when they urgently/really need to stop-anchor DG?
Would it be they prefer a bullet to exit rather than fail to reach the CNS/vital area of the animal?

When cartridge & bullet are sufficient to do the job, Animals will usually escape because of poor shot placement.
Having said that, you could drill large game through the heart with either Broadhead, 7x57 or .458lott and the
creature could still manage to travel the same distance on retreat into the thick stuff - and out of ones sight.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Perhaps One has to try and explain why it's all about energy and how momentum is or is not important.

How can Momentum not be important?


Momentum determines the amount of FORCE which a projectile has available to it for penetration.

Momentum has both amplitude (an ‘amount’ value) and a direction.
Because any measurement of momentum has a specified direction it quantifies the net force acting in that single, straight line, direction.
Momentum is, therefore, known as a linear function, and is a measurement of the force of forward movement of an object.

KINETIC ENERGY: When an object is in motion, it has kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is defined as the total energy of a body in motion.
Kinetic energy is scalar, or NON-directional, in nature - it is the TOTAL energy, of all types, in all directions.[bang, flash,rotational energies,heat(friction)]
That is: kinetic energy has magnitude, but it does not have direction. (Note that kinetic energy is defined as ENERGY, not as FORCE.)

A projectile in linear motion does 'FORCE' a path through living tissue, it does not 'ENERGY' a linear path through living tissue.

Without momentum there in no linear motion/path to allow the projectile to be able to exert penetrative linear force on a target.

When football players tackle or defend they are concerned about having enough momentum to divide, break-up or displace the opposition.
If he runs and hits with enough momentum, he can transfer his momentum into the opposing player[overcoming opposition momentum]
and even drive him backward.
When I hit the white snooker ball with a cue, I am transferring my arms momentum into the cue,
The cue then helps facilitate transfer of that momentum into the stationary white ball.
The white then travels to hit a stationary colored ball,transferring momentum to the colored ball.

-
It's been 45 years, a measure of time, since I did university physics, but it still looks good.

Meanwhile, a practical question arises. Many advocate a medium to slow bullet so that a person may "eat up to the bullet hole" in a recovered animal. Others prefer highest velocities, assuming that a greater wound channel and some bloodshot meat is a better guarantee of recovering an animal.

Where do I stand on this question? Well, our current 338 load does a modest but authoritative 2838fps with a 225grainTTSX for 4025ftlbs of potential work.

We like that so much that our 416Rigby load does 2825fps with a 350grainTTSX for 6200 ftlbs of potential work. (Yes, this last load is way above SAAMI/CIP but 3000+ftlbs below 416Weatherby loads. think of it as a 416 wildcat using Hornady brass and CZ action that happens to match 416Rigby capacity.)

Is there a killing and retrieval advantage to extra energy?
It depends on the bullet integrity and diameter. I would not recommend sending a cup and core bullet at higher velocities. They tend to peel back, or worse, leave only a jacket for recovery. I prefer a little more bullet integrity when dangerous animals are around, yet I like to run things at higher energies for wider wound channels and work inside the animal. Rathcoombe's Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories was helpful. Yes, Michael's Terminals, too.

Alf-

Think of 'bloodshot meat' as a parable.

Would you rather send a
.338" 225TTSX at a roan-sized animal at 2800fps or a
.366" 320 grain cup and core at 2300fps?

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:


Bloodshot meat is not a function of projectile behaviour at all, it's a post injury artefact and is the result of an intact and functioning cardiovascular system. It is caused by bleeding into the tissue as a result of massive trauma to the vascular bed. If you shoot the same bullet from the same gun into a dead animal with no blood pressure there is no bloodshot meat.

Blood in a living organism is shear thinning[non-Newtownian pseudoplsatic fluid].
In non-Newtonian fluid, the relation between the shear stress & the shear rate differs.

Blood contains colloidal [dissolved] ingredients and ingredients in suspension.
Suspended ingredients can be separated by a centrifuge. Not so with the dissolved ingredients.

Colloidal shear thinning fluids respond instantaneously to changes in shear rate.
However, blood is also thixotropic, meaning its ability to exhibit shear thinning [when stressed or agitated] is time dependent.

Q./ Apart from an intact & functioning cardiovascular system contributing to the effect of bloodshot meat,
Does the shear thinning behaviour of blood in living tissue,
additionally contribute to how much bloodshot effect/reaction will be present in meat?

ie; the violent stress & agitation caused by the HV projectile would cause blood to become thinner[less viscous] in and around the wound,
resulting in increased haemorrhage-dissipation[or release] before the process of congealment takes place.
In other words,..blood will initially get thinner before it eventually gets thicker[congeals] in the traumatised area.

quote:

Would you rather send a .338" 225TTSX at a roan-sized animal at 2800fps or a .366" 320 grain cup and core at 2300fps?

Bad comparison...better would be 225 grains at 2700 ft/sec with the frontal area of .366...not difficult to do.

Hmmm…while you goys argue about ballistics, I just hunt with a .338WM in Alaska where "metric socket-size" ammo can't be found locally. I don't really know if ballistics kill moose and other Alaska game, however. All I know is that my .338 kills them dead

quote:

Originally posted by Ray Alaska:
Hmmm…while you goys argue about ballistics, I just hunt with a .338WM in Alaska where "metric socket-size" ammo can't be found locally. I don't really know if ballistics kill moose and other Alaska game, however. All I know is that my .338 kills them dead

And in Tanzania, where someone might find 9.3 ammo, it isn't legal for buffalo. (We import our own ammo anyway.) The 338WM is a little better for the medium to big antelope since it shoots flatter, though I'd happily hunt with either. And when my wife gets a 'lefty' version, she'll go "legal" with 375Ruger.

There you have it, politicians messing with hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Hawks claims that bullets that expand minimally and penetrate more,... are responsible for more incidences of unrecovered game?
Why is it then PHs have solids stacked underneath their soft,for when they urgently/really need to stop-anchor DG?
Would it be they prefer a bullet to exit rather than fail to reach the CNS/vital area of the animal?

Obviously the question of solids and DG has to do with very tough hides, resilient beasts and large, powerfull calibers. Not much of a "typical hunting" situation for most of us. And if penetration were the single, end's all parameter for killing game, expanding bullets would be meaningless.

The right tool for the job..

quote:

Obviously the question of solids and DG has to do with very tough hides, resilient beasts and large, powerfull calibers. Not much of a "typical hunting" situation for most of us. And if penetration were the single, end's all parameter for killing game, expanding bullets would be meaningless.

The right tool for the job..

A good rule of thumb is looking for a bullet that will reliably take an animal 3/4 away, where a person need to aim inside the front of rear leg, through the belly into the chest area, and to reach the far front leg/neck area.
That is the performance that I expect and that may change one's evaluations when the animal is under 300 pounds or over 300 pounds. I rate penetration as a primary factor over expansion. It's just the way I think and plan. I would limit 'ballistic tip' type bullets to broadside-only shots. Since I can't guarantee that in a particular hunt, I always go with something tougher (monolithic expanding, h-frame, heavy-bonded) in a sleek package with a good BC.

Fortunately for this thread, both the 338 and 9.3 have plenty of sturdy bullets that will work nicely on waterbuck, roan, hartebeest, and eland, not to mention elk and moose. If the bullet can be trusted 3/4 away, it will work great on a broadside, too.

I am a fan of big slow long bullets with a lot of SD and cross section. I am also a fan of high velocity lighter bullets

Bottom line is both work exceptionally well.

The only difference I can see is trajectory, so I pick one that blends with the type of hunting I will be doing, the size of the animal may or may not make a difference..

Its just not all that big a deal IMO...

I love the 7x57 with 175 gr. Noslers as Nosler are good about expansion at entry and exit, and at about any range, but range is somewhat limited I'm told,...I also love those 130 gr. Speers at 3100 FPS for cross canyon shooting.

I like the .338 for extended range conditions and the 9.3x62 for ranges up to say 200 or so yards, and in the thick stuff..Other than that they are pretty much equal.

Both work exceptionally well and if fact I could switch hit with both of them if I had too and not feel all that helpless...

Then the penetration business?, penetration is not the most responsible for lost game as Hawk so claims, apparantly to push his butter soft come apart bullets and I have a number of them that did. HIs bullets are fine in the old slow big Win. calibers however.. Bottom line on this is both types of bullets work pretty darn well under their particular circumstanses,

A bullet that expends all its energy inside and animal is a misnomer in the first place as to why it worked! The bullet worked because it just tore hell out of some animals insides and stopped on the off side hide...

The same can be said for the two hole bunch (I'm one of these demons)as that is a bullet that just tore hell out of some animals insides, cut a big old hole going out the other side and wasted all that "energy" in Dar es Salaam! it left plenty of "energy" inside on the way out and it left great gobs of blood on mother natures fawna, I like that the most...

Either way the end results are the same if you stick the bullet in the right spot..Just like a can of beer, punch a hole in the SOB, let out all the juice, and ya got a dead soldier.

Both work quit well.

This topic makes for great conversation, but that's about all its worth..Campfire fun!

Now Ray,

...to add to the "fun", I agree with 95 - 98% of what you're sayin', except that a bull moose (or similar size animal) is BIG when viewed broadside, even at 500 yards. It's equivalent to shootin' a 150 lb Texas whitetail at 250 yards, as far as size of target is concerned. Of course, wind deflection is another matter that must be taken into account. But given a broadside shot using a rest, it's quite doable.

Yes, I believe in good bullets, kinetic energy, momentum, good placement and large calibers for large game. All that in my next blog due sometime before the week-end, DV.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Obviously the question of solids and DG has to do with very tough hides, resilient beasts and large, powerfull calibers.
Not much of a "typical hunting" situation for most of us. And if penetration were the single, end's all parameter for killing game, expanding bullets would be meaningless.

The right tool for the job..

I dont recall saying penetration was the 'single end all' parameter for killing game.

but I do prefer modern expanding bullets that offer more penetration than other softs.
I prefer a bullet to use its momentum for more penetration as opposed to greater expansion/excessive parachute effect.

Eg; I never found the Failsafe lacking in killing effect at close or much longer ranges,
[despite it not exhibiting the cross sectional area of other softs like a Woodliegh or A-frame]
and the Failsafe acting like a FN solid when its petals have sheared.
It seems to exhibit sufficient expansion [or X sect area] without sacrificing too much penetration...mAking it[for me at least]
.. a more versatile bullet....[I never found it to be the wrong tool for the job]

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
This obsession with momentum baffles me, having difficulty in wrapping my head around Trax's last post

Alf,

Momentum of a bullet is arrested quicker by the greater parachute effect/ larger X-sectional area of a bullet....correct?
With a lower cross sectional area bullet, its momentum will take longer too arrest, hence more penetration....correct?
The two different expanded dia. bullets may both still end up stopping in the animal,
but the less expanding one, may just travel further within the animal.
They may even have very similar wound channel volumes, [wound channel may just be longer and more narrow,for the less expanded bullet]
Wound channel volumes may be same or quite similar, but the dimensions of the two wound channels quite different.

Or to put it differently for those stuck on 'energy';
The differing design & construction of various bullets, facilitates them to dump their energy over a shorter or longer path/course through the animal.

The more rapid a projectiles momentum is arrested, the quicker/more rapid the projectile dumps its energy- ........correct?

-
Two or three other items need to be factored in:

1. the 'non-con' wound channel is typically increased in width mechanically by having fragments move away from the main vector/trajectory of travel at greater angles and for longer sustained tracks than traditional disintegration of lead or ripping back of copper.

2. velocity affects the wound channel of a blunt object. A fast, flat-nosed solid will have a wider wound channel than a slower FN solid.

3. there are temporary wound channels where the elasticity of the target is not broken and permanent wound channels where elasticity of the target is broken.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

The slow heavy projectile experiences less drag, thus deeper penetration.

Finn Aagaard found that lighter faster mono metal Barnes X penetrated more than heavier slower premium cup cores.
To the extent that he switched to make lighter BarnesX his std load in .30/06 in order to be able to exploit that Xtra penetration
on offer from the newer generation of bullets.......or was the extra penetration all just a figment of his imagination?

If we fire a 225gn monometal and 225gn A-frame at same high velocity,
the mono looses it petals reducing its frontal area...while the A-frame typically increases & keeps its expanded diameter,
- Which is likely to be arrested quicker during passage through the animal?

And one must remember that as the faster bullet slows down inside a target, it will reach the velocity and momentum of the slower projectile at impact, at which point their continuing penetration might be equal if the frontal area and 'BC' were equal and the target medium uniform.

ps: the 'drag' that is increased exponentially from velocity is concomittant with 'work'. It would seem that drag in the target medium is a good thing, it is more work being done to the target.

What bothers me is when people claim that slow is a better penetrator, as if that were a physical law.

It all depends on the bullet: its frontal area, deformation qualities, its retained mass, and its energy//momentum and the vageries of the target medium.

Slow bullets with high sectional density and of cup and core design, do penetrate better in that resistents to the bullet inside the animal is less because it expands slower and that results in a smaller frontal obstruction wherein very fast velocity opening the bullet up to double or triple expansion, tends to slow things down..I am sure you know that.

This, contrary to some reports, also applies to monolithic HP bullets, but to a lesser degree, IMO.

I only base that on what I have experienced and came to a conclusion on the subject a long time ago and have never had any reason to think otherwise.

I don't doubt that a harder bullet going faster might upset the apple core, and the monolithics have proven that to some extent, and have become the holy grail of light bullet fans, but in such cases as the big bores I still would prefer a heavy monolithic to a lighter one, I know for a fact that in the 416 and 404 the 400 gr. is the better penetrator by a moderate, but sugnificant amount than the 350 gr., or so it seems to me at least on Buffalo, and based also on a few observations on shoulder shot elephants, but not enough to bet large amounts of gold on!

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:


Standardise both projectiles so both have the same physical qualities and behaviour then compare one variable only in the form of mass and you will find mass trumps velocity in the penetration game.
(it has to because its a physical law go ask Mr Newton )

Alf,
Fortunately hunters are not forced to use or stay with just one standard of design & construction in hunting projectiles.
They are permitted to exercise their options.

I recall penetration tests where:
- a GScustom 7mm-120HV[2900mv], penetrated about as much as 7mm 175gn NP[2400mv]....both 17.1"
- a 165gn failsafe[2800mv] penetrated 26", 220NP[2470mv] penetrated 20.5" Woodleigh 220gn[2330mv] penetrated 11.7"

Trax,
True, the monolithics have changed the name of the game to some extent, but as with most things some have carried it too far..I do believe that you can drop down to the next lighter bullet with a monolithic and get simular or sometime better penetration, but when these guys go to a monolithic such as the 180 gr. in the .338 as compared to the 250 gr. Nosler in the .338 they have gone over the top and I can tell you on heavy animals the 180 is not the best choice. This is especially true on DG such as Buffalo..If I choose a monolithic or a cup and core or soldered core for buffalo in a 416 I go with a 400 gr. In a 458 I will stay with the 500 gr.

On deer and such, it probably makes no differenct one way or the other..Just my two cents, but my head is made up..There is a place for all the good bullets we have.

I love that the 338 with 225 to 250g bullets mirrors the trajectory of my 30-06 with 180 to 200g bullets.

The 338 Win with 250g bullets is a lot of gun. I wonder what the 9.3 can do that the 338 in that loading cannot. Bugger all I would suggest.

I consider it a win when even proponents of a particular belted magnum ponder at length and declare my favorite unbelted standard cartridge to be roughly similar.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
I consider it a win when even proponents of a particular belted magnum ponder at length and declare my favorite unbelted standard cartridge to be roughly similar.

Indeed, its a good example of how a larger bore diameter can be just as useful as higher case capacity.

Massive doses of slow burning powder are not the only pathway to useful velocity of bullets of suitable weight.

A bit like the 7mm Rem Mag vs 30-06.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

The slow heavy projectile experiences less drag, thus deeper penetration.

Finn Aagaard found that lighter faster mono metal Barnes X penetrated more than heavier slower premium cup cores.
To the extent that he switched to make lighter BarnesX his std load in .30/06 in order to be able to exploit that Xtra penetration
on offer from the newer generation of bullets.......or was the extra penetration all just a figment of his imagination?

You may not have said that penetration was the ends all parameter, but you are clearly obsessed with it. And momentum vs energy is a silly argument over semantics. It is just a different way of saying the same thing. Mass times velocity! What you call "the parachute effect", I call a bullet expending energy into the quarry. Same thing, different angle. Ballistic gelatin demonstrates quite clearly the difference between a "parachute effect" and a "pencil wound" and which one causes more damage. But again this is all realtive to the job at hand and the tool in hand.
Alf nailed it when he stated "Penetration is the result of action vs reaction".

The only way a slow bullet can penetrate more than a fast one, all other variables being equal, is if the fast one sheds more mass in the process. And either approach works, the key point is striking a ballance to effectively cause sufficent damage. A guy could opine that is the beauty of the Partition, you get the best of both worlds..

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

You may not have said that penetration was the ends all parameter, but you are clearly obsessed with it.

Obecessed??.. not at ALL!

With the variety of bullet design on the market today, one can choose a design that suites them best.
i.e.; more expansion less penetration OR Less expansion more penetration... I simply prefer the later.
You are free to choose otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
A guy could opine that is the beauty of the Partition, you get the best of both worlds..

Mr.Nosler began his process of creating the NP after shooting moose with his .300magnum loaded with a more
ordinary design cup core. That cup core design failed to deliver the penetration required.
Does that mean he then had an obsession simply because he now focused on wanting & needing more penetration?
me thinks not. ....For yrs the NP has been famous & trusted for the xtra penetration it has offered.

- Todays monometals simply tilt things even more favor of extra penetration. Is that an obecession?
Do people have to settle for what Mr.Nosler settled for?.. me thinks not.....
its just extra choice available to hunters regarding bullet performance parameters.
People have utilised those newer choices since the NP,...and are happy that they did.

quote:

Ballistic gelatin demonstrates quite clearly the difference between a "parachute effect" and a "pencil wound" and which one causes more damage.

More damage or wider wound channel, does not necessarily relate to more lethality.

A more narrow & longer damage trail to the CNS/organs and beyond, can definitely be lethal,
whereas a wider & shorter wound channel that does not reach the CNS/organs may not be as effective as hunter might need or like.

..and A less expanded bullet that leaves the animal[not dumping all its energy] after hitting the vitals - can prove lethal,
whereas a bullet that expands more-dumps all its energy, may not be as effective, because it actually didn't reach the vitals.

Thats why I personally would prefer a 165gnFailsafe as opposed to a 165,180,200 or 220gn, cup core.
The FS is a tough lethal and great penetrating bullet with sufficient frontal area,.. making it more flexible & capable for myself.

quote:

With the variety of bullet design on the market today, one can choose a design that suites them best.
i.e.; more expansion less penetration OR Less expansion more penetration... I simply prefer the later.
You are free to choose otherwise.

...

Thats why I personally would prefer a 165gnFailsafe as opposed to a 165,180,200 or 220gn, cup core.
The FS is a tough lethal and great penetrating bullet with sufficient frontal area,.. making it more flexible & capable for myself.

I was going to give you a thumb's up on the first quote, but the second is a 30 cal topic.

Coming back to his 36 vs 33 topic, I just reread Rathcoombe "Shooting Holes in Wounding Theory". Still a great read. It reminds one that ultimate lethality might best be captured with a controlled-expanding bullet around 2800-2900fps muzzle velocity. The bullets seem to capture both parameters, reliable expansion and reliable penetration when the impact velocities are under 2700fps.

Those observations, in turn, lead me to appreciate the .338" 225grain TTSX at 2800-2850fps. The .514 BC gives great energy and downrange capability with a lot of thump remaining at 400 yards (2400ftlbs, 2200fps, -19.6" drop with 2"/100yard sight in). Yet while having such massive downrange capability, the bullet is under 2700fps and ready for holding a classic mushroom at 80 yards. Any closer than that and you still have great penetration with a squared full-meplat high-speed wound channel. For me, that sets a 'high bar'. I'm not saying that other combinations can't reach that bar, but it sets the bar pretty high.

-
PS: It may be a shame that the above load is not legal for buffalo in TZ, but to be honest, more diameter than 33,36, or even legal-37, is a good thing on buff.

-

416Tanzan,

Your mention of that load mirrors my thoughts exactly. I just got a 338 after not having one for a very long time and I can't wait to wring it out. I'm not a long range shooter, but, I see absolutely nothing wrong with carrying reserve. Especially living where a mis-hit animal can get far away damn fast and terrain may prevent a quick follow up on foot.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

I was going to give you a thumb's up on the first quote, but the second is a 30 cal topic.

165gn-30cal FS, or I could have used the .338cal 230 Failsafe,
essential they both demonstrate the same thing I talked about.
My praise of .338win with monometals like 230fs or 225tsx, is much the same as yours.
IIRC, buffalo are culled in Africa using the .338win- 200gn GScustom monometals >>..out to about 300m.
Elephant are also culled with .308win-145gn monometal FN solids.

..and Saeed with his .375/404 imp. could use something like a slower heavier 380gn cup core,
but it don't give him the versatility the faster lighter 300gn monometals give him,.....
I don't recall him complaining about any lack of effectiveness.

I suspect that had Mr.Nosler found something on the market like a barnes-X, [after ordinary cupcores failed
him on Moose with a 300magnum],..he probably would have never had a need to develop the NP.
None the less he didn't find the need to slow bullets down for increased penetration,
instead, he saw the need for a bullet that would improve penetration at the higher magnum speeds.

Just for the record, H.Selby hunted for something like 40yrs using only solids in his 416 Rigby.
He burnt a barrel out doing so!....never seemed to complain about need for expansion,
penetration and careful skilled shot placement got him through it all.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
More damage or wider wound channel, does not necessarily relate to more lethality.

A more narrow & longer damage trail to the CNS/organs and beyond, can definitely be lethal,
whereas a wider & shorter wound channel that does not reach the CNS/organs may not be as effective as hunter might need or like.

..and A less expanded bullet that leaves the animal[not dumping all its energy] after hitting the vitals - can prove lethal,
whereas a bullet that expands more-dumps all its energy, may not be as effective, because it actually didn't reach the vitals.

You pretty much disreguarded the penciled wound scenario on a thinner skinned animal, and obviously, that is where a more explosive projectile shines.

The bottom line is that until you start to get down to specifics of X caliber and y quarry, this is all academic and rather meaningless generalizations. And it seems like some are looking at these generalizations through the lens of a DG hunt while others might be thinking plains game or deer. So we get the back and forth of my apple is better than your orange.. Its rather silly.

The right tool for the job.

All this knowledge clutters the mind, and reaches a point of am I being baffled by BS? or is all this fact, and have I become et plumb up with techknowledgly!

I have shot a lot of Plainsgame with solids and buffalo and Hippo with softs over the years..it worked both ways, so I'm inclined to think if the shot is stuck in the right spot all this stuff seems to come together...Only real difference I've noticed is that whining richochet I get with solids whistling off to Mt. Kenya on the PG and Hippo just keep grazing shot after shot with both...

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
More damage or wider wound channel, does not necessarily relate to more lethality.

A more narrow & longer damage trail to the CNS/organs and beyond, can definitely be lethal,
whereas a wider & shorter wound channel that does not reach the CNS/organs may not be as effective as hunter might need or like.

..and A less expanded bullet that leaves the animal[not dumping all its energy] after hitting the vitals - can prove lethal,
whereas a bullet that expands more-dumps all its energy, may not be as effective, because it actually didn't reach the vitals.

You pretty much disreguarded the penciled wound scenario on a thinner skinned animal, and obviously, that is where a more explosive projectile shines.

The bottom line is that until you start to get down to specifics of X caliber and y quarry, this is all academic and rather meaningless generalizations. And it seems like some are looking at these generalizations through the lens of a DG hunt while others might be thinking plains game or deer. So we get the back and forth of my apple is better than your orange.. Its rather silly.

The right tool for the job.

People effectively shoot & kill DG and plains game with solids,...try doing that with you're explosive deer bullet.

OF course a quality monometal Soft, can have its 3 or 4 petals sheer and radiate out at high velocity impact
then the remainder of the bullet[80% weight] carry on through like a FN solid..........best of both worlds.