Oh yes an you LDHunter. Your posts have been similar and I have not commented on them as they lacked content. Just in the chance that you think they are of value then get that thought out of your mind.

If you do have something to say besides an insult then go ahead and say it. It does seem however that you have nothing of substance to offer. There is also the chance that you want to be noticed and rest assured that I noticed you so be at peace.

I would just like to know why people have to take all these marginal shots and try to make up for it by shooting with cannons. Yes there will always be a percentage of error, even on perfect standing broadside shots at fifty yds but it should be a pretty low percentage. Why are people taking shots at running elk at 175 yds or deer standing behind bushes at 75 yds or 300 yds for that matter. Is killing an animal for bragging rights so important that these guys will shoot and hope simply for the chance that they might actually kill something. You guys keep shooting around the edges hoping to kill something, I'll just pass on those shots. Yes I do use enough gun to handily kill what ever I want but it is no excuse to take a poorly or unplanned shot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nickudu:
Let's presume the desire for a well placed shot and that _you_ are the shooter.

Your wounded elephant, elk or whitetail is off an running in one of a myriad of possible combinations of direction/angle.

Would you rather smaller/lighter bullets for your follow-up shots or larger/heavier bullet and _why_?

---

Nick, I have tried to come up with a good answer to your question. I can't. There are way to many variables involved to give a concise answer.

Here's a for instance... When I go stone sheep hunting, I do not pack a rifle based simply on what I would like to have in my hands in the event of a follow up on a wounded stone sheep. Weight of the rifle, long range accuracy, ability to withstand the elements on a long backpack trip, etc, etc all weigh more heavily into my decision making.

With elk hunting I have a bunch more factors to consider, such as: is it an morning hunt or an evening hunt (tracking in the light vs dark), is it a day trip or a multiday trip, backpack or horse, close cover or open cover (which affects average distance of shot, risk of obstruction, likelihood of a followup opportunity) etc, etc.

Then I have to consider what guns (or bow) I can choose from (ie. what is in my cabinet).

So, anyway all I can tell you is one very general statement:

All else being equal, generally speaking on a follow shot I prefer a bigger bullet with more energy. Given the particular circumstances of the hunt, I may be very willing to trade that off (to greater or lesser degrees) for other practical advantages with the full knowlege that these tradeoffs in horsepower may restrict the type of shot I am willing/able to take, and may limit the effectiveness of the ones I am willing/able to make.

Cheers,
Canuck

Savage99: You have not only lost the argument you have proven yourself a fool in front of a lot of Big Game Hunters that actually do have experience afield!
Your chuckles are the heinous type that I have (THANKFULLY!) only heard on extremely rare occassions when a brute such as your self has inflicted a wound on an animal that hobbles away to die a slow death!
If you were one half a man or a sportsman you would apologize to all you have offended with your stupidity and move on instead of dragging out even more ignorant and inhumane defenses of the indefensible!
Shame on you!
Go back and read your own ludicrous and stupid posting and find fault in that batch of blather before you even dare try and find fault with ANY thing I post!
You are a poor, pathetic excuse for a human!
Once you have realized the stupidity of your posting then I invite you to even TRY to find any fault what so ever with my stated (the proven and humane way!) and much preferred method of harvesting Game!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
Your posts have been similar and I have not commented on them as they lacked content. Just in the chance that you think they are of value then get that thought out of your mind.

---

You have just done an outstanding job of describing yourself Savage99.

Must've been looking in the mirror as you typed it.

And you have given us all some good advice on how to respond (or rather, not to respond any longer), to your posts.

On to bigger & better things.....

v

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakor:
I will explain it another way take a empty pop can and shoot it at 100 yards with a 22-250 or what ever if you hit the middle of the can it will not even move. Why? you ask because there is not enough to the can to make the bullet realize it even hit something. Now take that same Pop can and shoot it with a 22 Rimfire you will know you hit the can. The same goes for animals if there is not enough animal there to make the bullet transfer energy. The bigger tougher bullet is not going to kill it any better then a smaller one. As for the comment about a 300 win for Elk I had to laugh about that. Your big bore might work well out to 300 yards but after that the 300 win will hand you your ass. My 300 has more energy at 500 yards then my 375 H&H with less wind drift and less drop.

---

ACTUALLY, what you are talking about is the theory of "transmission dwell" that has been in British military writeups and literary discussions of effective bullets long before Roark's Drift. THe theory is that a bigger SLOWER MOVING bullet will do more damage then a same size bullet traveling at a faster speed, because the longer the amount of time the bullet spends in the body, the more energy it has a chance to "transfer" to the target before leaving same.
I am a firm believer in the theory and that is why I shoot for the most part heavy slow moving bulets instead of medium weight fast moving bullets. I have dumped a shit load of whitetails with my 45/70 pushing 500 grain bullets at slightly faster then running speed and they simply poleaxe the animals to the ground. WHen I shot 350gr Hornady at "normal" velocity, they would actually get a couple of steps then crumple.
I have found massive overgunning really does kill quicker then lighter normal bullets, all things being equal.

I have only had one deer drop in it's tracks from a 220gr. 30-06, all the others got some distance unless spine shot. probably 90 percent of the heavy bullet hits from the 45/70 have dropped the deer wihin a bodylength of where it was shot. Most simply folded like cheap camp chairs. THe farthest one ever got was 30 feet.
99% of the shots were under 75yds. all rounds exited.
I am a firm believer from my experience bigger heavier bullets simply work better.

sav -

so tell us, how many times did you piss on the toilet seat before someone finally had to tell you to lift it up?

Cold Bore,

The quotation you used was not directed to you. I reviewed your early posts and while they did not respond to my point they did ask what one would rather have, a hit with a moderate bullet or a cannon to the edges. Now this is was not the topic but this happens in threads.

Then you accused me of not answering your obvious questions when I had and I quoted my answers for you. Now you have degenerated to just joining those who have nothing at all to discuss.

Canuck, My Friend

Not actually looking for answers here, just offering a thought process for caliber selection.

If its not too late to change the subject back to Nickudu's question, I will try to give my answer FWIW.

Anytime that I was faced with having to shoot at a wounded and retreating animal I would choose the heaviest and toughest bullet available for the most powerful rifle that I could shoot accurately and quickly offhand.

Very recently that meant a 270 gr, .375 caliber North Fork bullet (probably the most technologically sophisticated bullet design in the world) from a custom Model 1895 rifle that Fred Zeglin built for me with a little 2X Leupold Scout Scope mounted on a quarter rib (you can see the rifle on his web site). Its basically a 9.3 x 62 mm necked up to .375 so it has a muzzle velocity of 2500 fps and no significant recoil in my rifle.

That was the fastest I have ever come back on line at a running animal and I connected at about 125 yards and rolled him. Turns out the first shot and the finisher criss-crossed the same territory (as I thought was the case) at the junction of the heart and lungs and either was enough, but you don't hazard that chance with a running wounded animal (or I don't at any rate).

The load was "overkill" for a Southern whitetail by any measure, but if I made a mistake in either the first shot or the follow-up (and anyone who says running shots are easy is either very, very good or overconfident IMHO) then the extra penetration might have carried forward into the vitals on a hit a bit too far back and significantly improved the odds of recovery. That's no argument for being anything less than a perfectionist in shot placement in the first place, but I have seen perfect shots go wrong (from hitting an invisible twig, for example); and perfect shots are not an option on running game (which is why I am against such shots except to finish a wounded animal).

If my only presentation on a trophy is a running shot or a really bad angle or through brush, then I have to pass. Using a lot of gun to overcome any of that is not defensible - I have a choice. On the other hand, a PH will tell you that any shot on a wounded animal is better than none at all. You can't wait for a perfect shot in that case.

I have a rule now of always shooting a wounded animal until it stops giving any sign of animation, even if its on the ground. It isn't necessary to ventilate it like a sieve, but it isn't wise to sit back and admire your handiwork from that one perfect shot and be reluctant to shoot a finisher out of some ego trip about spoiling some kind of personal one-shot kill record.

In my case my more powerful rifles are generally too heavy and have too long a recovery between shots for quick, steady offhand shots. More and more I am coming to appreciate handling qualities in certain rifles.

There is an optimum point well below the big bores in my book. You could make the same argument about recoil management as you make for minimum adequate calibers. If "handling" the recoil of a 416 Rigby for example means that you don't feel pain after 5 shots standing, that may not be a practical definition of an upper limit. A better measure may be what is the heaviest big bore that you can shoot offhand steadily - once - after carrying it in your hands for several hours? Recoil is rarely noticed in the field, but weight is.

So, if all that rambling isn't clear, I want a relatively heavy, strong bullet that penetrates very deeply and causes a lot of damage along the way - but I don't want to sacrifice handling qualities because first you have to hit the vitals.

My comments are bogus? I don't think so.

Your statements defy experience, physics, and common sense, but I think you know that, and if you don't, you're more intellectually challenged than you're letting on.

Mostly, you're here to argue cheap points that you invent as you go along.

AD

Shot placement is everything.

But I would take it to mean with an adequate cartridge.

I prefer to use a load that will give two holes for quick blood loss.

Scott S: Why do I need pictures? One word: credibility. Over 45 bore cartridges? does a 460 Weatherby, 458 Win Mag qualify? Obviously if Allen's analogy of the 3030 didn't make sense to you, I'm not going to waste my time expanding on this subject. AS far as pictures are concerned, you don't need to post any. I believe it. jorge

We interrupt this polite and intellectual thread with the following service announcement.....
PROOF yes irrefutable proof from (I believe Pennsylvania) that a big enough bullet is truly fatal almost no matter where it hits.....
Warning...this is graphic and not for queezy stomachs
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=777869

Saeed,
I see you posted the very same thing in the same place at the same time as I did.....It's scary to think someone else thinks like I do...

quote:

---

Originally posted by vapodog:
Saeed,
I see you posted the very same thing in the same place at the same time as I did.....It's scary to think someone else thinks like I do...

---

Just goes to prove great minds think alike ha?

ScottS: Well my microcephalic dolt, if the 20mm hits you on your small toe and the 308 in the head, I trust even you can figure that one out. So tell us about YOUR hunting prowess and experience with these large rifles you boast of? jorge

There is no doubt that animals can die from hits to "non-vital" areas. I have seen several cases of poor shot placement resulting in animals that either dropped where shot or only ran a short distance. Some of these have been with guns that would be considered overkill for the game, but most have been with .243s, .270s, and bow & arrow on deer sized game. I personally don't think "large wound channels" has anything to do with it. Based on my experience, When you hit an animal in the wrong place, it's more dumb luck than anything if it goes down quickly. You can hedge your bets with more power/penetration, but it doesn't even come close to making it a sure thing if it lands in the wrong spot. One animal behaves differently than the next when hit in the vitals, let alone in the guts.

-Lou

Jorge,

Good answer.

Jorge-

I think that "ScottS" is the infamous Scott Sweet, and not worth your time....

This may have some relevance to this thread.

A mate of mine has been to Africa 4 times and has shot about 130 plains animals up to eland. He goes on his 5th strip next year. The calibres he has used have been 257 Wby, 7mm STW, 300 Wby and 358 STA and all with Barnes X bullets. A lot of the animals he has shot have been Zebra, Kudu and Widlebeeste

He found very little difference in the calibres and in fact settled in 257 for his last trip. Next trip he is taking the 264 Winchester.

He is of the opinion that if anything the very flat trajectory of the 257 simply puts the bullets closer to the aiming mark. He used 90 grain and 100 grain barnes Xs in the 257.

However, if we jump down in animal size to the kangaroo and pig (average 150 pounds nd less)the 400 grain speer flat point from a 458 or 220 Hornady flat nose from a 375 leaves the small calibres for dead with gut shots. On low chest shots on big roos they will sometimes hop away for a while but a 400 grain flat nose 458 simply takes the side out of them.

On these bigger animals like elk that you blokes are you shooting I suspect the animals are simply too big for the guns and comparing 300 Wins and 416 Rems etc on these animals would be like comparing a 218 Bee and 25/20 on average size roo or small pigs.

Mike

Jorge, you have a way of coming up with some of the best comments in history on these threads !

Scott, if talk counted for experience, they'd nominate you for the Weatherby Award. It's pretty obvious that you're some sort of troll, and your initial comments about the .300 Win. Mag. were obviously directed at me, so it looks to me like you decided to create issue with me (for whatever reason) before you even submitted your first post on this thread.

For the record, I grew up with .30-30 caliber rifles. We had a whole rack of 'em at home on the farm where I grew up. I have one in the safe that I've carried on horseback for so many miles that the varnish has flaked off the stock from horse sweat. My first exposure to .30-30-killed elk came from hunting trips I tagged along with my faternal great uncles on when I was a boy. To date, I've seen four bulls killed with .30-30s, none of which were shot at more than 100 yds., all were hit in the lungs, and none of those bulls went more than sixty yards before they went down. Adequate performance within the limitations of the circumstances, to be sure. I have never shot an elk with a .30-30 myself. I started my elk hunting career with a .30-06 at age fifteen, more than thirty years ago, and I've stayed with bolt-guns ever since.

How anyone can prop up the .30-30 as an elk gun, yet call the .300 Win. Mag. "wimpy" unbelievable to me, and comments like that make it clear that you're here to create a hassle, not legitimately discuss the topic at hand, and by doing so you showcase your own ignorance, inexperience, and stupidity when you underestimate the legitimate experience and discernment of everyone else here.

But I'll play along a little more: The .300 just-plain hits stuff harder than the lesser .30s, it delivers more energy at all ranges, and it'll not only do all that a .30-30 will do within the range limitations of the .30-30, it'll do a whole lot more that the .30-30 won't do at ANY distance. It also whacks elk a lot harder than the .30-06 that I started my career with. Why anyone would handicap himself with a .30-30 for elk hunting in this day and age is beyond me, unless it's for fun and games or out of ignorance and improvidence.

Here's another fact for the record, since you brought it up, took a dumb risk, and made assumptions about my experience. Then Scott, I'm done with you on this thread for good, and you'll be treated as a troll and ignored from this point forward on ANY thread.

I have indeed used a .45 caliber cartridge for big game hunting, and that cartridge is the .458 Win. Mag. I've used it in Africa for the sort of big game it was developed for to begin with: Cape buffalo, hippo, plus plainsgame -- likely more stuff than you claim to have shot yourself with the big bores you're touting for stateside use.

AD

ScottS,

He did find the 300 Wby and 358 STA got animals down quicker but it was not a case that the 300 and 358 dropped them on the spot, they just did not run as far.

There is also a certain Australian mentality where we look to drop the pig, goat or roo on the spot. That is why I said he saw from 257 to 358 on these bigger animals as a bit like comparing a 218 Bee to a 25/20 on pigs. In either case they will run and either case they will die, so may as well use the 218 Bee.

But I see it being difficult to drop elk size animals with hits in the guts or arse with a 460 because 270s and 308 and 300 mags can't be counted to do it on pigs and red male roos.

Certainly 460s will do it and PC is near blowing them in half with 650 grain Woodleigh Black Powder Express bullets in his 585 Nyati. Geoff McDonadl (woodleigh) does the same with his 440 grain Black Powder Express bullets in 500 Jeffery. But to equal that on an elk size animal must surely require a 20 mm with 2000 grain soft bullets.

It would seem to me that the extremely wide use of 30 calibre in America and 375 in Africa would indicate that the much bigger calibres are simply not allowing these big animals to be dropped with non vital hits. The bigger calibre is obviously better but not to the extent of allowing success with non vital hits. In fact I think Saeed has made this point several times.

I know this won't work out excatly in practice but the facts are that a 500 grain grain bullet at 2600 f/s on a 1500 pound animal is about like a 50 grainer at 2600 on a 150 pound animal.

Mike

quote:

---

It would seem to me that the extremely wide use of 30 calibre in America and 375 in Africa would indicate that the much bigger calibres are simply not allowing these big animals to be dropped with non vital hits. The bigger calibre is obviously better but not to the extent of allowing success with non vital hits.

---

Bingo.

Consistantly dropping stuff in its tracks is nice but isn't a surety... ocassionaly animal's cooperate but it's certainly nothing to hold ones breath for.

ScottS: Do you have any brethren that lived or did you suck up what little oxygen was left from the shallow end of the gene pool?

The whole PREMISE of this thread was that larger caliber hits in non-vital areas were often-times as effective as smaller caliber hits in vital areas. But I should have known better in assuming your zygote-like intelligence could grasp even the most rudimentary subject and even when you do make a statement it invariably falls on the wrong side of the discussion.

Consider castration as your contribution to the human race so you don't procreate. jorge

Brad, what you say is absolutely true. You can't count on 100% in-their-tracks kills from ANY cartridge, no matter how precisely the shot is placed, and no matter how well the bullet performs. You may get drop-dead kills even 90% of the time with .......(you name the cartridge), but you'll never get 100% airplane-spin/bodyslam-type dramatic, in-the-tracks kills with any given cartridge from now until the end of your hunting career.

One more point then I through with this particular subject, but this thread was started, to begin with, by ignorant assumptions and idle speculations based on a great deal of inexperience with shooting big game animals -- that much should be crystal clear.

And I've noticed that on this thread plus others, everytime you call contributors of this stripe on the carpet and ask about their own personal hunting experience, they always dodge, duck, divert, and avoid that sort of question, then act all offended that you'd dare ask them questions of this sort -- as if you're the big offender rather then them of their acts of trying to hoodwink and fake everybody out with their wordy bullshit.

The reasons should be obvious.........

AD

allen,

Very well put...

$bob$

... don't feed the trolls and closet liberals...

quote:

---

Originally posted by jorge:
ScottS: Do you have any brethren that lived or did you suck up what little oxygen was left from the shallow end of the gene pool?

The whole PREMISE of this thread was that larger caliber hits in non-vital areas were often-times as effective as smaller caliber hits in vital areas. But I should have known better in assuming your zygote-like intelligence could grasp even the most rudimentary subject and even when you do make a statement it invariably falls on the wrong side of the discussion.

Consider castration as your contribution to the human race so you don't procreate. jorge

---

jorge,

Your posts on this topic from the start have been rude, insuting and immature. In fact this pattern extends to other posts on other topics by you. You have also embarrassed other members by inappropiate posts. I could get quite specific on this but it would just damage others by bringing it up again.

I suggest that you think. I am sure that you can do better. Making rude remarks takes away from your position. Thus you are not only hurting the disscussion but your side.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ScottS:
With regard to non-vital areas.
..... examples illustrate bullet strikes where the bullets HIT NO VITAL AREA! The significantly larger volume of tissue trauma created by the larger caliber; however, provided death while the smaller caliber provided for more hunting and specifically the hunting of a wounded animal.

Here is yet another example. Bull elk hit with 500 above the lungs and below the spine. Spine damaged / broken dropped the bull and allowed for a quick and lethal follow-up shot. I have seen several deer and elk evade death with this particular shot placement. I have probably personally butchered 5 or 6 bucks with scare tissue in this exact location, and can remember one elk bull. Thus proving that these animals can definitely had survive a hit between the lungs and spine with lesser calibers (more than likely .308 bore since they are by far the most common).

Scott

---

Using the above to reset the stage to the orginal topic. A whitetail buck was hit high in the back, just under the spine, behind the diapragm by a .277" 140 gr Ballistic Tip going about 2800 fps from a magnum at 200 yds. At that distance the bullet was going about 2700 fps so it was just in the middle range of what we use.

The bullet did not exit! The animal fell and then rose to it's feet and stood there. I expected it to fall again as I thought it had been hit in the lungs or shoulder. I got ready to shoot again and waited a second or two and it took one very slow step forward and stood again! This behavior is what can happen from nervous system damage.

My point has been that a smaller wound may have resulted in the animal running off as it did not quite impact the spine as much. How can anyone deny that? It's the premise of the topic.

By the way I fired again and it went down to stay. I think the first shot hit too far back as the animal must have stepped forward just as I shot.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ScottS:
Allen,

None of the responders on this thread, to my knowledge, or through their own admission have ANY experience with true stopping rifles.


Have to disagree with you on that one, in my opinion any gun caliber suited for the game at hand within a shooters recoil tolerance properly sighted in and practiced with in capable hands is a true stopper as you put it, my 30-06 and .270 win. has stopped many deer, so I guess I could be considered to have true stopper gun experience.

A man doesn't have to shoot a cannon to prove he's a man and I think that is your problem on the big .50 and whatever you shoot, I think you just want to boast that hey I shoot a big stopper. I don't care what you shoot, and I say to each his own and happy hunting with whatever you want to shoot.

Funny Scott. I killed an Alberta Whitetail buck this year with a similar shot. He thought he was hidden in an irrigation ditch. He let me get within 20yds, jumped up and I hit him at about 35yds, and he plowed quite a track in the snow. I hit him just in front of the shoulder as he angled away, and the bullet struck his spine and then exited the offside. I know this might be hard to believe, but I pulled off this "stunt" with a 150 gr partition launched from the puney 280 Rem.

I'll bet you a trip to Africa that I could knock a whitetail off its feet in similar fashion using nothing more than the 22 lr. I've found it quite affective on 2000lb domestic bulls.

Chuck

Scott

Like I said I really don't care what you shoot, if it takes a big bore, heavy recoil rifle for you to be confident I say keep on shooting it. You just give the impression if it's not big it's not good. No offense intended no defense needed.

Some people write with a big pencil and some write with a small pencil. Some of writing you can read, some of it you can't. It doesn't mean the big pencil is better than the smaller one or vice-versa. It basically boils down to the person holding it.

99: You're right, I should know better than to even consider contributing to posts like these. You were obviously taken to task (as was Scott S) by a few of us here, then you proceeded to change your original post in an attempt to make things make even a modicum of sense.

When people ask you straight forward questions, you either avoid answering them all together, or your answers are so convoluted making some of us want to climb a water tower with a sniper rifle.

You might take stock and notice just how many of the well-respected posters here take issue with your theories. That should give you some food for thought.And I'm done with this post. jorge

I would like to sincerely apologize to everyone on this thread for my attempt to pass on my meager knowledge and experience. I told myself I would post here no longer, this is my last post.

Bye.

$bob$

Savage99 When you say the bullet was going 2800 fps do you mean at the muzzle? If so I hate to tell you but your 140 Ballistic Tip at 200 yards was not going 2700 fps it would be going more like 2414 fps. Now for the comments about bullets hitting just under the spine and the animal not dropping. Well I hate to burst your bubble but if that bullet is 2 inches or less under the spine it is good night for what ever you shot. The shock alone will brake the spine and the animal is going no where. In fact if you do some research on shot placement on big game they will tell you if you want cause shock to the spine so the animals drops in its tracks you are supposed to shoot higher in the vital area to cause shock to the spine. What people here forget is Guns kill by shock not blood loss like bow and arrows do.

dakor,

It started at 3200 fps and was going what I posted when it hit. There was not much up there under the spine to hit if you look inside a animal. I hit a rib going in and made a 2" splatter on the opposite side.

Here is the site for the last word on terminal ballistics Read

Shock is not the right answer.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)