I've heard a lot from both camps, so which do you prefer?

Where I hunt we don't have that much trouble finding downed game, but I'm still undecided about all the energy being expended in the animal vs 2 wounds for a better blood trail.

Check out this page in medium bores http://www.accuratereloading.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=515675&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&fpart=2#Post518522

This is one of those arguments that makes no physical sense. In essence, it takes a certain amount of energy to punch a hole of a certain diameter through a certain depth of animal flesh. If the projectile impacts with a larger energy budget than that, it continues on further than that depth; but a bullet that doesn't continue hasn't magically expended more energy or caused a greater wound to the animal by virtue of not fully penetrating. Not penetrating has no inherent advantage on the game killing end. If anything, it is indicative of marginal penetration capability for that size game -- you're working without a net or insurance. The only real advantage is less recoil on the shooter's end.

That all would be a very close approximation to reality if dealing with flat-fronted solid bullets. With bullets that tumble, fragment, or expand, its a bit more complicated since large amounts of the energy budget are not expended just in penetrating, but also in deforming the bullet and elastically deforming the animal's flesh. With high impact velocities, so much energy can be expended in these deformations (deformations which have neglible wounding effect) that overall penetration can actually be less than for the same bullet at lower impact velocitites where more of the energy budget gets spent on penetration.

That all gets to the most important point: bullet energy expended on game isn't of primary importance. Laurie Anderson had it right in noting, "It isn't the bullet that kills you; it's the hole." To which we could also add: It isn't the bullet energy that kills game, it's the hole. (There are some instances where temporary wound channel effects associated with high velocity, high energy bullet impacts have significant wounding and killing effects, but there's no reliable way to predict or cause such effects under field conditions, so hunters shouldn't depend upon them.) A bullet that creates a permanent wound channel of a certain diameter that passes all the way through an animal causes at least as much wounding as a bullet that creates the same diameter wound channel but does not pass through the animal. For another ballistic path (angle on game) where more penetration would be beneficial, the bullet that previously didn't penetrate is at a disadvantage. Failure to penetrate is never an advantage at the game end.

This is an excellent answer and my hunting experience tends to bear this out, especially where larger game is concerned.

I made up my mind on this several years ago when I found that cup and core bullets were not giving me what I want on deer,so, I went to Nosler Pts. for everything, with Swift A-Frames for those calibers I cannot get Nozzies for.

I only hunt in B.C. and conditions are such that wounded game is very hard to find, so, I prefer exits with lots of blood gushing out. I find that using bigger cartridges with premium bullets gives me the complete penetration I prefer and I have not lost an animal, yet, knock wood!

Short and sweet, I want my bullet to always pass through, and prefer to expand some, but two holes are better than one.

Good luck and good shooting,
Eterry

Yes i prefer a passthru on elk but you need to be carefull!

I vote for an exit hole.

I am with Terry--no doubt about it I want two holes in that critter (from one shot that is)

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dogz

I'm trying to remember a game animal I've shot where the bullet didn't pass through... Nope... All through and through, boar, deer and elk. All one-shot kills so far. Guess I'm in the camp that prefers full penetration. Regards, Guy

Crazyquik,
I always had pass thru shots, except one, that I shooted to recover the bullet, but thanking a not cohoperating Rumenian hunter, I did not find it and at the end I lost it.

I prefer pass thru shots and I when I caen I prefer to use bullets with cutting edges like RWS TUG or RWS DC (dual core).
More over in short shots where I always had uncertain results. A pair of time the game runned away like lightnings.
My first big game animal, a fallow deer runned away leaving its first incredibly little drop of blood after 60/70 meters.
My friends, "expert hunters" , were already ironically congratulating with me for the shooting error when the responsible of the resort found the leaf with that drop of blood, big like a pin head and frozed them laugh. At the end it was a not pass thru shot.

this it has not happen that time when I was in Romania. It were snowing seriously and I was hunting with two Romenian hunters. We were slowly moving in a medium thick wood using a sledge trained by horse when we saw a very big fallow deer cow at 100/150 meters. We were hunting for meat and for trophy (there were gold medals in that resort) that afternoon, and they invited me to shoot at that deer. The shot was not too difficult and I hit it with a .366 bullet, a TUG 293 grs silver bullet. We did not have any difficulties in finding and recovering it, the blood trail was impressive, a large red stripe sprayed on the white snow. But it should been easy also without the snow, because the cutting edges worked very well in both holes, and a less precise shot should have leaved a good trail however.

Happuy new year, bye < !--color-->

I LIKE not on,y holes on both sides of the animals, but I like BIG holes through the animals.
That is why I use BIG caliber for game size. I hunt deer with .358 and 45/70, caribou with .340 and moose with .375H&H. With more gun per game you not only get penetration but you can take any angle shot you need and still get complete penetration.