What is your experience with frontal shots at grizz,has anyone tried head shots,shoulder shots and with what kind of bullet.I dont think one makes him any angrier if one is faced with a frontal shot, survival is the ticket.
Thanks sheephunter

sheephunter

I do not know what you are packing for a rifle. The advice you have received is good. The brain lays low in a bears skull. Pretty much directly behind the nose if you are looking straight into it's nostrils.

If you are carrying typical sheep rifle (30 cal or smaller) your best bet if confronted with a charging bear and you feel compelled to shoot for denfense would be to try and break the bears front legs. Do not try shoulder shots as the joints are difficult to impossible to distinquish (particularily if you are soiling your shorts at the time). Just aim for the front leg bones and let rip. If you succeed in breaking the bears front legs you will be able to outrun him and out manuever him.

Todd E

Do not plan on out manuevering a three legged bear. Your best chance at ending any fight quickly is going to be a brain shot.

Heart lung shots do not typically stop charges of animals or humans unless there has already been severe damage done.

I believe as the other gentleman suggested a bears brain is right behind his nose.

I suggest you spilt his eyes with the vertical sight and aim right above the tip of his nose and keep firing and till there is no longer a threat.

------------------
MED

The sole purpose of a rifle is to please its owner

[This message has been edited by Mike Dettorre (edited 01-24-2002).]

Another advise (when the bear is about 100 to 150 yard facing you) is to break the shoulders if you can, to slow it down, then shoot the vitals (heart, lungs, brain, neck, spine) depending on what you can see. Keep in mind that 50 yards is not very far when a bear charges, since on a single stride a brown or grizzly bear can move nearly twenty feet. It is more like a long jump at high speed, somewhere from 35 to 40 miles per hour.

Of course, the problem is being able to stand there while the bear is charging, specially if the person being charged is inexperienced. Most people don't have the time or the means to be out there learning about bears, but those who are lucky enough to analyze bear behavior in detail have a greater chance to know what to do.

There are a few books that may help you learn about bears and what to do; one of these is "Bear Attacks, Their Causes and Avoidance" by Stephen Herrero, and the other one is "Bear Encounter Survival Guide" by James Gary Shelton.

In relation to "where to shoot" when hunting, take a look at the following site:

http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/FISH.GAME/wildlife/geninfo/hunting/huntak16.htm

I said legs as in both front legs! This leaves you facing a crippled two legged bear. This was common advise when I was a kid from rangers when you were in bear country. The problem with the head shot is as Reloader66 said the bears head is moving around a lot! You have quite honestly a better shot at the spine behind the head.

Fundamentally, though I agree with you. If you can get a bead on the brain go for it. Hopefully the gentlemen won't have to worry about it.

Todd E

Having survived a bear charge this past season allow me to post a few comments.
A partner and I were charged by a large 450+ black bear(yes a black bear-no B.S.!) after he put a bullet up the stovepipe as the bear ran away from us. The bear did not go down so I put one into the moving bear also(hit him in the paunch-he was lunging for the nearby brush)My friend then moved forward to get a better shot, the bear which was now swatting and tearing up the brush, spotted our movement and began to charge us from about 100yds away. Ears erect, head bobbing, focused on us as he came.... jaws clamped on a 10" piece of manzanita stick as he bore down on us. At first I did not believe it when Marty yelled "he's charging"(I was following behind him at the moment. We both had a split second to ready our rifles as the bear came....there was some low brush between us and the bear so we held our fire until he emerged at about 20yds.... I fired first looking over the scope to no effect on the fast approaching bear. Marty fired a split second later with no effect either... the bear angled past us at about 12yds away, I frantically worked the bolt on my Rem and snapped a shot at the bear which hit him in his right forearm but missing the bone. At that second the bear went into the brush and began to thrash around.... growling and swatting everything around him. At this time the bear had taken at least 4 hits I believe. We could not see him in the brush as he thrashed around so we ran along the edges trying to spot some fur to shoot at. After what seemed like minutes(was probably around 45sec. I'm not sure-too much adrenalin) the bear slowed up and began to die. I entered the brush with rifle ready(it was waist high where I approached)and spotted the big chocolate- colored boar laying on his side. I yelled for my freaked hunting partner to come up and issue the coup de grace shot. He obligingly did so. We then sat down and cleaned our shorts. After skinning the bear we found two bullets that penetrated thru the bears shoulders and lungs and lodged under his hide. Another bullet had blown off the muscle on his right forearm. And yes there were two bullet holes in his rear haunches also. This bear was full of adrenalin obviously. My only question to this day is what if this bear had not ran past us after we fired at close range? The outcome could have been different do you think? I do have photos which I will post when I learn how.(I'm still learning to use my new scanner)I e-mailed Big Stick one photo of the bear.

All I can say is the only way to stop a bear charge is to shoot at his head. If you miss the head you might luck out and hit him in the spine or shock his nervous system. This was a big black bear, I hope I never face a grizzly in a similar situation. And this ain't no bull$hit story either! sure-shot

sheephunter

Average human reaction time .5-1.0 seconds

Average human can cover 7 yds in 1.5 seconds from a stand still

Typical human who is shot goes into the fetal position

Humans who choose to fight, on average fight for 18 seconds after taking a fatal round to the thoracic cavity.

Recall in the infamous FBI Miami shootout, Madison (bad guy) took a round to the heart in the first few seconds of the shooting. He continued to fight for 3 plus minutes. Autopsy showed he could not have been saved if he had fallen on an OR table.

My point, wild animals are a lot tougher than humans, you will not have much time, it will be very stressful, and you will most likely just react.

Best chances are to mentally prepare for the worst case, don't give up, and hope for luck.

According to Justin on HA praying isn't a bad idea (before the trip)...as the young lad says...two things you need to get thru the tough times in life pray and your rifle, because we all need the Lord at some point and the Lord helps those who help themselves.

------------------
MED

The sole purpose of a rifle is to please its owner

[This message has been edited by Mike Dettorre (edited 01-24-2002).]

You would do well to follow Ray's advice. Killing a griz that doesn't know you are around is as simple as killing a whitetail. Take out their lungs, heart and or shoulders equals a dead bear in a short time. Screw up your shot and wound him and you have a very angry bear running at you or running away from you to hide in ambush while you track him down. Personaly a wounded bear doesn't disturb me as much as a healthy one I've suprised off a moose kill, these ones are very scary. A bear wounded or otherwise, charging at you is a horrible huffing, rocking, rolling bundle of fur, teeth and claws that gets close very fast. Aim for the middle of the mass as Ray says and shoot until the bear hits you or goes down. If you try and pick a shot on the bears nose or head you are probably going to get mauled or killed. I carry a 300 WSM loaded with 200gr Barnes X @ 2900fps when hunting bear or in bear country. I have taken them with 30-06 and .338, haven't shot one with the 300 but I'm sure it will do the trick.
If you spend enough time hunting grizzly or hunting in grizzly country you will run into one that doesn't like you. At that time I hope you have prepared yourself well, as it is your ability to control yourself that saves you, not the caliber of rifle you are carrying or the type of bullet you shoot out of it.

...Peter

sheephunter

That was a great post tho, you did well, you survived! I'd have been scared too......10

If you are hunting bear, it is best to let him turn broadside. If a grizzly was reasonably close and unaware of my presence, I would let him have it on a frontal shot. On a charging bear you got no choice but to shoot anyways. To be brain him is the best and most logical but a bullet in the leg is better than no bullet in him at all. I shot a grizzly as she came on to me. I broke her front leg and then she turned and headed anouther direction. I was then able to finish the bear easily. Again, not every bear will react the same. Every situation can be different and everyone reacts differently under pressure. If you are hunting, be patient and kill your bear. If a bear is going to give you trouble, remain as calm as possible and do what you can or do what ever it takes.

Sheephunter,
are you refering to Chris,(maulled by bear) If Chris is personally going to guide you, then I know the area where you are going and I also know you WILL be seeing some bears.

Daryl

In a deadly griz situation the only thing you're going to be able to do after movement starts is shoot centre of mass, use penetrating bullets, and pray. I had one horrible season where I wounded two griz and just about ended up bear shit. One of them took a 200 gr bullet @ 80 yards starting at 2800 fps. Bullet hit square in the ribs, the bear flipped and the bullet flattened. Bullet never got through. That season taught me much about bullet choice & construction.

I, too (now), use 300 WM 200 gr Barnes X in griz country. Mine start @ 2850 fps. Last black bear I shot was about 5+ ft. The bear was standing on all fours looking at me from 150 yards. Bullet hit centre chest and went end to end, finishing off under the skin on the left hind leg and gaining 2 grains weight enroute. He ran about 50 feet and piled up.

Forget eye shots. A bear's optic nerve circles back and enters the skull in a down, centre and forward direction behind the curve of the skull - there are no eye sockets or holes.

Lo-o-o-o-ve hunting something that can hunt me back.

Lessons learned:

1) - If its facing you (and charging), shoot it right in the brain or the spine - nothing fancy or "sporting". The head moves a lot less than its forelegs. Park ranger wisdom notwithstanding, I won't deliberately aim for the legs having seen how little influence that can have. I'll aim for the brain and if I miss, pray that it hits a leg at least.

2) - Shoot the bear repeatedly as long as it is visible and still alive. Shoot it twelve times if necessary. Don't admire your handiwork. You may not get another chance.

3) - Make the first shot count!

Depending on the range to the bear, its posture, and the level of the ground, your best brain aimpoint will be nearly between its eyes. They usually keep their heads low. Blowing his nose off won't stop him. If you have a decent bullet in a high powered rifle you need not worry about it bouncing off. If you have a 7 mm Ballistic Tip you had better be prepared to deliver one at nearly right angles to the skull a split second before he clobbers you in case the others fail to make the desired impression.

I have personally seen a 30-06 bullet scalp a grizzly. The bullet followed the curvature of the skull and did not penetrate. It also did very little to slow down the bear. With black bears I see little problem with center mass theory. With a big grizzly (read coastal) the center of mass will be above the spine. You will be placing you bullets into a massive hump of muscle, which won't do squat.

Todd E

Now I sometimes wonder if you really have any experience shooting bears. In particular black bears. Hell man most of them weigh in at less than 200 pounds and aren't any tougher than a human or a white tail deer. I have shot several over the years 3 with a 12 gauge. The shotgun worked best at under 50 yards were all of them were shot. I had a friend drop a black bear at 30 feet with a 357 Magnum pistol two shots. The other neat thing is that everyone of the bears I shot knew I was there. The ones on bait were the biggest trips as they would keep looking over to see what I was doing!

Teh forelegs of most bears aren't much larger than your legs. I can guarantee you that at 10 yards with a full choke a 3" mag of 00 buck will blow you leg off for all practical purposes.

So BBB take your BS and leave me alone. Better yet why not go find yourself a big bear piss it off and tell how you stopped its charge. You seem to be generally ignorant and enjoy picking fights. I have noticed this from all you posts and I believe most here at this forum would agree.

Todd E

When we first saw the Griz., he was about 30 yards away and coming fast. I didn't have time to think and definately did not have time to site the rifle. It simply came up in my hands and went bang! The bullet hit the boar in the chest and the sucker turned sideways (at 10 FEET!) All I remember about the rest of the skirmish was Bill and I shooting the sucker several times more; things were a blur!

The bear was not a 10" monster or 1,000 pounds. It was about an eight footer or so.

We are to this day thankful that we had the time to at least reload and somewhat prepare for the possible encounter before hand!

I read alot of speculation in the above posts and simply wanted to make the point that when it happens, you won't have alot of time to think about anything. If you take the time to think, I feel that grizz will rough you up good!

I have been fortunate to be able to have lived here for over 40 years. I have seen more Browns and Black bears in the last 4 or 5 years here than in all of my previous Alaskan tenure. Their population is very much on the rise. This was the only time a bear has ever taken interest in me (not counting all of the others that simply fled when winding me.)

Don't dwell on what you might have happen to you, simply be prepaired. Be aware of your surroundings when in grizz. country.

Whats my recommendation as the best bear protection? A good thinking cap!

best,
bhtr

..........................

Owing to the rising bear population in Alaska, and the increasing number of tourists, we are seeing an increasing number of encounters between bears and people. First, stay out of bear habitat if you can. If you must go into bear habitat, tie small bells to your shoes and carry a can of pepper spray. The bells will alert bears to your presence, and they will usually move away. The pepper spray offers some defense in case you are attacked.

Further, it is important to know what type bear you are dealing with. Black bears are smaller, and their droppings tend to be smaller, and full of fur from small prey they have eaten. Brown bear droppings are much larger, and tend to be full of little bells, and smell like pepper.

sheephunter

Bears only 200 pounds and no tougher than people? Your buckshot will blow the leg right off a bear? Are your bears as small and narrow as your mind? What bar do you do your hunting in?

I hunt in the woods with a legal license. Where do you hunt were every animal is record books size?

In reality most game taken is nowhere near record book size. If you have ever actually shot a shotgun with 00 buckshot and a full choke you would know that at 10' the shot is still in the wad idiot and will blow a hole through a pretty heavy steel pipe.

Todd E

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd E:
BBBruce,
I hunt in the woods with a legal license. Where do you hunt were every animal is record books size?

In reality most game taken is nowhere near record book size. If you have ever actually shot a shotgun with 00 buckshot and a full choke you would know that at 10' the shot is still in the wad idiot and will blow a hole through a pretty heavy steel pipe.

Todd E

---

Gee Todd, I've never carried an "illegal" licence. But then I don't know your bar.

In much of BC (west coast of Canada), on the coast, critters get a very high protein diet and 12 months of no snow. They hibernate little & grow large. However if you'll re-read my posts, the bear I saw take 6 X .30 cal was <100 lbs. The bear I shot in the chest with buckshot at 10 yards was "small" and that is how I described it. In retrospect I would estimate it, too, as <100 lbs. I was shooting hand loaded buckshot and maybe I screwed up. But a hunting buddy used the same hand loads and a nice muley went down to it like a sack of coal, so who knows? In any event 10 yards is about three times further than the ten feet your response mentions, and I've yet to see lead shot poke holes in heavy steel pipe. Lead in Canada is softer than steel. Presumably Cincinatti is different, eh?

I wasn't there when the RCMP had their experience with buckshot; their story is purely anecdotal to me. However US #00
buck may be different from Canadian SSG. I do know that SSG loaded 9 pellets to the ounce back then, and issue ammo was 2-3/4 inch not 3". Your remembered story cannot compare to my personal experience, and frankly what you "remember" from when you were a kid is problematic. I have no way of knowing how long ago you were a kid. Was it recently?

There is a very good reason why a pistol bullet is likely more effective than buckshot in bear killing - hydrostatic shock from rifling spin. The only energy transferred from projectile to target with buckshot is muzzle energy. That is a function of weight X velocity. A shotgun pellet is likely to have a velocity of not more than 1330 fps, and SSG at 9 to the oz. is about 48.6 grains, so the muzzle energy per pellet is in the order of 190 ft lbs. A 357 magnum shooting a 180 grain slug (presumably he wasn't chasing a bear with a 50 grain pellet) has a muzzle energy of about 700 ft. lbs at the same velocity. According to my Speer Reloading Manual #11 at page 474, the rifling in a 357 magnum varies from 1-14" to 1-18.75" depending on brands. Add the hydrostatic shock induced by the rifling spin on the bullet, and I readily believe that it killed the bear. Bullet rpm is a bigger killer than dead weight (if you'll forgive the pun). Hydrostatic shock is "the" killer.

Bears are just plain tough, in my experience anyway.

Ok Todd, I've done a wee bit of research for you on this one. I hate the thought of anybody getting hurt in a bear situation, and
although I'd rather have (for instance) buckshot than a .22 in a pinch, IMO buckshot and bears do not mix. Your turn. Why would a presumably grown adult start a conversation with somebody 4,000 miles away by calling him a liar? I have no reason to lie and we've never met. What gives?

Buckshot, I will never use it, to me its like bear spray. It can work, but I value my life alot more. Beside why use it when I have rifles that are better suited.

One thing I'm surprised that hasnt been mentioned about the chest shots in a defensive situation. A bears heart beats slow. By the time the brain gets robbed of blood, hes got ya. Break him down and then kill him. If your lucky enough to get a brain shot, thats great. the spine is an easier shot (but still too not easy when the damn thing is coming at you). I hope I never have to shoot a bear in defense. If I ever have to. If I have to take a shot, naturally I want to kill it, but I'll be happy if I can turn it away. it might give me a few more seconds for a good kill shot.

Don't use the term "hydrostatic shock". This is an oxymoron. "Shock" and "static" don't go together. There is a stagnation pressure in penetration events but this should not be confused with static pressure. Also the bullet will not penetrate at anything like the sound speed of the target (over 4000 fps) so there is no shock involved. The proper term to use is the "hydrodynamic pressure" resulting from the high velocity passage of the projectile. I don't mean to nag, but I know you want to be correct.

You are wasting your time trying to educate BBBruce. This is a guy that thinks 00 buckshot doesn't do any damage at ten feet. Image his surprise if he ever got hit with some lowly #4 shot out of a full choked 12 gauge at 10' and died there and then when that wad entered into his chest and then opened up like a hand grenade. See BBBruce I know a poor soul that died in a hunting accident when a shotgun loaded with #4 was propt up against a fence. The gun fell over and discharged hitting this poor hunter in the side. This guy was a big boy to, over 250 pounds. The shot shredded his thorasic cavity (lungs and heart). Death was instant!

But that is the kind of stuff that only happens in bar hunting. For your information I have had British Columbian authorities provide the same information that the Rangers in Washington State did about using a 12 gauge for protection against bears, but that was only for locals as us Americans couldn't bring firearms across the border back then! I don't understand what my age has to do with anything unless bears have become bullet proof or shotguns have suddenly become toys in the last 25 - 30 years. My guess is that you are some kid just out having fun, which is fine with me. The problem is that there really seems to be individuals here that are looking for honest information.

Todd E

On to another subject. Somebody sent me some hilarious attachment photos in an email last night. When I tried to copy them into here it didn't work. Does anybody know how, please?

[This message has been edited by BBBruce (edited 01-28-2002).]

You are doubtless correct. But consider this. fn(1) There is a myth to the effect that a bullet which remains inside a target is more effective (in terms of stopping or killing power) than one which completely penetrates. This myth is not new. Colonel Townsend Whelen writes in his very illuminating treatise, Small Arms Design and Ballistics, that "the thought at that time was that the ideal bullet should just shoot through the animal to its opposite side, and lodge under the skin without penetrating clear through, thus expending all its energy on the beast" (p. 137). The time he is describing is the latter half of the 19th century when the weapons were rifles "of .45 caliber, shooting a bullet of 350 to 550 grains and with a charge of black powder sufficient to give it a muzzle velocity of from 1300 to 1500 fps"
(p. 136). Even in these early days of ballistics inquiry the significance of kinetic energy was being examined.

Unfortunately the conclusion reached by some is arrant nonsense. It is interesting that the 19th century model of "energy dump" required the bullet to completely pass through the body, but stop under the skin on the off-side; combining the features of an "energy dump" with lethal penetration and cavitation.

There are at least two contemporary variations on the "energy dump" premise. The principal argument seems to center on the concept of "overpenetration", which is essentially the same thought as expressed in the 19th century but with the added evidence of actual results from gunfights on the street (the chief culprit being the rather pointed 9 mm FMJ bullet). Bullets which "overpenetrate" do not stop opponents as readily as those that remain in the body. Therefore, if the energy isn't "wasted" on exit, the bullet is more effective. Right?

Not exactly. A bullet of a given construction and impact velocity will create a cavity of predictable dimensions over its path, whether it stops or penetrates completely. Therefore, if the hole created can penetrate all the way through, it causes more damage than if it stops at some point. The critical issue here is what sort of hole are we making, not whether it goes all the way through. "Overpenetration" is a misnomer. The ineffective stopping attributed to overpenetration is actually caused by "undercavitation".

A pet .41 Magnum load (170 gr Sierra JHC with a muzzle velocity of 1500 fps) will probably penetrate more than 15 inches if it doesn't hit heavy bones, but the cavity created by this bullet is enormous, much larger and originating at a shallower depth than that caused by a 5.56 x 45 mm M193 military bullet. In short, it is much more lethal than the very lethal 5.56 mm. These two loads have essentially the same kinetic energy. There is no comparison between this cavity and the one produced by a Federal .40 S&W 180 gr HP, which is also a very effective "stopper". Am I to think that my .41 Magnum load is less potent because it penetrates farther?

If there were an ideal case from the standpoint of efficiency, I suppose it would be for a bullet which completely, but just barely, penetrated and fell to the ground. In this case the bullet has done all the damage that it can do to that particular target at that particular angle of entry. The problem here, of course, is that one cannot predict the exact size and toughness of the game encountered, or the exact range, which would have to be known in order to achieve the precise impact velocity required for ideal efficiency. All of these uncertainties drive bullet loads to exceed the minimum performance, and this is accomplished by designing a bullet that will create an adequate cavity while completely penetrating over a wide range of impact velocities. Naturally, at some ranges the bullet will exit with considerable residual velocity. This wasted energy is irrelevant if the wound is adequate.

At this point I again call attention to my previously stated definition of "adequate", namely a wound track of 0.75 to 1.00 inches in diameter through heart, lungs or major arteries. A smaller hole through major arteries only (for example) will kill, but the game may run a significant distance and be lost. It is also infinitely more difficult to track wounded game without a blood trail than with one that looks as if it were painted with a roller, and entrance wounds rarely bleed much. A larger hole (say 4 inches and no exit) may drop it instantly, but what is gained by less than 50 yds at the risk of an inadequate wound if a difficult angle is involved or major bones intervene? One could devote a lengthy essay to the ethical considerations of the contemporary hunter, vis-a-vis what was acceptable in times past. Personally, I hold the one-shot instant kill as my ideal and therefore absolute reliability in terminal performance.

Tactical considerations concerning penetration are a different matter entirely. Bullets such as the Glaser Safety Slug were designed primarily with tactical considerations in mind, rather than optimal wounding. Glasers are designed not to penetrate aircraft or sheetrock walls, or to exit from the body of the target and endanger someone immediately behind. They create extremely effective wounds if they do not have to penetrate deeply.

For those who yet doubt the validity of this principle, consider a hypothetical example of two projectiles with equal kinetic energies. One is a 1 lb gel-filled bag launched at 60 fps. The other is a 490 gr broadhead arrow travelling at 225 fps. Both have a kinetic energy of 55 ft-lbs. Which would you rather be hit by? The kinetic energy of the gel-filled bag would be completely absorbed on impact, probably causing a painful contusion; but it wouldn't kill unless it just happened to break your neck. The arrow would easily and completely penetrate a human torso from any angle and continue travelling with residual energy, but prove highly lethal.

"However," one might object, "we're only considering a mere 55 ft-lbs. What happens when the energy levels are comparable to that of a high powered rifle?"

An excellent question. Assume 2000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy, about that of a .308 cal, 165 gr Ballistic Tip fired from a .30-`06 to a game animal at 250 yds; well within its operating range for lethal dispatch on large game. This equates, in strict energy terms, to the kinetic energy of a 50 lb bag of fertilizer when dropped from a height of 24.86 ft. That sounds awful and I daresay it would clobber most living things, but its the kinetic energy of the falling bag of fertilizer, not necessarily the effect of the falling bag itself, which is under consideration. The actual momentum transfer of the bullet is slightly less than that of the gel-filled 1 lb bag previously described, and if one were wearing body armor to slow the absorbtion of energy at impact, that is what would be felt - a good solid thump. With the body armor one's body absorbs all of the kinetic energy without harm, without it the bullet penetrates and exits using only a portion of its kinetic energy but delivers a lethal wound. Two "foot-tons" of kinetic energy does not equate with the impact of a full-size sedan. Its not the energy itself that kills, its the character of the work done by it.

To be fair, in this case the body armor helps to absorb the energy in lieu of one's flesh and bone and distribute the force exerted over a larger area; I cannot defend the premise that game animals or people can absorb 2000 ft-lbs of energy instantaneously (and this is essential) with impunity. Moreover, I can think of no hunting bullets for rifles today which do not provide adequate penetration under most circumstances against the game for which they are intended. But there are frangible bullets composed of compressed metal powders which disintegrate upon impact expending all of their kinetic energy without penetrating, and these are not suitable for hunting, although they may inflict wounds which are ultimately fatal. Varmint bullets are also demonstrated miserable performers on big game, although under ideal conditions (missing all heavy bones on a clear broadside lung shot) they can kill spectacularly against lightly bodied deer and antelope. Hit the shoulder or angle from the rear and its ruinous.

Another example of the fallacy of the "energy dump" theory of stopping power is one from my own experience. I once shot a thin metal screen with my 41 Magnum (210 gr. HP, 1350 fps, 850 ft-lbs) at a very close range (do not try this at home!). The bullet was completely stopped; it lay on the ground in front of the mesh screen. The screen apparently had completely absorbed all of the kinetic energy of the bullet. However, the screen suffered no serious damage; there was only a faint depression where the bullet had struck and glanced. What actually occurred is that the screen "gave" against some tall grass when impacted and caught the bullet like a catcher's mitt. When I attempted to reproduce this spectacular behavior for a friend of mine, the screen was supported so that it did not give and was easily perforated by the bullets.

This last example from actual "testing" graphically demonstrates why the energy dump premise is fundamentally flawed. These examples also serve to illustrate the profound differences between kinetic energy and momentum. Kinetic energy is an exponential function of velocity, momentum is not. However, one should not assume from this that kinetic energy means nothing, or is somehow unrelated to wounding potential. Clearly, the naked human torso (and that of even large and tough game) is far more capable of absorbing a low velocity impact than the kinetic energy of a rifle bullet with a corresponding momentum.

The rate of energy transfer to the target is vastly more important than the quantity of energy transferred. This is the technical definition of power. Anyone sunbathing on a clear summer day at the beach will receive an irradiance equivalent to over 4600 ft-lbs every minute! Eventually, this bombardment by extremely high velocity particles will result in sunburn, but the body can withstand the energy it receives because it is spread over a large area and arrives at a relatively slow rate (compared with bullets). The power and intensity (power per unit area) is much less than ballistic events.

The other popular contemporary misconception results from the assumption that the kinetic energy of the bullet is "transferred" to the target, thereby somehow killing it through "hydrostatic shock".

I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps.

Some people use "shock" in the colloquial sense to describe a violent impact, but it is confusing, especially in connection with the term "hydrostatic" and lends undeserved quasi-scientific merit to the slang. It also tends to get confused with the medical expression attending trauma. We are not describing any medical shock.

Before I become too dogmatic and overstate the situation, let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation, can cause some secondary effects due to pressure on the nervous system or heart. It is possible to kill manually by nerve "strangulation". In this case actual damage to the central nervous system is not caused, but the signals governing the heart or diaphragm are shut off, resulting in instantaneous unconsciousness or even death. Certain rare sports fatalities have been definitely attributed to a swift blow which interrupts the cardiac rhythm. This type of phenomena may account for the rapid effectiveness of some high-velocity hollow-point pistol bullets, especially in cases in which the victim is not mortally
wounded and recovers consciousness within a few minutes. Several special handgun loads have been designed with no regard whatsoever to penetration (e.g., the THV bullet) in order to achieve this result. Unfortunately, this is an unreliable mechanism of incapacitation, generally obtained at the expense of effective penetration. No bullet yet designed will produce this effect even 10% of the time. Many of the bullets designed to utilize this effect can be defeated by common barriers, such as glass, sheetrock, and even clothing. Doing this deliberately by hand, even with a profound understanding of the mechanism and vital points, is extremely uncertain; using the passage of a pressure wave from a bullet to accomplish this falls into the freak event category. Such is never an acceptable mechanism for the hunter.

The point that I have attempted to press here (perhaps in a rambling fashion) is that complete penetration is not something to avoid in the hunting field. In fact there is good evidence that through and through wounds cause collapse quicker in many instances, especially lengthwise shots.

On the other hand, as I have alluded to previously, some contemporary bullet designs (Nosler Ballistic Tip and Remington Bronze Point) as well as some renowned performers from years past(e.g., the original 130 gr. load of the .270 Win) achieve a high percentage of instantaneous kills by blowing to bits and never exiting the game. I find this interesting in view of the current obsession with avoiding bullets in which the lead cores separate from the jacket. There are few situations in which simple slip separation (core and jacket traveling forward together) would be disadvantageous, although complete separation invariably leaves the jacket behind and makes the core vulnerable to premature fragmentation. But returning to the issue, the successful frangible bullet designs nevertheless always penetrate to the vitals and have never been regarded as reliable for raking shots requiring deep penetration or against very tough heavy game and most knowledgeable authorities prefer bullets which exhibit modest cavitation with deep penetration because of their flexibility in the field.

There is another branch of armchair ballisticians who favor the use of momentum as a raw measure of "stopping power". I confess that I was long enamored of this view, but it is equally inadequate to describe terminal behavior and as full of blue sky nonsense as any claim made of
kinetic energy.

The old African hunters talked of "stoppers" which would cause a charging pachyderm to halt its forward progress in its tracks and stand stock still in a daze. This situation applied only to (if you carefully note the details) the truly huge weapons such as the 8 and 4 bore blackpowder rifles and later .577 and .600 Nitro Expresses when fired into the spongy skull of an elephant, but when the brain is closely missed. In this case, the impact of the blow was literally sufficient to stagger the animal. It is to be noted, however, that these ancient blackpowder weapons could only be used by men of considerable size and strength and even they dreaded pulling the trigger. Frederick Courteney Selous says that using such weapons crippled him and Sir Samuel Baker foreswore such things as soon as he developed guns and loads capable of dependable penetration, preferring the far less punishing 10 bore!

Unless you hunt elephant with these antique monsters, and I don't know of anyone alive who does, then "stopping" an animal in this sense isn't a matter of concern. From what I've read, one cannot depend upon a similar effect on the remarkably tough Cape buffalo until something like a .577 NE is used, and then a well aimed shot will penetrate clean through end to end, so that its really not the same scenario at all. Proper stopping of a charge depends on shot placement.

Similar rules apply to human targets. The human frame is so lightly constructed that any "stopper" class weapon will easily penetrate through even after encountering major bones. Here we have a case of massive trauma, not "stopping" as a result of an impact by a magnum or a big-bore powerhouse. Again, the force of the blow is (at worst) comparable to the recoil of the gun. It has to be. That's physics. In either case the bullet is acting under high acceleration loads over a short distance. Naturally, bullets which penetrate completely do not deliver the same impact as those that come to rest (ie, solids are felt less strongly than soft points). There are always anecdotal accounts (invariably told by those who have never shot anyone) of people being hurled off their feet by a .45 ACP using hardball when pathetic little .38 Special bullets are shrugged off without effect. In actuality, there are quite as many incidents of people shrugging off .45 slugs as for many lesser calibers.

There are some exceptions to the general rule that lethal wounding is caused by cavitation and penetration. These exceptions are cases in which the impact causes a pressure pulse of such magnitude through the body of the target, that it is instantly killed (notice I deliberately avoided the word "shock"). This happens, for example, when you shoot a chipmunk with a .30-`06, even if the chipmunk wears body armor. It doesn't happen often (if ever) against big game and humans with ordinary (ie, shoulder fired) weapons (NOTE: I'm not referring here to hits against the central nervous system, or to any hit which results in a penetration; only to hits which could kill exclusively from the force of the impact). I haven't yet seen any cases in which a wound that did not reach to the vital organs resulted in death - except as a result of septicemia.

What this means is that if all of the momentum of a high-powered rifle bullet were delivered by a non-penetrating blow, the damage inflicted on any game larger than a small varmint would be relatively insignificant.

I've asked people who have been shot to describe their sensations of being shot, physical reactions, etc. The common response is that the impact feels precisely like the impact of a punch. It is not any more impressive. This is also consistent with testimony I have read of others, and serves as a useful analogy for argument. A punch is not staggering unless it also causes debilitating damage, usually to the brain, but alternatively to the lungs, etc. - or in the case of the victim being surprised, off balance, etc. The impact of a bullet behaves according to similar constraints, all things being relative (ie, a 458 Winchester Magnum causes relatively more of an impact to a man than to an elephant because of the size difference, assuming the force of the bullet is absorbed in both cases).

Many readers will doubt the truth of this assertion. Some will say, "I have actually seen a deer do a complete somersault!". Many people have, but it wasn't caused by the force of the impact. For the skeptical among you, if you require proof that the spectacular flips often reporte are merely an apparent effect of the bullet impact, I challenge you to rent a video of dangerous game hunting in Africa and observe the effect of bullet impact on downed, already dead, animals when the insurance shot is made. This practice isn't carried out on deer and it separates the effect of the bullet from the effect of the living animal. Lions and even buffalo may seem to flip high in the air, but if they are dead the bodies only quiver ever so slightly; its barely visible, and these are shots through the most massive shoulder and spinal bones, delivering the greatest resistance and impact. Alternatively, you can perform a penetration test into wet phonebooks that completely absorbs the impact in a manner very similar to a game animal. I recently shot 28 inches of saturated phonebooks in a plastic tub (weighing approximately 80 lbs -- comparable to a small deer) with a .340 Weatherby Magnum firing a 225 grain bullet at 3100 fps (at ten feet). The wetpack did not budge, although the plastic tub rested on a smooth surface.

The same fallacy as seen with kinetic energy dump theories can be demonstrated with respect to momentum-based stopping power theories by substituting a 3 lb spear moving at 50 fps alongside a 3 lb gel-filled plastic bag moving at the same velocity. Now we have two projectiles with exactly the same masses and momentum. Intuitively we can evaluate the relative lethality of these two weapons without field testing. Incidentally, these both produce the same momentum as a .458 Winchester Magnum loaded with 500 gr bullets. The .458 Winchester Magnum is a "heavy hitter". Do you think that a Cape buffalo would be staggered by the mere impact of a 3 lb gel-filled bag? A haymaker punch (15 fps), using about 50% of the body weight of a 180 lb man would have a kinetic energy of about 300 ft-lbs, but a momentum over eight times greater than that of a .458 Winchester Magnum or .450 Nitro Express; indeed a hard swift jab (50 fps) would have a kinetic energy of still only about 350 ft-lbs, but a momentum almost three times greater than the standard in stopping class rifles! I wouldn't even dream of punching a Cape buffalo.

An important fact to remember is that not all energy is "created equal". What this means is that a kinetic energy value used as a measure or threshold for lethality is meaningless. The character of the work done by a certain quantity of kinetic energy will be dependent upon the mass, construction and velocity of the projectile. In other words, 1000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy generated by a slow-moving rock is not as lethal as that of a 5.56 mm bullet. Furthermore, the damage actually caused by a lesser amount of kinetic energy may easily exceed that caused by a greater quantity of kinetic energy! Expressed differently, kinetic energy has "quality" as well as "quantity". This is easier to understand in terms of heat energy, which has temperature (degrees F or C) as well as quantity (BTUs or Joules). Kinetic energy is governed by similar laws.

As further evidence of this fact, observe that when terminal ballistic experiments are scaled the velocity is held constant. Kinetic energy, mass and the dimensions are scaled, but velocity is not. In like manner pure water at standard pressure boils at 100� C, regardless of quantity. A small amount of water does not boil at a lower temperature than a larger amount. The heat required to bring a quantity of water to a boil is directly proportional to the mass of the water (just as the kinetic energy is proportional to the volume of displacement by a bullet), but the character of the work done on the water by that heat energy is determined by the temperature it produces. It is velocity, not kinetic energy, which is the quantity of greatest interest in the terminal ballistics of small arms.

Since a knowledge of the velocity and projectile construction is essential to evaluating the character of the kinetic energy and its wounding potential, simply relying on a quantity of energy is utterly meaningless and extremely misleading. The way in which a sporting bullet (say, a 7 mm 140 gr spitzer boat-tail at an impact velocity of 3000 fps) expends its first 1000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy upon a target (from 2797 ft-lbs to 1797 ft-lbs) will little resemble the way in which it expends its last 1000 ft-lbs (at an impact velocity of 1794 fps, where it will most likely fail to deform and simply drill straight through causing a neat little hole with negligible cavitation). In the former case, a lung shot would result in a wide wound track and a gaping exit wound as it exits the body at 2405 fps, but cause rapid collapse; in the latter case even a lengthwise shot which fully absorbed the energy of the projectile would probably mean a lost game animal because of the low probability of causing rapid hemorrhage. Interestingly, in the former case at least 20% of that kinetic energy would be lost to deformation of the bullet, whereas in the latter case all of it would be delivered to the target. However, that same 1000 ft-lbs of energy delivered by a .41 cal, 280 gr LBT flatnosed hard-cast bullet at 1268 fps would quickly drop a bull elk with the same lung or lengthwise shot because its larger diameter and strong flat nose would create a large diameter and deep wound even after smashing through heavy shoulder bones.

A popular notion among some gun buffs is the "foot-ton", a magical quanta of kinetic energy that is supposed to translate into all sorts of killing authority. Aside from the problem described above in assigning an arbitrary kinetic energy level for lethality against a type of game, there is the matter of unit definitions. If you like to think of it as the energy required to raise a one ton block a distance of one foot, that would be correct (again, not necessarily the same as being crushed by that falling block!). Forget the comparison to automobile impacts.

At the polar extreme from this viewpoint is a truly novel and recently presented conception highlighted in an article entitled "Stopping Power: A Skeptical Look at "Foot Pounds" as a Means to Measuring Your Rifle's Ballistic Energy" (Lee Saunders, Petersen's Rifle Shooter, June 1998, pp. 58 - 62) which is that kinetic energy is simply the arbitrary fabrication of some 18th century mathematician (c.f. Editorial Correspondence). What is most astounding about this latest outrage against science and clear reasoning is that the editors of the magazine didn't know enough themselves to prevent its publication. If the average shooter doesn't know what is wrong with the following tidbits then this country has more serious problems than confusion about terminal ballistics:

"The upshot is that the kinetic energy formula is neither correctly labeled as to resulting units, nor particularly accurate in describing projectile energy. I get the feeling that it is used very little outside the ballistics field. [emphasis added] If it were, it would likely have been changed long ago... In the KE formula we have something that is provably wrong in regard to the foot-pounds label..." (pg. 62)

The author displays an appalling incomprehension of junior high mathematics and general science, confusing a quantity squared with one doubled and addition with multiplication, using the terms energy, impulse energy (his own invention), momentum and force interchangeably, confuses rate with duration, and then has the incredible arrogance to unequivocally assert that 300 years of scientific inquiry is deluded, but that he perceives the truth of projectile motion. This article is so unspeakable that I go into hysterics when I read it. (To his credit, Saunders is a thoughtful experimentalist, if a poor scientist, and his improvised ballistic slide demonstrates what I had earlier claimed, which was that a light jab produces as much impact and physical translation as a .375 H&H or a 12 ga. slug).

Just in case somebody doesn't know, foot-pounds are a real quantity and can be converted into BTUs, Joules, kilowatt-hours, calories, ergs or electron-volts as you please. The different definitions are based upon physical laws, none of which have been "overturned" since God created the universe, let alone in the last century.

fn(1) Harald's web site

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd E:
I have had British Columbian authorities provide the same information that the Rangers in Washington State did about using a 12 gauge for protection against bears, but that was only for locals as us Americans couldn't bring firearms across the border back then!
Todd E

---

1. There has never been a time when US hunters could not bring shotguns into Canada. Pistols, fully automatic weapons and other weapons that we are not allowed to possess, no you can't bring them in. But shotguns? Nonsense.

2. A BC conservation officer had an opinion about weapons, eh? These guys are trained as clerks. They generally know squat about guns and have zero military experience. They are low level bureaucrats, their jobs depend on p/c, and guns are p/i in Canada. I might be a bit more inclined to trust a US officer, but in this case my experience is to the contrary. However who knows in the wide world of ballistics. Maybe they've had better experience. IMO bears and buckshot do not mix.

Good post and the best advice. Nothing beats experience! I have to agree on the expanding bear population. Even here on the Anchor we had several using right around the cabin. Only one close call but that was enough.

Joe

Who is Blair???

Todd E