The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Bullet penetration, when is less more?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Bullet penetration, when is less more? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
I read a report on 308 caliber bullets penetrations tests in gelatin. I was quite surprised to see that equal weight Nosler Partition bullets started at 30-06 velocities penetrated deeper in the gelatin than bullets started at 300 win mag velocities at some very short range. Can't recall the exact numbers but it was somewhere in the range of 16" for the 30-06 vs. 13" for the 300 win mag. I am guessing this is an expression of the greater diameter of the expansion of the 300 win mag due to the greater velocity at short range. So if this is true does this mean that the 308 is theoretically better for hunting elk at close ranges than the 300 win mag? Obviously at some range this phenomenom will reverse and the 300 will outpenetrate the 30.06 due to the greater velocity of the 300 now being an asset to bullet penetration. Any thoughts on this? | ||
|
one of us |
Ruk, I think there is a point of diminishing returns when pushing bullets faster. THe African hunters will tell you that when hunting in the thick stuff, you need to keep your vel. under 2500fps or so, about what I think you would get pushing a 200grNP from the .30-06. For magnums a close range a tougher bullet would probably be in order. For example, in my 7mm Dakota I use a 160grNP for general hunting, but if I were hunting thick stuff w/ it I would go to the 160grCTPG or 175grNP. On the other side of the discussion, I would think a 200rgNP from the 06 @ 350yds would lack sufficient exp. for a rapid kill compared to a .300 mag. | |||
|
| one of us |
Just a guess, but I bet the overall 'wound' diameter in the geletin hit with the 300 mag will be greater than the 30-06. This initial trauma, while transfering more energy (resulting in less penetration) would probably offset the lack of penetration by the faster bullet. For Elk-sized game with a .30 cal NP, you're probably gonna get sufficient penetration, even with the faster bullet at close range. Assuming that the larger wound channel is in the vitals, you're really not loosing anything. When you consider that either will likely exit on a broadside shot, the higher energy transfer of the higher velocity will actually be advantageous. Hmm...I think I was clear as mud with that thought. Oh well...it's Friday, and I'm off to test some 180 gr NP from a 300 RUM on wild hogs. I'll let you know how it goes! | |||
|
| one of us |
Gelatin approximates muscle tissue. Bullets penetration is near twice that through lungs. If an elk is 12" rib to rib just above the heart and your shot is on an animal quartering away at a 45 deg angle with .308 to .300 WinMag from 200 yds, you will need your field dressing kit. FredJ338, I was going to ask on another thread but never did so will do so now if you do not mind: What is the largest elk you have ever measured thickness side to side? [ 07-12-2003, 00:06: Message edited by: RuffHewn ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Ruff, I'll have to admit I have never actually slapped a tape on any of the elk I have shot or helped field dress (about a dozen). I have however measured: My big Airedale goes 9" across My own chest is close to 14" across The elk I have field dressed all seem to be deeper thru the chest than myself. This year I'll have to take a tape w/ me & see. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} For me personnaly, 12" of penetration is NOT enough for elk size game. Then again, I am not going to let a big bull get away because he won't give me his broad side (has happened to me & others too many times).[ 07-12-2003, 10:36: Message edited by: fredj338 ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Just thought this might be the spot to bring out this observation. Testing ballistic tips, I actually found a ballistic tip will penetrate more at velocities under 2600 fps than over that figure. This held true in calibers from 243 to 338. Actually downed a 650 pound cow elk at 175 yrds running broadside. Went 40 yds and went down for the count. The 165 grain ballistic tip, penetrated the right lung. The impact hole on the right side was about the size of a half dollar. The exit wound on the right lung was about the size of your fist. Going into the next lung, the entrance damage was about 1.5 times the size of your fist, the oft side of the left lung and liver were pretty much like a bowl of spaghetti. The bullet was bulged on the oft hide. The interesting thing was that this was shot out of a 30/06. The load was 30 grains of H 4198, for a muzzle velocity of 2250 fps. I figure the impact velocity must have been about 1850 fps or less. ( shot by nephew who forgot his ammo at home and had a light deer load available that we loaded for him when he was just 12; KIDS) The reason for the '06 penetrating more than the same bullet out of a 300 Mag: the bullet no matter how tough still has to stand up under impact velocity. How far it penetrates is in direct proportion of how little it blew up or flexed when it impacted the animal. Some bullets will blow up at high velocity on impact. That is why there is a lot less meat damage with a heavier bullet in 30 caliber than say a 150 grain bullet when fired from a magnum. Yet at high velocity a bullet can be so tough that the game media or body does not offer the bullet enough resistance, so the bullet never opens up and passes on thru like a Full Metal jacket. It becomes a wound that the animal will die of later, but not now. Yet the same bullet will open up at a lower velocity. Another reason I like the old round noses, they just open up well at all velocities. Why do they still load 117 grain RNs in 257 Weatherbys unless they worked, and worked well. Not a long range bullet but does well under high impact speeds and opens up to take the game, deep penetration. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Please offer some evidence of this or shut your damn pie hole...and the hole from which you seem to be pulling this. That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. | |||
|
| one of us |
All this really means nothing from a practical standpoint as the Nosler is going to kill the animal at any rate from either gun... The faster 300 shed its energy faster and the cross section became bigger faster and of course that stops penitration but both have plenty... The 300 is still the more powerfull cartridge, but this does make a case for the 200 gr. Nosler in the big 300s, the weight I settled on many years ago in my 300 H&H...... With 12 inches of penitration in geletin that would in my experience put either bullet to the off side skin and in real life you would get an exit hole most of the time with both but for sure with the .308..but on the otherhand the internal damage would be much much more with the 300, so take your pick. I betcha he would die quicker with the 300... | |||
|
| one of us |
Not another round of too much velocity to expand.I thought everyone had learned by now that this is just another old myth with no merit.A bullet may come apart or in the case of a barnes x the petals may break off causing a smaller wound chanel but the bullet will expand more rapidly at higher velocity. [ 07-15-2003, 07:30: Message edited by: stubblejumper ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Jon A: I will be more than happy to explain whatever you want explained. I just want to have two questions answered by you; 1. How old are you? 2. How long have you been hunting and shooting? I have been doing so for over 35 yrs now. Do you honestly think that your experience even comes close to that. From the picture you showed of your deer you asked If I had ever sneaked up on one like that. If that was you, you were about 22 -25 yrs old to me. And I did not want to make an argument, but still hunting I have had bigger deer come by me. I let the other hunters push them from their beds. And yes I have taken a lot bigger bucks than that, In fact a couple of years ago, one presented itself while out squirrel hunting but it was still deer season. I had a tag and no deer rifle. So knowing how to shoot and knowing the capabilities of the only rifle I had with me, a 22 Mag I took it with a head shot at about 100 yds or so. And you hunt with a 240 grain match king, which even the factory goes way out of their way to state that they do recommend it for hunting. It also states It needs a one in 9 twist to really properly stabilize that. Do you have that sort of twist in your rifle, or are you just slinging lead out at 400 yds and hoping you will hit something. Yeah, you show you know a lot, and I don't know squat huh? Well I heard a biker say it best talking about his Harley once: If I have to explain it; then you don't have the capacity to understand it. People like you are the dangerous ones that get other hunters and people out in the woods killed. You evidently don't know squat about bullet construction or application of the bullet to the game. You are even " smarter" than the factory technicians. Need I say more! | |||
|
| one of us |
I can't speak for Jon A but I killed my first big game animal at age 12 and that was over 30 years ago.I have taken 10 species of north american game animals and have hunted extensively in alberta,b.c. and saskatchewan and a few times in another province and three states.I have used 10 different cartidges to take big game animals.Now I have a fair bit of experience and I will be the first to admit that I do not know all there is to know about ballistics but I do know that when expanding bullets are used they expand more rapidly at higher velocity.As I stated earlier in the case of the barnes x the petals may break off due to this very rapid expansion actually leaving a small wound channel.But when someone tells you that the bullet is too tough to open up at high velocity but expands at lower velocity it's best to just walk away because the person doesn't understand enough about expanding bullet behavior to have an intelligent conversation about it.The same goes for someone that tells you a bullet failed at high velocity because it didn't have time to expand but it would have expanded if the velocity was lower. [ 07-15-2003, 09:42: Message edited by: stubblejumper ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Stubble, And JOn A. first Jon A, from your website address and everything else you have posted, I see that you are an engineer at Boeing. Therefore you have some intelligence and education under your belt. YOu probably look younger than you are. But anyway, If you want examples: 300 Win Mag, 200 grain Sierra, Federal Factory Ammo, Published Velocity at 2960. Shot large whitetail in Northern Minnesota the last day of the season. The distance was at 100 yds, as it cut thru a clearing. Deer went down at the impact, right on his face at a dead run, jumped up and headed into the swamp, just as the sun was dropping. It drops quick in Northern Minnesota in late November. No opportunity to track him. Walked to the spot he went down, and there was both blood and fur all over the place. Wondered why did the bullet fail. This buck was easily 275 lbs plus on the hoof, and had a rack of 6 points on each side. Called Sierra the following morning. Their tech explained to me that their 200 grain 30 caliber is a tough bullet. It is more designed to open up on Elk size game. At high impact speed, if there is not enough counter resistance of the material it is hitting it will not open up very quickly. If it passes thru something like a deer, which would be not as much cross body mass as say an elk, it may have exited before it had a chance to open up. However if the bullet had been fired in a 30/06 or 308 at that distance, then it would not have penetrated as quickly as it was from the 300 Mag and therefore would have had a chance to open up before exiting. This is the explanation given to me by Sierras techicians. What I understand of physics, this makes perfectly logical sense. I also had the opportunity to speak casually with a ballistic guy at Nosler one time and discussed this, and he gave me the same explanation stating some other competitor's bullets are constructed like that, but explained how a partition is designed to not do that. I trust these people's expertise and their reason to offer good reliable information. Sierra, 1-800-223-8799. Call them and if they give you the same explanation with those circumstances, tell them what idiots they are Stubblejumper. A guy in Alberta knows a lot more than the factory guys do. I don't test bullets in milk jugs, I test bullets into wood, which I think is a better example of performance on hitting animal tissue. I have also seen that the same bullet traveling out of the same rifle, but having different impact velocities can produce more damage and have a greater penetration at lower impact velocity, then one impacting at a much higher velocity. One gentleman put it into words one time that I thought was the best explanation. Standing in water in a lake or something, up to your upper torso. Hit the water as hard as you can with your fist. What happens? Hit the water with you fist again but at a much slower impact. Which one gets less resistance from the water, and allows your fist to penetrate into it the easiest and the furthest? There is your explanation. And that is also another reason I am not sold on using a Magnum, unless I need it for some large game. And I think shooting at 300 plus yards is irresponsible in a lot of circumstances. Sure you may practice, but if you miss where is that bullet going then? I am sure you can't account for it. I am a firm believer in accounting for every bullet I shot while out hunting, because I am not the only hunter in the forest, or in the open. In 1974 my 26 yr old cousin was shot and killed by a shot from another hunter that had missed its mark. As far as could be told, the person who shot was better than 600 yds away, and was shooting at something about 400 yds out past him. He missed and 200 yds away the bullet entered my cousins chest. Jon A, your web site shows your young son. My cousin Tony had a 2 month old daughter at the time. Maybe some of us have a logical reason for some of our thoughts and practices on hunting and shooting ethics. That may not be formed just to piss someone else off. So there is your explanation, your example and my reasoning...... any more belligerent toned questions???? and I don't have a pie hole. I don't really eat much pie at all, except maybe pumpkin in the fall. [ 07-15-2003, 10:00: Message edited by: seafire ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Nice, mature explanation, Seafire. I like pecan myself. ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} Leighton | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I�ll be 30 in 15 days. quote:I�ve been shooting since I was 6, got my first deer at age 12, first elk and antelope at age 13. quote:I know people who have been driving for 50 years. They�ve been lousy drivers for 50 years and 50 more wouldn�t change that. quote:Congrats.  quote:I used it for one season on one deer. I knew if I hit a deer with it it would blow a big-assed hole all the way through it. Guess who was right, you idiot? quote:That was most likely written when the 300 Win Mag was the intended launch vehicle. At RUM velocities 1:10 does just fine. quote:When is the last time you practiced at 800 yards? Yeah, I thought so. That load was well tested out to 800 yards before I ever took it into the field. Did you miss the part where I got the deer at 15 yards? Get back to me when you have a foot to stand on, M�kay? quote:You�re doing a pretty good job of showing that all by yourself, tool. quote:[BLEEP] you very much for saying that. Please point to anything I have ever posted that could indicate to any reasonable individual that I have ever, in any way, been unsafe in the field you little piece of garbage. That�s a rather large accusation to lay on somebody you don�t even know with no basis whatsoever, you [BLEEP]ing [BLEEP]weasel. quote:Duh. quote:You�re on a roll.... quote:Uh, oh. quote:Another case of �Bullet failure because I took a snapshot at a running animal and he got away!� You shot at a running animal (I thought one should be 100% sure of their shots????) and when he didn�t die it was the bullet�s fault? quote:Yup. Must have been bullet failure because a good bullet wouldn�t have left all that blood and fur all over the place. Couldn�t have been your shot placement. I�m sure if I set up a moving target for you to shoot at you could make that shot 100% every time. ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} You moose[BLEEP].quote:And thanks to your lousy shooting he was wasted. Who is it who �slings lead out there� again? quote:Call Sierra again and ask them the same question. Your recollection of the conversation is seriously flawed or you are simply a revisionist historian. It doesn�t work that way, you gobbler. quote:Exactly what of physics do you know that support this, [BLEEP] breath? Is it one of the many fluid dynamic equations that could be applied? Is it a more basic kinetic energy thing? You�re backed into a corner surrounded by your own idiotic statments. Try a test with any medium (even a dead animal if you insist) with any bullet and you�ll find it simply doesn�t work this way. quote:I�ve been doing this for years and I agree. Test any bullet at an extremely high velocity (from an �evil magnum�) and a lower velocity. Get back to us with the results, dumbass. quote:Impossible. quote:That is a very good explanation as to why a bullet will often penetrate farther when the impact velocity is lower. For expansion of the bullet, imagine your hand is fragile enough to be seriously damaged by the water. Which hurts more--the slow impact or the fast one? quote:And there�s yours why bullets expand more rapidly at higher velocities. quote:But slinging lead at a running animal and losing it as a result is just ducky, right there Mr. High Horse�you judgemental piece of [BLEEP]? quote:I thought you proved to everybody that non-magnums penetrate better with the same bullets. Therefore shooting a non-magnum is more dangerous as it will take longer to stop while going through the trees and such.... Assclown. quote:Of course when shooting at a running animal you�re scanning the background and identifying everything in it as you sling lead, correct? quote:That is terrible and I am truely sorry for your loss. But that has nothing to do with magnums, spitzers or any sort of responsible hunting. I lost a very close friend to a hunting accident many years ago as well. But it wasn�t the fault of a magnum or a spitzer or a shot more than 300 yards away. It was simply an accident. Edited to be more nearly kid friendly. [ 07-15-2003, 22:10: Message edited by: Jon A ] | |||
|
| one of us |
"there was fur and blood all over the place" obviously the bullet expanded as an unexpanded bullet would not have done all that damage.The problem that bullet makers have to deal with is that too much velocity causes bullets to expand so violently that they can fail to hold together and break apart.Too low of a velocity results in a failure to expand.If the understanding you got from bullet technicians is as you say then I can only suggest that you need a course in comprehension of the english language because you certainly have no understanding of how expanding bullets behave at various velocities.Your suggesting that the death of your cousin had anythingto do with the fact that the hunter used a magnum is purely assinine. [ 07-15-2003, 16:25: Message edited by: stubblejumper ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Seafire... you are so out to lunch. Saying that a projectile is going too fast to expand is like saying that you can throw a dirt clot so fast at a brick wall that it goes through it without disintegrating... Or that a meteor will travel so fast that when impacting the earth it stays whole, it just doesn�t happen... they turn into dust and pellets on impact. Look at solids for a moment... If you could precisely model a test and record your results, you would find that a solid shot over a wide velocity range would have dynamic penetration results... some shots at lower velocities would penetrate slightly less or slightly more than ones at higher velocities, and vice versa. This is due to many explanation of physics and fluid dynamics regarding turbulent flow around the projectile. At some point in high velocity conditions will be more ideal to penetrate deeper than at low, and vise versa, but it will never be proportional in gains or losses on either end . There are several reasons why a high velocity bullet will not penetrate as far as a low velocity one... Fragmentation/erosion, construction in relation to types of transformation, construction distribution, type of material, and to some degree frontal diameter. How a projectile is loosing its energy is the most important. Take a look at the Barnes X and the nosler partition, The X is not penetrating deeper because the frontal diameter is less than the partition... its not it�s greater. It�s penetrating more because it takes less energy to deform a bullet through bending than it does through a malleable action. This is a known fact in engineering. But what about weight retention? Take any bullet with the same or similar square are of expansion to the X, that has a bonded core, and compare the penetration, I am sure you will find that the X penetrates farther. Imagine taking a semi fluid hammer and hitting an upright bullet. Much of the energy is focused strait down the axis... lead will squeeze out the sides and *expand* the bullet, the hammer blow is greatly absorbed. Now try an X or any other brass or copper hollow point... it is easy for the hammer blow to tear and bend the sides out to expand... and the rest of the hammers energy is not so easily converted to malleable deformation because of the hardness of the copper at the base... thus the remainder of energy is "carried" with the projectile for penetration. Now look at the nosler again... the faster the partition looses its front core and the less that front core of lead has expanded before being lost, the deeper it will penetrate... It will not have that buffer of lead to absorb energy, and the partition wall will deform little, never mind it lost 45-50% it weight. How and when it looses its core is largely chaotic to us... as in... who knows? At higher velocities or lower, big animals or small, ribs or guts, many factors exist. High/low velocity and penetration have so many influential factors that there is little room for bold statements and is oftan construction that will determine penetration. Id also like to add that experiance has very little to do with time. Many people hunt very little over a span of 35 years, and some hunt many many times that in 5. Secondly, experiance is that you had living existance within an event, weather you knew what to do with that knowledge during and after that experiance, or that you even understood what took place during that "experiance" is entirly different. [ 07-15-2003, 21:14: Message edited by: smallfry ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Hit the wrong button.... [ 07-15-2003, 22:11: Message edited by: Jon A ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Jon A, Stubblejumper and SmallFry: Lets make a deal for the sake of all of the other people on this board or web site. Since we are not going to agree on anything, and getting real slanderous is not an answer to prove anything..... Why don't we just keep our opinions of each other to ourselves and I will refrain from making comments about any of your postings, and you guys just do the same about mine. Most people are not really interested in the crap part of any of this. I trust you believe your opinions from your experiences and I believe my opinions as they were formed by my experiences. Beyond that all four of us are just pissing in the wind, trying to prove a point to each other. Personally I think each one of you would argue if I said the sun was going to rise tomorrow, just because I was the one who said it. You want to sling mud and slander, I can do it with the best of them, but why bore everyone else, and make this board look like some grade school playground crap. I am sure each one of you will continue to be good hunters and get your game each season. I see no change in my doing the same each year. Our opinions of each other is not real high, and probably never will be, so lets all get over it, and move on. If I say I know nothing and you guys are really right and know everything, would that make your lives happier? I'll hold my tongue and your hold yours. You ignore me and I'll gladly ignore you guys. | |||
|
| one of us |
And Jon A: Since you only had one question that was not really slanderous or derogatory; When is the last time that I had target practice to 800 yds. Well that would have been in the early 1980s with a M 60 Machine Gun at Camp Ripley Minnesota. In fact that practice and testing for score was out to 1100 yrds. And my score was poor, only the third place out of 250 or so people. So you are right, I really can't shoot. Our local range only goes out to about 750 yds on the big bore, so that is about as far out as I get the opportunity to shoot. Of course since I am such a weanie, and can't shoot magnums, I just shoot a rock about the size of a milk jug out there with little calibers like 223, or 22/250 or 243 or 6.5mm or 7mm. Occasionally in the fall, I let a few 30 calibers ones fly out of a 30/06 or so. But my experience is no where near yours. And yes I am a bad driver also. You also got that one right. Being a regional manager and a sales person for many years, I do spend about 50 to 60,000 miles a year behind the wheel for business. Owning my own company has not cut that down at all. Of course that does not include leisure time like going to the mountains etc. Can you believe I am so bad a driver that in just 3 million miles of driving, I have been involved in 4 accidents!!! Unbelievable isn't it? Even though each time, my vehicle was hit during bad weather, by another driver, I am sure you et al. can verify that each accident was my fault. I really want to thank you gentlemen for really pointing out my faults, and making me realize that I can never aspire to know even a fraction of what you gentlemen have forgotten. I hope this admission of my sins and guilt appeases your anger, distaste, and anomosity in life toward me. I am just fortunate to live in a nation, or near a nation ( for Stubble jumper) that has such intelligent people to point out how stupid the rest of us all must be. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your observations and generousity in pointing it all out and making it all so clear for us all. ![[Razz]](images/icons/tongue.gif){kind=icon} [ 07-16-2003, 11:19: Message edited by: seafire ] | |||
|
| one of us |
SEafire saying you are out to lunch is not outta line IMO, though I dont think being as harsh as Jon A does much good. I will not supress my views so we can all get along regardless if we are comming from the same angle. This is a forum. | |||
|
one of us |
An entertaining thread for a wednesday morning... I declare Seafire the winner in holding the moral high ground. Jon A you got too wound up!! ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
Fair enough small fry, but it takes TWO to have an arugment. I quickly learned why waste my time on the political board in here. I made statements that were based on experience and other experiences that I was not sure of and asked the factory reps to explain to me what did not make sense. What statements I said were not aimed at anyone, with any malice at all. The immediate following responses I got from a few people were made with malice and personal intent. Course I think Jon A was just waiting for something else to jump on my case about, since I don't normally think people need a Magnum, and that evidently really rained on his parade. This the same person who demands examples instead of just statements, then takes the examples as an opportunity to tear down each split second of the explanation or example he asked for, completely laced with as many derogatory personal statements as he can fill it with. NOT TO LUMP MAGNUM OWNERS INTO THIS GROUP:, but regardless of what "trendy caliber and bullet" a guy like this is shooting,or what kinda car he is driving, I just hope to hunt in a different part of the woods. Deer dogs, thanks for the comment. I am not on this forum to screw with anybody's day or views. It is all 'take what you want and leave the rest." These derogatory analysis by other people show their juvenility, and I apologize to the others every time I get pissed off enough to bite the bait and reduce myself to their level. I enjoy other peoples opinions, not their slander. Whether I agree with it or not. Different perspective rounds out our experiences, and enrich our lives. ![[Cool]](images/icons/cool.gif){kind=icon} thanks. [ 07-16-2003, 20:23: Message edited by: seafire ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Seafire-You and john A got into the personal attacks,accusations and slander.Small fry and myself were the cooler heads in this situation.You entered an arguement without correctly understanding the topic yourself and the end result was that it became you against all others.In the end it is simple-either you are right or everyone else is right.That being the situation I can see why you want this thread to end. | |||
|
| one of us |
First thing I did this morning was call Sierra, and once again asked this basically to have this explained to me once again by their technicians. I again got the same explanation of what I put forth. For arguments sake, I called back in an hour later, this time getting another tech on the help line. This tech supported the information put forth by Stubble, Smallfry and with less Verbal Abuse, by Jon A. Essentially conflicting what was told to me by the first technician. He indicated that the bullet MAY have passed thru a large whitetail before it had a chance to open up. He indicated that he did hunt with a 300 Mag. He also recommended to hunt with a Round Nose and it would eliminate any question of opening up or not. He also indicated that ( To indicate info for Ruff Hewn) using a Matchking on large game like Elk, that the bullet would hold together on Elk, because of its construction, and that based on the size of a large animal, that it would tumble and case a lot of damage. This is even tho the factory does not recommend it for game. So the factory guys support both arguments depending on who you talk to. The second guy also recommended a smaller bullet the smaller the game may be. ( Contradicting the Heavy for Caliber crowd). So in the end, all it has proved is that even techs at the factory have conflictatory concepts of bullet performance, and the caliber they shoot and hunt with plays into the equation. So both sides still have points that support them, and it appears even the factory techs have conflicting opinions. Go figure. All I know is what I see in field performance supports what I have learned and it works. I have modified what I hunt with accordingly a long time ago. I also am sure that JonA, Stubble and Small Fry have also done the same, and it works for them, even tho it conflicts with what others think. Bottom line it proves that all of this is more theory, than having absolutes that any one can base an opinion on. All I can say is that I valued the possibility of an opinion contrary to mine enough to call and ask someone at the factory. Some thing told me to call again, and I did and got someone supporting a contrary opinion from the first guy. I got enough guts to submit both explanations, and let others draw their opinions. In the long run of things, I don't think many people are going to modify what they hunt with anyway, as they will use what worked for them, and will continue to work. I still support what I have seen, and acknowledge that it is not an absolute and others may see something different. Small fry: This thread can go on forever. I have no embarrassment at all, and do not feel I am proven wrong, nor do I feel that I proved you gentlemen wrong. Proving someone wrong was never my intention. There were those that seemed to delight in the opportunity to try and prove me wrong, and jumped at the chance. I have edited my post, and retracted any negative personal opinions that I have as a counter attack. That is wrong and I apologize for being so mad at being personally slandered that I lowered myself to the same level and returning fire. Instead of any negativity, Jon A, is blessed is a beautiful wife, and young son, and a happy family. He enjoys the things in life that make him happy, his A bolt Browning and his Camero. I am happy for him and what he has been blessed with, and wish him a happy and wonderful life. If he wants to think that I am an Idiot, then I guess he has the right to. I will humbly submit, I was not the one who ever started any personal slanderous attacks at all on this board, on any subject. However putting forth opinions or observations has become an open invitation for others as an opportunity to question someones intelligence and integrity. I have not been the only target of this, just based on an opinion. To avoid chaos, we all need to police any personal attacks that we feel, just because someone half way around the country or half way around the world has a different opinion than we do. This forum topic can go on forever, but I have better things to do, than to log on to see what Negative Opinions someone else is harboring today about me or anyone else. . [ 07-16-2003, 22:44: Message edited by: seafire ] | |||
|
| one of us |
yeah, this is a bored and dead issue, However against better judgement and the adults on the board please forgive me, but I thought it was too funny to not post. My wife read this post, and particularly she wanted to read Jon A's post. She has one question for Jon A: Are you any relation to Baghdad Bob?? | |||
|
| one of us |
If a technician gave the explanation exactly as seafire described he should be fired immediately for incompetence.However after reading an e-mail sent to me by seafire I am of the opinion that seafire misunderstood the explanation.The part about heavily constructed bullets designed for the larger game such as elk and moose not expanding properly on smaller game is very valid.However they are not failing to expand because they are being driven at too high a velocity.They do not expand properly because they do not encounter adequate resistance to initiate and continue expansion.However the higher the velocity that these bullets are driven the more they will try to expand.If you were to slow these heavily constructed bullets to lower velocity they will expand even less not more as seafire insists. [ 07-17-2003, 07:04: Message edited by: stubblejumper ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:The fact that he is flat out wrong and spreading false information doesn�t bother you? quote:What do you call this? quote:That�s what set me off. Prior to that, all I did was say back up 2+2=5 with some proof or shut your piehole. Hardly a �personal, slanderous attack.� Stop confusing the techs at Sierra with your one experience that would only mean something if you had a clue where you hit the animal, much less recovered the bullet or examined the wound channel. Ask them this very simple question: �What 30 caliber bullet do you make that will expand nicely and reliably at 30-06 velocities but may fail to expand when used with a magnum in the same medium due to the higher velocities?� They�ll say none. You have a �thing� against magnums. That is obvious to everybody. A very real problem with magnums (if bullets are chosen improperly) is a standard bullet that expands very well at lower velocities can come apart, blow up, explode, etc, and fail to penetrate very far when pushed to higher velocities by a magnum. You have now �invented� another problem every magnum owner needs to be worried about (according to you and you alone )�these same bullets not expanding at all because their velocity is too high. This is pure bunk and needs to be corrected. My opinion of 2+2 is that it equals 4. I suppose you have a different one on that as well? Well, we had better not argue because everybody is entitled to his opinion. I should just let you tell everybody who will listen that it�s 5 unopposed. quote:Let�s see, when he said �There were no tanks in Bagdad� he was saying something that was obvious to everybody else was false (or maybe just �giving his opinion� as your husband might say). The fact that nobody here agrees with your husband doesn�t mean a whole lot but the fact that everything ever written about bullets and pure science strongly disaggrees with it as well does. He has a magnum. He has a standard. Have him show you in his wood penetration tests a bullet that expands less at a higher velocity in the same medium. Then you will understand the irony of your question, Mrs. Bob. [ 07-17-2003, 07:07: Message edited by: Jon A ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Stubble, Thank you for your response, and your perspective. As I put forth I did get two conflictatory explanations from the same source, Sierras customer service techs. JON A. Contrary to what Jon A, tries to put forth that I have not seen a bullet at a lower velocity expand more than at higher velocity, I ask this question as he has essentially accused me of this. Have you tried to shooting a medium with both the bullets traveling at different impact velocities from the same gun, or are YOU JUST MAKING CONJECTURE, and have no real hands on experience? Have you done anything to disprove it? I'll give you the courtesy of getting back to me on that one if you do. Because before I had seen that happen I thought exactly as you did. And taking the time to go out and play with such things in my free time in the summer is because I have seen too many things that are what I am told and then go out and test it to see if I get the same results. It may interest you to know that, I have also heard that Matchkings are not for hunting and been given the same explanation as every one else has. Although I do tend to buy the rationale given, I went out and tested it. What I also found, contrary to what is reported at Sierra, is that I got much more impact damage with a Matchking than any other bullet, except a Semi Spitzer Partition. I still made a personal decision not to use it myself, but that is what I saw for my own eyes. CONTRARY to what is reported. I did not put forth any theory, just what I have seen. Like all posts, It is information and perspective you can take or leave. And then, I get called an idiot and that is the most stupid thing YOU ever heard, with a slanderous remark about a piehole that I need to shut. Then you want basis for my assumptions and I give it to you and you use that as an opportunity to tear it apart line by line. For the MILLIONTh time, I am not against Magnums. I just ethically don't see the need for them, because I feel it takes responsibility to apply the major increase in power. Not alot of Mag owners in the lower 48 have that responsibility. sorry and that is my opinion. If someone knows they are not part of that crowd what should it matter what some guy they don't even know thinks about their choice. Do I really care if some guy in Washington or Florida or Maine or California thinks my 6.5 x 55 is a pop gun and can't reliably take a horsefly? Not really. My hunting partner carries a 300 Weatherby for everything that they hunt. Do I tease them about using a hammer for a fly swatter? Yeah, but that is campfire stuff. Whereever the cross hairs go, that is where the bullet will hit. My hunting partner is a woman, and a family friend. However she knows also, that where I put my crosshairs, that is where the bullet will go also. She has complete confidence in my ability with my 6.5mms. Once I thought anything less than 30/06 was a popgun for deer. I learned different as I got older and wiser, as I learned from experience and quit listening to what all the so called experts told me. You are 29 now, soon to be 30. In 20 years it will be interesting to see if you think that your 300 Ultra will still be the "do everything, only gun I need thing" You will probably learn you can do the same with a lesser caliber. And you won't need to put a 'big assed hole' in something to down it. You will have more confidence in your shot placement than just hitting the animal with the largest bullet and the most velocity you can. I am sure plenty of other older guys will tell you they have crossed the same bridge too. I also learned the same thing about RoundNose bullets. People tell you that you need a spitzer. However, a round nose will not give you bullet failure. The same tech at Sierra that supported what you said told me that if I wanted to avoid bullet failure, he recommended a 180 grain RoundNose in either the 300 or the /06. However even supporting your side, he did not dispute what I had to say was wrong, based on given circumstances. My shot on the large deer that got away, was a solid hit, or he would not of went down. ( oh on the running shot, I am sure you would have taken it too, as there was a bank about 30 yds behind him and I saw the bullet hit the bank after passing thru the deer. And I did not blame Sierra for making a lousy bullet, and was all pissed off of failure. I wanted to know if I had gotten the wrong load for the 300 Winchester, or what. It actually was the incident that got me decided to handload to avoid such problems in the future. Any failure would then by my responsibility and mine alone. but up to that point, I thought just like you, Big Caliber, big magnum, big bullet, no problems. Well that was proven wrong. However several years later, the same 200 grain bullet, loaded at 2400 fps at the muzzle in a 30/06, took a medium sized buck at 225 yds across a bog in Wisconsin. The deer field cleaned at 175 lbs so not a big one back there. The Sierra 200 grain hit just behind the shoulder dropped the buck instantly and when I went to the carcus, he had a dime size hole where the bullet went in, and a dime size hole where the bullet went out, not much blood around at all. There were 3 grains of corn on the ground that was evidently in his espohagus. However even tho, it did not show that the bullet had expanded much, when the animal was gutted open, it looked like his lungs and his upper liver had been stirred with a chain saw. So if the bullet exited the muzzle at 2400 fps, then what was its velocity at 225 yds? I am estimating 2000 to 2100 maybe? But it did its job. The cow elk I shot in Montana a few years ago, was taken with a 165 grain ballistic tip exiting the barrel of an /06 at 2250fps. 30/30 velocities. The cow took the bullet at a running broadside shot at 175 yds. It hung at 405 pounds at the Montana Fish and Game check station, and they estimated it at 600 lbs on the hoof. Sound about right? She was a big 11 yr old cow, but 195 lbs of guts sounded a little too much for me, but anyway..... The ballistic tip, took out the right lung and disintegrated the left lung, and was bulged on the oft side. The cow went about 40 yds at a dead run and collapsed. What was the impact velocity 175 yds from the muzzle? 1900fps or less is my guess. Still did its job and caused some major damage. Yet last year, one person in our group took an elk. He is a farmer and butchers alot of hogs etc. He took a good size cow elk, on his cow tag. Yet when he gutted it, and was taking out the heart, it appeared to have a cyst on the heart. Later that evening he was going to cook the heart, he cut the "cyst" out with his pocket knife. It turned out to be a bullet, that penetrated up to the heart, but not into the heart. Who can say what it was from. It did prove to me that bullet performance is not an exact science. It has made me respect Round Noses, Partitions, Barnes X bullets and Ballistic tips. They all do a reliable job., But what I said was based on experimentation and seen results under the circumstances. I can offer no more than that. It was not a statement based on what I had heard, or what I had read. I also went to a source, the manufacturer to verify what I had seen was right. and since it was contrary to what I had always heard, asked for an explanation to understand what I had seen. Would be happy to have you point out anything I left out or should have done different. You're the engineer. I would value your professional input, and would appreciate any refrain used on personal slander or derogatory remarks. thank you. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote: | |||
|
| one of us |
JonA: Just to answer some more of your questions, which you have a lot of, but use as an opportunity to just undermine and slander whatever is said. "Shut your pie hole" That was not considered a slanderous remark in your household growing up in Montana? It was in my household growning up. "what bullet will expand at 30/06 velocities but will not penetrate at 300 Mag velocities?" Well lets see, Load up some 170 grain flat nose, or 150 grain flatnose at 3300 fps and tell us your results. They are not going to penetrate, because they are going to blow up before they get a chance too. That is why via metalurgy in the construction they are designed to mushroom at certain impact velocity ranges. There design, flatnose, round nose, spitzer or boattail also have an impact ( as you know). Enlighten me, under what circumstances do bullets fail at all?. With what I read from you, no bullet should ever have a failure. As far as "confusing techs" at Sierra... I am sorry, but do I need to include every detail for you like it was an engineering report? You just use it as ammunition to add some more slanderous remarks, when your main "beef" is that I am a person who does not think most people need a Magnum for deer hunting. so you want to attack and undermine anything I say. However, guilty of not including that in my post, but not guilty of telling the Tech Line at Sierra; the bullet hit the deer several inches behind the front breast bone, just below the button of the front side of its neck. The same shot has killed other deer ( but not with the 300 Mag, which is an Browning A bolt like yours). The scope was on 4 power, and it was close enough that I saw the bullet hit before the recoil brought the scope up and out of the line of sight. Now a question for you: Why do you want me to ask a techician what bullet will expand at 30/06s velocities but will not penetrate at magnum velocities,... tell me none will be my answer, then make a statement that answers the question you just asked: " A very real problem with magnums ( if a bullet is chosen improperly) is a standard bullet that expands very well at lower velocities can come apart, blow up, explode etc and fail to penetrate very far when pushed to higher velocities in a magnum...." So pardon me, but I am missing the point you are trying to make. Another question: " you have 'invented' another problem every magnum owner needs to worry about ( according to you and you alone [another sarcastic slander in my book, but whatever...])... these same bullets not expanding at all because their velocity is too high... this is pure bunk and needs to be corrected" I had to re read this several times to try and get the point you were trying to make here. I apologize. Maybe I was not clear enough earlier in my explanation, and my conclusion after speaking with Sierra. As I understood that the bullet did not open, was because it had run thru the available media in the deer before it had a chance to open... However, when shot at a lower velocity it did have the chance to open, because of the lower velocity, it spent more time in the available media and had time to mushroom within the animal. Mushrooming is a gradual process, not instanteous... that is a question to you, not a statement by me... I want to know you perspective. I am sure the deer I speak of, if the same shot would have been done on an elk or something bigger and tougher, the bullet would have more resistance, allowing it to open quicker than the deer offered the bullet, If the deer would have had more cross mass to offer the bullet, then it would have completely opened before passing thru the media available, at the velocity it encountered it. These are questions to you.... I am interested in your professional opinion on them. I have tried to put forth the information that I feel you would ask to help give me an explanation. If I am incorrect please point out where. Please help me understand your perspective, as I once had the same one, but circumstances and experiences changed that. Bullets will open up unless a FMJ,and if they get enough resistance on impact they will open up also, or mushroom eg, bounce one off of a M60 tank. It is just MY opinion and, I offer it as no importance to anyone but myself, but at magnum velocities on lighter game such as deer, a bullet can be tough enough, designed to be used on larger game, that it can pass completely thru a deer broadside before it meets enough counter resistance to fully mushroom unless it impacts bone which would of course increase the mushrooming process much quicker than an organ might. this is asked without regard to whatever firearm or caliber you hunt with, whatever your personal bullet choice is.. . it is asked in regards that you are an educated engineer... and that you have a different opinion on the subject than I do. However I use to have the same one you do now. So I ask you to re educate me... I have an open mind, and it is not closed to a different perspective, or to learning something different. All I did was offer what I had seen. I only offered it because it was different from what I had originally been told. My experimenting in finding this out was actually to prove to myself exactly what you are saying, but the results I got were the exact opposite. Please keep that in mind when, and if you desire to answer the questions. thank you.... | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Stubble; YOu are saying exactly what I have been trying to say the entire time. Maybe the guilt of the problem is that I have not explained it very well in my posting. Also I am not INSISTING, I am reporting an observation. Never have I intended my threads or posts to be GOSPEL, as I doubt anyone else on here ever does. We are on the same page up to your last sentence. However I still think we have the same point but just communicating it differently and causing the confusion. Let me try and rephrase it: A bullet needs resistance to expand. Shooting it thru a paper target will not make it expand unless it has a real fragile nose, like on some varmint bullets. A harder bullet needs more resistance to expand. A hard bullet at high speed can overcome the available resistance quickly... In other words, run out of deer on a broadside shot passing thru, before it has a chance to open up. However if the same thing was done on an Elk, the elk is not only tougher, but wider. Therefore the bullet has a chance to open up before exiting. However the same bullet shot at a lower velocity takes more time to pass from one side of the deer to the other, than one say shot out of a magnum. At the lower velocity it has more time to mushroom within the available media ( before exiting). It may not mushroom as much as say the faster bullet would have, if it had had more media available to it for its construction and velocity to work effectively. so a deer shot at 100 yds with a 200 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2960 ( factory published figures) passing thru a deer just below the neck, evidently hitting no bones, but dropping it on its nose at a dead run. I assume the bullet passed thru the media resistance before it had the opportunity to do its stuff. I don't interpret that as bullet failure by the way. More like misapplication of the product, or if I would have known the parameters, I would have placed the shot in a different spot such as behind the shoulders. The spot I chose had worked with a 30/06 multiple times in the past. the second deer was taken with a 200 grain Sierra out of an /06 with a muzzle velocity of 2400. Chronographed handloads. the distance was 225 yrds, across a Wisconsin bog. the shot was placed ( based on the previous experience listed above,) behind the shoulders. The walking buck dropped straight down at the shot. He field cleaned at 175lbs, not nearly as big as the first buck from above. Post mortum, the deer had a dime size hole in one side, and a dime size hole on the exit side. Very few drops of blood on the ground, and 3 kernels of corn laying there. Upon field cleaning him tho, the lungs looked like they had been stirred with a chain saw, the upper part of the liver was like a bowl of spaghetti. The bullet did its intended job. My conclusion was it had done greater damage because it had more of an opportunity to do its job because of the lower velocity, based on the fact it got to expand instead of just zipping thru befoe it could open. My testing on wood out in the forest in the summer, is based on proving or disproving things you always hear. I actually had the same ideas as you and Jon A state, and my goals were to prove them to myself. However when I saw different results consistently to what I was looking for, in a variety of calibers and a variety of velocities, I had to call the factory to try and have explained why I was not seeing what was normally accepted or claimed. That was my only real motivation in offering it to the group. Maybe I just need to improve my communication skills on it. I mean on almost every post to me, Jon A, brings up that I have a problem with magnum owners. I can't seem to get the point across that it is not the caliber, but how it seems to be the caliber of choice to a lot of hunters I see who don't feel a real need to be responsible, they don't really understand the firearm they have, and what it can do. they just think, put the cross hairs on whatever I want to shoot and pull the trigger. Any responsible guy knows there is more to it than just that. And any mag still has a trajectory, regardlessly. Not understanding trajectory at longer distances means more potential disasters, via missing the game entirely and having a shot gone wild or just wounding the animal. I wouldn't worry a lot about the same guys carrying a 30/30 or something, because it becomes a lot less of a problem, than when the same attitude is carrying a high velocity cartridge. The same point, I see with deer being wounded by a high velocity cartridge. The bullet runs out of resistance before it has a chance to do its job. That is why I consider a magnum as a heavy animal, heavy for caliber firearm. If a guy can shoot a deer sized game with it 400 yds out, then I have no problem. But I see way too many guys who are 50 yd shooters, carrying a 500 yd gun. Its all about ethics, ability and attitude. Plopping down a grand down at the gun shop will not give you that at all. However way too many guys on this side of the border at least think so. I can't speak for Canada. I have spent a lot of time on your side of the border, use to work for a Canadian company and use to cover Alberta as regional sales manager. However I have talked a lot of hunting with Canadians up there, but never had the chance to hunt in the field with them. I have a lot of experience on this side of the border. Wish I saw different, but can't say so. I hope this clarifys my point a little better. Thanks for hearing me out, and your time to respond. I really don't think any of us are far apart, I will just blame it on the need to better my communication skills. [ 07-17-2003, 14:33: Message edited by: seafire ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Seafire-You are still missing the reason why a bullet expands.It expands because of the forces exerted on it by striking a medium.The higher the velocity the greater the forces acting on the bullet therefore the greater the expansion.Therefore less velocity equals less force force on the bullet and therefore less expansion.The depth of the medium(thickness of the animal) is a major factor as well but the time the bullet spends passing through the medium does not increase expansion.The bullet displaces more medium at higher velocities resulting in more expansion.The bottom line is that the actual thickness of the medium and the amount of medium displaced by the bullet determine the expansion and the higher the velocity the more medium displaced.Slowing a bullet down will never increase expansion. | |||
|
| one of us |
Stubble you are speaking the truth here. As an aside, companies have been trying to find different mediums to test bullets in for years. Sea, I think you'll find none of the bullet companies do expansion tests in wood because it batters or rivets a bullet not expands it. I don't even think it's a good test of penetration for this reason. It's a bit like the guy who shoots dime size holes thru steel plate w/ his 22-250 & not his .30-6 but thinks his .22-250 is adequate for deer because of the "penetration" he gets in steel. There really is no comparison. I've shot the same bullets into wet phone books @ diff. vel. The higher vel. alwys expands more to a point. If you drive a bullet too fast the front section blows off & you may be left w/ a smaller bullet diam. on recovery (NP are a good example). Really guys, much ado about nothing. If a guy wants to hunt w/ his wisbang & matchkings, so be it. Any bullet/cart. combo will kill, we are only debating styles & methods of the hunt. I don't think you have to shoot @ animals @ 800yds (I can't seem to find a way to carry my benchrest w/ me), it's not combat & the target needs to be killed quickly not just hit. So I keep my shots under 400yds & use a good hunting bullet. That's what works for me. [ 07-17-2003, 19:08: Message edited by: fredj338 ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Then why in the heck do you think they might? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon} Oh yeah:quote:So have you seen it happen or not? Get your story straight, please. quote:Yes, as I said I have been testing bullets (mainly in wood) for many years. You can see the results of one test (although this was between different types of bullets at the same velocity) in the January-February, 1990 edition of Rifle magazine. The first big game rifle I ever bought was a 7-08. My dad had a 7 Mag. I made Swiss cheese out of a bunch of firewood shooting the same bullet at different velocities. The higher the velocity, the more the expansion. Without fail. quote:While you�ve started your own thread to prolong this argument, when one selects his shots carefully and accurately places them in the vital zone, won�t the bullet that does the most damage be the quickest killer? quote:As I said above, I hunted many years with a 7-08 and a 30-30 before that and have even taken a few deer with a 25-06 and a 270 in my younger days. I shoot the RUM more accurately than any of those by a wide margin. And I have more fun. quote:OK, you�ll get it. quote:Nothing I have said should have given you that impression. For a bullet of standard construction, there will be a range of velocities at which it will work the best in a given medium. Below that it won�t expand enough. Above that it will expand too much and come apart. Not rocket science.... quote:That�s because I didn�t make it. I never said, �will not penetrate at magnum velocities.� I clearly said, �may fail to expand when used with a magnum in the same medium due to the higher velocities� That�s the question to which �None� is the answer. quote:I can tell. quote:You understood it incorrectly. quote:Yes. quote:No. quote:For all practical purposes (verses time) it is instantaneous. The difference is a couple of milliseconds. The only way this process can be described as �gradual� is when you look at expansion vs. distance of penetration. And that�s what matters to us�the shape of the wound channel. How far does the bullet penetrate before it expands enough to do some damage? How far will it penetrate if the vitals aren�t right there? When it gets to them, will it do much damage or did it already do all its damage early on leaving only a �pinhole� through the vitals? That�s what matters, not how long the process took. 3 milliseconds or 3 seconds, the results are the same�a clean kill. Since you asked for an Engineering explanation, I shall give it. Many different ways: The basic thing you�re failing to see is that a bullet at a higher velocity will have larger forces exerted upon it when penetrating the same medium, as others have pointed out. Most test mediums can be mathematically modeled as a fluid. A fluid with a certain viscosity (amount of force with which it will resist a shear displacement). In the system of a bullet traveling through that fluid, the fluid will provide a damping rate (much like the shocks on your car do). That�s not a force, it�s a rate (typical units would be Newtons per meter per second). So the higher the velocity, the larger the force. You can demonstrate this to yourself with your �hand splashing water� example: Slowly lower your hand into the water. The slower you go the less resistance it sees. If you go really slow you won�t be able to feel any resistance at all. Now slap your hand on the water as fast as you can. You can feel a very large force trying to stop (and hurting) your hand. Even when penetrating the same amount of water, you can vary the force your hand receives with its velocity. From nearly none to so much it hurts (and hurts a bullet by expanding it). Of course not all mediums are fluids�dry paper, wood, etc. For this you can look at it as the rate of deceleration of the bullet. Most standard bullets will penetrate slightly less in the same medium when fired at a higher velocity. It�s going from a higher velocity to zero in the same or less distance. Its rate of acceleration (negative) is higher. f=ma. It takes a larger force to decelerate the bullet more quickly. This force applied to the bullet will make it expand. The larger forces of a higher velocity bullet will make it expand more. Yet another way to look at it is from the standpoint of kinetic energy. The higher velocity bullet (even just a few hundred fps makes a large difference in energy) has more. Energy is the capacity to do work. In this context, that is a force times a distance. Over the same distance, the higher velocity bullet will push harder on the medium (and the medium will push back with essentially the same force). Larger forces over the same distance means more work is done. That�s where all that energy goes. That�s why at a higher velocity the same bullet may not penetrate any farther but it does a lot more damage (and more damage is done to it). While there is no perfect model of a game animal (and there never will be) one can conclude from these laws of physics that a bullet at higher velocity will have larger forces placed upon it when penetrating the same medium the same distance, all else being equal. The larger forces will cause more expansion with bullets of standard construction. When testing and the experience of every hunter here (but you) backs this up, that's all the more reason to believe the "theory." Is it becoming more clear to you yet? | |||
|
| <mike aw> |
entertaining | ||
|
| one of us |
Jon A; While the first part of your post still conveys anomosity toward me, I appreciate the time that you spent explaining the technical information submitted after you quoting me to ask for the engineering prospective. Just for informations sakes, I did start another thread on Matchkings. However the motivation was not to continue this thread as I think it has been beaten to death. I appreciate your perspective and value your explanation, but I still back up what I have seen in tests that I have done. And this is for me personally. It has not failed me in the field yet. As all things I put forth on here, they are observations to be taken or left alone. It is not an attempt to start an argument with anyone, nor is an invitation for someone to start one with me. The other thread on Matchkings was started as I got several private emails from another person on the board that has also been verbally attacked by some of the others on here for his opinions, reflecting what personal experiences he has seen. My point is that I have seen a lot of people criticize points someone else has made, or observations someone else has submitted. A question that I ask, is before they criticize it, have they tried it out. You have done so on your explanation and I value it. I trust it reflects what you have saw. My interpretation of what I saw is different than what you saw. However being an engineer, you know that there might be different variables on what each of us is doing. Different perspectives should not have instigated the arguments that we managed to get into. I apologize for speaking negatively toward you when you lit my fuse. Hopefully you can do the same and we can show that this board is a forum to share information, not argue among fellow hunters. Just my 2 cents. Thank you for your response. | |||
|
| one of us |
seafire, If what you are saying is that some bullets are made so tough as to not expand on deer sized game, I agree with your comments. My own experience mirrors this. The converse of this is also true. I have had 300 Win mag fail safes fail to open up on deer leaving small entrance and exit holes and not much bleed out. This happened twice on the same hunt and I will not use these bullets for deer again! I know this occured as a hunting partner further down the tree line shot both deer dead with a 30-30 as they ran past him. His bullets were recovered on the off side. We examined by bullets paths upon field cleaning. I used a Remington Core Lokt factory load on a bison once, I repeat once. Rifle was again a 300 Win mag, bullet literally exploded on impact with the bison's skull. Shot three rounds into this bison's forehead, finally managed to give him a bloody nose. The animal was put down by my hunting partner who was shooting a 416 Rigby. The Rigby was impressive! Kent | |||
|
| one of us |
Don't know if this is germaine or not. If its not, please don't spend a lot of time flaming me. I shot a white tail -100+ lbs dressed- with a 200gr grand slam from a 300 WM @ 2800fps. Bullet entered between two ribs behind the left shoulder. Passed thru left lung, then heart and exited in front of right shoulder. The entry hole, the hole thru the lung and heart and the exit hole were pretty much of a size (best I could tell) The deer stood there for a moment and then collapsed on the spot so you certainly can't call it a bullet failure. This same load and bullet had worked very well on elk and mulies. I just figured there wasn't enough animal for the bullet to expand. In which case, I don't think more speed or less would have made any difference in how the bullet acted.Kent, the question begs to be asked: Why were you shooting the buffalo in the head??? [ 07-22-2003, 22:39: Message edited by: beemanbeme ] | |||
|
| one of us |
beemanbeme, I was shooting him in the head because we figured that would be the best place to shoot him! . It turned out otherwise, though. The truth is after the first shot the ol' boy kept looking right at me. I wasn't sure if he was going to charge me or just wondering why the human food wagon had turned on him. The idea was to kill him quick so that the meat would not be effected by adrenaline and such. This is one reason they bolt cattle in the head. The Rigby shot was a head shot too, but the guy missed the brain. The bullet went into the chest though and did it's job! Kent [ 07-23-2003, 00:13: Message edited by: Kent in IA ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Kent: I read your post and not sure what observation your are drawing on the Remington Core Lokt other than the fact that you wouldn’t use that on the bison again. Are you saying that the bullet is not strong enough for bison? Or are you saying that it is not a good round for hunting? I am not trying to be funny as I am new to deer hunting. My .243 has been sighted in and is shooting really well with the 100 gr. Core Lokt. For this November, I am planning to use them for deer hunting. The range I will be hunting is within 100 yds. Should I switch to some premium bullets? Please advise. Danny Boy | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Bullet penetration, when is less more?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia