The Accurate Reloading Forums
Re: Hunting bullet failures on whitetails????

This topic can be found at:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3411043/m/58010717

05 November 2004, 03:40
Doc
Re: Hunting bullet failures on whitetails????
Oh, well then, Arkansawing occurs on a regular basis on some properties I used to hunt in northern MO.

Actually, it was quite amusing and a real eye opener for me. I go to hunt this farm with a friend from college. He grew up hunting these farms so he knew everyone.

My first rifle hunt there, I pulled out my HUNTING bolt action rifle and loaded it up...EVERYONE ELSE WHIPPED OUT THEIR SKS's!!

I asked Brian, "uhh, what the heck are these people hunting with?" He said, "OH, welcome to valley of the rednecks!" "We hunt to kill, not to hunt...guns will be blazing all morning."

Sure enough, when the day was done, and we checked in the 22 deer killed, they were full of holes ALL OVER THEIR BODIES. Brian's mom even shot the nuts off a buck trying for a butt shot with an SKS. She emptied the gun in this buck's backside and her husband had to finish it off with his Remington semi-auto (with 3 more shots).

Damndest thing I've ever witnessed.
05 November 2004, 03:25
Doc
Yes, Molson is really really good beer. And when I'm in Canada, I always drink some.
05 November 2004, 03:27
beemanbeme
As I said, the THS is often letal but the margin for error is small. A properly placed THS doesn't hit the pelvis but rather ranges thru the guts into the heart/lung area, ergo, poor shot placement. Still the question: why shoot a deer in the ass unless...............?

"Arkansawing" is when you just lay down a field of fire at something hoping to get lucky. Sort of a "spray and pray" kinda thing.

A THS is best made on a cold, windy day.
04 November 2004, 18:45
Doc
Quote:

Certainly you can validly claim bullet failure if the animal is recovered. Two examples are if a bullet designed to expand simply does not, and if one that is designed not to expand does. The results of either scenario may the outfitter visiting you in the hospital telling you "Good news! You made a beautiful shot and right after that buff gored and stomped you the bullet didn't fail caused he died and we recovered him."



The old saw "at what point in the animals death did the bullet fail" can be likened to "at what point in stopping the vehicle did your brakes fail?"



Well, if your brakes should stop you in 200 feet and they took you 300 into an intersection where you were T-boned they failed even though they stopped the vehicle.



IMO any product that doesn't perform as designed has failed.







Regarding the brakes...good point...but still human error...the dumbass should have had them changed. Which is BEFORE they create hotspots on the rotor and before there is only 20% of the pad left.



You gave thought provoking scenarios, however, the bullet didn't fail if the animal died, IMO, gored or not...that would be a factor of 'the animal didn't die as quickly as I had hoped before he stomped my A$$.' I'm not saying in any way I'd be happy about the situation, but indeed, that bullet didn't fail.



You say, "at what point in the animals death did the bullet fail?" Good question, the answer is never.



Aren't hunting bullets designed to kill? When did any bullet maker put a time frame b/w point of impact and death?

< !--color--> If that were the case, then every animal hit by a hunting bullet in A killing zone that didn't drop straight down was killed by a failed bullet. After all, that is my hope with every animal I shoot with a firearm. BANG/FLOP.



Therefore, am I to surmise that probably half of the deer I've killed (which ran some distance) with a firearm were all killed by failed bullets (even though they were all recovered) because they were able to travel and didn't die instantaneously?
04 November 2004, 18:35
CanadianLefty
Quote:

Uhhh, you just said the only fault was overestimating the penetrating power of the 180gr. Accubond. Wouldn't that be "human error?"...which is part of Beeman's arguement.


You are taking it completely out of context, why I waist Internet ink a response to you after all that was determined on the other thread is purely to stick up for a buddy.

It was not human error on our part but ERROR ON THE PART OF NOSLER INC. for advertising a bullet that would penetrate from "any angle at any velocity" and retain 60-70% weight, which their bullet clearly did not do on this animal and Nosler is now retesting the 180gr. Accubonds from the lot of bullets that we used to check QC ect...