Quote:

---

The muzzle energy for these bullets was at least 7000 ft-lbs, not even a hot load (muzzle velocity in the 2350 to 2450 fps range depending upon bullet weight)

---

Quote:

---

Doc & ROSCOE,

Some more pictures for you. I hope you can make out the flow of the lead, that seems to be indicative to you of a soft tissue impact.

A picture of a dummy cartridge is also included.





If you look real close you may even see bits of decayed/dried out animal protein (meat).

ASS_CLOWN

---

Scott,
The only decayed/dried out animal protein is between your ears!

Posting photos of bullets you dug out of the backstop at the range won't make anyone take you seriously. Also, that .50 Beowulf round isn't going to be mistaken for a .500 AHR, except in your dreams.

CPS

Quote:

---

Pathelogical liar is the usual reason people get upset with you

---

Quote:

---

When I shoot Woodleighs into sand like you, they still perform well

---

Quote:

---

It was started because of the many "bullet failures but the animal died quickly" threads that have been running around this forum of late.

---

Quote:

---

NitroX,

Quote:

---

I like the bitof gritty sand that is beside one of the bullets in the original photo

---

That is a danger of photography, it is only two dimensional. That isn't "gritty sand" next to a bullet, but a grease/oil stain on the manila envelope.

Here is the manila envelope:



Here is a close-up of the spot on the manila envelope which appears next to a bullet in the original post picture:



If you don't believe that NitroX send me your address and I will mail you the damned envelope so you can see it with your own two eyes in living three dimensions.

I think I pretty well explain in one of my lasts posts how a bullet CAN and WILL penetrate through 5" of bone (in an animals skull).

Why all the questioning anyway? I cannot dig bullets out of the backstop at my range either, don't believe me ask Matt Norman, he shoots at the same range. You and several others seem to be just a tad paranoid.

As I also indicated in previous posts there are NO kill pictures. Sorry, in the future I will take them. That way you can all say that the animals are the results of canned hunts, or I stole the pictures from someone else, or the pictures have been fabricated on a photo editor, etc, etc, etc, etc. Why don't you just admit that you WILL NEVER believe anything I post. Since that is the case you might as well stop replying to my posts as well.

ASS_CLOWN

---

ASS_CLOWN,

Where would be the fun for you if all who disbelieve your posts stopped responding? Just curious.

Quote:

---

Where would be the fun for you if all who disbelieve your posts stopped responding

---

Judging from the number of views on this thread, it would not only be my enjoyment that suffered!

Like I said before, I really don't consider these bullets to have failed. They did a wonderful job of killing, and I couldn't be happier. That said, they have suffered a weight loss which many on AR would say classifies them as "failed" bullets. As I stated, I don't agree.

ASS_CLOWN

Quote:

---

please correct me if the above isn't true, but i find it very unethical to shoot an elk, let run off and die somewhere, then shoot another. better stalking, thinking about what might happen after the shot, better shot placement, and better tracking are all alternatives to risking another wounded, and unrecovered elk. perhpas the failure wasn't in the bullet, but in the hunter.

---

Quote:

---

if they truly passed through 7"-8" of bone

---

Quote:

---

Funny how the story changes each time one looks at the thread.

---

How did the story change? The ONLY changes, and they are corrections to the facts based upon revisiting the actual data and not relying upon memory, are:



1.) Muzzle energy may have been as low as 6983 ft-lbs (instead of my original stated 7000 ft-lb minimum)



2.) That the bullet (far right in original picture) penetrated ONLY 5" of bone (instead of my erroneous original statement of 7" to 8" of bone).



The corrections do in fact represent MUCH closer the reality of the situation that the bullets endured during their operation. Personally, I don't think either erroneous statement I made in my original post is all that significant.



35 Whelen,



I once lost a bull elk to a 0.308", 180 grain Nosler Partition. I blamed myself more than the bullet. The reason, well for starters, I never got a recovered bullet to tell if the bullet failed to begin with (lost the animal). Reason two, I figured the shot was too long anyway, and I should never had taken it in the first place.



My experience with partitioned bullets has not been what I would consider great. They seem to lose the portion forward of the partition leaving a much less effective light weight, basically non-expanding slug to penetrate to/through the vitals. I haven't been thrilled with the Barnes X bullets either, as they seem to lose their pedals and becoming essentially the same things as the bases of the partitioned bullets do. I think both SUCK, but that is my opinion and need not be agreed to by ANYONE else.



I prefer bonded jacketed bullets. They tear very big holes into their targets, which I find typically don't live too long (the target that is) after their (again the target) introduction to the bonded bullet.



Finally with regard to bullets, I would not personally use any bullet on elk which possessed a section density less than 0.300. This is based upon hard learned lesssons in the field.



With regard to shooting buffalo with soft point bullets, I wouldn't have it any other way. The soft points I use (570 or 600 Woodleigh) will penetrate deep enough to bust any major bone, in any bovine, anywhere in the world. That would include the skull, even if it must cut it's way through the entire length of the bottom of the brain pan, which seems to be ~ 5" in length from measured specimens. The brain is a tricky shot though, as it is a target only about 2.5" high and 4" wide, easy to shoot a little low even with ranges as close as 25 yards. If you want to get one down (because he simply refused to die with the first shot) you need to either take out the CNS or bust down his mobility structure (leg bones, but better is shoulders/hips joints/pelvis). For the record I have switched to the 600 gr Woodleigh PPSP for the heavier critters, loaded to ~ 2210 fps, which yeilds a measely muzzle energy of 6500 ft-lb.



The 570 grain Woodleigh is an AWESOME elk bullet, when loaded to ~ 2335 fps @ the muzzle (my standard hunting load as of 2003 and very accurate 1.5 MOA or better). Elk simply "die on impact" even at nearly 200 yards, with that load. Unfortunately, the bullets punch BIGASS holes all the way through and aren't recovered. I would NOT recommend using one of these with a head-on shot on elk, unless you aren't interested in keeping the meat. The animal would definitely get "gutted" and I assume you know what happens with the stomach contents come in contact with the meat. Waste of good tenderloins. However, that shot placement might turn an elk into an adequate bullet trap for a 570 SP Woodleigh.



BobF,



Excellent and informative post as usual. Better go tell jeffeosso to chime in.



ASS_CLOWN

Quote:

---

I like the bitof gritty sand that is beside one of the bullets in the original photo

---

That is a danger of photography, it is only two dimensional. That isn't "gritty sand" next to a bullet, but a grease/oil stain on the manila envelope.

Here is the manila envelope:



Here is a close-up of the spot on the manila envelope which appears next to a bullet in the original post picture:



If you don't believe that NitroX send me your address and I will mail you the damned envelope so you can see it with your own two eyes in living three dimensions.

I think I pretty well explain in one of my lasts posts how a bullet CAN and WILL penetrate through 5" of bone (in an animals skull).

Why all the questioning anyway? I cannot dig bullets out of the backstop at my range either, don't believe me ask Matt Norman, he shoots at the same range. You and several others seem to be just a tad paranoid.

As I also indicated in previous posts there are NO kill pictures. Sorry, in the future I will take them. That way you can all say that the animals are the results of canned hunts, or I stole the pictures from someone else, or the pictures have been fabricated on a photo editor, etc, etc, etc, etc. Why don't you just admit that you WILL NEVER believe anything I post. Since that is the case you might as well stop replying to my posts as well.

ASS_CLOWN