That's why I use a 45-70 in the brush.

Dave

Thanks for the link, Bakes. Pretty clear that this business of "brush guns" is rooted in fact.

G'Day Fella's,

Thanks for that Bakes.
I think I "need" a .45-70.

Doh!
Homer

LOL of course you do

Actually I've always wanted one as well. Hmmmm

Interesting, and I believe there is something to the theory. However, the experiment was far from scientific.

Assuming the dude could put all the bullets into the target at 50 yards even without brush, is my first problem. I noticed, for one thing, that almost all the shots fell in the SW corner, with quite a few falling off that side.

I'm not sure I ever saw the target from his position, and he seemed to do some dodging around to see it himself. How do we know that all bullets went through similar brush? Did the passage to the target become easier as the smaller bullets chewed up the brush?

I have heard of people doing brush tests before but the usual method is to set up pieces of dowel at regular intervals in a box frame and shoot from exactly the same spot, replacing broken bits after every shot.

Even pine dowel is no real equivalent to real American brush, and the wet sclerophyll forests we have would be something else, but at least the medium would be consistent from shot to shot.

I suspect that in real hunting, unless the brush is just in front of the target, results are unlikely to be as good as any of the calibres shown in that test.

My big question is: Why is it when a camera is stuck in anyone's face the first thing they do is start waving their hands! Has nothing to do with what they're trying to say and totally distracting.

George

Jack O'Connor and I think Warren Page both did trials like this, as have some of the bullet companies and their finding is 1. there is not such thing as a brush gun. 2. that a spritzer goes through the brush better (but still not a brush round), that a round nosed slug. I hunted in Africa with the first Marlin 95 in 45/70 to be hunted with there. Shot at a warthog, looked wide open at about 30 FEET. Bullet , 405 grain silver tip, hit a real small sapling in the way, and the bullet went off so far to the side in the next 8-10 feet, that rather than hit him between the eys, blew his left tusk off. I also shot at a Sable at about a 100 yds with my 375 and a 300gr RN, and it "touched" the side of a sapling on the way there, and deflected enough to go into the ground behind the animal. Is no such thing as a brush round. A couple of years ago I was at an auction and told one of the locals , that the 600NE I was holding was a real brush round.

I suspect Jack O'Connor's impartiality and would suggest that the 600 NE might do better in bush than his .270. However, he may have been right in contending that a spritzer would find a way thru better than any bullet, if poured from above at least.

O'Connor and Page both said, ain't no such thing as a brush load. The bullet companies are the ones who said, a spritzer actually better or no worse in brush than a RN. But then, in Nam, spritzer 223s were often deflected by heavy blades of grass, I'm told. Definitely by bamboo shoots or any size.

If O'Connor and Page meant that a 150gr RN 270 is no better than a 130gr spitzer, they might have been right; but if the 'brush load' becomes a .405gr 45/70 or 500gr 458 WM, I'm pretty sure the bullet impact just behind a bush would be closer to the mark.

Even my own narrow experience has seen a couple of cases relating to these matters. Aiming at a cape buffalo, I clipped a six-inch tree with my .450/.400, causing the bullet to deflect several inches - but not enough to miss the lungs.

Later, I took a shot from an extremely stable rest, shooting a semi-pointed .338 bullet, at a big kudu about 150 yards away in four-foot grass. I felt the shot was good and yet it missed by about four yards. I can only guess that my high-heart aim was not high enough in that long, dry grass.