quote:

I'd say he was 350 or a tad more. ANy guesstimates are more than welcome!

My guess was a full 400 pounds.....I don't think your 350 number is exaggerating at all.

Nice pig and nice shooting....

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
....Just don't want to leave novitiates with the idea that premium bullets are always better than plane Jane Cups and cores. roger

I can think of any number of Cartridge/Firearm combinations(as I'm sure a lot of folks can) where a good old Standard Grade Bullet does just fine - on some Game in some places.

Seems like it is always a balancing act, of the type of Game, acceptable shots and what shots will be possible in the terrain being Hunted.

For example, I'd normally have no problem at all recommending any Standard Grade 130gr-140gr bullet for use in a 7mm-08 on Deer. However, if the person is Hunting a Bean Field and "might" need to drive the Bullet through 1 row of Beans, I'd change that to a 150gr Partition(or heavier).
-----

Hey Bobby, Great Hog story. Knowing a specific one is in the area, and Hunting it down, really adds to the enjoyment for sure. Congratulations.

If you can't pick it up with both hands, it "might be" 400#.
-----

"""NOBODY""" thinks teanscum knows what he is doing???

Just a thought, I had a freind who passed a few years ago that had an almost legendary status locally as a mule deer hunter.
He came down with cancer and I took him on his last hunt, he had taken me the year before so I did not get to see what he hunted with.
I was rather surprised to see his "deer" rifle, a Browning 22-250.
Factory loaded 55 grainers had put a whole row of big buck heads on his wall.

I think that Teanscum is likely to have an accident sooner or later with the light bullets going that fast, heck I won't even hunt coyotes anymore with taht bullet because it is so fragile.
But I am not going to condemn him because I only know that he is looking to be dissapointed because I have done it myself.

I just love it when you gang up on someone.
I bet that if someone was standing in front of you that your fukking manners would improve right by god now..

quote:

Originally posted by bucko:
...I only know that he is looking to be dissapointed ..

teanscum is unable to learn from others experience.
-----

Your last bit of vulgarity is offensive to everyone on the Board, indicates a low mental capacity for verbage and can get you tossed off this Board. Don't take this as me telling you how or what to post, just letting you know what it will result in.

Now, let's see if you are smarter than teanscum and know enough to go back and edit your ignorance.

No I think that I will leave it just the way it is.
If calling your ass a spade gets me tossed then there are better places to hang out.

quote:

Originally posted by bucko:
No I think that I will leave it just the way it is.
If calling your ass a spade gets me tossed then there are better places to hang out.

Bucko

Shame on you for calling Hotsh?t names. Be careful you might hurt his feelings, but then again who cares??

Bobby NICE hog......

Re: 129's, yes, that bullet always seemed to nearly match 120 speeds and do a good bit better than 140s, very accurate/deadly.

I am interested in trying the 130 AB's on paper and game, think they may shoot a tad better than 140s in my Son's Sako 75- 9 twist oh-260 rem cal.

One thing is for sure, MOST all 6.5 mm shooters have short trails most often. When looking at bullets the longer ones have a phenominal, or should I say rather impressive .310 SD IIRC. That said, the new all mono bullets are apples and oranges. I was impressed on a DRT Hog kill, Bobby's hogs baby-ha, 160 lb weighed, 240 yds, 3100 MV, that 85gr X bullet worked VERY well. Would be curious as to the 120/130 barnes in 6.5 but Bobby's done some expansion test and it seems like long range low impact performance may be marginal re: expansion, likely do wonderful in many rounds at normal distances.

I think good shot placement with an accurate mild recoiling round, and a bullet proven over time to consistently work in field will get the job done w/little fuss and barring bad conditions ie. a rainy evening, blood trails hopefully won't be needed, but nothing is perfect and they come in handy on occasion, and those 35s mentioned can leave a better exit, if anything I have noticed a bigger hole often on exit proportional to caliber size, "In HIDE" which is where blood pours. Underneath hide may show massive trauma ie. high speed light bullets, but many not correlate to large hide exits/lots of blood loss.

Ray, re: 9 of 10, that's good shooting/kills, but I'd like 10 of 10 like you. I'd REALLY like to have an opportunity to shoot say a 6BR or 243 on a controlled culling operation with one bullet, a Barnes 85 grain to confirm what I suspect may be found, it may be one of the best all around shoot any range or angle bullet for deer in it's caliber. Based on my one experience but many others I have heard, and their was mention of a die hard X bullet fan who touts them on the Barnes site of course, in 243, on deer/hogs, seemed to recall all were DRT kills.

I find that believable, if we assume decent shooting and not shooting crazy distances.

Those 75's you used in the 6x223 are good, but I'd suspect the 85's might give you a TAD more insurance, but might also be a tad slower (28-3k in 6x45 vs 31-3300+ in 243/6mm Rems) and expand slower than those older 75's that may no longer be made. Barnes I think should mfg. a 75 or even 70 gr for the small sixes-they DO make a difference in killing power from most anyone using a 6mm, formerly often talked about being marginal in killing power...or 'quick kills'

Bobby, one day I may have to get a TX License and come try a hog.....I got to thinking just MAYBE you shot the twin of the hog you first sighted..........and one is left out there....waiting on me!

Bobby

Thats one fine hog id have to say the 140 Hornady did a great job, didnt know the Sierra was tougher.

6.5BR- even though the exit in the hide wasnt tremendous there was one and will always be one with the 130 TSX loaded to max in the 6.5X55 and used on deer.Every deer shot with an X or TSX which is about 5 have only gone about 25yds with a good exit. IMO you cant go wrong with a TSX in ANY caliber, the real question is- is it needed for deer? and i would have to say no, but it works like a charm.

As far as the expanded Barnes in the previous pics, i dont mean to diminish someones hard work but unless those bullets were pulled from dead critters they really dont hold any meaning for me. Wet newspapers, sand, clay, etc just aint flesh and i believe the high amount of water in flesh will allow a better hydraulic effect and open up a TSX better than test media.While interesting to look at they can be very misleading to someone who has never used one on an animal.

Fgulla, good points agreed, I think ANY 6.5mm conventional bullet has been proven on deer and premiums never needed, YET they will get the job done and on a poor angle and/or a light cal like 22-24 cal, they give some insurance no doubt. True, field results are more relevant than mock bullet test, but I think those mock tests are good measures to compare various bullets, Bobby T definitely knows what has worked not only in his tests, but on deer/hogs in his 6.5's and I appreciate his posting of all results.

As to Barnes, just like I have seen using say 100 partitions in a 243, exit wounds yes may be small but the animals usually die quickly, good straightline penetrate thru intended vitals gets it done, long moderate wound channel gives large amount of damage through entire bullet path in animals.

Thanks for feedback. Oh, as to Sierra's, one typically thinks they are all soft, but the 225 35 cal and 250 338 cal are tougher as well than one might think. They are thicker jacketed perhaps than others they make.

Deer USUALLY die quickly w/fast expanding conventional cup/core bullets, but I do have to say, w/in ranges you will get positive meaningful expansion, those Barnes impress. I worry the Accubonds may be a tad tougher than I need, and recognize many LONG distance kills are done with match type bullets whether MK's, Bergers, or even the Amax, which can be more explosive up close, but field results with 140 6.5's and 162 amax 7mm's result in VERY fast kills on deer and elk respectively, and hogs as well. No would not try breaking bone, but on broadside lung shots, sure expansion at say 400-600 yds or so, assuming the rifle/load and shooter do their part, in good conditions....they are effective. Many variables will dictate ethics of shots over 350-400 yds for many hunters, but those who prepare/practice have good odds when they have it all together....LRF, range experience, good rests, calm animal not on the run etc.

I'd be very interested in how far hunters reliably consistently take animals w/short trails....regardless of blood loss....w/barnes say in modest sized rounds on 308/06 based rounds, and 65x55 and 7x57....Just to KNOW the outer limits, so as not to 'pencil through an animal' w/improperly chosen bullet should a rare shot far off be considered.

95% of my game has been shot under 200, but a few out to 400. The closer the more excitement I have to be honest. The 400 was a chip shot do to circumstances and the gun I was using-6BR heavy bbl, 8ounce trigger, 24 x mil dot 4200 Elite, solid rest, and known accuracy and drop at the range that had been previously LRF by landowner.....I KNEW before the shot that deer was toast, it died in 25 yds after double lunged w/105 amax, just seconds after I spine shot another at 200 yds. Tackdriving accuracy is my MOST important asset to me when pointing my rifle at game, far more than ft lbs any day, just my .02.

quote:

long moderate wound channel gives large amount of damage through entire bullet path in animals.

This has been my theory. Now you have confirmed it to me. (For me it was a theory because I do not have the experience on bigger game to confirm it myself - other than a single African bushpig with a shoulder entry, split open heart, liver, lungs and exit behind the rib cage - did you know a bushpig's heart is halfway up in the chest?).

Doc,
You set my thought processes in mode with your comment on your shots on deer..

Thinking back I recall 4 instances of wounding by the bullet going under the spine and above the lungs. Twice on buffalo, once on a big bull elk shot by a friend, and the other on an Eland, all of which were eventually recovered with additional shots..Perhaps this indicates that it is more common on the larger animals than on smaller animals and that would make since..Not very scientific but observation works pretty good in most of these cases...I had not taken the size of the animal into consideration until just now..

I also have discussed this with several PHs who also said this is fairly common with buffalo..

Ray, I didn't think of that either b/c the largest game animal I've killed with a rifle/bullet is a bear. The 320 class elk I killed was with a bow.

Now that you mention it, there probably is a lot more non-vital soft tissue available to absorb bullet, bullet fragments, bullet energy on the larger, heavier animals.

Regardless, if the hunter/shooter has his game within reasonable distance, where he/she KNOWS where the bullet impacts at THAT distance, then, IMO, the optimum shot placement to drop that animal is to sink that slug square in towards the front, high portion of the shoulder where it is close to the spine. Now, if you creep that bullet more towards the lung, going back along the shoulder/spine area, then heck yes, I can see where that would increase the risk for slipping the bullet b/w the vitals.

I suppose if I was hunting something as large as bison, I would try to get within 100 yards. From what I've seen they just stand there anyway, so I can't see any reason why a precise shot couldn't be made in this instance, right behind the ear in the upper neck. My second choice would be an outright center mass placement in the shoulder blade, using a big fat heavy bullet made for penetration....Aframe, partition, TSX/TTSX, etc.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I mean when I've referred to "high shoulder" shots in the past. I'm not talking about sticking a bullet at the TOP of the shoulder, just in the top third, so that is easily still 6-8" BELOW the topline of a buck deer in the 250 pound range. That is where I'm referring when I've mentioned "optimum" shoulder shot placement, even though I've had the bullet hit all over shoulders and the reaction was the same.

quote:

Thinking back I recall 4 instances of wounding by the bullet going under the spine and above the lungs.

I witnessed this three weeks ago - after it was mentioned here. It took two more shots to bring the red deer down. The lungs were intact. The bullet had passed through the shoulder muscle, through the spine below the 'rings', missing the lungs completely.

/

Alf! You made me a believer

I can't deside if you are dazzling me with brilliance, impressing me with foot work or confusing me with bull shit. I think it worked. roger

quote:

.... shows a naive if not complete and utter lack of knowledge of anatomy.

I'm guilty already.
Which is why I follow this thread with such interest.

quote:

... the gutters on each side of the vertebral body ...

I tried to describe a bullet passing through the lower part of the spine, hitting bone and who knows what else but missing the spinal chord and failing to break the spine. This bullet therefore missed the lungs but damaged the spine but still failed to drop the animal. It took two more shots to bring it down. We only know the order of the shots from the wound angles. The first shot was horizontal while the others were angling down from rear right to front left. There was no bleeding into the chest cavity either. That is not to say the first shot was not fatal, just that the animal was able to run up a steep incline some.

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
Alf! You ...are ...confusing me with bull (clinton).

As usual!

For some reason alf is unable to comprehend that " humans " and most animals that typically walk on 4-legs are physically different. If he would just go Kill a few things, it would be obvious.

There is also a spot above the heart and below the spine (when a Deer is facing you with the front higher than the rear) that a bullet can enter and go between the lungs without damaging them or the heart. Depends on how straight-on the Deer is facing, the angle of entrance, point of entrance, and the Bullet size/design.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

/

/

Thanks for the anatomy lesson Alf. Very interesting! It's actually hard to see the blesbuck details in the monochrome pictures but it gives me an understanding of how my hunting companion's three shots failed to be immediately fatal. I would suggest 'though, that a deer is structured a bit different. I only have the white tailed deer anatomy as shown on the web to go by. Our deer was a red. Would you care to comment on deer anatomy? Can you explain how a bullet can pass through the spine and not be immediately fatal? In this instance the bullet passed above the lungs and below the spinal chord, just behind the spatula but through the shoulder muscle. (The moose section gives a better idea). Thanks.

You guys are getting into a pissing contest that has no winner. I must be truely under or over gunned using a 6.5x55, 8x57, or 9.3x57. Personnaly the 6.5x55 is a perfect Whitetail round, but I choose 139..140gr bullets in 6.5. As far as a blood trail, I've hit bucks w/ 12ga slugs that emptied them quick, but they kept running. A shoulder shot, Nay, I'll pass. I like meat. jp

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
...I would suggest 'though, that a deer is structured a bit different. ...

Right on the nose!

alf simply doesn't realize that a Deer is structured differently from a moose, eland, chicken, snake, flea, elephant and his constant references to humans has ZERO to do with it.

Even Killing just a few heads of game would/should make a difference in alf's posts. But that appears to be beyond the "scope"( ) of his books.

So, as usual, alf is totally - WRONG AGAIN!!!

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills to those of you who avoid the spots on the Deer which we mentioned.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This discussion has morphed into something far from my original question, but still is interesting and informative.

As to shooting into animals where one would think that an artery or organ should be punctured or lacerated by the bullet as evidenced by Alf's photographs, but where the organ or artery remains unharmed, I have some second hand knowledge of a potential answer.

A classmate of mine did his medical residency at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania ("HUP") in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. He saw a fair share of gunshot wounds in the emergency room.

He came away with two conclusions based upon his HUP experience. One, human beings that tenaciously want to live, often do even with horrible wounds (so we can extrapolate this to animals with varying dispositions on survival). Two, organs and large arteries can move away from a bullet. He said that knife wounds could be more serious in some cases than gunshot wounds, since of course the knife has a sharp edge that can cut an artery or organ, whereas a bullet might not in its mushroomed (too smooth)(softpoint bullet) or undeformed state (failed to expand soft point bullet or a solid/FMJ bullet) after impacting the body.

Thanks to all of you who answered my question about small calibers and the attendant blood trails or lack thereof.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

/

OK. Seriously now. The Brindled gnu picture is the clearest to me and I can 'see' where the bullet in question passed through. What I cannot see is the relationship to the shoulder bone and the shoulder muscle. On my white tail deer anatomy pictures, the part of the spine hit does not seem to line up to allow for a muscle/spine strike whithout hitting the shoulder blade. I can 'see' how the follow up shots passed above the spine and into the base of the neck. It could be simply how the red was standing at the time.

Lecturing anatomy to Alf as a medical practitioner can only be a hilarious joke.

Warrior

Alf

You son of a gun. There you go again confusing Hotsh?t with science and medical facts. If you are not careful you could give the old boy a coronary and be on the hook for malpractice as defined by the Hillbilly jury of his peers.

I ignore the old fart and as said before "nobody cares what he thinks". You have overwhelmed the lad with data that will most likely cause his hard drive to crash. You see in his world his opinion is fact and the reality of facts and scientific evidence creates mass confusion and stupor of reasoning. Perhaps if we are lucky, it would also leave him speechless because after all "nobody cares what he thinks"

Thanks for the input on anatomy it was very informative about mammals in general.

I think you did have one error in your retort.....it's spelled Hotsh?t, not Hotcore!!!

/

Great pictures Alf. Interesting that the Bison bled so much with his heart all shot up like that! Now, that skeleton shows me where 'our' bullets went. Just below to rearwards of the shoulder blade and between two pairs of ribs, a bullet could nick the spine to produce some bone fragments but otherwise pass through the muscle and the spinal sheath without puncturing a lung. I have seen a few animals with severed spines, crawling off if the spinal chord is intact and the spine itself not broken, 'our' red deer could have stayed on his feet for a while.

Thanks again for your very interesting input Alf.

Massive heart!

I didn't realize a bison had such a huge heart. Alf, any idea what that animal weighed? I have to admit, we like to uncover the mystery of bullet travel, what it damaged, etc, as well.

What is impressive for me is a treestand shot with archey equipment, when the arrown exits through the heart. My favorite shot of all time, slight quartering away and 10 yards from my tree when I'm 20 ft up.

/

/

Alf

Your comments about taking better chances to be shot in the lungs with a rifle rather than an arrow with a sharp broad head really ring true to my experience.

I've found that if an animal is hit in front of the diaphram with an arrow it is just a matter of time (15-20 seconds usually) before they expire. This seems to hold up whether shot broadside or headon as long as the arrow reached that area in front of the diaphram. When I started bowhunting I was simply amazed at the efficiency of the broadhead when placed properly. Even the improper placement has resulted in some fast deaths from the ones I've observed when that shot has hit a major artery.

The blood trails left by a pass through arrow has sometimes looked like a lad was running through the forest carrying two buckets of red paint with the lids off, running as fast as he can. Blood trailing wasn't difficult as the trail usually wasn't very long.

Thanks for that Alf. Very interesting! Much appreciated.

Now, ... ... that extensive bleeding away from the wound, forming a slimy mess, spoiling the meat - and bleeding at the hip area of the spine from a shoulder shot? Is that from bruising due to the shock-wave? Why at the base of the spine? I have found it even with low velocity impacts i.e. 1700fps (not the bleeding at the spine). It is hard to imagine the shock-wave effect. I shot a dassie once, with a 303 180gr RN, MV 2300fps, striking it on the tip of the jaw, the exit at the rear. Both fore-arm bones were broken and the skin peeled back exposing the fore-arms and ribs (which were also broken). The bullet had passed down the neck and through the chest cavity - the only bone hit was the jaw-bone.

/

Dear Alf:

quote:

Lacerating tissue vessels and organs with a very sharp blade bleeds more profusely and is more difficult to contain than a similar volume wound induced by gunshot, the reason is that sharp laceration is relatively "atraumatic" in that it is less likley to evoke a local response by the body to contain the bleed, the violence of the gunshot wound induces local responses from vessels to contrict thus often in small vessel damage there may be little or no major bleeding,

This assessment comports with my classmate's experience while in residency at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania ("HUP") when he did his rotation in the emergency room while treating knife and gunshot wounds. As I mentioned above, based upon second hand experience through his work at HUP, the knife wounds could be more deadly than the gunshot wounds.

By the way have you performed any autopsies where the internal organs and/or major arteries have moved or been moved from the bullet path, and where those organs and/or arteries showed no signs or minimal signs of damage?

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

/

Dear Alf:

I am curious about an oblique angle internal impact where the mushroomed soft point or solid for that matter doesn't contact an organ or artery at a 90 degree or nearly 90 degree angle. That bullet is slowing down pretty damn fast inside an animal, and I wonder if it becomes less efficient at laceration and/or puncturing an organ or artery as it decelerates.

My conjecture arises more from the rounded bullet at a greatly reduced velocity and rotational velocity actually pushing an artery or organ, which is lubricated and sometimes rounded anyway, out of the way when it is not hit almost squarely by the bullet. To me an expanding bullet with sharp petals and/or sharp edges would more resemble a knife edge, causing more laceration in an oblique angle hit to an artery or organ.

In my limited experience on white tail deer here in Pennsylvania, USA, the standard soft points that I used punctured hearts and lungs all the time. But those were large organs, and had fairly large surface areas. An artery might not act in the same fashion.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Alf,
God forbid that there is a subject that your not always correct on, but IMO this happens and maybe I am naive, but perhaps you are mistaken, could that be possible?

However I find it odd that some of these animals when recovered did not display your so positive statement of internal damage...and if you are so certain then then how the hell would they live over night or for a day or two with the damage you describe as absolute.

Bottom line is I respectfully disagree with your analysis.