Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
Best self defence Grizzly buster..
- Thread starter Airborn_69
- Start date
If you or anyone else really wants to know the hardness, PM me and I will send you a mailing address if you're willing to sacrifice one. Send me the slug and I'll run it through my hardness tester and tell you exactly what the hardness is. As far as that goes, if you want any lead hardness tested, the same thing applies: send me a PM and I'll give you an address to send it to.
I can't agree with you on that part.
The only "materials" I have fired 12 gauge slugs into were actual critters, and the RCMP of the day bought the low end Forster style slugs I think you are talking of - not 3" magnum, either. They blew through black bears and elk just fine when destroying critters - well enough that I can't tell you whether they pancaked, turned inside out, or whatever. Big holes going in, big holes going out. These aren't 100 yard shots of course, this is close in stuff... but I think this is what we're talking about anyways. I don't recall ever hearing anybody squawk that the issue slugs just weren't doing the job - and the Brennekes were available even back in the 70's and 80's if the Foster style slugs had been proving themselves inadequate.
I have a lot more experience with conicals in .54 caliber muzzlestuffers - definitely pure lead because I cast them and so I know that for sure. Although smaller in diameter, 425 grains of pure lead is still a pretty good size projectile. Most of them blow right through elk and moose from the side as well - I haven't shot any grumbly bears with them so can't comment on that part, and aren't likely to either.
The ones that I did recover because of angling shots were somewhat deformed - but so what? In my mind, when you get that much penetration, if it also increases in diameter then so much the better. The ones I did recover were not all that badly deformed incidentally - you can still see the lube grooves, driving bands, skirt, etc.
I won't be the first one to jump up and argue if anyone is to say "more is always better", but really, I think even with very old technology shotgun slugs you're still getting an impressive amount of penetration with a bullet that hits "pre-expanded' to .729" and can only get better from that point. If a slug is getting even wider while penetrating that far, then I say bring it on. If the slug upsetting is accompanied by inadequate penetration, then I can agree you have a problem.
I do, however, think the round nose Forster design is a very poor second to any other slug that either has a big flat meplat or mushrooms to give the approximation of a big flat meplat. It's kind of like the equivilent of the old 158 gr. round nose .38 Spl. load compared to more modern SWC designs like LBT pioneered. If you look at Dixie's products, you'll see that is exactly what they are addressing with their design:
You mean like the buffalo hunters used to do? Seemed to work for them, using that old slow 405 grain bullet at 1300 fps. I think it's more about weight for momentum and diameter than anything else.
I wouldn't have any problems whatsoever with a pure lead cast bullet out of a 45-70 at that speed - provided it weighed in the 400+ grains range. In fact, I'm doing the same thing in my muzzle stuffer with an even wider bullet, of about the same weight, with a lower SD, albeit at a significantly higher velocity.
A round ball is about as classic a low SD bullet as you're going to get... I don't doubt the part about having fun, however.
You can also get somebody like Mountain Moulds to make up a slug of your own specifications and essentially replicate what Dixie is doing with their Paradox creations.
I'm not sure you're going to be able to match something like Brenneke's 600 grain 12 gauge rifled slug at 1500-1600 fps, however... most of the data I've seen for Lyman's 525 grain slug has shown about 1550 fps at best and that's about what I get out of my shotgun. The shape of the Lyman is certainly right for the job.
The big flat front end has a lot to do with their effectiveness, in my opinion. And ditto for the Lyman slug.
However, speaking of chokes and slugs, measuring the diameter of them up with a micrometer will give a clue as to how the manufacturers are dealing with concerns regarding slugs passing through chokes - and it has little to do with lead hardness. I'm going on memory here, but the last Forster-style slug that I miked came in at about .680", I think. You are going to look long and hard to find any 12 gauge with .050" of choke - of course there is a wide discrepency in 12 gauge barrel diameters so that is possible with a barrel where the bore is tight to begin with. Which is probably why some manufacturers post warnings about not using in full choked shotguns. Even big loads of lead shot in 12 gauges have often jugged barrels, and lead shot streams through a choke much better than a solid projectile regardless of its hardness.
I will be surprised if there is, given the tiny slug market that Canada has to begin with, and how little of those people would be prepared to shell out for such premium shotgun ammunition.. However, you can always contact them and ask.
The Lyman slugs may or may not produce accuracy in an individual shotgun; the results I have seen vary widely. However, a slug that size going that speed at defense distances doesn't have to apologize to the Dixie loadings too much, and you can cast the slug as hard or as soft as your personal beliefs mandate. I cast them from wheel weight because that's what's handy.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
This was a few posts back, if you fully read this post.
Okay, my limited experience.
I chose this slug for a very specific reason, at the area that I hunted them, a standard foster slug would have been adequate for 95% of the boar encountered. However the few really really big ones
(360 LB) the Brennekes were perfect for, due too thier reputation of dependability.
Not to mention, I was accompanying an archer who wished to ground stalk these beasts.
There was plenty of prior range time as well, to know the point of aim at 25, 50, 75 and 100 yards.
The M37 Ithaca Deerslayer Police Special, using its rifle-type sights, was a perfect launcher too.
So as you can see, I did my homework, prior to putting this to the hunting field.
Lots of other pertinent information from other members here too....
Last edited:
Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
Rick , thanks for your offer. On the size of Forster's...I just measured a Federal Forster at .734 at the skirt and 437g the other day.
Nice to hear reports on "blowing through" elk and bears but I have fired a Forster (can't remember what brand) frontal shot into a black bear carcass (no hide) and had the slug stop at the gut. What's that? maybe 18" of penetration Whoopee DO. It didnt go through on a 1/4ing shot at the hip to front leg either, I never bothered trying to find the slug on that shot. Another time just for fun I also hit the skinned out head with a shovel and could not crack the skull only broke some teeth.
I have also shot newspaper, clay, a pail of of rice, trees. I can tell you Forster's are no good for penetration.
And that leads me to my hardened round ball or slug to duplicate Paradox rifles. Actually the Dixie slug is also patterned similar to the Paradox rounds.
If I remember correctly Dixie slugs has actually posted on Gunnutz before.
Nice to hear reports on "blowing through" elk and bears but I have fired a Forster (can't remember what brand) frontal shot into a black bear carcass (no hide) and had the slug stop at the gut. What's that? maybe 18" of penetration Whoopee DO. It didnt go through on a 1/4ing shot at the hip to front leg either, I never bothered trying to find the slug on that shot. Another time just for fun I also hit the skinned out head with a shovel and could not crack the skull only broke some teeth.
I have also shot newspaper, clay, a pail of of rice, trees. I can tell you Forster's are no good for penetration.
And that leads me to my hardened round ball or slug to duplicate Paradox rifles. Actually the Dixie slug is also patterned similar to the Paradox rounds.
If I remember correctly Dixie slugs has actually posted on Gunnutz before.
rolleyes:
Wow - this brings back an old memory.
To settle a dispute on a similar topic about 5 years ago, i actually called 10 guides in alaska and bc who guide for grizzlie. I spoke to each one for about 45 minutes saying i had some questions and what the situation was, and they all agreed to help.
I don't know if i still have my notes, but i'll tell you what I got from them as it pertains to this. (it was all grizzlie defense stuff).
Most guides seem to prefer the 375 h&h as their gun of choice when out with their clients. This was mostly in alaska. Most seemed to feel that offered the best combination of shootability and knockdown power. That's for shooting wounded grizzes in a hurry. That's a little different than defense because of course you're talking about possible longer ranges - where a 45-70 or shotgun wouldnt' reach with sufficient killing power.
When thumping around - the choice was generally 44 mag pistols or shotguns. One guy told me of an encounter his father had - he always carried a very short barreled single shot shotgun because he found it was very easy to carry around with him and figured it'd be better to have one shot close by than 5 sitting against a tree somewhere because he put it down.
A bear came after him - he waited till the last second and shot. Bear died on the spot.
But one thing they ALL mentioned was that the NUMBER ONE factor to consider is how much you'll practice with the gun, or how well you already know it. They all mentioned a gun you're very very comfortable with and can shoot well CLOSE IN where things are happening fast is the BEST gun, period. Practice and training counted more than cartridge any day of the week. One guide said he carries a 44 and his buddy carries a pistol grip shotgun. He said he doesn't think the 44 is better per se - but he always seems to short-stroke shotguns so he goes with a pistol. His buddy on the other hand is deadly with his shotgun and practices regular. Both shoot hundreds of rounds a year in 'simulated bear attack' situations ... quick draws on close targets, and moving ones if they can arrange it.
So - something to consider. Whatever you choose - it has to be something you're either already very familiar with or something you're willing to practice with till you're perfect, and i don't mean just off a bench.
Let me tell you a story...please. This past September, I had the opportunity to hunt in the Yukon. I brought a newly acquired .375 H&H for a moose hunt.
In preparation for this hunt, I hastily loaded some 300gr. Barnes TSX's using an esteemed CGn member's recommendation. I took my loads to the range and was quite impressed with the grouping and chronoed velocities. Off I went. After three days of hunting from a boat, I needed to get my feet on cold hard ground and go for a hike. I took off, tracking a huge bull moose that we had seen on shore one day prior and came face to face with a sizeable grizz, 75 yds away. I let him go on his way and he chose likewise. Latter that evening, I found out that I had loaded my bullets too long to feed through my magazine. Had I shot at that bear, that would have been the only shot that I would have gotten off. Boy, did I feel like a "lucky" dork.
The problem was that I missed an important part of reloading know how, and I've reloaded for going on 25 years now. You cannot ever be too carefull.
In preparation for this hunt, I hastily loaded some 300gr. Barnes TSX's using an esteemed CGn member's recommendation. I took my loads to the range and was quite impressed with the grouping and chronoed velocities. Off I went. After three days of hunting from a boat, I needed to get my feet on cold hard ground and go for a hike. I took off, tracking a huge bull moose that we had seen on shore one day prior and came face to face with a sizeable grizz, 75 yds away. I let him go on his way and he chose likewise. Latter that evening, I found out that I had loaded my bullets too long to feed through my magazine. Had I shot at that bear, that would have been the only shot that I would have gotten off. Boy, did I feel like a "lucky" dork.
The problem was that I missed an important part of reloading know how, and I've reloaded for going on 25 years now. You cannot ever be too carefull.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
There seems to be some confusion concerning the terminal performance of shotgun slugs compared to cast bullets. A shotgun slug, including the Brenneke, has a skirt, and upon impact the skirt flows forward to form a flat pancaked projectile. Due to the large diameter of the pancake, penetration is compromised.
A solid lead, cast rifle or handgun bullet by comparison whether blunt nosed or pointed, does not expand to any significant degree when impacting tissue below 2000 fps. As a result a cast bullet of the same weight and velocity as a shotgun slug will penetrate deeper.
The Brenneke, out penetrates the foster because the Brenneke has a thick nose section, the thinner skirt is relatively short, and the wad is designed to stay with the slug, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. A foster by comparison has a longer skirt, and is more cup like - essentially the same thickness through the nose and the skirt. The plastic insert which allows the slug to hold it's shape in flight is seldom recovered. The foster might blow through a broadside game animal, but in defence shooting, the animal is typically coming head on. In those circumstances you can't have too much penetration (except near population) which is why I prefer a rifle to a shotgun. However, if you carry a shotgun, choosing a slug that doesn't upset is the better choice. As a law enforcement tool, I would suggest the foster is the better choice as a center of chest hit would be virtually non-surviveable, and the danger to by-standers from excessive penetration would be reduced.
Somewhere in "Cooper's Commentaries" Jeff Cooper reported that an African Buffalo was killed by a shotgun loaded with Brennekes, and that the slug penetrated 4'. That is all the performance we can ask for from a firearm we can actually carry. The .500 Nitro loaded with 570 gr X bullets loaded to 2100 that I carried certainly did no better, and the bullet recovered from my buffalo, which I have in my collection, measures .97" at it's widest point. A solid of course out penetrates any soft-point when fired from a rifle, but since the introduction of bullets like the Barnes X, GS Custom bullets, and the wonderful Rhino bullets that I am so fond of, solids have fallen from favour for use on buffalo. I assume the Brennek's performance was due to the fact that it did not upset. A buffalo has inch thick skin, and the strongest skeletal structure for weight of any animal on the planet. It has been said that if an elephant was so tough, nothing hand carried could drop one.
I just stumbled across the print out from when I chronographed the shotgun slugs I had on hand to see how they stacked up against their advertised velocities. The average velocities are as follows:
Brenneke 3" - 1335 fps
Federal 3" - 1473 fps
Challenger 2.75" - 1531 fps
Winchester 2.75" - 1495 fps.
Edited to add:
These velocities were from my 20" 590.
A solid lead, cast rifle or handgun bullet by comparison whether blunt nosed or pointed, does not expand to any significant degree when impacting tissue below 2000 fps. As a result a cast bullet of the same weight and velocity as a shotgun slug will penetrate deeper.
The Brenneke, out penetrates the foster because the Brenneke has a thick nose section, the thinner skirt is relatively short, and the wad is designed to stay with the slug, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. A foster by comparison has a longer skirt, and is more cup like - essentially the same thickness through the nose and the skirt. The plastic insert which allows the slug to hold it's shape in flight is seldom recovered. The foster might blow through a broadside game animal, but in defence shooting, the animal is typically coming head on. In those circumstances you can't have too much penetration (except near population) which is why I prefer a rifle to a shotgun. However, if you carry a shotgun, choosing a slug that doesn't upset is the better choice. As a law enforcement tool, I would suggest the foster is the better choice as a center of chest hit would be virtually non-surviveable, and the danger to by-standers from excessive penetration would be reduced.
Somewhere in "Cooper's Commentaries" Jeff Cooper reported that an African Buffalo was killed by a shotgun loaded with Brennekes, and that the slug penetrated 4'. That is all the performance we can ask for from a firearm we can actually carry. The .500 Nitro loaded with 570 gr X bullets loaded to 2100 that I carried certainly did no better, and the bullet recovered from my buffalo, which I have in my collection, measures .97" at it's widest point. A solid of course out penetrates any soft-point when fired from a rifle, but since the introduction of bullets like the Barnes X, GS Custom bullets, and the wonderful Rhino bullets that I am so fond of, solids have fallen from favour for use on buffalo. I assume the Brennek's performance was due to the fact that it did not upset. A buffalo has inch thick skin, and the strongest skeletal structure for weight of any animal on the planet. It has been said that if an elephant was so tough, nothing hand carried could drop one.
I just stumbled across the print out from when I chronographed the shotgun slugs I had on hand to see how they stacked up against their advertised velocities. The average velocities are as follows:
Brenneke 3" - 1335 fps
Federal 3" - 1473 fps
Challenger 2.75" - 1531 fps
Winchester 2.75" - 1495 fps.
Edited to add:
These velocities were from my 20" 590.
Last edited:
Well, you are correct about that. Those unfortunate critters were crippled and had to be destroyed, or were nuisance bears. Where they were flopping around and a head shot couldn't be made, it was the old broadside shot just behind the point of the shoulder to try and take out the pump and all the plumbing attached to it. None of those were running towards me.
That said, choosing a Foster which was the mainstay 20-30 years ago makes about as much sense in this day and age is carrying 158 gr. round nose ammunition at 800 fps in a .38 Spl like the old Dominion stuff from the same era. There's far too many great choices available out there today, either store bought or handloaded.
I dunno about that. Putting a bullet through a bear (or whatever) from front to back is going to require a big heavy bullet and fairly good velocities. That means burning a lot of powder, and that in turn means a lot of recoil. I suspect you handle recoil fairly well, but my limit for fast and accurate shooting is a 250 grain bullet at about 2850 fps out of an eight pound rifle - or a heavy slug out of a light handy 12 gauge shotgun. It works out to about 50 ft/lbs of recoil energy in either case; the next step up beyond that and I'm a little out of my league and more than willing to admit it.
So with that in mind - and also mindful of your relating to 4' of penetration from a Brenneke slug - I have to ask why I need more penetration beyond what is needed to crush a skull, blow the neck vertebrae apart, break a shoulder, or make a big gaping hole in the heart/attached plumbing/lungs as it heads south. What will all the extra penetration accomplish for me as that bullet goes further on into a stomach filled with lots of shore grasses and water? Besides lots more recoil, that is? If it destroys the liver or spleen while headed south, so what - by the time that takes effect, the whole issue will be long settled.
There's a big difference between what you carry when you head out hunting, and what you carry for "just in case". Shotguns are short and handy, and when loaded with good slugs their recoil isn't something that most shooters can't deal with out of a firearm that light.
Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
It's funny how people will use and recommend things like an expanding copper solid for carefully aimed lung shots on whitetails out of a rifle but when it's a shot gun to be used on life saving shots at head on game the suddenly the softest possible bullet is OK.
I swear people go goofy when discussing shotguns
I swear people go goofy when discussing shotguns
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Rick you refer to a 250 gr bullet @ 2800 as your recoil limit, and that certainly describes a powerful round. I doubt if a .375 or a .458 with an intelligently designed stock would be result in much more difficulty to master, and the ballistics from my .375 are not much different; 300 grs @ 2600 or my preferred load of 380 grs @ 2300. I had much more trouble shooting a 7.62X54R due to the horrible stock of the Mosin-Nagant carbine than I did with the Ruger #1 in .416 Rigby, that pushed a 350 gr X bullet beyond 2800 fps.
The advantage of the rifle bullet over the shotgun slug is two-fold. First, as pointed out by Pounder, if you are responsible for the safety of a group of people, the range can become longer than can be managed with a shotgun, simply because a group of people tend to string themselves out after a half hour or so on the trail. Even with frequent stops and due diligence on the part of the guards, this seems to be unavoidable. Secondly, the rifle bullet impacts at a velocity over 2000 fps.
The advantage here is that unlike the passage of a shotgun slug, a bullet from a powerful rifle has enough velocity to: A) produce reliable expansion to maximize the frontal area of the bullet and due to the mass and velocity of that bullet, deep penetration, and B) the impact velocity of the rifle bullet creates a wound volume in tissue that is out of proportion to the expanded frontal area of the bullet. This is not to say that faster is better, and optimal velocity for maximized terminal bullet performance on big game appears to be in the range of 2400 fps - at least that is the velocity often cited by African professional hunters as being optimum on large game animals as it is unlikely to result in good expansion without bullet failure, and deep penetration.
The Africans have much more experience with gunshot wounds on game than do their North American counterparts, so when there is a consensus from that group of experts as to what works, it makes sense to pay attention unless personal experience makes such statements suspect. My testing has resulted in the failure of X bullets with impact velocities over 2600 fps, where as the 380 gr Rhino with an impact velocity of 2300 did not. While I would confidently still use the 300 gr X as a bear stopper, the Rhino remains my primary choice.
Back to my statement concerning penetration. If the CNS is missed, and no major supporting bone has been hit, the only thing that will stop the bear is bleed out. The more tissue that is effected by the passage of the bullet, the faster the bleed out will occur, the faster the bleed out occurs the less time the bear will continue to be a threat. I like to see an exit wound, because if the bullet exits it has effected as much tissue as is possible along its tract, regardless of angle. This is the logic that led me to make the statement that you can't have too much penetration.
The advantage of the rifle bullet over the shotgun slug is two-fold. First, as pointed out by Pounder, if you are responsible for the safety of a group of people, the range can become longer than can be managed with a shotgun, simply because a group of people tend to string themselves out after a half hour or so on the trail. Even with frequent stops and due diligence on the part of the guards, this seems to be unavoidable. Secondly, the rifle bullet impacts at a velocity over 2000 fps.
The advantage here is that unlike the passage of a shotgun slug, a bullet from a powerful rifle has enough velocity to: A) produce reliable expansion to maximize the frontal area of the bullet and due to the mass and velocity of that bullet, deep penetration, and B) the impact velocity of the rifle bullet creates a wound volume in tissue that is out of proportion to the expanded frontal area of the bullet. This is not to say that faster is better, and optimal velocity for maximized terminal bullet performance on big game appears to be in the range of 2400 fps - at least that is the velocity often cited by African professional hunters as being optimum on large game animals as it is unlikely to result in good expansion without bullet failure, and deep penetration.
The Africans have much more experience with gunshot wounds on game than do their North American counterparts, so when there is a consensus from that group of experts as to what works, it makes sense to pay attention unless personal experience makes such statements suspect. My testing has resulted in the failure of X bullets with impact velocities over 2600 fps, where as the 380 gr Rhino with an impact velocity of 2300 did not. While I would confidently still use the 300 gr X as a bear stopper, the Rhino remains my primary choice.
Back to my statement concerning penetration. If the CNS is missed, and no major supporting bone has been hit, the only thing that will stop the bear is bleed out. The more tissue that is effected by the passage of the bullet, the faster the bleed out will occur, the faster the bleed out occurs the less time the bear will continue to be a threat. I like to see an exit wound, because if the bullet exits it has effected as much tissue as is possible along its tract, regardless of angle. This is the logic that led me to make the statement that you can't have too much penetration.
Last edited:
Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
To me the main reason for maximum penetration is not really so much bleed as the fact you may also hit the pelvis/rear leg area to help in an immediate take down. Of course that is what it is all about, stopping the animal right now, not 20 seconds from now when your neck is ripped apart. Your shot may also have to go through the muzzle, face, teeth, lower jaw, sternum, all of which is really hard digging and not necessarily imideatly incapacitating. Reasons of which to use a bullet up to the task, no matter what kind of gun fired it.
I agree with Boomer on pretty much every thing and I do prefer a rifle over a shot gun as that is what I am proficient with and I feel my heavy rifles are much more suited to stopping a charge. The problem is that I do not carry a heavy rifle on my quad at all times. My friend and I got into a bad habbit of taking turns bringing a gun but it turned out to be a big time mistake. I got myself a folder for my shotgun so it fits in my quad box and is with me at all times. Of course the main problem with having a shotgun at all times is now I am going to have to use it, and I want a good bullet I can trust.
I agree with Boomer on pretty much every thing and I do prefer a rifle over a shot gun as that is what I am proficient with and I feel my heavy rifles are much more suited to stopping a charge. The problem is that I do not carry a heavy rifle on my quad at all times. My friend and I got into a bad habbit of taking turns bringing a gun but it turned out to be a big time mistake. I got myself a folder for my shotgun so it fits in my quad box and is with me at all times. Of course the main problem with having a shotgun at all times is now I am going to have to use it, and I want a good bullet I can trust.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Go to this site, on the top is a sub-text called; "All About Brenneke"
Read everything on this site, including testimonials.....
Last edited:
I also would prefer a rifle, but if I take a shotgun (and I do at times) I load it with 2 3/4" Brennekes.
As already noted, Brennekes are more of a solid design, as opposed to the Foster slug, which is a hollow cup.
Fosters expand quickly, Brennekes don't expand much, mostly the front of them get smooshed back a bit, but it's still clearly recognizable as a slug.
I've never used a roundball, but I can't see it penetrating any deeper than Brenneke, regardless of hardness, but because it's a ....round ball.
One of the stories I've read about how that myth about "bullets bouncing off bears sloping heads" got started was the roundballs that the Lewis and Clark expedition used in their front loaders really did skid off some grizzlies heads!
As already noted, Brennekes are more of a solid design, as opposed to the Foster slug, which is a hollow cup.
Fosters expand quickly, Brennekes don't expand much, mostly the front of them get smooshed back a bit, but it's still clearly recognizable as a slug.
I've never used a roundball, but I can't see it penetrating any deeper than Brenneke, regardless of hardness, but because it's a ....round ball.
One of the stories I've read about how that myth about "bullets bouncing off bears sloping heads" got started was the roundballs that the Lewis and Clark expedition used in their front loaders really did skid off some grizzlies heads!
I don't have a problem with cast bullets for hunting at all, and yes, that includes soft paper patched lead bullets. You will be hard pressed to prove to me that a lead bullet with a good nose form, properly cast and heat treated to match load working pressure won't kill as good as a jacketed bullet. Two things however: cast spitzers suck in high powered rifles which means you won't have the range, and how many people these days are willing to learn how to properly cast, properly size to their rifle, properly heat treat, etc, etc, etc, when you can go grab a box of Barnes bullets on your way back from getting a loaf of bread and a litre of milk for the kiddies cereal? Half the time I get people telling me it is impossible to heat treat and anneal cast bullets to specific hardnesses, so there ya go.It's funny how people will use and recommend things like an expanding copper solid for carefully aimed lung shots on whitetails out of a rifle but when it's a shot gun to be used on life saving shots at head on game the suddenly the softest possible bullet is OK.
I swear people go goofy when discussing shotguns
But what's important is that you feel comfortable with whatever you're carrying, and if you see things differently, then you need to do whatever makes you feel confident.
Just for fun however, here's what Samuel Baker had to say about soft lead bullets and large critters:
My opinion may be expressed in a few words. If you wish the bullet to
expand, use soft lead, but keep the metal solid. If you wish for great
penetration, use hard solid metal, either 1/10 tin or 1/13 quicksilver.
Even this will alter its form against the bones of a buffalo, but either
of the above will go clean through a wapiti stag, and would kill another
beyond it should the rifle be '577 fired with 6 drams of powder.
Wild Beasts and their Ways, by Samuel W. Baker
Baker shot a few dangerous critters in his lifetime... probably more than everyone here on CGN in total. His said his .577 bullets had a muzzle velocity of 1650 fps - compared to a .730 slug at, what? 1550 - 1650 fps? Baker obviously didn't have available what we have today, and a lead bullet out of a .577 is different in some respects than a shotgun slug. But the African animals of his day haven't evolved much since then, and Baker seems to have done okay with soft lead bullets of similar weights to 12 gauge slugs, at similar velocities, and at somewhat similar hardnesses. expand, use soft lead, but keep the metal solid. If you wish for great
penetration, use hard solid metal, either 1/10 tin or 1/13 quicksilver.
Even this will alter its form against the bones of a buffalo, but either
of the above will go clean through a wapiti stag, and would kill another
beyond it should the rifle be '577 fired with 6 drams of powder.
Wild Beasts and their Ways, by Samuel W. Baker
By the way, I'm not sure why Baker thought 1/10 tin/lead alloy was "hard" - it's softer than wheelweights, and untreated wheelweights aren't hard enough for centerfire rifle use beyond pedestrian velocities.
If you think Baker was inexperienced and "goofy", then of course you should follow your muse.
You're probably right, Boomer. But I'm not sure where I can find such a stocked rifle that has a collapsible stock, light and handy enough to carry all day with all the other gear and equipment I'm dragging around with, and won't kick the stuffing out of me.
