Bullet Penetration Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
470 Mbogo said:
You pretty much have the perfect loads for the cartridges you have. I guess I should have been a little more specific with calibers and velocities. I'm thinking in the medium bore calibers such as the 375"s hot 338's and the 416's such as the Rigby and Weatherby that can take advantage of the extra velocity. The better bullet construction also makes the 460 Weatherby the cartridge it was designed to be. I hope you had a chance to look at the link, it is very interesting.

I shot a 450 Ackley for quite a while and WW748 was an excellent powder for it. It is so close to your Lott it would be worth a try. It's temperature stable also.
Take care,
Dave


Dave I've seen that bullet chart before but never read the article about that bullet test before. It is an very good article.

When you are talking about "better" bullet construction you have to be careful, because in a slower caliber, the "better" bullet is often the plain-Jane El-Cheapo! Case in point, fire a Winchester Fail Safe in a slow caliber and get zero expansion and that's no good!

Referencing that article, and assuming you are shooting a bull moose at 40 yards (normal moose hunting distance), if you take a .308Win and a .300Wby, in the .308 you would want a basic Federal Power-Shock bullet. The Weatherby, due to higher velocity would blow a much bigger hole and would likely penetrate less if you also used the Power-Shock. Of course the moose would be dead either way.
But theoretical "best" performance would likely be from something like a Trophy Bonded BearClaw or a Barnes TSX, out of the Weatherby.
 
No way..you're kidding right...that was sarcasm. I never would have guessed. Man you are the king. Glad we are friends now though!

Hence the reason for rule 11.

One word really stands out alot more than the others, wonder if you can guess which one?

“Trouble maker”/"idiot"/"troll" ban. Those members who are nominated by 5 moderators for insisting on posting to instigate others or who show downright lack of maturity or intelligence will receive a 2 week time out. If the member does not learn from the time out, a permanent ban may be implemented.
 
Hey, you were the one that jumped into our discussion with nothing to add but your sarcasm...I wasn't instigating anything except a lively debate that was for the most part informative and respectful. Seems to me maybe you had other motives. Perhaps you should take heed of rule 11. You are right friend...one word does stand out.
 
Last edited:
#### measuring and calling people fools isn't what I call informative or respectful.

Not sure really what you meant by other motives, other than trying to tone down a thread that was mainly bickering. Thats one of a moderators duties I believe.

I'm pretty much done with the thread hijacking this has become. I've got plenty of time. You can have the last word if you'd like, thats mainly what this is all about anyways.
 
If you'll read back you'll see I said I wasn't interested in #### measuring and I never called anyone a fool. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. To me, the topic of bullets tumbling and bullet performance is a very interesting topic and one I have some thoughts about that I was keen on sharing. Other posters had other thoughts that they wanted to express. Isn't that what an internet messageboard about guns is about.....sharing ideas and offering up some facts to make your case?

BTW, I got your sarcasm the first time...there was no need to continue on with it. As I said, you may want to reread rule 11 yourself! Now who was it that hijacked this thread about bullet penetration?
 
Last edited:
Sheephunter, your off to a good start on this forum:rolleyes:

Not trying to piss anyone off Myles....just don't like being accused of things I didn't do and I enjoy a good debate. Personally, I thought that for the most part, this was a good debate. I've learned a lot off this site and in most cases, that was from people challenging the status quo. Hopefully I can share a little knowledge too!
 
As you spend some time on this site, you will learn sometimes, its best to make a point and move and not to turn posts into 13 pages of endless debate... most people will probably give you more respect and probably respect your opinion more in the long run....

Just my .02 cents
 
I don't know, I think there was a lot of good info from a number of people in those 13 pages. Sure there was a bit of crap but over all a good exchange of info. I'm not really here to gain respect, it just makes a pleasant break from the office doldrums on those days that I'm relegated to this prison and if I learn a bit, hey, it's a bonus. As with television, if people aren't enjoying the show, they can change the channel!
 
So are these bullets failures in your opinion too?
3-bullets-front.jpg

3-bullets-front.jpg

Omega,
If I found those bullets inside a coyote I'd be thrilled. With few exceptions I view any bullet that doesn't exit on a big game animal as a failure. I've used soft bullets, driven them up to 3700+ and experienced dramatic kills on broad side animals. Same thing with more traditional but still high velocities. Although that sounds like the mission has been accomplished, it is actually quite limiting. You can do the same with varmint rifle.
For the most part, the harder bullets kill slower but open up more shot options for shot placement. When I find a bullet consistantly on a broadside animal, that's telling me that I better not be using that combo on anything bigger, better not hit any of the solid parts, better not take any quartering toward or away shots.Better not be counting on a good blood trail. Better off using something with more penetration than less. Since you can seldom get something for nothing, that may well mean that the harder bullets kill slower. That is a compromise that I can live with.
Since theres always exceptions, I'll offer this one. When hunting herd animals it can make life a lot simpler if the bullets stay inside. Another is coyotes destined for skinning.
 
Everyone talks about the perfect bullet and the perfect velocity but unless you are using different bullets at different ranges, you'll never get that perfect performance from every bullet. A bullet that easily blows through a moose at 100 yards likely won't at 300. Is that bullet failure...hardly...it's a simple matter of physics. We ask a lot of bullets and then are disappointed when they don't perform how we want despite the fact that they were never designed to. No doubt each bullet has its optimum performance velocity but you'll likely only ever get to experience it one out of every 100 shots. To look at a bullet and comment on its performance without knowing the conditions surrounding how it got there is impossible. If the critter dies quickly...that's good bullet performance. Whether a bullet passes through or remains inside an animal is as much a matter of range as anything!
 
Everyone talks about the perfect bullet and the perfect velocity but unless you are using different bullets at different ranges, you'll never get that perfect performance from every bullet. A bullet that easily blows through a moose at 100 yards likely won't at 300. Is that bullet failure...hardly...it's a simple matter of physics. We ask a lot of bullets and then are disappointed when they don't perform how we want despite the fact that they were never designed to. No doubt each bullet has its optimum performance velocity but you'll likely only ever get to experience it one out of every 100 shots. To look at a bullet and comment on its performance without knowing the conditions surrounding how it got there is impossible. If the critter dies quickly...that's good bullet performance. Whether a bullet passes through or remains inside an animal is as much a matter of range as anything!

The eternal hunt for the perfect bullet. As the years add up I find myself worrying less about the construction, speed, blah, blah, blah and just blow a hole in them. If I do my job the bullets have never failed to do theirs. Some of my favorite bullets are sneered at by many who believe the know better but the animals keep on dying. Ballistic Tips, Game Kings, Corelock and the SST come to mind.
One note about range. More bullets pass through as range increases. Less impact velocity makes for slower/less expansion and the bullet achieves greater penetration. The toughest ride for any bullet is 100 yards and under.
I will say that I did have a good laugh yesterday on the Interlock discussion. I'd been loading for 10 years when the Interlock came out so I remember it well. Then I realized how old it made me to be able to say "hell I was there" this time and the smile left my face!:eek:
 
I use the most accurate hunting bullet in can find in a rifle.
I've been told by many that game kings , break up, don't penetrate, etc.
Nobody ever mentions that the critter they shot dropped like a stone, unless of course it took off, and then it usually turns out to be a bad hit.

Ultra high velocities these days require a tougher bullet, for sure, but the animals are the same, they are no tougher.

My 30 cal rifles run a 165 grain bullet less than 3,000FPS,
my 6.5's run a 140 at less than 3,200 , and even less than that for my favorite, a 6.5/160 grain bullet at less than 2,800FPS.

I don't use ultra high velocity so don't need a super premium bullet, a plain old hotcore, game King, Narma red box, interlock, all work very well in a variety of my rifles - and NO, I don't "settle for second best because I do not have to.....
Cat
 
So for your money the TSX is the only bullet is what you are saying, fair enough.

Well, it is a very good one, but I would stop far short of saying that it is the only bullet for my money. I'm working on finding a replacement that is a little softer, and am leaning toward A-Frames. Where I see them at their best is at extreme velocities, and the largest of animals. The eat-to-the-bullet hole crowd would like them as well, but the guys that complain about losing an ounce of meat are usually the last ones to pay a buck a bullet.
Downsides include the typical lack of response to hits, which is really starting to piss me off. Without counting back I would put the animals that I've killed with TSXs at around three dozen in the last couple years, plus another 20 for the muzzleloader bullets, mostly early in the nineties. I said earlier that the TSXs acted like solids, which I'll stand by. I never said that they don't expand, but they penetrate like solids, typically leave small exit and entrance wounds that don't leak that great, leave a tubular wound channel, break bones like a solid and are quite capable of plowing through many game animals lengthwise. Just like solids if I want an animal down, right now, its best to take a shoulder. If the animals would at least look hit, I wouldn't mind the short blood-trails much.

What a bullet looks like or weighs means very little to me compared to what it does. Simply that an animal was killed proves little, as simply killing things isn't usually very hard. One of the things that makes me grin is when hunters can show me a handful of high weight retension bullets with huge mushrooms that they recovered from broadside animals. Usually I play dumb and ask what the advantage of a high weight retension is, to which they will answer "better penetration." 'Course the fact that that they obviously didn't penetrate so hot if they have all their bullets to show seems to escape them.:D It's sort of like saying a car "Looks fast", instead of asking "What'llshedo?".
 
Everyone talks about the perfect bullet and the perfect velocity but unless you are using different bullets at different ranges, you'll never get that perfect performance from every bullet. A bullet that easily blows through a moose at 100 yards likely won't at 300. Is that bullet failure...hardly...it's a simple matter of physics. We ask a lot of bullets and then are disappointed when they don't perform how we want despite the fact that they were never designed to. No doubt each bullet has its optimum performance velocity but you'll likely only ever get to experience it one out of every 100 shots. To look at a bullet and comment on its performance without knowing the conditions surrounding how it got there is impossible. If the critter dies quickly...that's good bullet performance. Whether a bullet passes through or remains inside an animal is as much a matter of range as anything!

Now we are getting somewhere. It is as important to choose the correct bullet for the conditions under which you are hunting as it is to choose the correct bullet for the game you will be hunting. If the country one hunts is such that shots are limited to within 150 yards, a heavy round nose bullet at moderate velocity will perform well on big game. If the country is open and the chances are that the shot could well exceed 250 yards, a mid-weight high velocity bullet will flatten the trajectory and the velocity at impact will result in good bullet performance, despite the high muzzle velocity. Yet if the roles are reversed, problems can result. Due to the selection of bullets we are blessed with, provided you know in advance the conditions under which you'll be hunting, there is little reason to have the wrong ammo in the rifle.

In Africa it is common to carry more than one load for the rifle. Although there are exceptions, shots seldom exceed 150 yards, and most could well be half of that. Often there's a soft point for the initial shot and the magazine is filled with solids to deal with a wounded animal running straight away. Why should that concept be such a stretch for hunting in North American conditions. When I carry a rifle for hunting caribou, as opposed to carrying the same rifle for bear work, I load the rifle with a 260 gr Ballistic Tip (yes I still have a few left) loaded to 2600 in that I am anticipating a longish shot across the tundra. If that white rock 50 yards off suddenly stands up and begins to approach me, it only takes a moment to push a 380 gr Rhino into the top of the magazine then wait to see what he intends to do. Each of those bullets will do their respective jobs very well, but the 260 gr BT wouldn't be my first choice to solve a close range a polar bear problem, and the 380 gr Rhino drops 22" at 300 yards so it isn't the ideal long range bullet.

You can kill an ungulate with a broadside shot with almost anything, high velocity or low, whether the bullet performs properly or not, so why should we care as long as we can shoot the rifle accurately enough to hit the heart lung area at the range we shoot from? The reason is that ungulates are not always the game in question, and our position does not always afford the luxury of a broad side shot. Despite what it says in the hunting magazines I'd guess that the majority of whitetail shots in heavy cover are made at retreating animals. That is why some of us pay attention to how bullets perform, and try to understand why things happen the way they do. Why for instance did a .30 caliber rifle bullet disintegrate on a seal, leaving a fist sized hole flecked with bullet metal and tiny bone shards, without penetrating into the chest and kill it? Why did a sub caliber bullet at 4000 fps fail to kill a 60 pound dog, when an identical 55 gr bullet impacting at .223 velocities killed a mature bull moose with a single shot? These things do not happen by chance, but by observing trends over a period of time, theories and finally conclusions can be reached. While little can be learned when everything goes right, plenty more can be learned when things go wrong.
 
Dogleg, it seems the pass through/remain in body cavity debate can go on forever. Way back in the 80s, I was privvy to some testing on the shock created by rapid bullet expansion and the resulting damage to nervous system etc and I became a big believer in a bullet expending as much energy in the body cavity as possible. From what I've seen and from what you are describing, I think we agree. Pass through bullets while leaving two holes to leak blood out of are not what I'd consider a violent or instant killer. Maybe it's just that I do so much hunting in the nastiest places of the mountains but I'm big on the Dead Right There bullet performance and likely another reason I shoot for shoulder when possible and I shoot a bullet well constructed enough to retain weight while pushing through the shoulder and expanding rapidly enough to cause massive internal shock dropping the critter on the spot. I truly don't see the value of a bullet expending a small amout of energy in an animal and then blowing up on a rock 50 yards behind it but I know many people that do. I'm not so dense as to think every time I pull the trigger that the bullet will stay in the body cavity but for me, I want one that at least expends most of its energy. This is what bonded bullets do so well. So if you ever ask me why weight retention is so important, I will tell you penetration but penetration through and big old tough shoulder blade and into the chest cavity and hopefully through the far shoulder blade. So yes, weight retention and penetration can still be critical when you find a bullet hung on the far hide.
 
LOL! I do get a kick out of people who worry about bears influence what guns and bullets they pack. A 380 grain bullet for north America!!! Holy Toledo! Good thing I never knew about how much bullet it took to kill bear before I shot my grizzlies. All three expired from a single 165 grain bullet each from a 308 win . So did my B&C blackie.
I did my Barnes bullet thing in the 80's. Great bullets, but not many guns would shoot them well back then. The TSX has improved that. I was lucky and a 338WM loved them and I killed a lot of moose, bear, elk, deer and caribou with them. I eventually got tired of trailing animals, every single one died but still had to be tracked. I went back to some of my favorites and then got into the bonded bullets. Much more expansion and energy transfer with an expanding bullet. That energy transfer is what puree's things in the rib cage and puts an animal down quickly from massive blood loss. I've heard the talk about needing the depleted uranium tungsten coated slug for the off angle Texas heart shot through a tree. I don't buy it. Caiber and bullet construction can't make up for poor shooting choices. Bullet placement is everything, I shoot for shoulder and bust them on the spot. I've taken every angle you can conceive of other than the Texas heart shot and never lost a critter. Just as a personal note I find the THS distasteful and doing something that risky just because you can falls outside my personal ethics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom