why shooting through brush isn't such a good idea - with pictures

Longwalker

Longwalker

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
216   0   2
Location
Saskatchewan
Last week I killed a cow elk at a measured range of 14 meters - 46 feet. I was watching a game trail that crossed a beaver dam, shooting with a tall bipod for aiming assistance, at a standing, unaware animal. The light screen of brush was about 3M (10' ) in front of the elk. I was shooting a 30-06, with Norma 180 grain Oryx bullets, a good bonded core bullet.
Crosshairs were dead steady just below the shoulder blade on the ribs. I ignored the light brush covering the aiming point. At the shot, the cow took a couple jumps, and then I shot her again in the neck. At first I wasn't going to shoot again, confident in a lung shot at that distance, but I didn't like the way she was facing the beaver pond in case she made a death dash. I am very glad that I shot again! I couldn't believe when we skinned her that there was no bullet hole in the chest - but there was a hole and multiple small punctures in the ham on the side facing me.
I went back and took the following pictures:
P1010800.jpg
view from the shooters perspective. Orange hat held at bullet path
P1010799.jpg

P1010796.jpg
dog is where the elk was standing, my brother checking brush that the bullet hit
P1010803.jpg
two of the three small twigs that were hit
P1010811.jpg
bloodshot meat on right ham

I always knew that shooting through brush with any rifle was a bad idea, but I didn't realize just how bad it was! I was using a good bullet in a substantial caliber, shooting through a very light screen of brush that was close to the animal - and made a very poor wounding shot. Hope others can benefit from my experience!
 
Wow...thanks for posting this story...It will certainly cause me to think twice before attempting a similar shot. :)

I would never have thought that brush being that close to the animal would deflect the bullets path or fragment it that dramatically.

Scary indeed. (being a muzzleloader hunter myself) :redface:
 
Noob hunter here; I assume the same holds true for geese through trees with a shotty? I opted not to pass-shoot at some geese about 30 yds away through a light stand of trees, and the boys gave me the gears. I figured I did good, but the boys still poke me with a stick a little about the ones that got away...
 
what bullet were you using ??

I like to use heavy round nosed bullets (30-30) when I'm going to be hunting in thick stuff. I suspect that the newer tech bullets will come appart fairly quickly when upset.
 
icanuck said:
Noob hunter here; I assume the same holds true for geese through trees with a shotty? I opted not to pass-shoot at some geese about 30 yds away through a light stand of trees, and the boys gave me the gears. I figured I did good, but the boys still poke me with a stick a little about the ones that got away...
Click to expand...

It's a similar scenario with differences.

The difference is that, with a shotgun, there are numerous projectiles, many of which would clear the trees without being affected.

The similarity lies in the fact that your chances of wounding, rather than outright killing the geese, increases.

Any one of "the boys" might have taken the same shot, as might you or I on a different day, but I applaud you for using discretion, anyway. If feeding your family might well depend on that shot, I'd say take the shot. But, those of us who hunt primarily for sport, should heed your example. At the end of the day, "The boys" may seem like better "harvesters" than you, but you're obviously the better sportsman of the bunch. Sometimes, the mark of a great hunter is the shot that he DOESN'T take (as evidenced by this thread).
 
woodchopper said:
what bullet were you using ??

I like to use heavy round nosed bullets (30-30) when I'm going to be hunting in thick stuff. I suspect that the newer tech bullets will come appart fairly quickly when upset.
Click to expand...

I have read that heavy and slow bullets deflect just as much if not more than light and fast. I don't know what data supports this and I'm not saying it's so because I don't know. I will hold to the belief that any bullet striking brush will be adversely affected and now even more so with Longwalker's experience.

Ron
 
It's always good to have some pics to back up this kind of thing, usually drives the point home.

Thanks for taking the time to do this - I didn't realise that light brush would do it either!! :O
 
Brush Cutting Bulets?

The best image was that of the elk hanging in the cooler/freezer! :)

For years, it was said that a large heavy bullet would get through the shruberey.

Tests were don with simulated brush made up of 1/4" dowells sticking straight up between the rifle and the target.

The results were conclusive, that the larger the diameter, the more chance of it touching an object and spinning off and not getting to the target. The best results were with small diameter bullets, such as 6mm., .257", 6.5mm, 7mm,all heavy, long bullets with very high sectional density.

The conclusion was that the smaller diameter bullets had a better chance of getting in between the trig, branches or whatever than the larger diameters.

This is why the 6.5s have a great reputation.
 
woodchopper said:
didn't realise that Oryx was a brand of bullet, I'll have to look it up. But I think I'll stick to my Nosler AB :D
Click to expand...

The Oryx is way tougher (tough like an A-Frame) but I think the important part of the post is that even that little bit of bush can do strange things to a bullet.

That said, his cooler is full of tasty elk and mine is not. :mad:
 
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

nice to know that the laws of physics are still being respected these days.

IMO, no caliber or bullet type makes a brush buster in terms of accuracy. from the tests that i have read about, a heavy fast moving bullet has the best chance of making it through on path. this makes sense to me because it will have a higher inertia than the others.

in one particular test that i recall, the 6.5 rem mag was one of the best performers.

in all cases when the simulated "brush" was placed around 30ft in front of the target the results were much worse than when the "brush" was only 3ft from the target.

i once cut off a 1" pine tree with a 200gr round nose .350mag bullet. i hit the tree dead center, it was about 10 yards in front of me, 40yds from the target. after three shots i went to the target to find two .35 cal holes in the black and one approx .50cal hole low and to one side about 8". not bad deflection, but obviously the bullet expanded before hitting the intended target.

i think that longer bullets would not tumble as easily, but when they do tumble they would probably deviate from the intended path at a greater rate.

small calibers = easier to get through an opening, but more likely to be a lighter bullet that is sent off course by the smallest twig

larger calibers = more likely to hit something, and usually slower moving, but may not deflect as easily or tumble as crazily.

in all cases, soft point ammo may start to open or deform upon striking anything, as they are designed to do. higher velocities, or poor bullet construction may exacerbate this.

so your brush bustin', wood-choppin', straight shootin' bullet/cartridge/firearm combo

= equals =

no free lunch, unless you can shoot it well, and aim between the twigs!!!
 
The idea of some perfect brush-busting bullet is a dream, not reality. The only way to get through brush reliably with any bullet is to put it through an unobstructed hole in that brush. Bullet diameter/speed and construction has little to do with it's ability to get through even a thin screen of brush. The story here told simply re-enforces that fact. Regards, Eagleye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom