Underpowered, overgunned and idiots

Good articles.....however I disagree with his assertion that there are quantum levels of effect based on velocity,,,one reached at 1400 and the other around 2200. The argument would be that from 2200 to 3300fps there is little difference in impact effect on the target as this velocity range is where explosive impact on flesh lie.

This is the theoretical argument underlying the 30-30 to 300 Win Mag loaded with 150 grain bullets having similar effects quote comes from. Well I have taken over 50 caribou over the last 20 years with many different calibers. The impact of a bullet at 2200 is very different than the impact of the same bullet at 3200 fps. At the lower velocity range of this so called quanta caribou will often run and pile up...wound channels are long but narrow, At the upper velocity range caribou drop and wound channels are not as deep but much wider. Shock is much greater.

Otherwise...good articles. Thanks for sharing.
 
Takujualuk said:
Good articles.....however I disagree with his assertion that there are quantum levels of effect based on velocity,,,one reached at 1400 and the other around 2200. The argument would be that from 2200 to 3300fps there is little difference in impact effect on the target as this velocity range is where explosive impact on flesh lie.

This is the theoretical argument underlying the 30-30 to 300 Win Mag loaded with 150 grain bullets having similar effects quote comes from. Well I have taken over 50 caribou over the last 20 years with many different calibers. The impact of a bullet at 2200 is very different than the impact of the same bullet at 3200 fps. At the lower velocity range of this so called quanta caribou will often run and pile up...wound channels are long but narrow, At the upper velocity range caribou drop and wound channels are not as deep but much wider. Shock is much greater.

Otherwise...good articles. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Do you think the difference lies in bullet performance, as opposed to velocity? I mean, if you used a very high quality bullet, like a TSX at 3200 fps and then used a .30-30 type bullet at 2200fps, would the "effective" (as he calls it) result be the same? In other words - put either behind the shoulder and the result will be 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.
 
Bullet construction is, of course, a vital part of the effect it has, as well as its velocity. Terminal ballistics is a very complex subject, full of myth and legend.

A good start for reading is here:

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

The reason there is so much variation in opinion about what is, and what isn't, a good bullet for a particular use on game, is that the variables are vast in number, and the sample numbers from experience are so few that they are statistically unreliable at best, useless at worst. Hunters are seldom real "experts" on bullet effects, although almost all of them think they are. There is just too little science in their anecdotal accounts. Hence, the multitude of myths, "superstitions", and misunderstandings.

There is lots of science out there to read, and I recommend searching it out rather than arguing endlessly on internet forums.
 
ben hunchak said:
I've never heard of him before but I think he's full of s**t!
Click to expand...

A lot of people think that Mr Heath is full of s**t. But he does make a few good points. The first is that small bore size is a game best left to true experts, which many of us falsely believe that we are.

I also think that he approaches the subject from a different perspective than North American hunters do, that being from the point of view of an African PH. He is thus directed in his views by the fact that there is a great deal of large, heavy game in Africa that can cause bad mischief to you if it takes a notion or is badly shot. What his argument boils down to is that there is no one limiting factor that trumps the others. Sectional Density, Bullet Diameter, Bullet Construction, Velocity and Shot Placement all work hand-in-hand to bring about clean and ethical performance on big game. If one of those areas is lacking, the overall balance is thrown off and can lead to disastrous results, be it wounded and lost game or wounded and homicidal game.
 
BigUglyMan said:
A lot of people think that Mr Heath is full of s**t. But he does make a few good points. The first is that small bore size is a game best left to true experts, which many of us falsely believe that we are.

I also think that he approaches the subject from a different perspective than North American hunters do, that being from the point of view of an African PH. He is thus directed in his views by the fact that there is a great deal of large, heavy game in Africa that can cause bad mischief to you if it takes a notion or is badly shot. What his argument boils down to is that there is no one limiting factor that trumps the others. Sectional Density, Bullet Diameter, Bullet Construction, Velocity and Shot Placement all work hand-in-hand to bring about clean and ethical performance on big game. If one of those areas is lacking, the overall balance is thrown off and can lead to disastrous results, be it wounded and lost game or wounded and homicidal game.
Click to expand...

Exactly (with the addition of context: ie type of game, disturbed, calm, range etc)- and this is the thing I was getting at with all of the "is ___ enough for deer/elk/xx" threads.
 
1899 said:
this is the thing I was getting at with all of the "is ___ enough for deer/elk/xx" threads.
Click to expand...

But then the Hunting Rifles forum would have 15 threads in it and there's be no way to derail 85% of new threads into bear defense threads.

I still think that my 9.3x62 with 286gr bullets and iron sights is perfect for bear defense. #hijack #beardefense :D
 
As some of you are probably aware, I am a fan of Elmer Keith. I am keeping in mind that calibre and bullet technology has advanved rapidly especially in recent years. However, I think the following exert from his book 'Keiths Rifles For Large Game', still serves as a great 'rule of thumb' on the discussion at hand.

Keithquote.jpg
 
More than one old timer has told me - if the bear don't stop the bullet, get a new bullet. Haven't finished pt2 yet, but that point stands - use up all the energy in the critter. I believe in passthroughs for bloodletting and tracking purposes, but in the context of dangerous game, it makes more sense to have the animal absorb as much of the energy as possible in order to effect the maximum amount of damage.
 
EastBranch said:
More than one old timer has told me - if the bear don't stop the bullet, get a new bullet. Haven't finished pt2 yet, but that point stands - use up all the energy in the critter. I believe in passthroughs for bloodletting and tracking purposes, but in the context of dangerous game, it makes more sense to have the animal absorb as much of the energy as possible in order to effect the maximum amount of damage.
Click to expand...

But the passage of the bullet created more damage. If you drive a bullet 3/4 of the way through an animal it will have done less damage than if you drive it all the way through, given the same construction, diameter etc. I shot a cape buffalo through the shoulders with a 375 Ruger and a 300 grain bullet. It was hit perfectly and it went down within 10 yards. Now, would the result have been the same had I used my 416 Rigby and driven the bullet through the off side? Probably. Neither one is "more dead" but if two dollars is better than one, and two beers is better than one, then it stands to reason that two bullet holes are better than one.

It's a highly academic discussion, as long as the animal in question dies reasonably. It's when they don't die like we want that we get wrapped up in the minutia.
 
BigUglyMan said:
But the passage of the bullet created more damage. If you drive a bullet 3/4 of the way through an animal it will have done less damage than if you drive it all the way through, given the same construction, diameter etc. I shot a cape buffalo through the shoulders with a 375 Ruger and a 300 grain bullet. It was hit perfectly and it went down within 10 yards. Now, would the result have been the same had I used my 416 Rigby and driven the bullet through the off side? Probably. Neither one is "more dead" but if two dollars is better than one, and two beers is better than one, then it stands to reason that two bullet holes are better than one.

It's a highly academic discussion, as long as the animal in question dies reasonably. It's when they don't die like we want that we get wrapped up in the minutia.
Click to expand...

This makes more sense.
 
EastBranch said:
More than one old timer has told me - if the bear don't stop the bullet, get a new bullet. Haven't finished pt2 yet, but that point stands - use up all the energy in the critter. I believe in passthroughs for bloodletting and tracking purposes, but in the context of dangerous game, it makes more sense to have the animal absorb as much of the energy as possible in order to effect the maximum amount of damage.
Click to expand...

That is complete myth.
 
This is CGN, land of the paper hunter. I didn't expect anyone to believe me :D I'll take the word of a guy who's killed 60-some griz over 50 years of hunting with nothing bigger than an -06.
 
I will quickly concede that a long furrow cut through an animal does a lot of damage - and an exit wound lets out red paint to follow.

As a meat hunter though - a shot that angles out of a good lung shot - forward to rip up the far shoulder is a very bad thing.

I prefer to kill the near side of the animal - and when I go to look for the other half - it's usually nearby - and intact. I do this with a small calibre - going very fast - I don't want an intact slug - I want exploding rib fragments to tear up the delicate lungs or at least I want the original bullet to turn into birdshot for the lungs. A high shot still sends fragments down through the lungs, but also sends a shock up the ribs to the spine - paralyzing the hind end.

Lacking experience with dangerous game - unless we call black bears dangerous - I suppose that more energy is better - and like others have said - it is surely best to leave it all in the beast.

One final observation - deer with long holes made by lower velocity bullets live longer than deer with shallow holes made by high velocity bullets. I guess Takujualuc said something like that already - he is right.
 
EastBranch said:
This is CGN, land of the paper hunter. I didn't expect anyone to believe me :D I'll take the word of a guy who's killed 60-some griz over 50 years of hunting with nothing bigger than an -06.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to discover how this fellow came to kill more than one grizzly every year for fifty years?



EastBranch said:
More than one old timer has told me - if the bear don't stop the bullet, get a new bullet.....
Click to expand...

How many is "more than one old timer" ?


Ted
 
EastBranch said:
This is CGN, land of the paper hunter. I didn't expect anyone to believe me :D I'll take the word of a guy who's killed 60-some griz over 50 years of hunting with nothing bigger than an -06.
Click to expand...

Sometimes a fellow's observations lead him to incorrect conclusions. A local guy here who has killed dozens and probably over a hundred bears over the last 40 years swears by the .22-250, loaded more like a .223 with Remington 55 gr bulk bullets. I don't have to kill a 100 bears to know that a .375, a .416, or a .458 loaded with heavy flat nosed expanding bullets that penetrate heavy muscle and bone and exit the animal on the length are better choices than a fast small bore, that dumps all of its energy after only a foot of soft tissue penetration. For the most part, energy figures have little or no bearing on a bullet's killing ability. I have no problem packing a .30/06 for bear work, but I prefer a 220 or 240 gr bullet to a 150 for that particular duty. When we get all caught up in energy and velocity figures we tend to forget how and why a particular bullet kills a particular animal, and why what is a great choice in one application is a miserable failure in another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom