Wolf Hunting Rifle/Cal.

I do not believe you will find on any FMJ box of bullets .. CPX1 CPX2 or CPX3.. They are made to punch paper.. They may or may not tumble when hitting flesh ..They are not designed to hunt flesh .. they may or may not tumble when fired though paper and hitting a backstop .. But it does not matter after it goes though the paper ...
I believe in the wars the reason they used FMJ was to wound the enemy not kill them as it took more people to look after the wounded ..
So I would also believe the FMJ is more inclined to wound an animal than a bullet that was designed to kill..
If you use a CPX3 bullet on a small animal is more apt to just punch a hole though the animal versus using a bullet designed to expand properly... A CPX3 is designed to go deep before expanding..A CPX1 is designed to fragment on impact ...
A FMJ bullet is designed to punch paper and wound ...
If you can;t afford the proper shells please do not make the rest of the yote and wolf hunters look like they were painted with the same brush
 
sheephunter said:
That was the idea for sure but then they got inventive and incorporated the tendency to tumble to maximize damage in many of those designed for use in battle.
Click to expand...

True, by having more mass/weight in the rear of the bullet. Some fill the front portion of the cavity with aluminum or lighter alloys. Then again, some communist countries which don't adhere to the accord just use hollow points anyhow.
 
MiG25 said:
I don't insist on using anything. My friend with the Mini 14 and the $6/50 FMJ ammo was circa 1988. It is illegal to use FMJ in BC so it is really a non-issue for me, but people are very quick to assume that all FMJ are equal and all are bad ideas and condemn those that might use them.
Click to expand...

So the fact that some ####ty fmj don't do what they are supposed to makes them ethical hunting bullets?...
 
mike Crawford said:
I do not believe you will find on any FMJ box of bullets .. CPX1 CPX2 or CPX3.. They are made to punch paper.. They may or may not tumble when hitting flesh ..They are not designed to hunt flesh ..
Click to expand...

Wrong. Many bullet manufacturers specifically make solids for varmint/furbearer hunting.

sheephunter said:
Solids and full metal jacket are not terms that are interchangeable. A solid is great choice for a brain shot on an elephant...a full metal jacket may very well not be.
Click to expand...

OK, to avoid hair-splitting, let's call them "non expanding jacketed bullets". Better?
 
sheephunter said:
That was the idea for sure but then they got inventive and incorporated the tendency to tumble to maximize damage in many of those designed for use in battle.
Click to expand...

There you go again... if the "tumble design" is the result of an air cavity built into the nose of the bullet, it would only come into play to effect "tumble" IF the bullet changed it's shape in one medium (flesh) but not the other (air), ie. mushroomed, split open, or otherwise deformed... IME and that of others, this is not normally the case, in fact the bullet is designed not to deform, so why would a design element be employed and then another design element employed to counteract the first?
 
bearkilr said:
Wrong. Many bullet manufacturers specifically make solids for varmint/furbearer hunting.



OK, to avoid hair-splitting, let's call them "non expanding jacketed bullets". Better?
Click to expand...

NO, mono-metals are completely different from FMJ's.
 
bearkilr said:
OK, to avoid hair-splitting, let's call them "non expanding jacketed bullets". Better?
Click to expand...

There was no hair splitting at all....solids and full metal jackets are two very different bullet types. Both may be typically non expanding but construction and end use can be vastly different.
 
hoytcanon said:
There you go again... if the "tumble design" is the result of an air cavity built into the nose of the bullet, it would only come into play to effect "tumble" IF the bullet changed it's shape in one medium (flesh) but not the other (air), ie. mushroomed, split open, or otherwise deformed... IME and that of others, this is not normally the case, in fact the bullet is designed not to deform, so why would a design element be employed and then another design element employed to counteract the first?
Click to expand...

Google could be your friend here or you can continue this pointless argument...I know I'm done with it. Perhaps one of the military buffs can set you straight.
 
sheephunter said:
There was no hair splitting at all....solids and full metal jackets are two very different bullet types. Both may be typically non expanding but construction and end use can be vastly different.
Click to expand...

Who gives a sh*t? Most predator hunters/trappers/soldiers/police officers/SWAT team members I know call them all solids. Does it really matter? Do you think anyone had no clue what I meant? Wow.

Anyhow, back to wolf hunting.
 
sheephunter said:
Google could be your friend here or you can continue this pointless argument...I know I'm done with it. Perhaps one of the military buffs can set you straight.
Click to expand...

You make assertions to support your argument and then claim that questioning of your assertion is inciting "pointless argument..." very well, I quite frankly don't care enough to continue, so I suppose we are on the same page.... perhaps I will be fortunate and receive a PM "setting me straight."
 
Superbrad said:
So the fact that some ####ty fmj don't do what they are supposed to makes them ethical hunting bullets?...
Click to expand...

Those cheap FMJ's were more decisive than using an elk rifle on a coyote. I'm just saying a thinly jacketed (albeit full jacket) at high velocity is not necessarily ineffective nor unethical on smallish animals.

Coyotes are also vermin, I'd love to shoot them from a low-lying airplane like my grandfather did. I also know a fellow that has a club that he uses on them after his dog has knocked most of the stuffing out of them.

But, back to wolves, if I was specifically gearing up for them, I would get a nice sporter along the lines of the Brno 21H set up in 6mm Remington or 240 Wby or maybe the factory 6.5x57.
 
Well I don't hunt wolves, nor do I have the cartridge I am about to recommend, but what about the 264 win mag. You really have so many to choose from as a "dedicated" wolf gun. Sounds like a good problem, having to decide on one. Good luck.
 
I don't know what the big mystery is. The 5.56 FMJ bullets were designed to tumble and create large wounds. When Mig25"s buddy shot the dogs with them, that's what happened. They tumbled in the dogs and killed quick. Not my first choice for any hunting application, but they probably would kill dogs consistently.
 
OK boys, how bout we get back to a discussion about my original question....wolf calibers....Im sure there are already threads in the ammo section on fmjs their purpose and what they can/cant do!

Lets get back to the original programming!
 
Don't think you could go wrong with any of the suggested calibers really. If it were me, I'd probably be happy with any if the 6mm/6.5mm offerings like 6.5x55 Swe, 6.5CM, 260R.
 
Gatehouse said:
I don't know what the big mystery is. The 5.56 FMJ bullets were designed to tumble and create large wounds. When Mig25"s buddy shot the dogs with them, that's what happened. They tumbled in the dogs and killed quick. Not my first choice for any hunting application, but they probably would kill dogs consistently.
Click to expand...

First for the OP... a reiteration; any of the Quarterbores or 6.5mm's...

Next for Gatehouse; you misunderstood my question... I understand the dynamics involved with constructing a "tumbling" bullet... what I don't understand is how someone can claim that these bullets are concurrently "designed for accuracy"... if they are designed to stay together, then they will react in one friction medium (air) as they will in another friction medium (flesh) just to a greater or lesser degree. Whatever; I wont use an FMJ on game regardless... a "mono-metal?" Yes, certainly.
 
hoytcanon said:
First for the OP... a reiteration; any of the Quarterbores or 6.5mm's...

Next for Gatehouse; you misunderstood my question... I understand the dynamics involved with constructing a "tumbling" bullet... what I don't understand is how someone can claim that these bullets are concurrently "designed for accuracy"... if they are designed to stay together, then they will react in one friction medium (air) as they will in another friction medium (flesh) just to a greater or lesser degree. Whatever; I wont use an FMJ on game regardless... a "mono-metal?" Yes, certainly.
Click to expand...

I wasn't actually answering you, but I think you are saying that the bullets are designed to not deform, so they should not tumble? If that is what you are saying, then you aren't correct. FMJ bullets do all sorts of things when impacting flesh and bone at high speed. They bend, deflect, squish etc. Sometimes they go straight through but other times they tumble, much depends on the bukllet. The .223 bullets in question seem more likely to tumble than say 150gr 30 cal FMJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom