Wolf Hunting Rifle/Cal.

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...

Gatehouse - Now that is VERY interesting ! I have not heard of that before - Learn something new every day ! So the 5.56 FMJ bullets were designed to tumble ! Which exact bullets would those be - any brand factory loaded with FMJ ? Would a Horn .224 FMJ bullet loaded in a 223 or 22-250 tumble inside of a Yote do you think ? Thks :) RJ
 
Gatehouse said:
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
Click to expand...

I am not over invested in this discussion, but for clarification... No, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that a bullet designed to tumble on contact with flesh would in fact also be inclined to tumbling as it passes through air... just to a lesser degree... in other words, the design is for the projectile to be "unstable" to one degree or another... but, it would seem to me to be diametrically opposed to have a projectile which is "unstable" when it contacts a dense medium (flesh), but be inherently "stable" in a less dense medium (air), while at the same time designing the bullet to stay together (metal jacketing). The projectile would be inclined either to stability or instability regardless of the medium, UNLESS you introduce deformation (mushrooming, fragmenting etc...) At any rate, good shooting to all...

And I agree with your .260 recommendation... and excellent medium game caliber, which I consider wolves to be.
 
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 .. 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
Click to expand...

You should stop believing that. The reason FMJ is used in war is the international convention that requires it. The purpose of shooting enemy combatants is put them out of the fight, dead or wounded doesn't matter. If you don't put them out of the fight you may lose that fight, and the possibility that wounded enemy will subsequently be a greater drain on the other side's resources, while it sounds nice to the armchair strategist, is not something that battlefield commanders accept as a consolation prize for increasing the risk of losing a present engagement because their soldiers are demotivated by the suspicion that they are deliberately being equipped with weaponry "designed" to only wound the people who are trying to kill them.
 
remington jim said:
Gatehouse - Now that is VERY interesting ! I have not heard of that before - Learn something new every day ! So the 5.56 FMJ bullets were designed to tumble ! Which exact bullets would those be - any brand factory loaded with FMJ ? Would a Horn .224 FMJ bullet loaded in a 223 or 22-250 tumble inside of a Yote do you think ? Thks :) RJ
Click to expand...


Getting a non expanding bullet to yaw then swap ends once it hits a denser than air medium isn't the trick,the heavier base will always try to pass the lighter nose section. Keeping a non-expanding bullet from yawing is the trick. This is done in the best big game solids by making the sides short and parallel and the nose flat or hemispherical. If a particular rifle has a faster than normal rate of twist, the faster rotation also makes the bullet more stable, thus it won't precess (yaw) on impact, the result being deeper straight line penetration. You may have seen pictures of big game solids that had squashed bases. This was due to the tapered design, or to the insufficient rotational velocity of the bullet, precessing on impact, which resulted in damage to the base of the bullet, which in turn resulted in irregular and shallower penetration than would have otherwise occurred. Modern military FMJ rounds seem to place the cannelure near the base of the bullet, but with the older full sized cartridges (.303, .30/06, 8X57 etc) when loaded with heavy bullets, the bullet was cannelured midway along the shank, which weakened the jacket and frequently resulted in the bullet breaking in two when it swapped ends.





By contrast, when a bullet expands, the center of gravity shifts from the base to the nose, so penetration tends to be in a straight line.
 
Last edited:
TheTooner said:
You should stop believing that. The reason FMJ is used in war is the international convention that requires it. The purpose of shooting enemy combatants is put them out of the fight, dead or wounded doesn't matter. If you don't put them out of the fight you may lose that fight, and the possibility that wounded enemy will subsequently be a greater drain on the other side's resources, while it sounds nice to the armchair strategist, is not something that battlefield commanders accept as a consolation prize for increasing the risk of losing a present engagement because their soldiers are demotivated by the suspicion that they are deliberately being equipped with weaponry "designed" to only wound the people who are trying to kill them.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is incorrect.... they are designed to wound because 1 dead soldier is one dead soldier... If you wound a soldier it takes at least one more off the battlefield to bring him to medical attention....
 
You see, it was considered uncivilized to blow a large hole in a whiteman so the use of non-expanding bullets was mandated between the signing parties. Their use was no outlawed against non-signatories.

The intent was not to cause undue suffering. It wasn't to drain off manpower, it came from a time when doctors and carpenters used the same tools and there were no antibiotics.

The British tended to have a lot of trouble with uncivilized sorts in places like Afghanistan and the Sudan and were fond of issuing soft point ammunition, they also had an arsenal at a place called Dum Dum, some may have heard of it. Their use of soft point bullets led to protests and to their banning. The British promptly starting looking for ways around this by experimenting with bullet designs and filling the bullet noses with things like sterile paper pulp.

Now saying a bullet is supposed to stay together and making it so are not the same thing. And to my knowledge no military has issued .243" fmj ammo. I say this instead of 6mm so someone doesn't bring up the 6mm Lee Navy which was a .236". So no military lawyer is going to get on sierra or whomever about their fmj if it fragments or something.
 
Superbrad said:
Actually, that is incorrect.... they are designed to wound because 1 dead soldier is one dead soldier... If you wound a soldier it takes at least one more off the battlefield to bring him to medical attention....
Click to expand...

No offence Superbrad......but I think this theory is a bit overdone and often quoted on the internet. Most often far far away from potentially dangerous overseas locations.
 
Brutus said:
No offence Superbrad......but I think this theory is a bit overdone and often quoted on the internet. Most often far far away from potentially dangerous overseas locations.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is part of the training I received in the forces and was included in the training manuals.... That being said, it may not be the view of all nations, I will give you that...
 
MiG25 said:
Wouldn't fragmenting or tumbling work on a smallish animal?
Click to expand...


I often regret posting on issues such as this. But IIRC, the old US military issue M-193, 5.56mm FMJ could fragment and upset (tumble on impact) at a terminal speed of equal to, or greater than 2500 fps. Any speed below this threshold, all bets are off, and bullet upset was not guarenteed.
This factor is pretty much pointed out, in the various calibres within Boomer's previous posts.

maybe
 
Superbrad said:
Actually, it is part of the training I received in the forces and was included in the training manuals.... That being said, it may not be the view of all nations, I will give you that...
Click to expand...
Again no offence, but in my career I never ever seen this myth, put down in black & white.

I invite anyone with a military manual (reflecting these words) to scan/post this printed thoery, from any bona fide military document.
 
Brutus said:
I often regret posting on issues such as this. But IIRC, the old US military issue M-193, 5.56mm FMJ could fragment and upset (tumble on impact) at a terminal speed of equal to, or greater than 2500 fps. Any speed below this threshold, all bets are off, and bullet upset was not guarenteed.
This factor is pretty much pointed out, in the various calibres within Boomer's previous posts.

maybe
Click to expand...

Interesting, I'm going to assume that this is documented. So cheap, plain 50 round box, fmj 223 from the 80's (or earlier even) may very well have been fragmenting on impact at Mini 14 ranges (which weren't far).
 
This train wreck should stop now! Some of you need to start a thread and debate fmj bullets.
Back to wolf hunting rifle. I did see a show with the late John Hunt where he was hunting wolves in Quebec.
I talked to John once and he told my he used the 300 Weatherby for everything, sounds like a good idea, although it could be a bit overkill, saying that a dead wolf is a dead wolf.

David
 
For me, whatever rifle I have in my hand at the time I see one is the perfect choice. I've killed them with .50 cal muzzleloader, .338WM, 7RM, 300WM, 264WM, 270WSM, 22-250 and a few others. They all did the job admirably. If I was specifically going wolf hunting I'd likely tale my 6.5 Creedmoor but fretting over what rifle/cartridge to take wolf hunting is like fretting over what rifle/cartridge to take deer hunting. It may make for good internet banter but at the end of the day....most will do the job admirably.
 
hoytcanon said:
I am not over invested in this discussion, but for clarification... No, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that a bullet designed to tumble on contact with flesh would in fact also be inclined to tumbling as it passes through air... just to a lesser degree... in other words, the design is for the projectile to be "unstable" to one degree or another... but, it would seem to me to be diametrically opposed to have a projectile which is "unstable" when it contacts a dense medium (flesh), but be inherently "stable" in a less dense medium (air), while at the same time designing the bullet to stay together (metal jacketing). The projectile would be inclined either to stability or instability regardless of the medium, UNLESS you introduce deformation (mushrooming, fragmenting etc...) At any rate, good shooting to all...

And I agree with your .260 recommendation... and excellent medium game caliber, which I consider wolves to be.
Click to expand...

I don't think your theory is valid. Lots of things are stable moving through air then abruptly change direction when impacting something, especially something as small and fast moving as a .224 bullet.

There is lots of info about the 5.56 tumbling, but Boomers charts show it pretty good.
 
remington jim said:
Gatehouse - Now that is VERY interesting ! I have not heard of that before - Learn something new every day ! So the 5.56 FMJ bullets were designed to tumble ! Which exact bullets would those be - any brand factory loaded with FMJ ? Would a Horn .224 FMJ bullet loaded in a 223 or 22-250 tumble inside of a Yote do you think ? Thks :) RJ
Click to expand...

Probably but I don't know as I've never used them. Only yote I recall shooting with a fmj was 7.62x39
 
Superbrad said:
Actually, that is incorrect.... they are designed to wound because 1 dead soldier is one dead soldier... If you wound a soldier it takes at least one more off the battlefield to bring him to medical attention....
Click to expand...

Actually that is incorrect. They are not designed to wound a soldier so that another will take him off the battlefield. They are designed to stop an enemy when you shoot him, not to cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
 
Gatehouse said:
I don't think your theory is valid. Lots of things are stable moving through air then abruptly change direction when impacting something, especially something as small and fast moving as a .224 bullet.

There is lots of info about the 5.56 tumbling, but Boomers charts show it pretty good.
Click to expand...


We'll have to agree to disagree... An object designed to upset as a result of friction (air or flesh) will be inherently "less" stable than an object which resists changing direction (stable/balanced) regardless of the medium... "Unless" its mass orientation changes at some point.

At any rate, good shooting, hope y'all go choot a wulf!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom