Hunting with FMJ ammo -

N

Northman999

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
224   0   0
Location
Southern Yukon
Okay, I'll stir up the hornet's nest here with this question, but I think it's fair to ask.

Does anyone know of any real, scientifically sound studies that have shown that full metal jacket (ball, or service ammo, or whatever you personally like to call it) is not effective for hunting?

It seems that most everywhere you look, FMJ ammo is not legal for hunting, but I wonder how many of these jurisdictions actually bothered to conduct sound studies to find out how these bullets actually functioned in real life hunting situations. I know for a fact that LOTS of government policy is just borrowed from others with little or no real scutiny, and this might be one of those things. FMJ has been known to deliver grevious injury in combat, and hunters in Africa will often use customized "solids" that specifically are designed for penetration and not expanding, so where is the evidence that FMJ is going to fail for hunting? I know also that many of you have heard of bullets failing in the field, but these failures are usually around bullets fragmenting or expanding too much without penetration, totally the opposite of FMJ.

So, anyone know what the deal is with the "no FMJ for hunting" thing? Maybe someone out there "saw a guy once" shoot a moose with some FMJ 308 or something and can let us know what actually happened?
 
The solids used for heavy game hunting are designed to penetrate deeply in a straight line, breaking bones. Tests related to marine mammal hunting in the Eastern Arctic suggest that typical spitzer ball does poorly for deep straight line penetration in tissue. Tends to veer and tumble, or break up. This is the only contemporary testing of which I am aware. Best round for beluga would seem to be a .338 with a solid, blunt Barnes type bullet.
More military ball ammunition may have been used for big game (particularly caribou) hunting in the Eastern Arctic than elsewhere in Canada, even though its use is proscribed by regulation. From anecdotal reports, ball ammuntion may be more effective that is generally assumed, but erratic, unpredictable performance is perhaps the best reason not to use ball ammunition for hunting big game. Sometimes it is selected in the hope that skin damage will be minimized.
There are many, much better choices for hunting big game than military pattern ball. This is probably why no game department would even consider conducting tests to determine if ball is adequate for deer, moose, etc.
 
While I don't have any scientific evidence to present to this discussion, expanding ammunition for hunting was developed for a reason. It most likely does a better job than non-expanding ammunition, and creates more damage/shock etc. thus presumably resulting in cleaner quicker kills for the average hunter. It is also possible to kill a deer with a .22 LR, just as it is with a .30-06, however I'm sure we can all agree that the .22 would not be the rifle of choice. Why not increase the chances of a clean quick kill than introduce an unnecessary amount of risk the animal may take off wounded? Quick clean kills are a hunter's ethical goal out in the field, so why not use the expanding ammunition that has been developed and is readily available for this purpose instead of saving a few dollars on a round which may not achieve this result so readily.
 
the canadian rangers in churchill used to get 250 fmj .303 rounds a year then people started shooting caribou and wounding them with the ammo. then they started giving out what looks like military issue soft points and then some kind of winchester ammo
 
The softpoint ammunition was issued because most of the Ranger ammuntion in the north is used for hunting. Folks where I was preferred the ball, and would buy hardpoint even though they had the softpoint on hand. I am unaware of any evidence that more caribou were lost wounded because of the use of ball ammunition rather than the softpoint. I'm not suggesting that ball is as effective as softpoint for hunting; I simply do not know what the numbers are.
 
A-Square makes a mean solid, the Monolith, made from one solid piece of brass bar stock and featuring a rounded, blunt nose. Barnes produces something very similar, and Speer also has their own version, but they all cost a lot of money. I'd imagine you'd only need one bullet to hunt with but to sight it in, get used to it, develop good load data, and all that could really leave a good hurt in the pocketbook.

I'm curious to find out more, though, this will definitely be an interesting topic.

- Dave.
 
So, to go along with the "I saw a guy shoot a moose....", a "friend" shot a coyote using a 30-06 150 grain FMJ bullet. 150 yd shot and the coyote took off running. On the search for the carcuss, there was NO blood sign. We luckly found the critter about 100 feet from where he shot it. The fur had entrence and exit, both the size of your pinky finger. Now its a big difference between coyote and moose, but after not seeing any blood sign, I wouldn't try it on anything bigger then coyote!
 
And I had a customer tell me that 7.62x54R ball (forget now if it was light or heavy ball) was no good for caribou hunting because it ruined way too much of the caribou. This was based on having shot more than one caribou. Does this mean that 7.62 ball is good caribou ammunition?
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that while the report may be totally accurate, it doesn't really tell you all that much. One coyote, shot with one round of M-2 ball tells nothing about what the bullet would do to an animal 10 or 20 times heavier. It also doesn't give any reason to find out whether it would be good or not.
Once again, there are lots of better choices. Ball ammunition is generally illegal for big game hunting, and this is not likely going to change.
 
Thanks for the input guys. Sounds like there's quite a few opinions on this out there. In whatever jurisdiction you hunt in, do your regs actually state WHY the FMJ is prohibited? I know that there are better bullets to use, but "better" isn't likely the real reason, I think. I would argue that 30-06 M-2 ball is "better" than a bow for example, but the bow is legal. I once heard that the worry was over penetration of the ball ammo and the possibility of through-and-through shots hitting people. But then I've seen lots of through-and-through shots with the big magnums and nobody mentions it.
 
Officially, ball ammunition is supposed to reduce lethality, and increase the chance of a survivable wound. This goes back to the Hague Convention over 100 years ago. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant.
But if the ammunition is designed to be less lethal, then it would not be the best choice for hunting, would it? I suspect that is the logic behind the prohibition for hunting purposes.
 
its not scientific, but i've shot some coyotes with fmj's from a 222. when hit the coyote never drops but runs between 100 and 300 yards before dying. with soft points and hollow points none ever got up after dropping in their tracks.

it is a hunters responsibility to ensure they are using equpment that will result in the quickest most humane death of the animal. any other method would be the choice of a killer, not a hunter.
 
It just doesn't make sense to me. We mostly strive for and discuss the best downrange performance, largest wound channel and optimum weight retention. Why should we even consider such ammunition particularly when we also strive (or should) for the quickest and most humane kill ??? :confused:
 
Would'nt a FMJ round pass right through without mushrooming?

It was talked about on CGN before about the US Army switching to the 5.56 because it has a "special" ballasitc capability of not mushrooming or breaking apart when it struck something.

And dont forget, the mushroom causes the most damage.
 
lcpaintballer said:
Would'nt a FMJ round pass right through without mushrooming?

It was talked about on CGN before about the US Army switching to the 5.56 because it has a "special" ballasitc capability of not mushrooming or breaking apart when it struck something.
Click to expand...

5.56 FMJ tends to fragment when it hits flesh...peckerwood often posts interesting pictures he has when this subject comes up.

Even if FMJ was legal in BC for hunting I would not feel comfortable using it for that.
 
The FMJ does not mushroom like typical hunting bullets. Also, a arrow with proper broadhead will create a large entrance wound, and even bigger exit wound. A FMJ will pass right through with out the expansion.
 
In theory a large cal. flat pt. solid would work well, 45 or 50 cal, and with total penetration it would work...but a small cal. ptd. bullet would be asking for a wounded animal as the wound would be small.
 
FMJ are not designed to expand, they are designed to penetrate. Could it kill game, sure. Can it be relied on to complete a human kill on big game, most likely not. I would never even consider using it for hunting under any circumstance.
 
Comparing a broadhead arrow to any bullet is comparing apples and oranges. A broadhead's effectiveness comes from the laceration of tissue and particularly blood vessels. There are other factors at play when a bullet is considered. Many studies have been done for the military on wound ballistics. These involve ball rounds of course. Some of the work is in the public domain, so there is no need to speculate what a fmj bullet may or may not do. In general though, a 147gr NATO ball does not start to tumble for about 14".
 
I remember being told when they brought in the .275 maximum for small game hunting in S. ON that one reason was concern about people using .303 military surplus for hunting and richochets in fairly densely poplulated areas. I don't know to what extent richochets are more common with hard point, but I do believe that higher velocity lighter bullets are more likely to disintegrate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom