I Screwed Up, and I Knew Better !!!

walleyed99 said:
A full Metal Jacket bullet was designed to WOUND a person during warfare, not kill them!
Click to expand...

This has to be the most ridiculous myth in the shooting community. What about grenades, artillery, lazer guided missiles, even nuclear weapons? Are they designed only to wound also?

I'll bet I just got put on several watch lists with the number of "sensitive" words I just used, lol.
 
So you are condemning the performance of those bullets based on the results of one marginal shot. I have seen more than a few long tracking jobs and lost animals due to neck shots with all types of bullets and calibers. Hence the name marginal shot.
 
dimeN said:
honestly, If he had used a nosler instead of a ttsx ... would the result have been the same ? No... he wouldn't have had to trail it so far ( neck shot or not )
Click to expand...



"NOSLER" covers alot of territory...

But I think I will just stick with the C&C SP for my low velocity cartridges and Partitions for my medium velocity cartridges and Accu/Inter-Bonds for my zippy cartridges... they seem to work reliably...


A pair of really fine whitetail bucks Doug... and some great memories with your son... well done.
 
c-fbmi said:
Boomer.........I agree that with the TSX bullet, body fluids introduced into the bullet cavity promote expansion and I have used this bullet with great success in my 375 H&H many, many times. However the TTSX can't claim the hydraulic expansion attribute with the polycarbonate tip closing off the entrance to the cavity. Therefore the TTSX must rely on target density to promote expansion and this is where the crux of my argument lies........if dense muscle didn't expand the bullet, how could it be expected to wreak havoc if slipped between 2 ribs and through the lungs?

Dogleg.........EXACTLY you explain it so much more graphically and understandably than I...............I shot a stone sheep with a 150 gn BT in a 7X300 Wby once upon a time, because that was all I had to hit. There was absolutely nothing left between the spine and windpipe and the ram was most certainly dead. One could see a great deal of sky through that hole.
Click to expand...

Good point, too often I look at the TSX and the TTSX as two peas in a pod, when actually their performance is based on two quite different mechanisms.
 
skhunter said:
So you are condemning the performance of those bullets based on the results of one marginal shot. I have seen more than a few long tracking jobs and lost animals due to neck shots with all types of bullets and calibers. Hence the name marginal shot.
Click to expand...

I am basing mine on full length of adult deer penetration without any sign of expanding.. This is just another example of said bullet failure to add to my personal experience with the TTSX..

hoytcanon said:
But I think I will just stick with the C&C SP for my low velocity cartridges and Partitions for my medium velocity cartridges and Accu/Inter-Bonds for my zippy cartridges... they seem to work reliably...
.
Click to expand...

Partitions are boringly 100% reliable, and I am OK with that.
 
I have to agree with c-fbmi that 10-12" of meat on a neck should have been enough to get proper expansion from any CXP-2 or CXP-3 bullet. If your bullet is a foot into an animal and is still the same size as it left the muzzle, you've got a problem.

I also agree with him that sub 2900 fps velocities are handled fine by any reputable cup and core bullet, and I'll add that some of the better C&C bullets, like Winchester PP's, can handle impact velocties around 3000 fps and perform just fine. Hence why premium bullets in most non uber-magnum cartridges are basically a waste of money, IMO.

Neck shots that don't break the spine are a little iffy and not ideal;, but I have seen animals dumped immeditately with such shots - I think the hydrostatick shock of a solid impact to the neck transfers easily to the brain and CNS, particularly if the hit is generally central or higher in the dense part of the neck muscle and not lower in the throat, where the neck overall is less dense. Just a theory, but it fits my experience.
 
Doug; I am in your camp with the monometals.
They usually work great, but I have 2 in my possession that failed to expand at moderate velocity, and the animals in question had to be followed up and shot again.

I do use these bullets, but primarily in chamberings that start them at 3100 or better, and try to avoid long, long shots.

Your choice of the 125 Partition guarantees expansion, and I have shot a boxcar full of deer with partitions in slower velocity loading, always getting decent performance.

I'm not saying that makes up for improper placement, but I don't have to tell you that. :)

Regardless, a very unique buck, congrats to your son....and good on you for recovering what could have been a complete loss.

Regards, Dave.
 
skhunter said:
You may want read this.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_849_coupland_et_loye.pdf
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of the history involved, and extra points to you for not referencing (incorrectly) the Geneva Convention. I also recognize the 19th century ideas of warfare, regarding both weapons, and lingering ideas of chiverly etc.

The link you provided states that the concern of Debate centred on whether such bullets “aggravate wounds and increase the suffering of the wounded” and whether a bullet causing “such enormous ravages in the body, its entrance being very small, but its exit very large” was “necessary.”


Consider also the advances, even just with the AR series of rifles, moving to a faster twist rate to stabilize heavy bullet - do you think that was done to decrease lethality?
Militarized technology is concerned with creating casualties, not limiting them - whether it kills or maims perhaps is not of primary concern, but to claim that a bullet is not designed to kill is simply ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
c-fbmi said:
Here's some photos of his deer anyway......................and a happy hunter regardless that he didn't make a perfect shot................





No one here is advocating neck shooting as a properly placed shot, but the reality is that is where his shot went.............I however am a dedicated front shoulder shooter and it works flawlessly, when all goes as planned..........which this shot didn't. I wasn't looking for a lecture on correct bullet placement, which I believe I am well aware of, I was just distraught at the significant lack of damage from the TTSX at close range with a solid muscle hit............it should have done more damage in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Most deer like that are taken by one or more stumbles. Those prepared, at the ready, with proper ammo, and ability to place it almost never get the chance. It was more good luck than good management that the animal was harvested. Be thankful for Your abundant good luck. Quit blaming the bullets and start learning to harness the excitement before Your sitting on an incident/accident that actually matters
 
Yeah, I'm saying if the shot was placed in the lungs or shoulder the deer wouldnt have run away. We all know what a TTSX is designed to do. Use it properly and you won't have a problem. I said earlier a more frangible bullet might have been more forgiving. If you want to make neck shots without hitting the spine, go for a rapid expanding bullet and take your chances. Using a TTSX will not hedge your bets in this case.

No way to be certain if the bullet didn't expand, as there is no recovered bullet-what is certain is that it was a poor shot.

Can't condemn a bullet based on a poor shot. I don't use BTs anymore as they failed me on good shots. They were beefed up but I still don't use them. Although a BT might work on a non spine hitting neck shot as the shrapnel would possibly hit a major artery.

I don't see this example as much different than taking a head shot, misding the brain and hitting the jaw and claiming bullet failure.
 
rimfire458 said:
Most deer like that are taken by one or more stumbles. Those prepared, at the ready, with proper ammo, and ability to place it almost never get the chance. It was more good luck than good management that the animal was harvested. Be thankful for Your abundant good luck. Quit blaming the bullets and start learning to harness the excitement before Your sitting on an incident/accident that actually matters
Click to expand...

Douglas has successfully taken game on every continent on the planet except Antarctica, and he's working on that. His experience in the game fields of the world is seldom matched in modern times, as even those with the means, seldom have the time, inclination, or dedication. His trophy room is the envy of many museums. His knowledge concerning rifles, marksmanship, loading, internal, external, and terminal ballistics goes far beyond the theoretical. I doubt there is anything you could teach him on topics related to hunting or shooting, but if you check his posts over the past several months, you might pick up a few gems.
 
Bowie said:
I am fully aware of the history involved, and extra points to you for not referencing (incorrectly) the Geneva Convention. I also recognize the 19th century ideas of warfare, regarding both weapons, and lingering ideas of chiverly etc.

The link you provided states that the concern of Debate centred on whether such bullets “aggravate wounds and increase the suffering of the wounded” and whether a bullet causing “such enormous ravages in the body, its entrance being very small, but its exit very large” was “necessary.”


Consider also the advances, even just with the AR series of rifles, moving to a faster twist rate to stabilize heavy bullet - do you think that was done to decrease lethality?
Militarized technology is concerned with creating casualties, not limiting them - whether it kills or maims perhaps is not of primary concern, but to claim that a bullet is not designed to kill is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So are you telling me Match bullets are designed to kill. Why are FMJ bullets not allowed for hunting big game?
 
Boomer said:
Douglas has successfully taken game on every continent on the planet except Antarctica, and he's working on that. His experience in the game fields of the world is seldom matched in modern times, as even those with the means, seldom have the time, inclination, or dedication. His trophy room is the envy of many museums. His knowledge concerning rifles, marksmanship, loading, internal, external, and terminal ballistics goes far beyond the theoretical. I doubt there is anything you could teach him on topics related to hunting or shooting, but if you check his posts over the past several months, you might pick up a few gems.
Click to expand...

Making it doubley inexcusable his lad would be shooting more with luck than calm skill on his side
 
skhunter said:
So are you telling me Match bullets are designed to kill. Why are FMJ bullets not allowed for hunting big game?
Click to expand...


Match bullets are not designed for game per say, but a sierra 180 match king 30 cal cooking along at 3000 fps will literally tear game apart
 
captonion said:
I am basing mine on full length of adult deer penetration without any sign of expanding.. This is just another example of said bullet failure to add to my personal experience with the TTSX..
Click to expand...

The terms "over-penetration" and "failure" don't generally go hand in hand, and since you evidently found both animals, I would say there was no failure in either your shooting nor the bullet's performance. I have however seen "failures" on bullets which disintegrate and hence don't penetrate; SST, Berger, Match King, Ballistic Tips, etc.
There's not much point in blaming any bullet for a misplaced shot. When a properly placed shot fails to put an animal down, then you can blame the bullet and/or caliber.
 
I'm with Douglas on this one. The shot was not perfect bit if that deer had of been hit with a partition in that location the deer would have dropped. It would likely get up but there would be extensive damage to the neck and it would not have gone far. On the other hand the cape would be ruined.

Neil
 
bearkilr said:
The terms "over-penetration" and "failure" don't generally go hand in hand, and since you evidently found both animals, I would say there was no failure in either your shooting nor the bullet's performance..
Click to expand...

There was indeed bullet failure.. The TTSX is designed to expand with four glorious pedals as it penetrates... Penetrate it did, but expand it did not. The bullet only did half what it was designed o do, that is a huge FAIL.. It worked no better than a FMJ which is illegal to use for obvious reasons...
 
rimfire458 said:
Making it doubley inexcusable his lad would be shooting more with luck than calm skill on his side
Click to expand...

Skill isn't the issue, his field marksmanship was fine; he hit the deer solidly in the neck, from a field shooting position, under real world winter conditions. Having seen this kid shoot, I doubt that luck had much to do with his hit, although luck, good or bad, is always the hunter's companion. Unfortunately, bullet performance let him down. But your response, that the shot was somehow inexcusable, seems to be directed towards the character of this young man. It might be worth noting at this point, that they continued on the trail of their quarry, under difficult conditions, until they got it; long after many would have thrown up their hands and quit. Since you seem to think that a measure of character is important, their willingness to finish what they started is the correct context for that measure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom