I Screwed Up, and I Knew Better !!!

1899 said:
There are some good folks who used to post lots of fine information on CGN, but who no longer post anything at all. There are some good folks on here still that have such a vast wealth of knowledge to share, but their post counts are low. This thread is a good example of why.

I had a discussion on bullet performance with a very well known and respected gun writer. This person has shot, or seen shot more game than 99% of the CGN members here. While modern bullets are very, very reliable, they can on the rare occasion fail to expand or disintegrate or whatever. This person told me that of bullets that he has used/seen used in large volumes, there is only one bullet that he has never observed a failure with. And it isn't the TSX/TTSX. And believe me, that it only takes once to leave a bad taste in a person's mouth.

But forget what this anonymous gun writer told me - Eagleye, a well respected and very experienced member of CGN has posted pictures of two recovered (from animals) TTSX bullets that did not expand. What's the excuse there? There is a fellow from Alaska on 24Hr Campfire who has posted similar pictures. Heck, even our own Why Not? has posted about his own observations in the past. This can and does happen.

Doug - good for you for taking the boy out and congrats on getting an animal on the ground.
Click to expand...


You know what though, there's those who have left, and more who have joined many with even more experience. :) There is more hunting experience on this forum today than 10, or even five years ago. Folks take sides on their opinions but each of Doug, sheep hunter, hoyt, and Davey all hold more hunting experience alone than much of the forum combined. Doug's shot more game, in more places, with more things than likely anyone else here. On pure numbers, who knows who's king but from what we've talked about off forum I'd bet Dogleg, but on varied experience I'll take suggestions on who might top Doug but can't think of one yet. They, and their respective supporters (I support each of them) often have differing opinions and likely are all right in the same proportion. If there's one thing I can say with confidence on hunting is there are no sure things, rules, or positions to take. Part of the beauty of our sport, as we each interpret it our own way, and find our own paths. The arguing is fun however, keeps the forum alive, and keeps us busy!
 
sheephunter said:
Common sense says that if a manufacture's defect does not allow a mono metal to expand that it would zip right through an animal. If you find an unexpanded mono metal in an animal, the cause is very unlikely to be manufacturer's defect. I'm not questioning the fact the people have found them.....I'm questioning their conclusion as to why they didn't expand. It's very unlikely a manufacturing flaw if they are pulled out of an animal.
Click to expand...

When a bullet fails to expand, and it runs into something with greater than air density, the center of gravity tends to want to take the lead. If the bullet tumbles, velocity will rapidly bleed off, and penetration won't look as though the animal was hit with a solid. The fly in the ointment with this theory though is that a bullet that tumbles tends to result in massive internal damage, much as if it had expanded, and should result in a quick kill. So it seems as though you are suggesting a low impact velocity, below that which is necessary for the bullet to expand.
 
Boomer said:
When a bullet fails to expand, and it runs into something with greater than air density, the center of gravity tends to want to take the lead. If the bullet tumbles, velocity will rapidly bleed off, and penetration won't look as though the animal was hit with a solid. The fly in the ointment with this theory though is that a bullet that tumbles tends to result in massive internal damage, much as if it had expanded, and should result in a quick kill. So it seems as though you are suggesting a low impact velocity, below that which is necessary for the bullet to expand.
Click to expand...

Tumbling is one possibility and too low of an impact velocity is another.
 
Purty!

1458596_10152969531470400_1870092707_n.jpg

10499391_10153224450345400_1408662781452228018_o.jpg
 
hoytcanon said:
Amen...

We should be able to enjoy a lively discussion and walk away having either, learned something or agreeing to disagree... with no hard feelings...
Click to expand...

Agreed!

There will be some disagreeing when we walk away from this one.

In the end, young man shoots a great deer, has a huge smile and I am sure he will be out doing it again soon.

Maybe I should tell you guys about a bad shot I made last year, then you could pick on me for a bit. But in that case the 168g TSX performed flawlessly! LOL
 
Ardent said:
You know what though, there's those who have left, and more who have joined many with even more experience. :) There is more hunting experience on this forum today than 10, or even five years ago. Folks take sides on their opinions but each of Doug, sheep hunter, hoyt, and Davey all hold more hunting experience alone than much of the forum combined. Doug's shot more game, in more places, with more things than likely anyone else here.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the quality or quantity of experienced posters have decreased, but IMO the more of those the merrier. Some people just don't like arguing. And those who do, well it would be nice to refrain from calling people "smart ass" and such. I've learned lots here in the last +10 years and realize that my circumstance is such that I won't be able to draw as many conclusions from first hand experience as the members you mention, so it is nice to have/keep them around. Kind of like the "oral tradition". Once the elders are gone...
 
hoytcanon said:
Amen...

We should be able to enjoy a lively discussion and walk away having either, learned something or agreeing to disagree... with no hard feelings...
Click to expand...

Of course. This is the intraweb. While hunting and bullet performance should be taken seriously, conversation on here shouldn't be taken seriously enough to end up with insults and/or hard feelings.
 
crazy_davey said:
Agreed!

There will be some disagreeing when we walk away from this one.

In the end, young man shoots a great deer, has a huge smile and I am sure he will be out doing it again soon.

Maybe I should tell you guys about a bad shot I made last year, then you could pick on me for a bit. But in that case the 168g TSX performed flawlessly! LOL
Click to expand...


My bad shot with a 180gr TSX. Went through a "soft part" of a moose :)

58987_462040755515_320409_n.jpg


I was already picked on for the bad shot. :)
 
chuck nelson said:
Ignore the quality, but this is me shooting a Mule Deer with a 280 AI and 140 TTSX at 390 yds. The shot is higher than I would have liked but went through both lungs. He was hit once. The hole through him says the bullet expanded, but damage to the lungs was minimal. What does it mean? I'm not sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcs4w6VArIg
Click to expand...

I responded to your other thread. What is your opinion Chuck?

This was part of my response to your other thread, figured it applied here as well.

IMO nothing is 100% certain when it comes to killing. We use the best bullets we can, and take the best shots we can. After that mother nature will decide how it plays out. Anyone who says they can predict 100% of the time what happens once an animal is hit with a bullet is either full of **** or hasn't shot enough animals to know.
Click to expand...
 
Gatehouse said:
My bad shot with a 180gr TSX. Went through a "soft part" of a moose :)

58987_462040755515_320409_n.jpg


I was already picked on for the bad shot. :)
Click to expand...

My bad shot last year was on a deer that did not want to move.

I found him bedded in a huge patch of buck brush on my fathers property but could only see his antler tips. For sure this was the deer I had been looking for that had eluded me for two weeks (I was convinced). I thought once I found him I had him, no question. That deer sat in the spot for almost four hours. He would get up quickly, adjust and then lay back down, never offering a shot. in those hours I snuck, crawled, sat, crawled again to try and get closer to get a shot. I made it to 200 yards from him without him or the 20 other deer that were there seeing me. When he finally stood up, I was very sore and cramped up. He was facing me and I was set up on the sticks ready. He was facing me dead on and I wasn't going to let him take off as it looked like he was ready to. I was way above him, the angle was steep but I thought I could do a chest shot no problem, I felt steady. I took the shot. In the end I had pulled the shot, it went through his antlers right above his skull and nailed him in the square in the back, breaking it and destroying one of the back straps. Not the shot I was hoping for at all but being all cramped and sore, I had made a bad shot. My screw up no question. The 168g TSX did a huge pile of damage and he never made it ten yards.

In the end, it never ended up being the deer I was looking for, it was his smaller brother with almost exactly the same small kickers. Both deer were almost exactly the same configuration, one was just bigger by a long ways. A neighbor got the bigger one a week or so later. When I walked up to him I knew it was not the deer I thought it was. Still very happy he went down quickly even though I messed up.

 
Ardent said:
Doug's shot more game, in more places, with more things than likely anyone else here. On pure numbers, who knows who's king but from what we've talked about off forum I'd bet Dogleg, but on varied experience I'll take suggestions on who might top Doug but can't think of one yet.
Click to expand...

Dogleg by far, he has killed more than mother nature ;)

I have heard the rough numbers and cant think of anyone here who can top him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom