slow, slow bullet on mule deer

MiG25

MiG25

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
69   0   0
Location
B.C.
well, i finally got around to chronographing the load i used to take my muley last year.
muley.jpg


8x56R in a steyr M95 carbine, graf brass, WLR primer, hornady .330" 205 gr bullet, and enough IMR4064 to shoot to the sights at 100 yards.

the result, 1902 fps. (last fall in the cooler weather it may have been ~1850).

the deer weighted 137 lbs on the butcher's scale, minus the insides, skin, head, and lower legs, and hanging for 3 days. not sure of live weight but probably around 200 lbs.

the bullet took him on the shoulder and exited behind the far shoulder. he ran 20-30 yards before falling and sliding a ways down the mountain, stopping when he got tangled in some bush (there was snow so he was basically a 200 lb tobaggan).

my question is, with today's super animals, like the flying squirrel and the electric eel, why didn't the bullet just bounce off? was i being irresponsible taking this rifle out with an elk tag in my pocket? ignorance is bliss after all, i was assuming that the velocity was in the 2100 fps range.

i'm thinking that if i up the charge a little to get a 150 yards zero, and maybe break the 2000 fps barrier, that this would be a great hunting combo.

(please note that some 1930's vintage military ammo is pushing 2400 fps in this rifle but shoots about a foot high).
 
Last edited:
I shot my moose last year with a 160gr RN doing 2300 fps (MV) from a 270win. range 150yrds.

one shot. bang, flop.

velocity is greatly overrated.
 
the 30-30, 45-70, 32, 33, and 35's have been killing deer and are 2000fps or less for a century.

Velocity is only an aide to help you HIT what you're aiming at
 
There seems to be a notion in the hunting magazines that any bullet that's flying at less than 3,000 fps can't kill game. Before chronographs were common, I killed a fair number of my big game animals (deer, moose, black bear and elk) with 7 x 57 loads (160 and 140 grain bullets) that later chrono'd at 2,600-2,800 fps. They all died quick, humane deaths, with most bullets either passing through or ending up on the far side of the animal, under the hide.

While your load won't be a flat-shooting long range wonder, it'll kill big game, no doubt.:)
 
Nice juicy looking deer there! Congrat's . And it is good to know I won't be needing a high velocity rifle to take one down. Enjoy the sweet meat my friend!
 
Well, energy is defined as the ability to do work. Some of this work is what wounds the animal - the permanent wound channel. Some of this energy is dissipated as 'hydostatic shock' (temporary cavity). Muscle tissue is elastic, so it recovers from the hydrostatic shock relatively uninjured (unless the shock wave is moving at ~2700+ fps, then the effect can be explosive disintegration if muscle tissue), so it's possible that a lot of energy can be delivered to a target, and yet not injure it significantly. (Organ tissue OTOH turns to jam under hydrostatic shock.)

So, as should be apparent, killing power is a very complex issue, and has many contributing factors. The single biggest factor by FAR - is shot placement. That how Bell was able to kill elephants with a 7mm, and how people have been able to kill animals of all sorts with sharpened sticks, since the beginning of time.
 
Velocity is over-rated, IMO. It's main use is to flatten trajectory. I recall reading somewhere, and I don't know where, that if you can push your bullet over 2700fps at the muzzle, you'd be better off going to a heavier bullet.

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that you need over 2200fps for hydrostatic shock. This was one of the reasons that the .416 Rigby killed lions very well. That and the fact that a .416" bullet weighing 410 grains is something to be reckoned with!
 
My understanding, which may be flawed, is that you need over 2200fps for hydrostatic shock.
Click to expand...

well - yes and no.

First off the term is quite misleading, as was mentioned in the famous 'shooting holes in wound theories' which i'm sure most of you have read.

But in essance the theory is that a pulse wave will travel better thru a liquid than a solid. Certainly we know this to be true. You can observe the effect dropping a good sized rock into water - there's cavication in excess of the size of the rock, and then it slaps back.. and you'll see the ripples on the water. This isn't too much different.

ALL bullets travelling fast enough to go thru something will cause some cavication and shock wave. But - it's obvious that a bullet with a lot more Kinetic energy will tend to displace more tissue, thus creating a much more powerful wave and from what i've observed a much more distructive one.

Again - pretty common sense.

The thing is - that shock wave can actually work against you a bit. it can cause massive bruising in tissue and actually reduce the amount of blood that comes out of a wound. No big deal if you've pulped the lungs and heart of course - but it means slower bullets kill 'differently' in some ways.

Some bullets rely on kinetic engergy (the ability to push tissue to the sides and create a shock wave is dependant on that) - some rely more on momentum (in simple terms, the bullets ability to 'keep going' and just push a plug out, leaving massive cardiopluminary pressure drops along with tissue damage). Slower bullets tend to penetrate deeper.

Anyway - yes, it's very complex, and no - it's not very complex. It's complex if you care about the math and physics, it's not complex if you just accept that if you shoot an animal in the vitals with a good gun it's going to fall over dead and quit worrying about it :)
 
British gunsmiths when they were desigining nitro express rifles and cartridges wanted a bullet of decent sectional density propelled at about 2200-2400 fps. Why? Because they knew that it would work. End of story!
 
I think it's way cool that MIG25 used an unsporterized Milsurp to take a deer (and a nice one), and with a M95 Carbine to boot. Good job!

As I hunt at ranges of 50-150 yds, I zero at 100 yds and keep the MV at 2700 fps or less, using as heavy a bullet as possible. I shot a deer at 190 yds once with a small, very fast bullet (115gr 25/06 at 3200 fps MV), and I lost a whack of shoulder meat. The deer the year before was hit with a slug going about 1500 fps at 50 yds and I had nothing but a big entry and exit wound and no bloodshot meat.

Heavy bullets at medium speed below 200 yds works very nice.
 
Last edited:
The thing to notice here is the heavy bullets that are being used giving you the penetration to kill a deer effectively.I dont need any bullet expansion with my 54 caliber flintlock at 420 grain lead but forget any trajectory past 100 yards.Makes a big hole just by itself even at low velocity.
 
Foxer said:
ALL bullets travelling fast enough to go thru something will cause some cavication and shock wave. But - it's obvious that a bullet with a lot more Kinetic energy will tend to displace more tissue, thus creating a much more powerful wave and from what i've observed a much more distructive one.
Click to expand...

The reading material I was referring to focused on lions. The feeling was that impact velocities above 2200 fps would create a sufficient "shock wave" to seriously affect the lion's CNS. This same reaction was observed on Leopard. In comparison, no such effect was observed on game such as Zebra, Cape Buffalo etc.

I wish I remember where I read it. I think it was written by either Ross Seyfried or Finn Aagard.
 
Andy said:
I think it's way cool that MIG25 used an unsporterized Milsurp to take a deer (and a nice one), and with a M95 Carbine to boot. Good job!

As I hunt at ranges of 50-150 yds, I zero at 100 yds and keep the MV at 2700 fps or less, using as heavy a bullet as possible. I shot a deer at 190 yds once with a small, very fast bullet (115gr 25/06 at 3200 fps MV), and I lost a whack of shoulder meat. The deer the year before was hit with a slug going about 1500 fps at 50 yds and I had nothing but a big entry and exit wound and no bloodshot meat.

Heavy bullets at medium speed below 200 yds works very nice.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. I now have 8 x 56 dies, where the heck do I get the graf brass and bullets from?
 
i carried that rifle for most of last season, looking for elk, into the mountains for goat, and of course, for muleys. i like it, it is light, handy, and accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom