What a bullet does to an animal when it hits

[Duffy]

it all comes down to bullet construction.
Not quite sure what you mean by that?
speed, penetration, sectional density and energy were likely relevant before the advent of jacketed bullets but after that they were bunk.
And that is even more confusing.


I sometimes hear guys say "Shot placement is all that matters!" I think they are wrong. I also hear the song "lots of energy in the bullet is what shocks the animal to death" Again I think that is wrong. "The bullet just makes a hole and the critter bleeds to death, pretty simple" I think that has missed the mark.

That is why I phrased the question "What a bullet does to an animal when it hits" because I believe that the place the bullet hits the animal is a Factor and the energy the bullet has is a Factor and the construction of the bullet is a Factor. The mental and physical state of the animal may be a Factor.

I think looking at the videos of what a bullet does in a block of ballistic jell certainly gives one some idea of what that bullet will do inside an animal.

 

[Camo tung]

My own experience has been with a 30-06 at various distances, from under 100 yds to over 225 yds, all on WT deer. I've had a Ballistic Tip hit nothing of any significance (i.e. rib) on a broadside through and through shot through the boiler room at under 100 yds. That deer died, but it ran a fair distance first. Gutting it found the heart completely destroyed and one lung still inflated. I'd have to think there was very little energy transferred to that animal as the exit wound was slightly bigger than a pencil. What killed it? My guess from what I saw was total hydraulic failure, a body cavity full of blood.

My own (unanswered) questions: Would that same bullet at a longer distance have performed the same (slower velocity resulting in better expansion)?
Would a different bullet construction perform the same at the same distance, same entry/exit locations, same velocity?

Luckily there are plenty of WT in Alberta to carry on with my informal research!

 

[sealhunter]

bullet construction is where it's at...
even with bullets as similar as the GMX and TTSX have advantages and disadvantages against one another, that simple formulas do not address.

There is a point of adequacy. The damage was enough to provide an adequate kill. If your goal is to break an egg, no matter of it is done with a hammer or a steam roller, the egg will be broken.

The threshold of adequacy varies accross bullet construction, IMO. moreso than across their weights or calibres

 

[sheephunter]

it all comes down to bullet construction.
Not quite sure what you mean by that?
speed, penetration, sectional density and energy were likely relevant before the advent of jacketed bullets but after that they were bunk.
And that is even more confusing.

.

If you read the entire statement in context rather than just quoting part of it out of context, it will likely be less confusing

 

[sealhunter]

If you read the entire statement in context rather than just quoting part of it out of context, it will likely be less confusing

I believe what is confusing, is that this is a pardigm shift from what was engrained when BC and SD were the end all, be all..

 

[track]

it all comes down to bullet construction.
Not quite sure what you mean by that?
speed, penetration, sectional density and energy were likely relevant before the advent of jacketed bullets but after that they were bunk.
And that is even more confusing.


I sometimes hear guys say "Shot placement is all that matters!" I think they are wrong. I also hear the song "lots of energy in the bullet is what shocks the animal to death" Again I think that is wrong. "The bullet just makes a hole and the critter bleeds to death, pretty simple" I think that has missed the mark.

That is why I phrased the question "What a bullet does to an animal when it hits" because I believe that the place the bullet hits the animal is a Factor and the energy the bullet has is a Factor and the construction of the bullet is a Factor. The mental and physical state of the animal may be a Factor.

I think looking at the videos of what a bullet does in a block of ballistic jell certainly gives one some idea of what that bullet will do inside an animal.

Your last sentence makes to much sense. Being that we are all physic professors we should return to the drawing board.

 

[track]

I believe what is confusing, is that this is a pardigm shift from what was engrained when BC and SD were the end all, be all..

This is only a paradox debate between common sense and logic. Quite frankly hunting is not complicated nor it should be, however; society in any decipline or leisure activity always finds a way to complicate the obvious.

 

[sheephunter]

I believe what is confusing, is that this is a pardigm shift from what was engrained when BC and SD were the end all, be all..

BC still is an important consideration and quantifiable in an equation regardless of bullet construction when calculating time of flight, effect of wind, bullet drop, impact velocity...etc.....SD not so much because it involves terminal performance....where bullet construction plays a major factor. SD is applicable when comparing bullets of identical construction but when comparing different bullets...it's basically useless.

 

[sealhunter]

BC still is an important consideration and quantifiable in an equation regardless of bullet construction when calculating time of flight, effect of wind, bullet drop, impact velocity...etc.....SD not so much because it involves terminal performance....where bullet construction plays a major factor. SD is applicable when comparing bullets of identical construction but when comparing different bullets...it's basically useless.

100% agree,...

 

[Zanelike]

Zanelike - No offense, but I've never hunted, or seen hunted, blocks of ballistics gel, and don't really care what they do when shot.

What I am saying is that, in my experience, shock itself (when deliverd by a bullet) is not a very reliable killer.

Lots of people, including those killing hundreds of animals on a cull, will report that, even when pretty much identical animals are shot at identical places, at identical ranges with the same rifle/load combo, some die on the spot (shock kill) and some get back up and die of blood loss/organ failure (no shock kill) later on. I have experienced this many times myself.

And I specificaly did state that shock is real (I have killed animals myself that died instantly on the shot, and the instant fatality could only be explained by shock), I did not discount it completely.

I have just seen many more small/fast hunters relying on shock to kill, end up shaking their heads wondering what went wrong, than guys shooting big/slow wondering what went wrong.

An animal running after being shot doesn't mean it dies from blood loss. What it means is it has a lot of adrenalin pumping through its system. The 'shock' is what liquified its internal organs. A chicken with it's head cut off and runs around after doesn't die from blood loss, its already dead but the body just doesn't realize it yet. What happens in ballistic gel is almost the same as what happens in living tissue so you should care. Small and fast or big and slow doesn't make a difference in a bullet that is put in the right place. If you're seeing guys relying on anything other then proper shot placement then there is an issue with the ethics in the shots they are taking.

 

[sheephunter]

If you're seeing guys relying on anything other then proper shot placement then there is an issue with the ethics in the shots they are taking.

Pretty important to consider the impact velocity/energy too and whether it is appropriate for the bullet to do the required work to kill efficiently. Shot placement only matters if what you are placing there can do the work required to kill.

 

[Dogleg]

I'd hardly consider factoring in bullet construction an extreme considering the wide variety of bullets we have available today. Theories regarding speed, penetration, sectional density and energy were likely relevant before the advent of jacketed bullets but after that they were bunk. And now that we are shooting mono metals too....well rocket science just no longer applies. I have no idea how tires fit into the theories but apparently they do somehow.

Analogy, you've heard of those?

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

Trying to predict what a bullet does consistently when it hits game is impossible to do.

You CAN increase your results one way or another by choosing projectiles that are designed to perform more towards certain results(hollow point for dramatic expansion/mono metal for deep penetration/jacketed soft point for in between, etc, etc.........................). Particular velocities also change bullet characteristics and determine proper usage.

What a bullet does exactly when it hits is sometimes like flipping a coin and is sometimes changed by mere fractions of inches.Also, how an animal reacts cannot be the same every time aside from it being directly hit by a mortar round.As some have stated ,animals sometimes drop for no obvious reason and sometimes you wonder why they don't drop.

The bullet hits, interrupts some form of physiological function which essentially turns off the switch on the PC then game over, the animal either dies or heals and survives.

There is much credible information on this thread from folks way more experienced than me and that speaks volumes, however sometime nature and luck have different ideas than us.

Again , just my opinion.

 

[sealhunter]

The moose i shot this year was at 220 yrds and taken with a 150 gr 30-30 and a Hornady Flex Tip
Two years before it was a 7mm-08 with a 120 gr TSX
Four years ago, it was a 45-30 and a 350 gr Soft Point

Ranges were all similar,... velocities drastically different from about 1700 fps to 2600 fps at impact

All one shot kills.

 

[hoytcanon]

Possibly useful if comparing bullets of identical construction...pretty well irrelevant if not. One thing none of the formulas take into account is how much weight the bullet sheds during expansion and penetration. Mass is a constantly changing value with bullets that shed weight. Again, it all comes down to bullet construction.

Of course we are comparing apples-to-apples... what would be the point otherwise. In my opinion, there is too much discussion on what is "better" and not enough discussion on what is "sufficient." There are many different ways to skin a cat... we don't all have to get the job done the same way... light and fast or heavy and slow can both be equally effective... they just do the job differently... my personal preference is to be slightly on the light side of the median and use a well constructed bullet... Accubonds, Patitions, GMX or TTSX are my norm on game... NBT's, SST's, A-Max and VLD's on paper... works for me just fine.

 

[finstr]

...