- Location
- AB foothills
I need to intervene when you are being an annoying troll to other members that are trying to talk about the topic at hand. Give it a rest or an infraction will be coming your way.
Last edited:
What a bullet does to an animal when it hits
- Thread starter Duffy
- Start date
I need to intervene when you are being an annoying troll to other members that are trying to talk about the topic at hand. Give it a rest or an infraction will be coming your way.
My old name on here was The_AKD. Joined back in 07.
As you know that debate ya got wrapped up in happens near daily on here.
Bullets kill. Size, type, gun fired from, hit location, ect.... Reality is it don't matter because animals are not bullet proof.
Don't get to wrapped up, say what u want. A week from not it won't matter anyway.
As you know that debate ya got wrapped up in happens near daily on here.
Bullets kill. Size, type, gun fired from, hit location, ect.... Reality is it don't matter because animals are not bullet proof.
Don't get to wrapped up, say what u want. A week from not it won't matter anyway.
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
Bullets kill by causing tissue damage to vital organs and/or by causing enough blood loss to stop life.
The details and specifics of how they do this are up for debate, but are also pretty meaningless.
I agree with Ardent that science has done very little to actually determine what "works" in terms of bullets, and that trial-and-error has been the driving force behind bullet "killing" technology. It's always still evolving however, even some old and strongly held beliefs, like bullet weight retention being critical, are being challenged by new technologies.
IMO, while forms of "shock" (hydraulic, hydrostatic, energy dump, etc) are real, they're fickle mistresses, and simply cannot be counted on.
The details and specifics of how they do this are up for debate, but are also pretty meaningless.
I agree with Ardent that science has done very little to actually determine what "works" in terms of bullets, and that trial-and-error has been the driving force behind bullet "killing" technology. It's always still evolving however, even some old and strongly held beliefs, like bullet weight retention being critical, are being challenged by new technologies.
IMO, while forms of "shock" (hydraulic, hydrostatic, energy dump, etc) are real, they're fickle mistresses, and simply cannot be counted on.
Last edited:
This is mostly true, but incomplete because amount of light matters too. It's like looking at the sun, it hurts but you will probably live through it because its just a little light. An animal with the top of his head blown off will quickly expire, because nothing can stand that much light all at once.
Then why have expanding bullets and not just stick to FMJ's? "Science" has everything to do with how bullets perform today such as FMJ, hollow point, ballistic tip, fragmenting, etc.
What 'kills' is what does enough damage to vital organs/arteries. Certain types of bullets aid that. Such as bullets that cause a lot of hydrostratic shock.
And tell me hydrostatic shock doesn't make a difference. If it didn't we would have just made better bows.
All that stuff around the bullet is what causes the damage (hydrostatic shock). That is what does most of the damage. Bullets kill by trauma. Arrows kill by cutting arteries.
Last edited:
Sounds like common sense to me. I totally agree! Bullet released alot of energy where it disbursed it's energy to surrounding soft tissues and destroyed them................released by friction. Although there are many types of energy there is no real definition of energy, however examples can be illistrated. A simple example of energy transfer is the energy from a sandwich transfered to the body then to propel a peddle bike. Energy from the sun transfered in solar panels...............and the list go's on.
Last edited:
A long time ago, early 1980's, when I was a young man, I was hunting elk in Zone 400 just south of the Crowsnest pass in Alberta. A small 5x5 came prancing out of the timber and into an open meadow. I raised by rifle at the trotting bull and fired. The bull piled-up nose first and layed there kicking. After I proached the elk I could not see any blood. I the gave him the muzzle of the gun in the eye and it reacted with a blinking motion. Immeditely after I touched his eye he tried to get up and I finished the bull off with a shoulder shot.
Long story short, after examinating the bull I noticed that my first shot had hit him in the base of his antlers, therefore; what had knocked that bull down?.................hmmmm I think enery transfer. Logical, you bet ya!
Long story short, after examinating the bull I noticed that my first shot had hit him in the base of his antlers, therefore; what had knocked that bull down?.................hmmmm I think enery transfer. Logical, you bet ya!
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
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.
Last edited:
Ballistic gel is the closest substance that is available to soft tissue such as lungs, liver, heart. Shock wave/energy is clearly seen. A spitzer bullet must of been used on this ballistic gel, because monolithic bullets usually don't leave such a large wound channel or explode.
^^this^^
Mass x Velocity2(squared) = Energy
If you increase the projectile's mass the energy increases BUT if the velocity is increased then the energy is increased exponentially. Roy Weatherby knew this formula and was the basis of developing his own cartridges. Added to that, a bullet that will properly expand (and stay intact) will transfer that energy efficiently to the body cavity causing both hydrostatic shock and rapid blood loss. As stated somewhere above, the FMJ bullet isn't efficient at transferring its energy so less shock and less blood loss.
However, the light thing does have merit....OH and note my crafty use of bold for emphasis
Energy is not the only factor at work... Momentum is equally important... And with momentum velocity only shares euqal value to mass (Momentum = Mass X Velocity)... This is why when equal energy is imparted to two different weight bullets, the slower heavier bullet's higher momentum causes it to penetrates deeper... The higher momentum resists slowing down or changing direction more that the lighter faster bullet... But if both have 100% penetration, then a different discussion needs to occur on the other pertinent variables..
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.
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
If my animal doesn't go down right away I use bad language , point and ridicule.
Works every time,, never had one run away yet!
Works every time,, never had one run away yet!
All formulas and theories break down when taken to extremes.
A light bullet driven hard can be very impressive, so logically if you can get it going fast enough you don't need a bullet? Expanding gas is awful fast.
A heavy, big bullet can to a certain extend make up for a lack of velocity, so if we make it heavy enough it doesn't need to move at all? A bowling ball is an awesome force by some formulas.
Bullet construction and velocity go together like horse-power and traction. Not much use makeing horsepower without traction, but Goodyears best efforts can't make a sewing machine into a farm tractor. Sorry, but you can't get what isn't there to get. A softer bullet can make up for lower velocity to a certain extent, A marshmallow is pretty soft, what would the proper velocity be to hunt Marco Polos with one? At the opposite extreme a tungsten solid won't make a .455 Webley into an elephant gun. Diamonds are real hard but a chick can't cold-#### a moose with a left jab. Frangible bullets have shown some real results at handgun speed, so logically if I could drive a sugar cube slow enough it would be some kickazz elk medicine?
So whats left? Horse-power sort of compares to cartridge case size. Can't get it if it isn't there, right? Tire size is sort of like caliber and that hinges on what you're trying to do in the first place. Putting tractor-sized tires on a Corvette isn't going to help the cause if raceing is your goal. By the time you get to tread pattern (bullet performance) its largely fine tuneing. You can probably still screw that up by running slicks when you should have snow-tires, but you'd have to try. There is no tread pattern that going to make the basic nature of a sportscar into a farm tractor but you can play around a little by haveing summer and winter tires. Or varmint and elk bullets for the same rifle.
Or you could look at the light theory again.
A light bullet driven hard can be very impressive, so logically if you can get it going fast enough you don't need a bullet? Expanding gas is awful fast.
A heavy, big bullet can to a certain extend make up for a lack of velocity, so if we make it heavy enough it doesn't need to move at all? A bowling ball is an awesome force by some formulas.
Bullet construction and velocity go together like horse-power and traction. Not much use makeing horsepower without traction, but Goodyears best efforts can't make a sewing machine into a farm tractor. Sorry, but you can't get what isn't there to get. A softer bullet can make up for lower velocity to a certain extent, A marshmallow is pretty soft, what would the proper velocity be to hunt Marco Polos with one? At the opposite extreme a tungsten solid won't make a .455 Webley into an elephant gun. Diamonds are real hard but a chick can't cold-#### a moose with a left jab. Frangible bullets have shown some real results at handgun speed, so logically if I could drive a sugar cube slow enough it would be some kickazz elk medicine?
So whats left? Horse-power sort of compares to cartridge case size. Can't get it if it isn't there, right? Tire size is sort of like caliber and that hinges on what you're trying to do in the first place. Putting tractor-sized tires on a Corvette isn't going to help the cause if raceing is your goal. By the time you get to tread pattern (bullet performance) its largely fine tuneing. You can probably still screw that up by running slicks when you should have snow-tires, but you'd have to try. There is no tread pattern that going to make the basic nature of a sportscar into a farm tractor but you can play around a little by haveing summer and winter tires. Or varmint and elk bullets for the same rifle.
Or you could look at the light theory again.
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.
