The bighorn sheep outfitter I worked for years ago used to always say that. "Speed kills", he'd say, and send me off to buy 150gr whatever's(long as it had a plastic tip) for his Blaser .300 Win. We had lots of grizzly in the area and he'd had more than one encounter, but when I asked him if he wouldn't prefer a heavier bullet he said the 150 was all he needed. Mind you he was a pretty cool customer so maybe it was, but he could usually talk the bear into going about its business anyway. But I digress.
Couple days ago,reading another thread somewhere in the bowels of the forum, someone mentioned a site by an Aussie or Kiwi who has done what appears to be a rather extensive amount of killing/dissection to determine what works best or kills fastest. He seems to believe that an impact velocity of 2600fps or faster kills significantly faster than bullets that impact below that velocity thresh hold. Above .35 cal and the speed drops to 2200 for fast kills. I don't have nearly enough experience to verify these findings, but I can say that the deer shot with the .270 and 25-06 tended to drop sooner than the ones shot with the .356. Could be just a coincidence, as the sample size isn't that large.
Since many here have vastly more experience in this area, I thought I'd pose the question to you all. If a bullet is constructed stoutly enough to penetrate to the vitals, doesn't a faster bullet tend to produce faster kills and more DRT's? Is this why small fast calibers seem to kill out of propertion to their size? Of course a slower heavier bullet kills just fine,we've all seen that and its not in question. The question remains though, does a significantly faster bullet generally equal a significantly faster kill?
