Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Speed kills. Doesn't it?

That's certainly true but a << properly constructed bullet for the job >> going FASTER has a more immediate effect.

If slow bullets didn't kill - then the 30/30, 30 Rem, 35 Rem. et.al. wouldn't have killed all that they have.

SLOWER bullets---

1. take longer to get to the game, allowing the game to move some, or allowing another animal to interrupt/deflect the bullet.

2. take longer to get there IF they get there. (edit to correct)

3. do NOT travel as FLAT.

4. do NOT hit as hard.

Hi-Vel accomplishes a few things that SLOW bullets can not.

These things ARE why I strive for the best velocity WITH the best accuracy I can GET.

Jerry

Roy Weatherby would have agreed with all that.

And he was RIGHT ! <grin>

jwall,

My post was two sentences long. Somehow, you only managed to read the second half.


I still don't see how this topic is worth this much discussion. I thought everyone knew over 100 years ago that faster bullets produce a more dramatic effect.

On a lighter note on this topic, I'm convinced that when it comes to varmint hunting accuracy may be king but velocity is the court jester.

You are.. W R O N G.., this time. I only quoted the 2nd part.

I guess you could say this discussion is about....

'faster bullets'. There are some virtues ?, attributes ?, whatever that MORE speed achieves or has.


Tom T Hall, "older whiskey, faster women, more money !" You get the idea ? More of a good thing.

Jerry

Bob has a way of doing that...

Speed does extend effective range, no doubt.

Terminal performance is another matter.

Balance is where the rubber meets the road.

Bullet type and weight matched with range and speed produces results.

Nope, one size does not fit all, never has, never will...

DF

Whatever dude. You think that other animals can walk between a bullet and a target when fired from slow cartridges. Obviously there's no point in arguing with you.

Arguing ? who was arguing? I was trying to answer your question.

I'll ask (axe) another.

Have you ever seen a deer sag-twist his head/neck and then lick its side or scratch itself? That can happen at just the wrong time and you have a MIS placed shot.

I have and believe me another deer that you haven't seen, can take a step into a bullet's flight at just the wrong time. My main point is faster bullets USE LESS time from muzzle to game. STUFF happens.

Again, I wasn't arguing and AM still discussing.

Jerry

I'm laughing AT MYSELF before someone else does.

I MIS quoted Mr. Hall.

I believe he sung,

"Faster horses, Older whiskey, More Money"


That was one of those 'fraudulent' slips.

'faster women' has been MY version a long time.

Jerry

About 12 years ago I was hunting Alabama. There were two bucks in the edge of a wood line about 200 yards out. I settled in on the older, much nicer buck and right as pulled the trigger, the younger buck gigged the older buck in the ham with an antler. The older buck jumped up and out of the wood line and just stood there.

I thought I had missed, and hurriedly racked another round and hit him in the shoulder - dropped him where he stood. Later I realized my first round had hit lower and further back than I thought, catching the bottom of the lungs just behind the heart. That was the the difference in POI from a high shoulder shot as the buck moved as the trigger was pulled. Rifle was a 7mm-08, 140 Ballistic Tip at ~2750fps.

David

I would have to agree, there is enough anecdotal evidence about "speed kills" to believe it's of some value.

The hydraulic effect, in simple systems with incompressible fluids, is undeniable - it's what allows a man to lift a truck using a simple jack. And some have suggested a bullet impact can cause a bunch of blood vessels to burst in the critter's brain. But all the critter's body structures are not perfect fluids, so it's hard to generalize.

I knew one guy who swore that the .22-250 was the ultimate deer round. But get enough beers in him, he'd admit to losing a few. And he eventually went back to the .25-06

Me? I've never seen a .270 Winchester give anything but bang flops

Higher impact velocities rule the roost regardless of range.

Your first version was better. Maybe you should have been Tom T's manager...

No telling where he may have gone...

DF

Sure. Let me have another try at it.

Here is actual average test data from 30-06 cup and core bullets impacting at various speeds



Most people are shocked that the curve slopes downward to the right, meaning you get less penetration as impact speed increases. Below about 2100 FPS, you get very deep penetration because the bullet does not open. Above about 2800 FPS, the bullet begins to fail, and penetration decreases. Between those two speeds, the length of the wound channel is about 15 inches, regardless of where in that window you are.

Partitions open at about 17-1800 FPS, and give about 16 inches of penetration regardless of impact speed above that point.

So more speed does not give you more penetration. In fact, if you're shooting something for big game with an MV above 3000 FPS, your bullets will frequently fail on shots within 100 yards or so, unless you use premium bullets.



You may well be correct about getting a wider wound channel. I'm still wrestling with that one.

There's a reason so many of the 'great' rounds were moderate speed, because they didn't have the bullets we have today.

I think there is a lot to that idea.

Canazes--

Thanks for an example from SOMEONE ELSE beside me. A lot of things CAN and have happened.

Thnx
Jerry

I believe Layne Simpson held the 416 Bee in similar regard.

Above 3k it's time to switch to a modern, bonded bullet.