Leica Sport Optics.
CLICK HERE for GREAT DEALS on VORTEX OPTICS at CAMERA LAND!

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#7288979 - 01/09/13 07:29 AM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
BobinNH Online   content
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 27485
I don't think he said that 24's and 25's wouldn't kill deer and elk, nor that 223 cal's would not kill deer.Rather he seemed to imply that for both jobs there were better options.
_________________________
Just because I'm not listening...doesn't mean I'm not paying attention.

Top
#7289064 - 01/09/13 07:47 AM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
1tnhunter Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 1523
Loc: Tennessee
After my 2000 season experience using the .243 Winchester I don't feel terribly confident in this caliber for big game either

Taken from the article

Top
#7289082 - 01/09/13 07:50 AM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
Mako25 Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 16718
Loc: TX
Oh, it's on now! grin

Top
#7289180 - 01/09/13 08:12 AM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: Mako25]
1tnhunter Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 1523
Loc: Tennessee
No mako i'm not looking to go down that road.I appreciate a man putting in that kind of time and sharing with everyone.By no means am i a ballistian. In my limited experience with the 243 it seems to a very adequate cartridge for deer,at least for me.

Top
#7289265 - 01/09/13 08:29 AM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
Mako25 Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 16718
Loc: TX
The ire won't be directed towards you for simply pointing out what the study says (well, it shouldn't anyway).

I have zero hesitation in using a .244, and while I don't prefer the .22's - I've seen the results, and it's dead critters. Many times, LARGE ones.

Top
#7289302 - 01/09/13 08:36 AM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
mtrancher Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 09/25/10
Posts: 518
Loc: Eastern Montana
What I see as valuable in newsprint testing is to determine for yourself if the bullet performs as the manufacturer describes. There will always be those claiming the exception rather than pointing out the rule, but, if you test enough bullets from a variety of calibers at varying velocities you do get an idea if the bullet is performing in accordance with its design and marketing. And, of course, the medium has to be consistent. The best cup and core bullet is likely to disintegrate if the newsprint is too dry, but even then, if the medium is consistent, you can determine which penetrated more before shattering. I've drawn my own conclusions, of course, from my own testing but I'm hesitate to mention them due to the flammability of the electronic media.

Top
#7290486 - 01/09/13 01:58 PM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: Mako25]
doubletap Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 12/05/07
Posts: 4930
Loc: Atlanta
Originally Posted By: Mako25
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

1) Keith-style bullets' shoulders not being responsible for wound channel diameter.

I read about a test where they painted the front of Keith style bullets prior to shooting test medium. It seems the paint on the shoulders was undisturbed and it was concluded that the shoulders never made contact. I think it was Ross Seyfried who wrote about it but I don't remember if he was involved in the testing.
_________________________
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

- Albert Einstein

Top
#7290760 - 01/09/13 02:58 PM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: doubletap]
jwp475 Online   content
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 04/24/05
Posts: 17593
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: doubletap
Originally Posted By: Mako25
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

1) Keith-style bullets' shoulders not being responsible for wound channel diameter.

I read about a test where they painted the front of Keith style bullets prior to shooting test medium. It seems the paint on the shoulders was undisturbed and it was concluded that the shoulders never made contact. I think it was Ross Seyfried who wrote about it but I don't remember if he was involved in the testing.



This is true, the wound channel is determined by the size of the me-plat on the bullet. I have shot enough game with these bullets to have observed this in the field as well as in test media
_________________________
Originally Posted By: Jeff_O
.they WAY over penetrate on deer...


Top
#7290900 - 01/09/13 03:34 PM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: doubletap]
65BR Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Registered: 02/22/07
Posts: 11662
Loc: NW Louisiana
Posted link for 'informative value' smile

Re: the author's statement, sort of 'premature' to base his assessment of the 243 on a few kills w/random bullets. Have to know more info to conclude anything on those WW powerpoints. Suffice to say, I have had GREAT results using 95BTs and 85 TSX, as well as others. The 100 PT may not make the widest wound channel, but it will give 2 holes, my first deer kill was using it, but I wanted something more, and think I have found it.

Alot of good info in the article/review. I can say, just like in medicine, the OUTCOMES Data (what happens in field) may be far more important than stats/pics of bullets.

Use what works for YOU. Often certain bullets have 'trends,' and I find myself going w/those that are most favorable - in their actual shooting/hunting - those results showing up from many sources.

Most often, a bullets reputation over a LONG time will be seen by it's results. IF the cost of ALL bullets were equal, I'd fathom the majority of hunters would choose a premium of one kind or another.
_________________________
Rule #1 - Punch Vitals with a good bullet.
Rule #2 - See rule #1

Cliff

Top
#7290962 - 01/09/13 03:47 PM Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: jwp475]
mathman Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 06/03/04
Posts: 19427
Originally Posted By: jwp475
Originally Posted By: doubletap
Originally Posted By: Mako25
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

1) Keith-style bullets' shoulders not being responsible for wound channel diameter.

I read about a test where they painted the front of Keith style bullets prior to shooting test medium. It seems the paint on the shoulders was undisturbed and it was concluded that the shoulders never made contact. I think it was Ross Seyfried who wrote about it but I don't remember if he was involved in the testing.



This is true, the wound channel is determined by the size of the me-plat on the bullet. I have shot enough game with these bullets to have observed this in the field as well as in test media


An LBT WFN does does have some "whop."

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Moderator:  RickBin, SYSOP 
Support Our Sponsors 1
CLICK HERE for HUGE SAVINGS on LEICA GEOVIDS at CAMERA LAND!
Who's Online
684 registered (10ring1, 257 mag, 224th, 67 invisible), 1272 Guests and 439 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Support Our Sponsors 2
Forum Stats
49509 Members
71 Forums
612415 Topics
8757064 Posts

Max Online: 4366 @ 10/05/10 09:36 AM









Copyright 2000-2013 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.