Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 115 grain ballistic tip

This is a rare study for states, is it not? I don't know if I've seen its like before from a state DNR. Interesting data, but there are a lot of holes. Broad, generalized conclusions can be reached, but not answers to very many specific questions. It is surprising how different the 25 cals were in their ability to put down deer. I've been an advocate for fragile bullets on deer since I started paying attention to such things, but once again, there are holes in the study. Certainly, hitting a deer in the shoulder/spine with a hard bullet is just as effective as with a soft bullet. And impact speed matters, to an extent. And hard bullets in smaller cals vs soft bullets in larger cals, etc. So many holes. Still, I'm glad such studies are being done using sportsmen's dollars, if nothing else, to dispel some common myths.

You are right, many unaccounted for variables.

About the only thing that comes close to a conclusion, WT's hit with soft bullets, those that didn't drop DRT, traveled about half the distance as those hit with hard, premium bullets. With such a spread in numbers and with nearly 500 deer, those data may be trying to tell us something.

Variations in calibers and rounds, too close to even form an opinion, must less show statistical relavence. But, of course, .25 cal. advocates can lean pretty heavy of those numbers...

Yes, it is good to see someone willing to accumulate and report such data.

DF

I watched a hunting show where the guy was shooting from a blind in TX. I only remember some details: he was shooting up a road, it was thick all around the road, his chosen load shot a Barnes something, he hit a good buck well, he lost it.

I quit watching TV altogether shortly after I saw this. They can't hear me when I yell at them.

I hope more and more people get over NEEDING a hard premium bullet for deer. Anything that shows that to be a less-effective plan is worth spending a few tax dollars.

Sometimes it take an agnacy like that to collect and publish data.

But, you'd think we wouildn't need the govt. telling us the obvious, which bullets kill WT's better...

But, maybe so...

DF

Well I don't NEED the government for anything. I hope to convince others of the same day by day. That's another story...

Voices of reason are seldom heard in the din of the marketing blitz even within the realm of outdoor sports products. When people begin to realize that you don't get hot chicks by drinking a particular brand of beer, or you don't feel satisfied by driving a particular make of vehicle, nor is anyone guaranteed hunting success by using a particular brand of bullet; only then will things change.

We really can come to conclusions on our own. Every single one of us. Through actual experience. I doubt there are many adults in America that don't understand the basics of the scientific method, or the nature of basic cause-effect relationships. We get it wrong, all of us, at one time or another, but it seems to be a core aspect of human reasoning that is hard-wired into us.

Those in marketing know this. Their jobs are based on it. They help us misidentify. Those high in government have known this for ages. They are experts at misapplication and misapprehension of the basic law of cause and effect. Their power depends on it.

I don't think you mean the only way people learn is by personal experience, but that's how it sounds.

If everyone has to reinvent the wheel for himself, why have books, why have education?

In that scenario, we all enter this life in a cave with nothing, starting from scratch...

The beauty of civilization is accumulated knowledge and wisdom. giving us a jump on cave men.

DF

There are many ways to collect information. I don't know if I'd call that learning. I think that information should come from trusted sources, whether that is personal experience, or a widely accepted authority- such as yourself, John, or their father/grandfather, etc.

Some who claim authority don't deserve it. Many sources of authority are specious. Personal experience directs me who to trust. Beyond all that semi-ether, marketing is not an authority. There is no right of claim on valid information from marketing; in fact, the contrary.

The guy who builds houses should be able to tell you how to build houses. The guy who shoots a lot and kills a lot of animals should have something valuable to say regarding some effective ways to go about that. The guy who markets bullets may or may not know anything. It isn't his job to know. It is his job to promote bullet sales. He isn't bound by any claim to be openly factual or honest. That isn't the best way to sell things. That is what I am claiming.

Governments are filled with 'authorities'. They have to be. They have to market themselves as such. If it were widely understood that they are not needed, and aren't worth what they cost, and that there are better, faster, and cheaper ways to do those things that governments claim authority over, then they wouldn't exist must longer. Once again, honesty is rarely the best way to garner opinion.

I didn't enter this world in a cave. Did you? None of us start from scratch. We look around and see a world in front of us. We let others make sense of it for us to a large extent. Those others may or may not be correct in their interpretations either. This is one of the core conflicts in the life of anyone who must take responsibility for their own life. We all build upon the ideas of the past, whether they are true or false, valid or invalid. There is no other way to do it.

Sorry for the philosophy. I've got a migraine. Don't want to give anyone else one.

Surely you meant "I doubt that there are many adults in America that do understand the basics of the scientific method, or the nature of basic cause-effect relationships"...?

It is the case that many get it wrong in some ways, but in general, humans, even the dumbest turds mama ever crapped out, understand what to do when they are hungry, horny, or tired. Like I said, it is hardwired.

That migraine must be kicking in around now...

DF

In the immortal lyrics of Creedence Clearwater Revival: "There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear."

There seems to be a "coolness" factor around here for going minimal.

It works ok if you get that perfect shot and nothing else goes wrong.

I tend to be of the "Use Enough Gun" school. Big Northern Whitetails can easily weigh up to 300 pounds and you want to be prepared.

Elk, of course.....are just more of the same, maybe much more.

I feel happy with premium bullets in the 150 to 180 grain range in .270 to .30 Caliber, and I'd trust them for elk as well.

Things have always gone well for me. I like it that way.

Buffalo Springfield, John?

huntnshoot. The bullets I saw fail were early ones. I don't see a difference in the newer or older designs. If the new ones work so wonderfully, why did Nosler make the Accubond with the thicker jacket? The Accubonds work well, as do the Partitions.
I however like Barnes X bullets. No jacket or core to separate.
I just prefer not to use BT's on anything but paper. Ignore away!

yep

Yep.

That's what happens with an, uh, middle-aged memory.

Seriously? You don't know the difference? Doing a little research and I found pictures of the differences in like, 2 minutes.

2nd from the left is the "new" BT with a jacket just like the the AB, 2nd from the right.



The "old" BT, on the far right, a 150 gr 7mm BT with it's older, thinner jacket.