If a cartridge / bullet combination fails to penetrate deeply enough from any angle needed to hit the vitails then it failed. If the bullet reaches the heart and the advasary continues on, instead of instant incapacitation that is simply the difference from one to another and no fault of the cartridge load combination, because it did the damage. This applies to rifle, shotgun and handgun.

So a Keith SWC in the heart trumps a WFN in the guts?

I believe he mentioned vitals...though he spelled it "vitails." The guts are vital, but are not normally associated with the "vitals" hunters normally shoot for...or adversaries either.

Because of it variable nature, the heart is unpredictable. If full of blood, it may virtually explode when hit by a bullet, while if empty of blood, the only damage showing can be a hole the diameter of the bullet as it passes through the muscle tissue. If you hit the heart, all parties have done their job.

I would agree that a bullet that fails to penetrate to the vitals has failed, my sad experience with the Sierra BTHP 85 grain .243" and 90 grain .257" bullets would confirm that. In some circumstances, when shooting a trophy grade non-dangerous game animal, any shot is better than no shot, even if the shot is unlikely to kill, only wound and slow the animal so that the hunter can make a follow up killing shot. I'll leave the question of ethics for others to answer, but few hunters are going to pass on a great trophy, even if the shot opportunity presented is marginal.

I believe it was a JOKE from a previous thread.

I basically agree.

But 'more than enough' gun, applied well and liberally, tends to make this a rare occurrence.

Just for clarification a gut shot or lower leg is an acceptable shot for a trophy animal? How about a non trophy, non dangerous game animal? Should I wait for a good solid kill zone shot or do the same rules apply?

I anxiously await your answer.

(we really need a sarcasm smiley)

I really think he was talking about taking a less than optimal shot, not a silly shot to the leg. I think that he merits the benefit of the doubt there.

Works for me.

While I would take a sub-optimal shot at a trophy animal, but not on a non-trophy animal, you're free to do whatever you want to do.

Not many cartridge/bullet combinations work well for the "Texas Heart Shot" and if that is an option then you the hunter needs more gun. Keith always advocated gun/cartridge/bullet combinations that would get the job done from any angle.

Thank you for the clarification. It speaks volumes.

If the cartridge/ bullet, load combination can reach the vitals from the angle chosen or break down and anchor the advasary then the shot is not sub-optimal.

All living creatures eventually die and do the circle of life thing, some die naturally, some not so naturally. While I prefer to wait for an optimal shot to present itself and make a clean, one shot, kill, trophies worthy of being mounted are few and far between, so exceptions to policy must be considered.

Or so it seems to me.

Thank you for the further clarification. As I said, it speaks volumes.

You're welcome.

Wow, what a fugging douchebag . I'm glad a dick measuring contests mean more to you than ethics

This thread is about what constitutes a cartridge, bullet load combination failure. Not about any ethics, shot you will or will not take hunting. This thread about self defense and hunting bullet, cartridge load combination failures and nothing else.

Ethics are relative. Besides you're not hunting with me, so why do you care?

Now I know how all those rotten dead bucks I find in my woods got there.

Shooting critters in the legs and guts is no different than posting smilies and +1 to get your post count up on the Campfire...

+1



Travis

+2.5.

Also a 22 derringer in you pocket is better if you need it. than you new glock 40 left at home. ( in my opinion)

260rem is a douchebag, that become completely apparent in some of his 'anti-gun' posts. This just makes it better for the others to see yet again.

Basically you're setting up a false paradigm. The goal should always be to kill the animal quickly and humanely regardless of penetration. The two basic schools of thought here are penetration vs. expansion. If your goal is penetration and everything else be damned, then you're probably going to have some failures to kill quickly in your quest for 100% success on penetration. Likewise, if your goal is only expansion, then you are probably going to have some kill-failures in your attainment of the expansion goal due to not attaining enough penetration for that expansion. What this probably illustrates is that goals of penetration and expansion are not 100% reliable arbiters of killing game.

And again, killing game and stopping a person from fighting are two different things even though you seem to not differentiate between them. All you're doing is once again stating your preference for penetration over everything else and anybody who has read here very long knows that.

Penetration is not all it's 'cracked up' to be.

A lot of chicks would disagree.

The operative word being "goal", something to aspire to, rather than an absolute.

My "goal" is to kill things with one shot and it is achieved better than 90% of the time, so I'd give myself an "A" in that column. However, killing game from a solid rest in a cut corn or bean field is usually pretty easy, really more an exercise in preparation and "shooting" skill rather than "hunting" skill. Plus, all of my hunting is done on private land where there is no hunting pressure and in a State that allows each hunter to purchase two antlered deer tags and, in some of the GMUs where I hunt, as many antlerless deer tags as a hunter wishes to purchase. I only shoot two kinds of antlered deer, trophies and culls. I don't shoot bucks with little racks, unless the antlers are damaged and there appears to be a genetic flaw that should be removed for the good of the herd. Because of that philosophy, I only punch my antlered deer tags about half the time, maybe even a little less than 50%.

The same applies to self defense situations as well as hunting.

jwp475, You "nailed it"! The bullet should have very high percentage of success reaching vital organs from any angle with a bullet of, adequate sectional density,good bullet construction,impact velocity, and correct shot geometry(bullet path in line with vitals). If the bullet cannot fullfill these requirements, we actually have two failures.The bullet (thru no fault of it's own) and operator error(improper bullet selection for application)! memtb

JWP did nail it, penetration is so important as long as the bullet worked in passage. There is fact to this that beauty queens do not believe thinking "energy dump" is real.
The space station is still seeing my bullets in orbit after dropping deer in their tracks. A Texas heart shot should exit the chest. Makes a mess of course but the 6" of penetration from the wrong bullet is a loss.

I've had and seen satisfactory results using the lighter weight monos with a few deer and pig kills, even testing on 22 lb three quarters frozen freezer burnt turkeys.

They have ALL provided enough penetration to completely penetrate a mans chest from any angle, that being said, all remaining mags I have on my person are loaded with the heaviest for caliber FMJ flat point bullets that are also loaded to shoot to the sights with the lightweight mono hp's.

Also, the small meplat on the fmj-fp bullets provide straight line penetration [haven't been able to turn one in test media] and a bit bigger than bullet diameter wound channels, a win win in my small mind.

If a bullet reaches the vitals and doesn't incapacitate, it has failed as surely as one that doesn't reach the vitals and also fails to incapacitate.

The point of this post? They are consistent blather, over and over again. Ask how poster Ken elsewhere managed to kill big chitt with puny jacketed bullets.

lolol

Explain how a bullet that reaches the vitals leaving a quarter size hole through the heart will fail to incapacitate.

You're the one who referenced such failures in your original post on this thread. I'd really rather you explained it, that being the case, if you feel like it needs to be explained. Otherwise, what is this thread even about?

It's about penetration versus the Pressure Wave Fairy, Ethan.

Everybody who's Anybody knows the Pressure Wave Fairy:

Flutters along ahead of your handgun bullet,
Through the sleeve 12th Street Dog's leather jacket & tensed forearm,
Through his jacket again,
And the stolen credit cards and bag of weed in the breast pocket,
Crashes through 3" of well nourished & conditioned pectorals and ribs,
(courtesy of your state prison system)
And once inside, the Pressure Wave Fairy
Whips out his magic pink feather duster, and
Jack-slaps a honkin' big pressure wave up through Dog's brain
Knockin' him senseless and rendering him incapacitated!

Me? I'll be over there behind the dumpster with three magazines of hardball, trying not to laugh.

Y'all do realize that you don't have to post in threads where you disagree with the basic premise, don't you?

You're the one that posted a bullet through the vitals failing to incapacitate, do you are the one that need some or explain that phenom.

I love the humor posts!

That's not true.

You mean you don't understand that some run when heart is destroyed and some don't. not all drop like a CNS shot. I thought that was obvious.

Just trying to be logical...

Adequate penetration seems essential.

The bigger the hole, of adequate penetration, the quicker the kill. (not applicable to CNS, obviously)

Exactly!

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see the issue with this logic. I don't recall anyone ever saying that insufficient penetration was adequate; quite the contrary.

Placement trumps everything, and with placement comes the requirement of penetration. In other words, a .22LR that hits the X ring and penetrates the heart trumps a .45ACP that missed the vitals, even if it has the same depth of penetration. Obviously, if you can hit the same spot and penetrate adequately with a larger bore, then the advantage goes that direction. Yet, nothing trumps placement.

jwp, I know that's essentially what you're saying, so I don't get all the fuss over it.

Couldn't agree more!

Uh...

You first said...



Then...



The first implies knowledge of what you asked me to explain. If you know what you're talking about, why would you need me to explain it to you? Were you hoping I'd correct your grammar and spelling errors or...?

IOW the OP states common knowledge which something like four pages later you imply ain't so.

No doubt the person will eventually be stopped. But if you completely vaporized the heart, that person can remain conscious for up to 30 second...a LOT of death and destruction can be dealt in 30 seconds. Someone killed in that 30 seconds would say it was a failure to incapacitate.

I know, let's have a spelling contest.

There's always going to be a variation in reactions. There was a lady cop in L.A. a number of years ago, who was shot in the heart while off duty, with a .357. She not only survived but stayed in the fight long enough to kill the attacker.

Ethan's gotta pad that post count!

Good night, I wish more people understood that!

There are times when silence has the loudest voice.

+1

How does one get to nearly 35,000 posts without wasting inordinate amounts of time on the internet?????? Inquiring minds want to know.

You don't! I have over 12,000 posts on one forum in 9.5yrs and it seems like it was not only a lot of work but a huge waste of time as well. I'm not proud but ashamed. Three times that sounds like it would have to be a lot of nonsense spewed for no reason.