Dutch,
As mentioned earlier, I have been shooting monos (or the same type of "petal" bullet) since the late 1980's, when the first X-Bullets appeared.
My statistics of how far animals travel after being hit with various types of bullets are from over 1000 examples, and yes, impact velocity has a definite effect. But have seen plenty of animals shot through the lungs in the "pocket" behind the shoulders with various high-velocity monos (and yes, other bullets) that did not die particularly quickly. Others did.
Could give individual examples of each, but that would be pointless. Let's just say that results have varied as much as shooting wild animals usually does.
What I do NOT believe is much of what P.O. Ackley wrote or published. Have been reading his stuff since around 1970, but after reading closely (and considerable experience in the field) realized how flawed many of his experiments were, and how anecdotal his game-shooting examples. In fact cannot remember him ever mentioning shooting an animal himself--or more important, seeing them shot. He was not a hunter, and got his info second-hand.
You should also read Roy Weatherby's journal from his first African safari--where his high-velocity theory did NOT consistently prove itself. It's included in the excellent book WEATHERBY: THE MAN, THE GUN, THE LEGEND by Grits and Tom Gresham.
Yes, high velocity can definitely help, but is not THE ANSWER, just as large-caliber, heavy, moderate velocity bullets are NOT always the answer. There are too many variables in shooting wild animals for any single truth to exist--except shooting big game in right place, with bullets that penetrate sufficiently.
Lead in the meat is another deal. There's also plenty of evidence that hunters have lower blood-lead levels than the general population where they live. Have cited such studies before, but the biggie appears to be that hunters tend to live in more rural areas, where general environmental lead from other sources is low. My wife and I have used about 70% monos over the past 5 years, but even long before (when lead-core bullets were standard) our lead levels were very low. Maybe this was because of careful butchering (we do all our freezer animals ourselves) but due to considerable evidence it's also due to the rural areas where we've lived for over 30 years. Though eve before then we lived in parts of Montana that were very rural compared to the rest of the U.S.
Yes, the science is very settled on kids and lead--which is a very good reason to use lead-free bullets. So are some other reasons--but that does not mean Miles58's claim that they kill quicker, due his limited experience, is valid. While he's shot several dozen whitetails at shorter ranges. that does NOT mean his results are conclusive for general hunting. Hunting is by its very nature more random than that, and far more examples from far more bullets at different ranges (and a far wider variety of animals) provide more information.
Miles also made another statement that shows how little he understands the statistics I've derived from a bunch more animals. He doubt my results because he didn't trust the ability of the shooters involved. That had nothing to do with my results from a bunch of lung-shot animals, because I ONLY included results from solid 2-lung hits, not "marginal" hits. However, my statistical results do indicate that bullets destroying more vital tissue do indeed kill quicker, on average, than bullets that don't--and monos don't,even if they lose all their petals.
Can also cite results from other high-volume shooting of big game, from bullet companies in Europe (where the animal generally belongs to the landowner, and if runs onto another property before it dies is lost revenue) and whitetail culling in the U.S. All I've encountered have concluded that bullets losing more weight killed quicker.
