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.
In this discussion we are talking about double lung shots, and within that limited scenario, I completely agree.
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.
]
I think that it’s very wise to not believe everything PO Ackley wrote. He was human, and made conclusions, some of them incorrect. All humans are prone to that present company included
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.
And here you come so very close. Speed, alone, is not the answer. The only thing that kills animals is holes in animals. Speed with monos increases the initial diameter of the holes. Bigger holes kill better. In that way, fast monos somewhat resemble fragmenting bullets. The difference between the two is the depth of the hole. Because the mono retains mass, it makes a deeper hole. Because the first part of the wound is somewhat similar (with very fast monos) but still the mono wound channel is considerably deeper. Therefore the volume of the hole created by the fast mono is larger. And it’s the size of the hole that makes the point to the critter.
Under very controlled conditions, stand hunting, culls, etc, the variables are limited to the double lung scenario and that’s fine. In that scenario the depth of the wound is not relevant, because the animal isn’t deep enough for that depth of penetration to add to the wound volume.
But to take the numbers from that scenario and suggest fragmenting bullets kill quicker....is not valid when those variables are different, like when you’re shooting at an elk quartering away or a Texas heart shot on a fair sized pig, or when buck fever yanks the shot into the shoulder, or when shooting at a wounded animal waking away down hill, or, or, or........ Fragmenting bullets may indeed kill quicker in some scenarios, but it’s not valid to conclude they “kill quicker” without qualifying the circumstances.
