Very interesting responses, and to tell you the truth, I didn't really expect the quality of answers posted here.
FWIW, I DO think that SOMEthing is bloodshoting all that meat, and I'm not averse at all to calling it by whatever term most appropriately fits. Hydrostatic shock has become the term used to describe it through the years, but like many terms, may more of a cause for confusion and dissent itself, than a term that helps us understand better what it is that really happens.
I limited my question to smaller whitetails, since I have nearly no experience with larger game, and thus can't speak to it with any authority at all. I built that .35 Whelen Ackley on the basis of what I've read that I trust, and because I've always wanted a bigger caliber of some sort.
I DO think that SOMETHING is causing all that bloodshot meat, though, and the more bloodshot meat I see, and given near full penetration simultaneously, the more bang-flops I see result. Using stuff like 130 gr. .270's on whitetails is one of the reasons I try to avoid the shoulder shot. I really like venison. Yes, I've lost a smidge of meat a time or two, but soaking it well and doing my own butchering allows me to clean up the meat very nicely, in fact, and the loss of lower ribs and what little meat there is between them is not much of a "loss."
My meager two whitetail does I shot with the Whelen, both with very mild loads with the 225 gr. BT's, both full facing frontal shots hit in the high heart area, showed dust on impact that looked just like granny beating a rug thrown over a clothesline, whereupon both deer stood nearly straight up on their hind legs, and crumpled over to their sides. Both were one shot kills - bang-flops, if you will - but both seemed to twitch for a longer duration than I typically see with something like a .270.
Thanks for the input, and particularly yours Ken Howell - very good, detailed and easily understood examples. I still think that there's something - call it whatever we can all agree on, that makes the light/fast bullet take out whitetails with more in-the-tracks bang-flops than slower calibers. I think the more compact size of the whitetail, compared to say an elk, along with the elasticity of flesh of the various types (lung, heart, blood vessels, etc.) allows "hydrostatic shock" or whatever, to work its "magic" at least MUCH of the time (nothing's 100% in the field). After all, what else does a .220 Swift have to offer BUT velocity, and the resulting "hydrostatic shock?" That HS isn't "magic" is well illustrated by my buddies who were enamored of the .22/.250 UNTIL a couple of dramatic failures. I think the .270's so good (or whatever you have that's similar in performance) at killiing whitetails is that it offers enough velocity to get good HS (or whatever) AND enough bullet weight and penetration to kill more conventionally from blood loss and damage to major organs. I think the HS has great impact on putting them down initially, whilst the other killing factors take it the final portion of the way. Just MHO, of course, but when I've seen the combination of those two - HS and penetration/destruction of vital organs - I've seen mostly one shot in the tracks kills - given proper bullet placement, always.
Now I DO also have to admit that I haven't taken a deer yet with one of my .45/70's yet, so .... I guess I'm still learning ...
and I guess that's what it's really all about. I think the fact that we're constantly learning and trying to unravel all these "secrets" of hunting is one of the reasons it's such a fascinating pursuit. Maybe there are some things we're just never INTENDED to figure out fully and completely???
The old cave men probably just surmised the gods of the hunt weren't favorable that day. Maybe they had something there?
Sure makes a fine campfire subject, though, and I think I learn a tiny little bit every time I hear it discussed amongst really good and experienced hunters. I doubt it'll ever be ENOUGH, though, and I guess that's why the subject continually reappears.
Can't help but wonder that if we ever DID get to "understand it all," would it still be such a fascinating pastime?
