My .257 Weatherbys have shot 115-120 grain Partitions well, but not 100's. Especially accurate in my NULA is the 120 with 71.0 grains of RL-25 for 3300 fps, and it really drops deer-sized game.
Have had every result with 100-grain TSX's from 4-legs-in-the-air instant drops to 250-yard runs. Have been trying 100 TTSX's and E-Tips and so far they seem to be more consistent, but still have not gotten the same quick kills, on average, as with Partitions.
It's too bad Hornady has apparently discontinued the 100-grain Interlock. I have had excellent results with in cartridges from the .250 Savage up.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
That extra lethality (that is to say, very quick kills) isn't there with "harder" .25 caliber bullets, as I can personally attest from my experience with monolithics in the .257 Weatherby. With cup-and-cores it's there, and to a major extent with "partial cup-and-cores" like Partitions. The .375 H&H doesn't destroy nearly as much vital tissue with typical bullets, both because of the lower muzzle velocity, and because most .375 bullets are built to retain more weight.
My experience with quite a few different bullets is that quicker big-game kills result with more bullet weight-loss, which destroys more of the internal organs, whether the weight-loss of the bullet is a result of its construction or increased velocity. More than one bullet company has come to the same conclusion, including a major European ammunition firm, which shot over 500 animals during development of loads that would drop animals quicker, so they wouldn't make it across the border of neighboring land. This is a big deal over there, because the landowner owns the wild animals, and a deer that drops on a neighbor's land legally belongs to the neighbor.
John, you've touched on the very thing that makes most "terminal ballistics" discussions devolve so quickly on the interwebs. What most hunters are really more interested in is the terminal effects of their bullets, and terminal ballistics is just a subset of that field of study. I have noted for years that students of terminal ballistics often miss the more crucial points of Fackler's academic papers, which had far more import in the understanding terminal effects than of terminal ballistics.
Terminal effects must take into account ballistics variables, which can be neatly summarized/symbolized in mathematical physics equations(although if you've read Duncan McPherson's book, you'll quickly discard any notion of it being "simple" physics!!!). But Terminal effects must also take into account the anatomy and physiology of the target animal, the path of the missile into/through the body, and the behavior of the bullet within the target animal's body.
A bullet's tendency to fragment (= weight loss) inside the target animal has a direct bearing on a shot's potential lethality, as you point out. Vincent DiMaio's opus on Gunshot Wounds has several photos of the "lead snowstorm" effect of highly frangible bullets in the human chest, and while he as a pathologist doesn't comment on the rapid incapacitation potential of such GSW's, as an emergency physician I will attest to the extremely short time-frame of survival of such injuries. It's this effect that manufacturers such as Berger and JLK have tried to improve upon, and in my estimation they have been very successful.
You are spot on. As to the fragmentation creating quicker kills it all depends on where the fragmentation takes place.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Thanks, John. I managed to squirrel away ten boxes of the Hornady pills . Incidentally, I use the data from the old Weatherby Guides, 71.3gr of MRP (or RL-22) w F 215 primers. I plan to use the 100TTSXs this year so if I score, I'll report back.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
That would be much appreciated. We've used the TTSX in the .257 Roberts and .25-06 with fine results on plemnty of game from pronghorn to big deer and one cow elk, but the E-Tip shoots better in my .257 Weatherby.
Did have some squirrely results from the plain TSX in the .257 Weatherby, before the TTSX ever appeared. One pronghorn I shot perfectly, right behind the shoulder at 250 yards, went another 250 yards before falling! The wound channel was so narrow I suspect the bullet never opened up. Have seen that now and then with pre-tipped TSX's.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
It's too bad Hornady has apparently discontinued the 100-grain Interlock. I have had excellent results with in cartridges from the .250 Savage up.
Why the heck do they keep doing that??? Someone needs to put Steve Hornady on the 'fire.
"An archer sees how far he can be from a target and still hit it, a bowhunter sees how close he can get before he shoots." It is certainly easy to use that same line of thinking with firearms. -- Unknown
Terminal results are a combination of bullet performance, power, and placement, not just one or two, but all three factors.
Different combinations are effective depending on the animal, distance, conditions, rifle, scope, ammo, and shooter's proficiency.
What is effective for 90 or 100# doe may not be adequate for a 250# pig.
A bullet stout enough to shoot pigs through the shoulder may be too hard for a small doe shot in the lungs.
Nothing is good with a gut shot. Shots to the lungs are not as likely to produce DRT as a shot to the brain or thoracic spine.
Shots to the neck may produce paralysis, but I've seen too many deer very alive laying on the ground shot in the neck.
So, I am not a fan of placement to the neck.
I hunt deer and pigs, mostly in very heavy brush country, so not going to offer advice on hunting elk, Cape Buffalo, or Triceratops.
Here is an example of a 308 with 175 SMK's. I made the video after tiring of hearing posters say SMK's will not kill animals.
I've shot more than 100 in a row just like this with the same result - bullet to the brain and they fall over where they stand.
But, I would not use a 243 with a Ballistic Tip for that shot, nor a 300 Uber Zombie magnum either. The combo works because the rifle and bullet are capable of very precise placement and adequate penetration.
Over the last few years, the TTSX have become my first choice for hunting and they consistently provide excellent results in contrast to the TSX, which was inconsistent at best.
I really cannot stand to see animals suffer, so I am pretty reserved with taking a shot unless I have a high level of confidence in producing a DRT result. Does it always work? No, but the results are pretty consistent.
Here is a 308 with an Amax used to cull during our severe drought in 2011. Deer is slightly angled towards the shooter. Placement is 1/3 down from the top of the back, forward edge of the shoulder.
The only TSXs I trust are in the bigger calibers, like the 270 & 300gr 375 and the 350 & 400gt 416s. I've pondered the 250gr 338s but since they make a 210 and 225gr TTSX, I've gone to those. I will say one thing, they are consistently the most accurate bullets I've ever used. Even on my 450NE double, they are more accurate than what the rifle was regulated with (Hornady DGXs), but that's probably blasphemy in a double, so I shoot Woodleighs and if I'm feeling daring the North Forks. Those are perhaps the best of both worlds.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
It looks like there is a definite less need for speed for stopping power as the bullet gets larger around, and heavier will have more ( please insert correct term) I would call it energy.
Angus - be advised that 'some' here at the Fire don't believe that FPE is real or don't believe it's important.
Maybe ? I'm just old skool having 'learnt' during the 70s. & 80s about reloading, shooting, & killing. But I believe that no work gets done without 'energy'.
To illustrate my point, what happens IF we flip a bullet into the side of an animal ? We may startle or spook it, but there is no damage.
OTOH, if that same bullet is propelled at a mere 1000 fps, WORK gets done enuff to injure (damage) or kill the animal.
Enuff E is required to produce (work) lethal damage.
That's an effort to illustrate the point in layman's terminology.
Jerry
A bullet impact is an inelastic collision, energy is not conserved, momentum is conserved. In an elastic collision both energy and momentum is conserved. This is fact not theory.
There are many types of energy, stored, electrical, heat,etc in ballistics we are talking about "kinetic energy" which is calculated not measured. The wound channel is produced by momentum transfer, direct applied force, the frontal area of the projectile for the direct crushed tissue, the amount of hydraulic pressure ( which is dependent on speed" to increase) not energy transfer.
This is correct regarding collisions, but it is important to note that although kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions, there is still an energy transfer from one object to another. In fact, an object can only have measurable momentum if it also has kinetic energy. When you mentioned that a wound channel is produced by direct applied force, this is indirectly saying that there is an energy transfer, since change in kinetic energy is equal to the force applied, integrated over the displacement of the tissue. Likewise, the change in momentum of the tissue is equal to the force applied, integrated over the time of interaction.
So there is no question that when a bullet strikes, there is a transfer of momentum, kinetic energy, and that there is a force applied which is responsible for these changes in the tissue. I think the reason that so many of us have become hyper-sensitive to the mere mention of the word "energy", is because of all the focus and emphasis that for decades was placed on energy as a metric of killing effectiveness, using distorted mechanisms and quantified thresholds. People used kinetic energy all wrong in trying to determine killing power, and now we can't stand when somebody brings it up. Kind of like our reaction to an over-played song coming on the radio (even if we liked the song when it was originally released).
I was not required to get calculus to get admitted into vet school, to get admitted you need a very high GPA ....I was projected to get a C so I dropped it. And my physics professor refused to teach momentum as anything real? I have always wondered why?
Another thing about ruminants......it seems the amount of rumen " fill" has a big effect at their value at the time of sale, can be very lethal I.e. Bloat......can determine when they calve. It also may be related to other lung conditions I. E. AIP. My question could rumen fill affect the hydrodynamics of the thoracic cavity indirectly?
But I also propose the simplest answer between killing and stopping is the amount of CNS trauma inflicted vs other tissue damage.
"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills
The New Zealand author proposes that the " meat saver" shot is unuiqe to North America. ( as in avoid the shoulder, double lung)?
He professes the European aim point is the front " rostral" part of the front leg and the center of the neck. He called it the autonomic reflex I believe. I term it the brachial plexus and I try more for the center of the front leg. Could it be Us North Americans are expecting our cake and eating it too. As in expecting a DRT response on a meat saver shot placement?
Another question, when an animal is alerted or agitated his amount of epinephrine and corticosteroids in the blood will rise. Will this have an affect on thoracic cavity hydraulic reaction to projectiles? If so how?
Last edited by Angus1895; 08/14/17.
"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills
He professes the European aim point is the front " rostral" part of the front leg and the center of the neck. He called it the autonomic reflex I believe. I term it the brachial plexus and I try more for the center of the front leg. Could it be Us North Americans are expecting our cake and eating it too. As in expecting a DRT response on a meat saver shot placement?
I mentioned the brachial plexus a couple of times, including right back on the first page of all this:
Quote
FWIW for putting an animal on the ground DRT I prefer, as a general thing and if the opportunity is there, to put a shot into the CNS, such as either with a neck shot or shot through the shoulder blade to the spine. I've put a good number of animals of various sizes nose-first into the dirt with one or the other, including from full gallop. The bullet through the shoulder blade to the spine will often scatter bone fragments into the artery and nerve junction (brachial plexus) in that region as well. Of course the price to be paid is that you damage more meat, where that is a factor, than you would with a shot into the chest cavity. The shot to the chest also gives you rather more room for error.
AFAIK the shot into the shoulderblade is called a "blattschuss" in German.
Apparently you don't know that big game in New Zealand is all introduced, and since there aren't any large predators, they're also considered varmints. Consequently hey're shot in massive numbers, and the vast majority just left in the field. So yeah, nobody much cares whether any meat is ruined.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I was going to make a similar point, and I was just considering how I'd put it to avoid speaking out of turn. As I understand it, in the US there's a number of reasons why one might aim to ruin as little meat as possible, including such things as bag limits and limited seasons and limited opportunities. Here in Oz, much like NZ, considerations are a bit different.
Where I hunt, there are no bag limits on deer. For several species there's no closed season either, at least where I hunt, though one might prefer to hunt in the cooler months for practical reasons. You've still got to find the deer though, and some in particular are quite wary and like thick cover. As a result losing a bit of meat may not be such a big factor, and may be outweighed by the benefits of dropping it on the spot, especially in thick bush where you might otherwise have a hard time finding it if it was to bolt. That is my personal reasoning anyway.
Of course in the case of animals which might become aggressive, there's also the argument in favour of putting them on the ground and out of action straight away before that can happen.
I don't know that a lot of deer are simply left in the field in NZ any more. I don't think that is true here either. We don't have "wanton waste" rules though, so there's no particular reason (other than preferring not to waste something tasty) that you'd be prevented from leaving deer, or the bits you don't want, out in the field to rot.
There's a good proportion of other critters left in the field though. A lot more pigs shot than are eaten for example.
Isn't killing vs. stopping simply the difference between tissue damage leading to loss of blood vs. hitting CNS disabling any movement? I've seen a CNS shot drop a bull on the spot, but he didn't die particularly quickly and had a bull hit a couple bulls through lungs that traveled maybe 15 yds and died quite rapidly. Just a function of what was damaged by the bullet.
Isn't killing vs. stopping simply the difference between tissue damage leading to loss of blood vs. hitting CNS disabling any movement? I've seen a CNS shot drop a bull on the spot, but he didn't die particularly quickly and had a bull hit a couple bulls through lungs that traveled maybe 15 yds and died quite rapidly. Just a function of what was damaged by the bullet.
Shot placement, with adequate penetration.
No, I haven't read the entire thread.
CNS shot can kill instantly if located in the correct location.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I completely agree^^ I was only highlighting an example of stopping instantly without necessarily killing instantly. I could probably have worded it better. Again, it is simply placement with adequate penetration.
. Incidentally, I use the data from the old Weatherby Guides, 71.3gr of MRP (or RL-22) w F 215 primers. I plan to use the 100TTSXs this year so if I score, I'll report back.
