|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,036
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,036 |
Which bullet will have more of a killing effect? A 180 that exits with a portion of the energy being wasted or a 165 that does not exit and animal absorbing 100% of the bullet energy? My point is maybe a somewhat lighter bullet could be a more efficient killing projectile? Yes or no???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,448
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,448 |
The 180 that always passes through is going to be more consistent. I've had bullets that did not pass clear through show more variability in results. Sometimes they were friggin' spectacular, other times the seemed to have no effect for a while.
Personally, I prefer reliability, short tracking, rather than a mix of bang flop and longer tracking or even lost game.
The ol' "absorbing all the energy" schtick was nonsense when I first heard it in about 1968 and it hasn't gained any ground. ALL only matters if you barely have enough. If you use something a bit more appropriate for the job, you'll have enough. Having enough is important, having all can still produce a failure.
Tom
Anyone who thinks there's two sides to everything hasn't met a M�bius strip.
Here be dragons ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,237
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,237 |
I prefer one that passes all the way through. Pneumothorax from two holes stops all breathing, particularly if you scramble both lungs, and the animal will only run a short distance. It's possible that bullets that don't exit may only destroy one lung. Heart shots with either work the same.
molɔ̀ːn labé skýla
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,259
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,259 |
With larger animals like elk, the far side hide often acts like a backstop. It's tough, has considerable stretch, and will stop some pretty fast moving bullets. I don't know how many times I've found my bullet under the hide but it's been a lot. Once a bullet gets that far, it's done all the damage it can do.
I used a 270 for years then switched to a 300 WSM and killed 8 or 10 elk with it. I can't remember if I ever found the bullet under the hide with the 300 but it was almost the norm with the 270.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395 |
Which bullet will have more of a killing effect? A 180 that exits with a portion of the energy being wasted or a 165 that does not exit and animal absorbing 100% of the bullet energy? My point is maybe a somewhat lighter bullet could be a more efficient killing projectile? Yes or no??? "Ft-Lbs energy" is not a wounding mechanism. Bullets kill by crushing, tearing, and pulping tissue. How fast a bullet kills is dependant on three things ha- 1) Placement (what it hits) 2) Penetration (sufficient to reach vitals) 3) Width of wound channel (how much tissue is destroyed) Provided indentical placement and both reaching vitals, the bullet that has the widest wound channel will kill faster.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,425
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,425 |
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
Life begins at 40. Recoil begins at "Over 40" Coincidence? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,030
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,030 |
Dead is dead. Piss on "killing effect". An arrow kills quite as efficiently and well as a bullet, with proper placement. Of course, if I am in archery range, I almost always use a CNS placement. It just doesn't matter what you use if they go straight down. At longer ranges, one tends to get more spectacular DRT results with fast moving bullets, which also tend to create bigger wound channels respective to other factors. I very seldom not get an exit wound with whatever caliber and load I am using, from .243 to .338 WM. I guess I'm overshooting shooting those elastic-hide animals? Or someone is undershootinbg them? Hard to say.....  In my opinion, yes, if the bullet is retained, it has expended all it's energy into the animal. If it exits, who is to say it hasn't expended the same amount of energy, plus having enough left over to exit AND LEAVE A BLOOD TRAIL IF NECESSARY. I'm a believer in blowing a hole to daylight.
The only true cost of having a dog is its death.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395 |
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done. It's like it never ends.... There is not a legit DOD, DOJ, or medical entirety that deals with terminal ballistics that lists, measures, or even cares about "ft-lbs energy". It is a number that people who are ignorant about terminal ballistics try to use. NO matter how many "ft-lbs energy" a bullet has, it still tells you absolutely nothing about what that bullet will do in tissue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,067
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,067 |
I prefer heavy for caliber bullets.They just seem to get the job done better for me. I don't care if I find them under the far side hide or if there are two holes.I don't go grubbing around in dead elk for bullets either. If I find them great.If not it isn't a big deal.A dead elk on the ground is proof enough for me the bullet worked.
If God wanted you to walk and carry things on your back, He would not have invented stirrups and pack saddles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,620
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,620 |
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done. It's like it never ends.... There is not a legit DOD, DOJ, or medical entirety that deals with terminal ballistics that lists, measures, or even cares about "ft-lbs energy". It is a number that people who are ignorant about terminal ballistics try to use. NO matter how many "ft-lbs energy" a bullet has, it still tells you absolutely nothing about what that bullet will do in tissue. +1 and then some!
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,620
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,620 |
I prefer one that passes all the way through. Pneumothorax from two holes stops all breathing, particularly if you scramble both lungs, and the animal will only run a short distance. It's possible that bullets that don't exit may only destroy one lung. Heart shots with either work the same. I agree right up to the point about heart shots... take out the pump and you remove both power and suction side so no blood moves. There is still a lot of available oxygen in blood after it gets run past the tissues... leaving it trapped in the meat lets critters run farther. Take the Aorta off the top and the suction side works and the vent dumps all the blood quickly.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,620
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,620 |
The 180 that always passes through is going to be more consistent. I've had bullets that did not pass clear through show more variability in results. Sometimes they were friggin' spectacular, other times the seemed to have no effect for a while.
Personally, I prefer reliability, short tracking, rather than a mix of bang flop and longer tracking or even lost game.
The ol' "absorbing all the energy" schtick was nonsense when I first heard it in about 1968 and it hasn't gained any ground. ALL only matters if you barely have enough. If you use something a bit more appropriate for the job, you'll have enough. Having enough is important, having all can still produce a failure.
Tom I agree but have been told by thoracic surgeons that the real killing mechanism if CNS is not involved is blood loss. Dump BP and lights go out. A vent on the exit is both bigger and leaves the tissue pointing in the right direction to dump blood far faster than the entrance. An exit is always a good thing IMO&E.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189 |
Killing effect...is this about paunch-shooting elk with a Weatherby, and why didn't it die? Put holes in vital organs and killing effect magically happens. Sometimes an incantation or prayer helps. Feel free to quote me.
I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 19,179
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 19,179 |
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done. I've been saying that since joining here in 2010. You are correct E is integral to produce work ( penetration- tissue destruction - breaking bones - punching holes in ELASTIC hides, etc. etc. I'm NOT talking about any specific FP... I'm in bed now, tomorrow I'll post an answer from one of our members who also knows math & physics. Abbreviated paraphrase for now. It takes Energy Transfer and Momentum to accomplish what we need/ look for in efficiently killing an animal. Those SAME things (energy transfer & momentum) are integral using archery, even tho the FPE numbers aren't close. Good Night for now. Back tomorrow. Jerry
jwall- *** 3100 guy***
A Flat Trajectory is Never a Handicap
Speed is Trajectory's Friend !!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,274
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,274 |
Bullet weight lends to deeper penetration, lighter bullets can be pushed faster at shorter range, frontal diameter doesn't change much depending on weight. Construction of the bullet effects retained weight, and frontal diameter. It's a balancing act, and always will be. Picking a bullet only because of weight, or construction isn't wise. Pick a balance that works for you.
“You never need fear a man, no matter what his size. When danger threatens, call on me, and I will equalize.”
Samuel Colt.
�Common sense is genius dressed up in work clothes.� - Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,416
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,416 |
I'm in the 'two holes is good' camp when it comes to bullets. First rule though is to put the first hole in a place that will allow the bullet to do the most damage to key organs etc and still have the energy to leave an exit hole.
In regards to the 'skin stretch', I still have a vivid memory of watching a forked antlered bull elk running out of the timber towards me about 150 yards away. One of my cousins took a shot and I remember seeing the hide on the off side stretch out at least 18" - 24" from the main body. TWICE - once with each shot. We found one of the core-lokts under the hide. Never figured out if it was the first shot or the second, but, we're guessing it was the first.
Support your local Friends of NRA - supporting Youth Shooting Sports for more than 20 years.
Neither guns nor Liberals have a brain.
Whatever you do, Pay it Forward. - Kids are the future of the hunting and shooting world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,620
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,620 |
I'm in the 'two holes is good' camp when it comes to bullets. First rule though is to put the first hole in a place that will allow the bullet to do the most damage to key organs etc and still have the energy to leave an exit hole.
In regards to the 'skin stretch', I still have a vivid memory of watching a forked antlered bull elk running out of the timber towards me about 150 yards away. One of my cousins took a shot and I remember seeing the hide on the off side stretch out at least 18" - 24" from the main body. TWICE - once with each shot. We found one of the core-lokts under the hide. Never figured out if it was the first shot or the second, but, we're guessing it was the first. I have seen it a number of times and it is amazing...
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 19,179
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 19,179 |
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done. >>edited today to add>> I Can't believe someone ELSE said THAT ^^^^^ I'm in bed now, tomorrow I'll post an answer from one of our members who also knows math & physics. Abbreviated paraphrase for now. It takes Energy Transfer and Momentum to accomplish what we need/ look for in efficiently killing an animal. Those SAME things (energy transfer & momentum) are integral using archery, even tho the FPE numbers aren't close. Good Night for now. Back tomorrow. Okay - now is 'tomorrow' from last night. Please read ALL of the following quotes. The 'following' comes from "ASK the Gunwirters" forum, Killing versus Stopping thread--- P 29. [quote=jwp475]
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. [quote=jwp475]
This is correct regarding collisions,[/b] 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.[b] 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.
[/b]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.[b] 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. [/b]People used kinetic energy all wrong in trying to determine killing power, and now we can't stand when somebody brings it up.[b]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). Excellent points, gentlemen. It's apparent you both paid attention in physics class. M70 Guy -- We are correct ! I have known for a long time that E is 'integral' to accomplish work-- but didn't have the math/physics background to express it accurately. THANKS Again to "Jordan Smith" The analogy of 'arrows' killing to 'bullets' is actually Apples/Oranges Simply consider the looks of 'bullets', NOW consider the looks of hunting 'arrows heads'. IF bullets were shaped like arrow heads' and could be propelled fast enuff to produce a reasonable trajectory, they would NOT have to weigh AS MUCH to kill dramatically. The diff is NOT in K E, it is in SHAPE and SHARPNESS of the projectile. Jerry
jwall- *** 3100 guy***
A Flat Trajectory is Never a Handicap
Speed is Trajectory's Friend !!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,474
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,474 |
Even with a CNS hit, the animal is not dead instantly. Things have to shut down. But you know where the animal is.
I think it should be mandatory that everyone hunt with archery gear long enough to understand fringe hits, where the vitals actually are and where the highest percentage shots are AND to learn how to trail.
For me, its almost always heavy for caliber, unless caliber is small and slow and I want to get a bullet to actually expand then I go down sometimes.
I may not run the heaviest for caliber since Barnes came along, but I have not cared much for the light theory.
As to trying to dump all the energy, well the wtby rounds are supposed to prove this, but mid weight bullets in our 257 wtbys that my buddy and I shoot( thats all he uses anymore) have not proven that at all. All its proven is that a fast 100 grain still needs to hit CNS for a bang flop shot 100% of the time just like I've always said.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,201
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,201 |
Which bullet will have more of a killing effect? A 180 that exits with a portion of the energy being wasted or a 165 that does not exit and animal absorbing 100% of the bullet energy? My point is maybe a somewhat lighter bullet could be a more efficient killing projectile? Yes or no??? A big game critter with an exit hole in the front half has always worked out better for me............. Casey
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively...
Having said that, MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
627 members (10gaugeman, 1minute, 12344mag, 1_deuce, 1eyedmule, 1beaver_shooter, 70 invisible),
2,954
guests, and
1,272
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,704
Posts18,456,820
Members73,909
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
