Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles High Sectional Density and Low Recoil Cartridges

Sectional density (by itself) isn’t worth spit, therefore it can’t be ‘king’ of anything. Sectional density can only ever matter if every other characteristic of the bullet is properly matched for the game...... otherwise (to use your own agenda) shoot FMJs and tell us how awesome that high SD is for dead animals. I get it: you’re an SD true believer. However, good bullet construction can overcome low SD. High SD can’t overcome bad bullet construction.

+1

Low sectional density can't overcome bad bullet construction either!

High sectional density bullets on average if of equal construction and velocity penetrate further than low sectional density bullets. Fortunately there are many great bullets of excellent construction to choose from today. A low sectional density bullet can be made to penetrate just as far and even cause much greater tissue, heart and lung damage, bust bones etc however it does come at a cost of much heavier recoil.


IME there are two things that are required to kill game and they are terminal damage and shot placement. Shot placement must be correct to inflict enouph terminal damage in the right area to take game so I would consider shot placement to be the most important of the two.


A high sectional density low recoil round that will sufficiently penetrate to reach vital areas whether it be heart and lungs or a CNS shot will kill game 100% of the time "IF" the shot is placed correctly including a full metal jacket performing a CNS shot

A low sectional density high recoil round cannot overcome a badly placed shot


I am simply offering the counter argument as to whether shot placement is the most important element or is terminal performance most important and do these lower recoil rounds provide an ample supply of terminal performance with some of todays finely constructed bullets?


Trystan

Ah yes, there's always one blithering idiot in a thread and in this one it's you. If you had the reading ability God gives most children, you'd have noticed that I say in order for a big game bullet's performance to be considered successful, it must expand AND penetrate through the animal. So you even mentioning FMJ is a sure sign of your idiocy.

And sectional density is still king

Llama Bob was the test medium for this study, obviously...........

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. The study made observations that people with substantial, measurable deficits in their knowledge or expertise lack the ability to recognize those deficits and, therefore, despite potentially making error after error, tend to think they are performing competently when they are not: "In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have some insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effec

And yet the physics is still on my side. The nice thing about facts is they remain true despite the blather of idiots like you

Both of y’all are stepping all over yourselves trying to figure out how to try to ignore what’s actually and only being stated. FMJ was only mentioned because cameltoe bob wants to insist it’s all that matters, while insisting he didn’t. Next we have some logical fallacy of bad bullet construction overcoming anything....which was never mentioned. TSXs have been raping sectional density worshippers for years, due to good bullet design. There are tons of light/short/low sd bullets that penetrate more than enough, expand more than enough, and kill more than enough.....due to good design, materials, and staying in their velocity parameters. Maybe y’all think someone here believes a round ball is the way to go, or that it can’t ever penetrate enough to begin with. Mostly, you just seem to want to figure out a way to argue the obvious by living in the extremes that no one else cares to.

Nice try. It's clear you still can't read. I specifically stated expansion was part of successful bullet performance.

And I see we've got a butthurt copper bullet child on our hands

Wasn't referring to you hh4whiskey. LB is a known stooge on this and most any other subject he participates in. It's apparent to everyone except him, which is why he fits the mold perfectly.

Oh, I had you on that. I was directing that to trystan’s imaginary subject of bad bullets vs low SD.

..... and FWIW, 1/100th of the bullets I hunt with might be ‘copper bullets’, if that. I also have yet to catch any bonded 90-110gr .277s between 2700 and 3k, or 125gr 308s, either. I guess if I was always nose or ass shooting critters, I might. I also wonder how much my WFNGC 180gr 35s expand, since I’ve never caught one.

go nuts

review material

+32

O.P. question:

"Do low recoil cartridges with high sectional density projectiles kill above their pay grade?"


Answer:

Let's ask 1000+ dead elephants and W.D.M Bell what they think of the 7x57 with 175 grain bullets, or the 6.5x54 with 160 grainers.
.
.

lighter projectiles at higher vel. tend to recoil less, science says so\ and my shoulder backs science up on that.

run the math on any cartridge you like.



is it any different for a high SD- low recoil badly placed shot?

I’m not sure the OP was asking about brain shots with FMJs/solids, for culling elephants....but he coulda been. IIRC , Bell used what reliably went ‘bang’ at the time, and that he could get ammo for.

Read this:

https://www.chuckhawks.com/bell_elephants.htm

WDM Bell proved beyond doubt that with adequate penetration and shot placement on the CNS,
the size of the bore mattered very little. However, he did find .256 bore 160gr FMJ prone to bending,
which did not happen with 7mm Mauser FMJ,.. but still his Mannlicher carbine was his favorite DG rig,
if not for the faulty necks of the Austrian ammunition, he would have continued using it over the 7x57.

What he also found was that the larger bore .318 WR was less prone to wandering off course,
and better for reaching the brain when having to traverse the neck.



He purposely chose military turn-bolt rifles for their proven ruggedness and reliability.
The most reliable rifle/cartridge combo he used was the Lee .303cal

On his first ivory safari he also had a .450 SxS, but proved too delicate and finicky.
or just an expensive pain in the ass.

I have, but still not sure what it has to do with 99% of hunting. If this IS about that 1%, the we can also read this:
Bell was a cheapskate. LOL

The cheapskate claim is typically made up by those who haven't studied Bell very much, if at all,
and often just repeat the nonsense of other clueless types.

Anyone who knows the list of rifles Bell owned over time would know he was not shy on spending

Double rifles, Mannlichers from Frazer and Gibbs, a dozen or more bespoke Mausers from Rigby,
As well as bespoke Springfields, Winchesters,..etc.

I wonder if anyone who calls him a cheapskate has ever purchased two Magnum mausers in .416
in the same year, along with the purchase of corresponding ammunition in the thousands of rounds count.

Most on the internet or with cell phones know what LOL means, too.

When I start shooting elephants out my back door with a gaggle of porters and trackers on hand, and am worried about my homeowners insurance going up, I may have to start looking for some old 7mm solids to shoot brain pans with. Until then, I’ll use better stuff for the tasks generally at hand, as should we all.

Old Bell probably would’ve loved my dad shooting bison bulls in the earhole with a 22LR. Nobody else though it was the way to go. LOL

Funny enough Bell never told anyone what to use, but plenty folks who have never shot an elephant
or cape buffalo tend to make recommendations,..lol. .. the will even go further and recommend a SxS..