Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska 458 Win Mag Big Bear Bullet?

Oh, it's you who's doing all the speculating and I don't need to see your clown college diploma to know your "credentials".

Thanks John,

My choice of using my old Woodleigh handloads resulted in having an additional 3 hours of tracking as a Texas heart shot at a massive departing bear that stopped in the stomach was nowhere as effective as a hit from tougher bullets.

Tia stopped her clients bear with a single well placed 300 gr TSX from her 416 that broke both shoulders as it was running

The results I have had with the new bonded, steel jacketed Hornady DGX bullets has also been great

Ahh, so now we're getting some info. It was a "Texas heart shot" i.e. you shot a bear in the ass. Now, how far exactly did this bullet penetrate? And what was your muzzle velocity?

The same as if had been from the front !
2100 fps !

And Bob, what has been your experience with big bears ?

You've avoiding the question. How far did this bullet, shot by you at the worst possible angle, penetrate? What bones did it strike? And how much weight did it retain?

2100 is an acceptable velocity for that bullet.

Good Lord you are stupid.

If someone's going to make claims of inadequate bullet performance, it's only reasonable to ask what that performance was.

We've already ferreted out one relevant fact - that he shot the bear in the ass. That was omitted from the original explanation. I suspect we're about to learn there's a lot more to the story, because 500gr Weldcores don't just stop on a dime as many a cape buffalo hunter can tell you.

+1

You can educate ignorance.

Not much you can do with stupid.

DF

And yet, the facts are coming up my way and I bet there's a lot more to the story we haven't heard yet. For someone so stupid, I just happen to be right all the time

Why do you good men waste your efforts on this miscreant?

Her so-called Information, if one were to actually believe it, would get a person killed. Or worse, chewed by a bear.

You best stick to the llamas there bob, as you obviously don't know squat about the ins and outs of killing brown bears. Your're a goon who seems to disdain logic and the knowledge of experienced people, but for the edification of others I'll say this..... Those of us who have killed a brown bear (or 20) know that the best thing to shoot them with is a bullet that not only expands, but also digs deep, hence the popularity of Partitions and TSXs. These bullets are expected to penetrate a big bear end to end or nearly so. Take for example one 7.5' boar that charged me. I shot him square-on with a .375 300 partition at 12 yards. He stumbled as his face hit the dirt and did a 180. Then I shot him twice more in the ass as he headed away. Yeah, bob, we shoot bears in the ass because we hate tracking them. Both of the followup bullets broke his pelvis. One blew out through his chest, I found the other one in the neck, nestled up against a vertebrae. Guys with experience trust premium bullets because they're proven over and over and are trusted by people who actually have to know, beyond a doubt that they work.

What's more, unlike the notional world you seem to operate in, we who really have to count on this stuff base our choices on what's worked for us and/or our friends who've been in a tough spot. If you do this stuff for real you pay attention, because your life and the lives of people counting on you are in the balance. I can say I literally owe my life or at least an un-maimed existence several times over to my choice of bullet and my ability with a rifle, so I just can't sit by let this bit of campfire idiocy go unanswered. Good luck in life to you sir.

Of course the stupidity of pabucktail's post is that Weldcores consistently out-penetrate partitions of the same weight because partitions shed a large amount of weight forward of the partition.

So again it's facts vs. clowns. I love this

And of course we still need the basic details of 458Win's ass shot bear:
1) What bones were struck?
2) How far did the bullet travel?
3) What was the weight of the bullet afterwards?

I love how you clowns are convinced that a bullet that is used consistently on cape buffalo couldn't POSSIBLY penetrate a bear. That's a [bleep] laugh

You don't know what you're talking about--and the big problem is that you apparently don't know two things:

First, you believe so much in the sectional density of the bullet as its sits in the cartridge, that you apparently have never realized the sectional density of an expanding bullet changes as soon as it starts to expand. This is why the frontal area of the "mushroom" affects penetration as much as retained weight. Bullets that expand widely will NOT penetrate a deeply as bullets that result in a smaller mushroom, given the same original weight, sectional density and impact velocity. This has been proven many times both in "media" and on game--and it's true not just because of the increased resistance, but the fact that a wider mushroom tends to make the bullet less stable in tissue.

Second, you obviously are not aware that the larger-caliber, heavier Nosler Partitions have the partition moved forward to retain more weight. This is true of Partitions from the 286-grain 9.3mm on up, which is why they penetrate very deeply. I have recovered only a very few of these, because they do indeed mostly exit, unless the angle is extreme on very large animals. The average retained weight of 286 9.3s, 300 .375s and 400 .416s in my collection is 89%, and with their smaller (but still substantial) "mushroom" they do indeed out-penetrate bonded bullets that open up wider. Which is exactly what pabucktail is talking about.

But go ahead, keep pestering people like pabucktail and Phil who (unlike you) do have experience on big bears.

There's a lot more than 10% of the weight in front of the partition regardless of caliber, but go on making [bleep] up. It's consistent with everything I know about you.

And of course sectional density STILL determines penetration. It's physics. You know it, I know it, but it's inconvenient because that FACT is preventing people from circle jerking one of their favorite outfitters in this thread who apparently DOESN'T know it. Rather embarrassing for him, but here we are

We're still waiting for the facts on this ass shot bear.

You are avoiding my question as well . What experience do you have with big bears ?

And the first two Woodleighs I put in the bear were in the rear as the client had wounded it an hour previously and it had escaped into thick brush. When I caught up with it it ran and a rear end shot was the only available shot. With stout bullets it is often a good way to put them down, if not kill them.

But when I caught up with the bear two hours later I hit him just behind the shoulder, twice, before he stopped and the other guide who was with me, and who had been beside the hunter when he shot and managed to put one 270 gr TSX in it before it got in the pucker brush, ended up putting a few more of his TSX bullets into it before it died.
We found three of The TSX bullets on the off side but even on the side on shots the Woodleighs did not pass through the complete rib cage

The experience is similar to the last time I used Woodleighs in my 505 Gibbs.

Ah yes, the story changes again. The good news is that you fit right in with these clowns.

Answer the following simple questions about the bear you ass shot:
1) What was the penetration? A number of inches will suffice.
2) What bones were hit?
3) What was the retained weight of the bullet.

I realize this is hard, sort of like taking appropriate angle shots on game. But do try

I will answer right after you tell us your experiences with bears !

And also explain exactly how much penetration really is required to kill bears and how soft Woodleighs compare to Partitions, Swifts and TSX bullets.
It shouldn't be too hard for someone as opinionated as you

"There's a lot more than 10% of the weight in front of the partition regardless of caliber."

This is true as far as goes, but the heavy models are designed to retain a MINIMUM of 75% of their weight even if the front core and jacket completely blow off--which is highly unusual at the velocities most of those heavy bullets are typically use--even when the velocity exceeds the "recommended" for Woodleighs. Generally, when started at 2400-2500 fps (far more than recommended 2200 maximum for the 500-grain Woodleigh) there's usually plenty left of the front jacket and, usually, the core. Have only recovered two that retained less than 87% of their weight, a 9.3 that broke the near shoulder joint of a blue wildebeest bull, and was found under the hide on the far side at the rear of the ribcage, and a 400-grain .416 that killed a big-bodied (and large-horned) Cape buffalo in Botswana, where the bullet entered the left side just behind the ribs, then passed through the grass-filled paunch and both lungs before breaking the right shoulder. There were witnesses to both shots, including two well-respected African PH's, Russell Tarr and Paddy Curtis, who could confirm this.

Why don't you provide some of your actual big game experiences, providing examples of everything you keep saying about bullet performance? This is an old Campfire tradition, partly because what hunters want here is actual information. But instead you keep saying the rest of us avoid answering questions--even though plenty have provided examples of their experience that contradicts some of your statements, such as that all monolithic bullets always fail to expand. You simply must have many examples of Woodleighs that have penetrated big brown bears lengthwise.

Why not provide them, instead of claiming the rest of us are lying?

I love how you dodge, bob, and weave. Keep hiding and embarrassing yourself. It fits.

Suffice to say I've shot a bear or two, and done it with people far less clown-like than you.

Incidentally, "experience" has NOTHING to do with physics. The bullets do what they do whether you've shot no bears, or thousands. It doesn't matter. It's physics. And it's clear that the clowns will provide no actual facts about this ass-shot bear, because those facts would be embarrassing