Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 10,000 Swedish Moose died to teach us this lesson.

Concerning shooting through brush, Kenny Jarrett had similar findings with the .243. He conducted a test with a .243 and a 30-30 using dried and green brush placed at 25 yards and a target with a 4� circle at 60 yards. The .243 placed 71% of 20 shots in the circle compared to 46% for the 30-30.

In my opinion, this is the core issue.

When a bullet strikes flesh, there are at least two ways that the energy splits up. Some goes into crushing and destroying tissue, and some goes into stretching the surrounding tissue.

The crushing and destroying of tissue makes a hole, that hopefully intersects with something like one or more major blood vessels, which causes the animal to bleed to death.

The stretching bruises the surrounding tissue (bloodshot), but basically, after the bullet passes through, the tissue snaps back into place.

Bigger, slower bullets tend to split the energy more toward the crushing and destroying side, and smaller, faster bullets tend to split the energy more toward stretching and bruising.

If there is a strike on a major bone, that soaks up a lot of KE, too.

So you can't make a successful model out of just kinetic energy. You have to consider how much energy was left after penetrating hide and bone, and you have to consider how the destructive energy of the bullet was split betweeen crushing and stretching. It is the size and placement of the permanent hole that counts.

I can understand the difference between a permanent wound channel, and hydrostatic shock, but would theorize when the shock wave hits the nervous system, (not the bullet or permanent wound channel) then it would cause an affect on an animal if great enough, especially say on a deer. As to the soft tissue expanding, I guess like a balloon filling? Heard others tell me they witnessed a deer on impact by a close shot say 300 mag w/150 btip that the animal momentarily expanded in the chest area.

Also, have read....yes only read where high velocity bullets disrupts the tiny valves in arteries/veins to where it affects the functioning of the cirulatory system. This may have been discussed re: autopsy results of enemy soldiers hit with 5.56 in Nam? Perhaps hydrostatic shock was 'exagerated' by those Weatherby cartridge promoters long ago, but it seems even PO Ackley wrote of quick kills that were seemingly amazing on the size animals via 220 swift and 17 calibers.

Note, I am not one to promote ballistic pros of ultra high speed bullets, as I think moderate speed deep penetrating rounds consistently produce solid kills in the field.

If I understand things correctly, a permanent hole is one that has nothing to do with hydrostatic shock? Why is a wound channel so much wider often times than the expanded projectile? Would this be caused by mass in front of the bullet making way for the bullet?

Well, I am not overly concerned with getting TOO deep in the science as it is important but results take precedent and there are certain caliber bullets/and the corresponding bullet used for those, that have a stronger reputation for positive field results more so than others.

Good point there but what if a ,375 cal-300 grain bullet aprox a 1.5 inch long hits ribs and immediately starts tumbling through the animal versus one that rockets right through - can this occur? Is this another variable not addressed here so far or is it nonexistent?

I think all would agree that when the velocity and or weight of a bullet is increased there is SOME increase in the bullets potential ability to cause tissue damage.
I have some questions that follow that premise:
First, can you quantify the increase in tissue damage at 100 yards between a 30/06 and a 300 Winchester Magnum, both using opotimum bullets? Is it 1/10 of 1%, 5%, 10%, or what? Does the tissue damage increase in direct proportion to the kinetic energy or to the velocity or is the increase in tissue damage only a fraction of the increase in velocity/energy?

Also, how does the increase in tissue damage translate to increased killing power? Is it enough to be measurable by trained observers?
It does not contradict the sciences to say that the increase in velocity of a 300 Magnum over a 30/06 for example, causes such a small increase in killing power as to be outweighed by individual animal responses, and slight differences in bullet placement.
It is NOT very scientific to keep repeating the same argument over and over, that there MUST be a significant difference in killing power when there is NO evidence supporting that, and much that contradicts it.
It is also "common sense" that the cold water pipes in a house will freeze before the hot water pipes will in sub zero weather, but that isn't what happens.
but that isn't the

So I guess at the end of the day a 30 M1 carbine is just as powerful as a 300 Wby., right? If that's not the case, then ALL of the testimony that's been furnished about energy having nothing to do with killing power is, by straight and honest intrepretive admission, totally false.

I will say this: Hagel many not have been a scientist, but his interpretations are much more in line with science, as well as my own experiences, that most of the rest of this stuff has been on this thread.

The science of ballistics seems to have devolved into some sort of a sliding scale of touchy-feely variables that seem to be more a matter of mood and day-to-day interpretation than anything else - much of which seems to be tied more to a preference for cartridges of light recoil.

Years ago, in a 7x57 article Jack O'Connor made the statement that energy had very little to do with killing power. Then in a later 300 magnum article, he marveled about how sudden and dramatic the kills from a 300 if the shots were well-placed, adding that the 300s offered more than just more noise and recoil, that they provided sure hitting and killing power at long range. Now, just where the duce did he think that extra level of performance came from, anyway, if energy has nothing to do with killing power?

AD

[quote=denton] [quote]
Bigger, slower bullets tend to split the energy more toward the crushing and destroying side, and smaller, faster bullets tend to split the energy more toward stretching and bruising.

[/quote

Why? Doesn't make sense at all. Does a big, fast bullet all of a sudden only stretch and bruise now that it's going fast compared to when it was slow.

Lou

The bullet design and shot placement connects the kinetic energy with the potential to make a bigger hole and therefore bestows on higher energy rounds the potential of greater killing power.

Allen
Let me put this another way and see if it seems less as though I am at odds with you, which I don't mean to be, and would be very pretentious of me, given your experience versus mine.
It seems as though there is a threshold of tissue damage that is required of a cartridge to be effective on deer, elk, etc under hunting conditions. The bigger the animal, the more tissue damage required for a cartridge to be deemed adequate given the test of time.
The 30 carbine is probably below the threshold for elk at any range, and likely even deer at much of a distance. The 300 Weatherby, everyone would pretty much agree, is above the threshold at most hunting ranges.
It seems that once that threshold of tissue damage is exceeded, ( based on field studies, and anecdotal evidence from many experienced hunters) that as energy is increased, while "killing power" is not decreased, that killing power increases very minimally in proportion to the increase in kinetic energy, or bullet weight/velocity.
I suspect that long expeience has taught the Swedes that the 6.5 is above the threshold for adequate tissue damage required for moose. From what I know about the 358 Norman is that they are mostly owned by gun nuts and people that are likely to shoot a lot. I would guess that many of the moose shot with the Norma cartridge were hit with better placed shots, on average than other cartridges.

Drill the shoulders with a good bullet and critter dies....


Pretty simple really.

Haven't really thought about why, but it does come from observation. Sadly, some of the best data we have on wounding mechanics comes from the treatment of soldiers in war.

A .17 bullet going Mach 3 may carry a lot of KE, but it will cause a larger area of bloodshot meat, and a smaller wound channel. A 45-70 bullet with similar KE will split the KE more toward creating a wound channel, and less toward stretching.

I don't think that energy splitting up is the best analogy. A bullet arrives with energy and momentum. The momentum is what displaces flesh for the expanded caliber sized hole. The energy is what widens that channel. This is because energy only changes forms to... collision dynamics, sound, heat; whereas, momentum converts to force useful for penetration.

And I think penetration from momentum always leads. A paper target shows this. A bullet penetrates and leaves a neat hole. Even highest energy most fragile bullet rounds don't blow the page up. That's because only momentum is needed.

You boys keep up the good fight, I'll just keep killing [bleep] by drilling the shoulders with a GOOD bullet......

gmack...

Energy and momentum are different expressions of the same fundamental physical events and properties. If you have one, you have the other. They cannot be separated. We use one or the other mostly as a matter of convenience in doing our calculations.

378,

Yes, bullets can and do tumble. Unfortunately, this is one variable we can't count on.

Allen,

I have been trying to explain the science here, especially that of larger permanent wound channels, but apparently you choose to believe Bob Hagel rather than, say, an international association of forensic scientists. (In general, to those who apparently believe in hydrostatic shock, there apparently has never been any scientific evidence that it exists, much less that it somehow affects the nervous system of animals. It was more less invented by gun writers.)

If you are absolutely convinced that X amount of kinetic energy results in Y amount of damage, then go for it. Believing in the rifle you're using is a big part of it.

Let me again emphasize: The scientific evidence is that size of the permanent wound channel makes the biggest difference. If we use a bullet that partially disinegrates inside the chest cavity of a deer or elk, or expands very widely, this will make a bigger permanent wound than any expanding bullet that acts like a mushroom-tipped solid. And a bullet that doesn't zip out the other side will make a bigger hole than a bigger bullet that punches a smaller hole all the way through.

But let us assume that a .308 caliber bullet expands to twice its original diameter, and punches a hole all the way through. This results in a frontal area of .298 of a square inch.

Let us next assume that a .338 caliber bullet expands to twice its original diameter, and punches a hole all the way through. This results in a frontal area of .359 of a square inch.

I would submit that an extra .061 square inch is going to make a vast difference in how quickly the animal keels over from a lack of blood pressure ot its brain. And this is why animals typically make it 35-40 yhards before falling down from a heart-lung shot. This is also science.

Oh, and by the way, there was another comparative in-field study done on the National Bison Range in the 1950's, when culling elk. The same shooter used a pair of Model 70 Winchesters in .30-06 and .375 H&H, with 220-grain and 300-grain Silvertip bullets respectively. In this case shot placement was noted (the shooting was observed by my old zoology professor Phil Wright, of the U. of Montana, who published the results in AMERICAN RIFLEMAN), as well as range, size of animals (most were weighed), wound, how long each animal stayed on its feet in seconds, how far each animal traveled after being hit, etc. Phil was also a honcho in the Boone & Crockett Club, and a very experienced hunter.

I don't have the study at hand, but the difference in how long the animals stayed up and how far they traveled was almost nil. When shiot wiht one round they stayed up a little longer, but didn't travel as far. I can;t remember which, and it doesn;t make any difference.

In conclusion, Phil said, the only real difference that could be noted between the two calibers was that the .375's bullets exited more often. If you want, you can probably look it up, as AR is considered a standard reference magazine by most libraries. I believe the article was published in 1958.

Look, we have now cited three comparative studies of shooting animals--whitetails, elk and moose--and all indicated there wasn't all that much difference in what, for better terms, might be called "killing power" between popular sporting rounds, despite differences in bullet weight and kinetic energy.

In the past, you have always been adamant that only "field results" are valid when testing bullets. yet now you are claiming that science is on your side, due to to kinetic energy or water jugs or whatever--and that somehow all three of these examples of actual shooting of animals, in numbers in the thousands, have no validity. You are also apparentluy claiming that the studies by forensic scientists are less valid than the conclusions of you and a gun writer who was notoriously fond of magnums.

I am not anti-magnum, and have never said there were NO difference between cartridges and bullets. I have often stated what I believed those differences are, with examples. In fact, this year alone I have personally killed a few dozen big game animals, on three continents, with cartridges including the .22-250, 7x57 Mauser, .280 Ackley Improved, .308 Winchester, .30-06, .300 WSM, .300 Winchester Magnum (three different rifles), .338 Winchester Magnum and 9.3x62 Mauser. Bullets ranged from 55 to 250 grains in weight, and in design from Berger VLD's and Nosler Ballistic Tips to North Forks and Nosler E-Tips. I also witnessed another 100 or so animals being shot with an even wider variety of cartridges and bullets. If you can find a prejudice there, please let me know.

In contrast, apparently you have confined your hunting pretty much to a couple of cartridges and makes of bullet over the past decade or more. I have said what I think about all this, and why. You have too. I am not convinced by your arguments.

It might be a mistake to totally dismiss "shock" as a death mechanism in animals. Many people die from shock every year from seemingly minor wounds, I'm told by medical friends. In fact, I went into shock (though I didn't die...) as a kid after falling off a bike - no temporary stretch cavity, no permanent wound cavity.

The kind of shock your are citing, as I understand it (minimally, as I've only taken Red Cross emergency courses) is due to a lack of blood in the system, which causes the rest of the body to shut down in order to keep blood in vital organs. So yes, animals die of shock all the time, and often because they've been shot.

This has nothing at all to do with what is termed hydrostatic shock, which supposedly pushes the blood through veins and arteries like brake fluid through pipes, damaging whatever is at the other end of the pipe. Appartently (as I have pointed out previously) larger veins and arteries are flexible enough to absorb this pressure. There is some damage immediately around the wound channel, due to tiny capillaries being damaged, but there is appatrently no such thing as hydrostatic shock. And even if there were, it is not related to the kind of shock doctors deal with.

MD,

True, but by definition, this shock due to lack of blood is a mechanism that might have nothing to do with permanent wound cavity, and yet does have an effect in the death of an animal. If it has any effect at all, it argues against the reasoning that "only permanent wound cavity" is pertinent.

Holy crap, this is also what I have found to be true so far as well.


As far as "shock" (no not medical shock) or what ever it words used to describe it is the explosion (bullet exploding maybe even bone) inside the body cavity. I have knocked many whitetails and 1 black bear down on the spot with high lung shots a few inches under the spine. The explosive force near the spine paralyzes the animal dropping it. This is the only times I have seen shock....lets call it explosive force...put an animals down on the spot. Also in doing I have looked and sometimes seen nothing (no bone or bullet) actually puncture the spine. I can only think that the explosive force put the animal down.

Allen, I�ll respectfully disagree on your points as KE relates to wound channels. If KE was driving killing ability, we would all shoot 460�s. KE alone can�t explain killing ability. Only one thing does � permanent wound channel. I do believe speed can contribute to the size of permanent wound channel size if its in combination with an expandable bullet. Pure speed won�t do it, KE alone won�t do it.

As an example, a minimal amount of KE is involved with arrows but they kill inside of 30 seconds when both lungs are punched. The travel distance is a function of how alarmed the animal gets. I�ve seen them die within feet of impact and I�ve seen them travel 100-150 yards, till their functioning becomes impaired due to blood loss. Death comes quickly.

As an example of one, I shot a large doe this year with a 25-06 and a 100 TSX at 3200 ft/sec. I punched both lungs at ~ 70 yards, but the deer ran 25 yards and stood for 1 minute, laid down, then rolled over and died. The whole episode took ~ 2 minutes. Am I to believe I didn�t have enough KE or that I didn�t affect enough blood loss in quick fashion? Having gutted the deer, I can say the wound channel was pretty unimpressive.

I think the answer in the 30 Carbine and the 300 magnum also lies in the size of the wound channel. Additionally, most 30 Carbines shoot FMJ bullets. Never having been shot, I can't imagine an impressive wound channel from the FMJ unless it tumbles.

Another example may be cast pistols bullets. They don't expand but the blunt noses (meplat) typical of most cast bullets create impressive wound channels with minimal KE. I've shot a few deer with 44 magnums with cast and jacketed bullets; the damage is impressive - deer don't go far. Have also shot several with 400 gr Speers from my 45-70 - another rather minimal KE cartridge big on killing power.

I value your posts but want to offer a differing point of view. Have a good New Years.