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

To everybody else,

I would also like to point out that this thread does not just contain the moose data, but data on shooting whitetails and elk as well. (Go back and look.) So those who protest that Swedish meese are not the meeses they shoot, or that somehow for whatever reason that thousands of moose don't count, then look at the whitetail and elk data, which basically supports the Swedish meese.

I also really enjoy all the posts that protest that somehow the studies of professional forensic scientists are invalid, that in reality temporary wound cavity, hydrostatic shock, and all the other stuff that the guys who study wounds on professional basis have found DO NOT MATTER, somehow really do count.

One more thought: How come, if foot-pounds are so important, as well as temporary wound cavity and hydrostatic shock, why do moose and deer and elk shot in the heart/lung sticking place, die about as quickly when hit with a good broadhead as with a bullet? The energy of, say, a 400-grain arrow at 200 fps is about 25 foot-pounds. There is no temporary wound cavity, much less any hydrostatic shock (whatever in the hell that is). Yet I have seen this done quite a few times, and have done it myself.

Interesting thread Gents, shame the moose study didn't take into account the bullets used, ain't it?

Have a question though...in the Jan. 2008 Rifle, p.10, Scovill reports a buck's heart exploding in spite of the TTSX bullet passing behind the diaphram.

What would you call that, exactly? Speed kills, hydrostatic shock, foot-pound trauma, bad heart?

Or a 300gr. 44/45 revolver (at 1,000 fps) bullet or take your pick. (I like blunt trauma of large boulders or forcing stuff off of cliffs myself).
Maybe when we can get bullets that have 100% weight retention (classic mushroom, no lost "petals") at 4,000 fps, impact speed of course, we will achieve nirvana?
Surely then the vitals will not even need to be struck!

"Hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron.

Hydrostatics is the study of fluids at rest.

Funny you should mention that. I just shot a deer atop the back which tore its diaphragm (a lot), despite striking nearly 3 inches in front of the diaphragm. I don't think it was speed, despite being shot 15 yds away from a stand. The load was a 50 cal Partition Winchester slug load, chronographing 1,500 fps from my gun. I dunno?

Yeah I thought hydrodynamic was the new word?

C'mom Denton, I'm not being a proponent--what would you call it?


...and can I do that with a 7-08?

More proof that massive " foot pounds of energy " is completely meaningless. Who got that great piece of info started anyway?

MD, Especially the first example was intended to be an example of what shock is not. That animal, in spite of being hammered to the Earth, acted as full of life in its efforts to fight what had just happened as if nothing had. So many moose act sick and lethargic shortly after being shot, but that one, even though it died very quickly - due to what you have stated many times as the killer: loss of blood pressure- it lived right up until the last moment when the lights went out. That animal most certainly did not die from shock but from a big blood-spilling hole filling its chest quickly.

I figured the latter was a spine trauma/nerve deal, perhaps even a "kidney punch," something quite different than "hydrostatic shock." The visible internal trauma was nearly impossible to see other than a fairly small, simple bullet track. Often the moose which have stood around for awhile are those which have had more visible bullet trauma to the tissues.

While I like the 340 Weatherby a lot, it has taught me a lot about what "energy" isn't or doesn't do when applied to big animals. (And I have also seen how energy itself: 200 grain BALTPs at 3200 fps, to 100+ pound animals can seem paltry when misdirected into only the paunch! Twice without tipping said animal over! ) When it comes to the bigger bones of big animals, though, I do like the advantage of bigger, tougher bullets. Still, one doesn't need a magnum to deliver big enough, tough enough bullets for even the biggest moose, big bones or not.

Having bow hunted for 20 years, sometimes in multiple states, and have been in the killing of probably 100 whitetails (most not mine, but helping to recover), I have seen far, far more deer wounded & lost with archery equipment and much more difficult recovery with solid, but not perfect body hits than centerfire. It is 100% correct that you double lung something with a bow and it will die pretty quickly and on par with centerfire. I believe deer on average drop faster with centerfire, but it's generally easy to recover game in either case. You get 1 lung or hit angles too far back, forward, anywhere except center-punch both lungs with archery equipment and it's generally much tougher to recover game than equivalent shot with gun. There are exceptions to anything and in truth some body hit game with bow may recover that would eventually die from a gunshot. So, yes if you can double lung everything a bow will kill about as good as a centerfire and that is what we all strive for. The extra wound damage - whatever causes it and i'm not talking about hydrostatic shock or whatever theoretical transfer of energy - just the fact that you generally get a more extensive wound the more velocity, diameter, bullet weight, etc... does apparently help. To what degree is certainly debateable, but if we only limit this discussion to best case scenarios we might as well stop at 22rf to the head. I will caveat that this is all based on deer hunting and maybe the wound from a reasonably powerful centerfire is still small enough compared to elk or moose that it doesn't make a difference either way.

Lou

KNOCK THAT OFF!

Logic and reason has no place around here!

We're Men, dang-it! If we want to argue about nothing, we will!

BMT

All I know is my 8x57 did the worst!!!It seems to be a "wounder", not a "wonder", as I had hoped. Sadly, time for something new.

Can I neck it down to 6.5x55?

I tend to agree that the hydraulic shock thing is overstated. Even if the pressure spike is there, it probably rarely has any effect due to the animals plumbing design.

An arrow behaves differently than a bullet because of it's much greater mass and sectional density. It is deadly in a somewhat different way. If I nocked up a bullet, fired it with a bow and got it to a hundred ft-lbs it wouldn't do the damage an arrow would do.

BMT, you can have faulty reasoning and be logical. If a = b (ex. of reason) and b = c then a = c, that's logic. However if a really doesn't equal b or if b really doesn't equal c and you don't know it, well then....

Shiit they kill 11,000-12,000 of them on our highways in Alberta yearly and some have to get dragged off the roads while 16 wheelers have to stop and clean that crap off their window.
The volkswagons don't fair so well- but the 16 wheelers just need a window cleaning.
So what does the Alberta study say --You don't need a gun to kill moose. But kinetic energy seems to be in favor of the big rigs.

The reasonaing is very clear.

Permanent wound channel kills. Foot Pounds, hydrostatic shock, Feet per second, bullet weight, sectional density (yada yada yada) don't kill.

That is why a broadhead (really a flying blade) kills so well with so little energy.

Because the broadhead creates a MASSIVE permenant wound channel.

By the way, the most accurate equation is:

One hole in two lungs = dead.

BMT

I think I can conclude from the this thread that there are lots more moose in Sweden than in Southern Idaho...
:Grin:

Oh yeah, and if you put a bullet in the right place, chit dies...
Of course, I already knew that.

I remember an article in an old NRA hunting book, that was merely a collection of articles, the subject was Elk culling. I tried locating the book, but couldn't find it so this is from memory. I believe it was a Colorado Game Dept Biologist who was doing the culling and alternating between a .30-06 and a .375 H&H. Anyway his conclusion was that the .375 killed Elk like a .30-06 killed deer. Which is what a reasonable person would expect.

Duuuude:

Ain't no reasonable persons here. . . .

We all be gun loonies . . . .

BMT

The funny thing is this study,although extensive contradicts the findings of another European study in which there a difference in the effectivness of various cartridges on a variety of European game animals.

It was recently posted on this site in a thread about the 9.3x62 by a hunter from Belgium, I believe.

Perhaps Mathman or another person here could analize the data in both and see if there is any statistically significant agreement between them.


Britt

Lou 270,

Good point. However, I was talking about double-lung hits--or double-lung-top-of-heart, or whatever.

I would disagree that one-lung hits with a centerfire rifle make recovery a lot easier. A lot would depend on the animal, for sure. Two instances that immediately come to mind are a 245-pound wild boar in California that I shot as it ran quartering away with a .270 and 150-grain Speer Grand Slams. Pigs have their lungs crowded forward more than many other animals, and the bullet just nicked the rear of the near lung and centered the far one. This boar never even broke stride, and was still very lively half an hour later!

Another was a youngish but adult Cape buffalo bull hit in only the near lung with a .375 on a recent safari (by somebody else, and it wasn't his fault that the bullet only got one lung). After waiting an hour, four of us went in after the bull, only to find him very much alive. It took another 45 minutes and 10 shots with a .416 and .458 before he died.

Have also seen a bunch of deer, pronghorn and elk live a long time with only one lung hit by rifle, and all took more shooting. I also suspect (but cannot prove) that some blood trails that never panned out were due to one-lung hits.

Also, to everyone else I would like to state again what I have stated before, both in this thread and magazine articles. There is indeed a difference between how various cartridges kill, and there are definite advantages to bigger rounds, whether we're talking the same bullets driven faster, or bigger bullets.

But there is simply not as much difference as most people would like to believe in the effectiveness of most rounds, especially when a good hit is made with a bullet that penetrates sufficiently AND make a good hole in the heart/lung area.

Also, there is no direct correlation between kinetic energy and how quickly a big game animal will die from a good heart/lung hit, the sort of hit that I know most of us strive for. THAT is the major point here, not that a .22 Hornet is a effective as a .416 Rigby,or a 6.5x55 as good as a .375 H&H.

I have run into a great many hunters who like to think that there is a quantum leap in power between the .270 and .30-06, or between the .30-06 and .300 magnums. (Our friend Allen Day is a firm believer in the last.) Okay, whatever. I do think there is a quantum difference between the .22 Hornet and the .416 Rigby.

But the reason I use "magnums" and other larger rounds(and I do, frequently) is not becaue I believe they will dump an animal on its nose that much faster. No, I use a fast magnum (like the various .300's) to flatten trajectory, especially with the heavier bullets that can break, say, elk shoulder bone more reliably. Using a .300 makes hitting at 350 yards easier and, if the angle involes a shoulder, maybe a little more effective.

Similarly, using a .338 or 9.3x62 or .375 on moose or eland makes penetrating heavy bone or a corner of the paunch more reliable. Maybe it even kills them quicker than when hit correctly with a .30-06. I don't know, but from what I have seen, I would guess not, especially with bullets designed to penetrate deeply. During the years when I used the .338 a LOT, I eventually noticed the quickest kills, even on game larger than deer, came from 200-grain bullets designed to open up pretty easily, not from 225-250 grain bullets designed to excavate a freight train.

I use a .416 on Cape buffalo because I might have to drive a bullet into the front end of an oncoming bull, and want reliable penetration. I am under no illusion that whacking him with 5000 foot-pounds will knock him over.

If anybody wants to put words in my mouth to the effect that the cartridge and bullet doesn't matter at all, then they have willfully misread what I've said not just here, but in print for any years.