This is the best discussion of this subject that I've seen in a long, long time, and thanks to each of you for sharing your experience, knowledge and observations. Personally, I've never learned much from those who agree with me, and that's the reason I posted this here. With all the good and extensive experience, as well as particular knowledge beyond my own, I hoped I'd get a good discussion going, and I definitely did that, in spades.
Let me just note a few things here, FWIW. The article cited on wound ballistics referred to Whelen's experience as being late 19th century. That's when Whelen STARTED, but he did much work with the '06 and .270 and others, so I think that comment was less apt than it could have been.
Secondly, the author (dang it, forgot his name) stated in one place that despite his agnosticism regarding "shock" (call it whatever you wish) "MAY" apply in SOME instances, though he states it is "unreliable" in his experience and view. He also goes on to state, "On the other hand, as I have alluded to previously, some contemporary bullet designs (Nosler Ballistic Tip and Remington Bronze Point) as well as some renowned performers from years past (e.g., the original 130 gr. load of the .270 Winchester) achieve a high percentage of instantaneous kills by blowing to bits and never exiting the game. I find this interesting in view of the current obsession with avoiding bullets in which the lead cores separate from the jacket. There are few situations in which simple slip separation (core and jacket traveling forward together) would be disadvantageous, although complete separation invariably leaves the jacket behind and makes the core vulnerable to premature fragmentation. But returning to the issue, the successful frangible bullet designs nevertheless always penetrate to the vitals and have never been regarded as reliable for rear raking shots requiring deep penetration or against very tough heavy game and most knowledgeable authorities prefer bullets which exhibit modest cavitation with deep penetration because of their flexibility in the field."
When I started this thread, I tried to narrow it down to high velocity bullets that achieve near full to full penetration, and to whitetails only, since this is where my experience lies. I'd be very foolish, I think, to try to expand that to elk or moose, etc., and sought to eliminate that part of the discussion. After all, I DID build that Ackley Whelen for elk, remember?
I also tried to relate my experience to bullets that hit the vitals - most particularly, the heart-lung area, since that's what my post originally referred to. I think the article's quote above regarding Ballistic Tips, etc. on "deer" tends to support what I've seen in the real world, and that's that "shock" (let me use that term in effort to avoid the secondary question of what the proper term is, please) DOES exist on whitetails with the above cited high velocity, rapid expanding (I wouldn't use the term "explosive" since I also specified penetration) and a good shot. The increasing bloodshot tissue that comes with increased velocity, and my own observed TENDENCY (not "certainty") for the faster bullets (UP TO A POINT OF MAYBE 3100-3200 fps.) seems to kill quicker and more certainly in the tracks than slower bullets.
Now I'm not trying to be bull-headed about this, and evidence of that is my 3 .45/70's and the Whelen, which ALSO do a great job on the very same deer as the .270, et al.
Someone noted that if "shock" existed at all, it would be present with ANY bullet. Well, I'd have to note that a lot of good game was killed in Africa with FMJ's back "in the day" and they did a pretty workable job when placed correctly, though many noted that if bone was hit they'd often tumble on impact, and otherwise yaw or expand and change course. The FMJ's, though, don't "dump" their so-called "energy" potential into the tissue, and thus, the radial damage is minimized from what it COULD have been, had the bullet expanded.
I tried to limit the discussion to deer, and the other specs I provided, but we always seem to expand the subject, which isn't necessarily a "bad" thing at all. In this specific instance, however, and after much investigation (and washing blood out of my clothes!), I've concluded that "shock" DOES indeed exist, and IS a factor, but ONLY ONE FACTOR when it comes to whitetails. The jacklighters and game wardens I've known and talked to who I trust to tell me the absolute Truth (one warden said he didn't want to admit it) have said that the .22 LR is effective all out of proportion to what most would give it credit for, and I for one am of the opinion that a GOOD hunter SHOULD be able to take deer quickly and cleanly with a .22 LR IF HE HAD TO FOR SOME REASON. With a "big gun," it would SEEM so much easier, but as we all know, sometimes deer and other game just does "funny things." Heart shot deer typically take off in a mad dash, often showing no reaction to the bullet - a darn scary thing for them to do for some of us - so that little anomaly IMO creates just ONE of maybe several exceptions to my generality about "shock."
We have the best bullets today, of all types, the best barrels, actions and stocks, that have ever existed in history. It isn't uncommon to have an off the shelf rifle do 1" or better with tailored loads, and even more common if you do a trigger and bedding job on them. "Shock" may not be THE factor in ALL cases (what is in the field?), but I do believe that within the parameters originally set, it IS a significant potential factor when it's time to take the shot. I've been very impressed with what little experience I and friends have had with the Whelen and .45/70's, though, and am learning to regard them highly as well. They're just "different" from the little speedster calibers. To this day, if I had to bet my life on being able to put a deer down in its tracks, I'd take a .270 with the 130 gr. bullet (or something very similar) along for the job, and hope my shooting was good. I'd avoid a heart shot, and try to place the bullet just over the heart, taking out the forward half or so of the lungs and the aorta. I'd try to get a broadside or gentle angle for the shot, and I'd keep very still and move very slowly so as to make that much more likely. Not every hunting style allows all that, of course, and that's why we have different bullets and calibers, or at least that's ONE reason for it.
I just hate to see "shock" poo-pooed COMPLETELY when I think that it DOES constitute ONE (THOUGH NOT all) factor in the efficient taking of whitetails. All the guys I trust tell me that elk, moose and bear don't succumb nearly so readily to this "shock," and that's probably the primary reason I built my Whelen - for just those type larger animals. My thinking is that, as someone noted, shock waves dissipate very rapidly with the cube of the radius of the wound, so that MAY (???) be ONE factor in the larger game's increased resistance to "shock," in addition to another poster's comment about the elasticity of tissue, which decreases quickly the efficiency of the "energy transfer," or whatever the proper term might be, scientifically.
What one sees is what one sees, and the above represents my own experience.
Oh yeah, and to whoever noted the "tailored" bullets in the .270 and .338 (I added the .30/30 but left out the .338, I think), that's a great observation. A buddy has taken one with his, and it killed it grave-yard dead. Wonder of wonders, eh? ;^) I do believe that a lot of deer are shot with bullets that I'd consider both too "soft" and too "hard," and STILL they fall, when the bullet's placed well. Not too much noteworthy about that except that I want mine to be right where I shot it, and what I have seen and experienced indicates that the bang-flop is a BIT more likely with a fast, fairly quick opening bullet at high velocity, and when I see lots of red goo inside the body cavity when I dress it out, I just HAVE to believe that SOME sort of "shock" has compressed the tissues into a pulpy substance. There's just nothing else I can think of that'll do that. It may not be ALL that brought that deer to the ground so quickly, but I definitely think it HELPED. Can't believe otherwise based on what I've seen. Iguess it's mostly a matter of perspective, and of understanding that it's DEFINITELY not the ONLY factor in getting venison to the tabe - not by a LONG shot. That's why I just can't get excited about all the "premium" or "controlled expansion" bullets - at least in most standard calibers. I won't use BT's in a 7 mag., nor Trophy Bondeds in my .30/30, but somewhere in the speedy softER bullet range is a bullet that I for one think will take deer with a significantly increased PROBABILITY (not CERTAINTY) of a bang-flop. Whitetails just aren't that hard to kill, if you place a good bullet right - ANY good bullet.
Hope you all get bang-flops regardless of what you use! Good hunting to you all, and thanks for a darn good discussion. I'm not sure I learned anything new, really, but I sure as heck have enjoyed it.
