Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles "Brush" guns

OK, a few threads lately have continued to perpetuate the long standing myth of heavy, slow bullets being the ultimate in "brush" guns.
IIRC EVERY experiment I have ever seen or read about over the years comes up with similar conclusions,a .243 and a 100 grainer, a .30-06 and a 150 grainer, and similar high speed pointy bullet stuff all fared better in testing than the "traditional" brush cartridges.
Course, I have "selective" memory,and no citations handy, but " Brush" guns are right up there in mythology with "Barrel break-in procedures"

Rebuttals/ opinions???


Also...it has always been my humble opinion that I was out in the woods to shoot deer, not brush....just sayin'...

Remember one that shot through 1/4" wooded dowels and the best was a 12ga. slug. Shouldn't be shooting through brush, sure can't get a good sight picture.Rick.

Quote from Jack O'Connor - "I found that the higher the bullet velocity, the sharper the point, the thinner the jacket, the lighter the weight, the greater the deflection"

+1

A brush gun should be short and handy. The caliber of your choice will fair about as good as any other.

Put the first shot where it counts and you won't need to get a pump or semi auto for the brush either.

If you all would just pay homage to the 30 caliber, and forsake all others, it would be a much happier place.

I agree with you on the instance of people slinging bullets through brush/debris.

However, I think the term "brush" gun is a genre of rifle termed to desribe characteristics appealing to those hunting in the thick stuff. Often shorter barreled rigs with a great handling feel and often the capability of a faster follow-up shot. The parallel desire to sling a heavy (often larger diameter) slug to ensure thru and thru penetration on less than perpendicular shots is intrinsic as well, regardless of the fact that actually shooting through leaves, twigs and branches will be avoided.

I think the above features (quick handling, fast repeater, big slugs) allow for shots to be taken quickly and ensure blood trails when the animal doesn't drop on the shot. Especially when long shots are often measured inside of 100yds.

Ain't that what TSX's is for?....

I would think that even in tight woods, a hunter is not standing in an area planning to shoot game where he can not swing a 22-24 inch barreled rifle. Think about it, you would have to be in a stand of Tag Alders or simular brush, yes you could be walking or stalking, but a couple of inches is really not going to make a difference.
It has been proven that a long, fast spinning bullet is difflected less then a slow spinning fat one, just like a top spinning slowly and bumbed, it returns to the original spot more slowly then when spinning fast. On the test they did on this with dowels, it seemed like any hit of a dowell more then 2 feet away from the target diflected the bullet too much to be accurate anyway.
Bob

The best brush gun is one that is zeroed at 50 yards with a quality low powered scope and is accurate enough to thread a bullet through tiny openings in the brush. With a 50 yard zero you don't have to compensate for the bullet ever being 2-3" above your line of sight. With most guns you are still flat enough for the rare 100-150 yard shot. Caliber or bullet type is not nearly as important.

My understand is that heavy round nose FMJ bullets perform slightly better regardless of velocity because the weight is more forward on the bullet. With pointed bullets the weight is more toward the rear and they are more easily deflected.

I believe that any time a bullet strikes brush and still hits the target a lot of luck is involved. Better to avoid the brush with an accurate rifle in my opinion.

I agree

Quote from Francis E. Sell - "You have, on many occasions, to buck brush for a killing shot."

Sell's experiments showed:
"First, a velocity of between 2,200 and 2,500 feet a second gave the least deflection and no blowup. Second, a bullet weight in the neighborhood of 150 grain, or heavier, is indicated."

"The shape of the bullet from round nose to spitzer point proved of less importance than I supposed at the beginning of the tests. Both spitzer point and round nose turned in good performances when with proper weight, driven at the best velocity level. That's all."

The places I hunt deer you commonly don't see a whole deer. Just parts and a lot of times your bullet hits a twig that you couldn't even see was there in your scope. I've had bullets deflected while shooting 150 grain .30-06 but it hasn't happened to me with the 180 grain .30-06 or the .30-30 170 or the .35 200 grain. All this doesn't prove anything but it's just my experience.

I tend to agree with this...I don't think the primary attribute (at least to the better informed) is to have something intended to actually "shoot through" brambles and such.

My standard length 700 in. 270 win has done a fine job for me down here in brush gun land. I've never felt the need for a heavier slower bullet. Maybe a shorter rifle but that's only for sake of weight.

+1

I have personal experience with a 270 deflected by brush a few different times. In those cases there wasn't a lot of brush, the animals were clearly visible, just some small stuff between them and me. I'm not sure what would be better, but do know that my 270(s) were not particularily "effective". In one case the animal had been hit already but was jumped again within 40 yards of me. Two shots at that one, no hits (snow on the ground). In another case it was sneaking out of it's bed and getting ready to go into high gear, within 100 yards of me. That one was nicked, a few drops of blood in the first couple of hundred yards, then nothing.
One thing I do like for hunting in the timber is something with a 22" tube as opposed to anything longer, and something that gives a decent/significant blood trail when there is no snow on the ground. They are just handier for me to get into action, a personal preference.

I have been reading hunting and shooting articles for the past 40 years and have been hunting for the past 35 years. In that time I have heard every story imaginable on "brush busting" capabilities of various cartridges. One old deer hunter told me how his 300 Savage penetrated a 12" hickory on it's way to a buck on a running shot. He claimed to have killed the buck after leaving an 8" hole in the far side of the tree. I was to young to question an adult but found the story a bit beyond the scope of credibility. Veteran hunters have shared their accounts of bullets from their favorite "brush cartridge", not matter where in the spectrum it fell, be it a 243 or a 45-70, plowing unerringly through brush to their target. Any bullet, no matter the caliber, that makes it to its intended target through a heavy screen of brush, with no deflection, is indeed a lucky bullet.

I have seen most of the tests and think they are good for one thing ----selling magazines. There is no way to accurately duplicate brush deflection for every shot in a test. What is the diameter of the branch the bullet strikes, what is the species, is the branch under tension, is it under compression, is the bullet spinning clockwise or counterclockwise and which side of the branch did it strike in relation to the rotation of the bullet. Makes my brain hurt to think about all the possible and incalculable scenarios one could encounter during the course of a day of "brush hunting".

I have to agree with Jim Carmichael in this matter. I recall an article he wrote many years ago in which he stated, as one of the previous posters did, something to the effect of; a brush gun was one that handled well, instilled confidence in the shooter and was well balanced for a day of carry in the timber.

I'll get down off my soap box now.

Mart

Didn't JeffO solve this enigma a year or so ago?

looks like you may to differentiate twixt brush guns and brush bullets...

might not hurt to add a brush babe to this thread

He voided that test when he failed to properly open Nosler's new bullet boxes.






I like the way you think!