Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Does Speed Kill or Just Make Range Estimation Easier??

These threads on the Warbird have got me to thinking.<P>No, this is not a rehash of hydrostatic shock theory. Most of us here seem to agree that sometimes it works on deer and smaller game, but it doesn't work on elk and larger game.<P>My contention is that damage to the vitals is what normally kills an animal. The more tissue damage to do in the vitals, the potentially quicker the kill. For max damage to occur, the bullet must first reach the vitals, and them (ideally) expand a tremendous amount. It is also nice if the bullet exits. The perfect bullet for max killing power would be one that stops in the middle of the vitals, then explodes. (This bullet would be awfully tough on target stands.)<P>I don't think that speed in and of itself has much effect on killing power. Now we do need a minimum velocity to get the bullet to the vitals, and a minumum velocity to properly expand expanding bullets. There is also a maximum velocity, beyond which bullets over-expand and fail to reach the vitals. There also seems to be a maximum velocity where solids don't penetrate reliably.<P>I'm not sure a solid bullet passing through an animal at 1700 fps will kill any differently than a solid bullet passing through an animal at 2700 fps. <P>With expanding bullets, I think there is a similar principle. Let's say a 180 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip impacts a deer broadside at 2400 fps. It expands to 1.7 times it's diameter and exits. <P>Now let's take a 180 grain Swift A-frame that impacts in the same location at 3200 fps. It to expands to 1.7 times it's diameter and exits. I don't see where there would be much difference in killing power between these two examples.<P>Now if my contention is true--ie, you pick the bullet designed for the game you are hunting and the chambering you are shooting, and the bullet impacts at it's minimum recommended velocity--then the only advantage velocity provides is it simplifies range estimation due to the flatter trajectory. If you have a rangefinder, then a flat shooting rifle is less important. <P>A 30-06 shooting a "typical" (.4 BC) 180 grain bullet will still be going 1800 fps at 450 yds, which should reliably expand most bullets. In fact, many will expand reliably down to 1400 fps. Of course, the slower it goes the less it expands. That is why you pick frangible bullets for long range and tougher bullets for short range. <P>I picked a 165 grain Sierra Gameking at an easy 3150 fps from my 300 Win as a deer load one year. I made a 280 yd and a 318 yd shot on deer. The bullets fully pentrated and expanded very well, dropping both animals in their tracks. What amazed me was that on the 318 yd shot, (lengthwise through the deer), the bullet all but came apart, even though it did exit. There was a lot of tissue and bone damage inside. It looked like a typicl shot you'd make from say a 270 or 30-06 at 50 yds. However, my bullet was only going about 2400 fps on impact. I think the rapid expansion and ensuing tissue destruction is what caused the quick kills. I think I had the right bullet for those shots. I'm not so sure that same bullet would have held together on the shoulder of a big deer at 50 yds.<P>Now my not being convinced that velocity is much of a factor in killing power isn't "Magnum bashing." My favorite rifle is still my 416 Rem Mag. However, I think you need a larger diamter bullet to get an increase in killing power. I guess a heavier bullet of the same caliber would also increase killing power if the lighter bullet doen't reliably penetrate to the vitals.<P>Comments?<P>Blaine

If there was an archive on this site for brilliant posts that should be saved and referred to when these threads come up. I would nominate this for the first one we should keep in the "classics library"<P>This was right on the money and well written, I'm proud of you this morning Blaine well done, BRAVO!<BR>jj<P>------------------<BR>The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the best of everything they have.

Except in a Remington!!!!!!!!!!<BR>Nothing works in a Remington so ya gotta have the speed!! <BR>Crystal clear logic Blaine!<BR>The hat's off to ya!<BR>Good bullets of responsible diameter,put where they will do the most good=Dead critter and lots of grins!<BR>Speed is a time/effort saver.<BR>Where's my .45-70????<BR>E4E<BR>

I read a detailed terminal ballistics study once that addressed this very question. I could try to reference it if anybody cares, but my recollection is that velocity does in fact contribute to the diameter of the wound channel, all other things being equal. This was NOT merely due to greater expansion of the bullet. There are basically two separate effects on tissue. There is the tearing and crushing of the tissue that physically comes in contact with the bullet. But additionally, wound channels caused by high velocity bullets are often much wider than the actual diameter of the expanded bullet, and this increases with velocity. The implication was that if you shot a non-expanding bullet through soft tissue at different velocities, the wound channel would be larger (greater diameter) with higher velocity. Is this what some people call "hydrostatic shock"? I don't know for sure. The problem with that term is that some people take "shock" to mean that the kill is caused, at least partially, by some reaction by the nervous system, or perhaps even something more psychological, rather than actual tissue damage and resulting hemorrhage. Maybe it is, but it's also hard to argue with measured wound channels, which make for a much more convincing argument. Whether it contributes to any practical advantage while hunting is a separate question. Being one who often goes "underarmed" according to some hunters, my feeling has always been that dead is dead and any more than that is just academic. -al

First off hydrostatic shock is the disruption and basic "messing up" of tissue (especially nerve tissue) when an animal is hit with a bullet traveling at about 2200 fps+. many times when an animal is stopped in its tracks, and it has not been anchored, this is the culprit. <P>I think that Ellie has hit something here. There are two types of wound channels: permanent and temporary. I believe that both have to do the meplat and the velocity of the bullets. Among other things, but these are what we are mostly dealing with here... i think. <P>Anyway, with permanent wound channels, one can see the path of the bullet as it goes throughout the body and possibly exiting. Temporary wound channels are harder to identify and deal mostly with disruption of tissue by the bullet.<P>Think of a bomb being detonated in the ocean. There may be a crater left in the oceanbed, but this is not where all the energy went. the energy was "used up" by making waves, currents, and generl disruption of the surrounding water. This is whay an earthquake can cause a tidal wave. <P>To answer the question, I think that a small difference between two bullets is probably not going to matter. But what is a small difference? <P>Also, we have to think about the question in context. If we put a .17 bullet in a 50BMG case would it preform on big game assuming that it held together and did not melt in the barrel? Probably not. Why? Because killing power cannot be oversimplified by looking at one factor. <P>Will two cars with identical weights and identical engines preform the same in a straight race from zero to 100? Not necesarily. Factors would include simple things like tires, aerodynamics, gear ratios... the list goes on.<P>we can argue all night about how much better a 30-06 preforms within 350 yds. than a 300. Win. In the end it comes down to much more complicated issues than velocity, bullet performance, and penetration. Or is it that these basic factors are affected by more than we typically think/understand.<P>Overall, i think that, for the most part, velocity means alot less than some make it out to be. Buffalos were taken at long distances with black powder. Clean kills? I dont know. Effective? Yes. <P>E4E, about that cheapshot on Remington... I only wish I had made it here earlier so I could have said it. But thats another thread

This is something that has been nagging at me for a long time. I just want to throw something in here. The only 2 cal. I am familiar with that are close to the same size but yet a big difference in velocity.<BR>We have to use the same bullets for both-----Barnes---Partition---A frames--any of these are going to exit a deer.<BR>a 30-06 with a 165 gr. at 2800 fps<BR>a 25-06 with a 100 gr at 3600 fps<P>I would think that the faster would be more lethal---I only say this bcuz of the way the 2 perform when shot into water jugs----that faster bullet literally grenades the jugs---there is NO way one can throw a 220 Swift in this---it just doesn't have the weight.<P>I don't have the answer----This summer I am definitely going to test them both into material.

I too was once a believer in the water jug judgement on the high velocity rifles. Seeing them explode gives you a real sense of power. However I have my own theory I would be willing to share on this. Risking the flames sure to follow??<P>A gallon jug of water has a consistant liquid density. The rate of displacement is proportional to the velocity of the bullet more then the size of the bullet or the diameter. <P>A wild animal does not have a consistant liquid density. In actuality there is very little accumulated liquid inside an animal. The liver and heart both contain liquid but not a gallon and certainly not in the compact structure of a plastic jug. The bladder may or may not be full and hitting it is not a good idea or an accurate location to place a bullet. The stomach is damp at most and again not a good target. The lungs have damp conditions but do not hold liquid.<P>The liquid in an animal is spread through out the body it is not contained in a single container. Have you ever head shot an animal and then opened it up? there is no free liquid in the body cavity. It's warm and damp at most. <P>So when hitting an animal in the chest or lungs your not hitting anything similiar to a jug of water. It would be closer to hitting a pail full of meat and sausage. The liquid content of the chest is remarkably low to non-existant. <P>Shortly after game is hit in the chest leaks are caused and the body cavity will fill with blood and body fluids which we often refer to as swelling. All the liquids you find are not there unless trauma occurs first. <P>So basing a bullets explosive performance on water jugs is not an accurate way of judging the same performance on a living animal. The liquid content is just not there in the same amounts or containment. <P>The organs within a body are very flexable. I have seen animals in the vet going through surgery. They will take out all the organs and lay them on the table next to the dog. Do the work and fit them all back in. So these organs have a lot of free movement to get out of the way of the "energy" which is pushing through the body. Certainly a fast enough displacement will rupture them. Probably why we see more "shock" damage to deer sized game then elk sized game. The bigger game is more difficult to get this rupture to occur. <P>Let's face it this must hurt like heck but once the bullet blows through and the organs fall back in place perforated or not hemmorage will be the killer not "shock" damage. I have seen my share of blasted to bits organs to fully understand "shock" trauma. Which is often refered to as "Blood shot meat" <P>The style of bullet used is what is most likely to determine your success here not really the velocity. Velocity will drive a well constructed bullet deeper then a moderate velocity, IF THE BULLET CAN HANDLE IT.<P>Here again is the big issue, how to you get a bullet to reliabley expand at 400 yards and not blow to bits at 50? The tough choice. Barnes X bullets have it figured out for the close part but have still a bit of consistancy missing for the long range. Sometimes they open a bit and sometimes they don't. They also don't work in every barrel made? So We are close but no cigar yet. <P>In any event the water jug and the explosive effect is not ( in my opinion) a very accurate way to determine rifle/bullet/cartidge performance. If it were just think how well a 220 swift would look!<P>This is not intended to be a flame or a contridiction of anyones opinion. We all come here to learn and share. I've just unloaded my feelings and opinions on this trying to explain what I have learned and seen.jj<P>------------------<BR>The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the best of everything they have.

Posts don't show and then they show up three at a time!<p>[This message has been edited by JJHACK (edited April 04, 2001).]

Hmmm why multiple posts???<p>[This message has been edited by JJHACK (edited April 04, 2001).]

In my opinion--SPEED ABSOLUTLEY KILLS- in combination with a good bullet.

If I understand the issue correctly it is whether the temporary wound cavity (shock wave) increases fatality and whether that is determined by bullet performance alone or whether velocity can be a factor here.<P>I posed these questions to the Sierra technician:<BR>Would a 30 caliber 180 grain bullet, fired by a 30-06 into gelatin, mushroom to the same size (approximately) as one fired by a 300 Win., if the range was at 200 yards?<BR>The answer was "Yes."<P>Would the penetration between them be about the same?<BR>The answer was "Yes."<P>Would the wound channel in the gelatin be noticeably larger for the 300 Win. due to its greater velocity? <BR>The answer was "Yes."<P>Does the secondary wound cavity increase lethality?<BR>The answer was "Yes."<P>Does the larger wound channel in gelatin correlate to greater lethality in this instance for the 300 Win. mag. in the field?<BR>The answer was "Yes."<P>The point here was to create a scenario that was constant except for velocity. We talked for quite a while on this subject and he told me that Sierra's six technicians would all agree with those statements. He said that his answers would be very easy to prove on their testing grounds.<P>However he also agreed with what Blaine was saying in that bullet construction can be matched with velocity to create similar wound channels with the 30-06 if a lighter constructed bullet was used; but that would involve dropping in weight to 165 grain which in turn gives up the potential for better penetration on less than optimum shots.<BR>You cannot separate bullet construction or velocity from this discussion as they are too closely related and both are very real factors.<BR>Velocity, when matched to proper bullet construction, can increase lethality to a point; but there also can be some other trade- offs, such as an increased chance of ricochet from hitting bone.<P>There are other times that a larger bullet is needed to guarantee a larger permanent wound channel.<P>I thought you may be interested in the perspective of people that design bullets. You may not like Sierra bullets but their Tech staff are probably some of the best in the industry (Is that an oxy-moron?).

After the latest posts on this subject, I guess the biggest question to be answered now is that velocity kills, with the proper bullet, but when is the point reached that the amount of meat damage is unacceptable to the hunter? I suspect this is a question only the individual hunter can answer. - Sheister

I wish to take time to Thank all you guys for 'splaining in language this ol' farm boy could understand. You have NO idea how long I have been wondering about this---------That said----I have one other question this is along the same line but now we go into bullets----I sure hope I don't get bounced for asking it in this forum???????? If it offends anyone I apologize. <P>JJ you mentioned the bullet scenario I would like you to continue if you would.<BR>My only experience with premium bullets has been with 165 gr Partitions in my .06. They have performed flawlessly---from coyotes to Elk---I am having a <BR>25-06 improved being built--& a friend is dropping off his 257 Wby for me to break in & find loads.--I have been told by others that have the 25 AI that the Partition is not a good bullet for the speed of the 25 & the 257 Wby----they tend to frag in route. These same people have suggested I go to 100 gr. XLC Barnes in the 25 & 257. You have now raised a question to me about NOT expanding at 300 & beyond.<BR>This troubles me------I definitely do NOT want any wounded game. ON game I think I will draw the line around 400 yd. at the very max. ----this would have to an extremely fine trophy---<BR>Thanks for any advice----------

re-loader,<BR>A friend of mine has a 257 Weatherby that is loaded with the 100 grain partitions and often used at close range for deer and has never had a problem. This same rifle was used to take a moose in BC with the 120 partition.<BR>I cannot imagine having any problems with the velocity.

Well...I would agree that greater velocity may help a bullet achieve greater expansion, but I have my doubts about the theory that "velocity kills." <P>For a "slow" gun I would select fast to medium-expanding bullets, and for a "fast" gun I would select slow-expanding bullets.<P>Greater expansion creates a larger wound channel, but again, that wound better be on the right place for it to kill.

<BR> I have a copy of a "after death" photo of a woodland caribou I shot a few years ago in Newfoundland. It was a cool stalk, working the herd for a few hours and then figureing out where they were going and waiting in ambush for them behind a bush.<P> Anyway the herd bull pushed all his cow's ahead of him first, sensing danger. I was flat on my gut behind the small bush while my PH whispered the progress of the herd.<P> Suddenly he mouth called a "bou call" to stop the Bull, and told me to "kill him". I jumped up expecting the critter to be 100 to 150 yrds away and there he was, 30 yrds away, and stareing at me.<P> As I shouldered my rifle he started to run and I got off a quick snapshot with both eye's open, one following him in the scope and the other watching the Bull.<P> I saw something that I had never seen before, cause not only was that the first year I had changed to shooting with both eye's open but I had also never shot a critter that big with a big rifle before.<BR> <BR> I was shooting my .338 win A-bolt, the famous rabbit rifle of yore, with my beloved 225 grn A-frames, at about 2860fps out of the 24" tube.<P> I hit the Bull right in the upper heart area and I actually saw the energy of the bullet ripple outward from the strike area ; It was like a big rock being thrown in a pond. It was really trippy let me tell you. That 225 grn A-frame hitting that critter at that speed, and distance , was a front row seat to Einstein's theory of JJWhack! The whole thing seemed to happen in slow motion, being the first kill of that type I had actually seen, with both eye's having been open.<P> Anyway I took this gruesome picture of the dead Bull's bullet entrance side. I was awed to not only see the amount of blood on his entrance side but the way the blood was splattered on him due to the energy transfer of the bullet. I take pics like this to practice cleaning the blood up in digital post since I do that for customers and pal's. I also do it cause it looks kinda cool, screw political correctness.<P> I'll never forget the energy from that A-frame rippleing thru the body of that Bull, it did look just like an object being flung into fluid.<P> BTW the Bull stumbled for about 40 yrds and quickly died. The A-frame entered his right side and angled out thru hus left shoulder,passing thru , and breaking, a heavy shoulder bone on its way out. I never recovered it.<P> All this talk about the "X" bullet "almost being there" when the A-frame already outperforms it, with splendid accuracy no less.<P> If you want a copy of the pic E-mail me at "Vidcreate1AOL.com" and I'll send you a JPEG copy. I think its a pretty good study of a heavy,properly constructed bullet,traveling relatively fast, hitting a Big Game animal at close range.<P> I wouldnt think twice about shooting an animal ,at that distance, with any Lightening fast caliber/rifle combo, while useing the Swift A-frame........good hunting..........Rick

10 Point,<BR>I know a fellow who has hunted all across America with a 300 Weatherby and he claims he has seen on occasions what you describe.<BR>I have personally seen this when spotting shots with binos for another shooter on smaller game.<P>If you do not believe in the lethality of the temporary wound cavity then why not hunt with a spear gun that cuts a 35 caliber (or whatever size equates to the mushroom of the bullet)hole? If the permanent wound channel is relative only to the expanded diameter of the bullet and the temporary cavity has no effect (velocity being bunk)then the spear gun is as deadly as a firearm within its range to give adequate penetration.

I agreee with Ray, the expansion rate of the bullet must be atapted to its speed at impact.<BR>This said, velocity and effects of a given caliber on animals are definitively bound.<BR>We (the Strastbourg university and the big game hunters association)in France have studied this at lenght, and here are the conclusions:<BR>When hitting animals at a speed over 750 m/s, a bullet is followed by a cone of shockwave, which creates an important temporary cavity inside the animal. Think of a sponge, which cannot absorb the bullets transmitted energy: for a small amount of time, the whole in it will be larger than the caliber of the bullet passing though it. This cone is shown permanently when shooting soap, for instance.<BR>What we know is the fact that this cavity does not kill the animal by some kind of nervous shock, unless a major part of the nervous system is hit (but then, any bullet will give the same result).<BR>What the bullet would do, is "throw away" the pieces of hard material (bones) it meets on its way. This would explain the size of the wounds experienced with high velocity rounds. Organs with low expansion ratio (fillfulled stomach, for instance) might even explode if on the way of the bullet. <P>Such damages kill quicker than bullets travelling at slower velocities, but then, meat bruising is also more important. I feel these high vel rounds have been designed for trophy hunting mainly...<BR>olivier<BR>

The definitive research on this issue was done by the United States Army and published in a volume entitled "Wound Ballistics." Here are the facts. Short of hitting the brain or the spinal cord, an animal dies due to loss of blood. Blood loss can occur either internally or externally, but what really matters is how much leaves the circulatory system, not where it goes. When a low velocity projectile, be it an arrow or a large bullet enters an animal, it slices through blood vessels causing blood loss. However, when a high velocity projectile hits an animal, it not only cuts blood vessels, but creates a shock wave as the energy from the projectile is transferred from the projectile to the body of the animal. This shock wave causes the flesh of the animal to move violently away from the path of the bullet, so violently that blood vessels in the flesh are torn, creating more internal bleeding. Since the physics of energy in a moving projectile are such that energy increases with the square of the velocity, but only directly with the mass of the projectile, it follows that you will get twice the energy if you increase a l00 grain bullet to 200 grains, but four times the energy if you double the veleocity of the 100 grain bullet. Nonetheless, Army research shows little difference in wound ballistics with spitzer bullets at combat ranges once the muzzle velocity goes above about 2200 feet per second. I know all this because I used to run the Army's medical history program and had many discussions with those who ran the wound ballistics research.<P>What expanding bullets do is not to increase the frontal area so that the wound channel is greater, but increase the frontal area so that resistance is increased and thus more energy is transferred to the animal.<P>The Army's research did not address the issue of whether or not a bullet exiting the animal might allow for faster bleeding out since inside the animal pressure may reduce the speed of blood loss. My personal opinion is that this is of little consequence unless one were to hit a major artery near the surface, such as in the leg or neck. On a body hit, the amount of blood leaving from an exit wound I find generally drips rather than gushes, and while of use in tracking, I doubt creates a significanly faster kill.<P>

350RM,<BR>Hey! Stratsburg???? as in the famous "Stratsburg tests" that drew so much fire from the animal rights freaks for the shooting of goats and sheep a few years back?<BR>The same study that proved that the temporary stretch cavity is insignificant compared to the ammount of damage done by the permanant crush cavity in essentially elastic tissues found in mammals?<BR>Like...DUDE!!!!!!<BR>If so we gotta crack a beer and yak a bit!<BR>I gots some questions for you!!!!<BR>Cheers!<BR>E4E