Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters How is Optimum Game Weight Calculation done?

Or convince someone their religion is wrong.



10 seconds to run even with a hole through a major blood vessel and/or through both lungs. Now take a look at the Berger video and you�ll see two examples where the animal drops in their tracks. It�s obvious that something other than blood loss is going on which leads Berger to say �The VLD will penetrate several inches of hide, muscle, and bone before expanding and fragmenting, causing tremendous hydraulic shock and fragments that wreck the vitals and drops the animal in its tracks.�

If wrecking the vitals only cause loss of blood and blood pressure, the animals would have those 10 seconds Mule Deer was talking about. Maybe the video was edited, but Mule Deer says he was there and participated.

The papers are basically summaries of many published studies which they cite such as following three:



All of which deal with injury and trauma caused by pressure waves. For someone to claim the effect doesn�t exist seems far fetched.

Again you miss the point of the post that you answer

Yes, they are reviews with a viewpoint. Big deal. Unpublished papers are not part of the scientific literature, unpublished reviews even less so. The fact that a review has a point of view isn't necessarily disqualifying, but if it has not been published by a reputable independent scientific journal, that would be disqualifying.

An unpublished paper by a PhD from MIT is no more impressive than an unpublished paper from Wassamatta U. BTW, many years ago I was talking with someone who had gotten a PhD from Harvard, and we both agreed that one of the subtle benefits of going to MIT or Harvard (or Caltech, where I've also gone) is that you're not necessarily impressed by someone just because they've gone to MIT or Harvard.

Undoubtedly something is going on here,as we have all seen it at one point or another....that instantaneous "lights out" crash where the recoil of the rifle is instantaeously followed by a thoroughly dead animal that collapses like an empty puppet,and without a single twitch....what we call it,what precisely causes it, I don't really know...and don't really care.

I have never used a Berger,but have seen it enough times with tougher bullets as well as fragmenting blow-up types that I have a hard time attributing it to just fragmentation,although undoubtedly that does it ,too.

Personally I think it's "velocity",violent disruption of tissue,as I have noticed it more at closer distances,and so long as the bullet gets inside, past bone and muscle, and expands very violently in vitals...and have seen it not only with fragmenting type bullets, but with bullets that fragment not at all,yet expands to a very wide frontal area, like a Bitterroot,expanding very violently.Innards look like soup after such treatment.

And have also noticed that such bullets seem to do better at distance when started from magnum cartridges;things like a 140 or 165 Bitterroot become hammers when started at 3200+ fps from a 7 RM or 300 Winchester magnum,even at 400 yards or so, about as far as I've used them.

I think the fragmenting bullets have much the same effect,expanding with a wide frontal area as well,but because of the lighter construction,the frontal area is "lost" as the bullet self destructs,so when we find it,(if we do),there is not much of that frontal area left.

I recall killing a buck up in Arroostook County in Maine, jumped in a cedar swamp and running at 35-40 yards;as the rifle recoiled I saw that his legs folded under him in mid air as he went completely loose,nosediving into the snow and dead as a mackerel from a lung shot....load was a 130 Nosler Partition from a 270 Winchester.A load that,according to some, should not be a very fast killer....

But then I have seen other animals,hit slightly wrong,at edges of lungs,or not quite squarely enough,or body shot(back of diaphragm),that carried on with terrible wounds....and have seen it enough that I tend to very much doubt "theories",and numerical quantifications of killing power,or magic in any bullet style,so that the only reliable thing I have personally witnessed that works,consistently and reliably, is good shot placement.

Power,regardless how it is measured,does not make up for it IME.

Apparently you missed all the published papers dealing with injury and trauma caused by pressure waves.

Finally, an admission from a Kahuna that something other than blood or blood pressure loss is involved in that instantaneous "lights out" crash.

Some observe such a phenomena and want to know more about it and exploit it to their advantage. One such example is Roy Weatherby and the high-power calibers he developed.



I agree that the only consistent and reliable kill comes from good shot placement, but within your paragraph you�ve witnessed slightly wrong shot placement, which demonstrates that good shot placement is itself not guaranteed.

I use a larger than needed caliber to take advantage of that other effect you don�t care about, knowing that it�s not 100% either. It works for me.

Whether or not you think someone who teaches Physics at West Point is a hack with a PhD, this paper goes a long way in solving the mystery behind the inconsistency of ballistic pressure waves being able to incapacitated game. It also confirms that good shot placement is the only reliable means of getting a kill, something I don't dispute. However, I do contend, and others have confirmed, that shots sometimes go bad. You�ll see from the paper that the higher the peak pressure the high the percentage of test subjects incapacitated, or killed outright, yet some individuals seem to be resistant to the effect.

I think that explains the seemingly contradictory experiences many hunters have.

A PHD is not a Dr. or biologist

Well said JWP. Except for spine shots, all the big game animals and numerous foxes and coyotes I have killed all died from blood loss. The brain gets no oxygen via blood and things die

These scientists could learn a thing or two from hunters who have witnessed death many, many times in the field..

It is beyond absurd to argue a large magnum will not be more likely to kill an animal with a poorly placed shot.

That is not to say it will do it because of greater energy, shock, permanent wound channel diameter, or other force. But rather because there will be so many more bad shots with mangle-ums!

A guide camp I worked in had a standard meeting at the airstrip between guides and clients. One thing all guides wanted to know was what the clients were shooting. Many, if not most, had so many bad experiences with poorly-shot 338s they became last choice... There is nothing wrong with the 338 obviously, unless it is too much for the shooter...

I read through nearly all of this thread and see where a poster or two keeps insisting something along the lines of, "Yeah but you don't know how smart they are, they have multiple Phd's.." or something to that effect.

After getting my AAS in forestry from a technical college a couple decades ago, I was perplexed for several years when hearing some "expert guests" on talk shows (many times with a Phd.) that had reached unbelievably stupid conclusions.

I had an epiphany one day when I was told, "Some people are educated beyond their ability to synthesize the information."

This thread is still running? The test subjects for all this banter are so varied that no one formula neatly puts them in a box. However all of my "test subjects" have been wrapped in freezer paper awaiting their debut on the dinner table.

You have great experience and knowledge surfing the internet, but apparently not much experience shooting game animals if you believe this crap. There is zero difference that I personally have seen in 40 some years thru 44 magnum (pistol bullet) 257 Roberts to 30-06 to 300WSM on killing deer unless the animal is shot in the head, neck, high shoulders/spine. Then the fragmenting or explosive bullet boys can eat their blood shot leaded meat all they want, but not me.

Finally the US Federal Imperial Government pays a lot of money to do research that comes to stupid conclusions as has been proven time and time again by history (the Courtney's seem to be related somehow hmmm). If they actually believed this esteemed research done at West Point, a high velocity (30-06) 30 caliber projectile would be favored over the current 22 caliber projectile, baffling stuff is it not?

I guess in 40 years you think you�ve done and seen it all. Then again, you only need to go back a page and you�ll see Kahuna BobinNH says �Undoubtedly something is going on here,as we have all seen it at one point or another....that instantaneous "lights out" crash where the recoil of the rifle is instantaeously followed by a thoroughly dead animal that collapses like an empty puppet,and without a single twitch....what we call it,what precisely causes it, I don't really know...and don't really care.� Apparently you�ve never seen this, or didn�t have the intellectual curiosity to wonder why some animals drop dead in their tracks.

The Ballistic Pressure Wave experiment explains why different hunters have different experiences with this effect.

What�s interesting is that you think your experience is so superior that no one else�s can be valid and that research showing something else must by a government conspiracy.



Guess you�ve never heard about the volume of fire doctrine, which is the underpinning of the military assault rifle. Or heard about the military doctrine of wounding an enemy being better than killing him because of the number of troops needed to care for the wounded. Or heard about the Geneva Convention�s ban on using expanding bullets, which are needed to exploit the Ballistic Pressure Wave effect.

You can always tell a real expert by they way they cite the Geneva Convention and how it bans expanding bullets.

John

Yea, we've heard of the Geneva Convention, but unlike you we know that the Geneva Convention didn't address small arms munitions... Do some more googling and maybe you will get the correct convention/accord


Of course you ignore any all evidence by doctors that cliam that the "pressure wave isn't enough to cause incapacitation

Thanks for the followup. Perhaps my post on the Geneva Convention was too vague.

John

I knew what you meant and you were spot on.... He just deserved another shot, that's all

OK, so I got the wrong convention, bid deal. You�re the guy who said �A PHD is not a Dr. or biologist�. Well the �D� in PhD stands for Doctor. Do some more googling, yourself. The principle of what I said is correct, which is the military is banned from using expanding bullets.



That was Fackler who based his argument on the idea that the lithotriptor produces pressure waves larger than those caused by most handgun bullets, yet cause no damage to soft tissues whatsoever. However, peer reviewed studies done in 2001 and 2003 show that lithotriptors do indeed produce soft tissue damage. (Lingeman JE, Kim SC, Keo RL, McAteer JA, Evan AP: Shockwave Lithotripsy: Anecdotes and Insights. Journal of Endourology 17(9):687-693; 2003. And Lokhandwalla M, Sturtevant B: Mechanical Haemolysis in Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL): I. Analysis of Cell Deformation due to SWL Flow-Fields. Physics in Medicine & Biology 46(2):413-437; 2001.)

Fackler was wrong even about handguns let alone rifles, deal with it.