The post "Improving gun magazines" got me to thinking. In a susequent post I made reference to old dog eared magazines that kept getting pulled out to re-read articles that taught us something.

I guess my favourite articles are ones that go against popular opinions of the day to confirm something that we ourselves believe in.

The prime example of such an article was one showing the breakdown of a Swedish study involving more than 10,000 moose kills, and how various calibers performed in regards to killing these moose. In it, it was shown there wasn't a heck of lot of difference between cartridges as dissimilar as the 6.5 X 55, the 30-06, the big high speed magnums and even the big bores from .375 H&H and the .458 Winchester magnum - in regards to how far the average moose ran - after being shot.

In short - regardless of cartridge or caliber - it didn't matter much what the moose was shot with - if it was well hit - it was going to fall, sooner - rather than later.

I loved that article! It confirmed what I believe. Since shooting a lot more game with mild cartridges like 7mm-08's and 30-06's during the last decade or so, I can't say I'm seeing any difference on game, from when I was shooting them with big wildcats and big magnums. But, I sure can notice the difference in the ease of shooting these smaller milder cartridges.

But - do you think I can find this article?

Not for the life of me, can I find this information now.

I know the results were printed on this forum, and I know the study was written up in either "Rifle" or "Handloader" magazine.

I'd be very thankful to anyone who could tell me which edition of which magazine, or where on this forum this data was reported.

Thanks in advance...

I remember reading that myself. Was'nt the aricle in outdoor life?

I've seen it multiple places, I think it was in one of Dave Scovill's columns a few years back.

I have read that article as well. Swedish , harvest moose as much as hunt them. The harvest is more of a controlled activity. They have defined cut blocks, 3 and 4 generation cuts, the townspeople go out put shooter,s at strategic locations around the block, and others push through and what comes out is harvested. Distances are known much better and the shooter's have to pass a proficiency test on stationary and mobile targets. The likelyhood of hitting the kill zone with the 6.5 Bjorn are a lot better than some dude dressed like a cabella model that shoots his ultra a couple times a year. These people know what they are doing and testing proves that fact.

Can't help you with the print version, but here's what Mule Deer posted here and I reformatted for easier viewing:

Thank you Jaywalker!

Now, if someone will find what issue of what magazine the full report was written up in - I'll be totally happy!

Merry Christmas to all of you, and may the coming year be a good one for all of you and all of your loved ones.

I think it is very interesting to see the results of the 6.5 vs the 30-06. I wonder if the lighter recoil of the 6.5 has anything to do with the slightly shorter travel distance of the moose? Hmmm, kinda why I use the 30-06 as my primary elk rifle, and, now a 7X57 for the same, and, anything else! grin

Huntr,

I think you've got it!

The accuracy most people can attain in the field, using mild, easy-to-shoot, cartridges, seems to more than makes up for any ballistic advantage provided by shooting bullets that might be 10% faster or so from the same caliber, or by making a hole a few 1/100ths of an inch - or even a few 10ths of an inch, bigger around - in the animal that is shot.

Everyone would like to think that recoil, doesn't bother them - but the facts of this study, seem to suggest otherwise.

At least that's my own take on it, and it has been my own experience too.

Since switching to the milder "classic" cartridges, and away from the "big-boomers" - I don't think a single animal I've shot has noticed the difference.

But, I have.

And, I won't go back.

My mindset is also transitioning from bigger-is-better to not-so-big-is-better. All it took was years of patience from the Hunting Gods (and shoulder surgery) for me to discover the 260 Remington.

I'm curious whether the study was just on Swedish moose or moose anywhere. The reason I ask is because if that's just a study of moose in Sweden, I'm really surprised that there's that many shooting the 30-06 there. Had no idea that cartridge was as popular in the Scandis as it is here.

The 30-06 is still the benchmark for big game rifles everywhere. Why shouldn't it be?

I remember reading about that study some years ago, and being pretty impressed by the 'numbers' put up by the 30-06 as well as the 6.5X55.

Very interesting reading, for sure.

It's the second most popular cartridge for moose in Sweden, 6.5x55 being the most popular and mostly due to the quantity of old military Swedish Mausers. HTH.

( FYI -- in Finland .308 is by far the most popular cartridge on moose )

It's also the cheapest which is probably not entered into your calculations.
Same reason more game was taken by 30-30 prior to 1940. They were the most plentiful and cheapest gun on the market.

Canuck,

I beg to differ with your logic..

That Swedish Moose survey reported ALL behavior on Moose regardless of the caliber- by your reasoning, the more popular the caliber the more of a chance it would had to BOTH succeed AND fail.

The fact that rounds like the 6.5 Swede or the 30-06 did so well on the Moose is even more impressive when you see how many more chances they had to fail compared to more powerful rounds..

Like Jack O'Connor found out a long time ago , when it comes to moose, if you hit 'em right with enough bullet, it takes them a while to realize they are dead. If you hit them with a 150 gr .270 slug or 300gr .375 H&H, they are still most likely to travel a ways before falling. From what I have seen,Elk are the same way.

That don't make sense. Your telling me that hitting game with 6000 ft/lbs is the same as hitting it with 2700 ft/lbs.
I've seen a fella pump 5 rounds from a 270 into a moose, there was blood spurting everywhere and this thing just kept on going. I've never seen a single moose that I've shot with my 378 go more than 15 feet, and believe me I've shot alot of them over 30 years worth.

That chart is a fine measure of Swedish stupidity.
Last 2002 compiled statistics in Canada show that 11,449 deer,elk,moose,bears were struck on Alberta highways
Ford kills------
Chevrolet kills-
Dodge kills-----
16 wheeler kills-
I'll let you fill in the blanks but I'll bet you that there are more kills for Dodge,Ford,Chevrolet than 16 wheelers. Why because there are less of them on the road. Do I have to draw a picture to accompany the allegory? And yes smaller vehicles are cheaper than 16 wheelers.

You're not understanding the table--it's about distance traveled--not how many are killed with each cartridge. Sample size has very little to do with it (particularly if its been statisically tested for probability). Doesn't matter if cartridge A shot 200 moose or cartridge B shot 2000 moose. If the statistical average for both is similar, sample size doesn't mean much.

I suspect there is virtually no statistically significant difference in distance travel after the shot between any of the cartridges.

Now, if all the shots taken were Portuguese Brain shots, then the the more "powerful" cartridges would probably demonstrate much better results.


Casey

That is not what the table says. Methinks you owe us Swedes a bit of an apology for your comments on Swedish stupidity -- clearly you are criticizing something you have not read.

John (who can read Swedish, and has the complete original report)

Am I looking at a different chart.
The one I'm looking at states that the 30-06 (which is more plentiful and cheaper) had shot 2,829 moose and they travelled 47 feet after the first shot.
The 300 mag (less plentiful and more expensive)shot 27 moose and they travelled 16 feet after being shot.
I don't have to be an Einstein to figure out that the 300 mag is more deadly.

Canuck ,if the Moose shot with the .300 AND the lesser rounds are ALL DEAD ,how in the heck can the.300 be "more deadly"???.

Methinks you've been drinking too much eggnog.

Merry Christmas and enjoy your "mighty" .375s...

Statistic's are often something you can reach any conclusion you want from...

I agree, lighter recoil likely has some bearing. The fact that the 6.5x55 was the Swedish Army's round for most of the 20th century doesn't hurt, either. In fact, my second centerfire rifle ever was a Swedish military surplus 6.5x55 that I picked up for less than fifty bucks. (My first was a surplus .303 SMLE which I sporterized in my basement and used to take my first deer.) When my son decided he wanted to learn to shoot a centerfire rifle, I started him with that old Swede. He was a skinny 10-year-old at the time, but the easy-kicking 6.5 was the perfect choice. He went through the fifty mil-surp rounds I had with me and still wanted to shoot more.

Part of the hunting success of the 6.5x55 in Sweden is that the standard hunting round in that caliber is a 148 gr round from Norma. The bullet is VERY long for caliber. I don't know what the BC or sectional density is on that bullet, but it puts deer and moose down with authority, in my experience.

As for how far the moose walked after being hit, the difference between 15 meters and 47 meters is academic. You've still got a lot of work ahead of you gutting, quartering, and carrying that sucker out of the swamp. As we used to say when I was young: "Nothin' spoils a moose-huntin' camp faster than some damn fool shootin' a moose!"

The Swedish guy who sent the study to Wolfe Publishing (I will try to run it down) warned us about the results from the .300 Winchester, and to a certain extent the .338. In his experience, at least 100 kills is necessary to even START to come to any conclusion about "killing power," and more is a lot better.

His conclusion was that the results from the .300 Winchester are statistically invalid, due to a too-small sample. I would suggest he is right. If, as 378 suggests, the .300 Winchester would OBVIOUSLY be a better moose killer because of higher kinetic energy, then shouldn't the .375 H&H show up a lot better than it does, since it develops a lot more kinetic energy than the .300? But it does not.

I have not seen as many moose die as this study, but have seen a few here and there. Maybe 378 is right about all this--but his mere Campfire name would suggest that he is a little prejudiced. My own observations suggest that moose die when hit in the right place. I have seen some pretty quick kills from rounds like the .338, but the "quickest deadest" I have ever seen a bull moose killed was with one shot from a .270 Winchester.

The longer I hunt, the less I believe in kinetic energy as any sort of indicator of kiling ability. A big, heavy bullet can penetrate better, especially through bone, but even that advantage has diminished with the many bullets available today. I also know somebody here in my home town who has killed 7 bull elk, all sizes, with one shot each from a 6.5x55. He recently tried a .338-06, and lo and behold, he said it killed "about like the 6.5x55." He was somewhat disappointed, given all the hype he'd heard. But of course that was just a sample of one, which is statistically meaningless.

Nevertheless, I would say that several thousand moose are probably not statistically meaningless.

I have never hunted in Sweden, but did hunt in Norway about 10 years ago, doing red deer drives with about 25-30 Norwegian hunters. NONE of them carried a 6.5x55. The most popular cartridge was the .308 Winchester, but there were some .30-06's as well.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

John, that was my point in my response... should have just come out and said it!

Merry Christmas!

Why is it that everyone that I talk to that owns one says that a 260 Remington kills deer better and they run less than when they are shot with a 30-06? Is it shot placement or something magic about this caliber? Merry Christmas as well!

Well I'm not at 100 moose kills personnally but have been involved with around that number. One of the most dramatic kills was with my cousin and his 270, but I have followed a few 270 blood trails with no conclusion as well. The placement of the bullet is all important but from heated field conditions placement becomes a challenge, the experienced will have better success than the novice over time. The biggest eye opener for me is when I switched from a 7mm mag to the 35Whelen. The 7 would kill them for sure but only had 3 knock downs out of about 12 moose, and bears always ran. Out of about 20 moose with the 35 only a few stood at the shot, one was 1300+ lbs, he never moved but would not fall over right away. So the conclusion for me is a good medium or medium + in a rifle the suits you and success will be yours

Statistics are fine. You can go the route of finding the standard deviation of results, the mean, the mode, the median or find #s of any means and we come up with results that are all drawn from invalid conclusions. That meaning you'd have to shoot the animal in the same spot, lungs, heart, shoulder, liver, in order to put accuracy in the final theory. Is an '06 better than some other caliber for shooting a moose.....you'll be burning the midnight oil with statistics.

Sure 10,000 moose is a great sample size and a general conclusion can be made only because of the sheer #s which IMO, basically mean that a moose shot in the correct vital area will succumb to this: a moose will die when shot with a rifle.

The endless debate will go on but I'm not complaining.

This thread reminds me of an old quote.....

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

People select their hunting rounds on emotions, (the average hunter, not refering to people like 458Win or Mule Deer), not any concrete evidence of superior killing power. Then, when that particular round slays a deer or elk in short order, they seem to believe that is concrete evidence that no other cartridge would have worked as well. As time goes on, each kill becomes more spectacular in memory. I have witnessed two examples in the last three years of animals needing two shots to be rendered sufficiently dead to be skinned, and the said hunter describing the kill emphatically as a "one shot instant kill". I think by now, both believe it.
Sometimes, emotion butts heads with fact, reason and reality as in this study, and feelings are hurt.
Mule Deer, I wish that concept of at least 100 kills being required to even begin a study of killing power be started could be chiseled in stone here on the Campfire. Over and over, I see people here that have killed less than 50 game animals in their entire life hold themselves out as experts on several cartridges and many bullets in each cartridge on several species of game at all ranges- What was surprising to me, was the answer to your survey on the 338- From the vehement arguments that are posted here, I expected to see a lot more people that had taken a large number of animals with the cartridge.

Sorry to the Swedes about my comment-And on Xmas day too.
Sensibility will prevail. I've seen a native drop elk with a 22 magnum and some of my bow hunter friend kill lots of Elk with there arrows. My first big rifle was a 30-06 (17 years old)because as I said earlier it was the cheapest rifle out there and the ammo was also cheap and it seemed everyone had one. I chased a few wounded moose around and lost some shooting the cheap ammo of the era-didn't reload then.
I moved up to a 300 mag and I hardly ever chased moose very far and seldom. I wanted to go hunt in Africa so I got a bigger rifle, since the two afore mentioned weren't allowed. I went over to Africa and shot some animals. Came back to Canada and liked that rifle so much I figured I'd try it out on critters over here and I found that it worked well. So I got rid of the 30-06 and kept the other two since my 1st wife was bitching about all the rifles I had. What gets me is these surveys that really don't tell you much other than a certain caliber killing more moose simply because there is more of them out there.
It's wrong to gather that the 30-06 is the best, rather you should gather that it is more popular-that's it that's all.

Without the raw data, you can't do a whole lot to statistically analyze the data.

In practically all endeavors, there is an element of random variation. The question to be answered is, is the result I'm seeing easily explained by just random variation? If it is not, then we are justified in assigning some cause other than normal random variation.

As nearly as I can tell, that question cannot be answered with the summary data table.

Until we get the raw data, or a new data set, or one of us figures out how to wring a better conclusion out of the existing data, it is pointless to debate whether one cartridges kills alg better than another. We do not have enough information to answer the question. So far, we do not have a basis for saying that one cartridge kills more quickly than another.

The problems of different sample sizes for different cartridges, and different shot placement from event to event are easily handled. In a perfect world, we would have information about bullet weight and shot placement, but you can reach solid conclusions without that.

denton,

As I noted earlier, I will try to find the original report, as submitted to the magazine. But from whbat I recall, the number of moose was around 7800, and moose in Sweden are almost all hunted on drives, the moose often moved by alg-hounds. The shots are mostly at closer ranges, and many at moving animals--which is why moose hunters first have to pass a test on a running moose target.

One of the reasons the guy who submitted the data suggested that 100 was a minimum number of any reasonable conclusion is that when at least 100 animals were shot with rifles chambered for the same cartridge, variables such as shot placement tended to even out. In other words, if enough moose were shot, then "good" and "bad" shots tended to show up in some consistent proportion.

I seem to also remember that the shooters were required to submit the information. I don't know how such a bunch of kills could have been recorded otherwise.

At any rate, I have not seen 7800 big game animals killed, but have seen quite a few, and the results have made me lose faith in the magic of any one cartridge or bullet, or muzzle velocity, fot-pounds, pounds-feet, Taylor Knock-Out Values or whatever. The Swedish study just tends to reinforce this.

Before reading in a later post in this thread about what bullet was used in the 6.5x55, I was thinking how superficial and shallow comparing mere energy figures alone is, not to insult anyone, but the bullet does the job, not by a mathematical representation of it's speed, energy, etc. but how it penetrates and damages tissue along its path.

I'd venture to say, there are a few key variables to why a moderate 6.5 kills well.

1) Shootability (mild recoil plus commonly seen high level of rifle/load accuracy), as accuracy must be priority #1 PROPER PLACEMENT!

2) Bullet velocity in a range that even w/o a premium bullet, one often gets consistent controlled bullet behavior, save real light high speed bullets at close range on bone, something I doubt happens much in Sweden, as they often use heavy bullets at modest speeds likely 2300-2600 mv range.

3) Because the bullets used often hold up well, and begin with a high SD, straight line penetration is often very high I would assume giving higher probabilities than bullets that don't, and this enhances the likelihood of getting into the vitals.

There is no magic here, although people often propose better than ballistics would indicate killing power.

I'd presume any round, loaded with a similarly constructed bullet, similar SD as well, same shot placement, at similar velocity range to give that combo of penetration, with expansion, but w/o a bullet vaporizing would yield very similar results.

This would say put a 150-160 grain or higher in 7mm, and 200 grain 30 cal more on equal footing. Albeit higher recoil if using same velocities w/higher bullet weight.

Funny in America, Big Block engines and fast quarter miles ruled the muscle car era. As it is in rifle cartridges, the average joe blow wants a large cubic inches (Magnums) combined often with a light high MV projectile yielding flat trajectories, they often in their own right, kill well due to great hydrostatic shock and the resulting damage, yet velocity does drop quicker over time/distance, so often up close one needs PREMIUM bullets to withstand the higher speeds, yet at very long range one loses potential higher 'retained velocity/energy levels' but w/in shorter distances BC is not always as critical as some maintain-as it becomes very apparent at LONG distances more commonly seen punching paper, but less so in normal hunting distances that the common hunter will take game.

All one has to do is look at what handgun hunters have known and capitalize upon.....use heavy for caliber bullets and place the shot, straight line penetration is about a given, and a say hardcast flat nose bullet takes care of the rest, inside the animal as well as leaving a blood trail by exiting, should you need it. So it is with a mild heavy for caliber bullet, high penetration, which increases odds of hitting vital organs inside animal after you visualize where you need to put the slugs path, and squeeze the trigger on a rifle that you are not prone to flinch.

If you can find the data, I'll be glad to post an analysis. May have to put on my asbestos underwear before posting.... May not reach a popular conclusion.



Sorta. Having only a couple of dozen data in some subgroups probably isn't going to be a problem.



I'm a lousy hunter, and admit it. But everything I've learned about ballistics supports your conclusion, for North America at least.

65BR, I think you have posted some very wise observations.

So JB,

In regards to the moose being driven would you conclude from the study that the moose are moving with adrenaline, nervous fear of death energy?

Get a bull elk jacked up on adrenaline and moving hard to his basin hideout and I'll play magnum card.

I guess I could accept that study as is except for one nagging issue. Not all of those hunters were exactly alike in terms of hunting under pressure. That's where analysing the raw data comes in. I'd bet some bread that some of those guys shooting Moose there are ringers, guys who are the best hunters in Sweden. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, there are guys who can not put a killing shot together, which means all of their kills take several shots. Also, what bullets were they shooting?
I'm having a tough time wrapping my arms around the meaning of all of that data.

Don

I assume the distance traveled is in meters. So the diff between the 16m with an 300WM vs the 47m with a 30-06 is the distance a moose can travel at a trot in about 2-3 seconds

So yeah, the random variation factor may play a big factor here. And John B noted that the author thought a sample size of a minimum of 100 kills for each cartridge is required.

I speculate a P value could be found that would at least produce a smallish confidence (say 80%)?


Casey

Can't tell, without the original data. That's the problem.

The sample size required is a function of how small a difference you are trying to detect against a background of how much un-accounted for variation you have, plus, of course the statistical risk you can tolerate.

Sometimes you only need 4-5 data per subgroup. Other times 500 isn't enough.

Hunter skill, shot placement, and distance to target all get lumped with the un-accounted for variation. The more data you get, the more un-accounted for variation you can tolerate.

Moose , IME, rarely take off when hit well. They mostly stand around until they die. Some just take longer. I have shot most moose I've killed with the '06 and bigger stuff. I do think they kill quicker overall even if the distance traveled is little, if any, different. I will say the single moose I've killed with my 6.5 Swede - all four partitons- was taking his jolly time standing in generally the same spot while waiting for his lungs to fill or blood pressure to give out - until my partner let the air out with a single 180 Core-Lokt from his '06.

I think the one obviously "better" cartridge is the "other" Swede:





I'm sure glad I sent a 338 off to Norm Johnson to get it bored out to proper size!

One of the obvious problems with any simple formula, from KE to KO, is that it draws people into a concious or unconcious expectation that the formula is going to behave linearly from one end of the spectrum to another. Using simple models to describe complex phenomena is risky business; for example, if Body Mass Index was any good, NFL halfbacks would be declared obese and the gov't would force them to go on a starvation diet.

Consider the effect of bore size. Working with the example of an elk, there's probably some threshold bore size above which there are diminishing returns in terms of the effect of the entrance wound on the speed of collapse. Likewise, exit wound diameter, permanent wound channel volume, etc. And down at the small end, there is probably a strong nonlinearity; moving from .224" diameter to .243" diameter probably makes a substantial difference; moving from .358" to .366" probably doesn't (despite the frenzied claims of the 9.3 crowd).

And consider the sensitivity of bullet placement. When a 1 MOA aiming difference means hitting the aorta or not, I think it will take a LOT of data to ensure a decent confidence interval, even if you pre-sort your data down to double-lung shots for example.

There are so many independent variables, and the association of those variables with your dependent variable (be it collapse time, run distance, whatever) are so nonlinear at times and weak at times, that trying to extract a regression model out of it appears to be a time-consuming and fruitless exercise. Which is why Al Gore invented the Internet!

� but darn few pass my simple field demonstration:

� with an empty chamber when they expect a round to fire.

Most shooters (with precious few exceptions) yank the rifle as they pull the trigger. The bigger the cartridge, the more certain and more pronounced the yank. If the click had been a bang!, a bullet would've been 'way off the point of aim.

I will suggest one possible flaw in the implied conclusion, i.e., that (assuming a 6.5X55 or better) the only thing that matters is bullet placement. The flaw is the fact that hunters using a .30-06 (or lesser powered) class rifle round are going to be more hesitant to take a shot on a moose that is quartering away, and might well be more likely to wait for a more perfect (perpendicular) angle of the animal before taking the shot than someone with, for example, a .375 H&H. This fact could artificially skew conclusions favoring the .30-06 class of cartridges due to lower recoil and apparently equal terminal performance.

it looks to me as if they are all about equal. The 6.5 kills about as well as the 30-06, and about as well as the 375, there is just not that much difference to me 47 vs 47.567 feet etc. One trait "shootability" and starting a longer thinner bullet may compensate for "power", "velocity" and bullet diameter. That said the whole thing is to me is bogus as no information on the type of bullet used is included.

Seems like the most strenuous and emotional rejections of the study are that it removes about 98% of the basis for all arguments about why "my choice is better and your's sucks".

I can see why so many people are looking so hard for ways to discredit it.

The distance travelled gets very meaningful if that distance gets them to the water!! A hunter with much more experence than me said," If you get a moose going,he'll take more lead than an elk."

BCBrian, I dont have time to read the whole thread.

Mag in question is Handloader No.222 April 2003.

This whole issue is gold!

About the only conclusion you can safely draw from this study is that the 6.5 and the .30-06 was used by the majority of the hunters.

One place where 'bigger is better' might be significant would be if there was a listing of one shot kills. I find it odd that the average was about 1 1/2 shots, but this could be meaningless as well. After all, one shot and one kill and two shots and one kill average 1 1/2 shots per kill, but with the same shot placement, I would say the edge goes to the caliber that gave the one shot one kill, if there was any.

The chart, as it is written, would not help you to choose which caliber you would take to Sweden, because it took about 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 bullets for each moose, from the smallest to the largest caliber. Just how many took one and how many took four or five is not given, and this would be helpful only if the location of the shot was given. What we have is average, and average does not always represent true facts.

I wonder if the 6.5 was the smallest allowed for moose.

BINGO!!! The 35's continue to do the job despite being ignored ... what was it Taylor wrote regarding the 350G&H?? If pressures are okay and projectiles upto it ... he'd have preferred it to the 375H&H???
Cheers...
Con

This is one of those situations where the analysts are saying, "yeah, well so what if it works in practice. The important question is, does it work in theory?"

While acknowledging the lack of raw data to further sub-divide the results, and the fact that the smaller the sample the more an average might deviate from the median or mode(s), would anyone opine that there is any cartridge listed where the raw data would be markedly skewed or stand out from the others?

IOW, does anyone think that the .300 WM data show 26 one shot kills with one invincible moose (or really sh*tty marksman)requiring 27 shots? And no, I didn't backtrack the math, it's just an example.

Or the 6.5 perhaps really required 5 shots per moose and the moose all traveled over 200 meters except for those 197 that were head shot and dropped on the spot?

More data is always better but it looks like you guys are still trying to identify and magnify minute differences based on assumptions instead of seeing the general picture that the results in total are painting. Which is, that no one chambering really stands out from the others as God's Death Angel on Moose nor as the Casper Milquetoast of smokeless loads.

Looking at it as a whole what I see is that it supports the contention that one chambering really kills about as well as the next. My opine is that if we added another thousand examples each to those chamberings that are under represented then we would see the differences between them shrink even more.

I have been saying the same thing for the last few years. Though I don't get many to agree with me I think that the energy itself does very little if nothing when it comes to the killing of game. I feel like it is the ripping and tearing of vital organs that is what kills the game.
If energy killed, the shooter himself would die as well when he pulled the trigger. And while on that note people often mention energy dump, if a guy with a bullet proof vest gets shot, he will asorb all of the energy but it will probably not be fatal.

I don't know how these mathmatical formulas make their way into the hunting world. Sectional density is the other that baffles my mind.

Your absolutely right Ken and I use a live round but leave the safety on. Ready to fire on a Weatherby you see the red dot and on safe you see nothing. Remington has one near the trigger but you have to twist the rifle around to see it while the B can be viewed without moving your rifle. I've seen many a big fella jerk the trigger instead of a gentle squeeze. Large calibers kick hard but when you see game I've noted most guys don't even think of this and get a good shot off. You will see more flinching at the shooting range in my opinion.

Bullet proof vests will be penetrated both sides with most hi-power hunting rifles. they are designed for pistol bullets. Body armor is designed much stronger but the Lapua 338 was designed to penetrate 2 layers of body armor at 1200 yards. This was the criteria of the design.

Seriously cool.

Look how well the little old 308 win did!

With statistically significant numbers of animals killed (1,314) and very short travel distance (41 meters).

When considering how well the 6.5 Swede did, it shows (to me) the three most important things in rifle hunting: (1) Shot Placement; (2) Shot Placement; and (3) Shot Placement.

BMT

you guys are highly entertaining What's so hard to understand about shooting an animal with a modern cartridge & bullet & it dies...all pretty much the same. As long as a bullet has sufficient velocity/structure to get inside the vitals & do its damage it's pretty much a done deal.

All I know about dead mooses is a sample of one. Big Drift punched our party tag by putting 3 225gr Speers from a 35 Colonel into the pump portion of the boiler room on a young bull this fall. 2 shots broadside at 100, the third quartering to the right at 125. He dropped on the third but was dead on the first.

FWIW I *was* carrying a Swede on my way hiking from the next drainage over at the time of the animals demise. Had no qualms whatsoever of taking my M70 FWT with a belly full of 130gr TSX's on that hunt. The other two guys in the party had .270's with 150gr Partitions. I'm thinking those woulda dun da trick too.

GE

I'm told in these hunts the alg is driven, so is moving anywhere up to a slow trot, and the average shot is about 80 meters, given the country hunted. Also, the hunter keeps shooting as long as he can see the animal, so the 1.5 shots is possibly a recognition that either the animal is down or that he's disappeared into the brush.

What Jaywalker just wrote. The Swedish moose are generally moving when shot, the reason they tend to keep moving after being shot. And yes, Swedish moose hunters just keep shooting until either the moose is down or there is no shot.

It generally takes at least 10 seconds for blood pressure to drop in the brain after a solid heart-lung shot. This blood pressure drop is what makes an animal fall over from a heart-lung shot.

The other reason an animal falls over after being shot is trauma to the brain and spinal cord. A shot here dumps them. This is probably the reason the .300 Winchester shows up so well. A few spine shots would certainly skew the results in a small sample.

But we do not know that for sure. What we do know is that larger numbers of moose shot by the much more powerful .375 H&H did not show any vast shortening of how far the mose traveled after being hit.

The scientists who analyze wounds generally agree that the size of the wound channel is all that matters. This is not increased by "hydrostatic shock" (a term discredited by all but a few gun writers and some hunters) or kinetic energy. In fact, the hole made by a big rifle can be smaller than that of a small rifle. It all very much depends on bullet action.

There is an extremely wide variability in both individual animals and gunshot wounds, the reason a very large sample is needed to see any trends. This is the reason a more rigorous statistical analysis, as Denton fantasizes about, will probably not do any good.

Hunters are fond of examples of one, especially when trying to make a point about their favroite rounds. Here is another: I was once culling springbok in South Africa with, of all things, a .375 H&H, using the 260-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip at 2800 fps. Now, according to all the logic of kinetic energy, bullet diameter, etc. this should have dumped every little springbok (they are about 3/4 the size of pronghorns) on its nose.

A ram and ewe came by at about 100 yards, and stopped. I shot the ewe through the ribs and she dropped. The ram trotted a few yards and stood broadside. I shot him in the same place, as far as I could tell, and he ran off about 100 yards before stopping, wobbling and falling over. When we picked them up, each had an exit hole that could have accomodated a third of a football. So why did one drop and one trot off? Rigorous statistical analysis will not tell us--but in this case an example of one does indicate that even a REALLY BIG RIFLE will not knock them down all the time, despite the firmest beliefs of some hunters.

Now, there is obviously a difference in the "killing power" of a .17 Mach II and a .460 Weatherby. But there is damn little between, say, a .30-06 and a .300 magnum, despite much wishful thinking.

We have gotten into this discussion before here, and one guy (I cannot remember who) claimed that the elk he shot with the .30-06 always went 50-100 yards further than they did after he switched to a .300 magnum. He claimed he had observed this after shooting "almost 10 elk" with the .300. (Which made me wonder: what is "almost 10"? Nine? Eight? Even six is closer to 10 than zero. But none of them are anywhere close to 100.)

Then he went on the explain that about the time he switched to the .300, he had learned to shoot elk in the shoulder and spine. Which begs another question: Did the elk he spined with the .30-06 go 50-100 yards further?

This Swedish moose data is the biggest bunch of data I have seen on shooting big animals, at more or less the same ranges. I do believe that the large numbers shot with some cartridges tends to even out things like bullet construction and precise shot placement. The results also pretty much duplicate what I have seen over the years.

This is not to say that there aren't advantages to more powerful cartridges. Their bullets can more reliably break big bones and continue to penetrate, and they can (with the right bullet!) more reliably create a blood trail. However, that in itself is not really as telling a point as some might guess. It implies that often the blood trail is needed.

And that is the major point of all these numbers. No matter what we hit big game animals with, unless we break them down somehow they are all likely to go a ways (or stand around a while) before keeling over from a heart-lung shot. There is no amount of kinetic energy or hydrostatic shock or other hunter's magic that changes that. It is just the way animals are built.

Oh, forgot a couple commennts.

Klikitarik--How do you know the moose wasn't about to fall over anyway when it was hit by the .30-06?

378--Anybody who believes the .378 Weatherby always bowls them over should read Bob Hagel's story of shooting an Alaskan bull with the .378, in GAME LOADS AND PRACTICAL BALLISTICS FOR THE BIG GAME HUNTER. Bob even shoulder-shot his bull....

You make sense to me and I agree but put a few trees in the way and you will have a whole new ball game. Traverse some brush with a fast skinny bullet versus a heavy large diameter bullet plowing through trees. Hit a twig with a 7mm magnum versus a slow flying 444 and tell me what you figure will happen. And don't say it never happens especially with running targets in reference to the swedes way of hunting.

Actually, I have done a lot of testing of bulets through brush, and have little faith in any of them anymore. And one of my stories of failure involves a 250-grain .338 Nosler Partition that was turned sideways in a matter of inches by a Namibian thorn-twig smaller than my little finger.

Getting through brush is mostly a matter of chance. In fact, in one of the tests I did, the 105-grain 6mm Speer bullet did the best, at 2900 fps out of .243. The only reason I could figure was that it was small enough to zip between the branches more frequently.

I never shoot in the shoulders because to much meat is wasted. I always try to hit just behind the shoulder.Broadside lungshot or hump.
I shot one mule deer in the front quarter facing me and that was a big mistake. When I went to start working on the animal I grabbed the front leg and went to roll it over and the leg almost fell off. The hole was huge and that quarter was completely wasted. The bullet had glanced upward and kept travelling the length of the animal and exited in the lower back ribbing a hole the size of a softball on exit. Hump shots and lung shots are the best for me. If you hit in the hump they fold up like a cheap lawn chair because this is the muscle group that drives the front legs. Polar bears also need shooting in this area.

Twig bends or breaks.

Bullet changes direction.

Maybe skinny bullet misses twig.

Maybe not.

Might come down to batting a baseball vs a softball.

GE

At least that's how I figure it.

Edit: JB knows a heck of a lot more than I and was answering when I was figuring.

It's hard to judge killing power based on isolated episodes, and that includes Hagel's 378/moose episode. I was on a moose hunt in BC where a big bull was dropped where he stood with one 130 gr. Nosler out of a 270 Win., and I can recall an elk hunt where a raghorn bull ran for some distance after being shot through both lungs with a 270 gr. Hornady out of a 375 H&H, yet on the same hunt a big six-point dropped like a stone - like the BC moose - after taking a 130 Nosler out of a 270 Win.

Blend these episodes and it would begin to appear as though the 270 Win. is a better moose and elk killer than a 378 Wby. or a 375 H&H, but day-in and day-out, I would seriously doubt that this would prove to be the case under all possibly hunting conditions, given identical shot-placement and bullet-construction.

Based on eveything I've seen over the last 35 years, the faster cartridges in a given caliber (i.e. 300 Win. versus 30-06) provide the most consistently fast and decisive kills, provided that all other factors are about equal. I completely disagree that energy has little to do with killing power, which is in complete opposition to not only the laws of physics, but collective experience.

AD

I think kinetic energy is getting a bum rap here. I contend that kinetic energy can/does affect wound channel size (otherwise wound channel would always be no more than expanded caliber size).

1000 ft-lb is the energy needed to raise a 1000 lb block one foot off the ground. 2000 ft-lb can raise the 1000 lb block two feet of the ground.... and so on. Now make the 1000 lb block a channel of tissue and there's your wound channel totally dependent on kinetic energy.

The same increased energy "can" manifest itself as a larger wound channel. I see kinetic energy as the potential to do work. That's why I used the word "can". You have to hit something to get that energy transfer, and the tougher the tissue the more increased kinetic energy can be used in your favor. Bullet construction also obviously comes into play. You don't use a solid to transfer maximum kinetic energy in most mediums.

As far as hydrostatic shock is concerned I offer the example of milk jugs. Take the same round with the same bullet and handload to vastly different velocities. The higher velocity strike will always be more violent. That's energy at work, the same energy difference that "can" shock an animals system. My buddy disintegrated a small ground hog with a 220 Swift at spitting distance, never found even a drop of blood... that's energy transfer!

So what I see in these examples is not the irrelevance of energy but rather the mind numbing inconsistency of transfer of a rounds useful energy potential. All bullets arrive with varying kinetic energies (and momentums). You can't take energy out of the equation and expect to understand what happens after impact.

I agree with your posting and you have the experience with various calibers and in many countries. I have also killed elk with my 30-06 (165 SPBT) and one elk which I hit through the lungs fell almost right away. I was quite surprised because it was a near 300 yards. When we worked on the animal I found that the bullet had traversed the diaphragm (the section over the lungs that make them work) It seemed if you hit this section that make the lungs function, was more deadly than a heart shot.
I've seen a moose that was shot through the heart go about 30 yard before falling. Maybe this is comparing apples and oranges but still mystifying sometimes how animals hang on longer than others.

Obviously we don't.....and my comments we largely tongue-in-cheek anyway. (That moose only had 560 grains of lead in it anyway prior to that Core-Lokt! ) Perhaps the most significant thing may have been the fact that the bullet from the '06 made a goodly exit hole. What was significant in looking over the results after the fact was that those little 140s, two Noslers and two A-Frames did not make exits on any of the basically side-to-side shots, while the 180, 30 cal did. Those little 140s also made some rather small, (slower leaking I presume) holes in the lungs while the last bullet- admittedly one which may not have been a factor- tore a rather large, ragged hole in the lungs.

Having seen moose take and fall from all variety of sizes and speeds of projectiles at varying distances, I do believe it is rather difficult to quantify exact factors. A number of years ago I watched a moose take 850 grains or more of lead in virtually the same places from virtually the same distance (as the one I previously noted) - that was a 340 Wtby vs the 6.5. But then, I also know that 55 and even 40 grains can bring them right down.



I have never been on a moose drive nor hunted Swedish moose. The moose I've killed have mostly been standing animals. I'm sure driven moose are a different deal so distances traveled might be different considering their momentum and mindset prior to the shot(s). Since most of the moose I kill are "standers" - animals which after the initial lethal shot, often a simple lung shot, never wander far, a more significant statistic would be time from first shot to dead or down.

If you must break their big bones - or if that is a concern even though it is not necessary- then bigger, tougher bullets are an advantage and truer as distances get longer. I have yet to see a moose that won't die before leaving the county with a single solid lung job though.

I�ve thought about this thread before posting.

We can twiter-pate all we want about the meaning of this data. We can make it say anything we want.

Here is what the data does say:
Put a high velocity bullet in the right place and the animal dies in short order. 10000 friggin moose were shot. A sample of this size evens out a lot of the �sample of one� phenomena. Apparently many want to argue if moose traveling 19 yards/meters/furlongs makes a deader moose than one traveling 57 units. The difference in distance traveled is fairly insignificant.


I don�t understand the magnum vs standard cal argument. Admittedly, many/most have shot more truly big game than I. But����.

A 30 cal bullet traveling at 2800 ft/sec (30-06) vs the same bullet doing 3100 ft/sec (300 WM) gives the faster 30 cal about 150 yards of �effective� energy difference. Both bullets will have the same KE when both are traveling the same speed. The faster bullet happens to retain more velocity at a given distance than does the slower bullet at the same distance. At some point they have the same velocity � 300 yard 30-06 velocities are the same as 450 yard 300 WM velocities. The question is whether animals shot at 450 yards with the 300 WM react the same as when shot by a 30-06 does at 300. The answer has to be yes��������.

I also don't think KE has any bearing on killing an animal. I've shot lots of deer with recurves and sharp arrows. They die just as quick as shot with a rifle. Its about wound channels and bleeding - irregardless of projectile size or energy.

My $0.025 worth.

-- BW

I think that often, in these type of discussions the "speed guys" (and I used to be one of them) think in terms of "actual numbers" - rather than the much more useful "percentile differences".

To hear some people tell it, the .33 caliber cartridges are MUCH more deadly than .30 caliber cartridges. I've read that many times. This logic seems to ignore the fact that the bigger round is only 10% bigger across.

Does it really matter that much to you if a nail gun puts a 1/4 inch nail through your hand vs a 3/8th nail? Is the effect on the use of your hand going to be THAT different? I think not. Your hand is probably out of commission for a while and it's probably going to involve a trip to the hospital either way. Same with an animal hit with a bullet 10% bigger across.

Or another example, this one concerning bullet speed. The magnum round that sends the bullet out at 3300fps is only 10%faster than the "slow" standard round, that launches the same bullet at 3000fps.To hear some magnum fans tell it - that extra 10% makes so much difference. Please.

If you get hit by a car - it's the difference between getting hit by one moving at 33mph vs one that smashes into you at 30mph.

Is there anyone who is going to be able to tell the difference? A doctor, a policeman, or perhaps a statistical analyst? Anyone who works with accident scenes regularly, will tell you there is no way to state, with certainty, a vehicle's actual speed with anywhere near that kind of certainty - when looking at the results of an accident after the fact.

No one who accepts the data from this statistically valid study is arguing that a round that moves 10% faster, or is 10% bigger round won't THEORETICALLY kill an animal faster. What is being argued is, whether in a lifetime of shooting animals, will a person be able to see ACTUAL verifiable differences?

Until any one of us has shot 8000 moose or so, it would seem that the evidence shows - it's probably not a difference any one of us would be be able to measure.

Animals that get hit with appropriate bullets, die within a few metres of one another - what is so hard to believe about that?

After reading seven pages of thir thread, I am bound to conclude:

1. For animals weighing 2000 pounds or less, it does not matter what you shoot them with, provided your bullet is strong enough to hold together and has enough sectional density to penetrate deeply enough. Anything from the .260 Remington to the .375 H&H is just fine. (Maybe even the .25s?)

2. It does not matter what cartridge/bullet you use to try to penetrate brush.

3. The only imortant thing is size of the wound channel. This depends on bullet action and MAY be larger if kinetic energy is greater.

Is that about it?

Here's another study that concluded "Mean distances deer traveled varied between 14 and 40 yards but there was no apparent relationship with increasing or decreasing caliber size or the inherent differences in velocity or energy that is related to the different caliber groups."

Thank about that! "NO APPARENT RELATIONSHIP" in caliber size, bullet velocity or energy - vs. the distances the deer traveled after being hit. It appears deer are a lot like moose in that respect.

Here's the rest of the study:


Answering Questions About Guns, Ammo, and Man's Best Friend
ABSTRACT: Harvest of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) through regulated hunting is the most important tool available to deer resource managers. As wildlife professionals, we are often looked upon as outlets for information concerning not only biological concepts, but hunting in general. The hunting community can pose unique questions and in some instances, hunting related information is not supported by data. The purpose of this study was to attempt to answer questions most often posed by sportsmen. We attempted to determine; the importance of a trained dog in locating dead and wounded deer, the distance deer traveled when shot, the effects of shot placement, and differences in the effectiveness of various firearms and ammunition. Statistical significance was based on a probability level of P = 0.05.
We determined that on this study site, the mean distance of shots taken at deer was 132 yards and that there was a significant difference between shots that resulted in a deer (127 yds.) and those resulting in a miss (150 yds.). Overall it required 603 shots to harvest 493 deer resulting in 81.7 percent shooting success. There was no difference in shooting success with respect to antlered (81% ) or antlerless deer (83% ). Approximately 50 percent of the 493 deer ran when shot and the mean distance traveled was 62 yards. Antlered and antlerless deer traveled the same distances.
Of the 221 deer that ran when shot and were located dead, 61 left no discernable sign in the vicinity of the shot. An additional 19 deer were wounded by the shot. Using a trained dog expedited the process of recovering these 240 deer.
Deer were assigned to 3 groups depending on how difficult they were to recover. There were significant differences in the distances deer ran depending on whether they would be recovered; (a) easily (46 yds.), (b) with some difficulty (85 yds), or (c) not recovered without the aid of a dog (147 yds). Overall, a trained dog increased the harvest approximately 20 percent at this site because it almost totally eliminated unrecovered dead deer and crippling loss.
We determined that deer shot in the shoulder ran significantly shorted distances (3 yds.) than those shot in the heart (39 yds.), lungs (50 yds.), and abdomen (69 yds.). There were no significant differences in the efficiency of weapons when grouped by caliber. However, deer ran significantly less frequently (42%), less distance (27 yds.) and left sign more often (88%) when struck with soft type bullets than when struck with hard style bullets (60%,43 yds., and 81%).
Introduction
Harvest of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) through regulated hunting is perhaps the most important tool available to deer resource managers. As wildlife professionals, we are often looked upon as outlets for information concerning not only biological concepts, but hunting in general. The hunting community can pose unique questions and in some instances, hunting related information is not supported by data. The purpose of this study was to attempt to answer questions often posed by sportsmen. We attempted to determine; the importance of a trained dog in recovering deer, how deer react versus shot placement, and differences in the effectiveness of various firearms and ammunition
Study Area
Data for this study was collected at the Cedar Knoll Club which is a private hunting club located in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Although Cedar Knoll is a private club it has cooperated in a number of University sponsored white-tailed deer research projects since the late 1980s. The area is typical of the coastal plain of South Carolina with the majority of the area being in some form of intensive timber management. Due to timber management, habitats can best be characterized as being exceptional for deer and for the purposes of this study it cannot be over emphasized how thick habitat components are. An intensive deer management program has been in place since about 1984 and includes various techniques like burning, mowing and fertilization of native vegetation, plantings and direct supplemental feeding.
Methods
Essentially, the bulk of the data for this study was hunt type data. Still hunting was the method employed and hunts were conducted in the morning and evening. Hunters were placed in elevated permanent stands based on wind direction and recent use by deer. All stands were equipped with seats and rails to improve safety and facilitate marksmanship. Deer were harvested with scoped center-fire rifles. After each hunt, participants were picked up at the stand. If a deer was shot and it did not leave the hunters sight, it was removed to the club for processing. If the deer left the hunters sight after the shot, a trained dog was used to determine if it had been hit and to attempt to recover the animal. For this study all shots at deer were recorded as was an estimate of the range of the shot. The distance the deer traveled and the type or amount of sign was noted. Information concerning the recovery or attempted recover of all deer was recorded as was the involvement of a trail dog. If the deer was recovered it was assigned to one of four categories describing how difficult the animal was to recover. Other data included the caliber of rifle and type of ammunition. Shot placement was determined for all harvested deer when they were processed.
As it relates to recovering deer, please keep in mind that there are a number of factors that potentially enter into the likelihood of recovery. Habitat type is one of the key elements affecting how easy recovering deer will be. This particular study area is characterized as being exceptional deer habitat on the basis that most of the land use was in intensive timber management. Southeastern habitats that are under intensively forest management typically are very dense in the under story especially early in the rotation, therefore visibility and accessibility can be greatly limited. Second, we must consider that the times during the day when deer normally present themselves to the hunter are not times that offer good visibility. Most deer in this study were taken around sunup or sundown. Finally, wildlife openings or food plots tend to be long and narrow. All of these factors combine and lend themselves to situations in which hunters can have trouble determining exactly were a deer was standing and the direction it traveled.
Results and Discussion
A total of 493 deer were harvested during the study including 305 antlered deer and 188 antlerless deer. Hunters fired 603 shots to harvest these deer and were therefore, about 82 percent successful with their shooting. There was no statistical difference between shooting percentage depending on the sex of the deer. We feel that this is a pretty good shooting percentage considering the variable experience levels that the hunters had.
The mean distance of all shots taken at deer was 132 yards. For shots that resulted in a deer the average was 127 yards. On the other hand, shots that were unsuccessful had a range of 150 yards, significantly further than the distance of successful shots. Intuitively you would assume that marksmanship suffers with increased distance to the target, however, I would not have expected a statistical breakpoint between roughly 125 and 150 yards.
Of the 493 deer that were harvested, 51 percent dropped when shot and 49 percent ran. If there is no consideration given to shot placement, it would appear that how deer reacted was largely random on this study area.
Recovering Deer
Using a trained dog to assist in the recover of deer is a technique that has gained in popularity in recent years. Recovering deer in the traditional sense can be inefficient when conditions such as darkness, rain, thick terrain or when wetlands or water bodies exist. Also, a trained dog can almost immediately determine whether a deer is hit which ultimately saves time attempting to recover something that is not there. For this study a dog was used anytime a shot was taken at a deer regardless of what the hunter thought or said about the shot.
We were able to estimate the importance of a dog in recovering deer by assigning each animal to one of 4 classes based on how difficult it was to recover. Certainly, assigning deer to these classes was subjective and depended largely on our experience. However, tangible considerations were important in this process and included the distance the deer traveled, the amount of sign where the deer was shot and the type of habitat that the deer entered after leaving the vicinity of the shot. Also, the general feeling from the hunter concerning where the deer was standing, the direction it traveled and their confidence level concerning the outcome.
If we look at the data in table form, it appears that assigning deer to the classes based on difficulty of recovery worked well. Note that dramatically fewer and fewer deer were assigned to the classes which represent the more difficult recoveries. Similarly, the average distance deer traveled varied between each class with deer traveling progressively and significantly further as recoveries became more difficult.
If we keep the distance data in mind and look at the more subjective characteristics it seems that the Classes make pretty good sense. Deer that were assigned to Class 1 either did not run or did not leave the hunter's sight, therefore, a dog was not necessary. Obviously, anyone would recover deer assigned to this class. Deer that were assigned to Class 2 would have also been recovered very easily. These deer ran short distances, often into relatively open habitat and they left very good sign. The average hunter would have no trouble recovering Class 2 deer if an attempt was made.
Class 3 deer on the other hand, ran significantly longer distances than Class 2 deer and these deer left little or no evidence that it was hit particularly near the area where it was standing. Also, Class 3 deer generally entered thick terrain were visibility and access was restricted. The average hunter would get his buddies and struggle to locate Class 3 deer without a dog. It is our opinion that many Class 3 deer would not have been recovered without a dog, however they were assigned to Class 3 rather than Class 4 based on the criteria.
Class 4 deer were judged unrecoverable without the use of a dog. It turned o that only 24 deer were assigned to this class which represents about 5 percent of the animals harvested the study area. Deer in this Class traveled significantly further than Class 1, 2, or 3 deer. There was no evidence that the deer was hit where it was standing and generally, any sign that was discovered before the deer was recovered was sign that was located by the dog. In addition to significantly longer distances, Class 4 deer traveled into extremely thick habitat that often included wetlands or water.
Thus far we have discussed the characteristics of recovering deer that were found dead. However, during this study an additional 19 deer that were not dead but had been wounded by the shot were recovered using a trained dog. Deer that were still alive typically had suffered a wound one or more of its legs, a wound to the lower most abdomen or flank or some other significant wound did not involve major organ systems. As with Class 3 and 4 deer, these deer traveled into extremely thick habitats that often involved wetlands or water. Normally the dog located the deer bedded in dense cover. In some cases the dog would bay the deer which would allow us to determine were the deer was and we would be able to work our way to the location and dispatch the animal. In other cases, the deer would run after being located by the dog and travel some distance before bedding again. This process was repeated until the deer would hold at bay allowing us to determine were it was, traverse to the location and dispatch the deer. Distance determination was not possible for these deer because they traveled too far and erratically.
Overall we feel that a trained dog accounted for 15-20 percent of the deer harvest during this study. This can be determined by recognizing that the dog was responsible for many of the 61 Class 3 deer that left little or no evidence of being hit, al124 of the Class 4 deer that were determined to be unrecoverable without a dog, and 19 deer that were still alive and had been wounded by the shot. Also, by using a dog every time a shot was fired, the efficiency in recovering deer and differentiating deer that are hit from those that are not was greatly increased.
Shot Placement
In this study we were also interested in documenting the importance of shot placement because this is often a point of debate among sportsmen. We have already seen that deer run nearly 50 percent of the time when they are mortally wounded. Certainly, shot placement is the most important factor related to how deer react after being shot. Several types of trauma can lead to the rapid death of an animal that is struck by a bullet. Significant trauma to the central nervous system, the respiratory system or the circulatory system will all prove effective.
For the purposes of this study, bullet placement consisted of neck, spine shoulder, heart, lungs and abdomen. Since animals that were hit in the extremities or hit superficially were still alive they were eliminated from this particular analysis in favor of more traditional bullet placement locations. In this study deer shot in the neck and spine were immediately rendered immobile and succumbed quickly. Deer that were shot broadside in the shoulder ran a mean distance of 3 yards while animals hit in the heart, lungs or abdomen traveled 39, 50 and 69 yards respectfully.
So what shot placement is the best. Neck shots worked well in this study, but they can be problematic because the target area is very small and there is a risk of wounding associated with the target. Potential problems include a shot to the esophagus or mandible. Also, spine shots can be ruled out as a recommenced shot because few shots are consciously directed at the spine. In other words, most spine shots result from shots that miss their mark high and incidentally hit the spine
Based on the data collected in this study we feel that the best shot placement for deer is the shot directed at the shoulder. Traveling an average of only 3 yards, deer shot in the shoulder traveled significantly less distance than deer shot in the heart, lungs, or abdomen. Also, with such a short distance of travel, deer shot squarely in the shoulder did not generally leave the hunter's sight. In this study, the broadside shoulder shot essentially gave results similar to what most hunters expect from a neck shot. Presumably the broadside shoulder shot works well because it strikes part of the heart and or lungs which itself is a mortal blow. However, a shot through the scapula damages the brachial plexus which the central nervous system thereby rendering the animal immobile. It knocks the animal out and it never regains consciousness. Also, the shoulder is a very large target offering room for error; a high shot hits the spine, a low shot the heart and a shot to the rear hits the lungs.
Firearms and Ammunition
Hunters are often very opinionated with respect to firearms and ammunition and similarly, there are many misconceptions related to the subject. It is still common for hunters to place more emphasis on their firearms and ammunition than on shot placement. The old saying "I use this magnum because you can hit them in the butt and blow their head off' is still common. Also apparent are skeptical remarks implying that smaller caliber center-fire firearms are less effective and result in deer running further and increased crippling rates.
During this study there were in excess of 20 different center-fire cartridges to harvest deer. To reduce variability the various cartridges were group by their respective caliber. T resulted in the delineation of 5 caliber groups; .243 cal., .25 cal., .270 cal., .284 cal., and .30 cal.
In order to gain some objective measure of how these calibers performed on deer, we looked at the distance deer traveled. This included all animals regardless of whether they died in their tracks or ran. We found no significant difference in the performance of these caliber groups when comparing how deer reacted. Mean distances deer traveled varied between 14 and 40 yards but there 1 no apparent relationship with increasing or decreasing caliber size or the inherent differences in velocity or energy that is related to the different caliber groups.
Custom versus Factory
Recently there has been an increasing interest among hunters related to custom firearms and the super accurate shooting that accompanies these weapons. Questions often arise concerning potential differences between factory made and custom made equipment. Since we recorded the type of firearm and ammunition, we were able to check for differences between factory made and custom made firearms. Once again, the distance deer traveled was used as the determining factor and there was no statistical difference between custom and factory firearms. Regardless of the weapons make, deer traveled about 30 yards.
Ammunition
The final question that we addressed in this study dealt with differences in the performance of different bullet types. With the popularity of hand loading and super accurate shooting sportsmen often debate the merits of different bullet types. For the purposes of this study and because there are so many different bullet types, we placed bullets into 2 categories. Group 1 consisted of softer type bullets. In other words, bullets that are designed to rapidly expand on impact. Bullets falling into that group included ballistic tips, bronze points or any other soft point bullet that is of the appropriate weight for the caliber, for southeastern sized deer. For example, a 150 grain ballistic tip bullet in a .30 caliber rather than a 200 grain bullet in the same caliber. Group 2 bullets were just the opposite and included some of the premium types of ammunition loaded with controlled expansion bullets including Partitions, Grand Slams, Barnes X, and various types of solids. Also, bullets that are generally accepted as being too heavy for southeastern sized deer were placed in this group. For example, a 200 grain bullet in a .30 caliber weapon is generally considered too much for southeastern deer. Overall, Group I bullets could be characterized as being explosive on impact, where as Group 2 bullets were controlled in the manner they expand.
Again, using the distance that deer traveled as a measure of performance we found that deer struck with the more explosive type bullets traveled a mean distance of about 27 yards while those struck with hard or heavy bullets traveled an average of approximately 43 yards. This represents a significant difference with deer struck by hard bullets traveling further. The second method of monitoring bullet performance dealt with the percentage of deer that were dropped in their tracks by the respective bullet groups. Again, explosive type bullets significantly outperformed the hard/heavy bullets with 58 percent knock downs compared to 40 percent. Finally, and more subjectively, we looked at the percentage of deer that ran and left poor sign. Again we found a significant difference between the two groups indicating that deer struck with more expanding type bullets left poor sign only about 12 percent of the time compared to over 21 percent for the hard/heavy group.
Summary:
Objectives to determine
Importance of trained dog in recovering deer
How deer react vs. shot placement
Differences in firearms and ammunition

Study Area
Coastal plain of South Carolina
4,500 acre private hunt club
Intensively managed

Data Collected
Number and distance of shots
Trail dog necessary
Deer hit, yes or no
How far did deer travel
Deer recovered, yes or no
Weapon and bullet characteristics

Shot placement
As it relates to recovering deer, please keep in mind that
Habitat type affects recovery
Deer are often shot in poor light
It can be difficult for hunters to determine where the deer was standing and the direction it traveled. Particularly on long, narrow roads or food plots.


Shooting Percentage
Deer type # Deer Shots Percent
Antlered 305 375 81.3
Antlerless 188 227 82.8
Total 493 603 81.7

How far were shots?
Average distance of all shots = 132 yards
Shots resulting in a deer = 127 yards
Shots resulting in a missed deer = 150 yards
Significant difference in distance "deer vs. missed deer"

How did deer react?
A total of 493 deer were taken.
253 deer ran when shot, 51%.
240 deer dropped in tracks, 49%.
If shot placement is ignored, how deer react is a coin toss.

Recovery data
Class 1 � didn�t leave sight, no dog required.
Class 2 � ran short distance, left good sign.
Class 3 � longer distance, poor/no sign, rough habitat.
Class 4 � judged unrecoverable without dog, considering all factors: distance, sign, habitat.

Recovering deer
Class # Deer Yards Traveled
Class 1 253 <5
Class 2 155 46
Class 3 61 83
Class 4 24 152

Importance of a trained dog in recovering dead deer.
Class 1 deer did not run or did not leave hunter�s sight. Dog not necessary, anyone would recover deer.
Class 2 deer ran short distances, left good sign and good visibility in habitat. If an attempt to recover deer was made it would have been located easily without a dog.
Class 3 deer ran significantly further than Class 1 or Class 2 and left little or no evidence of hit. Trailing condition involved heavy cover, wetlands, etc. The average hunter would get a friend and struggle to recover deer without a dog.
Class 4 deer were judged to be unrecoverable without use of a dog. These 24 deer traveled significantly further than Class 1, 2 & 3 deer. If sign was found it was always well away from the scene and typically this sign was found by the dog. Recovery involved extremely thick habitat, wetlands, water, etc.

Importance of a trained dog in recovering live deer.
An additional 19 live/wounded deer were recovered using a dog.
These deer suffered wounds to various body parts including legs, mandible, lower abdomen, etc.
Thick terrain, wetlands and/or water involved in recovery.
Deer traveled too far and erratic routes for distance determination.

What about unrecovered deer?
There were 15 unrecovered deer:
Superficial wounds
In many cases this was determined only by the reaction of the dog.
Dog trailed an average of 297 yards.


Importance of a trained dog in recovering deer � bottom line.
Dog accounted for many of the 61 Class 3 deer, all 24 Class 4 deer and all 129 live/wounded deer.
This represents approximately 75 -100 of the 493 deer harvested on the property, i.e. 15 �20%.

Effects of shot placement.
Shot Location # Deer Yards Traveled
Neck 25 <1
Spine 27 <1
Shoulder 170 3
Heart 14 39
Lungs 152 50
Abdomen 58 69

Firearms and ammunition.
More than 20 centerfire cartridges in 5 different caliber were used on study area.
To reduce variability, cartridges were placed in caliber groups: .243, .25, .270, .284, .30

Firearms and ammuntion � calibers
Caliber # Deer Yards Traveled
.243 (6mm) 48 40
.25 36 14
.270 84 31
.284 160 26
.30 116 33

Firearms and ammunition � Factory rifles vs. custom rifles
Make # Deer Yards Traveled
Factory 164 29
Custom 169 29

Firearms and ammuntion � Bullet types
Group 1 � Rapidly expanding bullets such as Ballistic Tips, bronze points, etc. Any soft point bullet of appropriate weight for a particular caliber for southeastern deer.
Group 2 � Harder or more controlled expansion bullets such as Partitions, Grand Slams, Barnes X, etc. Any bullet that is heavier for a particular caliber than is generally recommended for southeastern deer.

Firearms and ammuntion � Bullet type results.
Type # Deer Yards traveled % Dropped % Poor sign
Soft 360 27 58% 12%
Hard 84 43 49% 21%

Conclusions.
Shooting percentages about 82%.
The farther the shot, the lower the chance of getting the deer.
Deer ran about 62 yards on average.
Shot placement is determining factor. All things considered, broadside shoulder shot worked best compared to others.
About 50:50, deer run vs. deer don�t run.
Trained dog expedited recovery of all deer that ran.
Dog very important in recovering 61 deer that left poor/no sign, 24 deer judged unrecoverable, and 19 live/wounded deer.
Dog accounted for approximately 15 � 20% of total harvest on hunting area, i.e. 75 � 100 deer.
No difference in effectiveness of various calibers.
No difference between factory vs. custom firearms.
Significant difference between bullet types. This study indicates that rapidly expanding bullets lead to deer running less often and less distance and when they run they leave better sign.




Home � Up � Feedback � Site Map � Search
This site is best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer and an 800 x 600 monitor screen setting.
Send mail to [email protected] with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 10/18/07

The cross sectional area is 17% graeter for the 338 as compared to the 308. At some point there will be a differance. I tend to group cartridges into classes. Like sayin' is a 270 better than a 280, the answer is no. They are in the same class. All the bullet has to do is penetrate the animal to the point that the vital organs cease to function.

One of my points was that you have to take bullet construction into the equation. It's the bullet that makes use of the available energy in concert with the resistance it meets in the form of reaction force/pressure at its leading edge.

That's why there is no apparent relationship until you add in the bullet type!

Lessee here...
Experienced hunters like Mule Deer and Phil Shoemaker say there is little difference in the killing power of various calibers...
And lookee over there! Got a couple of studies that say virtually the same thing... little difference in killing power...
Now, got lots of people with much less experience and no studies that say there HAS to be a lot of difference...
Hmmmm.... who should I believe...

Almost. Don't forget placement. Where the animal is hit is more important than what it is hit with.

I'd sum it up by saying something like "accuracy, accuracy, accuracy is the most important factor in killing power. Every other topic of discussion is mere noise." I think I've seen a saying similar to that...

You should believe ballistics, you should believe the science of physics, and by all means you should believe "the man who could have been so much more", Bob Hagel, who stated, quite simply honestly, and to the point:

"According to all rules of mathematics and ballistics, the cartridge that starts a bullet the fastest of the same weight, caliber and shape, not only packs more punch but shoots flatter. It follows that any advantage in killing power lies with the cartridge delivering the highest velocity."

What's so hard to understand about all that, anyway? It's in complete agreement with all known physical laws, and it's the foundational reason why the U.S. Army dropped the 45-70 and went to the 30/40 Krag, then the 30-06. If you double a bullet's weight, you double its energy, but it you double a bullets velocity, you QUADRUPLE its energy. Any college student who's a non-hunter but managed to pass Physics 101 could understand this concept quite easily.

But to illustrate, you could take a couple of reasonably bright 16 year old kids out to the range as observers and shoot some water-filled milk jugs at, say, 300 yds. with a 308 Win. and a 300 Win. Mag., both load to their full potential with 180 gr. bullets of the same make and construction, and then ask those kids which of the two cartridges is more powerful. This is also a good and practical illustration of energy-transfer, since animal tissue is some 75% water in the first place...........

AD

One of the things I took from the 30 caliber bullet test was that it didn't matter if the bullet was doing 2700 or 2200,the expansion was the same, as was the penetration. So basically a 308 and 300 magnum had the same killing power.

First off, believe whomever you want... but why not the one who is right!

Never said there was a lot of difference. In fact I concede that there may be no difference in most kills that can be detected. But there is a good reason for that and its founded in good science.

I will say though that "useful" energy is present in the high energy rounds. Experiments can be set up to show it. Since energy has to be extracted, it's footprint can be elusive. An example is when a bullet sails through between the ribs and empty lung cavity. The energy leaving was just not needed.

The problem (why energy is out of style) is that energy is the entity that is transfered when penetration doesn't happen fast enough for a particular bullet design. And since it's possible to kill with a fraction of the available energy when you hit a vital, some people can be fooled into thinking energy has irrelevancy... maybe partially because of the broad spectrum of bullet types available today.

The pendulum seems to have swung too far to one side for my tastes. I'm an engineer and will react to anyone who disregards some of the physics. Like I said before, Einstein's genius was that he didn't disregard anything in formulating his theories... while many others threw out what didn't fit their model. I think that has happened here.

But you're right, who am I.

One, at least two posts have mentioned water-filled jugs now. Problem is, and this has verified by science, that while there's a lot of water in animals, it isn't contained in jugs. Most soft animal tissue stretches to one extent or another. This is the reason that hydrostatic shock doesn't function as a part of killing power in any animal too large to be disinegrated by a bullet. In fact, the "temporary wound cavity" caused by hydraulic expansion has no bearing in mortality.

Two, Bob Hagel was not a forensic scientist. The conclusion of the folks that are is that the size of the PERMANENT hole is all, no matter how many foot-pounds made it. The best we can say is that more kinetic energy has the potential to make a bigger hole, but the two are not necessarily connected.

Three, there is still that little matter of blood pressure not dropping for at least 10 seconds, no matter the size of the hole.

Well I've read this thing, ever which way up and down and sideways. I had time to reflect on this - One thing for damn sure we have 10,000 dead moose in Sweden and probably 500 running around glad there not.

Concerning shooting through brush, Kenny Jarrett had similar findings with the .243. He conducted a test with a .243 and a 30-30 using dried and green brush placed at 25 yards and a target with a 4� circle at 60 yards. The .243 placed 71% of 20 shots in the circle compared to 46% for the 30-30.

In my opinion, this is the core issue.

When a bullet strikes flesh, there are at least two ways that the energy splits up. Some goes into crushing and destroying tissue, and some goes into stretching the surrounding tissue.

The crushing and destroying of tissue makes a hole, that hopefully intersects with something like one or more major blood vessels, which causes the animal to bleed to death.

The stretching bruises the surrounding tissue (bloodshot), but basically, after the bullet passes through, the tissue snaps back into place.

Bigger, slower bullets tend to split the energy more toward the crushing and destroying side, and smaller, faster bullets tend to split the energy more toward stretching and bruising.

If there is a strike on a major bone, that soaks up a lot of KE, too.

So you can't make a successful model out of just kinetic energy. You have to consider how much energy was left after penetrating hide and bone, and you have to consider how the destructive energy of the bullet was split betweeen crushing and stretching. It is the size and placement of the permanent hole that counts.

I can understand the difference between a permanent wound channel, and hydrostatic shock, but would theorize when the shock wave hits the nervous system, (not the bullet or permanent wound channel) then it would cause an affect on an animal if great enough, especially say on a deer. As to the soft tissue expanding, I guess like a balloon filling? Heard others tell me they witnessed a deer on impact by a close shot say 300 mag w/150 btip that the animal momentarily expanded in the chest area.

Also, have read....yes only read where high velocity bullets disrupts the tiny valves in arteries/veins to where it affects the functioning of the cirulatory system. This may have been discussed re: autopsy results of enemy soldiers hit with 5.56 in Nam? Perhaps hydrostatic shock was 'exagerated' by those Weatherby cartridge promoters long ago, but it seems even PO Ackley wrote of quick kills that were seemingly amazing on the size animals via 220 swift and 17 calibers.

Note, I am not one to promote ballistic pros of ultra high speed bullets, as I think moderate speed deep penetrating rounds consistently produce solid kills in the field.

If I understand things correctly, a permanent hole is one that has nothing to do with hydrostatic shock? Why is a wound channel so much wider often times than the expanded projectile? Would this be caused by mass in front of the bullet making way for the bullet?

Well, I am not overly concerned with getting TOO deep in the science as it is important but results take precedent and there are certain caliber bullets/and the corresponding bullet used for those, that have a stronger reputation for positive field results more so than others.

Good point there but what if a ,375 cal-300 grain bullet aprox a 1.5 inch long hits ribs and immediately starts tumbling through the animal versus one that rockets right through - can this occur? Is this another variable not addressed here so far or is it nonexistent?

I think all would agree that when the velocity and or weight of a bullet is increased there is SOME increase in the bullets potential ability to cause tissue damage.
I have some questions that follow that premise:
First, can you quantify the increase in tissue damage at 100 yards between a 30/06 and a 300 Winchester Magnum, both using opotimum bullets? Is it 1/10 of 1%, 5%, 10%, or what? Does the tissue damage increase in direct proportion to the kinetic energy or to the velocity or is the increase in tissue damage only a fraction of the increase in velocity/energy?

Also, how does the increase in tissue damage translate to increased killing power? Is it enough to be measurable by trained observers?
It does not contradict the sciences to say that the increase in velocity of a 300 Magnum over a 30/06 for example, causes such a small increase in killing power as to be outweighed by individual animal responses, and slight differences in bullet placement.
It is NOT very scientific to keep repeating the same argument over and over, that there MUST be a significant difference in killing power when there is NO evidence supporting that, and much that contradicts it.
It is also "common sense" that the cold water pipes in a house will freeze before the hot water pipes will in sub zero weather, but that isn't what happens.
but that isn't the

So I guess at the end of the day a 30 M1 carbine is just as powerful as a 300 Wby., right? If that's not the case, then ALL of the testimony that's been furnished about energy having nothing to do with killing power is, by straight and honest intrepretive admission, totally false.

I will say this: Hagel many not have been a scientist, but his interpretations are much more in line with science, as well as my own experiences, that most of the rest of this stuff has been on this thread.

The science of ballistics seems to have devolved into some sort of a sliding scale of touchy-feely variables that seem to be more a matter of mood and day-to-day interpretation than anything else - much of which seems to be tied more to a preference for cartridges of light recoil.

Years ago, in a 7x57 article Jack O'Connor made the statement that energy had very little to do with killing power. Then in a later 300 magnum article, he marveled about how sudden and dramatic the kills from a 300 if the shots were well-placed, adding that the 300s offered more than just more noise and recoil, that they provided sure hitting and killing power at long range. Now, just where the duce did he think that extra level of performance came from, anyway, if energy has nothing to do with killing power?

AD

[quote=denton] [quote]
Bigger, slower bullets tend to split the energy more toward the crushing and destroying side, and smaller, faster bullets tend to split the energy more toward stretching and bruising.

[/quote

Why? Doesn't make sense at all. Does a big, fast bullet all of a sudden only stretch and bruise now that it's going fast compared to when it was slow.

Lou

The bullet design and shot placement connects the kinetic energy with the potential to make a bigger hole and therefore bestows on higher energy rounds the potential of greater killing power.

Allen
Let me put this another way and see if it seems less as though I am at odds with you, which I don't mean to be, and would be very pretentious of me, given your experience versus mine.
It seems as though there is a threshold of tissue damage that is required of a cartridge to be effective on deer, elk, etc under hunting conditions. The bigger the animal, the more tissue damage required for a cartridge to be deemed adequate given the test of time.
The 30 carbine is probably below the threshold for elk at any range, and likely even deer at much of a distance. The 300 Weatherby, everyone would pretty much agree, is above the threshold at most hunting ranges.
It seems that once that threshold of tissue damage is exceeded, ( based on field studies, and anecdotal evidence from many experienced hunters) that as energy is increased, while "killing power" is not decreased, that killing power increases very minimally in proportion to the increase in kinetic energy, or bullet weight/velocity.
I suspect that long expeience has taught the Swedes that the 6.5 is above the threshold for adequate tissue damage required for moose. From what I know about the 358 Norman is that they are mostly owned by gun nuts and people that are likely to shoot a lot. I would guess that many of the moose shot with the Norma cartridge were hit with better placed shots, on average than other cartridges.

Drill the shoulders with a good bullet and critter dies....


Pretty simple really.

Haven't really thought about why, but it does come from observation. Sadly, some of the best data we have on wounding mechanics comes from the treatment of soldiers in war.

A .17 bullet going Mach 3 may carry a lot of KE, but it will cause a larger area of bloodshot meat, and a smaller wound channel. A 45-70 bullet with similar KE will split the KE more toward creating a wound channel, and less toward stretching.

I don't think that energy splitting up is the best analogy. A bullet arrives with energy and momentum. The momentum is what displaces flesh for the expanded caliber sized hole. The energy is what widens that channel. This is because energy only changes forms to... collision dynamics, sound, heat; whereas, momentum converts to force useful for penetration.

And I think penetration from momentum always leads. A paper target shows this. A bullet penetrates and leaves a neat hole. Even highest energy most fragile bullet rounds don't blow the page up. That's because only momentum is needed.

You boys keep up the good fight, I'll just keep killing [bleep] by drilling the shoulders with a GOOD bullet......

gmack...

Energy and momentum are different expressions of the same fundamental physical events and properties. If you have one, you have the other. They cannot be separated. We use one or the other mostly as a matter of convenience in doing our calculations.

378,

Yes, bullets can and do tumble. Unfortunately, this is one variable we can't count on.

Allen,

I have been trying to explain the science here, especially that of larger permanent wound channels, but apparently you choose to believe Bob Hagel rather than, say, an international association of forensic scientists. (In general, to those who apparently believe in hydrostatic shock, there apparently has never been any scientific evidence that it exists, much less that it somehow affects the nervous system of animals. It was more less invented by gun writers.)

If you are absolutely convinced that X amount of kinetic energy results in Y amount of damage, then go for it. Believing in the rifle you're using is a big part of it.

Let me again emphasize: The scientific evidence is that size of the permanent wound channel makes the biggest difference. If we use a bullet that partially disinegrates inside the chest cavity of a deer or elk, or expands very widely, this will make a bigger permanent wound than any expanding bullet that acts like a mushroom-tipped solid. And a bullet that doesn't zip out the other side will make a bigger hole than a bigger bullet that punches a smaller hole all the way through.

But let us assume that a .308 caliber bullet expands to twice its original diameter, and punches a hole all the way through. This results in a frontal area of .298 of a square inch.

Let us next assume that a .338 caliber bullet expands to twice its original diameter, and punches a hole all the way through. This results in a frontal area of .359 of a square inch.

I would submit that an extra .061 square inch is going to make a vast difference in how quickly the animal keels over from a lack of blood pressure ot its brain. And this is why animals typically make it 35-40 yhards before falling down from a heart-lung shot. This is also science.

Oh, and by the way, there was another comparative in-field study done on the National Bison Range in the 1950's, when culling elk. The same shooter used a pair of Model 70 Winchesters in .30-06 and .375 H&H, with 220-grain and 300-grain Silvertip bullets respectively. In this case shot placement was noted (the shooting was observed by my old zoology professor Phil Wright, of the U. of Montana, who published the results in AMERICAN RIFLEMAN), as well as range, size of animals (most were weighed), wound, how long each animal stayed on its feet in seconds, how far each animal traveled after being hit, etc. Phil was also a honcho in the Boone & Crockett Club, and a very experienced hunter.

I don't have the study at hand, but the difference in how long the animals stayed up and how far they traveled was almost nil. When shiot wiht one round they stayed up a little longer, but didn't travel as far. I can;t remember which, and it doesn;t make any difference.

In conclusion, Phil said, the only real difference that could be noted between the two calibers was that the .375's bullets exited more often. If you want, you can probably look it up, as AR is considered a standard reference magazine by most libraries. I believe the article was published in 1958.

Look, we have now cited three comparative studies of shooting animals--whitetails, elk and moose--and all indicated there wasn't all that much difference in what, for better terms, might be called "killing power" between popular sporting rounds, despite differences in bullet weight and kinetic energy.

In the past, you have always been adamant that only "field results" are valid when testing bullets. yet now you are claiming that science is on your side, due to to kinetic energy or water jugs or whatever--and that somehow all three of these examples of actual shooting of animals, in numbers in the thousands, have no validity. You are also apparentluy claiming that the studies by forensic scientists are less valid than the conclusions of you and a gun writer who was notoriously fond of magnums.

I am not anti-magnum, and have never said there were NO difference between cartridges and bullets. I have often stated what I believed those differences are, with examples. In fact, this year alone I have personally killed a few dozen big game animals, on three continents, with cartridges including the .22-250, 7x57 Mauser, .280 Ackley Improved, .308 Winchester, .30-06, .300 WSM, .300 Winchester Magnum (three different rifles), .338 Winchester Magnum and 9.3x62 Mauser. Bullets ranged from 55 to 250 grains in weight, and in design from Berger VLD's and Nosler Ballistic Tips to North Forks and Nosler E-Tips. I also witnessed another 100 or so animals being shot with an even wider variety of cartridges and bullets. If you can find a prejudice there, please let me know.

In contrast, apparently you have confined your hunting pretty much to a couple of cartridges and makes of bullet over the past decade or more. I have said what I think about all this, and why. You have too. I am not convinced by your arguments.

It might be a mistake to totally dismiss "shock" as a death mechanism in animals. Many people die from shock every year from seemingly minor wounds, I'm told by medical friends. In fact, I went into shock (though I didn't die...) as a kid after falling off a bike - no temporary stretch cavity, no permanent wound cavity.

The kind of shock your are citing, as I understand it (minimally, as I've only taken Red Cross emergency courses) is due to a lack of blood in the system, which causes the rest of the body to shut down in order to keep blood in vital organs. So yes, animals die of shock all the time, and often because they've been shot.

This has nothing at all to do with what is termed hydrostatic shock, which supposedly pushes the blood through veins and arteries like brake fluid through pipes, damaging whatever is at the other end of the pipe. Appartently (as I have pointed out previously) larger veins and arteries are flexible enough to absorb this pressure. There is some damage immediately around the wound channel, due to tiny capillaries being damaged, but there is appatrently no such thing as hydrostatic shock. And even if there were, it is not related to the kind of shock doctors deal with.

MD,

True, but by definition, this shock due to lack of blood is a mechanism that might have nothing to do with permanent wound cavity, and yet does have an effect in the death of an animal. If it has any effect at all, it argues against the reasoning that "only permanent wound cavity" is pertinent.

Holy crap, this is also what I have found to be true so far as well.


As far as "shock" (no not medical shock) or what ever it words used to describe it is the explosion (bullet exploding maybe even bone) inside the body cavity. I have knocked many whitetails and 1 black bear down on the spot with high lung shots a few inches under the spine. The explosive force near the spine paralyzes the animal dropping it. This is the only times I have seen shock....lets call it explosive force...put an animals down on the spot. Also in doing I have looked and sometimes seen nothing (no bone or bullet) actually puncture the spine. I can only think that the explosive force put the animal down.

Allen, I�ll respectfully disagree on your points as KE relates to wound channels. If KE was driving killing ability, we would all shoot 460�s. KE alone can�t explain killing ability. Only one thing does � permanent wound channel. I do believe speed can contribute to the size of permanent wound channel size if its in combination with an expandable bullet. Pure speed won�t do it, KE alone won�t do it.

As an example, a minimal amount of KE is involved with arrows but they kill inside of 30 seconds when both lungs are punched. The travel distance is a function of how alarmed the animal gets. I�ve seen them die within feet of impact and I�ve seen them travel 100-150 yards, till their functioning becomes impaired due to blood loss. Death comes quickly.

As an example of one, I shot a large doe this year with a 25-06 and a 100 TSX at 3200 ft/sec. I punched both lungs at ~ 70 yards, but the deer ran 25 yards and stood for 1 minute, laid down, then rolled over and died. The whole episode took ~ 2 minutes. Am I to believe I didn�t have enough KE or that I didn�t affect enough blood loss in quick fashion? Having gutted the deer, I can say the wound channel was pretty unimpressive.

I think the answer in the 30 Carbine and the 300 magnum also lies in the size of the wound channel. Additionally, most 30 Carbines shoot FMJ bullets. Never having been shot, I can't imagine an impressive wound channel from the FMJ unless it tumbles.

Another example may be cast pistols bullets. They don't expand but the blunt noses (meplat) typical of most cast bullets create impressive wound channels with minimal KE. I've shot a few deer with 44 magnums with cast and jacketed bullets; the damage is impressive - deer don't go far. Have also shot several with 400 gr Speers from my 45-70 - another rather minimal KE cartridge big on killing power.

I value your posts but want to offer a differing point of view. Have a good New Years.

They cannot be seperated in the sense that if you have one you have the other, the converse also being true. But they are different mathematical expressions to model different aspects of dynamics.

You can theoretically move a bullet forward through tissue slow enough that you will almost have no transfered energy (energy only goes from one form to another), and likewise you can hit something fast enough that penetration is nil and the energy is completely spent changing forward direction, sending impacted media airborne, making sound waves and generating friction/heat.

My point was less of a challenge to your example than to show that this suble interplay explains a large part of what is happening upon impact. You are right, energy and momentum can't be seperated, despite what some have suggested in this thread. I can tell that I'm not communicating effectively.

Jywalker,

I would say that lack of blood definitely has something to do with the permanent wound channel!

Please, no disrespect but again, you effectively took the bullet out of the comparison. This is an example of two heavy/slow bullets that thrive on momentum to do the job. I'd pay to see the data that compares a 300 Weatherby/ 165 AB vs. a 308 with a 200 grain Failsafe.

And if wound channel size is the tellall then why was the lethality the same. The wound channel sizes were the same? Big animals do absorb energy well and slow for caliber bullets don't utilize muzzle energies well. I'll say again, energy transfer is what happens when penetration proceeds to slowly for the bullet being used. Energy is the plan B of the dynamics. That's why it's not always relevant.

Since moving away from prefering the many magnums I've owned and still own - towards the many mild "standard velocity" cartridges I own, I've noticed as distinct, and, for me, shocking lack of difference on the manner in which the animals I've shot, have died. For all the muzzle blast, heat, and kick the magnums generate - I'd hoped the observable differences on game would have been greater.

Statistically speaking, I'm sure the results of my own lifetime of hunting in B.C. would probably shrink to what statistitions would call "insignifigance" or perhaps "insufficient data" in regards to whether any of my own observations form an accurate opinion on either bullet perfromance, or cartridge performance. The fact I'm a "nobody" in the hunting world doesn't help, in regards to gettting by own observations listened to, or accepted by others either. Around my own real campfires - my friends listen. But, that might speak more to their quality - as men , than my quality - as an authority on anything.

But, there were "somebodies" who wrote things I believed in and found to be true too. One of these men, that I read while growing up, a man I had huge respect for - was Finn Aagard. He, like my other hero Jack o'Connor, seemed to write things that agreed with my own observations - and they both wrote in such a way that felt that you were a part of their own adventures. In one article that I read, Finn really laid it out on the line.

I know I read it, but I can't for the life of me, find it now - but I know I read - somewhere - where Finn Aagard said that based on his written records and his memories, he couldn't say - with any degree of certainty - that he could tell the difference in killing power of the rifles between the animals he shot with a .375 H&H, and those he shot with a 30-06 Springfield. The one caveat, I believe, was that he was using "good" 300 grain bullets in the .375 and "good" 220 grain bullets in the 30-06.

I think there is a lesson to be learned here - but the stubborn among us will continue to find it lost on them.

They already "know" the truth - studies be damned!

Sure, no question blood loss contributes to medical shock, probably every time, but medical shock can occur without blood loss or permanent wound channel. I've had my share of "undeserved DRTs." My concern is that we might conclude erroneously that permanent wound channel is the only determinator in quick animal death.

I think a realistic conclusion would be that while other factors may occasionally present advantages, the only factor we can count on consistently, with today's bullets and velocities, is the permanent wound channel.

gmack...

I think we are spiralling toward violent agrement...

Tissue breaks down (is crushed) when the applied pressure exceeds its physical strength. Force is the time rate of change of momentum, and pressure is force per unit area. So the rate at which momentum changes is one critical thing to watch. It is what creates the wound channel. If the rate of change is too slow, then the tissue will not be destroyed, as you correctly point out.

Maybe that is the key to the whole conversation. Over what distance within the animal can the bullet provide sufficient (momentum rate of change)/(frontal area) to create a wound channel?

Maybe we're all saying the same thing cause these last three quotes prove my point. Kinetic Energy is what disintegrates a bullet in a chest cavity, is what can make a wider permanent wound channel.

4 years of engineering school wasn't a complete waste. I still contend that if energy is not accounted for in your model to predict killing power you are making a reasoning error. And by power I do mean, how fast an animal expires, not how far it travels.

Yes, I think we did communicate.

Gee's I leave for a while and well I get to read post like this one. I admit I am not much of a Moose hunter, ever single one I ever shot ended up knee deep in water. That Study is just that a study. In this case Moose in Sweden. It could be White tails here or the Elk one than I read about back in the 1970's. It all boils down to pretty much one thing put a reasonable hunting bullet in the right place and the game gives up the ghost pretty quick. I have shot all manner of game with all manner of cartridges, and well it don't much matter much other than being able to put the bullet were it needs to go. As for the 378 Weatherby, Its a god awful cartridge, some people for some odd reason like it I guest. Then again there is a friend of mine, he lives in Moose Heaven down in the Wrangell St Elas Area of Alaska and all he shoots is a 7mm -08 and 140 gr Nosler Partitions. Collects a Moose ever year and a box of cartridges will last a good 15 years. He dose two things, he hunts and never shoots unless the shot is right and one more thing I noticed about him, he is very calm and he likes to get close. He may have something there.

I do trust Hagel, and I do trust the science of ballistics. Testimony that defies ballistics and my own personal observations I tend to distrust, regardless of the source.

I do trust in the fact that the stuff I've whacked with a 300 Win. Mag. has gone down harder and faster than the stuff I've shot with the 30-06 and has exhibited a larger wound channel as well. Likewise, I trust those who have shot buffalo with the 458 Win. Mag. and the 460 Wby. who state that buffalo go down harder and more reliably after being hit with the Lott, and who also state that buffalo go down harder after being hammered with the 416 Weatherby in lieu of the 416 Taylor.

And I'll also trust in the testimony of those law enforcement officiers who say that the 357 Sig irons-out bad guys more convincingly and reliably than the slower 9mm Luger.

Same science applies to all of the above........

AD

Four pages worth now and I'm wondering if I'm the only one who sees what should be the obvious.......

Just about any cartridge will kill game when placed right with the right bullet. No cartridge necessarily kills better, simply because dead is dead......I could care less if my elk runs 5 more feet before he gives up the ghost.

A 300 Winchester Magnum will deliver more energy with a 180 grain bullet at any distance than a 30-06 will with the same 180 grain bullet.......that we know.....But and it's a tough pill to swallow for some I'm sure, it's energy isn't necessary to kill anything on this continent.

The study in Sweden is interesting indeed, but enlightening.......not really. Tough to except for some who believe that the use of high-velocity, larger-bore calibers are "necessary", but fall right into line with what I've seen, done, and heard about all my life...

Will this study help to enlighten magnum lovers that they really don't need the chit kicked out of them, while dispensing a 100 grains of powder-per-trigger pull, flinching madly at the range, and possibly having half-moon scars above their eyes???? Hell no, but it'll give them something to argue about for years to come.....ahh the fun of at all.

When I started reading this thread I remembered a man I met at a very young age who became an in-law of mine, via my oldest brother's marriage. He's a pretty feeble ole boy now, but not too long ago he killed a very nice bull in the Tioga Unit of Western Oregon. His grand daughter, who happens to be my sister-in-law was quick to report the news of his successful hunt and when she told my brother and I of what happened, I was a little amazed to say the least and decided to make my way over to his place post haste.
What I found was one of the largest Roosevelt Bull Elk I'd ever seen, having 8, nearly-identical points on each side and a pre-64 308 featherweight sitting next to it. That was pretty good news to say the least, but not the biggest shocker of them all.
It was at the time of processing the meat, that we realized that grandpa Ray wasn't the only feller who had flung led at this big boy. In fact, this bull had taken at the very least, 27 seperate slugs over the years that we recovered, most of which lying in the kill zone, with only a couple that showed up in the hindquarters. Calibers ranged from .6mm-.375, with most being 30 caliber and a couple we figured were from the same gun.
He mounted the bull in his living room and put the slugs in a coffee can, indicating that he planned on mounting them too, but whether he ever did, I dunno...

What he did do was hit the bull where no one else had.....In the withers one time with a measly 308 and 165 grain corelocks. He dropped like a rock, just like every other bull he shot in the same place. His father before him was hunting 30 years before there was even a season in this state and had the largest collection of antlers I'd ever laid eyes on. He told him as a young boy that you didn't shoot for heart and lungs on an elk....ya shoot for the withers and brake him down.
I don't know for sure how many elk that Great Granpa Ross shot or Grandpa Ray, but they used 25-35's, 300 savages, and 308s well placed........

It also is worth remembering that these comparisons are with one lethargic animal species which has a characterisic reaction to being shot.

The opposite example is the experts on cape buffalo who also judge dissimilar results again, because of characteristics of a single species' reaction to being shot.

Aussies are guilty of it when citing the sambar, a 600 pound deer that will not go down to the shot in most instances, unless you are using a .458 as used by Ken Pearce, who is probably the world authority.

Keep an open mind and remember, as boring and repeticious as it may sound, shot placement kills with more authority that foot pounds, "in most cases".

AGW

Amen.

I would also only add that of course kinetic energy is involved. Without it our bullets would not penetrate, or expand. But kinetic energy is only useful when it makes a hole in the right place. If it does, then we have meat.

However, it is NOT a direct indicator of killing power. I know this all too well, having applied an awful lot of kinetic energy to couple of animals with little effect....

I once read a artical on "killing power" some 30 or so years ago. I believe Bob Milek wrote it but my rememberer ain`t to good on that stuff anymore, likely wrong.
The idea was that if a given amount of energy was required to kill say an elk, then any cartridge with that capability would do. It went on to state if 1500 fp were the requirement and we had a 30-30 load that delivered that amount at 50 yds it would do as well as a 30-06 with a similar bullet at 300 yd or a 300 Win mag would do at 400+ yds. The same could be said of the 7x57 vs 280 vs 7mm mag, ect.

The point was, added velocity killed no better within a caliber but only extended the range the cartridge was capable of giving similar performance. Once the important damage was done inside the animal any extra energy was wasted on maiming hide, muscle or the hill side down range and added nothing more.

I thought it an interesting theory when I saw it.

Lots of interesting stuff. I think saying the temporary wound channel has no effect on killing power is not exactly true. When a high velocity round hits, the temporary cavity can be up to 30x larger than diameter of the bullet. Everything else being equal, the higher the velocity the larger the temporary cavity. As others have mentioned, the elasticity of tissue will generally shrink this back down to somewhere close to the original diameter of the projectile. However, for some portion of the channel the permanent cavity can be several times larger than bullet diameter for a high velocity round (because it can only stretch back so far)until the bullet slows down enough such that the permanent cavity basically equals bullet diameter. So, the vessels or whatever remote organs may not be affected by the temprorary cavity, but the larger the temporary cavity the larger the permanent cavity. Again, tough to tie this directly to killing power just pointing out that permanent wound channel is not necessarily only going to be as wide as expanded bullet diameter and totally disconnected from KE (i.e. why 300 weatherby and 30 carbine are not equal).

Lou

I don't know about shock, I don't ever count footprints between shot and dead, and I don't know about moose in Sweden.

What I do know is that I've killed moose nearly every year I've lived in Alaska - which is half of my 50 years- and that in some years I've been involved in more than one moose killing enterprise.

The only thing I've killed more of have been caribou and those kills number over 100. From the kills of the latter, I figure I've seen a discernable difference between cartridges and calibers. I don't know, but I suppose it applies to Alaskan moose as well. I do not believe I have ever seen shock though. One of the most dramatic kills was one of only three shot/drops I've experienced. It was a big bull which was struck by a 33 cal X bullet in a straight side-to-side shot which broke both shoulders or legs. That animal went straight down but fought mightily to regain its feet not aware that its legs had suddenly been made useless. If an animal would have know shock, I would think that one would have. Needless to say, it died shortly from the hole in its lungs. Another bull, a second of the shot/drops I've experienced, fell after a bullet passed near its kidneys and right next to its spine for a distance. The clear lethality of the rather poorly placed shot was difficult to discern. However, that animal went down from a trot, nearly landing on its back.

In killing more than two dozen caribou with both the 6mm and the 7mm-08 each, it has seemed to me that the little 7 puts animals the size of caribou down significantly quicker than does the 6. That is with cup and cores of 100 grains in the 6 and 140 grains in the 7. Mostly the 6mms have been Pro-Hunters while the 140 have been Interlockeds with some others of similar weights mixed in. I cannot say one kils better than the other, just that the bigger bullet puts the animals down quicker overall.

When it come to moose, I don't think there is a much question about the lethality of cartridges. Most, within reason, are. There are a lot of variables that can affect how well or how quickly. Many of those variables are not addressed in the data given. Of course, neither is the exact nature of the average Swedish moose. I do know something about the size and make-up of the Alaskan version however. I don't know if Swedish moose are larger or smaller, although I suspect they are not quite as big. What I do know is that even though I have used the 6mm, 6.5, and 7mm in the smaller (approx 308 capacity) cases, and have seen even sub-legal 22 CF and RF used - and quite effectively I might add, still, I do not believe, based on what I've seen, that these cartridges are as effective in putting big animals down as quickly as larger cased and bulleted cartridges are. Of course bullet placement is even more important, followed by bullet performance. I don't base that on 10,000 pieces of data but I don't believe it (the more prolific Swedish data) invalidates my own experience either.

I do think the Swedish study data is interesting. I think it would be more meaningful if more of the variables were known. (How much of the data involves military ball ammo? What are the bullet types? etc) I'm sure that similar results might be found at various scales based on various animal types. Obviously, one can debate the how and why that it happens; however, the one thing that really isn't debatable is the fact that a lethal hole in an animal will kill it regardless what cartridge the bullet originates from.

I have never even shot at a tree rat much less a big game animal unless I have an unobstructed shot. I can't imagine shooting through brush much less TREES, trying to bring down a moose.

Horse power in a car is what makes it get up to speed faster. You can get to 100 mph with 100 hp but you can get to 100 mph faster if you apply 300 hp. Likewise, use of the term killing power implies that the work of killing is done faster.

Numerous examples of killing with various cartridges that show similar killing power is analogous to watching a 100 hp car on the road side by side with a 300 hp car. Both will get you to 100 mph, however, until you stomp on the gas the performance will look the same.

What makes use of the "extra" energy, stomps on the gas, is bullet construction in reaction to the unique tissue density encountered. And the "extra" energy is not always extracted since the bullet by nature will always seek to retain energy, not dump it. Dumping it is the action of kinetic energy transfer to tissue and/or the form shifting loss to sound and heat/friction.

If a hunter opines that his 300 mag kills faster than his 06 to he's probably using a bullet that can utilize the "extra energy" and is placing the shot where the marriage of bullet and tissue characteristic sets up the scenario for a destructive energy dump in a vital area.

So who do you believe now? The GW who wrote that kinetic energy makes no difference, then said well maybe it can make a difference and finished with an example where energy does make a difference and/or do you believe the field results summary filled with unknown and uncontrolled variables; or do you put your faith in High School physics, make all mathematical models fit - even though you may piss off a lot of people. I know the answer.

A couple of comments about permanent wound channel:

Is it the volume of the wound channel or the surface area of it? If the latter, you get much less of an effect from increasing bullet diamater.

Even if it's the volume, as for the .338 bullet having 0.061" greater frontal area than the .308 bullet, compare that with a vital area (lungs from the side?) which might be 100 square inches. The extra diameter only takes out 0.06% more of the vital area, an amount which I would think would be insignificant. That would explain why the field studies seem to indicate that caliber is not important.

It seems logical to me that if you stick anything through both lungs--.25 bullet, .338 magnum, broadhead arrow, or steel rod--the animal is going to bleed out and die within a very short time.

Klik,

It is interesting that both the examples you give of moose dropping right away are with hits either breaking both shoulders, or near the spine. But this is not exactly breaking news (if you parden the pun). Shots that break down an animal, or pass even near the spine, have been known to drop animals of all sorts. Whether they KILL any quicker is debatable. I have seen animals dropped by such shots try to rise or even just lift their heads, before eventually succumbing.

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.

Sooooooo, I am planning a two rifle battery. Down from about 7 in recent years. One is a Sako 9.3x66 and I was thinking 3006 in a sako Finnlite. The 9.3 will cover off the moose and bear with reliable performance. I understand the concept of the trajectory magnum, have hunted a 7 mag for years and bought and sold a 300WM. But, I'm looking for a light rifle and figure a 3006 with the TSX bullet would fill that bill. IS there some other caliber I should be looking at, my light rifle still needs to down a moose in a reliable fashion.

Spot on..... Agree totaly...

Killing [bleep] is pretty simple......

I can't think of a better twosome for B.C.'s big game myself.

To all,

In the Swedish moose study the 300 WM and 358 Norma did better from what we know.

What we don't know is the exact detail of where the bullets hit. All it would take is a few neck shots and the averages would change a lot.

I looked up what the withers means that Triggerguard mentioned.

Oddest damn moose I ever saw...............

I enjoyed this article and in a round-about fashion it influenced a few of my firearms purchases. I purchased a 6.5x55mm as a light recoiling "deer rifle" for my youngest son. I purchased a 9.3x62mm for black bear based on J.B.'s writings. I don't have an opinion about the 6.5x55mm except I like the light recoil and accuracy in my Ruger 77. One black bear, one shot. I think the article shows the effect of significantly larger calibers and bullet weights, some improvement but not "magic" by any means. I like the .35 Whelen, not as much gun as the .358 Norma, but still effective. I have used the .308 Winchester for years and am not surprised by its standing as a moose cartridge. The .338 Win Mag isn't among the statistically significant cartridges, but still shows promise. Wacking something big with a .375 H&H is another adventure that will have to wait for money and time. I'd moose hunt on a regular bases if possible, except for the two reasons stated above. I think you could form an arguement for medium velocity rounds at reasonable weights and good sectional density. I would like to know the particulars of the bullets used by these hunters, but suspect they used common over the counter ammunition. I have heard there is a Swedish tradition to reload military calibers to make practicing cheaper and the citizens more prepared. The standard 140 grain 6.5x55mm has a sectional density of .287, higher than a 180 grain .308, equal to a 230 grain .338. No particular point except common bullets that are heavy and not to fast seem to work well.

You guys cracked me up!!!

Reminds of old TX joke.

Wifey hunts with husband, and gets her game on the ground.

She is standing there, waiting for husband after her shot. A pre-arranged deal in their plan.

In a few minutes cowboy steps out of brush and says, "Maam, I would...........".

Wifey 'bout jumps out of boots. Turns around with her rifle pointed at cowboy and says, "My husband warned me about other hunters trying to steal my deer. You stay right there until my husband shows up."

Cowboy says, "Maam, I would like to know if all right I get my saddle off your deer?"

SeaRunRainbow
Member


Registered: 12/24/07
Posts: 48

Offline
Killing [bleep] is pretty simple......
Steelehead is back!

They told me that was a girl moose. Girl moose don't have antlers. That one has some snow on it.

Good story Remseven.

Ooops... comment wasn't directed at you. Just being my normal persnickety self. Sorry.

If you need my permission to do that with a 7-08, go right ahead.

Furprick,

As some guy named Townsend Whelen once wrote, "The .30-06 is never a mistake."

No problem at all

I imagine if it can be done with the 300, it could be done with the 7-08....perhaps just a broken heart.

Would have a hard time seeing it done with an arrow whatever term one may use...

We call it the hump here in Canada- same thing only more prominant on moose. That is the best place to hit moose, they go down big time and they can't get up. But you then need another shot to the head to finish the job. Do the swedes count that shot also?
By the way Savage your moose has shoes.

You guys are missing the one indisputable conclusion that can be drawn from the moose data. That is that Swedish moose can not, or, do not, read ballistics tables. Apparently it is not just American and Canadian herbivores that go to crappy public schools and make it to adulthood lacking literacy and numeracy. I don't know if it is happenstance, or the direct result of some worldwide conspiracy by the lever action crowd or turn o' the century milsurp proponents.

Either way, I'm all for maintaining the ignorance of the tastier herbivores; being a lefty, I can't stop by Grumpy Bob's gun store and pick up a .590 Mountainsplitter just to hunt moose with. At least with uneducated prey, I can harvest a variety of game with a .30-06 without apologia.

Good lord, don't give our federal wildlife people any ideas...

378,

For someone who avoids shoulders in deference to meat loss, you sure like a "meat shot" with that hump....and with what effect if the shot is a bit high?

Klikitarik- Draw a line from the top of the hump to the brisket, and you will get aprox 3 feet on a large moose. Aim for the middle and you can be 1 foot high or 1 foot low and still kill that moose very effectively.
The hump meat is usually so tough that it is usually hamburger meat.
The shoulder blades are traversed easily and the biggest hole I have seen to date is about the size of a baseball on exit.
Where else on the moose do you see getting this 3 foot range?
The prime cuts are at the rear but you allready know that right?

Thats interesting. I shoot my red deer in the same place. They go down straight away and never have taken a step. By the time you get to them they have usually expired.
It seems to take out the the shoulders, the spine and clip the top of the lungs all at the same time. Very effective place to shoot for. Easier target than a neck shot and with the same result. Always wondered what that was called.

It's a fair-sized window with one of the least meat-damaging shots you can take.....especially if you aren't throwing 300 grains of lead at 3,000fps....(grin)

The "withers" basically give you a great target that has fingers reaching down and connect the critter's entire spine. Since I haven't shot a moose yet, I can't comment, but for Elk it's the ticket. Normally place them in the shoulders on deer, but bear is another critter that will drop like a rock with that shot.

If you're looking to anchor your next bull elk, I'd highly recommend the technique, and fret not about your measily standard caliber making out in great fashion.

Savage, thanks for the comic relief.

I would like to try one last example that IMO shows the relationhip of ft-lb energy and momentum.

A plane cutting through tha air has a mass and velicity. If it is not accelerating energy usage is at a "minimum" and is shed as friction/heat and low energy sound waves.

Now add more power, take the energy up, take the speed up. Eventually, depending on the density of the air, the wing design and whatever else, the laminar or smooth flow can no longer be maintained. The result is the sonic boom, where pressure built up at the leading edge of the wing causes a massive KE to KE transfer to the air.

My explanation for the division here; most of our hunting experience involves flying through tissue without reaching a threshold, using minimum energy, where the momentum model of dynamics describes most of what we see. The momentum model that predicts expanded caliber sized wound channels. However, chsnge the wing design, lighten that plane and/or drive it too fast for the density of material encountered and the ft-lb's that typically empty into the hillside beyond greet the animals insides.

The dynamics is so caliber, SD, velocity, bullet design and tissue type/density dependent that the value of high KE is overlooked as irrelevant. I think maybe the Berger VLD is a bullet that at proper velocity can dump KE where it's needed. And I think that others can have a valid observation if they see their magnum ft-lbs dump domething on its ass.

My rule of thumb on moose is divide it in three equal longitudinal pieces, If I think the moose is far away I aim for the upper 1/3rd line, if close the lower one third line. I mostly shoot off-hand and tend to shoot a little high when stressed, most shots are missed by high shots , over the back, anyway. I always aim for hair and even with a 35whelen that range is out past 350yds and if you have a fast one 400+ yds with a 24" bullet drop.

Well if I could drop them at a 1000 yards they would be dead also by the time I got there. TIC HaHa.

The speed of sound is 1100 ft/sec.
When the bullet leaves your rifle and gets to this speed-this is the effective range of your rifle.
It becomes subsonic, the gurus told me so.
I don't understand the connection between sonic booms and air planes. Jets are the only thing I know that can go faster than sound which is around 650 miles an hour or 1100 ft/sec.
Chuck Yaeger is the only fella I head of going the speed of bullets at around 3000 ft/sec. in our atmosphere other than the space shuttle.

Some lousy shot must have shot off its' antlers!

Partially true. A lot of the energy consumed by an airplane flying in low speed, level steady flight is used to accelerate air downwards. Recall Newton's 3rd Law concerning action and reaction; if a wing is pushed upwards by the air, in return the air is being pushed downwards by the wing.



Sonic booms have nothing to do with laminar or turbulent flow*. Sonic booms occur because of compresibility effects. When the aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound in the air, the pressure waves it emits as it flies along coalesce into a conical wave front (as seen from the reference frame of the aircraft). The boom occurs in the nonmoving reference frame; if you are standing on the ground when the conical wave front passes by, you hear a loud sound impulse. If the aircraft is nearby, the pressure wave has an N shape and you hear a "crack". If the aircraft is far away, the high frequencies are lost in the air due to absorption and scattering, so what you hear is a lower frequency "thump" or "boom".

* The caveat is that the internal dynamics of shock waves is believed by some to be dominated by turbulence. But a shock wave, by definition, is exceedingly thin, and attempts to get inside it with measurement systems have the problem of the observer effect. Readers should not conclude that the flow over the aircraft surface is turbulent, however; an aircraft or projectile can fly supersonically with a distinct shock wave and still have laminar flow over its surface.

Don't have time to thoroughly read all the latest posts, but let me see if I got this.

The sonic boom is what is deadly, right? The bigger the boom, the deadlier.

Okay, now I understand why magnum guys are so in love with their choices. It's that incredibly loud noise that makes them such efficient killers. And the fact that you can hear that noise a long way off that gives them their long range capability.

I've often suspected that...

Actually, the Weatherby trademark is deadly. If you just flash it at the animals, you don't need the sonic boom.

There is, however, a real chance that you will sooner or later run into an illiterate game animal.

Yes, energy is also expended holding the plane up. It was implied when I said energy use was at a "minumum"

Your science on the sonic boon effect is more accurate. The air flow over the leading edge of the wing does not necessarilly ever reach turbulence but approaches it (I didn't use the T word, I don't think) and I know there is laminar flow accross a wing beyond the speed of sound.

"Recall Newton's 3rd Law concerning action and reaction; if a wing is pushed upwards by the air, in return the air is being pushed downwards by the wing."

What I recall is that the wing "lift" is off the top surface of the wing, air pressure pushes up from the bottom. Aren't you thinking of a helecopter prop?

But I stand by my analogy that shows how energy can leave a bullets typical influence area as a shock wave and cause lateral damage that adds to killing power. You've pointed out the downside when using analogies. Thanks for your comments.

Have followed this thread , some good stuff, etc. After analysing it all very carefully this was what I came up with ....

" 10,000 Swedes ran throug the weeds at the battle of Copenhagen... 10,000 Swedes ran through the weeds, chased by 1 Nowegian"

Hard to say what he was carrying

No disrespct meant to anyone o Swedish descent

While I think we might agree on magnum vrs slower bullets I find analogies more difficult to champion than the actual topic. Nor do I find interjecting a Berger VLD suddenly into the topic anymore than adding another variable unless somehow you expand on that tangent.

To add that there are other questions that might challenge the moose study such as how many animals were not recovered after being hit with each specific bullet? This could be a great unknown as indeed they are lost or worse suffer along for days or months. The only animals measured here are the ones recovered.

Moral of the stoy is that Kenworths very seldom break the sound barrier, even though they make a lot of noise, but they are very effective on moose.

Also, there's more dead moose in Alberta than live ones in Idaho.

The Berger VLD is a bullet that appears to dump all available ft-lbs 2-3 inches into soft skinned animals, hopefully safely into a vital area. KE where it counts.

It sounded like you were aiming to shoot them in the hump itself, an area which produces many pounds of ground meat - (and, if you cut the supporting bones into soup sizes leaving some meat on them, the meat next to the bones is very tasty and tender as well.) I don't know for a fact, but I would imagine a moose could absorb a high shot there without dying, at least not in a timely and findable manner.

I am a lung shooter and am having a hard time thinking of more than one moose out of many I've killed which I did not poke in the lungs, indeed a very big target. While in autumn a rib/lung shot does sometimes affect a bit of succulent (fat) edibles, in winter, that really isn't a factor. Either season, it's where I shoot them.

Klikitarik- Don't tell anybody but I have a hard time telling distance. If a smaller moose is at 350, I think he's past 400.
If a large moose is at 400, I think he's at 300. That's why I shoot like the way I discribed. I'm somewhat handicapped when it comes to judging distance and that's why I shoot the way I discribed. Sometimes they get it in the hump and sometimes near the brisket.
I've been successful for many years that way and I'm to old to change my ways, and I don't trust them fangled gadgets that tell distance. By the time I figure out how to read the damn thing th e moose is gone. All I bring home is tracks for the cook pot. Don't laugh at me please. My brother allready does that.

My intention for the analogy was to give an example where an object with kinetic energy could release a shock wave to it's surroundings after reaching a certain threshold. A plane plows through air and a bullet plows through tissue; no they aren't exactly the same. This is just a theory that explains the contradictory observations.

Neither side is "wrong" in my opinion. Nobody said KE always matters or that it never mattered. Can KE put the lights out faster? I think an experiment could be set up to give either result with manipulation of the variables.

That's why a 416 Barrett is accurate to past 2500m, it never goes sub-sonic at that range, and the old 45-70's and there ilk are accurate in the day because they never went super sonic, thus avoiding all the turbulance in the transition.

Personally I prefer sonic for bergers made from the humps of scandanavian mooses,in spite of the laminar effects of compressible newtons made of fig.

I forget,what were we talkin about?

Britt

Game animals are not killed by "dumping" kinetc energy; they are killed by bullets that destroy vital organs.

please don't confuse us with facts

LOL It's probably the only time in our lives that we will see those 2 words together. (dumping and kinetic) So let's savor the moment. A toast to a new guru at the campfire.

No. Lift comes from the whole wing. Typically there is suction on both the top and bottom surfaces, with more suction on the top. Here by suction I mean the static pressure at the wing surface is less than the ambient pressure of the undisturbed air.

A wing acts kind of like an air pump. As it travels through the air its net effect is to push air downwards, and the reaction side of the action-reaction equation is a net upward force on the wing.

A propeller or helo rotor is simply a rotating wing. The fundamental principle of generating upward force by accelerating air downwards is the same.

Sturgeon:...uh....sorry,won't let it happen again must have momentarily lost my mind......

Bernouli always wins....

2 things with moose hunting in this thread.

1...Never go for the hump.Hit em too low and you'll shoot through the dead spot.I can't recomend that shot.

2...The only difference on a moose between the 30-06 and 300 Win is the 300 will shoot farther thats it.

Harvested many with both can't tell the difference at all except on longer shots.It drops less.

I know I'm gonna hate myself..... note to self: Don't contradict your favorite GW in 08.

Quickest kills is the same thing as saying greater killing power. Are we led to believe that a 338 with a different load, same approximate KE, has greater killing power but loads of different KE don't. There's a difference in the same round but no avantage to a 338 RUM?

The fast magnums flatten trajectory.... that's all their good for? Does that imply that the effective range of the non-magmuns is equal. An 06 with a 220 at 500 yards kills like a 300 mag with a 180 at 500?

An arrow at low KE is effective so a bullet at same low KE must be equally so. An arrow at low KE is proof that KE doesn't matter. Does anyone think that's true?

An unscientific summary of field observations is proof that differences in killing power don't exist? A water jug displays the differences in KE but an animal of 75% water soaks up all the energy difference without damage? A bullet can send out a shock wave at the muzzle but its impossible inside an animal.

Maybe I've gone out of my field of expertise trying to prove that KE was good for more that nominal wound channel but I see too many holes in a killing model that can't explain or doesn't account for the many possible uses of available KE.

Caution, these are my interpretations of whats been said, I hope I haven't put words in anyones mouth or overinterpreted anyones statements. That would be counter productive, hey, like the pack mentality jokes.

You think a propeller is simply a rotating wing?

that one threw me to. i thought that was why a prop was called a prop, not wing it was my understanding that the air traveling over the wing was moving faster than the air under it. lift is created. this having nothing to do with propulsion..

woofer

Wow! BCBrian asked about finding an article in a magazine and in matter of a couple of days people are talking abot helicopters! Talk about Attention Deficit Disorder!

I just watched a TV show where I guy put four .338 Federal's into a large Moose and the animal acted as if it had taken four mosquito bites. Tells me more about moose than about the cartridge. The Moose finally ran about 30 yards and pilied up. They are tough critters.

I remember the article on the Moose/ Cartride survey as well and the point that remained with me is how the 30-06 and .308 were essentially identical in terms of results recorded. Owning several of both, I don't have a prejudice for one over the other - but I also get a little frosted when the 30-06 crowd tries to belittle the .308. Unless your into 200 Gr. .30 caliber bullets, there just isn't any difference. If you like those 200 grainers, you probably should be using a .300 Magnum of some sort anyway.

Now back to Helicopters!

Wow!!
Airplane wings, propellers, energy, 338s`, and 250 gr`ers. This thread has covered almost everything except where 1260 missing moose are. We`re looking for the 338s missing "killin` power" and overlooked a pile of missin` moose.
Maybe the answer is once you poke a hole through the lungs of a moose it only has so long on this earth, no matter what size the hole or whether it was done with a sharp stick or RPG. Maybe they like to amble a little so they take that last walk, but are as lazy as they look and only like doing ~50 yd at a time.

6.5x55------------2,792
7mm Rem. Mag.-----107
.308 WCF---------1,314
.30-06------------2,829
.300 Win. Mag.-------27
8x57----------------575
.338 Win. Mag.-------83
.358 Norma----------219
9.3x57--------------134
9.3x62--------------449
.375 H&H----------- 211
---------------- = 8740 dead moose`s?

I thought we were learning from 10,000 moose`s?
I think Savage 99 found one of them tied up (better turn it loose, DNR frowns on this I believe) and looking a bit peaked although still kickin`. I don`t know if we can count that one or not, but we are still a few steaks short of 10,000 animals. Maybe once we find them we`ll have a answer. We`ve all agreed we can`t come to a conclusion without all the data.

Analysis Paralysis!! grin

Not just me, the whole aerospace industry;

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/propth.html

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/props/TH18.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Rotary-Wing-A...ewski/dp/0486646475/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2

Don, the secret to lift isn't Bernoulli, its Kutta;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutta_condition

Its the Kutta condition that generates that wonderful velocity distribution, resulting in differential suction. That sharp trailing edge makes a big difference in wing performance.

Honestly now. This isn't a dig at anyone please don't think it is but how many guys who posted on this thread have actually killed a moose?

Answer Honestly this is a no shame question?

gmack,

I'll look at your points one by one, avoiding all references to propellers.

Different bullets can make different size holes, and these are not directly correlated to kinetic energy.

One of the quickest-killing bullets I ever used in the .338 was the 200-grain Speer spitzer, but it had to be loaded down a little, to 2700 fps or so. Otherwise, at close range it could expand too fast and not penetrate, thus affecting how it killed. But at 2700 it pentrated and put a big hole through stuff, on average killing more quickly than, say, the 230 Fail Safe or any other bullet to penetrate a LONG way. And at 2700 fps, it developed LESS kinetic energy than standard .338 loads....

From what I have seen, expanding bullets will kill well out to where they still expand well. So that is pretty much the effective range, whether we are shooting a .308 Winchester or a .300 Weatherby. Of course, there is still the question of HITTING the animal correctly.

A bullet with the same kinetic energy as an arrow won't penetrate deeply enough to kill big game. In fact, if the same weight as an arrow, at the same velocity, it probably wouldn't even break the skin. So once again we are back to penetration.

Please go back and reread what I wrote in at least a couple of places. Certainly differences in killing power exist, but if an expanding bullet goes through both lungs (and perhaps the top of the heart, or the blood vessels leading from it) then in all probability the animal will remain standing (or running) for at least 10 seconds or so. This is how long it takes blood pressure to drop in the brain.

But some people apparently expect animals lung-shot with a .375 H&H (4500 or so foot-pounds at the muzzle) to drop in half the time as animals shot with with a .300 Savage (2250 foot-pounds). It does not work that way, due to too many other factors. If it did, then this thread wouldn't have even started, and there would be nothing to debate.

As explained earlier, shooting a 1-gallon water jug (8 pounds of incompressible water inside thin, limited-stretch plastic) is not the same as shooting a 200-pound deer, 700-pound elk, or 1500-pound moose. The water in these animals is inside stretchable organs, often separated from each other or containing (in the case of lungs) a lot of air.

Probably the closest animal we have to a 1-gallon water jug is a young rockchuck that's been eating lots of fresh, irrigated alfalfa. These will explode like a water jog--but oddly, are more likely to explode when shot with a .220 Swift (1600 foot-pounds at the muzzle) than a .416 Rigby (three times as much muzzle energy and eight times as much bullet weight).

So I stand by what I wrote, and you quoted: "There is no DIRECT correlation between kinetic energy and how quickly a big game animal will die from a good heart/lung hit." Or even explode from a mid-section hit.

Also, I do not believe any of us so far have developed a "killing model." Maybe a radio-controlled miniature airplane with a grenade aboard? (Dang, and I wasn't going to mention propellers!)

I don't think bullet velocity, weight, energy has anything to do at all with killing.

It is bullet spin that actually does the killing.

Currently working with a wildcat that will achieve velocites of around 50 to 127.87 FPS. We currently working with rates of spin. I should say rate of spin that is off the wall in revolutions per foot. Not at liberty to give any rate of spin figures as of yet. The metallurgy for projectile and barrels is there courtesy of today's high technology.

The goal was to design a cartridge that was lethal, with as light a projectile as possible, very low sound or sonic signature, that would employ the energy as spin to burn the way through a game or predator animal. Early testing was promising, with very little noise on firing, Actually a sound signature less the popping the tab on a beer can. The sonic signatures on the spin has been the most difficult part in solving. We have conquered the problem of a ear splitting scream with tweaks on the projectile such as grooves, ogives, boat tail fins, etc. The most successful research has been in the sonic range that only dogs can hear. This can be a very useful attribute, as if you dog is howling, you know someone is shooting at you. Due to the slow velocity, you then have the option Think of it as starting a fire with stick and string.

Initial testing shows great promise, of course with the usual tweaks for wind drift, bullet drop tables, prototype testing in arms. Just the usual problems, and hope to market in ten to twelve years, when tweaking and testing accomplished.

Geeeezzzzzzzzz, hope this doesn't even more tangents,

Twenty five years ago, I worked for Volvo and visited Sweden once a month or more for planning meetings. While eating lunch at the Halared test track one day, I overheard two test drivers discussing (in Swedish) what could only be a hunting story. I asked what they'ed been hunting and the answer was "Elk" (in Europe, moose are called elk).

A lengthy discussion ensued in which I leaned that the most popular "elk" cartridges were 6.5x55 (no suprise here), the 30-06 (suprised me) and, the 8x57. These guys did not handload, but generally used Norma factory loads. One was partial to the 6.5 while the other liked the 8mm (usual debate, just a different country).

As an aside, I was always cautioned to drive carefully, as the elk would frequently run across roads and be struck by cars, often fatal to all involved: the car, the elk and the car occupants. I saw the result once just north of Lake Vanern, near Karlstad. The car was totaled and the occupants were badly injured.

Perhaps the 2 hunters should have listed the elk killers as Volvo, 6.5x55. 30-06 and (in fourth place) 8x57!

MD,

You have communicated your points well. KE, no "direct" correlation, differences in killing power exist, I agree. You are a gentleman and a scolar. Thanks.

Isn't high spin same as high rotational energy?

Yeah, that's exactly how they define it! Thanks for the links

Now this is a new spin on bullets!!

I have tried loading 1/4 inch drill bits in my 25-06 but have not reached the level of achievment that I have in mind. Wonder which kills quicker, let hand twist or right hand? Or is there really a difference? Maybe titanium bits work better than steel but they get very expensive, even more than TXs.

If anyone else out there in loonie land has sny real experience in this area, please PM me.

Thanks

I have staid out of this as long as possible but...here goes. I have been hunting for over 30 years now and have used all sorts of calibers. I have killed mostly caribou (Over 100) and they aren't hard to kill but do give an idea of wound channels. I have used everything from 223 to 450 Marlin and have made them all work for me. I admit to a real soft spot for the 358 Norma. The combination of bullet weight, velocity and diameter create a hell of a thump on the receiving end and is nearing the upper limit of recoil that can be handled by a normal person in a medium-light rifle.

I am sure that other calibers can be made to do similar things but the 358 Norma is a special round to me. The shocking power with 225-250 grain bullets is simply outstanding and I am not surprised by the results in the Swedish study.

As for rotational energy... (though I think this was a joke?) It might help expand bullets a bit but I don't figure it to be a major contributer to killing power. I used a 22-250AI with a 9 twist firing 53X's at 4000 ft/sec. They twisted like mad but at long range when the velocity had dropped off (but the twist remained) it wasn't much of a killer.

O.K., O.K..... you got me I have never killed a Swedish moose or even a normal American or Canadian moose,I did try to shoot one that was tangled in a fence with a broken leg in the upper peninsula on the way to Thunder Bay. The local people wouldn't let me shoot it beside the road because I had no tag,in five minutes the warden was there and shot it himself.

I have encountered a fair share of mooses while hunting other critters and did not have a tag. Once in Ontario,I was driving down a dirt road only to have a cow moose merge in front of me. I slowed down and tailgated her for about a mile before we came to a fork in the road,she went right and I went left.


So having taken my fair share of non moose critters,I have come to the realization that it's time to slay a moose. How else can a guy discuss anything on the internet with such poor moose credentials. If any of you guys want to help a guy on a moose quest,well let me know,I think I am going to shoot my moose with a 300 magnum because...well just because I can. Maybe I'll take the Whelen as a back up in case the mooses are in the thick stuff.

Which reminds me of the most important fact of all in moose shooting. Shot placement. Once an old Canuck with scores of moose kills behind him told me the very best place to shoot a moose was close to the truck. Is that anywhere near the withers?


grins from a southerner without a moose

Britt

In Montana the moose-shooting advice is "on the uphill side of the road."

Well, I'm sorry it got posted. Half-assed attempt at humor on the tangents here, bumped key with coffee cup, post went. It needed a lot of rewrite and correction

Saw JB's post, got engrossd, (good job, him)), thought aw-oh, better delete mine, before someone thinks I'm serious, or gets more confused. Too late.

It was not serious, REPEAT: It was not serious. The only good thing about that post, was I didn't spill the coffee on my keyboard, !!!

well...thats jest puuurfect, maybe you can help me with a moniter cleaning solution, cuz I got coffee, snot, and snuff on mine after your post

Ha, ha - Bore Kote it, >

Which reminds me, anybody know if any of those Campfire hats are still available? Need to get some Bore-Kote too, for an Omega, not the keyboard.

Mine was on the head of a " Lil' Dude" when he got in the car with his parents awhile ago.

Perfect answer.Your a good man doc...

Mule deer has it right "In Montana the moose-shooting advice is "on the uphill side of the road."

Outside of that Yada, Yada, Yada!

My shots are limited to the amount of rope I have, about 500yds. The days of packing are over for me. just use the tackle now.

Mr. ruraldoc:
Good afternoon Britt, I hope you and yours had a good Christmas.

I believe that the advice you were given on shot placement was very good indeed.

To answer Mr. 7STW�s query, my experience with moose that I have killed is limited to a single sample. I�ve helped cut up moose that others have killed, but so far my tally on moose stands at one bull.

Now speaking of that one bull in retrospect, I would certainly have preferred to shoot it uphill and close to the truck, but naturally I did neither. I usually hunt solo, have no quad and on that day no horse along, so I earned every pound of meat from that particular animal��

I distinctly remember thinking some unwholesome and unprintable thoughts upon approaching the downed bull and being unable to so much as roll it over. My moose advice is that willing help of any kind should be gratefully accepted.

Happy New Year to you all here at the Campfire!
Dwayne

As djs pointed out, they obviously left out the roadkilled moose. Perhaps the expended projectiles were too hard to weigh and measure for diameter.

MD: +2 to the flatter trajectory issue involving the faster(magnum?) cartridges. I think IMHO that the higher velocity,and higher RPM's, will also facilitate more rapid and thorough bullet expansion IF you happen to be using a tough bullet,which all contributes indirectly to the killing action of the bullet.

I think this means that a standard velocity cartridge(30/06,for example) works just great;but if I HAD to deal with an elk at 450 yards,and had my choice between, say,a 30/06 and a 300 Weatherby,IMHO I would choose the Weatherby;not because the 30/06 would not work,but simply because the flatter trajectory with 180-200 gr bullets would make the hit easier,and the added velocity (forward and rotational)would facilitate good bullet expansion with a tough,expanding bullet.

Have I said enough to get in trouble yet!?........

That is too dang funny!

Another good one is "tight behind the pick-up truck".

Expat

Why not lure the bggest moose to climb up into the pick-up's bed? It sure saves having to lift him up 3 feet!

Or perhaps a trail of corn leading to the skinning shed!

I certainly wouldn't shoot moose at the hump with 22 types but the 378 sure kills them dead anywhere along that line. bone fragments blast into the lung cavity with deadly force. Shot them along this line from hump to brisket just behind leg through the shoulder blades. The shoulder blades are very high go almost to the hump if you are back a foot you can hit a void.
Left to right is not a problem it's up and down that fools me.
Judging distance around 400 yards is often difficult for me.
And I have shot many moose, too many to remember but I remember hauling moose in a benet behind the tractor when I was 16 years old. Shot it with 303 british on our land in those days we were the farthest away from civilization but not anymore, I go there now and there ain't any trees left. It's been all deforested. It's almost makes me sick to see that now.

Before anyone starts argueing have a look at the skeleton of a moose. http://theboneman.com/moose.html
Show me the void- the front is full of muscle to drive that animal and any muscle/bone damage knocks out front end and they fold up like a cheap lawn chair guaranteed. You need another shot to the head.

Thanks for the skeleton link 378Canuck, It's a nice visual aid, better than some of the drawings I've seen.

Looky here, Barnes must also think my analogy using a planes sonic boom was comparable to shock waves created by high speed bullets striking tissue.

Handloader/ Oct 07/ #249/ Inside Production News/ page 104/ Barnes Bullet Myths Busted DVD review :

"The DVD also features Gen. Chuck Yeager, World War II ace, dedicated hunter and the first man to break the sound barrier. He uses his extensive expertise to explain the shock wave Triple Shock and MRX bullets create when striking game, then demonstrates its deadly effect."

Anyone still believe there is no shock wave potential for high speed bullets? A shock wave being where Kenetic Energy "leaps" off a bullets leading edge. I just came across this, independent proof of my theory and more weight to the "magnum makes a difference" argument.

Help,
How do I get off this thread?

My eyes are bleeding listening to (reading) all this doggerel.

I'm still waiting to see the first animal that is more dead because of a magnum......(grin)

There are three constants in a magnum cartridges that I've found:
1) They burn more powder
2) They kick harder
3) They make more noise

Somewhere in there is a real good reason for me to use one, but I guess I'll need to ponder it further to determine which one.

Matt, what's your personal experience amount to in terms of killing big game animals with belted-magnum cartridges? Where and what have you hunted with them?

AD

Matt, they make more noise for sure. I love my new 300WSM it is very accurate, shoots a 180 grain a bit harder than a 30-06, but is very loud especially in a covered stand. I bought the rifle for an elk hunt I am saving for, but used it this year for deer hunting. Yes it works fine but darn it hurts my ears! I have come to believe reading this and other threads along with my personal experience that a magnum does not kill deer significantly better it is just a range extension tool. I think the 4 times I shot this rifle in the woods this year degraded my hearing some. I am still looking for that death ray but it does not exist from what I have seen all the way from 35 Whelen to 222 Remington except in the mind of the man that owns that weapon and has money invested in his choice!

I've killed exactly 3 deer and 2 elk that were shot with magnums poorly that I finished off, all of which being in Western Oregon by former hunting partners of mine.

I've shot plenty of them, since we had a general gunsmithing business for many years before starting our current business and I can say for sure that I've never been impressed.

Your hunting diversity trumps mine for sure, since I was born into a life of little funding and things haven't changed all that much despite my working around the clock......I'm offically on my 20th hour at the shop as I type this........

I can say this for certain though, even with my limited experience in relationship to geography; I won't be using a magnum in this country for anything. When, or if I make it to Africa, it'll be the 375H&H for sole reason that I have to, though a family friend killed 3 cape buffalo and a host of other plains game with his trusty 308, but that was because he simply a helluva salesman and world-rewnowned bs'er.....being one of the finest off-hand shots I've ever seen didn't hurt either.

I worked for Volvo and regularly visited Sweden for meetings and planning sessions in the early 1980�s. One day I was eating lunch at the Halarad test track. There were several animated test engineers that (by their hand signals) could only have been discussing hunting. I asked what they had been hunting and they replied �Elk!� (Moose are called elk in Scandinavia). I asked what caliber rifles they used and they answered (1) 6.5X55 (no surprise here), the 30-06 (this was a surprise to me) and, the 8X57. None of the guys reloaded, but generally used Norma ammo.

When driving, I was frequently warned to watch carefully for �elk� crossing the road. There are many accidents and deaths caused when a 100 kph (62 mph) Volvo hits a moose � both loose. Once while driving near Karlstad in the Lake Vanern region, traffic was stopped while wreckage was removed from the highway from a fatal car-moose accident. So, perhaps, a Volvo would be the best choice to kill a moose � it has even more energy and momentum than a 375 H&H!

Matt,

Please answer me just one question at a time. Would you say that a magnum cartridge makes a larger size wound in an animal? Answer yes or no. For instance compare a 308 Win. to a 300 Weatherby Magnum.

Thanks

Zebra taken with 338 Federal and 210 grain TSX





Exit in hide






Damage to Zebras heart





Would a larger hole or even a smaller hole have mattered?

Looks like the 338 Federal is enough...

Exit of a 300 Win mag in a bull elks rib cage. Impact velcocity was approx. 2600 FPS for 2700 FPE




Exit in the rib cage of the same Elk damaged caused by a 440 grain Flat point hard cast from a 500 JRH revolver at 950 FPS for 888 FPE





Both hit ribs going in and out... It appears that FPE is not the entire equation, apperently how the bullet does its work is very important.

Well I'll be. Look at that. Must have been one heckuva "reverberating wound channel" in that one.

-

If you used the same exact bullet at the same distance, the 300 Weatherby would be more effective in damaging more meat while producing a larger hole than the 308.

Shot placement, with a mild caliber, that I can shoot well, interests me much more than a fast-moving, meat damaging, hard-kicking rifle I'm man enough to admit I can't shoot as accurate with.


The term "killing power" is great for selling powder, magnum cartridges, and new rifles, but is an illusion of a wordsmith at best and the abililty to give a hunter a perceived "edge" at worst.

I will admit to being absolutely sold on magnums for certain applications. I say that with the admission that I have only owned two rifles which qualify, in my opinion and understanding, as magnum rifles. They are the 25-06 and the 340 Weatherby. I consider them magnums - I could really care less about the nomenclature declaration of my 375 H&H or 338 Winchester. I do appreciate what a rifle can do when it delivers reasonably high velocities at longer distances. Than can, at times, be a useful quality. The downside, of course, is that it also means you have some very high velocities to deal with if the distances are very short. That is where very well controlled bullets become very important. Regardless, I know that high speed projectiles, regardless of their construction, can be devastatingly messy when they stray from their intended placement. That should be no secret to anyone who has made that error or at least understands how bullets work.

When I am hunting on the short days of winter here in the far north and I expect that the terrain I hunt will include a lot of broad river valley, then I like the advantage of having a rifle which can readily place a bullet of decent weight into a distant target. The advantage of a 225 or 250 grain 33 caliber bullet at 400 yards seems to be distinct when weighed against a 180 grain 30 caliber, quite probably started slower to boot. That said, at half that distance, similar bullets placed in a similar fashion seem to produce very similar results.

I usually shoot one moose per year and occasionally a bear. The 30-06 or larger seem to be well suited. Aside from that, everything else can pretty much be handled with smaller cases and bores. I enjoy using a variety of rifles and use smaller calibers more than anything - except at the range. If I could only have a single CF rifle and it happened to be a 30-06, I would not be seriously disadvantaged for anything I do. (But if cornered, I will admit nothing to any woman - especially my wife, or anyone else who might use that statement against me with ulterior intentions.)

Good, so far we are in agreement that a 300 Weatherby will make a larger deeper wound than a 308 no matter what the range. Of course optimum bullets would be selected for each cartridge, game and distance.

Now I want to get into my second point if you don't mind. My second point is that a larger in diameter and deeper wound is more apt to hit, damage or effect a vital specific spot in the quarry given the same shot placement. An example would be an artery that is bumped but not ruptured by the 308's bullets effect but made to rupture and hemorrhage by a wider-deeper wound. Thats quite logical don't you think?

At times this thread reminds me of the old writers once argueing they didn`t need them big boomers. One would shoot a moose with a 308 and the next will come back with "I got mine with a 7x57 in a cutom Mauser and it is all I need" followed by the guy that knew a Eskimo who shot polar bear with a 222 Rem and thought anything bigger then a 22LR for moose was waste.
Of course old Elmer would wake them all back up with a statement like "270s make damn fine coyote rifles" and a good 333 OK at the min was what one really needed for moose, while the guy hunting simply shot what he had and walked away with meat most of the time if he put his shot where it counts..... which is what IMO really counts. It doesn`t matter a whole lot how big around the hole is just what part of the animal has the hole in it.

Yea, I would say that TSX got bested by that slow pistol bullet, but thats not surprising.

Saw many Eskimo use lever rifles in the Arctic. I asked them why and the Eskimo looked at me kinda funny and said" Ever try and work a frosted up bolt rifle". I replied " no" Try it sometime and then do the same thing with a lever rifle.
I've seen these fellas shoot Polar Bears with 30-30 45-70 etc not because of the caliber but because of the action.
You can't get a 375 HH in a lever that I know of.
They would certainly use them because these Polar bears just keep coming even when the front end don't work, they don't stop until they're dead and sometimes that's to close. They just keep shooting until the rifle is empty and then hope the dogs can keep them off until they expire. I know this has nothing to do with moose but lots of guys get killed/maimed yearly by charging moose. Keep using your 243, and I hope one day your not dangling off a moose rack.

I suspect we'll all be waiting a week for you to make a point, but yeah.....a bigger bullet will make a bigger hole in an FMJ style bullet. I've seen holes put through deer with 25 caliber and 22 caliber that you could put both of your fists through. I've also shot deer with a 44 Magnum Marlin that left about a 3 inch circle of bloodshot meat on either side, took out the fitals and a rib on each side. The through holes were that of a bullet that probably didn't expand much.....but the buck was dead before he hit the ground.
My biggest buck to date was shot with a 22 Hornet at around 100 yards...He dropped too, but that tends to happen when you hit them between the eye and ear...go figure.

I'll be the first to admit that I can't shoot very accurately much above that of 30-06 recoil, but it hasn't slowed me down any. I can shoot however 30-06 and less recoiling rifles very well, and to some quite astonishingly well. I've been literally pulling triggers since I was three and have spent countless hours shooting from field positions, with very little time spent on a bench.
My father owned and operated a gunsmith shop for a long time before we opted to start up our current business, so I not only shot our family's rifles and pistols, but also our customers. Numerous 300 Winchesters, 338's, 7mm Mags, and other variious magnums and wildcats. Out of the hundreds that came through the door, there were only about 2 guys that could shoot them well and the rest were carrying them because they felt like they needed to. These were the fellas that would come up a week before season and have "us" sight in their rifles for them. We'd give them the target with the group and they could have spent the rest of their days trying to even come close with the same rifle.

I got turned off of the magnum craze probably most due to what I was taught when I was younger from my father, coupled with watching a lot of animals die to something smaller. I learned to shoot them, but not nearly as well as I could my favorites. When examining all the options, I decided that If I could shoot a rifle better, it would kill animals just as dead, I didn't have to throw half of it away, though my dog appreciated that, I was better off.
Being on a limited budget didn't allow the monies to waste ammo or spend more for it. I still feel the same way about that today.

If two guys can go into the field together and both come back with meat, then neither of them has one-upped the other right?
If the first guy can kill the same game animal with a smaller caliber year after year, I fail to see where the guy with the larger caliber has a case for his rifle caliber being superior.

You boys keep your magnums and enjoy the recoil, but I'll keep killing critters like I always have with something that I enjoy shooting more than once or twice a year.

So there we have it and you had to agree that a magnum is indeed more effective or shall we say more deadly. I say so and I just proved it.

Now there are details of course like increased recoil however some people can shoot magnums well just to make the point that they have an edge or benefit.

Well then, purely for the sake of continuing this silly argument:

If your theory is correct, then why did the .300 Mangleum require more shots (on average) than any other cartridge in the study?

Regards,
Scott

The day that you can prove two dead animals that have been shot with a 300 Roy and a 308 and both dead...not kicking, breathing, or sticking their tongue out at ya cause ya didn't shoot one with a magnum,will be the day the hell freezes over.

DEAD IS DEAD........not deadlier or deadliest, or god I wish he was more dead.....

When you can get your magnum to kill, gut, and wall-mount your deer, then you'll have a case, point, and a new fan by your's truely. Until then, I await the sight of the deadest animal that is more dead than the other dead animals.

I can explain it. However its complicated. Later.

A buddy who has passed away now did not like recoil at all. He was a little guy who shot an Remington 243. It was some short barreled compact model. He wanted the lightest load and I used to shoot the 75 gr Sierra HP a lot so I loaded them up with the min. charge of 3031.

He shot a buck with that load and the deer ran out of the woods and died at the tailgate of his truck. He really liked that load but what did he know?

Simply because a cartridge doesn't make deadly, but the man behind the gun who can place his shot does.

Give me a 22LR and I'll harvest every game animal Oregon has to offer, but we all know they ain't deadly and that can't happen because if a 308 isn't deadly enough, the damn 22 hasn't got a chance.


Well crap guys....I want to see some "DEAD" animals...I'm not talking about ones that are just lying there within feet of the hit, not breathing, bloody, and allowing you to take pictures of yourself with them, but honest to goodness dead ones.....So dead that you killed their cousins, brothers, and sisters at the same time. And ones that are mounted on the wall don't count either, cause that's not ironclad proof of deadly.
And whatever you do, don't post any pics of deer that are presumed dead by a bowhunter. We all know you can't kill anything with a bow and arrow....Heck it ain't even a firearm, let alone one that counts as "deadly".

Well tonight I think I'm gonna have some non-dead deer roast over some non-grown potatoes, and some near-dead deer beer, minus the hops and barley....you boys have fun.

ROTFLMAO.......

Yeah....it's complicated.

how did this thread get to be so funny?

This quotation explains it to those who understand it.

" All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

Maybe we should ask Mike378 to recite the story of 2 Aussies that went into the late Don Black's gunsmithing business and ordered a pair of .223 rifles made to their specs.

They took these rifles to Africa and shot a truck load of animals, one shot a piece each.

Or the countless Kiwi cullers that shot red deer for decades with the .22 Hornet. God knows I have read a lot of those stories over the years.

Magnums are there for those who want additional bullet weight which can be driven at the same velocities as the standard cartridges using lighter or medium weight bullets.

A .300 Winchester can shoot a 200 grain bullet as fast as a .30/06 with a 180. Trajectories will be similar, recoil and blast will favor the .30/06 from an operational standpoint, but there is no animal that can be taken with one and not the other, which I think is the point being lost here.

Dead is in point of fact, dead.

This reminds me of the John Wayne shootout with Kirk Douglas beside him; Douglas said "Mine hit hte ground first", Wayne responded, "Mine was taller".

AGW

If you spent more time finding "REAL DEAD" animals, rather than searching aimlessly for a good quote that fell short of magnum velocities, you'd have me buying a new rifle......

For god's sakes man....don't put any field evidence into this discussion....we're talking about 10,000, wish-I'd-been-deader moose here.

Matt,
My apologies.

John

I wonder if any of them were killed by near misses from hypersonic bullets.

In Sweden a lot of moose drivers use dogs -- som special breeds and even some very small terriers. The chances of loosing a hard hit animal in the thick stuff or swamps decline when dogs lead you to the downed animal. This factor plus the ease of shooting a 6.5 accurately w/o recoil flinch would make me a lot more confident using the Swede on a larger animal in heavy cover there -- irrespective of any data on distance run after fatal hits.

Around home, my evening hunts w/o dogs see bigger bores in my hands as I feel more confident about puitting the deer down in their tracks rather than skying off into the thick stuff and failed light. So far, the .338 Federal and Whelen have done the evening bang flop job pretty well, while ,in the past I have lost several hard hit deer to the jungle and dark when using a 257 Bob. I now reserve the lighter calibers for early and mid day hunts.

1B

Mule Deer
As someone else pointed out the permanent wound channel surface area is the correct measure, not its volume. That measure increases far slower than frontal area as you increase bullet diameter.

In the example of .308 vs. .338 the surface area on them (when expanded to double) increases wound channel surface area by 9.7%, but frontal area is increased 17%.

Dumping blood is the issue and the speed at which it leaves determines blood pressure drop and the frontal zone of bleeding is where the drop take place.

As we have discussed before, the docs I get to discuss this with (cardiac surgeons and anaesthesiologists specializing in cardiac surgery) remain steadfast in saying a cut to the aorta is the fastest non-CNS death. A severed aorta with heart intact will drop an animal in an average of three heartbeats.

The question I have about the moose study involves the small number examples like the 358NM. I wonder how many of the small sample were done by the same shooter. On a multi-year study with limited numbers of 358NM shooters it could really be nothing more than a marksmanship study of a better shooter.
art

Art,

All interesting points--especially about the low numbers of .358 Norma shooters, which of course might also apply to the .300 Winchester as well.

I wonder if the aorta damage applies to big game animals as well as humans. Obviously any damage to the aorta stops things pretty quickly, but as a confirmed autopsier, I have postmortemed many animals that died at least partially due to severe aortic damage that went the "normal" 25-50 yards before keeling over. Many I have actually seen fall, and quite often they make the lope/run, then stagger a little while before falling. Normally the whole process takes longer than 3 seconds.

I got the information about blood pressure dropping in the brain from another study, that gave the normal range as 10-15 seconds, with an average of 12, after massive trauma to the center of the circulatory system. While I normally do not start a stopwatch when shooting, since reading that study the animals I have observed fall from non-CNS shots have certainly seemed to go down mostly within that time-frame.

The key to the fastest damage is two-fold as I have quoted the docs repeatedly. First, the big leak needs to be there for speed. Second, to guarantee the big leak stays the big leak as long as possible the pump must keep pulling on the suction side of the system.

Destroy the heart muscle and the pump stops. Leakage will obviously drain the residual pressure but not nearly as rapidly as an intact pumping heart.

Clearly, a large percentage of aorta damaging shots are going to do the same to heart muscle.

We discussed the fact we were referring to critters, not humans and there answers were oriented that way. They pointed out the fact ungulates have but a single pleura housing both lungs where humans have one for each. They cut up critters also and have a better reference point when watching shot animals...

I find the whole thing extremely interesting. One of the best days I remember involved a horse guy and I cutting up a moose and doing a thorough comparative anatomy lab there on the mountainside.
art

I have heard the claim by "exit hole" hunters that an exiting bullet helps collapse the lungs in big game animals, due to the single pleura. The theory is that without the exit hole, the lungs have to fill with blood before seeing much effect. They may have something.

On the other hand, the quickest-deadest I have seen animals die from lung shots was when they were shot with Berger VLD's that essentilly minced the lungs, and often did NOT leave an exit hole.

On a lung shot, through and through, isn't it the cold air rushing in causes some shock as well as the loss of oxygenated blood to brain and muscles. Also, I didn't hear anyone talk about bullet / speed combinations that hurt the animal. Eg: if i bounce a softball off your chest that generates 10 ft/lbs of energy you will feel it for sure, but if I use something long (S.D.) of the same weight it will hurt more than the softball. So with the same amount of force I can hurt you with varying degrees of 'hurt'. A big hurt will cause more pain , pain mixes up your nervous system, puts it on tilt. I think this is a contributing factor in knocking an animal down.

As with shooting moose or other animals in general, there are many ways to shoot them dead. So too with lung shots. While it's true that a decent lung shot seems to effectively kill moose, I tend to think - even though I can't quantify it- that some lung shots work better (faster) than others. I have seen lungs both ways on dead moose: fully inflated or nearly so with blood loss being the killer, as well as collapsed lungs, again with blood loss being apparent and seemingly significant. There are obviously many things which can affect the speed of an animal's demise. However, collapse or total destruction of the lungs seems never a bad thing in accomplishing that. Since entrance holes are often smaller regardless the caliber or speed, an exit hole does seem to encourage lung collapse. Then again, perforating the diaphragm seems to also work.

MD
I do not see the lungs as ay factor in speed of killing, aside from their role as bleeders. There is plenty of oxygen in muscle and blood in the muscle to carry an animal for literal minutes.

Of course they may be saying the lungs filling with blood causes the BP to drop.

As to quickest kills with grenades and no exits... The descending aorta and the pleural branches thereof are huge potential bleeders with blood supplies to more than half the critter...
art

klik
One of the standard claims is that a void exists between the lungs and the spine. You have possibly seen bullet holes through ribs and undamaged lungs. It was first documented in VN with bullets through guts that did no damage to the gut...

There cannot be a void as the lungs could not function with a more expandable pocket behind the lung tissue. The lungs being more viscous would not fully inflate.

As I posted above the lungs have almost nothing to do with quick demise, but how many moose have we seen standing plenty long enough to use up all available oxygen?
art

Have a interesting Moose/lung/shot story for you.
My party shot a Moose once and when we got it open discovered some pretty weird things.
A)- It had been shot thru the lungs very close to the diaphram, the entry wound had broken 1 rib and it had healed. The exit wound had taken out 2 ribs and they had fused together in kinda a flat lump. The lung area that was bloodshot was quite substantial and was clotted purplish. We got to thinking about it and decided that it must of been shot in the dead of winter, this froze the wounds to stop the bleeding and being as tuff as they are just healed up.
B)- My partner decided to get the hide tanned and when we saw it with no hair on discovered there were bite scars all over the hind quarters! Wolves prolly.
C)- The Liver was full of parasites... like chock full.

That damn Moose led one hell of a tuff life! Shot, chewed, and parasitic! But to look at it standing you would never of known!

Art,

I sure don't buy the "void" theory - it demonstrates a lack of understanding about the lungs. I also don't buy the drowning theory. Lungs do not fill with blood. They fail to fill with air. Consequently, if it is lung trauma which kills, it is by suffocation. Yes, I have seen moose stand for quite a while as they suffocated. I'm sure they would have tipped over faster had they been "running" when shot.

The one thing that seems always to be present in a chest cavity shot is blood, gallons of blood, usually what appears to be enough to fill a 5 gallon bucket at least. (I "save" it in the body cavity 'til the stomach and other guts are well outside so that I can "wash" any stray willow particles out if necessary. That "hot bath" can be useful for warming freezing fingers when temps are far colder than one should sanely be hunting at also.)

As for Huntsman's moose, I don't doubt a hole could be made in the lungs out on the fringe like that which would clot up and heal as long as the chest doesn't leak air. Normally, if I hit them that low in the lungs I also breech the diaphragm which pretty much guarantees death by moose fart.

I'd say there is no real world difference in a moose that travels 16 feet and dies, and one that travels 43 feet and then dies. But your shoulder will note the difference.

ah, grouseman, but there can be a HUGE difference. Several come to mind, the most recent was a modest bull that ran into a half-acre puddle and died. SEveral birches were wrapped in the come-along sling and pulled sideways into the water as the tundra broke up around their roots. Moose hesitate to budge at such times...

A better shot would have saved many hours of tough work. I attribute that difference to the need for better shot placement.

Art has discribed the accurately, the reason for the importance of distance.

All I can say is if it hadn't been for the Internet I would never have learned that the caliber and bullet I used for many years to take moose, caribou and bear while living in the Alaska bush was inadequate. Yes it killed them no fuss no muss but the thought that I could have killed them deader and better really bugs me. Damn that Jack O'Conner for lying to me!