Not trying to stir any pots (although I suspect some will be stirred anyway) but the discussion in the over 60 thread prompts me to ask at what point “killing power” gives way to “stopping power”.

I’ve only seen a fraction of the game killed that a lot here have, but it has been my consistent experience that placement is indeed the largest part of the equation. E.g. a 375 H&H driving a 270 gr. Swift A-Frame into the guts of a 125 pound impala does not kill it or even prevent it from running off, but a .30-30 in the aorta of a deer will drop it in seconds. The Swedes did their study of various calibers on elk and there was almost no difference in how far the game traveled (17 yards total IIRC) between the 6.5x55 on up to a .375 H&H.

Yet guides still pack large .45+ caliber rifles to STOP the game.

So why do we see so little difference in the ability of well placed bullets of various diameter to cause the death of an animal by starving the brain of oxygen versus what must be a difference in bullet diameter (not velocity so much) in non-CNS hits as a factor in making them immediately desist from a rage induced desire to kill someone? Obviously placement still plays a part but I guess my question then is what is the reason for using a big bullet? Folks have been coming up with various "stopping power" formulas for years but I don't know which one is the latest in vogue.

Btw, it's not like I don't have opinions on this, just thought this might provide a topic for polite conversation.

Perhaps Phil Shoemaker can weigh in, I recall he’s stopped a bear or two, although he might not be the best choice since I understand he's traded in his .458 WM Old Ugly for a 9mm handgun...

Sometimes, to effect the desired placement (ie, get the bullet to the place you want it), it's necessary to drive the bullet through a significant mass of intervening tissue. The general consensus of opinion is, that can be easier to do with a bigger bullet.Myu guess would be, there's a certain benefit too, to be realized by the increased impact dynamics of a larger projectile. Think about the difference in being whacked over the head with a wooden baseball bat as opposed to a broom handle going twice as fast. Just speculating, of course, I've managed to overcome the temptation to do any actual research into the matter.

Big difference in stopping someone OR something that wants to kill you and you only wanting to kill something. A good center double lung shot will kill anything on the planet, given enough time. It will not kill say a charging grizzly in the time it takes the bear to you. It has been proven many times, heavy , well constructed bullets penetrate deeper making it more probable to get to the CNS or skeleton support system.

Not a gun writer, but I recall that the late Finn Aagard, who was a renowned gun writer, tabulated some statistics along this line and came to the same conclusion as the OP.

On an elephant hunt in Zim this past April, I shot an impala ram through the shoulders with a 500 grain Barnes monolithic solid from my .470. While mortally wounded, the animal ran about a hundred yards before it died. That same rifle (.470) and load instantly dropped a bull elephant in it's tracks a few years prior with a frontal brain shot.

IMO, a .270 Winchester loaded with a 130 grain Partition would have killed the impala much more quickly than the .470 did. However, the .270 would have had no effect on the elephant if employed in a frontal brain shot. The mass and bullet construction of the .470 solid was needed to punch through the approximately four feet of honeycombed skull bone to get to the elephant's brain.

As any carpenter will tell you, it is important to have the correct tool for the job and not all tools are created equal. Don't use a hammer where a screwdriver is required.

Hmm ,I seem to remember some guy named Bell who regularly killed Bull Elephant with a brain shot with a 7X57 or 6.56X55.It must have been a fluke as it was only around several hundred kills.JM Hunter used a Thirty Thirty on about 10 Bulls one shot kills.All must be lucky shots??

If you read WMD Bell's writings, those were not frontal brain shots. Bell knew the anatomy of elephants perfectly and used side brain shots for most of those kills, all with solids.

BTW, how many elephants have you personally killed and how many were frontal brain shots? What rifle and ammunition did you use? How many of those elephants did you shoot with a 7x57? Just curious.

Regarding stopping, I'm in the camp of bigger to get to what you want to hit when you don't get the angle you want....basically bigger for more penetration. Not that I'm experienced in stopping mad things.

From experience I can say there is a difference in killing quickly and stopping quickly. A heart/lung shot deer can travel quite a ways but dies fairly quick. A high shoulder shot deer is stopping a lot sooner, but it may not die as quick (lots of variables on the placement of the shoulder shot).

In my limited experience, the deer/antelope sized animals respond to "stopping" power so-called beginning with a 30 caliber expanded hole. It may not kill them any quicker in time, but it sure seems to put the whop'em to them more so than anything smaller.

That is also what JJHack has corroborated in his African experiences on herd animals. He prefers that someone hits them with a 30 caliber or bigger to recognize that they got whopped, and to allow for easier tracking.

Not very scientific, but primarily just anecdotal observations over the years.

"Just speculating, of course, I've managed to overcome the temptation to do any actual research into the matter." That's a very useful statement, I hope you don't mind if I borrow it profusely in the future.


The only game I've "stopped" was some charging (or more likely confused) ground squirrels although I have put the lights out right now on a couple of running deer someone else had hit badly, a .30-06 with 165 gr. Hornady Interlocks in the front shoulders worked just fine for those. I did fail miserably to stop a genuinely pissed off charging right at me Florida razorback; missing him with a .22 revolver was just as ineffective as missing him with a .458. Some rule about God and fools probably saved my bacon in that instance.

So just thinking out loud here, but I'm wondering if we aren't at a time to change our opinion of what it takes to be a stopper, a stopping rifle, whatever you want to call it. Some replies here note that the big bullets commonly associated with the breed are used to ensure penetration to the vitals through heavy bone and muscle, but in the end isn't this an example of placement? You have to be sure to hit the animal where it lives so it dies. For years the mantra for handgun fights was to get something starting with a 4, but nowadays with bonded bullets and such it seems the 9mm can be just as effective. A fellow on here who I trust implicitly for BTDT advice on those matters carries a Glock 9mm so I can't think of a more reliable endorsement. Again, placement being key.

On the other hand, bigger bullets make bigger holes, bigger holes let more blood leak out quicker resulting in a quicker death. But my experience and the vast experience of others on game large and small still shows very little difference in the rapidity of termination given good placement and the sudden stopping of forward motion given good hits in the skeleton.

I know I'm going around the same circles trod by writers since before I was born, but am wondering if we really know what is it about the larger bores that makes animals go "all loose" real sudden like as I think Teddy Roosevelt described as opposed to just keeling over after a few seconds. Or, if the penetrating and bone breaking capabilities of smaller bores due to better bullets might give them the effectiveness that heretofore was only the realm of large solids?

Good question--what makes an animal "go all loose" when whacked with a bigger bore? It sure seems to me that the whomp'em factor is real. It takes more to do more on a bigger animal.

Now whether any of that actually reduces time to death is probably unsolved.

Having shot deer with a 223, they often don't even react at all, run a little ways, stand around, and then drop over dead after 10 seconds. They seem to die in the same 10 seconds if shot with a 30-06, but I'll sure know that they were hit in the meantime. Same 10 seconds for a 375, but they will simply be "all loose" and just standing there until they fall over. This all with lung shots or very light bones around the edges, not CNS or busted out vertebrae.

If my life is threatened, I'll go with stopping power. I do want to be efficient when it comes to killing, but I'm not taking the 30-378 out for ground squirrels. A near hit or the boom alone is enough to deck them. While they're holding their ears and going "what the hell?" one can walk up and step on them.

FWIW my experience has been that dropping an animal on the spot comes down to a combination of bullet placement and bullet performance. Bigger bullets don't seem to help if either placement or performance isn't up to the mark.I have, for example, had cases where a big bullet through what should have been a vital area hasn't resulted in dropping the animal on the spot, because, as far as I can work out, the bullet hasn't caused enough damage on the way through. Cases which spring to mind include a fox shot square through the chest with a .30/06, who ran away probably 50 yards into cover, and took some finding (dead when I got to him though), and some pigs shot with bullets which performed well on buffalo, but didn't seem to be opening on the much smaller pigs, resulting in quite poor killing power. Of course there also has to be enough performance (enough momentum and bullet integrity) to get in far enough to damage something important too, and I wouldn't be alone in experiencing failures on that front too.

FWIW for putting an animal on the ground DRT I prefer, as a general thing and if the opportunity is there, to put a shot into the CNS, such as either with a neck shot or shot through the shoulder blade to the spine. I've put a good number of animals of various sizes nose-first into the dirt with one or the other, including from full gallop. The bullet through the shoulder blade to the spine will often scatter bone fragments into the artery and nerve junction (brachial plexus) in that region as well. Of course the price to be paid is that you damage more meat, where that is a factor, than you would with a shot into the chest cavity. The shot to the chest also gives you rather more room for error.

I've also shot the odd critter square in the brain as it came towards me, and that seems to take the fight right out of them.

I am not a gun writer. However, that won't stop me from expressing my opinion.

To me, stopping means; "to stop momentum in my direction - now". That can mean shooting a charging bear, buffalo, etc. to break the shoulder and now their path is turned, or stopped - allowing me to put another shot into them, perhaps more precisely aimed (this one to kill them). In my mind, stopping a charge like that will be easier with a large caliber, heavy bullet than it would be with a 100 to 140 grain bullet - even if placed in the boiler room. To clarify, to me stopping calibers begin at .338 (250 grains) and go up from there.

Of course a shot to the brain or CNS would be better than one to the shoulder, and would certainly stop a charge. However that may be more difficult to hit in the heat of the moment (the head bobbing up and down) than the shoulder. But I am not speaking from personal experience.

I recall many accounts in various books where the author tells of a charge where the animal was turned / stopped and then finished off (if that first shot didn't also kill the animal). That is the scenario I envision.

I have only been charged once in my hunting life, and that was by a very confused / frightened squirrel. You will be happy to learn that I was unharmed by the crazed beast. I fired at it in self defense, as it ran straight at me, and it met the full force of a load of #4 shot / 12 gauge at approximately 10 or 12 feet. I was about 14 or 15 yrs old at the time.

gundog

For man stopping, liberals fail to realize bad guys are crazy or on drugs. Pellet gun in my foot will change my mind. But a bad guy might not see it that way.

Chris kyle talked about how he would shoot Muslims 5 or 6 times with 223, but they were full of opium.

Shutting down vitals is a big part of it. Double lung shot they will die. But there has to be some gain from blunt trauma. How much is over kill, howuch is needed for your area, or all the variable a hunter weighs.

50 call is probably going to cut some yards off. But.what else is important?

Zerk, just curious, did you serve in the military?

I did kill frontal brain shot a bull jumbo in Zim with a 375 H&H mag at the time 1999 the the new line of Hornady "Heavy Magnum" 300 grain Hornady solid. Punched clean out the back of the skull.

Not to mention the fact that Bell, by his own admission, wounded and lost a few with that caliber.

This is not a difficult question. It's actually quite simple. We have very good scalable examples. Start with the ubiquitous .22lr and small varmints. You can shoot small varmints like chipmunks and gophers/squirrels. A 40 grain round nose lead bullet will kill them handily, but as a "bet your life on it" stopper that prevents them from crawling/running off it sucks. Sort of on the order of the big "stopping rifles", mostly works, but not always. But...Trade that 40 grain RN lead bullet for a 32 grain Hornet bullet and move it at somewhere north of 2000 FPS and it becomes a near perfect instant incapacitator. In my experience, it is effective on coon/woodchuck/porcupine/skunk size varmints, even if it no longer vaporizes them like it does with red squirrel and gopher size varmints.

Step up to a .243 or larger and shoot Mr porcupine with a tough bullet like a TSX?TTSX and it won't vaporize him or if it's not a vitals hit Mr porky can still waddle off, but back off the weight and use a lighter bullet and you're back to instant incapacitation with a body hit.

Step up again to 25-06 or .270 and start using frangible bullets at high velocity and while the vaporization in not so complete as the squirrel/gopher, it is still damned impressive on up to coyote size animals and can make a godawful mess of 150-200 lb deer as anyone who's shot deer with a 7mm RM or 300 WM with lighter, less sturdy bullets has learned.

You probably can't scale that up to the size and speed it would take to incapacitate a big bear or Cape Buffalo instantly and still fire it from your shoulder, but the body weight vs energy expended would likely be pretty linear. So, the stopping rifle tends to need someone with the skill to break the right parts to stop what the simple body hit cannot. You could certainly "stop" a leopard with certainty with a body hit with a bigger rifle and still fire it from the shoulder, but any toothy critter that's much bigger and I am going to put my money on the shooter instead of the weapon.

Probably as many as you have.My point is that it has been done with small calibers and it wasn`t just a fluke.

All I know is that I liked having the 375 Ruger when I went after AK grizzly bears.

Exactly! But wait, some here say a 243"AI" would be enough given proper shot placement!

Have noticed that everything I killed, stopped.

But I've never shot anything bigger than a bull elk, or a good size bear, and they weren't charging. Close yes, with a couple of bears, but not charging.

Interesting discussion all.

Regards, Guy

If you don't know, you don't know, and you don't know.

I've only shot one "charging" animal, a 245-pound feral boar which was going to die soon from my previous shot. One 150-grain Speer Grand Slam from my .270 Winchester through the shoulder stopped everything.

The brown bear guides and African PH's I know (and trust) best prefer cartridges from .375 H&H up. They say cartridges above .40 in caliber tend to slow charging animals enough to get in another shot, but even with really big rounds the only way to be certain of literally stopping a charge is to hit the central nervous system.

"I liked having" is emotional, and I understand the appeal! But that doesn't mean that anything less would not "be enough". Enough for what? Enough to kill, or enough to stop? Sure, a .243AI can kill a grizz, but it's not enough to stop it with certainty with vital hits every time. But then again, no shoulder-fired rifle is. When we talk about stopping a charge, we're really banking on sufficient penetration and marksmanship to break down the CNS. Even crunching bone isn't enough to stop large animals every time, without failure. As MILES implied, we may be able to guarantee a stop if we hit a bear in the body (non-CNS) with a 20mm...

I want some of those movie bullets. You know, the ones that when you get hit, it throws 'em through a wall, or makes 'em jump back 20 feet. That's not "stopping power but "reversing power.

It's especially true for movie shotgun shells.

Yep, those are awesome.

In the spirit of fun, I posit a Mk211 Raufoss from a .50 BMG like the BFMI M82 CQC would largely disassemble a brown bear; 20mm style.

Same vein: if someone will pay for the trip, hunt et al, I believe I could deck a large bull elephant with a brain shot from my Aimpoint sighted Kimber .308 w Barnes 110 TTSX.

psychic obviously..

And some here can say that a .260 Remington was enough. "Was," not "would be."

If it "was" AI'd it "would be".

Go right ahead. My point, which obviously many here miss, is there is no doubt shot placement is #1, but... as I said, go right ahead...

No. I was a punk at 18.

Why would someone want to shoot such a big stupid animal...I can see in defense of ones self...but to hunt one? Gimme a break

My guess is not to eat it...

Good guess.

Then you'd be guessing wrong. EVERY BIT of that animal will be consumed, either by the hunting party or the local villages adjacent to or in the concession where the animal is taken. It's mandatory. Further, hippos kill more people than any other animal in Africa except crocs and of course mosquitoes.

I thought he was talking about brown bears.

I thought he was referring and responding to the video. As to brown (or any bear), I'll just take the rug...

Lol...i was talking about the hippo. Im just in a bad mood...ignore me

so was I we need to dumb down our discussions ?

Probably not the direction you need to be going.....

When I booked the hunt my guide said either my 30/06 or the 375 Ruger would be fine. The Ruger would be a better choice. I used factory ammo 270 grain Hornady SP. The bear was slightly quartering facing me. The bullet entered just inside her left shoulder & exited behind the right shoulder. It took out both lungs. The exit hole was about the size of a half dollar. She went about 30 yards before she piled up. The shot was right at 90 Yards.

Those minutes when we were looking for her after the shot were pure adrenaline. We were tossing rocks into the brush, saying "Hey Bear". Having the 375 in hand helped my confidence.

My guide carried a 416 Ruger with Barnes bullets.

With all that said----If I had to do it again I would use the 30/06 with 200 grain partitions. I've had that rifle for 40+ years and can shoot it "lights out". Put the 1st bullet in the boiler & things usually work out.

No kidding. Never would of guessed...

As I understand the term "stopping rifle" for African game, it goes like this... When taking on a charging elephant or buffalo, you aim for a brain shot, and kill them instantly with a CNS hit. If you miss the brain, with a "stopping rifle", it will either knock out or daze the animal...stopping it long enough for a precise follow up shot to the brain. Most stopping rifle calibers start with a "5" and are used with solids with a flat nose. This is the way it was explained to me, by my PH, in Zimbabwe. Pretty much follows what mule deer stated, above.

Andy3

Phil Shoemaker saved himself and his client from a 900 lb. charging coastal grizzly with a 9mm pistol.

Its penetration and shot place all else is BS.

thanks for your sage and wise counsel..

I just saw another guy kill a cape buffalo with a 10mm Dan Wesson, but if I ever make it to Alaska to hunt brown bear, I think I'll pass on the 9mm. Besides, it's not "AI"...

Along with the 9mm story, Phil has also told me (and written, I believe) that he prefers the .458 Winchester for following up wounded brown bears because it's a good compromise between portability, power, and how much it stuns bears. If I recall correctly, he's used cartridges up to the .505 Gibbs as backup on bears, but also stopped several charging, wounded browns with the .30-06.

I've found African PH's just about as varied in their opinions as Campfire members. Harry Selby, who has about as much experience as any, wrote fairly recently that he prefers the.416 Rigby over all other rounds--and the story that he "settled" for one because that was all they had a local gun store is a myth.

In 2011 I hunted with Luke Samaras safari company in Tanzania's Selous. Luke has as much experience as Selby; I believe he's 70 now, and started PH'ing in Kenya when it was still open to big game hunting, then went to Tanzania when Kenya closed--with a short stint of working for Rigby in England when Tanzania also closed briefly. Luke has a number of big rifles, including doubles, and has used quite a few others, but told me he also prefers a .416 Rigby bolt-action. His reasons are interesting: It provides plenty of penetration, even on elephant (Luke's favorite big game), but shoots flatter than many other larger-bore rounds, which can come in handy when shooting at a wounded lion running away at 200 yards. He doesn't think the extra power of larger .416's buys anything in killing power, but the extra recoil slows repeat shots--and for general BIG game back-up he prefers the extra magazine capacity of a bolt to the two quick shots of a double. Obviously, the .416 Rigby does not begin with a 5, yet two PH's with at least half a century of experience going back to Kenya each prefer it over anything else.

Many people assume that one PH's opinion is universal among PH's, and it isn't. I know at least a couple more very experienced PH's who firmly believe their clients should bring a .375 H&H for buffalo or elephant, and can back up their opinion with plenty of good evidence.

If anybody wants to read about the widely varying opinions of African PH's, they might take a look at both of Craig Boddington's SAFARI RIFLES books.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^All This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Killing, stopping OR even turning an animal that's hellbent for you on tonight's menu is where it's always been for me, whether hunting dangerous game or other game where the nasties live, I've always planned ahead for such an encounter, as remote as it may be, planned, planned hard and practiced nonetheless.

No worries, glad to help.

🔫 👍🏻

No disagreement here. I'm also a 416 fan and I've shot 505's and own a 458 Watts and I prefer the 416. In my experience the larger bore hit harder and do tend to slow the animals quicker, but the difference isn't nightband day.

A lot depends on the bullets too. I've seen a .458 Lott absolutely unimpress a wounded water buffalo, because the solids didn't hit the central nervous system.

Bullets are definitely important!

I read an article by Don Heath about stopping buffalo where he said he didn't see any or enough of a difference in performance between the 9.3x62 and the .416s and .470s to justify the bigger rounds. His experience was you had to shoot a .500 of some sort to get a noticeably greater effect. I sure miss his writing.

And caliber. Guess he should have been using some sort of "AI" round...

Against the preceding quiet, the .375 H&H went off like an artillery piece. It acted like one, too. The bull dropped as though his legs had turned to pool noodles.

I cycled, hard, and reacquired. The grass was tall enough that there wasn’t a shot at the downed bull, but Atlantic City wasn’t taking any odds on what his two friends were going to think about this. Indeed, there’s plenty of precedent for buff acting like the Gotti family when one of their own gets whacked. I remained acutely aware that a buff with a purpose can cover 15 yards a second, and we were at most 40 yards from them.

To my happy amazement, they didn’t seem to think much of anything. They looked languidly around.

But not so the downed bull. He sprang back up like a toaster Pop-Tart. Before he could convert that rally into something more directed, I whacked him again, in pretty close to the same place. Again, he dropped as if legless. I topped off quick, got back in battery, and went back to scrutinizing his friends, who remained astonishingly disinterested in the proceedings.

Back up came the Pop-Tart.

Every time he sprang back up, things were looking worse. First, it meant that the downed bull had the full load of adrenaline in him. And every time I had to whack him again, it meant he had another opportunity to figure out where the rounds were coming from and decide to take umbrage. Likewise, the fact that his compadres hadn’t thrown in with him yet was absolutely no comfort. They might have a change of heart at any instant. With all that pressing on my consciousness, I did the only thing I could do under the circumstances and hit him again, also through the boiler room.

Bang, down again, and sproing, this time he almost flew out of the toaster. All three were now looking around. And then they began to move.

After an instant of adrenal fire hosing, I realized that the movement wasn’t aggressive, and it wasn’t even toward us—they began a slow shuffle off to the east. Two deep breaths, one half out, careful careful careful careful sight picture, this time on the spine, track and slowly squeeze.

The fourth round off.

source

In terms of an all around African rifle, IMO, you simply can't go wrong with a well made .416 Rigby. It isn't perfect, but it comes close. I have found it to be too much gun for lion (at least with a Swift A-Frame), but that is a story for another time. Up close and when following up wounded DG, I prefer a double; not because it is a better stopper, but because it gives you access to an instant and assured second shot without having to manipulate a bolt. I am aware of an informal study that says that four shots out of a .416 magazine rifle is just as quick as four shots out of a double, but it's the second shot that gives a double the advantage in a tight spot.

I don't remember who said it first, but I agree with the dictum that "life begins at .40".

So how do you explain it, when the exact same happens with a 500?

Jorge:

That gentleman you quoted writes in the same style as the late, lamented, Peter Hathaway Capstick. Thanks for referencing the source. I'll buy his book.

So if it happens with a 500 too, why not just use a 9mm Glock "AI"?

PS: 10:1 it happens a LOT less with RIFLE cals > 45 (and MV 2150 or more) and of course the intuitively obvious bullet placement..

Bottom line: bullet placement is not a guarantee as a stand alone factor, which is what I've been trying to convey.

Nothing is a guarantee and a bigger round doesn't guarantee a stop when placement isn't correct. Mark Sullivan videos shows a missed brain shot with a 600 nitro and the buff never slowed, Mark yelled ah [bleep] and connected with the brain on shot #2.

[quote=Andy3] As I understand the term "stopping rifle" for African game, it goes like this... When taking on a charging elephant or buffalo, you aim for a brain shot, and kill them instantly with a CNS hit. If you miss the brain, with a "stopping rifle", it will either knock out or daze the animal...stopping it long enough for a precise follow up shot to the brain. Most stopping rifle calibers start with a "5" and are used with solids with a flat nose. This is the way it was explained to me, by my PH, in Zimbabwe. Pretty much follows what mule deer stated, above.



A missed brain shot may or may not turn the animal so you can get a second shot in. One would hope it turns, but as you know, there are no guarantees. African hunting memoirs are replete with accounts wherein a hunter thought he had brained an elephant and the elephant went down. The hunter (as is the custom) cut the tail off to prove ownership and then posed for photos. The elephant, merely stunned, got up after a few minutes and then departed, never to be seen again. BTW, in such a situation, you must pay the trophy fee anyway.

The moral of the story is that no matter how dead your elephant (or buff) appears, "pay the insurance" by shooting it a few times more. As someone once said, 'it's the dead ones that kill you".

1. You did, when you said bullet placement is it and everything else is BS. Further, never said caliber size trumps placement, but it does allow for a larger margin of error.
2. No sir, I have that video, moreover, I've spoken with Sullivan on that very buffalo and the 600 definitively put the brakes on, long enough to whack him w the second shot.

Bullet placement and placement are the 2 key requirements and all else does fall into the BS. But nothing is 100% in life.

You must have seen something I didn't see , because "put the brakes on" is what how I saw it. He could have done the same thing with a 9.3.

And some common sense enters the discussion!

Disagree. Brain or spine and it's all over.

We'll try the Confucius approach:

You leaving out penetration, with those lead bulleted LR's.

These type of debates crack me up. So many posting opinions based solely on their emotions or what they have "heard." Accuracy trumps horsepower every single time. While Ive never been to Africa, I spend more time in the bush guiding hunters, trappers, and fishermen in a average year than most do in a lifetime... in an average year I will spend 8-9 months in the bush. The lowly 308 Winchester will stop an interior grizzly quite nicely if good bullets are used, and put in the right spot. I know because Ive done it more than once. The 338 Federal is another great round for this type of stuff and I have used it extensively since it first came out. Lots of stuff happens in the bush every year that the vast majority of hunters ( or anyone else for that matter) never hear about. Suffice it to say that dozens of aggressive predators are killed every year with 303s, 30-30s, the old russian mosins, and similar calibers. The trappers, subsistent hunters, and prospectors that use them understand what most don't....accuracy trumps horsepower every single time. I doubt Africa is much different. I know a fellow over there that swears by the 9.3....for everything. But he can shoot

OF COURSE IT DOES... And a 9.3 (X62 I imagine) ain't no 9MM pistol round

OK. you win.

Perhaps you missed the two factors involved in placing a bullet in the brain or spine...

With a 22 on that elephant? Sure, go ahead...

I stand on the side of big enough, I'm not one that believes that one needs the absolute biggest.

Well let's see. I've killed buffalo with an 8mm mag, Win Mag, a half dozen with the 9.3 x 62, another half dozen with .450/400 NE and one with the .450 No 2 NE. All died. One I got with solids from the 9.3 didn't die fast enough and he needed to be tracked into the long grass and finished. I carried the .450 No 2 for that, although the PH got him with .458 Win Mag.

See, there is a difference between killing and stopping.400 or 500 grains work better at stopping than does 250 grains. I proved that 220 from a 8mm mag will stop a buff if you shoot them in the forehead, but you better be very precise. Do the physics. A 16 lb bowling ball mixes the pins much better than a 12 lb ball.

My humble opinion. (and all the dearth of worth that likely carries)
As has been bandied about killing doesn't need to have anything to do with "stopping". Ponder for a moment some short range weapon (phaser on stun type thing) that 100% reliably stunned/staggered any charging beastie for a good 5-10 seconds but had no actual lethality whatsoever. A hunter would have little use for such a thing but a PH might be extremely intrigued. The reason obviously is the difference in priorities. A hunting arm's primary purpose is to put game on the ground. A stopping arm's primary purpose is to try to keep game from putting you on (or even under) the ground.

Gleaning information from people far more experienced than myself when dealing with those who make a living amongst things large and bitey and/or stompy there is a strong correlation with larger calibers. I think of this as nothing more than a hedge. All else being equal* if carrying a bit more rifle improves your odds in a worst case scenario by only 5% why not take that given the stakes? You could spend a lifetime dodging tooth/claw/tusk/horn and never have use for a "stopper" at all or even if you did what you had with you at the time be sufficient in that instance. OTOH what if that small advantage was the difference between talking cartridges here vs with St Peter? Ruark said "Use enough gun." and I've seen no reason to interpret that to mean "Minimum is good enough.". I've always taken it to mean "Enough starts at plenty." and when lives, perhaps yours, are in play I'm a Ruarkian. Of course I firmly believe everyone should do as they see fit.

*It's a minor pet peeve of mine but I've never understood the "accuracy trumps everything" mantra in caliber discussions. Guaranteed accuracy is arguably less reliable than cartridge performance so when discussing one why does the criteria of the other have to come into play? If we were all Francisco Scaramanga that would be one thing but we're not. When discussing calibers it seems we should consider the accuracy issue as a given in the comparison and proceed from there.

Jorge - thanks for the reference to the book! I read the rest of that story and it's GREAT!

I believe I'll buy that book!

Guy

A lot of truth here. The problem in my experience is this: very few...and by that I mean I have maybe seen a handful of hunters in my 30+ year guiding career that can handle big calibers. Any time you start getting into the 338 WM kind of recoil accuracy starts to suffer. There are some that can shoot the big calibers accurately don't get me wrong, but the vast majority of hunters would be way better off sticking with something they can shoot. That is my biggest pet peeve with these types of threads; guys read them and think they gotta have a 416 to hunt grizzly, or browns. It just aint true. What happens is they bring a rifle they can't handle on a hunt and either wound an animal ( that a guide like me has to risk life and limb to find ) or completely miss. They would be much better off if they knew that a 30/06 class rifle with good bullets will do the job just fine. Im currently using a 338 Federal and with good bullets I get all the penetration I need for any angle on interior bears. I've killed wounded bears at point blank range, and shot clean through a big bull bison at 300 yards. More isn't needed, but if you can accurately shoot them by all means bring a heavy rifle.

A friend of mine hunted with this well know outfit and of course by no means the standard, but they want you to bring a 416 at least (if you can shoot it) even for black bears. Apparently they don't like chasing after them in the alders. I hope to some day hunt Alaska and when I go, at the very least, I'll carry a 338. I've hunted Africa and have no issues with shooting big bores.

Glacier Bay

Thanks for bringing some sanity to this thread.

Yep, and there's the "all things equal" alluded to in my post. What you're pointing out is the juxtaposition where accuracy and caliber meet. You don't, indeed can't, get to the "all things equal" part of the caliber discussion if you can't get that accuracy thing straightened out. Calibers CAN have an advantage, at least under certain circumstances, but it's a completely moot point if you aren't hitting where you're aiming. As a guide I imagine you'd relish the idea of someone showing up with a .416 that they could shoot well. That would just be good on good. However I'd wager you'd be pretty unexcited by someone who didn't know their way around a rifle even if it was a .308. Perhaps the most oft (paraphrased) quote on the matter of hunting large and dangerous game I've seen is "Use the largest rifle you are comfortable with and shoot accurately.". Makes sense to me.

Cant quite fathom why anyone would suggest a 416 for black bears, but I can promise you it isn't needed. I actually had a guy shoot a black bear with one once. It was a spring hunt and we were sitting on a moose carcass that had drowned then washed up on shore. Just at last light a big black bear came in to feed. The bear bolted for the pucker brush at the shot. I knew he was hit but wasn't sure where. We found him the next morning still very much alive. I finished the fiasco with my 308, turned out the bear was hit about 4 inches to far back. Thats the only shot I ever saw that hunter fire so I can't comment on his ability as things happen sometimes, but I do know that most hunters could have anchored that bear with a 30/06. I know very few hunters that are going to admit that they CANT shoot a 416 accurately, so advising them to bring one is asking for trouble.

Agree with you 100 % not needed. I've taken two nice Black, 35 Wheelen and 06.

Whitworth shot a pig with his 416 Remington with 300 Grant TSX at 2900 FPS + and the pig ran off. They weren't able to find the pig that day and the guides gave him a rash of [bleep] about missing. The pig was found the next day hit through the chest cavity with tons of internal damage to the clock work. Amazing that he went anywhere! No guarantees.

Do bears, of any type, take less "killing" or "stopping" than big/dangerous African game?

I've happily taken bears (several black, one grizzly) with .375 and .30-06 rifles. Shot the grizzly with a .30-06, though there was also a good hit from the guide's .338 Win Mag.

Never hunted Africa, but I'd sure like to do so someday, particularly for cape buff and a gemsbok. That hippo video above was pretty intense!

Thanks, Guy

I frankly don't believe African game is any tougher, just some are bigger.

To go along with your Ruark theme, in Horn of the Hunter he quotes Harry Selby about precision shooter who can "split lemons" at 200 yard. Said Selby"I'm more interested in what they can do with a buffalo at 1o yards", or to that effect.

If anyone wants to understand "killing" vs "Stopping" needs to read African Rifles and Cartridges by Jihn "Pondoro" Taylor

You will be wiser after reading

Seems to me that the following applies, mostly:

-if your bullet gets into the brain, it will usually be lights out. It has to get in there though, and as well as being surrounded by bones and sometimes headgear. it can be a challenging shot;
- if your bullet causes the spinal cord, or a nerve junction nearby (such as the brachial plexus), to be severed (whether directly or by driving bone fragments through it) the animal will be down, though it might not be dead if nothing else (eg nearby arteries) is damaged;
- if your bullet makes a big hole through a major artery, especially the aorta, it will usually be over pretty quick, but it might not be instant;
- if you hit the heart, the pumping stops, so the animal may have a few seconds - enough to bolt into cover or at you - before going down
- a hit to a major organ, other than the above, such as lungs, really needs a good deal of damage to be effective quickly
- breaking major bones may drive splinters through something vital, but if not, animals can often keep on trucking

That is only my experience of course, based on animals I've killed or seen killed. Sometimes unusual things happen too.

Hard to decipher fact from the BS. Read Don Heath for truer prospective.

It's still a good read.

Mark Sullivan wanted to gain the same experience by using a different cartridge every season and compilehis findings. I've talked to Mark about this inn person both here and in Tanzania, as well as hours on the phone ang have his observations. Like his videos or not, he has more experience with a wide variety of big bore stoppers than anyone alive. His book was not as entertaining as Taylors, but also a good read. There is a reason that most PHs will carry a .458 or equal around dangerous game. Somebody pointed out Phil Shoemaker killed a bear with a 9mm. Is Phil's handle here 9mm or 458win??

Guess what his "stopper" is.

When you shoot a lot of rifles, most notice a sameness/similarity in results with usual/common cartridges until you step up to the .375 H&H as many have on this site. It is common to note a new level of performance as the writings and comments on this site indicate.

That level is increased again when you shoot a .460 Weatherby Magnum. It is a notable leap in the perceived level of power. I, like others, wish I had shot a lot more larger animals but the sudden shudder and incapability to take another step is notable, if they don't drop cold.
I have not shot anything larger.
JW

dan,

Yes, making a big hole through a major blood vessel ends things relatively quickly, but its amazing how long a Cape buffalo's heart can keeping pumping blood even with major leakage in the circulatory system. In Tanzania in 2011 my hunting partner shot a bull facing us, right below the chin at 40 yards with a .458 Lott, the bullet a 500-grain Nosler Partition. The bullet shattered the spine and the bull dropped right there, never moving again, but when approaching the "dead" buffalo, the PH told my partner to put an insurance bullet in the bull's chest. He did, and a spout of blood started pumping out of the hole, the pumps obviously timed to the heartbeat. I immediately looked at my watch, and the flow's rate did not start slowing for almost a minute, when it started to gradually subside, but didn't stop for at least another half-minute.

M D - WOW that's impressive. (sincerely)

Jerry

About all I know is that Shot placement trumps Bore size and bullet performance trumps power .
But when things start getting interesting it's nice to have all four.

I understand it had a C N S hit....

But w/o it.... an animal that size with their tenacity COULD do a WORLD of damage in 1-1 1/2 min. !!

Jerry

An intelligent reply, and in my view the only sane one.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I've never shot a Cape buffalo or an elephant, so I can't comment on any personal exploits of that nature.

But in killing a significant number of black bear, there has been in my experience an unequivocal distinction in effect between .458-cal (.45-70 and .458 WM) and .358/.366 calibers. With non-CNS hits, .458s put them on the ground where standing, not to get up again -- mostly dead before hitting the ground. The mediums killed them within 20-25 yards with good hits to heart/lungs, but did not stop them.

I go prepared for the possible worst case scenario, not the best.

If a person can't shoot a .45-70 accurately, that's not the fault of the cartridge. The same hold's true for anything else over .40-cal. I'm closer to 82 than 81 and just a couple of days ago came across a full box of 500gr Speer Grand Slam Africans. They'd been sitting on the dealers shelf "forever" at $89.99 + tax. I got them for $52.99 + tax. Do I need them? Well, yeah, kinda... you see I have this thing for .458" bullets. They'll get shot at the range at 1900 to 2000 fps, with a couple at 2200. And a couple more will be reserved for a bear. I can't wait!

And, oh... I have arthritis in my hands, diabetes and one eye. I must be the one-eyed giant, right? Well, I'm actually (now) 5' - 8" (bare feet) and 165 - 170 lbs most of the time.

You see why I don't have a lot of patience with guides, outfitters and PHs who make excuses for "hunters" poor shooting while accepting them as clients. In parts of Africa the laws mandate the limits of what one must use for certain large and/or dangerous game. In those cases, the client must use a .375 or larger. He/she doesn't have an option; they MUST practice to become competent shooters, or agree that the guide/PH, etc. will finish the job if they foul-up! Why then, do "they" complain if they need to learn to shoot something
larger than small to medium bores? Sorry, but I don't buy the excuses.

If I could learn to shoot a .458 Win Mag with full power loads in my sixties (three 500s into moa consistently), I see the only possible reason why another cannot legitimately do the same would be due to some physical infirmity (or mental blockage that can be overcome with training and practice).

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Real words of wisdom.

I say do what your PH or guide says. My last PH told me that a .375 was the best hunting rifle for a client to bring for elephant, buffalo, etc. He personally carried a .500 NE, not because it was the best hunting rifle. It was the best STOPPING rifle.

The heart may continue to pump, but (in the absence of the spine shot in your particular example) for how long of that period would it be up and at 'em, as opposed to walking a circle in wobbly boots, or unconscious? A genuine question, as I've never shot a Cape Buffalo, though I've shot or been in at the kill for more than a couple of dozen of the buffalo we have in the NT. I soon worked out that spinal shots were a much quicker means of putting them on the ground too.

Experience and truth right here. Thanks Phil.

dan oz,

A Cape buffalo can be "up and at 'em" for quite a while even with big holes through the center of its ciculatory system. I've seen them on their feet and ambulating at least as long after a good shot as that heart was pumping--and sometimes shooting them again just made them more ambulatory until they finally realized they should be dead.

John, I have witnessed wounded brown bears do the same. I can remember numerous bears that were still alive and attempting to get up a long time after receiving multiple fatal hits from 375's and .458's.
The bigger calibers tend to usually put them down a little quicker and keep them down a bit longer but some animals can seem Bullet proof. I had one aggressive boar that took three solid fatal hits from my 505 Gibbs before he quit getting up and coming for us and Kodiak guide Joe Want told me similar stories of incidents when he was carrying his 500 Nitro H& H Royal double rifle.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hey guys, been reading a new book about Bell Hatari gave me , some of his lost manuscripts he wrote later in life and for him, definitively "smaller was better." Here's a shocker, even though he never used it in Africa, but he wrote the 308 is probably about THE perfect caliber for elephant! That said, the said the "penetration king" was the 318 WR with 250gr bullets at 2400.

Phil,

Sounds very similar to Cape buffalo. Some will run 50-100 yards with a decent chest hit from something like a .375 H&H and keel over, and other seem to be made of some other substance!

Once in a while even smaller animals act similarly. Eileen once shot a rutting pronghorn buck broadside through the chest with a 120-grain Partition from a .257 Roberts at 2900 fps, at modest range, and despite a major pumping of blood from the wound (much like the buffalo described above) the buck tried to mount a doe! So she shot the buck again, also a well-placed chest shot, and he staggered to the ground--but even then was making motions with his head, as if trying to hook her when she approached. She finally shot him again just to end it, and the buck was so bled-out by the time he quit, when field-dressed there wasn't more than an ounce or two of blood inside the chest cavity.

Thanks John

FWIW I can't recall seeing any of our buffalo actually spurting arterial blood, but some that seemed less than immediately convinced by good shots into the area above the heart. Hence moving to spinal shots as a preference on them.

Yeah, spinal shots work very well--unless they miss.

A Cape buffalo I killed in Tanzania in 2011 had pretty obvious bullet scars on each side of its back, just above the shoulders. The spinous process between the bullet holes was also missing. I always wondered what happened after that shot....

This has been very interesting reading so I'll add my 2 cents, bear in mind it's worth what you pay for it:). You don't need stopping power for any North American animal except for the big bears. I have taken black bears with a 280 and dead is dead, a Brown bear fell to a well placed 250gr NPT from a 338 but I paid the insurance anyway. My definition of "stopping power" is to halt or turn the forward motion of a dangerous animal to provide enough time for either the client or guide/PH to get in a more well placed shot. On a trip to Africa I took two rifles a 7X57AI and a 416 Taylor. It just so happened I used the Taylor for just about everything from Warthog to Buff. The Buff took a 400gr A frame angling forward from just behind the last rib into the off shoulder area. It took out the vast majority of the lungs and the shoulder. It stopped him and a second shot put him down so fast there wasn't even a death bellow.

At the end of the day do you need a 500NE to hunt dangerous game? Probably not but IF I can shoot my 416 just as accurately as an 06 I'll take the 416. There is a reason the professionals carry big guns and it's because they need them to clean up someone's mess. It's better to have the biggest gun you can use and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Nice. Makes perfect sense to me.

Thank you. Guy

John, I had to look up "spinous process." Thanks for furthering my education!

Guy

"This has been very interesting reading so I'll add my 2 cents, bear in mind it's worth what you pay for it:). You don't need stopping power for any North American animal except for the big bears."

I would add Dall sheep and mountain goat( or any critter that lives in steep terrain ). A sheep or goat making even a relatively short "death run" could very easily make it unrecoverable. Bang flops be a good thing with such game.

Jeff

Let me add my thanks for that comment, Phil! I would like to quote you on that, if I may?

I am no hands-on expert on stopping a charging bear/elephant/lion, by any means, but I've been compiling extensive notes from a number of men who are, for the past couple of years. This is for a writing project that may or may not come off... because of my experience and research in the area of use of deadly force in law enforcement (which does NOT equate to UDF against quadrupeds much larger than our species!) I have been intensely curious about the parallels between those sorts of encounters and the hunting variety. I've discussed it with a few established hunting writers, and they seem to think it's a worthy subject. Many of the terms are common to both arenas: stopping power, adrenalized condition, etc, etc. I continue to gather information, and we shall see, in the long term, what I can come up with and whether it has any value to the average Joe. But in the short term I've come to appreciate some points that more or less amount to a consensus. These points come mostly from African PH's--and a few hunters who've been in the thick of it quite a bit--and I hope to add the insights of some of our North American fellows as well.

One of the things that is common to all the PH's I've interviewed is that they view a stopping rifle as a very different thing than a hunting rifle. A stopping rifle has be able to finish the job with a high degree of finality, right now. Most of them think a .375 is plenty of rifle for hunting any game, any of the Big Five. But they clearly all prefer something bigger for stopping an adrenalized, wounded, enraged beast bent on tearing you to bits or stomping you into a puddle of strawberry jelly. A stopping rifle is typically deployed at close range, so as to increase the precise shot placement necessary to the task.

Another thing these chaps have in common is that none of them, as in 0%, ever wished they had a smaller gun and less ammunition when facing an aggressive dangerous game animal. (This observation carries over to law enforcement encounters as well, for what that is worth!) I can confirm from my limited exposure to hunting Cape buffalo in thick mopane brush that my .375 H&H seemed awfully small and inadequate at times, and I wondered if I had made a mistake by not buying that .416 rifle instead of the .375! This was particularly true when we had two buffalo bulls gallop by us a scant 4 yards off our right flank closely followed by an irate black rhino. At that point I doubt a bazooka would have felt adequate! But as it turned out the .375 was more than adequate for the hunting and killing of my bull.

My own PH on my sole African buff hunt has faced down, by his accounts, more DG charges than I care to say, although I believe his tally is accurate. I'll leave him to substantiate that claim in his own book, which should be coming out in the next year or two. His experiences have led him to believe that bore size and power are very relevant in a stopping rifle, especially when you're knocking heads with the big stuff: elephant, rhino, hippo, and buff. His stopping rifle is a 470 Rigby double, and before he got that one his stopping rifle was a 450/400, as I recall. He believes that a double is the best option because stopping a charge requires shooting only when the animal is very close, and no bolt rifle can be worked fast enough to get a second shot at that close range whereas as the double will do so, if just barely. He admits that he has needed the second shot less than a handful of times in his career, though.

Another highly respected PH, who was my second choice to hunt with, also prefers a rifle of greater than .400 caliber, but his preference is for a magazine rifle rather than a double. His reasons for preferring the bolt gun are again highly subjective and personal. Yet another PH, a young man I came to like very much in the brief time I spent with him on my safari, carries a .375 H&H bolt rifle and feels very confident in it. But I have to note that he is the only PH I've talked to who doesn't prefer a .400+ caliber stopping rifle, and more than a couple have expressed fondness for bore sizes upwards of half an inch.

I would echo Mule Deer's recommendation of Craig Boddington's Safari Rifles I and II. These are excellent books, written by a fellow who's done more African dangerous game hunting than many PH's. His observations carry a lot of weight, in my view. Another excellent book is Terry Wieland's Dangerous Game Rifles. Phil Shoemaker has written enough good magazine articles on his rifles to make me believe he could write one heckuva book on stopping rifles for big Alaskan brown bears, and maybe if we goad him enough he might actually put that book together for us. And I really wish John Barsness would get busy and do more African hunting so he can get around to writing that authoritative African Rifle book we all know that's in him, but if he keeps wasting time hunting Montana pheasants and ducks and whatnot, that's not likely to come to pass, so apparently more goading is in order...

Good post, Doc. When the pros speak, the "shot placement is the ONLY thing that matters" crowd should read and heed.

Guns are a funny subject. Lots of guys like to talk about how big theirs is.

Not buying, if structural support bone or CNS isn't hit all bets are off on stopping. It is a human nature to go bigger, but that doesn't negate shot placement.

Phil, is spot on!

How hard is my writing to understand? kee-rist. Not only did I agree 100% with Phil but with the PH Doc's talking about, who also happens to be the PH I hunt with. Maybe this will take: YOU CAN'T GET A CNS HIT IF THE CALIBER/BULLET YOU ARE USING IS EITHER TOO SMALL OR TO POORLY CONSTRUCTED. If shot placement was the only issue, Guides would be going around using FMJ 22s.

Doc,

Excellent post, but the big reason I recommend Craig's books isn't because of Craig's opinions (though they are certainly based on considerable experience, and he explains them clearly) but the multitude of opinions from various PH's.

Many hunters who go to Africa come back with quite a few "my PH said" stories, and many African hunters who write books mostly promote their own opinions. W.D.M. Bell's and John Taylor's books are good examples.

Craig's books are very informative because they DON'T contain only his opinions, and those of PH's who might agree with him--which is what "my PH said" stories are often about. Instead he made it a major point to interview LOTS of experienced PH's, and their opinions can vary as much as those of Campfire members talking about deer or elk rifles. In fact PH's seem to enjoy arguing about rifles just as much as many Campfire members.

Most Americans who go on safaris don't realize this, because they rarely spend much time around more than a couple of PH's--and often only one. Plus, most safari clients shoot relatively few animals with relatively few cartridges, and even fewer get charged. (I've only seen one charge during my safaris, and it was a wounded springhare, which probably headed toward the PH and my hunting partner by sheer chance--though it did eventually bite the PH's hand severely.)

One of my most vivid African memories, however, didn't take place in the field. It happened one evening years ago, on a big, month-long cull hunt involving around 15 hunters, when several PH's were hoisting a few and, of course, started discussing rifles--just like any bunch of deer hunters who end up together. The discussion (and disagreements) lasted past midnight, and started because a couple of the PH's had followed up a wounded Cape buffalo that day, eventually putting 11 shots from a .416 Rigby and .458 Lott into the bull before their adventure ended. But in the end there was no more consensus about "stopping power" than there is about the effectiveness of various cartridges and bullets on the Campfire deer-hunting forum.

Craig has probably been in on more Cape buffalo kills than any other American gun writer. I know that several years ago he'd taken over 50 himself, and the total of what he's taken and seen killed may be around 100. That's certainly a lot more experience than some other American gun writers, who set themselves up as Cape buffalo experts after taking maybe half a dozen, or safari clients who know it all after one or two trips.

Yet Craig's buffalo experience is a small fraction of that of many older PH's, who've seen hundreds of buffalo taken, and may have taken several hundred themselves. Which is why Craig doesn't primarily provide his perspective (as Bell and Taylor did) but those of many PH's, often with decades in the field.

Craig's a true journalist, which is relatively rare in gun writing, partly because hunting is such a personal experience, but partly because so many humans consider their personal experience the only valid experience. This shows up constantly in other Campfire threads, and not just about "killing power" but rifle recoil, or even which powders to use when handloading a certain cartridge. How many times do we see a response like, "Reloder 22. Thank me later," without the slightest evidence of why? Instead Craig provides as comprehensive a view as possible, including not just his own views but those of far more experienced PH's.

The books of Bell and Taylor are primarily valuable for their historical perspective, but their ballistic theories have been twisted too often by relatively inexperienced hunters, many already prejudiced about the subject. Craig's books are far more valuable for their overall perspective, accomplished by his encyclopedic inclusion of other, widely experienced hunters.

John, I'm sure you know this, but he's published a second book African Safari Rifles II. I enjoy them very much.

I quite agree about Mr. Boddington's books. The first time I looked at SR-I, it was years ago and hunting Africa wasn't in the future as far as I knew. "Meh," says I, and moved on. But when I had firm Africa plans in place, his book and the sequel had become much, much more relevant, and I read through them with keen interest in the detailed opinions. Great resource.

I had opportunity to meet Craig last winter at DSC and to discuss some of his viewpoints, and I look forward to a followup meeting next January, which I hope will be more in-depth than the first. There are one or two other old Africa hands that come regularly that I need to peg for more in-depth interviews as well. I appreciate you pointing out that Boddington is an actual journalist, something I've noted as well. Some of the crustier guys I know pooh-pooh him for "not taking a stand", thinking he's being wishy-washy, when in fact he's doing what a journalist is supposed to do... presenting the facts and opinions of others.

Anyways, thanks for the reply, JB. Now get cracking on that Africa book of yours, will you? Tick-tock, tick-tock!!!

I am not disagreeing with the too small or to poorly constructed bullet. It's the term "stopping rifle" what exactly is that? Don Heath used a 9.3, Harry Selby used a 416, etc.

Doc,

since you raised the issue of defensive pistol performance and it does relate to the discussion in general, what are your thoughts about the defensive pistol bullets and rounds?

Add in a pissed off moose as in a cow with a calf or a bull in rut. Two Anchorage cops had to kill moose, one cow, one bull, after they charged and tried to kill the officers. The first that I know of was at University Lake back in '90 or '91 and the officer used his S&W Mod 59 with Hydrashoks (emptied the magazine before the cow went down), and the other was at East High School where the officer emptied his Glock 21 (Speer Gold Dots or Remington Golden Sabres) into a bull that was trying to gore him.
Both got lucky as they both brained their moose with their last shots. We didn't train with handguns to stop a moose or bear, but probably should have. BTW, neither officer was a hunter.

Ed

When my daughter and I were turning in the DLP -defense of life & property- bear I had to kill with a 9mm last year the F&W troopers were most interested in what ammo I used. They get called upon to dispatch many moose that have been hit by vehicles and said that when they were issued 357 revolvers things worked fine but they claimed that the ammo they were issued in their 40 autos made the task difficult at best.

Thanks Youse Guys

M D, Doc, Jorge, etc.

Not being an African hunter, errr a hunter of African experience, I was not familiar with
C B's books. I have serious doubts about ever going to Africa, but I enjoy readin GOOD
books on Hunting in general.

I'll be searching for those 2 very soon. Any recommend where to find them at good prices ??

Jerry

Amazon or Ebay. Some are probably proprietary to Safari Press, so look there as well as CraigBoddington.com.

You keep missing the point. Nobody said that shot placement is the ONLY thing that matters. We said that putting a bullet in the brain or spinal cord (CNS), regardless of the size or weight of said bullet, will end the ordeal post haste. We even spelled it out- the bullet needs to be pointed in the right direction, and it needs to penetrate enough to damage the CNS. Penetration isn't monopolized by large-bore bullets, but such bullets produce larger wound channels, which give a bit higher margin of error in the direction the bullet is pointed by the quivering guy behind the rifle. BUT, if the bullet is directed properly and penetrates enough, even a .22 to the brain will kill very quickly...

i just ordered a couple of boddington's books off amazon prime.

Sure. I guess my english as a second language is the issue. I just can 't convey( Ad nauseaum) that shot placement and penetration are #1 or even the part about a 308 or 7X57 penetarting, but if your bullet fails to get there because it lacks penetration or if it's too soft and breaks up is irrelevant... I'm sure a 22 has PLENTY of penetration to reach the brain of an elephant...

Here, I guess some need illustrations. Take it to about 2:15 and watch the first shot (poorly placed) on an elephant's forehead. He does not drop, but it turns him AWAY from the hunter. The second shot, perfectly placed. drops him like a bad habit. TWO (as in "dos") POINTS:
1. Shot placement is key
2. Shot placement is still key, but try that with a 22...

Does that permeate?

Just for the sake of numbers, let's assume a 4" spinal column. A hit would be the diameter of the spine plus twice the bullet diameter. A .45 cal adds almost an inch of dia, vs a 6.5 which would only add ~ 1/2 inch (ignoring wound channel width). The larger caliber has a greater chance of wrecking something vital, by odds alone.
IMHO, of course.

Doc,

Interesting about people criticizing Craig for "not taking a stand."

However, when younger he did take some stands, including suggesting a firm line at .30 caliber minimum for larger, tougher non-dangerous game, whether elk or various African plains game. But when his daughter started hunting a while back, he saw what a 7mm-08 would do with good bullets, and not just once but repeatedly. He even decided to go elk hunting with a .270 Winchester, because some other people criticizing him for not having any experience with cartridges smaller than .30 caliber. He ended up taking a good bull at over 400 yards with one 150-grain Nosler Partition--and at that time the bull went down quicker than any other bull he'd ever taken. All of which apparently caused him to be a little more journalistic in his approach--though Craig did comment to the guy with him when he shot the elk, Mike Ballew of the Whittington Center, that now he could go back to using bigger cartridges again! (Mike told me the story when I got lucky and hunted the Whittington for elk myself a decade ago.)

First shot looked a bit low to me, second was spot on.

I won't get into too much detail here, as I'm not sure it's the correct forum. I must be clear that I am NOT a ballistics expert; my area of study is more on the "software" side of things (training & mental aspects of DUG's and OIS's) rather than hardware.

But let me say in general that for serious social purposes any of the standard service calibers (38 Special/9mm, 357 SIG, 40 S&W, 45 Auto), when loaded with any of the premier JHP bullets from Speer/Federal (Gold Dot, HST, etc), Winchester (Ranger Talon, etc), Hornady (TAP, etc), or Remington (Golden Sabre), will get the job done provided your shot placement is correct. If you want to carry a non-police caliber such as 357 Magnum, 41 Magnum, 44 Special/Magnum, 45 Colt, or any of the 45+ Loudenboomers, you can find good JHP ammo for it as above, but game-hunting bullets aren't necessarily suited to shooting people for reasons that become obvious when you study the anatomy a bit. There is other good ammo out there, but there isn't time or space to go into all of those here, even if I cared to or was qualified to do so.

But let me say this, most emphatically: training is far, far more important than choices of gun or ammo, and 90% or more of handgun owners completely blow this off. Taking a quality 3-day defensive handgun/rifle class from a quality instructor is far more important than buying up a crate of the "best" ammo. Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, Massad Ayoob Group, John Farnam, Tom Givens, Henk Iversen, and a number of others offer quality instruction at a very reasonable price, considering the value of the instruction offered. Shot placement is the wild card in mano-y-mano stopping power debates, as there is all manner of nonsense about that on the interwebs. Shot placement is part of what I train people in doing through Tactical Anatomy Systems LLC, and all of the instructors I've named have very good knowledge of that subject area; this is not something that can be adequately put into words on a gun forum.

For in-depth reading on hardware, I'd recommend you look up Dr. Gary Roberts' work on sites such as this one:

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/#mozTocId912099

Start there if you like, and extend your search to find the most recent info. Dr. Roberts does regular and extensive ballistics testing through his roles in LE in California and as a military reserve officer. His work is broadly available on a number of websites and forums, as he shares the general results quite freely. He also has access to enormous databases of real/street shootings, so his bench gelatin tests are published with consideration of the effectiveness of the ammunition's performance on the street. So when Gary says a particular load is a good choice in our snub 38 revolver, but another load is better in your long-barrel .45, you can pretty much take that info to the bank.

Phil, we discovered the same problem in rural Wisconsin when deputies were frustrated in their efforts at trying to dispatch injured deer and livestock at the roadside. The official solution in my county was to have the deputies use their AR-15 carbines for this job. Neither the .40's we had when I started with the agency nor the .45's we went to before I left seemed to work very well. I suspect a large part of the problem was a combination of not knowing where to shoot the animal and not getting close enough to ensure a lethal hit.

On the other hand, I know several deputies that I routinely trained with in that department who "just happened" to routinely carry a couple of rounds of hard-cast, heavy-for-caliber bullets in a spare pocket here or there for road kill use, and that seemed to work just fine for them. I won't say those were Buffalo Bore rounds, but I won't say they weren't, either...

Thanks Again Guys

For your responses and suggestions. I've been gone all day and I was posting from my phone this AM.

I've been a fan of Mr. C Boddington for some time. There's another reason I like him, he likes the 8 MM REM MAG also.

I've enjoyed this thread a lot. THANKS

Jerry

Not quite. Assuming your target was 4" wide, and merely touching it would be enough, the bullet has to have its centreline within half a diameter of the edge, either side. Thus in theory at least the .45 could be centred a bit over .22" from the edge, while the 6.5 would have to be within about .13", giving you 0.09" extra leeway on either side.

Of course in practice it doesn't quite work that way, as I guess you know. Among other things it is not enough to make a glancing hit. You really need to damage the spinal cord itself, or a nerve junction to the spinal cord. That may be by the bullet driving through it, or by bone fragments driving through it, or by vertebrae being displaced enough to cut the connection (though that might only have a temporary effect, if the spinal cord isn't actually severed). A wider bullet might give you a tiny edge, just by virtue of its greater diameter, but it is a tiny difference really. More significant on bigger animals might be greater momentum, to drive through muscle and bones to get there. Equally, a bullet might expand, provided it still can penetrate deeply enough, so bullet construction comes into play too, and a fast expanding bullet (as long as it doesn't fly to bits and fail to get there) might scatter bone fragments through the spinal cord or a nearby nerve junction on its way past - I've certainly seen that.

I have not read all the posts yet on this thread, but while working to day I thought of this explanation. We have two ways to express energy .....as measured as foot pounds, Or the other as a vacuum inducing " hydrostatic " shock. Hydrostatic shock relies on an exit hole to in essence " suck " or aspirated vascular tissue into non viability. Hydrostatic shock not only requires full penetration, it need velocity. These two requirements demand both shot placement, adequate barrel length, and cartridge powder capacity.

Foot pounds of energy are only felt by an animal if the projectile does not fully penetrate the beast. Once it fully penetrates the energy is still in the bullet wasted on the impact of wherever the bullet goes and hits next.

Using a heavy bullet with a large meplat helps ensure maximum foot pounds of energy are utilized in the process of shooting into an animal. The larger meplat lowers the sectional density limiting penetration, but the heavier bullet " stores" energy as it is sent down range. This energy will transfer into the beast as the bullet sheds its weight while going through the tissues.Thus reducing the need for precise, shot placement, barrel length . One could also employ a smaller cartridge length.....for faster actions.
Makes this approach perhaps a better compromise in point blank situations.

Just my thoughts.

How does "hydrostatic shock" propagate in an organ full of air?

Angus,

That's the first time I've ever heard that definition of "hydrostatic shock." The standard definition (or at least the only one I've heard of) involve the hydraulic compression of blood through the circulatory system. Where did you hear it?

In armor training. They explained for a sabot round to work correctly it had to leave the Or exit the turret. Thus sucking the crewmembers out with it. The web sight terminal ballistics research also discusses trauma based on velocity. I think smokepoles point is also valid in that the lungfield will be in a varying degree of susceptibility depending on its state of inflation upon impact. The other thing to consider in ruminants is the rumen which predominantly occupies the left abdomen and is basically inert sack of ingesta, this makes almost impervious to shock in that area.

I was going to mention this John -- his "long range" kill of a nice bull with the 270 when earlier he was fairly clear about the much more appropriate 30 cal to mediums for elk. This is not a criticism of CB at all as I have not found him dogmatic in his writing and opinions though you could easily infer those if they were not clearly stated, and he is also apparently pretty good company.

"Hydrostatic shock" is a nonsense term invented by non-ballisticians on the internet and has no credible definition in actual wound ballistics. I have never heard or read any such definition as the one you have posted, and I've been deeply involved in the wound ballistics community for nearly 20 years. Furthermore, how one could use a term that quite literally means "liquid" to describe a fictional event such as you describe (i.e., the sucking-out of a tank's crew by the drop in air pressure created by the exit of a high-velocity projectile) is beyond me. Water is liquid, air is gas. Hydraulics (the physics of liquids) do not translate over to the behavior of gases such as air.

When the International Wound Ballistics Association was still extant, several peer-reviewed papers were published in its journal that debunked "hydrostatic shock" as a nonsense term. Now there is such a thing as hydraulic shock, which is what JB described in his earlier post today, and which is essentially the propagation of a physical shock wave through a liquid medium that may cause remote injury. What we are describing then, is a physical shock wave through a liquid medium such as water, blood, or a liquid-filled organ such as the brain, liver, spleen, or urinary bladder. Studying the physics of shock waves teaches us that the energy of the wave diminishes geometrically with distance, so instances of remote injury from a missile (bullet) injury are uncommon at best.

DO NOT confuse the shock wave being discussed here with physiological shock. I note that Wikipedia's article on "hydrostatic shock" makes this error, mixing and conflating physiological shock (reduction or loss of blood pressure in response to a specific type of injury to the body) with the physics of shock waves. Please don't anyone quote any of the confused drivel from that Wikipedia article in this thread.




I think Isaac Newton would argue quite convincingly to the contrary.



I think perhaps you should.

Perhaps this admittedly questionable analogy is at least partially germane to the discussion with providing a mental picture of what "hydrostatic shock" might look like if it exists. I preface it with admitting no personal experience in stopping dangerous game nor am I claiming some degree of hydrostatic shock is even a stopping factor in and of itself as the body mass of the game has to be a big factor I suspect in mitigating its effect. Also, the temperament of the creature at the moment of the hit makes a difference in the immediate reaction to the hit. But I have watched what may be varying degrees of it in many ungulates expiring from solid chest hits over the years

Consider a big watermelon hit dead center at fifty yards with, say, a fast 30 and then with 22 LR to give extremes in bullet weight, frontal area, velocity, and energy and their effect pursuant to illustrating the point of the concept. And that a bigger, faster bullet of right design, equally well-place (controllability), trumps the lesser all day long in its effect. But with so many variables in hunting big game (not to mention you can never shoot the same animal twice under the same conditions) it's difficult to isolate to just the effects of a different caliber cartridge with the same bullet design.

A watermelon is ~ 90% + water. Water is not very compressible. We all can visualize the explosion of chunks of melon and the red mist in the air at the hit from the 30. The 22 hit depending on the size and weight of the melon might not even be discernible other than the slight melon wobble as it bored through and out.

Note: HS, if it exists, is not a ubiquitous factor -- Phil's killing the brown bear with a 9mm handgun at close range involved very little HS as far as I can imagine but provided enough leakage due to good bullet placement and penetration in an animal without an apparent "vengeful turn of mind" at that moment. Similarly, the 22 can be very lethal but we are talking of the effect on a time continuum, a very short one being optimim. The Masai with noted precision poke a hole in the carotid artery of their donor beast with a sharp stick to obtain blood for one of their culinary staples, and that animal would soon go to a forever sleep were it not for soon-applied pressure and a daub of mud over the big pounding vessel. There is certainly no HS there but it would be a quickly lethal wound being one of the larger pipes in the cardiovascular system..

A mammals percentage of water content is on the order of 70 to 60% on the conservative end with, of course, different tissue types and densities as opposed to the homogenous nature of a melon. The significant difference in total body water of mammals of course reduces the effect and the amount of air in the lungs should they be hit reduces it further yet. And as mentioned there are many other variables that enter in with a very mobile, aware mammal and certainly a dangerous one. A supremely important factor is bullet weight and design. Yet, while the melon scenario is an imperfect model, I have to believe it illustrates "some" of what I've seen in the reactions of many head of big game.

The point being, while there is rarely a consensus on the specifics of these matters, there are groups of cartridge/bullet combinations that over time and many experiences have shown themselves to be appropriate for different classes (size and temperament mainly) of game due to their effectiveness in quickly killing or even immediately stopping big game.

But I am pretty sure everyone here knew all of this already but it gave me something to reflect on again this morning. 😉

And I agree with the confusion of "hydrostatic shock" with "hydraulic shock" which I just exacerbated. Please consider the latter to be what I am referring to in the post above.

Doc,

I mentioned the common, nonsense definition of "hydrostatic shock" primarily to find out what Angus meant. You're absolutely right, it doesn't mean anything, but was a term promoted by many people during the early days of very high velocity cartridges, one of the biggest promoters being Roy Weatherby. As some people have pointed out in the past, even the term "hydrostatic" doesn't apply, as there's nothing static about it.

Roy Weatherby promoted hydrostatic shock with very high velocity bullets as THE answer to killing power. According to Weatherby, arteries and veins acted like brake lines, transmitting the impact of the bullet to the brain, killing animals no matter where the bullet landed. But he first formulated this theory (or followed the lead of other proponents) after having only killed a few deer. When he started making money on his rifles, he went on an African safari that supposedly would demonstrate hydrostatic shock on many animals. It didn't, and you can read all about it in the biography of Weatherby written by Grits and Tom Gresham, which contains a bunch of Weatherby's African journal. In fact ultra-high velocity with cup-and-core bullets was a dismal failure, especially on larger animals, and in his journal Roy keeps backpedaling by modifying his theory.

From my reading on bullet tissue-damage, cavitation can be a major factor in creating a larger wound channel, but it still isn't enough to short-circuit a deer's brain with a hit in the butt. What any of this has to do with tanks is a mystery.

Angus,

Your physics is pretty bad.

Yes but if we apply the same principles to humans and more specifically some campfire members (judging from some of the responses here), short-circuiting the brain from a hit in the butt becomes not only more likely but virtually assured.

I think this post is a good illustration 😀

Thank you, I work hard to fill my posts with useful information. Its nice to have some acknowledgement.

JB, I knew you knew that, and that you were just being a lot nicer about hitting the BS button than I am capable of being. I didn't know ol' Roy Weatherby was the guilty party for the propagation of that term. Interesting bit of trivia, that!

And I think your reading of temporary cavitation is pretty much correct, btw.





Thanks for the laugh, amigo.

As far as I can tell through reading old magazines and various books, several people got on the hydrostatic shock bandwagon. But Roy Weatherby spread it more than anybody else. He was a great salesman!

No worries mate. MD lobbed that one right down the middle.

"The Controversy Has Ended...."

Damn! Just when I sit back down with a fresh bowl of popcorn!


Ed

P O Ackley did his part to popularize the myth of hydrostatic shock when writing of .17 caliber rifles. "Hydrodynamic Shock" would have been a better term, but wouldn't change the physics that don't exist.

You did it now, Doc, hating on the Holy Grail, that "AI" dude....

I am glad you all debunked the high velocity small bullet theory. Thank you.

When I can I prefer a 45/70.

I am an e
Elmer Keith fan, hell I live near Salmon.

I remember the Tank Comanders roll their eyes about the fin stabilized sabot rounds.

It was an impressive visual when a fin stabilized sabot did its job on a turret though.

I never was in combat, so maybe some one wants to share.

Speed kills, or at least it adds to the equation at least in some instances.

I 'think' no one GOT IT !!


Jerry

Angus,

Just because some of us have pointed out that there isn't any such thing as "hydrostatic shock," doesn't mean high velocity doesn't have significant effects on wound-channel size, and hence "killing power." So no, we have not "debunked the high velocity small bullet theory." All we debunked was your contentions about hydrostatic shock.

For that matter, Elmer Keith was very aware of the advantages of high velocity--but he started big game hunting before expanding bullets could withstand impacting large animals at high velocity. He wasn't against high velocity, but poor bullet performance--though he evidently had a hard time separating the two in his mind, due to his early experiences with relatively fragile bullets.

Despite that, he continued to use some that couldn't even withstand moderate velocity. When he went on his first safari, for some reason he took his .333 OKH with some very fragile 300-grain Kynoch bullets. Sometimes they didn't even exit Thompson gazelles the size of mule deer fawns. This was a decade AFTER John Nosler started selling his Partition bullets, and Keith would have been far better off using a .30-06 with 180-grain Partitions.

Today we have bullets that will expand and penetrate when started at 3500 fps or more. I know this not because of any assumptions about bullet performance, but because I thoroughly tested them BEFORE going hunting, enough to know they'd work fine in the field. And they have, on quite a few big game animals.

I don't really understand how we got from discussing killing versus stopping power to here, but apparently you've missed a lot of what's been happening with bullet development since the .45-70 appeared.

You don't see the parallels between a rib cage and a tank turret?

The correct term I was trying to feeble explain is hydrodynamic s. Not hydrostatic. For this I apologize. I often wondered if it would not be perhaps safer to not seal up the turret so these properties would not be so profound upon impact. Look up how a fin stabilized sabot round works. There is a huge discussion on the principle and Theroems.. The actual reports of testing during my training is perhaps too morbid to put on an open forum. But I meant Hydrodynamic........not Hydrostatic. I apologize for the confusion.

I always thought hydrostatic shock was the loss of consciousness due to instantaneous massive trauma sort of like a person being in shock from a bad injury. It doesn't kill but puts the animal down immediately. I read this somewhere and it made sense to me. I also read this is more likely to occur with fast projectiles vs slower ones. What are ya'lls thoughts on this?

Hydraulic shock is self explanatory.

A rib cage is a sealed compartment under a slight negative air pressure, containing tissues which destroying is the desired goal with a projectile penetrating it.

A tank turret is usually a sealed compartment under slight positive air pressure. It contains tissues, I.e. Crewmen whose destruction is the goal of penetrating the compartment with a projectile.

H O L Y xxxxxx SMOKE !!

Kudos to the guy on his knees.

Jerry

I spoke with him a couple of years ago at DSC convention. He was quite non-chalant about it. Incidentally, the rifle was a 458...

Getting waaaaay off topic here but a rib cage is not a sealed compartment. If it was we couldn't inhale and exhale. And it's under slight negative pressure when we're inhaling, and slight positive pressure when we're exhaling. Apropos of nothing.

There are more differences than similarities between a rib cage and a tank turret

Most likely do to a lot of wind noise in enclosed spaces

So where does a rib cage " leak". If it does leak ? How can one use the diaphragm to breath? When on enters the thoracic cavity with a knife why does air rush in? Thanks.

What is the eitiology of pneumothorax?

Another video that shows how a charging animal can be "turned" by application(s) of big, heavy bullets. It also shows what happens if that same big, heavy bullet is not placed exactly right to begin with.



Ed

Ain't that the truth. One of the years I hunted Kodiak another hunter brought his 460 Wby. It took him nearly a dozen rounds to confirm his zero. I didn't see him when I returned from the hunt. Apparently he had shot at a brown bear several times and flat ass missed. He phoned it in, told his guide he was done hunting and went home early.

That had to be - and would have to be -

EXCITING !!

Jerry

I have a diff opinion smokey. A rib cage does not leak any fluid - unless penetrated - and

the lungs are blood FILLED muscle that do not leak unless we want them to lose pressure.

Jerry

This time........ I think U R right.

Jerry

Did I say a rib cage leaks? I don't believe I did but nice try.

I have a coffee cup sitting on my desk. It holds fluid and doesn't leak. Yet it's not sealed and it's open to the atmosphere. Same as your lungs, which are inside your rib cage, are open to the atmosphere. Reconcile that with your "logic."

And while you're at it, continue commenting on the similarity of a bullet penetrating a ribcage and an artillery shell penetrating an armored vehicle.

And throw in a few words about the necessity of blowing lung tissue out the exit hole while you're at it.

"Thanks."

Edited to add, Angus, before you respond, know that I'm done commenting on this subject. This is an interesting thread and I don't want to detract from it any more. So blaze away, but don't expect any more back and forth from me.

The hunter, Aaron Nielsen one of the most experienced out there, was way out of position and while he had to make the shot, his PH was FORWARD of the line of fire. What a recipe for disaster.

Great illustration, Ed. As the hunter says near the end, "This was my first time hunting with this double rifle", and he points to where he hit it with his first shot, which is well back of the rib cage. If you're gonna shoot 'em in the guts, you need something like an 88mm. But even that won't work if you're unfamiliar with it!

This probably belongs in the Africa forum rather than here, but I'm on my iPad and the switch is hard.

When I was preparing for my buff hunt in '15, our 24HCF compadre Ingwe--bless his black heart--advised me to shoot at least 500 rounds in practice through my African rifle. Kimber Caprivi 375 H&H Mag. I ended up shooting close to 700 rounds in 2 months as it happens. But by the time I went to Zimbabwe I by God knew that rifle. My only qualm about it was that it was only a 375; but I was reassured significantly by the fact that my PH would be toting a 470 Rigby, so if it came to a charge, the greater stopping power of his rifle would be available. I still stand by that decision, and when I go back next year or the one after that, I'll take my 375 with the same or even greater confidence. And if I am blessed with the opportunity to acquire a big double at some time in the future, I'll make sure I have 500+ rounds through it before I pack my gear for the trip!

This video is illustrative of the potential danger of being tempted by the mystique of the double rifle. I've hunted with SXS shotguns my whole life, and when I meet other hunters or clays shooters it's amazing to hear how many say they can't hit anything with a double unless it's an O/U... and then these same guys will start bragging about the Heym or British SXS rifle they bought to hunt DG in Africa! If you can't kill doves or partridge with a SXS scattergun, you have no business taking a SXS rifle for DG. Bore size and big bullets and energy and mystique can never make up for proper shot placement, but as Phil says, it's nice if you can have it all.

End of rant.

Lungs function exactly like a bellows. External motive force is applied in one direction and air goes out. Applied in the opposite direction, air goes in.

I pneumo-thorax s simply a hole in the chest (possibly the lung(s) also, but not necessarily)allowing air to enter the chest (not the lungs). The first diaphragm cycle pulls some air into the lung and some into the chest. The difference between pre-pneumo and post-pneumo results in some lung deflation. As more cycles go by more lung deflation results unless the hole is plugged.

Generally for our purposes we penetrate one or both lungs and damage pressurized blood vessels which also begins to pressurize the chest which deflates the lung(s) some more. Even an extreme pneumo in which both lungs are extremely damaged and instantly are deflated or completely broken apart into red soup and the heart remains intact to pump the chest full does not guarantee a DRT. The animal still can remain functional for a few to maybe ten seconds after the wound, although with each second passing the capability is decreasing . With less extreme pneumos, the animal can remain functional from minutes to hours. With competent medical help and the right tools available, a pneumo can be reversed provided lung damage is not too severe.

A pneumo can also result from a rib breaking and puncturing the lung(s) without a hole in the chest.

SOmeone above mentioned lungs as muscle. They are not muscle. They are highly vascular sacs that intake and expel air in response to increasing or decreasing chest volume.

Doc, you need them ALL in this instance. That proper shot placement on that charging bull would have meant squat had you been carrying a 223 "AI"...

I saw that and neither the PH nor client would have chosen that scenario but....

sometimes 'stuff' happens. I and I'm sure they are very glad things worked out well.

Jerry

Things got sporty, but a .243 to the brain would have ended up the same way...

In addition to that little fiasco, Nielsen's gun handling as they tromped around would make me VERY upset if I were walking in front of him...

I thought the same thing. I'll bet he (the PH)felt the concussion and has some ringing ears.

These threads about dangerous game and the guns used are certainly entertaining! Doesn't take long to see who has experience and who doesn't. One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is that it is very rare for an animal to charge....even in Africa. I guided a very experienced PH last fall that also does a lot of filming for other African PHs. He told me in all his years there he was involved in one real charge. ( a cape buff) The thing to remember is that 99.9% of the time a big game animal does charge, some boneheaded human is responsible. Usually this is because the animal was wounded first. The biggest two reasons guys miss or make a bad shot is because of buck fever, or they are afraid of their rifle. If I had a dollar for every grizzly Ive saw guys miss with their first shot I would be rich. I can't figure out how to post pictures on here, but I have a picture that says a lot....its a picture of George Davis with a record book interior grizzly that had been wounded and he sorted out. George was easily one of the most experienced guides in the north. He guided full time for over 40 years. I was lucky enough to get to apprentice under George my first season in the mountains and George never left camp without his old model 94 30-30. He cleaned up more messes with that gun than most guys will ever see in their life time. No I am not advocating you use a 30-30......my only point is that you don't need a 460.

Im off to the bush in the morning for a short hunt of my own before my guiding season starts. Ive got a pocketful of tags, and a grizzly is among them. While Im not really looking for a bear if a good one shows up I would take it. My rifle of choice for this solo hunt?? A short Ruger in 308 Winchester. Any bets on whether I come back

As I watched it for the first time, I thought Nielsen was going to shoot the PH. Looking at the angles I don't think he had much clearance between his bullet's path and the PH's left arm.

Apparently, the PH got off a shot before the camera came back on, but it was Nielsen's first shot into the charge that really turned that bull, then the PH's shot and Nielsen's last shot.

Also, I watched the clip several times, trying to discern the caliber of rifle the PH was using. It looked like either a .458 Lott or a .470 Rigby, and either one puts a lot of energy out in some heavy bullets.

Nielsen's last shot would have also been a great first shot.

You can see the obvious adrenaline reactions in both Nielsen and the PH, but I think the PH was far more affected, which is natural, given that the bull was charging him, and not Nielsen. It looked to me as if the PH was still having his life flash before his eyes even several minutes later.

The shots on that elephant didn't impress me, either. I'm not entirely sure where he hit that elephant the first two shots. Heart and then an attempted brain shot?

Ed

Yukon

No bet just god wishes for a great time and success.
Be safe.

Jerry

You, sir, suck! Am I envious? You bet your azz I am!

No flies on the .308 Win.. If you don't come back it probably won't be because of you choice of calibers. Wouldn't be my first choice for sorting out even an Interior Grizzly in heavy brush, but it will do the job. What bullets are you going to use?

Ed

Well the boys at Buffalo Bore told me that the 150 grain Barnes TTSX are the ticket for really big animals with the 308. I trust those guys, but couldn't find Barnes 150s in Whitehorse. So Im using my old standbys the NP 165 grain. It works.

First of all I would like to clarify " what is your intent"


As a DAT and a DVM. As in a Dumd Ass Tanker and a Doctor of Veterinary Medince I have a strange level of training. Often I will assume everyone on the campfire has had the same........my bad.

I took armor gunnery training as a true delight , and if could have spent more time shooting in a main battle tank I would have never became a Doctor of Veterinary a Medicine. I would have stayed in the Army.

When people call me out for not understanding ballistics, physics, physiology, or how to behave around aggressive large ruminants I find it interesting.

My intent is as Einstein said. " To truly understand something one must be able to explain it simply"

This is why I post.

It is not to gain ego or belittle other members.

As a Veterinarian I took an oath ........
1. Allieviate animal suffering
2. Conserve Livestock resources
3. Protect public safety

If any of my posts on this forum are contrary to these principles please point them out to me as I will truly be ashamed.

But you are truly correct in that there are dissimilarity between a tank turret and a lung field, thoracic cavity, or " rib cage" however you may want to define it. This is why I believe the principles of hydrodynamic kinetic energy allows a a 5 pound sabot round the ability to disable a 63 TON main battle tank, where the same principles will not work as well on an animal. This is also why in the M60 A3 battle tank I operated for the U.S. Army we were given several options of ordinance for the differing situations possible. But alas I am completely ignorant and un informed on ballistics. Thanks for all the education.

A. The thorax in especially a ruminant is compartmentalized, I have never been able to dissect it, but time and time agin I am told there is a mediastinum that separates the lungs so they can operate in the ruminat seperately ( as if one is compromised)

1. There also may be a separate fascia plane, and seperating the heart from the left lung field.
2. There are also bronchial tubes and a trachea in the lung field that can prior to colllapse, allow external air to enter the compromised tissue. Kind of like leaving a hatch open in the turret. This should buffer the hydrodynamic effect of the projectile.

B. The thorax, unlike the turret, without massive trauma, has the ability to seal its self. Ruminants are legend for the ability to clot bleeding.

So even though a perhaps 5 pound projectile can totally stop and disable a 63 TON main battle tank does not mean the technology and physics behind the ordinance will work as well on dangerous game.

On reflection it is a lot easier killing a ruminant, compared to trying to keep it alive. However unless you got a good heeler dog, u better not be the slowest human out in the pen when they charge.

As things get tighter and tighter in the confrontations with dangerous large animals the considerations of elegant harvest as opposed to time to elude or escape change. The same goes with armor warfare. But like I say to Discuss armor warfare or my pointed out complete ignorance of ballistics or animal physiology with those who know so much of such things is perhaps contrary to the security of the country.

Perhaps I am out of line...........oh well I am sure I will hear about it soon.

Still pondering if I should get a Ruger number one. Then my 45 70 s can get cooked up another notch. ( as Emeril Lagassi would say).

No flies on the 165 NP, either. I have a load using 165 TSX that two .308's I own absolutely love. The load is 44.0 gr of Varget and gives me slightly less than MOA for five shots out of both rifles.
What's not to love?
The only reason I'm using TSX instead of TTSX is that my LGS didn't have the TTSX when I went to buy bullets.

Ed

Good posts.

Like tanks, I find Cape buffalo have more armor and are tougher to stop when attacking them head on,

I do not know if she should get De Bunked or not?

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...e-able-to-explain-it-simply#Post12200296

Kill video, with dangerous game and plains game. The elephant that starts at the 5:20 mark is stopped and then killed. To me, this is the classic definition of a "stopping" rifle in action. CNS shot that missed, but allowed enough time to finish the animal.....safely. Andy3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbYRv_EQAD8

That video works for me...

Hang in there Angus,...it might get worse.

And though you are here with 2k+ posts and aren't exactly a newbie, I welcome you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock_(firearms)#Fackler.27s_contra-claim

[img]http://An 8-month study in Iraq performed in 2010 and published in 2011 reports on autopsies of 30 gunshot victims struck with high-velocity (greater than 2500 fps) rifle bullets.[25] In all 30 cases, autopsies revealed injuries distant from the main wound channel due to hydrostatic shock. The authors determined that the lungs and chest are the most susceptible to distant wounding, followed by the abdomen. The authors conclude: Distant injuries away from the main track in high velocity missile injuries are very important and almost always present in all cases especially in the chest and abdomen and this should be put in the consideration on the part of the forensic pathologist and probably the general surgeon.[/img]


Found in Wikipedia hydrostatic shock. Along with Dr. Facklers cotraclaim using the lithitiptor sonic wave device on kidney stones.

[img]http://Ammunition selection for hunting Edit Hydrostatic shock is commonly considered as a factor in the selection of hunting ammunition. Peter Capstick explains that hydrostatic shock may have value for animals up to the size of white-tailed deer, but the ratio of energy transfer to animal weight is an important consideration for larger animals. If the animal’s weight exceeds the bullet’s energy transfer, penetration in an undeviating line to a vital organ is a much more important consideration than energy transfer and hydrostatic shock.[60] Jim Carmichael, in contrast, describes evidence that hydrostatic shock can affect animals as large as Cape Buffalo in the results of a carefully controlled study carried out by veterinarians in a buffalo culling operation. Whereas virtually all of our opinions about knockdown power are based on isolated examples, the data gathered during the culling operation was taken from a number of animals. Even more important, the animals were then examined and dissected in a scientific manner by professionals. Predictably, some of the buffalo dropped where they were shot and some didn't, even though all received near-identical hits in the vital heart-lung area. When the brains of all the buffalo were removed, the researchers discovered that those that had been knocked down instantly had suffered massive rupturing of blood vessels in the brain. The brains of animals that hadn't fallen instantly showed no such damage. — Jim Carmichael[61][/img]

This is from the same thread.

[img]http://claim Edit Dr. Martin Fackler, a Vietnam-era trauma surgeon, wound ballistics researcher, a Colonel in the U.S. Army and the head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the U.S. Army’s Medical Training Center, Letterman Institute, claimed that hydrostatic shock had been disproved and that the assertion that a pressure wave plays a role in injury or incapacitation is a myth.[6] Others expressed similar views.[17][18] Dr. Fackler based his argument on the lithotriptor, a tool commonly used to break up kidney stones. The lithotriptor uses sonic pressure waves which are stronger than those caused by most handgun bullets,[citation needed] yet it produces no damage to soft tissues whatsoever. Hence, Fackler argued, ballistic pressure waves cannot damage tissue either.[19] Dr. Fackler claimed that a study of rifle bullet wounds in Vietnam (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) found “no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet. In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption.” Dr. Fackler cited a personal communication with R. F. Bellamy.[6] However, Bellamy’s published findings the following year[20] estimated that 10% of fractures in the data set might be due to indirect injuries, and one specific case is described in detail (pp. 153–154). In addition, the published analysis documents five instances of abdominal wounding in cases where the bullet did not penetrate the abdominal cavity (pp. 149–152), a case of lung contusion resulting from a hit to the shoulder (pp. 146–149), and a case of indirect effects on the central nervous system (p. 155). Fackler's critics argue that Fackler's evidence does not contradict distant injuries, as Fackler claimed, but the WDMET data from Vietnam actually provides supporting evidence for it.[20][21] A summary of the debate was published in 2009 as part of a Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research.[/img]

[img]http://To become a successful hunter, one must understand the principles of effective game killing. Those of an anti-hunting nature may like to portray hunting as being a brutal and negative expression of mankind, however, hunting is a part of who we are. It is all very well to push vegan ideals in societies where food can be imported as quickly as an international courier consignment can be created. But we must never lose sight of the fact that many humans living in both primitive (to us) and modern society are reliant on meat as are the millions of carnivores which live on this planet. Perish the thought of a protestor heading to Papa New Guinea or the Amazon to ‘convert the natives’ to tofu and facebook. We are what we are. Yet it seems that accepting who we are with the greatest sense of compassion is a most difficult challenge for the human race, difficult enough to bring about great wars. We hunt, just like cats (of all sizes) and wolves, we are just like any other predator and most definitely share the same characteristics as some omnivores including other primates along with the humble pig. Yet there is one major difference between ourselves and other omnivores and predators - we have great intellect. This has also created what might best be described as unnatural guilt in that we experience this emotion in a way that other animals do not in their Zen like state. The bible attempts to portray the same in its own manner of speaking with the story of Eve and the apple. You do not need to be of a religious mind to see how intellect and guilt are tied together. If a deer was to step on its fawn, the fawn would cry and the mother would feel immediate empathy along with what we might call a natural guilt which acts as a preventative. Animals do feel guilt - just ask your dog who dug that hole in the yard to see for yourself. Humans on the other hand have the capacity to carry guilt beyond that of animals due to intellect. This can be useful but also at times damaging. We can harbor guilt that becomes self -destructive or in our anti-hunting example, we can simply harbor guilt to the point that we reject our very being and harbor hatred for our own species. On the flip side, as humans we also have the ability to experience great love and compassion. We can utilize intellect, empathy, love and compassion to navigate our way through this world. And it is because of these traits that we can become more effective at hunting. Have you ever seen a domestic cat hunt birds or mice? Small cats can be very cruel at times and many of you will have witnessed this. As humans, even though some folk may think we are un-evolved by continuing to hunt in this modern age, the opposite can be true in that we can use our intellect and compassion to make us far better hunters than our fellow predators. Effective game killing is based on empathy. We wish to hunt and utilize the flesh of another animal. Empathy drives us to find better or what we call more humane ways to achieve this. We do not want to live on whey, soy or tofu protein because we as hunters accept who we are and we learn to accept that we too will pass from our flesh one day. We want to hunt because it feels right. The feeling can at times physically burn in our heart and the area of our solar plexus. It is natural and healthy. In fact as hunters, we can become more infinitely aware of our natural place within the universe. This connection can at times be far deeper than simply listening to native American music on youtube while burning sage. It can take us deeper than the ramblings of a church minister or monk - regardless of the fact that any of these practices can be of great benefit to us for our own personal reasons. When we hunt, we face and accept who we are while at the same time feeling a deep connection to the land and animals of our world. It is a direct experience; we are engaged in such a way that cannot be put into words. For those who do not understand this, you may be able to perceive a glimmer of the intensity of this sensation when watching a documentary showing the intense concentration of a lioness as she prepares to attack. However, even this is a very poor example as again, the viewers perspective is indirect. Hunting is not for everybody - we are all unique. This is especially important now that the population of our planet is so high. But for those who do feel the calling, it is one that cannot easily be resisted. The man who lives in an apartment, wants to hunt but never hunts due to fears of rejection from his wife is no better off than a caged animal. There is no nobility in denying this aspect of ones self. Such a man should at the very least seek to engage himself in a combat sport so that he can in one way hone his predatory skills and fulfill his nature in a healthy manner. Better still, he might stand up to his wife, buy himself a rifle and be the man she always wanted but was too afraid to date out of her own fears of rejection. Compassion must start with the self. Those of us who do hunt, find we are at our best when we are constantly honing and refining our skills. This very process defines both the hunter and warrior protector. The information ahead will help you to become a better hunter. We will start with a brief history of game killing and then move on to the subjects of how bullets kill, what fast killing actually means and then look at shot placement. The discussion will then lead into more technical detail with regards to how the shape of a bullet tip (meplat) affects terminal performance. History All though ballistics studies may appear to be a relatively new field of research; it is as old as man himself. One of the first technological breakthroughs in arms was the invention of the bow and arrow. Early bow hunters took effective game killing very seriously. The method in which the arrow killed was through its blades, which were as broad as practical, severing as many arteries in the animal’s chest as possible to cause death through blood loss. African hunter An ancient cave painting from Tassili n'Ajjer, a mountain range in the Algerian region of the Sahara. On average, the primitive bows of the world had a draw weight of 40lb which as power goes is very light. The bow was of course also highly valued in warfare. Warfare drove bowyers of the day to develop ever more powerful bows to meet battlefield needs. As soldiers adopted heavier armor and greater formations, the power of the bow increased from 40 to 80lb, from 80lb to between 120 and 150lb and in extreme cases, up to 200lb. By the middle ages, two distinct types of arrow were in use, a very heavy armor piecing arrow and a much lighter flight arrow for long range volley fire. As the bow became a more effective battle weapon, it also became a much more effective game killing weapon. European hunters discovered that rather than try to fire and lodge an arrow into the chest of an animal, an 80lb hunting bow firing an arrow of sufficient weight to create a complete pass through, effected a much quicker death. The combination of both an open entry and exit helped initiate fast bleeding. The faster bleeding caused a much faster kill and this in turn enabled the hunter to locate downed game from within a short distance of the initial shot rather than the common risk of being unable to locate the dead animal. The complete pass through of the arrow also created a swarthy blood trail to follow. It is from this historical experience that modern European hunters prefer rifle ammunition that completely penetrates and exits game. Two holes as a means to drain a vessel is a most basic principle of physics. Today, this principle is employed in the design of all fuel systems and can be duplicated by trying to empty the liquid contents of a tin or drum, first with only one hole, then with an opposing breather hole. However, it is important to understand that we can deviate from these principles to some degree. There is a vast difference between a lodged arrow and an extremely wide internal wound caused by a high velocity bullet that creates extremely fast internal bleeding without need of external bleeding. Just because we can’t see it, this does not mean that the animal has not bled out its circulatory system. Nevertheless, bush / woods hunters do at times need a wide swarthy blood trail to follow. The black powder musket eventually superseded the longbow; however it differed very little in its method of killing. The musket produced the most effective kills when loaded with the widest possible ball. A later invention was rifling to impart a spin on the projectile for greater flight stability. Rifling not only added accuracy to the ball but allowed for the development of cylindrical shaped round nosed bullets. Eventually cartridge design reached a stage where compromises had to be made. For instance, as much as .52 to .58” caliber bores were effective killers, they did not have the flat trajectories of the aerodynamic .38” bores. To duplicate the trajectory of a .38 bore using a .52 or .58 bore the rifleman would have to adopt an extremely long, heavy projectile in his .52 or .58 caliber rifle and suffer the recoil. The black powder rifle reached the epitome of design with the breech loading .44 and .45 caliber rifles of the early to mid 1800’s. These bore sizes achieved the ultimate balance of killing power versus trajectory versus obtainable velocity. Lesson one: At low velocities and when using non expanding bullets or bullets that do not shed weight, the wider the bullet, the faster the kill. After the advent of smokeless powder in 1886 much higher velocities were achievable causing bullet diameter and weight to be reduced in order to minimize recoil. The first smokeless cartridge projectiles featured round nosed bullets with a gilding metal jacket to minimize the fouling that would otherwise occur if traditional lead projectiles were fired at high velocity. Regardless of the stability imparted to projectiles from rifling, round nosed bullets still showed slight irregularities in flight, the technical term called yaw. On impact the yaw of the bullet increased, sometimes creating wound channels out of proportion to the caliber used. This phenomenon, described at the time as ‘explosive’, was first recorded by French researchers in 1848. The next major step forwards was the introduction of pointed bullets to increase aerodynamics. These first appeared towards the turn of the 19th century. Prior to the development of rifling it would have been impossible to propel the pointed bullet point first as physics dictate that the center of gravity (at the base) would force the bullet to turn in flight and continue to fly base first. Rifling however imparted stability to the projectile allowing only the slightest amount of yaw. Nevertheless, on impact the pointed FMJ projectiles had a tendency to tumble violently and create a devastating wound. By taking these discoveries to the extremes, it was discovered that a projectile with an exceptionally light but long point would maximize instability on impact. The English were perhaps the first to adopt a design based on this premise, filling the nose section of the military .303 projectile with cardboard or aluminum. The British military utilized this projectile design for many years. After the pointed bullet, the next advance in projectile design came from the development of the tapered tail bullet now known as the boat tail. Designed to increase accuracy at extended ranges for military use, the boat tail moved the center of gravity towards the center of the projectile. This design, while causing less yaw inside the target, successfully stabilized the projectile in flight at ranges of between 1000 and 2000 yards as the projectile passed from super to subsonic velocities, a transition that causes excessive yaw in flat based pointed bullets. Due to this increased stability these designs had (and have) a tendency to produce straight penetration and narrow wounding. There have however been exceptions to this such as Eugene Stoners initial 5.56 bullet design along with some recent FMJ military bullets designed in such a way as to deliberately lose stability on impact (though results are sometimes less than optimal). However and generally speaking, FMJ military bullets are not suitable for hunting medium game with regards to fast and humane killing. The sporting cartridge benefited greatly from military developments; however a departure in design occurred due to the fact that military convention (once) dictated that full metal jacket bullets must be used in war to minimize excessive cruelty to soldiers, as well as easing the work of the surgeon. Sporting projectile design differed after the discovery that an exposed soft lead nose or hollow nose caused expansion of the projectile on game and maximized wound channels. A major benefit of the expanding bullet was that after developing its frontal area, the weight and center of gravity of the projectile were well forwards. The forwards weight created stability that lead to straight, deep penetration. This forwards transition of weight after expansion of an ‘ideal’ projectile is referred to as shoulder stabilization. It is worth noting that although expanding point projectiles have less penetrative abilities than FMJ round nosed dangerous game hunting bullets, expanded shoulder stabilized projectiles are far less prone to tumbling during penetration. How bullets kill A projectile kills by causing either one or a combination of the following: 1. Blood loss. 2. Damage to the nervous system. 3. Destruction of vital tissue and organs. 4. Septicemia or asphyxiation. Each causing the effect that life can no longer be sustained. For hunting purposes the primary task of the projectile is to provide a fast humane kill. This minimizes suffering to the animal and simplifies location of the carcass. Destruction of the major nervous centers such as the brain or forwards portion of the spine cause the fastest killing but such targets are often difficult to hit. The most reliable method of killing is through causing blood loss. Blood loss is categorized as either fast bleeding or slow bleeding. Fast bleeding refers to the destruction of the major arteries of the chest and neck creating a fast kill while slow bleeding refers to the muscles and arteries that feed them, such as the femoral artery. When slow bleeding areas are destroyed, the result is a slow kill. When a projectile destroys vital organs such as the lungs, liver or heart, death occurs in the first instance through blood loss, not through the destruction of the organ itself. This is simply because these organs are major carriers of blood therefore kills are relatively fast. Slow kills can also be caused by asphyxiation as a result of minor wounding to the lungs or neck. Gut shots cause a slow death through infection (septicemia) along with the introduction of digestive acids into the bloodstream and any surrounding damaged organs. A commonly used term for death from gut shots is ‘blood poisoning’ which although gives little away in its description, does at least partially indicate that gut shots do not produce an immediate kills. Put simply, a gut shot can cause immense suffering. Mechanisms The modern high power sporting cartridge relies on high velocity loaded with soft expanding type projectiles. As the projectile strikes flesh, it mushrooms (or tumbles) causing displacement of tissue through both physical contact as well as pressure. The projectile transfers its kinetic energy to the surrounding tissue causing acceleration of fluid particles in and around its path. This creates an explosive temporary wound channel that subsides to a wound channel far greater than the diameter of the projectile. The temporary wound channel reaches its maximum size within one millisecond, collapsing to its final size within several milliseconds. The size of the temporary wound channel is proportional to how much energy is delivered and can be given numerical values. In both military and sporting applications these two types of wound damage are referred to as the temporary wound channel and permanent wound channel, both having the effect of causing blood loss, organ and nerve damage relative to shot placement. At this point I would urge readers to ditch the temporary versus permanent wound channel terminology. Such terms may make us sound like experts in the know of such things but help us little in the field. A hunter does not walk up to a kill and state, “boy, you should have seen that temporary wound channel, lucky I didn’t blink”. I do not believe any human has the ability to see such things frame by frame and therefore, a wise man should drop such intellectual pontification. There are far more important factors to focus on… Fast Killing To begin with, please understand that much of the information presented from here is unique to my own research. You will not read the same in other places unless the information has been derived from my research. Although there are many people who work as experts in the field of terminal ballistics, I firmly believe that there is still a great level of misunderstanding within this subject. Fast killing is an important factor for two reasons. The first is with regards to humane killing. Compassion must always be at the fore front of the hunters mind, at least in my opinion. The second factor of importance is the ability to secure game quickly, without losing the animal. In bush hunting situations it is not uncommon for a dead run animal to be lost after traveling between 100 and 300 yards before expiring, falling into a gut or hole, never to be seen again. Frustrating, isn’t it? For the tops hunter, it means securing an animal on the ledge it was perched on. Dead running game on the tops can very easily expire when traversing a ravine, the animal falling, becoming stuck in a position that is neither recoverable from the top or bottom of the bluff system. Been there, done that, don’t want to go through it again. In order to get the best results it is important to understand the mechanisms of killing and how a fast kill occurs. A common misconception when witnessing game collapses at the moment the bullet impacts is that the force of the projectile has physically knocked the animal to the ground. We tend to call this an instant kill. Newton’s law suggests that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. To this end the force of the bullet impacting game is no greater than the recoil of the rifle. So what causes the instant collapse or poleaxe as it is often caused? Instant collapse occurs when the central nervous system (CNS) is damaged or electrically disrupted as a result of one of two mechanisms, either direct or indirect contact. Direct contact refers to a bullet directly striking and destroying one of the major nerve centers, including the thoracic and cervical vertebrae, the brain or the autonomic plexus, regardless of velocity, this will result in instant death. Indirect contact refers to the effects of a high velocity bullet imparting its energy, creating a hydrostatic shock wave. In terminal ballistics, the terms hydraulic shock and hydrostatic shock both refer to kinetic energy transferred as shock waves through flesh, however, each term describes different results. Hydraulic shock is the civil engineers term also known as water hammer but in terminal ballistics context refers to the pressure of accelerated fluid particles that create the temporary wound channel. Hydrostatic shock transfer refers to the effect when shock waves travel through flesh to distant nerve centers, disrupting their ability to emit electrical impulses. Be very much aware that the terms hydraulic and hydrostatic shock are quite often misused by both hunters and professionals - including ballisticians working for bullet making companies. 7mmRUM and porkers web large Wide, disproportionate to caliber wounding (hydraulic shock) thanks to the 162gr Hornady SST combined with high velocity which also caused hydrostatic shock (instant collapse). The reason why game animals drop instantly with chest shots that do not directly strike the CNS, is due to hydrostatic shock transfer to the spine which passes through to the brain. A high velocity cartridge well matched to game body weights imparts over half its energy within the first 2cm of penetration, creating a shock wave. This electrical shock wave travels outwards via the rib cage until it reaches the spine and then continues through to the brain (CNS). The result is an immediate loss of consciousness as the body shuts down for diagnostics. Along with the loss of consciousness, the projectile has also created a large wound channel, draining all of the body’s blood within several seconds. The loss of blood and damage to vital organs cause death to the animal before it has the chance to regain consciousness. This action creates the illusion that the projectile has knocked its victim to the ground, killing it instantly. More careful examination shows that the shot caused coma, followed by blood loss, followed by death. The hydrostatic shock created by a hunting bullet is identical in action to when a boxer is struck on the jaw by his opponent, disrupting the functions of the brain with a resulting loss of consciousness. The Stasborg tests also revealed that a large wound cavity can cause a blood pressure spike to the brain, inducing immediate coma, though this is relative to hydraulic shock, not hydrostatic shock as described here. This phenomenon also helps produce ethical killing. Four major factors affect whether hydrostatic shock transfer occur and all are relative to each other. Velocity This has the greatest effect on hydrostatic shock. Put simply, the higher the impact velocity, the greater the shock. Velocity is also the most influencing factor in hydraulic shock, having a huge bearing on the size of the internal wound channel. Hydrostatic shock, in bore sizes from .243” up to .338”, begins to lesson at impact velocities below 2600fps and most modern high velocity sporting cartridges including the magnums gradually lose shocking power beyond 300 to 350 yards. Of the thousands of animals harvested during TBR tests, 2600fps has been the most common cut off point with repeatable results (reactions) occurring when deliberately testing the impact velocity of 2650fps versus the impact velocity of 2550fps. High velocity is not however a sole factor to be worshipped and held above other factors. For example, if velocity is increased too far without increasing bullet weight, the surface tension of water within the animal can cause so much resistance as to overcome the energy of the bullet. Ultra-high velocities can then also lead to shallow penetration. Generally speaking, the high velocity cut off point for small bore bullets used on medium game is around 3150fps. If for example we are using a 140 grain 7mm bullet at an impact velocity of 3250fps, chances are that even if the bullet penetrates vitals, the animal may still run some distance. One factor to be very careful of with ultra-high velocity conditions is to not blame a delayed kill exclusively on ‘bullet blow up’. For example, if we were using the same 140gr 7mm bullet and the entry wound did indeed show signs of wide entry wounding and surface bullet blow up (or possibly blow back), even though this is undesirable performance, we still need to investigate further if we are to truly understand factors at play. In this instance, once the animal is recovered, it is important to study the vital organs and determine whether they were actually destroyed. If the vitals were destroyed, we can then conclude that the bullet did its job (even if in a less than desirable manner) but without hydrostatic shock. A noticeable change in hydrostatic shock occurs as bullet diameter is increased to .358” (such as the .35 Whelen) and larger bores (see bullet diameter). With the medium and large bores, hydrostatic shock can occur on our medium game species at velocities as low as 2200fps. Fast incapacitation can remain evident at velocities as low as 1800fps depending on bullet designs. Below 1800fps, the wider the bore the better. Further to this, there are also highly traumatic pistol bullet designs such as the Hornady XTP. Frangible bullets tend to produce coma at much lower velocities than traditional hunting bullets (see bullet construction). With frangible bullets at low velocities, instant coma may be due to hydraulic shock causing blood pressure spikes in the brain as suggested by Hornady ballisticians. In other instances, coma can follow very shortly after impact due to multiple pain centers being disrupted to such an extent that the animal must go into coma. That said, frangible bullets may also send out particles which strike the CNS directly. When testing hydrostatic shock on Bovines, I have discovered that impact velocities of 2600fps with suitable bullet weights (and construction) produced instant poleaxe in a repeatable manner. However, in many instances Bovines would attempt to rise, the action of attempting to rise resulting in increased blood loss with death following within seconds. Bullet weight versus game weights If the bullet is too light for the intended game it may simply lack enough kinetic energy to cause hydrostatic shock, meeting far too much resistance on impact. This a common occurrence with the .22 centrefires but can also occur in any small bore cartridge especially the large magnums when using soft, light for caliber projectiles. If the bullet is driven too fast and lacks sufficient weight, it can also fail to initiate hydrostatic shock (see Velocity). Less obvious, is the result of using a bullet weight that is too heavy for the intended game. If the projectile contains too much momentum, the bullet may fail to meet enough resistance to impart energy where it is required i.e. the ribs through to the spine. Wound channels may be as wide as a lighter bullet however; the hunter may find that game run a long way before succumbing to the shot. These factors can create many difficulties for the hunter when selecting an appropriate cartridge and bullet as a certain level of momentum is required if the bullet is expected to penetrate into vitals from any angle or give satisfactory performance on a variety of game body weights. Quite often a .30 caliber 180 grain hunting style bullet is simply too stout and carries too much momentum to initiate hydrostatic shock / rapid coma on lean bodied deer - even at magnum velocities. The bullet may produce a nice mushroom and seemingly adequate internal wounding; however game may run a long way before expiring. A simple change to a 150 or 165 grain bullet can make all the difference in these instances. That or a change in bullet construction such as changing from a core bonded bullet to a fast expanding design like the Hornady SST. Energy retention as a result of heavy bullet construction and the retention of momentum can be even more of a problem in the .338 bore which has many projectiles designed specifically for Elk hunting. Furthermore, many hunters use match bullets in the .338 for long range hunting, some of which are simply hopeless on game. Projectile construction The third factor that effects hydrostatic shock transfer and counteracts bullet weight while also having the capacity to counteract impact velocity is bullet construction. For example, the stout Sierra .30 caliber 180 grain Pro-Hunter, whether driven from the .308 Winchester or .300 Win Mag creates a large internal wound on light or lean bodied deer, yet it can retain too much momentum to initiate hydrostatic shock on these animals and kills can be very slow. The same can be said of some of the stout core bonded designs such as the 180 grain Interbond along with the Barnes TXS bullets. By simply changing to the 180 grain Speer BTSP, the 180 grain SST or 178 grain A-Max, a faster kill can be obtained. These projectiles are soft and frangible. The Hornady A-Max in particular can produce fast coma at impact velocities of 2000fps or lower where the ProHunter shows a clear cut off point at an impact velocity of 2550fps. In contrast, as game body weights reach 90kg (200lb) and above, stout bullets begin to come into their own, meeting a great deal of resistance on impact. Hydrostatic shock is still absent at impact velocities below 2600fps, however the heavy resistance of larger bodied medium game helps initiate immense trauma and broader internal wounding than on lighter game body weights, resulting in a kill that is delayed by only a few seconds, as opposed to up to 45 seconds. The further you shoot, the softer your bullet needs to be in order to affect a wide wound and fast killing at low velocities. This is discussed at length within my long range hunting book series. At closer ranges, a tougher bullet may be needed in order to ensure adequate penetration. There may also be times when you need to dual load which is again discussed within the book series but also within the knowledge base. An example of dual loading might be as an example, having a 140 grain Nosler Partition in the top of the magazine of your 6.5x55 rifle while under this, you have three or four 143 grain ELD-X bullets ready for long range work. Perhaps the greatest challenge hunters now face when choosing bullets, are the challenges presented by homogenous copper bullet designs. These are the toughest bullets on the market and due to their design, are unable to shed weight and lose momentum for maximum energy transfer. Some designs boast petal loss as a means to aid energy transfer but such features can make the bullet even worse, causing the shank of the remaining bullet to pencil through game creating narrow wounding, especially at lower impact velocities. Homogenous bullets work best at high impact velocities. The bullet makers know well that momentum is a problem and in more recent years have generally worked towards offering lighter and then lighter still bullet designs. This reduction in weight and bullet length greatly aids wounding so long as velocity can be kept high. Homogenous copper bullets tend to initiate hydrostatic shock like other bullet designs at impact velocities above 2600fps providing the bullet weight is properly matched to game weights. In the .30 caliber, this can mean dropping right back to a 130 or even a 110 grain bullet design. Wounding generally remains adequate to 2400fps. Below 2200fps, all bets are off, especially if shot placement is less than ideal. Game may run long distances and may not allow the hunter the opportunity for a follow up shot. The greatest benefit of homogenous copper bullets is that they penetrate well. The Barnes TSX for example, creates both excellent wounding and penetration when properly matched to game weights and used in high velocity cartridges out to moderate ranges. This is a homogenous copper bullet at its best, tackling tough animals from varying angles. But to say that one can eat up to the bullet hole (in the absence of lead toxicity) can be rather misleading. The current Tipped TSX design (used in high powered cartridges) can cause gut ruptures as a result of hydraulic forces, spreading gut material into meat. Those concerned about meat damage or meat fouling need to understand this - bullets kill via destruction of tissue. We can’t always have it both ways. Unfortunately in the rush to market their bullets as environmentally friendly, governments have lapped up these bullet designs and there are now states and countries which have banned the use of lead bullets for hunting. The downside of this is that many animals have and will die slowly as a result of a combination of the design of these bullets and their misuse. Homogenous copper bullets need to be driven fast, bullet weights needs to be selected with care while shot placement needs to be taken into due consideration. Please do not buy into these bullets as being ‘the only choice for the future’ as greedy corporates and their green government friends might have you believe. There are other ways we can move ahead. We can have our cake and eat it too with the likes of the DRT bullet design. This bullet has a copper jacket and compressed powdered metal core and works much like many of the traditional bullets currently available. Having said this, DRT are but one company carrying the spark of a possible future and at this time of writing have limited options. Nevertheless, I urge readers to investigate what DRT have to offer. Bullet diameter The fourth factor is bullet diameter and put simply, the wider the caliber, the less need there is for high velocity to initiate shock. Bullet weight can be high (200-300 grains) yet kills may be faster than our stout .30 caliber 180 grain bullet example from earlier. This can be due to the wider frontal area meeting more resistance on impact, or a reduction in momentum (the bullet may be short even though it is heavy due to its width) or a combination of both. The net result is that a medium or large bore can break all the rules we are familiar with when using small bores and with or without high velocity, produce very fast killing. As previously mentioned, small bores generally behave in a similar manner with regards to hydrostatic shock cut off point. But a major change is seen once we step up to the .358 bore which can produce hydrostatic shock on medium game at velocities of 2200fps and lower. On heavy game and using a medium or large bore with heavy (e.g. 300 grains plus) and sturdy projectiles, it is possible to initiate hydrostatic shock at impact velocities above 2600fps. However, this is more of a factor of bullet weight and velocity as opposed to being strictly related to bullet diameter. Unfortunately, having a wide bullet cannot in itself fully compensate for or overcome any issues as a result of bullet construction. If the jacket of the medium or large bore bullet has been designed for heavy game, chances are that kills on light or lean game may be delayed, though internal wounding may be wide directly as a result of hydraulic forces. But if on the other hand the bullet has been designed for general hunting such as is found throughout the .358 bore, one can expect generally fast ‘knockdown’ (often exceptional performance) on a wide range of game. A key factor here is to understand that even if you opt for a medium or big bore as ‘the fix’ to quickly anchor game in difficult to track bush / woods / swamp, you will still have to match bullet construction to the job at hand. If you choose a very stout and heavy bullet and use this on a lean bodied deer, the animal may still run. The shape of the bullet tip also effects performance. Match bullets (without a plastic tip) tend to have very small hollow points which can at times lead to a failure to expand and therefore narrow wounding. Plastic tip bullets often disguise a very wide hollow point behind their tip. Hollow point hunting bullets can also offer a wide frontal area, simply lacking the plastic disguise. This subject also crosses over to bullet construction. For example, a wide hollow point will generally be weaker at the tip so it has both width and weakness to aid in energy transfer. Lead soft point bullets can differ vastly in performance from one design to the next. Some are pointed, others round nose while some are flat tipped. Interestingly, the differences in terminal performance between round or flat nosed bullets and pointed bullets tend to become more pronounced as we increase bore and bullet diameter. For example, the .358 Hornady 250 grain spire point can produce delayed kills on medium game while its 250 grain round nosed counterpart can produce very fast coma. The same can be said of the medium bore Woodleigh Weldcore bullets. Obviously, the faster a bullet dumps its energy, the sooner it will run out of energy for penetration which may or may not be a good thing depending on the size animals we are hunting. For more info on bullet frontal area, please see the meplat section further ahead. Putting the information together The speed of incapacitation or what we call fast killing is one method for which the hunter is able to measure a cartridges effectiveness on game in comparison to other cartridges. It must be remembered however that the word effective by definition in this instance describes the ability of the cartridge to achieve fast incapacitation and has no maximum limit to power. An efficient cartridge on the other hand describes the ability of the cartridge to kill using the minimum necessary power. I do not believe that efficiency should ever be put exclusively ahead of effectiveness (fast killing). With regards to shot placement versus mechanical wounding, a good example of this can be found in the .243 Winchester. At ranges beyond 200 yards and especially at ranges of around 300 yards the .243 can produce slow kills with rear lung shots due to narrow wounding. By bringing shot placement forwards to the line of the foreleg or 1 to 2” further forwards of the line of the foreleg, a fast kill can be obtained via direct destruction of the autonomic plexus (nerve ganglia between the heart and lungs). If however, such shot placement cannot be guaranteed, a change to (for example) the .270 Winchester, will ensure greater internal wounding with rear lung shots, effecting a faster kill. Shot placement, as just described with the .243, can of course negate the need for hydrostatic shock or immensely wide wounding as a result of hydraulic shock. An accurate but low velocity rifle/ cartridge combination capable of striking the autonomic plexus of game in a reliable manner will anchor game just as quickly as a cartridge capable of producing hydrostatic shock with rear lung shots. On the other hand, the hunter is not always presented with the perfect shot. Therefore, the more effective a cartridge is regarding wounding, the more forgiving it can be with less than ideal shot placement. So far we have discussed Hydrostatic shock in great detail while only touching on hydraulic shock. Like Hydrostatic shock, hydraulic shock is increased at high velocities and has similar cut of points at different velocity parameters. Looking at one projectile as an example, the 130 grain .270 Winchester Interbond expands to a diameter of between 13 and 17mm at high impact velocities. The wound channel this creates through vitals is around 50 to 75mm (2-3”) in diameter. This is what I call disproportionate to caliber wounding and it is very effective. As velocity falls to 2600fps, wounding tapers off slightly, the internal wounds being around 25-40mm (1-1.5”) in diameter. As velocity falls below 2400fps, wounding gradually becomes proportionate to caliber, noticeably so at 2200fps. Between 2200fps and 2000fps (450 to 575 yards), the Interbond projectile expands to a diameter of around 8 to 9mm, creating a wound channel of around 8 to 9mm, resulting in slow bleeding and therefore, if the CNS is not destroyed, a very slow kill. To regain disproportionate to caliber wounding at low velocities, the projectile must be capable of shedding a large amount of its bullet weight, up to 90%, allowing a cluster of fragments to create wide internal wounding to increase the speed of blood loss for fast killing. The term I use for this is “mechanical wounding” Here again my research deviates from the usual literature. And with the arms industry currently rushing to produce small low powered assault rifle cartridges that boast magical killing power, industry players are themselves having to more fully explore these subjects while terms like temporary wound channel lose even more of their sparkle. Although bullet weight loss is critical for fast killing at low velocities, this does not mean to say that a .22-250 loaded with a varmint bullet will produce clean kills with chest shots on medium game. The cluster must also be matched to game body weights, having optimal density and momentum. Although a frangible bullet is able to produce wide wounding due to mechanical destruction alone, hydraulic shock also occurs at much lower impact velocities than a controlled expanding bullet. As suggested earlier, Hornady research suggests that blood pressure spikes in the brain cause coma, resulting in (as much as possible) a painless death. Whether from a hydraulic or mechanical perspective, wounding of fragmentary bullets is much higher than that of controlled expanding bullets at low impact velocities, providing the cluster has sufficient density and momentum relative to game body weights. During TBR testing, a packet of vintage Winchester Western .30-30 160 grain hollow point ammunition was tested on medium game animals. This is perhaps the earliest example of a frangible bullet. As best as could be determined after extensive research, it could be concluded that historically, the .30-30 was possibly not standing up to its design premise and that a frangible bullet was adopted to increase wounding capacity. The .30-30 160 grain soft point load was intended to produce wide wounding and fast kills as a result of the newly discovered powders which generated exceptionally high velocities (for 1894). This was a complete turnaround from past terminal ballistics research which had proven that the bigger the bore, the wider the wound. The .30-30 (.30 WCF) loaded with a controlled expanding bullet is not a great deal more emphatic than the .45/70, the .45/70 having already proven to be an emphatic killer. Western’s hollow point load was introduced a little while after the soft point. While the frangible .30-30 bullet would have been acceptable for use on the smaller deer species of the U.S, one has to wonder how this load fared on the Grizzly bear featured on the ammunition box of the .30-30 hollow point ammunition. The results would most likely have been disastrous. About 200 grains is a safe minimum frangible bullet weight for these body weights. Frangible bullets are important at low velocities, especially at long ranges. A frangible bullet capable of rendering a wide wound in the absence of disproportionate to caliber wounding (high velocity) helps ensure fast bleeding for fast killing. As a short recap, with ideal shot placement and utilizing a cartridge with sufficient power to penetrate the vitals of intended game, we can destroy the CNS and cause an instant kill - however this is often idealistic and unrealistic. With less than ideal shot placement, high velocity can initiate hydrostatic shock and hydraulic wounding to help ensure fast kills out to ordinary hunting ranges (300 yards). In the absence of high velocity, a fragmentary projectile can ensure fast killing via hydraulic shock and wide (mechanical) wounding, producing fast bleeding. In all instances, bullet weight and bullet construction need to be matched to the job at hand. Please try to remember the following for medium game hunting: Choose light and stout or heavy and soft. A light but stout projectile can deliver hydrostatic shock while having the tough bullet construction needed to deliver sufficient penetration. However this has a range limitation, usually of around 300 yards, after which, careful shot placement is required. This can be counterproductive in cross winds. Nevertheless, this method is often the most effective for minimizing meat damage on lighter medium game at ordinary hunting ranges (out to 300 yards). When chest shooting heavy game, a heavy but stout controlled expanding projectile driven as fast as the shooter can manage produces the fastest possible killing. As O'Rourke said, use enough gun. AJ 338 win mag Use enough gun. The .338 Win Mag and controlled expanding 225gr Nosler Partition can be put to great work on bear. That said, shot placement is a key factor to effect extremely fast killing. A heavy yet soft and frangible or partially frangible projectile (loses some weight) may not deliver hydrostatic shock very far depending on game body weights, but providing the cluster is dense enough, it will be capable of rendering deep, broad and highly traumatic wounding across a wide range of body weights. Good frangible bullet designs can continue to produce mechanical wounding and a measure of hydraulic shock down to impact velocities of 1600fps with some exceptional projectiles continuing to produce excellent performance down to velocities as low as 1400fps. For those wondering about the middle ground between light and stout and heavy and soft, there are certainly some good bullet designs on the market. One of the best middle ground bullets is the Hornady SST, a semi frangible bullet design that tries to retain some weight for penetration. A specific example is the 7mm 162 grain SST which is effective on Red/Mule deer at close ranges (adequate penetration) yet is capable of producing wide wounding at extended ranges (around 1000 yards in the 7mm Remington Magnum). On the other hand, we do have to be a bit careful with the middle ground. For example, the Nosler Accubond has core bonding in an attempt to toughen the bullet but is also designed to be fast expanding and is generally available in mid weights such as the 140 grain .270 Winchester bullet. This particular load works extremely well on mid-sized deer at ordinary hunting ranges however, the Accubond can suffer when pushed to the extremes. It can be too stout for low velocity work yet too soft for tough game. In this regard, we have to be careful as to how we use a ‘general purpose’ bullet design. You may wish to take a note from the Taoists and choose the middle ground so as to be prepared for any contingency, however if you fail to fully understand the limits of your cartridge versus your intended game, you may choose something which is neither fish nor fowl and does a generally bad job within the role you have chosen for it. For example, you may load the .375 caliber 260 grain Accubond for an African trip. And while this works exceptionally well on some larger bodied game, you might be in for a world of hurt if you try to tackle a cape buffalo with this bullet and find that it completely runs out of steam before reaching vitals. Please use my cartridge knowledge base and books to obtain a deeper understanding of how each of the manufacturers bullets work, their strengths and limitations. I have been continuously researching wounding for most of my life and the results and variables are far greater than can be covered in one short document on effective game killing. Nevertheless a rudimentary understanding of the fundamentals of game killing, wounding and speed of killing can serve as a useful platform before continuing on and exploring my in-depth research as well as your own field observations. Looking forwards, we seem to be heading towards some very strange extremes. In one camp, we have hunters looking for any excuse to use low powered cartridges in short barreled suppressed rifles and or AR-15 platform rifles while in the other extreme, a few gun companies continue to work towards barrel destroying ultra-velocity magnums. Either approach can cause a great deal of problems for hunters. Ultra-fast cartridges can cause shallow penetration at close ranges and ironically still lead to disappointment when bullets still display vast drop and wind drift at truly long ranges. The fastest cartridges may have a barrel life of less than 600 rounds, 200 of which may be used up during load development. Modern low powered cartridges are simply that - low in power. You do not have to be rocket scientist to figure this out. If the bullet is the same weight as a 7.62x39 or .30-30 bullet and going at the same speed, it will produce the same results regardless of how it is labelled. To recap from earlier, the slower you go - the wider you need to go (think .45 etc) or the more the bullet needs to shed weight if we are seeking optimum killing performance. This also ties back into the problem of forcing people to use homogenous copper bullets for environmental reasons. Low power and stout bullets simply don’t work that well together unless the projectile has specialized design characteristics. If the bullet is to shed weight it may need significant weight to begin with (depending on the size animals you are hunting) in order to achieve reliable penetration. Also remember this; there is little that can be done now that has not been done before. There is no new magical cartridge that offers twice the killing power with half the energy. Projectile designs are certainly advancing in some areas however there are limitations as to how far this can be taken. As a hunter, the primary factor that must be foremost in your mind is animal welfare, not how short or light your rifle is or whether it can handle a thirty round magazine (even if you are a culler). Factors such as recoil or cost should also be treated as secondary to the primary goal of a fast effective kill. As far as new cartridge designs go, please try to refrain from becoming caught up in hype. The physics of wounding are really rather straight forwards once you have a full understanding of the basics. The trick is just that - to understand the basics. Once you have understood the fundamentals of game killing and how cartridges behave in general, then you can move forwards and not be misled by marketing fabrications. Shot placement and vital zones Deer vitals for web N foster Deer vitals courtesy of my wife and life long research partner Steph. The Lungs - aim here! All of a mammal’s blood must pass through the lungs where it can be released of carbon dioxide and enriched with oxygen to fuel the body. Blood leaves the heart situated below the lungs through the pulmonary artery which becomes a network of arteries feeding into the blood capillaries of the lungs. Once enriched with oxygen, the blood then travels back to the heart, then out through the aorta artery to be pumped throughout the body. Although associated with the respiratory system, destruction of the lungs is one of the fastest ways to bleed out the circulatory system ensuring a quick clean kill. On top of this the lungs present the largest, safest target for the hunter. As viewed broadside, a deer’s lungs begin at the intersection of the scapular and humerus bones of the foreleg. In height, the heaviest portions of the lungs are situated at the center of the chest, in line with the lower foreleg. The lungs reach to within an inch of the spine, which is not to be confused with the top of the fur line because above the spine, the dorsal vertebrae may extend upwards by three or more inches. At their lowest point, the lungs are again around three inches above the line of the brisket and are thinner at their extremities to accommodate the heart. Behind the foreleg the bottom of the lungs extend little more than 2 inches before tapering upwards sharply, running out to thin edges just short of the last few ribs. Based on a White Tail deer sized animal viewed broadside, head to the right and using the straight lower leg as a center line, a shot to the center of the chest will destroy the heaviest portion of the lungs ensuring a fast bleed and therefore fast kill. A shot 3 inches above center at 12 o’clock will destroy the upper lungs, an equally fast kill. However, it is possible to strike too high between the lungs and spine or the dorsal vertebrae above causing instant collapse followed by recovery after a few seconds leading to escape and a slow kill. Approximately two to three inches forwards of dead center (foreleg) at 3 o’clock is the ball joint intersection of the scapular and humerus bones. And from the front line of the front leg through to the ball joint intersection lies the autonomic plexus. This is a major network of nerves which when hit soundly, causes instant collapse and death. A shot in this area has the potential to destroy the autonomic plexus along with the forward portions of the lungs and locomotive muscles and bones. The autonomic plexus (sometimes called hilar zone) is the most useful aiming point for fast killing. This shot placement is also particularly useful when using cartridges that have enough bullet weight to penetrate bone but not enough velocity to initiate hydrostatic shock or extremely wide wounding. It is important to understand that shot placement involves cultural traditions. For example, some cultures (particularly USA hunters) prefer a meat saver shot, striking the lungs behind the foreleg in an attempt to save meat. In Europe, the traditional method has been to aim forwards and although this does cause more meat destruction, this shot placement helps ensure rapid killing. Also, if you look more closely at this subject, you can see how small changes in POI may affect the hunter’s perception of a cartridge. One hunter may state that X cartridge is a very fast and emphatic killer while another may call the same cartridge abysmal - each assessment based on differing traditions or habits relative to the hunter’s point of aim. It is up to you to decide which method you wish to employ. Much will depend on the power and penetrative abilities of your cartridge. Ideally, you should be aware of both points of aim and should be able to switch from one to the other depending on the individual situation. If for example you are hunting with a high velocity cartridge using soft bullets that have the potential to suffer shallow penetration, then a meat saver shot will enable adequate penetration and hydrostatic shock can be counted on for a fast kill. On the other hand, it is very unwise to apply the meat saver shot when hunting large heavy bovines because even if you are using the likes of a .375 caliber rifle, this really is still quite a small bore diameter relative to the size of the animal you are hunting. Instead, a long heavy for caliber bullet of sound construction should be driven through the forwards portion of the chest where it can do the most damage. As yet a further example, let’s say that we are using a .308 Winchester for a wide variety of game. On very large animals it can again be good to aim to strike the forwards chest with a long and heavy bullet of sound construction in order to affect a very fast kill. I can promise you that on large African plains game, your guide will be very happy if you hunt in this manner and achieve a fast kill without any need to track your animal for minutes or hours. Having said this, there comes a point where the size of the animal will overcome the wounding potential of our cartridge. If for example we are suddenly confronted with an angry bovine, our .308 bullet may not be enough to penetrate ball joints. By the same token, it will lack the wounding potential for a meat saver style shot. So in this example, we must look to the neck and head as our point of aim. All I wish to convey here is that while the forwards chest is an optimal point of aim, we do need to exercise some common sense. Unfortunately, many people - including those with vast past experience, lack the confidence to aim forwards. Instead, in a halfhearted attempt to break bone, the point of aim is brought forwards to the center line of the leg but no further forwards for fear of a forwards miss. And while this point of aim can be quite sufficient, it does not produce the same instantaneous results on the likes of African game as the forwards shoulder shot, destroying tissue, bone and the autonomic plexus. The key to the forwards shoulder shot is to use the front line of the front leg. This may sound like nit picking relative to the center line of the front leg but I can assure you that there are differences which you will discover. If the shot goes further forwards, you will still achieve a fast kill. If the shot goes to the rear, you will still achieve a clean kill via a center lung hit. If you strike true, well you will see the results for yourself. Broadside for KB WL Although slightly quartering, this photo shows the point of aim for an autonomic plexus (forwards shoulder) broad side (and slightly quartering) shot. Note that the crosshair is aligned with the front line of the leg- not the center line. Many hunters lack the confidence to aim in this manner. If you wish to study this for yourself, you can replicate my research if you hunt with a low velocity rifle such as a .30-30 or like velocity cartridge loaded with hunting projectiles (6.5x55 with factory ammunition is another good example). If you are used to utilizing the meat saver shot, try now to utilize the autonomic plexus shot and see what happens. Note how quickly the animal drops when using the front line of the front leg as your point of aim. Once you have an understanding of just how effective this shot placement is, you will never use your low velocity cartridge as you once did. Getting back to other areas of the lungs, a shot striking a deer around three inches low at 6 o’clock strikes the bottom of the lungs and the arteries feeding into them from the heart, a reasonably fast killing shot but if it is slightly too low the shot may severe the heart (see heart) or simply the brisket, both slow killing shots. A shot striking three to five inches to the rear of the chest at 9 o’clock from dead center is a slow killing shot unless the cartridge used has immense wounding potential. High power cartridges may damage the rear portions of the lungs as well as rupturing the diaphragm however, animals usually run at least as far as when heart shot. The rear thin portions of the lungs, directly behind the foreleg tapering up and along the ribs, are considered a slow bleeding area and therefore a larger amount of tissue must be destroyed to effect a fast kill. High velocity cartridges such as the .270 .280 and .30-06 win out over smaller, milder calibers for fast killing in this area. The greatest method of creating Spinal shock transfer is through shots that strike the upper half of the chest. Below center, the ribs are a long way from the spine therefore mid to low shots sometimes fail to produce shock, such as the heart shock and game may cover considerable ground after such a shot. A true rear lung shot or ‘meat saver’ should be taken with the foresight or crosshair aimed snugly behind the foreleg. If the aim is taken any further back (as is common amongst inexperienced hunters these days), the shot will strike the tapered region of the lungs. The cross body meat saver shot is especially important to .22 center fire user as it allows the projectile to deliver more energy to the lungs, avoiding bullet failure on the shoulder. But again, keep shots tight! The other point of aim suited to .22 centerfire users is the soft junction between the shoulder and neck, giving access to the lungs when game are quartering on as well as the nerves and arterial system of the lower neck when broadside. In pigs, the layout of the lungs can be very deceptive; the curvature of the spine at the shoulder is very low with the top third of the chest as viewed from the side consisting of dorsal vertebrae, cartilage and muscle to power the head. For this reason, it is important to consider the lower two thirds of the pigs shoulder as a vital zone. The lungs are completely protected by the shoulder, tapering up almost vertically at the rearmost line of the foreleg with the diaphragm positioned directly behind the foreleg. Therefore not only is the vital zone limited to the lower two thirds of the chest, but also from the foreleg forwards including the arteries and veins of the neck. That said, a shot high (below the spine) and flush behind the shoulder will strike the rear lungs and can be a good killer but slight error may result in either a liver or a gut shot. Bear also have a ‘low profile’ and again, it is important to avoid making the mistake of aiming too high, striking fat, dorsal vertebrae (or just fur) while missing vitals. A high hit boar (pig or bear) can be a nightmare in that the animal will be knocked unconscious via hydrostatic shock, but is for all intents and purposes only ‘sleeping’. The wound may even look thorough. Then suddenly our quarry awakens and all hell breaks loose and we seemingly become instant experts at highland dancing. This is also why I carry a good long knife! Hog vitals.jpg Steph's pig anatomy 101. Upon gutting any game animal, it is worth studying the causes of death and condition of each organ. A good lung shot will leave the chest cavity full of congealed blood; the meat will be well bled out for the table negating the necessity to bleed out the arteries of the neck. Please note: if you are a long range shooter, more on the subject of shot placement can be found within my long range book series (Particularly Long Range Cartridges and Long Range Shooting). Techniques do vary when long range hunting and there is a great deal to consider. The Heart At the bottom of the chest, starting in line with the foreleg and ending three to four inches behind, lies the heart. The heart is responsible for pumping oxygen and nutrient rich blood to all parts of the body. Despite popular belief, the heart is not a good target for a fast killing shot. A heart shot without complete destruction can allow oxygen rich blood to be locked in the brain and locomotive muscles, allowing an animal to run long distances before collapsing. Shots falling low into the heart may allow some species of deer to run several hundred yards often making tracking difficult. The Liver Viewed broadside the liver appears roughly in the middle of an animal. The liver hangs from the spine descending roughly halfway down, between the paunch and the diaphragm. The liver is responsible for metabolizing fats, proteins and carbohydrates into the blood. It also detoxifies the blood as well as performing many other functions. The Hepatic artery and vein pass through the liver although most of the liver can be considered a fast bleeding area. The liver is a very small target and difficult to hit deliberately and for this reason the liver should not be regarded as an aiming point. However, the liver is often hit when game step forwards as the hunter takes the shot, or are running when the shot is taken, or when angling shots are taken. If the liver is destroyed an animal may run someway (usually quite stiffly / bunched up) but will succumb quickly. Sometimes, less experienced hunters will simply divide the animal into four quarters with their scope crosshairs and pull the trigger, the result is either a fluke hit to the liver or else a wounding gut shot. Long range hunters can make use of the liver as a secondary target however this is a subject I will not delve into here. These specialized topics are covered within my long range book series. Directly behind the liver and attached to the spine are the kidneys, responsible for filtering waste from the blood. The kidneys are slow bleeding organs and if wounded result in a slow death. The Abdominal Cavity The gut is a slow killing zone. Gut shots may take hours or days to kill depending on the extent of wounding. Death may be caused by infection as well as general ‘blood poisoning’ as a result of digestive acids passing into the blood stream. Other factors may include severe pain trauma which then eventually leads to coma after several hours. Following this, the animal may remain in a coma until its eventual death. Visible indicators of a gut shot include a deep audible ‘whock’ sound as the bullet strikes and game will often rear up on hind legs before running, although it is not uncommon to see no sign of a hit at all. Potent cartridges loaded with very soft fast expanding projectiles can sometimes anchor game through the destruction of such a large amount of the gut that the body is forced into coma quickly. Beyond these exceptions, many cartridges allow game to escape leaving no blood trail and often no gut fiber trail either, leaving the animal to endure a slow painful death. The Neck From the lungs forwards, arteries, veins and nerves of the chest cavity taper into the neck. The vital systems of the neck includes the spine and spinal nerves, the carotid artery transporting blood to the head and the jugular vein transporting blood back to the heart. Destruction of any of these causes a fast kill and even if the spine is not hit, suitable projectiles will often transfer shock to the spine causing instant collapse. That said, during the roar or rut, the neck of a male deer can become very swollen and shots to the neck may result in flesh wounds only. This is largely due to the fact that the arteries and veins are incredibly elastic; sometimes remaining intact after the bullet has passed through the neck. Typically, projectiles that create an explosive wound destroy both the spine and circulatory system however; it is often impractical to hunt with such loads. The neckt should be limited to ranges for which a margin of accurac

The above is a " small" sample of what the new zelander at Terminal Ballistic Research has to say. If I want to really study I use the sight for reference. I find it most educational.

But I think the lovely lady has a better........shall we say........form 4 getting the point across?

par·a·graph
ˈperəˌɡraf/
noun
noun: paragraph; plural noun: paragraphs

1.
a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.

Holy eye strain!




Clark

Yeah read that then watch the lovely lady shoot.......u may go blind!

Angus,

Congratulations on your Googling. I read everything you've so far quoted previously, often several years ago, including some that have never appeared on the Internet, because they the results of field experiments performed by bullet companies that have never been made public. There are many contradictions in Nathan Foster's writing on "hydrostatic shock," including more formal studies that have found physical evidence of such damage with bullets at much lower velocities than he cites. Then, of course, there's always the definition of "hydrostatic shock," which varies considerably, depending on who's talking or writing. I have read and heard several definitions, but juice flying out of the far side of a tomato can is a first.

I have seen lung tissue "blown" out the far side of Cape buffalo with solids bullets at very moderate muzzle velocities. Is that evidence of hydrostatic shock, or just a big bullet pushing stuff in front of it?

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision, in this type of collision momentum is conserved, energy is not. Therefore the talk of energy transfer is ridiculous. There are many forms of energy, here the energy discussed is kinetic which is a calculation of mass in motion. Momentum can be measured, kinetic energy is calculated not measured.

Mule Deer
Is it blown out? Or sucked or pulled with?
Like I said earlier I was not talking about hydrostatic shock.But I was honest in answering you I learned the phenomenon in Armor School at Ft. Knox. I honestly don't know wtf it should be called. I am trying to learn and be able to comprehend these things. And knowing what to call it or what not to is appreciated.

I am a Dumd Ass Tanker

I collect thurty thurtys, And like to hunt with 45/70 s.

But I get asked about this kind of stuff a lot, and would like to know these things. I have no dog in this hunt, and I appreciate you trying to learn me up.

Jwp475 I am sorry, what do you mean?

I thought the study showed two groups of buffalo.

One group exhibited signs of Shock

One group did not.

The group showing the signs of shock also had pathological changes in the brain, away from the wound channel.
The other group did not.

I was quite clear.

So buying a Mazda does not conserve energy?

I don't see how in the hell you can compare a sabot round penetrating a tank and a rifle bullet going through a critter??? When the penetrator goes through the armor, the friction and heat generated is incredible. The pressure inside the tank would have to go up considerably, given that interior volume remains the same but temperature rises. Obviously, things are going to fly out any holes in the armor. That ain't happening in a critter.

Jeff

Exactly,......, and the theories presented at the time (VERY credible IMHO) as relates to this revolved around whether the Animal's hearts were in full contraction, or totally relaxed, at the moment of impact / expansion .....we're going back a LONG ways in American Gun writing here,.....but it made perfect sense to me then, and still does today.

I've been watching this thread carefully, and not without a lot of interest,.......see little or no common ground, or even REMOTE similarity between killing an armored turret full of men with a sabot penetrator to dropping an expanding OR SOLID hunting bullet into the space above a game animal's diaphragm.

no offense.....but have found it kinda' weird , actually.

Luck,

GTC

Well, it really got going after Angus posted this three days ago:

I have not read all the posts yet on this thread, but while working to day I thought of this explanation. We have two ways to express energy .....as measured as foot pounds, Or the other as a vacuum inducing " hydrostatic " shock. Hydrostatic shock relies on an exit hole to in essence " suck " or aspirated vascular tissue into non viability. Hydrostatic shock not only requires full penetration, it need velocity. These two requirements demand both shot placement, adequate barrel length, and cartridge powder capacity.

Foot pounds of energy are only felt by an animal if the projectile does not fully penetrate the beast. Once it fully penetrates the energy is still in the bullet wasted on the impact of wherever the bullet goes and hits next.

Using a heavy bullet with a large meplat helps ensure maximum foot pounds of energy are utilized in the process of shooting into an animal. The larger meplat lowers the sectional density limiting penetration, but the heavier bullet " stores" energy as it is sent down range. This energy will transfer into the beast as the bullet sheds its weight while going through the tissues.Thus reducing the need for precise, shot placement, barrel length . One could also employ a smaller cartridge length.....for faster actions.
Makes this approach perhaps a better compromise in point blank situations.

Just my thoughts.

John,....I just read the latest postings over there as well,......and can only reflect that WEIRDNESS is loose, and running freely there, now.
Oh well,.....
It is good to know that they still die the way they've always done, though,....

GTC

Both groups were shot in the same place.

Now remember I have not read the entire study nor is the study my own.

But this is what was published in 2015 ? By Jim Carmichael not me.

Very weird for something professed to be debunked.

No one has shown when, how , or why it was debunked.

But I also do not know how credible the study I posted is.

I call that beyond weird.........perhaps self serving marketing.

I have no idea from who or what.

Just my opinion by a Dumd ass Tanker, that happens to be a Bovine Doctor.

Why are there no comments on the 2010 Iraq study?

Granted tanks are not large dangerous animals, but I do not use them as a study, just an analogy of a personal experience. If we must debate by attacking personal analogies I feel sorry for the campfire.

But who freaking cares.......I got no bullets to sell you.

I would just like to be presented the evidence of the debunking! And or criticism of the published recent studies and or both. Thanks.

I believe I understand the point you are making, Angus.

My older brother was a tanker, stuck in Death Valley for his stint in the army. He first told me about the sabot rounds and their function when I was a teen, and yet had little knowledge of physics, but the concept fascinated me, as he said they did as claimed, both in the test videos he watched and then in the live fire exercises of which he was part. The pressure differential within the turret caused by the projectile did indeed suck all kinds of stuff through the tiny exit hole created by the projectile.

The confusions here are manifold though. First of all is the confusion of air vs fluids. Air IS a fluid. So fluid dynamics play a part. And what you describe, Angus, is a vacuum force which happens within the enclosed space of a tank turret when the mile-per-second depleted uranium projectile strikes and passes through the turret. The vacuum force created can easily be demonstrated in the fluid media of air or water as slow or rapid differentiations in pressure causing fluid movement. Drag a boat oar through water and watch what happens. Variations in pressure at the front and back of the oar cause fluid flow. Get on a plane, and the wings do the same thing, where the air over the top of the wing causes such a difference in pressure that the whole plane is lifted. Or my first real-world example of this on the scale of big things: in my girlfriend's crappy jeep driving down an interstate with a strong headwind that kept us from going over 60, until a passing semi swung into our lane nearly cutting me off, and the semi ended up dragging us about 80 miles, more or less, while I barely used the gas pedal.

These are the same forces that bullets cause in various fluids.

Thank you hunt n shoot. I know in the savage group there is a retired Tank Comander. I am just leery as to how much to discuss and share on a public forum about Army Training.

However I am fascinated by the science of debunking studies without articles or references to rely on for evidence to support positions.
But what ever, I know personally I have learned a bunch of things during this debate and find the whole concept of hydrostatic shock fascinating. I wonder where one could apply to help the lovely lady shooter go over her " figures."

I'll take a bullet through the lungs for $500 Alex......................

I think the term for what you're describing is cavitation. Already mentioned by MD, Jordan, and possibly a few others.

As far as "hydrostatic shock" or better yet, "remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues," I don't have the background or time to research or de-bunk it. Or the inclination. I'll leave that to people who've studied it like doc rocket and MD.

All I can offer is a few observations. They certainly don't "de-bunk" it using science but they tell me all I need to know to satisfy my own curiosity. Most of the animals I've shot through the ribs (and lungs) have run a fair distance. I didn't measure the distance or keep notes on it but I'd say 40-100 yards is a good average, some a little more, some less. So they were not "incapacitated" by a shock wave; they were incapacitated by massive blood loss, drop in blood pressure, and being unable to breathe. One mule deer buck was standing in sage broadside at 30 yards. The bullet blew a huge hole through the rib cage with blood and lung tissue splattered on the sage 20 yards behind him. Yet he ran about 150 yards. Definitely not "incapacitated." He finally ran head-on into a tree and collapsed.

Some others dropped on the spot, but that number is about 10% of the total or maybe a little more. I didn't perform an autopsy so I don't know the precise cause of death. It could be some remote hemorrhaging of blood vessels in the CNS. But if so, it only happens 10 or 20% of the time based on my observations so IME it's not a very reliable or predictable phenomenon. If it was a simple matter of physics as its proponents believe, it seems they'd all drop on the spot.

High shoulder shots that hit bone and neck shots are a different story.

Wow, first the earth cooled...
Anyway, after all you forty-pound head guys introduced all of your theories, data etc., I thought I'd post a few more comments on the "speed kills" side of things from a purely empirical perspective. I don't have the hunting experience of a few of you guys, but from personal experience and what I've gathered from speaking to various gents with lots of experience, I offer the following:

American PH Mark Sullivan, whom I have met several times and my friend Allen Day (RIP) hunted with him, in his opinion the most dramatic DRT kills on the big cats has been with super-high velocity cartridges. If some of you have watched any of his videos, there are quite a few cat kills and without question the quickest kills have been with the 30-378, 378 Weatherby (gasp) calibers. There are also quite a bit shot with the 416 Rigby, 458 Winchester Mag etc. If you get the chance to watch these, the difference speed makes is very obvious. Further, Ross Seyfried in his writings has also opined (and observed ) the most dramatic kills on Cape Buffalo have been with the 416 Weatherby @2700 fps. Lastly, I have personally spoken with Connie Brooks and both her and her husband when testing the TSX on Buffalo, also related Buffalo reacted more when shot with the 350 TSX than the 400. All of this is empirical of course, but I can tell you from personal experience, not a SINGLE deer I've ever shot wit the 257 Weatherby and 100gr Hornady Spire Points has EVER taken a step and that over fifty deer. And of course I still maintain that while shot placement is paramount, there are sensible minimums when dealing with dangerous game.

Yes, speed kills. There's no doubt that monometal bullets work best at high velocities. One reason is that they don't open as well at slower velocities and don't cause as big a wound. That would be the simplest explanation.

I'm here on the speed kills subject. Might also be a good bit of shrapnel effect from high velocity bullet/bone chunks

As others have pointed out, the term "hydrostatic shock" is self-contradictory at worst and a misnomer at best. What I was hoping to explain a bit in my post is why the fluid dynamics of a bullet through the rib cage/lungs can at least parallel some of the effects of a sabot round through a tank turret, including drawing tissue and fluids out the exit.

And smokepole, speaking of cavitation, once the bullet strikes the medium of the target, high-speed camera shows that the bullet doesn't seem to actually contact the fluid much within the medium. The compressed fluid (shock wave) in front of (and to the sides of) the bullet is the thing that does the damage through the fluid, if the projectile is travelling fast enough. Thus the holes through things that are far bigger than the actual projectile used. I don't understand all the physics involved, but I have seen the effect.

I'm really in the "Who cares?" camp though. I shoot stuff in specific places, and that stuff dies. If I screw up badly, the clowns may come out, and a rodeo ensues. I prefer bullets that start off heavy for caliber and lose weight within the animal, because they seem to do a better job of putting stuff down, regardless of whether there are clowns involved. I've not had any luck getting monos to shoot well for me, or else I'd likely have tried them on animals by now, to do some high speed, small projectile testing.

This year, most of my hunting will be done with cast WFN, unless some distance shooting (over 300) ends up being necessary. The elk seem to be in the high, thick timber th last two years. Speaking of "stoppers", I think a hardcast 44 cal 310 at 2150 qualities.

A I'm not in the Who Cares camp but I'm interested enuff to follow the discussion. I also have seen the 'hydraulic' effect and IMHO think that has been termed "Hydrostatic shock". I see how the term may very well be a contradiction or enigma. Regardless..

B I have NOT seen the effects on 'tanks' as you two have described but HAVE seen the 'internal' damage inside deer MUCH larger than the projectile (bullet). Obviously the bullet didn't EXPAND then retract in size. Sometimes one organ's or muscle's destruction causes damage to another.

Sometimes IMObservation the bullet has ONLY contacted thin meat and lungs YET the resultant damage can be awesome.

I'm NOT entering this debate, just making my observations. I 'think' Hydraulic Shock is more appropriate or descriptive. No one else has to agree with me. REDUX, I'm not entering this debate.

Jerry

[img]http://Direct contact refers to a bullet directly striking and destroying one of the major nerve centers, including the thoracic and cervical vertebrae, the brain or the autonomic plexus, regardless of velocity, this will result in instant death.

Indirect contact refers to the effects of a high velocity bullet imparting its energy, creating a hydrostatic shock wave. In terminal ballistics, the terms hydraulic shock and hydrostatic shock both refer to kinetic energy transferred as shock waves through flesh, however, each term describes different results.

Hydraulic shock is the civil engineers term also known as water hammer but in terminal ballistics context refers to the pressure of accelerated fluid particles that create the temporary wound channel.

Hydrostatic shock transfer refers to the effect when shock waves travel through flesh to distant nerve centers, disrupting their ability to emit electrical impulses. Be very much aware that the terms hydraulic and hydrostatic shock are quite often misused by both hunters and professionals - including ballisticians working for bullet making companies.[/img]

Definitions from the Terminal Ballistic research web sight. New Zealand I believe

More from that sight. I took your advice steelhead and tried paragraphs.

[img]http://Velocity This has the greatest effect on hydrostatic shock. Put simply, the higher the impact velocity, the greater the shock. Velocity is also the most influencing factor in hydraulic shock, having a huge bearing on the size of the internal wound channel.

Hydrostatic shock, in bore sizes from .243” up to .338”, begins to lesson at impact velocities below 2600fps and most modern high velocity sporting cartridges including the magnums gradually lose shocking power beyond 300 to 350 yards. Of the thousands of animals harvested during TBR tests, 2600fps has been the most common cut off point with repeatable results (reactions) occurring when deliberately testing the impact velocity of 2650fps versus the impact velocity of 2550fps.

High velocity is not however a sole factor to be worshipped and held above other factors. For example, if velocity is increased too far without increasing bullet weight, the surface tension of water within the animal can cause so much resistance as to overcome the energy of the bullet. Ultra-high velocities can then also lead to shallow penetration. Generally speaking, the high velocity cut off point for small bore bullets used on medium game is around 3150fps. If for example we are using a 140 grain 7mm bullet at an impact velocity of 3250fps, chances are that even if the bullet penetrates vitals, the animal may still run some distance. One factor to be very careful of with ultra-high velocity conditions is to not blame a delayed kill exclusively on ‘bullet blow up’. For example, if we were using the same 140gr 7mm bullet and the entry wound did indeed show signs of wide entry wounding and surface bullet blow up (or possibly blow back), even though this is undesirable performance, we still need to investigate further if we are to truly understand factors at play. In this instance, once the animal is recovered, it is important to study the vital organs and determine whether they were actually destroyed. If the vitals were destroyed, we can then conclude that the bullet did its job (even if in a less than desirable manner) but without hydrostatic shock.

A noticeable change in hydrostatic shock occurs as bullet diameter is increased to .358” (such as the .35 Whelen) and larger bores (see bullet diameter). With the medium and large bores, hydrostatic shock can occur on our medium game species at velocities as low as 2200fps. Fast incapacitation can remain evident at velocities as low as 1800fps depending on bullet designs. Below 1800fps, the wider the bore the better. Further to this, there are also highly traumatic pistol bullet designs such as the Hornady XTP. Frangible bullets tend to produce coma at much lower velocities than traditional hunting bullets (see bullet construction). With frangible bullets at low velocities, instant coma may be due to hydraulic shock causing blood pressure spikes in the brain as suggested by Hornady ballisticians. In other instances, coma can follow very shortly after impact due to multiple pain centers being disrupted to such an extent that the animal must go into coma. That said, frangible bullets may also send out particles which strike the CNS directly. When testing hydrostatic shock on Bovines, I have discovered that impact velocities of 2600fps with suitable bullet weights (and construction) produced instant poleaxe in a repeatable manner. However, in many instances Bovines would attempt to rise, the action of attempting to rise resulting in increased blood loss with death following within seconds.[/img]

So what is it that kills the animal deader and faster, hydraulic shock or a bigger wound channel?

I think what the difference between dynamic or hydrodynamic is the shock wave force of the movement of the fluid, which would include air. Hence hydrodynamic force is what would destroy or liquefy tissues in the direct area of the hydraulic wave,pull, or suck the tissues ,fluids ,or crewman out the hole. And you are correct the Tank Sabot Round is very very fast.

Static means something NOT in mointion. And the tendency for a body not in motion to resist being put in motion.Hence the term is used to refer to the energy entering the not in motion fluid mass, the fluid mass has the ability to resist movement and hence transfer this energy to adjacent tissues or areas of the body. Hence hydrostatic.

So I would postulate hydraulic or hydrodynamic shock is direct cavity damage the projectile caused by entry and potietial passage through.

Static the damage of adjacent areas not in direct contact with the cavity the projectile entered and or penetrated.

Hence the video of the women shooting demonstrates both effects. The can or plastic bucket is the cavity hit, the broken cinder block the adjacent tissue or area not involved in the hydraulic wave or wound channel.

Once again just my opinion .

Smoke pole is that something I wrote or something I shared from the New Zealand web sight?

Like I tried to first say, I am not a big believer in relying on light and fast, I am just trying to understand it well enough to explain it.

I prefer hunting with heavier and bigger and perhaps more frangebale ordinants. I do not really find moderate to stout recoil a deterrent in my shooting. I also personally use mostly vintage archaic calibers and cartridges like the 300 savage or the 45/70.

It looks like there is a definite less need for speed for stopping power as the bullet gets larger around, and heavier will have more ( please insert correct term) I would call it energy.

This according to Terminal Ballistic Research I shared.

The lovely lady video showed the bigger the round the more carnage was caused both direct and indirect.

I question the evidence for what the Kiwis call hydrostatic shock. The definition they give is not testable. There is no way to test whether nerves get disrupted by some energy wave, and therefore become unable to transmit a neural signal. And if the effect is so distinct, then why are its supposed causes not distinct? I.E., why do two animals of same type and mass, stuck by same bullet at same speed in same location, not produce identical hydrostatic shock effects?

Hunt and Shoot......there actually is a study on that very subject measuring nerve conductivity in pigs. I think that it is where he got the information. I didn't post it because I found the bovine Carmichael study , and the Iraq autopsies study more recent and compelling IMO. If you want to read the study look up hydrostatic shock go into the Wikipedia discussion scroll down and you will see the pig study.

I am also beginning to suspect on lung cavity shots the lung cavity is a very dynamic set of organs. It has a variation in air to fluid, as in lung inflation as by respiration point at impact. It may also be affected by if the heart valves are close and if the heart is in the systolic or dyastolic cycle of beating. There fore there could be a big variation in shock induced by projectile impact even though location of impact is similar between case events.

Nice boobs, funky "pouty" lips, and lousy trigger manipulation. I guess it's OK if you're a 14 year old boy looking for something to jack off to...

Ed

Angus - be advised that 'some' here at the Fire don't believe that FPE is real or don't believe it's important.

Maybe ? I'm just old skool having 'learnt' during the 70s. & 80s about reloading, shooting, & killing.
But I believe that no work gets done without 'energy'.

To illustrate my point, what happens IF we flip a bullet into the side of an animal ?
We may startle or spook it, but there is no damage.

OTOH, if that same bullet is propelled at a mere 1000 fps, WORK gets done enuff to
injure (damage) or kill the animal.

Enuff E is required to produce (work) lethal damage.

That's an effort to illustrate the point in layman's terminology.

Jerry

I don't know, you tell me, You posted it, right?

I shared it. It is the New Zealand author.


Didn't you post several pages ago u were done bantering with me. After u discussed " Our friend the diaphragm?"

[img]http://leak ? Did I say a rib cage leaks? I don't believe I did but nice try. I have a coffee cup sitting on my desk. It holds fluid and doesn't leak. Yet it's not sealed and it's open to the atmosphere. Same as your lungs, which are inside your rib cage, are open to the atmosphere. Reconcile that with your "logic." And while you're at it, continue commenting on the similarity of a bullet penetrating a ribcage and an artillery shell penetrating an armored vehicle. And throw in a few words about the necessity of blowing lung tissue out the exit hole while you're at it. "Thanks." Edited to add, Angus, before you respond, know that I'm done commenting on this subject. This is an interesting thread and I don't want to detract from it any more. So blaze away, but don't expect any more back and forth from me. Last edited by smokepole; 08/10/17.[/img]

That's right. Against my better judgment I re-engaged. Is that a problem for you?

Thanks for the tip jwall. I like to use the word energy, and was ignorant as to why it seemed offensive here.

BTW I also totally agree with the pouty lip post....( by APDDNSO804)

..why I was concerned about DeFlave or is it Clarks? Vision.

HERE IS THE PIG STUDY.

HINT HINT

I AM SHARING.

[img]http://Remote cerebral effects of ballistic pressure waves Edit Goransson et al. were the first contemporary researchers to present compelling evidence for remote cerebral effects of extremity bullet impact.[38] They observed changes in EEG readings from pigs shot in the thigh. A follow-up experiment by Suneson et al. implanted high-speed pressure transducers into the brain of pigs and demonstrated that a significant pressure wave reaches the brain of pigs shot in the thigh.[23][39] These scientists observed apnea, depressed EEG readings, and neural damage in the brain caused by the distant effects of the ballistic pressure wave originating in the thigh. The results of Suneson et al. were confirmed and expanded upon by a later experiment in dogs[24] which "confirmed that distant effect exists in the central nervous system after a high-energy missile impact to an extremity. A high-frequency oscillating pressure wave with large amplitude and short duration was found in the brain after the extremity impact of a high-energy missile . . ." Wang et al. observed significant damage in both the hypothalamus and hippocampus regions of the brain due to remote effects of the ballistic pressure wave.[/img]

Very interesting. Thanks, Angus.

A bullet impact is an inelastic collision, energy is not conserved, momentum is conserved. In an elastic collision both energy and momentum is conserved. This is fact not theory.

There are many types of energy, stored, electrical, heat,etc in ballistics we are talking about "kinetic energy" which is calculated not measured. The wound channel is produced by momentum transfer, direct applied force, the frontal area of the projectile for the direct crushed tissue, the amount of hydraulic pressure ( which is dependent on speed" to increase) not energy transfer.

Jerry: Lots of what we learned in the 70s and 80s turned out not to be true. Craig Boddington used to tout 2,000 ft-lbs. as the minimum amount of kinetic energy required for elk-sized animals. He doesn't do that any more.

The thing that different people on this site have said about kinetic energy is that it's not a good measure of lethality. The reason being, the velocity term is squared so velocity is given more importance in the calculation than it should be given. So a light fast bullet looks like a more lethal round than a heavy slow bullet, at least on paper.

The easiest way to illustrate is by comparing the KE of a typical hunting arrow to a lightweight bullet like the 40 grain .22 bullet out of a .22 LR. Not many would choose the 40 grainer out of a .22 LR for large animals yet it has roughly twice the calculated kinetic energy of a typical hunting arrow that will pass clean through the rib cage of say, an elk. Now, some may say that an arrow kills differently than a bullet, but the same logic holds when you compare heavy slow bullets to light fast ones. The light fast ones win on paper with the KE calculation but not necessarily in the field on animals.

Like jwp pointed out, momentum seems a better way to go. If you calculate the momentum of the hunting arrow vs the 40 grain .22 round, the arrow wins.

I completely agree, but how does one explain the lethality of a 100gr 257 @3700 over say a 375 H&H on deer?

Jorge,

That extra lethality (that is to say, very quick kills) isn't there with "harder" .25 caliber bullets, as I can personally attest from my experience with monolithics in the .257 Weatherby. With cup-and-cores it's there, and to a major extent with "partial cup-and-cores" like Partitions. The .375 H&H doesn't destroy nearly as much vital tissue with typical bullets, both because of the lower muzzle velocity, and because most .375 bullets are built to retain more weight.

My experience with quite a few different bullets is that quicker big-game kills result with more bullet weight-loss, which destroys more of the internal organs, whether the weight-loss of the bullet is a result of its construction or increased velocity. More than one bullet company has come to the same conclusion, including a major European ammunition firm, which shot over 500 animals during development of loads that would drop animals quicker, so they wouldn't make it across the border of neighboring land. This is a big deal over there, because the landowner owns the wild animals, and a deer that drops on a neighbor's land legally belongs to the neighbor.

The velocity term being squared gives it exactly the correct importance in the calculation of kinetic energy. The mistake is made in the misuse of the resulting number in a particular situation.

Misuse of momentum works the same way. If I toss you a bowling ball and you catch it you'll have more momentum to deal with than if I shoot you with a 22 LR. Yet which projectile would you rather catch?

You are correct of course. Being a mathman and all. What I should have said is, the calculated KE gives a distorted representation of lethality because of the contribution of velocity.

As far as the bowling ball, what I said had to do with lethality of bullets and arrows, and momentum being a better measure of lethality with those.

I don't hunt with bowling balls.

John, you've touched on the very thing that makes most "terminal ballistics" discussions devolve so quickly on the interwebs. What most hunters are really more interested in is the terminal effects of their bullets, and terminal ballistics is just a subset of that field of study. I have noted for years that students of terminal ballistics often miss the more crucial points of Fackler's academic papers, which had far more import in the understanding terminal effects than of terminal ballistics.

Terminal effects must take into account ballistics variables, which can be neatly summarized/symbolized in mathematical physics equations(although if you've read Duncan McPherson's book, you'll quickly discard any notion of it being "simple" physics!!!). But Terminal effects must also take into account the anatomy and physiology of the target animal, the path of the missile into/through the body, and the behavior of the bullet within the target animal's body.

A bullet's tendency to fragment (= weight loss) inside the target animal has a direct bearing on a shot's potential lethality, as you point out. Vincent DiMaio's opus on Gunshot Wounds has several photos of the "lead snowstorm" effect of highly frangible bullets in the human chest, and while he as a pathologist doesn't comment on the rapid incapacitation potential of such GSW's, as an emergency physician I will attest to the extremely short time-frame of survival of such injuries. It's this effect that manufacturers such as Berger and JLK have tried to improve upon, and in my estimation they have been very successful.

Of course you don't hunt with bowling balls. Your post was quite reasonable.

But I've considered trying hunting with bowling balls, though... doesn't that count? And neutrinos, too...

I think the best compromise would be a 400 gr VLD-type bullet with a meplat of 0.400" launched at a MV of 3200+ fps. Of course, you'd need a 25- pound rifle and have to be 7' tall and 350 pounds to boot...

If you hunt elk make sure you "use enough neutrino."

Will they over-penetrate?

Ed

Pretty much every time.

Thanks, John that is exactly what I was trying to convey. I just left out the "Hornady". That little pill punches way above it's weight. As to the 375, I tried it with a Sierra 300 gr. The exit hole was huge on the doe I killed but she ran at least 80 yards. Never with the little pill. THe 100gr TTSX also appears as deadly, but that "universe" of sample is quite small so far. Also, Roy Weatherby also writes the most spectacular kills (and failures) were with the 87 gr 257 ON ZEBRA! I think the Partition is THE happy medium you speak of and probably "operator error" on my part, but out of all the bullets I've tried, they are by far the hardest to group. My 257 7mm Weatheby hate them, as does my 7RM Model 70, but my 300 Weatherby likes them and that is what I used in Africa w great results. Lastly, I've also had a great deal of luck with the Interlocks at 3006 velocities, BUT a friend of mine had terrible luck with them with the 300gr in his 375, failing to penetrate on buffalo and although I've not tried them, LOTS of bad reviews on the Hornady DGX on the larger bores.

Your illustration reminds me of an experiment I did. For scientific research I placed a soft point bullet on its base on the garage floor. I then smacked it as hard as I could with a flat smooth hammer of about 16 ounces. Apparently the hammer was not perfectly perpendicular to the point of the bullet. It took off at a very high velocity and bounced off a couple walls before I could even think about dodging it. The garage was completely empty so I found the bullet quickly. The point was barely damaged at a slight angle. By the way this was back when I was in my thirty's so I was still very strong from the weight lifting.

Jorge,

My .257 Weatherbys have shot 115-120 grain Partitions well, but not 100's. Especially accurate in my NULA is the 120 with 71.0 grains of RL-25 for 3300 fps, and it really drops deer-sized game.

Have had every result with 100-grain TSX's from 4-legs-in-the-air instant drops to 250-yard runs. Have been trying 100 TTSX's and E-Tips and so far they seem to be more consistent, but still have not gotten the same quick kills, on average, as with Partitions.

It's too bad Hornady has apparently discontinued the 100-grain Interlock. I have had excellent results with in cartridges from the .250 Savage up.

You are spot on. As to the fragmentation creating quicker kills it all depends on where the fragmentation takes place.

Thanks, John. I managed to squirrel away ten boxes of the Hornady pills . Incidentally, I use the data from the old Weatherby Guides, 71.3gr of MRP (or RL-22) w F 215 primers. I plan to use the 100TTSXs this year so if I score, I'll report back.

That would be much appreciated. We've used the TTSX in the .257 Roberts and .25-06 with fine results on plemnty of game from pronghorn to big deer and one cow elk, but the E-Tip shoots better in my .257 Weatherby.

Did have some squirrely results from the plain TSX in the .257 Weatherby, before the TTSX ever appeared. One pronghorn I shot perfectly, right behind the shoulder at 250 yards, went another 250 yards before falling! The wound channel was so narrow I suspect the bullet never opened up. Have seen that now and then with pre-tipped TSX's.

Why the heck do they keep doing that??? Someone needs to put Steve Hornady on the 'fire.

Terminal results are a combination of bullet performance, power, and placement, not just one or two, but all three factors.

Different combinations are effective depending on the animal, distance, conditions, rifle, scope, ammo, and shooter's proficiency.

What is effective for 90 or 100# doe may not be adequate for a 250# pig.

A bullet stout enough to shoot pigs through the shoulder may be too hard for a small doe shot in the lungs.

Nothing is good with a gut shot. Shots to the lungs are not as likely to produce DRT as a shot to the brain or thoracic spine.

Shots to the neck may produce paralysis, but I've seen too many deer very alive laying on the ground shot in the neck.

So, I am not a fan of placement to the neck.

I hunt deer and pigs, mostly in very heavy brush country, so not going to offer advice on hunting elk, Cape Buffalo, or Triceratops.

Here is an example of a 308 with 175 SMK's. I made the video after tiring of hearing posters say SMK's will not kill animals.

I've shot more than 100 in a row just like this with the same result - bullet to the brain and they fall over where they stand.

But, I would not use a 243 with a Ballistic Tip for that shot, nor a 300 Uber Zombie magnum either. The combo works because the rifle and bullet are capable of very precise placement and adequate penetration.

Over the last few years, the TTSX have become my first choice for hunting and they consistently provide excellent results in contrast to the TSX, which was inconsistent at best.

I really cannot stand to see animals suffer, so I am pretty reserved with taking a shot unless I have a high level of confidence in producing a DRT result. Does it always work? No, but the results are pretty consistent.



Here is a 308 with an Amax used to cull during our severe drought in 2011. Deer is slightly angled towards the shooter. Placement is 1/3 down from the top of the back, forward edge of the shoulder.

The only TSXs I trust are in the bigger calibers, like the 270 & 300gr 375 and the 350 & 400gt 416s. I've pondered the 250gr 338s but since they make a 210 and 225gr TTSX, I've gone to those. I will say one thing, they are consistently the most accurate bullets I've ever used. Even on my 450NE double, they are more accurate than what the rifle was regulated with (Hornady DGXs), but that's probably blasphemy in a double, so I shoot Woodleighs and if I'm feeling daring the North Forks. Those are perhaps the best of both worlds.

Guys I've been busy and off line for quite a while today. A lot has been posted since my last post.

This is an interesting thread to me and I have 'lernt' a few things and it helps me to have a better understanding of this discussion.

Regardless of the 'calculated' E (fpe), it's engrained in my understanding that Energy is INTEGRAL to have work.

*** I'm NOT saying FPE, just Energy must be exerted to accomplish work.

REDUX II I'm not entering this debate: grin--not arguing -- expressing my thots.

Y'all carry on.

Jerry

This is correct regarding collisions, but it is important to note that although kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions, there is still an energy transfer from one object to another. In fact, an object can only have measurable momentum if it also has kinetic energy. When you mentioned that a wound channel is produced by direct applied force, this is indirectly saying that there is an energy transfer, since change in kinetic energy is equal to the force applied, integrated over the displacement of the tissue. Likewise, the change in momentum of the tissue is equal to the force applied, integrated over the time of interaction.

So there is no question that when a bullet strikes, there is a transfer of momentum, kinetic energy, and that there is a force applied which is responsible for these changes in the tissue. I think the reason that so many of us have become hyper-sensitive to the mere mention of the word "energy", is because of all the focus and emphasis that for decades was placed on energy as a metric of killing effectiveness, using distorted mechanisms and quantified thresholds. People used kinetic energy all wrong in trying to determine killing power, and now we can't stand when somebody brings it up. Kind of like our reaction to an over-played song coming on the radio (even if we liked the song when it was originally released).

Very interesting .

I was not required to get calculus to get admitted into vet school, to get admitted you need a very high GPA ....I was projected to get a C so I dropped it. And my physics professor refused to teach momentum as anything real? I have always wondered why?

Another thing about ruminants......it seems the amount of rumen " fill" has a big effect at their value at the time of sale, can be very lethal I.e. Bloat......can determine when they calve. It also may be related to other lung conditions I. E. AIP.
My question could rumen fill affect the hydrodynamics of the thoracic cavity indirectly?

But I also propose the simplest answer between killing and stopping is the amount of CNS trauma inflicted vs other tissue damage.

I also have this question.

The New Zealand author proposes that the " meat saver" shot is unuiqe to North America. ( as in avoid the shoulder, double lung)?

He professes the European aim point is the front " rostral" part of the front leg and the center of the neck. He called it the autonomic reflex I believe. I term it the brachial plexus and I try more for the center of the front leg. Could it be Us North Americans are expecting our cake and eating it too. As in expecting a DRT response on a meat saver shot placement?

Another question, when an animal is alerted or agitated his amount of epinephrine and corticosteroids in the blood will rise. Will this have an affect on thoracic cavity hydraulic reaction to projectiles? If so how?

I mentioned the brachial plexus a couple of times, including right back on the first page of all this:



AFAIK the shot into the shoulderblade is called a "blattschuss" in German.

Angus,

Apparently you don't know that big game in New Zealand is all introduced, and since there aren't any large predators, they're also considered varmints. Consequently hey're shot in massive numbers, and the vast majority just left in the field. So yeah, nobody much cares whether any meat is ruined.

Hi MD

I was going to make a similar point, and I was just considering how I'd put it to avoid speaking out of turn. As I understand it, in the US there's a number of reasons why one might aim to ruin as little meat as possible, including such things as bag limits and limited seasons and limited opportunities. Here in Oz, much like NZ, considerations are a bit different.

Where I hunt, there are no bag limits on deer. For several species there's no closed season either, at least where I hunt, though one might prefer to hunt in the cooler months for practical reasons. You've still got to find the deer though, and some in particular are quite wary and like thick cover. As a result losing a bit of meat may not be such a big factor, and may be outweighed by the benefits of dropping it on the spot, especially in thick bush where you might otherwise have a hard time finding it if it was to bolt. That is my personal reasoning anyway.

Of course in the case of animals which might become aggressive, there's also the argument in favour of putting them on the ground and out of action straight away before that can happen.

I don't know that a lot of deer are simply left in the field in NZ any more. I don't think that is true here either. We don't have "wanton waste" rules though, so there's no particular reason (other than preferring not to waste something tasty) that you'd be prevented from leaving deer, or the bits you don't want, out in the field to rot.

There's a good proportion of other critters left in the field though. A lot more pigs shot than are eaten for example.

I don't understand this, Jeff. You do know that you can shoot them again, right? If they aren't dead yet?

My family were farmers, so I guess I have a different take on this killing stuff.

I agree dan oz..... I am sure it took me 13 pages to come to the simplest answer to the OP S question.

As in what is the difference between killing and stopping.

I am sure....and I am afraid 2 look. Was probably answered most effectively on the first or second post!

But WTF gotta loose sleep over something. HUH?

BS! I have my doubts about you being a DVM

Isn't killing vs. stopping simply the difference between tissue damage leading to loss of blood vs. hitting CNS disabling any movement? I've seen a CNS shot drop a bull on the spot, but he didn't die particularly quickly and had a bull hit a couple bulls through lungs that traveled maybe 15 yds and died quite rapidly. Just a function of what was damaged by the bullet.

Shot placement, with adequate penetration.

No, I haven't read the entire thread.

CNS shot can kill instantly if located in the correct location.

I completely agree^^ I was only highlighting an example of stopping instantly without necessarily killing instantly. I could probably have worded it better. Again, it is simply placement with adequate penetration.

Excellent points, gentlemen. It's apparent you both paid attention in physics class. Jordan, it's also apparent you paid attention in Psychology class as well.

THANK YOU Jordan.

I am NO mathematician. I didn't have Roy Rogers math < trigger nomitry> G.>>>>SO I can't discuss it in mathematical terms.

HOWEVER your post is the BEST description to convey the concept I have relative to 'bullets & terminal performance'..

The TRANSFER of E and Momentum is what I see in my mind.

Thanks Again

Jerry

Taken out of context that is a poorly worded sentence. But For some reason unknown to me momentum was not taught at the class I attended we skipped the whole chapter. I have often thought because we were a class not required to have calculus training.

As for the DVM deal I don't know what to say other than perhaps this is a good time to try ignore.

An interesting subject. Thank you gentlemen.

[img]http://Elastic and Inelastic Collisions. A perfectly elastic collision is defined as one in which there is no loss of kinetic energy in the collision. ... Momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions, but one cannot track the kinetic energy through the collision since some of it is converted to other forms of energy.[/img]

This is shared HINT HINT I did not write it.

Is all kinetic energy lost?

Why does the above definition use the words " some Kinetic energy is lost" not all?

Where does it go?

Is there a way to predict how much is converted, and how much is conserved?

If it gets converted to what?

How does one differentiate the type of collision? As in total ,partial, and non elastic.

How does one define " momentum"?

If I missed or not dispatch the bull then he runs me over iis that collision elastic, inelastic or partially elastic?

The next post is a shared video of the skulls .?

Thank you.

For a man that claims to have enough education to be a DVM, you only post "Google fu" with BS commentary, sounds a bit fishy.

Is being hyper sensitive to using terminology that in fact is mostly likely true give one Carte Blanche to become troll like?

Is using bowling balls and arrows for Ballistic analogy proper, where as using Ballistic behavior of a sabot kinetic roundout of a 105 mm rifled barrel unacceptable?

Is formulating equations based on blasting kidney stones out of humans, a direcect correlation to center fire rifle shots into a ruminant?

Is it good to have frangebile properties in a bullet in one post for Terminal effects, but "bad physics if some one else posts it?

Is there not several documented cases of bullets, and or other objects in the brain or CNS system and not cause instant death, in fact some will survive? Why perhaps does this occur?

Could it be lack of. Oh. No. Not Energy again?

I'll play.

- Energy is never "lost", per se, but it can be transferred outside of the system in question, or converted to other forms. In the case of an inelastic collision, some of the kinetic energy in the system in consideration is converted to other forms of energy, the amount of which depends on the nature of the collision

- Some kinetic energy is transferred from one object to another, and some is used to perform other actions

- Due to the individualities of every shot, there's no way to predict how much KE is conserved in the collision, with any accuracy- part of the reason that using "FPE" as a killing-power guideline is folly

- The KE that is not conserved in the collision get converted into thermal energy, is used to deform the bullet, deform tissue, etc

- Perfectly elastic collision is when objects collide without deformation and bounce off of each other (billiard balls colliding), an imperfect inelastic collision involves deformation of the objects, and the objects bounce off of each other (car accident), and a perfectly inelastic collision involves deformation of the objects and the objects stick together after colliding (bullet colliding with an animal)

- A working definition could be the tendency of an object in motion to stay in motion

- Imperfectly inelastic



What's your point? The fact remains that using the kinetic energy of a bullet as a primary means to quantify its killing effectiveness, is extremely ineffective.

The dude claims to be DVM, which means enough education to not be asking such mundane questions.

When all discussion is winnowed out,Phil said it best.Note he left out the word if.

I agree. Utterly. Old men who have 'been there and been doing that' for many decades have a way of capturing profound wisdom in few words.

His patients all think he's brilliant.

Agreed. On the topic of the OP, that's about all that needs to be said.

I think that is a bit unfair. There's any number of highly educated people who have no grounding in mechanics, and no real need to know it. FWIW my sister is a vet, and teaches it at university. Her husband is a professor in veterinary medicine, specialising in equine virology. I doubt they'd ever have any need to consider the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions, and I doubt they've even thought about anything to do with them since high school.

Unfortunately for those of us with an engineering background or interest in physics, there are many people who really have very little knowledge of this stuff, nor any practical reason to know it.



There's a range of ways the kinetic energy is "lost". Energy is used to do work, pushing bits of animal out of the way of the bullet, tearing through skin, muscle and organs and breaking bones (or, at a finer scale, breaking molecular bonds). Some gets turned into sound and some into heat. It doesn't really matter much in a practical sense though, because ultimately what kills the animal is damage to structures vital to sustaining life, and that depends on a number of factors. Crudely, a bullet whose path transects something important, and which has the construction and momentum to drive through and cause enough damage along the way.

Thanks Dan, THAT has been my contention all along. NOT that it's 'kinetic' E but Energy of some description.

And with Jordan's post earlier
---------------------------------
"This is correct regarding collisions, but it is important to note that although kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions, there is still an energy transfer from one object to another. In fact, an object can only have measurable momentum if it also has kinetic energy. When you mentioned that a wound channel is produced by direct applied force, this is indirectly saying that there is an energy transfer, since change in kinetic energy is equal to the force applied, integrated over the displacement of the tissue. Likewise, the change in momentum of the tissue is equal to the force applied, integrated over the time of interaction.

So there is no question that when a bullet strikes, there is a transfer of momentum, kinetic energy, and that there is a force applied which is responsible for these changes in the tissue. I think the reason that so many of us have become hyper-sensitive to the mere mention of the word "energy", is because of all the focus and emphasis that for decades was placed on energy as a metric of killing effectiveness, using distorted mechanisms and quantified thresholds. People used kinetic energy all wrong in trying to determine killing power, and now we can't stand when somebody brings it up. Kind of like our reaction to an over-played song coming on the radio (even if we liked the song when it was originally released)."
----------------------------
You TWO guys have satisfied my inquiry/curiosity/confusion.

I repeat what I've said repeatedly since joining the 'fire' in 2010...

No work gets done with out Energy.

Thanks Again

Jerry

edit to Correct My puter. It placed something ELSEWHERE than where I put it.

First of all Thank you Dan_oz. I am gobsmacked by your support. Truly.

Let me try my latest postulate.


If energy is in fact measured in the definition of momentum, plus if in fact any definition of collision all energy is not lost just simply not fully conserved.

And the loss of such energy is not predictable.


And if the energy is lost it happens inside the wound channel.

And if losing energy inside a wound channel is beneficial to achieve the desired effect

To not use energy prior to the arrival of the projectile to the wound channel as a way to compare or quantitate " dosage" of effectiveness or performance in a cartridge used to harvest game seemslike a good thing to consider ( 2 achieve the desired effect)



Kinda like do I give the cow 30 cc of oxytetracyline 300 mg per ml. Or 60 cc? ( an antibiotic for bacterial infection) this antibiotics effectiveness is bacteria stactic and dosage dependent. Now of course I should consider the mass of the animal to determine how much I should administer. I want to have it work and stop the bacterial infection. But I don't want to compromise the event by overdosage.

Now wether or not I go I.V. Or P.O. Or I.M. ( intravenous, per oral, or Intramuscular) or the carrier base etc, etc.will also be very crucial to treatment success, but certainley the amount of the antibiotic administered will also make or break the deal.

Just my observation.

But please show where in this individual post of 13 pages I personally said much about energy being paramount. Or " The Single Thing". If I did in fact say those things I am in error and apologize.

But I certainley consider energy in cup and core bullet " dosages".

I think velocity may be more important to consider in monolithic "treatment"

There was a wonderful Terminal Ballistic test run here on the campfire some years back. I was amazed at how well the 130 grain 30 caliber Barnes fared. It was shooting bovine leg bone point blank, then measuring wet paper penetration. Really well written study IMO.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Therefore shot placement, attitude of animal, yardage, environment, weather, most of these things we cannot control.....only adapt to and consider at the time of the harvest event .....but we can select the accuracy, bore weight, sectional density and Ballistic Coefficient etc,etc.,and or lack thereof, and energy potiential of the cartridge prior to the harvest event.

All these things I am going to reccomend levels on based on harvest event scenario ,and all of these parameters I feel are worth considering. So I will continue to consider.

I also feel I should limit my thoughts and suggestions to standard yardages. I E under 500 yards in the future.

Just something 2 ponder.

Angus, remember !!

Some don't like or don't believe E is relative......

I've heard (read) "FPE doesn't matter", more than once.

IMO some will NOT admit/agree that E plays much IF any role of importance in bullets'
terminal performance.

Good Luck

Thnx FOR this thread (discussion)

Jerry

I do not like canned peas ............ should I become a troll if some one says they like them or eats them?

Just like I have a license to practice medicine.....they call it practice for a reason......it ain't rocket science.

Most of us here have a license to hunt, we can all learn from each other endevours expierences and practice ...if we just listen to each other and be considerate and open.

It all boils down to

" What is your intent?"

He dam sure should known the difference between shooting a tank made of steel and amor plating and an animal made with skin flesh, blood and bones.

"Sabot

Sabot rounds work like a basic arrow. They don't have any explosive power; they penetrate armor with shear momentum. The heart of the sabot round is the penetrator -- a narrow metal rod (typically depleted uranium) with a pointed nose on one end and stabilizing fins on the other. Before the round is fired, the rear part of the penetrator is attached to a propellant case, and the front part is attached to the sabot structure. The sabot's purpose is to keep the narrow penetrator centered in the wide gun barrel.

On firing, the propellant casing remains in the chamber, and the expanding gas pushes the sabot and attached penetrator down the barrel. The sabot is attached to the penetrator with relatively flimsy plastic, so it falls away as soon as the round leaves the cannon. The heavy penetrator flies through the air at high speed toward its target tank. Because of its narrow shape, the penetrator focuses its full force into a very small area, plowing straight through heavy armor. As the penetrator enters the tank, heated fragments of metal fly off in all directions, hitting anybody and anything inside.

HEAT

HEAT rounds use explosive firepower, rather than momentum, to penetrate armor. At its nose, the round has an extended impact sensor. When the impact sensor collides with a target, it ignites an explosive, which melts surrounding copper. A shape charge liner concentrates the molten metal and hot gases into a narrow blast that cuts through the armor.

The M1 also has three machine guns. It has a Browning .50-caliber M2 and a 7.62-mm M240 mounted to cupolas on the top of the turret, and another M240 mounted next to the main gun."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank3.htm


How any of the above relates to "stopping" or "killing" an animal with a rifle or handgun conventional bullet, I'm waiting with baited breath to find out.

aahhhhhhhhhh, all this fancy reading is giving me a headache, I need more coffee and will go back and read Phil's few simple words.

I take that back. The horses are still on board, but the cows are starting to think you're a little "off."

Horses definitely not on board, horse require an equine vet.

The troll like tendencies demonstrated here way overshadow your powers of observation, reading comprehension,and attention to detail.

A. M60 A3 main battle Tank
B. Fin stabilized Sabot ( not a standard sabot)
C. Penetration a cavity to cause harvest or Stop something.........huh?
D. There is no animal species limitation in veterinary practice licensure
E. Your skills in editing posts, to take things out of context will give you a bright future at CNN.

# Trolls suck

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Tolerance of Trolls is a limiting factor in the economic potiential of this web sight. IMO

I am well aware to D there are plenty of vets that will take your money to treat your horse when they don't know didlley about a horse. Many vets do not even go through the equine portion of vet school. Ones money is much better spent with an equine vet if one has horses.

The only troll is you.

Just retired from 20 years as a tank mechanic in the Army, only time I saw a M60 outside of a museum or static display on post, was to tow them during recovery school, or tow them on to a range so the M1 Abrams crews could shoot them. The tanks I worked on my first 7 years were some of the oldest M1A1's in the Army, and they were the 3rd model of M1's used by the Army. Might be a little outdated on the info there.....

Here's some more for you.



Since what you see here represented about the entire armored defense of West Berlin, we referred to them as "Speed bumps for the Russians".



One thing I never realized is that tanks can skid on icy pavement just like cars. I remember being stopped at the bottom of a slight hill and having an M60 sliding sideways at our vehicle, that was entertaining....

During a block leave period for Christmas I didn't take leave. We were on a half day schedule, and my task for the week as a young Sergeant, was to try and tow a M1 into one of our bays for repairs. Took me all week because of the ice. Our motorpool was solid ice and it took very careful planning of the route, lots of reverse and a metric crap ton of cuss words to finally work it into the bay. Any time that M! would catch the slightest slope while towing it, it would slide. Quite the rodeo. Of course, half of each day was spent getting the M88 with its air cooled twin turbo charged 1790ci V12 diesel warmed up enough to move the damn thing.

Which is oddly very similar to shooting an ungulate through the ribs.

Just kidding, you tank guys have good stories.

Growing up in Minnesota I I could never not let up on the gas when they started to slide, just like slamming on the brakes with wheeled vehicle. In North America they got to turn every third or fourth track guide upside down for traction. Us Russian speed bumps stationed in Germany had to deal with it.

Those recovery 88 s were the Taj mahal. So much room in them. The 88 I got to ride in had the tape deck patched into the radio I will never forget a road march listening to ol Hank Jr.

Bingo!

"Sabot

Sabot rounds work like a basic arrow. They don't have any explosive power; they penetrate armor with shear momentum. The heart of the sabot round is the penetrator -- a narrow metal rod (typically depleted uranium) with a pointed nose on one end and stabilizing fins on the other. Before the round is fired, the rear part of the penetrator is attached to a propellant case, and the front part is attached to the sabot structure. The sabot's purpose is to keep the narrow penetrator centered in the wide gun barrel.

On firing, the propellant casing remains in the chamber, and the expanding gas pushes the sabot and attached penetrator down the barrel. The sabot is attached to the penetrator with relatively flimsy plastic, so it falls away as soon as the round leaves the cannon. The heavy penetrator flies through the air at high speed toward its target tank. Because of its narrow shape, the penetrator focuses its full force into a very small area, plowing straight through heavy armor. As the penetrator enters the tank, heated fragments of metal fly off in all directions, hitting anybody and anything inside."

I think you're wasting your time JWP. I posted a retard simple readers digest condensed version of that way back, and it got passed by. The only thing similar between a penetrator going through a tank, and a bullet going through a critter, is that it's an object going through another object. How a presumed educated man, can see parallels between the two, is beyond me.

Jeff

Agreed.

The elephant in the room is Jeff Bird clearly demonstrated full mastery of the concept of a DRT shot.

Why are you trolls not acknowledging such an educational video display and question him further on whether or not your own tactics will bring you success " when push comes to shove"?

As for me I am not going to discuss Armor tactics Training with hapless pukes like you any further, because there are young men in those Tanks defending u sorry ass trolls as we speak. I am so ashamed for your behavior. It is truly reprehensible.IMO

I should have never brought it up to such swine. I am ashamed of my self but I assumed I was amongst men and patriots. And I answered a question. I am an idiot.

U know what happens when one assumes.

Please refer to Jeff Bird for knowledge ...as Steel head says if u ain't got video....it never happened. He truly brings the goods to this thread. Thank you Jeff Bird!

.......but troll on troller dudes........just remember who is defending your ass as we speak.

Hope this helps.

# Not my Rodeo, Not my Clowns.

It certainly helps to peg you for the goof ball that you are. Thanks!

I think I've found the problem. You rely on guys on the internet to validate your "own tactics" so you'll know if they "bring you success." I don't.

I've validated my own tactics for myself, try it some time. But before you go, buy a whisk broom.

You'll need it to clean the sand out of your vagina. And on the patriot thing, I went to Iraq during the war, voluntarily. How about you?

Needing to minupulate another persons post to suit yourself again eh?

Got a chub now pal?


#Fake News .......CNN

If it ain't on video it never happened huh?



Troll on.

Nice try but I didn't "manipulate" your post. I quoted a question you directed at me verbatim, and I gave you my answer. Your post is still there for anyone to read and see for himself. I highly recommend it, that was entertaining. And enlightening.