Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: All the way through on large game animals?

  1. #1

    Question All the way through on large game animals?

    I've been having a friendly disagreement with some friends. We all shoot 500 S&W handguns. We ran into a difference of opinion about bullet selection for large game animals (Elk, Moose, Brown Bear, Bison). I shoot a 420gr bullet @ 1550 fps that will penetrate clear through, just about anything that I hit with it, with no expansion and no weight loss. They shoot 500gr@1325fps jacketed and 700gr@1100 fps hard cast bullets they expand, but don't penetrate nearly as far. Their bullets do hold together well and don't lose much of their weight. What are the opinions here?
    Thanks,
    ennis

  2. #2
    Member Casper50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    627

    Default

    If it goes through there is wasted energy. I'd rather have all of the energy expended in the animal. I like a large hole for bleeding also. JMHO

  3. #3
    Member akndres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    177

    Default

    I would try to find some rounds made of depleted uranium... They work pretty well on tanks....

    I think you all are having too much fun debating an issue that you are all right on. I personally wouldn't want to get hit by any of those... and in the average save your ass bear encounter, you would want to be able to make multiple control fire shots. All the penetration in the world is nothing if you miss the first time and can't make a quick follow-up... but I trust you all know what your doing.

    I think my money would go to the 700 grain hard cast. If it is shedding it's shape too readily, then it's not hard enough. If the bullets integrity is intact though, the inertia of a 700 grain bullet would be hard to slow down. I think it would have you on deformation resistance and penetration. It's hard to beat a heavy slow solid bullet...JMO
    "The rich... who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own excellence, these are the real enemies of game".... Theodore Roosevelt's A Principle of the Hunt

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    402

    Default it's all good

    The expanding loads would probably be best for hunting in good conditions like broad side views and standing still critters.

    Moving shots like charges and running away "Arkansas heart shots" would prove out your non expanding deep penetration load superior.

    Much like hunting cape buff you could have the expanding load as the 1st round and all others after that as deep penetrating non expanding for the fun stuff when it starts.

    Also, as far as a round going all the way through wasting energy.....sorta true....like a 1st aid kit takes up ruck space and adds hump weight....it's only wasted till you need it, then your glad it's there.

    Besides, two holes bleed better than one.

    I am just going on your provided info.

    jedi
    Last edited by null20071; 06-12-2007 at 13:34.

  5. #5
    Member akndres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akndres View Post

    I think my money would go to the 700 grain hard cast. If it is shedding it's shape too readily, then it's not hard enough. If the bullets integrity is intact though, the inertia of a 700 grain bullet would be hard to slow down. I think it would have you on deformation resistance and penetration. It's hard to beat a heavy slow solid bullet...JMO
    I wrote that under the assumption that you were making a defensive stand against Bart's cousins...

    If it is a hunting situation, then I would go with the jacketed ammo. I want it mushrooming, releasing all it's energy in the animal, and if it has enough inertia to exit...that's a positive.

    I agree two holes are better than one in a hunting situation. However, I agree with the other poster about the one hole ideology. If a good deal of the energy is still contained in the bullet, then yes to a great extent it's wasted.

    One would want to find a bullet/powder load that deposits the majority of its energy into the animal and can still make an exit wound...IMO
    "The rich... who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own excellence, these are the real enemies of game".... Theodore Roosevelt's A Principle of the Hunt

  6. #6
    Member svehunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Stockholm,Sweden
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casper50 View Post
    If it goes through there is wasted energy. I'd rather have all of the energy expended in the animal. I like a large hole for bleeding also. JMHO
    I agree with that

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akndres View Post

    One would want to find a bullet/powder load that deposits the majority of its energy into the animal and can still make an exit wound...IMO
    Agreed,thats about right, it's just almost impossible to do with a side shot with 2.5 ft penetration needed and then a longitudinal shot where 6 or 7ft of penetration is needed and do it all with the same load.

    Thats why I kinda went to the cape buff hunting method of having a soft in the chamber and all the rest in the mag as solids.

    jedi

  8. #8
    Member Marc Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    1,279

    Default A little uncomfortable...

    with a bullet that stops short of an exit wound. But only a little:

    A projectile that does not produce an exit wound spent too much time "with the brakes on". That could mean not enough gun, not enough powder, too much distance between gun and animal, too light a projectile, too heavy a projectile for the powder load, too fragile a projectile, and-on-and-on. All of which are not optimal.

    It is my opinion that OPTIMALLY, what I want is a large entry wound, a large wound channel with destruction along the way and a large exit wound. This situation promotes the most blood loss and quick death. A bullet that fragments delivers quite a punch during that fragmentation, and creates alot of peripheral damage; Although great for the quick-kill, it may not produce a great blood trail. "May not" - no definites.

    When tracking a bear, I prefer "Will Not" to "May Not" have to track it too far.

    With a well placed shot, time will kill the animal. Almost any animal. However, when I'm inspecting a site where the animal was shot, having departed, and although hit to my satisfaction I'd also like to see spray out "the other side" in order to get that comfortable feeling that I won't be tracking it too far.

    Lethal is lethal and I am comfortable with that. I don't think there's a "wrong" here, just a couple "not-as-right's".

    For the record, I've taken bear with .270, .308, .30 SAUM, .375 and .45-70 in ascending order. I've had my share of pass-through's and non-pass-throughs. I prefer the pass-through's.

    The most comfortable thought behind all of this is that we have hunters who care to give it their consideration either way!

    Taylor

  9. #9

    Default The shot

    A big hole all the way through. I would rather waste "energy" on the horizon then not have enough.

  10. #10
    Member ozhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    177

    Default

    I was told by an old dude that the "ideal" bullet is one that kills the animal quickly and humanely and to do that it needs to be placed in the right spot by the hunter.

    An old saying I heard somewhere "Don't matter how big your rifle is, you hit him in the foot with a .460 he ain't going down any time soon"

    The same fella also said if there is such thing as a perfect performance from a penetration view point, it is a projectile that retains most of it's weight, mushrooms well and leaves a "blister" under the off side skin. (Stops under the skin on the off side)

    I don't beleive there is a 100% solid answer to this question. Some places you go (Africa) they like a pass through to give a good solid blood trail, cause not many critters go straight down over there IMO (or anywhere for that matter.)

    Me. I don't have a preference one way or the other. I think accuarcy, placement and enough gun (don't take a cap gun to a duel) are more important than whether a projectile passes through or not

    oz
    il vaut mieux Ítre bon que la chance

  11. #11
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    First velocity trumps mass because E=mv^2 so the velocity of the bullet it far more important than the mass on impact. As for knock down power take a car crash for instance which will cause more damage to the car, running into a brick wall or running into a plywood wall? The answer is of course the brick wall because the car is likely to go through the plywood wall the energy of empact will be dissapated over more distance and more time and thus the car will have less damage. The same can be true for bullets if they are of the same speed and relitively the same mass one that is fully jacketed to pass through will do less damage than say a hollow point that won't pass through, however in your situation with 2 different masses and velocities you need to know the entrance and exit speeds of both bullets and do the folling for both

    E(entering) - E(exiting) = Total energy of the bullet inflicted

    whichever is higher wins since they both are fully jacketed I would argue that your pass through shot would actually dissapate more energy while traveling through the game because it is traveling at a much higher velocity (remeber velocity trumps mass) and thus has more kinetic energy
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    402

    Default ?????

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    First velocity trumps mass because E=mv^2 so the velocity of the bullet it far more important than the mass on impact.

    (remeber velocity trumps mass) and thus has more kinetic energy
    First off a .172 diameter 25 grain bullet at 4000 fps from a .17 remington can never and will never ever do anywhere near as much damage as a .423 diameter 400 grain bullet at 2400 fps from a .404 Jeffrey Rimless Nitro Express.

    I have witnessed this and find any math calculation which argues with this kinda absurd.

    Feel free to take out 2 hams and shoot each one with a bullet and compare.

    Just my opinion based on actual field expierence and observation without benefit of calculator or slide rule.

    Think your calculation ignores MOMENTUM, gyroscopic stability,true center,mass center, gyroscopic center,bullet integrity due to gyroscopic revolutions per second,inertia and several other key factors that escape me at the moment.

    Just my opinion and open to civil discussion if you disagree.

    jedi

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jedi rifleman View Post

    Think your calculation ignores MOMENTUM, gyroscopic stability,true center,mass center, gyroscopic center,bullet integrity due to gyroscopic revolutions per second,inertia and several other key factors that escape me at the moment.
    oh yeah, it forgot permanent wound channel and temporary stretch cavity.

    Temporary stretch cavity (mostly higher velocities) really dosent matter since it will return to shape after inital shock unless an organ with limited elasticty is streched beyond its limits like a liver.

    Permanent crush cavity is devastating at all times....that tissue is gone and not ever going to function again.

    So in my opinion a bullet that mushrooms or comes apart and dumps all its energy short of reaching the heart, yet displaces alot of temporary tissue, with stretch from velocity dump, of 5 inches diameter that closes up again is not as good as a round that only destroys a .50 caliber hole all the way through the heart and out the other side.

    jedi

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    132

    Default Not the same

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    First velocity trumps mass because E=mv^2 so the velocity of the bullet it far more important than the mass on impact. As for knock down power take a car crash for instance which will cause more damage to the car, running into a brick wall or running into a plywood wall? The answer is of course the brick wall because the car is likely to go through the plywood wall the energy of empact will be dissapated over more distance and more time and thus the car will have less damage. The same can be true for bullets if they are of the same speed and relitively the same mass one that is fully jacketed to pass through will do less damage than say a hollow point that won't pass through, however in your situation with 2 different masses and velocities you need to know the entrance and exit speeds of both bullets and do the folling for both

    E(entering) - E(exiting) = Total energy of the bullet inflicted

    whichever is higher wins since they both are fully jacketed I would argue that your pass through shot would actually dissapate more energy while traveling through the game because it is traveling at a much higher velocity (remeber velocity trumps mass) and thus has more kinetic energy
    I don't think your above statement holds water. A car running into a 5/8" plywood wall or a 5/8" wall of bricks will the same thing, pass thru. Now imagine a bug hitting a windshield, it doesn't matter if the windshield is going 30MPH or 130MPH the results are the same, SPLAT.
    I don't believe there is any absolute when it comes to debating penetrating thru or stopping inside the animal. There are too many variables. The only thing I do know is that every animal I have ever poked thru the heart/lung area has died, and in short order. Sometimes the bullet exited, sometimes it didn't. I've used the super magnums and I've used the obsolete smokepoles.

  15. #15
    Member akndres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    177

    Default

    AKPM

    What your saying makes sense on paper, but falls flat in a real world situation. I run into this all the time dealing with inexperienced aircraft structural engineers. They give out repair guidance based on book knowledge. After having to trying it their way, we almost always end up repairing aircraft in-accordance-with common sense and job experience. We make the repair recommendation then they bless it.

    My point is, there are too many factors that have to be taken into consideration that the simple formula doesn't address. If a dead bear could talk... I'm sure he would say that getting shot in the face with a slower 700 grain bullet knocked him more stupid than the faster 420.

    I'll take a wide meplat induced knock-down any day over velocity (in regards to big game).

    Slow and steady....knocks the s#%t out of them.
    "The rich... who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own excellence, these are the real enemies of game".... Theodore Roosevelt's A Principle of the Hunt

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    402

    Default beer loss

    Quote Originally Posted by akndres View Post
    AKPM

    If a dead bear could talk... I'm sure he would say that getting shot in the face with a slower 700 grain bullet knocked him more stupid than the faster 420.

    .
    Reading this as I drink a beer....pictured this in my mind as I was reading and spit beer everywhere lol ...colorful way to put it.....gotta find a towel to wipe off screen....

    jedi

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .338 mag. View Post
    A big hole all the way through. I would rather waste "energy" on the horizon then not have enough.
    Totally agree. Give me two holes for bleeding. No animal was ever killed by the small amount of energy generated by any big bore rifle caliber. They are killed due to loss of blood and broken down bones and organs.

    If you think energy has anything to do with it I suggest you hang up a 100 pound sand bag and shoot it with a large caliber bullet that expands and stays in the bag. Even calibers with over 5,000 pounds of "energy" will barely make the bad wiggle.
    Tennessee

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    402

    Default weird numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Ennis View Post
    I've been having a friendly disagreement with some friends. We all shoot 500 S&W handguns. We ran into a difference of opinion about bullet selection for large game animals (Elk, Moose, Brown Bear, Bison). I shoot a 420gr bullet @ 1550 fps that will penetrate clear through, just about anything that I hit with it, with no expansion and no weight loss. They shoot 500gr@1325fps jacketed and 700gr@1100 fps hard cast bullets they expand, but don't penetrate nearly as far. Their bullets do hold together well and don't lose much of their weight. What are the opinions here?
    Thanks,
    ennis
    I can see where some confusion arises over velocity and weight and penetration and deformation.

    This is why I said "based on your provided information"

    Aparently hardness is the key...or gyroscopic instability due to twist letting the 700 go sideways early.

    All bullets being the same hardness then the 700 wins everytime as long as it is stabile and straight.

    A faster twist would probably give the 700 a huge advantage in penetration unless it was as soft as a sneaker full of s41t.

    Knowing nothing but what the writer says and making due with his info....if he says the 420 out penetrates then it would be the best even though it goes against the numbers.

    Like I said, maybe this is a mute argument if the twist is causing the bullet of 700 grains a huge disadvantage of not stabilizing it good enough.

    Because it sure seems like it should be the winner.

    jedi

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    402

    Default sideways bullet

    A bullet that goes sideways on impact is the same as an expanding bullet almost.

    Its sectional density (calculations from which assume diameter being 90 degrees to flight direction)and therefore penetration go out the window.

    It will more than double its frontal area (since the side becomes the front in travel)very fast and start to shed energy and velocity very fast.

    This has to be the reason for the 420 out penetrating the other 2 heavier bullets as the author claims.

    Velocity adversly affecting penetration through flesh usually dosent occur untill 1600fps-2400fps depending on bulet profiles like roundnose and flat points of solid and hardcast designs.

    jedi
    Last edited by null20071; 06-13-2007 at 17:07.

  20. #20

    Default

    One thing that is important to keep in mind when comparing who's gun is best is that shooting at something like sand, wet newspaper, ballistic gel is that you are not shooting a living creature. What exactly happens once a bullet hits an animal is not as well understood as many think.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •