Lee

It has been my thought all along that I demand that the 'hydrostatic shock' need to occur in the animal. For years I called it 'Hydrualic Shock' as I understood fluid properties a bit. One of the keys for me is that I believe that this shock effect helps 'over-ride' the 'flight' response of the animal. Often the 'flight' response can occur even if the animal is dead, but if the internal shock is great enough it often seems to over-ride even the delayed 'flight' response.

Further, I believe this fluid shock is directly connected to the design of the bullet. All bullets applied in the right spot will create some fluid shock, but not all bullets are as effecient at it as others. Finding the one that are effecient is the key and the search for me. In that search I have often deserted the best looking or the most areodynamic bullets.

I am/was big believer in the power of the 270 and mostly the power of the little .277/130 grain bullet. With that gun and that bullet with its veloicity and energy it could perform assume acts on animals. For years I used it on anything Idaho had to offer.

In the ML I like to shoot light fast flat bullets that perform... the biggy is the fast part - the part that creates energy... and the faster you shoot the projectile the stronger it has to be just to stay together.

A friend of mine is convinced that a .40/200 grain from a ML will work very well on an elk, and often it might/would. But, what about the times when it might not and in those cases because I can not get the velocity to achieve the energy i do choose to shoot a heavier bullet that with less velocities will produce greater energy over a longer range of yardage, but then again you still have to find the bullet that will stay together and product that massive shock - well you don have to but in the case of elk it could be a lot more difficult packing trip or even loss of an animal.

Sorry for the rambling - it makes sense in my mind - but I hate writing