Velocity or weight?
 

Which do you think is a better killer: a high velocity, light bullet, or a low velocity, heavy bullet? I know that shot placement is most important, but let me specify the question some more. Which of the above two described bullets, if they have the same energy, will be more forgiving of shot placement and kill an animal more quickly with a less than ideal (but not terrible) shot? I personnally tend towards liking the fast, light bullets, as long as the bullets are not so light that they can't penetrate.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Either extreme can be bad. It really depends on the game you are pursuing and what distances you will be shooting. I guess I usually go for a "medium" bullet going at a fast clip. Here are some examples:

Deer: 130-140 grain shot from a 270 or larger going pretty fast. I use a 270 with a 130 grain remington corelokt or a 140 grain hornady light magnum

Elk: 160-180 grain shot from a 7mm or 30-06 or larger. You can also make these bullets go pretty fast. I use a 7mm mag with a 175 grain nosler partition.

There are a lot of firm believers in the "big, slow bullet" theory and I can't argue with there results. For shots less than 150 yards, they will probably do the killing job more effectively than a light fast bullets if the shot placement is not ideal. However, at 300 yards they drop so much you better have a rangefinder and a trajectory chart taped to your stock.

Bullet construction is as important as weight or speed. You need a premium bullet such as a nosler partition, barnes X, winchester fail safe, etc for elk sized game.

Venor ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Txhunter is right. If your shots are going to be 150 yards or less then the "heavy, slow" bullet will probably be a better choice. If you're reaching out 200 yards or better a lighter, faster bullet would be the choice.

Now before anybody starts jumping up and down I know that light fast bullets are more than capable of taking game very effectively at short ranges and heavy, slow moving bullets will kill game at longer ranges. At shorter ranges, light, fast bullets are traveling faster than their optimum impact velocity. Therefor, a good deal of their energy is somewhat wasted. It doesn't get dissipated inside the animal. The bullet will pass through(sometimes causing great damage) and expend it's energy on the helpless ground on the other side. The goal is to get as much of the energy expended INSIDE the animal as possible. A lot of these light, fast bullets don't slow down to their optimum impact velocity until they get out to 200 yards or better.

At longer ranges (200 yards or more) most heavy, slow moving bullets don't retain enough energy to do the job. Also, like txhunter, said you better know the trajectory of your bullet if your going to attempt a long shot with one of these.

Either one will work, but within certain parameters. If your shots will be at varying distances(short range AND long range) then go with a light or medium weight bullet. If the majority of your shots are going to be at short range(150 yards or less) then don't waste the money and energy of the lighter, faster bullets(they tend to be more expensive). A heavier, slower bullet will probably serve you better.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

I use my 45-70 with a 405 grain remington soft point at 1500 fps for brush hunting feral hogs. The reason is not that it will penetrate brush but that this load will give me total penetration from any angle. For deer hunting I use with my 7mm mauser and 30-06 I push medium weight bullets to 2600 fps, this gives me a useful trajectory to 250 yards and somewhat lessened meat damage and good penetration. My 300 Win mag gets 200 grain bullets pushed near 2900 fps for any open country elk hunting I do. My long range mulie needs are met easily with loads featuring 150-165 grain bullets with velocities of 2850-3000 fps.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Use heavy and fast. That is why so many people are using magnums these days.
Light and fast works with controlled expansion bullets like the Barnes X.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Out of the two choices you specified, heavy + slow or light + fast, I would choose light and fast.;)

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Tussey,
You said you' ve been on the forum before, so I assume you already know that posing a general - highly arguable - unprovable question will generate lots of fussing.

I would say it would help for you to qualify " what" we' re hunting as it may influence our reply: prairie dogs versus moose..... may make a difference.

Varmits: fast and light, faster the better -- explode them.

Most deer: Midrange anything is fine, they kill fairly easy.

Assuming the game is over 300 pounds, then.... Big AND Fast!
Of course that means magnums, and....
Of course that brings out the " why/recoil/flinch/recoil shy/never owned anything like that/don' t like that/saw somebody get busted up at the range once" response....

Good thing I take my vitamins,
Oh well, enjoy the show!

Never Go Undergunned,
EKM

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

My fastest kills have been light fast bullets.I have killed over a dozen deer each with the 257wby using 100gr bullets and 7mmstw using 140gr bullets.My fastest moose and elk kills were with the 300ultramag and 180gr bullets.With these combinations most animals drop on the spot and not one has covered 50yards after being hit.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

For big game I like heavy fast well constructed bullets. I am a firm beliver in Sectional Density. Good luck.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Yes, I realize that this will cause some debate. I don' t mean it to cause arguments, though. I am just curious to see the experiences of others related to the velocity vs. weight argument. Instead of learning from one person' s experience (ourselves), we might be able to get some imput and experiences from others as well, for a fairer comparison of the issue.

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Where I hunt I match my bullet to the animal. For example deer, I like fast, flat bullets usually BT style. For Moose and Elk I would rather have energy, so a slower bullet with max. punch. That being said I am not a believer in 200 grain leads works better for moose or elk, in my experience 160-180 well constructed bullet will get the job done just fine.

I rarely base my bullet selection on numbers published but rather by range, effectiveness, game and what shoots the best out of the rifle I intend on using.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Energy to be expended to damage vital organs increases at a proportional rate with increase in slug weight; however, energy increases exponentially to the rate of increase of velocity. Higher velocity kills more effectively.

Although as stated earlier, either weight or velocity taken to an extreme defeats itself at some point. You just have to find the right balance between these 2 main variables for whatever game you are using it for.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

[>:][:@][>:][:@] Thinkin hard aren' t ya?

I shoot a .30-06, which is a fast medium weight bullet, and a .44 mag, which is a slow heavy bullet, not to mention my .45-70' s! I' ve also used .25-06' s and a few 7mm' s, and I much prefer the slower heavyweights to the speedballs. Don' t get me wrong, I love fast flat shooters on hunts I think I' ll really shoot out there a long way and on paper, but if a guy really thinks about it, the heavier bullets gonna retain more energy down range than the faster lighter bullets. Brick fallin on your foot from four inches (VERY low velocity) will hurt a lot more than a marble fallin on your foot from even four feet (much much greater velocity). I' ve shuddered deer with 7mms, then they fall, but at similar practical hunting ranges, the .45-70 bullet knocks them over, it really is like they got hit by a truck.

Energy transfer in big bullets is also much better, since they are much wider. I shoot very hard bullets in my .45-70, and they don' t deform much goin through a deer, and I can usually eat right up to the hole unless I hit the shoulder, where as with 7mm' s I used medium construction bullets that did a lot of damage and didn' t kill as quickly. The hole is big enough in itself that it doesn' t need a drastically expanded wound tract to make a quick kill, while with light bullets too hard of bullet/too small of wound tract would leave a lung shot deer to run a half mile.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Energy transfer is dependant on the volume of the wound channel that the bullet makes.The largest wound chanels that I have seen were made with fast expanding bullets at high velocity.A large slow moving bullet that does not expand much actually makes a smaller wound channel than a faster moving but smaller diameter bullet that expands to a much greater diameter.As for the silly analogy about the brick and marble let us compare their weights.The brick would probably weigh a couple of pounds compared to an ounce for the marble.So in other words the brick probably weighs 30 times that of the marble.For this analogy to be accurate the heavier bullet would therefore have to weigh 30 times that of the lighter bullet.If the lighter bullet was 150gr which is a common weight the larger bullet would weigh 4500gr. How many people use a 4500gr bullet?The analogy doesn' t really make much sense does it?Giving a person the choice of being hit in the chest with a 150gr bullet fired by a 30-06 or a baseball thrown by hand would be just as accurate.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

For equal energy I would take the heavy bullet based on the results Ive seen. Provided the light one was less than about 200 grains.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

im a heavy and " slow" . something like a 35whelen its not ultra slow or ultra big. but i think a very nice cartridge

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

Nomercy - You may prefer heavy and slow slug, but your example about the brick and marble is not based on Physics. Two objects regardless of weight and size dropped from the same height will travel at the same velocity and strike your foot or ground at the same time. (Aside from the resistance of air.) So in a vacuum, even a feather and a brick or piano will travel at the same velocity dropped to the ground. Don' t you remember one of the guys who went to the moon tested this law of Physics with a hammer and a light object (maybe it was a feather) there?

I think in order to test your theory you' d have to make some test shots in a material similar to an animal' s body. I think without question if you compared the effects of a slow heavy slug like a vintage .50+ caliber muzzleload to a 180 or even 150 grain ultra magnum load you' d be amazed at the greater damage the ultra magnum or other high velocity load would cause.

Or if you want to stick with your brick and a smaller weight object example. To make it a good analogy you' d have to drop the brick from waist high on a target and a golf ball from 300 yards high (where the velocity of the ball would be greater). Don' t drop it on your foot through, it might put you in a cast for awhile.

RE: Velocity or weight?
 

How about medium wieght and medium velocity? I know its not very " fashionable" but it is exactly what worked for many years. Before that it was slow and heavy. The rage today seems to be light and fast. Dead is dead.
The fact is that it is a combination of more than 2 factors. It is bullet wieght combined with bullet construction with an appropriate velocity for the job at hand. Fact is for most all north american biggame hunting velocities from 2400 fps to 2900 fps in bullet wieghts of 130 - 180 will suffice nicely when the hunter does his job.
Shoot whatever you like and whatever does the job for you.