SwampCollie

That is one of the more ignorant posts I have ever read. A solid does not pancake at all. It is designed to break the bones of some of the toughest animals on the planet and retain its original shape and trajectory. If a solid bullet has pancaked, rolled, or caved in, then it has failed. This is one area where I do believe very very strongly in bullet performance! Read that one Pavo! (thats not a call out either bro, we went our ten rounds). When a solid bullet hits bone, it turns the pieces of that bone into what is effectively shrapnel that is directed right into the lungs and heart area of an animal. The thought that they "zip" or "pencil" through an animal while doing little or no damage is not only false, but really a wide spread lie. Solids are used extensively in dangerous game hunting because deflected bullets, that are redirected off bones as thick as a major leauge baseball bat, are often deflected away from the vitals and that creates a very dangerous situation. Most dangerous game, buffalo especially, are only mildly dangerous when unmolested. They would rather just turn tail and run off than charge... they very seldom attach unprovoked or uninjured. But if you bugger one up, they will stop at positively nothing short of death to make sure that you pay for your poor shooting. Expanding bullets are frequently used in the hunting of cape buffalo however, especially in "herd hunting" situations where a solid drilling through one animal leaves the chance of injuring another in the herd. An expanding bullet is less likely to exit, and if it does exit is seldom carrying enough energy to even break the skin of another animal. Remember, this is an animal that quite often fights off prides of lionesses... often carrying one on its back. Solids are often used when following up a buffalo, where not getting to the vitals can mature your term life insurance policy pretty fast.

"A bullet that does not get to the vitals of an animal... a bullet that does not achieve its intended target.... is worse than worthless and very frequently fatal to the man who fired it."
-W.D.M. Karamojo Bell

And by the way... ethics are nothing more than applied opinions.... you can't argue ethics any better than you can argue politics, women or guns. Its subjective... like a cooking contest or something... you cannot quantify it. Several states have chosen to make armor piercing, full metal jacket bullets vertboten... is it unethical to use them?... well its often illegal... and in my opinion it is rather foolish considering that there are many better choices for whitetail deer.

There is a VAST difference between a solid and a FMJ/armor piercing bullet. Although at the end of the day, they are really designed for much the same purpose... get through whatever is in the way to get to the intended target in tact... whether that is mud, hide and bone or steel, concrete and a flak jacket. They do have their place in hunting... just not for medium sized, thin skinned game like whitetail deer.

SwampCollie

Those two statements directly contradict each other. Infact, your personal experiences acctually dismiss the theory of hydrostatic shock.... at least as you describe them.


Again... a solid is differnet than an FMJ. However, by your own admission, a bullet should be matched for the game it is used on... and there are game animals in this world that merit the use of solid ammunition. Ironically as well... FMJ bullets are designed to work at all ends of the spectrum, espeically at higher velocites. I concur that FMJs are not hunting bullets.. well... maybe if you are hunting insurgents... but not as they apply here. Solids, however, are indeed hunting rounds.

The whole FMJ thing started as a rhetorical statement, and kinda became the theme of this thread, when infact, nobody ever suggested using them. It was written as a touche comment, and then several comments were made afterward that a FMJ bullet will infact kill a deer. That was about the extent of it. You really missed about 50% of what was said, as the mods came through and cleaned up a full half of the posts. What you ended up reading was a bunch of PG rated posts that have lots of other posts between them..so if something didn't make any sense when you read them... thats why.

And whats up with all the ethics posts.... ????

Jeff Ovington

I don't know whats up with the ethics post..
Tell ya what, I going up to my buddies ranch in a couple of weeks, I'll ask him if we can rope a couple doz cows to his fence (cause there getting slaughtered eventually anyways)
To heck with the fact its calving season,
(they ain't worth squat to him any more anyways), and will put this high velocity killing power theory to the test..

SwampCollie

TJEN

May be we all can agree on this. A bullet needs to hit a vital spot, expand as designed, and penitrate 100% for a fast kill. All are important and any one of these criterias left out will be less effective.

Most seem to be in one camp or the other but I shot both types. For instance I shoot a 270win alot and either a 35whelen/358win/35rem and both make DRT kills but not always and the slower bullets don't Bruse as much meat or organs. But seem to bleed better and die faster when the shotwasn't DRT. I believe less brusing is less trama and more bleeding just like sharp broadheads work. Less trama less quawagulets? and more bleeding.

Most solids and hard cast bullets have melpate or flat purtions on the tip and are big bores thats .410 and up they don't need to expand they are allready as large or larger than most small bores can expand to. They give up expantion for increased penitration on very large game where it is more effective than hydrstatic shock. These guys are not impressed with KE numbers just the bigest longest whole possible. If you could shoot a cape buffalo with a Browning Machine Gun round he might be impressed but not not by any 308 caled magnium or 338 for that matter.

Jeff Ovington

No I havn't read it..
I'll find it....Thanks..
And ya the good stuff if its a go I'll certainly pack in dry ice, and send them east.

JagMagMan

Wheres the contradiction? There is none!

SwampCollie

JagMag:

Your #1 opinion/stance in your post was that "Speed Kills," and that you subscribed the hydrostatic theory. That meaning that a fast bullet creates a "shock wave" of energy that drops the animal dead in its tracks. Or so it is supposed to.

You went on to write, that there are "just too many factors in DRT performance" and that "pure 'knockdown' is a myth with the exception of a brain/spine shot!"

Those statements contradict each other. Do they not? Would you not agree that it would be contradictory if I told you that "I like jam on my toast" and then went on to say that "I prefer butter only as I don't care for jam"?

If you were a follower of hydrostatic theory, wouldn't you hypothisize that the main factor in "DRT" performance would be a bullet/cartridge that generates the most "shock"? I'm not calling you a heretic from the hydrostatic church or anything or that you ought to be drummed out... I don't believe in it myself.... I was merely pointing out that you'd doubled back on yourself. Its all in good fun and debate and education here. I'm not trying to stir up a fight with you or anything.

I went on to write that you final statement in the first quotation/example actually negated your first statement.... by you witnessing deer drop dead from being hit with a 100gr 6mm bullet, as compared to others running off mortal struck from .300 magnums... the .300s of course generate MUCH more energy, theorhetically giving them more "shock" effect.

I do concur with you that "knockdown" is a misnomer as it is used with bullets and terminal performance. It would take something of greater mass or greater momentum than the deer to actually "knock it over". How a deer shot with a bullet reacts lies mainly on where the bullet hits.. and according the article at the beginning of this thread, exactly what stage of the cardiovascular cycle the animal is in when it is hit. All this of course, applys only to heart/lung shot game. A brain/spine shot (which is how I prefer to take most of my game with a rifle) doesn't really apply to that line of thought. But bullet placement is still critical, as you also pointed out.

JagMagMan

I didn't say that it knocks them dead in their tracks.
I think that it does a better job of it though.
I also think that the "DRT" (other than a spine/head shot) is unpredictable! That is where the comparison between small/large calibers comes from. While some cartridges probably have a better DRT ratio than others, if you don't hit spine/brain you can use identical loads and one animal will drop, while the next will run!

SwampCollie

No you didn't say that. But you said that you subscribed to "hydrostatic theory". If you say that you are a Christian there are a set of beliefs that follow that... such as accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior. If you say you are a Christian, it means you align yourself with these beliefs.... same goes for subscribing to hydrostatic theory.

Maybe you are talking about something totally different, so let me define what you are saying you agree with when you say you are subscribing to hydrostatic theory: Hydrostatic theory is the idea that a bullet kills by setting up a "shock wave" in the incompressible water of which an animal's body is largely composed. So while you didn't say THAT in quotes.... you said that you "subscribed to hydrostatic theory"... I'm just letting you know what you're subscribed too....

The problem I have with this, is that science has proved that shock waves cannot and do not exist or occur in incompressible fluids. Thats why I personally don't believe in hydrostatic shock. Thats my opinion.... I'm not saying its wrong or ignorant or stupid to believe in hydrostatic theory.... personally I don't care what you believe; your's are your own.

As to it being unpredictable... yes, I agree. But that itself counters the theory of hydrostatic shock! Seems to me that you are agreeing that you contradicted yourself....