wahunterinrok

definitly theory #2
I had deer run for a while when I was subscribing to #1, but when I went with #2 both deer fell with in sight from where they were shot.....

Charley

I like theory number 4. I prefer cast bullets (orballs)that are as large entering as most expanding bullets are exiting. Never had one not pass thru.

James B

I like Number two. I try to use just enough velocity and bullet SD. To do enough damage for a clean kill without blowing the H out things and then exit. This takes a lot of testing and keeping records but I usually accomplish just that. For deer thats a bullet of about 210-230. at about 2700 FPS. If the rifles lacks that velocity then I go with a heavier bullet. I still like to see the bullet exit. I have come to the point where I don't want any load going over 2800 fps. Keeps down the bloodshot meat. Two good examples of my deer loads would be the 6.5 120 caliber and 284 caliber 120 grain bullets at about 2700-2750 fps. One exception is the 6.5x55 with the 140 grain Hornady SP at about the same speed. Kills like a lightning very little meat damage. NO trailing.

handloader1

# 2. Good luck.

Todd1700

I like number two as well for the following reasons.

1. Theory number two is going to give you a more consistentexit hole and that means a better blood trail. A good blood trail is kinda like that old saying about having a handgun for personal defence. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

2. Despite their more explosive nature I have not seen highly frangible bullets deliver on their promise to consistently drop game right there on the spot. Many still makethat 40 to 60 yard death dash just like they do with the theory 2 bullets.

3. Not all shots are perfect broadsides. Theory two bullets are gonna penetrate better on less than perfect shot angles.

etothepii

I guess the "Ideal" would be theory two, in which there was just enough energy left to create a good exit wound.

Paul L Mohr

I'm gonna dissagree on the wound not bleeding. I don't know about high powered rifles. I hunt with a bow and modern muzzle loader. The deer I kill bleed like a stuck pig from the exit and entrance wounds. You can see it on weeds and trees or anything else on the way to where they keel over dead. I have even seen it running out of them when they stop to look around or jump a fence.

If I don't have something with a enough shock to knock it down on the spot, I want an exit wound as well an entrance wound. And I want to damege the least amount of meat possible.

That is what I have seen any way.

Paul

razormatt

Well, I'm not a handloader so I don't have nearly the experience many here have with various specific bullet types, etc., and cannot offer any insight to that part of the discussion.

It sounds like the basic difference in theories 1 and 2 are simply the absence or presence of an exit-wound, respectively.

I'd have to say that what the bullet passes through between the entrance-wound and exit-wound are what is, BY FAR, most critical in determining if it will be an effective shot or not, certainly more than whether or not there is an exit-wound.

The idea is for that bullet to destroy as much tissue, break as many bones, penetrate and prevent internal organ functions, all that fit somewhere in the range between the smallest diameter bullet with the lightest weight with the slowest velocity that's still big enough and the biggest diameter bullet, with the heaviest weight and the fastest velocity that's pracitical enough to kill the thing with.

If you destroy key internal organs (heart, lungs, brain), break bones (especially shoulders, legs, backs, and necks), or cause massive internal bleeding, that deer is going to die whether the bullet exits or not.

An exit wound means more blood on the ground for tracking purposes, but internal bleeding will kill the thing just as fast if the blood isn't in it's intended stream.

I'm for theory Dead.

Roskoe

I usually go for theory #1, but want a bullet that can blow a fist size hole through the lungs.It can't come apart - and I don't want it to open up so quickly so it dumps most of its energy going through the ribs either. The best bullet I have used to date for this kind of wound channel is the Swift Scirocco. And when a bullet performs like this, I could care less if it exits or not. The animal is DRT.

gorse

Theory #2. The "hydrostatic shock" theory is (and always has been) in serious doubt...the evidence is by no means conclusive. In fact, this theory has been largely discredited. Bullet wounds also do NOT "knock an animal off it's feet"...unless it's a 20mm explosive shell, for example. Death occurs from blood loss and the onset of cardiovascular "shock"....(i.e., bleeding out, either external or internal).... it does not occur just from tissue damage, unless the tissue damage is so severe as to cause immediate collapse of the circulatory or nervous systems (the 20mm shell, or something similar, as mentioned before)... or the loss or severing of some vital organ (picture a high-explosive shell blowing off the head, for instance - thus severing the brain from the body). Frangible bullets, in terms of "immediate put-down" of game, or any other living target, are not as effective as those causing the "theory #2" type of damage, especially for medium to large game (or even humans, for that matter). Frangible bullets are best used for headshots, at close range...i.e., assassinations, things of that nature.... or particularly small game, such as those animals used as targets for "varmint hunting".