Thats the word I was looking for HEAD.

wow, this got out of hand[:-]..my reason for concern was the fact that the round did not punch through on a 130 lb boar, what if it would have been a 250 lb boar? my guess is that I would have lost it. I have some fusions but I have heard mixed reviews. Anyhow, thanks for the advice guys.

You have good reason to be concerned. I would too. I had the same problem deer hunting this year. I was also disappointed in my 140 gr. Accubond bullet. Taking a quartering shot at a deer at 136 yards with my 7 mm-08 and not having a clean pass thru didn’t impress me at all and no blood trail...

Thx Trailer, at least I know that i'm not alone on this.

The 130 gran ballistic tip is not really designed for the ultra fast velocities of a 270wsm. It acts more like a varmint bullet than a big game bullet at 3300 fps. and tends to blow up rather than penetrate. It is better suited to velocities below 3000 fps and idealy at about 2700 - 2900 fps at impact.

Try the accubond instead of the ballistic tip. Same exact outsideprofile but with a thicker jacket and bonded core to prevent separation and provide better penetration.

And for the record a broadehad and a bullet don't come any where close to killing an animal in the same way. A broadhead does not transfer energy to the animal at all like a bullet does. A broadhead kills bycausing the animal to hemmorage bu cutting veins and arterieswhere as a bullet kills by hydrostatic shock causing major trauma far beyond just the path of the bullet.A broadhead that does not pass thru the animal does not cut as much tissue, veins and arteriesthere fore reduces the ammount of hemmoraging and prolongs death.A bullet that does not pass thru transfered 100% of its available energy to the animal and destroyed as much tissue as possible. Whena bullet doespass thru they waste a portion of that energy.

Wrong wrong wrong.
A bullet leaves a hole and nothing more, however its speed usually leaves a bigger hole than its expanded diameter, sometimes called cavitation or temporary wound cavity. Generally the higher the velocity the bigger the temorary or stretch cavity.
Heres a darn good read if you have time. I will copy just one important piece. and heres the link


http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html


There is a myth to the effect that a bullet which remains inside a target is more effective (in terms of stopping or killing power) than one which completely penetrates. This myth is not new. Colonel Townsend Whelen writes in his very illuminating treatise, Small Arms Design and Ballistics, that "the thought at that time was that the ideal bullet should just shoot through the animal to its opposite side, and lodge under the skin without penetrating clear through, thus expending all its energy on the beast" (p. 137). The time he is describing is the latter half of the 19th century when the weapons were rifles "of .45 caliber, shooting a bullet of 350 to 550 grains and with a charge of black powder sufficient to give it a muzzle velocity of from 1300 to 1500 fps" (p. 136). Even in these early days of ballistics inquiry the significance of kinetic energy was being examined.

Unfortunately the conclusion reached by some is arrant nonsense. It is interesting that the 19th century model of "energy dump" required the bullet to completely pass through the body, but stop under the skin on the off-side; combining the features of an "energy dump" with lethal penetration and cavitation.

There are at least two contemporary variations on the "energy dump" premise. The principal argument seems to center on the concept of "overpenetration", which is essentially the same thought as expressed in the 19th century but with the added evidence of actual results from gunfights on the street (the chief culprit being the rather pointed 9 mm FMJ bullet). Bullets which "overpenetrate" do not stop opponents as readily as those that remain in the body. Therefore, if the energy isn't "wasted" on exit, the bullet is more effective. Right?

Not exactly. A bullet of a given construction and impact velocity will create a cavity of predictable dimensions over its path, whether it stops or penetrates completely. Therefore, if the hole created can penetrate all the way through, it causes more damage than if it stops at some point. The critical issue here is what sort of hole are we making, not whether it goes all the way through. "Overpenetration" is a misnomer. The ineffective stopping attributed to overpenetration is actually caused by "undercavitation".

Bigbulls is completely correct in that an arrow(broadhead) and a (gun)bullet, for the most part,kill in a completely different manner. Argue whatever else you want to on this thread, but that much is fact.

It seems that fact is most often the thing that is questioned.

1. Bullets and broadheads= apples to oranges!
2. Complete pass-through with a bullet may OR may not be better than a bullet expending all of its energy inside the animal! With the right type of bullet, and velocity for the animal being hunted, one is no deadlier than the other!
3. Complete pass-through = better blood trail.
4. Most important here is....
short of a spinal, or brain hit, there IS NO guarantee of a drop-dead hit with just about any cartridge that you'd care to hunt with! (A square, double shoulder hit gives a great percentage of drop dead hits, but why waste that much good meat!!!???)

bullets arrows and knives all kill the same way.


copied and pasted.

Since the understanding of what causes effective wounding is prerequisite to any discussion of the desired terminal performance of a bullet, let us first examine the mechanisms of wounding which result in incapacitation and death.

Rapid death is brought about only by brain death (i.e., the collapse of the central nervous system). Brain death can be caused directly by damaging the brain or upper spinal tissue, or indirectly by depriving it of oxygen. Oxygen deprivation is the result of cardiac arrest or of hemorrhaging which reduces blood pressure or damage that completely shuts off the circulatory function. Thus rapid death is accomplished by causing the collapse of the central nervous or circulatory systems.

The single most important factor in wound lethality is bullet placement. This cannot be overstated. It is true that sometimes a direct hit on the brain by a bullet is not instantly incapacitating (read Massad Ayoob's "terminator" story from several years ago), but generally this is because that portion of the brain struck is the relatively "unimportant" part associated with cognition. Hits against the base of the brain or the upper spine are almost always instantly fatal because these regions control the involuntary vital functions like heartbeat and respiration.

In the case of hemorrhage resulting from damage to the lungs or arteries, brain death will likely occur prior to cessation of cardiac function; the time required for brain functions to deteriorate to the point of unconsciousness depending on the rate of hemorrhage. However, when damage is done directly to the heart, the circulatory function may be arrested first, leading to unconsciousness within a few seconds. There is another mechanism of cardiac arrest that is less well understood but which may account for the nearly instantaneous death of game animals hit with modern weapons and that is induced cardiac fibrillation and arrest. The precise mechanism for the onset of the cardiac arrest is not fully understood, but its effect is well documented. It may involve some type of local neurological or humeral communication between the heart and lungs that gets short-circuited. Alternatively, a violent wound to the lung tissue may create a tiny embolism that interrupts cardio-pulmonary function at a critical moment.

Other than hits to the central nervous system (brain and spine) or the unpredictable mechanism of spontaneous cardiac arrest, the only reliable cause of rapid death is through hemorrhaging produced by cutting a hole through major blood-bearing organs (heart, lungs, liver) or major blood vessels (e.g., aorta). The dimensions and especially the location of the cavity produced by the bullet will determine the rate of hemorrhaging and in turn the rapidity of the onset of death. It is actually more lethal in some cases to sever the arteries directly above the heart, than to penetrate the heart itself. If these arteries are cut, blood pressure instantly drops to zero and death will follow in seconds (this is one reason why an arrow can kill as fast as a bullet). Lethal hemorrhaging does not depend upon how much blood exits the body, but only upon the loss of blood pressure. A bullet which exhibits both expansion and deep penetration is desired. Three things are worth noting: 1) hemorrhaging in the thorax is far more severe in the case of pneumothorac injuries (collpased lung) than in vascular tissue such as muscle, due to the relative pressure difference between the pleural space and the cardio-vascular system, 2) the surface area of the wound, not its volume, is most related to the rate of hemorrhage, and 3) the body's natural response to hemorrhage, coagulation, is more pronounced in extremely violent wounds which rupture thrombocytes, releasing fibrin into the blood (in other words very sharp cuts generally bleed more freely and longer than ragged, macerated wounds - although a cleanly severed artery may spasm and close, whereas a torn artery may continue to bleed).