rockport

This is getting way to complicated.

nchawkeye

Oh, we bow hunt, I personally killed my first deer in 1969 with a 45 pound Bear Recurve and Bear broadhead...I'm also very careful where I set up to bow hunt as well, a well hit deer with a broadhead seldom goes more than 50-60 yards and if hit properly there is plenty of tracking blood...

nchawkeye

Ok guys, I didn't want to type out a chapter on this but here goes...

We own 3 farms in eastern NC, kill 45-60 deer a year and have since the early '60s...I have 2 brothers and plenty of family that hunts...So,we have killed a ton of deer with about every type weapon that can be used...

A few years back, I decided to try every factory loading for a .243... I and a few buddies use this cartridge...I've personally killed about 300 deer with mine...What we found out is that the standard cup and core type bullets were actually putting deer down quicker than the premium bullets...They didn't always pass through but with center lung shots the deer went down within 40-60 yards...With the premium it would be closer to 60-100 yards...

Something else we have noticed through the years, larger calibers do usually give more pass throughs but not always a better blood trail...Exit holes can and do get blocked by intestines, fat, muscle, whatever...In addition, we also noticed that with a larger caliber and a center lung shot there was no noticeable difference between how far a deer ran...There was more difference seen in the type bullet used within the caliber than simply moving to a larger caliber...

So, in our opinion, with whitetails the standard CoreLokts, InterLokts, PowerPoints, HotCors and GameKings were superior to the higher priced premium bullets...

Topgun 3006

Your post is not at all surprising nchawkeye! All it takes is a little common sense that if a bullet is designed to expand greatly at a certain speed within a certain length when it hits tissue it will do a lot more damage than one that is not designed to expand much, if at all, within that same length when it passes on through. Thus, it's no surprise that a bigger caliber premium bullet that isn't designed to expand until it has penetrated quite a ways is going to give exactly the results you mentioned in your post and not do as much internal damage. The bullet used is a huge part of what we're talking about and your last sentence is one that people in the know will generally tell newbies when hunting smaller animals like an antelope or deer as compared to what to use when hunting elk, moose, etc. where a premium bullet is the way to go most of the time.

Topgun 3006

Sir, you really need to comprehend what has been said by well experienced people on this thread! First, a question for you. How long have you hunted big game and how many animals have you shot in the neck? Second, what has worked well for you so far has a lot more chance of going wrong than aiming for the chest or shoulder area that contains all the vitals and is a much bigger target than the small neck area. It would seem that you can't get over it when you've now come on a second thread and stated what you do and everyone else disagrees and tells you why, yet you won't accept that you're by yourself on both subjects. I guess sh54 is more than correct in that persons such as yourself have a closed mind and will not listen to what the vast majority of seasoned veterans know about a subject. So be it and I'd bet that when you shoot one in the neck one of these days and don't recover it that you won't be back to start a thread about your failure and it will happen sooner or later depending on how many times you do it!

super_hunt54

No, kinetic energy has never killed a thing. And no animal ever killed with a weapon has been killed WITHOUT it either! It, like every other part of the physics involved within the killing force of a weapon, is just that,,,A PART!! Take a part out of the formula and you may as well be throwing rocks...Oh wait,,,that's kinetic energy too! I love how some try to pick apart a subject when they have no clue. As far as your pick about hydrostatic vs hydrodynamic...You have a point. BUT the theory was named hydrostatic shock. Yes it's a dynamic force and the ones that came up with the theory, back around WWII time, wanted it to stand out on it's own. Temporary wound channels absolutely DO create damage. They also create a physical reaction within the animal as well. Anyone that thinks they don't are completely clueless about terminal ballistics. Granted, except to a couple of organs, not much damage, but ALL damage taken as a whole should always be considered when considering bullet choices.

zrexpilot

velocity has a much more effect on in vital tissue destroyed than kinetic energy could ever dream of, if one would convert kinetic energy into watts, it wouldnt be enough to boil a teaspoon of water, i hate that term, and is misleading.
i have killed many deer with a bow and arrow, 45 ft/lbs of kinetic energy makes the tissue look like it was hit with a 300 mag.
and now i make no sense since an arrow has a puny 260 fps velocity

BarnesX.308

Arrows have razor blades on them and they slice arteries, veins and vital organs. No need for velocity and energy. Just enough force to get the razors to contact vascular areas.

If you want to compare arrows to bullets, you need to use field points.

Isn't velocity part of the equation for kinetic energy? Velocity squared times weight, blah, blah, blah.......

super_hunt54

It's all about the speed and weight zrex. You add the speed and weight to push that super sharp broadhead through the animal. The more the weight of the object, the more retained energy at distance. The more initial speed, the more energy at distance. Put both together in the right spot on an animal, you have your pass through. Those that go super light on their arrows, to get that flatter trajectory, are sacrificing a bit, to a lot, of penetration due to the lack of weight to store the energy from the string of the bow. Those that argue that kinetic energy has no real value can't get that through their heads for some odd reason. It's a very easy concept but the speed freaks in today's archery world just can't seem to wrap their minds around it. To make my point with some of them, I pull out my little ole 75# recurve that pushes my cedar logs, that weigh an average of 630 grains with a 125 tip, at around 245fps. I then have them shoot their little super speedy 450gr total into a Mckenzie (the older solid ones) and I shoot mine into the same target. Both at 20 yards..I then tell them to go look at the penetration difference. While they are having to put both feet on the Mckenzie target and pull their guts out trying to get MY arrow out, I'm sitting back giggling and wondering if they get the point.

BarnesX.308

245 doesn't sound fast by today's standards but I'm pretty impressed at that speed from those heavy arrows. That's a hammer.