View Single Post
  #38  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:03 PM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 720
Default

"If the bullet goes through the animal you are wasting energy in the ground".

There's two schools of thought on that matter. Some prefer complete penetration with an exit wound to aid in critter recovery. Others subscribe to the energy approach and want the bullet to come to rest under the hide, far side. Folks in the latter camp also tend to buy in to the "hydrostatic shock" theory. There's plenty of room for campfire debate on this, for sure, 'cause rigorous scientific studies to prove one over another are very hard to design and implement.

My current belief is that the energy aspect is often over-emphasized as a killing factor, particularly when linked to "hydrostatic shock". Energy is mass x velocity, and is best considered one indicator of penetration potential. Enough energy is needed to drive the bullet through an object. The greater the penetration, the longer the wound channel, and the greater the damage to organs, bones and muscle, etc. Where the energy theory kinds of weakens in my mind, is when it comes to the whole "want to find the bullet under the hide" biz. I was able to watch slow-motion footage once of a bullet shot into a deer. The skin on the exit side was stretched waaay out by the bullet before returning to its original position. That really showed how elastic skin is. When this happens, it's the skin that's absorbing that energy, not the actual mass of the body. This doesn't contribute to killing the animal. To me, it's all about making holes in parts critters need to be free of holes to live. I've seen deer fall as fast to a well-placed arrow as to a bullet through the same place (though, I do think that bullets have a greater ability to simply knock critters over).

On the other hand, if the bullet (or arrow) exits, there is a greater likelihood of trackable sign, useful in the event that the deer runs before falling, particularly when there's no snow on the ground.

My impression is that today's gun writers (e.g. John Barsness) are increasingly supporting the "through and through" approach, and want their bullets to make two holes. That's got something to do with the increasing popularity of bonded and solid copper hunting bullets these days.

These "subtleties" aside, putting a bullet into the boiler room of a critter is nearly always a show-stopper, regardless of where it winds up. Fun to talk about for sure.
Reply With Quote