Whats best a bullet that passes through or one that reaches the backside of the hide ???

[PistonBroke]

In my opinion , you would want a bullet to stay inside the animal and reach the back side of the hide to ensure full hydrostatic shock and energy is kept inside the animal to create a quick humane kill.....what do you guys think , lets hear your opinions plz

[hal53]

Originally Posted by PistonBroke

In my opinion , you would want a bullet to stay inside the animal and reach the back side of the hide to ensure full hydrostatic shock and energy is kept inside the animal to create a quick humane kill.....what do you guys think , lets hear your opinions plz

in a perfect world, i would agree......

[BuckCuller]

I agree 100 and 10 percent.Shock wave em.

[elkhunter11]

The absolute optimum bullet performance would be a bullet that makes a large wound channel , and then has just enough energy to exit.

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

the absolute optimum bullet performance would be a bullet that makes a large wound channel , and then has just enough energy to exit.

i have to disagree with you on this one bro..why waste that energy to make it out that's energy that can be used inside to shock and awe them...lol only arrows i believe should be pass thoroughs...

[muledeerking]

Originally Posted by PistonBroke

In my opinion , you would want a bullet to stay inside the animal and reach the back side of the hide to ensure full hydrostatic shock and energy is kept inside the animal to create a quick humane kill.....what do you guys think , lets hear your opinions plz

I agree with you 100%. I have read on here that holes kill not shock. I call BS on that. I have watched animals get shot with them all. The best I have seen proformance says different than holes kill. That is why I stay way far away from monolithic bullets. I shoot bergers but have use alot of others that work great too.

[muledeerking]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The absolute optimum bullet performance would be a bullet that makes a large wound channel , and then has just enough energy to exit.

Agree.. This is why I shoot bergers.

[elkhunter11]

i have to disagree with you on this one bro..why waste that energy to make it out that's energy that can be used inside to shock and awe them...lol only arrows i believe should be pass thoroughs...

Unless the bullet badly damages the central nervous system,animals die because they bleed out. Good luck killing an elk or moose, or worse yet, a charging grizzly, via hydrostatic shock with your 270WSM. My favorite hunting bullets, the Barnes TSX/TTSX almost always exit, yet they kill as fast as any hunting bullet that I have ever used. A bullet designed to expand rapidly, but not to exit, doesn't always penetrate enough on larger game if heavy bone is struck.

[HunterDave]

I've been hunting with Nosler Ballistic Tips since starting to reload several years ago. The bullet goes in and doesn't come out on broadside shots resulting in bang-flops or deer that drop after 50 yds. They turn lungs into mush. I watched the gelatin tests on youtube and I'm quite confident that the bullets would be effective in the event of a shoulder shot through bone.

I know that it'll come up so I guess that I should mention that I am not overly concerned about any residual lead left over in the animals that I shoot.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

A bullet designed to expand rapidly, but not to exit, doesn't always penetrate enough on larger game if heavy bone is struck.

Which ones?

[SHORTMAG]

Originally Posted by PistonBroke

i have to disagree with you on this one bro..why waste that energy to make it out that's energy that can be used inside to shock and awe them...lol only arrows i believe should be pass thoroughs...

Based on your above supposition, would it not be better for the broad head to be inside the lung cavity, slicing and dicing...shocking and aweing the animal as it bounded away ?

Double blood trail is better than one ..isn't that what they teach in the bow course?...why would a bullet be any different than an arrow on a pass thru ?

For me, It's a no brainer. Shoot it thru the lungs...if it stays in, I get the recovered bullet...if it exits...Mother Nature gets it.
One hole or two, either way...I got my animal

[bdub]

I like an exit wound. More blood and easier tracking if it comes to that.

[elkhunter11]

Which ones?

Try shooting an elk or moose through the shoulder with a 130gr Ballistic Tip out of a 270win or 270WSM, and tell me how you make out. My favorite bullet for deer,pronghorn and bighorn is the 140gr Ballistic Tip out of my 7mmstw, but I would not use that bullet on elk or moose, unless I was presented with a perfect broadside heart/lung shot. On the other hand, the 140gr TSX/TTSX easily penetrates both shoulders of an elk or moose if required.

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

unless the bullet badly damages the central nervous system,animals die because they bleed out. Good luck killing an elk or moose, or worse yet, a charging grizzly, via hydrostatic shock with your 270wsm. My favorite hunting bullets, the barnes tsx/ttsx almost always exit, yet they kill as fast as any hunting bullet that i have ever used. A bullet designed to expand rapidly, but not to exit, doesn't always penetrate enough on larger game if heavy bone is struck.

i have killed moose with my 270 wsm with barnes tsx

[elkhunter11]

i have killed moose with my 270 wsm with barnes tsx

Which doesn't prove that they died due to hydrostatic shock.Did they immediately fall over stone dead, or did they bleed out and die?

[catnthehat]

I don't care if the bullet stays in the animal or exits as long as i get a bang flop or a very short tracking job.
Both types ( pass through and stopped on the far side of the hide) have provided me with drop in their tracks dead animals and short tracki9ng jibs.
Both have also provided me with longer tracking jobs because I made a less than optimum shot.
The bullet has so little to do with it as opposed to the shot placement of said bullet that it is almost a non debate.
The large black powder bullets we shoot move very slow as compared to a new style bullet, but with a hard alloy they leave more than enough wound channel with busted bones to boot.

the smaller , lighter faster jobs seem to like to be pushed at super sonic speeds and the end result is the same for both types if bullets if you make a good shot- dead animal, and it will be the same if you make a lousy shot- long tracking job or at worst , a lost animal.
Cat

[LongBomber]

Originally Posted by PistonBroke

i have to disagree with you on this one bro..why waste that energy to make it out that's energy that can be used inside to shock and awe them...lol only arrows i believe should be pass thoroughs...

The problem is that no one knows just how fast the bullet is going when it exits. If your looking at an exit speed of 600fps with a 180gr bullet, that is a whopping 143.9 ft-ibs of energy. At 400fps that 180gr would be down to 65ft-ibs. Started from a 30-06 it would have had roughly 3000 ft-ibs at the muzzle. I don't think that 60-150ft-ibs will make much of a difference.

Personally I will take two nice loonie size holes, one each side.

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by shortmag

based on your above supposition, would it not be better for the broad head to be inside the lung cavity, slicing and dicing...shocking and aweing the animal as it bounded away ?

Double blood trail is better than one ..isn't that what they teach in the bow course?...why would a bullet be any different than an arrow on a pass thru ?

For me, it's a no brainer. Shoot it thru the lungs...if it stays in, i get the recovered bullet...if it exits...mother nature gets it.
One hole or two, either way...i got my animal :d

imo a bullet would kill quicker without passing through because of the retained energy inside the animal, a bullet that passes through is wasting all that hydrostatic shock that can be used .

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Try shooting an elk or moose through the shoulder with a 130gr Ballistic Tip out of a 270win or 270WSM, and tell me how you make out. My favorite bullet for deer,pronghorn and bighorn is the 140gr Ballistic Tip out of my 7mmstw, but I would not use that bullet on elk or moose, unless I was presented with a perfect broadside heart/lung shot. On the other hand, the 140gr TSX/TTSX easily penetrates both shoulders of an elk or moose if required.

Now why would you want to do that? Of course you still have to use the right tool to do the job. I've used Nosler BTs for deer and for moose........165gr for deer and 180gr for moose and this year I'm going to hunt my deer with 140gr BTs from a 7-08. I'm quite confident that the rapid expansion of those bullets would be highly effective going through bone of either animal.

If you meant a light bullet that, IMO isn't meant to do the job, not providing enough penetration then yeah, you'd be correct.

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

which doesn't prove that they died due to hydrostatic shock.did they immediately fall over stone dead, or did they bleed out and die?

he wakled 10 yards fast and drop dead, right after i shot and watched him walk 10 yrds to the treeline i began to walk the 70 yrds
to where he fell over and he was stone dead , took me a minute to walk to him, i belive the hydrostatic shock had 95% to do with his quick expiry , he was hit in the middle of the lungs height wise fyi....

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by longbomber

the problem is that no one knows just how fast the bullet is going when it exits. If your looking at an exit speed of 600fps with a 180gr bullet, that is a whopping 143.9 ft-ibs of energy. At 400fps that 180gr would be down to 65ft-ibs. Started from a 30-06 it would have had roughly 3000 ft-ibs at the muzzle. I don't think that 60-150ft-ibs will make much of a difference.

Personally i will take two nice loonie size holes, one each side.

well of course it would make a difference,lol a 388 grain arrow at 340 fps creates 98 ft/lbs of energy, so that extra 60-150 ft/lbs would make that much of a difference, its like getting hit with that bullet and then an arrow to follow, that's gotta make some kind of difference i would think, imo

[elkhunter11]

he wakled 10 yards fast and drop dead, right after i shot and watched him walk 10 yrds to the treeline i began to walk the 70 yrds
to where he fell over and he was stone dead , took me a minute to walk to him, i belive the hydrostatic shock had 95% to do with his quick expiry , he was hit in the middle of the lungs height wise fyi....

If it really was hydrostatic shock rather than bleeding out that killed him, he would have dropped instantly, and he would not have walked those ten yards.

Now why would you want to do that? Of course you still have to use the right tool to do the job. I've used Nosler BTs for deer and for moose........165gr for deer and 180gr for moose and this year I'm going to hunt my deer with 140gr BTs from a 7-08. I'm quite confident that the rapid expansion of those bullets would be highly effective going through bone of either animal.

If you meant a light bullet that, IMO isn't meant to do the job, not providing enough penetration then yeah, you'd be correct.

Exactly my point, a 130gr TSX/TTSX works excellent on elk and moose, and will easily penetrate a shoulder that the 130gr Ballistic Tip won't penetrate. The 130grain Ballistic Point is designed for rapid expansion, and it sacrifices penetration as a result. The TSX/TTSX in the same weight still expands adequately, but it offers a great deal more penetration. Bullet construction is more of a factor than bullet weight.

well of course it would make a difference,lol a 388 grain arrow at 340 fps creates 98 ft/lbs of energy, so that extra 60-150 ft/lbs would make that much of a difference, its like getting hit with that bullet and then an arrow to follow, that's gotta make some kind of difference i would think, imo

That comparison is as meaningless as it gets. A broadhead doesn't need a great amount of energy because it's sharp blades slice easily through the tissue. On the other hand, the expanding bullet is blunt, and it takes a great deal of energy to force it through the energy. By the way, I doubt that shooting a broadhead through the wound channel that a bullet had just created would be very beneficial as far as killing the animal is concerned.

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by shortmag

based on your above supposition, would it not be better for the broad head to be inside the lung cavity, slicing and dicing...shocking and aweing the animal as it bounded away ?

Double blood trail is better than one ..isn't that what they teach in the bow course?...why would a bullet be any different than an arrow on a pass thru ?

For me, it's a no brainer. Shoot it thru the lungs...if it stays in, i get the recovered bullet...if it exits...mother nature gets it.
One hole or two, either way...i got my animal :d

your right an arrow is better when it passes through as where a bullet is not, imo bullets create way more hydrostatic shock than an arrow and that's why imo they are best left inside as where an arrow can create 2 holes to allow bleed out cause they dont have the shock of a bullet.

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

if it really was hydrostatic shock rather than bleeding out that killed him, he would have dropped instantly, and he would not have walked those ten yards.




Exactly my point, a 130gr tsx/ttsx works excellent on elk and moose, and will easily penetrate a shoulder that the 130gr ballistic tip won't penetrate. The 130grain ballistic point is designed for rapid expansion, and it sacrifices penetration as a result. The tsx/ttsx in the same weight still expands adequately, but it offers a great deal more penetration. Bullet construction is more of a factor than bullet weight.

the shocked packed his lungs up and stopped his heart on impact, he can still be walking dead cant he...? Lol

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Now why would you want to do that? Of course you still have to use the right tool to do the job. I've used Nosler BTs for deer and for moose........165gr for deer and 180gr for moose and this year I'm going to hunt my deer with 140gr BTs from a 7-08. I'm quite confident that the rapid expansion of those bullets would be highly effective going through bone of either animal.

If you meant a light bullet that, IMO isn't meant to do the job, not providing enough penetration then yeah, you'd be correct.

I'm glad some one said it so I didn't have to. There seemed to be a little dramatization in that one.

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

if it really was hydrostatic shock rather than bleeding out that killed him, he would have dropped instantly, and he would not have walked those ten yards.




Exactly my point, a 130gr tsx/ttsx works excellent on elk and moose, and will easily penetrate a shoulder that the 130gr ballistic tip won't penetrate. The 130grain ballistic point is designed for rapid expansion, and it sacrifices penetration as a result. The tsx/ttsx in the same weight still expands adequately, but it offers a great deal more penetration. Bullet construction is more of a factor than bullet weight.



That comparison is as meaningless as it gets. A broadhead doesn't need a great amount of energy because it's sharp blades slice easily through the tissue. On the other hand, the expanding bullet is blunt, and it takes a great deal of energy to force it through the energy. By the way, i doubt that shooting a broadhead through the wound channel that a bullet had just created would be very beneficial as far as killing the animal is concerned.

i guess you missed my point or i did not explain it properly, sorry bout that ....

[elkhunter11]

the shocked packed his lungs up and stopped his heart on impact, he can still be walking dead cant he...? Lol

You just proved my point.

[PistonBroke]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

you just proved my point.

ya the hydrostatic shock killed him....not the bleeding out

[elkhunter11]

ya the hydrostatic shock killed him....not the bleeding out

Obviously not, or he wouldn't have walked away. Have you ever had the wind totally knocked out of you? Could you remain upright and keep walking away quickly, or did you fold up until you could breathe again?

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Now why would you want to do that? Of course you still have to use the right tool to do the job. I've used Nosler BTs for deer and for moose........165gr for deer and 180gr for moose and this year I'm going to hunt my deer with 140gr BTs from a 7-08. I'm quite confident that the rapid expansion of those bullets would be highly effective going through bone of either animal.

If you meant a light bullet that, IMO isn't meant to do the job, not providing enough penetration then yeah, you'd be correct.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Obviously not, or he wouldn't have walked away. Have you ever had the wind totally knocked out of you? Could you remain upright and keep walking away quickly, or did you fold up until you could breathe again?

Have you ever been in shock you can do some pretty amazing things when you don't feel the pain. Besides you can tell which is which. With hydrostatic shock their lungs looks more like a bloody jello mold. With a bullet that just passes through it looks like a hole through the lungs.