Bullet performance...what do you expect?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Fellow hunters and reloaders,

I know this type of discussion always generates different answers. Here specifically I am looking for your thoughts on what type of bullet performance you expect on edible Alberta game only. This could include buffalo but not the water type...not interested in performance on hippo or elephants. Just good old Alberta game....that we hunt for meat. No coyotes or badgers either

Personally from my experience and what I expect from a bullet I look for good expansion, good wound channel, with no exit. I want what I shoot to eat up every bit of energy my bullet has to deliver. If I find the bullet on the off side hide while skinning I would consider this the ideal scenario.

Here is what I use for deer size game, I shoot a .270win and I use a 130gr Sierra Game King bullet. I have also taken a wild boar with this load.

Here is what I use for Elk and larger type game, I shoot a .300Wby and I use a 180gr Hornday Interlock bullet.

I have experienced exits from each of these bullets (depending on the range and shot angle) but in general these deliver one-shot kills with quick and humane results. I haven't had to track many animals when I do my part and I feel these 2 bullets deliver on the results I expect.

Please offer your thoughts on what you use and why....lets keep it civil

Lefty

[elkhunter11]

I want a bullet that shoots accurately in my rifles, expands reliably, yet offers adequate penetration for less than ideal shot angles. If I was to pick one bullet for all of my big game hunting, it would be the Barnes TTSX.

[whitetailhntr]

I agree with everything you said Lefty except that i like an exit wound. You can never have enough penetration IMO. I use the barnes TSX, TTSX , Hornady GMX and Nosler partitions. Depends which one the rifle shoots best as accuracy is always the first thing I look for when developing a load.

[nick0danger]

is it not exit wound that would a blood trail?

[firegod74]

I like penetration, but it must have expansion. I use bergers. I tried accubonds and they went right through but the exit hole was tiny. I agree with the op. If I could find whats left of the bullet against the off side skin I would be a happy camper.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by nick0danger

is it not exit wound that would a blood trail?

Yes this is true. I guess what I was trying to convey is that with good placement and with hydrostatic shock from the energy of the bullet I would hope not to need to track too far.

I guess my opinion about the bullet staying in on the off-side hide is that if the bullet punches through, maybe its because it didnt expand enough? or had too high a velocity? If the bullet stays in I know all the energy from the shock etc. was eaten up by the animals body.

I had an experience with 180gr accu-bonds on a moose several years ago where I made a 160 yard boiler room (double lung) shot and I had to shoot him 2 more times, once in the neck....once in the head to end it. Upon inspection my bullet entrance was LARGER than the exit??? I did some reasearch and found the accu-bonds are known for "rapid controlled expansion". I realized the bullet did as it was supposed to, expand rapidly and then punch through....Had I used the inter-lock I know there would not be a single hole punched through the animal but a gooey mess of bloody lungs inside.

I realized my expectations were not correct for the style of bullet I was shooting so I made the switch back to the inter-lock.

Lefty

[leo]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Yes this is true. I guess what I was trying to convey is that with good placement and with hydrostatic shock from the energy of the bullet I would hope not to need to track too far.

I guess my opinion about the bullet staying in on the off-side hide is that if the bullet punches through, maybe its because it didnt expand enough? or had too high a velocity? If the bullet stays in I know all the energy from the shock etc. was eaten up by the animals body.

I had an experience with 180gr accu-bonds on a moose several years ago where I made a 160 yard boiler room (double lung) shot and I had to shoot him 2 more times, once in the neck....once in the head to end it. Upon inspection my bullet entrance was LARGER than the exit??? I did some reasearch and found the accu-bonds are known for "rapid controlled expansion". I realized the bullet did as it was supposed to, expand rapidly and then punch through....Had I used the inter-lock I know there would not be a single hole punched through the animal but a gooey mess of bloody lungs inside.

I realized my expectations were not correct for the style of bullet I was shooting so I made the switch back to the inter-lock.

Lefty

Hmph. I have been using Accubonds for about 4-5 years in 270 and 300WSM. I have taken a couple moose and several deer with out any failures. It just goes to show you how every bullet shot has its own physical outcomes, regardless of bullet design.

[Pathfinder76]

If I thought energy and hydrostatic shock actually meant something I might try and use it. But I don't so I like penetration and holes that bleed.

[elkhunter11]

I guess my opinion about the bullet staying in on the off-side hide is that if the bullet punches through, maybe its because it didnt expand enough? or had too high a velocity?

Increased velocity increases the rate of expansion, so all else being equal, increased velocity normally reduces penetration.

However, a bullet that retains more of it's weight, can penetrate more, even with more velocity. That is why I like lighter bullets like the TTSX driven at very high velocities. They expand well due to the velocity, and yet they penetrate well because they maintain nearly all of their weight.

Of course there are still people that believe the old myth that a bullet can go too fast to expand.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Valid points. Again my experience with the accu-bond is limited. As i only took one animal with that bullet. Its not that I felt the bullet failed (it went where I put it, the end result was a dead moose) its just that I had different expectations based on previous experience.

Elkhunter11, you bring up a good point that I overlooked in my post and that is yes typically increased velocities = increase in expansion.

Chuck, I do beleive that "hitting power" aka hydrostatic shock has a lot to with killing power in addition to shot placement and wound channel. Hence why some guys like a heavier bullet over a lighter one due to kinetic energy. I don't think many guys shoot a heavier bullet to increase the wound channel.

Lefty

[Traps]

I am transitioning many of my handloads for meat hunting to TTSX. I use them because they retain 100% of their wt. When we butchered our moose last year I didn't waste anything near the wound. It wasn't bloodshot it just looked shredded and it went straight into hamburger.

If you choose the TSX/TTSX step down at least two weights to get rapid expansion from driving them faster and you'll still be able to follow what you want in energy dump.

Tell your pops thanks for the gun, he took great care of it.

[elkhunter11]

Chuck, I do beleive that "hitting power" aka hydrostatic shock has a lot to with killing power in addition to shot placement and wound channel. Hence why some guys like a heavier bullet over a lighter one due to kinetic energy. I don't think many guys shoot a heavier bullet to increase the wound channel.

Many people use heavier bullets either because they think that a heavier bullet will increase penetration, or because they somehow think that a heavier bullet will hit harder. Bullet construction is far more important than bullet weight, as far as penetration is concerned. As for the hitting harder part, I am not a believer in that theory.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Many people use heavier bullets either because they think that a heavier bullet will increase penetration, or because they somehow think that a heavier bullet will hit harder. Bullet construction is far more important than bullet weight, as far as penetration is concerned.

For sure I agree. A round nose 200gr should hit harder (more energy transfer, hydrostatic shock) than a 200gr spire point, due to bullet construction. Although the spire point would likely penetrate further based on its construction if other things are considered equal (velocity, shot placement, etc)

Lefty

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Traps

I am transitioning many of my handloads for meat hunting to TTSX. I use them because they retain 100% of their wt. When we butchered our moose last year I didn't waste anything near the wound. It wasn't bloodshot it just looked shredded and it went straight into hamburger.

If you choose the TSX/TTSX step down at least two weights to get rapid expansion from driving them faster and you'll still be able to follow what you want in energy dump.

Tell your pops thanks for the gun, he took great care of it.

No worries,

Glad you like it, I knew you would. Hard to tell that thing was used every season for more than 12-15 years since he bought it.

Keep us in mind if you have any of your toys to sell or you come accross any good "lefties" that you don"t want to purchase

Lefty

[elkhunter11]

For sure I agree. A round nose 200gr should hit harder (more energy transfer, hydrostatic shock) than a 200gr spire point, due to bullet construction. Although the spire point would likely penetrate further based on its construction if other things are considered equal (velocity, shot placement, etc)

I have never used a big game hunting bullet that expands more rapidly than the Nosler Ballistic tip, which is a pointed bullet. The Ballistic Tip certainly doesn't penetrate more than most round nose bullets.

If you want to believe that hydrostatic shock kills game, that is your right, but my almost 40 years of hunting game leads me to believe that this is not the case.

How powerful a cartridge do you think that it would take to kill a moose by means of hydrostatic shock? I have seen moose take multiple hits from 340 Weatherbys and 375 H&Hs and still remain standing for several seconds after being hit.

[Andrzej]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Fellow hunters and reloaders,

I know this type of discussion always generates different answers. Here specifically I am looking for your thoughts on what type of bullet performance you expect on edible Alberta game only.

Here is what I use for deer size game, I shoot a .270win and I use a 130gr Sierra Game King bullet. I have also taken a wild boar with this load.

Here is what I use for Elk and larger type game, I shoot a .300Wby and I use a 180gr Hornday Interlock bullet.

Please offer your thoughts on what you use and why....lets keep it civil

Lefty

I posted this in past and based on your choice of bullets I encourage you to take 5 minutes to watch this you tube video.
For edible game I would choose lead free bullet
Barnes TSX, TTSX, MRX, LRX or Hornady GMX, Nosler E-Tip....

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have never used a bullet that expands more rapidly than the Nosler Ballistic tip, which is a pointed bullet. The Ballistic Tip certainly doesn't penetrate more than most round nose bullets.

If you want to believe that hydrostatic shock kills game, that is your right, but my almost 40 years of hunting game leads me to believe that this is not the case.

How powerful a cartridge do you think that it would take to kill a moose by means of hydrostatic shock? I have seen moose take multiple hits from 340 Weatherbys and 375 H&Hs and still remain standing for several seconds after being hit.

I honestly don't know the answer to that. I do feel that the energy expelled hitting an animal with a given bullet and given weight adds to the damage so to speak in addition to the wound which the bullet creates.

In relation to the ballistic tip again thats all about contruction, be like using a V-Max bullet to hunt big game.

Realize I am not disputing what you have said here, I just think that energy expelled in a target also adds to its "killing power" or "knock down" power if you will, but I could be mistaken.

Lefty

[elkhunter11]

Realize I am not disputing what you have said here, I just think that energy expelled in a target also adds to its "killing power" or "knock down" power if you will, but I could be mistaken.

So how is it that an arrow can kill so efficiently with virtually no energy transfer? Something to think about.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Andrzej

I posted this in past and based on your choice of bullets I encourage you to take 5 minutes to watch this you tube video.
For edible game I would choose lead free bullet
Barnes TSX, TTSX, MRX, LRX or Hornady GMX, Nosler E-Tip....

WOW thanks for that! Pretty interesting stuff. Seeing that in my occupation I work for an analytical instrumentation company I can see how valid this information is.

Likely means more fun for me in the off season finding a lead-free alternative to what I have been using!

Thanks for the post never thought or saw something pointing that out before.

Lefty

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So how is it that an arrow can kill so efficiently with virtually no energy transfer? Something to think about.

Absolutely, being a bow hunter as well, it is based on shot placement, penetration, and wound channel.

I guess that I would still like to believe (in my stubborn mind) that if I shoot a deer and the shot knocks him on his butt, it did some damage in the process.

An arrow will also penetrate a bag of sand much better than a bullet shot at the same bag of sand.

More questions than answers! nice thing about bouncing ideas around.

Lefty

[smith88]

I like an bullet that is tough, accurate and has a good BC. I would rather have a complete pass through both lungs and probably some heart than a bullet that hits and blows one lung totally apart. I eat what I shoot so I like a bullet that stays together. So I use accubonds and barnes bullets.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have never used a big game hunting bullet that expands more rapidly than the Nosler Ballistic tip, which is a pointed bullet. The Ballistic Tip certainly doesn't penetrate more than most round nose bullets.

If you want to believe that hydrostatic shock kills game, that is your right, but my almost 40 years of hunting game leads me to believe that this is not the case.

How powerful a cartridge do you think that it would take to kill a moose by means of hydrostatic shock? I have seen moose take multiple hits from 340 Weatherbys and 375 H&Hs and still remain standing for several seconds after being hit.

X2 on that last part, you simply cant shock moose to death with any of the more comon callibers, your just poking holes in them... By that theory though a 30-30 should kill moose just as well as a .300 ultra mag and there are very few who would agree with that statement, interested to hear your response.

As for the bow coment, as a general statement from a complete amature I would say that in general it seems like animals often run further before dying when well shot with a bow than with a rifle. "Bang flops" are far less comon with archery tackle. Once again interested to here what you think.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Cal

X2 on that last part, you simply cant shock moose to death with any of the more comon callibers, your just poking holes in them... By that theory though a 6.5x55 should kill moose just as well as a 338 magnum though and there are very few who would agree with that, interested to hear your response.

As for the bow coment, as a general statement from a complete amature I would say that in general it seems like animals often run further before dying when well shot with a bow than with a rifle. "Bang flops" are far less comon with archery tackle. Once again interested to here what you think.

This brings up an excellent point.

In archery the animals tend to bleed to death.....only way to do it with achery tackle.

With gunshots I think its a combo of the wound and the hydrostatic shock, maybe the shock has alot less to do with it than I was thinking but its still has to be a factor.....
Lefty

[reubenb]

I think there is prob alot of scandinavians who would disagree about the 6.5x55 vs the 338mag arguement. being as they regularly shoot thousands of moose a year with the swedeish round. myself- i like an exit wound, if the critter does'nt go right down

[elkhunter11]

By that theory though a 6.5x55 should kill moose just as well as a 338 magnum though and there are very few who would agree with that, interested to hear your response.

With the 338winmag, you are starting with a larger diameter bullet, so logically it would expand to a larger expanded diameter than the 6.5x55 bullet would. A larger expanded diameter would displace more material, and result in a larger wound channel. A larger wound channel aids in quicker, and more effective kills.

As for the bow coment, as a general statement from a complete amature I would say that in general it seems like animals often run further before dying when well shot with a bow than with a rifle.

Bow kills provide clean cuts, and don't displace as much material as many firearms kills. As well, arrows don't often shatter bones and create secondary wounds from bone splinters, which adds to the volume of the wound channels.Therefore the volume of the arrows wound channel is not as large as with many firearms kills, so the kills often are not as dramatic. Then again, many animals run a bit after being lung shot with bullets.

[smith88]

"Bang-flops" are mostly likely caused by damage to the nervous system. Shoot any animal in the head and they are going to drop. Same as a good spine shot.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

With the 338winmag, you are starting with a larger diameter bullet, so logically it would expand to a larger expanded diameter than the 6.5x55 bullet would. A larger expanded diameter would displace more material, and result in a larger wound channel. A larger wound channel aids in quicker, and more effective kills.



Bow kills provide clean cuts, and don't displace as much material as many firearms kills. As well, arrows don't often shatter bones and create secondary wounds from bone splinters, which adds to the volume of the wound channels.Therefore the volume of the arrows wound channel is not as large as with many firearms kills, so the kills often are not as dramatic. Then again, many animals run a bit after being lung shot with bullets.

I realised that you were going to going to give that answere on the 6.5 vs the 338 and changed my post.

As for the arrow argument as a general statement I would say that on two animals, identicaly shot with both a bow and a rifle with no bones hit the animal shot with a rifle will have more damaged tissue around the wound chanel. Would you agree with that?

Personaly I've had more pass through's than not. One of the deer that was not a pass through ran the farthest of any animal I've shot, alot of the animals that were pass throughs died within 15 yards. There are no absolutes but I wouldnt go so far as to say that energy is of no value.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by smith88

"Bang-flops" are mostly likely caused by damage to the nervous system. Shoot any animal in the head and they are going to drop. Same as a good spine shot.

I will agree that bang flops are probably a result of damage to the nervouse system but I've seen several that occured where the bullet itself did not make contact with the spine or the head. Now how could a bullet that did not make contact with any componants of the nervous system still damage it I wonder?

[catnthehat]

My experience has been that when the bullet was placed properly , there was very little if any difference in what happened next - same thing if it wasn't !
When i shoot a bullet at an animal i want it to hit where I point the rifle.
I have shot animals with cedar arrows and fixed broadheads, round balls of various calibre, cast lead bullets, cup and core bullets, and stuff like the Barnes.
never once did I lose an animal because of bullet construction, some I did not like the way they acted, but the animal did in fact die.
Some bullets like the Ballistic tip out of a 25'06 did not fair well, but I have also seen Barnes bullets that did not penetrate at all.
There is no 100% kill factor on any bullet, but some seem to be more popular than others.....
Cat

[elkhunter11]

I will agree that bang flops are probably a result of damage to the nervouse system but I've seen several that occured where the bullet itself did not make contact with the spine or the head. Now how could a bullet that did not make contact with any componants of the nervous system still damage it I wonder?

I have seen bang flops with lung shots using high velocity, and rapidly expanding bullets. The lungs were totally destroyed at the shot. How fast would you drop if you suddenly had no lungs?