# New deer rifle



## ND decoy

I am looking for a new rifle and just wanted to hear some suggestions. Here is what I am looking for.
-Synthetic stock
-Stainless steel
-fast
-flat
I mostly hunt mule deer and whitetails.

I have owned a bunch of other calibers before.
7mm wby mag
7mm rem mag
7mm stw mag
257 wby mag
300 win mag
300 wby mag
30-06
25-06

I would also like to knolw what you prefer?

My elk gun is 338 so I don't want to any bigger than a 300. I don't know any thing about the short mags and am really considering them.

I have never owned a ruger, sako, tika, kimber or savage. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Cleankill47

Based on the calibers you've already mentioned, I would say maybe a 7mm-08? I've never used one personally, but I hear good things, and you seem to have a feel for the 7mm family of cartridges already.

Here's a good platform rifle for you to build it on, too, after considering your other preferences. It will serve extremely well for the purposes you've mentioned, and the cartridge will perform on elk, whitetailed/mulie deer, pronghorn antelope, and black bear:

http://www.savagearms.com/16fhss.htm

And here's a page made by someone who apparently thinks it's a good cartridge:

http://members.tripod.com/sed88/rem7/

And here's an article I just found on Google:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ai_7506379

Hope you get a good gun.

:sniper:


----------



## Invector

Just about anything in your list will kill an elk except the 25-06 and I would stay away from the 7mm-08 for elk...have hurd some bad things in that area. I shoot both a 25-06 and a 300 win mag. I have one for walking and close shots and the other is rigged for long range. Depending on how far you shots are, close or far, you might want to look at the smaller rounds for hunting. I have seen good things about the 7mm for elk and deer myself. I have seen some really good things about the newer 7mm wsm and 270 wsm. But all depending on the range of your shots will determin what kind of gun to get. I would get a 300 win mag myself. Great range and one of the best elk guns out there, and there far cheaper then the $50-$100 for wby mag ammo. That would be the top. The better out of the bunch for close range would have to be the 7mm. It will have far less kick then the 300s or the 30-06 but still have a great punch.


----------



## Sin man

i just got a 7mm rem mag and i like it so far havent shoot anything put paper so far but it does that very good. make sure if you get that get one with a heavy stock because they kick really good with the light cheap stocks that the cheap 7mms have on them.


----------



## clampdaddy

sounds like the rifles you already have would cover any imaginable deer hunting situation but any excuse to buy a new rifle is good one. I recently got a 270 WSM and I love it. It shoots as flat as my 25-06 but hits harder at long rang. You already have an elk rifle and I didn't see any 270s on your list of guns you have/had. By the way, anyone who thinks a 25-06 wont kill an elk would be really surprized to see the penetrarion/wound channel characteristics of a 120gr A Frame pushed hard.


----------



## Horsager

I also think one of the 270's would be a great addition for a light fast deer rifle. Something along the lines of a Kimber 8400 Montana, Winchester Fwt (if you can find one), Tikka T3 Light, Remington Mountain rifle, Sako Finlight, weatherby ultralightwieght would all be nice handling rifles that would get the most out of either the 270 Win (my preference due to lots of experience with it) or a 270 wizzum.


----------



## chevy_stud

Hey man in my opinion the .270 is the best all around gun for elk deer whatever you want depending on the bullet you use. for deer and elk the flattest shooting best i think is the winchester 130 grain powerpoint. 150s dont shoot as flat and are less accurate. but i have shot coyote with 130s and they do alot of damage but wherever you hit them thats where they lay. I have killed 4 elk with it and 9 deer.

so all in all its the cheapest to shoot and flattest and fastest shooting high power rifle there is. if you can come up with something that is better all around and still cheap to shoot you let me know.


----------



## Invector

clampdaddy said:


> By the way, anyone who thinks a 25-06 wont kill an elk would be really surprized to see the penetrarion/wound channel characteristics of a 120gr A Frame pushed hard.


I am one of those who dont think a 25-06 is a elk gun. It would be possible to kill an elk at close range with the right type of bullet, but I feel that there are bigger guns out there that are made for those situations. It would be like takeing a .300 win mag to Africa and shooting a water buffalo with it. It can be done but why take the chance of wonding the animal and having to track it and posibly shooting it several times to bring it down. I have a 25-06 and a .300 win like I said before. I shoot 115grn and 117 grn though the 25-06 and just feel that the power and bullet size would be foolish to take elk with.

As far as the sort mags go. You might want to send a PM to Plainsman (hes a moderator for the politics form). He shoots a short mag for elk and might beable to give you better advice on them. But I can say form what he tells me they are very good guns. With looking at the charts on the web, the 270 wsm out does the 270 by a fair margin and the 300 wsm out does the 300 win mag by just a bit, aroud 100fps/100flbs more.


----------



## OkieYodler

If you're looking for something REALLY light I'd go with the Remington Titanium or the Remington XCR.
The Titanium weighs in at a little over 5lbs., is synthetic, and the barrel/mechanism is made of titanium. Titanium is still stainless, but is also lighter and stronger than steel. Plus, they are available in a big variety of different calibers. I thought this kind of sounded like the prototype of what you wanted...
The XCR weighs I believe in the 6-7lbs range. It also comes in a sythetic stock, but is made of stainless steel. This also comes in many choices of calibers.
If I were to recommend a caliber that is suitable for whitetail/mule deer it would probably be the .270, this is one of the few calibers I didn't see on your list. I hear the Winchester Short Magnums are supposed to be very hot rounds, so I'm thinking maybe a .270WSM.
I'd stay away from Ruger if I were you, there are better brands out there, those being: Kimber, Sako, custom-built rifles, etc.
There are many options to choose from out there, so I hope I might have narrowed it down some for you. Hope this all helps!


----------



## chevy_stud

the short mags are better but alot more expensive to shoot.... it doesnt get much better than 13 dollars a box for a high power rifle.


----------



## Invector

chevy_stud said:


> the short mags are better but alot more expensive to shoot.... it doesnt get much better than 13 dollars a box for a high power rifle.


For the most part short mags are best reloaded for the cost. If you look at the 243 wssm theres only 3 rounds that you can find (factory ammo). Luckly the bigger short mag carts are made my most ammo companies and come in many bullet types.  I know for my .300 win mag $20 is the norm. I have seen some spear-hot cores for low as $13 and picked up a few...the only thing is they were 180grns for deer. They are for a lack of a better word crappy. And form what I see for the 270 wsm and 300 wsm $20 is cheap for them. But when looking at a weatherby ammo and paying $50 for them...I'll pay $30 with out thinking.


----------



## HonkerExpress

300 wsm with a nice nikon ti scope. can't beat it for deer. I love mine and love the distance. As long as you don't use balistic tips, your golden. Just my two cents.


----------



## parker_lipetzky

6MM o yeah


----------



## Invector

parker_lipetzky said:


> 6MM o yeah


6mm for deer is fine...elk ya right


----------



## ND decoy

Thanks for the replies. As far elk hunting goes and this is just my opinion I don't think the 25-06 and the 270 are good elk guns. My brother in law has taken 7 elk with his 270 but he limits his shots to 200 yards or less. For me all of the elk that I have shot have been over 300 yards. The smallest gun that I would take for an elk hunt is a 7mm rem mag. Again just my opinion.

For my new rifle I think that I am going to go with one of the short mags. Right now I am leaning to either the 7mm, 300 and maybe the 270. I was looking at the ballistic charts and the 270 looks to the flatest out to 500 yards but the 7mm was prett close.

As far as brand thats where I am not sure of yet. The remington sendaro, weatherby ultralight, remington 700 ss. I don't know much about the sako, tika and kimber. I was told the remington moutnain rifles take a long time to get. Browning has line of rifles with thumb holes in the stock that look interesting and might be fun to have (I know they will be wood). So if any body wants to give me some recomindations on models I'll gladly listen. I have been going back and forth on how much I want to spend. I could spend $1500 on really nice weatherby but also $700 on a remington 700 SS. Every body that I have ever talked to has said that the 700 has never failed them and are very accurate. Right now I have a weatherby vanguard (7mm rem mag) that I bought last year and I don't like it very much. So I am going to sell it. It just doesn't fit me very well. I am 6'5" so I want a gun that will fit a bigger guy.

Again thanks for the advise. and for rifle models that you can recommend.


----------



## Horsager

Thumbhole stock will add lots of weight. You might want to buy a factory rifle (like a rem 700) and have McMillan or the like build you a longer stock to fit your length of pull.


----------



## Remington 7400

I reccomend buying one of each then you will be covered no matter if you want to get up close and personal in the brush or play sniper.

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_7400.asp

.30-06 of course!

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/model_700_SPS_DM.asp

.300 Win Mag (.30-06 on steroids!)


----------



## farmerj

Looking at getting a Mauser K98 poor grade shooter $110

Syn Stock and medium weight barrel in 280 Rem from Midway for $155

Gunsmith is looking at <$200 to true the bolt, receiver and barrel and set headspace.

Should be an easy 700-1000 yard gun.

Add a decent $200 scope and you have around $650 for the full package.


----------



## Invector

If you are looking for a good gun that wont cost you much and that is easy to carry look at the T3 Tikka. They do make a nice 270 wsm. I got a 25-06 this summer and spent just over a grand after getting the scope, gun, case, ammo, and sling. The gun was $540. I put a Lupold V-II on it that I had on my .300 BAR. This thing shoot like a dream and groups extreamly well at 100 yards. My dad just picked up a T3 in the 243 for $470. These 2 guns are great shooters being right on the money at 100 yards. One member of my hunting party has a T3 in a 270 wsm that I want to buy form him if he quits hunting due to his job.

Browning is also a good bet when looking at the short mags. They have probably the best selection of short mags. Though they can get a bit pricy. The Browning Eclips is the one with the thumbhole stoke and it comes in all 3 of the short mags.

The last thing I would look at is what kind of set up I am going to get. If you do alot of walking a lighter gun would work best. You mentioned that you shoot elk at a bit farther range that 300 mark. The 270 wsm is more then capable of taking elk that far. A heavy gun with a thick barrel that is best used for longer range shooting might be what you want. A Remington with a thumb hole stock might be what your looking for. Other wise just about any gun out there that has a bit less weight to it would do you fine.


----------



## Horsager

Saying light guns with thin barrels don't shoot well is just plain stupid!! My Winchester Featherweight in 270 win is an absolute tack driver, as is my Interarms mini-mark-X in 223, several buddies model 7's, most every Kimber Montana and Remington TI. That whole "you need heavier longer barrels for good accuracy" thing is pure BUNK!!


----------



## Invector

Did anyone say lighter guns dont shoot well??????????? I said guns that are built for long range shooting are usually a heavy barrel and have a bit more weight to them. The way it was explained to me is a lighter gun can at times pick up the any movment form the shooter and can make a differance at ranges over that which most shoot, while a heavier gun takes up some of the same motions keeping the gun more stable. If you also read my posting you will see I shoot a T3 that is in the 6-6.5 lb range. My .300 is in the 8lb range. Both are lighter guns when you look at the 10+ lb guns that are made for longer shooting and for varmint shooting. NEVER did anyone say a lighter gun wont shoot as well as a heavy gun. :eyeroll:


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector said:


> Just about anything in your list will kill an elk except the 25-06 and I would stay away from the 7mm-08 for elk...
> 
> Now, I know a 25-06 is far from an ideal elk rifle but to say it wont kill an elk is ridiculous. I don't know why elk were brought up in the first place because the original author of this thread said he already had a .338 as his elk rifle, I thuoght we were talking deer rifles here.


----------



## jones270

A great deer gun the best in my opinion is a 270 winchester caliber in a remington 700 synthetic SS from the rifles you shoot you may like the 270 short magnum better a little bit more power


----------



## adog

Get a 243 and shoot the Barnes TSX 85 gr. I live in sask. and for those 250-400 yds shots it lays them down fast. I have a Bushnell elite 4200, 4x16 on my Sako forrester l579 with the heavy barrel and varmit style stock. Sighted in at @280yds it is a little over 2" high @ 100 and bang on @ 50. Anyone that says a 243 or 6mm won't kill deer needs to have their head checked or actually do some shooting. Just my opinion so take it for what it is worth. :sniper:


----------



## Csquared

ND Decoy, I'll be brief and to the point. You gave away the best choices. Get a used Remington 700 for $400. Have it re-barrelled in .25/06 or .257 Wby with a Lilja 3-groove barrel for $550 (or less), and you can thank me later. With a good 'smith, rifle will shoot better than you, most likely. If you're lucky enough to find a nice used .25/06 you'll probably realize after shooting it there's no need to spend the $550 to re-barrel (but won't be stainless, most likely). Synthetic stocks are available everyday on the used market for pennies on the dollar.

You already have a perfect elk rifle. Anyone who thinks a .25 bullet has a weakness either hasn't read much or is too young to know what Roy Weatherby did with his favorite Wby mag. He used a 100gr Partition to kill everything in North America, and almost everything in Africa, including a cape buffalo, and if you choose a .25/06 you will still be able to do what he did, just not quite as far away.

A 120gr 25 cal. bullet @ 3000 fps will kill any deer, at any angle, as far away as you can hit it, every time. Have you seen the sectional density of the 120gr Partition? Or you could shoot solid copper 100gr bullets at about 3300fps if you prefer, but I have no actual experience with those. You can never go wrong with a .270, for anything, but for what you're asking for you can do it all with less recoil with a 1/4" bullet.

Like I've said before, I'll kill my first elk with my .338. But I'll kill the second one with my .25/06. But I have to get on the stick and go hunting for 'em before I get too old!!


----------



## Invector

I will admit I miss read the first post. I thought he was asking about a cal that can be for both deer and elk. Now rereading it I see he has a .338 that he uses for elk. He also has had almost everything form a .25-06 up to a 7mm wby. So why tell him to get a 25-06 or a 257 when he already has had them. Secondly I still would not take a .25-06 to shoot elk no matter what kind of round your shooting. You might get ok penitration with a 25-06 if you were shooting under 100 yards. After that you lose the ability of the bullet to hit hard enough (less then 2000 foot pounds of energy). The 25-06 I have I love. It is a very good gun with plenty of speed and flat shooting...it just dont have the impact. For deer, it has plenty of power to penitrate and kill a deer up to 500 yards. But elk sorry I just dont see it. Remember speed dont kill an animal the impact energy of a bullet does.

Again my suggestion is look at a Tikka T3 in the 270 wsm. Flat shooting in a sythetic stock with a stainless steel barrel. Would be a very good deer gun without dropping big money.


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector said:


> He also has had almost everything form a .25-06 up to a 7mm wby. So why tell him to get a 25-06 or a 257 when he already has had them.


I think you need to go back and read whats been writen before you fire back answers. I didn't say he should get a 25-06 or a 257. I never even mentioned the .257 Roberts. I suggested a 270wsm BECAUSE it shot as flat as my 25-06 but hit harder at long range. As far as impact energy goes, look up the energy figures of a 223 rem. (50gr. @ 3400fps = 1284 ft-lbs) And compare that to the 44 rem. mag. (300gr. @ 1300fps =1126 ft-lbs) and tell me wich one you'd rather shoot an angry bear with at in your face distance. The one with 100 extra ft-lbs? Not me, Ill take the 44 with the lower energy figures. My point is the theory that you need a specific amount of foot poundage for specific animals is total bunk.


----------



## Csquared

Invector, I suggested what I did because he asked for our thoughts (opinions) on the best deer cartridge(s), and speed and trajectory were of primary interest. .27 and .28 bullets are GREAT for deer, but in my opinion you never need anything bigger than .25.

I acknowledged in my post he had already owned the best choices.

If you don't want to hear it from me, how about this......

"...for the hunter who mostly hunts deer-size game with no more than the occasional hunt for moose or elk, the .257 Magnum is the clear winner. Anyone who has used the .257 Magnum in the field as much as I have can easily see why it was Roy Weatherby's favorite cartridge."

or......."Simply put, no big-game cartridge offered by the major manufacturers shoots flatter than the .257 Weatherby Magnum."

Both quotes from Layne Simpson's April '06 Shooting Times article, pages 60 thru 64, with the first quote being the last two sentences of the article.

If your curious how the .25/06 relates to all this, it will duplicate the Wby exactly, but be 100 yards behind it, meaning if a .257 Wby is 2300 fps @ 400 yards, the .25/06 will be 2300 fps @ 300 yards with identical bullets.

To me, all this means either one is a perfect choice for ND decoy, but of coarse I'm going to say that, because that's why I chose them!

As far as elk hunting goes, I know absolutely nothing about it...haven't gone yet. But the guys mentioned above I think know/knew a little bit about that subject, and they think/thought it worked just fine. In fact, I believe the .257 Wby is the ONLY rifle Roy Weatherby used to elk hunt, and he got to hunt where the biggest of the big hung out. If it will kill a cape buffalo with one 100gr Partition (pg 62 of same article) I don't think an elk is too much of a stretch with a 120gr. @ 3300 fps.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily a huge Weatherby fan or advocate of the Weatherby magnums, but I do have a fondness for fast .25 bullets, and as far as I'm concerned the .257 Wby is the ultimate beanfield deer rifle. That's why I'm having one built as we speak.

Now, let's discuss this "energy kills" theory of your's. Do you have a medical background? I have read very detailed info that explains EXACTLY how and why an animal dies from gunshots in various locations in the body, and suffice it to say an expert could FILL multiple screens here explaining that very thing, but I'm NOT an expert. However, what I firmly believe is the amount of energy needed to kill any animal is equal to the minimum energy required to push your bullet of choice THROUGH the animal of choice, at the angle chosen for the shot, taking into account the intended point of impact on the animal. Any more energy than that is wasted when the bullet is either buried in the ground behind the animal or sent 2 or 3 hundred yards past the animal, which is usually the case with a typical "behind the shoulder" shot.

If maximum energy transfer was the most important aspect of the killing potential of a deer cartridge, much more effort would be expended in R&D departments to perfect a bullet that did NOT exit, instead of the exact opposite, which the industry has all but perfected presently.

I would argue, and I do hope this leads to one, that a deer dies because, with a good shot, you completely eliminated the deer's lung's ability to process oxygen. That's what my arrow does, and it has virtually NO energy, and what energy it does have ends up being used to stick the arrow a foot into the ground after it's been through the deer.

That magical 1000 ft lb minimum for deer hunting does not mean you have to try to impart 1000 ft lbs of energy into the deer. I think that means 1000 ft lbs is a good average of energy necessary to push MOST deer bullets through MOST deer at MOST typical hunting ranges, at MOST angles, while taking into account MOST shooter's skill levels, and factoring in some amount of margin for error....but I'm wrong numerous times a day, and could be now, so don't be bashful.

While you're at it, didn't I ask you to explain to me how you computed rifle recoil a month or so ago? I haven't seen your response.

ND decoy...sorry I've gotten off the subject. Good luck with whatever you choose.


----------



## Invector

To clampdaddy:
Never did I say anything in response to what you had posted. I was addressing the fact the suggestion of a .25 cal rifle (a 25-06 or 257) and the original poster had stated he already had those. Now he had posted a 257 wby but that does not matter right now. When you have owned all those types of guns would it make much scene to ask about them? Second I too suggested looking at a .270 wsm for the same reason you had just blatantly pointed out. And again I own a 25-06 and love the thing. I feel that it shoots about as good as my .300 but lacks the energy, range, and ability to hold its speed and energy like the 300 does. I have my 25-06 set to be easily shot at 100, 200, and 300 if it calls for it. You might want to go back and read my last post. Cause if it was aimed at you I would have let you know.

To Csquared
You might be right about the suggesting but again why suggest what he already had or has. He's looking for a NEW gun not looking for something he already had. With regards to this Roy Weatheby I actually have heard very little of him and don't know his life story like you obviously do.

Yes you can kill almost anything with anything...but is it not better have something that kills better then something else? Now I know that what I just said might confuse so think of this. Deer rounds are made for deer. Elk type loads are made for larger game with thicker skin and internal tissue. If you were to use a load that is made to expand too quickly the energy and speed will be transferred to the object resulting in little penetration and damage. This is the founding principle of Kevlar. It absorbs the energy of the bullet stopping it before it can kill the person who has it. Simply put the layers of Kevlar cradles absorbing the energy and passing it away form the sight of impact leaving little energy for penetration. If a bullet resists opening or does not open at all, the better penetration it will have. For this reason in part is why I think some cals should be able to be shot with a FMJ. The fact it would go though the animal with little damage results in clean hits, that is if it were hit in the lungs/heart. If it were not hit there but more of a body shot there is a great chance that nothing will happen to this animal. For this reason bullets that open, expand, fragment, or whatever it is they do are used. They open to cause more damage...but if they open to quickly they will not do any good. I watched someone shot a deer with a .222 last year. He was hitting them but since we could only find loads made for varmints the rounds were breaking apart on impact. I have seen it on TV also. A round too soft breaking on impact...and that was a much bigger bullet then what the .25's have.

Next I would like to point out how many people go to Alaska on a moose hunt, Colorado on an elk hunt, or Africa and use a 25-06? How many guys with hunting shows would be caught dead shooting a .25 cal gun at a large animal like a moose or buffalo? On the other hand how many people are out there shooting yotes with a 416 lott? You don't see just don't see it; it's over kill and under kill. Do I drought a 25-06 or a 257 in say a BTHP could kill an elk...if it was close enough. Same thing as shooting deer with a .223. It can be done but you don't see people taking long shots with them. Form what I have read and argued about it, most shots are close under 75 yards and most are neck shots. But they are using a bullet made for shooting deer, a 60 grn if I remember right. There not going out with a 55 grn varmint load to shoot deer with. So that brings it back to the 25's and heavy game. Plus as it was pointed out before he shoots a .338 for elk. He don't want anything bigger then a 300 for shooting deer. You keep talking about Roy and how great he is...hm...if he was so great why are not all of us using 257s to hunt everything with? He might have had a good run with it, but it's not a good choice.

You start to mock the fact energy kills, it does. Speed really is only used when looking at how the bullet will travel and how well it will keep its energy. Yes you need speed for impact. But how come is it then that some of the guns that create over 5k lbs of energy travel slow?

And as far as this exactly how and why an animal dies form gunshots goes I bet it confuted you a great amount. If you go out shooting say geese with a 12g pick your favorite shot. Now let's put it into a 10g and see how much of a difference shooting that shot goes. For example I shot a goose this weekend, when it came time to clean it I found that someone else had shot that same bird just a matter of hours before I got it. I found 2 pellets in the chest that did not make it though. I also found 5 other spots that made it tough the feathers, skin, but only made it part ways into the chest nothing to indicate that the bird was hurt or damaged to the point it could no longer fly or live. My shot on the other hand being bigger (I found #1s and I was shooting T's) passed several pellets into the chest and continued though it into the chest cavity. It also helped that the bird was hit several times in the neck. The point that I'm trying to make here is one shot penetrated but not enough to kill it or hurt it. If it was closer it might have gone though it. My shot being bigger and hitting harder "more energy" passed though and into the vital areas. If you cannot penetrate the mussel tissue you end up with a stopped bullet and a wounded animal. Thus is looking at shooting a heavy bodied animal with a smaller gun. The way I look at it, why take the chance. The factor of 1000 flbs for deer, 2000 flbs for elk, and 2500 flbs of energy for moose came to be form a wildlife biologist and several other people on this site.

Now taking in to consideration bullet type and range, a 25-06 or 257 could and probably can/has killed bigger game then deer. But I would not shoot elk with them. I will also say that when you don't have and do you have to make the best of it. If you have a smaller gun but try and elk hunt you want to max our opportunity of dropping the animal. That is why a close shots and a really strong bullet comes to play. Since elk loads don't come in the .25's a shoot at an elk at 50 yards with a .25 if the right bullet was used...something like the barns XXX. With the energy and speed this bullet gives off it might be possible, but then again it might now be. Form what I see it would have enough energy to penetrate an elk...how well it would is still be to seen until someone who has taken shots like this comes on and says "Ya hay I shot an elk the other day with my 25-06 and was using __ type bullet and it did this much damage." Until that happens I am sticking to the fact they make deer type rounds, elk type rounds, and dangerous game type rounds for a reason. The bullet companies are trying to make the best they can of their bullets. If you look on federals web site, you will see that they have the number of the cheaper made led tips...Speer hot cores would be one of them. I can get a 117 grain that does 2990 fps and 2322 flbs of energy at muzzle. But I can get a 100grn Barns XXX that will do 3210 fps but only 2288 flbs of energy at muzzle. Here is the thing one is heavier then the other, but at 100 yards the 117grn is already slower and has less energy. I can also tell you that if you look at the newer bullet types out there you can see they all try for one thing...better speed and energy the farther out from the muzzle they are. Last year I hit a deer at 125 yards with an 180grn Winchester BST, the bullet passed right though the animal. The fact the bullet was made for heavier game meant the bullet did not open, flatten, fragment, or any other kind of denaturing. This was easy to tell when the entrance and exit wound were the same size. The hole in the heart and hole in the chest were the same size as well. Simply put the bullet stayed together and did nothing but transfer mass amount of energy to the body, heart, and lung that it passed though so much so that it flipped the deer...the deer did not trip but flipped. People who have shot deer with a .300 are about the only people that actually believe that. Think of it this way when you hit a deer with your car do you actually drive right though the deer?

The fact bullets today are made much better then bullets of old means that we get better hits and better mushrooming/fragmenting/denaturing then ever before. With what you put down the R&D people had nothing to do with it...hm...Wonder then who came up with the bonded core, ballistics tip, boat tail, preformed hollow point, and the various coatings some bullets get.

The deer dies because brain functions stop. When not enough O2 is being taken up by the lungs, not processed, the brain becomes starved of that O2 and the cells that make up the brain stop die. It is possible for an animal that has been lung shot to survive it. Its all in the placement of it. Most times if you hit a deer in the lungs, the heart will be hit as well and stop or pump all remaining blood out into the chest cavity resulting in no blood getting to the brain. And your arrow would have to have enough energy to make it though the deer. If an arrow did not have enough energy it would not pass though an animal. Remember energy is the force of the pushing being done. You have to have enough push to break something. Let's take a pellet gun. They can send a pellet tough the air at over 1k some 1600 fps. That's fast...but the energy given off is very low due to weight and size of the object.

The magical 1k of energy mean that a force of an object "bullet" has to do 1000 foot pounds of energy in order to break the surface of that object "deer". The object "bullet" has to maintain enough energy to continue though the animal just enough to do mortality type damage.

Angle does not have anything to do with it. If angle was a problem why don't you hear people talking about how they shot a deer but the angle made the bullet change its path...i.e. bounce off. Since its tissue and fur that you're shooting, as long as there is enough energy in the projectile, such things would not happen.

As far as a response to computing rifle recoil go find a web site that has it. I think it's called shooting bench or something like that. Why bring it up here? That was old and in another post. Plus recoil is a completely different argument that I don't want to get into again since people can get just plain mean with it.

And I'm sorry for having to explain this...I have a biology degree not a teaching degree. 
And wow you just made me write over 2000 words in response to your um lack of oh what's the word I'm looking for...


----------



## Horsager

Invector, oh where to start, how about the 416 Lott, no such animal, well it exists but it's known as the 416 Remington to the rest of the world. It's a full length 375 H&H case necked to .416 with straighter case walls and 10 degrees more shoulder to increase powder capacity. The 458 Lott is also based on the 375 H&H, but is .05" shorter, and obviously necked up to .458.

You mentioned energy transfer and how your 180gn BST transferred "mass amounts" of energy to the deer you shot. If that's true why the caliber in-caliber out holes? A transfer of energy would have resulted in bullet expansion and an internal hydrostatic typhoon that would have created a much larger exit wound than the entrance wound. Performance that is caliber in-caliber out can be duplicated daily with FMJ bullets, and they do poke holes, but don't TRANSFER much energy. The reason expanding bullets exist is to TRANSFER energy. They do this by expanding, increasing their frontal/surface area spreading out the area over which they are potentially able to transfer energy. The "fatter" the bullet the greater the energy transfer, also the "flatter" the frontal area of the bullet, the greater the energy transfer. If you took a 250gn .338 bullet and a 250gn .375 bullet and loaded them to the same velocity their muzzle energy would be the same, make them FMJ bullets. The 375 would transfer more energy because of it's greater frontal area, the 338 would penetrate deeper because it doesn't shed it's energy as fast. In calibers you are more familiar with look at a 125gn X-bullet, it's available in a .25cal, and a .308 cal. In the 257wby that 125 can be loaded to 3200fps, and in a 30-06 a 125 can be loaded to 3200fps. Shoot those same bullets into ballistic geletin (for consistancy sake) and the 25cal 125 will out penetrate the 30cal 125. Same velocity, same muzzle energy, better energy TRASNFER with the 30cal, less penetration with the 30 cal. Shot angle plays a major role in the transfer of energy. The longer a bullet is inside an animal the more energy it's able to transfer. A quartering shot allows for more energy transfer than a broadside shot because the bullet spends more time inside the animal. Angle also gives you the chance to break bones, bullets contacting bones transfer much more energy than those that don't. The bullet mushrooms even wider and slows down more inside the animal. As an aside, plain old Remington or Winchester bulk (non-premium) 55gn soft points from a 222, 223, 22-250, or 220 swift put through the lungs kill deer or antelope kill like lightning.

.257 cal Nosler partitions have been available to reloaders since the 1960's, Barne's X bullets since the 80's both of these are suitable elk bullets. In college I worked for a guy who took lots of elk with a 25-06 loaded with 120gn partitions, it can be done by mere mortals, not just Roy Weatherby.

Speaking of Roy Weatherby, he'd be what most call a "Been there, done that" kind of guy, having taken almost every species of game on the planet. Suggesting his caliber choice wasn't a good one is ludacris. His decisions were based on thousands of rounds of ammo shot and hundreds of game animals taken, in conjunction with 1st person case/caliber/rifle development.

Invector it is abundantly clear you have little experience beyond the 25-06 and 300 you shoot and deer hunting. Oh, and whatever magazines/books/internet sights you may have read.


----------



## Jiffy

Horsager, you are wasting your time with him.....I've tryed and won't do it anymore. :beer:

Kind of like beating your head against a wall..... :lol:


----------



## Invector

But Jiffy you got of on somthing I did not even say. I tryed and tryed to get you to realize what I said was different from what your talking about. If a guy cannot say to make sure what kind of ammo your using matches the animal your shooting without someone taking it completley the wrong way then whats the point of asking a question. If I remember correctly it was on a .22-250 and I just had stated that I have only seen loads for varmints and that if useing one to find a round made for deer. Then I said that the .222 we had could not penitrate a deer with the type of load we had for it...varmint loads is what was shot at it. You then came on and started to jump all over me about how a .223 is such a great gun and so on. No place did I say a .223 with a deer round (federal makes a 60grn for it) could not do the job. I did question the fact of a .223 being better then a .300 though.


----------



## Invector

To you Horsager:

First I read about the 416 Lott in a magazine. The guy was up hunting in Alaska with a singe shot. The only reason I put it in there was just as an example and it came off the top of my head. But the point was do you hear of such large cals being used to go out varmint or yote hunting?

Second if something is too hard to expand on impact it will only create a hole and transfer off its energy. There may have been some expanding but very little due to the size of holes left in the deer and lack of damage to the surrounding tissue. Think of a rock going though a window and a clump of top soil. The rock being hard would pass right though it but there is a good chance that the soil being soft would only break apart on impact. Or think of it this way...shoot something with a FMJ and watch what happens...there might be just a bit of bullet denaturing but it will go right though an animal with out expanding at all. Hence the band on them for hunting. The fact the 180grn BST was made to penetrate thicker hide, skin, and bone, it would pass though a deer with little expanding unless you shot it right in the a$$. That might be thick enough to expand and stop it. But when a bullet passes right though the chest plate of a deer, that the thick bony part under the neck, and does not expand what then does that tell you? As far as this hydrostatic typhoon on the inside of something hmmm what a fantasy. If you hit your palm with a hammer does the back end of your hand blow out? I am guessing the reason you believe this, and a lot of other things, is that you never took a biology or other science class in college. The tissue would not allow such a pulse of energy do the ribbon and layering affect the tissue is in. Plus you have no idea how much water pressure would have to be built up in order to do such a thing. You're talking about forces of impacts for something like getting hit by a semi going 100 mph.

The things you right about expanding bullets and transfer of energy is at best laughable. Let's take steel shot it does transfer its energy but not like Pb does. A FMJ and an expanding round is the same thing. But the more energy something has, if it expands or not, the more available energy there is to transfer. So something that resists expanding or does not expand on impact will have more energy the farther it penetrates. Just because it does not expand does not mean it does not transfer its energy. The fact the deer was hit and the bullet entered the ground about another 50 yards away suggests that there was a loss of energy allowing the bullet to only travel that short distance, but had more then enough to go right though the deer. I would like to hear your theory on why the bullet penetrated the deer, caused a hole the same size thought the deer, killing the deer, and going though the deer and continuing though the air before hitting the ground again. I'll let you know how on or off your theory was.

The flatter frontal area that you speak of is half right. The fact its flat will allow for energy to be transferred over a larger area on first impact. But a flat nosed round has a down fall and so does your theory. If too much energy is wasted on impact the bullet will not penetrate to vital areas. In short it will stop. A round with a sharp nose allows for deeper penetration before it starts expanding allowing for more energy to be given off at the points that its needed to bring down an animal. In other words resist energy transfer until expansion. The thing your had posted about the 338 and 375 gets me thinking on the fact of under loading or over loading one of those rounds.

One thing that you forget about shooting bullets into jell is how the jell works. Jelly does not allow a bullet to expand, if it is that type of bullet, but it does take into consideration the size of round. The smaller round will have an easier time due to less resistance from its smaller surface area. The resistance stops a larger bullet faster due to the larger surface area. More resistance is put on something big going though it then it does little. Shooting it into something that allows for full expansion you would see the larger cals penetrate farther. If you were to shoot both at say a pig carcass the 30-06 would deal more damage, transfer more energy, and have the better penetration. The fact that bullets do not expand or open when it hits the jelly only shows what it can do if it were to hit something that soft. Bone is not that soft. How many times have you seen a 243, 25-06 257 go though at deer? How many times does a bigger cal like a .308 30-06 or a .300 go though a deer? The factor of speed does not really come into play here. It's the factor of more energy. The amount of push the bullet is doing will dictate how far it goes into an animal. The jelly just uses the surface area of a bullet to its advantage. The larger bullets are easier to stop since more anti forces can be applied to the bullet. The smaller cals don't have as much resistance due to the lack of surface area.

Who said that an angled shot brakes bone? If a bullet has enough power to break bone, it will break it no matter how it hits it. And yes a bullet does transfer more energy to a bone then it does to tissue...it has to do with the density, strength, and hardness of the bone. Harder objects and objects like Kevlar absorbed the energy. A harder/stronger bullet will easily pass though thin bone then it will thicker bone...ie a deer verses an elk. And as a side note plain old soft points have to have the ability to break though the skin, bone, or any other tissue and still have enough energy to pass though the lungs. We tried, it did not work. The range was sub 100 yards. Bulk bullets for the 223, 22-250 that are made for shooting deer have no problems with this. Bullets not made for deer rarely do enough damage to kill a deer or penetrate its hide. It's a factor of how soft or hard a bullet it. Bullets that are made for deer are strong enough to kill very well. If its too soft it will ether break on impact or get lodged in the side.

With all due respects to Roy&#8230;I don't know him and I bet he was mortal. I also believe form what you have said about it he would agree with me but point out how he was killing these animals and what factors he took into consideration in doing so. There may have been something that he was doing that is rarely duplicated.

Ah some of the rounds like Noslers, Barnes and some of the other rounds from Winchester are newer compared to the base Pb tips out there. They and FJM were some of the first to be shot. Plus how much improvement has been done since some of them were first introduced? From what I see it's called the NEW Barnes triple X bullet for a reason right? They just came out with them. Same as the supposedly high tech XP3 by Winchester, there new too. I look forward to shooting it this year.

And I see you only have the experience of what you think you know. Physics cannot be taught by looking in a hunting book, hunting magazine, or hunting internet site. So try and expand your horizon by opening your eyes and ears but don't shut your mind like a trap.


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector said:


> To clampdaddy:
> Never did I say anything in response to what you had posted.


Yeah you did, a couple times.I was the one who asked why elk were brought up since the original author already had an elk rifle and you responded to that, and went on about some stuff I never said. My main point was that you said a 25-06 wouldn't kill an elk and everyone knows that's wrong. Sure it aint the best but it'll do it.


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector,
I hate to butt in with the conversation you've been haveing with Horsager but I noticed that in all of you're writeing about bullet performance you never mentioned sectional density factors and how they affect bullet performance. Why not?


----------



## Csquared

> "Invector" "I'm sorry for having to explain this"
> 
> No apology nesessary, as you didn't explain anything!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Invector" "Physics cannot be taught by looking in a hunting book.......so try.....opening your eyes and ears...."
> 
> Well, Horsager, Jiffy, and Clampdaddy, when you guys are done with the physics lessons here maybe you'll want to check out www.CYA.com. I hear Kim Jong Il has posted a dissertation explaining how he is pushing for world-wide democracy in an attempt to achieve true and lasting world peace.
> 
> I was taught a long time ago that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything, so ........................................
Click to expand...


----------



## Horsager

Invector, your 180gn BST is made to expand like all ballistic tips, not penetrate like a partition the caliber in-caliber out performance you witnessed would be considered a failure for that bullet, but you don't have enough experience to know that. The Nosler partition has been available to reloaders for 40 years, even in .257 cal. The original Barnes X has been available to reloaders since the 80's, the Triple Shock (not Triple X) has been available since very early 2004, I bought some of the 1st bullets commercially available from Randy and Coni Brooks at the Safari Club convention where they were introduced to the public, bonded Swift A-frames have also been available since the 80's. Your hammer/palm referrence fails to account for the rotation of a bullet which is in the neighborhood of 3600RPS (revolutions per second) if you have a 1 in 10" twist barrel and 3000fps at the muzzle. Go back to your physics book and study rotation and it's effect combined with kenetic energy. The rotational energy and kenetic energy to not act independant of one another, they have a cumulative effect. A bullet that doesn't expand doesn't trasfer AS MUCH OF it energy, it RETAINS IT due to a smaller surface area. Ballistic geletin is the industry standard for measuring expansion and penetration check out Barnesbullets.com/x-citingfacts.php, or go to Barnes website look under the drop down at the top under bullet talk and click on X-citing facts. You will see both that ballistic geletin does cause bullets to expand, and you will see evidence of the hydrostatic typhoon that's created. Hydrostatic typhoon isn't the technical term for what's created, it's a laymans term I thought you'd understand with your obviously very limited physics background and even more limited experience with bullet performance. Angled shots give you the opportunity to break bones and enter the vitals. Give me a quartering towards or away shot over broadside any day. Quartering towards I'll break the on-side shoulder on the way into the vitals and stop the deer in it's tracks, it'll expand the bullet better and allow the bullet to TRANSFER it's energy into the animal, that's TRANSFER energy, not retain it, energy RETENTION does nothing for you once the bullet has left the animal, the only energy that helps to do damage is TRANSFERRED energy. Give me a quartering away shot and I'll do the same in the opposite order, I'll sufficiently disturb the vitals and then break the off-side shouler, again anchoring the critter in it's tracks. The insufficiencies you encountered with 22caliber bullets not working on deer were a function of poor shot placement, 22 caliber bullets don't bounce off of deer, when they start to do that I'm going to start hunting with Tungsten core bullets from Speer out of my 375 H&H. You are obviously very new to hunting, ammo, bullets, etc so I shouldn't be so hard on you. You don't even know what you don't know. When you're caliber count gets into the dozen's (plural), your reload count get into the 10,000's, your body count is in the 1000's, you'll start to have an understanding of bullet performance, caliber potential, shooter limits, etc. You'll also hope no one can go back and find any of these posts where you are so glaringly wrong.


----------



## Gohon

Invector, you really are in over your head on this one. There are generally two rules of theory on how a bullet kills game. One such rule is along the lines of large heavy and slower bullets with a wide meplate which causes larger entrance wounds, huge tissue damage and creates massive bleed out. The other theory was fast moving bullets that expand rapidly and still drive deep while creating the same tissue damage as the larger bullets. I personally think there is something to be said for both and bullet performance should fall in between both theories though I lean towards a high sectional density and wide meplate caliber bullet. I've never bought into the energy dump theory and personally don't care if the bullet passes through and doesn't give up all it's energy in the game or not as long as the tissue damage and nervous system damage is sufficient to put the game down. I suppose I may think differently if I were hunting dangerous game such as African lion or Brown bears. Read this article by Chuck Hawks and though I don't agree with everything he has to say, I think you might have a better understanding. http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm


----------



## Jiffy

Invector, please refrain from giving advice to people about subjects you obviously know little to nothing about. If you're here to learn please take the knowledge dealt out to you and study it. Otherwise, quit giving FLAT OUT WRONG information!!!

Many of these threads are opinion based but this particular one is based on facts. If you want to be a participant please do some research first. Thanks!!!


----------



## Invector

Jiffy you can stay out of it too. You seam to think you know but have yet to show anything.


----------



## Invector

clampdaddy said:


> Invector said:
> 
> 
> 
> To clampdaddy:
> Never did I say anything in response to what you had posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you did, a couple times.I was the one who asked why elk were brought up since the original author already had an elk rifle and you responded to that, and went on about some stuff I never said. My main point was that you said a 25-06 wouldn't kill an elk and everyone knows that's wrong. Sure it aint the best but it'll do it.
Click to expand...

I never said a 25-06 wont kill an elk.


----------



## Invector

Gohon said:


> Invector, you really are in over your head on this one. There are generally two rules of theory on how a bullet kills game. One such rule is along the lines of large heavy and slower bullets with a wide meplate which causes larger entrance wounds, huge tissue damage and creates massive bleed out. The other theory was fast moving bullets that expand rapidly and still drive deep while creating the same tissue damage as the larger bullets. I personally think there is something to be said for both and bullet performance should fall in between both theories though I lean towards a high sectional density and wide meplate caliber bullet. I've never bought into the energy dump theory and personally don't care if the bullet passes through and doesn't give up all it's energy in the game or not as long as the tissue damage and nervous system damage is sufficient to put the game down. I suppose I may think differently if I were hunting dangerous game such as African lion or Brown bears. Read this article by Chuck Hawks and though I don't agree with everything he has to say, I think you might have a better understanding. http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm


If you have read anything I have posted...a lot of what I had said you just repeated. The only thing I would change is the fact some bullets are soft and some are hard. The make up of the round and its hardness will dictate just how it expands, penitrates, or works on a given target. If you shoot somthing with a round that is not strong enough what good will it do?


----------



## Invector

Horsager
You're not making much of a point here. All your doing is reposting what you had already had posted. The Rate of Twist in a gun is a secondary factor on a bullet. You first need something to push it though the gun. The amount of force put on the bullet to drive it forward is the biggest part. The twist again is secondary. This means that the more force (with in limits, we don't want to blow up a gun now do we?) put on the pushing forward part the better the twist in the barrel can perform. This is a no brainer. But where did twist on a bullet come from and why did you post it?

As far as bullet failure you're not seeing my point. The point here is I was using a round form Winchester. They have a G rating on their ammo. The G goes form 1-4. 1 being varmints, 2 being deer sized game, 3 being heavier game like elk and moose, and 4 being dangerous game; game that you don't want to turn and charge. This rating is used to tell how the bullet will perform. In other words how hard the bullet is. Point in point here is the fact that a harder bullet will resist expanding until it hits the right type of resistance. The deer I shot being a deer and the bullet made for elk sized game, ie G3, did not acquire the right amount of resistance and did not expand when passing though the deer. If it would have had the right amount of resistance form the deer's tissue it would have expanded like it was suppose to.

Next I would like to ask you guys are not all bullets supposed to expand at some point? Even if you hit a tank with a FMJ form a 5.56mm will it not flatten out? Are not all rounds made for hunting suppose to penetrate the hide then any bone/mussel mass and maintain enough energy to pass though the heart and lungs (granted hitting the animal in the right spot to permit such a hit) and possibly continue though the chest cavity expanding along the way if enough resistance is achieved? Think about it. Or think of this. By what you're posting I get the picture that you think any bullet will penetrate almost anything. Try shooting a rock with a FMJ. A FMJ does not expand but is used to form complete penetration and passing right though an object. A FMJ from any cal will penetrate any animal as long as it does not hit anything harder then it is or is slowed to a stop by the resistance of tissue. You don't need a physics book to know that. Think of it this way. Two rams are butting heads. They often survive the blunt trauma. They can sustain concussions that could lead to brain damage or death. It does happen. The concussion is caused by the head stopping and the brain continuing to move and slamming into the skull. It's a law of motion something in motion will tend to stay in motion. I know your set in your ways here but what I'm posting is not false flights of fancy.

And for future referance I have shot a 270, .222, .243, .308, .300, and a 25-06. Not to mention several shot guns from a 20 to a 10 and several types of .22 rim fires. I also have seen up close and watched people shooting 22-250s and a 270 wsm. I've also done some looking into and at the several 7mm that are out there.


----------



## Horsager

Invector enlighten us as to what would make a bullet "harder". Lets limit the discussion to copper jacketed lead core bullets, or Barnes x or Barnes Triple Shock bullets. Explain why a Nosler accubond is different than a Nosler Ballistic tip and what will be the results of those differences. Also explain the differences and similarities between a Nosler Partition and a Swift A-Frame. Lastly explain the major difference between any of the above bullets and a Barnes Triple Shock or Barnes X bullet and what will those differences do in terms of bullet performance.

Nosler Ballistic tip is considered by many the Gold Standard for accuracy in a hunting bullet.

Nosler Accubond has become wildly popular because it's accuracy is on par with the ballistic tip and there are some other benefits due to it's construction I'll let you explain.

Nosler Partition is the Gold Standard "premium" bullet, that to which all others are compared.

Swift A-Frame is virtually identical to the Nosler partition with one major difference.

The Barnes Triple shock is the newest of this bunch but has found immediate success, mostly due to it's unique construction that you'll hopefully enlighten us about.

You've done such a good job explaining bullet performance you must have experience with all of these bullets, they are all extremely popular. It's not as if I'm asking you to compare/contrast bullets from Lost River Technologies or Woodleigh, both good bullets but a bit obscure to all but the most dedicated rifle loonies.

While you're at it explain those high speed photos from the Barnes website and how there is no such thing as hydrostatic shock (or typhoon as I explained it so you'd understand it), also explain how they got a bullet to expand in only 2" of ballistic gelatin when you claimed that stuff won't make a bullet expand, enlighten us regarding the 2nd photo and the expansion happening along the entire length of the gelatin block, and lastly explain the obvious damage caused by cumulative effect of the rotational energy and kenetic energy of the bullet passing through the block of gelatin. In case you missed the quote at the bottom of the pictures an inch of 250A ordnance gelatin is equal to an inch of muscle tissue, or the 16" block is equal to 16" of muscle tissue. Those pictures are physics at work, maybe you could give us all a lesson and explain them, and of course the bullets listed above, should be easy for one with your vast knowlege of bullet performance and physics.


----------



## Gohon

I didn't repeat anything............... I simply pointed out the two theories on bullet requirement to kill game. And if you think you said the same thing, and I did read what you posted, then I suggest you take a course on how to write what you're thinking................ unless of course that is what you did in which case you're still wrong. Energy transfer which you seem to be stuck on or as some call it Hydrostatic shock has never killed anything. It's the destruction of tissue and blood loss that kills and Hydrostatic shock which does exist and does have a roll here only plays a small part in that accomplishment. Did you even bother to read the link I gave you?

Couple days ago I shot a crow with a HMR using a 17 grain bullet. Crow was at about 160 yards. Bullet had only 95 fpe left at that distance. Instant kill.......... What do you think killed that crow?

I have two loads made up for a 357 magnum lever rifle. One is a 180 grain Hornady XTP jacked bullet at 1600 fps. The other is a 180 grain flat nosed cast lead (no jacket) at 1600 fps. The cast bullet will penetrate farther with less expansion and do more damage than the jacketed bullet. Want to take a stab and guess why?


----------



## Bore.224

Gohon said:


> Couple days ago I shot a crow with a HMR using a 17 grain bullet. Crow was at about 160 yards. Bullet had only 95 fpe left at that distance. Instant kill.......... What do you think killed that crow?


A 17 grain bullet with 95 fpe :wink: I have heard hydrostatic shock does matter. Ever seen a prarie dog blow apart from a 22-250!! Why the .357 Magnum has the best one shot results in combat.


----------



## Jiffy

Invector said:


> Jiffy you can stay out of it too. You seam to think you know but have yet to show anything.


Boy it SEEMS you have me in a box!! You're right I guess I don't know JACK SQUAT!! I'm going to go home now and seal the SEAMS in my driveway before it gets too cold.

You guys I normally would carry on this conversation but he really doesn't amuse me anymore. Good luck guys!! I've already been through this with him. :eyeroll:


----------



## Gohon

Never said hydrostatic shock didn't matter. As a matter of fact I specifically said it is part of the equation but that PD exploding is mostly the result of a bullet design that explodes/fragments into a 100 small fragments pushing in all directions. The problem with Invector is he is trying to simplify bullet performance. It's much more complex than that. The 357 magnum as the best one shot man stopper is a myth. That little story was cooked up with faulty data by Evan Marshall. It is good............. but not that good.


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector said:


> Just about anything in your list will kill an elk except the 25-06


Sorry, but you did say that a 25-06 wont kill an elk. Go back to your fist post and see for yourself.


----------



## Horsager

Bore224 and Gohon I believe we are all talking about the same thing, somantics are getting in the way though. Instead of Hydrostatic shock lets be more accurate and call it the "transfer of rotational energy". It is easily visible as such on the Barnes website under bullet talk and then X-citing facts. No need for us to argue that we agree!

Invector, you must be scouring websites and friends reloading manuals trying to come up with some coherent explanations.


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector said:


> The way it was explained to me is


HMMM


----------



## Horsager

You know that cliche' about "when you realize you're in a hole you should stop digging". Invector just keeps getting bigger shovels!!


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector said:


> You start to mock the fact energy kills, it does. Speed really is only used when looking at how the bullet will travel and how well it will keep its energy. Yes you need speed for impact. But how come is it then that some of the guns that create over 5k lbs of energy travel slow?


First off, energy doesn't kill. Putting holes in vital organs kills. Thats why you can't just blast game thru the hindquarters or explode wimpy bullets on heavy shoulder bones with a high energy round and expect it to die anytime soon. Hence the expresion "100 pounds in the boiler room is worth more than 5000 in the rump". Second, speed is not "only used when looking at how the bullet will travel and how well it will keep its energy". Ballistic coeficients of projectiles do that. Look it up. And finally, the reason some slow rounds churn up high ft-lbs is because ft-lbs of energy is a calculation that uses bullet weight and speed. So to get the high numbers with low velocity you need more bullet weight. Adding more weight makes a bullet longer wich increases the sectional density of the projectile. Foot pounds of energy doesn't make for deep penatration, the sectional density of a given projectile does. Thats why a light carbon arrow (wich has a huge sectional density value) can penetrate deeper than a rifle bullet with many times more energy. Kinetic energy isn't what was used to kill off the great buffalo herds, momentum plus high sectional density was. Thats why my 45-110 Sharps with a 520gr. bullet @ 1400 fps may fall short in the energy department compared to many of the modern 30 and 338 magnum rounds that many people hunt with but it will break heavy bones and penetrate deeper than them despite this.


----------



## Invector

All I will say is you guys are stuck on what you think. You won't look at the difference in what I am trying to say. If I did say a 25-06 will not kill an elk then I miss stated myself. The point I was trying to make is the fact it is not the best choice. I can sit here for a long time arguing about the something over and over and over. But you guys seam to be getting something stuck in your head and it cannot be moved. You guys are not even looking at what I'm posting your just closing your mind right way. You have to remember some of the stuff printed in the magazines is by people who could not tell me what pH is. What I'm posting is not wrong. I have a hard time believing some of what is being posted its not possible or even probable, but its not 100% wrong. I'm not in a hole here...I never was. I have asked you guys to explain a few things on basis of what you think. You have yet to do that. So by looking at your posting then I guess I spent the $ and wasted the 5 years getting a tech degree and a BS in Biology for nothing...I guess side walk science prevails over all. One question I really do want you guys who are so much smarter and seam to know so much more, WHY does Federal have a scale of 1-5 for its bullets and Winchester have a 1-4 scale and what is the difference in those bullets. No one has yet to say anything about that. And no one has addressed my other question to youz about how the bullet that passed though the deer did not expand but still kill the deer anyways.

If by reading what you're all saying here, I can go out after moose with a 243 and not have any problems killing it. I can take a .223 and head out after buffalo. I can take one shot to drop the animal right then and there. At any angle, any range, any weather condition, any terrain.

Please I really do want to know what this thing about the bullet scale meant then is. I really do want to know. And after you answer me it you might want to call Federal ammo up and tell them that they got their ammo wrong and do the same thing to Winchester.

I will restate that the toughness/hardness of a bullet has a lot to do with how it will resist opening. If a bullet comes into contact with any material that exerts more force then what it can handle that bullet will open, expand, mushroom, or denature in some way (or what ever your bullet does). (This I have said more times then I can count)

Again speed is just a secondary factor. Its is the force put into it from the weight of the bullet and the amount of pressure put forth from the gas pressure the powder releases when it is ignited. I once looked up a .50 bullet. I found that it is slow for how big of a cartridge it has. But the amount of energy was extremely great. As I remember the speed was sub 3000fps but some of the energy ranged over 10k ( I do not remember the range that whose numbers were at). The fact the bullet is traveling at that speed and the weight of the bullet, the fact they are over 500 grns means it's going to hit hard because of the weight. You just need enough speed to get it there. Speed and energy do go hand in hand. A bullet looses speed its energy will drop. A bullet looses energy its speed will drop. But it is the factor of its weight and the force of push the bullet has that determine its speed. A simple example is how you can get a 150 in a 308 to do the same speed in a 300. The 308 has a much smaller casing then the 300 has. Yet it can be done by mere mortals.

The other thing about speed killing is this. Take a small 22-250 55 grn bullet and put it up against a .308 165 grn. I had a friend look this up for me since he reloads. He can get the 22-250 round to hit the 4k fps mark. Something the 308 round was unable to do. We discussed this one day out shooting. The next thing is the 308 he was shooting maintained its energy and speed longer due to weight and bullet type (both were the same bullets BTHP). We were shooting at a rock that was 600 yards from us on a range finder. The 22-250 would zip though the air and would make a hit in a much faster time but due to size and lack of energy you could hardly see any dirt that would get thrown into the air. The 308 on the other hand being bigger took more time to get to the target but when it hit it hit with much more energy. The sound it made and the plum it left was much more then that of the smaller round. (At this point if I lost anyone on anything please ask and I'll explain it more). See the point is just because something can travel fast does not mean it can kill. At 600 yards a 22-250 would lack the ability to penetrate a deer hide and travel far enough to hit vitals. Think of it as this. In a truck what gives it the ability to tow? Horse power or torque? Horse power tells us how fast of acceleration it can have but with out torque it could not over come the weight of a trailer. (I'm hoping one of these examples will get to someone's head and they will understand what I mean).

You need enough energy to hit the vitals. I can go out and hit a deer with a petit gun but it won't do any good. I can do the something with my .22 rim fire but what good is it going to do. They both can hit that 1500 fps scale. They lack the energy to do the adequate damage.

And for the record...what good is shooting a deer in the ***? There's nothing down there just poo. What do you think Kinetic energy is? High density (weight) provides the energy as long as it is traveling at a required speed. I don't know about shooting a 520 grn though a 45-110. But I did look it up and found that it was similar to a 45-70, though I only found it being referred to as a black powder gun. I looked on both Federals site and Winchesters and 300 grn is what I found. I really do not know much about the type of ammo for a 45-70 but from what I can see I believe they do not do as much expanding as a BTHP or a BST or even the Partition bullets do. And if you look at the numbers a standard 45-70 bullet is solid and tuff. The little expanding that it would do would result in penetration due to lack of expanding taking away its forward push. As far as your .357 goes I more or less just said the something just above. The fact the one round is made to expand giving up more of its energy to the resistance then the other one does. That is part of what I have been trying to say all along. The one bullet is made to travel as far as it can expanding all the way doing as much damage as it can. It is even better if it has enough energy to make it into the cavity that houses the main vitals. The other is made for deep penetration though the resistance of the animal's tissue. But I bet if we hit something hard enough with the 180 flat nosed cast Pb will flatten out. If we shoot an animal and hope that the bullet lodged in its side and that is enough to kill it, you'll be following the animal for a long, long time. If the bullet does not hit anything vital, you have the hope of enough damage is done that the clotting effect will not be enough for the animal to survive. A larger diameter bullet that leaves a large enough hole in the animal could do such a feat. But a smaller bullet that does not expand to a big enough size, would probably end up lodged in the tissue and the clotting would keep the animal from bleeding out.

Again when I say harder I mean the tuffness and resisting to expantion the bullet does. The easiest way to do this is by taking and making the material stronger or harder. One real easy way to make a bullet harder is by adding less Pb. You make the walls thicker and put in a higher quality of Pb that is harder. You do know that there is such a thing as hard and soft mettles and that you can have a harder and soft of the same mettle.

IF you really want me to go though the Barns X bullets then you need to do some reading.

And yes Gohon what you posted about speed and heavy bullets and how they kill. I tried to explain it the best way I could. A heavy bullet produces larger amounts of damage then small bullets do. A smaller bullet has an easier time penetrating due to the smaller surface area. This allows for much less anti forces...ie resistance from the tissue, allowing for easy penetration over the larger bullets. The thing the larger bullets have it the fact they carry much more energy into what it hits. If a small bullet traveling at any speed does not have the power...ie energy, to pass this resistance, thickness of skin, tissue, or hardness or the object, it will just bounce off or break up on impact. The energy transfered into an animal does not produce a shock wave of water. The tissue does not allow for it to happen. The web page you posted addresses this. The energy that is transfered is what is doing the damage. Again its a bit of both speed and impact energy but its the energy that does the damage. Speed at best can only brooze somthing.

clampdaddy when you say sectional density factors please give me more info on that. There could be many things that could come into play here. I read that sectional density factors refer to ballistics. Ballistics being the factor of drag on a bullet. The better the ballistics of a bullet the better it will fly. I see that a ACCU bond for the 300 win mag has one of over .5. To me this states that this round has a little drag to it and has good aerodynamics. I also read that the sectional density plays an important role in bullet penetration. Bullets with greater sectional density tend to penetrate deeper. Sectional density is a bullet's weight in pounds divided by the square of its diameter in inches. By looking at this you can figure out by this formula out of a 165grn form a 308 or a 165grn form a 300 will penetrate deeper (if I understand this correctly). The things that I see that might be affected by this are the forces putting off by the two cartages. We all know that a .300 can put more forces on a bullet then a 308. This concept makes very little use to me. There are just a few things that don't add up for me. This takes in no consideration of the energy of the bullet and the speed the bullet has. Any thoughts on this? It was already shown that a 25-06 could penetrate the Jelly better then the larger rounds it was up against. Form how I read this could not happen. It lacks the weight and diameter.

And for the last thing yes the 25-06 could kill an elk but it is not a good choice. You would have to be very close to the animal and have the right kind of bullet in order for it to work. And then you risk having to track the animal...if you are good at it good for you I;m now glad...I'm a bit color blind so I cannot see red on green. I would have a hard time following a blood trail though grass or even slough grass that has turned brown. All those colors blend to me. So shoot it and go chance down the animal if that happens. I'll pick my .300 win mag to shoot an elk not my 25-06.


----------



## Horsager

With your vast experience regarding bullet performance and superb understanding of physics you must be able to compare/contrast the bullets I listed in an earlier post, here they are for easy referrence. Nosler Ballistic tip, Nosler accubond, Nosler Partition, Swift A-Fram, Barnes TSX (triple shock). You don't have to compare them all, just compare/contrast the similar ones.

Accubond vs Ballistic tip.

Partition vs. A-frame (this should be the easiest).

Then a short explanation regarding how the TSX differs and what does that difference offer in the way of performance.

Please explain what is physically going on in the 2nd and 3rd pictures I referrenced on the Barnes website, you claimed the hydrostatic typhoon (my term for your understanding) is a "fantasy", then explain the photos.

Water buffalo isn't found in Africa, they are found in Australia, and Asia.

Your Tikka may weigh 6.5# as a bare rifle, it is much closer to 8# with a scope, sling, and loaded clip, your BAR will be closer to 10# in the same fashion. When talking gun weight, talk about the weight of the gun as you will carry it in the field. Bare gun weight means nothing for your Tikka, as there are no open sights you must add some sort of sighting device. Your BAR might have sights, but, if it does and you and I went to the range today I have serious doubts you've actually sighted in the open sights.

You mentioned using a hammer to dispell the "Fantasy" of the Hydrostatic typhoon (maybe we should call it a tornado, that's really what it looks like in picture number 2). Let's again use ballistic gelatin for consistancy. You hit the jelly with whatever 1# hammer you'd like, any shape, handle as long as you want. I'll shoot an identical block of jelly with my 300 Winchester shooting 200gn bullets (TSX) @ 3000fps. Now that bullet is only 3% the wieght of the "head" of the hammer, not including handle weight, but I bet I know which will go further through the block and do more damage. Hint: Not the hammer.

The example I gave regarding the 250gn bullets in .338 vs. .375 loaded to the same velocity, both calibers will easily push the 250gn bullet to 2700fps, neither is an over-max load, neither is a reduced load, that velocity would be merely average for both.

The 125gn X bullet from the 25 and 30 calibers into the pig as you suggested, loaded to the same velocity (25-06 vs. 308 both shooting 125's @ 2900fps, again an average velocity, not a hot load, not a reduced load for either), you'd be wrong to assume the 30 caliber would penetrate deeper, the 25 would. The 30 caliber would transfer more energy though, in that you were correct.

To keep this all in perspective. While you scoured websites, old magazines, called friends with reloading manuals yesterday, I went out and shot 3 roosters between 4:00 and 6:30.


----------



## Gohon

> One question I really do want you guys who are so much smarter and seam to know so much more, WHY does Federal have a scale of 1-5 for its bullets


It's called marketing for the mass public that knows nothing or very little about hunting bullets. It's for those that simply go out and buy a box of ammo to hunt but haven't a clue what to buy so they come up with this idea to keep those from making a mistake bigger than they already have made by not knowing or studying what bullet they really need. It's like gas at the pump that is rated in three different names because most people haven't a clue what octane means. Take a look at the handgun guide at Federal. They list #2 as the highest number for (up to Whitetail deer) the 41 mag, 44 mag, 454 casual, and 480 Ruger using Premium CastCore and Barnes bullets. Scores of hunters take Elk, Moose, and even brown bear with handguns every year. The charts mean nothing for anyone with even a small amount of hunting knowledge.

Now go to your Federal sight and read what it says about the performance of the Premium CastCore bullet, then go back and read what you said would happen to the solid cast lead bullet should it hit bone that I referenced. You lose the bet.........


----------



## Horsager

Gohon, Clampdaddy, do you feel like a cat toying with a mouse, with no intentions of actually eating it? I sure do. :rollin:

Invector, you must be looking for a bigger shovel again. :idiot:


----------



## Gohon

Well, I'm certainly not a ballistics expert and am not trying to present myself as one. I wasn't trying to heckle Invector but I am surprised he isn't asking more questions and I don't see how he figures his degree in biology gives him a heads up on the trauma a bullet inflicts or more to the point how it inflicts that trauma. If anything his knowledge in zoology, which I assume he has should give him a advantage on proper bullet selection and where to place that bullet. My opinions are just that, my opinions and I could be wrong about some of them. If I am wrong and someone points it out with cites and I'm able to learn from it then I'm better off.

The one thing I do know for sure is ballistics on paper is only a starting point on actual performance of a round in the field. Some bullets and caliber's simply perform way out of proportion to what they should by looking at ballistic figures. The .17 HMR is a case in point. That little bullet simply amazes me at the damage it can do on game much larger than what it was intended to be used on. Anyway I've said enough and don't intend to say anymore and besides I just printed out a article "Ballistics for Dummies" and I want to see what this guy has to say.


----------



## Jiffy

Gohon, forward that to Invector. Email @ [email protected] :lol:

Invector are you for real?? Or are you just messing with us?? Come on tell the truth!!


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector,
You have a couple thing mixed up as far as sectional density and ballistic coeficients go. Sectional density is basicaly how long a bullet is for its weight. For example; a 150gr. .277 cal bullet will have a higher SD value than a 150gr. .308 cal bullet. This is because even though they are the same weight the .277 cal bullet will be longer because it's smaller in diameter. So if the two bullets were constructed the same (toughness & shape) and driven at the same velocity the .277 slug with its higher SD will out penetrate the .308 cal. slug of the same weight. 
Ballistic coeficient is the ability to overcome resistance during flight. So a boattail spitzer has a higher BC. than a round nosed flat base of the same weight. Alot of things come together to make this factor up but the main thing to remember about this one is basicaly that long,streamlined bullets will defy air and wind resistance better than short blunt ones. They cut the air better so they shed velocity slower, the higher retained velocity makes for shorter time of flight, shorter time of flight makes for less bullet drop and wind deflection. In the end the bullet with a high BC doesn't drop as much, isn't affected by wind as much, gets to the target faster and will have more energy left when it gets there. 
One thing I'd like to point out is that you can't get a 150gr, slug to go as fast as a 300 mag with a 308 win. It just isn't possible. Maybee you were compareing it to a 300 savage and made an error. Look at any reloading manual and you'll see that you can get at best around 3000 fps from a 308 win and about 3400 fps from your 300 win mag. Force isn't the only thing that determines how fast a bullet will go. The pressure curve of the powder being burnt makes a big difference. A 308 win. loaded to the same 60,000 CUP (copper units of pressure) as a 300 win mag will lose in the velocity race every time becauce the large doses of slow burning powder in the mag shove the projectile longer as it travels down the barrel. During this longer shove the bullet picks up more speed even though the peak pressure is the same between the two different cartridges.
You are right about the # system on the winchester and federal ammo. Bullets are constructed diferently for diferent types or game depending on how much penetration is needed. But I don't think that the bullet you used on your deer didn't expand. A deer is roughly a foot wide (give or take an inch or two) and that is plenty to upset the nose of most any expanding bullet as long as velocity hasn't droped to the point that expansion isn't possible. Many bullets expanding bullets designed for heavy game are set up so that bullet will mushroom within the first few inches of penetration to impart hydrostatic shock,rapid tissue heating,etc. and then the deformed nose material actually lays back along the shank wich reduces the frontal diameter wich leads to the deep penetration that is desired. This is the reason partitions hve a reputation for massive internal trauma but small exit holes.
As far as your comments about the 45-110, 45-70 and the bullets they shoot---I'm just gonna let those slide for now as you sincerly stated that you don't know much about them, But you should've maybee left it at that. Telling a guy that shoots a 45-110 that its the same as a 45-70 is like telling a guy that shoots a 357 that it's the same as a 9mm. It's kinda like telling a mother that her baby's ugly, you just don't do that. Basicly the 45-110 was the baddest 45 cal buffalo cannon of its day and it came in loads as light as a fast expanding 293gr. hollow point express load for deer and such up to 550gr round noses for the largest game around. (I've heard of a 600 gr. load but I've never seen any prof of it) They were used to take huge american bison at ranges that most wouldn't attempt today with even the baddest of the high speed magnums. Sorry, I'm rambleing, but I gotta stick up for my baby.


----------



## Csquared

Guys, I admitted I asked for this. But I didn't think it would be this easy.....or anywhere near this revealing.

I feel like the AFLAC duck after his encounter with Yogi Berra!!!!!!

But I did learn something through it all. I had no idea a deer's heart was so big that you practically can't miss it with a lung shot, but if a guy with a degree in biology says so, it must be true!


----------



## huntin1

Wow Invector,

I sit here reading the stuff you posted and I swear that my brain is starting to vapor lock. There are so many untruths and misstatements that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

I do have a question though. What college did you attend? I don't think I've ever seen a college graduate who misspells so many words, or has the inability to put together a coherent paragragh. I ask because I have kids starting college and I'd like to know which schools to have them avoid. 

As to the original question:

I would recommend the Savage Weather Warrior. http://www.savagearms.com/16fss.htm

My choice of caliber is 308 Win, but I would also look closely at 300 WSM. I guess I personally prefer the 30 cals due to the wide range of bullet weights and types that are available in the 30.

Whatever you get just make sure that you shoot a bullet with the correct hardness to game ratio. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## Invector

hunt1...I put my postings though my word program and it came out with no misspellings. I guess I could have hit the wrong word that it was suggested but then again are you sure there spelled wrong. I see on here time and time again that hurd is the correct way of spelling heard as in using your ears or I have heard. I will be the first to admit that my mind work faster then my fingers does. Or the fact I have to respond to this at 100 am. And actually one of my English professors said the same thing but my science professors had no problems with my writing. Or does the fact you're not getting what I am writing mean something? Give me a brake&#8230;its after 1200 and I have to put up with this.

Next NO I'm not messing with you guys. NOT a one of you have yet to answer any of the questions I posed to you with an answer except people are stupid (Gohons response to the bullet rating system). Not a one. You're not getting the point that I'm trying to make. Please answer what I have been asking. Since you guys have to be smarter then your letting on, all you can say is I'm wrong and then post nothing to back it other then I read it some place or on this site.

So here is an experiment I came up with that would prove or flunk anything anyone of us is talking about.

Let us take 5 bullets ranging from a small 55grn varmint, a 120grn deer, a 150grn deer, 180grn elk, and a 300 grn dangerous game. The 180 could be changed to something a bit bigger like a 200 or 220. We test 3 rounds of each of the weight groups and record the average. We take them and put them under a press. This press must measure the amount of pressure in foot pounds in order to register this right. We then test each of the bullets on this press. We record the amount of pressure it takes to begin flattening each of the bullets out. This will show how much force, in pounds, it takes before the bullets flatten out. The next part is to determine the amount of pressure it takes to penetrate something like deer bone, tissue, skin, or the whole animal. We do this also for elk. Larger game is optional. We see if the smaller rounds, mid rounds, or larger rounds have the ability to with stand enough pressure to penetrate the specimen. We find the "hardness" of each round and animal to determine what can go though what. Or do you guys think that just because its living tissue any round can go though it? Would this be something that you all can agree on? But off hand which round do you think will take the most pressure, in pounds, and what would take the lease? If you said the smaller one, then what does that mean about when you shoot something with it? Does not that mean that if something can withstand that amount of pounds of pressure or grater being applied, then that bullet would just simply break apart or bounce off? You would get some penetration from the bullet if the resistance is just a bit more then what the bullet can.

Hypothetically now if a bullet can pass though one sheet of aluminum (thickness of a can) the more sheets you put down the harder it is for the bullet to get though. Eventually you would get to a point that the bullet expands as it passes though it, then to a thickness of no penetration. You would end up at the bullets limit of ability to penetrate. This little thought of an experiment would show that if a bullet hit something over its limit of penetration, pressure in pounds the bullet can withstand before it expands or fails to penetrate, the bullet would have no to little effect on the object.

I never said that a lung shot will result in a heart shot. Do I have to be exact with everything I say? Do I really have to put the fact when you shoot a deer or big game hitting both lungs and heart is the spot recommended to shoot? Or do I need to say something like boiler room for you guys to understand that? The fact is the heart is between the lungs does suggest that a lung shot will hit the heart. A side shot just behind the shoulder is where most people shoot for is it not. Even shooting at an angle would and could result in a heart and lung shot, I did it last year. Besides hitting it in the neck I see nothing but that on TV shows and in magazines. Plus that's the spot I was taught to shoot for in hunters safety, magazines, TV shows, my ancestors.

I will admit I am not getting sectional density, the site Google is taking me has me all confused on it. From what I found on it, the reading stated that it is figured by putting the diameter and length into an equation. It showed that the bigger the bullet was in diameter the better penetration it would have. But as it was stated before a small 120grn with its smaller surface area has less anti forces put on it then a larger 150. It was posted back at the ballistics jelly. The ability to overcome resistance during flight means the same as fighting drag. Drag being the anti force put upon a moving object though the air. This is formed from gravity and gas phase particles in the air. I use to argue what a ballistics cof. was up until I found a good pic of the boat tail and the new Barns X bullet. Both as you know help stabilize the bullet though the air. I really like what you had said there. It makes a world of difference of what you put there.

I would though like to point out the fact here that if I would have hit the deer with a 150grn instead of the 180grn the 150 would have expanded like it was made to do. The fact the deer did not put as much anti force on the bigger bullet, and the fact point of entrance and exit were the same, means that the 180 was not able to expand like it could of if it hit a larger animal with heavier bone and tissue. (I think he's finally getting some of this). I went and did some searching on the 45-110. In those sites I was at they all referred to it along with the 45-70. If you though I was meaning they were the same, no I was not trying to do that. I was just saying what I found and was looking more of a is this right or not. You did post the fact they are very different. And I see that.

I really want to know what fact bullet type play into any of this. What they are made for yes...that would be the rating scale from 1-4. Not what kind and so forth. Ok and as far as this fantasy hydrostatic thingy goes :eyeroll: We are made of mostly water yes...that is true. But your insides do not liquefy when you get hit. Kevlar is made to cradle the bullet as it hits. The woven fabric absorbs the energy passing it away from point of impact letting more of the energy to be picked up by the next layer. Though Kevlar can fail from a shot by a FMJs spinning motion and resistance to expanding and giving up the energy it has, thus tin is often used along with it. It does not form any waves in it when it gets hit. The way the tissue that makes up your mussels are shows that they will do something to a lesser extent...not make waves. When the bullet passes though a body cavity, there is no water or liquid. When was the last time you shot an animal and when cleaning it water or another liquid (not including blood) sprayed from it? With the way the tissue is ribbond, it just cannot happen. I can see how this theory could work, but it's only a theory that has been proven improbable. Think of it this way when you shoot a deer (heart lung shot) is the liver affected? It does not. Looking over the liver of many types of game I have shot (you can learn a great deal of the health of game by its liver) never has there been any trauma, unless it was hit by a bullet or shot itself. The fact the jelly does not have any weaving, backing, reinforcements of any kind and the fact it is gelatinous means that it is like shooting water that has had its molecules slowed enough to form a semi solid but not slowed to a point it forms ice. The jelly moves just by jiggling it. If you nudge the one spot on one side the whole mass moves. If you jiggle your head do your feet move? The only time I have seen tissue move in the same manner as jelly does is on Homer Simpson. And well man I wish I could put out the same amount of force a 200grn bullet from a .300 could do. Man I would be a human nail gun. Hm or is it the fact a hammer encounters too much force for what it is giving off.

I did not know scopes were close to 2 pounds in weight. hm...Interesting I thought they were half pound at best. I do see some can get up to 15 oz being just short of a pound but far from 2. And no my BAR does not have open sights...I am only aware of two models of the BAR that has open sight (going off the North American site only). My BAR is the safari if that helps. And while you were doing this I was out getting my 3 roosters and my 5 ducks. If you look at what times I am on here posting this stuff...well if you were out hunting while I am doing this please let me know so I can call the RAP number.

As far as octane goes...is it required to put premium in a 4 cylinder? Before you answer that is it required to put it in a V6, V8, V10, V12, or W16? In all fact some 4's and 6's require the higher octane. Do you have to put it in there...um not all the time. Once had a Caddy that was premium only...ran both in it at times. Next how about those 8's. Well my 318 does not require it. It runs much better on it though. And how about the big 427 in the new Vets...I bet if you look there it will have premium only on it. Oh back to the V6's and 4...the Eclipse is premium and the Lancer is premium only. Next lets see here...oh ya the V10, V12, and the W16. They all are premium gas. The point here is do you take an engine that does not need to have the higher octane in it...no. But the engines run at their top performance with it. (If you did not know the W16 is a 16 cylinder super car that will run you a cool million to get) To add to that you put down the mass public knows nothing...are you not part of that? Or do you have such a great hunting credential that you rise above the common man? Also by what you put down, a mistake bigger would be what...hunting the wrong animal with the wrong ammo? SO taking something made for deer out after elk is one of those mistakes? Also as far as the handgun goes...I looked on Winchesters site and well they don't have anything on there about it. From what I see in the regs a bullet and casing has to be over a certain size in order to use it hunting, that's with the handgun. I personally have not heard of many hunting anything bigger then a deer or black bear with handguns. But it wouldn't be hard with some of the power the bigger guns put off. But I question the range they have. 50 yards? 75 yards? 100 yards? How often do you get a close shot while walking in open areas or in trees. If you can get close enough I don't see why. What elk hunting I have done it was hard due to the fact the only shot we had we could not get a clear look at the bull or even get the scope on it from the trees.

As far as the Premium CastCore bullets on the Federal site (not sight I don't see anything). All I see is that it goes though bone with out breaking apart. I don't see anything else but that. The cast core is made not to expand. It said that on the web site and I said that on my last posting. Your XTP is a hollow point is it not? They are made to expand. So you shoot one bullet that expands and one that holds more of its form even on bone. Anything else you want me to explain on that? I am trying to find where I had put down that a CanstCore bullet would not break bone or go though it or whatever it is your trying to say I said. This I cannot find. So I am also having a hard time figuring out how I lost. :eyeroll:

As far as the pig goes I don't recall saying anything about a pig other then the fact of watching a round from a 30-06 hitting it and breaking apart. I really don't remember saying anything about an X bullet, pig, and a .25/.30 cal all in the same sentence. Or are you referring to the fact I posted sometime ago about the 30 doing more damage but the smaller round would have an easier time penetrating due to the lack of surface area encountering resistance?

And I still want to know why bullet type is so important here? All the bullets I talked about were all in hypothetical situations. Not for real time arguing about what one is better and what one does more damage. But off the top of my head I can say that a ballistic tip, this means some sort of tip is placed on the bullet. This tip is suppose to start the expanding of the bullet. A plain Pb tip does this in a similar way by having the Pb being soft and expanding on impact of something hard enough to flatten it. The TSX is a hallow point that has been formed to peal in the 4 places. Accubonds have the core bonded to the jacket. The accubonds, ballistic tips and hallow points all have a better accuracy and aerodynamics then standard Pb tips do. There is that enough?

Horsager yes I would like to have a shovel...to hit myself with your better yet hit you'z with. :wink:

Next is the fact yes I do have a Biology degree. I see that it is being questioned that I even having that. Yes I do have it. If you want to know some of the classes I have taken well here goes. Biology I&II, Chem I&II, Invertebrate (that's living things with out a back bone or nerve cord) biology, Vertebrate (that's things with a back bone or nerve cord) biology, Field Ecology, Water Quality, Fish Diseases, Botany I&II, 3 Geology classes, do I need to go on? Just because I have a biology degree does not mean I don't know jack squat. If you would look into a zoology degree over my biology degree you would see the only thing that I am missing is some classes on how to ID game and other animals and similar conservation classes. Biology is a better rounded degree then the Zoology is I can get into some of the same jobs the Zoology has and I can get into many more from clinical to research. And if you must know I have been inside many animals and know their anatomy very well. I know where the femoral artery is in a deer for example. Do you? The fact biology is the study of life and its processes means I know about the tissues that make up endothermic and exothermic animals. Plus you have made an A$$ out of U and Me plenty of times over this. But I see the fact I have provided examples of things but for the most part there just being closed off...so how can we learn from each other? Oh and physics I did not list that just above.

Jiffy I'm here just to annoy you and only you. The rest of the people on here I'm trying to learn from and give my knowledge to. I don't want to annoy anyone just you&#8230;in my spare time I think up new ways to annoy you with.

Force is another thing that might need clearing up. The force that drives a bullet is speed...that speed is determined by the gas pressure exerted on the weight of the bullet from the gun powder. You with me so far...did I lose anyone? The same force from how I understand it is different from each cal. Other wise you would blow up your gun. What I mean is taking and loading a smaller cal with what you load a larger cal with.


----------



## Csquared

"AFLAC"


----------



## huntin1

> hunt1...I put my postings though my word program and it came out with no misspellings. I guess I could have hit the wrong word that it was suggested but then again are you sure *there* spelled wrong. I see on here time and time again that hurd is the correct way of spelling heard as in using your ears or I have heard. I will be the first to admit that my mind work faster then my fingers does. Or the fact I have to respond to this at 100 am. And actually one of my English professors said the same thing but my science professors had no problems with my writing. Or does the fact you're not getting what I am writing mean something? Give me a *brake*&#8230;its after 1200 and I have to put up with this.


The 2 bold words in just this paragraph, not to mention many grammatical errors. Throughout this post and most of your others there are many instances of misspelling or wrong word usage, such as using then instead of than, just to name one. But then this is not english class. It is just that when a person writes like this it makes whatever message you are trying to convey terribly difficult to understand. One would tend to expect more from a college graduate.

This is not to say that most of us here do not understand your message, from the other posts I can see that we all do understand what you are saying and know that it is wrong. Many have tried to explain the fallacies in your theory, but you just don't seem to get it.

As to waving your college degree banner around, big deal.

I have a degree too, cum laude, in Criminal Justice / Business Administraion, with minors in Psychology, Sociology and History, so what.

You really need to get over yourself, it is glaringly obvious from your posts that you just ain't as smart as you think you are.

As for me, I'm done, as I think that it is truly unfair to have a contest of wits with someone who is unarmed.

Csquared is right:

"AFLAC"

huntin1


----------



## Gohon

Invector, just drop it. Please do yourself a big favor and let it go.


----------



## Horsager

Invector, the compare and contrast I asked for should contain how each of those bullets would perform on game, you being so experienced and all.

"All Up" rifle weight includes the scope, scope bases, scope rings (unless you used duct tape to attach your scope rifle, then weigh that), and a loaded magazine, sling if you use one, also bipod if you use one, the "All Up" weight measurement is the weight you'd actually carry in the field if you were hunting with that rifle. Step on a scale with your BAR and Tikka with full magazine's, and slings/bipods if you use them attached they'll be 8# and 10# or a touch more.

TSX is more that just a hollow point, it is solid copper. Due to it's homogeneous construction it retains 95%+ of it's weight, in fact recovered bullets often weigh more than they did before the shot due to bits of animal sticking to them, and 100% weight retention. I haven't recovered one yet, they shoot through everything.

Ordinance grade ballistic gelatin simulates muscle tissue as required for military testing.

Those in the shooting community would consider your definition of "Force"
to be "Energy", and "Anti-Force" would be "Energy Transfer". Retained energy can be measured at any point in the bullet's flight, it's a measure of what's potentially left to transfer into the target. Retained Energy is only really important once the bullet reaches the target, again it's the measure of what is "Available" to potentially "Transfer".

You must think everyone has the same experience level as you, lots of time reading, very little time afield. You mentioned passing on knowlege, what you do is re-gurgitate from magazines, websites, books, reloading manuals, etc. Knowlege means you know it, you didn't have to look it up.


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector,
I believe that your hypothetical test on useing a press to determine how much force it takes to flatten bullets and how much it takes to go through game animals is a bit flawed. The bullets will react diferently when fired through a rifle due to speed and the cintrifigual force imparted upon it by the rifleing of the barrel.

You could take pretty much any 22 cal ballistic tiped bullet, put it on the end of a rod, and push it through a broad side elk and the bullet wouldn't be in to bad of shape when it pops out the other side. Lets just say for exaple that it takes 200 lbs to do it, now load that same bullet into lets say a 22 mag or any thing that makes about 200 ft lbs of energy and fire it at the same spot. The bullet that was fired from a gun will mushroom or fragment because it hit the target at a high speed. At the higher speed the resistance characteristics of the elk has changed. Its like when you walk into a swimming pool, the water is soft. Now do a belly flop into the pool. The same object that was nice and soft now feels like concrete. Even if the bullet were a pointed solid bullet that was designed to not expand, the 200 ft-lbs of force wouldn't be enough to get the bullet through the elk because the force that's applied by the bullet deminishes as soon as it hits the elk whereas the force that's applied by the press is constant.

Now, you mentioned testing different weight bullets but didn't mention calibers. You mentioned for example 120 gr vs. 150 gr deer bullets. This is where sectional density comes into play. Lets just say that we use equal bullets (Nosler Partitions) and the 120 gr is in .25 cal and the 150 is a .30 cal bullet. The 120 has a sectional density of .260 and the 150 grain bullet has a SD value of .226 . Driven to equal velocities the 120 grain bullet will out penetrate the heavier 150 bullet due to its higher sectional density. Since the 120 is longer for its weight compared to the 150 so it will also have a higher ballistic coeficient. The 120 has a BC of.391 compared to .387 for the 150 grain bullet so it wont shed it remaining energy during flight quite as fast. The heavier bullet will start out with more energy but at very long range the lighter bullet can actually catch up to and surpass the energy of the heavier one.

Hydrostatic shock is for real. That's what makes varmint bullets work so well. A bullet that blows up like a grenade inside of an animal and turns it's vitals into a mass of chunky mush will drop a coyote in it's tracks. A bullet that simply mushrooms will useually let a song dog run a short distance before it gives up the ghost. A big part of hydrostatic shock that almost never gets mentioned is that the shock is not limited to the area that gets hit. Just like a hydraulic system that runs a hydraulic ram, the pressure thats applied at one end is transfered to the other end via a network of hoses. A similar thing happens when a bullet that imparts a large amount of HS hits the vital area of the target. The brain is very senstive. When a bullet with a large amount of HS hits, the force of HS causes the everything in the animals body to istantly move away from the point of impact causing a massive spike in the pressure in all of the veins and arteries. This pressure is transfered all the way to the most sensitive organ in the body, the brain, and can cause an effect much like a massive stroke. That's why an arrow can pass directly through the top of the heart and the bottom of the lungs of a coyote and it'll still run for a distance before dieing but the same shot with a rifle puts them down on the spot. The arrow has little to no hydrostatic shock.

Finally, you mentioned that "the force that drives a bullet is speed" and that's a bit off as well. Speed is the product of the force that drove the bullet down the barrel. I suggest that you find a copy of P. O. Akleys Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders, there's alot of good stuff in there about interior and exterior ballistics.


----------



## Invector

First off I am done here. The fact I have shown proof for my thoughts many times over. I also have asked you (3 mainly) to show how you can be saying I'm not right. All I get is some fluff and a bad argument. All I get in return is some blabling but in no way get anything that could hold up as evidence to support the thoughts that have been posted here. I have over and over and over and over and over and over again. The best responce I get is heres a shovel dig a bigger hole and at best some name calling. You're so set in your ways that god him self could not get you to change your minds.

Second yes there would be some holes in the little experiment I come up with. The point of it was to get you'z to realize that when a bullet hits somthing that is way to tuff for it that bullet will not do much if anything at all. The next part of it is to show that a bullet that hits a point of pressure that bullet starts to expand (we were talking about a bullet that is made to expand). If it does not hit that point the bullet would not expand. If the bullet were to hit somthing not much over that point, the bullet would continue to expand even though it would still penitrate it.

A professor once told me that if you are argue with a scientist have proof of your argument. Have hard evidence to support your claim. It is part of the scientific method of conducting experiments. All theories are put under tests to see if it can hold. If it does not hold, then it fails. But there can always be room for improvment for those theories and experiiments...nothing is forcertian except death. You guys act like what you think and beleave is the absolute truth and nothing else matters. No one who thinks of somthing different can come on to YOUR pages and post anything that is different then your certainty. Be open minded. There are people out there that know more then you do and can prove and have proof for their claims. Just because you dont understand somthing or get the exact point just shows that you have no experiance in that area. I bet if I ask what does endothermic and exothermic mean hardly anyone would get it right. Next I bet if I put down that some fish are not cold blooded I would get an argument because those people who argue do not understand it or think they do. I'm not trying to say what I think is correct. I can only post off of what I know, l have seen, been taught, and what I can prove. I have proven my points many times. Somthing you guys did a poor job of doing. :eyeroll:


----------



## Csquared

Invector, let me first state how relieved I am that this appears to be nearing a mercilful end!

With all due respect, you would be well served to open your mind. These guys you have been bantering with are correct, and only donating their time in an attempt to enlighten you, not for any other reason. They very easily could've ignored your inaccuracies, as I did, but instead tried and tried to help you get something out of the discussion.

You're young and passionate...a very desireable combination of attributes, but try not to let that prevent you from learning more about the subject. Lighten up a little. Not everyone is out there to make you look bad.

In closing, grammatical errors aside, please try to remember to capitalize "God" in your text. And sorry if this comes off as a lecture, but I have a son about your age, and this is exactly what I would tell him if I saw his pride was preventing him from learning from others with more knowledge. That IS what we're here for....isn't it?


----------



## Horsager

Funny how we've got 3 people (many more, but 3 regular posters) who are on the same page, telling you that you are wrong in the same fashion, and yet you seem to think you know more than us. 3 people who understand the language used within the shooting community, and 1 who isn't smarterest enough to know when to use were, where, we're, and their, there, and they're.

That professor you spoke of, the one who demands proof/evidence/data that can be repeated/tested, he'd give you several swift kicks to the gonads for not including the effect 3600rps (revolutions per second) would have on the bullet and it's intended target. Squishing a bullet with a press only proved that your press is strong enough to squish bullets, nothing more, and certainly nothing regarding bullet performance.

Invector you have been able to prove 1 thing, you know next to nothing and have some of the poorest research skills I've encountered.


----------



## clampdaddy

Invector,
Everytime someone tries to teach you something or shoots a hole in a theory of yours you answer back about us not being open minded. Well guess what, ballistics is pretty much right or wrong subject. You put numbers in, throw in some physics and common sence and a predictable answer comes out. I wouldn't question your knowledge of biology because you have a degree in that field but that in no way means that you know anything about ballistics as you have proven time and time again. You are always going to the internet to find answers or new coments wich basicaly means that you could not hold an intelegent conversation in this area. I think that you need to buy a reloading set, a bunch of manuals, learn, and load your own ammo instead of simply buying the stuff at the store that has a picture of what you're hunting. that will teach you nothing. You need more time shooting and less time computing.

The only thing you can't learn from a book is common sence, that's something you're born with or without.


----------



## Horsager

Basing decisions solely on Winchester's CXP scale is for folks who can do a really good job of putting puzzles together, as long as the peices are very large and there aren't more than 4 of them.


----------



## huntin1

Horsager said:


> Basing decisions solely on Winchester's CXP scale is for folks who can do a really good job of putting puzzles together, as long as the peices are very large and there aren't more than 4 of them.


Aye!

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## ND decoy

Thanks for the answers. I decided to order out of the remington custom shop should be here in about 6 months which means 9 months. I went with the 300 wsm.


----------



## huntin1

Good choice!!

I'm sure you will be happy with your new remington.

But Savage is still better!   :wink: :wink:

:beer:

huntin1


----------

