Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics

Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics Applied Ballistics


Reply

Slower may be better.??

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8  
Old 03-17-2004, 07:08 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Jackson MI
Posts: 247
Re: Slower may be better.??

I am in full agreement on how much energy you want to waste on the background. A couple of years ago I was hunting iv WV with a friend. All in the woods, nothing farther than 150-200 yards at the very most. I was expecting 243's or 30-30's or maybe an 06 or 2, but they are of the opinion hat a 300 Win Mag or RUM is the way to go. Their reasoning is that they want to hit the deer as hard as possible and knock it off it's feet. They never could explain to me how a 308 bullet that passed through a deer out of a 300 magnum was going to expend any more energy than the same bullet out of an 06 that passes through too. We all agreed that your shoulder would notice and you might leave a bigger hole in the side of the mountian, but they just couldn't get me to understand how the deer could tell the difference. Maybe it had something to do with them all having worked in the coal mines and they liked deep holes, I don't know. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

On a more serious note, you may find that as you slow down a given bullet that you may actually penatrate deeper because you get less mushrooming at lower velocities. So it can happen that the faster bullet expands more and disapates it's energy faster and penetrates less. Maybe this is what the WV folks were all about.

[ 03-17-2004: Message edited by: RBrowning ]
__________________
"When working with the public, there are two things you need to remember. - 1. The public is a bunch of ignorant morons. - 2. YOU and I are one of them!"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-17-2004, 07:32 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Slower may be better.??

PAhunter, pass thru is good. We are refering to a bullet passing thru without opening and just punching a hole without enough tissue damage.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-17-2004, 07:49 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Slower may be better.??

THis is a good topic.. Alot of guys wondered why I went with .30 cal when I had my 2 rifles built especially when I chose the 308 over the 6.5/284 and the 260. Both have superior ballistics over the 308 but in my therories.. the 30 bullet although on paper doesn't seem like it carries its weight I feel it does better. I have seen a number of smaller dia. bullets at high speeds do very little damage...
You DO NOT have to have a pass through to kill an animal. All you need is about a .5" wound channel through the majority of a chest cavity and if you bullet "dumps" all its energy into the animal isn't that more prefered?? I think it is....

look at it this way. In tests between a .45 acp and a 9mm the 45 won hands down.. but it was WAY slower in velocity...

Alot of guys asked why I choose to go with the 190 gr bullet in the 300 WSM instead of the flatter faster 175's and 168's... the 190 are 2-400 fps slower but the good B.C. and accuracy will win every time...

If you practice and can hit your intended target at your intended range.. thats the ticket...

[ 03-17-2004: Message edited by: Ric Horst ]
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-17-2004, 07:54 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 328
Re: Slower may be better.??

.. Hmmm.. Interesting points.. One thing I didn't mention in my first post was that the bullets I used on the Whitetails were the 162gr AMax or SST's.. And while they didn't seem to expand much, no deer hit with it took many more steps..

Pahunter.. I'm not necessarily after zero pass-thru.. As a matter of fact pass thru, in most instances, is a good thing.. What I'm talking about is gross over-penetration.. For example, it takes "x" amount of the right combination of velocity, sectional density and energy to make a clean kill.. Anything over is unused and translates to wasted energy which also usually equates to more recoil and blast than may be necessary.. The trick being first you'd have to figure out what numbers would be acceptable for your chosen target.. Then figure out which combination will "take care of business" out to where you feel confident in making your shot with a minimum of expended energy on the wrong side of the target.. In other words, what will expend the most energy in the target while still exiting (for "game animals").?
.. For varmint bullets, like my .17's they generally expend all their energy inside the target for a net "0" of wasted energy with minimal recoil and blast.. No pass-thru is needed to bleed the animal and make an easily followed trail.. The "shock" seems to do most of the work so, IMO, for varmint bullets the old addage of "Speed Kills" rings true..
.. Then there's the other group of folks who like to simplify the whole thing by shooting a big enough combination to "do the deed" with extreme predjudice.. While completely functional, it can be somewhat wasteful..

COBrad. Not off enough to matter, I'd say.. Accuracy is a big thing and I know what you're saying about top velocity isn't always the best for it..
.. We've seen on this site plenty of evidence that the match bullets will kill cleanly with good damage.. I just wonder if it would help if they were slowed down..
.. Geez.. Izzat enough noise outta me for now.? d:^) JiNC
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-17-2004, 08:39 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Slower may be better.??

Ric Horst, I agree with you regarding bigger bullets. As far as pass through, if I get good expansion and penetration then I don't care if it passes through or not. I shot a mulie and an antelope in Capser, WY last october with a 140 Barnes XLC going over 3500fps from my 7 STW. I've since switched to 156 cauterucio's because the barnes accuracy was p*ss poor and I think the velocity wasn't helping. The mulie was 216 yards and the lope was 48. Both dropped in their tracks. The lope passed through in front of the shoulder and the mulie got it straight into the neck and stuck in the spine (penetrated more the a foot!)

I care more about expansion and penetration than pass through especially since I shoot at different ranges and not always long range. I just got a new 338 lapua and plan to use the 300 smk's. A bit to big for the whitetail, so if I don't draw a Moose permit this year It may just be some trophy paper!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-17-2004, 08:48 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Slower may be better.??

I guided a Mulie hunt 2 years ago...

guy was shooting a 7 mm mag. he "rolled his own" and admitted they were pretty hot. He was a good shot and entertained the idea of longer ranges.. I volunteered to guide him for his hunt...
I saw him hit a Mulie at 87 yards in the shoulder with a nosler ballistic tip... deer as far as I know is still alive... [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-17-2004, 08:49 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stamford NY
Posts: 160
Re: Slower may be better.??

Jake,

I dont know if you saw it, there was a chart posted a while back about bullet expansion, it showed at the smk performed well at impact velocities around 2000fps, but as for varmint bullets push the things as fast as accuratly possible then watch the red mist.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: Slower may be better.??
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is The Site Slower Today... Len Backus Website & Forum Support 8 12-06-2007 07:35 AM
Why .260 slower than 708? urbaneruralite Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 4 08-31-2007 07:29 PM
which powder burns little slower then red dot but able to get low ES bigrich954rr Reloading 4 10-10-2006 06:25 PM
Year old powder slower? jmden Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 3 09-17-2005 04:35 PM
How much slower Boyd Heaton Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 1 03-23-2003 08:17 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC