hunter67wa
Well-Known Member
Sure we can agree to disagree as I have been privy to studies and have participated in them. have acquaintances at Qauntico and have sat with Pathologists and attended conferences and autopsies. Believe what you want.
That feller shoots tens of thousands of rounds a year. He has to as a profession shooter...lucky.I couldn't believe the amount of bullets and ammunition behind him on the shelves.
....He is amazing, you should watch some of his shows....
In my mind, a perfect bullet for the game hunted would be one that expanded to at least twice it's diameter, Retains over 50% of its original weight, and just barley exits the opposite side having used up 90+% of its potential energy.
To me exit holes are very important in the event the game makes you track it even if it is only a few yards. I just don't want a bullet leaving the game with half of its energy still available.
Pelt hunting would be the only exception as far as I am concerned.
J E CUSTOM
Sure we can agree to disagree as I have been privy to studies and have participated in them. have acquaintances at Qauntico and have sat with Pathologists and attended conferences and autopsies. Believe what you want.
Haha, yep! You notice how quickly he recovers from recoil, he had four moves in his head.Amazing he held it to one shot! I'm used to seeing him run a cylinder, dump a full mag, and reload in just a couple of seconds.
Energy is nice, but IMO, overrated! I want to break as much stuff ( bone, organs, vessels) as possible. The deeper, farther a bullet travels thru an animal....the higher probability of damaging "stuff"! Having two holes, for more blood loss and better tracking, seems to be a plus! If that wasn't clear enough....give me penetration (exit wound) thru the vitals, evertime! memtb
I thought This post would generate some interest
Most shot with handguns? That's an entirely different argument. Low velocity handguns and high power rifles kill in different ways.
But your thesis that only CNS or blood loss kills is already wrong, and demonstratably so scientifically. If you shoot a deer through both lungs it will die of lack of oxygen to the brain from inoperable lungs long before it has time to die of actual blood loss causing lack of oxygen. Often the same with a heart shot. It's not the LOSS of blood, but the inability to get it to the brain. But I'm just a biologist so what do I know...
I agree with J E's assessment of the ideal performing bullet. I like the 240 XTP out of my 44Mag Ruger carbine. A double lung shot under 100 yards reliably results in a two holes, with a nicely mushroomed jacket caught in the far side hide with the lead exiting. Easy (and SHORT) tracking jobs.
Sorry ATH fat fingers on the keyboard.Most shot with handguns? That's an entirely different argument. Low velocity handguns and high power rifles kill in different ways.
But your thesis that only CNS or blood loss kills is already wrong, and demonstratably so scientifically. If you shoot a deer through both lungs it will die of lack of oxygen to the brain from inoperable lungs long before it has time to die of actual blood loss causing lack of oxygen. Often the same with a heart shot. It's not the LOSS of blood, but the inability to get it to the brain. But I'm just a biologist so what do I know...
I agree with J E's assessment of the ideal performing bullet. I like the 240 XTP out of my 44Mag Ruger carbine. A double lung shot under 100 yards reliably results in a two holes, with a nicely mushroomed jacket caught in the far side hide with the lead exiting. Easy (and SHORT) tracking jobs.