Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Is Bullet Expansion Necessary for Effecive Killing of Game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="406pat" data-source="post: 350571" data-attributes="member: 13575"><p>It seems like the one common thing that everyone can agree on is that the bigger the hole in the animal, the more effective it is at killing quickly and efficiently. I would find it hard to argue against the theory that as the size of the hole increases, survivability decreases. I'm talking about hits to the heart/lung area and not shoulder or nervous system hits. Ideally, we would shoot flat nosed slugs the size of our thumbs to accomplish this. I feel that is why typical "woods guns", pistols and safari type rifles come chambered in large calibers with massive, non-aerodynamic slugs. </p><p></p><p>The problem starts when hunters want to reach out and touch things. Air is a fluid and, at 70% water, one could say animals are also a fluid. So what flies with minimal disturbance through air is going to have minimal disturbance to an animal.</p><p>By the same token, the slug that causes the most fluid disturbance to an animal is going to fly like a bathtub.</p><p></p><p>Enter the expanding bullet. Here's a projectile that flies through the air well and then mushrooms out to a big, flat frontal area in the animal to make the big wound channel. Suddenly you have the capability to fly like a 7mm but hit like a .45. This expansion also acts like a parachute as the bullet travels through the chest cavity. </p><p></p><p>Shawn made the comment along the lines that ideally we want the bullet to just fall out the other side of the animal. In this case, the animal is the "equal and opposite force" we learned about in high school science. If a bullet stays inside an animal then all the energy that the explosion of the powder put into the bullet is transferred to the animal. If it passes through then a portion of that energy is wasted. Simple physics.</p><p>If a bullet expands, the "parachute effect" results in an increase in frontal area causing increased drag on the projectile leading to more energy transferred to the animal. If it doesn't expand then the aerodynamics that we crave for long range shooting work against us as those same aerodynamics work to get a clean pass-through on an animal.</p><p></p><p>So from all this babble we can say:</p><p>1) What flies well through air will also fly well through soft tissue.</p><p>2) What hits hard and transfers energy well flies like a bathtub</p><p>3) The bigger the hole through the animal, the more likely it is to die quickly</p><p> (still talking about soft tissue hits)</p><p></p><p>From this it's logical to say that for a soft tissue hit, a pointed bullet that is designed to expand and works as designed will cause a bigger hole in soft tissue and (all things such as hit location, etc being equal) therefore is more likely to kill more efficiently.</p><p></p><p>(I'm really sorry for the length but this is what happens when you get an engineer talking about things like this <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />)</p><p></p><p>After all of that you would probably expect me to say that expansion is necessary, not true. </p><p></p><p>First off, I would say that regardless off what it is or how it's made, most things penetrating the heart or lungs of any animal are fatal. I know there's plenty of survival stories out there but for every one of those there's 10,000 that didn't make it.</p><p></p><p>Secondly and along the same lines, the nervous system is extremely fragile and doesn't take a whole lot to put out of commission.</p><p></p><p>Third, any sort of bone contact completely changes the aerodynamics of a projectile. All of the sudden our carefully crafted precision ogive hits a rib and the front is bent at 90 degrees or maybe it fragments into a thousand little pieces. Either way, it's not so aerodynamic any more.</p><p></p><p>So what is to conclude from all of this? </p><p></p><p>A) That I need to find someone to pay me for wasting everyone's time by typing rants.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p> And</p><p>B) That the decision for which to use is an ethical and moral decision up to the person pulling the trigger. It's a hunters responsibility to research and use equipment that they know to be adequate for the task. </p><p></p><p>Given the number of case studies on this site, I would not hesitate to use a 300g .338 SMK out of an edge for hunting.</p><p></p><p>In my mind, as long as you can justify your choice in projectile intelligently and are confident in its performance I will never judge that negatively. </p><p></p><p>This debate, like so many in the field of hunting, comes down to personal responsibility. It's you pulling the trigger and it's you who should click the safety back on if the shot's not right or a little too long or, as sometimes happens with our specialty, a shot is too close. Know your limits and those of your equipment.</p><p></p><p>Again sorry about the length.</p><p></p><p>-PJS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="406pat, post: 350571, member: 13575"] It seems like the one common thing that everyone can agree on is that the bigger the hole in the animal, the more effective it is at killing quickly and efficiently. I would find it hard to argue against the theory that as the size of the hole increases, survivability decreases. I'm talking about hits to the heart/lung area and not shoulder or nervous system hits. Ideally, we would shoot flat nosed slugs the size of our thumbs to accomplish this. I feel that is why typical "woods guns", pistols and safari type rifles come chambered in large calibers with massive, non-aerodynamic slugs. The problem starts when hunters want to reach out and touch things. Air is a fluid and, at 70% water, one could say animals are also a fluid. So what flies with minimal disturbance through air is going to have minimal disturbance to an animal. By the same token, the slug that causes the most fluid disturbance to an animal is going to fly like a bathtub. Enter the expanding bullet. Here's a projectile that flies through the air well and then mushrooms out to a big, flat frontal area in the animal to make the big wound channel. Suddenly you have the capability to fly like a 7mm but hit like a .45. This expansion also acts like a parachute as the bullet travels through the chest cavity. Shawn made the comment along the lines that ideally we want the bullet to just fall out the other side of the animal. In this case, the animal is the "equal and opposite force" we learned about in high school science. If a bullet stays inside an animal then all the energy that the explosion of the powder put into the bullet is transferred to the animal. If it passes through then a portion of that energy is wasted. Simple physics. If a bullet expands, the "parachute effect" results in an increase in frontal area causing increased drag on the projectile leading to more energy transferred to the animal. If it doesn't expand then the aerodynamics that we crave for long range shooting work against us as those same aerodynamics work to get a clean pass-through on an animal. So from all this babble we can say: 1) What flies well through air will also fly well through soft tissue. 2) What hits hard and transfers energy well flies like a bathtub 3) The bigger the hole through the animal, the more likely it is to die quickly (still talking about soft tissue hits) From this it's logical to say that for a soft tissue hit, a pointed bullet that is designed to expand and works as designed will cause a bigger hole in soft tissue and (all things such as hit location, etc being equal) therefore is more likely to kill more efficiently. (I'm really sorry for the length but this is what happens when you get an engineer talking about things like this :)) After all of that you would probably expect me to say that expansion is necessary, not true. First off, I would say that regardless off what it is or how it's made, most things penetrating the heart or lungs of any animal are fatal. I know there's plenty of survival stories out there but for every one of those there's 10,000 that didn't make it. Secondly and along the same lines, the nervous system is extremely fragile and doesn't take a whole lot to put out of commission. Third, any sort of bone contact completely changes the aerodynamics of a projectile. All of the sudden our carefully crafted precision ogive hits a rib and the front is bent at 90 degrees or maybe it fragments into a thousand little pieces. Either way, it's not so aerodynamic any more. So what is to conclude from all of this? A) That I need to find someone to pay me for wasting everyone's time by typing rants.:D And B) That the decision for which to use is an ethical and moral decision up to the person pulling the trigger. It's a hunters responsibility to research and use equipment that they know to be adequate for the task. Given the number of case studies on this site, I would not hesitate to use a 300g .338 SMK out of an edge for hunting. In my mind, as long as you can justify your choice in projectile intelligently and are confident in its performance I will never judge that negatively. This debate, like so many in the field of hunting, comes down to personal responsibility. It's you pulling the trigger and it's you who should click the safety back on if the shot's not right or a little too long or, as sometimes happens with our specialty, a shot is too close. Know your limits and those of your equipment. Again sorry about the length. -PJS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Is Bullet Expansion Necessary for Effecive Killing of Game
Top