WildRose
Well-Known Member
Duplicate
Recovered Barnes bullet
- Thread starter rharfo
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
I am a behind the shoulder shooter. Always have been and always will be. I intend to eat what I shoot. I will shoot through a shoulder if the animal is quartering in a way that requires a shoulder to get through the pump house. I want both lungs.
I will only speak for our bullet design. It is designed to shed the nose, not for the effect of pieces causing damage, but to transform the bullet from pointed to flat front. The pieces do what they do as a bonus. The flat fronted bullet does more damage than a rounded front mushroom bullet because it deflects material perpendicular to bullet travel. The rounded mushroom allows the soft tissue to flow around the smooth shape. Like an aerodynamic car in a wind tunnel compared to a flat front old ford pickup in the wind tunnel. Our bullet will almost always pass through the animal ensuring a wound channel maximized.
I do not feel the need to break bones with Hammer Bullets for terminal effect. Head and neck shots are low percentage shots that must get to the spinal column or brain in order to work. Be off by a few inches and animals run off without a bottom jaw to die a slow death. Be a little low on the neck and they now breath from the hole like a tracheotomy.
I have heard that an animal can survive a lung shot, even a double, if the shot is low enough and did not disrupt enough tissue. Animal lungs do not collapse like human lungs. They can breath in the upper part of the lung that is not damaged as long as they continue to have enough blood. This I think would be very rare regardless of how poorly the bullet performed. As far as it sounds like the young lady's deer was tracked I would venture to say it was not hit in the lungs.
Earlier this year my friend shot a deer just before dark with our 117g 270cal Hammer Hunter. He shot this deer at 375 yards. He could not find the deer so I went with him the next morning to find it. This was his first deer. We found the deer about 500 yards from where he hit him. Turned out that he hit him very low and a few inches right of his aim point. Bullet hit about an inch up from the bottom of his belly and just out of the diaphragm. Almost right on the diaphragm. Entrance and exit were about 2" apart. I would have expected a deer hit like this to live for a long time. It caused enough shock damage to lungs to cause him to bleed out internally in the lung cavity. I would say that a bullet that deforms into a nice round double caliber mushroom would not have turned out as well as this did. The flat front deformation caused enough collateral permanent wound channel to cause the deer to bleed out with out a hole in the diaphragm.
Bullets of all kinds kill by tearing soft tissue. It takes velocity and shape to do this. Getting rid of the petals is a good thing.
Steve
I will only speak for our bullet design. It is designed to shed the nose, not for the effect of pieces causing damage, but to transform the bullet from pointed to flat front. The pieces do what they do as a bonus. The flat fronted bullet does more damage than a rounded front mushroom bullet because it deflects material perpendicular to bullet travel. The rounded mushroom allows the soft tissue to flow around the smooth shape. Like an aerodynamic car in a wind tunnel compared to a flat front old ford pickup in the wind tunnel. Our bullet will almost always pass through the animal ensuring a wound channel maximized.
I do not feel the need to break bones with Hammer Bullets for terminal effect. Head and neck shots are low percentage shots that must get to the spinal column or brain in order to work. Be off by a few inches and animals run off without a bottom jaw to die a slow death. Be a little low on the neck and they now breath from the hole like a tracheotomy.
I have heard that an animal can survive a lung shot, even a double, if the shot is low enough and did not disrupt enough tissue. Animal lungs do not collapse like human lungs. They can breath in the upper part of the lung that is not damaged as long as they continue to have enough blood. This I think would be very rare regardless of how poorly the bullet performed. As far as it sounds like the young lady's deer was tracked I would venture to say it was not hit in the lungs.
Earlier this year my friend shot a deer just before dark with our 117g 270cal Hammer Hunter. He shot this deer at 375 yards. He could not find the deer so I went with him the next morning to find it. This was his first deer. We found the deer about 500 yards from where he hit him. Turned out that he hit him very low and a few inches right of his aim point. Bullet hit about an inch up from the bottom of his belly and just out of the diaphragm. Almost right on the diaphragm. Entrance and exit were about 2" apart. I would have expected a deer hit like this to live for a long time. It caused enough shock damage to lungs to cause him to bleed out internally in the lung cavity. I would say that a bullet that deforms into a nice round double caliber mushroom would not have turned out as well as this did. The flat front deformation caused enough collateral permanent wound channel to cause the deer to bleed out with out a hole in the diaphragm.
Bullets of all kinds kill by tearing soft tissue. It takes velocity and shape to do this. Getting rid of the petals is a good thing.
Steve
WildRose
Well-Known Member
The velocity and diameter of the front of the bullet determine how much damage is done.
If your bullet expands to 1.5-2x diameter, the shockwave coming from it does many times the damage of a bullet passing through that hasn't expanded.
Round or flat the size of frontal area of the bullet dictates how much damage can be done both by the shockwave and by the physical tearing of flesh as the bullet passes through does.
This is why we've spent over a century trying to maximize the frontal diameter by developing bullets that would expand more and stay together.
We then get to blood loss. A bullet penciling through, especially in the lung area does very little damage and provides a very small wound that you then have to rely on for the animal to bleed out. The quicker they bleed out, the quicker they expire. No matter how tough an animal is, when it's BP reaches 0/0 it's muscles cease to work within seconds as they use up what little energy they had left.
There's a pretty good article on the subject by Chuck Hawks who is quite a recognized authority on the subject to be found here.
Bullets for Beginners
If your bullet expands to 1.5-2x diameter, the shockwave coming from it does many times the damage of a bullet passing through that hasn't expanded.
Round or flat the size of frontal area of the bullet dictates how much damage can be done both by the shockwave and by the physical tearing of flesh as the bullet passes through does.
This is why we've spent over a century trying to maximize the frontal diameter by developing bullets that would expand more and stay together.
We then get to blood loss. A bullet penciling through, especially in the lung area does very little damage and provides a very small wound that you then have to rely on for the animal to bleed out. The quicker they bleed out, the quicker they expire. No matter how tough an animal is, when it's BP reaches 0/0 it's muscles cease to work within seconds as they use up what little energy they had left.
There's a pretty good article on the subject by Chuck Hawks who is quite a recognized authority on the subject to be found here.
Bullets for Beginners
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
Are you saying that the shape of the bullet as it moves through soft tissue doesn't matter? Only the dia matters? If you are, it simply is not true.
The quest over the last 100 years was to try and keep the lead from disintegrating at the muzzle vel continued to get higher. We had to use a jacket to keep the lead in one piece for the flight. The higher the vel the more difficult it gets. Too much jacket and the bullet doesn't deform. It's a balance. Lead is the weakness in the designed system. Take muzzle vel back down below 1800 fps and lead is perfect for the system.
I think we all agree that animals die when they run out of blood. Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the young girls bullet failed?
Steve
Frontal bullet diameter and shape both affect the lethality of bullet performance, based on the literature and research I've reviewed over the years. This statement applies to bullets we typically call "controlled expansion" bullets, such as the Barnes bullets.
Then there's the more recent entry of explosive fragmenting & shrapnelling bullets, that kill by instantaneous shock, rather than solely relying on blood loss - when the proper balance of bullet weight, sectional density, and impact velocity are properly combined. At least this is my observation and opinion. In the most extreme example, an animal explodes due to lack of mass and structural support, relative to the magnitude of the bullets instantaneous hydraulic shock. Gophers and ground squirrel with high velocity varmint bullets. A less extreme, but still impressive example is the instant kills observed using the .220 Swift and 22-250s on deer.
One vulnerability: When the uninformed use miss-matched fragmenting bullets on large bodied game, the consequence can be reduced lethality and failures to perform. Example; attempting to plow into the vitals and overwhelming the nervous system of a large moose, elk, or elephant with a high velocity frangible, shrapnelling bullet. These incidents often generate commentary by the defenders of fragmenting bullets that will claim the bullet didn't fail, the hunter failed to select the proper fragmenting grenade, or failed to slip the bullet between the ribs. And when these bullets occasionally fail to expand, we may hear just the opposite - the hunter failed to place the bullet on a rib. Point being, after removing all the high-strung emotion, is that the use of the fragmentation bullets requires a more informed, careful, proper bullet selection on large bodied animals, to avoid disappointment.
In my not so humble opinion...
Then there's the more recent entry of explosive fragmenting & shrapnelling bullets, that kill by instantaneous shock, rather than solely relying on blood loss - when the proper balance of bullet weight, sectional density, and impact velocity are properly combined. At least this is my observation and opinion. In the most extreme example, an animal explodes due to lack of mass and structural support, relative to the magnitude of the bullets instantaneous hydraulic shock. Gophers and ground squirrel with high velocity varmint bullets. A less extreme, but still impressive example is the instant kills observed using the .220 Swift and 22-250s on deer.
One vulnerability: When the uninformed use miss-matched fragmenting bullets on large bodied game, the consequence can be reduced lethality and failures to perform. Example; attempting to plow into the vitals and overwhelming the nervous system of a large moose, elk, or elephant with a high velocity frangible, shrapnelling bullet. These incidents often generate commentary by the defenders of fragmenting bullets that will claim the bullet didn't fail, the hunter failed to select the proper fragmenting grenade, or failed to slip the bullet between the ribs. And when these bullets occasionally fail to expand, we may hear just the opposite - the hunter failed to place the bullet on a rib. Point being, after removing all the high-strung emotion, is that the use of the fragmentation bullets requires a more informed, careful, proper bullet selection on large bodied animals, to avoid disappointment.
In my not so humble opinion...
catamountsierra
Well-Known Member
I am certainly not claiming to be an expert, but it seems to me that different bullet designs may require differing shot placement for optimal performance. What this means to me is that I need to know how my chosen bullet reacts on target and place my shot accordingly. A tough, bonded bullet may be better at getting through shoulders into the vitals than a frangible one, but the frangible bullet might be more reliable on softer broadside shots. In the end, I think it is the hunter's responsibility to understand how his bullet performs and to place the shot to maximize that performance. Threads like this help me understand how different bullets have behaved for different people and in different circumstances.
WildRose
Well-Known Member
Impact velocity makes a big difference as well.
Most of the bullets we see listed for game especially in factory ammo are intended for the most part to be used at under 400yds with impact velocities well over 1800fps. Those bullets are designed to mushroom but to keep from breaking up at high velocities but may not then perform well at longer ranges due to reduced velocity failing to expand and penciling through. With such a bullet unless you break the shoulders and/or interrupt the CNS the animal is likely to run for a long time before expiring even with what you'd generally consider to be good shot placement for a heart/lung shot.
There are no magic bullets that perform the same at all impact velocities so that has to be a consideration in choosing your bullets and perhaps more importantly deciding on shot placement.
catamountsierra
Well-Known Member
That is another definite consideration, but one that so far I haven't had to worry about. I am still starting out and keep all of my shots on game under about 400 yards. As I get better I will need to keep that in mind more, but the general rule of knowing how your chosen bullet behaves still applies.
WildRose
Well-Known Member
The shape makes very little difference.
Tissue is disrupted two ways, by the shockwave of the impact at supersonic velocity and by the diameter of the bullet coming directly in contact with the flesh and bone.
Round or square or any other shape makes very little difference as long as the bullet passes through.
Did the girls bullets fail in our two examples? No, they both seem to have performed as intended, they just weren't placed properly to ensure a clean, quick, and humane kill and due to their designs shot placement has to be virtually perfect to ensure same.
If everyone intimately knew their bullet behavior and their games behavior after a shot, we would have very very few BULLET FAILURE threads.
Most people don't kill enough stuff to really know. Kill couple hundred a yr and you get surprised less.
Lots more info available and pics than there used to be.
Still a lot of people shooting moose in the arse with 223s and then getting on here blaming the bullet company for their retardation.
catamountsierra
Well-Known Member
Hence the reason I keep following these threads. The more information the better, and compared to some of the other forums, the information quality here seems much better. People are generally more polite too, which I find very pleasant.
I guess my big bullet "failure" was shooting a pup coyote with a 70gr BT with my old .243 at all of 35 yards and hoping to have a full pelt. Frontal shot and nearly blew the back half of him off. I have since switched to a .223 for coyotes.
That's a learning moment for sure lol. Actually pelt hunting probably is the hardest job for a bullet there is in some ways. Has to be a quick kill but no exit or blow on impact. When cats were big $$$ I thought I would go kill some with my 204. Uggggh I didn't get a whole lot out of em. 32gr going 4k on a car is a lil much. Fine on a yote. A cat? Looked like a rug.
WildRose
Well-Known Member
That unfortunately was a completely predictable outcome.
Probably best to stick to FMJ's for pelt hunting beyond a hundred yards and bring along a .22LR for the up close and personal stuff.
