:: Forums »

#46: Re: Gun vs reload Author: Ominivision1, Location: Iowa

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:24 pm
----
Very interesting, I've read about this before and here's an article from Jim Carmichael from Outdoor Life about this.

Outdoor Life

#47: Re: Gun vs reload Author: gelandangan, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:43 pm
----

PaulS wrote:

Bullet upset, whether it is expansion or tipping, causes damage (cutting and tearing) to tissue than any amount of "hydrostatic shock".

Now THAT I agree with.

I cannot see the need of extra foot pound of energy provided by hyper velocity calibers.

IMO, the need for faster MV are due to such as
1. inability to sneak closer to target
2. inability to guess distance to compensate trajectory
3. need to deliver higher force to "larger" targets (such as bear, elephant, T-Rex etc) for lighter projectiles to penetrate deeper into vital areas.
4. need to ensure"safety" of the hunter from targets that can bite back or attack the hunter by distancing the hunter from the target.

Animals do not get stronger (or pets get weaker) over the last hundred or so year.
The energy required to kill a deer would be the same today as what it was 500 years ago.
The main difference is the ability of the hunter to cause correct sized wound in correct area.

With the increase of hunting activity coupled with the reduction in habitat,
animal changes their habit and increase their awareness to predators (hunters).
Now, most "hunters" nowadays are like you and ME,
we are mostly paper/box/number pusher 99% of our lives, and for the rest 1% we "hunt"
Add the two factors together, you would have animals that are very shy and run at the slightest disturbance
and hunters that are too clumsy to approach close enough to guarantee humane kill.
And do not forget that us human ARE getting physically weaker through the generations due to lack of exercise, overweight etc.

So the solution?
use higher power caliber with flatter trajectory and massive energy delivery so the "hunter" can kill at longer distance.

I read a lot of stories telling so and so's granpa or old acquaintance
or the guy next door's third cousins father in-laws lawyer's uncle was a hunter/trapper,
that have only used a rusty single shot 22 magnum rifle and with that he provides
skin, meat and university/college admittance fees for his 6 children and a mother in-law.

Our ancestors really left large shoes to fill..

#48: Re: Gun vs reload Author: chambered221, Location: Lost for good !!!

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:41 pm
----
I've been around conversations that have eluded to the scientific studies that supposedly been done but no one seems to be able to give any reference material to their findings.

I would have to think that there's more to it than timing the heart beat....... I've had to high of a percentage of bang flop DRT's.
I do however believe in the basis of the theory !!!

#49: Re: Gun vs reload Author: Pumpkinslinger, Location: NC foothills

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:40 am
----
Energy is the ability to do work and is a very real factor in cartridge performance but you've got to compare apples (read bullets) to apples. If I take the exact same bullet and load it in a .308 and a .300 Win Mag which one would be more effective on game (assuming that all other variables are the same)? The only difference is the energy. For our purposes energy is used four ways: to create noise, to create heat, to deform the bullet and to make a hole in the critter. Rinker explains it well on page 340 of "Understanding Firearm Ballistics".

#50: Re: Gun vs reload Author: Aloysius, Location: B., Belgium

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:53 am
----
but there's a big difference between the energy in the bullet and the energy transfered to the animal. When the bullet doesn't deform on impact, it's very well likely that the slower bullet will transfer more energy to the animal than the faster. When I think about my airgun in my youth, that Diane Model 25 (=very small) would kill a sparrow each time on the spot. When I lather used the much stronger Diane Model 45, the same pellets didn't have the same effect. I simply shot trough the bird and it flew away...
Just give a 6 mm bullet in a .243 the same energy on f.e. 100 yards as a soft lead .45 round ball (or conical) in a muzzle loader. Now shoot a deer in the chest at this distance, which bullet would most likely kill the animal on the spot?

In other words: when you compare a small chinese who likes to work with a large, strong african man who likes to sit and think before his hut. Now compare potential energy with the work done at the end of the day...

#51: Re: Gun vs reload Author: slimjim, Location: Fort Worth TX

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:00 am
----
OV1, thanks for posting that very intersting article. I think it is a plausible explaination and makes a lot of sense.

"Predictably, some of the buffalo dropped where they were shot and some didn't, even though all received near-identical hits in the vital heart-lung area. When the brains of all the buffalo were removed, the researchers discovered that those that had been knocked down instantly had suffered massive rupturing of blood vessels in the brain. The brains of animals that hadn't fallen instantly showed no such damage. So what is the connection?

Their conclusion was that the bullets that killed instantly had struck just at the moment of the animal's heartbeat! The arteries to the brain, already carrying a full surge of blood pressure, received a mega-dose of additional pressure from the bullet's impact, thus creating a blood pressure overload and rupturing the vessels."

#52: Re: Gun vs reload Author: chambered221, Location: Lost for good !!!

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:22 pm
----
Pumpkin, I think I got a copy of that book............yup.... got it !!! Very Happy

(I'll have to re-read that part)

-> Reloading Ammunition

All times are GMT - 7 Hours

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 :| |: Page 4 of 4