? bullet performance, complete pass throughs?

[NV_ARCH3R]

I’m more of an archery guy these days, haven’t used a rifle much since the ole Winchester silvertips, and pointed soft point days. I keep reading posts how a lot of guys brag about a complete pass through with their preferred bullet. Seems kinda contradictory to me, as for a bullets performance. Only part of a bullets killing ability is by actually passing through the vital organs. A large portion is the shedding of energy and passing that energy into the tissue, and vital organs. So the ideal bullet would be found just under the skin on the off side, the bullet having displaced all its energy in the animal. A pass through is bullet performance wasted. Of course you still need to consider the animal, caliber, etc. No way is an antelope at 80 yards, going to soak up a 300 win mag, re-read the preceding sentence. Or is my thinking as old as the ammunition I used to use? I’m not even thinking about two holes vs one for a bigger blood trail.

 

[mtmuley]

If you can figure out how to get a bullet to land just under the skin in the off side in every critter with every cartridge at every yardage, well it ain't happening. Bullets that pass through expend plenty of energy. If they didn't, I wouldn't have killed a thing for a lot of years. The thought of a bullet pass through being energy wasted is ridiculous. mtmuley

 

[jryoung]

I wonder how much energy was wasted by this pass through.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Better to have extra penetration than not enough.

 

[ardrhi]

I'll take a little lost energy in exchange for a massive blood trail any day. I've found entry holes with very little blood, while all of my exit holes have been gushers.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Better to have extra penetration than not enough.

Lets stay on topic here or the moderators will get upset. I'll use that line at the bar and see where it gets me though.

 

[Rancho Loco]

"Shedding energy" is a myth. A bullet punching a hole through important things is how critters die.

 

[sbhooper]

I have killed plenty of game with bullets staying in and others going through. I noticed no difference in the level of dead. The only difference, is that an exit is far more likely to give a good blood trail. I shot a chesty muley buck once with a .243. The bullet did not exit and I had a poor blood trail coming from a 6mm hole.

I prefer the exit wound and that is where using an appropriate bullet comes in.

 

[HighDesertSage]

I've had pass throughs and recovered bullets. All very dead animals. I have yet to recover a TTSX, and they put game down.

 

[Gunner46]

Following the same logic, why shoot a 70 lb bow and get a pass through, when you can shoot a 45 lb bow and only get partial penetration ?? All of the energy is lost after the arrow is through the aminal.

 

[whiskeydog]

Only part of a bullets killing ability is by actually passing through the vital organs. A large portion is the shedding of energy and passing that energy into the tissue, and vital organs.

A bullet that passes all the way through is going to shed energy along the entire wound channel, create hydrostatic shock, and create a larger exit wound than entry. A bullet that doesn't pass through will only damage as far as the length of the wound channel. Saying you want the bullet to stop just before exiting would be inappropriate as there are too many other factors -- if you were to select your idea of a perfect bullet that lodges under the offside hide, what happens to that same bullet when you shoot a few inches forward and hit muscle and shoulder blade instead of soft tissue? I would pick a bullet based on worst case scenario, which would cause a pass through on most good shots. The exception might be a frangible bullet like a Berger that is designed to completely come apart inside the animal...I've killed a fair number of elk/deer/antelope with a 6.5mm Berger however an switching to a new round this year due to the lack of blood trails I get when the bullet doesn't create an exit wound.

Here's the simplest way I can describe it...
-Right or wrong, lets assume that it takes 1000 ft/lbs to penetrate an elk with a perfect vital organ shot.
-In the first scenario, you shoot at an elk with a .308, the bullet travels down range, and has exactly 1000 ft/lbs of energy left as it hits. It expends 100% of it's energy and lodges just under the far side hide. (elk dies)
-In the second scenario, you use the same diameter bullet shot from a .300 win mag, the bullet travels down range, and has 2000 ft/lbs of energy left as it hits. It expends 50% of it's energy in passing completely through the elk. It still has 1000 ft/lbs left as it exits and creates a massive exit wound. Just like in the first scenario, it dumps 1000 ft/lbs into the body of the elk. (elk dies)
-Now, you make a bad shot, hit both shoulders and have to pass through large amounts of bone and muscle. Would you prefer to have that left over energy that you didn't need with your perfect shot?
-Maybe there are other variables that I'm not smart enough to consider, but no matter what bullet you use, it is going to take the same amount of energy to get from point A on the elks near side, to point B on his far side...whether there is energy left over or not is moot...until you need it.

 

[Curvebow]

Exactly as Whiskey points out!

Yes, you can use a smaller caliber and kill animals. But, many of us, me included, will want some "extra" in the form of a magnum something or other. In a perfect shot scenario and reasonable range, it likely doesn't make much difference. But given a less than optimum scenario with body position, moving animal, distance, or whatever reason, more Ft/Lbs means more damage to more tissue. And the exit wound always makes blood trailing easier.

That's the same reasoning why I maintain that bowhunters should shoot the heaviest bow that they can shoot accurately. In perfect scenarios, a 45# can get it done, for a quartering shot, 70# or whatever you can handle, isn't too much!

 

[Gr8bawana]

I would much rather have an exit hole blood trail than just a little bit of blood dripping from the entrance wound.

 

[NV_ARCH3R]

I wasn't saying you had to have a bullet stop exactly under the skin, was just saying ideally a bullet would expend all its energy IN the animal. I expected some push back but not all the frothing at the mouth. I'll crawl back in my hole now.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I think this is best looked at as a bell curve. On the left, no expansion, and a pencil hole drilled through the animal. On the right, the bullet blows up on a rib, and all of the energy is dumped in the first 2 inches of the animal. The center line is a bullet just piercing the far side hide.

Neither extreme is good, and the exact center is theoretical at best.

Personally, I would want to be left of center enough that I was confident it would punch through both sides if all of the variables were working against me.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

-Right or wrong, lets assume that it takes 1000 ft/lbs to penetrate an elk with a perfect vital organ shot.
-

This neglects the sectional density of the bullet because a 168 gr 30 caliber bullet is going to need more energy than a 168 gr 7mm bullet to penetrate the elk because the 7mm bullet has less frontal surface area and the same mass (also assuming the velocity to be equal). Basically the 7mm is a sharper knife and requires less force. That said 1000 ft-lbs is at least in the ball park of probably what it takes to kill an elk and at least impart better than 50% penetration with common rifle rounds.

Ideal is full penetration, but then the bullet has no more energy than to tumble to the ground because you get 99.99% of the energy into the animal and 2 holes. The problem with this is that the wound channel is dependent on bullet speed so you will need some amount of speed upon exiting the animal to get a larger hole upon exit.

Terminal ballistics are mess to say the least because millimeters matter as to what you damage with bullet and the wound channel. An animal isn't homogeneous and field hunting conditions aren't statistically repeatable leading lots of experienced hunters to make false conclusions as to the effectiveness of a given round. None of these arguments will be solved using classical physics and what amounts to anecdotal evidence (statistically speaking) in the field of even the most prolific hunter.

 

[Biscuit Hunter]

I think the only real world benefit to a bullet that kills without an exit wound is when you are hunting for hides.

In reality, if you need every last foot-pound of energy to kill a critter, you didn't bring enough gun.

 

[whiskeydog]

This neglects the sectional density of the bullet because a 168 gr 30 caliber bullet is going to need more energy than a 168 gr 7mm bullet to penetrate the elk

If you reread my post, I said the same bullet was fired from both the .308 and the .300

There are obviously way more variables involved beyond different sectional densities of various bullets, but I was trying to make it as simple as possible.

Most people say 1500 ft/lbs is recommended for an elk...no way to tell how many is actually needed as it will be completely dependent on numerous variables. I used 1000 only as a theoretical number to begin an explanation.

 

[7mm08mo]

Two holes bleed more than one.

 

[ardrhi]

I wasn't saying you had to have a bullet stop exactly under the skin, was just saying ideally a bullet would expend all its energy IN the animal. I expected some push back but not all the frothing at the mouth. I'll crawl back in my hole now.

I thought it was a great question. You made a very good point about expending energy in the animal rather than wasting it on the other side. While I personally strongly favor a bullet that will pass through for my purposes, I can see scenarios where you would want to pick a bullet designed to expend energy inside the animal. I'm definitely a meat hunter first, so I go I don't really want a lot of internal damage - I only want the right damage. When I started out rifle hunting I did buy into the knock-down power hype, but I had some bad experiences with that I don't think would have happened with bullets that held together better.
I have hunted with people packing large magnums and bullets that are designed to leave the insides of an animal looking like a grenade went off. I can see how a long-range or a run and gun shooter might choose this because almost any hit that gets to internal organs is going to make enough damage to kill it. That's just not my style.
It could be very important for police and self-defense rounds to expend all energy inside the target to reduce damage to background targets after pass through.