PEAX Equipment

Where does all the rifle BS come from?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 28227
  • Start date
I've examined quite a few wound channels, it's what led to my interest in this. I also have a fair collection of recovered expanded bullets, some of which are remarkable for their smooth mushrooming.

We can do this all night. I haven't experienced the "always" and "nevers" that you seem to be finding. In my experience nearly identical situations, and hits can have drastically different results, making definitive conclusions like you are asserting questionable to me.

I think you need to point out in my posts on this subject where I used "always" or "never"...

Reading words that aren't there, like you have stated, are questionable to me...

When I see drastically differently results from what I normally would expect to see when shooting a critter...I take the time to figure out what caused the deviation. Usually isn't too tough to figure out when you look things over.
 
I think you need to point out in my posts on this subject where I used "always" or "never"...

Reading words that aren't there, like you have stated, are questionable to me...
Buzz, all of your posts are always or never statements of life as you know it. There is never wiggle room for anything but...
 
Buzz, all of your posts are always or never statements of life as you know it. There is never wiggle room for anything but...

Opinions vary...nobody is stopping you from wiggling anytime you want. Wiggle away.

You can also make a run at proving me wrong...it happens, just rarely.
 
I've shot a metric shit-ton of elk, deer, pronghorn, etc...seen at least that many more shot. Very similar results from .22 rimfire to .22 centerfires, to .243, to .257, to .284, .30, .338 across a broad range of velocities, bullet types, bullet weights.

If shock and velocity were significant to lethality, then I would expect to see an 80lb pronghorn absolutely crushed by a .257 weatherby when lung shot via a 100 grain bullet traveling at 3700FPS. Yet, I've witnessed many, many times they run the standard 40-50 yards before dying. About the same as shooting them with a 7-08 in the same spot with a 140 grain bullet at 2900 fps. About the same as shooting them with a 180 grain 30/06 at 2700 fps. About the same as shooting them with a 100 grain .243 at 3000 fps. About the same as shooting them through the lungs with a broadhead.

That leads me to believe, that shot placement matters a whole lot more than anything else and they're all dying from the same thing...blood loss/suffocation/massive drop in blood pressure.

Hits to the CNS also result in largely the same thing from all those rifles I mentioned as well...meaning, they incapacitate the animal via the exact same thing, trauma to brain or spine.

I don't know how many a metric shit ton equates to, but I don't doubt your experience, but I also have ample experience, and mine has led me to different conclusions. Not only have I seen a wide disparity in the results of animals shot with different loads, but I've also seen a wide disparity in the results of animals shot similarly with similar loads. My experience apparently hasn't been as neat and definitive as yours.

I've not once asserted that shot placement wasn't important. In fact in my first post on this thread I said:

Shot placement is king, but other factors definitely matter.

I know that's an extreme example, and as I said, no matter what, shot placement is still and always will be the most important factor, but some common sense regarding power and bullet construction is helpful as well.

And there is no question that the traumas you list are what kill, where we disagree (and mtmuley) is how a bullet causes that trauma. You believe the physical parting of the tissue by the bullet is solely responsible. I believe that in passing through the tissue, the energy that is driving the bullet through that tissue is ALSO causing damage by imparting that energy. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transferred...so there is no question that the energy is being transferred, our only disagreement is whether or not it's doing any damage.
 
I think you need to point out in my posts on this subject where I used "always" or "never"...

Reading words that aren't there, like you have stated, are questionable to me...

When I see drastically differently results from what I normally would expect to see when shooting a critter...I take the time to figure out what caused the deviation. Usually isn't too tough to figure out when you look things over.

Ok Buzz, you didn't write always or never, I drew that inference, from all your animals making it 50-80 yards, that differs from my experience. Taking the time to figure out what causes deviations is what led me to be interested in this. I've concluded that shot placement, tissue penetrated, and bullet performance all contribute to deviations.
 
I'm always open to discussions on any of this, and I'll give every man's opinion respect, and treat him with courtesy. I have no interest in condescension or superiority. This subject may have some conflicting science, and points that can be debated, but there's no cause to lower it to thinly veiled insult driven dialouge. I'll bow out of this conversation, and move on to more interesting topics.
 
Ok Buzz, you didn't write always or never, I drew that inference, from all your animals making it 50-80 yards, that differs from my experience. Taking the time to figure out what causes deviations is what led me to be interested in this. I've concluded that shot placement, tissue penetrated, and bullet performance all contribute to deviations.

Not to pick nits, but I didn't make a claim of "all my animals making it 50-80 yards", pretty sure I said, "standard 40-50 yards", which is a pretty standard distance for a heart/ lung shot critter, no matter the cartridge, bullet, or velocity to run after being shot. Some make it shorter distances, some a bit more. Not really normal for an animal to drop on the spot from a pure heart/lung hit. Bust the shoulders, spine (which happens a lot with "lung shots".), different story.
 
So what happens when you shoot a similar size watermelon at say 50 yards with a center fire rifle and an arrow have any relevance here??

ClearCreek
 
So what happens when you shoot a similar size watermelon at say 50 yards with a center fire rifle and an arrow have any relevance here??

ClearCreek
The watermelon always dies, and only very rarely (one would be tempted to say never) travels 40-50 yds, much less 50-80 yds before expiring. Hydrostatic shock always never happens to the watermelon.
 
So what happens when you shoot a similar size watermelon at say 50 yards with a center fire rifle and an arrow have any relevance here??

ClearCreek


When you shoot a deer behind the shoulder, through the lungs, with a centerfire rifle at 50 yards, does its head explode? Blood come out of its ears? Out of its ass?

All that energy and hydrostatic shock has to go somewhere, its never destroyed.
 
When you shoot a deer behind the shoulder, through the lungs, with a centerfire rifle at 50 yards, does its head explode? Blood come out of its ears? Out of its ass?

All that energy and hydrostatic shock has to go somewhere, its never lost.
Who said THAT?
 
Right, I'll just "promulgate" filling tags...via blood loss/suffocation, and a quick drop in blood pressure. That red crap I follow for 40-50 yards to deceased critters, that isn't supposed to be on the ground, same as that same red crap that fills lungs and body cavities...its displaced, and it didn't get there by thermodynamics.
 
You seem equally good at suffocating reasonable discussion with folks that have opinions that did not descend directly from you.
 
You seem equally good at suffocating reasonable discussion with folks that have opinions that did not descend directly from you.

Just point me to some proof that hydrostatic shock and energy from a rifle bullet kills deer, elk, or pronghorn...I'll change my mind.

For the record, so I'm clear, what killed that mule deer that I shot with that .22 mag? Was it the 130 ft/lbs of energy that killed that deer? Also, how much energy does it take to kill a deer via energy transfer or hydrostatic shock? If the 130 ft/lbs of shock wasn't enough to kill that deer, then what did?
 
Last edited:
Just point me to some proof that hydrostatic shock and energy from a rifle bullet kills deer, elk, or pronghorn...I'll change my mind.

I don't give a crap what you believe, meanwhile, point to some proof that it can't occur. Maybe that will keep you busy somehow. Frankly, I could not care less whether it does or doesn't happen, but without energy, that bullet doesn't leave the chamber, never mind penetrate an elk. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Nah, it says NO, in the BoB so I guess that's the end of it, eh?
 
I don't give a crap what you believe, meanwhile, point to some proof that it can't occur. Maybe that will keep you busy somehow. Frankly, I could not care less whether it does or doesn't happen, but without energy, that bullet doesn't leave the chamber, never mind penetrate an elk. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Nah, it says NO, in the BoB so I guess that's the end of it, eh?

I can do that...read mtmuleys link.

May want to talk to an EMT, Doctor, or veterinarian about what happens with rapid blood loss, suffocation, and rapid drop in BP and whether or not hydrostatic shock and energy from a bullet cause those conditions.
 
Back
Top