Originally Posted by PistonBroke (Post 1576183)

In my opinion , you would want a bullet to stay inside the animal and reach the back side of the hide to ensure full hydrostatic shock and energy is kept inside the animal to create a quick humane kill.....what do you guys think , lets hear your opinions plz

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576195)

the absolute optimum bullet performance would be a bullet that makes a large wound channel , and then has just enough energy to exit.

Originally Posted by PistonBroke (Post 1576183)

In my opinion , you would want a bullet to stay inside the animal and reach the back side of the hide to ensure full hydrostatic shock and energy is kept inside the animal to create a quick humane kill.....what do you guys think , lets hear your opinions plz

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576195)

The absolute optimum bullet performance would be a bullet that makes a large wound channel , and then has just enough energy to exit.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576217)

A bullet designed to expand rapidly, but not to exit, doesn't always penetrate enough on larger game if heavy bone is struck.

Originally Posted by PistonBroke (Post 1576201)

i have to disagree with you on this one bro..why waste that energy to make it out that's energy that can be used inside to shock and awe them...lol only arrows i believe should be pass thoroughs...

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576217)

unless the bullet badly damages the central nervous system,animals die because they bleed out. Good luck killing an elk or moose, or worse yet, a charging grizzly, via hydrostatic shock with your 270wsm. My favorite hunting bullets, the barnes tsx/ttsx almost always exit, yet they kill as fast as any hunting bullet that i have ever used. A bullet designed to expand rapidly, but not to exit, doesn't always penetrate enough on larger game if heavy bone is struck.

Originally Posted by PistonBroke (Post 1576201)

i have to disagree with you on this one bro..why waste that energy to make it out that's energy that can be used inside to shock and awe them...lol only arrows i believe should be pass thoroughs...

Originally Posted by shortmag (Post 1576223)

based on your above supposition, would it not be better for the broad head to be inside the lung cavity, slicing and dicing...shocking and aweing the animal as it bounded away ?

Double blood trail is better than one ..isn't that what they teach in the bow course?...why would a bullet be any different than an arrow on a pass thru ?

For me, it's a no brainer. Shoot it thru the lungs...if it stays in, i get the recovered bullet...if it exits...mother nature gets it. :evilgrin:
One hole or two, either way...i got my animal :d

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576233)

Try shooting an elk or moose through the shoulder with a 130gr Ballistic Tip out of a 270win or 270WSM, and tell me how you make out. My favorite bullet for deer,pronghorn and bighorn is the 140gr Ballistic Tip out of my 7mmstw, but I would not use that bullet on elk or moose, unless I was presented with a perfect broadside heart/lung shot. On the other hand, the 140gr TSX/TTSX easily penetrates both shoulders of an elk or moose if required.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576240)

which doesn't prove that they died due to hydrostatic shock.did they immediately fall over stone dead, or did they bleed out and die?

Originally Posted by longbomber (Post 1576292)

the problem is that no one knows just how fast the bullet is going when it exits. If your looking at an exit speed of 600fps with a 180gr bullet, that is a whopping 143.9 ft-ibs of energy. At 400fps that 180gr would be down to 65ft-ibs. Started from a 30-06 it would have had roughly 3000 ft-ibs at the muzzle. I don't think that 60-150ft-ibs will make much of a difference.

Personally i will take two nice loonie size holes, one each side.

Originally Posted by shortmag (Post 1576223)

based on your above supposition, would it not be better for the broad head to be inside the lung cavity, slicing and dicing...shocking and aweing the animal as it bounded away ?

Double blood trail is better than one ..isn't that what they teach in the bow course?...why would a bullet be any different than an arrow on a pass thru ?

For me, it's a no brainer. Shoot it thru the lungs...if it stays in, i get the recovered bullet...if it exits...mother nature gets it. :evilgrin:
One hole or two, either way...i got my animal :d

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576318)

if it really was hydrostatic shock rather than bleeding out that killed him, he would have dropped instantly, and he would not have walked those ten yards.




Exactly my point, a 130gr tsx/ttsx works excellent on elk and moose, and will easily penetrate a shoulder that the 130gr ballistic tip won't penetrate. The 130grain ballistic point is designed for rapid expansion, and it sacrifices penetration as a result. The tsx/ttsx in the same weight still expands adequately, but it offers a great deal more penetration. Bullet construction is more of a factor than bullet weight.

Originally Posted by HunterDave (Post 1576304)

Now why would you want to do that? Of course you still have to use the right tool to do the job. I've used Nosler BTs for deer and for moose........165gr for deer and 180gr for moose and this year I'm going to hunt my deer with 140gr BTs from a 7-08. I'm quite confident that the rapid expansion of those bullets would be highly effective going through bone of either animal.

If you meant a light bullet that, IMO isn't meant to do the job, not providing enough penetration then yeah, you'd be correct.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576318)

if it really was hydrostatic shock rather than bleeding out that killed him, he would have dropped instantly, and he would not have walked those ten yards.




Exactly my point, a 130gr tsx/ttsx works excellent on elk and moose, and will easily penetrate a shoulder that the 130gr ballistic tip won't penetrate. The 130grain ballistic point is designed for rapid expansion, and it sacrifices penetration as a result. The tsx/ttsx in the same weight still expands adequately, but it offers a great deal more penetration. Bullet construction is more of a factor than bullet weight.



That comparison is as meaningless as it gets. A broadhead doesn't need a great amount of energy because it's sharp blades slice easily through the tissue. On the other hand, the expanding bullet is blunt, and it takes a great deal of energy to force it through the energy. By the way, i doubt that shooting a broadhead through the wound channel that a bullet had just created would be very beneficial as far as killing the animal is concerned.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576329)

you just proved my point.:rolleye2:

Originally Posted by HunterDave (Post 1576304)

Now why would you want to do that? Of course you still have to use the right tool to do the job. I've used Nosler BTs for deer and for moose........165gr for deer and 180gr for moose and this year I'm going to hunt my deer with 140gr BTs from a 7-08. I'm quite confident that the rapid expansion of those bullets would be highly effective going through bone of either animal.

If you meant a light bullet that, IMO isn't meant to do the job, not providing enough penetration then yeah, you'd be correct.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 1576338)

Obviously not, or he wouldn't have walked away. Have you ever had the wind totally knocked out of you? Could you remain upright and keep walking away quickly, or did you fold up until you could breathe again?