Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

View Poll Results: A BULLET TO PASS THROUGH OR NOT IS BEST
PASS THROUGH IS BEST 86 60.14%
NON-PASS THROUGH IS BEST 57 39.86%
Voters: 143. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:24 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default Whats best a bullet that passes through or one that reaches the backside of the hide ???

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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:27 PM
hal53's Avatar
hal53 hal53 is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lougheed,Ab.
Posts: 12,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PistonBroke View Post
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
in a perfect world, i would agree......
__________________
The future ain't what it used to be - Yogi Berra
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:29 PM
BuckCuller's Avatar
BuckCuller BuckCuller is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,665
Default

I agree 100 and 10 percent.Shock wave em.
__________________
As long as there is lead in the air there is always hope.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:32 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,831
Default

The absolute optimum bullet performance would be a bullet that makes a large wound channel , and then has just enough energy to exit.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:34 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
the absolute optimum bullet performance would be a bullet that makes a large wound channel , and then has just enough energy to exit.
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...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:39 PM
muledeerking muledeerking is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PistonBroke View Post
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
I agree with you 100%. I have read on here that holes kill not shock. I call BS on that. I have watched animals get shot with them all. The best I have seen proformance says different than holes kill. That is why I stay way far away from monolithic bullets. I shoot bergers but have use alot of others that work great too.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:41 PM
muledeerking muledeerking is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The absolute optimum bullet performance would be a bullet that makes a large wound channel , and then has just enough energy to exit.
Agree.. This is why I shoot bergers.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:44 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,831
Default

Quote:
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...
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.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:44 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

I've been hunting with Nosler Ballistic Tips since starting to reload several years ago. The bullet goes in and doesn't come out on broadside shots resulting in bang-flops or deer that drop after 50 yds. They turn lungs into mush. I watched the gelatin tests on youtube and I'm quite confident that the bullets would be effective in the event of a shoulder shot through bone.

I know that it'll come up so I guess that I should mention that I am not overly concerned about any residual lead left over in the animals that I shoot.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:46 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
A bullet designed to expand rapidly, but not to exit, doesn't always penetrate enough on larger game if heavy bone is struck.
Which ones?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:46 PM
SHORTMAG's Avatar
SHORTMAG SHORTMAG is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PistonBroke View Post
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...


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.
One hole or two, either way...I got my animal
__________________
"If you Take Your Kids Hunting, You won't have to go Hunting for Your Kids"!!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:47 PM
bdub's Avatar
bdub bdub is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,713
Default

I like an exit wound. More blood and easier tracking if it comes to that.
__________________
There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot. Aldo Leopold
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:52 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,831
Default

Quote:
Which ones?
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.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:53 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
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.
i have killed moose with my 270 wsm with barnes tsx
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:55 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,831
Default

Quote:
i have killed moose with my 270 wsm with barnes tsx
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?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:03 PM
catnthehat's Avatar
catnthehat catnthehat is online now
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ft. McMurray
Posts: 38,527
Default

I don't care if the bullet stays in the animal or exits as long as i get a bang flop or a very short tracking job.
Both types ( pass through and stopped on the far side of the hide) have provided me with drop in their tracks dead animals and short tracki9ng jibs.
Both have also provided me with longer tracking jobs because I made a less than optimum shot.
The bullet has so little to do with it as opposed to the shot placement of said bullet that it is almost a non debate.
The large black powder bullets we shoot move very slow as compared to a new style bullet, but with a hard alloy they leave more than enough wound channel with busted bones to boot.

the smaller , lighter faster jobs seem to like to be pushed at super sonic speeds and the end result is the same for both types if bullets if you make a good shot- dead animal, and it will be the same if you make a lousy shot- long tracking job or at worst , a lost animal.
Cat
__________________
Anytime I figure I've got this long range thing figured out, I just strap into the sling and irons and remind myself that I don't!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:31 PM
LongBomber LongBomber is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fernie BC
Posts: 525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PistonBroke View Post
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...
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:32 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shortmag View Post
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.
One hole or two, either way...i got my animal :d
imo a bullet would kill quicker without passing through because of the retained energy inside the animal, a bullet that passes through is wasting all that hydrostatic shock that can be used .
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:35 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:36 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
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?
he wakled 10 yards fast and drop dead, right after i shot and watched him walk 10 yrds to the treeline i began to walk the 70 yrds
to where he fell over and he was stone dead , took me a minute to walk to him, i belive the hydrostatic shock had 95% to do with his quick expiry , he was hit in the middle of the lungs height wise fyi....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:43 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longbomber View Post
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.
well of course it would make a difference,lol a 388 grain arrow at 340 fps creates 98 ft/lbs of energy, so that extra 60-150 ft/lbs would make that much of a difference, its like getting hit with that bullet and then an arrow to follow, that's gotta make some kind of difference i would think, imo
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:47 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,831
Default

Quote:
he wakled 10 yards fast and drop dead, right after i shot and watched him walk 10 yrds to the treeline i began to walk the 70 yrds
to where he fell over and he was stone dead , took me a minute to walk to him, i belive the hydrostatic shock had 95% to do with his quick expiry , he was hit in the middle of the lungs height wise fyi....
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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
well of course it would make a difference,lol a 388 grain arrow at 340 fps creates 98 ft/lbs of energy, so that extra 60-150 ft/lbs would make that much of a difference, its like getting hit with that bullet and then an arrow to follow, that's gotta make some kind of difference i would think, imo
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.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:47 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shortmag View Post
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.
One hole or two, either way...i got my animal :d
your right an arrow is better when it passes through as where a bullet is not, imo bullets create way more hydrostatic shock than an arrow and that's why imo they are best left inside as where an arrow can create 2 holes to allow bleed out cause they dont have the shock of a bullet.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:51 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
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.
the shocked packed his lungs up and stopped his heart on impact, he can still be walking dead cant he...? Lol
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:52 PM
BuckCuller's Avatar
BuckCuller BuckCuller is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
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.
I'm glad some one said it so I didn't have to. There seemed to be a little dramatization in that one.
__________________
As long as there is lead in the air there is always hope.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:54 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
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.
i guess you missed my point or i did not explain it properly, sorry bout that ....
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:54 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,831
Default

Quote:
the shocked packed his lungs up and stopped his heart on impact, he can still be walking dead cant he...? Lol
You just proved my point.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:55 PM
PistonBroke's Avatar
PistonBroke PistonBroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
you just proved my point.
ya the hydrostatic shock killed him....not the bleeding out
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-25-2012, 08:58 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,831
Default

Quote:
ya the hydrostatic shock killed him....not the bleeding out
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?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-25-2012, 09:08 PM
BuckCuller's Avatar
BuckCuller BuckCuller is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
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?
Have you ever been in shock you can do some pretty amazing things when you don't feel the pain. Besides you can tell which is which. With hydrostatic shock their lungs looks more like a bloody jello mold. With a bullet that just passes through it looks like a hole through the lungs.
__________________
As long as there is lead in the air there is always hope.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.