Graybeard
Actually Greybeard, it was NOT you. It was someone on another forum and he did claim failure. I, in fact, understood quite plainly (don't need no stinking "readin' lessons!") what you said and had no arguments with it. Perhaps if you would get your dander back down and READ what I said you would notice we are for the most part in agreement. I only recommend 180s in short (4") barreled revolvers. I do recommend XTPs (someone seems to think I don't) only in the lighter 210 gr persuasion pushed to higher velocity which would ensure expansion at reasonable .44 magnum revolver ranges.
Just for your information (I'll ignore the implication questioning my veracity) I have been killing deer since I was 12 years old. I grew up and for the most part have lived in Oregon. We have black tails, mule deer and white tails. I have killed more than I can remember with numerous weapons; rifles, shotguns, bow and handguns. I have killed many "on tag", with agriculture permits and in dispatching injured ones as a LEO in NE Oregon. The first deer I killed with a handgun was with a S&W M&P .38 special when I was 14 years old. Don't remember the range but it was close and the 158 gr lead RN went through the heart and the deer walked several yards and fell over dead. That was when I was young and dumb and didn't know we needed monster magnums for use on deer. And no, I am not saying the .38 special is ok for hunting deer. However it will kill them just the same as the monster magnums though generally neither as quick nor as efficiently. Yup, not as quick or as efficiently but it kills them just as dead, that is my point.
I have no problem with complete penetration; it is nice to have just "in case". I have "hunted" in jungles all over the world, been in the "thickets of every part of this country from the NE to the swamps of the south and the forests of Michigan and Wisconsin. But until you have hunted black tails (or elk) in the rain forests of the Pacific Northwest coastal mountains you do know what "thick" is. However, my point is that if a good expanding bullet (that will expand) is put into the heart/lung of a deer at reasonable range then the deer is not going far at all. I never said anything nor indicated "they just fall to the shot" though I have seen it happen numerous times. Not "knocked off their feet" but they did die where they were shot. Yes the exit wound is nice to help in tracking. But I have followed up enough deer to know that with low velocity (handgun) bullets unless the exit is through the heart and exits out in the lower third of the chest cavity there will be little blood trail from the exit wound. This is particularly the case with "lung" shots as the blood from the hemorrhaging will collect in the bottom of the lung cavity and will not run out. The deer actually drowns in its own blood.
If you read my posts I have, on numerous occasions, stated I am always ready to shoot again and do not hesitate. I also recommend others do not hesitate to shoot again if given the opportunity. All of these and similar discussions seem to hinge on the success or failure of only one shot. Many times I have to ask, why? While I realize many times a second shot is not possible I also know, from experience and observation, that a second shot was possible in just as many instances as not. However, in every single instance of my observation of "experienced" handgun hunters I have yet to see one that immediately cocks the handgun to make a second shot. ALL of them will lower the handgun and watch the deer as if expecting it to be blown off its feet (and like you said, that doesn't happen most often). This has always surprised me as many were seasoned LEOs who would not hesitate to empty 15 shots into a dirtbag, yet with a deer they don't. The only ones who shot twice only did so when I told them to "shoot again". Well there was one exception; he used a 6" M19 .357 Mag with WW 125 HPs. He would put 2-3 shots into the heart/lung of deer quicker than the deer could flinch or you just read this. Saw him do it twice and those two mule deer bucks did not need tracking.
I will have to say that while your position; "I am of the school of thought that says full penetration with exit hole is the desired result of the bullet." is worthwhile I have to disagree. I am of the position that the desired result of the bullet is to kill the deer as quick as possible, i.e. the quicker the better. The quicker it kills the less need for tracking. I have yet to see any deer hit in the heart lungs (with a reasonable range) with a good 200-210 gr HP/SP bullet of .41, .44 or .45 when pushed at 1400+ fps go beyond 40 paces. While 40 paces may be quite a distance in some terrain that was the rare deer as most all died within a much shorter distance, most within sight and hearing. I have seen many shot with hardcast bullets and jacketed bullets that do not expand go much farther than 40 paces. Another point I might make is of all the "blood trails" I have followed of handgun shot deer most of the trail blood came from the entrance wound and not the exit wound. Caveat here; we don't hunt from tree stands in my neck of the woods (nothing wrong with it, just not the "norm" here) so the wound channels are different in that instance.
"Most experience handgunners I know want an exit."
Never said I didn't want an exit nor that it was not desireable. Just said that the primary concern should not be "penetration and exit" but instead should be the most efficient killing bullet. Any of the bullets I recommended at the velocities I recommended them have all the penetration that killing deer requires, within the limitations of any reasonable shot. It seems to me that those who demand over penetration and an exit wound are conceding that the bullets they use are not that efficient at quickly killing (now I didn't say they don't kill) deer. I prefer to use the most efficient killing (the one that will kill the quickest) bullet and reduce the possibility of tracking very far. Every heart shot deer I have tracked (none too far) has had blood streaming out the entrance wound like a garden hose.
In the case mentioned I doubt had the XTP exited that the deer would have died any quicker. I doubt that all the "penetration" past the heart lung area had anything to do with the deer dying any quicker. The killing was done in the first half of the bullets penetration, not the last half. Gary R made a fine shot on a nice deer. Obviously from Gary's last post he is an experienced and knowledgeable handgun hunter. Would the deer have been killed any quicker with a 210 gr XTP fired at a higher velocity? In my opinion, yes. Would the deer have been any deader? No. Would Gary have been any more successful with the lighter bullet? No, he WAS successful.
I any event I have not said at any time that heavier, non-expanding handgun bullets will not kill deer, they certainly will. Gary asked for input about his experience and as I said I would be the odd man out and offer another perspective other than the heavy hardcast bullet. Gary is knowledgeable and experienced. I'm sure he understands that my perspective is based on many years of observation and experience killing deer with handguns. I do not compare killing deer with killing hogs, elk, moose or buffalo (the African variety) as they have their own specific requirements. He can take my perspective or leave it, same as anyone.
In conclusion Greybeard, I still don't think we are all that far apart in our thinking.
Larry Gibson
