Terminal performance: Exit wound or all Energy in Animal?

[RandyWakeman]

They have been quite a few theories on that, one being that if you pop your animal while he is exhaling, he will expire faster. The one notion that does make sense (if only to me) is that a relaxed, unspooked animal is far easier to take than one on "high alert".

I've watched enough animals expire in front of me to know that most animals do not die that easily, and even with their hearts / lungs gone-- most still have three minutes or so of life left in them. Most folks don't see that, as massive trauma drops the game. The intense shock is what gives the impression that they fall dead-- but most do not, even if they are gone by the time we get there. People don't always die that easily, either, much less a big game animal.

The colloquial terms such as "dead right there," dropped dead, fell dead, gone when he hit the ground, etc., may sound good-- but there is a difference between anchoring / incapacitation and final expiration.

[sheephunterab]

even with their hearts / lungs gone-- most still have three minutes or so of life left in them.

I'll buy into the lung shot but you tear their heart out and they have one 15 or 20 second high-speed dash in them and then they are stone dead.

[RandyWakeman]

That's one theory. Just like all animals, they are individuals. Unfortunately, we just can't take that shot back and do it again.

That muzzleloading boar had no heart left-- he still went 15 - 20 yards. The moose I shot last year in Newfoundland was at 285 yards running wide open-- straight through the heart. He just stopped suddenly. The cow he was with came running back from the edge of the bush, as if to say goodbye-- then she took off. He was still stopped-- didn't go back to running, or even walking. After a minute or so, he fell over.

The "pistol pig" I shot, above, was the one in the center. Well, Rusty was shot through the heart as well-- he didn't go far (or fast, or well), but he still had enough left in him to throw a bay hound up in the air about 25 feet away from me.

I've seen some unusual things, not just moose / caribou / boar / deer-- even pheasants. I've shot 1000 or so wild Illinois pheasants; there was one this year that was "different." The rooster hollered as the dog got him up out of the fence row, and I let him have it-- perhaps 25 yards out, whacking him as hard as I've hit a bird. He flew 145 yards, dropping dead in the middle of a plowed field, with not so much as a flop or a twitch. He had one wing broken in two places, and two broken legs. Go figure. I've never had a pheasant go that far ever before-- nothing remotely close. I have no idea how he could fly at at all, much less that far.

Sometimes, all I know is I don't know. :wink:

[woodseye]

I employ a slightly high shoulder shot and it usually results in a drop in its tracks deer.........however when they do run in these thick regenerating cut-overs and wet bogs a blood trail can be a real help in waist to chest deep firs or moss, muck, and water.

Howdy Randy, thought I'd drop in and check things out here.

Guess its lose a couple pounds of shoulder burger for instant results or a thru the slats H&L shot that pretty much always has a death run of varying distances involved. Dead is dead, but I like to see that death right where I shoot them.

Shot a big buck thru the heart with a CF once and he ran 200yds down thru the woods and dropped dead in full leap over a blowdown. It was raining and with no blood trail to use it was quite an adventure to find him. They can cover quite a bit of ground when heart or lung shot sometimes and in really thick cover that can be a bit of a sticky wicky. Dressing him out I noticed no top half to the heart at all.

Nice forum.........good to see Toby posting over here also.......still laying em' low with the Savage I see  :wink: Have to stay and sit a spell.

      woods

[RandyWakeman]

Good to see you, Woodseye. You've got me pondering a 3.5 x 10 x 44 Zeiss Conquest, as good as the 3 x 9 x 40 was.


Hold out for the 2004 10ML-II Accutrigger. Not just the trigger (though that is a huge plus), but a real biggie for me is the greatly enlarged, very easy to get off safety. The ramrod is upgraded as well.

[woodseye]

Thanks Randy, yes I'm waiting for the accu trigger model for now as I've got one Savage with it now and they have no equal in a factory produced trigger at this point. I did notice the safety is easier to work with gloves on although the older model is adjustable if you take the time and trouble to lighten it a touch.

Used the Conquest diring CF season and switched to a Vari X lll for ML'er, gave me a chance to compare both in real world light and hunting conditions. The Conquest spoiled me some and I noticed it in the first and last 15 minutes of the day the most. The 3.5x10 is shorter than the 3x9 and only .8oz heavier,I consider it the best of the lot for my hunting but still hope to see some rainguard type of technology in the future sometime. The 44 mm objective is a plus for lower light shooting times also.

Bought a cheapie inline to hunt an unexpected ML season this fall and kinda liked it for a back-up piece and next year my son will have it to carry as well.

    woods

[woodseye]

Hi Jules.......I bought a ......gasp.... Beartooth break open 50 caliber to hunt with the day or so before ML'ing season here that I wasn't planning to need to hunt. It has no blow-by at all that was good news for my Leupold scope and it is the easiest to clean ML'er I've dealt with so far. It shot overlapping holes at 50yds and cost $135 and that was good enough for me. Still plan on a Savage ML'er but I'm waiting for an accu trigger model after the first of the year and this season caught me by surprise (we are only allowed one deer so if I would have gotten one in CF season the ML'ing season wouldn't have been a factor). Liked the Beartooth enough that I will keep it for a back-up gun in case we ever hit a season that my son and I both have to ML hunt at the same time (that also was a first this year). Good to hear from ya.

     woods

[sheephunterab]

The cow he was with came running back from the edge of the bush, as if to say goodbye

Come on Randy, this kind of anthropomorphic garbage just feeds into the hands of the antis.

The point is, a heart-shot critter will not last three minutes, whether his girlfriend wants to say goodbye or not.

The moose I shot last year in Newfoundland was at 285 yards running wide open-- straight through the heart.

Whas it a big moose? It sure sounds like a lot of bull!

[woodseye]

The point is, a heart-shot critter will not last three minutes

Thats so true......except a deer can run quite a ways in that time and if he isn't bleeding much and your in a real hakus you can have your searching work cut out for you for quite some time. You have Hakus areas up there where you hunt don't you?

Shoulder shots take out the lungs anyway and result in more DRN (dead right now) critters.

   woods

[sheephunterab]

Shoulder shots take out the lungs anyway and result in more DRN (dead right now) critters

I'm with you there Woodseye. I love a shoulder shot when I can take it. While mayvbe not always dead right there, they fall right there and usually expire very shortly there after.[/quote]

[KING]

:grin: Actually what they were talking about is the fact that all of the animals that dropped at the shot........showed................massive brain hemorraging(ruptering of major arteries)........this will drop any animal in its tracks.  I saw this a fair amount of times on posts in traffic crashs ,obviously with humans.  Major blunt impact which inturn caused the cranial bleeding.  Those that did not drop at the shot....showed none.  This would corrispond with the 50 percent " that dropped immediatly".  Now,it makes no differance if the animal is excited or not.............no brain function....no running or further movement by the animal.  Half of the time,the animal is not in the systolic mode range,the other half the time it is.  This also would show that construction of the round is not as important as it is thought to be.  What is important ,is where the round hit(heart/lung),and that the animal was in the systolic,or the diastolic mode.  At any rate,that round adds a massive amount to pressure already at its peak inturn causing the arteries to blow out in the brain.  The animal will act just as if it was a CNS hit.  Stay safe.......King

[RandyWakeman]

=KING  What is important ,is where the round hit(heart/lung),and that the animal was in the systolic,or the diastolic mode.  

No debate, but I have no scopes that give a HUD blood pressure reading.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Howdy, I don't shoot in-lines, but this particular thread hardly is restricted to in-lines, so I hope you don't mind if I chime in.

I'm with Randy or whoever that mentioned that animals don't exactly die immediately.  I've walked up on many fatally hit animals who were too weak to get up, but were most certainly conscious for a few moments.

My own personal thinking is that the instant incapacitation is not the same as instant death.  I've seen gutshot deer drop instantly, flop around for a bit, then regain their senses and take off.  Why did they drop?  I would hardly think that a .30-30 bullet had enough "whack" to knock 'em off their feet.

I think what happens is the hydrostatic shock jolts their brain.  They get weak in the knees and fall.  It takes a few seconds for them to regain their senses.

That few seconds is critical here.  Now, if the animal has a large hole in it's heart or lungs, by the time that few seconds passes, it will be too weak to get up  again.  However, if the damage isn't as lethal, the animal will survive the few seconds with enough stamina to get up and go.

Just a thought.

Also, from what I've witnessed using roundballs, the pass-through shots result in more tracking than the just-under-the-hide shots.  I prefer the latter because sometimes even with the pass-through I don't always get a massive blood trail.

I don't know what the point was about the .50 ball being a crippler.  I noticed the poster couched it in terms of long-distance.  I suppose one could argue that ANY bullet beyond it's effective range will cripple game.  He also didn't exactly define crippling.  

For the bullet type to be blamed for the cripple, I think you have to define it as a shot placed in the normally vital area that didn't penetrate enough to damage vital organs.  On deer, I've never heard of this happening with a .50 ball inside 100 yards, which is the respected max. range for a ball.

Getting back to the thread topic,  I guess I prefer a "compromise" of bullet performances.  For the instant incapacitation effect you generally err on the "less penetration" side.  But if you go to extremes, say a bullet/load that provides close to 100% instant incapacitation with boiler room shots, you run the risk of maiming an animal with shoulder shot.  

For my style of hunting I am confident in getting close to the game.  But if I had to pass up all shots that were less than perfect broadside shots, I think I would get discouraged.  Because of that, I like a bullet that can be relied on to smash through whitetail bone and still put a big hole all the way through the vitals.  That's most critical to me.  An exit hole, blood trail - that's all secondary.

So far a .530 pure lead round ball is working quite well.  I've had to track some, but the only ones not recovered were hit poorly (i.e. not the bullets fault).

[RandyWakeman]

For my style of hunting I am confident in getting close to the game.  

Not always possible, but closer is always better-- at least for me.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Randy,

I suppose that depends on the conditions.

In thick, overgrown Wisconsin, you generally can't see past 100 yards in most of the country I hunt.

Not to mention, my statement was a tad brief and not all-telling.  What would be a better way of writing the statement would be to say:

I am confident that over the course of 9 days of hunting, I can get a reasonable round-ball range shot.

Does that make more sense?  I didn't mean that I'm such a great stalker that I can close the distance between me and any deer out there.

[DannoBoone]

The jury is still out for me on this one -- that is, the ORIGINAL topic. My
ML's have downed deer using everything from a .44 180gr XTP to a .54
400gr+ minnie ball. Just about all have been lung shots. There have been
about as many pass throughs as there have been bullets recovered on
the opposite side of the entrance wound. Some have dropped instantly
while others have gone a small distance. My MAIN gripe is the inability to
immediately see the direction taken by a deer that does not immediately
fall because of the smoke factor. That ML10-II is becoming more
appealing all the time!!    :wink:

At any rate, there are times to purposely choose a bullet which does
not pass through. One of the areas which I hunt has houses surrounding
it. It's just plain safer using a 180gr XTP in such an area than using a
200gr PR Bullet (and I LOVE the performance of that one!).

I believe Bill's disgust with statistics came through louder than the point
he was actually making: know your gun and what it will do. Doubt if
anyone can argue that the Graybeard knows his guns. In muzzle loading,
with the many, many new discoveries of both powder and bullets coming
on the market, it's a real challenge to get the optimum out of our front
stuffers while knowing (and learning) what they will do in the field. By
finding the right load/bullet combinations, many of the newer inlines are
becoming quite capable of clean 200yd kills with some of spire point
bullets, pass throughs or not.  

Danno

[RandyWakeman]

At any rate, there are times to purposely choose a bullet which does
not pass through. One of the areas which I hunt has houses surrounding
it. It's just plain safer using a 180gr XTP in such an area than using a
200gr PR Bullet (and I LOVE the performance of that one!).

Safer? It better not be.

[DannoBoone]

At any rate, there are times to purposely choose a bullet which does
not pass through. One of the areas which I hunt has houses surrounding
it. It's just plain safer using a 180gr XTP in such an area than using a
200gr PR Bullet (and I LOVE the performance of that one!).

Safer? It better not be.

Randy!!! Are you just in an argumentive mood on this thread???
Defensive??   What gives?  You USUALLY make perfect
sense in your statements.

Perhaps I should explain in more detail:

The aforementioned area is a woods/creek lowland area surrounded
by houses (one of them being mine, as well as the hunting property).
All houses are over a hill or bluff and cannot be seen from my hunting
property. Even at that, they are all in close proximity, and a pass
through bullet glancing off the ground could conceivably get to one of
these properties at a more high rate of speed than you would want to
get hit with.

I have NEVER shot a deer, even as narrow an area as the frontal lung
area with the .44 Hornady 180gr XTP that passed through (even at
35 yards).  With the destruction of the bullet itself going through flesh,
it could not possibly go further than a few yards in the event it DID
pass through.

Even though I am a GREAT fan of PR Bullets, I will not use them in
the aforementioned woods, because the 200gr Dead Centers I use have
no problem whatsoever passing through the lung area of a deer. The
possibility of one of them passing through a deer, glancing off a slope,
landing in a neighbors back yard, under his dog's flesh, in his kid's
backside, in the wall of his house, through the window of his pick-up
truck, in the side of his head, is infinitly more possible with a pass
through shot than with the XTP.

Given this information, please explain the statement, "Safer? It
better not be."

[RandyWakeman]

Even though I am a GREAT fan of PR Bullets, I will not use them in
the aforementioned woods, because the 200gr Dead Centers I use have
no problem whatsoever passing through the lung area of a deer. The
possibility of one of them passing through a deer, glancing off a slope,
landing in a neighbors back yard, under his dog's flesh, in his kid's
backside, in the wall of his house, through the window of his pick-up
truck, in the side of his head, is infinitly more possible with a pass
through shot than with the XTP.

Given this information, please explain the statement, "Safer? It
better not be."

For the love of God and all that is holy-- just what if you miss?

No animal is a "backstop." If any gun is fired where a pass-thru (or a MISS)-- could possibly result in an unsafe condition, you are taking a horrifically ill-advised chance, and a sickenly irresponsible shot. If you do not firmly believe a clean miss or any other discharge of your gun would result ONLY in a 100% safe discharge of that gun-- you have absolutely no business at all pulling that trigger.

[DannoBoone]

I

DO

NOT

MISS

AT

45 yards----------


EVER

There is too much cover down there for longer shots. Need a picture?


A backstop is something used BEHIND the target.

Come to think of it, I have never missed at 100 yards. Not JUST the
deer, but the target ON the deer -- the lung area.

I KNOW my rifle, and I KNOW my ability, and I DO NOT take POT
shots, even at squirrels, let alone deer.

When that Encore goes off with a deer standing in front of it, the critter
is minutes away from being gutted and I KNOW it for a fact prior to
pulling the trigger, and that is NOT irresponsible.  Irresponsible is
taking a half dozen shots at a pie plate at 50 yards and thinking one
is ready to go "hunting".  I'm not satisfied with anything less than
bullet holes in the red dot at 150 yards.

And to think I started off actually agreeing with you............

You know nothing of me or my abilities and would rather rant and rave
than learn anything.

Merry Christmas, anyway.

[RandyWakeman]

I

DO

NOT

MISS

AT

45 yards----------


EVER

Tremendous applause.

On this area, we will just never agree at all. Even the world's greatest shot can have an animal jump as the trigger is pulled, a hangfire, or a squibb load. Could your scope EVER lose its zero, your iron sights EVER be bumped out of alignment? The stakes are far too high to allow for any such possibility, no matter how extremely remote one individual feels that potential might be. That remains my opinion. The absolute best shooters and hunters I know "never say never."

Anyone who promotes the idea that it EVER "okay" to point a loaded weapon in the direction of an object, or what is beyond it that they do not wish to destroy is the rankest of amateurs, and is violating the most basic concepts of gun safety. The tortured notion that you are somehow protecting a "kid's behind" or a person's head simply by substituting an XTP instead of a Dead Center sabot is reprehensible. Whether you have ever "missed" yet is not of import-- what you have so sadly missed is very basic, safe gun handling practices.

There is no just no excuse for pointing the muzzle of a gun in a potentially unsafe direction at all-- much less firing it.

[woodseye]

There is NO gaurantee that any certain Bullet will never fully penetrate a deer just as NO 100% sure bullet that always will. Bones and angles as well as individual deer themself with varying size and muscle density would effect this equation everytime. I watched a deer shot at 45 yds experience a pass thru with the XTP bullet type this year and the bullet  continued on to who knows where. Sounds a little tight to shoot safely in an area if you must have the bullet stop in the deer in order to remain safe JMHO.......

    woods

[Dutch/AL]

SO, does the bullet need to go all the way thru the deer or not??? :lol:

[woodseye]

For me its what ever bullet will penetrate after a shoulder shot with bone breaking and a good wound channel involved and still exit for a blood trail if somehow needed.

     woods

[TCAS]

I prefer full penetration.  This year I'm only using 45cal 195 grain Dead Centers, With a bullet like the PR Dead Center full penetration is more common than  say the powerbelts. So far I have 3 deer with the 195 DC bullet and all three shots passed thru.  One deer ran about 80 feet,  and the other two dropped in their tracks.  All shots were 80 to 140yards. appx. Still have one more week of muzzle and few special hunts left.

I used powerbelts all last season (50cal) and shot 4 deer, only one shot passed thru and that was at around 140 yard lung shot.  The other three powerbelt bullets did NOT full penetrate, and all three of those shot were under 80 yards. None of these deer ran more than 40 yards if memory serves me...

The season before power belts I tried the Barnes all copper bullet (50cal).  They passed thru and appeared not to expand at all.   Exit hole was the same as the entry hole.  This bullet  fully penetrated  a small SiKa Deer shot thru the shoulders at nearly 190 yards.  The barnes bullet seems more suited to armour penetration than deer hunting.

Having bowhunted for many years I like the double penetration, from an elevated treestand the exit hole is low enough to get a quick blood trail.  I'll take accuracy and bullet placement FIRST, and quick knock down power second.  Put me down for FULL PENETRATION.


And for the record, I don't think an aerodynamic bullet like PR /Dead C is more prone to deflection than a more blunt or less aero-efficient design.  Once the bullet hits the target and or ground the Bullet will take on a new BC.  Bullet hardness may be more important factor than shape concerning richochett and deflection, so I'll have to side with Wakemans' sumation on this one.  Merry CHRISTmas.


TCAS

[woodseye]

Once the bullet hits the target and or ground the Bullet will take on a new BC. Bullet hardness may be more important factor than shape concerning richochett and deflection

That sure agrees with my experiences......... IMHO bullet hardness is the single biggest factor in deflections.

    woods

[RandyWakeman]

SO, does the bullet need to go all the way thru the deer or not??? :lol:

It really does not matter, as far as I'm concerned. We ask a lot of our bullets, to do the job at 20 yards and 170 yards equally well, going through a lot of bone (or not) at various angles with a large velocity spreads.

If there is instant, massive trauma and a resultant large wound cavity to the heart / lung area, whether a bullet goes throught the animal completely after it has done its job, or ends up against the hide hardly matters to me.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Randy,

I think you just said what I was getting at.  I want a "jack of all trades" type of performance.  For that I will sacrifice some "drop-in-their-tracks" performance in order to get assurance that my bullet will continue to penetrate through the heart and lungs AFTER plowing through muscle and bone.  And do this at all distances for which the trajectory is "flat".

My example is to say that a varmint load might provide the best "instant kills" if given the most perfect shot (between the ribs, no shoulder, no bone).  But I don't have the time or patience for such perfect shots.

[RandyWakeman]

Randy,

For that I will sacrifice some "drop-in-their-tracks" performance in order to get assurance that my bullet will continue to penetrate through the heart and lungs AFTER plowing through muscle and bone.  And do this at all distances for which the trajectory is "flat".

The answer there is just a bigger bullet, or one that expands a small amount, or not at all. As they say, you still have a .45 or .50 hole.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Randy,

For whitetail I don't think it has to be one extreme or the other.  There is such a thing as "big enough" and there is such a thing as "soft enough".

It's possible to have a bullet that expands AND penetrates good enough for whitetail.  It will do more than just poke a half-inch hole in 'em.  

I've seen 225 grain balls go through shoulder muscle and bone, a rib, lung, liver, paunch and break the femur on the other side, and stop.  The whole through the rib cage was 1", roughly two inches through the liver.  Deer ran 30 yards.