Reasons for small bore MLers

[Vaino]

Ho hum...... :dead: ......Fred

 

[Britsmoothy]

:haha: so loss of blood is not considered a vital organ loss.

:haha: yep, your funny,
Energy, energy, energy. It's just mathematic calculus suited ideally to constants found in engineering circles of materials.
Living things are not that simple and it is in my opinion contemptible to try and apply maths to a living thing.

If I want a deer with my little WMR I will go get one, same with a .440" ball or a .600" ball and it won't make any difference to the deer. I however will hunt completely differently!

B.

 

[BrownBear]

We learned a lot from Bell, didn't we. He shot 4-bore round balls (1" diameter balls weighing 1750 grains or 4 ounces) and 8-bore (.820-.835" balls weighing approx 830 grains or 2 ounces), and inertia/energy were so high he beat himself half to death and still had occasional issues with elephant.

Then he switched to 7x57 and 6.5 rifles firing bullets around 160 to 175 grains at something like 2500fps. Killed elephants with aplomb.

Of course it's all about higher energy, expansion and tissue disruption. Only logical. The 7x57 has it and the 4-bore doesn't. :wink:

 

[George]

It's weird how people get their knickers in a knot every time anyone mentions physics or mathematics in discussions of shooting BP guns. And energy? Forget it, has no relation whatsoever, we don't believe in energy.

Reminds me of the story about Niels Bohr the famous Danish physicist, who made some of the most basic discoveries ever made in particle physics and quantum mechanics. He kept a good luck horseshoe nailed to the wall in his office. "You don't believe in that nonsense, do you?" a visitor once asked, to which Bohr replied, "No, but they say it works whether you believe in it or not."

Spence

 

[BrownBear]

"You don't believe in that nonsense, do you?" a visitor once asked, to which Bohr replied, "No, but they say it works whether you believe in it or not."

Yup. And there are darned few "rules" that explain everything without a great big shoehorn for leverage. There's no one formula or concept such as energy that explains bullet performance on game. We've stirred that gobbledygoop forever. I doubt Bohr or even Einstein could boil it all down to one formula. There are so many facets to it that there will be more exceptions than perfect fits to any formula.

I think the thing we (or I, at least) object to is being preached at about how simple it is and how there's a good simple formula that fits everything.

Tain't so, and anyone who proposes it is showing their lack of experience more than they can ever recognize or accept. Reminds me of a high school science teacher that once kicked me out of school for asking questions that didn't fit his lectures.

 

[George]

Which one formula is that you speak of, don't believe I've heard about that one.

Energy is just one facet of the whole, along with velocity, weight, bullet composition and shape, range, angle of entry, etc., etc. I agree, very little is simple about it. I also agree, you can't figure results on any one hit based on the energy calculation, that idea is silly. On the other hand, it's energy that makes the gun shoot, makes the bullet fly, pokes the hole in the deer and makes it fall down. To deny that energy is involved ion any way, to say that energy doesn't matter, as I've seen several times on these boards over the years, is even more silly.

I think Claude should make a new forum, one for people who are curious about how things work. It would be a small forum, and might not prosper, but there would be a few nuts join up. :haha:

Spence

 

[Christophero]

Bell didn't aim for the behind the shoulder shot on elephants. He had an uncanny ability to drive the 175 grain 7mm bullet through the skull into the brain. A 22 bullet would do the same if it could get there.

Until a couple seasons ago it was slug, muzzleloader or certain staight wall pistols for deer in Ohio. The behind the leg shot gave the same effect as the broaxheads did. A large hole, a running deer and hopefully a decent blood trail. Never a bang/flop like the 3006 gave. Two different types of firearms. Different results, usually. Agreed, nothing is set in stone killing deer or elk.

 

[BrownBear]

Bell didn't aim for the behind the shoulder shot on elephants. He had an uncanny ability to drive the 175 grain 7mm bullet through the skull into the brain. A 22 bullet would do the same if it could get there.

And that's my point exactly. There's not a formula in the world that can account for the factors that make the real difference in taking game.

Those same factors reside behind the starting point of this thread, and reducing it to math and physics does a disservice to the topic.

The burden is on the shooter and not the gun, as it has always been.

 

[George]

I think the thing we (or I, at least) object to is being preached at about how simple it is and how there's a good simple formula that fits everything.

I'm confused by your continued reference to "a good simple formula that fits everything", BB. Is it the formula for calculating energy of a ball which is bugging you? Is it your point that someone is saying if energy is high enough a good kill is guaranteed? Or, is it just that you don't like having people apply scientific thinking to hunting with the old guns? I've noticed before that this is a trigger which raises you hackles, but have never quite figured what is getting you riled up.

None of my business, of course, just curious. And I don't want to be part of ruining a thread for you or anyone.

Spence

 

[coloradoclyde]

Bell didn't aim for the behind the shoulder shot on elephants. He had an uncanny ability to drive the 175 grain 7mm bullet through the skull into the brain. A 22 bullet would do the same if it could get there.

Until a couple seasons ago it was slug, muzzleloader or certain staight wall pistols for deer in Ohio. The behind the leg shot gave the same effect as the broaxheads did. A large hole, a running deer and hopefully a decent blood trail. Never a bang/flop like the 3006 gave. Two different types of firearms. Different results, usually. Agreed, nothing is set in stone killing deer or elk.

Someone once said "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, is the definition of insanity".....
Shooting a deer in the same place with different guns and expecting the same results, is also "insane"...

The head and brain are one of the worst places to aim.....unless you're aiming for the brain stem....
Spend some time with a country butcher.....

 

[Christophero]

Hello Clyde,
I've been a country butcher with dozens of hogs and goats under my belt over the years. The lowly 22lr in the brain pan would do the trick. On the cow I decided the 223 was a better option behind the ear. This gave an instant drop to the ground but allowed the heart to pump out the blood when the juggler was quickly slit.

But on hunting shots the head is avoided as I want a heart/lung hit to take out the plumbing and with the hope most of the excess blood in the veins drain on the run. Unless I've hit a large bone or the vertebra I never expect a deer to drop with the slow lumbering slugs out of the muzzleloaders or 12 gauge with this normal hunting shot.
I know there are exceptions to this but this has been my observations.
In my experience it takes quite a bit more velocity to "shock" a medium game animal into an instantaneous death than the slugs out of these types of weapons. This is the reason Ohio regulates the type of firearm so stringently, because they don't want high velocity rounds zigging across the countryside.

Can't blame Bell for his shot placement, though. His track record was incredible.

 

[Onojutta]

Bell didn't aim for the behind the shoulder shot on elephants. He had an uncanny ability to drive the 175 grain 7mm bullet through the skull into the brain. A 22 bullet would do the same if it could get there.

And that's my point exactly. There's not a formula in the world that can account for the factors that make the real difference in taking game.

Those same factors reside behind the starting point of this thread, and reducing it to math and physics does a disservice to the topic.

The burden is on the shooter and not the gun, as it has always been.

It's quite the opposite: the "math and physics" is reduced to terms we can understand. If you had enough time, money, and computing power, you could produce formulas that account for everything. That's not very practical, but it could be done because everything that happens during a shot is explained by science and mathematical relationships.

Don't confuse the lack of resources to quantify all those variables to mean that they aren't in play or they don't matter. We simply shoot our guns and what happens happens, but it is all math and science the governs exactly what happens with each and every shot.

I will agree with you that practically speaking, it's not just about the math and physics. Who the heck wants to hunt using math formulas?

The idea here was never to present that this one simple formula or concept. My point was actually the very opposite: just because a round ball is bigger in caliber, does not mean that is necessarily better. The idea that .54 is better than .50 just because its bigger is the oversimplification. I cited basic principles of physics to support my argument, and we've been through all the reasons why.

 

[Onojutta]

Anyone who still believes that you need bigger than .50 caliber to kill anything in North America, please turn to pages 37 & 38 of the June Muzzle Blasts.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Hello Clyde,
I've been a country butcher with dozens of hogs and goats under my belt over the years. The lowly 22lr in the brain pan would do the trick. On the cow I decided the 223 was a better option behind the ear. This gave an instant drop to the ground but allowed the heart to pump out the blood when the juggler was quickly slit.

But on hunting shots the head is avoided as I want a heart/lung hit to take out the plumbing and with the hope most of the excess blood in the veins drain on the run. Unless I've hit a large bone or the vertebra I never expect a deer to drop with the slow lumbering slugs out of the muzzleloaders or 12 gauge with this normal hunting shot.
I know there are exceptions to this but this has been my observations.
In my experience it takes quite a bit more velocity to "shock" a medium game animal into an instantaneous death than the slugs out of these types of weapons. This is the reason Ohio regulates the type of firearm so stringently, because they don't want high velocity rounds zigging across the countryside.

Can't blame Bell for his shot placement, though. His track record was incredible.

I don't think we have much to argue about... :grin:


I did see a hog shot once, simultaneously with two broad head arrows through the heart and lungs..
It barely twitched and went about its business eating until it bled out....and tipped over.. ten minutes later...

As far as guns go....velocity always trumps size and weight....Speed kills.....

 

[hanshi]

:hmm: A very strange thread indeed. Theories, math and formulas make my head hurt so I'll just say the following. I've killed deer with .45, .50, .54 and .62 prb. Most were killed with two of my .45s and they died real quick (some in their tracks). Sometimes the ball exited; sometimes it didn't. Regardless, the wounds were all very impressive for "just" a .45. Also I simply like the .45; it's easy to feed, shoot and is accurate.

I did take quite a few with several different .50 calibers (two deer at around 100+ yards). It does smack deer hard but is little different from a .45 in it's final effect.

I have a .40 and would feel comfortable using it on deer; but I already have tested deer rifles ready to go so there's no need.

 

[rushlake1]

32 cal. for small game.
50 cal and up for big game...
flint of course..carry on!

 

[Skychief]

Anyone who still believes that you need bigger than .50 caliber to kill anything in North America, please turn to pages 37 & 38 of the June Muzzle Blasts.

I looked. Sad to say, out of 9 "Longhunter Field Reports", not a single traditional flintlock nor caplock is mentioned (pictured)! :barf: :barf: :barf: :shake:

I'm afraid of where our sport and the NMLRA is heading. Perhaps that should be chewed on in a new thread.

"LONGHUNTER field reports"! Please...a couple of those longhunters have glass atop their rifles the size of some spotting scopes. :slap:

Rant off, Skychief.

Also just noticed listed kill ranges of 175, 140, and 125 yards. Bravo "longhunters", bravo! :applause:

 

[George]

I'm afraid of where our sport and the NMLRA is heading.

It has arrived.

Spence

 

[Skychief]

I'm afraid of where our sport and the NMLRA is heading.

It has arrived.

Spence

I agree Spence, and, it's impossible to put the toothpaste back into the tube, once it's out. :shake:

Best regards, Skychief

 

[Onojutta]

Anyone who still believes that you need bigger than .50 caliber to kill anything in North America, please turn to pages 37 & 38 of the June Muzzle Blasts.

I looked. Sad to say, out of 9 "Longhunter Field Reports", not a single traditional flintlock nor caplock is mentioned (pictured)! :barf: :barf: :barf: :shake:

I'm afraid of where our sport and the NMLRA is heading. Perhaps that should be chewed on in a new thread.

"LONGHUNTER field reports"! Please...a couple of those longhunters have glass atop their rifles the size of some spotting scopes. :slap:

Rant off, Skychief.

Also just noticed listed kill ranges of 175, 140, and 125 yards. Bravo "longhunters", bravo! :applause:

Totally agree!

Just for the record, I didn't post that to condone hunting with modern muzzleloaders, just the fact that in every case, a .50 caliber was used, which makes the same size hole as one fired with "real" black powder. :wink: