The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 9, 2014, 12:19 AM   #51
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,963
Funny that 30-06 was good enough for snipers at 600 yards for nearly 50 years but deer are apparently much tougher than your average soldier wearing a leather trench coat and metal helmet
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old April 9, 2014, 12:33 AM   #52
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_MTman
muzzleloader and shotguns using sabot slugs can have close to 2000lb of presure at close ranges.so could some hunting handguns.

the ranges that some people on this forum claim that certain guns can kill game,if those theories were true what hunter would need anything but a .243 or a 25-06.
there is a difference between maximum range for a fast clean kill and the range at which a rifle could be dangerous to animals.you could shoot a deer at 600 yards with a 30-06 if one did not mind tracking it for 6 miles through brush and woods
Dude get off the net and go get some real world experience please, and if your going to talk about something at least learn the right terminology. Energy and "pressure" are not the same thing, if you were to impart 2000 pounds of pressure against an elk you would literally blow it off its feet and you and cause serious injury to yourself when pulling the trigger on your firearm. You also need to realize that successfully getting a clean kill on animals has nothing to do with bore size, powder burned, or ft-lbs of energy at POI.

As far as pistols that deliver 2000 ft-lbs of energy at close range I'd like you to name one other than a 500 S&W that carries that much energy past 25 yards and that isn't based off of or shooting a rifle cartridge and fired from a single shot pistol? Not every state that you can hunt elk in allows sabots for ML hunting, Colorado, Oregon, and Idaho don't. However, realistically even a 225-250 grain saboted .35 caliber bullet isn't going to have 2000 ft-lbs much past 100 yards. I never even mentioned shotguns, but what saboted slug will carry 2000 ft-lbs to 75 yds?
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old April 9, 2014, 07:08 AM   #53
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Starkville, MS (new to MS)
Posts: 4,705
Quote:
Funny that 30-06 was good enough for snipers at 600 yards for nearly 50 years but deer are apparently much tougher than your average soldier wearing a leather trench coat and metal helmet
The difference between hunting and war is that in war it is perfectly acceptable to wound an enemy. Even if he never dies, his wounds put him out of action. Some consider wounding even better than killing because it not only takes him out of the battle, it can take his buddies out too if they stop to render aid.

In hunting, the quicker the kill the better.
Doyle is online now  
Old April 9, 2014, 11:16 AM   #54
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,418
Doyle, while I won't deny that for the average soldier a wounding shot is as good as a kill. However, for the sniper as referenced by the OP they are trained to kill and not wound. So the OP has a valid point of the 06 being used as a sniper cartridge to 600 and beyond.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old April 9, 2014, 11:29 AM   #55
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Starkville, MS (new to MS)
Posts: 4,705
Taylor, it is still really apples to oranges. While a sniper does intend to kill, a human is physically incapable of running 200 yds in a matter of just a few seconds even healthy, much less wounded. A mortally wounded deer can easily do that and more.
Doyle is online now  
Old April 9, 2014, 11:39 AM   #56
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,963
there's also the difference between a FMJ against people and a bullet designed to inflict maximum damage for hunting.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old April 9, 2014, 11:29 PM   #57
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doyle
Taylor, it is still really apples to oranges. While a sniper does intend to kill, a human is physically incapable of running 200 yds in a matter of just a few seconds even healthy, much less wounded. A mortally wounded deer can easily do that and more.
So what does the speed at which a deer can run vs. a human have to do with how well a cartridge can kill at range? The deer I shot at 560 yds ran a grand total of 35 yds. Put the bullet where it belongs and no animal is going to get very far. Bullet size and energy other than what is needed to penetrate to the vitals is irrelevant.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old April 9, 2014, 11:30 PM   #58
green_MTman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2014
Location: southeastern Vermont,USA
Posts: 229
@taylorce1

if you interprited my post that way then you did not read.
i did not say anything about energy and pressure being the same.
i have real world experiece.

concervative estimates on rifle shooting are not meant to be taken completly literaly but as a guideline to those new to reloading.

read my post before you defame my charactor
green_MTman is offline  
Old April 10, 2014, 07:24 AM   #59
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Starkville, MS (new to MS)
Posts: 4,705
Quote:
So what does the speed at which a deer can run vs. a human have to do with how well a cartridge can kill at range? The deer I shot at 560 yds ran a grand total of 35 yds. Put the bullet where it belongs and no animal is going to get very far. Bullet size and energy other than what is needed to penetrate to the vitals is irrelevant.
My that statement, you'd be hunting elk with a .223 because it will definately penetrate to the vitals. No, hydrostatic shock is an inportant part of the killing process.
Doyle is online now  
Old April 10, 2014, 08:16 AM   #60
mouser868
Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2011
Posts: 54
I'm thinking the 140gr bullets in 6.5 would penetrate deeper but I think the caliber would be fine for elk
mouser868 is offline  
Old April 10, 2014, 08:16 AM   #61
green_MTman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2014
Location: southeastern Vermont,USA
Posts: 229
see that it what is great about my "so called" silly over concervative estimates.
one does not need to argue back and forth about the complex physics of bullistics.my range calculations take doubt out of the picture and you always know for sure a gun proxy range.

im putting into the vermont moose lottery this year and i view my 6.5-55 as good for 250 yards on moose.some thing people say about the gun ranges on this forum may be true.but i would rather be safe then sorry
green_MTman is offline  
Old April 10, 2014, 01:00 PM   #62
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,963
on the opposite side of that coin, one could cite the thousands of hunters that think that just because they have a heavy bullet travelling really fast that they don't have to worry as much about shot placement. I am ashamed to admit it but I've lost deer that were hit with a 300 weatherby magnum at 100 yards, for whatever reason I messed up and the animal got away, though considering the amount of blood probably got away. that was the last animal that I've wounded and lost because that was what forced me to start thinking long and hard before I pull the trigger in a less than "acceptable" situation. overly adequate cartridges are no substitute for marksmanship and good judgement.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old April 10, 2014, 02:13 PM   #63
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,418
Leave it to the guys from MS and VT to harp the loudest about hunting elk.
Quote:
My that statement, you'd be hunting elk with a .223 because it will definately penetrate to the vitals. No, hydrostatic shock is an inportant part of the killing process.
Hydrostatic shock is a byproduct and not a necessary to ensure a kill. If hydrostatic shock was that important then people wouldn't still be using archery equipment to hunt with. FYI any center fire cartridge is legal in the OP's state, so I'm sure some elk have been taken with a .223. I'd never recommend a .223 for elk, just like I'd not recommend a Grendel either. There are better choices than either of those cartridges but that doesn't mean they won't work if the right shots are taken, the problem with elk is that the right shots rarely present themselves.

Quote:
see that it what is great about my "so called" silly over concervative estimates.
Your conservative estimates border on ridiculousness plain and simple, and show a lack of experience with any of the cartridges you talk about. Putting in for the lottery is different than actually hunting the game we're talking about. Plus a 140 grain bullet @ 2600fps out of your Swede isn't going to kill a moose or elk any better than a 120 grain bullet @ 2600 fps out of the OP's Grendel inside of 300 yards.

Quote:
muzzleloader and shotguns using sabot slugs can have close to 2000lb of presure at close ranges.
Okay, so if I don't understand you. Then explain what you're talking about when you mention lbs of pressure? To me it sounds like you're talking about energy at point of impact, and as mentioned in earlier posts you won't achieve that kind of pressure you're talking about. Ft - lbs and PSI aren't even close to the same thing like you have stated, here is a simple calculator to help you.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns

Last edited by taylorce1; April 11, 2014 at 11:57 AM. Reason: spelling
taylorce1 is offline  
Old April 10, 2014, 04:18 PM   #64
Panfisher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 561
Simply put a good quality bullet designed for the task i.e. hunting bullet to match the cartridge and game etc., through the lungs and preferably out the other side, let lots of blood out and air in. Take pictures and post on TFL.
Panfisher is offline  
Old April 10, 2014, 06:19 PM   #65
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 2,248
All this back and forth discussion on the right bullet and 'pressure' and hydrostatic shock, which don't matter for beans if the shot placement is poor. If the OP is a decent shot, then use a good bullet and place it carefully and it's done. I still say I'd use the Partition and only take shots at a reasonable distance (not over 300 is what I'd suggest).
603Country is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 09:35 PM   #66
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,963
well, did some testing with the Etip today, not a lot of penetration and alright expansion at close range but nothing that I would want to add any range onto, I guess I'll try something in the 130gr range.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 10:00 PM   #67
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,418
What did you use for test media? Rifle Shooter magazine recently tested .30 caliber premium bullets and believe it or not most penetrate a little better at longer ranges than 100 yards. So I wouldn't be discouraged by the E-Tip just yet, but I do still think the Partition would be a better choice if using a premium bullet.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 10:33 PM   #68
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,518
That's a great test, very interesting. I just wish they had a sample size of more than one. Still, the point is pretty well proven that modern bullets are remarkable. (I'll stick with the TTSX, myself.)
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old April 11, 2014, 11:06 PM   #69
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,418
I thought it was a good test too, and wished they had a larger sampling as well. I rarely need a premium bullet, but my first choice for them is usually Nosler. I tried a few of the old X bullets from Barnes and didn't like them, I know the TSX & TTSX are supposed to be better but I've had such great luck with Nosler I don't see a need to change.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 11:17 PM   #70
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,963
believe it or not , I've found that firing at a water bottle in front of a tamarack round gives a pretty good idea of how the bullet will behave at 100 yards. I don't know what it is about those two but 6 inches into the wood translates to about 9 inches on game(roughly 50 percent increase), with nearly identical expansion. this bullet expanded to about the size of a penny but only made it about 3 inches into the wood meaning 4.5 inches roughly estimated tissue penetration. I may try some heavier stuff just to see if I can get better penetration from it. I have some 129gr partitions but only a few and nobody ever seems to have more in stock.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 11:43 PM   #71
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,418
You probably have 125's as you'll never find a 129 grain partition bullet in 6.5mm since they don't make them.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old April 12, 2014, 12:16 AM   #72
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,963
apparently they are a discontinued model because the box says 129gr, it is an older style box, probably 15-20 years old.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old April 13, 2014, 02:27 AM   #73
green_MTman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2014
Location: southeastern Vermont,USA
Posts: 229
god i forgot the name but i just ordered from midsouth the new Sierra bonded hollow point 130gr gameking.
it should be right there on midsouths website.

it is 130gr bullet similar to the nosler accubond giving better penetration than a gameking or pro hunter
green_MTman is offline  
Old April 13, 2014, 04:42 AM   #74
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_MTman
god i forgot the name but i just ordered from midsouth the new Sierra bonded hollow point 130gr gameking.
it should be right there on midsouths website.

it is 130gr bullet similar to the nosler accubond giving better penetration than a gameking or pro hunter
Kind of a tough thing to do since Sierra has never made a bonded bullet, and never will for the foreseeable future. Midsouth doesn't have one listed either for Sierra. The only bonded 130 grain bullet I saw at Midsouth was from Swift and it isn't a BTHP.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old April 13, 2014, 06:56 AM   #75
green_MTman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2014
Location: southeastern Vermont,USA
Posts: 229
sierra BTHP 130 grain 6.5mm is in stock at midsouth shooting suplies and i just looked it up a minute ago.

i clicked on the in stock only selection on the search select.it is a tougher bullet than a traditional game king or pro hunter,i dont know if its as tough as the accubond or swift scirocco


if a person is looking to mock every post you make they can usually find some hyper technicality to do it with
green_MTman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 01:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13567 seconds with 7 queries