How did that work

Share your tales (tall or otherwise) of hunting adventures.

Moderators: Kirk, Lucinda

Post Reply
Klaus
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:56 am
Location: Germany, NRW / little Village near Cologne

How did that work

Post by Klaus »

Good morning to the Forum,

I'm new here as a member, but enjoy the Shilo forum for some time. I live in Germany and we who love the fine single Shoots and Black Powder Cartridge and the long range shooting or hunting here are severely limited.I`m not a Hunter but stronly interested in this business particulary with Black Powder regardless if Muzzleloading or BP Cartridge.
No modern stuff.
When I talk with friends, the are hunters here in Germany, it is very difficult to teach them the benefits of black powder hunting on hunting with modern stuff regarding less meat loss e.g. but more skills and experiences in handling and using of his Equipment.
I found a Article like this :
Just got back from Montana.
One shot, one buffalo. One of the largest animals in North America, and tough, too.
The bullet was traveling at about 1100 fps, with about 1400 ft/lb of energy (half of a typical factory .30-06), when it hit. Went in one side, straight through, and out the other, clean holes on both sides. Was a plain lead round nose bullet.
How did that work? It was a 520 grain .458 bullet I cast in a Lyman mold, in a .45-70 Sharps replica, loaded with GOEX black powder.
Now the guy who showed up with a .300 Win Mag hit his buffalo twice, and a guide had to finish it off -- with an antique black powder .50-70.When you look at the velocity of the old black powder buffalo round, it's pistol-class. When you look at the energy, it's varmint-round class. Clearly these numbers don't matter NEARLY as much as we have been led to believe.
Something to think about, when you pay for an expensive, hard-kicking magnum. If you have a range finder and a ladder sight, a 1300 fps MV rifle from the 1870s will probably kill game better.

so far the text from the guy who made his own experience ...
My question to you Sir`s is what is the secrete of the operation of a Buffalo Cartridge toward a High Tech Bullet powered by a High Tech Propellant?
pls excuse my humble English

regards from Cologne
Klaus
gunlaker
Posts: 2764
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: How did that work

Post by gunlaker »

I would expect that the fellow shooting the BPCR had much better shot placement than the guy with the .300 Win Mag.

Chris.
13Echo
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:02 pm
Location: Monroe, LA

Re: How did that work

Post by 13Echo »

The fellow with the .300 may have also made a bad selection for his bullet. The heavy, large diameter, slow black powder projectiles penetrate deep, usually completely through even large tough animals like a bison and they always make large diameter holes when they do. Put one in a vital area and it will kill. Take a small or relatively small, high velocity bullet, that is well designed and heavy enough to expand without falling apart and still penetrate and put it in the right spot and it will kill too. Don't put it where it should go or have too light a bullet to penetrate or one that expands too rapidly and falls apart, or one that doesn't expand and drills a small hole and you will not have a clean kill. Lots of variables in the equation.

Jerry Liles
Jerry
Klaus
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:56 am
Location: Germany, NRW / little Village near Cologne

Re: How did that work

Post by Klaus »

Hello Gent`s,

thx for your advises

kind regards
Klaus
User avatar
Tasmanian Rebel
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: Bay Springs, MS

Re: How did that work

Post by Tasmanian Rebel »

Klaus, I'm no ballistician so take this rambling for what it's worth. I think strange things happen when you get a relatively large amount of lead going downrange in one of these guns. A 45-70 for example being shot with a jacketed bullet and smokeless powder bought from Wal Mart is a totally different animal on game performance on large animals such as buffalo. You won't often see one of these bullets punching all the way though both shoulders of a large bull bison but it is common occurance with a 500+ gr lead alloy bullet pushed by BP. Once you get that amount of lead going it doesn't want to slow down. MLV did some testing at ?White Sands military base a few years ago with recently declassified equipment and the distance traveled by these heavy lead bullets were phenominal staying in the air and outdistancing hot-rod calibers such as 300 weatherby magnums if memory serves. Again, once you get a 500+ slug going, it tends to stay going.
These old calibers and loads don't have the hydrostatic shocking power of a modern caliber so it could be possible to kill light-skinned animals like deer a bit faster with them.
I think what it boils down to these bullets have the mass to do remarkable things and just enough velocity to hold together to punch through remarkable sized game. The old-timers had it right.
Keith Lay
Bad Bill
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: SW of NE ND

Re: How did that work

Post by Bad Bill »

I can grasp the idea of energy better than momentum; anyways, wouldn't want to be a buffalo shotg by either but off-hand seems amt of energy would be a big factor. As a kid, I remember blunt point arrows penetrating a 1x6 board - just punched there way thru- better than a pointed arrow. Don't think that was momentum since both arrows weighed the same. More was like shock factor. Anyway, sounds like momentum is carrying factor thru something?
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32
Bad Bill
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: SW of NE ND

Re: How did that work

Post by Bad Bill »

I can grasp the idea of energy better than momentum; anyways, wouldn't want to be a buffalo shotg by either but off-hand seems amt of energy would be a big factor. As a kid, I remember blunt point arrows penetrating a 1x6 board - just punched there way thru- better than a pointed arrow. Don't think that was momentum since both arrows weighed the same. More was like shock factor. Anyway, sounds like momentum is carrying factor thru something?
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32
Darryl
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:00 pm
Location: Katy, Texas

Re: How did that work

Post by Darryl »

Disclaimer:
I'm not a scientist so I don't want some engineering guru to whip out his physics books and start an argument with me.

But, here are my two cents on the matter:

There's two wounds that occur when a bullet impacts targets that are primarily water like - a temporary wound channel, and a permanent wound channel.

The temporary wound in simple terms is stretching caused by the passage of the bullet. I think of it sort of like a wave that a ship creates while moving through water. Since animal tissue is primarily water like, any disruption causes waves to move away from the source of disruption (the bullet).

The higher velocity bullets (smokeless high power rifle rounds above 2200 FPS) tend to create a much more violent and larger temporary wound channel since they smack the water-like tissue at such high velocities. However, they do this at the expense of penetration.

I think a very good analogy of this is to imagine being in a swimming pool waist deep and smacking the surface of the water with your open hand as fast as you can. I think everyone would agree that when you smack the water as fast and as hard as you can - you'll create a violent splash and waves will propagate away from your hand fast and travel far. But the water quickly returns to fill the space that you smacked.

On the other hand, if you instead pushed your hand quickly into the water - you would not create as violent of a splash, but you will certainly be able to penetrate your hand deeper into the water.

This effect from my understanding is the resistance caused by the high velocity. While high velocity creates a violent disruption - penetration will be less due to resistance.

The bullets we are shooting in the 500 grain class, moving between 1100 and 1300 fps carry a tremendous amount of momentum relative to other modern high velocity hunting rounds.

Penetration is a function of momentum versus resistance.

Since the momentum is so high and velocity comparably low (causing resistance to be lower) - the penetration is EXTREME.

Permanent wound channel is the second wound caused by the passage of a bullet, and it is essentially the space once occupied by tissue that has changed to open space - torn and perforated.

Of the two - cavitation (temporary wound channels) is nice to have, but penetration is ESSENTIAL in creating lethal wounds.

Killing is achieved by two ways - 1) By directly disrupting the central nervous system (hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, resulting in almost instant incapacitation), or 2) By suffocation of the brain which is caused by lack of oxygen delivered to it which is caused by a drop of blood pressure (external or internal) - caused by blood loss.

In hunting, its simply more logical to go for shots to the thoracic cavity of an animal because its presents the largest target and it carries major vital blood bearing organs. Therefore, since we take those shots instead of head shots - we are relying on hemorrhaging to be the cause of death.

To achieve hemorrhaging, penetration must be present. The MORE, the better because the volume of the permanent wound channel will be greater - exposing more open tissue to bleed out and drop blood pressure more rapidly.

This my friends, is where these tools that we hunt with EXCEL. They are the KING of penetration on water-like targets (animal tissue).

The .300 Win Mag causes violent cavitation - at the expense of lesser penetration (relatively speaking). On a smaller animal like a whitetail deer that is light frame and doesn't require a lot of penetration to reach the vitals - it will usually anchor them on the spot when the thoracic cavity is hit. I've seen people drop our Texas Whitetails with lung shots from .22-250's (I don't condone that choice of weapon), but on perfect broadside shots they simply do not require much penetration to reach the vitals and the violent cavitation caused by the high velocity projectile typically drops them on the spot.

That same round would be a complete failure on a larger animal like a buffalo. The bullet would simply come unglued in the first 6 inches that it impacts, not creating enough penetration to adequately bring on effective hemorrhaging.

I'm sure everyone gets the drift here. My intentions are not to teach anyone something they don't already know. I'm simply stating the way I understand it.

These rifles are capable of killing anything that walks the planet (providing proper shot placement is made) - Due to their relatively extreme penetration capabilities.

They are taxed by one thing - trajectory, due to their lower velocity. However, I think virtually everyone on here that hunts with these rifles came to them after first hunting with other more modern weapons. The point being - we don't feel burdened by the trajectories they make. We in fact LOVE them, and seek to accomplish our game with such a handicap. That's what makes hunting a sport again (at least for me it does).
mdeland
Posts: 11708
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:47 pm

Re: How did that work

Post by mdeland »

I think the pounds feet or momentum thinking is probably a better indicator of suitability of caliber and case for game harvesting overall but with modern high tech bullets it seems we can have the best of both worlds in greater measure than before.
I have never shot a buffalo but have killed some moose with .338 diameter tough bullets. I have shot through and through's on several of them on shoulder blades. I like and use the Speer hot core in 275 grain weight. All of them went down to stay but were not dead immediately from the wound. In every case I had to use a second shot to finish the deal and end the animals suffering. These were all lung shots, a much larger kill area than heart or neck shots. The entry hole would typically be bullet size and exit about fifty cent piece size.
I shot several black bear with the same bullet and it did not kill as well as a .270 Nosler partition. The bear was not enough mass to open the tough bullet up apparently. Exit holes were about the same size as entry. The .270 Nosler also did complete penetration at nearly 400 yards,twice with holes nearly three times as large and entry . Here the advantages of high velocity , flat trajectory and complete penetration were in play resulting in a clean kill. Many of these specialty game bullets do have nearly as large a cross section once expanded as does a .45 caliber slug that has not upset to any degree, much larger than it's pre-impact cross section.
I think probably the pistol hunters have a better idea of how slow moving large diameter bullets react in game as for all intents and purposes they are much more of a ballistic match to BPCR comparisons, from a physics and practical angle. They kill by cross section and weight rather than velocity and kinetic energy dispersal just as does the BPCR slug. MD
User avatar
MMTC
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:54 pm
Location: Butte, MT

Re: How did that work

Post by MMTC »

Ok, you guys are throwing a lot of numbers and stats out to a situation that can be explained very simply. Mass has everything to do with it. It's the same reason a 9mm pistol is not as good a military weapon as a springfield .45 ACP 1911. The 9mm, while very fast and accurate, doesn't have the mass to cause enough damage to put an enemy down. A .45 ACP by comparison, weighs a lot more, even though it might travel a little slower, can create more damage simply by having more mass. Maybe consider a situation that does not involve ammunition. A running back that weighs 145 lbs and can run a 4.2 second 40 yard dash can hit an opposing player as hard as he can, and maybe knock him over or back a few steps. However, a 270 lb linebacker that runs a 5.0 second 40 yard dash will absolutely destroy an opposing player. That of course is taking into account that both players are making contact at maximum speed possible. It is the same with ammunition, a 160 gr. bullet moving at 3500 fps, will not cause as much damage as a 530 gr. bullet moving at half the speed. That's why we wouldn't put a ferarri up against an 18-wheeler in a game of chicken. We know who would win that contest.
MMTC
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Bad Bill
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: SW of NE ND

Re: How did that work

Post by Bad Bill »

Mass just sitting there does nothing. Mass that is moving is what counts. A large mass moving fast obviously has more power than a small mass moving fast. The question has to do with "killing power" of a small mass moving fast vs a large mass moving slow. Then, there are "shock effects" and things like that involved. A .45 will punch a hole thru a full beer can, but a .223 will explode it to smitherines. Things like that to consider. Guys that have hunted a lot and are good observers would be the ones to answer this question if it is about downing buffalo.
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32
User avatar
MMTC
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:54 pm
Location: Butte, MT

Re: How did that work

Post by MMTC »

For sure Bill, there are a ton of other things to consider, especially when it comes to how modern ammunition is designed to work once it impacts a target. But I know a M2 .50 CAL machinegun round will do considerably less damage to someone's body, than a revolutionary war cannon ball.
MMTC
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Darryl
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:00 pm
Location: Katy, Texas

Re: How did that work

Post by Darryl »

Yep - the caliber war debate can go on for ever and ever.
Lighter bullets at high velocity being better than heavy bullets at slower velocity and vice versa.

Only one thing is for certain:

The better killer is the fastest, heaviest bullet you can shoot - period. IE - a cannon from a tank kills better than a bb gun.
Just kidding there.

But, what I'm saying is true. The best of both worlds is a FAST and HEAVY, tough constructed bullet. Think of a .50BMG. With a properly constructed bullet, there's no doubt its a better killer on a buffalo than a .270 Weatherby, or my .45/70 shooting a 535 grain 30/1 cast bullet at 1120 fps.

Trouble is - its not practical to hunt with a 50 BMG. Therefore, all other hunting rounds that can be fired from a shoulder fall far below the BMG in all facets of exterior and terminal ballistics (Kinetic energy, velocity, bullet weight in most cases, momentum, power factor etc..)

It is certainly true that a properly constructed bullet of adequate weight (.338's and even well made .308 caliber bullets can get a job done). They do indeed impart massive wound channels due to their construction and velocity, often mascerating the tissue upon impact due to the high velocity.

But the fact is, mass does matter. And bullet construction does too. A grain of salt hitting an animal at 100,000 fps will have impressive kinetic energy because the velocity is so high in this example regardless of the weight - the energy will be there. But if it fails to penetrate and cause significant bleeding, its not going to get the job done.

These guns shooting these heavy bullets especially at speeds at or around 1120-1180 fps flat out penetrate because the momentum is high and the resistance is low.

I'd hate to get hit by one of them!
User avatar
Free_Stater
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:50 pm
Location: Brooklyn, Mississippi

Re: How did that work

Post by Free_Stater »

I direct this to DanT, since he will probably have an answer that will make more sense than my question. Or more correctly, make some sense OF my question.

I am wondering if the momentum vs. energy argument doesn't also take into account the amount of time taken to transfer energy to the target? The big, slow bullet with high momentum would stay inside the target longer, thus transferring kinetic energy over a longer time.

Not sure if there's a question in there or not, but hopefully you have an idea of what I'm getting at.

I probably should have stayed awake in some of those math classes they made me take 40+ years ago.
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
Post Reply