Bullet proof elk

[f16jack]

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, 13 of those elk were with the 35 Whelen AI. Using frontal area of a 2x diameter expanded bullet as a comparison (A=Pi x radius^2), it has 35% more frontal area than a .308 expanding to 2x diameter and 59% more than a 7mm projectile expanded to 2x diameter. The difference becomes more with a drop down in caliber. I have recovered (2) .358 Barnes mono's, both expanded to a bit more than double diameter across the petals. CNS function is disrupted as the bullet expands and travels through the animal. If a larger frontal diameter controlled expansion bullet causes disruption through the same principle of CNS disruption as a smaller caliber fast expanding bullet does, that could well be part of my positive experience with bullets that typically don't get credit for dropping animals quickly.

The 7mm Bergers do not expand to 2x diameter. They fragment into a cloud of metal, with only about 5% weight retention. That cloud fragmentation is what drops the elk on the spot.

 

[35WhelenAI]

That's my point, and I said this in the last post. A larger frontal diameter bullet going through the animal transferring more disruption to the CNS vs a smaller diameter bullet of similar construction, would allow said larger diameter bullet to have an effect to some degree not unlike a smaller diameter bullet that fragments and disrupts CNS. My experience with mono (controlled expansion) bullets of a larger diameter over many years and animals is a-typical to what a number of others, your experience included, have shared with mono bullets or controlled expansion bullets of smaller diameter vs the same diameter fragmenting bullets.

Just thinking out loud. It's established fragmenting bullets do a fantastic job. Most comparisons based on experience of the hunter is of controlled expansion bullets of the same initial diameter as the fragmenting bullets, like in your very good example. Putting it out there that frontal diameter may be more of an equalizer.

 

[f16jack]

That's my point, and I said this in the last post. A larger frontal diameter bullet going through the animal transferring more disruption to the CNS vs a smaller diameter bullet of similar construction, would allow said larger diameter bullet to have an effect to some degree not unlike a smaller diameter bullet that fragments and disrupts CNS. My experience with mono (controlled expansion) bullets of a larger diameter over many years and animals is a-typical to what a number of others, your experience included, have shared with mono bullets or controlled expansion bullets of smaller diameter vs the same diameter fragmenting bullets.

Just thinking out loud. It's established fragmenting bullets do a fantastic job. Most comparisons based on experience of the hunter is of controlled expansion bullets of the same initial diameter as the fragmenting bullets, like in your very good example.

I concur. We're on the same page.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I concur. We're on the same page.

Good thoughts, good discussion.

 

[5MilesBack]

Would anyone say they want more damage?

I prefer less "blood shot".

 

[f16jack]

I prefer less "blood shot".

If you hit the heart lung there is no "blood shot," unless heart and lungs are on the menu. The quarters, backstraps and tenderloins are untouched. If it's your habit to put bullets into quarters then you end up packing out damaged meat that will be discarded. I'm a meat hunter, so heart/lung shots are the rule for me. Now, this past season I hit an elk in both a front and hind quarter, but that was due to baffle strikes from a failed suppressor. All the rest of my elk (18) have been heart/lung.

 

[5MilesBack]

If you hit the heart lung there is no "blood shot,"

What exactly did Ryan hit there?

I've shot plenty of elk through the heart/lungs with all kinds of bullets that left massive amounts of "blood shot" in and through the shoulders without actually hitting the shoulder.

 

[f16jack]

Copy that. Perhaps you're using a higher energy /higher caliber than me. Generally our quarters are undamaged.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Agree, many variables with respect to bullet, caliber, velocity.

 

[f16jack]

Agree, many variables with respect to bullet, caliber, velocity.

Concur. As shown above I use a 7mm Rem Mag. Noslers before, Bergers now. I'd like the elk to go down when I shoot and not have to track in the dark, or have to place folliw-up shots that are not optimal.

 

[BigNate]

I shot an elk with accubonds out of a 300 Jarrett (ballistically similar to a 300 RUM) at under a 100 yards. They only penetrated ~6” and completely fragmented. Do you have any experience using them at close range? Just curious

Why is this bad?
Six inches of penetration would put the explosion in the chest cavity even though a shoulder. At that distance the destruction of vitals would be tremendous.

Unless you took a raking shot which becomes an entirely different matter.

I do agree with that much velocity you probably would be better served by a different bullet choice, but that bullet wouldn't perform as well at distance/lower velocity.

 

[f16jack]

Why is this bad?
Six inches of penetration would put the explosion in the chest cavity even though a shoulder. At that distance the destruction of vitals would be tremendous.

Unless you took a raking shot which becomes an entirely different matter.

I do agree with that much velocity you probably would be better served by a different bullet choice, but that bullet wouldn't perform as well at distance/lower velocity.

That bullet performed exactly like a Berger VLD is supposed to. Result is one dead elk.