JVB testing the 77gr TMK for elk hunting

[JF_Idaho]

He didn't want to show that the 338 did not penetrate after hitting the knuckle either. Kinda blew his own theory.

 

[bpitcher]

I had the faintest hope that this video would actually be an unbiased test. Instead, he constructs a test to validate his bias.

He can't even be bothered to measure the penetration on the rib shot. Does he not own a tape measure? How about a muzzle velocity?

 

[Mountainrancher]

“To prove that a 77 tmk can’t kill an elk I’m gonna shoot something that’s not an elk or at all representative of an elk at point blank range” -JVB probably

 

[Mountainrancher]

 

[WYO2011]

I had the faintest hope that this video would actually be an unbiased test. Instead, he constructs a test to validate his bias.

He can't even be bothered to measure the penetration on the rib shot. Does he not own a tape measure? How about a muzzle velocity?

I think he owns a tape measure. But I believe it starts at 3” I wouldn’t mind borrowing that tape measure.. he said there is 6” of muscle I don’t believe that for a second.

 

[UnckleBob]

I refuse to give that video a view because the guy is rather questionable as a person. Unless I'm mistaken this is the guy who thinks leg shooting a deer at 700 yards is an ethical hunting practice.

I'm going to guess the conclusion is that it is not adequate. Somebody let me know if he has any good arguments.

That was his brother. He is definitely not a proponent of long range hunting.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

I'm honestly kind of "meh" on the whole "77 TMK" debate. It's been proven many (many) times over, that a well placed 77 TMK will kill basically anything that walks in north America. A well placed 22LR will also kill anything that walks NA as well. So will a well placed arrow. So will a well placed 338 UltraUberMassiveMagnum. And if you've got a good arm, a well placed rock to the head would get it done as well. The key words for all of those statements is (and always has been) "well placed".

All that said, at the fundamental core of "how do you kill things with projectiles", two items are non-negotiable, and everything else is just nice to have. Shot Placement, and Penetration. As you go up and down the scale of bigger to smaller cartridges (and heavier and lighter arrows, and whatever else), the one thing that bigger buys you over smaller when all else is more/less equal (eg: .243 Accubonds vs 338 Accubonds or 243 ELD-X to 338 ELD-X) is more penetration. Since that's one of our two non-negotiables, that does have value and merit, if you happen to need more of that.

There absolutely are angles at which a 77 TMK won't penetrate enough to reach the vitals for a quick clean kill (think through the hindquarter, through the guts, though the liver, and then to the heart/lungs), where a heavier bullet of tougher construction absolutely could do that. Are any of those shot angles recommendable? Well, probably not, LOL, but they exist.

But to stop rambling and get to the point I'm trying to make; all of us with ethics and morals or that kind of thing, understand that different weapons and different cartridges and different bullets and so-on all have varying capabilities, and we will consider the capabilities of the weapon in our hands before we Send It(tm) at a living critter. As long as we're all doing that, any gun is "enough gun".

 

[Marbles]

View attachment 956278
View attachment 956279

He didn't want to show that the 338 did not penetrate after hitting the knuckle either. Kinda blew his own theory.

Ok, this got me to watch it.

I gave him too much credit, he not only heavily biased the test, he very clearly lies at the end, I'm not sure to attribute it to dishonesty or blind stupidity that is incapable of seeing what is right before his eyes.

 

[Mike D Texas]

There seems to be just as many closed minded folks not wanting to watch a differing test than what they want to believe.

Seems quite hypocritical when someone naysays the effectiveness of the 77TMK, and the defenders always scream “did you read the thread”. Yet when someone shows a differing body of evidence they don’t even take the time to watch and see if there are biases OR if maybe there’s some validity to their testing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[realunlucky]

There seems to be just as many closed minded folks not wanting to watch a differing test than what they want to believe.

Seems quite hypocritical when someone naysays the effectiveness of the 77TMK, and the defenders always scream “did you read the thread”. Yet when someone shows a differing body of evidence they don’t even take the time to watch and see if there are biases OR if maybe there’s some validity to their testing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

In fairness the thread is full of dead animals including elk and video is just hide and bone edited with someone who's main point has always been bigger is better for elk.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

There seems to be just as many closed minded folks not wanting to watch a differing test than what they want to believe.

Seems quite hypocritical when someone naysays the effectiveness of the 77TMK, and the defenders always scream “did you read the thread”. Yet when someone shows a differing body of evidence they don’t even take the time to watch and see if there are biases OR if maybe there’s some validity to their testing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I think it’s probably because of the proven time and time again, very dishonest individual playing an online character, “presenting” it more than anything else.

 

[TaperPin]

lol - he did put a spin on this that fits his target market. Not surprising.

 

[mt100gr.]

Why doesn't he shoot an elk with it instead of wasting everyone's time on a bullshit "test"? Reminds me of a milk jug/wet newspaper youtuber.

 

[wirehead]

…I hear / read “well placed shot” along side comments regarding lethality of 244 and 6mm cartridges for big game a lot. I do not see this as much with larger calibers and this seems like a total fallacy to me. This isn’t new - been stated before. Specific to this video, if someone is putting a round through an elk shoulder knuckle, that’s a broadside brisket shot and a rodeo ensues. Maybe for a quartering-to shot uphill that’s ideal placement…? The unstated conclusion behind this video is a larger caliber will make bad shots lethal. I guess I’m not seeing it…? A scapula would have been far more relevant and I think that’s been done by someone.

Also, a cow knuckle? Ha ok…

 

[cal30_sniper]

All that said, at the fundamental core of "how do you kill things with projectiles", two items are non-negotiable, and everything else is just nice to have. Shot Placement, and Penetration. As you go up and down the scale of bigger to smaller cartridges (and heavier and lighter arrows, and whatever else), the one thing that bigger buys you over smaller when all else is more/less equal (eg: .243 Accubonds vs 338 Accubonds or 243 ELD-X to 338 ELD-X) is more penetration. Since that's one of our two non-negotiables, that does have value and merit, if you happen to need more of that.

This is at best only partially-true, and at worst not-at-all-true (as presented here).

Caliber itself has nothing to do with penetration. Sectional Density, impact velocity, and bullet construction are the factors that determine the penetration characteristics of a projectile. This is why a .22 or .24 caliber can kill just as well as a .30 or bigger with the right bullets.

 

[BigNate]

Bullet choice is still the issue.
Up close a bonded or mono-metal stays together and penetrates deep, and those exact bullets don't kill as well at long range. Regardless of caliber or cartridge.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

This is at best only partially-true, and at worst not-at-all-true (as presented here).

Caliber itself has nothing to do with penetration. Sectional Density, impact velocity, and bullet construction are the factors that determine the penetration characteristics of a projectile. This is why a .22 or .24 caliber can kill just as well as a .30 or bigger with the right bullets.

What's your deal with showing up in replies and saying I said things I did not, and wanting to nitpick on general statements like we were at a university debate? I didn't realize I needed to give a physics lesson on the exact why's and wherefores of what I said in off-hand comments, but since you have pointed out my deficiency in this regard, let's do this.

I never said caliber was the driver of penetration. I said if you're comparing like for like bullets, a 338 will out-penetrate a 243 every time. I just randomly picked 243 and 338, because they were good examples to compare to make the point. That said - the deeper penetration from a 338 is not because it's larger in diameter, it's because of the physics involved. Since you like sectional density, let's talk about that. The lightest 338 Accubond and lightest 338 ELD-X both have a higher sectional density than the heaviest 243 Accubond or 243 ELD-X. They also have substantially more mass (and therefore more momentum), which contributes to penetration. But, perhaps, most pertinent of all, when we are discussing "continuously expanding bullets" like an ELD-X (or a TMK or a ELD-M etc), the bullets of this type will keep fragmenting as it passes through tissue until there is no more mass left to fragment, so therefore, a substantially heavier weight bullet of identical or even somewhat less sectional density, will out-penetrate the lighter one 100% of the time, because with the heavier one, there is still enough retained mass to continue penetrating as it fragments when compared to the much lighter bullets in this current topic.

However, all that said, I actually agree with you totally on the key point - a 224 caliber bullet of sufficient mass (a 77 is certainly sufficient), of a fragmenting design, well placed into the chest cavity (or neck/spine/skull), will 100% kill a critter just as dead and just as fast as any larger/heavier projectile will, and on non-CNS shots, will indeed to it faster than a different projectile type such as if we compared a 77 grain TMK to a TTSX of any flavor or size, because the fragmenting projectile causes far more wounding over a wider area than a mono of any type.

Yet, still the related point I made, is also factually correct; you aren't likely to make a successful 'Texas heart shot' on an elk with a 77 TMK (or various other undesirable angles that requires penetration be measured in feet not inches), but you might very well pull it off with say, a 338 Windbag shooting heavy mono or bonded bullets designed to retain enough weight for deep penetration. In other words, the guys who point out that the 77TMK has more limited penetration than bigger/heavier bullets, are also correct.

All of which brings me to my closing statement, again, all cartridges and bullets and bullet designs have strengths and weakness, and all of us who take those into consideration before we shoot yee olde critter with one are Good to Go(tm), and all carrying Enough Gun(tm).

 

[cal30_sniper]

What's your deal with showing up in replies and saying I said things I did not, and wanting to nitpick on general statements like we were at a university debate?

Because you keep saying stuff like this, and this is wrong:

so therefore, a substantially heavier weight bullet of identical or even somewhat less sectional density, will out-penetrate the lighter one 100% of the time, because with the heavier one, there is still enough retained mass to continue penetrating as it fragments when compared to the much lighter bullets in this current topic.

Mass has nothing to do with penetration. Neither does caliber, as you strongly implied in your original post.

 

[sndmn11]

I think a loose piece of hide is the same concept of how a soft kevlar vest works.

 

[Wprinkle]