JVB testing the 77gr TMK for elk hunting

[Wprinkle]

 

[rabbithuntr]

One of JVBs favorite places to hunt elk

 

[cuerro viejo]

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.

This JB guy is a fraud, who would of a guessed that a guy that kills 2-3 animals a year isnt a terminal performance expert.....

 

[BCsteve]

View attachment 956701

No, thats only the first half to get to the vitals.

 

[Bugger]

 

[cuerro viejo]

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).

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".

From data set perspective, What is the minimum number of Animals killed with a bullet to validate its usage?

 

[gbflyer]

View attachment 956733

Not to be confused with moose knuckle hahaha.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

From data set perspective, What is the minimum number of Animals killed with a bullet to validate its usage?

Since I stated, I thought pretty clearly, that ANY bullet that is properly placed with reasonable consideration given for it's performance characteristics, impact velocity, etc to ballpark what "proper placement" is for that bullet, is Enough Gun(tm), I don't think there's any further validation needed for any of them. We are There(tm). 77 TMKs, 55 grain Horandy SP's, 45 grain TSX's, etc, all will Git Er Dun(tm) if well placed.

I guess you could say from a data perspective, that there should be at least some gel testing to determine a bullet's generally expected performance profile (eg: will it frag and only penetrate 6 inches? Will it not exapnd and to through 6 feet like a drill bit? something in between more likely), but to my knowledge, there are no such 'unknown performacne expectations' bullets on the market today.

 

[BlackTail]

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

Mike, I totally agree that a lot of people in this world are all too happy to live in their echo chambers. However, in this instance for me, I just don’t want to support someone like JVB through clicks and views. Not at all about being a hypocrite. If he came on Rokslide and started a thread and posted a non-monetized video of his findings, I’d be more than happy to see what he came up with.

And that’s not to say anything about whether or not he was even trying to gather any data in search of information or whether his test was trying to “prove” a point.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

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


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

Except what I actually said is not wrong, and what you said I said is not what I said.

Mass does have something to do with penetration, particularly if we're discussing bullets of like construction that 'continuously expand', because (for example) a 300 grain bullet that keeps expanding/fragmenting until there are no chunks big enough left to continue penetrating will penetrate deeper than a 77 grain bullet that also expands/fragments until there are no chunks big enough to continue penetrating, because the 77 grain bullet has a lot fewer chunks it can create before it's out of mass.

Further, I never said "caliber" makes for more penetration, I said a 338 (for reasons I didn't mention, which include higher sectional density of commonly available 338 bullets, typically tougher construction of 338 bullets, etc) would out-penetrate a 243, which it absolutely will.

I don't mind at all if I'm actually wrong and someone calls me out, in fact I kind of enjoy that sort of thing in a technical discussion context, I love learning new information or learning deeper nuance about things I already know. However, you appear to intentionally misinterpret what I say for what I can only assume is for the purpose of being argumentative about it. If i want to play that kind of game, I'll go have a conversation with my wife, LOL.