thoughts on a .357 hunting load for deer

[Steve2md]

If two loads with same bullet, one a hotter load than the other, hit two different deer of the same size in the same place, and both bullets expanded at the same rate, one exits the other side, the slower one doesn't, how can the bullet that didn't exit, transferred more energy to that deer?

it can't, since they were traveling at different speeds they had different amounts of energy to transfer.

Now, Take 2 loads with the same bullet WEIGHT, same loads, but one is of an expanding design and the other is not.
Everything else being equal, they will look, act, and perform the same on paper or steel targets, but in flesh, the expanding projo "should" remain in the hypothetical deer, while the other passes through. The permanent wound channel (and temp wound channel) of the expanding projectile will be larger in diameter, because of its "dump" of energy in a smaller space, causing more hydrostatic shock than the pass through. If there was no energy transfer other than that of the bullet itself, any wound channel would be the size of the projectile and no larger. We can see from ballistic gel tests and in field experience that this is not the case.

In the end though, none of this argument matters in the practicality of the situation. Pass a foreign object from outside of the body into an important part of the animal (Heart, Lungs, CNS) and they will go down, Pass through or not. For practicality, the mechanics of the thing aren't that important as long as you make a clean kill, right?

There is a new energy transfer thread started to shift it off of this thread for those who want to argue the matter, but in the end, a kill is a kill, right?

I'd like to request that a moderator move the energy transfer portions of this thread to the appropriate thread, so the OP can get the answers he's looking for without all the confusion.

 

[Scimmia]

I read this entire post and don't understand something about this whole energy transfer thing.

If two loads with same bullet, one a hotter load than the other, hit two different deer of the same size in the same place, and both bullets expanded at the same rate, one exits the other side, the slower one doesn't, how can the bullet that didn't exit, transferred more energy to that deer?

Your plowing the same size hole through the deer with both bullets fully expanded, the one that exits plowed further doing even more damage. Just because it exits it may have had to much energy being a pass through but it would have had to impart more energy transfer to the deer.
I never understood this.

I'll keep shooting through them, my goal is to not loose one. My old 44 always did a good job of that.

You're misunderstanding the argument. Think of it as two different bullets of the same weight and caliber, both loaded to the same speed. One exits the animal and one doesn't. The one that doesn't will have used more of it's energy doing work and have created a larger wound channel than the other.

In your question, you're assuming it creates the same size hole, which it does not. Cavitation and hydrostatic shock are both different at different speeds. Of course, hydrostatic shock isn't really a factor at handgun speeds, so we can ignore that in this thread.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

I understand the argument in the math now.
Thanks

 

[LAGS]

My favorite loads for the .357 for deer with a 6 1/2 Blackhawk were with the Speer 146 gr SP that looked like a SWC HP.
I could drive them faster, and the point would expand well, but they never exited the deer.
I used W296 and the straight sides on the jacket seemed to ge a little more accurate.
I think what I sacrifised in weight, I picked up in speed, and the style of HP.
I never got a shot past 40 yards, but it put the deer down, and I never had to go trailing him.
But , those were Northern California Deer , and I have seen dogs bigger than the deer over there.

 

[buck460XVR]

Many folks that have actually hunted deer with a .357 and been successful, opt for a bullet @ a velocity that will consistently expand slightly and exit, even if the animal is shot thru the shoulder. Thus JHPs meant for SD/HD are not the best choice. This is not saying they will not work, only that there are better options out there. Hornady makes a XTP-FP which performs very well on deer sized and larger game. Most JSPs for .357 are intended for hunting as opposed to SD/HD and are also very effective. Same goes for Hard Cast bullets. What also seems to work best are standard to heavy for caliber bullets such as 158, 170 and 180 grainers. Deer are not that hard to kill, even with a lowly .357, if the appropriate ammo and shot placement are used.

 

[blarby]

Sounds like hard-cast 158g SWC, or perhaps even 180g SWC, to me.

You won't get the penetration you might need on say, a quartering shot- from an HD/SD bullet. They are design to expand fully, and if possible, NOT to overpenetrate.

You want as much penetration as you can muster in this case, and a nice sharp wound channel that pumps as much blood as it can. I can think of nothing better in that circumstance than an SWC.

 

[CraigC]

Deer don't take math classes, if you think you can explain terminal ballistics with "physics 101", then you have absolutely no idea how much you don't know about the subject.

Kinetic energy is a meaningless number. Anyone who has killed deer with slow moving cast bullets probably has enough sense to realize that all the crap about energy is just that, crap. It's outdated thinking and it certainly never applied to hunting with handguns.

For anyone who has actually hunted with handguns, or any big bore, especially those using hardcast bullets, KNOWS that an exit wound is preferable. The nonsense about "energy dump" is exactly that, nonsense.

 

[Scimmia]

Deer don't take math classes, if you think you can explain terminal ballistics with "physics 101", then you have absolutely no idea how much you don't know about the subject.

Physics is the science of how the physical world works. I can't believe people actually think that could be irrelevant. It's mind boggling.

 

[CraigC]

Physics is the science of how the physical world works. I can't believe people actually think that could be irrelevant. It's mind boggling.

What is mind boggling is that people actually think that terminal ballistics can be easily explained away through the application of high school physics. Sorry dude but it ain't that simple. This usually comes from those with book knowledge of physics and very little real understanding of ballistics. If it were so simply and accurately quantified through formulas, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about it. Kill enough critters and it will become clear how complicated it is.

Like I said, deer don't know that once you apply whatever magical number of foot pounds to its body it's supposed to lay down and die.

 

[Scimmia]

Who here has said that energy is the only thing that matters? Don't pull a straw man on me here, take the entire argument into context. As I've said multiple times, the bullet design determines how that energy is used and shot placement determines exactly what is damaged, both of which are critical. Even then, how the animal reacts when hit is unpredictable.

In the simplest form, more energy used inside the animal means more damage, period. Whether that damage is effective at stopping the animal is a whole different matter.

 

[35 Whelen]

I can sort of relate to the obsession with energy. When I first started deer hunting as a young teen over 35 years ago I gobbled up ballistics as fast as I could read them. I snatched up freebie ammunition catalogs from the Big 3 manufacturers off the counters of gun shops and wore the pages out as though they were girly magazines. (Anyone remember the fold-up ballistics charts a person could buy from DuPont back in the '70's? I had a set which made me a true ballistics nerd!) Back then, the rule of thumb was a minimum 1000 ft. lbs. of striking energy for deer, 1500 ft. lbs., for elk and so on. This subsequently spilled over in to my handloading practices and I chose bullets based on their ballistic coefficients and ran my loads as fast as possible so the bullets would strike with more energy and therefore kill "better".

Several dozen deer, who knows how many hogs, and a small handful of bull elk have taught me energy doesn't really matter after all. In other words as years went by I gained experience in the field and applied what I learned. The most important thing I've learned is to use a caliber of reasonable size and poke holes in both lungs. So perforated, the animal will die every time without exception regardless of the energy of the bullet. Period. If you're still not convinced of the irrelevance of energy, generally speaking, ask any archery hunter the striking energy of his 400 or so gr. arrow loafing along at 300 or so fps. He'll probably shrug and say "What difference does it make?"

Last year I killed three deer with one of my .44 Specials revolvers all loaded with SWC cast bullets in the 925 - 950 fps range. Thinking back to each of those, their reaction on being hit and the short distance they each ran before expiring was very similar to many deer I've killed with rifles whose bullets struck with 4-5 times more energy. No magic here, just holes in lungs. It's a wonder, though, they died at all because of the bullets that exited!

On this subject, let's examine for a minute...

Let's say I load a good 7mm 160 gr. controlled expansion bullet in a 7mm-08 and a 7mm Weatherby Magnum and I hie off up the mountain in search of elk. For the sake of argument, let's assume the bullet fired from the 7mm-08 won't completely penetrate on a broadside shot on a bull, but will stop under the hide on the far side. We'll assume the same bullet fired from the 7mm Weatherby will completely penetrate due to its 400 +/- fps advantage in muzzle velocity. According to the prevailing argument from the pro-non-exiting bullet fraternity, the bullet from the 7mm-08 would do a better job of dispatching a 600 lb. bull than the same bullet from the Weatherby because the bullet from the smaller cartridge didn't exit, thereby "dumping" all its energy in the body of the unsuspecting bull. Doesn't make much sense to me. Let's also remember the bullet that "dumped" all it's energy in the body of the bull possessed significantly less striking energy than the bullet that completely penetrated the bull. Now the whole argument makes even less sense and is beginning to sound like a bit of a contradiction because based on the argument in the last statement in Post #35, the slower, more slowly expanding bullet (that possesses less energy) will do more damage.... Hmm....

As you guys hunt more, kill more game and gain more experience in the field, you'll begin to understand how it all works. Hang in there!

35W

 

[Scimmia]

Several dozen deer, who knows how many hogs, and a small handful of bull elk have taught me energy doesn't really matter after all. In other words as years went by I gained experience in the field and applied what I learned. The most important thing I've learned is to use a caliber of reasonable size and poke holes in both lungs. So perforated, the animal will die every time without exception regardless of the energy of the bullet. Period. If you're still not convinced of the irrelevance of energy, generally speaking, ask any archery hunter the striking energy of his 400 or so gr. arrow loafing along at 300 or so fps. He'll probably shrug and say "What difference does it make?"

Last year I killed three deer with one of my .44 Specials revolvers all loaded with SWC cast bullets in the 925 - 950 fps range. Thinking back to each of those, their reaction on being hit and the short distance they each ran before expiring was very similar to many deer I've killed with rifles whose bullets struck with 4-5 times more energy. No magic here, just holes in lungs. It's a wonder, though, they died at all because of the bullets that exited!

We all know that shot placement is critical. The energy of the bullet does damage, it's up to you to put that damage where it's most effective. As long as you cause enough damage, using more energy to cause more damage doesn't mean much. Nobody's arguing that you need a certain amount of energy to take down an animal, just that you need sufficient energy to cause enough damage to do the job.

On this subject, let's examine for a minute...

Let's say I load a good 7mm 160 gr. controlled expansion bullet in a 7mm-08 and a 7mm Weatherby Magnum and I hie off up the mountain in search of elk. For the sake of argument, let's assume the bullet fired from the 7mm-08 won't completely penetrate on a broadside shot on a bull, but will stop under the hide on the far side. We'll assume the same bullet fired from the 7mm Weatherby will completely penetrate due to its 400 +/- fps advantage in muzzle velocity. According to the prevailing argument from the pro-non-exiting bullet fraternity, the bullet from the 7mm-08 would do a better job of dispatching a 600 lb. bull than the same bullet from the Weatherby because the bullet from the smaller cartridge didn't exit, thereby "dumping" all its energy in the body of the unsuspecting bull. Doesn't make much sense to me. Let's also remember the bullet that "dumped" all it's energy in the body of the bull possessed significantly less striking energy than the bullet that completely penetrated the bull. Now the whole argument makes even less sense and is beginning to sound like a bit of a contradiction because based on the argument in the last statement in Post #35, the slower, more slowly expanding bullet (that possesses less energy) will do more damage.... Hmm....

And again, this is not the argument at all. Please stop creating an argument to argue against, it helps no one. The 7mm Weatherby obviously uses more energy inside the animal, nobody here has once said it wouldn't. Yes, it wastes energy by retaining it after exiting the animal, energy that could have been used to cause more damage, but since it started out with more to begin with, it's able to do more damage and still waste it.

 

[USSR]

Since my new thread originally posted in the Handloading and Reloading forum got moved to the Hunting forum, and then killed by overzealous moderators (the amount of ft. lbs of energy used to kill my thread is unknown), I will pose the question I asked once again:

"the bullet stopped inside the deer, so all the energy was used and none wasted by the bullet exiting", which we all have heard so many times. The question for you guys who think mathematical equations kill is: If two bullets are fired at an animal and both have a energy level of 575 ft.lbs, and one bullet stops inside the animal and therefor "all the energy was used", and the second bullet completely penetrates the deer, how much energy was "used" and "wasted" out of the 575 ft.lbs of energy by the bullet that fully penetrated? If you believe that somehow this mythical energy number is the killer, which is nothing more than a mathematical calculation, then surely there must be a mathematical calculation to determine the amount of energy used or wasted in a complete penetration shot.

Don

 

[Macchina]

I was going to reply, but you have wandered so far outside the relm of real world physics that nobody can convince you to come back...

Go back to your workbench with your half-baked perpetual motion machine...

 

[Macchina]

Actually I do want to reply. Let me use a technique called "bringing the problem to the extremes". This is an Engineering technique we often use to quickly solve problems with marginal differences. We live in a pretty linear world and this technique will often point out a seemingly insignificant difference between two variables:

Firearm A: Fires an indestructible 100 grain bullet into a deer at 800 FPS
Firearm B: Fires an indestructible 100 grain bullet into a deer at 1,000,000 FPS

Result A: Like a .38 Special, the bullet stays in the deer and does minimal damage.
Result B: The deer is vaporized, the air around the deer is also vaporized, and there is significant damage to the area within 10 yards of where the deer was, the bullet passes through the deer with some remainder of its energy.


What did this prove? The above statement is ridiculous, but probably quite true. The thing we should derive from this example is that even if a bullet does not transfer ALL of its energy passing through a target, the energy it does transfer can be greater than a bullet that is not energetic enough to pass through.

 

[35 Whelen]

Actually I do want to reply. Let me use a technique called "bringing the problem to the extremes". This is an Engineering technique we often use to quickly solve problems with marginal differences. We live in a pretty linear world and this technique will often point out a seemingly insignificant difference between two variables:

Firearm A: Fires an indestructible 100 grain bullet into a deer at 800 FPS
Firearm B: Fires an indestructible 100 grain bullet into a deer at 1,000,000 FPS

Result A: Like a .38 Special, the bullet stays in the deer and does minimal damage.
Result B: The deer is vaporized, the air around the deer is also vaporized, and there is significant damage to the area within 10 yards of where the deer was, the bullet passes through the deer with some remainder of its energy.


What did this prove? The above statement is ridiculous, but probably quite true. The thing we should derive from this example is that even if a bullet does not transfer ALL of its energy passing through a target, the energy it does transfer can be greater than a bullet that is not energetic enough to pass through.

You seriously need some outside time, in the field away from computers, calculations, conjecture and theories. Once you actually hunt and harvest a few head of game I think you'll find you're way overanalyzing. So, step away from the electronic devices and go hunting.

 

[USSR]

What did this prove? The above statement is ridiculous...

Ah, we are in complete agreement.

Don

 

[Macchina]

You seriously need some outside time, in the field away from computers, calculations, conjecture and theories. Once you actually hunt and harvest a few head of game I think you'll find you're way overanalyzing. So, step away from the electronic devices and go hunting.

Did I frustrate you by being right? Please refute my last sentence in the post you attacked and try again.
When you can't attack the answer...

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Sounds like hard-cast 158g SWC, or perhaps even 180g SWC, to me.

You won't get the penetration you might need on say, a quartering shot- from an HD/SD bullet. They are design to expand fully, and if possible, NOT to overpenetrate.

You want as much penetration as you can muster in this case, and a nice sharp wound channel that pumps as much blood as it can. I can think of nothing better in that circumstance than an SWC.

All this arguing about nothing! Our grandparents in the early 1900's and before put meat on the table long before jacketed bullets were even thought of. A good SWC style bullet will cut a nice hole in a deer and break bones along the way if necessary.

Grizzly Cartridges uses the bullets from Cast Performance, their sister company. Those bullets are very high quality. They have a gas checked 180gr bullet just screaming to go hunting. (not that a gas check is necessary but that's what they make) Their bullets are extremely accurate in my levergun too.

I use their 180gr GC bullet and a plain base 160gr bullet from them for smaller game. IMO the best part about their bullets are the extremely wide meplat and of course their accuracy.
http://www.grizzlycartridge.com/store/index.php?app=ecom&ns=catshow&ref=cp357cal

 

[USSR]

All this arguing about nothing!

AACD,

This isn't an argument; this is a disagreement between gentlemen.

Don

 

[ArchAngelCD]

AACD,

This isn't an argument; this is a disagreement between gentlemen.

Don

It's a good thing it's a modern disagreement then because long ago arguments between gentlemen were settled with two identical pistols! LOL

 

[greenmtnguy]

I'll add another vote to the handgun hunting is similar to archery hunting theory that 2 holes are better than 1, and the larger, the better. My handgun hunting arm is a Blackhawk in 45 Colt, though I do load it with both Hornady XTP bullets (at higher velocity and they expand) and big WFN 270gn lead that don't expand but are crushers that still leave a half inch hole either side

 

[CraigC]

Let me use a technique called "bringing the problem to the extremes". This is an Engineering technique we often use to quickly solve problems with marginal differences.

The issue in a nutshell is those with just enough education and knowledge of physics to make them 'think' they can easily explain away terminal ballistics with "simple physics". It happens every time and it quickly becomes painfully obvious that their statements and theories are based on book knowledge and that their field experience is sorely lacking. Or from rifle hunters who refuse to entertain the idea that possibly energy is not the best gauge of a cartridge's effectiveness because the sky will start falling.

I'm sorry but the notion that a bullet that exits is "wasted energy" is completely bogus.

 

[Scimmia]

If you believe that somehow this mythical energy number is the killer, which is nothing more than a mathematical calculation, then surely there must be a mathematical calculation to determine the amount of energy used or wasted in a complete penetration shot.

Of course there is. Tell me how much of the bullet exited and at what velocity, and I'll tell you exactly how much energy was not used inside the animal.

It happens every time and it quickly becomes painfully obvious that their statements and theories are based on book knowledge and that their field experience is sorely lacking. Or from rifle hunters who refuse to entertain the idea that possibly energy is not the best gauge of a cartridge's effectiveness because the sky will start falling.

You started out in one post by saying that we were just assuming you didn't understand mathematics, you're doing the same thing assuming others have no experience. I assure you, I've been out in the fields and woods more than a few times over the last 20 years. You're also putting up a straw man argument. Nobody said terminal ballistics could be explained away with simple physics. Nobody said that energy was the best gauge of a caliber's effectiveness. You're arguing against yourself and your own preconceived notions instead of actually understanding the argument that people are presenting.

 

[USSR]

Quote:
Originally Posted by USSR
If you believe that somehow this mythical energy number is the killer, which is nothing more than a mathematical calculation, then surely there must be a mathematical calculation to determine the amount of energy used or wasted in a complete penetration shot.

Of course there is. Tell me how much of the bullet exited and at what velocity, and I'll tell you exactly how much energy was not used inside the animal.

Great Scimmia! Okay, to answer your questions: all of the bullet exited the animal, and the velocity doesn't matter since the bullet did it's job by providing a hole clean through the animal. Of course, if you want to plug in a exit speed in fps, then use 200fps, but then, I may not be a math genius (I am just a lowly programmer/analyst), wouldn't you also need the speed that the bullet started at? I must warn you, you are going to have a tough time selling us that a bullet that continues on, providing additional tissue destruction and blood flow well past the bullet that stopped inside an animal actually used less "energy" in doing so. Maybe less energy is good? I look forward to seeing your mathematical equation showing how less energy is more destructive to said animal.

Don