A cheap Dangerous Game Rifle

[ArmedBear]

No, it's wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

And it's wrong BECAUSE that muzzle energy doesn't mean what you think it means.

See, when your formula is wrong, your results will be wrong.

I've never hunted with a Trapdoor in my hands, but I have hunted with someone who was using an original Trapdoor, loaded with original .45-70-405 black powder loads. I assure you, they'll go right through a cow elk and make a big hole all the way. You don't want to be behind that elk, either.

All Chuck Hawks would have to do is take one of the motorcycles he knows so much about and ride on out of his trailer in the Third World over to the next state to the east...

Idaho has restrictive muzzleloading rules: no sabots, lead bullets only, loose black powder or Pyrodex only, exposed hammer, no primer ignition, no scopes.

And yet, hunters take plenty of cow elk in a special season every year with basic sidelocks and lead bullets, at distances well over 100 yards. Stalking, calling ability, misses due to low-velocity trajectory, limited vacation days, etc. are limiting factors; muzzle energy sure isn't.

There's the rub: the formulas Chuck Hawks uses may have some validity for light, fast spitzer bullets. But they're dead wrong for slow, big holepunchers. GIGO.

That's why science has to include empirical confirmation. Otherwise you just get convenient formulas that produce neat-looking, but wrong, answers.

 

[The Wiry Irishman]

And it's wrong BECAUSE that muzzle energy doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yeah. Momentum means a lot for quantifying penetration, and the formula for it is not velocity-centric like the energy formula is. Its going to take quite a bit of animal to bring that big 405 grain slug to a stop, much more than a 100-odd grain .30-30.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Going too cheap is pretty dangerous without a guide backing you up.

I get your point, I'd happily moose hunt with a surplus 8mm, but brown bears? It's better than a pointed stick, but dangerous means dangerous for a reason.

 

[ArmedBear]

To put it very simply:

A modern, high-velocity, light, flat-shooting bullet is designed to "whack" game in its tracks. Roy Weatherby is the hunter who was obsessed with taking this to the extreme, and he demonstrated that it does work.

Old-fashioned cartridges like .45-70-405 lead black powder loads are designed to "drill through" game.

Both methods work. So does archery (which works more like an old .45-70 than a .300 WinMag).

However, formulas developed to model "whack" don't accurately model "drill".

One more thing...

A TRUE Dangerous Game Rifle is designed to "whack" and "drill" at the same time.

 

[saturno_v]

Guys calm down..at this world you do not get something for nothing, at least not in physics...

I do not want to steer off topic but yes muzzle energy, bullet construction, bullet shape, BC and SD are the most important factor..period..big bullets, small bullets it doesn't matter.

That is one of the reason why no serious ballistic table or technical publication mention stuff like momentum, Taylor Factor and other fantasies like that....

Momentum proponent take a simple concept asnd they extrapolate in the real world..yes a bigger mass has the tendency to remain in movement compared to a smaller one, all else being equal,,in the real world you have drag and frontal area that actually can limit the penetration of bigger bullets...

Kinetic energy is the utmost important factor....the capacity to do work...a bullet that doesn't move doesn't do damage..

Armed Bear....nobody here question that a Trapdoor 45-70 405 gr. load will not kill a cow elk very deadly....after all the 44-40 WCF killed countless number of deer regardless the fact that nobody nowdays consider that cartridge even remotely adequate......people kill bear with a bow.....

That is exactly my point....

Even a 6.5 X 55 Swedish will pass through a Moose brisket to butt..done over and over....

I'm the first one that sometimes is critic people when they say categorically stuff like "338 minimum for bears"...marksmanship and other skills are way more important than pure power...

 

[saturno_v]

ArmedBear..

More energy and higher SD drill more..simple physics....

Take your 45 cal. 405 gr. bullet solid and a solid, let's say 200-220 gr. .30 cal bullet...same shape, let's say round nose....

Fire them against the same medium, with the 30 cal hitting with more energy....you will see that the 30 cal will penetrate far more than your 405 gr. 45 cal slug....

 

[Gryffydd]

A TRUE Dangerous Game Rifle is designed to "whack" and "drill" at the same time.

Which is NOT good news for your shoulder. But if it keeps you from being eaten it's probably worth it.

 

[waterhouse]

It has a 10 Round Magazine. Now a Brown Bear at 150 Yards, 100 Yards, 50 Yards, 25 Yards- and your telling me that I can have 10 rounds of 215gr. bullets going between 2200 and 1880 FPS tearing huge wound channels into a Brown Bear with a Power Factor of 473, now that is stoping power.

I've seen how fast a Brown bear can cover ground, and the one I saw was a mid sized juvenile. A charge from 25 (or even 50) yards and that 10 round magazine isn't worth much.

It's possible that a well placed shot from your Enfield would stop a charging bear, but I wouldn't count on all those extra rounds being part of your "stopping power."

yes, I put it to the test. At 123 yds and 2-Shot later I took a 823 pound Brown Bear. My test proved to be true.

What were you testing? That a brown bear could be killed by a .303? Or that a 10 round Enfield makes for a good dangerous game rifle?

If the former, I'd say you succeeded, although I doubt too many people would have doubted that it is possible to kill a Brown with a few rounds of .303.

If the latter, your test proved nothing.

Armed Bear....nobody here question that a Trapdoor 45-70 405 gr. load will not kill a cow elk very deadly..

I think his point was that Chuck Hawks' table says just that. Mr. Hawks states:

The next five columns show the maximum optimal range for the five selected weight classes of game. The effective range has been calculated in yards and, in most instances, rounded off to the nearest 5 yards. The maximum range listed for any cartridge is 400 yards, since 400 yards is beyond the point blank range of every cartridge shown. Adequate killing power at longer distances is indicated by the notation "400+." The notation "n/a" means that the cartridge is not applicable (lacks adequate killing power at any range) for hunting animals of that size.

Mr. Hawks then lists an n/a for a 405 gr 45/70 at 1330 ft/sec for Elk. In other words, according to Mr. Hawks table, if you were 10 yards from an Elk with a trapdoor 45/70 your loading would lack adequate killing power. If you were 10 inches away the same would be true, according to the table.

 

[blackops]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the guides in Africa don't allow hunters to use anything less than a 375 for dangerous game. By the way your a lawyer and you buy a used surplus rifle to hunt bear? lol

 

[waterhouse]

dupe post

 

[waterhouse]

dupe post

 

[freakshow10mm]

I admit that I am cheap,

The above statement doesn't match up with this statement:

but I still own More guns than 99.9% of you

nor this statement

and more expensive than the cars that you drive.

That to me says you can't link elements of a sentence together to form a logical thought. If you are a lawyer, I pity your clients.

You brag about your expensive things but call yourself cheap. 12 year olds do that.

 

[JShirley]

Well, let's not be hasty. Maybe some lawyers are better using spoken, rather than written, communication.

I am still waiting for the pictures. Which guide did you use?

John

 

[ArmedBear]

Armed Bear....nobody here question that a Trapdoor 45-70 405 gr. load will not kill a cow elk very deadly....

Chuck Hawks publishes a table that says it won't. I linked to it. That's my point. Don't trust everything he writes.

a bullet that doesn't move doesn't do damage..

That's right.

And a small bullet with a lot of velocity-derived energy loses a bunch when it contacts the target, and then BURNS OFF that energy really quickly in the target. KE numbers when the bullet is in the air don't tell the whole story about what happens when lead hits leather.

Energy drops as the SQUARE of velocity loss. That's why a .243 isn't a good buffalo round, whereas the .45-70, with similar energy, is.

When you get your energy from the mass side of the equation, you keep more of it for more distance in the target.

There's nothing scientific about ignorning all but one number in an equation. And there's nothing right about a model that doesn't reflect observed reality.

Mr. Hawks then lists an n/a for a 405 gr 45/70 at 1330 ft/sec for Elk. In other words, according to Mr. Hawks table, if you were 10 yards from an Elk with a trapdoor 45/70 your loading would lack adequate killing power. If you were 10 inches away the same would be true, according to the table.

Exactly. It will, in fact, kill two elk standing next to each other at 100 yards, if they're lined up right. Therefore, Chuck Hawks' energy-centric formula is simply wrong -- if you define "wrong" as "not reflecting observable phenomena" as opposed to "sounds good."

 

[saturno_v]

Waterhouse

Chuck Hawks says that he doesn't consider adequate for the task..far different than "being capable to kill"...and the consideration of what is adequate and what is not, unfortunately, is still matter of personal opinion, preference and experience...some experienced people consider the 30-06 adequate for stopping a grizzly, others, experienced as well, think that the venerable '06 is a pea shooter against a charging big bruin..who is right?? Again..personal choice, experience, opinion....

But in general, Hawks has a scientific and rigorous approach to technical topics.


By the way there is not "drill or whack".....bullets, from 22 LR to 460 Weatherby Magnum kills all in the same way...penetration and tissue disruption....some high velocity bullets will spend more energy expanding (which may limit penetration also because of dramatic changes in their SD) compared to bigger slower ones..that's all....

 

[Reid73]

Again it all depends on the dangerous game....Pumas and Black bear definitely qualify as dangerous animals....I bet you would fudge your pants in front of an angry mountain lion..not so much facing a rabid squirrel

Oh yeah? Well see here.

Chuck Hawks has some good info, but some of what he says needs to be taken with a mountain of rock salt. He doesn't really differentiate between subjects with which he has actual experience, and those which he's just repeating what he's read.

This is quite true. However, in fairness it should be noted that the same comments apply to > 98% of published information available on pretty much any subject.

 

[saturno_v]

A 243 is not adequate for buffalo because of its poor SD and its high velocity may result in total bullet fragmentation hitting a heavy bone...243 cal bullets are usually not stoutly constructed because they are designed for different game.

There's nothing scientific about ignorning all but one number in an equation. And there's nothing right about a model that doesn't reflect observed reality.

Yes and what you forget is the drag and frontal mass equation when a bigger bullet with lower SD encounter much more resistance going through

Take a 45-70 loads and a 160-170 gr. 6.5 X 55 Sweden load hitting the target with the same energy with both bullet solid...and you will see which one penetrates more....I can guarantee that the little 6.5 will put your 45 slug to shame in the penetration department..

And there's nothing right about a model that doesn't reflect observed reality.

I saw 30-30 loads going through a stash of bull bones, 8 layers of carpet, a oak plank and ending up in the tree where the target was leaning...when some other people consider the 30 WCF a peashooter....as you said, observable phenomena and results...what this supposed to mean??

It confirms what I said before....what is considered adequate is often a matter of personal preference....

Personally I never doubted that a 40-70 Trapdoor load may kill a Elk...as the 44-40 killed God knows how many deer....despite what people think of the cartridge...

Many peole belittle the much maligned 30 carbine...well one of the review on Midwayusa about one particular soft point load said that he killed a fairly big boar at 137 yards in its track...

 

[ArmedBear]

Chuck Hawks plugs numbers into formulas that he got from somebody else, and that he doesn't appear to understand. These formulas do not reflect easily-observed reality.

This is not "scientific."

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method for a cool compilation of stuff.

Chuck Hawks fails to do #1, to start with.

Then, he fails to do the rest.

The "opposite of each consequence" for the prediction, ".45-70-405 is inadequate for cow elk at the muzzle" would be that experienced hunters universally report that similar rounds are quite effective.

In this case, he runs numbers through someone else's formula and posts the results with a little "blue ribbon" icon next to the link. There's NO testing, NO rigor, NO experience applied to analyzing the results.

There's nothing scientific about this.

By the way there is not "drill or whack".....bullets, from 22 LR to 460 Weatherby Magnum kills all in the same way...penetration and tissue disruption....some high velocity bullets will spend more energy expanding (which may limit penetration also because of dramatic changes in their SD) compared to bigger slower ones..that's all....

Uh, you just described "whack" vs. "drill" saturno.

And penetration is just a mechanism by which a bullet disrupts tissue -- it's one dimension in a 4-dimensional event. Ultimately, tissue disruption is the only way a bullet kills. Everything else is just the how.

 

[ArmedBear]

A 243 is not adequate for buffalo because of its poor SD and its high velocity may result in total bullet fragmentation hitting a heavy bone...243 cal bullets are usually not stoutly constructed because they are designed for different game.

Go shoot a buffalo with a Barnes .243 and report back.

 

[JShirley]

Guys...if you want to argue ballistics and terminal ballistics, could you start another thread? I'd really like more discussion about the .303 British, especially from the OP. The ballistics questions are really only on-topic in so far as they concern the suitability of similar (to .303) bullets for DG.

 

[waterhouse]

Waterhouse

Chuck Hawks says that he doesn't consider adequate for the task..far different than "being capable to kill"

He says that it lacks adequate killing power. I agree that this is different than saying being capable to kill.

I've heard about the .22 killing the elephant. If Mr. Hawks want to list a .22 vs. elephant as n/a, even though it has happened, I'd fully support it, as, in general, it lacks adequate killing power.

A 45/70 at the muzzle vs. an elk? Plenty of killing power. At 5 yards, I'd bet 95% of Elk shot with a 45/70 in the vitals will die within a relatively quick time period. Yet the table lists the cartridge as not adequate at any distance.

ETA: saturno, check out http://www.chuckhawks.com/buffalo_cartridges.htm where Mr. Hawks talks about killing 930-1600 pound buffalo at 200 yards with the .45-70, yet in his chart it lacks adequate killing power at the muzzle for a 600 pound Elk.

ETA: Sorry JShirley, I'll take it somewhere else.

 

[ugaarguy]

By the way there is not "drill or whack".....bullets, from 22 LR to 460 Weatherby Magnum kills all in the same way...penetration and tissue disruption....some high velocity bullets will spend more energy expanding (which may limit penetration also because of dramatic changes in their SD) compared to bigger slower ones..that's all....

What Armed Bear was doing was simplifying the two schools of thought on effectively killing big game.

1 - use a large diameter, heavy bullet at moderate velocity which will create a large wound channel by virtue of it's large frontal area and very deep penetration from momentum. Momentum is not a fantasy - there are accepted scientific formulas which express momentum in standard mathematical notation.

2 - use a smaller diameter, lighter bullet, at extremely high velocities (resulting in very high KE) to create a large wound channel via permanent tissue cavitation from hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock is very real as well - it's been repeatedly observed and demonstrated. The minor issue is that no one knows exactly what the energy floor is where hydrostatic shock begins to cause permanent cavitation, rather temporary cavitation, in game. KE is also real, and there are, of course, standard scientific formulas used to express it.

With both penetration and KE, your best bet is to use something that has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be above that floor. In other words, use a caliber with a good margin of error in case you make a mistake, or you run into a particularly tough example of the game you're hunting.

ETA: Sorry JShirley, was typing this while you posted.

 

[Reid73]

Many years ago, Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor pretty much beat to death the topic of "large and slow" vs. "small and fast". Both men had considerable practical experience (as opposed to mathematical formulas and mere theories) to back up their respective opinions. But no definitive conclusion was ever reached ...

I agree with the mod, let's get back to the (ridiculous) topic at hand: "The .303 as the world's ultimate Kodiak bear rifle". Or better yet, let's stop feeding the troll and move on to entirely new threads.

 

[saturno_v]

Go shoot a buffalo with a Barnes .243 and report back.

Indeed the bonded solids may outpenetrate your 45-70 solids...

There's NO testing, NO rigor, NO experience applied to analyzing the results.

As far as I know Chuck Hawks has hunted in every continent and posted some very nice pics and reports..so I would not say no experience...again what is adequate and what not is his opinion and you are free of not agreeing with him....maybe he is dead wrong on this...

Uh, you just described "whack" vs. "drill" saturno.

I did not pay attention to the order of these words in my statement and description becasue I simply believe that there is no such difference...

And penetration is just a mechanism by which a bullet disrupts tissue -- it's one dimension in a 4-dimensional event. Ultimately, tissue disruption is the only way a bullet kills. Everything else is just the how.
Today 12:30 PM

You disrupt tissue penetrating in it.....and obviously, I agree that a bigger bullet will generate a wider wound channel....

Momentum is not a fantasy

It is not...but proponent of this conveniently forget to include the drag and frontal area equation which are HUGE factors....you do not shoot bullets in a vacuum...

Hydrostatic shock is very real as well

Actually not such proof, as much as I did read on the topic....it has been observed, at best, very faint hydrostatic shock effects in tissue immediately adjacent to the wound channel...so far the HS theory is just a theory....inconclusive...

saturno, check out http://www.chuckhawks.com/buffalo_cartridges.htm where Mr. Hawks talks about killing 930-1600 pound buffalo at 200 yards with the .45-70, yet in his chart it lacks adequate killing power at the muzzle for a 600 pound Elk.

That particular article refers to Buffalo Cartridges of the American Frontier...so it's an historical description of what our great-great grandfathers used.....he doesn't say if he considers the 45-70 adequate nowdays...

Again not adequate doesn't means not able to kill.....you still can hunt deer effectively with a 44-40 despite the fact that in our times is not longer considered optimal to the task.....


And, finally, when reloaders increased tremendously the lethality of the glorious 45-70, how they did it?? That's right increasing its velocity (and improved bullet technology) not the bullet mass.....The Strong loads for the 45-70 nowdays are considered almost African catrtridges because of their increased velocity compared to their ancestor...velociy kills indeed....

JCShirley..last post...up and out....sorry!!!

 

[Gryffydd]

But no definitive conclusion was ever reached ...

I beg to differ. They both did a wonderful job reaffirming that we are, in fact, at the top of the food chain