Best "brush buster" gun?

[jim in Anchorage]

In the 45-70 thread there's a bit of disscusion on this, and I thought it would be a good subject on it's own. By " brush buster" I mean a cartridge you feel can be depended on to shoot straight though heavy brush (thin branches bushs) and not deflect. I have heard opinions on this ranging from .243 to wadcutter 45-70s. Thoughts?

 

[Llama Bob]

I mentioned my beliefs in the previous thread - that big heavy flat meplat monolithic solids with sharp corners would do the best. Something like http://www.northforkbullets.com/magento/products/bullets/458-450-fps.html/

But I'll be the first to admit that that's just my guess based on the fact that they have the deepest penetration and track the straightest in other media, and seem to do well in terms of tracking straight in animals. I've certainly never sat around and shot at shrubs with targets behind them to see what actually happens.

 

[F250GUY]

I like my .303 British and 7.62x54Rmm loaded with 180 grain fodder, as well as my Marlin .44 Magnum, loaded with 240 gr. fodder or a 12 ga. with slugs. .30-30 with 170 gr. fodder seemed to be marginal.

 

[tark]

Jim, I actually did spend an afternoon years ago shooting at targets behind bushes and shrubs and small branches. (!/4" or less.) I had a 45-70 with factory 405 Gr. flat points,; a 30-06 with both 180 grain softpoints and also some hardball ammo; and a 30-30. I was curious to see if the slow, large brush- bucking calibers myth was true. It wasn't

All three did fairly well on really soft obstructions like leaves but all three were randomly deflected to a considerable degree when I got to the sticks and branches. My target was a paper plate stapled to a tree, about ten yards past the obstructions. I can't really say the 45-70 was better than the others. With sticks and branches in the way, only about one shot in five hit the plate at all. There were no classic keyholes, but there were some elongated holes, indicating the bullet was yawing and not flying point first.

Obviously, the closer the plate was to the obstruction, the better the results. I am no hunter, but I think that shooting through brush is not a good idea, unless the animal is right next to it.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Jim, I actually did spend an afternoon years ago shooting at targets behind bushes and shrubs and small branches. (!/4" or less.) I had a 45-70 with factory 405 Gr. flat points,; a 30-06 with both 180 grain softpoints and also some hardball ammo; and a 30-30. I was curious to see if the slow, large brush- bucking calibers myth was true. It wasn't

All three did fairly well on really soft obstructions like leaves but all three were randomly deflected to a considerable degree when I got to the sticks and branches. My target was a paper plate stapled to a tree, about ten yards past the obstructions. I can't really say the 45-70 was better than the others. With sticks and branches in the way, only about one shot in five hit the plate at all. There were no classic keyholes, but there were some elongated holes, indicating the bullet was yawing and not flying point first.

Obviously, the closer the plate was to the obstruction, the better the results. I am no hunter, but I think that shooting through brush is not a good idea, unless the animal is right next to it.

Interesting. I would say you're one of the few that actually tried it rather then going off anecdotal accounts.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I have a friend that has fired through brush. He says that 7.62x51 NATO works much better then 5.56.
It is best to wait and take your shot when your target is in the clear. There is nothing wrong with letting your target go when you can't get a clean shot. I don't think any of us would starve if we didn't bring something home each time we went hunting.

 

[MisterNoisy]

AR in .50 Beowulf?

 

[adcoch1]

I have tried 7.62x39 and 12ga slugs and buckshot. Buckshot did ok, the pattern didn't change much, but that hardly helps the conversation, the 7.62 x39 would deflect pretty easily, and 12 ga slugs would cut through ok, but did still deflect a bit. The larger the weight difference between the bullet and the brush the larger the deflection. A 16" naval gun would probably shoot through an oak forest without too much deflection...

 

[PapaG]

My son and I have each missed deer, 35 years apart, by hitting one little "tree/branch" that we didn't see as it was midway between shooter and deer. Both at approx 60 yards and both with guns we were very familiar with.
Long story short, it doesn't take much to deflect a bullet. One a .58, other a .50, both flat nose slugs.
Say what you will, I think taking a shot at game through brush is doing the game no favors.
Tests run for years have shown that short of a Cat D11, not much is going to "plow" through brush without being affected.
I'll take my shots in the open, or through clear windows in the brush, thank you.
No offense to those who believe in "brush busters", I'm just not a believer.
72 year old luddite who likes blue steel, walnut, levers and big holes in the barrel but have no problem with anyone using whatever makes a humane kill.

 

[midland man]

well heres my knowledge! I use a 30-30 and I load 170gr jsp bullets with 33.6gr win760 powder and I have shot thru brush and did it very well! and I knew for sure I was shooting a deer as I have a scope on my rifle! but yeah the 30-30 is a woods gun that will perform!! p.s. I been hunting with my 30-30 for almost 27 years and it works perfect!!

 

[Hanshi]

I mostly agree with Tark. A fine, accurate cartridge/rifle with a good scope is about as good as one can get for shooting through "holes" and "gaps" in foliage, nothing works as a "bush buster". And even if a round is just a teeny bit better it doesn't matter. You don't want to shoot a deer just a teeny bit.

 

[redneck2]

I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as a brush buster, unless it's maybe a .50 cal.

Maybe 7-8 years ago I was deer hunting. Looking directly into the setting sun. Huge deer that I had been watching stands up. Absolutely easy shot from about 40 yards with a 12 gauge rifled slug. Gun shoots tennis ball size groups at 125 yards. Even had a tree truck to steady. Slam dunk.

I didn't see the bush with branches maybe the size of the lead in a pencil, or maybe up to the size of a pencil. Three shots, three misses.

If a 12 gauge slug won't get thru, nothing is gonna get thru

 

[Big7]

In the 45-70 thread there's a bit of disscusion on this, and I thought it would be a good subject on it's own. By " brush buster" I mean a cartridge you feel can be depended on to shoot straight though heavy brush (thin branches bushs) and not deflect. I have heard opinions on this ranging from .243 to wadcutter 45-70s. Thoughts?

No.. A little weight helps but you should not take a shot without a reasonable expectation of a CLEAN kill.

Might want to look at a Marlin 336 in 35 Rem. At the conditions you describe, said game will be just as dead.
I'm not recoil sensitive at all.
Just saying.

 

[jmr40]

The best brush busters are extremely accurate rifles with laser flat trajectories with good optics that allow the shooter to shoot through OPENINGS in the brush. All bullets deflect when they hit brush and this myth was busted 50 years ago.

 

[zb338]

I remember the American Rifleman had a test with brush vs. different bullets. I think they came to the
conclusion that the bullets that were stabilized with the proper rifling did the best. For the most part
none of them did too well. I might be wrong about this it's been a long time. They didn't use twigs they
used dowels when running the test.
Zeke

 

[someguy2800]

The only deer I ever lost was one that I wounded in the woods at 50 yards or so with a 100 grain barnes in my 25-06. After blood trailing it for a half mile or so onto the neighbors property the trail went cold and we had to give up. After looking from the stand again we found a small tree branch about 1/4" diameter that had a clear fresh bullet mark in it about 15 yards from where the deer was. I later looking up some testing that people have done shooting through wood dowels and the conclusion after much testing was that all bullets of large and small diameter and different nose profiles deflect to a considerable degree when they hit brush. I came to the consensus that trying to shoot through brush is stupidity.

 

[Art Eatman]

Through the years, tests in the Dope Bag of the American Rifleman were consistent: All bullets will deflect some. A major factor is the distance from the (twig, limb, dowel, whatever) to the intended target. If the brush is close, less deflection. And, yeah, heavy bullets deflect less--as expected.

My uncle became a life member of the NRA in 1940. I read all his back issues, then my own until I changed to the Hunter, plus my father's issues until 2003. That's a bunch of Dope Bag stuff. (Not claiming that I remember all of them, of course.)

 

[Walkalong]

shooting through brush is not a good idea, unless the animal is right next to it.

Yep.

 

[FL-NC]

I assume you are talking about hunting applications. The simple answer is that there is none. Plan on deflection, keyholing, and deformation of projectiles. This means that if the bullet even hits the target, it likely won't hit where you plan, and it very likely won't perform as designed. If it is tumbling, the end of the bullet that is supposed to hit first won't. If it is deformed, then it won't perform inside of the target (if it hits said target) in the intended manner. Not to mention losses in velocity and energy at the given distance. So the best answer is to find a loophole in the vegetation, wait for the animal to expose the desired area of impact, or just accept it as a lost opportunity.
If the application is against humans in a gun fight, all bets are off. At that point, the only object is to put down or disable the threat before the favor is returned to you and yours, so do what you have to in order to make this happen.

 

[armoredman]

A movie called Deadly Weapons done about 30+ years ago did a lot of testing of things like this, including the deflection in brush. IIRC the conclusion was everything will deflect. Interesting movie to watch if you get the chance, once you get past the useless water jug testing in the first part.

 

[Llama Bob]

If a 12 gauge slug won't get thru, nothing is gonna get thru

I don't see why that would be the case. Plenty of calibers shoot bullets in the same weight class, but which are much more rigid and have sharp corners on the meplat and higher sectional density. The sectional density of a 12ga non-sabot 1 1/8oz slug is only 0.135 - less than half that of many rifle rounds.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I'd pick 12 gauge slugs if brush busting was realistically expected. Brenneke Black Magic... 600 grains at 1500 fps. That will plow through a lot.

Deaf

 

[someguy2800]

I just looked up the "deadly weapons" video mentioned above and they even tested a 50 bmg which showed it showed the bullet was turning sideways after going through some brush. So I would say the idea of a brush buster bullet is truly busted.

 

[Llama Bob]

I just looked up the "deadly weapons" video mentioned above and they even tested a 50 bmg which showed it showed the bullet was turning sideways after going through some brush. So I would say the idea of a brush buster bullet is truly busted.

.50BMG bullets generally have excellent sectional density, but I've yet to see one with a flat, sharp meplat. Many are also not particularly rigid.

 

[FL-NC]

To caveat by previous post- 7.62 NATO worked well when busting through light brush and even cornfields and wheatfields. In Afghanistan. With a M134 minigun.