Method of killing game and bullet selection

[westernrover]

I like this guy's lectures. I have to disagree with him on a point he makes in this one:



Because it's lengthy, I'll summarize this way: He claims the most practical and advisable way to kill game animals (like deer) is to give them two sucking chest wounds. He goes on to suggest what are essentially traditional cup and core hunting bullets and with an additional video where he recommends such bullets based on sectional density (.240's for deer).

I had to check myself because I've found myself departed from his advice and contemplating a further departure which I will explain.

If you take the time to watch the video (I have to admit to watching him at 2x speed sometimes), you might be persuaded by his argument. If you haven't, you might not see the point of my counter-argument.

Sucking chest wounds kill far too slowly. They take several minutes to kill. I carry Hyfin chest seals in my FAK's because I can effectively treat some wounds of that type even though it could easily take me more than two or three minutes to complete the application of the seals. Killing game animals by suffocation just takes too long.

Shot Placement

My son killed a buck last season that was in a group of 7. Within a few minutes of the shot, the other deer were over a mile away and descended over 3000 feet in elevation from us (we were at 9400 feet). Fortunately, we weren't depending on the buck he shot suffocating to death. It only made it about 30 yards. It was able to break visual contact (in trees and behind rocks in the 200 yards between us) and it took us some time to find it. I would have preferred a quicker kill. Bear in mind that while my son made the shot, I'm providing the ammunition and advice on shot placement (which he performed flawlessly).

I have come to the same conclusion about shot placement as Gunblue490 -- as a former bow hunter, my goal is to make a double-lung shot and cut the heart should I be so fortunate. I don't shoot the shoulder, the neck or the brain. I think there are times for those shots so I will not condemn those who make them. Those shots are just not my goal in hunting game animals.

When I endeavor to shoot the lungs, even if I should miss the heart, my goal is not to suffocate the animal, but to drop their blood pressure so low their brain dies. The broadhead doesn't drop the blood pressure as fast as a bullet unless it perforates the heart or aorta. Suffocation may play a part in killing game with an arrow whether it is the sucking chest wounds or filling the lungs with blood, but a broad head is primarily a bloodletting weapon.

Method of Death

I would argue that bullets kill primarily by the loss of blood pressure unless they destroy part of the central nervous system. Striking the brain or spine of a twitchy game animal at 300 yards is too ambitious a goal for my skills and the consequences of a near hit are too evil for me to dare to attempt it.

From the study of terminal ballistics in gel and so forth, we understand that bullets create stretch cavities in soft tissue. With appropriate ballistic characteristics, the stretching can be enough to permanently tear tissue. With high velocity bullets, the stretching is sufficient to tear the entire organism of smaller varmints. In humans and similarly sized game animals like deer, the stretching resulting from a high velocity rifle bullet can be sufficient to tear apart individual organs or destroy blood vessels adjacent to the immediate crush path of the bullet.

The lungs are not just for air. Sucking chest wounds that don't destroy lung tissue can prevent the diaphragm from inflating the lungs, but the resulting suffocation takes too long to kill. If lung tissue is destroyed by a bullet tearing through it, there will be a massive loss of blood pressure. Lungs serve the function of air-to-blood exchange. The lungs contain a few large blood vessels like the bronchial arteries, but they also contains massive amounts of much smaller ones all the way down to the alveoli. Whether the bullet tears a few big arteries or many thousands of tinier ones, the result is a big drop in blood pressure that will terminate brain function in seconds.

I understand that "seconds" can be too long to effect a "stop" in defensive shooting. In defensive shooting, the practice is for a sniper to effect an immediate stop with a deep brain shot or at least burst the cranial cavity. For those not able to place such a shot, they are dependent on "psychological" stops or repeated hits to the "center mass" (heart, lungs, spine) to effect the stop as quickly as possible.

For hunting game animals, I think that the greater certainty of a kill within seconds is preferrable to the lower probability of successfully placing a CNS hit. "Seconds" are quick enough.

Bullet Type

Using the killing method proposed by Gunblue490, that is creating sucking chest wounds, his advice to use an expanding bullet follows reason. He explains that any bullet is going to make a relatively small entry wound that could self-seal. He desires bullet expansion and through-and-through penetration effecting a large exit wound to create a sufficiently large sucking chest wound to cause suffocation. Nevertheless, he goes on to suggest traditional cup and core bullets even though he explicitly denies the need for any fragmentation. If his method of killing was advisable, an expanding copper monolithic bullet (Barnes TTSX etc.) would be best. Because they expand very well and don't fragment and shed mass, they could be expected to most reliably produce the exit wound that he suggests is the best means of killing. I don't understand his rationale for dismissing Nosler Partitions and Swift A-frames since they would similarly be very dependable in producing exit wounds with an expanded bullet.

If destruction of lung and heart tissue and the tearing of blood vessels to effect a rapid loss of blood pressure is the preferred method of killing, then traditional cup and core bullets (Sierra Gameking) could produce greater wounding of that type, but I think they need to be sufficiently tough for the given target. An exit wound is a path for blood loss (and bloodtrailing as well). So we wouldn't want to use varmint bullets or a cup and core that is insufficient for the target (Moose).

I'm aware that there are other methods of killing that have been described as "shock" that result in immediate cessation of life (DRT), but I've not been made aware of a particular bullet or shot placement (other than a direct CNS hit) that can effect such kills consistently.

I have, up until this point, used Barnes TTSX and LRX exclusively. I'm considering the Lehigh Controlled Chaos (for mule deer and pronghorn). Bear in mind that Lehigh changed the CC bullets from brass to copper a few years ago and they expand at lower velocities now. I understand the early brass bullets had a poor reputation.



The base penetrates 24" -- enough to ensure an exit wound in deer and pronghorn. I do recognize his gel is neither calibrated nor temperature controlled. I see fairly deep penetration of the petals -- 8 or 9" maybe. Importantly, I see a huge stretch cavity that I believe would tear a lot of lung tissue. I do have a Grendel, but my boys shoot Creedmoor now and I also have a Magnum both of which could shoot this same bullet and should create with it even more wounding in the thoracic cavity without destroying meat.

Note that the Controlled Chaos is not a "fragmenting" bullet that fragments on hard barriers, nor is it a bullet that breaks into tiny low-mass pieces that fail to penetrate. It uses fluid pressure to expand like a hollowpoint, but the petals shear off the base. I might hope that it will work something like a combination of a Gameking and a TTSX. I don't have any actual results of my own yet. For sure, it would be less effective at producing a large sucking exit wound to effect death by suffocation. I don't believe that is the right goal.

 

[wombat13]

I haven’t watched the video (since you indicated it is long). Are you sure he is using the same definition of “sucking chest wound” as you? I don’t know why anyone would want to choose a bullet that would allow an animal to survive for a few minutes after shooting it through both lungs. I’ve shot deer with ballistic tips, soft points (bonded and not), Partitions, TSX, and TTSX. I’ve never seen a deer survive more than several seconds after being shot through both lungs.

I’ve found the TTSX works very well on double lung shots. What MV and impact velocity are you seeing?

 

[westernrover]

Well, I think he is doing one thing and believing another. He explains that the game is dying due to sucking chest wounds, but he is using soft points and shooting through the lungs. He apparently believes the exit wound is causing death as a sucking chest wound that causes the collapse of the lungs. What I think is actually happening is the soft points are destroying lung tissue and causing brain death by sufficient exsanguination. The sucking chest exit wound by itself would not do that, but I cannot see how a soft point could pass through the lungs without doing more than making a sucking exit wound.

My Grendel will have a muzzle velocity of just under 2700 fps with 100 grain TTSX. With 115 grain TAC-X, the MV is somewhere over 2500 fps IRC. Those slow to 2200 or 2100 fps by 200 yards. Hits with Grendel have been under 200 yards. With the 6.5 Creedmoor, the LRX had a MV of 2900 fps through my chronograph. My son double-lunged a buck at just over 200 yards where it would have impacted at 2500 fps. That's the one that went about 30 yards. The Magnum, with which I've not attempted to hit anything yet, will produce impact velocities over 3000 fps. The 127 grain LRX is too long for 1:9 twist, so my diliberations are betwen 100 grain TTSX, 115 grain TAC-X, 120 grain TTSX, and the 110 grain Controlled Chaos. I don't anticipate hunting anything bigger than deer and pronghorn, so I don't need an elk/moose bullet.

 

[Aletheia]

If he argues that a sucking chest wound is the desired consequence of shooting an animal in the heart/lungs, he knows very little about anatomy, shooting, or terminal ballistics.

 

[jmr40]

Sucking chest wounds kill far too slowly. They take several minutes to kill.

Not in my experience.

A bullet through both lungs means the animal has 15-30 seconds in my experience. Maybe double that time with an arrow in the same shot placement. When the O2 supply to the brain is shut down combined with loss of blood pressure they aren't going to remain conscious for very long.

Not what they do during those 15-30 seconds varies. MOST will lie down and die pretty close to where they are hit. A few will make a death run and an animal can run pretty far in 15-30 seconds. But they leave a blood trail Stevie Wonder could follow. I've never lost one.

 

[LoonWulf]

Nope, couldnt finish it.....i did manage to get thru bout 15mins...in chunks...

Anyway, i missed his recommendation as to bullets, and shot placement, but it SOUNDS similar to my own preference (from reading the OP).
Heavy for cal and fairly soft...splat the lungs and heart if possible.
My experience is that if you put something like that clean thru an animal its blood loss, not suffocation that does the work. Id be willing to bet fairly stupendous shock transfer helps too, if you can drive the bullets fast enough.

I'll admit my preferences are driven by the fact that I don't really like having to follow stuff, and this combination seems to produce the quickest kills for me..... Short of scrambling the control bits....I find that smell very unpleasant though, and it's a small target.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I don’t know what he means by sucking chest wounds but if that is what results from a double lung hit behind the shoulder then that works plenty good and kills fast enough that most folks recommend that shot nearly above all others.

Where there may be contention is on the “two” part. I have run into a segment who swears up and down they want the bullet to dump all its energy into the game animal. Seems like a good theory and in general it is as long as it has destroyed lungs/heart etc. I like an exit wound. If my bullet doesn’t exit on a broadside or close to broadside shot, I will generally move up a power class of rifle and cartridge.

That is generally why my deer rifles have calibers starting with 4 and one starts with a 5. I used a 300 Win Mag last year and it worked splendidly. Go ahead and tell me it is too much if you want. Dead deer will ensure that I am not going to listen.

 

[Ru4real]

@westernrover How long should it take to kill a deer, elk, or moose with a rifle?

How long do wolves take to kill same when they start by eating guts and hind end first? I’m asking the second question to put the first in perspective.

 

[westernrover]

To be sure, I'm in agreement with the man in the video with respect to my preference for shot placement -- double-lung and heart if possible. The point in contention is why this placement works or how it works. I believe it works by tearing the lung tissue causing sufficient exsanguination to drop blood pressure and the volume of oxygenated blood to the brain, resulting in death in less than a minute -- 15 to 30 seconds sounds about right. Gunblue490 contends the death following a shot like this is a result of disrupting lung function, the ability of the lungs to inflate in particular, and that the mechanism that causes this is the exit wound. I know I can exhale and hold my breath while I run for several minutes and that a man with a sucking chest wound can live for many minutes. I don't believe that an exit wound is necessary for a quick kill, but I always strive for one. Bear in mind there is a distinction between what we believe about how a bullet kills or how it can kill most effectively, and consequently how we endeavor to go about performing this.

I was asked, how long should it take to kill a game animal with a rifle? I want it to take as little time as possible, but the quickness of the kill isn't the only criteria. We know that CNS hits would be faster than exsanguination, but given our method of using rifle from several hundred yards away in unstable terrain and field conditions that challenge our ability to employ the best marksmanship, the more certain death within 15 to 30 seconds resulting from a double-lung shot is preferable to the greater risk missing the CNS and having death take minutes, hours or days.

I am a moral being held to an ethical standard that does not apply to wolves. Moreover, I do not have the speed or tracking ability of a pack of wolves that would enable to me follow wounded game to complete the kill should it take much longer than minutes. If my method of killing took that long, I would have a high probability of losing the game and the carcass going to waste. Because I have greater abilities and no dependency on the kill for my own survival, I endeavor to do better than a dog.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Well some folks have it through it seems.

https://hams.online/en/blog/the-science-behind-the-shot-deer-physiology-during-hunting

http://wdai.ie/deer-shot-placements-reactions/

https://deeruniversity.libsyn.com/episode-057-using-science-to-improve-deer-harvest-success-0

 

[jmorris]

The quickest way I have killed things is by shutting down the central nervous system. By number I have probably killed more dove and hogs than any other animal. Popping the head off the dove or a well placed head shot is always quicker than any method that just deprives them of blood or air.

That said, there is an argument for people to give them a larger target, that’s also critical for function, just not as critical. Turns a “dead right there” into a little nature walk..

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Overthinking

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It has been my experience that there is no best bullet for deer or whatever. What there is are different types of bullets that perform in different manners to produce the desires results (animal down, very quickly).

You have your two hole guys. They usually want a soft point type of bullet or another bullet that expands and retains its petals, but penetrates deeply. Some are happy with bullets that have petals that expand and break off so long as the base of the bullet continues on to make the 2nd hole in the skin.

Some guys like bullets to "dump ALL the energy" inside the animal. Most tend to want a bullet that expands well, stays expanded (versus curled back down the side of the bullet) so that the expanded petals are making a much wider wound channel until the bullet stops. Then, there are the folks that use frangible bullets like Berger, wanting a bullet that has a very large wound cavity that makes it into the vital, but that does not usually produce and exit. No surprise, many meat hunters avoid frangible bullets because of the amount of fragmentation and polluting of surrounding meat by tiny pieces of metal.

In the caliber I shoot, I have favorites for each type of performance, but generally speaking given that I am not a meat hunter, I like the frangible rounds for my hunting (hogs, coyotes, beaver, other varmints). With that said, I still don't think the "energy dump" does much unless I happen to get lucky with hydrostatic shock doing brain stem damage when I make a shot to the vitals and the hog is DRT on the spot where it was shot because the shockwave did shut down the CNS, but this is unreliable as a performance mechanism to count on working. I just like all of the blatant tissue destruction from frangible ammo for typical CNS or broadside vitals shots. I also like frangible ammo because if bullets do pass through an animal, they are usually much smaller fragments at a reduced velocity without the ability to travel as far or do nearly as much collateral damage down range. For my applications, this is sometimes important. My most favorite hog bullet would have to be the Federal Speer TNT 90 gr. varmint bullet as it does a great job on tissue damage and the bullet tends to come apart very nicely at whatever velocities it is going inside 300 yards such that from a 90 gr. bullet I am lucky to find any pieces larger than 20 grains and that is usually just the bottom of the base, flattened with a little lead on one side and a little copper jacket on the other...and I use a metal detector to find my captured bullets.

And to be clear, my favorites in each category are the ones that tend to produce the most observable tissue damage. If I use a bullet that is supposed to be through and through, I want one that will be through and through with a larger hole than a smaller hole. I don't just want the base of the bullet exiting and leaving a little hole. I want an expanded bullet making much larger exit hole.

Of course, how the bullet performs will depend on the velocity of the bullet at the time of impact. Velocity at impact really influences how well a bullet performs. I have found that with Hornady SST bullets, I usually get good through and through performance on hogs up to 200 lbs and often on hogs much larger, but with diminishing performance. That is for a typical shot inside about 100 yards. The bullet usually will have expanded and broke apart, sometimes explosively-looking for the expansion, with lots of tissue damage and a lot of polluting of the meat beyond the wound channel itself. Hitting a hog at 300-350 yards and the bullet is going to perform more like a soft point and generally still get a lot of penetration along with some expansion and still decent results.

I haven’t watched the video (since you indicated it is long). Are you sure he is using the same definition of “sucking chest wound” as you? I don’t know why anyone would want to choose a bullet that would allow an animal to survive for a few minutes after shooting it through both lungs.

It is a common practice that after shooting a deer that runs off to give the deer time to either collapse, or bed down and then collapse and die. I have heard anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes. After all, you don't want to 'push' the deer by going and looking for a live deer too soon and having it move away from you continually until either it dies or you give up (or both). This can make for a long and sometimes totally fruitless search because the animal won't stay still and out of frustration, the hunter gives up searching for it. Best to let it bed down and bleed out in on location, some folks feel.

 

[alsaqr]

The quickest way I have killed things is by shutting down the central nervous system.

Yes!!!

My preference is for high shoulder or high just behind the shoulder shots. The deer bang flops, sometimes they don't kick. Ditto for hogs.

i try to avoid head on and angling to shots.

 

[Ru4real]

…I would have a high probability of losing the game and the carcass going to waste. Because I have greater abilities and no dependency on the kill for my own survival, I endeavor to do better than a dog.

I think striving to be better is always a good thing. I also think a lot of folks neglect developing, testing and honing tracking skills, which I consider essential to hunting.

 

[jmorris]

I also think a lot of folks neglect developing, testing and honing tracking skills, which I consider essential to hunting.

The latter becoming ever more important with the lack of time and energy put forth for the first two in relation to the ammunition and shot placement.

 

[AK Hunter]

I select my deer hunting round by shooting them though pumpkins, squash or melons to verify the expansion & accuracy before taking them to the woods.
Most of my deer kills are from double lung/heart shots from exact placement of the bullet. It doesn't only put holes through but with the speed the bullet is traveling it vaporizes the lung & heart tissue.


This doe didn't have any lungs left after the shot & was dead within seconds, no tracking needed.
I'm a meat hunter so there was only a little rib meat damaged.
It was shot with a Winchester 350 Legend power point from an AR 18" barreled rifle.

 

[buck460XVR]

Every experienced hunter has their own idea of proper bullet and shot placement. Any proper modern bullet intended for the game you are hunting along with a boiler room shot, an arterial shot or a shot to the CNS is going to kill the animal in a relatively short time, and in most instances produce a scenario where you watch the animal drop, or it leaves enough of a bloodtrail to retrieve the animal. It's when either of those is not done, where experienced hunters have an issue. Hunters that take poor percentage shots, misplace the shot, either accidentally or from ignorance or do not have clue on trailing an animal, produce scenarios where the chance of retrieval is minimal.

He claims the most practical and advisable way to kill game animals (like deer) is to give them two sucking chest wounds.

I too did not bother to watch the lengthy video, basically because your summation. Is the guy talking about a entry and exit wound or shooting the deer twice? With a bow, a pass thru, especially from an elevated stand makes a lot of difference if one is depending on a blood trail. Same goes for hunting with a rifle. Hits at an acute angle that do not exit, means the body cavity has to fill up before the deer starts leaking any great amount. As for the "sucking" part, deer will die from the loss of blood from a good lung hit long before they die from lack of oxygen.

How long should it take to kill a deer, elk, or moose with a rifle?

How long do wolves take to kill same when they start by eating guts and hind end first? I’m asking the second question to put the first in perspective.

I can't see what perspective, if any this statement produces, relative to the OP. Since the object of any responsible hunter is a quick, clean kill, comparing how an animal that has only teeth to take down their prey, to Modern firearms and archery equipment is like comparing a stock Ford Fiesta to a Corvette on a dragstrip. Pretty simple thinking tells you which one is faster and the only perspective is, if you are going to race, race against something comparable. A wolf that starts eating at the guts of a deer as it's trying to get away, is still going to produce a quicker and more humane kill than a deer that has been gutshot or had one hind leg shot. That's perspective.

 

[Patocazador]

If I have my druthers, I'll shoot them in the neck if they are close enough. They go about a foot and a half after all the flailing around. However, I shoot Nosler Partitions, if available, for both expansion AND penetration. I have double-lunged mature bucks with them where the buck dropped right there. If that doesn't happen, then there is always an ample blood trail that ends in 80 yards or less.

I don't try new-fangled anything until it has been proven to work. I'll let the guys who want the newest & best thing to do my experimentation and then I'll convert if the results are good.

Killing something involves having a respect for the animal and not letting it get away and die hours or days later. New unproven bullets, loads, and techniques sometimes let that happen.

 

[OFFGRID]

gunblue has been at this stuff for over 50 years. i dont really care about the science of it all. If he tells me to shoot a deer in the lungs with a bullet that has a minumal sectional density of 240 with soft point ill do it...and i have and they never ran more than 50 yards. i dont really care what the wound is called.

i love his K.I.S.S. it approach....especially when it comes to reloading. far too many people get caught up in all the hoopla of internet eletism/consumerism and get discouraged thinking they need this or that unless they want to fail miserably.

hes been the greatest resource for me in my new reloading journey. he has great videos on annealing with multiple methods, cheap to expensive, and tells people in a no non-sense way how to get the job done without spending a fortune. hes also a man of faith and doesnt mind sharing it and i respect that as well.

 

[LoonWulf]

gunblue has been at this stuff for over 50 years. i dont really care about the science of it all. If he tells me to shoot a deer in the lungs with a bullet that has a minumal sectional density of 240 with soft point ill do it...and i have and they never ran more than 50 yards. i dont really care what the wound is called.

i love his K.I.S.S. it approach....especially when it comes to reloading. far too many people get caught up in all the hoopla of internet eletism/consumerism and get discouraged thinking they need this or that unless they want to fail miserably.

hes been the greatest resource for me in my new reloading journey. he has great videos on annealing with multiple methods, cheap to expensive, and tells people in a no non-sense way how to get the job done without spending a fortune. hes also a man of faith and doesnt mind sharing it and i respect that as well.

Nothing wrong with that!

Im sure a lot of his videos ARE helpful, and for someone with no inkling on where to put a bullet in a deer/deer size animal, or what bullets to use, this one would be also.

I do disagree with his opinion, or at least have very different personal experiences, on a number of things in this video......And i gotta ask anyone who has more info than I. Can you actually get in trouble for shooting a deers antlers off?

 

[westernrover]

gunblue has been at this stuff for over 50 years. i dont really care about the science of it all. If he tells me to shoot a deer in the lungs with a bullet that has a minumal sectional density of 240 with soft point ill do it...and i have and they never ran more than 50 yards. i dont really care what the wound is called.

i love his K.I.S.S. it approach....especially when it comes to reloading. far too many people get caught up in all the hoopla of internet eletism/consumerism and get discouraged thinking they need this or that unless they want to fail miserably.

hes been the greatest resource for me in my new reloading journey. he has great videos on annealing with multiple methods, cheap to expensive, and tells people in a no non-sense way how to get the job done without spending a fortune. hes also a man of faith and doesnt mind sharing it and i respect that as well.

That's why I was willing to watch the 48 minutes long video and began my post with a statement of admiration for his lectures which indeed cover a variety of topics. This most definitely was not intended as a rip on Gunblue490. I listened to him for nearly an hour and then spent hours more thinking about what he said. I don't do that for fools. I just came to the conclusion that he is mistaken about some things in this video and that I needed to understand what the truth is concerning those things because it does have a bearing on the choices I make when hunting.

 

[westernrover]

Is the guy talking about a entry and exit wound or shooting the deer twice? With a bow, a pass thru, especially from an elevated stand makes a lot of difference if one is depending on a blood trail. Same goes for hunting with a rifle. Hits at an acute angle that do not exit, means the body cavity has to fill up before the deer starts leaking any great amount. As for the "sucking" part, deer will die from the loss of blood from a good lung hit long before they die from lack of oxygen.

Entry and exit. The desirability of an exit wound isn't in dispute, at least not here. What's disputed is whether the exit wound is for bleeding or for suffocating. In the video, he describes sucking chest wounds and explains the function of the diaphragm in inflating the lungs and so forth. He makes it evident that he has a clear understanding of what a sucking chest wound is and claims this is the means of a death sufficiently quick for killing game animals and why the exit wound is to be desired. I dissented, not about the exit wound, but why it matters and more importantly, what it is that actually kills the game with a double lung shot.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Admittedly, I didn't watch nor finish reading the whole post, just wanna make an observation as I sit here on the commode.

I would note that with animals, the shots often taken are broadside double lung with high powered rifles

Very different than many EMT/medic/first aide/first responder "sucking chest would scenarios". I'm assuming we are all getting held up on definitions of words when it's an apple/oranges scenario.

Maybe bigger animals fall faster, but my recent big moose is my example: shouldered first on the run then double lunged on the reload. Once I double lunged him, he maybe went 15 yards and died in less than 30 seconds. Blood spraying from him torso/chest in vertical sprays with his few breaths and buckets coming from his mouth via his breathing tube.

You're not gonna bandage that wound.

For reference, I was using Hornady 338 SST lead core bullets out of an RCM guide gun.

 

[earlthegoat2]

If he tells me to shoot a deer in the lungs with a bullet that has a minumal sectional density of 240 with soft point ill do it...

Im not going to argue with that specific advice and anyone would be well served if they took it.

I have far less experience than he but I do have experience with 12 and 20 ga slugs vs deer. Those have abysmal sectional density (.119 for 12 ga) yet are some of the best bang flop projectiles I have ever seen to this day.

I also don’t care about the science as I still will use faster slugs in some circumstances. With the hunting of live game animal, I have found things like sectional density, energy ft-lbs, as well as ballistic gelatin testing only get you so far.

Those things make for fun campfire talk but I have found that what you as an individual have experienced while hunting are the only things you can rely on.