Testing hunting rounds for brush penetration

[rednrusty]

I'm 82 and so the article I saw in a sporting magazine probably was printed before most of you were! The fellow conducting the test used a series of plywood panels to simulate various limbs ,branches and twigs to be penetrated. The panels were slid into grooves in the base panel that were at a variety of angles to the bullet's path. This collection of obstacles were to give an exact duplicate of the penetration problem to each successive bullet. The panels' positions were moved as the sets of tests progressed, to keep the obstacles fresh. A wide range of cartridges were used in groups of 3 or 5 to enlarge the test base. The gun was set up with no barrier panels, just a target panel ,which was holed for the initial shot. The shots of varied calibers ,tip types, weights, construction and manufacturers were fired through the panels being advanced during breaks between the tests. It took a huge amount of ammo and quite a few panels to run the series of tests. I hope with this much description there is somebody that can shed some light on this test. The most profound result, to me , is that the brush busters of fame were outdone by light, fast bullets. Calibers, bullet weights and types of bullet construction are unknown. The possible publications were ,"Sports Afield, Field and Stream , Outdoor Life or the NRA magazine. I don't remember if there were other specialty magazines about guns at that time. rnr After submitting this and re-reading it, I have to add that the initial shot, with no panels interfering, was followed by inserting the panels in their grooves, followed by each shot of the group and the amounts of deflection were measured

 

[MARKMALL]

I remember an article in The American Rifleman written by Finn Aagaard. This was in the early 80's most likely.

 

[dodge]

I remember the same article or one just like it but the writer used wooden dowels to simulate twigs and branches set before the target. I believe I saw it either in the late 70's or early 80's.

 

[jmr40]

Read it too. There is no such thing as a bullet going through brush without being deflected. The best brush guns/chamberings are those that shoot flat enough, and accurate enough to avoid the brush by shooting through the openings.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The best brush guns/chamberings are those that shoot flat enough, and accurate enough to avoid the brush by shooting through the openings.

LOL, as ABQ SWAT sniper Steve Rodriguez found out, it isn't always an issue of flat bullet trajectory, but of mechanical offset between the scope and the barrel bore. He placed two well-aimed shots intended for a hostage taker's head into the wall just a few feet in front of his own rifle. It not for another officer, he would have put a third shot into the wall as well.

Problem is, bullets often climb from the bore out quite some distance before reaching the optical axis. Depending on how zeroed, this may be anywhere from 100-200 yards. Even with a flat trajectory bullet, it may still hit some unseen obstacle below your line of sight or even obstacles not noticed because they were small and on a different focal plane, as when one looks out of the brush at a big buck 300 yards in the distance and fails to even notice the small branches only yards from one's face.

 

[rcmodel]

http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot40.htm

This from a post on Castboolets.com

Both articles on bullet deflection were published in Guns & Ammo.

Article by Mike Venturino June 1989:

- Mike used rows of dowels of 3/8" and 1/8" (different tests)
- cartridges used: .308 Win; 6mm Rem; .45-70
- the target was set up initially at 5' behind the rows of 3/8" dowels
- group sized from all cartridges showed approx 1 1/2" to 2 1/2" but the .308 & 6mm keyholed while .45-70 didn't
- then 7.63 x 30 FMJ was tested to see if the soft points were the problem ~ it keyholed too
- other designs of .45-70 bullets were tested including spitzer and all flew straight
- dowels moved to 15' from gun and 135' from target ~ even .45-70 missed the target
- dowels changed to 1/8" results the same


Article by Ross Seyfried August 1990:

This one was actually for rifled shotguns and slugs not rifles

- Ross used elm branches bunched in front of the target so little regularity in branch size hit
- a variety of slugs were used with all showing deflection
- worst was the .50 cal. BRI sabot slug which keyholed
- best was round ball
- Brenneke slugs did reasonably well with some horizontal spread

rc

 

[redneck2]

Three years ago I shot at one of the biggest deer I've seen in 45 years of hunting. Problem was, I was shooting directly into the sunset and couldn't see a willlow with branches maybe the size of pencil lead about ten feet in front of me.

This was with a 12 gauge sabot that prints tennis ball size groups at 125 yards. Missed totally at about 40 yards. I had a good rest and was dead on. After pulling the trigger the first time, I'd have bet my life savings the deer would be down.

If a 12 gauge slug won't plow thru brush I'm not gonna believe any rifle bullit will. All the crap about "brush buster" is total BS IMO.

 

[gdcpony]

I remember a similar article, but different too. I can't remember much of it, but it put the 30-30 and the .243 to the test and the .243 came out on top by far.

I know it also said the same as we have read here- there is no true brush buster round.

 

[Malamute]

I recall a test from maybe the 70's. It was the wood dowels. One of the better performers was the 270 with RN bullets, and some that were considered classic "brush busters" didn't do real well. Bottom line is, no round is that consistant in shooting through brush. In general, its a bad idea to attempt. There was a fair variety of chamberings and loads tried.

 

[22-rimfire]

The brush buster calibers is BS. I don't care what caliber it is. I don't need to read an article on the subject.

As redneck2 said, it is very easy to overlook a small branch that might be close to you if you're using a scope as you are focusing at some distance.

 

[gdcpony]

Last bow season I took a 20yd shot on a deer with a 400grain arrow tipped with a cut on contact broadhead. I didn't see the branch thinner than the arrow that was 3' in front of the deer. I got to see my arrow go from on target for the "pocket" behind the front shoulder and flying true to being sent almost sideways to the right and strike the deer through the hip. It was a horrifying example of this thread's point.

I managed a second arrow as it ran (it went in a U around me for some reason) that gave me a trail to follow, but it took five hours to find it. The second arrow had cut through one lung thankfully. If I had missed that shot, this deer would have suffered for a long time.

 

[hardluk1]

That's is why I like to use a good low variable power scope 2.5 to 10 when hunting in thick bottoms as I need to pick that shot on a deer thru the branch's and brush . Open sights and some of the lowest power scope and dots may not get the job done if you can't see well enough to find the open spots. .

 

[Savage99]

Welcome to the forum rednrusty,

Back in the 60's I acquired a 99F in .358 Win. It's purpose was hunting deer in Northern New England. Back then we talked about Brush Guns also and I wanted to compare my prize rifle with the other cartridges.

I set up a very large target to catch any bullets and fired through brush and branches set a dense array in just in front of the target.

The 358 did no better or different than similar cartridges. The primary factor for good, fair, best and no ability was what I call power.

The best was the 375 H&H magnum, the largest rifle I had. Very good was the 30-06 with 180's and the 358 was pretty good. Poor were the .22 CF's like the 219 Zipper and the branches would stop a 22 LR if it hit one.

My conclusion is to try to shoot around trees, branches and brush.

I do prefer powerful guns for game hunting to produce a quick demise of the beast.

 

[palmrose2]

I recall an article years ago where the tester used random piles of brush for deflection. His conclusion was that total energy of the projectile was the deciding factor. Not bullet shape or weight. Basically agreed with what savage99 wrote.