StoppingPower.net Forums
Home
Forums
Commentary
H&S
About
StoppingPower.net Forums



StoppingPower.net Forums
StoppingPower.net Forums
StoppingPower.net Forums
Forums Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ | Invite a friend
 All Forums
 The Real World
 The Hunting Lodge
 Ruined meat?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List Spell Checker
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I] Cheeky [:x)]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)] Speechless [:u]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)] Spin [88]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)] Loud [()]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?] Wink2 [;)]
Bugout [8~o] Kiss [xox] Love [xo] Grow [%] Cry [:-[)]

 
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
jle3030 Posted - January 11 2019 : 9:24:28 PM
A question for the handgun hunters: How big a problem is ruined meat along the wound track? If it's a problem, what calibers or bullet types are the chief offenders?

Jeff


18   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Chris Christian Posted - January 19 2019 : 3:21:45 PM
Jeff, bloodshot meat from handgun hits can, and likely will, exist if you smack a big Magnum bullet through both shoulders on a broadside shot. The shoulder meat is a mess... likely do the bone fragments... but it's still a mess.
gw Posted - January 19 2019 : 11:26:05 AM
you'ld need to shoot the hog with the .44, then bring it back to life and shoot it in the exact same place with the .223

when smokeless powder came into use, hunters noticed the effect of high velocity rifle ammo on game compared to slower black powder loads

they didn't need the why

sometimes just go with what you know



Ace Posted - January 19 2019 : 10:57:54 AM
I could offer definitive proof that a light, fast, small-caliber bullet is a better stopper than a heavy, slow, large caliber bullet. I shot one hog at ~25-30 yards with a .44Magnum 240gr SP bullet, another at about the same distance with a .223 55gr SP bullet; both bullets from 16" barrels; both pigs almost identical size and weight, both shot side-to-side through the ribs. The .44 pig ran 50-70 yards before dropping, the .223 pig dropped on the spot. Everything was exactly the same in both situations, except for some differences. So there is inarguable proof that the .223 is a better stopper than the .44.

Or at least isn't that how some of the arguments go? Ace
gw Posted - January 19 2019 : 10:08:17 AM
stuffing ammo into a pocket pistol that can create a significant pressure wave is the problem

"The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12 in ballistic gelatin. Maximising ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment. Understanding the potential benefits of remote ballistic pressure wave effects leads us to favor loads with at least 500 ft-lbs of energy."

a .500 S&W can get you there reliably, chambering that round in a LCP is problematic.

if they could get .44 magnum into a Glock G19 with zero recoil, I might need one though.....
jle3030 Posted - January 19 2019 : 08:35:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gw

quote:
Originally posted by jle3030

OK, I'll confess. This was a leading question. It has become widely postulated that handguns lack any real 'stopping power'. Only the tissue directly impacted by the bullet is affected and, lacking a CNS hit, bleeding is the only true stopping mechanism. "Tissue is resilient", so any temporary stretch cavity has no real effect. Muzzle energy seems now to be largely discounted as a predicter of stopping effectiveness. It's all about the bullet; what it physically comes in contact with; and "one bullet track looks much like another".

If all that is true, then hunters should see no peripheral meat loss and be able to "eat right up to the bullet hole". You would also think smaller game animals would not be particularly torn up by being hit with "too much gun".

I'm not a handgun hunter, so it seemed logical to ask those who are. Do you see ruined meat adjacent to the bullet track or is there just a clean caliber sized hole?

The usual answer to such questions is "It depends..." If so, what are the variables?

Jeff



I don't think you can discount hydrostatic shock, the closer you get to rifle velocity with a handgun, the more significant the affect on "stopping power"

2,000 fps seems to be the threshhold, that's why people that discount the M1 carbine at 1,900 fps as just a handgun round in a rifle, might be missing the point

varibles? maybe velocity, bullet type, and certainly what is impacted

"The degree of injury produced by temporary cavitation is quite variable, erratic, and highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. Many flexible, elastic soft tissues such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to the blunt trauma and contusion caused by the stretch of temporary cavitation. Inelastic tissues such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder, are highly susceptible to severe permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture due to temporary cavitation insults."

And that's before any consideration of the fact that the body is permeated with countless nerve fibers, branches, trunks and plexuses; both sensory and motor. You don't have to be hit in the CNS to experience profound effects from a local impact that won't show up on necropsy. Been hit in the solar plexus lately? Or the testicles?

The 'scientific method', now referred to as 'evidence based research' insists that for something to be accepted fact, it must be observable, quantifiable, and repeatable. 'Stopping power' is none of that.

Every shooting of man or beast is a one off, subject to a near infinite number of variables impossible to observe in the moment, identify, quantify, or replicate. As such, all results are discounted by modern researchers as 'anecdotal' regardless of the cumulative body of implied conclusions. So handgun stopping power is no longer a thing. It used to be, back when folks with a lifetime's experience of shooting critters and men were listened to, but no more. Tissue directly impacted by the bullet is credited as destroyed. Disability and death due to blood loss are demonstrable. Ditto for CNS destruction. But psychological stops? Temporary wound channel? Neurologic shock effects?

"Sorry, but they're all meaningless, because we can't observe, quantify, or replicate them. And my God man, where is your control group?"

So that's why I asked about bloodshot meat in animals harvested with handguns. If, in fact, only the tissue impacted by the bullet is destroyed and if blood loss is the killing mechanism, no animal should ever drop to the shot except for skeletal damage or CNS hits. And bloodshot meat from handgun hits should not exist.

Jeff
Ace Posted - January 18 2019 : 7:27:08 PM
Sounds like an eloquent way to say 'It depends.' Ace
gw Posted - January 18 2019 : 5:38:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jle3030

OK, I'll confess. This was a leading question. It has become widely postulated that handguns lack any real 'stopping power'. Only the tissue directly impacted by the bullet is affected and, lacking a CNS hit, bleeding is the only true stopping mechanism. "Tissue is resilient", so any temporary stretch cavity has no real effect. Muzzle energy seems now to be largely discounted as a predicter of stopping effectiveness. It's all about the bullet; what it physically comes in contact with; and "one bullet track looks much like another".

If all that is true, then hunters should see no peripheral meat loss and be able to "eat right up to the bullet hole". You would also think smaller game animals would not be particularly torn up by being hit with "too much gun".

I'm not a handgun hunter, so it seemed logical to ask those who are. Do you see ruined meat adjacent to the bullet track or is there just a clean caliber sized hole?

The usual answer to such questions is "It depends..." If so, what are the variables?

Jeff



I don't think you can discount hydrostatic shock, the closer you get to rifle velocity with a handgun, the more significant the effect on "stopping power"

2,000 fps seems to be the threshhold, that's why people that discount the M1 carbine at 1,900 fps as just a handgun round in a rifle, might be missing the point

varibles? maybe velocity, bullet type, and certainly what is impacted

"The degree of injury produced by temporary cavitation is quite variable, erratic, and highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. Many flexible, elastic soft tissues such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to the blunt trauma and contusion caused by the stretch of temporary cavitation. Inelastic tissues such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder, are highly susceptible to severe permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture due to temporary cavitation insults."



Ace Posted - January 17 2019 : 7:13:59 PM
In my bowhunting days, I've seen some deers with blood-shot meat from well-placed shots from broadheads. Never noticed a pattern as to type of broadhead, location/position of shots, bone/no bone damage, or anything else; seemed that sometimes it 'just went that way.'
Same thing with the considerably fewer I've shot, and a lot I've seen shot by friends, with various calibers of rifles; some had a lot of blood-shot meat, some very little to none. Not counting the ones hit in a major bone--shoulder and/or upper leg--with the 'shrapnel' effect, most of the clean through-the-rib shots have been, well, clean--pass through with a little blood around the entrance/exit holes, and destroyed lungs and hearts (when the heart gets hit).
I think I'll vote with Chris--just choot'em and hope they run towards the truck. (In the FWIW column, last week I managed to fill my last two antlerless tags; one young but adult doe I had to drag 100 yards [she dropped on the spot], the other, an older bigger dry doe, ran through the brush at the edge of the field, and had the courtesy to drop literally at the edge of the road.) Ace
ASCTLC Posted - January 17 2019 : 2:08:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Christian

You can go nuts trying to analyse this sort of stuff. Just shoot 'em, clean 'em, and cook 'em



Here, here!!
Chris Christian Posted - January 17 2019 : 2:03:16 PM
You can go nuts trying to analyse this sort of stuff. Just shoot 'em, clean 'em, and cook 'em
ASCTLC Posted - January 17 2019 : 12:13:24 PM
On the topic of speed: my hunting partner shoots a 300 Win Mag and I shoot a 30.06. Both of us shoot factory Federal Premium ammo using the 180gr Nosler Partition.

The 30.06 is rated 2700 muzzle velocity and the 300 mag is rated 2960 muzzle velocity. What's weird but not enough samples to prove anything, is his broadside lung shots always pass through with the elk running off (he usually can't tell it's hit at all) and my bullets stay inside just under the offside skin and my elk always drop within a few yard (usually dropping in their tracks).

The only difference observable is bullet velocity between the 30.06 and 300 Win Mag as our elk have always been within 100 yards.

Doesn't prove anything really, just odd that it keeps happening that way.

Not related to bullet and game impact but the running joke/oddity is for the first 6 years one of us got their elk the first day and the other the last day. And that last day elk is within the last hour of the close of the day! I broke that spell in 2017 with a missed shot on mine (partner got his elk the first day, of course).
Jim Higginbotham Posted - January 17 2019 : 10:23:30 AM
I think something does happen some times when an artery or a "plexus" of arteries and major veins, is hit by a high speed bullet.

I've seen two deer drop instantly with what were not good hits.

One was an 85 gr Speer BSTP (which is a surprisingly well constructed bullet) at 3400 fps from a .243 - it hit the neck way to low to be close to the spine (just in front of the brisket). But it did center the carotid artery and the critter died instantly! I was not the shooter on this.

The other, I've already mentioned, was a running deer hit in the rump with a .350 Rem Mag (16.5" Remington 600) - it too died instantly though it skidded a few feet). That was a lousy shot on my part and I guess someone was just watching over me.

Strange things do happen. They don't happen often enough to measure.

Jim H.
Chris Christian Posted - January 14 2019 : 12:49:26 PM
+1 To Jim. His experiences seem to mirror mine. As for a "Bang/Flop" on a lung shot, the only one I have ever seen was a 100 pound hog I shot with a .22-250 at about 200 yards with a 55-grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claw bullet handloaded to 3600 fps. The hydrostatic shock must have exploded the brain. When we put the critter on the cleaning rack, the heart/lungs poured out like warm jello.

.44 Magnum slugs that I've seen expand, and hold together, are the Hornady XTP 240... and the older Federal 240 Classic. I recovered 3 of those from the offside shield of a 300 pound boar hog that had been wounded in the brisket by another hunter... chased for 20 minutes... and was pumped up like a meth head. He ran across in front of me at about 30 yards... I triple tapped him, and he was down 30 yards later. Those three bullets looked like an advertising pic!

I'm a fan of both of those .44 bullets for deer/hogs. I load the Hornady to about 1450 fps, the Federals were factory loads.
Jim Higginbotham Posted - January 14 2019 : 12:00:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jle3030

OK, I'll confess. This was a leading question. It has become widely postulated that handguns lack any real 'stopping power'. Only the tissue directly impacted by the bullet is affected and, lacking a CNS hit, bleeding is the only true stopping mechanism. "Tissue is resilient", so any temporary stretch cavity has no real effect. Muzzle energy seems now to be largely discounted as a predicter of stopping effectiveness. It's all about the bullet; what it physically comes in contact with; and "one bullet track looks much like another".

If all that is true, then hunters should see no peripheral meat loss and be able to "eat right up to the bullet hole". You would also think smaller game animals would not be particularly torn up by being hit with "too much gun".

I'm not a handgun hunter, so it seemed logical to ask those who are. Do you see ruined meat adjacent to the bullet track or is there just a clean caliber sized hole?

The usual answer to such questions is "It depends..." If so, what are the variables?

Jeff



I know this isn't satisfying but "it depends". With most (not all) expanding bullets, *if* they hold together (that is a sort of big "if") then then handgun bullets seem to make a hole the size of the expanded bullet or a little smaller. OTOH, a 260 gr. Keith bullet that hits at over 900 fps will make a hole about 1.5 times the diameter of the bullet (some smaller SWC with smaller % of meplat don't seem to make larger holes - the rounded off SWC of a .357 magnum factory load is pretty much the same as a round nose).

OTOH, the son shot a big buck with a .45 Colt carbine using a very mild handload with a Hornady XTP - that bullet made a hole in the lungs like I'm used to seeing from most factory rifle ammo. (but just the lungs and the exit - it made about a 3" hole in the lungs but only a 1.5 to 2" exit.

More to the point, I'd agree there is perhaps more potential in a rifle or a shotgun but, as Chris intimated, it depends on what you hit - I've seen rifles blow 7" holes in deer and they still ran 50 yards.

The longest I had a deer run with a .44 or .45 shot only through the lungs is around 70 yards (that was with a .451 round ball from a cap and ball revolver). I've had them run longer with smaller handguns but the furthest I've personally seen deer run was with a .243 (95 gr. Nosler partition at 3100 fps).

Bottom line, you just cannot tell (barring that neck or head shot mentioned above) - even that is a little bit uncertain - I shot a doe 4 times in the head with 9mm 127 Winchester +P+ and it still didn't kill the thing (clearly I was missing the brain...or perhaps *I'm* missing a brain ). Fortunately (or unfortunately) it wasn't going anywhere, it had 3 broken legs from being hit by a car.

I've shot half the deer and all of the wild boar I've killed with handguns - what matters most is where you hit them and having enough penetration to reach the vitals, rifles do one thing better for sure; they gain you range and accuracy... and sometimes tear up a lot of meat.

I will say this, recognizing that one case does not guarantee a trend, I've seen one deer drop instantly with a lung shot. It was made by a friend and I was watching him shoot. It was a 405 gr Winchester JSP handloaded to about 2500 fps in his 24" Ruger #1.

I dressed that deer for him, the bullet did not exit and the wound (I should say "wounds") to the lungs looked somewhat like what I figure a hand grenade would do...well maybe not quite.

In other places we talked about "over-driving" a bullet - well that bullet is made to expand at 1200 fps - twice that is definitely "over-driving" it

Jim H.

PS: I'm not saying that deer, other critters or people never drop from a lung shot - I just don't depend on it happening.

Chris Christian Posted - January 12 2019 : 1:07:06 PM
I've shot a lot of deer and wild hogs with handguns... mostly with 240-grain .44 Magnum, and 150-grain .300 Whisper, and some with the 120-grain 6.5 Whisper (the Whisper cartridge is the ballistic twin of the .300 BLK).

If I'm hunting them for meat I avoid a 'point shoulder' shot. No point in spreading exploding bone fragments through my dinner.

I wait for a broadside shot and prefer a high lung shot. Yes, they will run. But, not very far. The heart is flooding the busted lungs with blood... which they start coughing up quickly to leave a distinct blood trail... and tend to bleed out quickly --- which makes a better quality meat. I've had high lung shot deer go down in 30-40 yards.

IMHO... the advantage to this shot is if I hit too high I get the spine and drop them there... and if I hit too low I get the heart and lungs, which means they just run a bit further.

Either way, dinner is assured... and with the vast majority of the victuals in a presentable state
ASCTLC Posted - January 12 2019 : 09:54:06 AM
One person who hunted with us one year likes the "anchor shot" shoulder placement and he lost both front quarters to bloodshot damage. The impact ruined everything within a good 8" around the bullet entry/tract. If it wasn't the muscle stretch damage it was the bone fragmentation blowing off in all directions too. That was quite a lesson.

I'm not a good enough shot for accurate head shots at the elk I hunt (too much risk of an elk with a blown off jaw type injury) and I won't stand to loose front quarters of meat busting shoulders as some do (to keep em from running away). I'm a lung shot proponent and there's a bit of bruising around the wound tract that one couldn't eat.

Hit too close to the shoulder and there's bruised meat that can't be eaten but the amount depends how close and at what angle the bullet takes. An off shot may hit too close to the shoulder and lose a little meat but it's not common for me and preferred over going at the shoulder intentionally and losing most all of it.

Out here in the mtns, inedible shoulders all blood shot and ruined still have to come out of the mtns and to the butcher with you (no exception!). Spending an extra day getting inedible meat miles out of the mtns on my back only adds to the dissapointment of losing all that meat.

edit to add: Particular to handgun hunting, not much done out here but I'd imagine if one thought they were undergunned they'd be going for a shoulder to 'anchor' the animal so they could catchup to it to finish it.
jle3030 Posted - January 12 2019 : 09:01:29 AM
OK, I'll confess. This was a leading question. It has become widely postulated that handguns lack any real 'stopping power'. Only the tissue directly impacted by the bullet is affected and, lacking a CNS hit, bleeding is the only true stopping mechanism. "Tissue is resilient", so any temporary stretch cavity has no real effect. Muzzle energy seems now to be largely discounted as a predicter of stopping effectiveness. It's all about the bullet; what it physically comes in contact with; and "one bullet track looks much like another".

If all that is true, then hunters should see no peripheral meat loss and be able to "eat right up to the bullet hole". You would also think smaller game animals would not be particularly torn up by being hit with "too much gun".

I'm not a handgun hunter, so it seemed logical to ask those who are. Do you see ruined meat adjacent to the bullet track or is there just a clean caliber sized hole?

The usual answer to such questions is "It depends..." If so, what are the variables?

Jeff
840 Posted - January 12 2019 : 06:18:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jle3030
A question for the handgun hunters:
A good question, kind of. But why limit it to handgun hunters? Besides, I figure there is a much higher percentage of savvy and skilled handgun hunters than there are those who go afield with a long-gun.

Also, you didn't qualify what type of critter you are hunting.


quote:
Originally posted by jle3030
How big a problem is ruined meat along the wound track?
I don't eat jack rabbits or coyotes so there's no measure for concern.

I do eat squirrels, cottontail rabbits, deer and other tasty game animals, but there isn't any real 'problem' because there is very little wound track, and very little edible meat in the head or neck. Every deer I've taken since my first in '67 has been a 'One Shot Stop' and they dropped in their tracks, and all have been a neck shot or head shot.

All other smaller-size critters I hunt for meat except one cottontail, have also dropped in their tracks or they fell from a tree also due to head/neck shots. I don't like to mess up the edible portions and I also don't like to have to track critters down that run off. Mine don't.


quote:
Originally posted by jle3030
If it's a problem, what calibers or bullet types are the chief offenders?
I have hunted with a few guys who had less success on various size and type game using an assortment of handguns or rifles, and it took them maybe one but often two to four shots to bring their hunting experience to an end.

In all cases there were multiple wound channels and the results left quite a bit of ruined meat. My simple conclusion is there is 1 primary reason for wasted meat: Poor Shot Placement.

Seems like that is brought about by several factors and really gets right down to learning to shoot, time spent practicing, the skills we master, and the patience we need to muster and control then apply when hunting as well as we might on a range punching holes in paper.

Really, it isn't about 'punching holes in paper' because that's what everybody (or most folks) do when they practice shooting. What they maybe ought to be working at is firing multiple shots, but learning to try and 'punch ONE hole' because that works to develop the skills need for hunting or any practical applications for a handgun or long-gun.

I'd guess there's also the matter of going over-gunned by using too large a caliber for the game, or possibly the wrong bullet type, but that is all secondary to #1 ... Shot Placement.

Just my experiences and thoughts on the subject.

Humm ... going to be foggy and cold, but maybe a good day for my S&W .22 LR Victory and add a short long-gun with a 10/.22 in the same caliber. Might just head out for some cottontails today in my neck of the country.

'840'

StoppingPower.net Forums © 2002-16 StoppingPower.net, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
Thispagewasgeneratedin0.23seconds. Snitz Forums 2000