Bullet deflection...

[Jst1mr]

It seems "conventional wisdom" indicates that a slower, heavier, non-spitzer type bullet deflects less in the brush than a lighter, high-speed spitzer. Hence the "my 30-30 is a great brush gun" or "with slugs I can shoot right through the brush". However, I recall at least one study (? G&A mag, couple years ago?) that indicated just the opposite...the 12 ga. slug consistently deflected more than anything else, a .243 amongst the least. Latest words or wisdom or opinion?

 

[rcmodel]

IMO: The bullet with the highest SD, and fast enough rifling to fully stabilize it, will deflect the least.

rcmodel

 

[W.E.G.]

Bullets (all shapes and speeds) that hit obstacles (even little bitty ones) on their way to the target seldom hit the target unless the target is really big, and/or the target is only inches behind the obstacle.

 

[dmazur]

I have no proof, but I believe the latest information is that there is no such thing as a "brush buster caliber".

As previously noted in an earlier post, all bullets deflect, and most deflect enough that you're going to miss (unless the obstacle was 12" in front of the target.)

Might be some justification for the concern for follow-up shots, not that the first shot shouldn't be well-placed...

 

[Bezoar]

all bullets deflect. Ive seen a 100 yard shot on a deer with 30-06 deflect on a twig and smash the lower front legs when the sights were dead on for the lungs.

Also practice is against the spitzer. shooting bulgarian heavy ball, somewhere around 2670 fps, and BC of .4something , penetration of 30 inches of stump had it bouncing around through the woods, the stump exist holes were a foot off the ground yet the bullets were bouncing off trees at HEAD height.

 

[Ol` Joe]

conventional wisdom" indicates that a slower, heavier, non-spitzer type bullet deflects less in the brush than a lighter, high-speed spitzer

I think that`s "conventional myth". I`ve read more then a few test that disaprove the "brush bucking" ablities of bullets.

The term "brush gun" means different things to different people. Mostly the term reflects a firearm optimized for hunting in dense cover and close in irregular terrain where targets are fleeting - short barreled lever action rifles with open or modest telescopic sights are common. There are no brush bucking cartridges, as all bullets are deflected by brush contact. "Brush cartridges" is frequently nothing more than a term describing older cartridges with modest ballistics that are good enough for close up work, but not of sufficient performance for long range work.

From http://www.realguns.com/archives/120.htm

 

[briansmithwins]

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

BSW

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Actually they all deflect and they all deflect a lot.

Seems that the last really good study I saw done on it seemed to indicate that:

-There are NO brushbusters
-Heavier is better, and
-Faster is better, and
-Both heavy and fast best of all
-Rounds like the .375 H&H mag deflected the least, but still a lot, and deflected even less than a .45-70.

So speed can make up for weight and vice-versa. But it all depends on the size/weight of the particular twig in question, the distance from there to the intended target, and both the weight and the speed of the bullet. Probably something like a .416 Rigby or .460 Weatherby mag would be the best type of true brush buster.

 

[Art Eatman]

This used to come up every ten or so years, where somebody would gather up a bunch of guns'n'cartridges of various sorts and a batch of targets and go to the brush.

I recall one such "scientific study" from the "Dope Bag" section of the American Rifleman; I've seen others back when there were basically only the "big three" hunting magazines.

Anyhow, the gist of it was that the biggest factor of all was the distance from the twig/leaf/small branch to the critter. It didn't matter if it was a small, light bullet (omitting the "blowup" types) or a .45-70. They all deflected to some degree.

Don't quote me, but I vaguely recall a comment that if the distance were around ten feet, forget it. Any hit would be pure, blind luck.

I've always figured that a "brush gun" meant one that was light and quick-handling in the rather tight quarters of thick brush or jungly woods...

FWIW, Art

 

[Shawnee]

I recall reading someone's test that determined the 12ga. slug was absolutely terrible... and also recall at least two articles claiming the biggest factor was the distance from obstruction to target. Methinks the old myth of "brush-bucking calibers" has been pretty well laid to rest.

Would agree with Art - a "brush gun" is one that is easy to carry and handle and sight with in thicker cover.

 

[pbrktrt]

in that scenario i think buckshot would be your best bet.

 

[32winspl]

I read the Box'o'Truth article from the above post. While not iron-clad conclusive (a few more shots per caliber might have been better, but hey, he was the one providing the ammo and the dowels), it at least wasn't merely anecdotal.

 

[qajaq59]

I've always figured that a "brush gun" meant one that was light and quick-handling in the rather tight quarters of thick brush or jungly woods...

That's always been my understanding of what a brush gun was as well. That's why so many guys up in Maine liked the Win 94. It's short and quick to aim.

 

[1911 guy]

My personal view on brush deflection.

When hunting, no deflection is acceptable. Take the clearest, cleanest shot you can. Don't count on round X to not deflect as much as round Y. There's too many variables like velocity at impact, angle of impact, density of object impacted, angle of departure from impact and departure velocity to say that a given round "bucks the brush" any better than another. Just my personal opinion, absolutely not scientific. Yrah, there's always some weeds in the way, but if it's enough that you start thinking about brush busting, pass on the shot. Either move to change your view of the target or wait for the target to move.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The NRA did a fairly comprehensive study in the early '70s. They set up wooden dowels to represent brush, and shot through them at targets behind them. There were series of frangible baffles behind that, so they could follow the trajectory and attitude of the bullet.

Their conclusion was there are no brush busters. Three things seemed to help: Bullet construction, speed of rotation and velocity. Of all combinations tested, the .30 Cal armor piercing came out best.