Loosedhorse wrote:
I thought it was very clear. Flintknapper says no one uses solids on bear;
Please quote me accurately….if you are going to do so. I did not say no one uses solids on bear, I said that in certain calibers (and listed those) “no one” (not literally of course, but only in rare instances) uses solids in the .338 Win Mag or .375 H&H. See below:
To that end….a bullet of sufficient weight that penetrates adequately (and preferably expands), is what should be used. Some folks dwell on penetration only, dismissing the importance of imparting shock (as much as possible) to the animal.
That’s why the .338 Win Mag and .375 H&H do so well. No one is shooting “solids” out of them (for bear).
I said fine: what specifically does everyone use, and why?
In nearly all cases…heavy for caliber, controlled expansion bullets (if from rifles). Shotgun users will most often be found packing slugs of various types.
Hand gunners….(the smart ones) will use heavy for caliber, heavily constructed jacketed bullets, hard cast lead or some of the recently available monolithic bullets. The better hard cast leads bullets can basically be thought of as a “solid” (at least in terms of performance/design).
He mentioned the "importance of imparting shock", and I was curious if there's a general agreement that "shock" is important.
Whether for general hunting or for stopping, imparting as much shock as possible… is never a bad thing, though it is not something to be relied upon by itself. But, neither is penetration. With respect to both… an “adequate” amount will be required to achieve the task at hand.
If we dwell solely on imparting energy without regard to penetration then failure to stop a bear is a virtual certainty. If we consider (arbitrarily) the figure of 1,500 ft. lbs. of energy to be the practical minimum…then we can compare several cartridges to illustrate a point.
Certain loads for a .44 Magnum shooting a 275 grain bullet….will churn up about 1500 ft. lbs. of energy (at the muzzle).
Similarly, certain loads for the venerable 45/70 (405 gr. FP) generate 1500 ft. lbs. of energy (at the muzzle).
And lastly, certain loads for a .22-250 (at well over 3000 fps) also make the target figure of 1500 ft. lbs. energy (at the muzzle).
Extreme example # 1 
IF a poorly chosen bullet (read fragmenting varmint bullet) were used in the .22-250…I wouldn’t expect it to get much past the wet hair of a big Coastal Brownie.
At best…very shallow penetration would be the result. Although…I could rightfully state the bullet imparted ALL the energy available, lacking adequate penetration….I did nothing more than prove to the bear… I am harmless (even if loud).
Extreme example # 2
If penetration ONLY were needed (and was always better)….then we might as well dispense with bullets altogether and use flechettes. A hardened steel projectile with a needle like point is certain to travel the length of a bear, but what damage would be done (sans a CNS hit)?
Without sufficient frontal area or velocity (both components for energy transfer) a deeply penetrating projectile can only cause mechanical damage…subject to the elastic limits of the bone or tissue it passes through.
The smaller the frontal area or the less the velocity, the MORE you have an ice pick effect (not good for keeping bears off of you).
O.K. let’s get back to reality.
The point is, don’t get hung up on any one term (Shock, Kinetic Energy, Penetration, Sectional Density). By themselves…they don’t mean much.
that solids don't impart it
Of course.. “solids” impart some amount of energy, ANYTHING with mass traveling at speed (you pick the speed) has energy. That is a fact too plain to require argument…and I certainly made no claim that solids do not, those are your words.
or that a particular bullet-type imparts it best.
Well….each person will need to decide what constitutes “best”, but in terms of rapid energy transfer (all things being equal), a bullet with a larger frontal area will outperform one of lesser diameter (same weight, same construction, same impact velocity).
The larger the frontal area…the larger the diameter of the Permanent Wound Channel (all things being equal).
The larger the frontal area…the larger the diameter of the Temporary Wound Cavity (all things being equal and assuming there was enough velocity to create it in the first place).
So for these reasons alone…an expanding bullet (suitable for the purpose) can be an advantage. The vast majority of hunters and bullet manufacturers recognize this and make/choose their ammo accordingly.
If you have to use a “solid” on North American game (even thin skinned dangerous game like Brown Bear) then you are not using a proper expanding bullet in one or more areas:
Bullet weight, Bullet construction, Impact Velocity.
The only animal indigenous to North America… that could be considered thick skinned would be the American Bison. Skin thickness aside…..
Even though large animals such as Brown/Grizzly bear, Elk, Moose, Musk Ox and Bison have large muscle groups and significant skeletal features….there are premium expanding bullets available today to handle each.
So why do some folks turn to non-expanding bullets.
Any number of reasons (some more valid than others) with respect to North American Game.
1. A good/premium expanding bullet is not available to them.
2. A hard cast bullet (traditional for certain firearms) is desired. Hard cast (of proper brinell rating) is essentially a non-expanding bullet.
3. A hard cast bullet is cheaper than many premium expanding bullets.
4. A non-expanding bullet by virtue of its greater penetrating potential allows the shooter to press into service an otherwise marginal cartridge for the need. I.E. certain pistol cartridges will fall into this category, some rifle cartridges as well. It doesn’t mean a “solid/non-expanding” bullet is better…just that it allows more versatility or utility from the same firearm.
5. Depending upon shape (ogive), non-expanding bullets tend to maintain a straighter track through muscle and bone. How much is hard to say…but that is the consensus.
6. IF the need exists to shoot from the rear of an animal….forward, instead of the other way around, this is where a non-expanding bullet shines.
Hopefully, this can remain a civil exchange of ideas, but if not... I have my flame suit on.
