ever wondered what a 50cal. would do to a prairie dog?

[rammy]

A 22-250 or a .223.... Very impressive... it’s like a stick of dynamite going off underneath them. I never knew that those two rounds were so powerful.

 

[Art Eatman]

LaEscopeta, the speed of sound around sea level is about 1,100 ft/sec. It has taken a lot of experimentation to make a bullet that will expand even a little bit when driven below around 1,300 ft/sec or thereabouts. That's why handguns, with their velocity ranges around 700 to 1,400 ft/sec, are marginal for hunting when compared to rifles.

Generally, bullets are a large bundle of compromises, and there is a lot of variation in the construction for the various uses.

A target bullet need not expand at all. A bullet intended for large game has a design which gives penetration as a primary feature. Varmint bullets, intended for little critters, are designed to dramatically come apart upon impact--and some are so lightly jacketed that they spin apart upon leaving the muzzle.

Art

 

[Jeeper]

It is pretty obvious that it wasnt a 50 cal since there isnt any dirt flying up past the prarie dog. A 50 would probably pass right though a prarie dog assuming you used solids.

 

[TRK2AJK]

tag

 

[landon74]

That's pretty impressive stuff, I've never seen a prairie dog shot with one of them before, but I've seen what 52 gr. HP will do to a woodchuck at 3700 fps, not quite like the video, but still pretty impressive....

 

[Rovi]

Don't let the antis see that.

I would second that!
I got the DVD for myself for Christmas, and I carefully pick and choose who I show it to.
As a farmer and hunter I have no qualms about eradicating vermin or controlling the numbers of 'nuisance' animals, but I've gotta say I'm a little uncomfortable about blasting them for 'entertainment'. I have no doubt that the prairie dogs featured never felt a thing, and it's very interesting from a technical point of view, but I'd be afraid that the extensive use of slow motion footage, 'humorous' captioning, and the 'whoopin and hollerin' following a particularly spectacular kill do nothing to enhance the image of hunters to the non-hunting public.
This stuff would appear to be manna from Heaven for PETA, for instance.

If the purpose of the hunt is eradication or population control, particularly at extended ranges, it's logical (and ethical, I'd argue) to shoot them with something hard and fast so that a miss is a miss and a hit is a kill, rather than getting hopeful with a .22LR at 150 yards or more where a hit might or might not be a kill and wounded bunnies or whatever are making it back to the hole to die a slow death.
Try explaining that to someone who has a hard time dealing with shooting 'cuddly wabbits' in the first place, never mind exploding them with high-powered deer rifles

.