Please stop hunting with 220gr 300 BLK subsonic

[zerobarrier]

The bullet drops 8 friggin inches between 75 and 125 yards...

I'm not to sure that is accurate. I have my 300blk Seirra Pro Hunter 220gr RN, with the exposed lead tip, sighted in at 75yards and it shoots about an inch low at a 100yards.

I used it for hunting this year and did fine. I hunt in thick woods and most shots are 50-75yards. I would not try beyond 125yards with the subsonic round. I just missed the heart, bullet went thru both lungs, deer ran about 30yards then fell, by the time I got to there it was dead.

I do agree a beginner should not use this round, supersonic nolser fine, but no subs. As with everything shot placement is king. I don't think I would take a shot on a running deer with the subs. I may use the LeHigh bullets next year.

To make you even more angry I also hunt with 44special out of a lever rifle.

I have never had to track a deer.

 

[Jason_W]

Apparently some folks missed the entire 20th century. It was found back in the 19th century that bullet exceeding velocities not possible with black power have an effect on tissue called cavitation. The higher speed loads at different thresholds causes expanding bullets to release energy at a rate beyond that which flesh can separate causing massive damage and much larger wound cavities than the bullet diameter.

Unless you subscribe to Dr. Fackler's theories.

The Wikipedia quick summary of Fackler's assertions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler

Dr. Martin L. Fackler is a retired colonel in the US Army's Medical Corps. He served as a battlefield surgeon and was the head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the Letterman Army Medical Center.

He is credited with a number of contributions to the field of terminal ballistics including:[1][2][3]

Developing and testing improved media in which the effects of bullet wounds could be simulated. This led to the widespread acceptance of 10% ballistic gelatin for evaluating penetration and expansion of projectiles.

Establishing effects of projectile design and shape on wounding.

He hypothesized that wound depth was much more important than previously thought, and recommended ammunition that could send a bullet at least twelve inches into his ballistic gelatin.

He was the first researcher to demonstrate that fragmentation was the most effective means of inflicting wounds in a modern military rifle round. He asserted that yawing and cavitation do not typically cause severe tissue trauma. Or, that the "permanent wound cavity" or actual damage caused by a projectile is the primary "stopping power" mechanism and that the "temporary wound cavity" or shock wave produced by the projectile is at best a secondary mechanism, if not irrelevant.

 

[Grumulkin]

Not when they are .308 match bullets designed for long-range shooting travelling at less than 1000fps. They don't expand; because they aren't designed to expand. They don't fragment; because they are travelling half the velocity they were designed to withstand. They don't do damage by overstretching tissue because they are moving way too slow.

The only thing they let you do is lob a subsonic bullet relatively accurately at longer distances because the bullet has a good ballistic coefficient. However that combination of slow speed and very low drag means when it hits an animal, it actually makes a smaller than .30 hole (because the tissue is elastic and just stretches as the bullet passes). Fire the same bullet at 2700fps and it will do completely different damage.

1. Who said match bullets? There is no advantage to using a match bullet in a 300 Blackout. Sighted in at 100 yards, a 300 Blackout has a trajectory that will make precise bullet placement beyond 200 yards very difficult without precise range and ballistic calculations; it's similar to shooting a handgun. The Hornady 220 gr. RN bullet is what I use in mine.

2. At sea level the speed of sound is a bit over 1,100 fps. At the altitudes and ambient conditions at which hunters usually shoot, you can go to about 1,050 fps and still be subsonic.

3. As far as the tissue damage things goes, try getting an 18 gauge needle in your arm and then talk about tissue damage. An 18 gauge needle is a LOT smaller than .308 inches. There is no doubt that the wound channel will be bigger with a larger diameter bullet or an expanded bullet or a bullet going at a higher velocity. Those facts don't make the wound produced by a subsonic .308 caliber bullet trivial.

 

[AKElroy]

Don't get me wrong, I love the 45 Colt. My Blackhawk has taken more animals on the ranch than all my rifles combined, but it's not a uber super ninja death ray. It is what it is. And I would never advocate using 45 Colt out of a pistol to take deer.

I think there is so much value in this post, specifically the experience of actually taking animals with the loads being debated. I wonder how many of the posts in this thread are theoretical rather than based on real-life experience. There are many in this forum with far more experience than me, but in my 35-ish years hunting, I've taken hundreds of medium game sized animals and even more varmints, and my actual experience is that "slow and anemic" is dramatically less effective than "quick and powerful", and simply does not get the job done. This opinion is based on actually shooting stuff with both.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"Now we have a bitch session on how bad the 300 Blackout is"


No, truthfully what you have is credible empirical evidence provided by someone who has observed the result, and has so commented for the edification of the group. Were I in his position, I'd prohibit the use of this loading for deer without a second thought. You don't always need science: In this, as in all things, repeatedly observing the actual result is worth more than every ballistic calculator in the world.

Methinks his prohibiting subsonic but permitting supersonic loadings would pretty much sort things out. Hunters *do* have an obligation to the animal: Humane and respectful kills. Subsonic blackout loads don't provide those if the cartridge is used as a substitute for other more suitable firearms cartridges. For the expert who treats it like a bow and arrow, at similar ranges, with similar bullet placement a requirement, it can be done. Sorting out those few experts from the thousands of bufffoons with orange jackets might be more work for a landowner than is warranted. Easy fix? Make 'em use a suitable cartridge. It's what I would do.


Willie

.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

That's ironic coming from an energy clinger. Sorry but far too many head of big game have fallen to such loads.

You are tilting at windmills. How many times have I said that rounds like the .45-70 are perfectly capable. You are intent on perpetuating an argument that isn't being attended by anyone but yourself.

My wife has taken around 6 antelope and 5 mule deer with her .45 Colt. She uses a 4 3/4" Seville and the handload is a 260 Keith cast at 900 fps. This load will shoot lengthwise of antelope and mule deer at 100 yards.

Not to be too blunt, but bull droppings.

No 900 fps 45 Colt is going lengthwise through a Mulie at 100 yards. No way, no how. Not happening. That alone should be enough to discredit anything coming from that link.

But as long as we are mentioning unethical hunting, trying to take Mulies at 100 yards with .45 Colt out of a 4.75 inch barrel single action revolver.. That qualifies.

We have proven that energy is a meaningless number.

Who we kimosabe?

What matters is what a specific bullet does at a specific impact velocity. How much does it expand? How deeply does it penetrate? How broad a wound channel does it create? Does it exit? The energy it produces while doing so is irrelevant.

Read the part I underlined, then read your previous conditions and tell me where you went wrong.

Hang on, I'll point it out:

How broad a wound channel does it create?

This is a function of energy as well as a function of bullet diameter. A high energy high velocity round creates a wound channel far out of proportion to the bullet diameter that can disrupt and destroy vital organs the bullet never touched.

If you had the experience of pouring deer out of their chest cavities you would know this to be true. The heart and lungs didn't just throw themselves in a conveniently located chest blender. This effect only happens with high velocity high energy rounds and never ever with low velocity low energy rounds. Wonder why that is?

It's a simplistic crutch for those who do not understand that terminal ballistics is a terribly complicated subject that can't be explained away with a simple mathematical formula.

How cute.

I've been elbows deep in about fifty animals so far this season. I could tell you within seconds which ones were shot by high energy high velocity rounds and which weren't. You know why? Because the ones shot with the high energy rounds have soup organs. The ones shot with low energy rounds have bullet sized holes through their organs. Either it's an amazing coincidence that this always seems to happen, or there something at work here that your refuse to acknowledge.

I'm starting to suspect that the reason you are being so steadfast is because you shoot something on the slower low energy side and you simply refuse to believe there might be something here. I suspect that if you'd actually killed animals with a large variety of firearms and ammunition you would know that high energy projectiles behave way out of proportion to bullet expansion or diameter. That you so steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge that the high speed passage of a projectile proximate to organs not directly touched by the bullet can cause severe disruption, failure or even complete disintegration of the organ tells me that you really don't have much actual hands on experience in the matter.

Perhaps you should qualify that for us now. Since you said, "My own experience supports this beyond any doubt.:, what exactly is your experience in this field that allows you to speak so authoritatively about the non-existent wounding effects that I observe first hand dozens of times a year? Because right now, every time you tell us energy doesn't wound, all I hear is you saying you've not killed a lot of animals with high energy rounds.

Unless you subscribe to Dr. Fackler's theories.

Fackler never shot enough living creatures. I'd hardly call it irrelevant if all the organs in your chest cavity are reduced to a soupy mash. Fackler has also been directly contradicted by more modern battlefield wound studies.

"Distant injuries away from the main track in high velocity missile injuries are very important and almost always present in all cases especially in the chest and abdomen and this should be put in the consideration on the part of the forensic pathologist and probably the general surgeon.
— R. S. Selman et al."

Furthermore:

"Nathan Foster of Terminal Ballistics Research found that it is possible to induce hydrostatic shock in Bovines providing impact velocity is above 2600fps, using controlled expanding projectiles of appropriate weights. Furthermore, using hunting cartridges between 6mm and .338 bore diameters, a nominal velocity of 2600fps or higher produces the same results on most mammals where bullet weights and bullet construction are again appropriately matched to game body weights for optimum energy transfer. During tests, wider bores were capable of producing hydrostatic shock at lower impact velocities than the small bores on medium game- but not heavy game, showing the subtle relationships between bullet frontal area and energy transfer and bullet weights versus game weights.

Tests revealed that Hydrostatic shock produces an immediate loss of consciousness. This often appears to the viewer as an 'instant kill' But it is the action of loss of consciousness combined with rapid blood loss to the point that life can no longer be sustained, that results in what can be better described as fast, humane killing. Mr Foster also found that results with Hornady TAP ammunition (frangible A-Max projectile) can produce neural trauma on medium sized game at much lower impact velocities than traditional hunting projectiles.[62]

Dr. Randall Gilbert describes hydrostatic shock as an important factor in bullet performance on whitetail deer, “When it [a bullet] enters a whitetail’s body, huge accompanying shock waves send vast amounts of energy through nearby organs, sending them into arrest or shut down.”[63] Dave Ehrig expresses the view that hydrostatic shock depends on impact velocities above 1,100 ft (340 m) per second.[64] Sid Evans explains the performance of the Nosler Partition bullet and Federal Cartridge Company’s decision to load this bullet in terms of the large tissue cavitation and hydrostatic shock produced from the frontal diameter of the expanded bullet.[65] The North American Hunting Club suggests big game cartridges that create enough hydrostatic shock to quickly bring animals down."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock#Autopsy_Findings_in_Iraq

The science is in. Remote wounding from high energy projectiles is established fact. People still arguing it doesn't happen either don't have hands on experience or aren't up on the research.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

1. Who said match bullets? There is no advantage to using a match bullet in a 300 Blackout. Sighted in at 100 yards, a 300 Blackout has a trajectory that will make precise bullet placement beyond 200 yards very difficult without precise range and ballistic calculations; it's similar to shooting a handgun. The Hornady 220 gr. RN bullet is what I use in mine.

2. At sea level the speed of sound is a bit over 1,100 fps. At the altitudes and ambient conditions at which hunters usually shoot, you can go to about 1,050 fps and still be subsonic.

So let me sum up your argument as I understand it. A subsonic 220gr SMK travelling at 980 fps (the slowest factory load I've chronographed out of my 9" barrel) should not be used for hunting. However, if you use a round nose profile 220gr bullet and increase the speed 70fps, then you are suddenly good to go?

Tell me, if I shot a 220gr RN and a 220gr SMK into ballistics gel side by side, do you think you could tell which wound track belonged to which round?

3. As far as the tissue damage things goes, try getting an 18 gauge needle in your arm and then talk about tissue damage. An 18 gauge needle is a LOT smaller than .308 inches. There is no doubt that the wound channel will be bigger with a larger diameter bullet or an expanded bullet or a bullet going at a higher velocity. Those facts don't make the wound produced by a subsonic .308 caliber bullet trivial.

A non-sequitr and a strawman all in one paragraph. Bravo. As I understood the OP, we were talking about the humane killing of game animals for harvesting, not sneaking up on them and jamming 18ga needles into them. To get back to your inane analogy, jamming an 18ga needle into an animal will certainly damage tissue. The animal might even bleed out or eventually die of sepsis from such a wound, so the wound isn't trivial. It also isn't an effective way to harvest game animals nor a humane way to kill them.

As I recall, nobody in this thread has argued that a wound from a .308 bullet travelling subsonic was "trivial" or something that could be laughed off. So attempting to reframe the debate as such shows either poor reading comprehension or a laughable attempt at a strawman argument. The argument was that for the average hunter, .300 BLK subsonic was not effective for the humane harvesting of game animals.

You responded to that argument with a series of inane examples of big-bore safari magnums firing solid nose bullets in an attempt to argue that a solid nose subsonic bullet was effective. You also threw in military FMJ bullets travelling upwards of 2700fps for comparison.

The post you are responding to was my attempt to explain in simple terms why the velocity and design of the bullet are important parts of that subject, since you apparently don't understand that concept or you wouldn't have made such an inapt comparison. Instead, I find I've struck the proverbial tar baby and now I'm in a conversation about 18ga needles and tissue damage. It certainly proves the old maxim that no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[H&Hhunter]

I killed a hog clean with a 45 caliber 255 SWC doing barely 900 fps; it drove through the shoulders & spine and was recovered just under the skin on the off side.

Folks this is a very important point. If you are shooting critters with slow moving non expanding bullet you have to adjust your thinking in shot placement. Through the shoulders is the correct answer. The OP mentioned this and that he didn't like the concept. But if you want to drop critters on the spot with the ballistics we are speaking of that is your best bet.

The OP also mentioned that after shoulder shooting them you would have to walk up and finish them with a head shot. That hasn't been the case in my experience. A proper high double shoulder shot destroys, lungs and the vessels over the top of the heart.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Through the shoulders is the correct answer. The OP mentioned this and that he didn't like the concept. But if you want to drop critters on the spot with the ballistics we are speaking of that is your best bet.

Oh, I don't oppose shooting animals through the shoulders. That's my favorite shot as I find that it puts the animal straight down where it stood more often than not. I know people who oppose the shoulder shot because it ruins more meat, but I'd weigh a quick and sure recovery of the animal over that.

What I oppose is the concept of shooting the animal with the intent to wound it for a follow on shot. That's what a hunter we had told us was how he liked to do it. The idea of shooting with the intent to wound does not sit will with me.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The science is in. Remote wounding from high energy projectiles is established fact. People still arguing it doesn't happen either don't have hands on experience or aren't up on the research.

Did you realize that the "science" you are quoting also supports .300 BLK subsonic as having sufficient energy to cause "hydrostatic shock?"

"Even though Wang et al. document remote neural damage for low levels of energy transfer, roughly 100 ft·lbf (140 J), these levels of neural damage are probably too small to contribute to rapid incapacitation. Courtney and Courtney believe that remote neural effects only begin to make significant contributions to rapid incapacitation for ballistic pressure wave levels above 500 psi (3,400 kPa) (corresponds to transferring roughly 300 ft·lbf (410 J) in 12 inches (30 cm) of penetration) and become easily observable above 1,000 psi (6,900 kPa) (corresponds to transferring roughly 600 ft·lbf (810 J) in 12 inches (0.30 m) of penetration)."

I ask, because it seems to me like you are picking and choosing the parts of that science you like.

Personally, I am a little skeptical of "hydrostatic shock" because every person I've ever discussed the issue with seems to have a different idea of what it is. Michael Courtney (who represents either directly or indirectly almost half the links in that Wikipedia article) describes tiny pressure waves that travel through the blood vessels (without rupturing them) but strong enough to cause hemorrhaging in the brain. Personally, I have a difficult time imagining how a pressure wave can cause brain hemorrhages at the opposite end; but the same pressure wave doesn't damage the veins.

However, if we are talking about "hydrostatic shock" just being the stretch cavity that becomes permanent when organ tissue is stretched beyond its elastic limits by a combination of bullet energy and/or weakening of tissue from fragments, then I think that is a pretty well established and understood method of wounding that can lead to the type of "organ soup" you are describing.

The easiest way I can think to describe the latter is shooting prairie dogs. If you shoot a prairie dog with a 55gr VMAX, they will flat disintegrate because the stretch cavity exceeds the ability of the tissue to hold together. However, if you shoot a pig with a 55gr VMAX, you don't get a giant prairie dog sized hole in the pig. You still get some damage out of proportion to the bullet size; but many of the organs in the pig are able to handle the stretch that a 55gr VMAX can dish out. They are jostled about and then they return to place.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

[QUOTE="Bartholomew Roberts]Did you realize that the "science" you are quoting also supports .300 BLK subsonic as having sufficient energy to cause "hydrostatic shock?" [/QUOTE]

At the very baseline for the formation of hydrostatic shock, yes. But hydrostatic shock is not a binary thing. It's not like you have zero of it or all of it. Does the slow 300 Blackout produce some shock effect? Most likely yes. Is it significant enough to be a major wounding factor? I don't think so. Or at least, haven't seen it to be one. As with most things like this, the more the better, unless you use too much and have pink mist instead of animal.

As for the blood pressure, think of any other hydraulic system. If you have a full system and add sudden pressure to one end of it, you will see a corresponding spike on the other end. It has to, the fluid in between doesn't compress. If it didn't, hydraulics wouldn't work and airplanes wouldn't be nearly as practical a transport system. We see evidence of the damage caused by hydraulic pressure in almost every deer taken. Hunters often talk about how on some bullets you can eat meat right up to the shot hole while on others you have to throw away large portions well away from the hole because the meat was destroyed by the shot. A lot of that "destruction" is from blood vessels that have ruptured from the pressure spike. Almost universally, when you look at the rounds that allow you to "eat up to the hole" the are low velocity rounds. They didn't generate the pressure spike which ruptures the blood vessels. How much of that spike makes it to the brain? Honestly, no clue. We have very little concern for deer brains while we are processing them so I've almost never looked at the damage to one or taken the time to not cause our own damage to one while taking a skull cap.

And you are absolutely right, the damage is entirely dependent on the size and mass of the target absorbing the shot, so the energy needed to create the effect must also increase as does the size/mass of the target. A round that will soup a deer would most certainly not have the same effect on a buffalo. There's just too much buffalo mass soaking up the energy.

Another thing about energy wounding, it behaves differently in different parts of the animal depending on tissue construction. It does not work very well in muscle at all. You only see very localized damage in muscle, mostly blood vessel rupture and small scale muscle tearing. Nothing that will quickly kill an animal on it's own. It does not work very well in intestines either. Intestines are very loosey goosey and naturally expandy on their own with lots of open spaces to allow the energy to dissipate. It works very well in the heart, lungs and liver. These organs will just about pop when you put high energy shock waves through them.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Click,

Thanks for your reply to my post. I agree with what you are saying there.

 

[Jason_W]

Hasn't the slow/heavy/large bullet vs. the small/fast bullet been going on pretty much since the invention of smokeless powder rounds? It seems unlikely that it will be resolved any time soon as both camps are pretty obstinate with neither willing to admit that both types of bullet can kill game quickly with appropriate shoot placement and wound game with poor shot placement.

Out of curiosity, last night I looked up deer hunt vids on YouTube in which different rounds were used, but the slow heavy kind and the fast and pointy. Hit appropriately, the results were the same regardless of cartridge: the deer either dropped on the spot or made a mad dash before expiring. One guy even dropped a trophy elk with a 400 grain cast bullet fired from a trap door 45-70 at 200 yards.

Maybe the internal organs of the deer hit with pointy fast bullets were liquid and the organs of the deer hit with slow and heavy bullets came out in chunks, but they were both equally dead. And yes, online videos are only anecdotal evidence, but unfortunately, that's all that exists on the topic of game kills vs. cartridge type.

Back to the original post: It seems like regardless of what camp you're in, the subsonic 220 grain 300 blk load is about the worst choice you can make for deer. It's a non expanding, non fragmenting bullet that's not fast enough to please the high velocity camp and not nearly wide and heavy enough to please the big and heavy camp.

 

[CraigC]

Apparently some folks missed the entire 20th century. It was found back in the 19th century that bullet exceeding velocities not possible with black power have an effect on tissue called cavitation. The higher speed loads at different thresholds causes expanding bullets to release energy at a rate beyond that which flesh can separate causing massive damage and much larger wound cavities than the bullet diameter.

Yes, apparently some folks did. Elmer Keith started writing about the effect of his semi-wadcutters in the 1930's and yet we STILL have to have these silly discussions with rifle shooters who think energy is the be-all, end-all. Bullet technology advanced beyond that with Veral Smith's LBT designs. Like I said, no one who has ever killed game with these loads will say what you've said.

No one is arguing that high velocity rifle cartridges don't produce more damage and kill quicker. I don't understand where 'some' might've gotten that impression.

A .45 Colt is not even legal in this state for hunting.

Regulations written according to bogus energy figures.

the KO factor is nonsense made up by guys that don't understand energy, wounds and anything requiring literacy.

Now that right there is funny and also typical. TKO was developed by John Taylor who used data collected in the killing of HUNDREDS of elephants. He killed more elephants than most people will ever kill deer. It was used to compare big bore rifle cartridges, TO EACH OTHER, in their relative ability to stun an elephant on a head shot that did not make it to the brain. In more recent times, it has been used, once again, to compare big bore cartridges to each other. Among those who are actually involved in using the big bore handgun cartridges in question, on game year in and year out, TKO has proven to correlate with a load's ability to penetrate. Got any more ignorant statements to make?

I take the slow guys never took a science class.

Unfortunately, terminal ballistics cannot be solved with mathematical equations.

You are intent on perpetuating an argument that isn't being attended by anyone but yourself.

Pay attention, this is an argument about energy, or at least has turned into one.

Not to be too blunt, but bull droppings.

No 900 fps 45 Colt is going lengthwise through a Mulie at 100 yards. No way, no how. Not happening. That alone should be enough to discredit anything coming from that link.

But as long as we are mentioning unethical hunting, trying to take Mulies at 100 yards with .45 Colt out of a 4.75 inch barrel single action revolver.. That qualifies.

If you've never heard of John Linebaugh or his work, then that says a lot more about YOUR credibility than his. Which is no surprise. You guys ALWAYS argue about things you don't have a clue about in clinging to your energy figures.

This is a function of energy as well as a function of bullet diameter.

No, this is a function of velocity and bullet construction. It is not that energy itself is irrelevant, it's that the quantity is not a useful number. Two bullets of identical weight and velocity are going to produce identical energy. However, the one that expands the most will produce the broadest, yet shallowest wound channel. The one that expands less will produce a narrower, yet deeper wound channel. Of what value is the quantity of energy produced? Taken further, a .300WinMag with a 180gr FMJ is going to produce far and away more energy than the .30-30 with a 170gr JSP. But which is going to insure a quicker kill on deer? Of what value is the energy figure for either load? Jacketed bullets are rated for velocity, not energy.

I've been elbows deep in about fifty animals so far this season. I could tell you within seconds which ones were shot by high energy high velocity rounds and which weren't. You know why? Because the ones shot with the high energy rounds have soup organs. The ones shot with low energy rounds have bullet sized holes through their organs. Either it's an amazing coincidence that this always seems to happen, or there something at work here that your refuse to acknowledge.

It is you who is putting words in my mouth. No one is arguing this, at all. The point is that cartridges that produce very little energy, relatively speaking, are fully capable of taking even the largest game on earth and that alone should make us question using energy as a gauge of a cartridge's effectiveness. As I said, it's much more complicated than that.

I'm starting to suspect that the reason you are being so steadfast is because you shoot something on the slower low energy side and you simply refuse to believe there might be something here. I suspect that if you'd actually killed animals with a large variety of firearms and ammunition you would know that high energy projectiles behave way out of proportion to bullet expansion or diameter. That you so steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge that the high speed passage of a projectile proximate to organs not directly touched by the bullet can cause severe disruption, failure or even complete disintegration of the organ tells me that you really don't have much actual hands on experience in the matter.

Perhaps you should qualify that for us now. Since you said, "My own experience supports this beyond any doubt.:, what exactly is your experience in this field that allows you to speak so authoritatively about the non-existent wounding effects that I observe first hand dozens of times a year? Because right now, every time you tell us energy doesn't wound, all I hear is you saying you've not killed a lot of animals with high energy rounds.

Again, a straw man argument. Once again, no one is arguing that high velocity rifle rounds are not more destructive to tissue. I've taken game with a little bit of everything. My last two deer were taken with a .250Savage. I've hunted primarily with .54cal muzzleloaders for the last 8yrs and I must've imagined how well that blackpowder technology actually WORKS. At this point, I really don't think it matters what I post, you're going to immediately call it "bull droppings" because it conflicts with your beliefs. That's very convenient. Now who is the true believer???

Who we kimosabe?

We the thousands who hunt with handguns every single year. We who don't wait for deer season but hunt wild hogs and other game year round. We who KNOW you're wrong because we've actually done it. We who KNOW there's more to killing than energy. I may be in Texas this spring to kill some of your hogs with a Ruger .480 and 355gr LBT's. Others will be using .45's and .500's. You're welcome to come examine the carcasses and measure wound channels.

It seems unlikely that it will be resolved any time soon as both camps are pretty obstinate with neither willing to admit that both types of bullet can kill game quickly with appropriate shoot placement and wound game with poor shot placement.

I don't think that's the case at all. ONE side refuses to admit that the other works and it isn't based on anything more than their belief. They've never tried it but refuse to believe it might actually work.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Hasn't the slow/heavy/large bullet vs. the small/fast bullet been going on pretty much since the invention of smokeless powder rounds? It seems unlikely that it will be resolved any time soon as both camps are pretty obstinate with neither willing to admit that both types of bullet can kill game quickly with appropriate shoot placement and wound game with poor shot placement.

Well, the problem here isn't so much of a slow & heavy vs fast and small as some posters are trying to frame it. This is slow and small. And you are right, the argument is silly as both types do quite well as long as the mechanics that make each effective are respected.

 

[CraigC]

The real question is, who has actually had a 900fps 250gr .45Colt fail on them???

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

At the very baseline for the formation of hydrostatic shock, yes. But hydrostatic shock is not a binary thing. It's not like you have zero of it or all of it. Does the slow 300 Blackout produce some shock effect? Most likely yes. Is it significant enough to be a major wounding factor? I don't think so. Or at least, haven't seen it to be one.

Yes. I was just pointing out that at 600 ft/lbs in 12" of penetration, the source you cited claims it should be clearly observable and makes significant contributions even at 300 ft/lbs. That is squarely in the energy range for .300 subs. Like you, I haven't seen that either - so either the science behind that claim isn't solid or we aren't noticing it for some reason.

Another thing about energy wounding, it behaves differently in different parts of the animal depending on tissue construction. It does not work very well in muscle at all. You only see very localized damage in muscle, mostly blood vessel rupture and small scale muscle tearing. Nothing that will quickly kill an animal on it's own. It does not work very well in intestines either. Intestines are very loosey goosey and naturally expandy on their own with lots of open spaces to allow the energy to dissipate. It works very well in the heart, lungs and liver. These organs will just about pop when you put high energy shock waves through them.

Well, if we are talking about hydraulic pressure, it stands to reason we need the hydro part of that word. Like throwing a rock into a pond creates waves, this is like throwing a rock into a container of water hard enough that the waves burst the container (or causing something adjacent to that container to jostle the water hard enough to do the same). That is the big difference between a rifle round and a pistol round to me - a rifle round is going fast enough it can create that kind of damage. A pistol round basically just crushes whatever tissue is in the way and doesn't really generate that kind of effect. I think we are describing the same phenomena though.

And to bring this full circle, I have not observed .300 subs to have that effect. You either hit something that kills the animal quickly square on with the bullet, or the animal doesn't die immediately and runs off. Since you can't by definition increase the speed and 240gr is the limit for mass, about all you are left with to make .300 subs more effective is some type of expansion or prefragmented round. .300 subs are basically hunting with a pistol.

 

[illinoisburt]

CraigC -- that is a straw man argument. Bullet construction is totally different. If I loaded up long pointed bullets with heavy jackets in a 45 similar to the rifle bullets in question they would work like poo and we all know it. For that matter nobody with any modicum of experience runs about claiming pistol ball ammo is a good idea for hunting. Instead they are using *hunting* bullets: either keith style semi wadcutters (flat points) or some type of exanding softpoint or hollow point. Shockingly enough appropriate bullets seem to work okay.

Like it or not, subsonic 300BLK is pistol weight bullets at pistol speed. So picking an appropriate bullet for it has to be done the same way. Hmm... Maybe if a bullet similar to appropriate pistol bullets were used in the rifle it would also work? I understand people will jump up and proclaim heresay since a wide flat-point or hollow-point bullet will never feed worth a hoot and have an even worse rainbow trajectory, but last I checked those were not legitimate factors in assessing terminal performance. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough demand from the field for a major manufacturer to go into full production. However if one did make a rifle bullet similar to the old standard Winchester JSP handgun bullet with a thin notched jacket and soft pure lead core it would make the subsonic 300BLK quite effective. Of course the moment you pushed that bullet to supersonic speeds it would literally turn inside out and fall to pieces on impact making it totally unsuitable for hunting.

 

[MCgunner]

The problem with most 220 grain subs is lack of expansion.

There's this thing called ENERGY. Yes, energy matters. Have you ever seen the chest cavity of a doe shot from 50 yards with a 150 grain bullet traveling 3200 fps from the muzzle. Let me tell ya, I never found recognizable lung tissue in that deer, just a mass of protoplasm. That wasn't just from bullet expansion and a bigger hole. Needless to say, she dropped right there with a simple lung shot.

I watched a buck hit with that bullet a day before on the same hunt through my scope. I saw its chest swell from the pressure, then it dropped. It was quartering away and I hit it from 150 yards just behind the front right shoulder. THAT impressed me.

Yes, energy from a high velocity bullet kills in different ways than does an arrow or a subsonic bullet. I've seen much evidence of this in my 50 years of deer hunting. No bullet with sub 500 ft lbs or that, basically a .45ACP, is going to kill as fast as a .257" 100 grain Game King (for example) traveling 3150 fps and packing over 2000 ft lbs, just no comparison. The .257 wins that match. You can WISH it weren't so, but wishin' don't put meat on the table.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

If you've never heard of John Linebaugh or his work...

Look, you are the one intent on defending the clearly BS claim that a .45 colt round at 900 fps from the muzzle is going to go through a Mulie lengthwise at 100 yards.

Come on. Everyone even remotely familiar with this rolled their eyes at that.

No, this is a function of velocity and bullet construction.

Really, did you just say it's not a function of energy, it's a function of velocity? Then go on to explain that energy and velocity are coupled (because duh, everyone knows that energy and velocity are coupled)? A reduction in velocity necessarily means a reduction in energy unless there is a corresponding increase in mass.

Are you arguing just to argue now?

Two bullets of identical weight and velocity are going to produce identical energy. However, the one that expands the most will produce the broadest, yet shallowest wound channel.

In case you missed the entire thread, I'm talking about one specific bullet being lowered in energy state because of a reduction in velocity.

It's like you are intent on discussing anything and everything but the actual point.

a .300WinMag with a 180gr FMJ is going to produce far and away more energy than the .30-30 with a 170gr JSP. But which is going to insure a quicker kill on deer?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you impling that because the 300 WinMag has more energy than the .30-30, the .30-30 is somehow no longer effective? One bullet having a surplus of energy to do the job does not in any way imply or cause a completely unrelated bullet to not have the appropriate amount of energy.

It is you who is putting words in my mouth. No one is arguing this, at all.

That is the point exactly. That given the same bullet, the one traveling at the higher energy state will cause more wounding, because of it's higher energy state.

The point is that cartridges that produce very little energy, relatively speaking, are fully capable of taking even the largest game on earth...

You have two things confused here, one of which I've never argued against and the other you simply, clearly don't understand.

1) Large relatively slow bullets do just fine. I've never contested that. I've clearly stated that I use them myself.

2) Large and relatively slow does not mean low energy. A 405gr trucking out of a .45-70 is putting out close to 3500j. That is NOT low energy. That's 5-6 times the energy the 300 Blackout load in question is putting on target.

...because it conflicts with your beliefs

It conflicts with my firmly held belief that the .45-70 is a fine hunting firearm that I would and do chose to use and have had outstanding results with?

Really, are you even reading the thread now or just posting in a contrary fashion?

We the thousands who hunt with handguns every single year. We who don't wait for deer season but hunt wild hogs and other game year round. We who KNOW you're wrong because we've actually done it.

Okay, point to me where I said handguns can't kill animals?

Hang on, first read this bit from a post earlier in the thread:

"Don't get me wrong, I love the 45 Colt. My Blackhawk has taken more animals on the ranch than all my rifles combined, but it's not a uber super ninja death ray. It is what it is. And I would never advocate using 45 Colt out of a pistol to take deer. That's not to say that there aren't people out there that do it successfully, just that there are better tools readily available that do the job better. 45 Colt out of a rifle gets far more spitting speed, 1300 to 1500 fps."

You were saying?

Stop trying to construct an argument that isn't being had.

Or in case the point still hasn't sunk in that you are having an argument entirely with yourself, from the very first post:

"By the numbers, subsonic 300 BLK is trucking along with about the same energy as a 1911 firing .45 ACP +P Gold Dots. Now, I know someone out there hunts deer with a 1911, but I think we can mostly pretty much agree that should not be the norm for the vast majority of hunters. Can it be done? Of course it can. You can kill deer with a .22. It requires perfect shot placement though"

I think we are describing the same phenomena though.

Indeed we are.

 

[MCgunner]

Look, you are the one intent on defending the clearly BS claim that a .45 colt round at 900 fps from the muzzle is going to go through a Mulie lengthwise at 100 yards.

Come on. Everyone even remotely familiar with this rolled their eyes at that.

I've shot a LOT of trapped hogs with pistol loads of various type. I've done intentional lung/shoulder shots with the bigger calibers, .22 only goes to the head out of respect for the animal. I have seen the effects of a 950 ft per second 255 grain Lee cast flat nose (over 8.3 grains Unique) on multiple pigs. Trust me when I say I carry a .357 magnum for serious self defense, not the .45 Colt load in question. On hogs, the .357 is more impressive. This was not a scientific Strasbourg type test, but just observation on my own out of curiosity. The pigs needed killin' and they weren't going anywhere.

I've killed pigs with my .357 Blackhawk in actual hunting. That gun has a 6.5" barrel and produces 785 ft lbs at the muzzle. I trust it no further than 50 yards, but it worked. If I shoot one with my .45 Colt, it'll be a 300 grain XTP moving out of a 7" barrel at 1200 fps for 1000 ft lbs, not the 255 grain load. I see people touting the .45 Colt 255 grain subsonic bullet all the time, but in my experience, I won't use it for hunting.

 

[Jason_W]

It's interesting. No matter what what round/load a person claims is or isn't ok for deer, at least one person out there will take an opposite stance.

I once mentioned in a thread that I thought it was a little crazy that the .22 mag is a legal deer round in Maine. The assertion offended at least one person.

If you state that the .50 BMG is overkill for deer, you can rest assured a .50 BMG deer hunter will be along shortly to yell at you.

Not that it will put any internet debates to bed (the internet, for some reason, inevitably brings out peoples' contrary sides) but a grand empirical study on big game kills would be interesting. That's what's really lacking in threads like these: good data.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, since I can't shoot bows worth a toot due to eye dominance problems and can't coordinate well enough to shoot lefty like I've done with rifles and shotguns all my life, my next deer killing tool is going to be a crossbow. With sticks and strings, things have to bleed out, usually. So, I'll have to get used to the idea that i'm going to have to track 'em after the shot, I guess. The main reason I wish to do this is that does (we have way too many in this county vs bucks) need to be thinned and are legal during bow season. I saw lots of doe this season and spooked the only shootable buck (must be 3 points or less or a 13" inside spread) on opening day. :banghead: Bummer.

There truly is more'n one way to kill a deer. In my experience with rifles, energy matters, but arrows do it different. I like to hunt with a .50 Caliber CVA Wolf that tosses a 385 grain Minie ball to near 1800 fps. THAT combines big, flat bullet with energy, at least to woods ranges. I think of it as a .50/90 sharps with no brass.

 

[CraigC]

I'm going to address this post and then leave it be.

Yes, energy matters.

Really? Take three identical .44Mag loads, identical bullet weights at identical speeds. One being a 240gr JHP, one a 240gr FMJ, the other a 240gr SWC. All three produce the same level of kinetic energy. All three will exit a deer on a broadside shot. Which will produce the most tissue damage? The one that expands to .75"? Based on what, energy? Or something else? It can't be energy because we are able to ascertain which is the most effective without even knowing what the energy produced is. Change the FMJ to 300gr at the same velocity. Energy goes up exponentially, does effectiveness? No. Why not? Energy went up, by your logic it must be more effective. Drive it 200fps faster, energy is increased dramatically. Is it more effective? No. Why not? Because it's still going to perform the same function with little tissue disruption. Fact is, we know we can drive a heavier FMJ faster but it won't make it more effective. Flip it around. We can drive the SWC 200fps less and it will basically produce the same result. Why? If energy is decreased, then surely it's less effective? Not really. Only in ballistics tables and the minds of those who believe it. In the real world, where bullets meet flesh, it's a little more abstract than that.

We can determine all this without even knowing how much energy any of these loads produce. If we can determine all of this without knowing, then what does it matter?

There truly is more'n one way to kill a deer. In my experience with rifles, energy matters, but arrows do it different.

This is very true and kinda the point. Arrows do it different but then again, so do big bores.

I like to hunt with a .50 Caliber CVA Wolf that tosses a 385 grain Minie ball to near 1800 fps. THAT combines big, flat bullet with energy, at least to woods ranges.

And what would happen if you launched that same bullet 500fps slower? The answer is that you'd have less effective range because it would shoot less flat but the effect on game within 100yds would be the same. Why? It obviously ain't because of energy.

 

[MCgunner]

And what would happen if you launched that same bullet 500fps slower? The answer is that you'd have less effective range because it would shoot less flat but the effect on game within 100yds would be the same. Why? It obviously ain't because of energy.

At some point, you're going to have to track the animal more often than not. Even a 50 caliber bullet moving at, say, 400 fps, isn't gonna get it done, even if it fully penetrates.

Really? Take three identical .44Mag loads, identical bullet weights at identical speeds. One being a 240gr JHP, one a 240gr FMJ, the other a 240gr SWC. All three produce the same level of kinetic energy. All three will exit a deer on a broadside shot. Which will produce the most tissue damage? The one that expands to .75"? Based on what, energy? Or something else? It can't be energy because we are able to ascertain which is the most effective without even knowing what the energy produced is. Change the FMJ to 300gr at the same velocity. Energy goes up exponentially, does effectiveness? No. Why not? Energy went up, by your logic it must be more effective. Drive it 200fps faster, energy is increased dramatically. Is it more effective? No. Why not? Because it's still going to perform the same function with little tissue disruption. Fact is, we know we can drive a heavier FMJ faster but it won't make it more effective. Flip it around. We can drive the SWC 200fps less and it will basically produce the same result. Why? If energy is decreased, then surely it's less effective? Not really. Only in ballistics tables and the minds of those who believe it. In the real world, where bullets meet flesh, it's a little more abstract than that.

We can determine all this without even knowing how much energy any of these loads produce. If we can determine all of this without knowing, then what does it matter?

So, then, you'd prefer a .44 magnum rifle to a .300 Winchester Magnum for elk hunting inside 100 yards just because the .44 has a bigger bullet diameter? Not me, but to each his own.

This is very true and kinda the point. Arrows do it different but then again, so do big bores.

But, you'll be tracking, the point of the OP. I've killed a LOT of game with high powered rifle cartridges and few of 'em went very far, most bang/flopped. The occurrence of the bang/flop isn't as often with bows. In fact, tracking is almost a sure thing. I have a small place, here, but I'm fortunate in having good neighbors who won't get mad if I have to track something across the fence. I've killed two deer here since the move, both bang flops, one with a rifle, one with buckshot which hit the head. Even 3 buck from a 20 gauge can bang flop with a head shot.

The two I've killed with my .50 caliber CVA were bang flops. But, then again, that thing is making about 2800 ft lbs at the muzzle, just does it more through bullet weight (a factor in energy) than with velocity. Both were inside 40 yards, so not much loss of energy, either.