Through or against the other side of the skin, what are your thoughts

[sgt_zim]

Opionions vary on everything, this included. I dont believe in the so called energy dump theory except when the bullet fully enters the chest cavity and literally explodes due to complete fragmentation. If a bullet stops at the offside skin, it obviously is out of gas and thus no energy dump, its already expended its energy getting there.
In general I think two holes are better than one. Trauma and blood loss kill animals, not foot pounds.

Exactly this. It's not like the bullet penetrates 99% of the way through at say 2300 fps, then all of a sudden stops as if it hit a brick wall

 

[Jörg Krüger]

2 holes bleed more than 1 hole.

besides...the whole "energy dumping" thing has been so thoroughly discredited that it's barely worth a discussion.

If you shoot a 500# animal with a bullet that weighs 300 gr, the animal has almost 12K times more mass than the bullet. the bullet could be traveling at the speed of light (ignoring the infinite mass for the moment) and it will not "dump energy" in any appreciable way inside the body of the animal.

2 holes, with a big wound channel in between. that is the best you can hope for (assuming good shot placement, of course)

Thank you for your input. I much appreciate it. My 308 Norma(300 wm ) in no slouch. And yes, the Sierra Game Kings loose a bit of mass at closer distances. But will this not put a big affect in the boiler room?

 

[IvW]

One hole in the right place is all that is needed...especially when hunting Buffalo en herds....

 

[Jörg Krüger]

One hole in the right place is all that is needed...especially when hunting Buffalo en herds....

What's your thought about energy transfer on this subject as we know that shot placement is the alpha and omega in hunting?

 

[Jörg Krüger]

As per @Ike85123 a proper 1 shot gets even a Cape Buff down on its knees

 

[sestoppelman]

As per @Ike85123 a proper 1 shot gets even a Cape Buff down on its knees
View attachment 400833

OUCH!!

 

[IvW]

What's your thought about energy transfer on this subject as we know that shot placement is the alpha and omega in hunting?

Appropriate caliber with the right bullet in the right place kills, the bullet and the damage it does kills. Energy is there but is just a factor.

I have seen on many occasions that two different bullet designs have vastly different effects on game especially DG....many buffalo seen showing no effect from multiple shots from round nose solids where one shot from proper expanding bullet finish the job...
I only use proper expanding bullets on buffalo huntingband backup only expanding bullets.....

Thebdamage the bullet does is very important

 

[Jörg Krüger]

I appreciate and love your feedback. Now the question comes too play with Gemsbok size game. As you might have read I shoot Sierra gameking,, and they do tend to brake up a bit at high velocity(and the main question asked with Gemsbok sized game) is through better( and this is where it becomes very tricky)or is it better against the skin ( with a bit of fragmentation in vitals).

 

[Rimshot]

It depends, I believe either can be 'the answer' depending on circumstance.

If hunting from a blind, stand, or ambush area that allows for being assured a broadside presentation, I prefer a rapidly expanding, "softer" bullet. Game rarely goes far if it doesn't flop over right away. I've never had to track something shot with my little 250 Savage 99, but there usually isn't much blood leaking out. The chest cavity looks like it was put in a blender though. Conversely I've heart-shot a deer with a 45-70 and it ran almost 200 yards, yet the blood highway was easy to follow.

If it's spot and stalk, or still hunting, I'm using a bullet/cartridge combination that provides enough toughness and penetration energy to poke thru the vitals at severely quartering angles and smash heavy bone, because that might be the only presentation you get before the opportunity is gone.

If you don't want to think about it too much, or just ascribe to the K.I.S.S. principle, then the tougher, limited expansion, high sectional density, high penetration is the universal/adequate in all situations option.

 

[IvW]

I dont like soft bullets, prefer controlled expansion with max weight retention. I dont like Sierra Gamekings on tough plains game animals. Gemsbuck fall in the tough plains game category.
I prefer one hole on all animals big or small.
And I dont like high velocity, 2150to 2400 being ideal for large and dg game and max 2750 for long range shots with heavy for caliber bullets out to 300.

If I had a 300 mag I would load 200gr bullets to about 2750 fps and be good to go up to eland for my max limit of 300 yards, again controlled expansion premium grade bullets.

 

[mdwest]

I am in the belief that a bullet that got to the other side of the skin and stopped there, put all its energy into the buck,

Ive heard a lot of people speak to this over the years.. but Im not sure it makes sense or is true (maybe one of the engineers could confirm/deny?)..

For the sake of argument.. if you fire a 168 grain .308 projectile at 2600 fps and it goes through the body and stops on the opposite side without exiting... and I fire a 168gr .308 projectile at 2750 fps and it is a complete pass through..

wouldnt that simply mean my projectile had more energy in the first place.. and likely distributed just as much energy into the animal as yours did.. but because mine had more energy to begin with, the bullet exited with the additional energy and continued to move until that remaining energy was expended?

And I now have the advantage of the same amount of transferred energy... AND.. two holes for bleed out..


Without being a surgeon (or an engineer for that matter).. I guess Ive never really noticed a difference in the wound channels between two similar rounds on two similar animals (assuming all other elements are also close to equal.. angle of the shot, etc).. where one round leaves the body and the other doesnt..

I get the whole temp wound channel vs permanent wound channel debate and that maybe you dont "see" where the difference would be (in the temp channel).. but that should be easy enough to dispel n(or confirm) with someone using ballistic gellatin and a high speed camera..

At the end of the day, for me, the real answer in terms of my preference is "really dont care much"... Im a pretty big fan of being well gunned for whatever the intended quarry is... and I tend to use high quality projectiles in everything I shoot that reliably open, create big holes, etc.. So.. two holes or one.. really hasnt ever mattered to me.. the only animals I have ever had to track a considerable distance before have both been in Africa.. one was shot with a bow.. the other two were less than perfect shots that would have had the same result (long tracks) regardless of 1 hole or two.. and we had some of the best trackers Ive ever seen in my life on both of those particular hunts..

Everything else I've ever shot in my life has either dropped in its tracks.. or gone less than 30 yards before expiring.. so 1 hole or 2 really hasnt been an issue..

 

[IvW]

Why do so many people think an animal will bleed more with two holes?
Same shot no exit will bleed internally the same...
In Africa we dont need two bleeding holes to find an animal....

 

[curtism1234]

Why do so many people think an animal will bleed more with two holes?
Same shot no exit will bleed internally the same...
In Africa we dont need two bleeding holes to find an animal....

We believe it will bleed more externally. In the US, we need 2 holes to find an animal

 

[375Fox]

Why do so many people think an animal will bleed more with two holes?
Same shot no exit will bleed internally the same...
In Africa we dont need two bleeding holes to find an animal....

More than a few animals have been lost in Africa too because it was declared missed when they couldn’t find the animal or any blood. You have not explained why you feel internal bleeding is better than external bleeding.

 

[curtism1234]

My shared experience on page 1 was with Sierra Gamekings.

The following will obviously depend on caliber, weight, and speed:
The Gameking has a reputation of being a tougher cup/core bullet. I've shot four 200 pound whitetail bucks with 165gr 308 winchester. All 4 results the same --- pencil size in hole, good internal destruction (it's not going to totally liquify lungs though), the bullet is up against the hide in a perfect mushroom with near 100% weight retention, and absolutely no blood trail. Textbook perfect, sure, but I will not use the 165gr in a 308 again (several others on this forum and other forums have had similar thoughts on this exact combo). Maybe the 150's in the 308 and maybe the 165's in a 30-06 or 300magnum. This is a bullet that needs to be pushed towards the upper velocities imo.

 

[IvW]

Shoot it in the wrong place one hole or three you may not find it...
One hole in the right place is all that is needed.
Internal external dont bother me I just prefer a bullet that penetrates to under the skin oposite side and the ones I use do..perfect

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Why do so many people think an animal will bleed more with two holes?
Same shot no exit will bleed internally the same...
In Africa we dont need two bleeding holes to find an animal....

Exactly. And there are so many factors that play into any given situation. My one and only black bear, shot a lifetime ago... Solid 6'er, don't know the weight. Shot was about 125 yards across a ravine, on steep terrain. Gun was a .300 WinMag shooting factory ammo, 180 grains as I recall. I felt like it was a solid hit. He ran downhill and I lost sight almost immediately. When I got over to the spot, there wasn't a trace of blood... and it started to rain. I eventually did a gradually widening circle, like following the start of the Yellow Brick Road. 50 yards downhill I stepped over him. He had fallen through dead grass (this was a spring hunt) into a 6' deep crevasse. I had a bullet sized hole in one side, through the heart, and out the other, no blood. If I hadn't stepped over him I might not have found him. At age 25 or 26ish... I didn't have a clue about bullet types, or that black bears can seal up and not leave a lot of blood. I know that now. Of course the point is... two holes killed it but one would have done the same, and in this case neither helped out as far as finding it.

 

[JimP]

We believe it will bleed more externally. In the US, we need 2 holes to find an animal

But then we don't have the expert trackers like they have in Africa. That is unless you hire a Native American to help you out.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hello,

I like an entrance (on the right spot) and an exit (also leaving at the right spot) hole. By far! The only situation I would not like this, would be the one were there is a posibility to wound another animal at the far side.
I see no problem with a good bleeding exit hole! I have lost a few Red Deer, found dead a week later, who didn´t left any blood to track. Period.

Best!

CF

 

[JimP]

The problem with crossing your fingers and hoping that the bullet stops on the far side when shooting at a animal that is in a herd is just that, luck.

Just as soon as you think that the bullet will stop it will blow through the animal