Here's a small excerpt from the original rough draft of a book I'm working on (already since copyrighted). I feel at least this much is good to share here, but I'm fully aware a lot stated here is controversial, especially in this forum. I'm reluctant to post this, but I'll try it anyways. It might be a TLDR post anyways for some 
Starting out, I'll give an example scenario: let's say a skeptical hunter has been on the internet looking at others' experiences hunting and has seen many folks talk about their successes using match style "target" bullets on their hunts. He decides to give it a go himself and buys a box of Hornady ELDMs or Sierra TMKs (just as an example), works up a good load, and is ready to go out on a hunt. He has this beautiful buck come walking out at 280 yards, it's quartering heavily to him, yet he aims in his usual spot (just behind the shoulder). He takes the shot, the buck leaps, then makes an attempt at running, makes it about 5 yards, and then piles up. Upon getting to the animal, he discovers there's no exit wound. This has already raised a flag for him, as he has been raised to desire an exit to create a blood trail if tracking is required, which typically it has been in the past with bullets he's used to using. So now he's already thinking this bullet hasn't really performed as he'd hoped or thought it should. Now he begins to field dress the buck, and during the process has discovered the bullet did a good number on the rear lobe of the left lung, then sees multiple lacerations on the liver, then sees bits of rumen and evidence the bullet traveled into the guts. He's been more convinced now this bullet didn't perform well. He's found bits of jacket and bits of lead here and there in the cavity and tissues as well, concluding the bullet completely came apart and failed as a result. He's just made the conclusion that he was right, these bullets have no place in hunting as they just "blow up" and don't even produce an exit wound so you can properly track it.
So let's stop and take a closer look at that example. Let's clear our minds and any bias based on what you might have been previously taught. In that particular scenario, a tougher constructed bullet, such as the highly popular Remington Core Lokts, Nosler Accubonds or Partitions, Hornady ELDX or SST, etc, etc might have actually performed much worse with that particular shot. They typically wouldn't have come apart quite as much and while the animal likely would still have died at some point, it also most likely would have been a much slower death and very likely would have ran a long ways before succumbing to its wounds and/or asphyxiation. Yes, an exit would have, could have, definitely proved useful in that situation. It's very possible any of those bullets would have simply gone through the lung and punched out between the liver, and in that scenario, a lot of times death doesn't occur for a long time.
Bullets such as Sierra TMKs, Hornady ELDMs or A-Tips, Bergers of the hybrid design, etc are actually very forgiving to less than ideal shot placements like in that example because they do indeed come apart and they'll inflict much more damage, create much wider wounding, and cause a much faster death. The softer/frangible bullets still tend to shed enough material outwards that they'll still hit liver and/or lung when shot placements aren't ideal and are in that "no man's land", and will typically still cause enough blood loss to find and recover the animal not far from where it was shot.
What a lot of people see when using bullets like the TMKs, Bergers, ELDMs, etc is what looks like the bullet came apart and didn't exit, and to them it seems like poor performance, but what they fail to realize and comprehend is what's right in front of them. They actually DO have the animal and they're actually able to cut it open to see those results, rather than still out there trying to find the animal.
When a bullet actually fails, you don't have an animal to examine, typically, so it's easy to make that misconception. The animals that get hit with shots like that and with bullets like Core Lokts, etc, and the animal simply takes off never to be found, is when most people think they simply missed. In reality, most times they do hit the animal, but the bullet did not transfer enough energy to drop it, nor create sufficient blood loss in a timely matter to cause a quick enough death to even see the animal ever drop.
A lot of hunters tend to only look at the deer/animals recovered and create a bias on the perceived results based solely on those instances. They don't factor in the ones that got away because they either figure they missed or they simply never see the results to even know what really happened inside the animal and with that particular bullet. In my example, they see a bullet that came apart and want to assume that it's poor performance, even if the animal dropped on the spot or only went a few feet or yards. They tend to focus on things they've heard or have been told and only focus on the small picture rather than the big picture and what's right in front of them.
Many people want to conclude that a bullet that didn't exit failed. Honestly, if it truly failed, you wouldn't have the animal to even see that it didn't exit. More times than not, the true failures are the times the animal was never recovered because the bullet simply didn't inflict sufficient trauma to cause a quick enough death, or death at all. Bullets that create exits that allow for a blood trail, and a blood trail that's actually needed to track it, are also, in my opinion and experience, to be considered not ideal performance since needing to track it via a blood trail is a sign that death did not occur as fast as it could or should have. That said, no bullet is going to work 100% of the time, every time. There are always going to be anomalies with both the bullet, and the particular animal. Some animals are dead on their feet and can defy all odds and logic and still manage to run without having any of its vital organs still intact. It's truly remarkable sometimes. These situations shouldn't be cause for rejection either.
Moving on, another common misconception and misunderstood subject involves meat loss/damage and meat saving shots.
The amount of meat damage with certain shots will always depend on bullet construction/composition, impact velocity and amount of resistance, and things like angle of the shot, muscle tension and density upon impact. A relaxed shoulder will typically result in different amount of wounding vs a contracted shoulder. Even the bullet's RPMs has a big influence on wound channel size as well, in regards to centrifugal forces causing the bullet to come apart more or less.
Besides headshots and gut shots, it's near impossible to get reliable and repeatable results- killing quickly and humanely (not talking ethics here)- without losing at least some meat. It's just the nature of the beast. Proper bullet selection is crucial. By placing your shot accordingly, based on that particular bullet and the impact velocity it'll be at when it hits the animal, and at the distance you engaged it, you can balance out the amount of expansion and penetration and achieve best results with minimal meat damage yet still an emphatic death.
Hunters that desire a quick and clean kill with zero meat loss in a repeatable, consistent, and reliable manner are living in a fantasy world, sorry to say. Sure, you can get lucky, but getting lucky is not a repeatable, consistent, and reliable thing.
Blood loss is what kills most efficiently, reliably, and quickly. Hitting an animal in the body and inflicting enough blood loss to kill the animal quickly, but not lose any meat is just not something you can count on. You run more of a risk losing an animal with bullet performance like that than you do dropping them and killing them quickly. And honestly, if you use the right bullet, within the limits of that bullet, you're really not going to lose a lot of meat with a shoulder shot. Guys act like shoulder meat is the best meat on the animal and that they're going to lose so many pounds of meat placing their shot there. That's simply not true. Not unless you used the wrong bullet or placed it in the shoulder when it would be impacting well outside it's limits, as in too high of an impact velocity and/or amount of resistance for the bullet type and weight you're using. That'll result in shallow penetration and over-expansion near the surface. That indeed will result in more meat lost, but that's not the bullet's fault or necessarily the shot placement's fault either. It's the hunter's/shooter's fault for not knowing that would be a poor shot placement under the circumstances for that particular bullet. That's when a behind-the-should shot, or neck shot, or even head shot would actually be a better choice.
Bullets that don't shed weight and hold together do tend to reduce meat loss/damage, but that comes at a trade-off. Typically, the overall amount of wounding is less with that type of bullet. If it impacts below its ideal velocity, the amount of wounding will be even less. If you miss vitals, you may very well miss recovering the animal too. A well constructed cup and core bullet, for example, that will indeed shed weight can be much more forgiving in that particular scenario since it would produce wider wounding and may still reach vitals and be the difference between recovering the animal or not.
Ultimately, there are multiple factors to consider, but in my experience and all the research and studying I've done and with all the other info shared out there from others' hunts and experiences, I have concluded you simply cannot guarantee consistent, reliable, repeatable quick and clean kills with zero meat loss. It's always been worth it to me to pick the right bullet and place it accordingly and lose a little meat than it is to risk losing ALL the meat by potentially not recovering the animal.
You can't guarantee a particular presentation of the animal either to count on executing your favorite particular shot placement. You can, however, still place your shot in other ideal areas to give you desired results- that being a quick and clean kill and a recovered animal.
When a hunter starts talking about how they want a bullet that penetrates deep, doesn't damage meat, and gives them a big blood trail to follow, it immediately tells me they don't fully understand terminal ballistics and bullet construction/composition, and the anatomy of the animal they're hunting, along with the basics in effective killing of game animals. You do not NEED a blood trail if you truly know what you're doing, are using the best bullet for the job, and place it in the appropriate place according to the situation you're presented with. A lot of people like to use the phrase "if I do my part". Well, I say that means knowing all of the things I just mentioned. Also, if you actually use the right bullet and can implement the high shoulder shot under your particular circumstances, you won't need a blood trail to track it.
This leads me to yet another misconception often discussed and touted as a crucial factor and something used as a minimum factor for a particular load/ammunition they're using, and that's energy. Personally, I stopped even looking at energy several years ago now. It's just not even a concern of mine if I know the minimum impact velocity limitation of the particular bullet I'm using, and if I'll be within/above it. Impact velocity, sectional density, and shot placement are the main factors I worry about, and the things that influence those things. Energy is great, don't get me wrong, but it's only a potential and the bullet has to transfer that energy for it to really work in your favor.
Ultimately, you still need to inflict sufficient blood loss along with transferring any energy. That's what's most important. So an extra 100-300fps or 200-400ft-lbs, for example, isn't really going to matter much. What really should be the focus is impact velocity as a threshold number, not energy. Energy, in regards to bullets and terminal ballistics, is only a potential, and if the bullet doesn't expand properly, it won't dump all the energy into the animal anyways. How a bullet performs terminally is dependent upon impact VELOCITY, the amount of resistance it encounters upon impact, and of course the construction/composition of the particular bullet used.
Most of the minimum energy figures you see stated and recommended out there are not good information and are made by those that either don't fully understand, or don't understand at all, terminal ballistics. It's unfortunately given many others a false sense of what is important too. When you see bullet manufacturers, conservation agencies, big names in the industry, etc talk about minimum energy needed, it's easy to trust them and believe it's a figure you need to look at, but it's just not. If the bullet doesn't expand properly, it won't transfer that energy at the right time, or at all. What ultimately kills is blood loss. Transferring/dumping a ton of energy is beneficial only to shut down the central nervous system (CNS). That'll drop the animal, putting it into a temporary coma, allowing it to bleed out where it lies.
So ideally, yes you do want sufficient energy, but if you're not using the right bullet and not placing it in the right area, it won't matter. You could have 2000 ft-lbs of energy in a bullet at the time of impact, but if the bullet punches or pencils right through, most all of that energy just exits with the bullet and the animal typically gets away. So what did all that energy do for you? Nothing.
My figures with ideal impact velocity ranges come from tons of personal research and experience, not from advertisements from manufacturers. Once you get a really good grasp on terminal ballistics and bullet construction/composition, and know how certain types of bullets perform terminally, you can look at a particular bullet that you haven't used personally and you can already form a really good idea and assumption of how that bullet will perform based on that prior experience.
The thing that's helped hunters using magnum cartridges (or any cartridge pushing typical high velocities) is the velocity they achieve, not so much the energy they produce. The impact velocity tends to be more than sufficient at typical ranges they're used. With those cartridges though, and using softer constructed bullets below .260 sectional density, and on larger/tougher game, especially with shot placements where resistance upon impact is high, you can experience shallow penetration and over-expansion.
That said, there's actually plenty of vitals behind the shoulder, and if the animal is quartering to, pretty much all the vitals will be through the shoulder. So with the right bullet, used where it would still be within its limits (sufficient sectional density, impact velocity, etc), that's a great placement even though resistance will typically be high. The lungs hold the most blood and a double lung shot will allow an animal to bleed out quicker than a heart shot, especially if the heart is still pumping. The biggest parts of the front lobes of the lungs are behind the shoulder of most animals. There's an autonomic plexus (nerve bundle) behind the shoulder too- the brachial. Hitting it with enough hydrostatic shock will shut down the CNS, dropping the animal, and with sufficient hydraulic shock (bullet expansion and wound channel size) the animal will bleed out before it can recover. It's an ideal shot placement. It's not ideal though if your particular bullet won't handle the amount of resistance it'll encounter though. That'll be dependent upon the construction type sectional density, and impact velocity though, as I've also mentioned.
***The above would be extra info to go along with the info in my posts linked above. Take this for what you will. An improved and much longer and more detailed version is coming in boom form hopefully soon, for whatever that's worth. I just strive to help hunters succeed, same as I strive for myself.
Starting out, I'll give an example scenario: let's say a skeptical hunter has been on the internet looking at others' experiences hunting and has seen many folks talk about their successes using match style "target" bullets on their hunts. He decides to give it a go himself and buys a box of Hornady ELDMs or Sierra TMKs (just as an example), works up a good load, and is ready to go out on a hunt. He has this beautiful buck come walking out at 280 yards, it's quartering heavily to him, yet he aims in his usual spot (just behind the shoulder). He takes the shot, the buck leaps, then makes an attempt at running, makes it about 5 yards, and then piles up. Upon getting to the animal, he discovers there's no exit wound. This has already raised a flag for him, as he has been raised to desire an exit to create a blood trail if tracking is required, which typically it has been in the past with bullets he's used to using. So now he's already thinking this bullet hasn't really performed as he'd hoped or thought it should. Now he begins to field dress the buck, and during the process has discovered the bullet did a good number on the rear lobe of the left lung, then sees multiple lacerations on the liver, then sees bits of rumen and evidence the bullet traveled into the guts. He's been more convinced now this bullet didn't perform well. He's found bits of jacket and bits of lead here and there in the cavity and tissues as well, concluding the bullet completely came apart and failed as a result. He's just made the conclusion that he was right, these bullets have no place in hunting as they just "blow up" and don't even produce an exit wound so you can properly track it.
So let's stop and take a closer look at that example. Let's clear our minds and any bias based on what you might have been previously taught. In that particular scenario, a tougher constructed bullet, such as the highly popular Remington Core Lokts, Nosler Accubonds or Partitions, Hornady ELDX or SST, etc, etc might have actually performed much worse with that particular shot. They typically wouldn't have come apart quite as much and while the animal likely would still have died at some point, it also most likely would have been a much slower death and very likely would have ran a long ways before succumbing to its wounds and/or asphyxiation. Yes, an exit would have, could have, definitely proved useful in that situation. It's very possible any of those bullets would have simply gone through the lung and punched out between the liver, and in that scenario, a lot of times death doesn't occur for a long time.
Bullets such as Sierra TMKs, Hornady ELDMs or A-Tips, Bergers of the hybrid design, etc are actually very forgiving to less than ideal shot placements like in that example because they do indeed come apart and they'll inflict much more damage, create much wider wounding, and cause a much faster death. The softer/frangible bullets still tend to shed enough material outwards that they'll still hit liver and/or lung when shot placements aren't ideal and are in that "no man's land", and will typically still cause enough blood loss to find and recover the animal not far from where it was shot.
What a lot of people see when using bullets like the TMKs, Bergers, ELDMs, etc is what looks like the bullet came apart and didn't exit, and to them it seems like poor performance, but what they fail to realize and comprehend is what's right in front of them. They actually DO have the animal and they're actually able to cut it open to see those results, rather than still out there trying to find the animal.
When a bullet actually fails, you don't have an animal to examine, typically, so it's easy to make that misconception. The animals that get hit with shots like that and with bullets like Core Lokts, etc, and the animal simply takes off never to be found, is when most people think they simply missed. In reality, most times they do hit the animal, but the bullet did not transfer enough energy to drop it, nor create sufficient blood loss in a timely matter to cause a quick enough death to even see the animal ever drop.
A lot of hunters tend to only look at the deer/animals recovered and create a bias on the perceived results based solely on those instances. They don't factor in the ones that got away because they either figure they missed or they simply never see the results to even know what really happened inside the animal and with that particular bullet. In my example, they see a bullet that came apart and want to assume that it's poor performance, even if the animal dropped on the spot or only went a few feet or yards. They tend to focus on things they've heard or have been told and only focus on the small picture rather than the big picture and what's right in front of them.
Many people want to conclude that a bullet that didn't exit failed. Honestly, if it truly failed, you wouldn't have the animal to even see that it didn't exit. More times than not, the true failures are the times the animal was never recovered because the bullet simply didn't inflict sufficient trauma to cause a quick enough death, or death at all. Bullets that create exits that allow for a blood trail, and a blood trail that's actually needed to track it, are also, in my opinion and experience, to be considered not ideal performance since needing to track it via a blood trail is a sign that death did not occur as fast as it could or should have. That said, no bullet is going to work 100% of the time, every time. There are always going to be anomalies with both the bullet, and the particular animal. Some animals are dead on their feet and can defy all odds and logic and still manage to run without having any of its vital organs still intact. It's truly remarkable sometimes. These situations shouldn't be cause for rejection either.
Moving on, another common misconception and misunderstood subject involves meat loss/damage and meat saving shots.
The amount of meat damage with certain shots will always depend on bullet construction/composition, impact velocity and amount of resistance, and things like angle of the shot, muscle tension and density upon impact. A relaxed shoulder will typically result in different amount of wounding vs a contracted shoulder. Even the bullet's RPMs has a big influence on wound channel size as well, in regards to centrifugal forces causing the bullet to come apart more or less.
Besides headshots and gut shots, it's near impossible to get reliable and repeatable results- killing quickly and humanely (not talking ethics here)- without losing at least some meat. It's just the nature of the beast. Proper bullet selection is crucial. By placing your shot accordingly, based on that particular bullet and the impact velocity it'll be at when it hits the animal, and at the distance you engaged it, you can balance out the amount of expansion and penetration and achieve best results with minimal meat damage yet still an emphatic death.
Hunters that desire a quick and clean kill with zero meat loss in a repeatable, consistent, and reliable manner are living in a fantasy world, sorry to say. Sure, you can get lucky, but getting lucky is not a repeatable, consistent, and reliable thing.
Blood loss is what kills most efficiently, reliably, and quickly. Hitting an animal in the body and inflicting enough blood loss to kill the animal quickly, but not lose any meat is just not something you can count on. You run more of a risk losing an animal with bullet performance like that than you do dropping them and killing them quickly. And honestly, if you use the right bullet, within the limits of that bullet, you're really not going to lose a lot of meat with a shoulder shot. Guys act like shoulder meat is the best meat on the animal and that they're going to lose so many pounds of meat placing their shot there. That's simply not true. Not unless you used the wrong bullet or placed it in the shoulder when it would be impacting well outside it's limits, as in too high of an impact velocity and/or amount of resistance for the bullet type and weight you're using. That'll result in shallow penetration and over-expansion near the surface. That indeed will result in more meat lost, but that's not the bullet's fault or necessarily the shot placement's fault either. It's the hunter's/shooter's fault for not knowing that would be a poor shot placement under the circumstances for that particular bullet. That's when a behind-the-should shot, or neck shot, or even head shot would actually be a better choice.
Bullets that don't shed weight and hold together do tend to reduce meat loss/damage, but that comes at a trade-off. Typically, the overall amount of wounding is less with that type of bullet. If it impacts below its ideal velocity, the amount of wounding will be even less. If you miss vitals, you may very well miss recovering the animal too. A well constructed cup and core bullet, for example, that will indeed shed weight can be much more forgiving in that particular scenario since it would produce wider wounding and may still reach vitals and be the difference between recovering the animal or not.
Ultimately, there are multiple factors to consider, but in my experience and all the research and studying I've done and with all the other info shared out there from others' hunts and experiences, I have concluded you simply cannot guarantee consistent, reliable, repeatable quick and clean kills with zero meat loss. It's always been worth it to me to pick the right bullet and place it accordingly and lose a little meat than it is to risk losing ALL the meat by potentially not recovering the animal.
You can't guarantee a particular presentation of the animal either to count on executing your favorite particular shot placement. You can, however, still place your shot in other ideal areas to give you desired results- that being a quick and clean kill and a recovered animal.
When a hunter starts talking about how they want a bullet that penetrates deep, doesn't damage meat, and gives them a big blood trail to follow, it immediately tells me they don't fully understand terminal ballistics and bullet construction/composition, and the anatomy of the animal they're hunting, along with the basics in effective killing of game animals. You do not NEED a blood trail if you truly know what you're doing, are using the best bullet for the job, and place it in the appropriate place according to the situation you're presented with. A lot of people like to use the phrase "if I do my part". Well, I say that means knowing all of the things I just mentioned. Also, if you actually use the right bullet and can implement the high shoulder shot under your particular circumstances, you won't need a blood trail to track it.
This leads me to yet another misconception often discussed and touted as a crucial factor and something used as a minimum factor for a particular load/ammunition they're using, and that's energy. Personally, I stopped even looking at energy several years ago now. It's just not even a concern of mine if I know the minimum impact velocity limitation of the particular bullet I'm using, and if I'll be within/above it. Impact velocity, sectional density, and shot placement are the main factors I worry about, and the things that influence those things. Energy is great, don't get me wrong, but it's only a potential and the bullet has to transfer that energy for it to really work in your favor.
Ultimately, you still need to inflict sufficient blood loss along with transferring any energy. That's what's most important. So an extra 100-300fps or 200-400ft-lbs, for example, isn't really going to matter much. What really should be the focus is impact velocity as a threshold number, not energy. Energy, in regards to bullets and terminal ballistics, is only a potential, and if the bullet doesn't expand properly, it won't dump all the energy into the animal anyways. How a bullet performs terminally is dependent upon impact VELOCITY, the amount of resistance it encounters upon impact, and of course the construction/composition of the particular bullet used.
Most of the minimum energy figures you see stated and recommended out there are not good information and are made by those that either don't fully understand, or don't understand at all, terminal ballistics. It's unfortunately given many others a false sense of what is important too. When you see bullet manufacturers, conservation agencies, big names in the industry, etc talk about minimum energy needed, it's easy to trust them and believe it's a figure you need to look at, but it's just not. If the bullet doesn't expand properly, it won't transfer that energy at the right time, or at all. What ultimately kills is blood loss. Transferring/dumping a ton of energy is beneficial only to shut down the central nervous system (CNS). That'll drop the animal, putting it into a temporary coma, allowing it to bleed out where it lies.
So ideally, yes you do want sufficient energy, but if you're not using the right bullet and not placing it in the right area, it won't matter. You could have 2000 ft-lbs of energy in a bullet at the time of impact, but if the bullet punches or pencils right through, most all of that energy just exits with the bullet and the animal typically gets away. So what did all that energy do for you? Nothing.
My figures with ideal impact velocity ranges come from tons of personal research and experience, not from advertisements from manufacturers. Once you get a really good grasp on terminal ballistics and bullet construction/composition, and know how certain types of bullets perform terminally, you can look at a particular bullet that you haven't used personally and you can already form a really good idea and assumption of how that bullet will perform based on that prior experience.
The thing that's helped hunters using magnum cartridges (or any cartridge pushing typical high velocities) is the velocity they achieve, not so much the energy they produce. The impact velocity tends to be more than sufficient at typical ranges they're used. With those cartridges though, and using softer constructed bullets below .260 sectional density, and on larger/tougher game, especially with shot placements where resistance upon impact is high, you can experience shallow penetration and over-expansion.
That said, there's actually plenty of vitals behind the shoulder, and if the animal is quartering to, pretty much all the vitals will be through the shoulder. So with the right bullet, used where it would still be within its limits (sufficient sectional density, impact velocity, etc), that's a great placement even though resistance will typically be high. The lungs hold the most blood and a double lung shot will allow an animal to bleed out quicker than a heart shot, especially if the heart is still pumping. The biggest parts of the front lobes of the lungs are behind the shoulder of most animals. There's an autonomic plexus (nerve bundle) behind the shoulder too- the brachial. Hitting it with enough hydrostatic shock will shut down the CNS, dropping the animal, and with sufficient hydraulic shock (bullet expansion and wound channel size) the animal will bleed out before it can recover. It's an ideal shot placement. It's not ideal though if your particular bullet won't handle the amount of resistance it'll encounter though. That'll be dependent upon the construction type sectional density, and impact velocity though, as I've also mentioned.
***The above would be extra info to go along with the info in my posts linked above. Take this for what you will. An improved and much longer and more detailed version is coming in boom form hopefully soon, for whatever that's worth. I just strive to help hunters succeed, same as I strive for myself.
. I'm a bit surprised.
L!
