It's a private ranch; if the rancher doesn't care why should anyone else? I know Steve feels bad about not seeing it, but in the lemons-to-lemonade world, I bet the kid would have been great smoked whole low and slow and pulled for tacos.
Lead Poisoning
- Thread starter ButterBean
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Lou270,
Is that the test where the .257" diameter was concluded to be the best, based on where the animal stopped in relation to where it was shot? If that is the, do you use .257" diameter bullets?
Is that the test where the .257" diameter was concluded to be the best, based on where the animal stopped in relation to where it was shot? If that is the, do you use .257" diameter bullets?
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Not a lot but that is the point. You can't claim not giving anything up. Here is one that I have seen referenced in several sources
Not scientific but lines up with lot of folks experience:
Loaded for Deer: Lead-Core Bullets Remain Best Choice - Game & Fish
The best deer bullets don't have to be fancy. Here are four excellent options that anchor deer quickly.www.gameandfishmag.com
Again - make the claim. Do the science
Lou
Did you know you can try Hammer bullets and get a full refund if not satisfied? Like the old Alka-Seltzer ad claimed, "Try it. You'll like it."
Not sure if you can't read but the conclusion is in the study where they said caliber did not matter. Bullet construction was most important.
These are the types of studies needed for people to make sounds decisions on science not folks coming from righteous positions (ie save the birds but who cares about the deer) nor fan-boying for their favorite
I am trying hammer bullets but I also test a lot of bullets on game (hogs mostly) and will come to my own conclusions. However that is not scientific nor is the methods these types of videos use to show mono bullets are as effective as lead. Most of them show a guy shooting into water and collecting lead fragments then looking at the recovered bullet and declaring the mono bullet better because it penetrates more. That is not science and tells you nothing about effectiveness on game. You could use the same criteria and show an arrow is just as good for hunting with no context so why do we need bullets at all.
So don't deny the science because you fear it is a gun or hunting grab. But also dont deny the lack of science because it benefits your favorite whatever.
Lou
memtb
Well-Known Member
Not trying to be argumentative…..but, I think that game/animal size should be considered in the discussion!
If "head shots" are not entered into the equation…..I would suggest that on very large game, a large properly constructed, bullet will be more effective than an equally placed, properly construsted small bullet!
Perhaps I'm missing something here! memtb
Memtb
My opinion is caliber makes a difference sometimes, however, you know what they say about opinions
. The other game study I am aware of is the swedish moose one where there was not much difference im distance traveled for recovery whether shot with a 6.5 or 375. However do not have link to details on that one.
Lou
Lou
My opinion is caliber makes a difference sometimes, however, you know what they say about opinions
. The other game study I am aware of is the swedish moose one where there was not much difference im distance traveled for recovery whether shot with a 6.5 or 375. However do not have link to details on that one.Lou
Lou
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
Way back in the day I had a great time with the "Scientific Method" and the principles have stuck with me throughout life. Hypothesis, dependent & independent variables. A test mut be repeatable, contain numerous test samples, and identify and correct experimenter bias as much as humanly possible. It was either a blessing or a curse! LOLMemtb
My opinion is caliber makes a difference sometimes, however, you know what they say about opinions
Lou
Lou
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
No replacement for animal testing. We have successfully tested prototypes in media in the past then used them on animals with poor results. Thankfully we had the opportunity to test on animals and never took that product to market.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
So then, it is not the study that concluded bullet shot animals travel shorter distance after being hit with a .257" diameter bullet? No problem.
As a result of that study I put a .257" barrel on a rifle. I ordered some G.S.Custom 85 grain bullets and fired them across the Oehler 33 for thirty shots. They averaged 3,910 feet per second. I shot three deer that year. All three required three shots each. I switched the barrel out for a .264" diameter barrel and killed lots of stuff with one shot. If I merely switched to a different bullet in the .257" it perhaps would have achieved the same results.
Since I don't seem to be able to leave things alone, I had Oregunsmithing.llc in Pendelton, Oregon bore the 6.5mm barrel out to 8mm.
You mentioned science at least a couple times. What is the accepted definition of science you use?
Unless you are illiterate read the conclusions of the study. It so clearly states them you have to be an idiot to misinterpret them. As for science definition , the one everybody else does. If you have to ask then you probably don't know or trying to rationalize something.
Lou
Lou
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Again, I don't think we are discussing the same test. But you and I can respond to each other in a few more posts if you like.
Hog shots at 450 yards will teach volumes.
memtb
Well-Known Member
memtbConclusions
- Shooting percentages about 82%.
- The farther the shot, the lower the chance of getting the deer.
- Deer ran about 62 yards on average.
- Shot placement is determining factor. All things considered, broadside shoulder shot worked best compared to others.
- About 50:50, deer run vs. deer don't run.
- Trained dog expedited recovery of all deer that ran.
- Dog very important in recovering 61 deer that left poor/no sign, 24 deer judged unrecoverable, and 19 live/wounded deer.
- Dog accounted for approximately 15 – 20% of total harvest on hunting area, i.e. 75 – 100 deer.
- No difference in effectiveness of various calibers.
- No difference between factory vs. custom firearms.
- Significant difference between bullet types. This study indicates that rapidly expanding bullets lead to deer running less often and less distance and when they run they leave better sign.
As for 257 think that is this one but you only looked at table. Sounds like you had some poor bullet performance with your results. The study concluded did not see any difference increasing or decreasing caliber as between smaller and larger calibers at least for size of game and ranges in test. I guess one could take the table out of context as there is something magical about 257. What they did find is fast expanders killed more quickly and left better blood trails in all calibers. They had significantly more drops, less travel, and better blood trails. It probably infers that most of the more limited number of deer shot with 257 were shot with fast expanders.
Lou
