Lead Poisoning

[Rich Coyle]

SCDNR - Wildlife Information

Conclusions

• 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.

I think you are assuming I am saying Hammers are bad so getting defensive? That is not case at all. Hammers and other petal shedders were likely not around at the time of this study. New / more studies are needed if we are to claim about effectivness of monos is equal as nothing to date backs up those claims other than anecdotal testimonies which swing either way. No offense to Steve and crew but ask any bullet maker and they will say theirs are best and there will be guys who say they are great and those who say they suck (and those guys are passionate about their choices)

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

You are BADLY mistaken in your assumption. I was responding to you bringing up a study. I didn't read your posted study, rather mentioned a study I read where the .257" bullets seemed to be more effective than the other bullet diameters. Hammer Bullets didn't influence my reply at all. That study was done years before Hammer Bullets were in business.

In my previous post I mentioned three deer. Like I have been doing all my life I made a mistake. It was two bucks and a sheep. The guide though I was missing, or at least gut shooting the sheep until he skinned it. All three hyper velocity 85 grain bullets went right through the lungs. The first two through the sides and hit both lungs and the third when it finally laid down facing us. It was no more than fifty yards away at that time. The guide asked, "Can you thread one through those obstructions and hit the chest?" "No sweat." BANG! With that the sheep dropped without even a quiver.

I have no idea why you chose to carry on this conversation, but if you keep on I will try to accommodate you with a responce.

 

[flyguy1]

SCDNR - Wildlife Information

Conclusions

• 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.

I think you are assuming I am saying Hammers are bad so getting defensive? That is not case at all. Hammers and other petal shedders were likely not around at the time of this study. New / more studies are needed if we are to claim about effectivness of monos is equal as nothing to date backs up those claims other than anecdotal testimonies which swing either way. No offense to Steve and crew but ask any bullet maker and they will say theirs are best and there will be guys who say they are great and those who say they suck (and those guys are passionate about their choices)

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

What's weird to me is that I never had a deer run more than a few yards; most just fell down with their feet in the air. And TBH, didn't see any difference between Partitions and TTSX. 300WinMag, but a couple with a gorgeous Cooper 25.06 my wife got me for Father's Day.

And my wife shoots a .260 Remington, and we mostly loaded, again, Partitions and TTSX (this was before Hammers) and nothing ran more than a few yards.

So what's with all these running deer?

When "studies" tell you things you don't believe based on your own experience, it means there is something going on. Maybe some really lousy shots.

 

[Lou270]

You are BADLY mistaken in your assumption. I was responding to you bringing up a study. I didn't read your posted study, rather mentioned a study I read where the .257" bullets seemed to be more effective than the other bullet diameters. Hammer Bullets didn't influence my reply at all. That study was done years before Hammer Bullets were in business.

In my previous post I mentioned three deer. Like I have been doing all my life I made a mistake. It was two bucks and a sheep. The guide though I was missing, or at least gut shooting the sheep until he skinned it. All three hyper velocity 85 grain bullets went right through the lungs. The first two through the sides and hit both lungs and the third when it finally laid down facing us. It was no more than fifty yards away at that time. The guide asked, "Can you thread one through those obstructions and hit the chest?" "No sweat." BANG! With that the sheep dropped without even a quiver.

I have no idea why you chose to carry on this conversation, but if you keep on I will try to accommodate you with a responce.

Whatever. You are the one that quoted me and asked questions about study and science. Only reason I responded with exact study I posted. I am not sure what the 257 anecdotes had to do with anything other than trying to discredit the study I posted or the mysterious one you are referring to.

Lou

 

[Lou270]

What's weird to me is that I never had a deer run more than a few yards; most just fell down with their feet in the air. And TBH, didn't see any difference between Partitions and TTSX. 300WinMag, but a couple with a gorgeous Cooper 25.06 my wife got me for Father's Day.

And my wife shoots a .260 Remington, and we mostly loaded, again, Partitions and TTSX (this was before Hammers) and nothing ran more than a few yards.

So what's with all these running deer?

When "studies" tell you things you don't believe based on your own experience, it means there is something going on. Maybe some really lousy shots.

Read the study. They cover bullet placement. The whole point of doing a study is to get a decent sample size across variables to draw conclusions from. In any case if some bullet does better with "poor shot placement" as you suggest that is not a bad characteristic to have

Lou

 

[VinceMule]

Hard to get around Physics. Sectional Density, the Specific Gravity of the material used, speed, and form. If you go at it with an open mind, you will learn something.

 

[memtb]

In any case if some bullet does better with "poor shot placement" as you suggest that is not a bad characteristic to have

Very true!

However, the "good characteristics" are also pretty handy if the hunter "must" take a "raking", or end to end shot on game larger than a 150 or so pound deer! memtb

 

[Rich Coyle]

Whatever. You are the one that quoted me and asked questions about study and science. Only reason I responded with exact study I posted. I am not sure what the 257 anecdotes had to do with anything other than trying to discredit the study I posted or the mysterious one you are referring to.

Lou

Your ability to speculate is world class.

Like I posted a couple times, I think we are referencing different studies. Why would I try to discredit a study which influenced me to purchase a .257" barrel? I had to design a reamer and get custom dies for it to get what I wanted. Cost me hundreds of dollars to use it on only three hunts.

 

[VinceMule]

Very true!

However, the "good characteristics" are also pretty handy if the hunter "must" take a "raking", or end to end shot on game larger than a 150 or so pound deer! memtb

Old school, 30 cal 165g Hornady btsp and flat base work extremely well for this kind of shot. So does the 7mm 154g Hornady sp and the 162g Hornady btsp.

I think that the monos have come a long way since the Original Barnes X, time will tell with shots near and far

 

[bigngreen]

Old school, 30 cal 165g Hornady btsp and flat base work extremely well for this kind of shot. So does the 7mm 154g Hornady sp and the 162g Hornady btsp.

I think that the monos have come a long way since the Original Barnes X, time will tell with shots near and far

My dad and I had a good laugh over a couple elk years ago, I love to tinker and I came by it honestly cause he can't settle in a bullet or load for anything and is always trying and testing. We wacked a couple elk, open them up and he just blurts out, "huh, killed them the same way the bullets we used 20 years ago did".
Still won't stop us from trying

 

[memtb]

Old school, 30 cal 165g Hornady btsp and flat base work extremely well for this kind of shot. So does the 7mm 154g Hornady sp and the 162g Hornady btsp.

I think that the monos have come a long way since the Original Barnes X, time will tell with shots near and far

I still have much respect for the flat base Hornady Interlocks (at reasonable velocities) and the Nosler Partitions…..though, we've used only Barnes Monos since the early '90's! I guess that we're convinced of their effectiveness!

Though we've only used them from near muzzle to a bit over 400 yards! memtb

 

[flyguy1]

Very true!

However, the "good characteristics" are also pretty handy if the hunter "must" take a "raking", or end to end shot on game larger than a 150 or so pound deer! memtb

I can't think of a single reason for me to take such a shot; we're not starving, and the likelihood of gut shot and ruined meat (hitting a ham, etc.) is high. If you are that hungry, then for sure you aren't on this group with our custom rifles and pricey scopes.

 

[338 dude]

I have lead poisoning. From years of competition and firearms training.

I have never been tested, but as a fisherman for 30 years I've handled so many lead sinkers I would think it is possible, plus the fact I have hung drywall in lead lined x-ray rooms at one point in my life and also saved the lead on drywall scraps to make my own sinkers in a non-ventilated garage for many years. PLUS the shooting and reloading that I have done!

 

[WinMag4me]

I can't think of a single reason for me to take such a shot; we're not starving, and the likelihood of gut shot and ruined meat (hitting a ham, etc.) is high. If you are that hungry, then for sure you aren't on this group with our custom rifles and pricey scopes.

Interesting comment
How much is of your state is a "food production state "
Just curious because I have never visited or google it "
I have farmed my entire life
I have witnessed the devastation pigs and hogs impacted
No disrespect but until the money came out of your livelihood how can you condone this?
All I know about Montana is Yellowstone
Cattle ranches and tourists
Just my.02 cents
Maybe I should study more about your state
But I despise (free range pigs and hogs)
Sincerely
A farmer

 

[Northkill]

I can't think of a single reason for me to take such a shot; we're not starving, and the likelihood of gut shot and ruined meat (hitting a ham, etc.) is high. If you are that hungry, then for sure you aren't on this group with our custom rifles and pricey scopes.

..and other worthy hunters have good reasons.