Sectional Density or BC from really Big Game?

[fordy]

In the article, https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/Effective+Game+Killing.html I linked earlier much of what you say conforms to the research. Impacts above 2650 fps with calibers at or greater than .358 should produce hydrostatic Shock. Yet as impact velocities drop below 1800 fps at those diameters softer projectiles are required if reliable expansion is to be achieved. So expansion vs penetration seems to be combined with velocity at target impact. I encountered this very problem when in the planning stages of a hunt on the ice pack. With subzero temps, high winds, (which would need to be coming nearly directly in my face to get within 300 yards of my prey) and elevations at roughly sea level, the amount of recoil required to propel calibers of .366 or better with an SD of .3 or more and an impact velocity of 2600+ fps made rifle weights suitable to carry for days that ensured proper Projectile placement a quandary. Eventually I settled on a CRF .300 Win Mag with a 22 inch barrel and a 220 grain Nosler Partition. ( Final outcome was impact at just less than 200 yards with a one shot stop, that was less than spectacular but less than 10 seconds to conclusion.) I haven't used solids since I left the Veld. But there really isn't much game with a thick enough hide in North America to justify their use. What say you?

Gday m118LR
I really like your descriptions of
" one shot stop "
"less than spectacular "
" but less than 10 seconds "

That tells me or I believe tells me on what level of killing efficiency your expectations are

On true solids & North American big game the only spot I would think a solid maybe a good idea would be on a retreating big bear as pretty well the other critters a very good shedding or a high SD pill would get the job done although I would also think it being "less spectacular "
But the solid on bears if he's coming @ oneself the solid would be down the list for me personally on a pill choice so I'm going to agree I don't think true solids are needed for any of the North American game & please understand this is only a theory of mine as I've got no history on bears & moose is my limit of big critters over there & overall better information I've got on stuff that inhabits the billabongs or veld
Those thick skinned critters are another level & no go reason for no solid in those

I briefly skimmed over that link you put up & I liked some points in it velocity being a great one in my opinion to hone in on with a well designed projectile ( pill in my aussie wording ) being of the utmost importance to get the better outcomes but don't know how deep it got into the design part of the pill & to me that's the key of getting to the better pills

I think your on the right track just a bit more refinement & it will all come together to give the results you go yep that's better than the "less than spectacular" you had before

Hope that makes sense
Cheers

 

[Turpentine21]

But the solid on bears if he's coming @ oneself the solid would be down the list for me personally on a pill choice so I'm going to agree I don't think true solids are needed for any of the North American game & please understand this is only a theory of mine as I've got no history on bears & moose is my limit of big critters over there & overall better information I've got on stuff that inhabits the billabongs or veld

I'd have to agree with this though I don't have much experience in the matter. It would seem it should be pretty common knowledge that a bullet that expands will add terminal performance as long as that expansion is controlled enough to also allow for adequate penetration. We have a lot of bullets to choose from today that feature good, controlled expansion and weight retention to fit this bill. Bonded and copper. I recently examined a Northfork bullet my friend used on a Brown bear around 3-4 months ago. He was heavy and measured 9'7". Can't remember the weight bullet but it was fired from a 416 Remington at about 75 yards. Entered quartering just in front of the shoulder and stopped on the opposite side just in front of the hip under the skin. Honestly one of the purtyest "mushrooms " I have ever seen at approximately the diameter of a 50 cent piece. Bear went 40 yards dead on his feet. Only one shot needed.

But I can see where that kind of performance might not be good on certain tougher larger African species where lots more penetration is paramount. You gotta get to something vital to do any good.

 

[M118LR]

Gday m118LR
I really like your descriptions of
" one shot stop "
"less than spectacular "
" but less than 10 seconds "

That tells me or I believe tells me on what level of killing efficiency your expectations are

On true solids & North American big game the only spot I would think a solid maybe a good idea would be on a retreating big bear as pretty well the other critters a very good shedding or a high SD pill would get the job done although I would also think it being "less spectacular "
But the solid on bears if he's coming @ oneself the solid would be down the list for me personally on a pill choice so I'm going to agree I don't think true solids are needed for any of the North American game & please understand this is only a theory of mine as I've got no history on bears & moose is my limit of big critters over there & overall better information I've got on stuff that inhabits the billabongs or veld
Those thick skinned critters are another level & no go reason for no solid in those

I briefly skimmed over that link you put up & I liked some points in it velocity being a great one in my opinion to hone in on with a well designed projectile ( pill in my aussie wording ) being of the utmost importance to get the better outcomes but don't know how deep it got into the design part of the pill & to me that's the key of getting to the better pills

I think your on the right track just a bit more refinement & it will all come together to give the results you go yep that's better than the "less than spectacular" you had before

Hope that makes sense
Cheers

Now 3/4 the excitement of hunting DG is being within CHARGE distances. The only experience I have with a CHARGING Polar Bear was near Thule, and my Issued firearm at that time was a 12 ga pump with lead foster slugs. It took 3 to bring the bear to a complete stop, and thanks to the effects of adrenaline during the CHARGE my sense of time was a bit altered. It felt like nearly a lifetime until that final round, and I operate a pump at near semi auto rate of fire while skeet shooting, so it's probably a bit quicker under life or death. Since I long ago got over the time wasting disbelief that round 1 didn't end the Battle. I have a great respect for the Old Timers that used double barrel rifles, even though I know of nothing that will get off that second shot faster than double triggers with round two' trigger right behind round one:s trigger. Yet Polar Bears on the ice Pack are much more illusive than stumbling on a bruin raiding your camp. Experience has given me pause about the current trend of high magnification day scopes. So a 2-10 magnification with QD rings is the highest magnification I have mounted with irons on a hunting rifles. I can't imagine attempting to attain a sight picture with the limited field of view of a 5-25 scope at CHARGE distance. But that comes back to the retreating shot on DG, if the DG is retreating unharmed it's anticlimactic to take the shot. DG coming at you vs DG running away from you, I'm sure which shot is more memorable. What say You. Thanks for the input. Perhaps I've become more of a Sport shooter than meat hunter as time has gone bye?