What bullet for 338 rum for deer hunting under 300 yards?

[Deleted member 115360]

100 LBS???? what are you hunting? rats?? gimme a break ...... round these parts our coyotes and fawns are bigger than that!!! no wonder you have absolutely no knowledge on the subject!!

Your coyotes weigh about 30lbs, but that ridiculous claim is telling.

 

[Calvin45]

Uh, yeah buddy, when a bullet performs perfectly, it dumps 100% of the energy into the animal. It passes all the way to the far side, stopping under the cape.

Now, a guy who shoots 100lb animals with a 338 rum probably doesn't know this, but that's what a hunting bullet is designed to do under ideal conditions.

You talk about this like it's common knowledge or even common consensus. It's not. I think I need to opt out of this thread soon, the surplus of wisdom is too much for this exit wound loving simpleton!

 

[Elk Hunter 338]

Your coyotes weigh about 30lbs, but that ridiculous claim is telling.

And i guess your an expert on all the animals in my state also, held them all, weighed them all, killed them all, packed them all, trapped them all tree'd them all ehhh!! modern day grizzly Adams ehhhh.... but yet not wise enough too know it was an absolute joke! but in all fairness your deer are literally a 100 pounds?? man that must be tough to kill with a stick ...

 

[Deleted member 115360]

You talk about this like it's common knowledge or even common consensus. It's not. I think I need to opt out of this thread soon, the surplus of wisdom is too much for thisexit wound loving simpleton!

If exit wounds were the priority, you could shoot fmj..

I didn't make this up fella, do some research. There are countless descriptions of optimal hunting bullet performance described by companies like hornady and berger.

Check it out.

 

[Deleted member 115360]

And i guess your an expert on all the animals in my state also, held them all, weighed them all, killed them all, packed them all, trapped them all tree'd them all ehhh!! modern day grizzly Adams ehhhh.... but yet not wise enough too know it was an absolute joke! but in all fairness your deer are literally a 100 pounds?? man that must be tough to kill with a stick ...

Where is it you live in the world? I assume because you are "Elk Hunter 338" that you live in the rocky mountain range. Am I incorrect?

 

[Deleted member 115360]

It's sad that you argue about all of these things discussed here, and you're just wrong. Almost everything you've claimed here can be disproven with a simple Google search.

 

[MagnumManiac]

Elk Hunter 338,
There's no point feeding the trolls.
Keyboard warriors just aren't worth the time.

Cheers.

 

[Timber338]

I've hunted with a 338 my entire life and killed all sorts of critters big and small.

For shorter distance I've had excellent performance out of the Barnes 210 TTSX, but my all around favorite bullet to shoot everything is the 225 Accubond, and you can extend the range well beyond 300 yards... but for a true long range bullet I prefer the heaver 250 and heavier bullets.

One noticeable benefit of the 210 TTSX in a 338 RUM is the reduced recoil, even in a braked rifle.

For entertainment purposes:
Last weekend I was teaching my two young boys to shoot a new 6.5 creedmoor I bought for them, and running trajectory/energy in my AB app, my 338 RUM carries more energy to 1000 yards than my 6.5 has at the muzzle.

 

[SilverbulletMAG]

""

 

[406muley]

I gave up at the mention of "hydrostatic shock". 406muley

 

[Deleted member 115360]

I gave up at the mention of "hydrostatic shock". 406muley

Well, since you are about the third person to incorrectly dismiss the *theory of hydrostatic shock*

Because you believe in a different *insert theory here* because you guys read a magazine headline that claimed hydrostatic shock isn't real.

Hydrostatic shock and cavitation are theories. Nobody can definitively say what happens when a bullet hits flesh. That's why they are both theories. The only portion of the hydrostatic shock theory that anyone has challenged, is to whether or not the hydraulic displacement, (that's what happens to internal fluids when something is jammed into flesh at high speed), actually shuts down the nervous system. People who actually understand this don't disregard either theory entirely. See, since every single time a bullet impacts with the flesh of a living creature, it is anecdotal. You can never re-create the effects of a bullet on flesh..... ever. If you don't believe that the hydraulic (fluid) displacement that occurs when a bullet enters flesh is a factor when determining meat loss, and therefore a real and actual factor in this ridiculous discussion where we help a guy find out which 300gr bullet that he should shoot a deer with, then you also don't understand. If you outright dismiss the hydrostatic shock theory as non-existent, then you have the wrong information. I will post a thorough explanation of the science below, but I doubt any of you will bother reading it, since you already read an article on Facebook that told you all you need to know..

 

[Deleted member 115360]

High-velocity impact of solid objects on Non-Newtonian Fluids - Scientific Reports

We investigate which property of non-Newtonian fluids determines the deceleration of a high-speed impacting object. Using high-speed camera footage, we measure the velocity decrease of a high-speed spherical object impacting a typical Newtonian fluid (water) as a reference and compare it with a...

www.nature.com

 

[406muley]

Well, since you are about the third person to incorrectly dismiss the *theory of hydrostatic shock*

Because you believe in a different *insert theory here* because you guys read a magazine headline that claimed hydrostatic shock isn't real.

Hydrostatic shock and cavitation are theories. Nobody can definitively say what happens when a bullet hits flesh. That's why they are both theories. The only portion of the hydrostatic shock theory that anyone has challenged, is to whether or not the hydraulic displacement, (that's what happens to internal fluids when something is jammed into flesh at high speed), actually shuts down the nervous system. People who actually understand this don't disregard either theory entirely. See, since every single time a bullet impacts with the flesh of a living creature, it is anecdotal. You can never re-create the effects of a bullet on flesh..... ever. If you don't believe that the hydraulic (fluid) displacement that occurs when a bullet enters flesh is a factor when determining meat loss, and therefore a real and actual factor in this ridiculous discussion where we help a guy find out which 300gr bullet that he should shoot a deer with, then you also don't understand. If you outright dismiss the hydrostatic shock theory as non-existent, then you have the wrong information. I will post a thorough explanation of the science below, but I doubt any of you will bother reading it, since you already read an article on Facebook that told you all you need to know..

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html Read this. 406muley

 

[Deleted member 115360]

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html Read this. 406muley

It's a theory, His theory. He says it very plainly.

I don't disagree with what he is saying. I don't pretend to know the unanswerable, (with our current science) answer to the question that both theories aim to answer, which is: what is the mechanism of death?

What I'm talking about is meat damage. I was using "hydrostatic shock" to explain how a bullet passing through flesh causes damage as it passes. I probably should have used a different phrase, but I didn't expect people to have the reaction that they had to the term. My point Was that as a projectile passes through flesh, it rapidly displaces fluid, which is what we typically call "bruising" when analyzing a dead animal..

This phenomena is made more severe by several factors, but the big 3 would be:

Energy
Velocity and
Projectile diameter

The more those numbers go up, the more fluid is displaced, causing more potential meat damage. Since no 2 animals are the same, it would be virtually impossible to scale this.

Thank you for sharing the article, I will read the rest of it now..