interesting. heavier bullets raise poi

TTSX · Jan 7, 2023

Huh. Well looks like I took a donkey to China instead of the slow boat to Kokomo because this is the first I've heard of it. And explains a lot of guns that shot low for me.

orygun · Jan 7, 2023

Spitpatch said:
Add this to the constantly neglected hard information that heavy, large caliber bullets at moderate speeds DO NOT "buck brush" better than sleek fast ones.

It just ain't so.

That' a whole different subject entirely. But since you mentioned it, I remember reading a test, I believe performed by Craig Boddington where he dispels the myth of big heavy bullets being best for "brush busting". Turns out the faster, smaller caliber bullets deflected less than the fat slow ones. Me? I prefer to not shoot thru brush and like to find a clear alley for my bullet to pass.

Two years ago (three seasons) I hunted with my ancient Winchester 1894 in 30WCF. (I said it was old). I couldn't see the deer well enough in the orchard, but when he left he was backlit by the yard. I took a chance and took the shot presented at 35-40 yards or so. After he ran away I got down and took a peek. I could see where he launched when I shot and then I found the bullet's hole in the ground. Four feet behind him and at least that many feet low. When it got lighter I could see that I'd made the early morning mistake of shooting through the branches of a tree...
He would still rank as my best ever deer.

ageingstudent · Jan 7, 2023

orygun said:
That' a whole different subject entirely. But since you mentioned it, I remember reading a test, I believe performed by Craig Boddington where he dispels the myth of big heavy bullets being best for "brush busting". Turns out the faster, smaller caliber bullets deflected less than the fat slow ones. Me? I prefer to not shoot thru brush and like to find a clear alley for my bullet to pass.

Two years ago (three seasons) I hunted with my ancient Winchester 1894 in 30WCF. (I said it was old). I couldn't see the deer well enough in the orchard, but when he left he was backlit by the yard. I took a chance and took the shot presented at 35-40 yards or so. After he ran away I got down and took a peek. I could see where he launched when I shot and then I found the bullet's hole in the ground. Four feet behind him and at least that many feet low. When it got lighter I could see that I'd made the early morning mistake of shooting through the branches of a tree...
He would still rank as my best ever deer.

I missed a deer in northeastern California last year with my Peterbilt. It would have by far been the best deer I ever got. Not going to lie I'm glad I missed it. I didn't miss it by much

. When the Smoke cleared I actually had to pull over and take a mental health break

. I had instantaneous visions of that thing ending up in the cab with me and he was a big boy. Totally off the subject but it sparked my memory and that doesn't happen very often anymore

.

Spitpatch · Jan 7, 2023

orygun said:
That' a whole different subject entirely. But since you mentioned it, I remember reading a test, I believe performed by Craig Boddington where he dispels the myth of big heavy bullets being best for "brush busting". Turns out the faster, smaller caliber bullets deflected less than the fat slow ones. Me? I prefer to not shoot thru brush and like to find a clear alley for my bullet to pass.

Two years ago (three seasons) I hunted with my ancient Winchester 1894 in 30WCF. (I said it was old). I couldn't see the deer well enough in the orchard, but when he left he was backlit by the yard. I took a chance and took the shot presented at 35-40 yards or so. After he ran away I got down and took a peek. I could see where he launched when I shot and then I found the bullet's hole in the ground. Four feet behind him and at least that many feet low. When it got lighter I could see that I'd made the early morning mistake of shooting through the branches of a tree...
He would still rank as my best ever deer.

Jim Carmichael (shooting editor, Outdoor Life) constructed test media of random vertical dowels in a box he would shoot through toward a target. He came to the same conclusion you have: brush affects all bullets....horribly. So don't shoot through brush.

But the overall "winner" was a .264 Magnum, leaving the .45-70, .35 Remington and such in the proverbial dust. (Long, sleek 6.5 bullets kinda keep going in the direction they were started, more or less.)

P7M13 · Jan 7, 2023

Spitpatch said:
But the overall "winner" was a .264 Magnum, leaving the .45-70, .35 Remington and such in the proverbial dust. (Long, sleek 6.5 bullets kinda keep going in the direction they were started, more or less.)

Bullet spin and longer axis has a lot to do with the 264 performing so well, as the gyroscopic effect would work to keep the bullet on track.

gmerkt · Jan 7, 2023

ageingstudent said:
I missed a deer in northeastern California

We could start another post re. missed opportunities for deer. Mine was in NE Calif., I'm not even sure where I was but right along the county line between Modoc and Lassen counties. It was time for me to do a number 2, so I was hunkered down quietly in some brush, the only gun on me was a Glock 19 in my pocket. While I was hunkered there, a beautiful big black tail buck came sauntering by without a care in the world. He looked over at me from about a dozen feet away, didn't miss a beat of his slow cadence and kept on going.

orygun said:
I prefer to not shoot thru brush and like to find a clear alley for my bullet to pass.

Completely agree. A "brush gun" is a 40mm Bofors for eliminating the brush entirely.

Mono1 · Jan 7, 2023

Spitpatch said:
Similar human behavior might be the reason Captain Kirk had no seatbelts on the Enterprise..

And they always had Gravity. What was with that?

Spitpatch · Jan 8, 2023

P7M13 said:
Bullet spin and longer axis has a lot to do with the 264 performing so well, as the gyroscopic effect would work to keep the bullet on track.

View attachment 1342210

The .264 (according to Carmichael) did not perform well. It just barely performed less badly than all the rest.