PDA

View Full Version : Tissue damage Light vs Heavy Barnes Bullets '06


Andy S
07-27-2012, 1:53 AM
So on a recent Catalina mule deer hunt, http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/forumdisplay.php/41-Mule-Deer-Hunting , I used The Admiral’s Tikka T3 Lite ’06 for the mule deer as it was sighted in with Federal 110 gr TSSX. I figured using the lighter bullet would get less tissue destruction vs my Browning A Bolt II ’06 with 165 gr. Federal TSX. The Mule deer on Catalina and especially the does we generally try to shoot are not large. Say 120 lbs total. I noted an awful lot of blood infusion around the wounds from the 110 gr. bullet both last year and this year. Those light 110 bullets are screaming at 3400 fps muzzle compared to the 165 which is 2800 fps muzzle and at all distances out to 400 yds the 110 is pushing only about 90 foot pounds less energy than the 165. One of the fellows who was there suggested I'd be better off using the 165.

My question is, IN GENERAL, would I have more tissue damage (meat loss) with the lighter faster 110 or with the heavier slower 165.

I appreciate the advice of those of you like Dirty Dave who think/know about these ballistic issues, hydrostatic shock and meat preservation and any explanation about the speed vs weight etc....

DirtyDave
07-27-2012, 11:14 AM
For Does and Smaller Bucks that have racks you may not care about, Shoot em in the head/neck. Doesnt matter what grain you use for that haha. No meat lost.
I shot these in SD with a 6mm

Doe on the run at 100-150yds shot through the neck
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/DSidoti/Hunting/100_1784.jpg

Another Doe shot in the back of the Head on the run at about 80yds
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/DSidoti/Hunting/100_1796.jpg

DirtyDave
07-27-2012, 11:23 AM
To answer your specific question though, the 110 @ 3400fps should expand more rapidly and violently than the 165 @ 2800fps.
I dont concern myself with meat damage too much, the whole point of squeezing the trigger is to end the animals life. Shoot whatever is accurate out of your rifles. You will lose more meat on a bad shot and not recovering the deer than a good shot with a bullet that does a lot of damage and drops a deer on the spot.

Wideflange
07-27-2012, 11:38 AM
Dirty Dave says it correct. Blunt force trauma is higher in my experience with lighter faster bullets (violent expansion) than with the heavier slower (to a point*) bullets. I killed several deer w/ 300mag BAR 130's and noted severe blood shot around wound (both entrance and exit). I switched to 165 Nosler partitions and it was less than half the normal wound trauma and blood shot damaged area. Usually it was a small ( 3/4 to 1 1/4 inch) hole through the animal. I also noted that they rarely ran or even took a step after being hit with the 165's.
I had a couple take off and get 20yds or so after a huge hole was blown out of them with the smaller bullet weight.
I never take a head shot on large game. I've seen a few out in the field with their jaws, noses and half their heads blown off suffering greatly. I have shot a few does in the neck when the opportunity is there.

* I was talking about my first gun as a kid. Lever action 30-30. That thing would blood shoot the hell outta the meat.

tankerman
07-27-2012, 11:49 AM
A lot of the light for caliber bullets are of a lighter construction and literally explode on impact at high speeds.

I learned the hard way about meat waste when I switched to lighter construction bullets on an antelope hunt. Bullet hit shoulder and exploded, turning a large portion of the animal into copper filled hamburger.

spectr17
07-27-2012, 3:13 PM
Slower round Andy is the way to go. I see guys using ballistic tips and just wonder why if they are eating the meat. The just asplode when they impact.

Lot of good roast meat in the neck, why waste that? Shoot the head if you can make the shot consistently. If not behind the front leg and all you lose is ribs and heart. If you want the heart show a bit higher behind front leg, heart sits low between the legs.

Andy S
07-27-2012, 4:15 PM
Thanks Dave, Jesse, Wildflange etc for the input. It is nice to see such consistant advice. I am going to switch back to my Browning with the 165 Barnes Federal when we go after a couple more does in December. Both '06 rifles shoot almost all ammo remarkable well, it is just I have one sighted dead on with 110 and the other with 165 so I don't need to spend ammo resighting, just change rifles.

The Admiral is far too fond of her Coyote lite 243 with Federal 85 TSX Barnes to even consider using the Tikka for deer. The Tikka is her "hog rifle".

And as for shooting them consistantly in the head/neck - Right. Most of our shots at Catalina are 200 yds or more and we go for the heart killing shot as it has more leeway for error and still having a rapidly fatal outcome so that we can find the animal. Sure if we get a chip shot at 125 yds or less, no problem - head or neck here we come, that is exactly what happened to CC on the last trip (see story), got a surprize shot at 125 yds and put it through the head with 7mm RemMag - it was not "pretty". However long cross valley shots are far more typical for our hunts there.

Thanks again and hope to see you around somewhere.

Shoot-it
07-28-2012, 9:06 AM
Not that much meat is lost shot behind the shoulder I would go with the 110 at least they expand that was a big complaint with hunters when they first when to copper.
I have the 139 gr gmx loaded in my 7 mag going 3300 fps hope i get a chance to use it.