6.5x55 or .308

[bewsher500]

I am not arguing with anybody regarding the .264/.308 debate--there is no debate.

but you do seem hell bent on arguing that a phenomenon doesn't exist simply because you have not seen it.
the only point I raised was to shot deer (or any mammal) can only die through blood loss or cns destruction.

while I have been typing I can think of another occurrence
as a teenager I shot a pheasant with a .22lr

i aimed for the head
when I examined the car are I couldn't see a hole
i had pulled the shot slightly and the bullet passed though the top part of its beak through the nostrils
stone dead
no blood

Don't try to disprove something you haven't seen or don't believe , try to explain it

 

[stevenedwards]

Just joined this thread as i use a 6.5. Are we talking about the Battle Field phenomena "wind of ball" or am I as lost as some others ?

 

[Just John]

Hunting and shooting sports of Ramsey have a steyr pro hunter in 6.5x55
and nearly new by the look of it give him a call 01487 208007

 

[Canadian1]

but you do seem hell bent on arguing that a phenomenon doesn't exist simply because you have not seen it.
the only point I raised was to shot deer (or any mammal) can only die through blood loss or cns destruction.

while I have been typing I can think of another occurrence
as a teenager I shot a pheasant with a .22lr

i aimed for the head
when I examined the car are I couldn't see a hole
i had pulled the shot slightly and the bullet passed though the top part of its beak through the nostrils
stone dead
no blood

Don't try to disprove something you haven't seen or don't believe , try to explain it

In rhetoric we call this the fallacy of incomplete logic.

I wouldn't doubt that the bird you cite suffered from a broken neck or brain hemorrhage. What's your point?

And i'm not disputing that if a bullet comes close enough to the spine of a small roe deer or fox that the temporary cavitation could potentially disrupt the CNS.

What I am disputing is the myth of remote wounding, the concept of hydrostatic shock and the cult of high velocity/energy/killing power.

To reiterate what you said earlier in the thread, when it comes to "shocking" the animal, or remote wounding (which is different from the peripheral effect of cavitation), the higher velocity the better.

I disagree in theory and in practice. This is based on real scientific evidence and my own field experience. Moreover, there are clear disadvantages with going higher velocity. If you've experienced this phenomena multiple times I would encourage you to get out and shoot more.

Agree to disagree.

 

[bewsher500]

I wouldn't doubt that the bird you cite suffered from a broken neck or brain hemorrhage. What's your point?

Actually far from it.
the bird took off and flew 10 yds like it was of fire
I don't doubt the haemorrhage.
point is in reference to your "two ways to kill and animal" which I do not believe to be accurate

And i'm not disputing that if a bullet comes close enough to the spine of a small roe deer or fox that the temporary cavitation could potentially disrupt the CNS.

cavitation requires penetration
the fox I shot had no penetration wound and undoubtedly died instantly from a massive sub-dural haematoma and possibly more

What I am disputing is the myth of remote wounding, the concept of hydrostatic shock and the cult of high velocity/energy/killing power

You are disputing something that was never put forward
I never mentioned remote wounding, i use the word hydrostatic with clenched teeth.
my original post (one that I am starting to think I should never have made!) was in response to this:

There are two ways to kill an animal quickly.
a) hit the central nervous system
or
b) hit them in the vitals.
You do understand bullets expand, right?
Seriously, do you hunt?

Other than being incredibly condescending, this is a restrictive argument and if you were coming at this from the aspect of scientific evidence as you assert you would not be so quick to attempt to derail it on the basis of someone else's argument or just because you have not seen it.
That smacks of the "World is flat" and the "sky is falling in"


Despite never mentioning "remote wounding" it sure looks like you have been disputing the principal of a death without major blood loss or direct CNS penetration by a bullet.

You must have magic bullets
Most evidence in support of remote wounding is anecdotal in nature.
Never have I ever seen anything remotely close to the phenomena in the field even with some ultra magnums.

Can't say I have ever experienced anything like that nor have I ever heard from anyone close to me of such a thing occurring. Moreover, I am skeptical that there would be enough energy generated to the peripheral regions for something like this to occur. Even so, I doubt it would be strictly a function of velocity.
I can't imagine where one would have to be aiming in an effort to have no blood loss and yet come within close enough proximity to the spinal column to have the energy "waves" shut down the animal's CNS?

Taken from: http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html
4. Presumption of "Kinetic Energy Deposit" to Be a Mechanism of Wounding:
Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary (1, 63), many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage (2-5, 36, 37, 40). Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics.

I disagree in theory and in practice. This is based on real scientific evidence and my own field experience.
If you've experienced this phenomena multiple times I would encourage you to get out and shoot more.

Surely it is because maybe I "shoot more" as you put it, that I have seen more?.....No?


my last post on the matter

 

[Thar]

What posts? You mean your post? You're the only one with an axe to grind. Grow up. This post reflects your capacity (or lack thereof) to think critically.

I seem to have upset you, and you now have resorted to insults. Is this because you cannot refute my comments that the guys you are arguing with have in all probability shot far more deer than you? Your own experience comes from theoretical research??? While I know nothing about you, I do know a little about the country you hunt in, even your comment of “bag limits” tells a story itself. I also know a little about Ed and Edi and there experience. I have a number of friends and fellow deer stalking syndicate members on the SD, therefore I have to be able to substantiate my comments face to face.

For the record I don’t doubt Canada is a great country to hunt in, for hunting is so much more than just pulling the trigger and shooting lots of animals, for me it is a wider experience. But if we are talking the performance and effects of bullets on game animals the numbers shot allow you to gain greater experience of what works.

ATB

Tahr

 

[Canadian1]

Actually far from it.
the bird took off and flew 10 yds like it was of fire
I don't doubt the haemorrhage.
point is in reference to your "two ways to kill and animal" which I do not believe to be accurate




cavitation requires penetration
the fox I shot had no penetration wound and undoubtedly died instantly from a massive sub-dural haematoma and possibly more



You are disputing something that was never put forward
I never mentioned remote wounding, i use the word hydrostatic with clenched teeth.
my original post (one that I am starting to think I should never have made!) was in response to this:



Other than being incredibly condescending, this is a restrictive argument and if you were coming at this from the aspect of scientific evidence as you assert you would not be so quick to attempt to derail it on the basis of someone else's argument or just because you have not seen it.
That smacks of the "World is flat" and the "sky is falling in"


Despite never mentioning "remote wounding" it sure looks like you have been disputing the principal of a death without major blood loss or direct CNS penetration by a bullet.













Surely it is because maybe I "shoot more" as you put it, that I have seen more?.....No?


my last post on the matter

The brain is part of the CNS...

The theory of hydrostatic shock deals directly with remote wounding...

Whether directly or indirectly, when it comes to hunting (that is what we are talking about, isn't it?), the only two ways to put an animal down quickly and efficiently is to shut town the CNS or through blood loss. Again, directly or indirectly--same process is occurring. This is medical fact. Sorry I didn't caveat this statement with extremely rare instance of "could happen" such as a fox being shot in the head and succumbing (again, CNS) despite no penetration/bullet failure.

Looks like you're nitpicking/quibbling about something I said, which, maybe should not have been said in absolute terms, is absolutely true in most practical instances. Feel better?

 

[Canadian1]

I seem to have upset you, and you now have resorted to insults. Is this because you cannot refute my comments that the guys you are arguing with have in all probability shot far more deer than you? Your own experience comes from theoretical research??? While I know nothing about you, I do know a little about the country you hunt in, even your comment of “bag limits” tells a story itself. I also know a little about Ed and Edi and there experience. I have a number of friends and fellow deer stalking syndicate members on the SD, therefore I have to be able to substantiate my comments face to face.

For the record I don’t doubt Canada is a great country to hunt in, for hunting is so much more than just pulling the trigger and shooting lots of animals, for me it is a wider experience. But if we are talking the performance and effects of bullets on game animals the numbers shot allow you to gain greater experience of what works.

ATB

Tahr

Hard to refute what you said when there is absolutely nothing of substance to your post and you behave like the whipping boy.

This isn't a dick measuring contest. If it was, I sure as hell wouldn't be holding the other guy's dick.

I've studied the terminal performance of my kills for a very long time. I've used many different cartridge combinations and I pay close attention to any physiological discrepancies that may occur in the field (which are almost always explainable). I've taken over 100 heads of big game and I've witnessed four times as many heads of game being taken in both my professional and personal hunting career. I am content in my study and in my experiences.

 

[Klenchblaize]

Hard to refute what you said when there is absolutely nothing of substance to your post and you behave like the whipping boy.

This isn't a dick measuring contest. If it was, I sure as hell wouldn't be holding the other guy's dick.

I've studied the terminal performance of my kills for a very long time. I've used many different cartridge combinations and I pay close attention to any physiological discrepancies that may occur in the field (which are almost always explainable). I've taken over 100 heads of big game and I've witnessed four times as many heads of game being taken in both my professional and personal hunting career. I am content in my study and in my experiences.

‎Hi
‎
You sound like a guy who has a lot to offer this site but I'm equally aware you're unlikely to welcome a well intended piece of advice but here goes anyway.

Drop this, move on and ‎let's hear what that wonderful Country of yours has to offer the would-be Rifleman of The Rockies and that we, for the most part at least, can only dream about.

If you don't I fear you're fast approaching a terminal post.

All the best

K‎

 

[alberta boy]

Hard to refute what you said when there is absolutely nothing of substance to your post and you behave like the whipping boy.

This isn't a dick measuring contest. If it was, I sure as hell wouldn't be holding the other guy's dick.

I've studied the terminal performance of my kills for a very long time. I've used many different cartridge combinations and I pay close attention to any physiological discrepancies that may occur in the field (which are almost always explainable). I've taken over 100 heads of big game and I've witnessed four times as many heads of game being taken in both my professional and personal hunting career. I am content in my study and in my experiences.

From one Canadian to another , give the condescending remarks a rest , it's getting old . You are obviously very knowledgeable in regards to interior , external and terminal ballistics . You might find more people will seriously consider what you're putting forward if you don't resort to name calling .

There is a huge amount of knowledge and experience on this site . There are members here that will take more game in a year than you and I will take in five . Don't be so quick to assume you know more than everyone here . You can tell me to get bent if you like , that's OK too . I don't take internet squabbles that seriously , neither should you .

Steve Howlett , Just in case you want to rant at me , I thought you should know my real name

 

[willie_gunn]

‎Hi
‎
You sound like a guy who has a lot to offer this site but I'm equally aware you're unlikely to welcome a well intended piece of advice but here goes anyway.

Drop this, move on and ‎let's hear what that wonderful Country of yours has to offer the would-be Rifleman of The Rockies and that we, for the most part at least, can only dream about.

If you don't I fear you're fast approaching a terminal post.

All the best

K‎

+1

Please don't let a truly meaningless difference of opinion progress to a regrettable conclusion.

I can't help thinking that if the two of you were sitting in a bar over a couple of beers this would have finished amicably a long time ago.

 

[Canadian1]

Folks, I regretted making that post immediately after, but it was quoted so there is not much I can do. It was absolutely immature. Like I told another member via PM, I felt like Thar noodled his way into the thread and started making irrelevant and immature comparisons. The thread it tired, and I have nothing more to contribute. The last few posters are correct. Nitpicking aside, I tried my best to convey to the original poster that either choice is fine in practice and that sometimes the not-so-obvious choice might be the better one for reasons other than ideas about velocity/energy.

I apologize to the community for being vulgar.

Regards!


Edit to add* despite my difference of opinion with Bewsher, and the verbal jabs, I have no doubt that he is an experienced hunter. I also do not doubt his experiences. Looking back over the his posts, I think there may have been a semantic issue at play.

 

[alberta boy]

Fair enough

Steve

 

[Thar]

From one Canadian to another , give the condescending remarks a rest , it's getting old . You are obviously very knowledgeable in regards to interior , external and terminal ballistics . You might find more people will seriously consider what you're putting forward if you don't resort to name calling .

There is a huge amount of knowledge and experience on this site . There are members here that will take more game in a year than you and I will take in five . Don't be so quick to assume you know more than everyone here . You can tell me to get bent if you like , that's OK too . I don't take internet squabbles that seriously , neither should you .

Steve Howlett , Just in case you want to rant at me , I thought you should know my real name

+1

From one Canadian to another , give the condescending remarks a rest , it's getting old . You are obviously very knowledgeable in regards to interior , external and terminal ballistics . You might find more people will seriously consider what you're putting forward if you don't resort to name calling .

There is a huge amount of knowledge and experience on this site . There are members here that will take more game in a year than you and I will take in five . Don't be so quick to assume you know more than everyone here . You can tell me to get bent if you like , that's OK too . I don't take internet squabbles that seriously , neither should you .

Steve Howlett , Just in case you want to rant at me , I thought you should know my real name

+1

Maybe it was what appeared to be your all knowing manor in your posts that rattled my cage.

Canadian, no p!ssing contest but for the record my game book records 106 head of deer from 5 Species of deer in the first 3 years I started stalking, although to be fair I most of them were shoot in the end of the first year though the next two as I got better, almost all stalked solo on foot not taken from high seats/tree stands and none over bait/feed stations. After that I stopped recording the numbers. I have to confess I shoot far few now days but when I started I was pretty fanatical. .

The full time stalkers in the UK shoot over 100 in a year. But all of the above said in no way do I judge the worth of a man on how many deer he has shot.


ATB

Tahr