Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: ballistic damage to meat

  1. #1

    ballistic damage to meat

    I am useing a 6.5x55 with 139grn ppu's shooting at a distance of 45 to 55 yards at fallow. But the shoulders and round the neck are f---d. Just shot two more this afternoon and have not skined them yet all of them are heart shot

  2. #2
    i dunno maybe start using some decent bullets and not that cheap ass plinking ammo? lol

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by pendle View Post
    shooting at a distance of 45 to 55 yards at fallow.
    try knecking them at that distance anything deer legal is going to cause a mess. IHMO

  4. #4
    i found with the .308 that the 150gn SSTs made quite a big hole in roe shot upto 120yds. What i also found is that by going up in weight to 165 with a Sierra GK, i got less damage. Reason being is that the bullet wasnt expanding as much. I was getting a 1/2'' entry hole and 1'' exit hole. Its a bit back to front though because the 165GK wasnt delivering all of its energy to the roe. Hence why the meat damage was minimal. I have to say that with the .308, even with 168gn HPBTs, which hardly expand at all, nothing even took a step forward. They all dropped on the spot. The 150gn SST did make a bit of a mess of a roebuck, where it had clipped a rib and projected up and into the spine area, hence it dropping like a sack of poo.

    I would try something which doesnt expand as much or is going a little slower (possible if you home load)
    Last edited by flyingfisherman; 30-11-2010 at 13:42. Reason: my english is pants!

  5. #5
    why so close?
    Are these park deer from the drivers seat?

    At that range I would shoot them in the neck every time. even if you miss the spine the hydrostatic shock of a bullet passing that close to the spine ruptures it paralysing the animal and effectively killing it instantly.
    would be surprised if you lost more than a couple of inches either side at that range

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by pendle View Post
    I am useing a 6.5x55 with 139grn ppu's shooting at a distance of 45 to 55 yards at fallow. But the shoulders and round the neck are f---d. Just shot two more this afternoon and have not skined them yet all of them are heart shot
    You cant make an omlette without cracking a few eggs........ What do you expect, there is bound to be damage if you body shoot them, if you head shoot them at that range you will end up with clean carcasses
    I have never met a game dealer yet who ever complained about excessive neck damage, most just cut that off and throw it away as not worth bothering with. Any meat you get off a neck is only ever 2nd rate stewing meat or mincing material for burgers

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by bewsher500 View Post
    Ar

    even if you miss the spine the hydrostatic shock of a bullet passing that close to the spine ruptures it paralysing the animal and effectively killing it instantly.
    Hydrostatic shock?? Ooooohhh dear

    Perhaps you have not read this; http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...ics/myths.html

    Here is a small quote from the article;

    I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps. Unless the bullet can penetrate faster than the inherent sound speed of the medium through which it is passing, you will not observe a shock wave. Instead, the bullet impact produces an acoustic wave which moves ahead of the penetration. This causes no damage.

    Perhaps if we eliminate the innapropriate terminology, we might advance the thought process's a bit further, and stimulate debate on a more rational level.

    Or not

    ft
    Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but fiercely indifferent.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by flytie View Post
    Perhaps if we eliminate the innapropriate terminology, we might advance the thought process's a bit further, and stimulate debate on a more rational level.

    Or not

    ft

    Fascinating, apologies if I may have inappropriately got my hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces mixed up.

    I was in no way alluding to anything other than shock wave that forces fluids and solids out of place around where the bullet impacts. anyone who has ever actually dissected a neck shot deer around the wound tract will see that regardless of any severing of the spine by the bullet the spinal cord will have been ruptured by the "force" of the bullet.
    Whatever you want to call it.


    A mechanical engineering student he may be, but anyone who denies the bruising and damage caused along nervous systems, vascular systems and intra muscular, subcutaneous (and any boundary layer present for that matter ) by the "shock" wave clearly pays too much time on the theory of it all and not on the practice.

    he goes on:
    "let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation, can cause some secondary effects due to pressure"


    but I will check my terminology next time before posting......



    oh and BTW
    Quote Originally Posted by flytie View Post
    the thought process's a bit further, and stimulate


    The apostrophe in this sentence denotes a "process" that belongs to "the thought", rather than "the thought processes", the plural of a thought process.
    Furthermore use of a comma before the word "and" is generally regarded as unnecessary and a misuse of British English, unless used in the situation of resolving ambiguity which is not required here.
    Last edited by bewsher500; 02-12-2010 at 18:08.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by bewsher500 View Post
    [SIZE=2]The apostrophe in this sentence denotes a "process" that belongs to "the thought", rather than "the thought processes", the plural of a thought process.
    Furthermore use of a comma before the word "and" is generally regarded as unnecessary and a misuse of British English, unless used in the situation of resolving ambiguity which is not required here.
    Duly noted teacher I always hated the minefield of "the grocers' apostrophe", just think how hard I am having to try to deal with physics and fluid dynamics I am, and always have been, a bear of very little brain!

    ft
    Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but fiercely indifferent.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by flytie View Post
    Duly noted teacher I always hated the minefield of "the grocers' apostrophe", just think how hard I am having to try to deal with physics and fluid dynamics I am, and always have been, a bear of very little brain!

    ft
    What about bullet heads flytie

    https://m.facebook.com/UKSHA-502164506587351/
    Discretion assured
    - call us anytime, free on 0800 689 0857

    please visit our web site: uksha1
    or find us on facebook
    Sponsored proudly by Pfanner, Blaser, Clark Forest, John Forsey sports

Similar Threads

  1. having to pay for meat damage
    By long shot in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 25-06-2010, 23:01
  2. meat damage
    By tika.308 in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 18:26
  3. Buck Damage
    By JAYB in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20-02-2009, 17:12
  4. DAMAGE
    By devilishdave in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-09-2008, 21:36
  5. photos of bullet wounds / meat damage
    By Offroad Gary in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 21-05-2008, 09:11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •