Let's not pick nits here. I'll stick with my definition of "dead" and trust any reasonable person to understand that I wasn't referring to leg-shot animals in the context of bullet performance and "death".
Let me gingerly tip-toe into the differences in the choices of arms available to "European" hunters and American hunters, and offer, with respect, that the 'average' American hunter probably has more opportunity to shoot big game with small bullets than the 'average' "European" hunter does. That's NOT to pull some sort of 'one-upsmanship" on the discussion. Rather, I am simply recognizing your own acknowledgement of the spectrum of cartridges, bullets, and game from which you are basing your conclusions.
Also, something I should clarify again, I am NOT a "small and fast" devotee. I "like" bullets that are big around and the cartridges and rifles that shoot them. However, I acknowledge that that "like" is
purely emotional, and I make no attempt to dissuade anyone from using "small and fast" as they see fit. I am engaged in this discussion on the "side" of "small and fast" only in the context of objectively explaining what I consider to be a plausible, and objective explanation for the "instantaneous" kills that so often occur with "small and fast" bullets.
Let me amplify the term "small" and include "light-weight" as part of "small". This is no 'slight of hand' or attempt at change of subject on my part, as "small" bullets are most often pooh-poohed in the context of "penetration" (AKA "wound channel"). It is reasonable to state that small-caliber bullets are generally light-weight and big-caliber bullets are generally heavy. (I note the exception of few "light-for-caliber" bullets for the 6.5x55 cartridge, and the surprisingly heavy-for-caliber 160s.) Among the greatest "charges" against "light-weight" bullets, be they light-weight due to caliber or due to design and materials, is that they "don't penetrate", or that they "blow up on the surface". While EVERY bullet design from EVERY cartridge and EVERY rifle has had some form of "failure" described, the assertion that "light-weight" or "hollow pointed" bullets "blow up" or "fail to penetrate" in the "norm", is just flat wrong. There is simply too much incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
If one single characteristic of the history of hunting bullet design and use can be found, it is the extra-ordinary prevalence of mis-information, ignorance and outright dishonesty on the part especially of "gun-writers" (ptooey), but only slightly behind them, manufacturers. Throughout the 20th century, the "gun-writer" became THE marketing tool (shill, in many cases) of various bullet manufacturers. In some cases it was just ignorance (no excuse). In some cases it was outright dishonesty. Rare are the cases where truth and objectivity were the primary goal. Let me start with "spitzers".
It is reasonably well agreed that the Germans did most of the preliminary work on the "spitzer" (pointy) bullet design. The SOLE reason for the change from first round ball and then round-nosed projectiles was the development of the math of ballistics. (Most of which was accomplished by a French general working for Napoleon Bonaparte.) The German military machine jumped on the "engineering" and worked out most of what is still the "spitzer" shape. In point of fact, the spitzer of the 21st century is only very slightly different than the 'experimental' spitzer of the latter 19th century. Once the spitzer's improved trajectory was demonstrated to the public - through the writings of "gun-writers" (ptooey) - hunters 'all over' wanted "spitzers to hunt with. They "needed" that extra "flatness". The "ethicist" gun-writers (ptooey) claimed that flatter trajectories would lead to less need for good range estimating skills and would by extension lead to more "humane" hunting, and therefore it was a matter of "ethics" that spitzers
should be used.
Trouble was, the bullet manufacturing industry hadn't caught up to the military industrial machine, and the only "spitzers" available were those with full metal jackets (FMJ). Oops. In the hunting fields, FMJs don't "work", and it was obvious quickly. Of course those idiot gun-writers (ptooey) that had railed against those "new-fangled" bullets were the first to climb up on their high horses and proclaim the "uselessness" of the "spitzer". The idiot ethicists immediately climbed on their self-righteous high horses and now proclaimed that use of "sptizers" was UNethical. And the truth was nowhere in sight.
Nonetheless, not-stupid people realized what the "issue" was, and set about to make a "pointy" bullet that would "open up" on game like a round-nosed bullet did. And the first spitzer hunting bullets finally showed up in the civilian market. (In fact, the development of the "hunting" spitzer was, at least in part, what lead to the "out-lawing" of "exposed lead points" in military ammo.) The gun-writers (ptooey) figured out how to save face, and "pressed on". HOWEVER, that original battle between the "round-nose" gun-writers (ptooey) and the "spitzer" gun-writers (ptooey) continued for almost a century. It still flares up now and then.
The next big design issue, was "hollow points". Contrary to popular myth, the development of HPs has it's origins in gyroscopic stability, NOT terminal performance. Trained ballisticians wanted to move the center of mass (AKA center of gravity or CG), rearward so they could use the slower twist rates of all those old rifles they had in their military arsenals and still stabilize their 'new' spitzers. The way to do that was to "lighten" the nose. The "lightest" nose you can get is no nose at all, which is "hollow". Here we go again. This time, the idiot gun-writers (ptooey) jumped on the "we hate it" bandwagon, and came up with all kinds of examples of "crippled" game due to so-called "blow-ups". Some even stated 'bald-faced' that they had "seen a .30 caliber bullet blow up on the hair of the deer and never even penetrated the skin. The deer ran off unscathed." Gee, if the deer ran off, exactly how did they determine it was "unscathed"? Just more "gun-writer" (ptooey) bullwash.
Again, not-stupid people analyzed the 'issues' with MILITARY hollow points, and worked out a hollow-point design that that "worked" as a big game bullet. They called it the "Ballistic Tip". However, it took about 40 years. In that time, the idiot gun-writers (ptooey) and "ethicists" had a free-for-all pushing each other out of the way as fast as they could to get in the front of the line to bad-mouth HPs. As a result, there were no less than two full generations of hunters that grew up believing that hollow pointed bullets for big game were "unethical". When the "Ballistic Tip" first came out, the gun-writing (ptooey) fraternity was confronted with a serious dilemma: On one hand, they had been mean-mouthing the hollow pointed bullet as a big game bullet for longer than many of them had been alive. On the other hand, many of their 'brethren' were paid shills for the very manufacturers that had invented the "non-hollow point" hollow point. Oh deary me, what can we do? They decided to do just what they had always done: Those that were used to it anyway just continued to lie, and those that didn't want to lie simply moved on shamelessly, mostly by never using the "HP" word as they extolled the virtues of the "new" bullet design of their benefactors.
Before I get jumped on about the "poor performance" of "Ballistic Tips" (BTs), it should be pointed out that today's BTs are not the BTs that were first introduced to the hunting public. Those first ones had "normal' (thin) jackets, and the terminal performance on game was variable. Some did in fact perform poorly on big game if the impact velocity was very high, and some performed excellently. However, the velocity range over which performance was best, was small. The manufacturers worked on jacket design, and the newer forms penetrate to greater depths than many of the 'old' round-nosed bullets of similar weight do.
So... Here we are, discussing "terminal performance" in the 100-year-old argument around "wound channel" vs "shock".
In order to discuss my experiences ON GAME with "inappropriate" bullets, it is impossible to avoid sounding immodest. Please believe me when I say I list examples NOT to "win" with some form of "credential", but rather to cite many,
many first-hand experiences that fly in the face of the "myths" initiated by gun-writers (ptooey) about "light" or "small" or "hollow pointed" bullets going very fast.
I have lived and hunted in Alaska for more than 50 years. I have shot every big game animal found in Alaska except bison, elk, coastal brown bear, and musk ox as well as mule deer and prong-horned antelope with the Speer 115-grain hollow point in 7mm. I have never lost an animal. Not one has left the tracks it was in when it was shot. Only once have I lost what I considered an 'unacceptable' amount of meat - approximately 5 lbs and that was because I chose the "humane" shot instead of the "meat-saving" shot. Almost ALL of these animals dropped like a stone upon impact. WAY before they would be "out of oxygenated blood". I NEVER intentionally shoot a big game animal anywhere but behind the shoulder. Anyone that cares to entertain the position that bone fragments impacting the CNS caused every one of over a hundred "instantaneous" deaths, are free to do so. But there is no 'discussion' left in that conversation.
Second, I have been using the .17 Remington cartridge in a model 700 Remington rifle since 1982. My children and I have taken too-many-to-count Sitka black-tail deer and caribou with that rifle. None left their tracks. None "got away". NONE had "meat loss" that even got "up" to that produced by a 7x57 shooting 140-grain Hornady spitzers. No CNS shots. Again, for those that want to ascribe "dead right there" to "bone fragments hitting the CNS" from a rib behind the shoulder in almost everyone of countless caribou and deer, have at it. But again, there is no productive 'discussion' beyond that point.
A dear and long-time born-in-Alaska friend of mine shoots a .300 Win Mag. He only hunts moose and caribou. I accompanied him on his one and only exception to that, a dall sheep hunt. I load 110-grain spire points for him. He is the consummate "meat hunter". To the best of my knowledge, he has never lost a big game animal, and hates to "chase them" even more than I do. If that "small and fast" wasn't "working" for him - killing cleanly and "preserving" meat - you can bet your last Pound Sterling that he wouldn't have been using it for the more than 30 years I have known him.
It is noteworthy, I think, that the longest shot I have ever taken on a big game animal was 317 paces, and the VAST majority of them have been under 150 yards. My friend is of the same mind and practice.
In at least half a dozen side-by-side shooting instances in which my wife was shooting a 7x57 with 140-grain "spitzers", and I was using a .308 Win using the Speer 130-grain HP, her animals ALWAYS ran at least 50 yards, and occasionally as much as 100. Mine never left their tracks.
Finally, I don't particularly advocate use of the .17 Remington for big game hunting, with the possible exception of roe (which I have taken with a .270 Win) or muntjac (which I have never even seen let alone hunted). Nonetheless, you can bet your 'sweet patootie' that my hackles are going to raise when some self-righteous, "ethicist", without a shred of experience, and relying solely on the vomit and sputum of an equally inexperienced gun-writer (ptooey) gets up on their high horse to tell me either that I "can't" use that arm, or that it is "unethical" to do so.
Let me be as clear as I can be here.
I AM NOT ACCUSING DALUA OF BEING SUCH AN "ETHICIST". Nor am I accusing him of any such "self-righteousness".
Rather, I am
trying to explain the "raison detre" for my 'enthusiasm' for the subject of terminal bullet performance, and point out WHY it does
matter that there is a plausible, objective, quantifiable explanation for the
consistently observed phenomenon of "instantaneous" death. A "death" that occurs not due to a strike to the CNS and WAY before "oxygen deficit" would render the quarry incapacitated.
I'll close by saying that I believe those of us left in this discussion are probably very like-minded hunters. If you showed up in my hunting camp with "your" (the editorial "you") light-for-caliber or herking-big-magnum, I would care only that you knew your arm well and were confident that you and it could get whatever the 'job at hand' was, done 'cleanly'. Of course if you showed up with a .17 Remington and we were hunting coastal brown bears, I might want to 'up my fire-power' a bit if I was going with you for the day's outing.
Paul
I have complete faith that a bullet traveling through a ballistic gelatin block WILL find a way to veer sufficiently off course to strike the legs or sensors of the rear chronograph.
