Shooters Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
"Bad Joke Friday" Dan (moderator emeritus)
Joined
·
7,761 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For those of you that have not read the October "Guns & Ammo", thought a couple exerpts from the article "Proving the Power Factor" by Col. Craig Boddington might be of interest.

"Over the years, I've shot a lot of bears with larger, slower cartridges--and others with fast cartridges from .270 to .30. Either way, provided a good bullet is placed in the right spot, the result is a dead bear. However, I am convinced there is a difference. Most of the bears I have shot in the vitals with cartridges from .270 to .308 have taken fatal bullets and run with them. Most of the bears I have taken with bigger, slower cartridges have dropped...and most of them have stayed put. "

"I can't prove it, and there is not formula to properly explain it. But I know, absolutely know, that any of my .35's producing as much as 1,000 ft-lbs. less, would have caused a more dramatic reaction."

"Dead is dead, and that Vancover Island bear wasn't going snywhere. Still, the issue is this: That bear received a bullet in the chest cavity that was carrying pretty close to 3,500 ft-lbs. on impact. There was very little reaction to all that power. I've seen many bears of similar size bowled over with similar shot placement from larger calibers carrying less energy."

Dan
 

·
"Bad Joke Friday" Dan (moderator emeritus)
Joined
·
7,761 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
James,

I've found it prudent to go with "experience over formulas".  If the Stanton/Gates/Boddington experience indicates certain types of bullets have a more significant impact on game, contrary to ft-lb formulas, I know which road I'm traveling. It reminds me of the article about the 1500yd shot with the 50-90 Sharps rifle that the scientists said didn't happen -- can't be done, calculations "proved it". As I remember the article, the first "controlled test" shots went over 3000 yds.  I learned (undergraduate in Physics) that when my formula's predicted results didn't match actual results, I took another look at the formula.

Dan
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top