>>>>The most common reason for stepping
>>>>up in bullet weight is
>>>>for retained bullet weight and
>>>>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>>>>every other hunting bullet. They
>>>>also usually retain 95-100% of
>>>>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>>>>like velocity to get maximum
>>>>expansion and the best way
>>>>to get speed is to
>>>>step down in weight.
>>>>
>>>>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>>>>almost exclusively and I always
>>>>step down in bullet weight
>>>>when using them. The best
>>>>thing about Barnes bullets for
>>>>me is that they don't
>>>>ruin meat like a standard
>>>>cup and core bullet does.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree, an increase in velocity
>>>isn't necessarily what you need.
>>> Faster objects tend to
>>>decelerate at a faster rate.
>>> Any bullet will perform
>>>within their respective velocity range.
>>>
>>>
>>>What you really want a bullet
>>>that will maintain its velocity
>>>range at whatever distance you
>>>will be using it at
>>>for optimal performance.
>>>
>>>Bullets do not kill based on
>>>penetrating. If you were
>>>bowhunting, then the most
>>>penetration you can get is
>>>optimal. With bullets,
>>>you want the most damage
>>>that can be done via
>>>a hemorrhagic shockwave.
>>>
>>>Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs
>>>ad the best deep penetrating
>>>slow expanding, maximum damage bullet
>>>on the market. Their
>>>data supports them all as
>>>does our anecdotal evidence.
>>
>>Wrong! I'm referring to Barnes bullets
>>and solid copper bullets like
>>barnes will always expand more
>>with velocity. If you are
>>talking about standard lead/copper cup
>>and core bullets then I
>>will agree with you but
>>solid copper bullets do have
>>a higher velocity range than
>>standard cup and core bullets
>>and will always perform better
>>with a higher impact velocity.
>>
>>
>>You are also wrong about penetration
>>not being a factor on
>>killing big game with a
>>firearm. Your statement on that
>>is complete ignorance. You
>>can get a large shockwave
>> but if it doesn't
>>reach the vitals you will
>>have a wounded animal nearly
>>all the time. Shoot an
>>animal in a shoulder or
>>other bone that stops the
>>bullet and then get back
>>to me on how penetration
>>doesn't matter. I'm sure you've
>>seen animals knocked flat from
>>the initial shockwave of a
>>bullet only to get back
>>up and run off because
>>it was a poor or
>>non-penetrating shot. So much for
>>the killing power from that
>>theory. That crap was debunked
>>about 40 years ago after
>>the Weatherby craze.
>>
>>Also the shockwave you are referring
>>to is damaging to meat.
>>I used to hunt with
>>a 6.5 ultramag and barnes
>>bullets, the shockwave from that
>>cartridge was severe enough to
>>blow pieces of animal back
>>through the entry hole and
>>still completely penetrate the animal.
>>I have never before seen
>>that amount of pressure/shock on
>>an animal.
>
>No, I'm not wrong. Please
>re-read my post in its
>entirety before stopping at the
>first thing you "disagree with"
>and commenting on my wrongness
>and your rightness.
>
>Carry on though, its kinda cute
>in a sophomoric way..
You are wrong and I read and re-read your entire post. I didn't stop at the first thing I disagreed with, I disagreed with three things. 1- that velocity doesn't matter with copper bullets which is the type of bullet the original poster was speaking to. 2-that the hydrostatic shock from a bullet is what kills (even if that were the case an increased velocity impact increases hydrostatic shock which goes against your velocity doesn't matter comment). 3- to say that penetration doesn't kill is the most laughable, idiotic thing I've heard on this site since Cass was around. If you can't penetrate into the vitals i.e. lungs, heart, cns, you are going to have a lot of wounded and suffering animals, not to mention lots of tracking to do.