Rebel Hog

Jag, and the .260, .243, 6.5mm and the 7mm-08 are all necked down .308... and the 6.5mm has better penetration!

JagMagMan

Yep! Those, and a dozen others inbetween, are ten times better than a .410 slug!

wis_bow_huntr

Using a .410 for deer hunting is just as stupid as using an SKS. The knock down isnt there. .410's are not legal to use during deer season in many states because of very littlepower they have behind them.

Jim Malone

Thank you for the quick and kind replies to my question. The question was purely a thinking excercise to know the dynamics of a broadhead and a low poweredrifle bullet.
Taking the excercise further would a broadhead with say 6 or even 8 blades be better?
I always read that most hunters prefer a shoot thrue, but it also means that there was still useable cutting power left in the arrow when it exited the animal.
With the onset of faster bows with higher energy wouldn't it be wiser to design broadheads that dump almost all their energy inside the target? The exit wound is always a plus, remember the old Jeff Cooper saying "more blood out, more air in"
Expandable bullets where designed with the intention of having a certain degree of penetration combined with the dumping of the total bullet energy in the target. Depending on the specie you can opt for deeper penetration or high expansion (like in varmint)
Could this principle also be used in broadheads ?

Paul L Mohr

You are right comparing a 410 to a bow is just like comparing apples to oranges. While they look different they are both fruit and accomplish the same thing.

I don't see how you can say a bow is ok but a .410 is not. They both create a lethal wound channel, just in a slightly different way. Given the same limitations and restrictions they are simular in lethality. A hole thru the vitals is a hole thru vitals. Are you saying a 45 caliber or larger hole thru the vitals is not lethal? You don't need to knock an animal down to kill it, as matter of fact the odds are against that happening no matter what you use.

And I would highly dissagree with a SKS not working for deer. With the proper bullet a 7.62x39 has close to the same ballistics as a 30-30 which has killed more deer than you can count.

I would be willing to bet that wounding a deer has almost nothing to do with weapon choice providing it is legal and has sufficient energy and momentum to penitrate the vitals. And in almost every case it has to do the hunter having poor abiilities, poor judgement and a lack of knowledge about the game they are hunting. If you think a .410 will kill a 250 lb deer at 80 yards quartering to you then you are sadly mistaken. However there are a lot of other weapons that will not pull that off either. However at 40 yards or so broadside with a well placed shot it is more than enough. Will it drop a deer to the ground like a 7mm mag to the shoulder, nope. Then again you don't need to do that in order to harvest game either.

Deer are not some mythical creature that are near impossible to kill. They are weary and have a lot of stamina, but they are really are not that tough.

I don't know how so many people can say you can't kill a deer with .410 when so many people do it every year. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Paul

Paul L Mohr

Would a broad head with 6 blades be better? Depends on how big the blades were and if the arrow had enough momentum to utilize it. And then in it would probably be a minimal advantage. Probably not worth the risk in my opinion.

Arrows transfer very little energy to the animal. And the less energy transmitted the better in my opinion with archery. A larger cutting diameter wold work just as well, hence the large mechanical broad heads we see with 2 inches of cutting diameter.

They work great if your bow is effecient enough to utilize them. However if you have a lower powered set up the penitration is so poor that they don't work well. You would be better off with a smaller 2 blade design that would give you better penitration.

You really only need enough energy to get the arrow into the deer far enough to destroy the vitals. If you can get it thru better yet. Beyond that the extra power will only dictate how far the arrow will stick in the ground on the other side, or how far you can effectively take game with it. It also helps with poor shot placement. Arrows kill by slicing tissue, energy has very little to do with it.

Bullets work in a simular way, but employ a different means to acheive it. Bullets don't really kill with energy either. None of them have enough force to knock a deer down and kill it. They still have to penitrate the vitals and create a wound channel. Some bullet use velocity or energy to hydrodynamically creat a larger wound channel than the diameter of the bullet. This wound channel and the destroyed tissue around it are what kills the animal. It still needs to be placed in the correct spot. Some rounds create enough of a energy wave that they will actually dissrupt nerve signals and stun the animal. Sometimes for good, sometimes not. Shot placement and luck seem to have a lot to do with it.

Read the link to the article I provided, it is very interesting to say the least. In my previous posts I made the errors of using improper terminology like hydrostatic shock and others. While my nomenclature was wrong the basic thoery I was trying to explain is still fairly sound. The article does a much better job of explianing it.

While it looked like ZEX and I were arguing, we were really in agreement for the most part. Just missunderstanding each other and arguing a small detail

Paul

Jim Malone

Well i think it's a good indication that most people inhere take there harvesting very serious. I am pleased to see the level of debate regarding my post.
I have reread the article and see your point.

zrexpilot

I agree with you, I think were on the same page.