Brush busting bullets

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

OK. Let's dispense with the usual mantras that there is no such thing as a brush busting bullet. I agree, all bullets will deflect, so if you're figuring on posting your wisdom on this thread please spare us the static noise.

I believe that it is possible that there are some bullets that won't deflect as badly as others. For those who believe as I do, I would like to see some discussion, links, articles, experiments, and other information pertaining to factors OTHER THAN bullet weight.

*Does rotational speed have an effect? Rotational speed as derived from multiplying twist rate and velocity. I.e. I have a Lyman Great Plains rifle and pistol of the same caliber. Both shoot a .530 ball, but the rifle has a twist of 1:60" wherease the pistol has a 1:30" twist. Shooting over a chronograph reveals that the pistol launches the roundballs at roughly half the velocity of the rifle. Thus, twice the rifling pitch at half the velocity yields the same rate of spin. I have seen some evidence that faster spinning makes for a bullet that is more sensitive to deflection.

*Does bullet shape have an effect on brush deflection? This is related to bullet spin in that bullet shape (and length) dictates the amount of speed required to stabilize it. Could it be that those bullets that require a lot of spin to stabilize are also easily destabilized? What bullet shapes require the least amount of spin?

*Does bullet material have an effect? Roundnose bullets often have more lead exposed. Does the softness of the lead cause bullets to deform easily which would destabilize?

I have a fair bit of experience shooting deer with roundballs fired from muzzleloaders. I can say that at first blush the roundball seems to be a miserable brush buster, perhaps worse than others. However, of all the bullet designs they seem to be the ones that require the least amount of spin to stablize. So that would seem to shoot holes in the theory that less spin and an inherently stable shape make for a good brush buster. UNLESS the poor brush-busting performance I've witnessed is entirely due to the fact that roundballs are made of soft lead, soft as possible which would mean that they deform too easily when hitting a twig.

I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to harden up the roundball alloy.

Your thoughts?

[John McCorkle]

Maybe a good thought experiment to parallel the police use of high end "barrier blind" projos in their line of work...and the military contract just awarded for the same.

If I'm not mistaken their efforts are to get a bullet that will punch through a wall, glass, car door, or other medium much tougher for a short distance and still be relatively on target and carrying enough energy to do its job on the other side...

So I'm thinking there is some parallel but not tons...but some...j words are hard and at high vel fragment or deform enough to dump energy and change trajectory very quickly (think terminal ballistics of 556 round) ...but there is your deformation, just happening with harder at high velocities. Their efforts are to have controlled even expansion without total fragmentation beyond the barrier...but it only works for short distance beyond the barrier again because of the high velocities

So I think key factor for your case would be can you get less deformation (in this case harder bullet to cause less...and your round ball or round nose idea seems to be on point too...the bullet design for most upset is that safety bullet...oh what's the name?...anyways it's like a flying trashcan with a giant hollow point that fragments on impact dumping energy and bleeding off velocity fast). A harder round nose may keep it's shape through twigs and brush better than a wad cutter like design

How hard could you make them for muzzleloader and still work do you think?

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[AntiqueSledMan]

Hello Guys,

I remember watching a Mike Beliveau video where he was comparing some different bullets shot from a Cap & Ball Revolver into water jugs to determine bullet deformation and penetration.
If memories are correct, the pointed nosed bullets had a hard time going straight into the water jugs (exiting on the sides), the round nosed were better, and the flat nosed went straight and were all retrieved in the jugs.
Not sure about hitting a twig. I was really impressed with his results, even though I don't think this is what Mike set out to prove.

AntiqueSledMan.

[Walks]

I seem to remember a GUNS & AMMO story from the 1970's.

They pitted a .30-06 with a 180gr J-Round Nose Bullet at 2800FPS
against a .243Win with a 80gr J-Spitzer Bullet at 3300FPS.

They used a "Baffle Box" with 3 alternating rows of 1/8" & 1/16" dowels, with the target placed at 50ft behind the "Baffle Box", shooting from a distance of 75yds to the target. And again at 25ft from the muzzle with a target at 75yrds. The rifle each had a twist of 1-10". The .30-06 was more accurate more often then not.

They also compared the .30-30 against the .35Rem. I don't remember the details of that test, other then the bullet weights. 170gr and 200gr respectively .

They were trying to prove the bigger slower bullet was a better "Brush Buster". It seemed to be inconclusive.

I thought the test was not well thought out and poorly conducted, probably why I remember it at all. If I do remember it correctly.

[randyrat]

I shot at a nice Buck , white tail, using a 12 gauge slug. Then he turned 180 Deg and stood there, I shot him again and this time he fell. The distance was only 8 yards / 24' through a bunch of small 1-2" Popular. When I processed him there was only one hole.
Apparently the first slug disintegrated. Don't recall what slug was used, but guessing it was a soft 1 ounce lead.

At this point, I realized there is no such thing as a slug gun/ bullet, it opened my eyes and now I am listening

[Lloyd Smale]

just look for bullets that penetrate. What do we use in our handguns for penetration. Heavy for caliber flat nose bullets cast hard. No bullet is immune from deflection but if I had to shoot through a two in tree at the buck of a lifetime give me a 475 with a 420 lfn cast hard. or a 300-350 grain 44 or 45 bullet same design and hard. Don't be afraid to try harder bullets in your muzzle loader. Ive shot minis cast out of ww though mine. For the most part in muzzle loading season my shots are rarely past 50 so I wouldn't be to conserned about keeping one stable at longer ranges. All that said the best brush bucking bullet is one that's accurate enough to avoid the trees in the first place.

[OldBearHair]

Shooting at rabbits in dwarf mesquite with a broadhead was a complete miss. A parallel blunt did not deflect. Meat on the table. All this I say then compare to the Lee 300 gr. large meplat similar to sledgehammer would be my choice. The hardcast would seem to stay on target better just might make a huge entry hole. Your thoughts on this.

[Sailormilan2]

I seem to remember a GUNS & AMMO story from the 1970's.

They pitted a .30-06 with a 180gr J-Round Nose Bullet at 2800FPS
against a .243Win with a 80gr J-Spitzer Bullet at 3300FPS.

They used a "Baffle Box" with 3 alternating rows of 1/8" & 1/16" dowels, with the target placed at 50ft behind the "Baffle Box", shooting from a distance of 75yds to the target. And again at 25ft from the muzzle with a target at 75yrds. The rifle each had a twist of 1-10". The .30-06 was more accurate more often then not.

They also compared the .30-30 against the .35Rem. I don't remember the details of that test, other then the bullet weights. 170gr and 200gr respectively .

They were trying to prove the bigger slower bullet was a better "Brush Buster". It seemed to be inconclusive.

I thought the test was not well thought out and poorly conducted, probably why I remember it at all. If I do remember it correctly.

I remember that article, and I agree with you. Not well thought out, and inconclusive.
I remember reading my dad's old Blue Jacket Manual from the late 40s, and its section on different ammo types for the 5" naval rifle. There was a projectile type specifically designed for use against submarine hulls. Rounded, thick steel, and tough to penetrate. It was in essence, shaped very much like a wadcutter. Which seems to go along with what other posters have said that flat nosed bullets seem to deflect less.

[upnorthwis]

GUNS & AMMO??? I thought it was Shooting Times in the 90's. Same experiment was used, dowels in a box. If my memory serves me correctly, the conclusion they came up with was the Newton's laws couldn't be beat with a "Brush Busting Bullet". That foot pounds of energy was going to win.

[mdi]

I guess you don't want to hear my "static noise". Not a good way for a newer member to make friends on a forum....

[longbow]

Seems to me I remember an article by Ross Seyfried on shotgun slugs for "brush busting" and as I recall round balls did well (contrary to the OP's comment, though hardly conclusive) and that slugs with large flat noses and/or sharp square shoulders (wadcutter... like Brenneke) were less likely to deflect as badly as more pointed or round nose slugs. This seems to be a bit of a theme that the wadcutter type nose seems less likely to deflect or deflect as badly.

Should be easy enough to pick two extreme boolit styles and test them ~ one with large meplat and one with pointed or at least small round nose. NOE has some similar weight boolits in these different nose styles in .30 cal. for sure.

More difficult is to set up a reproducible experiment to produce consistent results. You'd want the boolit to hit one or maybe two dowels every time then take multiple shots and average results.

Also as pointed out long skinny boolits may upset easier than short fat boolits (or vice versa) so you might need 2 different nose styles for short and fat and 2 for long and skinny.

I'd bet it takes a lot of shooting to get conclusive results as a dead center hit is likely going to produce different effect on boolit than a glancing hit.

It would be interesting to see results anyway.

Longbow

[popper]

It is somewhat spin related. Higher spin, more gyro energy which when deflected goes off at a greater angle. Simple physics. I shot a yard sign with 308W, boolit cut 12ga steel wire - dead center by the GC I found. I found the GC close to where the boolit hit rock. IMHO, twigs are springy and that is why you get deflection. Like a tree hits a car several times when you think the car hits the tree.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

See that's what I'm trying to steer the discussion away from is tests such as the one referred to in the Guns-n-Ammo article. They compared so many variables at once: different bullet weights, different calibers, different velocities, different bullet shapes/lengths, and since different calibers are fired from different barrels they had different spin rates.

This is the classic "bad science" that I think has so poisoned our sport. It all seems to focus on the weight vs. speed thing. Well what happens if you keep the bullet the same, and shoot into the box with the same bullet only with different velocities? Or what happens if you shoot through the brush with the same velocity, same bullet shape, but just different bullet weight? Or same bullet, same velocity, but different spin rates?

[John McCorkle]

Seems to me I remember an article by Ross Seyfried on shotgun slugs for "brush busting" and as I recall round balls did well (contrary to the OP's comment, though hardly conclusive) and that slugs with large flat noses and/or sharp square shoulders (wadcutter... like Brenneke) were less likely to deflect as badly as more pointed or round nose slugs. This seems to be a bit of a theme that the wadcutter type nose seems less likely to deflect or deflect as badly.

Should be easy enough to pick two extreme boolit styles and test them ~ one with large meplat and one with pointed or at least small round nose. NOE has some similar weight boolits in these different nose styles in .30 cal. for sure.

More difficult is to set up a reproducible experiment to produce consistent results. You'd want the boolit to hit one or maybe two dowels every time then take multiple shots and average results.

Also as pointed out long skinny boolits may upset easier than short fat boolits (or vice versa) so you might need 2 different nose styles for short and fat and 2 for long and skinny.

I'd bet it takes a lot of shooting to get conclusive results as a dead center hit is likely going to produce different effect on boolit than a glancing hit.

It would be interesting to see results anyway.

LongbowSee I would have thought (and theorized earlier) that the wadcutters style would deflect more than a round nose though I imagined that ling skinny pointed bullets do deflect easier....and basing that on pistol hunters with small animals like squirrel will typically lean towards wadcutters and semi wadcutters so they destabilize once hitting something and won't travel far without bleeding off energy and not traveling to the next county

All that to say glad to hear others input here to help hone things a bit...also shows me I'm still confused on terminal ballistics and what actually happens once the bullet leaves the barrel

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[rking22]

Back when NRA magazine did tech researched articles, they did one. If memory serves it was mid 70s and did not have the random effect of the "boxof sticks" I saw in one of the later articles. Also relying on memory they found the faster Spitzer form tp do better than the, generally believed, rnd nose. Think they used 300WM vs 45-70 but its been a long time. They used a dowell rack and tested specific amount of contact and deflection over various distances. I don't remember much because the takeaway was that anything, short of a 5inch deck gun, was totally unreliable, for a one shot kill, if it hit any brush more than a couple fert in front of intended target. Personal experience is a 50rb, soft, hit a 1/2 inch sappling and deflected 8+ inches over the 10ft or so to the doe. The other is a 100gr 243 bullet will not get the 10 yards to a deer after penetrating 2 inch locust, duhh on that one. Last was a friends 150 spitzer from 3006, twig the size of a matchstick 5 feet from muzzle, hit a 40 yard deer in lower front leg, chunk of bone lost deer.
What might work better, the best test I have seen said fast,slim,pointed, and non explosive. I would like to see a real engineering study done with the solid copper stuff, who knows?????
Far as I am concerned, nothing works well enough to trust, I do understand wanting to have the best insurance.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Antique,

This is all I could find of Mr. Belliveau's work on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmYRePzoOQ

It looks like all projectiles went straight enough.

[JSnover]

I remember that same test and haven't seen or heard anything conclusive since. I imagine a wide flat nose might be more likely to cut a twig than a round nose or spitzer and then might not deflect as much but might also be more likely to tumble afterwards.
The best way to find out might be to set up some leafless brush in front of the target.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Personal experience is a 50rb, soft, hit a 1/2 inch sappling and deflected 8+ inches over the 10ft or so to the doe. The other is a 100gr 243 bullet will not get the 10 yards to a deer after penetrating 2 inch locust, duhh on that one. Last was a friends 150 spitzer from 3006, twig the size of a matchstick 5 feet from muzzle, hit a 40 yard deer in lower front leg, chunk of bone lost deer.

Awesome info! Your rb experience is similar to mine - yet as another poster referenced a Ross Seyfried article that stated rb's did "better". I think everyone understands that distance between brush and target is a major factor, as in your .30-06 example. But it would seem that staying in the kill zone while traveling 10 feet from the twig to the target is not too much to ask.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

It is somewhat spin related. Higher spin, more gyro energy which when deflected goes off at a greater angle. Simple physics. I shot a yard sign with 308W, boolit cut 12ga steel wire - dead center by the GC I found. I found the GC close to where the boolit hit rock. IMHO, twigs are springy and that is why you get deflection. Like a tree hits a car several times when you think the car hits the tree.

This is what I was hoping to dig deeper into. This is something I don't quite understand is the physics of gyroscopic rotation and I am convinced that this might have as much or more to do with brush deflection than bullet mass (momentum).

What you say seems counterintuitive to me though. If you do not rotate the gyroscope at all, it goes wherever the forces acting on it dictate. But if you spin the gyroscope enough it "stabilizes" and can offer seemingly more resistance. Or am I wrong?

So if what you are saying is correct, and spitzer-style bullets require more rotation to stabilize, might they also be more vulnerable to de-stabilization? A little bump sends them off-course?

The only difficulty I'm having with the gyroscope-rule-of-brush-penetration is that it doesn't seem to follow with muzzleloader roundballs' real-world results. Now this could be entirely because most rb's are super-soft lead and could easily deform on contact with a twig.

[tazman]

I did a very unscientific test once using a mutiflora rose bush as a deflector with the target about 50 yards beyond. I was shooting a 30-08 with 180 spire points and a 458 Winchester with 540 grain flat nose bullets(as I said, very unscientific).
The 180 spire points were all over. Many didn't make it to the target. Those that did were mostly sideways.
The 458 slugs actually grouped on the target and didn't seem bothered much by the brush.
I can't say what would have happened if the deflecting brush was thicker.

[AntiqueSledMan]

Black Jaque Janaviac,

I stand corrected as I can't find the video I referenced, the 6 part Ruger Old Army Projectile Test was part of what I referenced. I thought I seen one with the Colt Pointed projectile which they couldn't keep a single one in the jugs, they kept running out the sides. Unfortunately I never documented it so it's myth.

Sorry, AntiqueSledMan.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I did a very unscientific test once using a mutiflora rose bush as a deflector with the target about 50 yards beyond. I was shooting a 30-08 with 180 spire points and a 458 Winchester with 540 grain flat nose bullets(as I said, very unscientific).
The 180 spire points were all over. Many didn't make it to the target. Those that did were mostly sideways.
The 458 slugs actually grouped on the target and didn't seem bothered much by the brush.
I can't say what would have happened if the deflecting brush was thicker.

Well yeah. I think we'd all expect thicker brush to deflect even the .458. But you have at least some evidence to say that the .30-06 spire points deflected with even a mild brush screen. In the past, people would see your test and say, "See heavy bullets plow through brush better." But I'm beginning to wonder if we're barking up the wrong tree. What if that .30-06 was a 180 grain roundnose? How much of the .458's success in that test was due to the flat nosed shape? And, as per Popper's post, how much of the .458's success was due to its slower rate of spin?

[longbow]

I'd have to look for that old Ross Seyfried article to properly reference comments but a couple of differences between those RB's and muzzleloader balls are that this was a smoothbore shotgun so no spin on the ball and ball likely cast from hard lead.

Also, a 12 ga. ball is substantially larger and heavier than most muzzleloader balls so more mass to deflect.

Personally I have to think that nose shape and mass are major players in this discussion but of course that is just my opinion.

What does amaze me and I'm sure you guys have all seen it too is just how much a boolit/bullet can deflect off course once it is upset. I would not have though that something travelling that fast could change course so rapidly but so they do!

[popper]

Rotational momentum. Slow spin, light boolit, not much momentum. Gyros do nasty things when you push them off the spin axis. Fast spire point is going to have the C.P. in front of the C.G. so the 'lever' creates torque to turn the bullet. FN or RN the 'lever' is shorter. Relative shot 308MX FTX at yard signs, bends the steel support, never cut. IMHO the dowel doesn't reflect brush very well. Live branches move when hit, dowels don't, they break.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Rotational momentum. Slow spin, light boolit, not much momentum. Gyros do nasty things when you push them off the spin axis. Fast spire point is going to have the C.P. in front of the C.G. so the 'lever' creates torque to turn the bullet. FN or RN the 'lever' is shorter. Relative shot 308MX FTX at yard signs, bends the steel support, never cut. IMHO the dowel doesn't reflect brush very well. Live branches move when hit, dowels don't, they break.

C.G. = center of gravity. And C.P. is the center of the length of the boolit? So boolit shape scores a point in being a potential factor in brush busting.

[GregLaROCHE]

After reading these posts and doing some research. I wonder if the best Boolit for brush isn’t a simple round ball traveling just fast enough to give the required power to do the job it has to, when it reaches its target. Add just enough spin to stabilize it and that’s it.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

After reading these posts and doing some research. I wonder if the best Boolit for brush isn’t a simple round ball traveling just fast enough to give the required power to do the job it has to, when it reaches its target. Add just enough spin to stabilize it and that’s it.

Greg, That seems to be what the physics tells us. But I have over 20 years experience with roundball hunting, and they seem to be miserable brush-busters. I am thinking it may be due to the soft lead so easily getting mis-shaped and throwing the gyroscope off-balance.

There are some muzzleloaders out ther made with Forsyth rifling that are intended to shoot hardened lead. They are all in the custom category and out of my reach, I am kinda hoping someone here might have such a beast. Perhaps they can testify to the performance of a hard lead alloy rb.

[Wayne Smith]

I think you are looking at the wrong variable. I remember my dad telling me of a squirrel he shot at with his 30-30 (170gr bullet) through a small tree, the squirrel being on the back side of the tree. His bullet went through the tree, the eruption of wood pushed the squirrel's back end up in the air, he recovered, and went on up the tree.

Solid hit, slows the bullet down, probably deforming it. Glancing hit, no prediction where the boolit will go. That's my take on it. Yes the type of bullet and the location vs muzzle/target will effect the amount of deflection, but deflect it will.

[GregLaROCHE]

So why do you need to shoot pure lead in a muzzle loader? I thought it was so the boolit or ball would obturate, making a better seal in the bore. What are these new barrels that can shoot hard lead? Is wear involved? Is obturation not a factor with them?

I just checked the weight of round balls and was surprised to see how light they are. At least comparing a .45cal ball to what I shoot out of my .45-70.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Yes the type of bullet and the location vs muzzle/target will effect the amount of deflection,
Wayne, we agree. What this discussion is about is how bullet types affect the amount of deflection.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

So why do you need to shoot pure lead in a muzzle loader? I thought it was so the boolit or ball would obturate, making a better seal in the bore. What are these new barrels that can shoot hard lead? Is wear involved? Is obturation not a factor with them?

I just checked the weight of round balls and was surprised to see how light they are. At least comparing a .45cal ball to what I shoot out of my .45-70.

Greg, with a muzzleloader & roundball the cloth patch is what engages the rifling. But you have to compress the patch between the lead and the lands by hand. So soft lead starts in the muzzle far easier than even air cooled wheel weights (which is soft by breechloading standards). Also a roundball has the minimum amount of bore-riding surface area that can be achieved for a given caliber. This makes it easy to skip rifling, so roundball rifling is often very deep, like 0.15" groove depths.

This forsyth rifling is not really new, but you could say is was rediscovered in the 1990s. It was first employed by African hunters who wanted to shoot hardened lead to penetrate rhino hide (literally). Forsyth rifling is really slow twist (1:104"), has shallow grooves (0.007"), and narrow lands (1/2 width of grooves).

[GregLaROCHE]

Thanks for the info. I’m not a muzzle loader, but who knows what the future may bring.

By the way, what caliber/calibers are you muzzle loading?

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Greg,
.32, .36, .45, .50, and .54. Some have shallow grooves, so perhaps I could try casting up some air-cooled WW balls and see if they shoot well enough without a brush screen. Then experiment with them in brush.

I agree with one of the previous posts that live twigs are going to make for a better test than dry dowels. I also think that you'd need more than a 3 shot group since, as has been discussed, how the bullet contacts the obstruction will govern how badly it deflects. It seems too likely that you could get 3 lucky shots with one trial and 3 unlucky shots with another trial.

[GregLaROCHE]

I agree to get any hard evidence you would have to have a lot of sample shots.

There are people who shoot .45 round balls our of .45 colts or long colts. There’s a YouTube video about it. If you could get a hold of one of those rifles and test different hardness alloy you might find some of the information you are wondering about. All in all, it could turn into a big project. Maybe you could find an organization or magazine that would be interested in looking into it.

I’m a big advocate of powder coating. I don’t know if anyone has experimented with PC on round balls. Maybe the PC could protect the soft lead enough to make a difference.

[tazman]

Back when I was shooting muzzle loading rifles, I tried some hard lead round balls. They were harder to start into the muzzle but shot well once loaded.
I used them on squirrels.

[Wayne Smith]

Wayne, we agree. What this discussion is about is how bullet types affect the amount of deflection.

Since we are talking about 'brush busting' boolits - thus hunting, IHMO ANY deflection is devastating and a thing to be avoided.

I do understand the theoretical discussion, though.

[popper]

A little bump sends them off-course? Yup. Army did tests on 223 stability of various bullets and twist. Test was done in a long box, cardboard placed at various angles to unstabilize a bullet , then trace it's path through the box.
I agree with Wayne - avoid if possible. When hog hunting from a stand, lots of Johnson grass to shoot through. I did shoot at one through grass & small mesquite and did get a hit as I found blood on the grass but no hog. Shooting through a thicket is different, especially with optics. IMHO heavy for caliber and slow has higher probability. No such thing as a brush buster slug.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Popper, the army only proved that spitzer pointed .223 bullets are bad at plowing through cardboard.

If there is one thing that I am being convinced of it is that nobady has really bothered to TRY to design a brush buster. It seems that at most they've designed ever-increasing long range guns, then test them against brush penetration and concluded they all stink.

[GregLaROCHE]

I don’t think there is a need for something to be designed. I think most possibilities already exist.

The heavier the boolit the better. The blunter and maybe shorter could help, but all these things exist. It’s now a choice to be made. I’m sure this has a lot of military applications. Take elephant grass in Vietnam. If there were a better answer I think the military would have come up with it by now. So far, I haven’t heard of any special brush busting military round.

[mozeppa]

wouldn't it be easier to shoot a running chain saw towards your target ...then shoot the target?:bigsmyl2:

[tazman]

A friend of mine from back in thee day, told stories about the weird things the M16 rounds did after they entered a body. Mostly that they often didn't come out anywhere near where they went in because of deflection inside the body.

[popper]

the army only proved that spitzer pointed .223 bullets are bad at plowing through cardboard.
Actually they were trying to determine the amount of twist needed to re-stabilize a projectile. It's an old 1900ish? long box that basically has paper targets along the way, used to determine stability of projectiles. The projectile is purposely deflected at the muzzle to verify recovery of gyro stability. Closed thing to test of brush buster boolits.
You are basically asking a ricochet problem, more forward momentum (not fps) to overcome the 'resistance' of a bendable twig, better result. There was a vid a few years back, mutilate the nose of 22LR and shoot downrange. Somewhere along the path, bullet takes off in a very funny path.
Few years ago I was on a deer hunt, G.S busted a doe about dusk. Doe crashed through the brush/trees in front of me. I didn't even try a shot. #1 bad hit probably. #2 didn't want to recover from that 30deg downhill 400 yd path at nite. Yes, I heard it holler and clop all the way down to the valley below. Then there way the guy who shot atrophy moose only to find it wedged at the bottom of a pile of boulders. 3 helpers and a makeshift hoist to get it out. Sometimes it's just not worth the attempt.

[lar45]

My thought is to take a look at the big bore crowd. To get better straight line penetration in big game, they mostly use a bullet with a big meplat.
As far as the question about twist rate, it would seem to me that if a bullet was spun fast enough to be gyroscopically stabilized that it might take more force to destabilize it. This is not to say that we should spin it as fast as possible. It would seem to me that an over spun bullet could be made to tumble with only a small deflection.
Bullet weight. .. more mass=more momentum, so it would take more force to cause it to go off course.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

My thought is to take a look at the big bore crowd. To get better straight line penetration in big game, they mostly use a bullet with a big meplat.
As far as the question about twist rate, it would seem to me that if a bullet was spun fast enough to be gyroscopically stabilized that it might take more force to destabilize it. This is not to say that we should spin it as fast as possible. It would seem to me that an over spun bullet could be made to tumble with only a small deflection.
Bullet weight. .. more mass=more momentum, so it would take more force to cause it to go off course.
My initial thinking was that since the gyroscope stabilizes the bullet through the air, it should help keep it going when contacting an obstruction. But after learning more about gyroscopes, I am not convinced that is true. For one, spitzer style bullets seem to require a lot of rotation to stabilize because their shape is imbalanced. So a slight interruption in that spin could destroy any gyroscopic stabilization. For two, the gyroscope effect has its own angular momentum. So when a bullet contacts a twig you have the forward momentum of the bullet which would only deflect according to how much force the twig applied to the bullet. But now you also have the angular momentum which will cause the bullet to grab the twig a fling itself off in weird directions. Imagine a ball resting on a table top. You touch the ball ever so slightly with your finger and it goes in the direction you pushed. . . ever so slightly. Now spin the ball (like balancing a basketball on your finger) and then touch it with the same amount of force. The ball with travel with much greater velocity in strange directions.