Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    From what I have gathered is a slower moving flat or round nose
    bullet does not deflect as easily as a faster bullet, whether it
    is a round nose or pointed. Like a 30-30 compared to a 30/06. There
    is quite a few feet per second difference between the two. But a
    pointed bullet will deflect more than a round nose. Just my 2 cents
    worth.
    								Bret

    	There's a tape available called "Deadly Weapons" which shows
    several types and caliber of bullets shot throught light brush. 
    All were deflected including a .50 caliber bullet fired from a heavy
    cutom made bolt action rifle. Based on that, I think it's fair to
    say that all bullets are deflected by brush to some degree. Shooting
    through brush is probably not a good idea with any caliber.
    
    	George

    
    � ... Based on that, I think it's fair to say that all bullets are 
    deflected by brush to some degree. 
     
    The ONLY shape of bullet that is stable and self correcting in these
    circumstances (and hence is not deflected perceptably by brush)
    is the wasp-waisted "Diabolo" shape found in airgun pellets and
    the "Bal Blandeau" style slugs for shotguns. Since I don't recomend
    the use of an airgun for hunting the conclusion is obvious:-
    
    �Shooting through brush is probably not a good idea with any caliber.
                                                                
    and if you must, then use a 12-gauge or 10-gauge slug barrelled
    shotgun with Bal Blandeau slugs. 
    
    /. Ian .\

    	The September issue American Rifleman has an article on the
    results of what appears to be quite a valid, indepth test on bullet
    deflections.  A lot of common beliefs concerning deflection are
    disproved by the article.  Check it out.
    
    
    	

    
    
    How about a quick synopsis of the article for those of us who
    don't have access to the article.  You know, just the high
    points.
    
    Jerry

    	The article basically describes tests conducted using a sheet of
    paper with a target as an aiming point,followed by a series of half inch
    pieces of plywood set at 45 degrees to the line of flight of the bullets
    and several feet apart. If I remember correctly, they extended out to
    two hundred yards.
    Through a series of tests, the author had determined that the plywood
    accurately simulated 1/2 inch limbs. They used plywood rather than
    brush because when brush is used, it's impossible to make each bullet
    strike the exact same number and types of branches.
    	The bottom line was that:
    
    	1. All bullets were deflected to some degree.
      
    	2. pointed bullets deflected less that round nose bullets.
    
    	3. Fast moving bullets deflected less than slower moving bullets.
    
    		Read the article, though. It's very well done and has
    the specific deflections for specific bullets and types.
    
    	George

    	Previous response correct.  To elaborate, some conclusions in
    the article.
    
    1. Lighter weight bullets deflected less than heavy ones of similar
    construction.
    	(a)Heavy bullets are longer and slower; they require more twist
           to stabilize.  If stability is marginal, any slight impact
           will cause bullet to tumble.
        (b)Heavy bullets (usually) have rounder noses with thinner
           jackets for better expansion at slower velocities, thus
           they deform more easily than pointed bullets.  Deformed
           bullets deflect more than undeformed ones.
    
    2. Large-bore, low-velocity cartridges that have traditionally
       been called brush busters had the most defelction because of
       fragile bullet construction.  Worst offenders:
              - .44 Rem Mag. with 210-gr Silvertip HP
              - .264 Win Mag with 140-gr
              - 12-ga. 1-oz slug
    
    3. Pointed bullets less deflected - author know why  - had some
       theories but test results prove it.
    
    4. Bottom line:
    
    	- deflection primarily a function of bullet construction
        - bullets having heavy jackets for slow expansion and
          deep penetration had less deformation and therefore less
          deflection 
        - FMJ's deflected least
        - bullets designed for rapid expansion usually fragment and
          deflect excessively
    
    
    ("With the term 'brush gun' the reasonable assumption is that it
     will not be deflected by brush.  The foregoing tests dispel this
     assumption.")
    
           
    

    Like i've been saying for years now guys, gotta stick with the
    little ICBM's (243,270,7mm) for brush busting  8^).....8^)......8^)
                                                   
    Fra
    
    it is comforting to know, however!!!

    
    
    I haven't had the opportunity to read the article in question,
    but I've read the discussion in this topic and I've also discussed
    it with a friend who has read the article.  He suggested that
    perhaps the experiment wasn't really indicative of what really
    happens in brush.  His point is that bullets striking sheets of
    plywood is not the same thing as bullets striking tree limbs.
    For one thing, it seems that a bullet will always strike the
    ply wood head first.  What about the possiblity of the bullet
    striking the limb somewhere behind the nosecone of the bullet?
    Because of the tapered shape of most bullets, this seems very
    likely.
    
    After discussing this, we decided that a much more realistic 
    experiment would be to use wooden dowel rods of various
    diameters instead of plywood.  Surely if someone could rig
    up a system of plywood pieces, he could do the same with the
    dowel rods.
    
    If I have misinterpreted the gist of the article, I'm sure that
    someone will quickly bring it to my attention.  If not, how
    about some feedback anyway?
                               
    Jerry

>>                     -< Is the experiment realistic? >-

I haven't seen the article either, but it seems to me if you want a 
good idea of how a bullet acts in the woods, set up a target IN THE 
WOODS!  Granted, you might have to move the target around some after 
you cut through the bushes a couple of times, but this would seem to 
be the most realistic setup.  I also realize that you lose some of the 
"scientificness" (8^) of the survey in that you're not going through 
the exact same barrier each time, but after a couple hundred rounds 
through some brush you should have some type of statistical idea of 
how the individual bullets fared.  I myself tend to avoind shooting 
through 1/2" plywood to get my targets....  ;^)

Scott

    	Jerry, two points about the article, the bullets struck the plywood
    at a 45 degree angle to simulate stiking a branch off-center. The
    author mentioned theat they'd considered dowels but that it would be
    impossible to get each bullet to enter the bundle of dowels in the same
    relative place, and hit the sme number of dowels all at the same
    angles. This would have made comparing different bullets impossible.
    They had to have something that effected all bullets the same way.
    	I also feel that it doesn't actually simulate real brush, but I
    believe that this is a good way to compare the performance of different
    bullets. There's no doubt that in a given set of circumstances, the
    findings of the author will be upset, for instance, a heavy bullet
    moving slowly seems to plow through brush without being affected,
    while a smaller, faster bullet visibly deflects in a similar situation.
    The fact, however, is that both bullets probably hit very different
    obstacles. The heavy one may have actually only hit a few leaves,
    while the lighter one may have glanced off of one or more failry
    heavy branches.
    	For the purpose of comparison, I believe that the method used
    did, in fact, prove what the author says it did. By the way, it
    sure blew up my old theories.
    
    	George

    I read the article also, and I believe from a scientific standpoint
    the experiment using the plywood was the the only way to go, it
    provides a very controlled environment with each bullet hitting
    exactly the same medium everytime.  I read another article in i
    think guns and ammo which used a peg board with rows of dowels...
    can't remember what the final outcome was of that one, but I believe
    it said something about slow heavy bullets being better... but like
    the author stated in this article, you don't have the precise control
    to have each bullet (of different calibers hit the same dowels in
    precisely the same place or radius, making it hard to compare.
    
    It was a fine well done article, and makes you wonder about some of
    the old theories, what it does do however, is pound home the importance
    of not shooting through brush...  almost all the bullets shot had
    keyholed, the best results were achieved using FMJ bullets, not
    a choice for a hunting round.
    
    Fra

re  .11
    	<For the purpose of comparison, I believe that the method used
    	 did, in fact, prove what the author says it did. By the way,
         it sure blew up my old theories.>
re  .12
    	<.......fine well done article, and makes you wonder about some
         of the old theories,.........>
    
    
    	After quickly skimming the article and reading the conclusions,
    I thought "That's bullsh*t, not according to everything I've been
    lead to believe !"
    	Then I read in more carefully and then I studied it.  When you
    understand the lengths this guy(s) went to include all the variables,
    YOU CAN'T ARGUE AGAINST IT.  It blew all my beliefs too!
    
    Andy
    
        

    Doesn't it just make sense that bullets with more spin will
    be more stable (think about a fast gyroscope vs. a slow one)
    and less likely to pitch or yaw?  And the faster projectile,
    should have more momentum, and be less likely to deflect (weight being
    equal)?  Whether the experiment is the best or not, the results
    certainly make more sense than "big slow bullets plowing through
    the brush."

    	I picked up  a copy of "Deer Rifles" magazine last night.  One
    of the articles was titled "Best of the Brush Guns".  While the
    author did not refer to any test results, his convictions are so:
    
    	- Every cartridge is affected in brush
    	
    	- Slower, heavier cartridges are affected more since they are
    	  designed to expand quicker and are deformed easier.
    
    	- High velocity, good weight and tough bullet construction
          does the best job.
    

    This being a slow time of year, I thought that I might
    resurrect this topic.  I recently acquired a copy of Jack
    O'Connor's "Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns".  Although
    it was published in 1960, there is still a lot of good information
    in it.  
    
    There is one particular passage in this book where he makes the
    statement that slow, heavy bullets are better for brush than the
    fast, light ones.  I assume that this was the conventional wisdom
    of the time and that his statement somewhat reflected that.  However,
    he also stated that he had done some experimentation with shooting
    through brush and the results proved him out.  He didn't go into
    detail on his experimentation.
    
    So, in light of the previous few replies to this topic, what do
    you think?  Has anyone ever read about any experimentation that
    Jack O'Connor did with shooting through brush.  If he said that
    he did it, I've no doubt that he did.
    
    In the FWIW category, if you ever get a chance to read this book,
    you should do so.  It is very informative, even though I don't
    agree completely with everything he says.  Also, it's interesting
    to see what was happening 30 years ago.
    
    Jerry
         

    RE .LAST   <O'Connor's theory.....>
    
    	I have a lot of respect for the guy but his thoughts were mine
    till I read the Sept. American Rifleman.  Check out that article
    - then see what you think.  (My thinking's changed.)
    
    Andy
    

    re. .17
    
    I have checked out the aforementioned article.  That's what
    my reference to the last few replies alluded to.  However,
    O'Connor claimed that he had done some experimentation himself,
    so I assume that his claims weren't based strictly on hearsay.
    Also, he cites several examples from hunting experiences.
    
    I know that there are some O'Connor disciples who participate in
    this conference, and I was in hopes that some of them might know
    about this experimentation he cited.  Perhaps he wrote of the
    results for one of his "Outdoor Life" columns and someone
    remembers reading it.  Also, he also qualifies his statement
    with a remark similar to "No bullet will work perfectly when
    shooting through brush".
    
    Jerry

    I have a couple of Jack O'Connors books at home and don't remember
    reading anything of detail regarding brush busting experiments... He
    did do some experimentation, but I don't believe he ever went into
    detail about it.  I'll look over the weekend and see if i can come up
    with anything. 
    
    One thing to remember, is that no matter how good one bullet is over 
    the other as a brush buster, waiting for a good clean shot is a much
    better alternative. Even the larger bullets which were deflecting less 
    were keyholing 50% of the time, while the sizzlers were either breaking 
    up or keyholing also. At best its a 50/50 chance you'll hit the animal,
    and considerably less that the bullet will still be intact or in it's
    proper attitude when/if it does hit.  (IMHO) These types of shots are 
    best saved for follow up shots at previously hit animals.  
    
    I'm sure that if you looked through some OLD back issues of Outdoor
    Life you might come across an article or 2 by O'Connor on brush
    busting (i was a little too young to be buying Outdoor Life back then).
                          
    Fra

Theoretically (and I once ran 36 hours worth of numerical analysis simulation
on a Cray to verify it), the only bullet design that is resistant to brush
deflection is the 'bal blandeau' design (like a giant airgun pellet) used
occasionally for shot gun slugs.

This is because if the front is deflected the rear then clips the brush pushing 
the slug back on course.

/. Ian .\