Through or against the other side of the skin, what are your thoughts

[Jörg Krüger]

Good day all members.
I would love to hear your opinions regarding the pros and cons of bullets that pass through completely on an animal vs an bullet that is found on the opposite side against the skin.
The animals I am talking about would be Gemsbok size game and the shot a broadside shot. Could also include smaller or larger game if you so desire to comment.
I am in the belief that a bullet that got to the other side of the skin and stopped there, put all its energy into the buck, which I would think is the best, but you might have less of an blood trail if the critter runs a bit.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[JimP]

It's a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

I have shot animals at close range where the bullet ended up on the far side of the body without punching through. I have shot the same spices of animal at longer ranges with the same bullet and loading where it punched a whole on the other side.

While one that just lodges on the far side shows that the bullet expended all of it's remaining energy inside of the animal you have to ask yourself just how much energy did it have when it hit the animals. The logical answer is that it did have enough energy but was it truly enough energy to do a good amount of damage inside the body cavity? Or would of it been better if it had retained more energy to of exited the whole animal?

I prefer exit holes. That shows that the bullet had enough energy plus some in reserve.

 

[Jörg Krüger]

Thank you for your reply @JimP . I only hunt with my 308 Norma Magnum. On Gemsbok size game from anything from 100 - 350 meters I never had a through.(2950fps) The bullets I shoot are Sierra game kings 180gn. Might have something to do with it???

 

[BourbonTrail]

I am less concerned with the pass through or just stop than I am with the trauma created in the wound channel.

I have always had full pass through (whitetail), but there was a huge difference between 270 win and 30-06 in wound channel with the bullets I was using. I much preferred the 150 gr. 30-06 because the wound was about 3x that of the 130 gr. 270.

12 gauge slug isn’t even in the same ball park, but the ballistics are relatively terrible.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Dead is dead. If I'm standing at the animal and able to see both an entry and exit wound, or if I find my bullet while quartering the animal... I'm happy either way. For what it's worth, my go-to rifle for moose for the past decade is the one in my avatar. On seven bulls ranging from paddle horns to one that was just shy of 50 inches, and ranges from 80 to a bit more than 200 yards, the factory rounds with FTX bullets... every single one was just under the skin on the far side. Again, dead = happy. I eat the same whether there's one hole or two.

 

[Ike85123]

If it drops in one shot without tracking, I prefer 1 hole. If he is a runner to my bad marksmanship, then 2 holes. Hopefully he will bleed more and it will be a short hike ! My 300wm very seldom only leaves1 hole, tbh.

 

[375Fox]

I want an exit hole for the blood trail. It also shows me the bullet still had energy on exit to continue making a good wound channel. Penetration/wound channel through the vitals kills not the energy. I had a interesting experience with a zebra where the bullet only penetrated maybe 8 inches on point of shoulder at 200 yards. It completely knocked it off it’s feet, but when we walked up on it it tried to run and required another shot. You could see the energy getting dumped into the animal, I compared it to getting hit by a sledge hammer, but the energy didn’t kill it.

 

[Adrian]

I'm with the above. If I'm standing over a dead animal then me, my rifle and my bullet have done the job. I don't care if the bullet is still in the animal or has passed through it.
The bullet could pass between ribs, not hit anything solid and pass clean through.
The same bullet could hit bone and expend it's energy and not pass through.
I'm more worried about where the bullet goes in and getting it through the vitals than where it comes out.
Assuming you have a safe back stop and it won't injure or kill anything else of course.....
Obviously two holes leaking blood will make tracking easier if you need to do it but I've never thought about it as being a priority because although you have a good idea, you can never say for sure what will happen when the round penetrates the animal.
Use premium quality bullets and know the range they are most effective and enjoy hunting!

 

[Jörg Krüger]

The last Kudu I shot went perfectly through the heart( a total broad side shot) and knocked the Kudu totally of its feet. The bullet never passed through. The heart was literally a complete mush. That is an total energy transfer in my humble opinion, but it still got up and walked another 20 meters before expiring. Tuff these animals

 

[Ike85123]

The last Kudu I shot went perfectly through the heart( a total broad side shot) and knocked the Kudu totally of its feet. The bullet never passed through. The heart was literally a complete mush. That is an total energy transfer in my humble opinion, but it still got up and walked another 20 meters before expiring. Tuff these animals

Ive had duiker run 100yds after a heart shot with my 300wm. Completely through and out the ass.
Really tough sometimes!

 

[Jörg Krüger]

Thanks for the input so far. It will be interesting (for me anyway) to see the different opinions of our members

 

[Roller]

In Africa, using a 300 win mag with 180 gr TTSXs, I have only had passthroughs on small species such as warthog, blesbok and the like (still dependent on range and angle). Large plains game usually found the projectile expanded against the inside the hide opposite impact.

Locally (deer hunting), there is something to be said for getting a pass through for a better blood trail, but my philosophy on thin skinned game is that you don't need a blood trail if your shot placement is correct. I prefer old cup and core bullets for whitetails.

 

[Jörg Krüger]

In Africa, using a 300 win mag with 180 gr TTSXs, I have only had passthroughs on small species such as warthog, blesbok and the like

I have shot Springbok with my rifle/bullet combo but it generally makes a mess of things on or just behind the shoulder. Neck shots is where it has to be , otherwise I loose to much meat.

 

[curtism1234]

but my philosophy on thin skinned game is that you don't need a blood trail if your shot placement is correct.

I used to agree 100% on that until recently. I shot a big whitetail buck square in the shoulder with my 308 from about 70 yards in thick woods. He ran about another 150 yards before falling. Lucky for me he ran a giant horseshoe shape and ended up near where he was shot. A couple drops of blood and hair where he was shot and then absolutely nothing. It was a body search and luckily I knew roughly where he was. If he would have ran straight, I am not sure I ever would have found him. The bullet went into the shoulder, took out the top of the heart, and was lodged against the hide on the opposite end.

In general, I am very much a fan of 2 holes as long as the bullet isn't too solid.

 

[Roller]

I used to agree 100% on that until recently. I shot a big whitetail buck square in the shoulder with my 308 from about 70 yards in thick woods. He ran about another 150 yards before falling. Lucky for me he ran a giant horseshoe shape and ended up near where he was shot. A couple drops of blood and hair where he was shot and then absolutely nothing. It was a body search and luckily I knew roughly where he was. If he would have ran straight, I am not sure I ever would have found him. The bullet went into the shoulder, took out the top of the heart, and was lodged against the hide on the opposite end.

In general, I am very much a fan of 2 holes as long as the bullet isn't too solid.

I get it. It's an age old debate. The flip side off that, is I know folks that have shot pencil size holes through deer and since there was no fragmentation and shot placement wasn't perfect, the deer never died.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

I'm a fan of one shot one kill! I have only recovered one bullet from a cow moose in North America and 3 bullets from game in Africa.

 

[Jörg Krüger]

I'm a fan of one shot one kill! I have only recovered one bullet from a cow moose in North America and 3 bullets from game in Africa.

I have obviously never hunted North American critters, you think our critters skin is thicker for this to happen?

 

[sgt_zim]

2 holes bleed more than 1 hole.

besides...the whole "energy dumping" thing has been so thoroughly discredited that it's barely worth a discussion.

If you shoot a 500# animal with a bullet that weighs 300 gr, the animal has almost 12K times more mass than the bullet. the bullet could be traveling at the speed of light (ignoring the infinite mass for the moment) and it will not "dump energy" in any appreciable way inside the body of the animal.

2 holes, with a big wound channel in between. that is the best you can hope for (assuming good shot placement, of course)

 

[sestoppelman]

Opionions vary on everything, this included. I dont believe in the so called energy dump theory except when the bullet fully enters the chest cavity and literally explodes due to complete fragmentation. If a bullet stops at the offside skin, it obviously is out of gas and thus no energy dump, its already expended its energy getting there.
In general I think two holes are better than one. Trauma and blood loss kill animals, not foot pounds.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

I'm a fan of one shot one kill! I have only recovered one bullet from a cow moose in North America and 3 bullets from game in Africa.

I have obviously never hunted North American critters, you think our critters skin is thicker for this to happen?

Oh yes most definitely. The 3 animals that the bullets were recovered from were, a zebra a warthog and an impala and no shot over 50 yards. The rifle was a 30-06 with 180 gr soft points! Surprised me, especially the impala.