Not Everyone Has The Same Beliefs On Effectiveness

[JSantoro]

How silly of me. I thought I saw the title 'Terminal Ballistic Information' at the top of this forum.

Sorry I wasted your time.

Aww, pobrecito. I'm with the others who have raised the same objection: you're posting this because you want to say something, not because you have anything relevant to say in regard to the intent of the forum.

You could have put it on any of a metric assload of hunting sites where other Great White Hunter delusionals would fall all over themselves in a masturbatory posting orgy of approval. You chose to put it here, and are reaping what you sowed.

You chose poorly, and are getting told about it. Too bad, so sad.

We're not idiots for not falling in on your odd interest in tartan-wearing IVORY HUNTERS. It's YOU that's silly for not finding a comprehensive way to tie that halfwit colonialist's antics to something relevant to the modern American self-defense practitioner.

You can whine, or you can find a way to tie it in to something relevant. G'head, "Wow" me....

[200RNL]

in his opinion the short term effects on such large animals by two 600 NE slugs or a single 6.5mm bullet with soft tissues only penetration were similar(..poor..)....not so for a bullet in the skull frame of an elephant in bad mood from a frontal shot...

I have read that the larger rifle calibers would have a greater effect on an elephant with a frontal skull shot. I am not sure if there was that much of a difference in effectiveness between the larger and smaller calibers. WDM Bell achieved very good results with his small bores. He may have been very skillfull but I doubt that he could make over 1000 perfect shots. If his rifle was inadequate, odds are that an elephant would have ended his career well before he reached 1000 kills.

The observation that the large and small caliber bullets produced no observable differences in effectiveness, when fired into the soft tissue of such a large animal, is interesting.

I have a feeling that large and medium caliber FMJ service caliber handgun bullets, striking the soft tissue of human adversaries, also produce no observable differences in effectiveness. I wish there was some scientific evidence to prove that one way or the other.

One difference between the elephant and the human example is that an expanding large or small caliber rifle bullet could have insufficient soft tissue penetration on such large animals. In contrast, an expanding service caliber handgun bullet of good design, will have adequate soft tissue penetration in the much smaller human adversary.

If the diameter of the expanded handgun bullet has little effect on the level of effectiveness, perhaps handgun bullets should be designed to limit their fully expanded diameter in order to gain penetration. A slightly expanded nose that results in a full wadcutter shape would be a good balance. This approach would especially benefit the less powerful calibers.

In defensive situations involving human adversaries, we know that if a .380 ACP bullet achieves too much expansion, penetration is not adequate from some angles.

A .380 bullet, that could not expand to more than .40 caliber, and which formed a wadcutter shaped frontal area, may be able to achieve adequate penetration. Perhaps that approach could provide an effective load for this caliber.

Also, Thankyou for your kind words Andrea.