>it's called a "brush gun" because the larger caliber shoots through tree limbs better!
Umm, no, that's retarded. First of all, why are you shooting at animals without a clear sight line? The reason that brush guns are brush guns and shoot large bore and relatively slow moving bullets is because there's simply no need for high velocity or ballistic performance when you're limited to less than 100 yards. Thus it makes far more sense to fire a large projectile with better wounding capability that isn't dependent on velocity or expansion and won't ruin meat. Additionally, larger bores are more efficient, meaning the guns can be shorter and thus better suited to woodland hunting where the limited sight radius will not pose an issue.
This would've been common knowledge back in the days when everyone used muzzleloaders, but it seems with NFA laws people literally forgot what "Brush gun" meant due to being limited to 16" barrel on cartridge guns.
I dare say the "brush gun" meme is even more of an example of mass psychosis than the "scout rifle" concept.
I like the way your ignorance doesn't reduce your confidence.
>Tell me you don't hunt without telling me you don't hunt
Why is PrepHole full of Reddit tier idiots. Go back if you want to talk like that
>no refutation
fag
I hunt and if you shoot at critters without a clean visual you are a fucking nagger and liable to shoot a kid or a dog or something
how far do you think you can see a half inch sapling?
yeah, you don't hunt.
that's ok though, just stop having strong opinions about something you've never experienced. You'll be a lot less embarrassed in the future if you follow that advice.
>if you shoot at critters without a clean visual you are a fucking nagger and liable to shoot a kid or a dog or something
Do you only shoot animals that enter a clearing or something?
Think I misunderstood the disagreement here. I'm picturing OP describing people shooting at animals mostly obscured by brush, where you can't clearly make out the target. Not a deer that's like partly behind some twigs and leaves but has visible vitals. I've taken that shot.
>doesn't hunt
be nice. OP has never been to the woods and definitely has never gone hunting.
Looks like my local forest
I don't like slope
whoa wtf how come the trees aren't growing perpendicular to the dirt? how do they know what up is??
I think someone must have pushed them straight when they were little
>He's called OP because he's the original poster
No, it's because of the endless amount of dick that's blown past his lips like a 10mm through a white claw.
Unironically if you want to not have to worry about twigs and other obstacles, a big, heavy, blunt, slow(Newton's 3rd), solid bullet is less influenced by obstacles.
>less, not unaffected
I'm not arguing that heavier bullets don't handle brush well. That's common sense. I'm arguing that that's not the point and never was until youtubers decided shooting through sticks would get them more views and shillbucks.
>not the point
It was the point
>and never was
it always was
>I'm not arguing that heavier bullets don't handle brush well. That's common sense.
>it's called a "brush gun" because the larger caliber shoots through tree limbs better!
>Umm, no, that's retarded.
>I'm arguing that that's not the point and never was until youtubers decided shooting through sticks would get them more views and shillbucks.
The term "brush gun" has been in use since at least the fucking 1950s and it has always referred to guns throwing a big heavy bullet that could just plow through small obstacles without getting deflected. Out west not much an issue; out east very much so especially when rifle seasons were much more liberal.
>Clearly see an entire deer standing behind a leafless bush
>"you're a nagger if you take that shot"
Wew.
>Less of a concern out west
Do you mean like the Midwest or something because here in PNW visibility averages like 20 yards due to the blackberries (aka Eurotrash Kudzu) and any given deer is going to be 25% obstructed minimum
"Western" hunting generally refers to places like the great basin, the great plains, the rockies, and the southwestern deserts, where you tend to have more open terrain and much longer lines of sight. There are places like that in the PNW too, mainly eastern OR and Idaho.
Not just the weight but the shape of bullet as well.
Wouldn't a heavy and fast bullet be even less deflectable? The more energy it has in a given vector, the more energy it'll take to deflect that vector.
idk, but grug throw big rock slow, it push more stick out of way than small rock fast. make grug think
For the same energy heavy and slow is better for barrier pen and small and fast is better for armor pen.
The reason they are different is the distance between the object hit and the target, hitting a plate a half inch infront of a man doesn't make you miss the man but hitting a branch 20ft infront of a rabbit might make you miss the rabbit.
Lighter bullets with smaller diameter have less cross sectional angular momentum than heavier bullets with bigger diameter. A bullet with higher cross sectional angular momentum is less likely to tumble from hitting a small obstacle, and thus less likely to change its trajectory.
This is why I use a cannon as my brush gun
tally ho
slower velocity gives the obstruction more time to get out of the way because the faster the bullet hits something the more initial resistance it meets which is why high velocity rounds always have a lot of temporary cavity despite their face profile. gains are marginal on paper but you’re talking about a bullet potentially getting deflected 1 inch for every 5-10 yards or more
OP, ponder momentarily why a heavier, more highly stabilized, bullet may be less affected by light obstacles than a light, less stabilized bullet.
truly the mind boggles.
>everyone who disagrees with me is literally psychotic
why has this meme proliferated so fucking hard
>ITT: Momentum
ok
Nobody shoots at animals through clearly visible tree limbs, retard. People hunting in more forested areas prefer heavier slower bullets because IF there happens to be a twig or a sapling, that you didn't see before firing, in the way of your bullet, the bullet is less likely to get deflected and hit the animal in less-than-vital spot.
It is about maximizing your chances of killing the animal quickly in one shot, not about having a gun you can shoot through trees with.
But you'd know this if you hunted, or had guns.
>*insert clap.gif here*
this is an image board you can post gifs
Brųtal
brush gun =/= literally shooting through a bush. You can have clear lines of sight 70 or so yards and a twig is covering vitals. There's a lot of twigs in the woods. Sometimes sparse branches of bushes too.
Either way it's when the twig/branch is close to you but far from the animal that the trajectory issues really become a problem.
Um no retard they're called brush guns is because the animal can't easily "brush off" getting hit by such high calibre.
They're called brush guns because they come from the Brush region of France.
Famas
They're called brush guns because the standard size cartridge box for that caliber could easily fit your hair brush for travelling
I hunt in PNW with a .375 H&H CZ 550 Safari Classic (magnum mauser action), and I just vary my bullet and reloads to match the type of game I am hunting. Never had an issue, other than the heavyass gun.
I was wondering about the use of heavy bullets recently. It seemed like velocity was the meme and everyone was moving away from high calibers.
Is there any reason beyond the benefits of subsonic shooting and light obstacle clearance to use heavy or wide bullets?
not really because at the end of the day modern cartridges are all going to have roughly the same performance regardless of caliber if the power factor is similar. you can also design the bullet to perform at given impact velocity. Larger caliber or longer cartridges are always going to be more expensive per round than smaller counterparts but I think bullet weight contributes slightly less to recoil than powder charge. They make a lot of sense in handguns because you are typically limited on cartridge length and velocity anyway
If you're talking about in hunting contexts generally, that has much more to do with the quality of ammo available these days and unfortunately long memories. 60 years ago basically everything on the market was some flavor of either monolithic lead or cup and ball construction and manufacturing wasn't nearly as advanced as it is today and as a result you had enough problems with "rotten" bullets in high-velocity calibers like .270 that a lot of people just stuck to using calibers that were slower but threw a more substantial bullet. Because of the lower velocities involved the risk of a bullet not performing is minimized and even if it did the sheer amount of energy you're dumping into the target will probably do the job. These days bullet construction is so excellent that it's a non-issue and that has been the case for a long time.
There's also the fact that enough people had bad hunting experiences shooting FMJs because knowledge of ballistics wasn't as common. If Bubba pencils a deer and loses it with his daddy's war trophy Arisaka but has never lost a deer with his .35 Rem, what conclusion is he likely to draw?