>these blatantly unscientific tests based on a false premise TOTALLY proves brush guns exist!

>these blatantly unscientific tests based on a false premise TOTALLY proves brush guns exist!
These videos are retarded. People don't carry large-bore rifles in the brush because they are planning on their bullets being able to penetrate tree limbs, they do it because
1) large bores are inherently more damaging to tissue, all other factors equal
2) large bores are more velocity efficient for a shorter barrel length, and you want a short gun in the brush
3) you don't need smaller-bored, faster, more aerodynamic bullets when your range is only ~100 yards, so you might as well go with as heavy as possible (lower velocities will jelly less of the meat).

That's it. I pity the people who had no idea about this and went and bought a 16" 45-70 so they could 'shoot deer through tree limbs better'.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why dont you get a brush gun yourself and go shoot innawoods and tell us why they are wrong instead of crying about youtube videos.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who wakes up and thinks “I am going to write paragraphs seething about irrelevant semantics”

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Paul Harrell already has demonstrated that 5.56 can be deflected and result in larger groupings if shooting through brush. Its enough to matter for hunters as a heart shot may turn into a slow mortal wound.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's nice. What's the relevancy to brush guns?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        hes retarded what do you expect paul harrell is a retard also, i dont like him, fight me

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, many hunters I know use .22 caliber varmint rounds to hunt medium and large game.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Did you miss the thread that was around here for like half a week?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I kill 2 deer a year with a 10.5 inch AR pistol. Long shot so far is ~320 yards. 64 grain bonded bullets. I moved to the AR pistol because no one would certify their 12 gauge suppressor to handle 2100fps sabot slugs at the time and I moved to a zone where the rule is Shotgun or Any Centerfire Handgun, and I wasn’t allowed to use my suppressed Swede Mauser any more.

        My TL killed an afghani with M855 at over 800m, with an M4, when the DM asked him for a windage shot, so I’m comfortable with the power at any range I’m happy with my accuracy.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >varmint round
        How many times does this need to be dispelled before your urban boomer ass gets it? I guess .270 is also just a varmint round, because that .05" is all that matters to you.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It was satire.

          Verification not required.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I thought we tossed this argument out with all the scout gun arguments. Let people build their guns the way they wants.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's a ton of overlap with brush gun retardation and scout gun retardation.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why is the premise of your argument " People don't carry large-bore rifles in the brush because they are planning on their bullets being able to penetrate tree limbs" conflicting with the 3 points you make to try and prove your point? Why can someone not want both?

    Something serious to consider is that other people might see different utility in a system or feature of a tool that you don't personally utilize.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let's think about what a bullet does when it hits something. It imparts some energy proportional to the mass of the projectile and the mass/density of the object struck. The angle at which that projectile hits the 'something' has an impact on the trajectory that comes after. I can't into vector diagrams, but one would help here.

    A further thought experiment would be considering high BC spire point projectile versus a lower BC round nose bullet in the event of a collision with a small branch. Let's say both bullets strike the branch off-center in the same direction. If the bullets are the same weight/mass and velocity, but of very different design, I anticipate we would see a difference in how those bullets deflect off the branch. I anticipate that a longer spire point bullet with a different center of mass will destabilize more quickly and radically than a shorter and rounder bullet. The ogive of a round nose is shorter, which in my mind leads to a reduced disturbance in the yaw of the bullet. Anyone have any thoughts?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      moron, vector diagrams are retarded easy and ik you can do it. I'd do it but I'm shitting at work.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I am lazy and also lazy, and I don't want to have to do any math. I am also at work. I just choose to be a lot less productive.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This has me wondering how badly flechettes get deflected relative to bullets due to form factor over projectile weight. Will a flechette be more stable or less?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It really depends on the flechette. Most are very small and lightweight, which would suffer greatly. The low count larger flechettes do quite well.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Oh no, it's a recoilet.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I made this thread in support of big bore.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think the initial tone of the post makes less attentive readers think you just dislike the concept. Your points are valid but their point may be valid also.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sure didn't come off like you did.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Okay.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >large bores are inherently more damaging to tissue
    >lower velocities will jelly less of the meat
    ?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      i mean this is basically like horsepower vs torque. or large rock thrown slowly vs small one with high speed

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's nothing like power v torque, and basic math tells us that velocity matters more than mass when it comes to delivering force.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They bunch bigger holes.
      They do it slower so there's less shock to the meat.
      Make sense, especially because hunting is typically done with bullets that don't fragment substantially, for obvious reasons.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >videos prove small calibers deflect more and thumpers deflect less
    >somehow this fails to support the use of large calibers when shooting through brush
    ???

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bigger bullet is harder to change direction. This is common knowledge.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This happened shooting my .308 on a ~100yd stretch my friend cleared in his backyard. There were still some small branches, and one that was no more than 1/4" thick caused this. Using heavy bullets with high sectional density to avoid them being knocked off their trajectory is absolutely a valid reason.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *