Thread: Shot placement on deer with ballistic tips??

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

ok Ive got to stick up for Nathan.
love him or hate him you cant deny he has done a lot to put info out there for people to read in one place,you dont have to agree with anything /everything he says or deny some of it is speculation or taken from other guys experiences to see there is a lot of good in the site itself.
for me PERSONALLY reading what the man has put out there has got me back on track accuracy wise to where I can now confidently shoot a deer out to 3-400 yards and my loads are a lot better than the "she'll be right" ones I was using. being a bush hobbit at heart a lot of what is written/printed in the site or books isnt really relevant to 30-50 yard shooting but it gives a bloody good place to start.
the article "hold that forend" might be a mismatch of plagurised bits n bobs with his spin on things chucked in but the technique sure as hell works for me and whats more MAKES SENSE.
he isnt anti suppressor or bipod or even the hug yourself/crossed arm hold ....it says as much in his books ,he just wants you to explore other options that might suit you better before buying into the "this way is best" B.S. that is out there
if you took the top 20 long range hunter/shooters from this country and got them all together they would all do things slightly differently but you could bet your life on the fact they would all do it THE SAME WAY EACH AND EVERY TIME. which is the key to getting accuracy.
some fellas love AMAX/ELD type projectiles others love flat or round nose jobbies
some guys like blonds and others like redheads...some even like other guys!!!! doesnt mean you are wrong just different.
Philip Holden is a much loved and respected writer from out deer culling past who when he was alive could shoot the nuts of a gnat with his .243 or the 25/06 he used in later years...if we all followed his teaching/preachings we would all be using sakos in .243 which doesnt suit everyones type of hunting...its not wrong just cause its different.
as for opinions on what is yours...well a certain Kiwi writer recently wrote a great book and put theory that big slow flat or round nose projectiles are best for bush work...cant argue with that but its not an origonal thought is it..... afterall its where we started out with firearms of black powder type,the early .303 loads were over 200 grns as were .30/06 loads and they sure sley red stags,but then again ranges were under 200 yards as open sights were the norm and rangefinders were possibly not even on naval vessels yet.
we have come along way in last 100 years and our gear is so much better but at end of day/range we still chucking a tiny piece of metal at a larger hunk of living breathing flesh,far better to go at it with as much informed choices as we can rather than blindly following the sheep infront of you.

Micky Duck asked my opinion on bullets last night in a PM and so I just told him what I used myself...it might have been polite of him to mention he was just doing it to use against me the next morning.

Plagiarism is stealing other peoples words and their ideas and claiming them as your own. Asking me my opinion and then crowing about how I didn't say anything original, is just silly and offensive.

no mate wasnt doing it to use against you AT ALL if you read what Ive written I loved your book....spot on in your acessment of what works...and Mate I didnt site you as author of Kiwi book .......deliberately....so the knockers of Nathan could MAYBE take a look in the mirror....glass houses and stones....
and 180 grn round nose interlocts are on watchlist now waiting for funds to purchase.
I asked your opinion as I couldnt find answer on Nathans site or indeed in his book.....yip could go with 200grn ELD type load...or speer 180grn btsp but cant find speers forsale and arent convinced about ELD /AMax type loads .
I asked you because what you had written in book made sence to me. I personally havent tried out 170 grn flat nose in .308 or indeed the 180 grn round nose jobbies,the 180 grn winchester factory are great but I cant source projectiles as a component.

I forgive you. Just because you said you liked the book.

well Im plurry pleased about that....I really didnt intend to offend.I just get rather pissed off with people bashing Nathan as I believe his heart is in right place and he does a hell of a lot of good for the hunting community by telling it how he sees it.....
guys who call a spade a spade are good buggers in my eyes...... some like myself are as subtle as a sledgehammer at times...thats something I will work on improoving all my days.
when will we see another book C.H.????? maybe include a chapter on short range/sub hundy loads so I wont be all confusdicated in future.
Take care out there
Mike.

To be honest, as a new hunter, I found Nathan's material quite helpful in selecting a caliber and load for the hunting I do. Unlike many, he seemed to bring a reasonably balanced view on some options that are often chastised on the forum here (with the exception of the 270, I mean who in their right mind would use that ;-). I would say that Nathan is often conservative on effective range/terminal velocity, but that information seems to be fairly consistent across his material. The addition of images of wound channels and entry/exit adds a more real-world angle that helps see what various rounds do in the wild. Perhaps if more of us contributed dat to Nathan on what we used, ranges and the resultant images the data could become more complete. Or we could just throw lots of money at each by trying every combo possible in the universe while proving that we have the resulting tiny manly parts. Of course 270 owners have it much eaiser as they only need to eject the round and throw it at their target. Overall I use Nathan's material, along with other research online, to inform me of possible starting points. Out in the wild I let the pew pew and rifle speak, sometimes it is great, other times not so much.

I've found his books helpful too.