If I Was To Shoot One

[Guest]

Residence /  Gunfire / L.E.O. / Multiple Animals

I was told by phone by a relative that three large manlike, hairy creatures were observed on a persons porch and yard. The man got his SKS and has allegedly shot one. Two others came out of the nearby forest and carried him away. That the FBI was called and samples of blood and hair have been taken for testing. My relative also told me that contractors who plant young pine seedlings are refusing to go in near Honobia and plant trees. Today Jan 28, 2000 we have had a very heavy snow and while I was home listening to the scanner I overheard a conservation between two Oklahoma game wardens talking about the incident. One told the other to be on the lookout for large manlike hairy creatures. They seemed very serious. They were talking about the same incident that I have mentioned above. This area is called the Honobia Wildlife area and is very, very sparsely inhabited. The area of 875.000 acres is owned by a large timber company and as the loggers move in to cut there are sightings. Ok

 

Note: I may have dumped the link but I believe this may have been a BFRO report

[FarArcher]

I am neither pro kill or against it, I just feel it serves no purpose to take a stand on something like this but I will say I don't hunt any longer but in the spirit of this thread topic I went back through my spreadsheet of several thousand reports and this is what I was able to determine.

 

Reasons given for shootings: Forced entry into homes, Window Peeping, Throwing Rocks, Attempting to grab a person, and Bluff Charging and Killing Livestock.

 

• Several men had lost their weapons in flight or dropped them and ran.
• One trio of campers fled their campsite leaving behind all equipment and wrecked their jeep fleeing.
• One hunter fired on a Bigfoot when it growled and charged causing him to drop his shotgun and run causing it to discharge again, and the hunter reported the Bigfoot passed him running the same direction.  
• Two men on horseback were charged by a mad Bigfoot, one man faints and his partner fires off five rounds fleeing on horseback leaving his partner behind, and says his horse broke two legs in his escape.
• In 1943, a man upset with the mutilation of sheep and calves hunted down a Bigfoot/ Sasquatch and shot it dead. He claims it took sixty shotgun slugs and the fatal shot appeared to be one to the eye which he says entered the brain.  

 

Several instances of multiple Bigfoots responding either during or after shootings with the majority of them fleeing with a wounded or injured Bigfoot/ Sasquatch. Most of the shootings involved rifles and those identified or most often mentioned appear to be .22 caliber rifles and a small number were either .30-06, .30-30 and a couple SKS automatic assault rifles. One report that I read identified gunners used a .50 caliber weapon to dispatch a violent Bigfoot from aboard an unmarked helicopter.

 

The other half of long gun type weapons mentioned were 12 ga., 20 ga., 410, or 870 shotguns.

 

An unbelievable number of weapons involved handguns most identified as pistols or when they were specific named .38, .357. .44 or .45 caliber weapons.   

 

While reviewing these reports one weapon was identified as a bow hunter who shot an arrow striking the Bigfoot.

 

You bring a lot of good data to discussions.  Really good stuff.

 

I know many emphasize the caliber of weapons that would be suitable for these things, and there's something else to consider.

 

We all know that the larger the caliber, the faster it's going, the more things it kills almost on impact. 

 

One rifle shot, perfectly aimed, drops a deer right in its tracks.  Same rifle, same shooter, same cartridge, same bullet, same load, also perfectly aimed, takes out both lungs and the heart - and the deer takes off halfway to the next county over. 

 

How does this happen?  Both identical shots in every way.  One drops the deer, the other - the deer runs for hundreds of yards. 

 

Since the rifle was the same, the shooter was the same, the shot was the same, the bullet was the same, the distance was the same - I decided to look beyond the shooter end of things.

 

I saw the same thing in combat.  Same shot, same distance, and one guy would drop instantly, the other would require some more personal attention - and sometimes a lot of personal attention.

 

Why?

 

We all know really large diameter bullets traveling really fast kill best.  But what if you have what should be an adequate cartridge, and you have mixed results, everything else being equal?

 

The heart is one powerful muscle - and when that left ventricle squeezes down, it's pushing blood so hard, it will pump blood up to 27 feet high.  It has to be strong, as it's pumping blood through 100,000 kilometers of blood vessels - the earth is only 40,000 kilometers in diameter.

 

A bullet when it impacts, imparts shock to the body, and velocity and diameter of the bullet, combined with where it hits the body determines how much of a shockwave is imparted.  Extremities - not so much.  Core hits - lots of energy transfer.

 

I would suggest that when the heart - the left ventricle - is squeezing, and the entire blood vessel system is tightly pressurized, if a bullet hits at that moment, it imparts that energy shock wave all through the body - arteries, especially capillaries, and even veins - which overloads and terminates the nervous system as well.

 

If the moment the same bullet hits - and the heart is in a relaxed state as it fills with blood - it's not going to effectively transfer all that energy through the body like the previous situation when the entire system is already pressurized.

 

Now really large caliber, fast bullets impart a lot of energy, and create their own internal pressurization.  If you hit a human with a .308/7.62X51 - it's generally effective enough to drop him, regardless of a pressurized system, or relaxed system the moment of impact.

 

But if you hit a human with a .50BMG, the energy transfer alone will overpressurize him to the point that significant parts of him will become part of the world's weather system.  He will literally come apart.

 

Generally, when a Bigfoot is shot, or shot at, it's' a matter of 'shoot what you got' in your hand.  Which is generally under-powered with insufficient stopping power.

 

So to state this caliber, or that caliber is good or sufficient - that's not always the case.  There's another variable.

 

Another tip.  If you've shot and shot, and something big on two legs keeps coming, lower your aim.  The pelvis is the largest single bone mass in the body, and it connects top to bottom.  That large bone when hit will impart an overload to the nervous system, if it's cracked it will fail, and there's a lot of critical stuff all around in the area of the pelvis.

 

Break that, and you just broke his charge.  Then you can catch your breath, quickly reload, and take your time for the head shot.

[Rockape]

 

 

I didn't say no one has ever killed one.  You did.

 

 

You say brought one in, I say killed one, same thing in this discussion.

 

 

Further, for you to suggest it's just my personal supposition to arrive at that conclusion is to ignore scores after scores of narratives over hundreds of years. 

 

I've also seen stories where they ride trains and build fires, it's all just tall tales until proven otherwise though. So yes, it's your personal supposition unless you have witnessed it.

 

 

But since you're a non-believer - I can't figure out why you're wasting your time here, with some 5,000 posts - after figuring they don't exist.  Just trying to help - I've seen so many job openings for a Resident Skeptic on medical blogs, archaeological blogs, afterlife blogs, and voodoo mojo blogs - and I hate to see anyone with well informed talents to unnecessarily limit their horizons - not that you are, of course.  Just speaking in general.

 

Thanks, but I haven't figured out that they don't exist. We question evidence and stories presented here, better get used to it. I'm one of the nicer skeptics.

 

 

 

I fail to understand folks attributing things to me that I didn't say - and if it continues, it could become a really bad habit.  I mean, you went to the trouble of pasting my words, you think it might be more productive to actually read the post as it was written, or is misquoting the customary practice around here?  I just want to know how this works so that I can play on an even table.

 

A but touchy aren't you? No one attributed anything to you that you didn't say.

 

 

You're the one who brought up the baked beans - I'll leave that entirely to you.  I was just making a friendly suggestion to not only eliminate waste if a Bigfoot doesn't eat them, but to provide you a spicy alternative to the limited presentation normally found in canned beans when you warm them up.

 

Some fellow swore they would lure them in, just trying to be helpful.

[Guest]

 

I am neither pro kill or against it, I just feel it serves no purpose to take a stand on something like this but I will say I don't hunt any longer but in the spirit of this thread topic I went back through my spreadsheet of several thousand reports and this is what I was able to determine.

 

Reasons given for shootings: Forced entry into homes, Window Peeping, Throwing Rocks, Attempting to grab a person, and Bluff Charging and Killing Livestock.

 

• Several men had lost their weapons in flight or dropped them and ran.
• One trio of campers fled their campsite leaving behind all equipment and wrecked their jeep fleeing.
• One hunter fired on a Bigfoot when it growled and charged causing him to drop his shotgun and run causing it to discharge again, and the hunter reported the Bigfoot passed him running the same direction.  
• Two men on horseback were charged by a mad Bigfoot, one man faints and his partner fires off five rounds fleeing on horseback leaving his partner behind, and says his horse broke two legs in his escape.
• In 1943, a man upset with the mutilation of sheep and calves hunted down a Bigfoot/ Sasquatch and shot it dead. He claims it took sixty shotgun slugs and the fatal shot appeared to be one to the eye which he says entered the brain.  

 

Several instances of multiple Bigfoots responding either during or after shootings with the majority of them fleeing with a wounded or injured Bigfoot/ Sasquatch. Most of the shootings involved rifles and those identified or most often mentioned appear to be .22 caliber rifles and a small number were either .30-06, .30-30 and a couple SKS automatic assault rifles. One report that I read identified gunners used a .50 caliber weapon to dispatch a violent Bigfoot from aboard an unmarked helicopter.

 

The other half of long gun type weapons mentioned were 12 ga., 20 ga., 410, or 870 shotguns.

 

An unbelievable number of weapons involved handguns most identified as pistols or when they were specific named .38, .357. .44 or .45 caliber weapons.   

 

While reviewing these reports one weapon was identified as a bow hunter who shot an arrow striking the Bigfoot.

 

You bring a lot of good data to discussions.  Really good stuff.

 

I know many emphasize the caliber of weapons that would be suitable for these things, and there's something else to consider.

 

We all know that the larger the caliber, the faster it's going, the more things it kills almost on impact. 

 

One rifle shot, perfectly aimed, drops a deer right in its tracks.  Same rifle, same shooter, same cartridge, same bullet, same load, also perfectly aimed, takes out both lungs and the heart - and the deer takes off halfway to the next county over. 

 

How does this happen?  Both identical shots in every way.  One drops the deer, the other - the deer runs for hundreds of yards. 

 

Since the rifle was the same, the shooter was the same, the shot was the same, the bullet was the same, the distance was the same - I decided to look beyond the shooter end of things.

 

I saw the same thing in combat.  Same shot, same distance, and one guy would drop instantly, the other would require some more personal attention - and sometimes a lot of personal attention.

 

Why?

 

We all know really large diameter bullets traveling really fast kill best.  But what if you have what should be an adequate cartridge, and you have mixed results, everything else being equal?

 

The heart is one powerful muscle - and when that left ventricle squeezes down, it's pushing blood so hard, it will pump blood up to 27 feet high.  It has to be strong, as it's pumping blood through 100,000 kilometers of blood vessels - the earth is only 40,000 kilometers in diameter.

 

A bullet when it impacts, imparts shock to the body, and velocity and diameter of the bullet, combined with where it hits the body determines how much of a shockwave is imparted.  Extremities - not so much.  Core hits - lots of energy transfer.

 

I would suggest that when the heart - the left ventricle - is squeezing, and the entire blood vessel system is tightly pressurized, if a bullet hits at that moment, it imparts that energy shock wave all through the body - arteries, especially capillaries, and even veins - which overloads and terminates the nervous system as well.

 

If the moment the same bullet hits - and the heart is in a relaxed state as it fills with blood - it's not going to effectively transfer all that energy through the body like the previous situation when the entire system is already pressurized.

 

Now really large caliber, fast bullets impart a lot of energy, and create their own internal pressurization.  If you hit a human with a .308/7.62X51 - it's generally effective enough to drop him, regardless of a pressurized system, or relaxed system the moment of impact.

 

But if you hit a human with a .50BMG, the energy transfer alone will overpressurize him to the point that significant parts of him will become part of the world's weather system.  He will literally come apart.

 

Generally, when a Bigfoot is shot, or shot at, it's' a matter of 'shoot what you got' in your hand.  Which is generally under-powered with insufficient stopping power.

 

So to state this caliber, or that caliber is good or sufficient - that's not always the case.  There's another variable.

 

Another tip.  If you've shot and shot, and something big on two legs keeps coming, lower your aim.  The pelvis is the largest single bone mass in the body, and it connects top to bottom.  That large bone when hit will impart an overload to the nervous system, if it's cracked it will fail, and there's a lot of critical stuff all around in the area of the pelvis.

 

Break that, and you just broke his charge.  Then you can catch your breath, quickly reload, and take your time for the head shot.

 

 

Good post FarArcher!  When I considered the topic opening point and proceeding comments it dawned on me that an overwhelming number of people demonstrate a great deal of restraint if not just on paper for the reports so, I was curious and looked a little closer.

 

A couple of things stood out right way for me when I went back over the reports. First, shootings and gunfire are far and few in comparison to thousands of reports, and people making these Bigfoot shooting reports appear to demonstrate great restraint at least if only on paper. Finally, a large number of those reports that I read involving shootings appear to mention .22 caliber rifles more than any other type of weapon which may or may not bolster the idea that in many cases people weren’t actively hunting these creatures but act only in response with some perceived threat corroborated only by such inadequate weaponry.

 

Don’t misunderstand, a .22 caliber is a deadly weapon as it still remains a weapon of choice in human underworld but when pitted against something weighing hundreds of pounds it doesn’t make sense.  Why is that when accessibility seems to suggest access to much greater weaponry? Nobody expects to drop a water buffalo, elephant or lion with .22 caliber rifle so why would so many people opt to use such a small weapon? The answer is probably found somewhere in the reports where rightfully expressed fear, fear of what they could render unto them and they appeared so human-like it was a tormenting decision.

 

Lastly, I noticed that most reported shootings took place in Farm or around Residential settings than any other categorical setting that I looked at such as: Camping, Hiking, Motorist, Fishing and Boating.  In those instances farmers were equally territorial in protecting their livestock as were family members protecting their homes and family members.  

Edited September 8, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[FarArcher]

 

 

 

I didn't say no one has ever killed one.  You did.

 

 

You say brought one in, I say killed one, same thing in this discussion.

 

 

Further, for you to suggest it's just my personal supposition to arrive at that conclusion is to ignore scores after scores of narratives over hundreds of years. 

 

I've also seen stories where they ride trains and build fires, it's all just tall tales until proven otherwise though. So yes, it's your personal supposition unless you have witnessed it.

 

 

But since you're a non-believer - I can't figure out why you're wasting your time here, with some 5,000 posts - after figuring they don't exist.  Just trying to help - I've seen so many job openings for a Resident Skeptic on medical blogs, archaeological blogs, afterlife blogs, and voodoo mojo blogs - and I hate to see anyone with well informed talents to unnecessarily limit their horizons - not that you are, of course.  Just speaking in general.

 

Thanks, but I haven't figured out that they don't exist. We question evidence and stories presented here, better get used to it. I'm one of the nicer skeptics.

 

 

 

I fail to understand folks attributing things to me that I didn't say - and if it continues, it could become a really bad habit.  I mean, you went to the trouble of pasting my words, you think it might be more productive to actually read the post as it was written, or is misquoting the customary practice around here?  I just want to know how this works so that I can play on an even table.

 

A but touchy aren't you? No one attributed anything to you that you didn't say.

 

 

You're the one who brought up the baked beans - I'll leave that entirely to you.  I was just making a friendly suggestion to not only eliminate waste if a Bigfoot doesn't eat them, but to provide you a spicy alternative to the limited presentation normally found in canned beans when you warm them up.

 

Some fellow swore they would lure them in, just trying to be helpful.

 

 

You just got confused as to the actual subject matter, confused two different posts, failed to grasp the actual subject matter of each, and then resorted to mis-terminology.  That reading comprehension can be a really tricky bugger.

 

To refresh, I earlier suggested that anyone shoots one of these critters, there may be real danger from other critters.  (Anyone deciding to shoot one needs to be prepared for a fight.)

 

Should I try to make that simpler?  If I need to, please just let me know.  I can say the same thing another half-dozen ways if that will help. 

 

THEN MY NARRATIVE CHANGES IN A SEPARATE POST:

 

".  .  .  there are hundreds and possibly thousands of hunters and enthusiasts "hunting" these creatures, and no one brings one in."  Do note the word "hunting" is in parentheses, indicating a non-literal usage.

 

Not once did I say killing.  The context (you might want to look that word up - it'll come in handy later) is, bringing them in close - as I continued that thought by giving other examples - specifying bringing them in close.

 

I didn't say anything about killing them in that entire post - you did. 

 

If "bringing one in close" means the same as "killing one," then may I suggest a simple dictionary - maybe one in English?

 

When one wants to take family photographs, and "brings them in," I can assure you, no sane, rational, prudent person equates that to "killing them."  Well, I guess you do.

 

You call narratives "tall tales."  So were the narratives of mountain gorillas.  So was Troy.  Achilles was just a mythical character - whoops - Alexander the Great went out of his way to visit his grave.  Men are executed based on narrative.  Every century, every culture from every corner of the world in both oral and written history document these critters.  The platypus was a myth.  The Kraken was a myth until 2003, and found to be the Colossal Squid.

 

Your dismissal is .  .  .  amusing.

 

Your declaration of "tall tales" is itself a supposition.  You weren't there with those who provided these narratives.  Given the same measure as your word comprehension, your personal supposition doesn't carry a lot of weight, does it?

 

Nah, I'm not touchy - I'm not the one crawfishing by trying to confuse "bringing one in" with "killing one."   For accurate information, and a reasonable expectation in discourse, proper terminology is critical.  Just trying to help.  Otherwise, some folks might get all confused as to what is really going on here.

 

You're actually the third one to misunderstand something, and resort to using misquotes, or heuristic philosophy, and now mis-terminology  .  .  .  so I guess that makes you the third string, which may be in part because you're one of the "nicer skeptics."  I'll actually not get used to mis-terminology, mis-quotes, and that ilk - and I'll call attention to them whenever they're used.  You might want to get used to it.

 

I assure you, I'm not touchy.  Got any first stringers? 

 

You keep your beans.  If you truly think they're good bait - I'd say that's your supposition.  Maybe you want to use them in a trial baiting.  Anyone with the considerable experience and knowledge through making over 5,000 posts may have good luck with them.  I'm confident that everyone here would anticipate your results.

 

I know I would.

[Rockape]

LOL, after all that I don't know why I would think you are a bit touchy. I'm a third string idiot eh? I'm also a government disinformation agent, just so you'll know.

 

And I don't know why I thought, after reading this, you meant bring in a body...

 

 

 

Your assumption is fair, but I've never hunted these critters.  It doesn't work that way - which is exactly why there are hundreds and possibly thousands of hunters and enthusiasts "hunting" these creatures, and no one brings one in.  Ever really wonder why?

 

I hope you stick around to help improve my reading comprehension.

[norseman]

I dont see many organizations hunting them at all, in fact I would say most are anti kill and run around whooping, knocking on trees and pack dental resin around.

I dont subscribe to the Bigfoot army hypothesis either. Sure if you wound one, you could certainly have a fight on your hands, but a troupe of ten animals or something like that attacking you? Highly doubtful.

Living in large groups puts stress on the habitat, draws attention and leaves way too much sign behind to follow.

I think they resemble Orangs in their MO, solitary, shy creatures, that only come together to mate.

[ShadowBorn]

I dont see many organizations hunting them at all, in fact I would say most are anti kill and run around whooping, knocking on trees and pack dental resin around.

I dont subscribe to the Bigfoot army hypothesis either. Sure if you wound one, you could certainly have a fight on your hands, but a troupe of ten animals or something like that attacking you? Highly doubtful.

Living in large groups puts stress on the habitat, draws attention and leaves way too much sign behind to follow.

I think they resemble Orangs in their MO, solitary, shy creatures, that only come together to mate.

Norseman

You make good points there. All though I did feel like I might have been hunted by them, but maybe it was them hunting the same deer I was after. So who knows cause I left the area quickly.

[hiflier]

Hello ShadowBorn,

In which case they probably got their deer.

[FarArcher]

I dont see many organizations hunting them at all, in fact I would say most are anti kill and run around whooping, knocking on trees and pack dental resin around.

I dont subscribe to the Bigfoot army hypothesis either. Sure if you wound one, you could certainly have a fight on your hands, but a troupe of ten animals or something like that attacking you? Highly doubtful.

Living in large groups puts stress on the habitat, draws attention and leaves way too much sign behind to follow.

I think they resemble Orangs in their MO, solitary, shy creatures, that only come together to mate.

Norseman, I would respectfully disagree.

 

Never have I suggested a specific number - and ten would certainly be a big clan.  But in some areas I've been to, with valleys on each side of mountains - both being vast and rich in water, concealment, and game, I can see that land supporting clans easily.

 

I've been taking an ATV back up the mountain, and suddenly I'm right in the middle of thirty to forty deer, and could reach out with my hat and swat a couple on their hind quarters.  This happened multiple times.  Lots and lots of deer.  No apparent stress - due entirely to the environment.

 

Living in a small area in large groups may stress an area, but the vastness I speak of is anything but a small area.  The very nature of how remote this area I speak of give no discernible sign to make them more easily detectable.  One of these eight-footers can get mighty small, mighty fast - hide in an open area, low and against mountain flowers knee high.  We saw it.  But only after we turned the other way, and he leaped up and ran like a streak up the mountain.  It was the unbelievable thudding that compelled him to be noticed.

 

And a clan/group enables them to hunt more efficiently.  Some drive, some ambush.  Numerous narratives of these things all around, hunting as a group.  Wolves hunt as a group - some give chase, some head them off at times, and then move to cut out the stragglers as though they have radio communication.

 

I fully understand that generally speaking, only one is sighted, or heard.  But I also know that what you see or hear is often exactly what they want you to see or hear.  I think the mistake is in so many thinking these things are animals.  Like other animals that live in the wild.  They're nothing like other critters that live in the wild.  They appear to use teamwork, they appear to communicate somehow, they appear to hunt by driving game, and they appear to hunt by ambush.  Teamwork can put some serious groceries on the table.

 

Everyone in a clan would need to feed.  So I can see the larger males leaving closer to sundown to roam the evenings, the females out feeding more during the daylight areas, and then spending time during the evenings more with any offspring.

 

In addition, all primates - and humans too - are very social creatures. 

 

On the other hand, I could be reading everything entirely wrong.

[norseman]

If you make them too cunning, too smart and a large single organized Army??

Then logically you run a ground with a planet of the apes scenario.

Why hunt a group of Deer? When you could be taking over a zagnut bar factory from your puny pink cousins? Campgrounds full of campers loaded up with BBQ's, ice chests full of goodies and grandmas fresh baked apple pie. All ripe for the taking.....

Sure, some sage old grandpa biggie would warn of entanglements with humans. But are the hordes of young warriors going to listen all hopped up on testosterone and the smell of apple pie in the breeze? Probably not.

So its way more likely because we do not see this scenario that their skills in organization and hunting prowess are over blown.

Also I noticed a statement of yours that I need to address respectively.

You said the bigger the caliber the faster the bullet is traveling the more things it kills on impact.......yes?

Usually the opposite is true. My .22-250 travels roughly twice as fast as my .45-70. 4000 fps vs 1800 fps respectively, And the caliber is roughly half the size at 223 thousandths of an inch versus 458 thousandths of a inch. I do not think there is any argument which one has more killing power.

I leave you with this article concerning speed.

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/penetration.html

Edited September 17, 2015 by norseman

[CMBigfoot]

According to this older article I found, if I shoot a bigfoot in Oregon I will most likely be sent to jail/prison. So I think I'll pass on shooting one unless it was in self defense.

 

http://democratherald.com/news/local/bigfoot-season/article_956c5440-26f8-11df-802e-001cc4c03286.html

[FarArcher]

If you make them too cunning, too smart and a large single organized Army??

Then logically you run a ground with a planet of the apes scenario.

Why hunt a group of Deer? When you could be taking over a zagnut bar factory from your puny pink cousins? Campgrounds full of campers loaded up with BBQ's, ice chests full of goodies and grandmas fresh baked apple pie. All ripe for the taking.....

Sure, some sage old grandpa biggie would warn of entanglements with humans. But are the hordes of young warriors going to listen all hopped up on testosterone and the smell of apple pie in the breeze? Probably not.

So its way more likely because we do not see this scenario that their skills in organization and hunting prowess are over blown.

Also I noticed a statement of yours that I need to address respectively.

You said the bigger the caliber the faster the bullet is traveling the more things it kills on impact.......yes?

Usually the opposite is true. My .22-250 travels roughly twice as fast as my .45-70. 4000 fps vs 1800 fps respectively, And the caliber is roughly half the size at 223 thousandths of an inch versus 458 thousandths of a inch. I do not think there is any argument which one has more killing power.

I leave you with this article concerning speed.

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/penetration.html

No, I'm not changing physics.

 

You'll see in the formula Einstein provided us with - Energy equals mass times velocity squared.  You'll note which number is squared.

 

What I said, and certainly meant to be understood, to your example, is that if your 45.70 round is fired at 1800 fps - you'll get foot-pounds of energy at different distances as speed - or velocity is bled off.

 

That round at 100 yards hits pretty hard.

 

Now shoot that same 45 caliber bullet at 3000fps.  Lots more energy.  That's the difference between a .338 WinMag and a .338 Lapua.  Same diameter bullet, but at different velocities - which is the number squared to obtain the imparted energies at distances.

 

You're comparing a light bullet ranging generally from 40-50 grains in weight, with a diameter of only .224", to a bullet with a diameter of .458", ranging usually between 300-500 grain bullets, depending on which .45-70 one is firing.

 

(there's three separate rifle differentiations for the .45-70 - the .original 45-70 (Government) with a 25,000 cup maximum, the .45-70  (1895 Marlin) with a 40,000 maximum cup, and the most modern .45-70 (Ruger) with a 50,000 cup maximum.)

 

I'm not sure what you're arguing.  Same bullet, but double the velocity, and the velocity number in the calculation is the one squared.  Meaning, the same bullet going faster, generates more energy.  The bigger the bullet, and the faster the bullet, the more energy is generated.

 

It's not a matter of Bigfoots raising an Army if they're clever.  Historical narratives from multiple sources and on different continents speak very clearly of past battles between humans and these giants.  They lost. 

 

We humans, we hate, resent, or intolerate anything that's different from us, and especially anything we fear that does us damage.  Today in cities, there are lines drawn, where folks from one side are not welcome to the other side of the street.  And killings occur, just over stupid perceptions of territory.

 

Nationalities war.  Tribes war.

 

And the narratives from the past indicate that our species and this other species have warred.  I'd suggest that if this is true, then these critters have every reason to avoid humans at every reasonable opportunity.

 

I used go out on recon with four others.  Long range recon patrols, behind 'enemy' lines.  Our entire mission was devoted to remaining concealed while obtaining intelligence.  I've had an enemy soldier step between my head and my extended hand, and missed us entirely.

 

Hiding from men isn't hard at all.  Traversing long distances without being spotted is no mean trick.  Leaving no discernible tracks becomes a way of life.

 

And when we'd start to egress, we'd use multiple misdirection techniques to ensure we were not followed to our pickup point.  In combat, I hated surprises.  Surprises were generally a bad thing.  Much better to be the surpris-or than the surpris-ee.

 

I didn't make it clear what I was saying about the deer, and that's my bad.  I didn't mean to suggest that these things would hunt a group of deer - I was only commenting on how many deer were in the immediate area, large numbers I'd suddenly find myself in the midst of.  Sorry for the poor presentation.

 

And one observation you made I entirely agree with, and it's good you brought this up.  I suspect that the bulk - not all - the bulk of sightings due to apparent Bigfoot carelessness - is of juveniles - who like human juveniles, don't pay attention to details as their elders constantly suggest and reinforce.

 

Good point.

[Drew]

 

 

You bring a lot of good data to discussions.  Really good stuff.

 

I know many emphasize the caliber of weapons that would be suitable for these things, and there's something else to consider.

 

We all know that the larger the caliber, the faster it's going, the more things it kills almost on impact. 

 

One rifle shot, perfectly aimed, drops a deer right in its tracks.  Same rifle, same shooter, same cartridge, same bullet, same load, also perfectly aimed, takes out both lungs and the heart - and the deer takes off halfway to the next county over. 

 

How does this happen?  Both identical shots in every way.  One drops the deer, the other - the deer runs for hundreds of yards. 

 

Since the rifle was the same, the shooter was the same, the shot was the same, the bullet was the same, the distance was the same - I decided to look beyond the shooter end of things.

 

I saw the same thing in combat.  Same shot, same distance, and one guy would drop instantly, the other would require some more personal attention - and sometimes a lot of personal attention.

 

Why?

 

We all know really large diameter bullets traveling really fast kill best.  But what if you have what should be an adequate cartridge, and you have mixed results, everything else being equal?

 

The heart is one powerful muscle - and when that left ventricle squeezes down, it's pushing blood so hard, it will pump blood up to 27 feet high.  It has to be strong, as it's pumping blood through 100,000 kilometers of blood vessels - the earth is only 40,000 kilometers in diameter.

 

A bullet when it impacts, imparts shock to the body, and velocity and diameter of the bullet, combined with where it hits the body determines how much of a shockwave is imparted.  Extremities - not so much.  Core hits - lots of energy transfer.

 

I would suggest that when the heart - the left ventricle - is squeezing, and the entire blood vessel system is tightly pressurized, if a bullet hits at that moment, it imparts that energy shock wave all through the body - arteries, especially capillaries, and even veins - which overloads and terminates the nervous system as well.

 

If the moment the same bullet hits - and the heart is in a relaxed state as it fills with blood - it's not going to effectively transfer all that energy through the body like the previous situation when the entire system is already pressurized.

 

Now really large caliber, fast bullets impart a lot of energy, and create their own internal pressurization.  If you hit a human with a .308/7.62X51 - it's generally effective enough to drop him, regardless of a pressurized system, or relaxed system the moment of impact.

 

But if you hit a human with a .50BMG, the energy transfer alone will overpressurize him to the point that significant parts of him will become part of the world's weather system.  He will literally come apart.

 

Generally, when a Bigfoot is shot, or shot at, it's' a matter of 'shoot what you got' in your hand.  Which is generally under-powered with insufficient stopping power.

 

So to state this caliber, or that caliber is good or sufficient - that's not always the case.  There's another variable.

 

Another tip.  If you've shot and shot, and something big on two legs keeps coming, lower your aim.  The pelvis is the largest single bone mass in the body, and it connects top to bottom.  That large bone when hit will impart an overload to the nervous system, if it's cracked it will fail, and there's a lot of critical stuff all around in the area of the pelvis.

 

Break that, and you just broke his charge.  Then you can catch your breath, quickly reload, and take your time for the head shot.

 

 

Peter Hathaway Capstick? is that you?

 

I think what you meant to say is : Higher the Mass of the round X Higher the Velocity =  Higher Stopping Power

 

http://www.shooterscalculator.com/bullet-kinetic-energy.php

 

 

Capstick would tell us, that stopping a large animal like a Cape Buffalo, would take a front shoulder shot (preferably breaking both shoulders) with one of those High Joule rounds (he used a 470NitroExpress).  The head was protected by the base of the horns.

 

There are always exceptions.

 

This was not the first time I had had firefights with lions, which are reputed to be light-boned and fairly easy to kill. I have written to this same conclusion myself, but I'm changing my opinion as I get to know lions under field circumstances over more and more years. The sheer quantity of punishment they can take is simply astonishing. This particular chap, which went most comfortably in RowlandWard's, weighed over 500 pounds, and I suspect that most of it was heart. He took eight .375 H&H Magnums, all but one of which was correctly placed, plus two 570-grain .500 Nitros in the guts anddid not quit until I broke his shoulders with my last shot. That computes into just about 42,000 foot-pounds of bullet energy expended on a 500-pound lion. Tell me more.

Tell me no more of lions that drop to a single shot from a light caliber rifle, unless its bullet is precisely placed. If a lion has been mating or otherwise has his blood up, you'd better watch the back end of your navel, my friend, or it may not be there when you get back to camp for dinner. To quote Carl E. Akeley, the Father of American taxidermy, who, in one way or another, got stuck into something like fifty lions, as well as killing a leopard unarmed:

Another test of a lion's strength is his ability to stand punishment. I have seen a lion charge with seven lead bullets from an old .577 Express rifle through his shoulder, and only finally succumb to the eighth bullet in his head.

Hell, I had shot this one three times through the head with a lot more modern stuff than the old black powder .577 with no better results. There was no problem with bullet performance, since, as you can see by the photographs, each mushroomed with textbook precision. I have no idea why these shots were not more effective, except that the lion had determined he wasn't about to cash it in without taking at least one of us with him. Had his lady come along for the trip, he would have, too.

 

- From Capstick's Africa - Return to the Long Grass

Edited September 17, 2015 by Drew

[norseman]

I think the disconnect is when a person talks caliber size to me, I'm thinking bullet diameter. A .338 Lapua is faster than a .338 win mag. Absolutely. But it's no where near as fast as a .22-250 or a .220 swift. And even within calibers if you increase the weight of the projectile the FPS is going to decrease. They are inversely proportional, as one goes up the other must come down.

 

Is it possible to make a .338 caliber bullet go faster than a .223 caliber bullet? Obviously yes. But probably not within the confines of a shoulder mounted rifle.

 

A 408 Chey Tac is coming in at a very respectable 3500 fps for a 305 grain bullet and 3000 fps for a 419 grain bullet. In order to get that thing shooting at 4200 FPS? I don't want to be the guy holding on to it, if they attempt to wild cat it further.........

 

At some point it becomes at the least crew served or better yet mounted.

 

And now to talk about velocity vs. penetration concerning hunting rifles, from the article I linked.

 

What is apparent from testing is that penetration stops increasing at impact speeds above about 1250-1300 fps. When the impact speeds significantly surpass about 1600-fps, there is a very definite and measurable decrease in penetration depth. This raises some interesting issues regarding the relationship between kinetic energy generation and impact-effect. Although higher velocity projectiles always generate more kinetic energy they clearly do not produce deeper penetration, and when the velocities reach the levels common to today's magnums, the increases in velocity result in significantly reduced penetration. Simply stated, the faster they strike the faster they stop.

 

So with dangerous game using solids, the greater velocity  the greater the kinetic force as you stated per mathematical law in physics, the LESS penetration is seen, hence less killing power.

 

So this is a WARNING to everyone reading this. Because this wisdom goes against every thing we see on TV or read in sporting magazines. Everyone wants a rifle that is a super duper ultra magnum magnum that takes traditional calibers and adds velocity, and recoil and cost and unfortunately less killing power. Even with none solids I think bullet technology is lagging far far behind in hunting circles. This is not the military, where I'm required to use ball ammo against soft skin targets, and to heck with the rest of it. There is nothing soft skinned about dangerous game, and I definitely listen to guys like Randy Garrett that have been to Alaska and Africa and been there and done that. When his 45-70 bullets are making lateral pass throughs on Cape Buffalo? It's impressive.

 

Anyhow you were a ARMY LRRP, very very cool! And thank you for your service!