AFRICA HUNTER QUEST© 

Chapter 6 - THE PILGRIM'S PATH DIVERGENCE 

     GG:   We need to begin to begin. A good place to start is for you to explain why you accepted the Matunas results.  

     D:      Lots of reasons. It's published. If hunters disagreed with it, the internet would be full of objections. Jack            O'Conner used a 270 Winchester to kill elk. The Matunas formula gives an answer that's pretty close to what a mature elk weighs. With the ammo I use, I get a muzzle velocity at a little over 3200 fps. I have a chronograph and I checked it. That means there are over 2950 foot-pounds of energy available at the muzzle that can be transferred to the animal. That energy is way more than enough to drop white tails with my rifle and ammo at 400 yards, and sufficient to drop an elk. 

     “Bingo,” thought GG. “All the little piggies have come out to play and none of them lives in a brick house.” 

     GG:   I have issues with all of those reasons. First off, I will be arguing with Jack O’Conner, a dead and revered hunting icon. That makes me potentially prosecuting a man who cannot defend himself. I could then be a leading contender in a Mr. Not-So-Bright contest. I’ll take that chance. 

     I have tried to find articles online where O’Conner gives his accounts of hunting elk with a 270 Winchester. I have failed. Therefore, I don’t know the weight of the elk he shot nor do I know the shot distances. I don’t know the bullet he used. I don’t know if the target was the lungs or the heart and lungs. I don’t know how many shots were required, how far the elk traveled after the shot, and whether he was able to recover all of them. As far as I’m concerned, that basic information is required for any assessment of the 270 Winchester with attendant ammunition as a system capable of taking a bull elk.  

     For what it’s worth, Craig Boddington, in his book The Perfect Shot, North America published by Safari Press, says the best elk cartridges start with the 300 magnums and work upward. His stated, preferred chamberings are the 338 Winchester and the 8 mm Remington magnums. But because he writes for a living and can’t afford to piss in his whiskey, he makes numerous PC references to the 270s, 7 mags, and the 30-06 as being successfully used to take elk. 

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page 1

     Selecting any chambering and bullet is a subjective assessment that includes the risk of losing an animal. All things being equal, the risk of losing an animal decreases with an increasing bullet caliber and bullet weight. That’s why I think Boddington finally declares chamberings well beyond a 270 Winchester as ones that actually should be used.  

     A classic O’Conner issue is recoil. Too much recoil is used as a reason for shot placement being adversely affected. I have read authoritative accounts from PHs about shot placement becoming progressively poorer throughout a safari’s duration because of recoil from a 375 H&H. Other accounts were of clients who were unable to hit anything at any distance, presumably because of excess recoil. 

     Too much recoil? I say not enough man. Folks accepting to use a tool that might not get the job done because they are unwilling to master the tool that will get the job done is just lame. 

     I can only speak from my own experience with my 375 H&H. Yes, it has a muzzle brake that helps dissipate the recoil some. I say some because the recoil, even with a brake, is stout. Before I leave for Africa, I repeatedly practice off of sticks to the point I really don’t notice the recoil. I certainly don’t during the hunt. I am fixated on a specific aim point on the animal. I have shot 24 with it, including a Cape buffalo. I have used bullets that weighed 270, 300, and 350 grains. I have taken out the heart or the plumbing on top of the heart 20 times. The times I have missed are certainly not related to recoil. 

     The issue attendant to recoil is shot placement. Proper shot placement is implied by many as somehow being an acceptable substitute for a bullet of marginal caliber and weight. What gets overlooked are all the stipulations and qualifications necessary to make such a statement even remotely plausible. Such factors as stop vs kill; the actual target, such as brain, heart, or lungs; distance to the target; shooting position; shooter’s marksmanship; accuracy of the rifle and ammo; terrain; vegetation; tracker’s skill; dangerous or non-dangerous game; meat damage; requirement for animal recovery; and a bullet of appropriate generic design all need to be considered. You can kill a Cape buffalo with a 22-long rifle chambering and a 40-grain bullet, as long as you put it in the critter’s ear. I know I sure as hell wouldn’t want to try. That’s why buffalo guns are called buffalo guns.  

     The point is, shot placement is a conscious decision based on evaluating all of the factors I just presented. Deviation from premeditated shot placement increases

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page  2

the risk of an undesirable outcome, even outright failure. There is no satisfactory substitute for poor shot placement, regardless of chambering. 

     I have read accounts from respected professionals concerning whether a larger caliber bullet enhances the prospect of a recovered animal when shot placement is less than ideal or totally misses vital organs, such as the heart, lungs, liver, etc. I could find no consensus. If we get to the topic of wound cavity volume, I believe bigger is better. In any reasonable debate about a suitable bullet caliber and weight for a particular species, I will always pick the larger of the two, even though that may result in a reduced muzzle velocity. A bigger bullet caliber that makes a bigger hole may not help if it misses the intended vital organs, but it certainly can’t hurt. 

     Energy? Energy is balderdash in the form of a pirated physics equation. As far as I am concerned, this equation was commandeered to advance the notion that an increase in muzzle velocity is a good thing, regardless of the effect it might have on the bullet’s terminal performance. I have yet to read any explanation that quantitatively explains the merits of energy. I have found no published analytical method where energy is directly used in a calculation to determine an appropriate game weight. Folks talk about liberation of energy upon bullet impact, claiming it is somehow related to the bullet’s ability to kill or produce shock. No one, to my knowledge, has ever satisfactorily explained in precise physiological and operational terms and concepts of how that’s done. I have my own explanations concerning those topics. We will eventually get around to them if you decide to continue with trying to figure out if your 270 Winchester is a kudu chambering. 

     D:      But higher velocity also means less bullet drop and wind drift. 

     GG:   If you ever run actual numbers using ballistic software, you will find it ain’t all that much. You would have to be Annie Oakley to notice. I can assure you, I ain’t that good to worry about it. Besides, that’s why there are range-finders and elevation and windage turrets on scopes. 

     D:      (Defiantly) Then how come some fish-and-game agencies here in the U.S. and some African countries stipulate certain minimum energies for certain game animals? If energy is so bogus, why has it been made a specification in some hunting regulations?  

     GG:   I have no PC answer for that, but I can answer it this way: specifying a minimum energy for a hunting rifle to take a certain animal is like specifying a minimum horsepower for a street-legal car to run a 1-minute, 30-second lap at Road

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page  3

Atlanta. The lap time is more dependent on such factors as tire type, tire pressure, suspension components and setup, brakes, car weight, and air downforce than it is on horsepower. To the layman, however, horsepower is what’s thought to be the most important. To an informed owner or crew chief trying to max out the quickest lap time for the car, horsepower isn’t even in the top three.  

     D:      I still don’t buy the notion that energy isn’t important. 

     GG:   All right. Let’s run through some conceptual examples, and see if you feel the same way about the validity of energy actually meaning something ballistically.  

     GG pulled out his phone.  

     “He actually has one,” thought Donny, “and it’s not a flip.” 

     GG:   You say your ammo produces a muzzle velocity of 3200 fps with a 130- grain bullet. That would give . . .  (GG slowly punching in the numbers with his index finger) . . . about 2950 foot-pounds. Instead of a 130-grain bullet, suppose you substituted a 7-grain steel stitching needle about 0.045 inches in diameter. Through mag-lev technology, suppose you could launch it at . . . (GG punching in numbers again) . . . 13,783 fps. That would also give you an energy of about 2950 foot-pounds. Finally, suppose you had just been found guilty of hate speech, and had been sentenced to be shot in the stomach at a distance of 25 yards with either the needle or the 130-grain bullet, your choice. Which would you choose? 

     Donny was befuddled. How was this theoretical example applicable to anything? Getting a needle to travel close to 14,000 fps was impossible. 

     GG saw Donny’s expression and knew he was struggling. 

     GG:   Okay, you don’t like that example. What if we changed the needle to an arrow that weighs a total of 425 grains that is launched from a bow at 350 fps. The computed energy is . . . (GG laboriously punching in numbers) . . . 115 foot-pounds. Which would you prefer to be gut shot with? An arrow with a velocity of only 350 fps and an energy of 115 foot-pounds, or a bullet with a velocity of 3200 fps and an energy of 2950 foot-pounds? 

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page 4

     Donny stared at GG. He had been taught to believe that numbers don’t lie, but damned if the Geezer hadn’t tortured them to confess to something he really wasn’t willing to believe.  

     D:      Neither. 

     GG:   Right. Both would be ugly. In either case you would likely be toast. Energy-be-damned. That being said, the arrow has about 1/9 of the velocity and about 1/25 the energy of your 130-grainer.  

     D:      Don’t you need high velocity to produce hydrostatic shock?  

     GG:   All depends on what you mean by ‘high’. The velocity necessary to initiate hydrodynamic shock appears to vary, based on bullet caliber. John Taylor, in his book Africa Rifles and Cartridges published by Safari Press, talked about the .375 caliber bullets being able to induce shock with an impact velocity as low as 2350 fps. Nathan Foster of Ballistic Studies talks about a similarly low impact velocity threshold of at least 2200 fps for a .358-caliber bullet, although he says impact velocities of 2400 fps and above are more emphatic. Foster also believes impact velocities must be at least 2600 fps for 7-millimeter and 30-caliber bullets to induce hydrodynamic shock.  

     The physics makes conceptual sense. I believe hydrodynamic shock is caused by a blood compression wave that bursts neurologically sensitive cells. The larger the bullet diameter and length, the greater the magnitude of the compression wave. This is because a bullet with a greater volume displaces a greater volume of blood as it passes through tissue.  

     You can visually conceptualize what a fluid compression wave looks like by dropping a marble into a washtub full of water. The compression wave front radiates away from the point of impact. Drop a higher volume baseball into the washtub, and the wave is way bigger. Both the marble and the baseball are creating a tsunami effect in the water. In order for the marble to even come close to producing the same wave as a baseball, you would have to increase its impact velocity by throwing it into the wash tub. 

     Blood is incompressible. If the capillaries/vessels cannot expand fast enough to accommodate the pressure increase from the increased blood volume and flow produced by the bullet’s passage, they simply burst. Simple material strength failure.

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page  5

This bursting can destroy neurological connections. A by-product of this tsunami effect is blood-shot meat. 

     Many times the impact velocity is much higher than the impact velocity thought to be favorable for producing hydrodynamic shock, yet the animal runs off. I speculate that in order for hydrodynamic shock to occur on a consistent basis, the bullet must impact the animal’s body at, or nearly at, the compression stroke of the heart when the blood pressure in the animal is the highest. Bottom line: expecting hydrodynamic shock on a consistent basis is unreasonable. In my mind, the one thing I can consistently rely on to produce a quick death is the largest, most strategically placed wound cavity that can be reasonably obtained. If hydrodynamic shock happens, it is just icing on the cake. 

        I am not an expert in anatomy or physiology. I am a retired geotechnical engineer who understands compression waves, strength of materials, the adverse effects of excess pore pressure, and geomaterial drainage. Take the best and leave the rest. 

     D: (Indignantly) You keep describing shock as hydrodynamic instead of hydrostatic. That terminology is contrary to established thinking. 

     GG:   There is nothing static about what I just described, nor a tsunami. By the way, at one time established thinking decreed that the earth was both flat and at the center of the universe. 

     Donny sat in silence. One by one, the Geezer was dismissing or crushing his reasons. He dreaded what the Old Man was going to say about the Matunas formula. 

     GG:   Now to Matunas. Even though you obviously didn’t like the energy numbers exercise I put you through, there is no arguing with the science. The equation I used to calculate energy is accepted, mainstream physics. There is limited to no wiggle room with the answer when accepted, mainstream science or engineering principles are used. This equation predicts reality with a high degree of confidence. Anything after the equal sign is kindly locked down and cinched tight, very useful in pass-fail evaluation scenarios.  

     What you are calling the Matunas formula is technically called an empiricism. The objective of any empiricism is to accurately predict typical, observed outcome by using a manageable and simple mathematical relationship that represents gross simplifications of complex, interrelated scientific and engineering principles that are

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page  6

believed to be responsible for that outcome. Any applied theory tends to be conceptual rather than mathematically precise. As such, the answer should be judged in terms of the degree of confidence associated with the predicted outcome. When using any empiricism, you must be willing to use the words ‘might be approximately’ in the place of the ‘equal’ sign.  

     Some empiricisms are quite good, almost to the point where the equal sign pretty much means ‘equal’. The really good empiricisms are associated with a repeatable, standardized test that is reasonably conceptually related to the outcome the empiricism is trying to predict. The really good ones also have outcomes that can be quantifiably measured so that the measurements can be compared to the ones predicted by the empiricism.  

     GG looked at Donny. The slack jaw and glazed eyes told him the youngun needed another example before he ‘got it’. 

     GG:   An example of an excellent empiricism is one that I used to accurately predict the settlement of a spread footing supported by sand. The repeatable, standardized test is counting the number of blows it takes a 140-pound hammer, dropping 30 inches, to drive a 2-inch OD, 1.4-inch ID pipe 1 foot into the ground. It’s fairly easy to conceptually accept that the greater the number of hammer blows means that the sand is denser, and therefore better able to support any given load with less settlement. There is no theoretical or mathematical precision in evaluating this crude test’s results. The mathematics in the empiricism uses the number of hammer blows on the pipe to ultimately predict settlement, in inches. The settlement that the footing actually experiences after the structure is built can be compared to the settlement predicted by the empiricism. Practitioners use the actual results to refine the empiricism so that it can more closely predict these real-world results.  

     D:      So, it’s not how you get to the answer as long as it reasonably predicts reality. 

     GG:   Outstanding! In this case, the validity of the answer from this settlement empiricism can actually be measured. If the answer can’t be measured, the next best thing is a subjective appraisal by a knowledgeable observer. In my example, a building inspector could observe the finished structure and approve it as fit for occupancy. He wouldn’t know if the footings settled ¼ inch or 1¼ inch. It really didn’t matter because he could see and judge that the building was doing just fine because there were no cracks in the walls or sags in the ceilings.  

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page 7

     D:      So what you are saying is that regardless of the numbers, if a knowledgeable observer says it’s okay, then it is? 

     GG:   It can be, as long as the observer is, in fact, knowledgeable and has no bias associated with the outcome. 

     D:      You mean like the contractor and the developer could both be considered knowledgeable observers, but have dogs in the outcome fight that will influence their judgments? 

     GG:   Yep. In this case, the credentials of the observers become important in order to assess if their judgments are either reasonable or biased.  

     I think we can now productively assess Matunas’ empiricism. Full disclosure: I evaluated it as if I was going to use it as a basis for my signed, written recommendations to a client as a registered professional engineer. That means if my client used the empiricism’s results, I could be sued for any errors or omissions of his choosing. Therefore, what I have to say about Matunas’ empiricism can be regarded as potentially esoteric, overly anal, and way too much information. However, it serves to underscore that my judgments and opinions about the empiricism have a basis in fact and a stated analysis of those facts instead of a “because I said so” explanation.  

     I have a copy of Matunas’ entire article, including his tables. I tried to interpret if Matunas had included what I believe are important analytical factors both on the left side and the right side of his equal sign. On the left side of the equal side, I believe those factors are:  

·        dangerous vs non-dangerous game

·        any approximate, applicable theory or accepted concepts

·        kill vs stop

·        shot location

·        specified bullet of appropriate generic design 

On the right side of the equal sign, I believe that those factors are: 

·        reference to a published database

·        the qualifications of the practitioners who are the judges of the outcome predicted by the empiricism

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page 8

·        guidance for interpreting the answer 

     Finally, when the left side and the right side of the empiricism are knitted together by the equal sign, what are the frequency and severity of any outliers? An outlier is a result that doesn’t seem reasonable. 

     Right out of the chute, there was no stated stipulation concerning whether the empiricism was valid for dangerous game, non-dangerous game, or both. From Matunas’ tables, which included references to brown bear and lion, I concluded that it was applicable for all animals, dangerous or not. I do not believe it is appropriate nor prudent to use an empiricism for selecting a chambering for dangerous game. 

     Concerning applicable theory and accepted concepts, he said he considered such things that included kinetic energy, momentum, bullet sectional density, impact velocity, and a “number of other (unspecified) criteria”. He never indicated the ones he selected to derive the math, although in the text, he indicated he was not fond of kinetic energy and “foot-pounds”, the units of momentum.  

     There is no subjective evaluation of whether the empiricism was conservative enough to indicate any likelihood or the frequency of actually stopping an animal or just killing it. With that in mind, he implies through discussion in his text that the lungs are the shot location, indicating to me that the predicted outcome is bias toward ‘kill’ rather than ‘stop’. That premise is reinforced because he later stipulates that if the heart is the target, then the calculated game weight could be “reasonably” increased by 25%. 

     Finally, the left side of the equal sign relies on an appropriate “big-game bullet” being used. There are no criteria specified for that selection other than the good judgment of the hunter.  

     As far as the right side of the equal sign goes, he references no published database or guidance, measureable or otherwise. He states that the results correlate “with what most experienced and observant hunters have found in the field”. There is no reference to having colleagues peer review his empiricism for relevance or accuracy. No PHs are referenced as passing judgment.  

     The deficiencies on the right side of the equation make me skeptical and uncomfortable. What really gave me the jitters was Matunas never indicated that his method was anything more than an estimate. To the contrary, he referred to his results using the word “optimum”, never specifically defining what that word means.

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page  9

Tabulated numbers in the article give the impression that it is accurate to the nearest pound, as in 292 pounds for a 130-grain bullet at 300 yards, shot from a 270 Winchester.  

     But so what? What I have talked about for the last several minutes could be chalked up to esoteric babbling. In paraphrasing your succinct appraisal of an empiricism, it doesn’t matter how you get there, as long as you do. So, to check out the empiricism, I selected three hunting scenarios with three muzzle velocities assumed to be the impact velocity for all three. Furthermore, a satisfactory, catch-all ‘big-game bullet’ was applied for all three. Admittedly, this evaluation was not precise in terms of actual impact velocity, but I was trying to get a feel for the potential frequency and severity of outliers or circumstances where the empiricism would give my client the wrong expectations. 

     My first scenario was for a 22-long rifle rimfire shooting a 40-grain bullet at 1200 fps. I got a game weight of 4 pounds. Conservative, pushing overly conservative, but okay. 

     My second scenario was for a 44-70 buffalo rifle shooting a 405-grainer at 1340 fps. My calculated game weight was a little less than 600 pounds for a lung shot.  This weight is uber-conservative, not even close to what a typical bison weighs. If my client happened to be a buffalo rifle enthusiast, he would be pissed and maybe not pay my bill. One thing is for sure, he would tell the truth-based tale that I was the educated idiot that some folks believe engineers are to begin with. 

     The third calculation was for a 300 Winchester shooting a 180-grainer at 3100 fps. I calculated a game weight of about 1450 pounds if the shot was on the lungs, and about 1800 pounds if the shot was through the shoulder to take out the heart. Those weights imply that this chambering and bullet-weight combo would be good for a Cape buffalo. If my client used that combo and got hurt or killed by a Cape buffalo, I would be buried under the jail. Try the words ‘criminal negligence’ on for size. Every PH in Africa would be lined up to give confirming expert testimony to that charge. 

     Based on those three examples, it was apparent to me that the results of Matunas’ empiricism are heavily dependent on velocity. Low impact velocities apparently gave conservative to uber-conservative results. High velocities apparently gave optimistic to potentially dangerous results. I suspect that there is a middle-ground range of velocities that give reasonable and representative results. I have no idea if that is true, and if so, what that range might be. 

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page 10

     As far as internet acceptance goes, I canvassed the top-three hunting forums listed on the internet, plus an Africa hunting forum. Only one of the top-three forums had any mention of the Matunas empiricism. The Africa forum mentioned Matunas, but only in the context of one of the rifles he used when hunting in Africa. 

     The only forum of the top three where the Matunas formula itself had any discussion is focused on long range hunting. An initial poster (IP) was considering a 7-mm mag chambering with a 180-grain, high BC match-style bullet as a long-range system for hunting elk. I speculate he kindly had second thoughts about his selection. He ran a series of Matunas calculations for his 180-grainer as well as for various heavier bullets shot from a 300 and .338 magnum. Based on those calculated results, he likely figured out his system might be more than a tad light for taking out elk at long range. He asked the forum members for help so he could figure out if he truly had a problem with his system. 

     The responses fell into a predictable pattern. A few respondents basically said “Great question. We want to know, too.” Most respondents never directly addressed the IP’s question, but began side-bar discussions about accuracy, barrel wear and recoil.  

     There was one responder who directly addressed the issue. My interpreted tone of his responses was such that he seemed to consider himself one of the forum’s postsperts. He had used a 7-mag with the specified 180-grainer to successfully hunt elk at distances from 750 to 1200 yds. I say successfully, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he stated he had never missed a shot and only implied that he had recovered every animal. He gave no particulars, other than range. No muzzle velocities. No animal weights. No impact points on the animal. No descriptions of the animal’s reaction to the shot. No animal-travel distances after the shot. He ungraciously implied that the weights obtained by the IP’s analysis for the 180-grainer were way low. Later on in the thread, he stated that he would have no reluctance to use his system on a bull elk out to 1500 yds. To me, it was obvious the responder was convinced that both he and his system had absolutely no limitations. 

     I thought this thread was a poster child example for most threads on internet forums. An IP asks for help and is inundated with side-bar issues that obscure and divert focus from his topic. Forum postsperts then weigh in, heavy on opinion but way light on specific, applicable data. In this case, the sad part is that no data are presented to allow an informed discussion that could have provided a basis for the

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page  11

IP to make a reasonable decision on his terms or to potentially evolve/tune the Matunas analysis. 

     I am not surprised by the lack of forum discussion about the Matunas empiricism. Most hunters are not faced with what they believe is a totally unique hunting scenario that would require a Matunas evaluation like the IP believed was warranted. They simply ask their buds what to use and leave it at that. By default, they accept their buds’ terminal performance objectives, terminal performance criteria, and tolerance for risk, all of which could be way different from what they want or what their particular hunting scenario indicates would be prudent. 

     Another reason, and probably a more prevalent one, is that most hunters are intrinsically suspicious of a simple formula that somehow takes into account and resolves all the variables within any hunting scenario. In order to come even close to such a leap of faith, folks need to know and accept the fundamental assumptions used in deriving the formula and how/if the formula has been vetted. 

     Donny felt a little sick. “Damn him,” he thought. He felt foolish and embarrassed. Worse than that, the Geezer had completely skewered all of his ‘rational’ reasons for deciding that his 270 Winchester would work. 

     D: (Defiantly) What about your empiricism? It looks like it is overly dependent on bullet weight and gives way low results. 

     GG noted the youngun’s defiant tone, but chose to ignore it. 

     GG:   Your assessments are just speculation until I explain the methodology of how I came up with it. After that explanation, you may decide the same thing. I really don’t care. Hell, you may decide that using any empiricism is an exercise in mental masturbation. As far as I am concerned, my empiricism is a hunting risk evaluation and planning tool that could help you arrive at actual hunt strategies and decisions, such as chambering, generic bullet design, shot distances, shot angle, and requirements for rifle support. Whether you use that tool is completely up to you. 

     D: (Still defiant) Just what methodology did you use?  

     “Obstinate tenacity morphing into just plain stubborn, with a pinch of conniving,” thought GG. “Everybody always wants ‘easy’ and to avoid having to think for themselves. He is likely on a fishin’ expedition to see if he can somehow substitute one formula for another. He is hoping for a one and done.” 

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page 12

     GG:   I completely understand why you asked that question. You are fixated on ‘the’ answer and want to dispense with understanding the concepts and issues associated with ‘depends’. Understanding the concepts and issues of ‘depends’ is fundamental to arriving at assessments concerning the veracity of my empiricism’s answer. Regardless, those assessments are the cornerstones of whatever decisions you make concerning your hunt. Do you want me to talk about how I derived my empiricism, or the concepts and issues of ‘depends’? 

     “Damn him,” thought Donny. He had heard enough already to know he was now at the door of terminal ballistics rehab. He was being formally asked if he wanted to step inside. He couldn’t help but believe that if he did, it would become a walk on the wild side, one embedded in the alternate reality of the Geezer’s conjuring. “Lord, help me,” though Donny. 

     D:      I said I wanted to understand ‘depends’. I’m gonna stand by that. 

     “Tenacious and pigheaded,” thought GG. “Lord, help me.” 

     GG:   Fair enough. To do so, I need to set the stage for a very important concept: the wound cavity. In doing so, I will present the topics of shot placement and time to death.  

     You never did answer my question about being gut shot with either a stitching needle or a 130-grainer from your 270 Winchester. The needle is solid steel and will not expand. It would just pencil through you, assuming no bone was hit. Both the entrance and exit holes would likely seal quickly, with virtually no external blood loss. The wound cavity produced by this needle is likely miniscule, resulting in internal damage so minimal that you probably wouldn’t die. If you did die, it would likely take a long time and not be very pleasant. 

     Both the arrow and your 130-grainer to the gut would cause huge wound cavities compared to the needle. Internal damage and bleeding would be considerable. A relatively slow death would be almost certain.  

     Instead of the gut, what if all three hit a lung or the heart and a lung? Again, assuming no bone is hit, the needle would whistle right through you and produce a miniscule wound cavity. Again, the odds of you dying are small; if you did, it would likely take a long time. 

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page 13

     In contrast, the wound cavity caused by both the arrow and the 130-grainer to the lung or a lung and the heart would be considerable, to the point you would surely die. Furthermore, I think it’s reasonable to speculate that the time to death would be less if both the heart and the lung were hit instead of a solitary lung. Based on this example, I believe a time-based qualitative lethality descriptor for a wound to just one lung would be ‘kill’, and a wound to both the heart and lung would be ‘stop’. 

     In this extreme example, a needle likely does not produce a sufficiently large wound cavity to cause death, even with proper shot placement and full penetration through a lung and heart. As in the case of the arrow and the bullet, radically different projectiles at radically different impact velocities can produce comparable and effective wound cavities capable of death. Note that the properties of all these projectiles heavily influence the likely wound cavities produced. Finally, the magnitude and the location of the wound cavity influence both the prospect of death and the time for that death.  

     D:      And the time to death could influence the prospect of recovering an animal.  

     GG:   Excellent! There’s another reason, one that is highly subjective. The animals I have shot in Africa have survived to maturity or nearly so. They are warriors and I believe deserve a quick death.  

     D:      So am I to conclude that understanding wound cavity volume and how it’s produced is fundamentally important to evaluating ‘depends’? 

     GG:   There you go!  

Africa Hunter Quest©, Chapter 6, Page 14