Brush guns

[Gunplummer]

This started in the hunting thread, but let us inspect this question of "Brush bustin' bullets" vs. the "Peg board" theory. I truly believe (Real world experience) that you have a better chance with slower, heavier bullets in thicker areas. No, I can not say a bullet with more weight will work 100%, but the chance of it going through is way better than something fast and light. It seems every counter argument includes high velocity light bullets. I bet there are plenty of "I can't believe it went through" stories out there.

 

[Old Stony]

If I were to guess...I would say the heavy bullets have the edge in such a situation....but in all my years of hunting ( and I've fired a lot of ammo at game over the years), I can honestly say I have never fired at any animal through brush. I guess there could be instances where such a situation could arise, but it has never been a consideration for me, and I hunt in some pretty dense woods.
I sure have seen the debate pop up a lot over the years though.

 

[SARuger]

Slug?

 

[Jack O'Conner]

My family hunts deer and bear within the forests of Appalachian Mountains of central Pennsylvania. Common rifles include 30-30, 35 Remington, .308, and 300 Savage. Some are hand-me-down rifles from generations past. All these rifles seem to do quite well with heavy round nose bullets. But a good excuse for missing the animal is, "My bullet was deflected by a small branch." This excuse is always believable.

Is there a bullet which will always make it through brush no matter what? Not likely.

Jack

 

[Snyper]

It doesn't matter how heavy a bullet is, if it doesn't hit the brush squarely it will be deflected enough to cause misses

I truly believe (Real world experience) that you have a better chance with slower, heavier bullets in thicker areas.

There's no need to shoot through anything other than your intended target
You have a "better chance" if you only take clear shots

 

[Gunplummer]

If you never took off a sapling when shooting at a deer, you just will never understand. "Brush" is probably the wrong term. It brings to mind a picture of a hunter shooting wildly into an unseen area. I have shot quite a few deer in the head because of laurel or rhodedendren thick around the bodies. When a deer is on the move, you really do not have time to mess around looking for saplings or grape vines. I shot a pheasant one time and cut a grapevine off a couple feet in front of me. It was a shotgun, but same idea.

 

[Mobuck]

I don't really pick a "brush gun" based on it's chambering. I chose an easy handling, easy to carry carbine in a caliber adequate to kill the game regardless of angle of shot. I already know the effect of hitting obstructions and like the option of fast followup shots but discount the "spray and pray" technique except on varmint type animals.
My normal choice for deer in heavy brush(if given the choice) is either a 7mm08 or .308 in a 20" bolt action carbine. I'm willing to forfeit the immediate followup in interest of using the action I'm most familiar with.

 

[rkittine]

For a "Brush Gun" I always wanted short, light and easy to swing and a big slug that should not deflect as much if a breath of wind blows a twig in the flight path. For that I carried a Ruger Carbine in 44 Magnum, which complimented my S&W 29 that I also carried in such areas. Shots of around 50yards give or take. Back when I hunted there were a number of times that I could make out a deer without worrying that it was another hunter etc., but where part of it was covered in some kind of brush.

Bob

 

[CowTowner]

^^^^^ I'm in the same train of thought.

Which is why I have both a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 Rem Mag and a Marlin 1894FG in the same caliber. Can use the same ammo and will drop just about anything in the brush or small clearing.
Never had to shoot in the brush. But I like to think that I have the right tools should I need to.

 

[bucksnort13]

My go to brush gun was always a marlin/glenfield model 30A I have taken shots in light brush with that old thirty-thirty a couple of times and have had no trouble clearing the brush. My dad he always preferred a 45-70 he will tell you it is the best brush gun out there. I think that if the bullet you are using is flat nosed or round nosed they seem to clear the brush better.

 

[979Texas]

I have always had good luck in brush with my great grandpa's old 35 remington pump, but have also had good results with 12 gauge 000 buckshot and my Glock 20.

 

[Art Eatman]

Back in the dim, distant past, it was common that every ten years or so, the Dope Bag of The American Rifleman would test "brush busting".

What was found was that any and all bullets will be deflected by brushy twigs and limbs. .22 rimfire through .45-70.

The primary criterion for "how much" deflection is the distance from the front of the brush to the target. If there is only a foot or two of brush in front of Bambi, likely, little problem. Ten or fifteen feet? Good luck; you'll need it.

Basically, a good "brush gun" is any rifle or shotgun which can be brought quickly to aim and its shorter length eases handling in thicker cover. Because of the relatively short distances to game, medium-power cartridges work quite well.

 

[Husqvarna]

I never liked the recoil of faster bigger calibres

9,3x62 in two guns and I like that kind of recoil more, in a semi it is like a puppy lick

now I am gonna try a 358win

I have fired in many less then stellar opportunities with the 9,3x62, already wounded animals mind you or in "being charged by 200pound boar" situations and it has worked well

 

[math teacher]

Years ago jack O'Connor decided to test the theory that certain bullets worked better in the brush. To eliminate the random luck involved in shooting through actual brush, he substituted a grid of wooden dowels to provide uniformity in his test. While no bullets performed well, to his surprise, the more streamlined bullets performed best. He concluded that the rifle rather than the bullet was more important in hunting the brush. One that would allow you to shoot between the branches rather than through them.

 

[mete]

Some similar tests have shown the importance of the best match of bullet weight vs rifling - no over or under twist is very good.
But they all will be deflected .I've had 44 mag and 45-70 rounds deflect.
Important is light weight and short .Heavier cartridge like the 45-70 shorten the distance the deer will run !
I sometimes us a scope but to see an opening in the brush , not to push the way through !!

 

[Gunplummer]

I will never believe that a lighter, faster bullet will not deflect easier on small sticks or leaf bunches. If you use arrows (A projectile) as an example, the heavier arrows are less likely to deflect off of something that will have tremendous affect on a short, light arrow. I kept a few heavy shafted arrows with cast triangular heads in the quiver in case I was caught in a rain storm. Wet feathers or not they shot OK. and I noticed they were less affected by brush. Of course there are no "Brush proof bullets", but some are less affected by sticks and brush than others. I also noticed that a heavy, slower bullet usually stays on a straighter path when hitting bone in a deer.

The minute Jack O'Conner decided to eliminate "Random luck" with a peg board he contaminated the test.

 

[jmr40]

There is some evidence that heavy, round nose, FMJ bullets are very, very slightly better. RN bullets tend to have more weight forward where pointed bullets have more weight in the rear. This helps keep them on track after making contact. They both deflect, just that the RN bullets deflect slightly less. This only seems to apply to FMJ solid bullets such as those used to hunt African game. RN bullets with exposed lead tips do no better than any other expanding bullet, often worse. Lead slugs are among the worst at this. Any exposed lead grabs brush more easily than a solid.

After 40 years of hunting in some of the thickest woods anywhere I'm convinced the best brush guns are those that are extremely accurate and shoot laser flat with excellent optics. Caliber nor bullet type does not matter. The key is to use the optics to see the openings in the brush and shoot through the holes. I want MOA accuracy at the minimum and a bullet that will be no more than 1/2" above or below the crosshairs on the scope out to at least 100 yards. Quite often I see deer at 100-200 yards in open places in the woods, but with only a baseball size opening for a clear shot. Good optics not only help you avoid the brush, but are a tremendous aid in the thicker areas. It is often too dark to see iron sights in thick woods an hour or more before sundown where you could still see out in the open

The arching trajectory of common "brush" guns such as 30-30 will be 2-3" above or below my line of sight even at 75 yards making it far more difficult to lob bullets through the openings. This is not a handicap in open spaces. I have no problem lobbing in 30-30 rounds out to 300 yards. I can always hold high and compensate. Can't do that when shooting through brush.

I'd argue that flat shooting rounds are just as helpful in brush as at long range and the traditional "brush" guns are less of a handicap at long range out in the open than in brush at close range.

The heavy arrow vs light arrow analogy applies to the example of FMJ bullets. It doesn't work with expanding bullets.

 

[jaysouth]

I seem to remember the rash of "brush testing" that was in vogue 20 to 30 years ago in Guns and Ammo, Field and Stream, The Rifleman and others. Some writers were downright ingenius in their test apparatus, but the conclusion was that no bullet shape, weight or speed was immune from deflection.

If I had to buy a new 'brush' gun, it would be a Marling 336Y in 30-30 with a 16 1/2" barrel. That would be handy to maneuver in the 'brush' and would have enough beans to take down anything you see at 'brush' ranges.

 

[Snyper]

If you never took off a sapling when shooting at a deer, you just will never understand.

I missed a deer at about 30 FT due to a limb about .75" in diameter with a 300 gr 44 cal bullet that I couldn't see through the scope

Nothing is going to change the fact there are no "brush busting" bullets

There are just occasional lucky shots that probably shouldn't have been taken in the first place

 

[chris in va]

I wonder how my CZ carbine would do in those situations using 154gr bullets.