Bullet Construction vs Lethality
- Thread starter nralifer
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
catch 22
Well-Known Member
I have a couple questions, first what company do you represent, second what bullets did you compare to come up with this claim. I have been reloading for near 40 years now and that is a bold claim.
memtb
Well-Known Member
addendum: I'd like to add to my previous comment. Given similar velocities, BC's, ranges, impact points and angles……. no matter the construction (assuming an expanding bullet) a larger caliber adds a degree of killing effectiveness over a small caliber! So why do so many consider the use calibers that are very marginal with less than ideal shot placement? memtb
Last edited:
I'm gonna suggest it's because they're skeered of recoil! And feel they generally shoot the pea-shooters with better accuracy.
Just keep in mind too that we can calculate energy all day, and very easily, but how that energy goes to work, and how much or how little, depends entirely on bullet design and construction as well as impact velocity and shot placement (specifically amount of resistance encountered and vital area).
Without being able to efficiently go to work by transferring to hydraulic force, energy of the bullet remains only a potential. There are many bullets that impact with a ton of kinetic energy, but don't do much or anything thereafter to allow that energy to transfer to hydraulic force, and thus wounding (blood loss and asphyxiation), as well as shutting down the CNS, or at least create s spike in blood pressure.
As far as BC…
So while I completely agree BC is important and that BC and muzzle velocity tell you everything you need to know about first order trajectory including wind drift, it's not everything when terminal ballistics are the main concern overall. Obviously terminal ballistics and the bullet's performance and behavior is what matters most to the hunter. There are trade-offs to consider and deal with.
One of the common trade-offs is with bonded or multi-part hunting bullets like Nosler Partitions, Swift A-frame, etc. While those are designed and constructed for specific terminal effect, oftentimes those bullets are less precise due to the imbalance incurred by the more complicated structure. This is why bullets designed and constructed more for the long range hunter are more simple and consistent in design, to include lathe turned monos.
Where BC comes in is two ways: One, it makes it easier to hit your target with the uncertainties of wind. Secondly, higher BC will allow the bullet to retain velocity better which means higher impact velocity and greater terminal effect overall, with all else equal.
So long story short, energy and BC go hand in hand. Bullet construction and design, and thus terminal performance and behavior, matter most for a hunting bullet. How much energy is there (and retained by high BC) doesn't matter if it doesn't properly and efficiently go to work for us.
A great hunting bullet will indeed have a high BC to give us more capability and make it easier to place our shots right where we're wanting by retaining more velocity and drifting less, especially if used long range. That bullet will also be constructed and designed to produce a great deal of hydraulic force, and thus wounding. It should be highly effective and efficient at doing so. That will mean as long as you keep that bullet within its velocity window for proper performance, what energy potential it has will be sufficient at getting the job done. That's why I focus on impact velocity rather than energy as far as determining where to limit my shots with a particular bullet.
Without being able to efficiently go to work by transferring to hydraulic force, energy of the bullet remains only a potential. There are many bullets that impact with a ton of kinetic energy, but don't do much or anything thereafter to allow that energy to transfer to hydraulic force, and thus wounding (blood loss and asphyxiation), as well as shutting down the CNS, or at least create s spike in blood pressure.
As far as BC…
So while I completely agree BC is important and that BC and muzzle velocity tell you everything you need to know about first order trajectory including wind drift, it's not everything when terminal ballistics are the main concern overall. Obviously terminal ballistics and the bullet's performance and behavior is what matters most to the hunter. There are trade-offs to consider and deal with.
One of the common trade-offs is with bonded or multi-part hunting bullets like Nosler Partitions, Swift A-frame, etc. While those are designed and constructed for specific terminal effect, oftentimes those bullets are less precise due to the imbalance incurred by the more complicated structure. This is why bullets designed and constructed more for the long range hunter are more simple and consistent in design, to include lathe turned monos.
Where BC comes in is two ways: One, it makes it easier to hit your target with the uncertainties of wind. Secondly, higher BC will allow the bullet to retain velocity better which means higher impact velocity and greater terminal effect overall, with all else equal.
So long story short, energy and BC go hand in hand. Bullet construction and design, and thus terminal performance and behavior, matter most for a hunting bullet. How much energy is there (and retained by high BC) doesn't matter if it doesn't properly and efficiently go to work for us.
A great hunting bullet will indeed have a high BC to give us more capability and make it easier to place our shots right where we're wanting by retaining more velocity and drifting less, especially if used long range. That bullet will also be constructed and designed to produce a great deal of hydraulic force, and thus wounding. It should be highly effective and efficient at doing so. That will mean as long as you keep that bullet within its velocity window for proper performance, what energy potential it has will be sufficient at getting the job done. That's why I focus on impact velocity rather than energy as far as determining where to limit my shots with a particular bullet.
Bullets that shed petals, even if large caliber, end up with a similar width than a small caliber expanding (mushrooming) bullet. And a small caliber, but high mass mushrooming bullet will retain enough momentum to produce quite a bit of hydraulic force.
So you can still get really good terminal performance from smaller calibers if you're using an appropriate bullet. If that weren't the case, monos that shed petals wouldn't really work, especially small caliber versions.
Quality Copper Bullet Manufacturer - Badlands precision, LLC
Consult Badlands Precision, LLCs specialists in manufacturing lathe turned high ballistic coefficient copper bullets. Contact us.
badlandsprecision.com
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
You couldn't let the OP identify his company himself? Well, I do understand the need for you to speak for him, for I don't think I've ever seen him type, "I am the owner of Badlands Bullets". Fair enough, I digress.Quality Copper Bullet Manufacturer - Badlands precision, LLC
Consult Badlands Precision, LLCs specialists in manufacturing lathe turned high ballistic coefficient copper bullets. Contact us.
memtb
Well-Known Member
Again…..we're somewhat at odds! memtb
I waited a while for him too. I figured I could at least help out since I'm sure he's not the only one that has that question. Sorry if that was wrong of me…
Last edited:
I don't doubt it. A lot comes down to personal preference and personal priorities. Nothing wrong with that.
If you straight up don't agree with something I've said though, as far as you think it's actually wrong, please let me know what and why. That would be FAR more helpful. Thanks.
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
Did I not say, "I do understand why you felt the need to speak for him?"
Yes Petey, you are a daggum knight in shining armor and a humble example for all on the forum!
I was rather waiting with baited breath for you to climb on the compositional analysis of these bullets. But alas, yup.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you recently just trash on this site and the admins before saying you were leaving it? Now you're still here and making responses like these? Seems like similar behavior to what you were upset about. Just an observation, because I'm not sure what I did or said that was wrong and deserved such a response.
Last edited:
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
Oohh, deflection. You dog you! I was asked back by popular demand. Also to explore the mysteries of the this place. Why Petey, we cross?
Water under the bridge, shucks! Let's get into compositional analysis of these pills! I know you have a penchant for cutting tuff in half to see what makes it tick, but what about the microscopic stuff and percentages of materials contained within the bullets?
