Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Videos Of Tech Stuff And Reviews
Energy Transfer or penetration.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jebel" data-source="post: 1568391" data-attributes="member: 106189"><p>Geez, now you've got my mind onto terminal ballistics, so I'm going to go against my own post and talk more about it. </p><p></p><p>Mr. Miculek focuses on the impressive energy transfer of the 200 grain (first) round, and laments that the 395 grain (2nd & 3rd) round would exit the far side of game and waste energy on the ground. </p><p></p><p>Here's an alternate view. I look at the permanent damage done in the ballistic gel. I see the 200 gr (1st) bullet produced an impressive cavity in the first 5 inches, then about 6 more inches of permanent wound channel, then the bullet traveled about 4 more inches (total of 15). The wound channel isn't visible for the last 4 inches, because the gel collapsed back in on itself; i.e., the damage wasn't permanent. Gel is elastic. That's one of the reasons its a reasonable proxy for tissue, because tissue is elastic. So if that bullet were traveling through an animal torso that was 14" wide, it would have nicely dropped out the far side, as some seem to prefer. But I doubt it would have bled much out that far hole, because the wound channel had collapsed. Undoubtedly, the initial fist-sized cavity in the first 5 inches would have caused massive internal damage though.</p><p></p><p>The 395 gr bullet was just the opposite. It did produce a cavity (smaller) in the first 5 inches (the bullet must have deformed some), and then continued to produce a permanent wound channel that extended to about 30" on the last bullet. That suggests to me that it would have caused considerable damage due to the cavity (though less), and would have produced a sizable and permanent exit wound in any animal torso less than 30" wide. That wound channel would have produced further massive damage its entire route and bled from both sides. </p><p></p><p>So what does that mean? Perhaps on smaller game (deer and less), the massive initial cavity is fine. But anything more than 11" wide and I'd give up some initial cavity for the longer wound channel. The extent to which the gel bounces on the table, or not, is not that important to me.</p><p></p><p>Last, and Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of Hammer bullets is that they're designed to combine the two wounds we see in the video. They expand quickly after penetration (large initial cavity), and then the solid shank continues to penetrate deeply, exiting the far side with velocity and producing a permanent wound channel all the way through, even on large animals. Which is why I like them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jebel, post: 1568391, member: 106189"] Geez, now you've got my mind onto terminal ballistics, so I'm going to go against my own post and talk more about it. Mr. Miculek focuses on the impressive energy transfer of the 200 grain (first) round, and laments that the 395 grain (2nd & 3rd) round would exit the far side of game and waste energy on the ground. Here's an alternate view. I look at the permanent damage done in the ballistic gel. I see the 200 gr (1st) bullet produced an impressive cavity in the first 5 inches, then about 6 more inches of permanent wound channel, then the bullet traveled about 4 more inches (total of 15). The wound channel isn't visible for the last 4 inches, because the gel collapsed back in on itself; i.e., the damage wasn't permanent. Gel is elastic. That's one of the reasons its a reasonable proxy for tissue, because tissue is elastic. So if that bullet were traveling through an animal torso that was 14" wide, it would have nicely dropped out the far side, as some seem to prefer. But I doubt it would have bled much out that far hole, because the wound channel had collapsed. Undoubtedly, the initial fist-sized cavity in the first 5 inches would have caused massive internal damage though. The 395 gr bullet was just the opposite. It did produce a cavity (smaller) in the first 5 inches (the bullet must have deformed some), and then continued to produce a permanent wound channel that extended to about 30" on the last bullet. That suggests to me that it would have caused considerable damage due to the cavity (though less), and would have produced a sizable and permanent exit wound in any animal torso less than 30" wide. That wound channel would have produced further massive damage its entire route and bled from both sides. So what does that mean? Perhaps on smaller game (deer and less), the massive initial cavity is fine. But anything more than 11" wide and I'd give up some initial cavity for the longer wound channel. The extent to which the gel bounces on the table, or not, is not that important to me. Last, and Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of Hammer bullets is that they're designed to combine the two wounds we see in the video. They expand quickly after penetration (large initial cavity), and then the solid shank continues to penetrate deeply, exiting the far side with velocity and producing a permanent wound channel all the way through, even on large animals. Which is why I like them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Videos Of Tech Stuff And Reviews
Energy Transfer or penetration.
Top