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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Terminal performance of bullets
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="RockyMtnMT" data-source="post: 1195020" data-attributes="member: 7999"><p>Energy left in an animal is an age old discussion. It takes energy to cause a bullet to deform. What kills an animal is shutting off the central nervous system. This happens by causing the blood pressure to drop to a point that it can no longer function or by hitting it directly. Direct hit to the cns is low percentage. Hemorrhage is a higher percentage. Enough blood lost and consciousness can not be maintained. So for me the question is how to best cause that blood loss. Bullets cause blood loss by tearing vs say an arrow that cuts. Cuts bleed much faster that tears. So bullets need bigger tears. So the quest for a bullet is create a large permanent wound channel that doesn't close up behind the bullet in order to bleed freely. This can be done by a bullet coming a part and the pieces all causing their own wound channels. With most bullets the pieces that come off are quite small and lose momentum quickly. The Hammer bullets fragmentation is generally bigger and will carry momentum further. Our bullet design that is coming completely apart is generally breaking into three major pieces that carry momentum deep into the target. The first time this happened to us in testing we looked at it as a bad thing. We found that we can control it somewhat by changing the hollow pt. A lot of different dynamics at varying velocities. The little bit that we shot it into animals (2 deer) we thought it caused too much damage. My bullet quest started 25 years ago because I did not like the blood shot meat loss after good bullet placement. My preferred bullet design sheds the nose to the depth of the hollow point in a few large pieces, then the remaining ~80% squares on the front to displace matter perpendicular to the direction of travel through the animal. I want it to go all the way through. As the bullet slows down it causes less destruction. The slower it goes the smaller the wound channel.</p><p></p><p>The evolution of our design...</p><p></p><p>We started with an alloy and design that we thought was perfect. Working with annealing and such. Assumed that the low velocity was working as we designed it to. Figured out that annealing did not give the intended result, and our low velocity impacts were not good enough. The velocity floor was ~2500 fps. Not good. We hit the brakes on product launch. Started testing alloys to find what we wanted. Most important to find one that would function below 2000fps. The fragmenting Hammer bullet is what we settled on so that we could head for market. We felt that we would not be letting anyone down as they would definitely make animals dead and function well below 2000fps. At high vel they function as we wanted. So we stocked up on raw material for the various bullet sizes. Meanwhile we continued testing other alloys. We since found another alloy that functions as we prefer through the velocity range. We have more of the 'preferred' alloy coming to cover the range of bullet calibers. Takes months to get the raw material. We had pretty much figured that we would just phase from one alloy to another as there is no difference in ballistics other than terminal. Knowing that some guys would really like the explosive nature of the one alloy, we discussed two lines, and decided not to. So now Roy's testing has brought the discussion back. He was pretty excited about it, so we felt it worth forum discussion. I am not too sure that the demand for two lines would be enough to warrant keeping two different alloys on hand for manufacturing.</p><p></p><p>Keep the thoughts coming.....</p><p></p><p>Steve</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RockyMtnMT, post: 1195020, member: 7999"] Energy left in an animal is an age old discussion. It takes energy to cause a bullet to deform. What kills an animal is shutting off the central nervous system. This happens by causing the blood pressure to drop to a point that it can no longer function or by hitting it directly. Direct hit to the cns is low percentage. Hemorrhage is a higher percentage. Enough blood lost and consciousness can not be maintained. So for me the question is how to best cause that blood loss. Bullets cause blood loss by tearing vs say an arrow that cuts. Cuts bleed much faster that tears. So bullets need bigger tears. So the quest for a bullet is create a large permanent wound channel that doesn't close up behind the bullet in order to bleed freely. This can be done by a bullet coming a part and the pieces all causing their own wound channels. With most bullets the pieces that come off are quite small and lose momentum quickly. The Hammer bullets fragmentation is generally bigger and will carry momentum further. Our bullet design that is coming completely apart is generally breaking into three major pieces that carry momentum deep into the target. The first time this happened to us in testing we looked at it as a bad thing. We found that we can control it somewhat by changing the hollow pt. A lot of different dynamics at varying velocities. The little bit that we shot it into animals (2 deer) we thought it caused too much damage. My bullet quest started 25 years ago because I did not like the blood shot meat loss after good bullet placement. My preferred bullet design sheds the nose to the depth of the hollow point in a few large pieces, then the remaining ~80% squares on the front to displace matter perpendicular to the direction of travel through the animal. I want it to go all the way through. As the bullet slows down it causes less destruction. The slower it goes the smaller the wound channel. The evolution of our design... We started with an alloy and design that we thought was perfect. Working with annealing and such. Assumed that the low velocity was working as we designed it to. Figured out that annealing did not give the intended result, and our low velocity impacts were not good enough. The velocity floor was ~2500 fps. Not good. We hit the brakes on product launch. Started testing alloys to find what we wanted. Most important to find one that would function below 2000fps. The fragmenting Hammer bullet is what we settled on so that we could head for market. We felt that we would not be letting anyone down as they would definitely make animals dead and function well below 2000fps. At high vel they function as we wanted. So we stocked up on raw material for the various bullet sizes. Meanwhile we continued testing other alloys. We since found another alloy that functions as we prefer through the velocity range. We have more of the 'preferred' alloy coming to cover the range of bullet calibers. Takes months to get the raw material. We had pretty much figured that we would just phase from one alloy to another as there is no difference in ballistics other than terminal. Knowing that some guys would really like the explosive nature of the one alloy, we discussed two lines, and decided not to. So now Roy's testing has brought the discussion back. He was pretty excited about it, so we felt it worth forum discussion. I am not too sure that the demand for two lines would be enough to warrant keeping two different alloys on hand for manufacturing. Keep the thoughts coming..... Steve [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Terminal performance of bullets
Top