Bullet Construction vs Lethality

[2buffalo]

Hunting bullets perform much better when they stay intact. Any bullet that sheds mass, penetrates less and that is an indication of poor design or a bullet that has a velocity that is outside of it's velocity design envelope.

Whatcha got to back up that statement?

 

[Taj]

Gday Taj


Just a general query
With these bullets above you are only testing true solid bullets ? Or the pills that retain 100% or very near to it

The reason I ask this is if we don't get a shedding of weight in a pill eg it starts @150 gr & the retained weight is 100 gr when it stops your killing for nearly all critters is quicker & im seeing potential in some of the DG to even confirm this will also hold true

This above dosent matter if you use a frangible or mono that sheds
They have repeatedly shown that if they shed weight they create a better wound channel ( broadly speaking as when you get to different designs things go ea way from the average ) vrs a pill that retains all or extremely close to its weight & this I should get the backing from even the guys that don't like me

hard part is on monos it isn't as simple as just making a pill shed weight it's how it's done & it's pattern of doing it that determines it's effectiveness



Cheers

Of course the company I work for does design bullets that are extremely fragile and do "grenade" on impact. These bullets are designed for critters the size of prairie dogs and not big game bullets. It's going to be hard to convince me why a bullet that sheds it's petals, which reduces it to it's original caliber, leaves a "better" wound channel than an expanding bullet that retains it's weight and penetrates to vitals at a larger diameter. Before working where I do now, I had over 40 years experience as a firearms/ballistics examiner for a major police department. I've been to a crapload (That's almost a Sh-tload) of autopsies of gunshot victims and suspects so I've had more than a casual interest in seeing the terminal effects of some of the big game I've harvested as well, from the USA to several trips to Africa. Most of the bullets I shoot for LE are not monolithic bullets but many of them are bonded cup and core designs that retain a large percentage of their weight through soft tissue and bone. Even the non bonded bullets are designed so that the expanding petals protect the core with the goal to prevent core jacket separation. Any lead core will shed some weight if it encounters hard enough media. Windshield glass is really tough on any bullet.

You say "they" have repeatably shown that bullets that shed weight make a better wound channel. Who is "they" and where is this testing? I've shot a lot of "jello" and have seen a lot of dead things. I may not be that smart but the company I work for has a staff of ballistic engineers larger than many ammo companies. A larger temporary or permanent would channel is always going to cause more hemorrhage/damage than a smaller wound channel.

On my last trip to Africa I shot a monolithic copper bullet that was designed to expand and stay intact. I had exit wounds on many antelope sized game animals that very notable and that wound channel was it's entire length.

Marketing is a wonderful thing and is often used to convince folks that a design flaw is a great advantage. Scientific premise will often say otherwise.

Exit wound from a 150 grain .30-06 at 240 yrds.

 

[nksmfamjp]

I think you know the answer already. You haven't mentioned caliber and velocity yet, Barnes/GMX=penetration, SST/BT=expansion, Partition/Accubond/A-Frame/Scirroco/Interbond=both. This argument/discussion could last a lifetime, the bullet manufacturers have done so much research and given us such a choice it's overwhelming.

That's not a bad description.

i think people need to understand 3 things. First, energy from ballistic tables means little you really want to know energy transferred which is best seen looking at wound cavities. The bullet opening is all driven by velocity and impact medium. You hit tissue going slow, it will open slow or not open. Hitting bone may open the same bullet right up! Wound cavity volume or volume affected is what tells you energy transfer.

Next and maybe most important, can it exit….always exit, even quartering? A bullet really needs to exit to maximize blood loss and chest collapse. It literally takes them down. It also provides tracking blood.

Last, low velocity performance….what does your bullet do at slow speed? Pencil through, flip, keep going straight because it broke petals off? What is minimum performance velocity?

By muzzle velocity: Tough monos do great in go fast 3000+ fps rounds. Bonded do well at 2900fps or less. Expanding cup n core do well under 2600fps. thin jacket bullets can work on deer under 2300 fps with testing. Target bullets can work with precision placement and moderate velocities. Under 2000 fps flat tips are good.

 

[Taj]

Whatcha got to back up that statement?

I think that's already been stated.

There will always be anecdotal data that can be dredged up from countless resources, but consistent , repeatable performance is what I look for as do most of the professionals I deal with. Please feel free to use any bullet you like. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
I have either done or witnessed over 300 ballistics shoots and In a dozen trips to Africa I have killed a lot of large and small game. I'm close friends with a couple of PH's that have seen hundreds of successes and failures on game. Bullet performance is a big deal to them. To a person they believe weight retention is a significant factor in terminal performance.

In the ballistic shoots I've done, I have come to believe as they do and have seen the anecdotal results on the street that bear that out.

 

[memtb]

I think that's already been stated.

There will always be anecdotal data that can be dredged up from countless resources, but consistent , repeatable performance is what I look for as do most of the professionals I deal with. Please feel free to use any bullet you like. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
I have either done or witnessed over 300 ballistics shoots and In a dozen trips to Africa I have killed a lot of large and small game. I'm close friends with a couple of PH's that have seen hundreds of successes and failures on game. Bullet performance is a big deal to them. To a person they believe weight retention is a significant factor in terminal performance.

In the ballistic shoots I've done, I have come to believe as they do and have seen the anecdotal results on the street that bear that out.

TAJ,

What you say has been proven conventional wisdom for many years! I too want a bullet that expands, yet retains the majority of it's mass!

However, as with everything in life, technology changes …..heck, sometimes an actual improvement!

The Hammer Bullets are a mono bullet that is designed to shed it's petals early in entry making a large wound in the tissue, with the base (approximately 60% of it's original weight, I think) continuing on!

It goes against most everything that I have believed in for 50+ years…..but, it's difficult to argue the results of the Hammer Bullets! This bullet is making a lot of very impressive history across the world on many different game animals!

Take some time and research the Hammers! memtb

 

[2buffalo]

That's cool but I am sure myself and others have had different results. Your statement I quoted made it sound like "settled science" has convinced you of this. But there is no such thing as settled science or it wouldn't be science.

 

[Idaho Lefty]

I prefer a mushroom, when we get a big deer here that pushes 150lbs on the hoof, the loss of meat becomes a consideration.

I also have a small farm that is a hair over 60 acres, but it produces some good deer on occasion, but the property backs up to a piece of government land that is off limits regardless of the situation, even if the game warden is involved. So we need to anchor the deer to keep them on our side of the fence.

I hope by the time I read up to my replies, I will have gained a lot of information to educate me.

IF I were hunting Deer or Elk, near a Boundry line that, I could NOT cross to retrieve my Game, I'd shoot, a Fast .270 Win / WSM / Wby and 130 to 140 grain, HUNTING Bergers ( Classic's, Elite Hunters, etc. ) and aim to Hit the high shoulder blade area and, take out ( Scramble ) at least ONE Lung !
They ARE,. IMPRESSIVE Killers and NO,.. Move em' across, the "Line" ! A 7 MM Mag / SAUM / PRC with, 168's at 2,900 - 3,100 FPS will DO, the SAME !
Used a, "Soft Point" ( AccuBond 140 gr. at 3,147 FPS ave Vel ) and my Arizona Elk ( Shot in Boiler Room ) walked around for 75 yards and a Minute and a Half or so !
SOLD them !

 

[willfrye027]

That's not a bad description.

i think people need to understand 3 things. First, energy from ballistic tables means little you really want to know energy transferred which is best seen looking at wound cavities. The bullet opening is all driven by velocity and impact medium. You hit tissue going slow, it will open slow or not open. Hitting bone may open the same bullet right up! Wound cavity volume or volume affected is what tells you energy transfer.

Next and maybe most important, can it exit….always exit, even quartering? A bullet really needs to exit to maximize blood loss and chest collapse. It literally takes them down. It also provides tracking blood.

Last, low velocity performance….what does your bullet do at slow speed? Pencil through, flip, keep going straight because it broke petals off? What is minimum performance velocity?

By muzzle velocity: Tough monos do great in go fast 3000+ fps rounds. Bonded do well at 2900fps or less. Expanding cup n core do well under 2600fps. thin jacket bullets can work on deer under 2300 fps with testing. Target bullets can work with precision placement and moderate velocities. Under 2000 fps flat tips are good.

I don't see how a bullet exiting has anything to do with faster/better killing. Blood trail, sure. I'd rather have my bullet NOT exit, fragment internally, and transfer all that potential ft/lbs of energy into tissue destruction.

To me, an exit means wasted energy and less tissue destruction.

 

[Taj]

TAJ,

What you say has been proven conventional wisdom for many years! I too want a bullet that expands, yet retains the majority of it's mass!

However, as with everything in life, technology changes …..heck, sometimes an actual improvement!

The Hammer Bullets are a mono bullet that is designed to shed it's petals early in entry making a large wound in the tissue, with the base (approximately 60% of it's original weight, I think) continuing on!

It goes against most everything that I have believed in for 50+ years…..but, it's difficult to argue the results of the Hammer Bullets! This bullet is making a lot of very impressive history across the world on many different game animals!

Take some time and research the Hammers! memtb

You are right, technology changes, however physics physiology do not. I have looked at Hammer bullets and I'm hard pressed to see the science behind it. In fact, I really don't see any science behind it. Bullets have been coming apart for years. It was established a long time ago that bullet weight, design and construction was a far more important factor in penetration than velocity. ( Dr. Martin Fackler--Gene Woolberg) Large wounds in soft tissue is not an indication of killing power. Reliable penetration to blood carrying organs, and ventilating the closed circulatory system or a central nervous system upset are the two thing you can put science behind, whether it's two legged or four legged critters. Hypovolemic shock ( Blood loss). animals can not survive without that red stuff in their veins or an intact brain or spinal column. Published results of all of these boutique bullet companies is anecdotal and of course only successes are shown. No on ever shows their failures. I'm sorry Brother but I'm not of the belief that if you say it enough it becomes the truth. There are truly a lot of great bullet and ammo companies out there most of them have lived or died on the successes and failures. Companies like Woodleigh, Trophy Bonded Bearclaw and A Frame cut their teeth on dangerous African game animals, which I will readily admit are tough SOBs, however there is no magic bullet. Shot placement is still the primary consideration to put down any critter. Penetration is the next. Expansion is a gift but should never be used to give up penetration. Bullet weight is a primary consideration in penetration. That's why so many of the professionals in Africa still rely on solids for dangerous game. No hard feeling Pal, just stating things I know in 50 years in the bullet/ammo business.

 

[ButterBean]

You are right, technology changes, however physics physiology do not. I have looked at Hammer bullets and I'm hard pressed to see the science behind it. In fact, I really don't see any science behind it. Bullets have been coming apart for years. It was established a long time ago that bullet weight, design and construction was a far more important factor in penetration than velocity. ( Dr. Martin Fackler--Gene Woolberg) Large wounds in soft tissue is not an indication of killing power. Reliable penetration to blood carrying organs, and ventilating the closed circulatory system or a central nervous system upset are the two thing you can put science behind, whether it's two legged or four legged critters. Hypovolemic shock ( Blood loss). animals can not survive without that red stuff in their veins or an intact brain or spinal column. Published results of all of these boutique bullet companies is anecdotal and of course only successes are shown. No on ever shows their failures. I'm sorry Brother but I'm not of the belief that if you say it enough it becomes the truth. There are truly a lot of great bullet and ammo companies out there most of them have lived or died on the successes and failures. Companies like Woodleigh, Trophy Bonded Bearclaw and A Frame cut their teeth on dangerous African game animals, which I will readily admit are tough SOBs, however there is no magic bullet. Shot placement is still the primary consideration to put down any critter. Penetration is the next. Expansion is a gift but should never be used to give up penetration. Bullet weight is a primary consideration in penetration. That's why so many of the professionals in Africa still rely on solids for dangerous game. No hard feeling Pal, just stating things I know in 50 years in the bullet/ammo business.

I agree with what you are saying but the new monos and the stellar performance they are giving is changing the way folks think,

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Beeman
To the best of my knowledge there are no manufacturers that purposely design hunting (or defense) bullets that shed their petals. Hunting bullets perform much better when they stay intact. Any bullet that sheds mass, penetrates less and that is an indication of poor design or a bullet that has a velocity that is outside of it's velocity design envelope. The company I work for NEVER wants to see a bullet than sheds petals or comes apart in any way.

This is wrong.

 

[fishdundee]

I identify as a Berger 215 Hybrid , the most deadly 30 cal. bullet on this forum...Look me up. In all actuality, Im a 230 berger OTM. I don't know how the hell I've killed anything in the past 5 years but what do you know...I must be an anomaly...

 

[fordy]

Gday taj
What company are we talking about as I may have used so I could give you a better comparison & with specific the actual name of bullet

Of course the company I work for does design bullets that are extremely fragile and do "grenade" on impact. These bullets are designed for critters the size of prairie dogs and not big game bullets. It's going to be hard to convince me why a bullet that sheds it's petals, which reduces it to it's original caliber, leaves a "better" wound channel than an expanding bullet that retains it's weight and penetrates to vitals at a larger diameter.

Flowing on with the above I don't need to convince you I'd just ask you to clear your head

Before working where I do now, I had over 40 years experience as a firearms/ballistics examiner for a major police department. I've been to a crapload (That's almost a Sh-tload) of autopsies of gunshot victims and suspects so I've had more than a casual interest in seeing the terminal effects of some of the big game I've harvested as well, from the USA to several trips to Africa.

That's a great starting place thankyou for sharing a little background I've got none of those credentials just a bloke who was fascinated with terminal performance & documted my use from a very early age & later on as I grew up , one who needed to shoot ( cull ) to pay bills & put food on the table taking me to a few countries but I've got no need to get into what I've killed or where I've been as this is no ****ing match & let my work that I show companies speak for itself

Today im just a dumb farmer that still needs to cull a bit & also have a hunting/conservation property im ever so proud of that I like to test theories on or @ a minimum show patterns with pills but what I've learnt is from my curiosity & some veterinarians & experience where pills give good results but ever so important imo is where they have weaknesses ( still within a companies standards exception target bullets on game as those are not recommended by companies yet can kill quite well )

Most of the bullets I shoot for LE are not monolithic bullets but many of them are bonded cup and core designs that retain a large percentage of their weight through soft tissue and bone. Even the non bonded bullets are designed so that the expanding petals protect the core with the goal to prevent core jacket separation. Any lead core will shed some weight if it encounters hard enough media. Windshield glass is really tough on any bullet.

This dose not fit with your early description as now it's ok to have some shedding of weight
yes I understand glass as it was a test media I tried to simulate teeth but teeth are a different substance altogether & one I test on actual teeth on a pill's capabilities today as nothing better than actual imo

You say "they" have repeatably shown that bullets that shed weight make a better wound channel. Who is "they" and where is this testing? I've shot a lot of "jello" and have seen a lot of dead things. I may not be that smart but the company I work for has a staff of ballistic engineers larger than many ammo companies. A larger temporary or permanent would channel is always going to cause more hemorrhage/damage than a smaller wound channel.

"they " are individual bullets & sorry for the confusion but now I notice you are stating bonded now these on average retain more or shedding less weight take your pick but now we enter the last sentence is also interesting & how do you measure this in what you do & please keep this to critters not gel

On my last trip to Africa I shot a monolithic copper bullet that was designed to expand and stay intact. I had exit wounds on many antelope sized game animals that very notable and that wound channel was its entire length.

I'll leave this part for now as need more information than just words that can be interpreted in so many ways

Marketing is a wonderful thing and is often used to convince folks that a design flaw is a great advantage. Scientific premise will often say otherwise.

Totally agree on marketing & im one that pushes back fairly often on that

Exit wound from a 150 grain .30-06 at 240 yrds.

Thanks for that & I understand the anatomy & resistances that springbok present to us very well & although that is ok with respect I thought that you would have showed more relevant pictures of what actually occurred as the exit is only one part of the equation
But seeing your talking exits here's a few from various pills in & these are nothing special just what is possible once one clears one's mind

But once again only part of the equation & look forward to learning more & getting into the depths a little more
Cheers

 

[ButterBean]

Gday taj
What company are we talking about as I may have used so I could give you a better comparison & with specific the actual name of bullet

Flowing on with the above I don't need to convince you I'd just ask you to clear your head

That's a great starting place thankyou for sharing a little background I've got none of those credentials just a bloke who was fascinated with terminal performance & documted my use from a very early age & later on as I grew up , one who needed to shoot ( cull ) to pay bills & put food on the table taking me to a few countries but I've got no need to get into what I've killed or where I've been as this is no ****ing match & let my work that I show companies speak for itself

Today im just a dumb farmer that still needs to cull a bit & also have a hunting/conservation property im ever so proud of that I like to test theories on or @ a minimum show patterns with pills but what I've learnt is from my curiosity & some veterinarians & experience where pills give good results but ever so important imo is where they have weaknesses ( still within a companies standards exception target bullets on game as those are not recommended by companies yet can kill quite well )


This dose not fit with your early description as now it's ok to have some shedding of weight
yes I understand glass as it was a test media I tried to simulate teeth but teeth are a different substance altogether & one I test on actual teeth on a pill's capabilities today as nothing better than actual imo

"they " are individual bullets & sorry for the confusion but now I notice you are stating bonded now these on average retain more or shedding less weight take your pick but now we enter the last sentence is also interesting & how do you measure this in what you do & please keep this to critters not gel

I'll leave this part for now as need more information than just words that can be interpreted in so many ways

Totally agree on marketing & im one that pushes back fairly often on that

Thanks for that & I understand the anatomy & resistances that springbok present to us very well & although that is ok with respect I thought that you would have showed more relevant pictures of what actually occurred as the exit is only one part of the equation
But seeing your talking exits here's a few from various pills in & these are nothing special just what is possible once one clears one's mind
View attachment 489728View attachment 489729View attachment 489730View attachment 489731View attachment 489732View attachment 489733View attachment 489734View attachment 489735View attachment 489736View attachment 489737
But once again only part of the equation & look forward to learning more & getting into the depths a little more
Cheers

X-2