Bullet Construction vs Lethality

[ButterBean]

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.

As said above this is wrong

 

[BEEMAN]

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

Fordy. Were all those animals shot with a copper bullet? Mushroom or shedding petals? Impressive exit wounds.

 

[FEENIX]

I know that this thread is turning into kind of a s*** show. Certainly not my intention, but I felt I had to defend myself in as a polite way as I could.

Sad but true!

 

[Teri Anne]

IIRC, James at Barbour Creek did a few with different bullets.

What were the results?

 

[cohunt]

What were the results?

I think Barbour creek has a you tube channel where you can look at all their videos. Iirc in the past he jas tested quite a few bullets in 20% gel

I know a guy that works as a subcontractor for federal ammunition co--- he does some bullet testing for them-- what he has found is that a 1000 yard gel block shot is not the same as a 10 yard shot that has been slowed down to 1000 yard velocities---- reason being is that the bullet rpm is higher at 1000 y when shot at full muzzle velocity than if slowed down to replicate 1000 velocities.

The bullet rpm on impact has a lot to do with how the bullet expands, tracks, and creates the wound cavity.....so a replicated 1000y velocity shot at close range can show characteristics of what would happen at 1000y but it's not always true to actual distance shots



It has also been proven in gel that a flat faced bullet profile can create very large wound channels compared to a more rounded (mushroomed) profile....the flat face can cause more distruption of the internal fluids causing larger wound channels. That is why hard cast or solid bullets are often used for dangerous game as they track straighter, Pentwater deeper, and have fairly large wound channels.

It all depends on what you are looking for -- for leo pistol bullet testing-- you would want a bullet that penetrates deeply but not too deep as to cause overpenetration and possibly secondary casualties-- fast mushrooming bullets at pistol speeds cause large internal trauma--- but for rifle hunting-- a bullet that expands too fast or violently may not fully reach internal organs at oblique angles -- also the speeds of rifle bullets cause hydraulic shock just from the speeds alone.

So there are many designs of bullets-- slow mushrooming, slow solids, fast cup/core explosive, fast bonded mushrooming, fast or slow with large cutting petals, fast separating pedals with flat faced deep penetrating bases, etc

Each has its specific design characteristics that help it do what it is designed to do--- we don't all hunt hogs with 9mm pistols at 15 yards, as we don't all hunt elk at 1500 yards with a cheytac either. Know your bullets design characteristics and choose it according to what you need

 

[FEENIX]

What were the results?

That depends on which bullet, I.e., he prefers the 140 over the 156 Berger.

 

[ButterBean]

Fordy. Were all those animals shot with a copper bullet? Mushroom or shedding petals? Impressive exit wounds.

He's getting his beauty sleep right now but he'll be along directly

 

[Snowboy]

I'm starting this thread to discuss issues regarding the materials, design and construction of rifle hunting bullets in so far as it relates to lethality, which, for the purposes of the thread, will be defined as the ability of the bullet to penetrate deeply at any impact angle or distance up to 1000 yds to reach vital organs and effect a one shot kill rapidly. Factors to consider are BC, ductility of bullet material, caliber, muzzle velocity, accuracy (<1MOA), weight retention, type of expansion ( petal vs mushrooming vs explosive vs petal shedding).

After much discussion and agreeing to disagree it would seem to me that it is going to be far more difficult to find a bullet which will not perform than one that will be lethal.
I would be more concerned about what caliber you pick. Hmm.....

 

[fordy]

Fordy. Were all those animals shot with a copper bullet? Mushroom or shedding petals? Impressive exit wounds.

Gday beeman
shedding except one I think but I'll have to check them & my notes as I was going to do a comparison of the shedding & mushroom initially but the site would only let me post that many which is probably a good thing lol as I hadn't started
Yep I've got a lot of the mushroom monos also along with frangible & bonded also true solids over multiple brands /styles & looking forward to taj response to explain his position on the exit side of thing's

But I'll stand by my statement on a exit is only part of the equation & more needs to be understood than just looking good as a couple of those exits while looking pretty impressive we're totally crap @ actually killing quickly

While not scientific the fur calculator has done a extremely good job over the years of showing what works where

Those pictures are from multiple companies

Cheers

 

[fordy]

Gday cohunt

I think Barbour creek has a you tube channel where you can look at all their videos. Iirc in the past he jas tested quite a few bullets in 20% gel

I know a guy that works as a subcontractor for federal ammunition co--- he does some bullet testing for them-- what he has found is that a 1000 yard gel block shot is not the same as a 10 yard shot that has been slowed down to 1000 yard velocities---- reason being is that the bullet rpm is higher at 1000 y when shot at full muzzle velocity than if slowed down to replicate 1000 velocities.

The bullet rpm on impact has a lot to do with how the bullet expands, tracks, and creates the wound cavity.....so a replicated 1000y velocity shot at close range can show characteristics of what would happen at 1000y but it's not always true to actual distance shots



It has also been proven in gel that a flat faced bullet profile can create very large wound channels compared to a more rounded (mushroomed) profile....the flat face can cause more distruption of the internal fluids causing larger wound channels. That is why hard cast or solid bullets are often used for dangerous game as they track straighter, Pentwater deeper, and have fairly large wound channels.

It all depends on what you are looking for -- for leo pistol bullet testing-- you would want a bullet that penetrates deeply but not too deep as to cause overpenetration and possibly secondary casualties-- fast mushrooming bullets at pistol speeds cause large internal trauma--- but for rifle hunting-- a bullet that expands too fast or violently may not fully reach internal organs at oblique angles -- also the speeds of rifle bullets cause hydraulic shock just from the speeds alone.

So there are many designs of bullets-- slow mushrooming, slow solids, fast cup/core explosive, fast bonded mushrooming, fast or slow with large cutting petals, fast separating pedals with flat faced deep penetrating bases, etc

Each has its specific design characteristics that help it do what it is designed to do--- we don't all hunt hogs with 9mm pistols at 15 yards, as we don't all hunt elk at 1500 yards with a cheytac either. Know your bullets design characteristics and choose it according to what you need

Nice
Cheers

 

[Teri Anne]

Gday cohunt

Nice
Cheers

Well that partially answered the original question, but not. Replications, even though done in a most scientific manner cannot replicate the real thing. Thinking something will work like this is not the same as actually seeing what happens in a real life scenario. The other part of the question was how many shots did it take to actually hit the gel target? It has been my experience that on a established 1000 yard range, with a target rifle it is not all that easy to put a shot in the 10 - X ring of a 1000 yard target, much less out in the wilderness dealing with shifting and gusting winds. The sweet spot on an Elk measures around 10 inches which is 1 MOA at 1000 yards. Doing a shot like this with a hunting rifle under way less than ideal conditions while not possible, is highly improbable for a first round hit in the bread basket. The other thing that while hunting bullets these days closely approximate match grade bullets for accuracy, I would still like to see the penetration and bullet expansion results of a bullet into the gel at 1000 yards, not something simulated. I think that the results would be enlightening. Maybe one of the ammo manufacturers would like to take on this challenge, but then again probably not since it might disprove accuracy and expansion claims.

 

[Barehandlineman11]

I've ordered everything including the 203hht hammers to do that test. I was originally going to do 100 and 1000 but thinking about it I think every company does 100. And off people's interest of up close. Im thinking 40 yards and 1000. Im thinking after with best bullets in the 30 cal ill do a gel test with a scabula in the mold. Get better idea how these 6.5 will do at 1000.

Well that partially answered the original question, but not. Replications, even though done in a most scientific manner cannot replicate the real thing. Thinking something will work like this is not the same as actually seeing what happens in a real life scenario. The other part of the question was how many shots did it take to actually hit the gel target? It has been my experience that on a established 1000 yard range, with a target rifle it is not all that easy to put a shot in the 10 - X ring of a 1000 yard target, much less out in the wilderness dealing with shifting and gusting winds. The sweet spot on an Elk measures around 10 inches which is 1 MOA at 1000 yards. Doing a shot like this with a hunting rifle under way less than ideal conditions while not possible, is highly improbable for a first round hit in the bread basket. The other thing that while hunting bullets these days closely approximate match grade bullets for accuracy, I would still like to see the penetration and bullet expansion results of a bullet into the gel at 1000 yards, not something simulated. I think that the results would be enlightening. Maybe one of the ammo manufacturers would like to take on this challenge, but then again probably not since it might disprove accuracy and expansion claims.

 

[xsn10s]

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.

I felt a great disturbance in the Force.

 

[xsn10s]

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.

For LE I'd see a mono as being a detriment even for glass penetration. I haven't tested it but I'd expect a good amount of deflection. especially on those that shed petals.