xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,683
Then it shouldn't hard to show us the groups at 700 yards, 800 yards and a mile with this combination.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Bullet Construction vs Lethality
- Thread starter nralifer
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Stokesrjsr
Well-Known Member
While this is certainly a contentious subject, I enjoy reading these threads. I am the lead engineer at a bullet manufacturer and I have done considerable ballistic gel testing and shot several hundred big game animals personally and seen several hundred more shot by others all over the world. Most at under 400 yards but a dozen or so at long range.
I do not clams to have all the answers. But I am a professional engineer and have spent a lifetime studying this subject, more than 6 decades. So, I know a lot about how various bullets perform and I routinely test our own and continually test our competitors in our ballistics lab. I have shot the majority of the big game I have killed with competitors bullets.
I do know there are three mechanisms that cause loss of mobility and/or death to the game animals we shoot.
Those are mechanical destruction of vital nerves and organs by the bullet itself, destruction of nerves and vital organ tissue by the hydrolic shock wave radiating from the bullets path, and the hydrostatic shock wave radiating through the nerves around the bullets path.
The width of the wound channel is directly related to deceleration. The greater the impact velocity and the shorter distance the deceleration occurs, the greater the diameter of the wound will be. And of course the greater the deceleration the less penetration will be
As others have already mentioned the challenge is to get both a deep and a wide path of destruction, those are opposing objectives.
So the best that can be done is to choose the appropriate bullet construction for the situation you expect to be the most common for your hunting situation and type of game animal you will be hunting.
It's easy to get deep penetration and it's easy to get a wide wound channel, it is very difficult to get both.
Lately I have been studying monolithic bullet designs.
I can tell you the most precise monolithic bullet I have tested in my 300 meter test tunnel to date is the 6.5mm Hammer Hunter but it is not the most precise at 1,000 yards due to its rapid loss of velocity, it is less than 1/4 MOA at 300 meters but will only hit an IPSC target 85.4% of the time from that same 1/4 MOA gun at 1000 yards.
The 125 grain Tipped Hammer Hunter when fired from the same gun and same load looses some precision at 300 meters (.41 MOA) but due to the higher BC gains some precision at 1000 yards raising the hit probability to 91.3%.
Conversely the 125 grain 6.5 mm Cutting Edge Lazer is .52 MOA from the same gun at 300 meters but because of it's higher BC the hit probability rises to 98.1%.
I have yet to test the 125 grain Badlands but will update this when I do.
Many other monolithic bullets I have tested are complete failures for long range applications so I won't mention them.
The main difference I see in terminal effects between the Hammer and Cutting Edge bullets I've tested is directly related to the rate with which deceleration occurs. The Hammer is a rapid deceleration due to the loss of the petals so has a wider wound channel. The Cutting Edge is a more gradual deceleration and produces a slightly narrower but also longer wound channel, both are effective at short and mid range. Long range is another story.
That's how I see things at this point in my study.
I do not clams to have all the answers. But I am a professional engineer and have spent a lifetime studying this subject, more than 6 decades. So, I know a lot about how various bullets perform and I routinely test our own and continually test our competitors in our ballistics lab. I have shot the majority of the big game I have killed with competitors bullets.
I do know there are three mechanisms that cause loss of mobility and/or death to the game animals we shoot.
Those are mechanical destruction of vital nerves and organs by the bullet itself, destruction of nerves and vital organ tissue by the hydrolic shock wave radiating from the bullets path, and the hydrostatic shock wave radiating through the nerves around the bullets path.
The width of the wound channel is directly related to deceleration. The greater the impact velocity and the shorter distance the deceleration occurs, the greater the diameter of the wound will be. And of course the greater the deceleration the less penetration will be
As others have already mentioned the challenge is to get both a deep and a wide path of destruction, those are opposing objectives.
So the best that can be done is to choose the appropriate bullet construction for the situation you expect to be the most common for your hunting situation and type of game animal you will be hunting.
It's easy to get deep penetration and it's easy to get a wide wound channel, it is very difficult to get both.
Lately I have been studying monolithic bullet designs.
I can tell you the most precise monolithic bullet I have tested in my 300 meter test tunnel to date is the 6.5mm Hammer Hunter but it is not the most precise at 1,000 yards due to its rapid loss of velocity, it is less than 1/4 MOA at 300 meters but will only hit an IPSC target 85.4% of the time from that same 1/4 MOA gun at 1000 yards.
The 125 grain Tipped Hammer Hunter when fired from the same gun and same load looses some precision at 300 meters (.41 MOA) but due to the higher BC gains some precision at 1000 yards raising the hit probability to 91.3%.
Conversely the 125 grain 6.5 mm Cutting Edge Lazer is .52 MOA from the same gun at 300 meters but because of it's higher BC the hit probability rises to 98.1%.
I have yet to test the 125 grain Badlands but will update this when I do.
Many other monolithic bullets I have tested are complete failures for long range applications so I won't mention them.
The main difference I see in terminal effects between the Hammer and Cutting Edge bullets I've tested is directly related to the rate with which deceleration occurs. The Hammer is a rapid deceleration due to the loss of the petals so has a wider wound channel. The Cutting Edge is a more gradual deceleration and produces a slightly narrower but also longer wound channel, both are effective at short and mid range. Long range is another story.
That's how I see things at this point in my study.
@xsn10s I believe he's 3,770 at 100 yds... But either way, this is probably the wrong thread for this.
@Stokesrjsr Thank-you for sharing your experiences. I agree with your assessments and experiences. Looking forward to hearing more.
@Stokesrjsr Thank-you for sharing your experiences. I agree with your assessments and experiences. Looking forward to hearing more.
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,683
Yup you are correct or at least that's what his picture says.
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,683
So am I supposed to assume his load is at 4100 fps MV?
Something tells me he's around 4 grand or more at the gate, but don't know for sure. Just saw you last post. I'm guessing you're right. He cooks em raw.
BB is a good guy, but I doubt he considers himself a BR or group shooter. He's a nuts-and-bolts deer hunter and what he's doing works great in his application. BB can correct me if I'm wrong. Never met each other...but we kinda "read" one another on here.
Last edited:
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,683
Do you have a ballistics lab to measure chamber pressures?
As they say, 1,800 fps is a conservative low-end threshold. I have a feeling it'd do just fine at 1,600 but haven't tried it. BB was talking generalities. He's not a "books" guy. Let's give each other space to be great at what we do within each of our respective limits and applications.
As I was saying in my note to @nralifer, I'd like to see some terminal testing results across the lower and upper velocity design limits of various monos to see how they meet their stated parameters.
As I was saying in my note to @nralifer, I'd like to see some terminal testing results across the lower and upper velocity design limits of various monos to see how they meet their stated parameters.
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,683
Down at 1700 fps they'd have around 970 ft/lbs of energy.
Energy isn't so important with these. It's whether the petals break off or not. Velocity is the magic button with the design. Have you run any monos into game? I can't recall you posting personal terminal hunting results? Not a gotcha intent here, but trying to understand where you come from in your contributions.
