Bullet Construction vs Lethality

No offense @memtb 😉 Can't say I disagree with you. I was just curious is all. I'm pretty shy about anything that has a high "failure" rate or requires perfect shot opportunities to perform. That's why I use monos almost exclusively for hunting. At least if a rifle takes to one I'm satisfied with.

Northkill, our conversation got me to thinking about my new (to me) Barnes LRX and the minimal velocity required for expansion.

Their info says 1600 (for all LRX's), internet research indicated that different bullets required different velocities! You can call Barnes for your specific bullet velocity needed.

I don know what their test medium is or the validity of their #'s, but the man told me that mine will give 1.7 x original diameter @ 1600 fps. That gets me over 1100 yards…..much farther than I'll ever consider shooting! memtb
 
Northkill, our conversation got me to thinking about my new (to me) Barnes LRX and the minimal velocity required for expansion.

Their info says 1600 (for all LRX's), internet research indicated that different bullets required different velocities! You can call Barnes for your specific bullet velocity needed.

I don know what their test medium is or the validity of their #'s, but the man told me that mine will give 1.7 x original diameter @ 1600 fps. That gets me over 1100 yards…..much farther than I'll ever consider shooting! memtb
I've more or less moved on from the Barnes though I'm not against them. I have all the specs for the bullets I test. If I had the time I'd be trying them all in gel at their stated minimum velocities to see how they measure up.
 
Sincere question. I've always wondered how the MB's would work on deer. Never tried them myself at all. How much experience have you had with that application? Any special tricks to bullet prep to prevent terminal "failures"?
I haven't used them on big game. I'm still vetting them on predators and varmints. Pretty impressed so far. RS they have used the 140 MB up to cow elk out past 800 yards. I believe that's out of a 6.5 CM
 
I usually clear tips with the same size opening of the bullet. If i can't get an opening measurement I open to around 0.020", but it's to make sure tips are open rather than to enlarge openings.
 
I think that perhaps I would need a clear definition of "kill rapidly"!

Unless the hunter is hunting a very small parcel surrounded by private property ….most big game can cover 100 yards in only a matter of seconds!

For DRT, this usually requires a CNS shot, or a relatively small big game animal…..while avoiding any raking shots (deep penetration required) or hitting heavy bone!

As mentioned…..there aren't any magic bullets! memtb
I always felt this is an interesting topic indeed. 50+ years ago,when I started Big Game Hunting , it was "Dogma" that a bullet should not slip its core& retain as much unfired weight, as possible. Then...wait for it: along comes ASquare with its Lion load! Designed to penetrate & then fragment! I almost fell off my chair after reading that. But after mulling over that , I can see that would increase shock. So which is best?(hold tight,or fragment?) I,m still wondering 🤔! Let's just place our shot as Jack O,Connor taught us!
 
I always felt this is an interesting topic indeed. 50+ years ago,when I started Big Game Hunting , it was "Dogma" that a bullet should not slip its core& retain as much unfired weight, as possible. Then...wait for it: along comes ASquare with its Lion load! Designed to penetrate & then fragment! I almost fell off my chair after reading that. But after mulling over that , I can see that would increase shock. So which is best?(hold tight,or fragment?) I,m still wondering 🤔! Let's just place our shot as Jack O,Connor taught us!

And use a cartridge that Elmer would approve of! 😉 memtb
 
And use a cartridge that Elmer would approve of! 😉 memtb
Started of with 330WBY (for 10 years), moved down to 30.06 (for about 20 years) and now I just use the .270. I do have a cartridge for every occasion, but for Texas deer its my M70 in 270. I have reloaded for it, but I don't bother for that one. Just have a few boxes left of Powerpoint and Corelokt. I do load for 30.06 but in a pinch, factory works. If I need to reach out and touch someone, 338LM will do that, and a 300 grain 375H&H will stop most all.
 
Started of with 330WBY (for 10 years), moved down to 30.06 (for about 20 years) and now I just use the .270. I do have a cartridge for every occasion, but for Texas deer its my M70 in 270. I have reloaded for it, but I don't bother for that one. Just have a few boxes left of Powerpoint and Corelokt. I do load for 30.06 but in a pinch, factory works. If I need to reach out and touch someone, 338LM will do that, and a 300 grain 375H&H will stop most all.

I'm a card carrying member of the Elmer Keith cult/fan club!

Mr. Keith was with several hunters around a campfire when he was asked what he considered to be the perfect cartridge, his reputed response went something like this…… "something that'll throw a camp stove @ 3000 fps."!

I can proudly say that I approve that message…..and attempt to follow that advice! 😁😉 memtb
 
When we began our journey into making bullets, we knew that we wanted to open the nose of the bullet like a banana and shed those petals to achieve a flat front retained shank. Like shooting a flat based bullet backward. Again based on the Rathcoombe physics paper showing this form to create the largest wound channel and longest penetration. In the beginning we gave no thought to the process of shedding weight or what that shed weight did. Animal testing showed us that there was something to the shedding. Several things actually. 1st, there is a shock that happens that moment of opening and shedding. Much greater than a bullet that opens but retains all of it's weight. I'll come back to this. 2nd, without shedding the frontal area of the bullet becomes too large causing it to slow down too rapidly robbing it of its ability to make a large permanent wound channel. Remember vital tissue is elastic and the faster an object goes through it the more permanent disruption it makes. As a bullet slows the wound that it makes becomes smaller until it stops where is no longer makes any wound. Too large a frontal area and a rounded shape lessen the wounding. 3rd, the shed weight increases the stability of the retained shank aiding in longer straight line, meplat forward, penetration. 4th, a flat front retained shank is less likely to deflect off angled bone impacts. Whether it is edge of bone or angled shots. Again, better straight line penetration. 5th, the wounding that happens from the shed pieces as they pass through the animal. Yep, that's right. the shed petals from our bullet often exit the far side around the exit from the retained shank. Radiating at a very slight angle. This greatly increases the total area of the permanent wound channel.

Back to number 1. We control the amount of shed weight based on how deep we make the hollow point. This shed weight will remain the same with high or low velocity impacts. This is due to the raw material that we use, not any kind of scoring or broaching done to the bullet. @nralifer is correct about the brittle coppers breaking and tearing too much. We used that copper in the beginning because we could get it to shed but it is very velocity dependent on how much bullet weight would be retained. Too deep a HP and it would come undone to several pieces at low vel. Too shallow and it would not lose enough weight and would break the nose off into a newly pointed bullet. Not good, but all we could find at the time and other big companies used it. High vel is easy with almost all copper. Back to our copper. If this shedding weight is a good thing, then shedding more is a better thing. Right? Well, that turns out not to be true. There is a dwell time that takes place during the moment that the bullet opens and sheds. If not shedding enough it lessens the shock and the extra wounding done by the shed pieces. If shedding too much, it takes longer for it to happen and too much bullet vel is lost to the process of shedding, lessening the size of the permanent wound channel due to lack of vel and lack of penetration. Over the years we have made some of our hollow points deeper and now in some cases coming nearly full circle to where we started. Not quite, still shedding more than what we started out doing. As a formula guy, this frustrating because there is no formula to it. Depends on nose length, and caliber, along with sectional density and other things. Over time it has become more of a feeling when looking at a new bullet design and determining how much of it to shed to get the most out of it.

Tips are another thing. I swore that Hammer Bullets would never have a tip. The tip is just a plug in the hole that has to be evacuated in order to get fluid into the hollow point to expand the bullet from the inside out. We tried aluminum tips and copper tips. They inhibited low vel performance and would break out to the side, causing irregular deformation and deflecting, along with changing direction of travel. Unpredictable straight line penetration. We had pretty well written off tips. As long range guys we wanted them to work in the worst way but there was no way we could market a bullet that had a lesser terminal performance than our current line of bullets. Consistent terminal performance matters more than anything else. Now we have a line of tipped bullets. Our good buddy @pickens72 came out to visit a bit over a year ago and pushed us to make a tipped bullet. We gave in, mostly to prove to him that it wouldn't work. This time we designed around a particular tip design of poly. Dang if it didn't work. I don't want to give him too much credit, it'll go to his head! So we set out testing on animals for the next year and tweaking as we went. We were personally part of over 100 animal tests and we also got them into the hands of others that shot more animals than we did. Particularly @fordy who set out to make it fail and couldn't. I know he pushed something close 1000 animals in his testing. He can verify the numbers. This design does not deflect like other tipped bullets on angled bone shots and we are actually seeing better terminal results at low to mid range impact velocity. 2800 fps down the wound channel stays the same. Defying common knowledge that the wound will get smaller with less vel. Has to do with tip material, bullet material, and how the two are married together. Again no broaching or scoring of the bullet to encourage deformation, maintaining the proper amount of force and time needed for full deformation and shedding, maximizing the initial shock from deformation and keeping the shed petals on the same straight line penetration of the retained shank.

I am not trying to P in anyone's cheerios. I think @nralifer is making a fine product and he looks at this from a different angle than I do. I do like talking about material and design to reach the end goal of the best possible product. I think we all (in the business) strive to make better. This is just some of the evolution of how we got to this point so far.
 
Yea I am a cult.jpg
 
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.
Do you make copper or lead based bullets or both?
 
I've yet to find a bullet that wasn't lethal. Lucky I guess.
Perhaps, but with the OP's parameters, it complicates things ...

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).
 
Top