Think on this.
Here's two 30 cal projos with practically the same energy at the muzzle.
124 grain at a mv of 4200 fps.
215 grain at a mv of 3200 fps.
IF we shot an animal at a distance of 10 feet, and IF both projos performed exactly the same when they entered said animal, which on would kill better/faster?
Let's give this thought to different animals also.
Coyote
Deer/antelope
Elk
Moose/bear
T-Rex.
This is going to be partly in response to this given scenario I'm replying to, and partly in response to the original post itself. So it's not a response aimed at anyone in particular.
So comparing the 124gr Hammer to the 215gr Berger, mass-wise, we're talking a difference of .187 vs .324, in the form of sectional density. This helps us compare their mass more proportionally. We're also talking about a huge difference in construction and mechanics of how they work.
From what I've seen and experienced so far, bullets like Hammer varieties, Apex Outdoors Afterburners, LeHigh Defense Controlled Chaos, Cutting Edge varieties, etc are all frangible in design, due to the fact they are purposely designed to shed weight and have the entire ogive section come apart after impact and shed away from the rest of the projectile.
So with that said, they still should have a decent amount of starting mass since they're designed to shed a lot of weight, just like a soft/frangible lead core bullet. They need the retained mass in order to retain momentum. That will ensure they still produce adequate hydraulic force as they continue penetrating. If they lose too much momentum, and/or not a wide enough surface area, penciling will still occur because the amount of hydraulic force produced will greatly reduce. The lower amount of surface area though tends to allow them to not completely stop forward momentum, compared to a mushroomed lead core with a wider surface area.
A soft/frangible lead core bullet, such as a Berger, with plenty of mass will still shed a lot of weight, but it'll also still end up more mushroomed than those listed monos. So that helps still produce wide wounding from hydraulic force even if they lose a lot of momentum as a result.
The following pictures give a basic look at some numbers regarding momentum and using the scenario already given with the 124gr Hammer at a MV of 4200fps and the 215gr Berger at a MV of 3200fps. The figures on amount of mass lost and amount of velocity lost is an estimation based on typical or advertised results, but obviously isn't a guarantee since getting those actual numbers will be pretty impossible to obtain. So take this for whatever it may be worth. Maybe it's worth nothing to you, and I'm fine with that. I feel it's pretty representative though to the real world. Also, the percentage of mass lost and velocity lost is in reference to after impact and after the main shedding of weight has occurred. The mass lost is the same for the Hammer at close and longer range because it seems that amount stays pretty consistent as long as the petals all completely separate. The Berger will vary based on impact velocity and impact resistance and that's why it's different. It'll obviously lose more mass with higher impact velocities and more resistance, hence why the numbers are what they are.
So if you look at simple cause and effect, and action/reaction, certain selling points with certain petal-shedding monos can be contradictory.
How can a bullet with less momentum and less mass penetrate completely, yet also produce the same or more hydraulic force (amount of wounding)? A huge amount of hydraulic force will create an opposing force to forward momentum. This is why even with more momentum a bullet like a Berger often doesn't exit. It sheds weight, but also still continues to mushroom. The fact that it still has more momentum but doesn't exit, yet retains a lot of mass, shows us it produced a ton of hydraulic force and that arrested the forward momentum rapidly.
***Also, in regards to the subject of energy specifically, the whole "bubble" terminology seems to be misunderstood. From my summation, it's a made up term for what the bullet does as it enters and then travels through an animal. The same people that say energy dump and energy transfer isn't real use this term, so I've seen.
In reality, it is indeed energy transfer and hydraulic force and hydrostatic shock. The confusion of these terms seems to also come in part by things like that "Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories" paper, which there's already been a discussion on about its legitimacy and the background of the writer and no one seems to really know who this person really is and their actual experience, nor have I seen anyone figure out how to contact this person. So a separate reality and terminology has been created and in my opinion, it doesn't lineup with actual reality and actual science, at least not completely and as stated.
The term "bubble" has been used to ultimately refer to the huge rise in pressure inside the chest cavity from the bullet expanding, then coming apart, and the extreme velocity itself.
What that actually is though is energy transfer and hydraulic force being produced as a result. Hydraulic force will literally apply pressure against what it is being exerted upon, therefore the outward pressure within the chest cavity will increase and cause the whole ribcage to expand. We see the same sort of thing with gel, as the whole block expands and shape-shifts upon impact. High speed camera footage shows us the hydraulic force and energy transfer much clearer. This is shown well in post #107. This effect, specifically the amount of energy transferred and hydraulic force produced, is highly dependent upon bullet construction and how the bullet behaves upon impact. Not all perform the same and produce the same results.
Onto another point: using large magnum cartridges and/or large calibers vs short action cartridges and/or smaller calibers. First off, I do use large magnums and will continue to do so because there are practical reasons to do so. I'm not too naive though to think you have to use a magnum, 30cal minimum, and like a 200gr or heavier bullet with around 1500 or so foot pounds of energy, minimum, in order to be most successful. I use a lot of smaller cartridges and smaller calibers too, with the same success rate. Ultimately, the bullet is the hero, not the cartridge or even caliber size.
What cartridge is needed really depends. With certain bullets, certain distances needed, and certain game, sure a big magnum or large caliber might be what you want. But when you start tweaking things like exactly what bullet you're using (and in the right direction), you can still achieve desired results with much smaller cartridges, less powder, lighter bullets, lower recoil, etc. That's because you can create proper wounding and trauma still by using the right bullet. You can still do what is needed with less kinetic energy in the bullet because you're still untimely getting the actual amount of needed energy from the bullet and transferred directly into the wounding. That's what it's all about.
That's why shedding weight with bullets after impact works so well. There just needs to be enough starting mass so that there's also enough retained mass to keep the wounding going all the way through the vitals.
And thanks to the huge demand for high BC bullets nowadays, we have smaller caliber bullets, constructed with thin jackets and no bonding, that have plenty of mass (to get the increase in BC), plus cartridges coming out to get the most out of them with great efficiency.
The only people still having issues are those that do not understand bullet construction and terminal ballistics and are still picking the wrong bullet for the job or wrong combination with a particular cartridge and then placing it in a poor location for the particular scenario presented.
And while I'm talking about it, I've known since LeHigh Defense introduced their copper bullets that shed weight (petals), that that's the way to go with monos in order to truly get the best results in the form of productive energy transfer and hydraulic shock production. They still weren't perfect though and still had other hurdles to get over in order to really get the most from them.
That basic principle design is actually good. The design to shed weight and still have a surface that produces hydraulic force is crucial for best results. It allows for a rapid transfer of energy without losing too much momentum as it still produces hydraulic forces and wide wounding.
What hurdles still remain though are staying competitive with long range capability (low impact velocity performance and ability to retain as much velocity as possible), reliable and consistent expansion and full shedding of the petals without issues caused by necking over, tumbling, or not expanding at all, and cost.
We've seen certain companies do well, and others not so much.
memtb
