hunter67wa
Well-Known Member
Sure we can agree to disagree as I have been privy to studies and have participated in them. have acquaintances at Qauntico and have sat with Pathologists and attended conferences and autopsies. Believe what you want.
Energy Transfer or penetration.
- Thread starter J E Custom
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
That feller shoots tens of thousands of rounds a year. He has to as a profession shooter...lucky.
He is amazing, you should watch some of his shows.
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
The perfect hunting bullet would instantly deform upon contact. Take on a flat frontal area like a flat based bullet fired backwards. Then pass through the animal with zero vel loss. The speed with which the bullet moves through thevital tissue is directly relative to the amount of permanent wound it makes. The slower The bullet gets the less damage it does. This is the problem with bullets that stop in the animal. They don't hit the brakes on the far side. They slow down until they stop doing less and less damage as they slow down. No way to make a bullet that doesn't slow down while passing through so we have to design to the physics.
We need to tear the vital tissue to bleed out. I do believe there is shock, I don't believe there is energy dump.
We need to tear the vital tissue to bleed out. I do believe there is shock, I don't believe there is energy dump.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
Amazing he held it to one shot! I'm used to seeing him run a cylinder, dump a full mag, and reload in just a couple of seconds.
laker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 1,581
A lot of people dont like them but the nosler long range accubonds have performed just as you described for me anyways
ATH
Well-Known Member
Most shot with handguns? That's an entirely different argument. Low velocity handguns and high power rifles kill in different ways.
But your thesis that only CNS or blood loss kills is already wrong, and demonstratably so scientifically. If you shoot a deer through both lungs it will die of lack of oxygen to the brain from inoperable lungs long before it has time to die of actual blood loss causing lack of oxygen. Often the same with a heart shot. It's not the LOSS of blood, but the inability to get it to the brain. But I'm just a biologist so what do I know...
I agree with J E's assessment of the ideal performing bullet. I like the 240 XTP out of my 44Mag Ruger carbine. A double lung shot under 100 yards reliably results in a two holes, with a nicely mushroomed jacket caught in the far side hide with the lead exiting. Easy (and SHORT) tracking jobs.
Haha, yep! You notice how quickly he recovers from recoil, he had four moves in his head.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
If I were going to Africa this is exactly what I would chose on dangerous game. The PH's call it raking the vitals, And in order to do that most use very heavy bullets that are very tough (Sometimes solid's are used that will penetrate 3 or 4 feet of very tough game) Big bore bullets transfer more energy by the nature of their size and velocity. The 460 Weatherby produces between 7500 and 8500 ft/lbs
of energy and is capable of taking down anything if the correct bullet is used for the game.
Smaller thin skinned game does not require a heavy non expanding bullet, so the choice will have to be different. Pelt hunting requires a totally different bullet type. Fortunately, we have a great selection to chose from for the game hunted.
J E CUSTOM
I suspect the reason this thread began with a delayed response was not for lack of interest in the subject. It is simply the case that terminal ballistics is an area we know much less about than other aspects of shooting, so it tends to produce inconclusive discussions where everyone departs with the same views with which they started. Each of us finds their camp and tends to stay put.
Killing factors, foot-pounds of energy thresholds, the list goes on. They're all just rules of thumb, because we don't have anything better. I'd like to think that one of these days we will achieve better tools for unpacking the relative importance of penetration, damage from bullet expansion (energy), effects of bullet shape, etc. regarding modern hunting rifle cartridges. But right now, the science is weak.
Geez, now you've got my mind onto terminal ballistics, so I'm going to go against my own post and talk more about it.
Mr. Miculek focuses on the impressive energy transfer of the 200 grain (first) round, and laments that the 395 grain (2nd & 3rd) round would exit the far side of game and waste energy on the ground.
Here's an alternate view. I look at the permanent damage done in the ballistic gel. I see the 200 gr (1st) bullet produced an impressive cavity in the first 5 inches, then about 6 more inches of permanent wound channel, then the bullet traveled about 4 more inches (total of 15). The wound channel isn't visible for the last 4 inches, because the gel collapsed back in on itself; i.e., the damage wasn't permanent. Gel is elastic. That's one of the reasons its a reasonable proxy for tissue, because tissue is elastic. So if that bullet were traveling through an animal torso that was 14" wide, it would have nicely dropped out the far side, as some seem to prefer. But I doubt it would have bled much out that far hole, because the wound channel had collapsed. Undoubtedly, the initial fist-sized cavity in the first 5 inches would have caused massive internal damage though.
The 395 gr bullet was just the opposite. It did produce a cavity (smaller) in the first 5 inches (the bullet must have deformed some), and then continued to produce a permanent wound channel that extended to about 30" on the last bullet. That suggests to me that it would have caused considerable damage due to the cavity (though less), and would have produced a sizable and permanent exit wound in any animal torso less than 30" wide. That wound channel would have produced further massive damage its entire route and bled from both sides.
So what does that mean? Perhaps on smaller game (deer and less), the massive initial cavity is fine. But anything more than 11" wide and I'd give up some initial cavity for the longer wound channel. The extent to which the gel bounces on the table, or not, is not that important to me.
Last, and Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of Hammer bullets is that they're designed to combine the two wounds we see in the video. They expand quickly after penetration (large initial cavity), and then the solid shank continues to penetrate deeply, exiting the far side with velocity and producing a permanent wound channel all the way through, even on large animals. Which is why I like them.
Mr. Miculek focuses on the impressive energy transfer of the 200 grain (first) round, and laments that the 395 grain (2nd & 3rd) round would exit the far side of game and waste energy on the ground.
Here's an alternate view. I look at the permanent damage done in the ballistic gel. I see the 200 gr (1st) bullet produced an impressive cavity in the first 5 inches, then about 6 more inches of permanent wound channel, then the bullet traveled about 4 more inches (total of 15). The wound channel isn't visible for the last 4 inches, because the gel collapsed back in on itself; i.e., the damage wasn't permanent. Gel is elastic. That's one of the reasons its a reasonable proxy for tissue, because tissue is elastic. So if that bullet were traveling through an animal torso that was 14" wide, it would have nicely dropped out the far side, as some seem to prefer. But I doubt it would have bled much out that far hole, because the wound channel had collapsed. Undoubtedly, the initial fist-sized cavity in the first 5 inches would have caused massive internal damage though.
The 395 gr bullet was just the opposite. It did produce a cavity (smaller) in the first 5 inches (the bullet must have deformed some), and then continued to produce a permanent wound channel that extended to about 30" on the last bullet. That suggests to me that it would have caused considerable damage due to the cavity (though less), and would have produced a sizable and permanent exit wound in any animal torso less than 30" wide. That wound channel would have produced further massive damage its entire route and bled from both sides.
So what does that mean? Perhaps on smaller game (deer and less), the massive initial cavity is fine. But anything more than 11" wide and I'd give up some initial cavity for the longer wound channel. The extent to which the gel bounces on the table, or not, is not that important to me.
Last, and Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of Hammer bullets is that they're designed to combine the two wounds we see in the video. They expand quickly after penetration (large initial cavity), and then the solid shank continues to penetrate deeply, exiting the far side with velocity and producing a permanent wound channel all the way through, even on large animals. Which is why I like them.
hunter67wa
Well-Known Member
hunter67wa
Well-Known Member
lol we are talking about stopping with cns unless it is brain hit which will kill and killing by blood loss. I have seen a lot of things die and not die unfortunately half of that was humans. You will die of blood loss much quicker than O2 deprivation. But like I said we can agree to disagree.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
Now I'm Happy 
At least you guys are looking and thinking about terminal performance of our bullets.
Lately everyone (At least most) are talking only about bullet BC's and they are important at long range, but there is more to terminal performance than BC's and sometimes this part of the process is very important.
The difference of opinions doesn't matter as much to me as long as Terminal performance is considered. We all like different things and bullet performance is no different. One other thing that is important to me, is consistency. I have seen bullets perform very consistently shot to shot on specific game and other bullets that left me scratching my head as to why the performed differently on the same game and shot placement. Lets face it sometimes a bullet just doesn't perform the way we would want it to, But one shot should not determine if it is a poor bullet for the use or not.
I like to trend a bullets performance and after several failures, then pass judgment on them. There are so many different factors that can determine a bullets total Performance that it takes more than one failure (Based on what I expect) that I try and give it a chance unless it fails miserably and cause great concern as to further use.
Getting upset if someone doesn't agree with them doesn't do any good in a debate, but the different opinions do. Apparently there is a lot of different opinions on what actually kills, so this post has been a success as far as I am concerned.
J E CUSTOM
At least you guys are looking and thinking about terminal performance of our bullets.
Lately everyone (At least most) are talking only about bullet BC's and they are important at long range, but there is more to terminal performance than BC's and sometimes this part of the process is very important.
The difference of opinions doesn't matter as much to me as long as Terminal performance is considered. We all like different things and bullet performance is no different. One other thing that is important to me, is consistency. I have seen bullets perform very consistently shot to shot on specific game and other bullets that left me scratching my head as to why the performed differently on the same game and shot placement. Lets face it sometimes a bullet just doesn't perform the way we would want it to, But one shot should not determine if it is a poor bullet for the use or not.
I like to trend a bullets performance and after several failures, then pass judgment on them. There are so many different factors that can determine a bullets total Performance that it takes more than one failure (Based on what I expect) that I try and give it a chance unless it fails miserably and cause great concern as to further use.
Getting upset if someone doesn't agree with them doesn't do any good in a debate, but the different opinions do. Apparently there is a lot of different opinions on what actually kills, so this post has been a success as far as I am concerned.
J E CUSTOM
hunter67wa
Well-Known Member
Sorry ATH fat fingers on the keyboard.
You are correct that O2 starvation is it as seen by the Fick principle. But the blood is key as it transports the 02. The faster the bood loss then the quicker 02 starvation. But the blood loss is what we were talking about and we are in agreement.
Cheeers
