My thoughts on solid copper bullets and in comparison to other bullet types.

[Petey308]

Part 2 of the rest of the pictures (the rest are on page 23):

 

[nealm66]

Very cool

 

[IHFarmer07]

The rest of the pictures:

View attachment 319244View attachment 319245View attachment 319246View attachment 319247View attachment 319248View attachment 319249

Awesome show n tell there!! I do have a question, is it me or is it an optical elision that the first hammer picture the hammer bullet looks to be oddly shaped the second horizontal line down from the top?

Also Petey, would you want a few first gen Badlands's bullets to dissect? I'll send them to you, just pm me if interested. I'm curious at what the difference is between the first and second generation Badlands's bullets.

 

[Petey308]

Awesome show n tell there!! I do have a question, is it me or is it an optical elision that the first hammer picture the hammer bullet looks to be oddly shaped the second horizontal line down from the top?

Also Petey, would you want a few first gen Badlands's bullets to dissect? I'll send them to you, just pm me if interested. I'm curious at what the difference is between the first and second generation Badlands's bullets.

It's definitely an optical illusion lol. It's up to you if you want to send them. If definitely open them up for you to see. I'd be curious too.

 

[IHFarmer07]

It's definitely an optical illusion lol. It's up to you if you want to send them. If definitely open them up for you to see. I'd be curious too.

Okie dokie, pm'd ya.

I've even offered to send simple minded feller on YouTube some bullets to test on gel but I got nothing back from him, kinda want to see the gel performance of them.

I sent 22pcs of 130 .264 fed terminal ascents to barbourcreek shooting school and never seen them use them in a gel test….was kinda disappointed, they were/are kinda inconsistent though, the lengths and the weights were all over and might would be hard to get a long range load out of them.

 

[FEENIX]

Got a few more bullets cross-sectioned, of the homogeneous/monolithic/solid variety. The differences with all these are very interesting. The Bulldozer 2 is the only one with a cavity made in a star pattern. I'm sure that helps a bit with forming petals, but the cavity isn't very deep. The Cayuga definitely has the shallowest cavity, and it's not very wide at all. That makes me feel like it would be the least reliable and definitely would need a good deal of impact velocity for best results. The Hammer has the deepest cavity, but it's still very small in diameter. Thanks for sending me these @FEENIX!

View attachment 319234View attachment 319235View attachment 319243View attachment 319236View attachment 319237View attachment 319238View attachment 319239View attachment 319240View attachment 319241View attachment 319242

No, Sir, I should be the one thanking you for your time and efforts in sharing this information for all of us to learn and ponder. Keep up the excellent work.

 

[Petey308]

Okie dokie, pm'd ya.

I've even offered to send simple minded feller on YouTube some bullets to test on gel but I got nothing back from him, kinda want to see the gel performance of them.

I sent 22pcs of 130 .264 fed terminal ascents to barbourcreek shooting school and never seen them use them in a gel test….was kinda disappointed, they were/are kinda inconsistent though, the lengths and the weights were all over and might would be hard to get a long range load out of them.

Finally got the one Gen 1 Badlands Bulldozer that made it to me cross sectioned. I'll post the pics below next to a Gen 2.

 

[WildRose]

That's really hard to answer outright lol. They're both different. Hydrostatic shock is like an electrical impulse or shockwave. It's not really doing the actual wounding. It's just traveling through the animal to the spine and brain and through autonomic plexuses (nerve centers) to shut down the CNS. Hydraulic shock is what ultimately causes the wounding, and there's different levels of it. The way I think about them to remember which is which is to think static is like from radio waves (the shockwave) and hydraulic is fluid, so fluid and tissue displacement.

Ultimately both are dependent upon too many other factors to tie an exact velocity to them on when they occur. The bullet's construction/composition, how it transfers energy, impact velocity, shot placement, etc, etc will all determine if and how much of both things occur. You'll need more velocity with some bullet types, and less with others. Sometimes you don't get hydrostatic shock, or the shot is placed in an area it simply isn't sufficient enough to reach the nervous system sufficiently. You'll always get a degree of hydraulic shock though. Any amount of tissue and fluid displacement around an object going through a body will cause it. The more speed and disproportionate to original caliber size wounding caused by expansion of the projectile though, the more
overall hydraulic forces are created and the more ruptured tissues and wounding there is. That will again depend more on the bullet type and shot placement than a specific speed.

Does that answer your question?

I think you get a better answer looking at energy on impact rather than trying just to look at velocity.

It must be supersonic or there's no shockwave traveling through the tissues but the rest get's very complicated other than energy on impact.

A bigger frontal profile on an expanding bullet definitely seems to impart more energy directly to the body through that shockwave as well as creating more organ damage both directly and indirectly.

 

[IHFarmer07]

Finally got the one Gen 1 Badlands Bulldozer that made it to me cross sectioned. I'll post the pics below next to a Gen 2.

View attachment 336015View attachment 336016View attachment 336017View attachment 336018View attachment 336019View attachment 336020View attachment 336021View attachment 336022View attachment 336023

Looks great Petey, just wish all the bullets made it there for ya!

Copper looks slightly different between the two……did it cut differently?

 

[Petey308]

Looks great Petey, just wish all the bullets made it there for ya!

Copper looks slightly different between the two……did it cut differently?

I'm not sure if the copper is different or not. I see what you see, but my thought was maybe the Gen 2 sample I had was just more tarnished is all since I had cut that one quite a while ago now.

 

[Coues110]

Petey308,

Great stuff! Do you have a web page where we can look at your accumulated research?

I wonder if a powdered tungsten core compressed and mixed with epoxy, or bismuth substituted for lead has been tried?

 

[Petey308]

I think you get a better answer looking at energy on impact rather than trying just to look at velocity.

It must be supersonic or there's no shockwave traveling through the tissues but the rest get's very complicated other than energy on impact.

A bigger frontal profile on an expanding bullet definitely seems to impart more energy directly to the body through that shockwave as well as creating more organ damage both directly and indirectly.

Velocity and energy are definitely related. How much energy there is to potentially transfer is dependent upon the velocity and mass of the bullet.

Yes, the size of the frontal area, as well as the pressure put on the bullet and animal, and this how the bullet reacts and deforms will determine how much or how little energy is transferred and how much of a shockwave is produced.

A smaller caliber, longer, more secant bullet with a small meplat, and that is constructed in a way that resists expansion will not produce much of a shockwave, if at all, compared to a larger caliber, softer constructed, and with a wide meplat bullet.

How much hydrostatic shock is produced is just as much tied to the construction and terminal behavior of the bullet as hydraulic shock. Hydrostatic does require the bullet to at least impact at supersonic speeds though, whereas hydraulic shock can still occur at lower speeds.

 

[Petey308]

Petey308,

Great stuff! Do you have a web page where we can look at your accumulated research?

I wonder if a powdered tungsten core compressed and mixed with epoxy, or bismuth substituted for lead has been tried?

Here's a great option and alternative to solid copper varieties, yet is still lead free. It features a compressed metal powder core with a swaged copper jacket. The core begins coming apart after about 2" of penetration and absolutely shreds vital organs. I've used them quite a bit with excellent results. I truly believe this is the best answer for a lead-free hunting bullet.

This is a 200gr Terminal Shock from Dynamic Research Technologies.

 

[Petey308]

Petey308,

Great stuff! Do you have a web page where we can look at your accumulated research?

I wonder if a powdered tungsten core compressed and mixed with epoxy, or bismuth substituted for lead has been tried?

No, I do not currently have a website, but I do plan on having one eventually. I'm also going to start working on writing a book and it will have a section that discusses and shows all the differences in bullets, their construction, jacket thicknesses, etc and how all that translates into terminal ballistics and terminal behavior.

It'll mainly focus on bullets, terminal ballistics, and many of the factors and variables involved. It'll also discuss many of the misconceptions and misinformation out there surrounding terminal ballistics and bullet for hunting.

I have most of it prewritten already. It'll just be a matter of putting it all together with pictures and make it all flow together properly.