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

Certainly true to a point. Composition consistency however would presumably matter. While sectioning is one valid comparison it tells us no more than how much material is present.

Extreme variation in terminal performance in cup and core is not exactly unheard of.

Then there is basic fairness in discussion..........
This thread and another of @Petey308's thread was already started before I received the test result and why I shared it to him. It is more appropriate on the other thread because it is about bullet composition. However, somebody asked for copper bullet purity.

As previously noted, if the tester is willing to do a lead bullet, I would be more than happy to provide bullets and share it on another thread, not here. My guess is there would also be a tolerance - a permissible limit or variation of limits.
 
It's because the tester did not asked me for lead bullets. I would be more than happy to provide him if he has the time to do it. I know it is time consuming and he is doing us all a favor for free. I for one appreciate his time and effort.
Just peculiar that you never invested all the time and resources on bullets that you actually use vs bullets that you don't, go figure
 
1659561942627.png
 
Just peculiar that you never invested all the time and resources on bullets that you actually use vs bullets that you don't, go figure
What I do with my bullets, my time or resources is nobody's business but mine. The tester volunteered his time and resources to do the analysis. No one is being forced to take ur as gospel as you eluded to. Frankly, I do see any issue as the tester provided his findings as-is.
 
I am having trouble with content of the original post

1) Monolithic bullets were not invented because of the lead ban. The Barnes X was introduced in 1989 (initial concept ocurred in 1985) approximately 20 years before any lead ban occured for rifle ammunition.

2) Hydrostatic Shock is an oxymoron. The word hydrostatic refers to the pressure caused by a fluid when that fluid is at rest in a confined space; e.g. fluid at rest inside the walls of a cell. Once fluid is moving (caused by a bullet in this case) it is no longer static; therefore, in essence all damaged not caused by the impact of the bullet itself against tissue would be hydraulic in nature based on the common use of the words as opposed to labels created by the hunting/bullet industry.


3) "The reason why animals drop instantly with chest shots that do not directly strike the CNS, is due to hydrostatic shock transfer to the spine which passes through to the brain. Any high velocity cartridge along with a good bullet properly selected for the particular animal size imparts over half its energy within the first few inches of penetration, creating a shock wave. This electrical shock wave travels outwards via the rib cage until it reaches the spine and then continues through to the central nervous system in the brain (CNS). The result is an immediate loss of consciousness as the body shuts down for diagnostics (temporary coma)."

What research supports the above statement? I am aware of no research of any scale using scientific methods such as video-taping of animals shot and their reaction followed by necropsy. Obvioulsy, if a shot destroys the spine or neck vertebrae and the animal drops in its tracks we can draw a conlusion. But if there is research out there that shows animal 1 was being video taped, shot in the chest cavity, immediately dropped, and a necropsy showing bruising to the tissue around the spine and animal 2 was shot in relatively the same spot and ran-off and died 50 yards later and the necropsy showed no brusing to the tissue around the spine I am completely unaware of it. Absent such research, your statement is likely conjecture and not fact.

Animals may drop immediately from non-CNS shots for various reasons - such as 1) the sudden experience of pain (much like when a human touches a hot stove - they jerk their hand back even though no kinetic energy is at play, 2) the structural breakdown of both shoulders, 3) disruption of the nerve complex in the front shoulder(s).

So in essence, I am asking for the scientific information that supports the original post. By the way, I love monolithic bullets.
Med358-boise,
You're not alone in your concerns and confusion. A great deal of the original post is heavy with misinformation.
Look up mr. RATHCOOMBE'S treatise on "shooting Holes In Wounding Theories". He debunks a significant bit of both the terminology and conclusions of the original post. Dr Fackler has also written some good stuff which contraries the first post. You can read and decide for yourself. Some of Rathcoombe's conclusions were drawn from professional autopsies (plural) on many animals by a group of veterinarians engaged in animal control. His conclusions are not based upon heresay, opinion or campfire stories😁. Jm2c worth
 
My understanding to test copper purity a spectrometer is the equipment to use. I'd refer to the link for the testing website and see their equipment. This type of character attack rather than looking at the info makes all this less fun or informational.
 
And yet you cannot leave it alone. So, besides "me" providing the data, what exactly is your problem with the copper percentage data?
I wager it has as much to do with the motive that is perceived (fair or not fair) behind the post than the post itself (timing & placement of the post in context). Just sayin... 🤠 I'm not gonna beat the drum. I don't feel threatened by it, as I run with what works for me in the field regardless of the 100th or 1000th percentile off 100% pure. I'm sure that percentile fluctuates a bit within manufacturers accepted tolerances.

The data makes interesting talking points though I'm not sure how valuable it is. Not really worth making enemies over for sure.

Med358-boise,
Look up mr. RATHCOOMBE'S treatise on "shooting Holes In Wounding Theories". Dr Fackler has also written some good stuff. You can read and decide for yourself. Some of Rathcoombe's conclusions were drawn from professional autopsies (plural) on many animals by a group of veterinarians engaged in animal control. His conclusions are not based upon heresay, opinion or campfire stories😁. Jm2c worth
I too have really enjoyed reading Dr. Fackler's observations and conclusions. I doubt we've heard the last of new and revised theories on this subject. 😎
 
I wager it has as much to do with the motive that is perceived (fair or not fair) behind the post than the post itself (timing & placement of the post in context). Just sayin... 🤠 I'm not gonna beat the drum. I don't feel threatened by it, as I run with what works for me in the field regardless of the 100th or 1000th percentile off 100% pure. I'm sure that percentile fluctuates a bit within manufacturers accepted tolerances.

The data makes interesting talking points though I'm not sure how valuable it is. Not really worth making enemies over for sure.


I too have really enjoyed reading Dr. Fackler's observations and conclusions. I doubt we've heard the last of new and revised theories on this subject. 😎
I really liked Dr Fackler's writings since I was in LEO training. But there are some possible issues with his findings. Most of it was with M16 wounds and other rifle FMJ rounds during Vietnam, a true FMJ. That isn't going to represent what we use during hunting. I believe what the Swiss were finding as "inhumane wounds" were probably from slow twist M16s which were first issued. Those rounds probably tumbled and broke apart at the canelure thus creating an impressive wound channel. After those first issued M16's were found to be inaccurate due to destabilized bullets the twist rate was quickly increased, which caused the bullets to pencil through. At least that is my thoughts on the subject.
 
Last edited:
I really liked Dr fackler's writings since I was in LEO training. But there are some possible issues with his findings. Most of it was with M16 wounds and other rifle FMJ rounds during Vietnam, a true FMJ. That isn't going to represent what we use during hunting. I believe what the Swiss were finding as "inhumane wounds" were probably from slow twist M16s which were first issued. Those rounds probably tumbled and broke apart at the canelure thus creating an impressive wound channel. After those first issued M16's were found to be inaccurate due to destabilized bullets the twist rate was quickly increased, which caused the bullets to pencil through. At least that is my thoughts on the subject.
It's been a while since I perused the writings and I'm not recalling that info, but it could well be.
 
Top