Recovered Barnes bullet

[Broz]

The shape of an object passing thru a fluid not only makes a difference but it makes a huge difference.

A 30 caliber bullet that mushrooms to 1.5 times the original diameter has slightly more than twice the frontal area. The debate should be about a flat object vs a rounded object with twice the surface area.

In the sake of someone trying to learn , that is no expert. May I ask you to elaborate. So are you saying the 30 caliber mushroomed frontal area of 1 .5 times will make a substantially larger wound channel than a flat nosed bullet like a 38 wad cutter for example?

That's all I really seek to know. And this thread has me a little confused.

Thank you
Jeff

 

[PGJPJ]

That's all I really seek to know. And this thread has me a little confused.

Thank you
Jeff

Yeah, this thread has me lost. Makes me want to go back to the good old 'green-box' of ammo that seemed to work for me 25 years ago.

 

[Edd]

In the sake of someone trying to learn , that is no expert. May I ask you to elaborate. So are you saying the 30 caliber mushroomed frontal area of 1 .5 times will make a substantially larger wound channel than a flat nosed bullet like a 38 wad cutter for example?

That's all I really seek to know. And this thread has me a little confused.

Thank you
Jeff

No, that is not what I said.

My point was, there should not be a debate about shape making a difference. That part goes without saying.

The question is if a .308 bullet, or whatever size you choose, impacts and the nose of the bullet breaks off forming a blunt .308" diameter nose will do more damage than a .308 bullet that impacts and mushrooms to a rounded .462" diameter.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

In the sake of someone trying to learn , that is no expert. May I ask you to elaborate. So are you saying the 30 caliber mushroomed frontal area of 1 .5 times will make a substantially larger wound channel than a flat nosed bullet like a 38 wad cutter for example?

That's all I really seek to know. And this thread has me a little confused.

Thank you
Jeff

Hey Jeff,

You and I have talked lots about this subject. We come from two different positions on how we want a bullet to work. But we both want the same conclusion. So in that aspect we are totally on the same page. What the bullet does on impact is the cause of the damage that we are looking for to result in the terminal performance that we need. I personally continue to learn every time we test bullets. My conclusions of the shape of the frontal area of the deformed bullet passing through soft tissue is the flatter and less round the deformation is the larger the resulting permanent wound channel is. The bigger the displacement is the bigger the permanent wound channel is. Hard to quantify exactly where one passes the other. My conclusion is the bigger the flat not rounded deformed bullet is the more permanent wounding is caused. There is a balance here though. There needs to be enough sectional density to drive the deformed bullet through the soft tissue to cause the damage. If a bullet opens up huge in comparison to caliber and keeps that size it will have a difficult time penetrating far enough to get the job done. The more the bullet slows down inside the animal the less it causes damage. When I got into designing bullets I went with the best physics study I could find on terminal effects of bullets. The shooting holes in wounding theories.

I also see the value of rapid expansion or deformation that is the principle effect that you like for terminal performance. This one is more difficult to control with higher vel impacts. We have used yours and others data for how rapid expansion works on game and incorporated it in our design. That is why we run our hp much deeper than most bullets looking for 70-80% weight retention. At real high vel impacts we see the bullets completely deforming within the 1st inch of impact. Can't do much about this other than the retained bullet is still plenty to carry through however far is needed to get to the vitals.

So figuring out where absolute dia out ways the shape of the deformation is tough. Not sure that it can every really be known. Not like low bc bullet running faster than high bc bullet. There is always a point down range that the high bc bullet catches up and surpasses the lower bc faster bullet.

Sorry for the confusion and my frustration. I just could not deal with the "shape of a projectile has no bearing on terminal performance".

Steve

 

[thatguyshm]

To bring this back toward topic, I think lighter for caliber premium bullets at higher speeds work better, and I have no science trying to back this up, just experience on my side from this year's deer.

I went with a 180gr Accubond in a 338 Federal. I have plenty of 338 bullets choose from, 160ttsx up to 225 Accubonds, and everything in between. I didn't have time to work up a 160 load, so I went with the highly accurate 180 Accubond load at 2735fps. It's a bit over 125fps over a 308 with a 180gr bullet, with a larger frontal impact.

I shot a good sized 10 point white tail, quartering towards me slightly, behind the shoulder. It literally blew a large chunk of lung out of the entrance hole, bullet was recovered opposite side in front of rear leg, 146 gr retained. Worked amazing.

I will try to upload pictures.

SHM

 

[catamountsierra]

I don't have a lot of experience shooting game. So far, I have only shot three deer. Most of what I have shot has been small game and coyotes, and given that I don't get out to hunt nearly as much as I would like, that is likely the way it will stay for a while. I have shot a fair number of bullets into water jugs or wet phone books (for some reason, even in the days of Google and smart phones I seem to get several a year). I have made some observations that might be relevant. First, a bullet that expands quickly but stays together has a much better chance of reaching the vitals even through a shoulder or other compromised angle. A bullet that fragments seems to be the fastest kill, provided that when it blows up like a grenade it has reached the vitals; these bullets seem to me to present more risk because shot placement may be more finicky. As to a bullet travelling through some material other than air, the more the bullet expands, the more it slows down and dumps kinetic energy into the target. The less it expands, and the higher the weight retention, the farther it penetrates. Also, a rounded nose on this bullet, whether due to design or expansion, seems to increase the likely hood that the bullet may change direction while a wadcutter style nose that is flat and perpendicular to the line of travel seems to stay in a straight line better.
As to how this thread has devolved, I am actually feeling disappointed. I may be fairly new around here, and I may not have nearly as many posts as others, but one of the biggest reasons I chose this forum rather than a number of others is that I have rarely seen personal attacks being thrown around here; I have rarely seen what I would call arguments. I have seen lots of debate and discussion, which I have found very informative. This thread seems to have lost that, and I am disappointed to see people that I have come to respect arguing over what appears to me to be mostly a misunderstanding and a reading between the lines. While both sides seem to have made good points, those have been obscured by the argument. Please take it down a notch; this is an important topic, but it is not worth a fight. In the end, as long as the bullet kills cleanly, it doesn't matter whether round nosed or flat noses create larger shocks to the animal.

 

[valleyloader]

Here are some bullets that I've recovered over the past 8 years of using Barnes bullets exclusively for deer. The first two bullets are .308 150 grain ttsx fired from a 30-06 at 3050 fps mv. The third bullet is a .284 140 grain tsx fired from a 280 rem at 2900 fps mv. The tsx was only used one season and I switched to the ttsx after seeing the limited expansion (it also lost one petal which is likely the cause for reduced weight retention). I was told by Barnes tech support that the ttsx has a deeper cavity and would provide more expansion on smaller game such as deer. I have either killed or seen killed dozens of deer with the ttsx and most have dropped or ran only a short distance. Most bullets are not recovered, these few were from a lengthwise shot. My experience with Barnes has been very positive, even the two deer killed with the 280 loaded with the tsx were humanely harvested and the bullets did their job. I just like having the extra insurance of the expansion in the event that a marginal shot happens.

 

[catamountsierra]

Here are some bullets that I've recovered over the past 8 years of using Barnes bullets exclusively for deer. The first two bullets are .308 150 grain ttsx fired from a 30-06 at 3050 fps mv. The third bullet is a .284 140 grain tsx fired from a 280 rem at 2900 fps mv. The tsx was only used one season and I switched to the ttsx after seeing the limited expansion. I was told by Barnes tech support that the ttsx has a deeper cavity and would provide more expansion on smaller game such as deer.

This is the info I was looking for.

 

[valleyloader]

That's about normal for Barnes TSX bullets I've recovered. Never recovered a TTSX, but I wouldn't expect anything different.

Try a Hammer bullet if you want a monolithic copper/alloy bullet that come apart a bit more aggressively.

The ttsx has performed much better in my experience on deer, according to Barnes they have a deeper cavity. I have found this to be true from the few bullets that I have recovered over the past 8 years. There are pictures of these bullets in a previous comment.

I'm sure that the Hammers are great bullets, however I have never tried them.

 

[toddc]

That is completely incorrect. A wad cutter by design punches a caliber sized hole straight through the target.

They get the name "wad cutter" because they are designed to punch very clean holes through paper targets. The "killing power of a wadcutter" is completely mythical and without foundation in reality.

It goes back to a quote used occasionally in movies/tv where someone that knew nothing about the subject was writing the script using a cute term to try and make the ammunition used sound more deadly.

MultiBrief: Pros and cons of the wadcutter bullet

It's the same kind of Hollywood Legend that got "cop killer bullets" banned.

The best handgun bullets I've ever seen for big hogs and other dangerous game were just a JHP that had a pointed tungsten penetrator in the center. They were fantastic but because they came under the legal definition of "cop killer bullets" they and many other really great hunting bullets of similar design got outlawed due to Hollywood and Media Hype generated by the anti gunners back in the 90's.

I was basing the wadcutter versus roundnose on gel tests not anything I saw in a movie. I have never seen anything in a movie that got anything right about guns.

 

[toddc]

Here are some bullets that I've recovered over the past 8 years of using Barnes bullets exclusively for deer. The first two bullets are .308 150 grain ttsx fired from a 30-06 at 3050 fps mv. The third bullet is a .284 140 grain tsx fired from a 280 rem at 2900 fps mv. The tsx was only used one season and I switched to the ttsx after seeing the limited expansion (it also lost one petal which is likely the cause for reduced weight retention). I was told by Barnes tech support that the ttsx has a deeper cavity and would provide more expansion on smaller game such as deer. I have either killed or seen killed dozens of deer with the ttsx and most have dropped or ran only a short distance. Most bullets are not recovered, these few were from a lengthwise shot. My experience with Barnes has been very positive, even the two deer killed with the 280 loaded with the tsx were humanely harvested and the bullets did their job. I just like having the extra insurance of the expansion in the event that a marginal shot happens.

Kinda funny but I have a few 338 300gr SMKs that I have recovered from deer going about 2300-2700 on impact and they weigh just about what the retained weight of those 150s do. Different strokes for different slugs, and BOTH approaches work, just in different ways.

 

[valleyloader]

Kinda funny but I have a few 338 300gr SMKs that I have recovered from deer going about 2300-2700 on impact and they weigh just about what the retained weight of those 150s do. Different strokes for different slugs, and BOTH approaches work, just in different ways.

Nobody can argue the time proven success of the cup and core bullets.

 

[toddc]

Nobody can argue the time proven success of the cup and core bullets.

Except California legislature. I fear the days of cup and core are waning. I have shot a lot of monos and have yet to find one I like as well as a lead based rig. Unfortunately many people want to act like one or the other doesn't work. Poke anything thru a deers vitals and it will croak. Even my crummy hand knapped flint points from a 43lb selfbow.

 

[valleyloader]

I still use a lot of bergers and smk's for targets and varmints, I have not had much success with Barnes past 500. I really like the bc's of the cup and core bullets out there these days. With the rare exception my deer are killed inside of 100 yards in western PA. The only deer harvested with a Barnes past 100 yards was a doe at 432 yards with an 80 grain ttsx fired from my .243 win. A friend of mine that never shoots past 100 yards said "you can't hit way out there", I ranged it made slight correction for wind and put the bullet through both lungs. (Bullet not recovered but wounds were indicative of good performance)