What is the max range of my elk hunting load?

[Jordan Smith]

When some smartass with no clue starts off by telling me I don't know enough to understand the science he's not going to get politely addressed by me in the future.

I give as much respect to others as they show me.

A smartass with no clue? That's funny. I didn't want to make this about comparing cocks or university educations, but I have spent 9 years in university studying physics and organic chemistry, among other things, so get down off your high horse, bud.

I was not being rude to you by saying that you didn't understand the physics behind a bullet wound. That's not an insult, just an observation, and I still hold true to that claim. You probably have a good understanding of biology, and I commend you for that.

Either way, sir, Topgun is right. True men (and true scientists) are capable of having a civil conversation in search of greater truth, regardless of whether they agree or not. Clearly, you're not interested in any such discussion, and fall back to insults and degrading comments, so I will agree to disagree on this topic.

 

[WildRose]

A smartass with no clue? That's funny. I didn't want to make this about comparing cocks or university educations, but I have spent 9 years in university studying physics and organic chemistry, among other things, so get down off your high horse, bud.

I was not being rude to you by saying that you didn't understand the physics behind a bullet wound. That's not an insult, just an observation, and I still hold true to that claim. You probably have a good understanding of biology, and I commend you for that.

Either way, sir, Topgun is right. True men (and true scientists) are capable of having a civil conversation in search of greater truth, regardless of whether they agree or not. Clearly, you're not interested in any such discussion, and fall back to insults and degrading comments, so I will agree to disagree on this topic.

Mind your manners and save the locker room vulgarity if you wish to be addressed politely.

You obviously dont' understand the physics, or the physiology here and no honest scientist when shown so much direct evidence that totally refutes their position would continue trying to sell a theory that has no merit.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I don't care how you address me. You're attitude makes you not worth conversing with, so I frankly couldn't care less what you think of me.

You haven't provided a single bit of evidence. You've provided YouTube videos with no background information or explanations. If that's what you call evidence, then I fear that your MSc was a waste of time and money.

With that, I'm done addressing you in this thread, since it's quite fruitless. Have a good one.

 

[Fiftydriver]

Suprised this one has been allowed to go on this long with all the personal attacks. Shut her down Len!!!

 

[handirifle]

Geez, so now an interesting conversation has turned into one of the players calling the other a liar! I don't hold but an Associate in Science, but I can tell you that IMHO after 60 years of hunting that I call baloney on anybody who equates a nonexpanding bullet as being able to produce the same results when going through flesh of any large creature no matter what type of degree he has! Expanding bullets were outlawed decades ago by the Geneva Convention and only FMJs are allowed in war time. The same goes in most instances in hunting regulations. Gee, I wonder why! Put a deer or elk in your video and shoot them with both types of ammo. You won't see a body exploding with either like those little rockchucks were, but you would find a heck of a difference in the wound channels when an autopsy is performed comparing the two. What am I missing here guys?

While I agree this thread has turned toooooo ugly, I just wanted to poi t out that even though the intent of the Geneva Convention was to use FMJ ie. a solid bullet that basically left a caliber size hole all the way through, and provided an exit wound as well. The actual use has developed into something totally different. The anti personnel rounds, non armor piercing, are usually based on a closed hollow point that fragments shortly after impact. The bullets used to tumble inside the body. These frangible bullets often do not exit.

True the shock effect is not quite as severe with these rounds, but I'd be willing to bet the actual tissue damage is at least equal to that of a soft point bullet.

It would be interesting to hear from a surgeon that has seen both.

 

[handirifle]

Lots of better choices available today than the Barnes which will increase both your accuracy and range.

Both the Swift Scirocco and Nosler Accubonds will beat anything that Barnes is producing for both in flight and terminal ballistics.

At longer ranges the VLD's like the Berger's will open up at speeds far below even them.

I got over being a "max energy freak" long ago. As long as you can accurately and repeatedly put it where it belongs you can get away with far less energy on target. It's those "marginal hits" where the extra horse power becomes essential.

I've been away from this thread for a bit. I hear ya on "the other bullets" but we are limited, here in Democrap land of CA, non lead bullets are the rule in about 90% of the state.

Barnes is the industry leader in this field and have the widest range of options for me.

Just consider yourselves lucky for when ya want to hunt with something like dads old 375 Winchester! I have to make my own bullets for it.

 

[WildRose]

I've been away from this thread for a bit. I hear ya on "the other bullets" but we are limited, here in Democrap land of CA, non lead bullets are the rule in about 90% of the state.

Barnes is the industry leader in this field and have the widest range of options for me.

Just consider yourselves lucky for when ya want to hunt with something like dads old 375 Winchester! I have to make my own bullets for it.

That certainly makes a huge difference. I've never shot any of Hornady's GMX line but as happy as I am with their line overall, if I were in such a situation I'd certainly give them a whirl.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I've heard pretty good things about the GMX, but will not go to them unless the lead ban is extended to an area I want to hunt in and CA isn't one of them.

 

[WildRose]

I've heard pretty good things about the GMX, but will not go to them unless the lead ban is extended to an area I want to hunt in and CA isn't one of them.

I'm openly biased towards Hornady over most other bullets because they have served me so well over the years.

.. . And I readily admit it... .gun)

 

[Jordan Smith]

For anybody interested in the mechanics of ballistic wound theory, here is an article by the respected Dr. M. L. Fackler. It's only a few pages long, and is an excellent read that explains military and hunting bullet wounds, and clarifies much of what was recently discussed in this thread:

Gunshot wounds: 1. Bullets, Ballistics, and Mechanisms of Injury

Here is an applicable excerpt:

"Two major mechanisms of wounding occur: the crushing of the tissue struck by the projectile (forming the permanent cavity), and the radial stretching of the projectile path walls (forming a temporary cavity) (Fig. 1).
In addition, a sonic pressure wave precedes the projectile through tissue. The sonic pressure wave plays no part in wounding. In air, the speed of sound is approximately 300m/sec; in soft tissue, it is approximately 1500 m/sec. When a bullet enters soft tissue, the sonic pressure wave forms a hemispherical arc ahead of the advancing bullet. The short-lived sonic pressure pulse created may reach pressures of up to 100 atm (1.01 x 10^7 Pa). The duration of this pulse is approximately 2 µsec [4]. Research reported in 1947 [5] determined that this sonic shock wave has no damaging effect on tissue, a finding since confirmed by clinical experience with sonic pressure wave lithotripsy, in which tissue receives sonic pressure waves two to three times greater than that produced by a supersonic rifle bullet [6]. The sonic pressure wave must not be confused with the temporary cavity, which is discussed later."

 

[WildRose]

For anybody interested in the mechanics of ballistic wound theory, here is an article by the respected Dr. M. L. Fackler. It's only a few pages long, and is an excellent read that explains military and hunting bullet wounds, and clarifies much of what was recently discussed in this thread:

Gunshot wounds: 1. Bullets, Ballistics, and Mechanisms of Injury

Here is an applicable excerpt:

"Two major mechanisms of wounding occur: the crushing of the tissue struck by the projectile (forming the permanent cavity), and the radial stretching of the projectile path walls (forming a temporary cavity) (Fig. 1).
In addition, a sonic pressure wave precedes the projectile through tissue. The sonic pressure wave plays no part in wounding. In air, the speed of sound is approximately 300m/sec; in soft tissue, it is approximately 1500 m/sec. When a bullet enters soft tissue, the sonic pressure wave forms a hemispherical arc ahead of the advancing bullet. The short-lived sonic pressure pulse created may reach pressures of up to 100 atm (1.01 x 10^7 Pa). The duration of this pulse is approximately 2 µsec [4]. Research reported in 1947 [5] determined that this sonic shock wave has no damaging effect on tissue, a finding since confirmed by clinical experience with sonic pressure wave lithotripsy, in which tissue receives sonic pressure waves two to three times greater than that produced by a supersonic rifle bullet [6]. The sonic pressure wave must not be confused with the temporary cavity, which is discussed later."

You're the only person to mention a "sonic pressure wave" in this entire thread.

The "temporary stretching" of the wound path (cavitation) is the force of the bullets energy pushing outward like a boat's wake in it's path, but with tremendous force and pressure which collapses blood vessels, and shreds tissue.

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~jb3/bullet/gsw.html

Principally, there are three mechanisms of tissue damage due to bullets: laceration and crushing, shock waves, and cavitation (Adams, 1982; Hopkinson and Marshall, 1967; Ordog et al., 1984). Laceration and crushing are generated by the projectile displacing the tissues in its track and are recognized as the primary wounding mechanism produced by handguns (Fackler, 1986; Hopkinson and Marshall, 1967). The degree and amount of laceration and crushing are dependent upon missile velocity, shape, angle of impact, yaw, and tumbling (Adams, 1982; Ordog et al., 1984). Fackler (1986), however, adds that the shape and construction of a bullet are not significant factors at such low-velocities as observed in handguns. Shock waves, the second mechanism often cited as significant in wounding, occur by the compression of tissues that lay ahead of the bullet, are generated by high velocity missiles generally exceeding 2,500 feet per second (Hopkinson and Marshall, 1967; Ordog et al., 1984), and thus not a major factor in most handgun wounds.

A missile's ability to produce a temporary cavity is considered an important component in wound production and degree of destruction (Barach et al., 1986). Most researchers agree that the wounding effect of the cavitation phenomenon is only significant in velocities surpassing 1,000 feet per second (Amato et al., 1974; DeMuth, 1966). When a missile enters the body, the kinetic energy imparted on the surrounding tissues forces them forward and radially producing a temporary cavity or temporary displacement of tissues (Belkin, 1978; DeMuth, 1966; Ragsdale 1984). The temporary cavity may be considerably larger than the diameter of the bullet, and rarely lasts longer than a few milliseconds before collapsing into the permanent cavity or wound (bullet) track (Kirkpatrick, 1988). The permanent cavity, or wound track, is the defect generated when the tissues in the projectile's path are expelled from the body (Huelke and Darling, 1964). The cavitation phenomenon has been used to explain the fracturing of bone not in the direct path of a missile (Figure 1).

Thank you for the confirmation though.

EDTA: Here's more confirmation.

The injury inflicted by a bullet is directly related to the bullet's kinetic energy. This is a measure of the bullet's weight, velocity and gravitational trajectory. The combination of the three describe how much damage a bullet will cause.
As a bullet enters the body, it causes laceration and crushing wounds. The bullet punctures tissue and bone, crushing or pushing aside anything in its path. When a bullet passes through tissue, it creates a cavity that can be 30 times wider than its track (the path it takes). This cavity closes behind the bullet less than a second after the bullet passes, but the cavitation it causes can damage nearby tissue, organs and bones via shock waves.

The type and amount of injury sustained from a bullet also depends on what a bullet encounters. Soft tissue can carry shock waves more easily than bone, but since bone is dense, it absorbs more force (and damage). Bones also splinter, causing further damage as the fragments travel through the body as projectiles themselves.

A bullet that passes through the body (creating an exit wound) generally will cause less damage than one which stays in the body, because a bullet that stays in the body transfers all of its kinetic energy (and ensures maximum damage to tissue). This is the aim of most modern ballistic design. Jacketed bullets are designed to fragment after impact, dividing their destructive power. Hollow-point and soft bullets are designed to flatten and spread, creating a wider area for their tracks and increasing the damage caused by shock waves and cavitation.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/parts/best-place-to-get-shot1.htm

By the way. A great deal has been learned about this subject in the sixty five plus years or so that have elapsed since your cited paper's quoted studies.

We are for the most part of course here discussing much larger and much faster projectiles than even were used in smokeless cartridges in that era.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Wildrose stated: I'm openly biased towards Hornady over most other bullets because they have served me so well over the years... . And I readily admit it". I am too and they're the only bullets I reload with in my frequently used rifles (100 BTSPS in the .243 Sako, 117 BTSPs in the Ruger M77 25-06, and 150 BTSPs in my 30-06s (a pre 64 Model 70, a Sako, and a rebuilt/sporterized 03A3). The other rifles and handguns that I use infrequently just get fed factory ammo.

 

[Jordan Smith]

You're the only person to mention a "sonic pressure wave" in this entire thread.

Really...

Velocity/energy is what creates hyperstatic shock or the "liquification" of tissue.

With high speed rounds the effects of hyperstatic/hydrodynamic shock are quite evident.

Hyper or hypo static in this context refers to "stasis" or normal pressures within the cells of the body, which is suddenly and violently changed by the impact and wake of a bullet.

As the shockwave passes through you have sudden and extreme high pressure waves passing through those fluid filled bodies which rupture just like little water ballons.

This is due to the hydrostatic/hyperstatic shock exploding tissue right down to the cellular level.

Yes the tissue directly in the path of the bullet is torn apart, but there's also a considerable amount of damage done to the surrounding tissue by the shockwave passing through it.

The videos posted of ballistic gel shots makes it abundantly clear that the premise that the shockwave has no effect, and that only tissue directly contacted by the bullet or bullet fragments is going to be damaged has no merit.

Your experience then shows that indeed the cavitation caused by the shockwave and vacuum which follows indeed was responsible for a good deal of that damage then.

The "temporary stretching" of the wound path (cavitation) is the force of the bullets energy pushing outward like a boat's wake in it's path, but with tremendous force and pressure which collapses blood vessels, and shreds tissue.

Try reading the entire article before hitting the reply button next time, bud. Your assumptions about the temporary cavity are incorrect.

Discovery Health "Wound Ballistics"

I don't consider "How stuff works" to be a very credible source compared to Dr. Fackler. Sorry.

By the way. A great deal has been learned about this subject in the sixty five plus years or so that have elapsed since your cited paper's quoted studies.

We are for the most part of course here discussing much larger and much faster projectiles than even were used in smokeless cartridges in that era.

The article was written in 1990.

 

[WildRose]

For anyone that cares to learn more on the subject here's a pretty informative but not overly complicated explanation in the form of a power point presentation.

http://www.ota.org/res_slide iii/General/G13_Gunshot Wounds Sirkin.ppt#275,20,Conclusions

Several more here:

https://healthtraining.inhs.org/upl..._Nite/2007/April_10_2007/April 07 Handout.pdf

Here:
Gunshot Wounds - Orthopaedic Trauma Association - Disease drug information sharing

Typically in science it's a really good idea to look for the latest reasearch and findings rather than to rely on stuff more than half a century out of date.