Gone overboard with heavy hard bullets

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:10 am

I was reading recently how one of the huge 550 gr hard cast bullets would shoot through a 4 ft diameter tree and I think the guys are hurting themselves if they really come up on an angry grizzly bear in the same way that military FMJ bullets pass right through the enemy without stopping them.

I think you are basically skewering the animal with a cleaning rod instead of delivering a whole lot of energy into doing internal damage. On grizzly bears and other mean critters I dont think you want the bullet to pass through as leaving a blood trail for tracking is way below killing it on the priority list.

I'm not suggesting a bullet that explodes but one that mushrooms nicely, stays together and comes to rest inside the skin on the opposite side of the animal would be best. It has been shown that the hard casts dont deform at all.

I think those big hard cast bullets would only be useful if you want to shoot through a 2 foot dia tree to get your prey. That situation probably doesnt happen much.

gamekeeper · Post by **gamekeeper** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:26 am

preventec47 wrote:I think those big hard cast bullets would only be useful if
you want to shoot through a 2 foot dia tree to get your
prey. That situation probably doesnt happen much.

I don't know, I've known a few squirrels that I could have used them on.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:30 am

That's a very nice theory.

It don't work that way in real life.

A book could be written here but basically:

1. Bullet don't "leave energy" in a body, animal or human. They destroy tissue.

2. A bullet that punches an entrance and an exit hole along with destroying a lot of tissue on the way through is - on the norm - better than one that does not exit.

3. A bullet does not have to deform to do the job. The nose of the bullet is the working end. A good flat-nosed hard bullet at the proper velocity will often destroy more tissue all the way through than a softer expanding bullet. The softer bullet may make a larger entrance wound and a larger intial wound cavity, but because of the nose getting larger it slows the bullet down. Thus the deeper the penetration the smaller the wound cavity along the track of the bullet.

4. For large dangerous game experience has proven penetration is VERY desirable.

The old story of "energy dump" ... "putting all the energy of the bullet into the body" etc. etc. has been repeated ad infinitum. It sounds nice but in actual practice it don't work.

A bullet going 2200 fps is going 26400 inches per second. If it penetrates through 14" of body mass it's only there a very very small fraction of a second. There is no "energy dump".

If you want to test out "energy dump" .. take a 5 gallon bucket full of sand. Hang it on a 6 foot long rope from a tree limb or some handy place, and shoot it with your rifle that has 3000 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy. Get up close - 10 feet or so - so that you get the most energy into it.

3000 ft. lbs. of energy will move 3000 pounds 1 foot. However, that rifle won't move the 5 gallon bucket 8 inches, even though the bullet stops in the sand and dumps all it's energy into it.

Nope .. it's a nice theory but one that don't work in real life.

Here's a test I ran 30 years ago ... http://www.leverguns.com/articles/taylor/hit.htm

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:21 am

Bang on JT. Ft lbs don't matter a jot to me.
Preventech47, the bullet shape is crucial here. I know of a deer shot with a 308 fmj that survived as if nothing happened and was shot the following year and the examiner could not tell it had had a previous round through the lungs. Now if they had filed that tip off I am sure a different outcome would ensued.
I once shot a fox with a 22 solid tracer, I watched it go in and come out the other side still lit up. The fox looked around and just walked off. I followed it and it just behaved as if nothing had happened and I did not have the nerve to send another one so just watched and watched half expecting it to keel over but no it didn't!
Arrows hold great penertration abillities, it's onlya great stabbing blade that causes massive bleeding. That 45 with a flat point will creat the same effect and with to leaking holes.
Nath.

Montanan · Post by **Montanan** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:07 am

I don't use a 540-gr or 550-gr but have settled on a 430-gr WFN GC produced by a local Montana company that just flat out works for the reasons Jim stated in his write up.

In big heavy game which could be dangerous game, you need the ability to have bone crushing results and shock power. I know of one hunter on a canned hunt who used a 405-gr JSP to take a bison. The guide instructed him to shoot the thing between the eyes at 60 yards. This is not a good spot for a JSP buttet of any make. The shot was made, and needless to say the bison did not drop but just stood there looking very upset off. Had the above bullet that I have chosen been used it would have been lights out.

Upon examination of the bison after it was finally dispatched, the first shot glanced and did fracture the bisons skull, but it was not fatal. A much better shot placement would have been more desirable on this type of hunt anyway.

Here is a pic of a hunter Stephen Katz in Africa, who used one shot from his Marlin 1895 a 540-gr Hammerhead (factory load) to dispatch this Cape Buffalo (Black Death) at 30 yards. Now I am no expert by any means, but these kind of results speak volumes about the subject.

mklwhite · Post by **mklwhite** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:24 am

I understand both sides of this one, but I'm afraid I would have to go with preventec47 and Newtonian physics for the quicker kill. Energy is transfered to the object hit. Don't believe it? Drop a 16lb bowling ball on you toe. It won't pass through but it will do damage. Ok, you might say it is because your toe is between a rock and a hard place. Exchange bowling ball with fast-pitched base ball and toe with any part of you you want hit. Skin won't even need to break for the damage to be done. (You can also think about explosive shock waves not transferring anything but energy to surrounding objects.)

Now if the question was which is most likely to guarantee an (eventual) kill I will go with penetration, but what will stop something in it's tracks: foot pounds.

(of course the right shot with the right penetration will turn it's light right out even faster than then ftlbs, but I am working off of the average shooter/shot theory here)

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:37 am

mklwhite - the Army tests of shooting through pig carcasses with a chronograph screen in front and one behind showed very little "energy transfer".

It's not there.

What you observe is not "energy transfer" .. no matter that it looks like it.

If you have ever been shot or talked to those who have, it's not like getting hit with a bowling ball .. or a fast ball. From personal experience and of those I know, it's more like a slap or punch... not always a hard punch.

The .308 up close does not hit physically any harder than a good solid punch with a fist.

Penetration does not kill either.

It's when you crush and destroy tissue in the proper places.

Yes .. there is some "shock" value to the nervous system at times .. but not always.

And yes, the hardcast bullet is not always the best choice. Personally .. for thin skinned animals like Whitetail Deer, I like a jacketed expanding bullet that will also punch all the way through.

buckeyeshooter · Post by **buckeyeshooter** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:46 am

IMO - a quality expanding bullet like a Nosler Partition or Barnes X is always a better choice than a lead.

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:03 am

[quote="JimT"][size=22]
1. Bullet don't "leave energy" in a body, animal or human.
They destroy tissue.
2. A bullet that punches an entrance and an exit hole along with
destroying a lot of tissue on the way through is - on the norm -
better than one that does not exit.
Here's a test I ran 30 years ago ...
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/taylor/hit.htm[/size][/quote]
Endquote-
================================

Looks like you had a lot of fun with your buckets of
sand but I made no mention of ft-lbs and could care less.

Let me introduce a term related to destruction of tissue.
"Lethality"

Your choice of words. "dump energy" or "destroy tissue".
Any bullet that does NOT exit destroys more tissue
than if the bullet exits with significant velocity all other
things being the same.

ANY cartridge combo that shoots through a 4 ft tree
is going to do less damage than one that will
deform and "slow it down" faster creating a larger
hole or area of tissue destruction.

The more damage done to tissue, ie larger wound
channel, the more LETHAL it will be.

With a so called super penetrating cartridge combo
you could have a wound channel of a half inch diameter
ten feet deep or you can have one of a dimension
of 3 inches and maybe three feet deep. That is my
point. There are no animals that are ten feet thick
and maybe 7 ft of penetration is being wasted..

Your problem is many years ago someone mentioned
ft-lbs to you when they should have mentioned
"momentum". Just dont square the velocity and you
will get numbers that make sense to you ( mass x velocity)
when comparing different cartridge performances.

Only momentum shows how hard a bullet hits
( and also quantifies recoil )

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:18 am

Personally, I feel that much of the shooting world made a mistake when they started evaluating cartridges and loads in terms of energy. Momentum is more useful ..... it is what keeps a bullet plowing along through the animal, not energy. The second thing I'll say is that I'm a big fan of flat-nosed bullets. The sharp edge of the meplat will cut through stuff that will tend to divert a round-nose or soft-nose bullet. I also think the flat nose creates more disruption along the wound channel. To appreciate the effect of a flat-nosed, verses spire tipped bullet, next time you're taking a dip, try hitting the water at the same speed with your hand two different ways. First, with an open-handed slap, and second, make a point of your fingers and plunge your hand into the water point first. If you don't find that convincing, answer the following question...

Question: If you had to take one rifle shot through the chest with the idea that you wanted to survive, and you had a choice between two bullets of the same weight and velocity, but one had a flat nose and the other had a spire tipped nose, which would you choose? If it were me, I'd be signing up for the spire-tipped option. The soft point would fall somewhere in between.

jengel · Post by **jengel** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:33 am

Preventec47, I would listen to JimT. He sas decades of research and real life experience that he has learned from. I was also a "fast bullet/leave it under the hide" sort of a feller years ago. I have changed my thinking to the slower, FLATTER and heavier bullet. I have shot tons of deer with my .270 with Hornady Interlock 150gr loads and it performs wonderfully. I went to the heavier bullet due to a lack of penetration and blood trail. There are only three ways that a living thing dies... 1-shut down the Central Nervous System, 2-make it quite breathing, 3-loss of blood pressure.

I would much rather have a bigger, heavier and flatter bullet to crush bone and tissue and leave big holes for the blood to gush from.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:35 am

preventec47 wrote:
Any bullet that does NOT exit destroys more tissue
than if the bullet exits with significant velocity all other
things being the same.

A bullet that does not exit does more damage than one that does exit? Say what? That makes no sense to me at all. Okay, so you shoot a deer with a bullet, and that bullet makes it half way through the animal and stops. Shoot an identical deer with the identical bullet in the same spot, but this time the bullet continues through the rest of the animal and produces an exit. Your saying the latter does LESS damage?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I have killed a lot of deer and other larger animals. Some with jacketed soft points and some with cast bullets with large flat noses that penetrate anything. The internal damage is very impressive with the big flat faced bullets, and a big exit hole to leak is ALWAYS better than one little entrance hole.

rwb · Post by **rwb** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:40 am

Great topic seem that the barns X may be an exception to the rule it penetrates almost like a solid but seems to cut its way through. Is this true or is it just good bullet advertisement?

Thanks for the great info and debates.

Russ

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:41 am

Killing depends on what is destroyed, and, what function ceases or is impaired.

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sat May 31, 2008 10:08 am

[quote="TedH"][quote="preventec47"]

Any bullet that does NOT exit destroys more tissue
than if the bullet exits with significant velocity all other
things being the same.

[/quote]
Shoot an identical deer with the identical bullet in the same spot, but this time the bullet continues through the rest of the animal and produces an exit. Your saying the latter does LESS damage?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. .[/quote]
===============

I'm saying if the bullet stopped instead of going through the
animal, the wound channel is much larger and much more
shock to the system of the animal. The bullet that exited
at a hi velocity could only have created a smaller wound
channel.

And BTW I have nothing against flat point bullets other than
ballistics. But you can have a spire point bullet with a soft
tip that will flatten immediately upon impact so you get
the best of both worlds.

And my assertion is NOT about flat nose big bullets vs spire point
screamers, it is about GOING OVERBOARD with the heavy
hard bullets. ie 550 and 700 gr vs 350 and maybe 400 grains.

IF the big 550s and 700s pass through without slowing down
much I'm saying it is not much different than skewering
wiih a cleaning rod of the same size as those bullets are
doing little internal damage. ( comparitively speaking)

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Sat May 31, 2008 10:12 am

Preventec47, a 45 flat nose will leave a far bigger wound channel than just 1/2"!
A charging buff isn't far of 10' long

I don't particularly care which type of bullet any one favours, all of them are interesting but what I don't particularly like is the jellied blood and snot blown into the meat by super expanders, infact give me a moderate speed patched ball from soft lead any day.
If thousands of ft/lbs are crucial how do arrows do it?
Nath.

Comal Forge · Post by **Comal Forge** » Sat May 31, 2008 10:27 am

Part of this formula is frontal area and it has been alluded to in a couple of the previous posts. The old blackpowder cartridges just got larger when big game was hunted because BP has a yield limit for energy. Keep going upwards and eventually even the biggest, baddest guy alive can't lug it around and shoot it under duress. I may be wrong but I think the 4-bore was the largest BP round that was effectively shoulder fired - and of course, relatively few people used it due to the tremendous recoil.

I doubt many animals/people could withstand a direct hit through the body and live from a .50 BMG solid - or a 20mm solid - or a 40mm solid, you get my drift (although the military experts are welcome to speak to this from experience). None of these need to expand or expend all their energy in the target. The .45 ACP hardball is a proven man killer - but not because of its high velocity or great bullet shape.

One does need a level of penetration and that really becomes a factor with game that is armored like elephant and Cape buff. If that were not true, the professional hunters would still all be using round ball muzzleloaders - but the pure lead ball does not always punch through, which is why the oldtimers used hard-cast lead alloy balls and bullets to offset the deformation issue.

The expanding bullet is intended to have good ballistic properties at higher velocities than a lead projectile. It will shoot farther and has a better probability of hitting a target at unknown distance. It also does that with less recoil. With a flatter trajectory and higher terminal velocity, the perfect jacketed bullet would mushroom and create that large frontal area. The trouble is that real world conditions often don't allow that to happen. Therefore, we have to live with the best compromises and those will depend entirely on the game to be hunted. For me, that means something at .45 or larger with a large meplat and traveling around 2000 fps, for any animal that can easily kill me. I don't care if the bullet stayed in the animal but I do want it to punch a large hole. Just my 2 pence.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Sat May 31, 2008 10:43 am

preventec47

I do agree that folks have overdone it in the heavy bullet department -- especially among handgunners.

Back in the 60's when some of us were experimenting with heavy bullets in handguns, no one wanted to print or mention using a 300 gr. bullet in the 45 colt.

Some of us spent time and money contacting ammo companies and trying to get them look at our data .. mostly to no avail.

Then some upstart companies came along and started loading 300 gr. 44 mags and such .. and the silhouette boys begin using them .. and eventually it became "normal".

Now what we were pushing was "heavy for caliber at moderate velocites". Increase in effective range .. increase in useable power. When I wrote up the heavy (for then) 45 Colt loads for Petersons Publishing years ago it was unheard of. We advocated a 300 gr. bullet at 1100 to 1200 fps.

But there are always those who think more is better ... and don't seem to see that the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in really quick in.

So I do agree that there is a point where it gets ridiculous.

But the idea that stopping the bullet in the animal gives more lethality does not work in real life. My testing has not been on logs, trees or blobs of clay .. though I have shot my share of trees I suppose. Shooting real live breathing critters does make one prejudiced, which I am.

Quite honestly I have 2 requirements.

1. Put the bullet it the correct spot.
2. Get close .. and then work to get a bit closer.

Doing those 2 things, almost any combination will work.

You can kill huge bears with a .22 Hornet .. if you can get close and if you can put the bullet in the correct spot.

Of course, if you don't we may never hear of it.

So.. back to the topic... sorry ... you say "Stop the bullet inside is more lethal" and I say "No it's not." We disagree. No big deal. The world continues on.

Let's go shooting!

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sat May 31, 2008 11:11 am

Fair enough Jim. I only wish 30 years ago someone pointed out
Newtons 3rd law of conservation to you.
( basically described in units of momentum )
It would have saved you a lot of time with
shooting buckets of sand and logs.

All anyone needs to know is a bullet will never hit harder than
the total recoil it created when fired. In fact it will always
hit a little less because the gunpowder doesnt travel all
the way to the target.

"Recoil" defined here as the mass of the gun times the velocity
backwards.

The Bottom line on a rough basis is that if the shooter doesnt
get knocked down then he cant expect the animal to get knocked
down if said animal is approx the same size.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Sat May 31, 2008 11:22 am

preventec47

Actually .. I learned that about 50-some years ago.

Always made me laugh when in the movies some guy would get blown through the door by a 100 pound girl with a shotgun. It had enough power lift a 200 pound bad guy and throw him back, but did not even rock the little girl who was shooting it.

BTW .. if you haven't shot any buckets filled with sand or logs or whatever, you need to round out your education.

I would suspect that you probably have. But don't worry .. I won't spread it around.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Sat May 31, 2008 1:03 pm

IF the big 550s and 700s pass through without slowing down
much I'm saying it is not much different than skewering
wiih a cleaning rod of the same size as those bullets are
doing little internal damage. ( comparitively speaking)

This is just plain incorrect. It's hilarious, but wrong anyway. It lacks the gravitas of experience.

Doing little internal damage? ROFLMAO...

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:11 pm

I said "comparitively" speaking.

Pick a wound channel the size of a pool stick or a baseball bat.

If you want double deep penetration you are going to give
up on the size of the wound channel.
There is plenty of experience and science proving that.
In fact every penetration testing I have ever seen on
water jugs, wet newspaper, or ballistics gelatin bears that out.

Again, I'm referring to the 45 cal 300-350 gr vs the
500-700 gr options as in my original assertion.

No need to deal with the small cal magnum vs big bore
issues.

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:38 pm

If you look at the wound channel of say a 30-06 with 165 grain bullets and compare the volume and tissue disruption/damage to a .458 bullet going through with little to no expansion, you will see that there really isn't much difference. The 30-06 uses the kinetic energy of its fast bullets to impart damage while the .458" 45-70 uses the inertial energy of the big heavy bullets to create a .5" hole all the way though. This is on thin-skinned game.

Do you need 500 grain .45-70 bullets for whitetail? No, of course not. And if that is your point, then we have no argument. A 300 grain 45-70 round going 1800 fps is more than adequate.

But for something like bison or cape buffalo - hell yeah. You want full penetration with a large diamter path.

And that is a perfect example of where you can take a high-velocity number and compare it to a slower/heavy cartridge and check the documented results.

It is clear that the big, heavy pills going 2300 fps are far superior in cape buffalo than the higher velocity, lighter bullets. The evidence bears this out.

The thing is, we are talking about a launching pad that has limits. And the most effective rounds that puny homo sapien can handle are the heavy, high sectional density, medium to slow velocity rounds.

And to state the obvious, this become more and more important as the size of the game increases.

It can be argued that the high velocity rounds are better for smaller game while the high inertia rounds are better for the big stuff - again, owing to the limitations of our ability to handle recoil.

KWK · Post by **KWK** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:44 pm

preventec47 wrote:Any bullet that does NOT exit destroys more tissue than if the bullet exits with significant velocity all other things being the same.

Now how do you know that? Inside an animal, bullets can expend their energy in two ways. One is in ripping and mashing tissue. The other is in shoving tissue around, which in the final analysis only ends up heating the tissue, without ruining it.

A hard FN bullet which mashes tissue all the way through and exits may well destroy more tissue than one which balls up and comes to a stop inside. The latter bullet has (1) less inertia per square inch and (2) a blunter profile. Both lead to less pressure along its nose, and that lower pressure can mean the difference between destroyed tissue and tissue which has "caught" the ball and rebounded, in the process uselessly generating heat.

As an example, a baseball at 90 mph has the same momentum as a 300 gn .45 at 950 fps. A baseball glove will readily stop a baseball with just about 0% "tissue" destroyed. No one in his right mind will try to catch the .45 with the same glove.

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:32 pm

your entire argument is irrelevant as you ignore completely that
the lighter bullet is traveling much faster creating much
greater pressures in and around the bullet which is what
destroys tissure. There is no difference between mashing
and ripping tissure. How did you dream that up?

You simply have momentary hi pressures and nothing
else going on when a bullet passes through.
1. the faster the bullet the higher the pressure
2. the larger the diameter the higher the pressure
3. the blunter the bullet, the higher the pressure.

If you subtract from both the velocity and the diameter
with an enormous hard cast bullet you will have less
tissue damage ie smaller diameter wound channel
although it will be deeper. if the wound channel is
ten feet deep and the animal is three feet thick,
you wasted a lot of lethality when the bullet exits
at a hi velocity. Again I am saying pick bullets
with more reasonable wound channel depths.
300-350gr and not 500-700 gr.

KWK · Post by **KWK** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:15 pm

1. the faster the bullet the higher the pressure

True. But once you've reached the pressure needed to destroy the tissue, any more is in part wasted as heat.

2. the larger the diameter the higher the pressure

False. The velocity alone limits the maximum pressure. A bigger bullet simply develops the pressure over a greater area of tissue.

3. the blunter the bullet, the higher the pressure.

False again. As with diameter, blunt bullets simply create the high pressure region over a bigger area. Even the pointiest bullet has the same top pressure, albeit limited to a very small area.

I'm not suggesting a bullet that explodes but one that mushrooms nicely, stays together and comes to rest inside the skin on the opposite side of the animal would be best.

Such a bullet will have to be tailored for each shot angle and for the exact type of tissue expected. Solids and their over-penetration remove this uncertainty, especially in the gun and cartridge combinations which tend to resort to the heavy, hard-cast bullets. Their large flat noses give a predictable and adequate wound channel. The heavy hard cast bullets are not advertised as delivering maximum wound volume, only reliable volumes.

Bramble · Post by **Bramble** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:01 pm

I agree with Jim T that an exit wound that lets blood out and air in is preferable to one that stops inside and hide slip will cover the entry wound. Makes trailing up difficult. If it is a large beast then the bullet may not get to the vitals.

However I also agree with the poster that hard cast ( esentially solids) are being used to get the penetration from calibers that are essentially inadaquate for the task on large game, with softs.
Through the chest prentration from a solid will not necessarialy anchour a mid to large animal. I stupidly lost a Blesbok in Feb because I was silly enough to have a RN FMJ solid in the chamber when I thought I had a soft. ( The rifle loaded Soft, soft solid solid and I forgot to reload ) I never had a beast go more than a few yards for the rest of the trip.

But, the softs in the caliber used (9.3 x 62) 286 grains @ 2400 fps will blow through even the largest game animals side to side, and will reach the vitals from bad angles.

I think that in using the 45-70 as the launch pad then there are issues, big game 45 cals will deliver 480-500 grain softpoints @ 2100-2400 fps the 45-70 (great cartridge etc, I don't want to get into that debate) will not even approach this.
Many, many years of development went into geting big game rifles to deliver complete penetration with softs to get the large wound channel together with an exit.
I cant but help feeling that we are trying to make calibers do work they were never intended for.
Below are photos of recovered softs. Both cut out of the hind quaters of large African game that had been shot chest on. They would have exited side on. The first is 9,3 x 62 the second a 480 grain 450#2 NE.

At its widest that .458 now measures 1.016" after 6 feet of penetration.

Regards

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:06 pm

Friend, I dont know how to debate things with people who
make things up. I guess you think the hi velocity hollow
points with all the extra heat go ahead and cook the meat
for you so it is ready to eat.

Wouldnt hurt if you spent some time googling hydraulics and
fluid dynamics.

mklwhite · Post by **mklwhite** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:13 pm

JimT wrote:mklwhite - the Army tests of shooting through pig carcasses with a chronograph screen in front and one behind showed very little "energy transfer".

Right. Because it passed through it (the need for the second chrono) But it did show "very little 'energy transfer'". They could have calculated it out by figuring the exit speed of the projectile vs impact speed to get the transfered energy.

JimT wrote: What you observe is not "energy transfer" .. no matter that it looks like it.

If you have ever been shot or talked to those who have, it's not like getting hit with a bowling ball .. or a fast ball. From personal experience and of those I know, it's more like a slap or punch... not always a hard punch.

The .308 up close does not hit physically any harder than a good solid punch with a fist.

I think the big issue there is mass. the 308 has jack for mass. The 250lb guy who threw the punch doesn't have speed, but makes up for it in mass. (his total body weight would come into it though of course) Of course there is energy transfer, but it is based on mass. (if energy didn't transfer pool, bowling, and many other sports wouldn't work) And if you stop the projectile mass inside the target then the energy has to (by law

) go somewhere.

Not wanting to get into a argument myself over this though. I just see the over penetration part of the equation as wasted energy is all.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:24 pm

In my own research on the subject, I have come to believe that the essential factors contributing to the "lethality" of a bullet wound are the diameter and location of the permanent wound channel left by any given bullet.

The plain fact is that bigger holes bleed more, and big holes through vital organs either cause CNS damage or devastating blood loss, quickly.

While high velocity bullets are capable of causing tremendous soft tissue damage due to temporary cavitation, many animals are able to survive this "shock" or depositing of "energy", and run. They evetually die by just plain bleeding to death.

KWK · Post by **KWK** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:36 am

I guess you think the hi velocity hollow points with all the extra heat go ahead and cook the meat for you so it is ready to eat.

Hardly. I did say that bullet energy can (and will) be wasted in heating. Fractions of a degree F are all that's needed to waste all the kinetic energy of a bullet.

You started the topic on heavy cast bullets. Cartridges that utilize these are simply not capable of delivering HP bullets to the high velocity needed to create enormous wound cavities. One must tailor the bullet to the gun's limitations.

People using heavy cast aren't saying it is better than a .300 Wea. They are saying that for the speeds they're limited to, heavy FN bullets work best--and can get the job done.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:37 am

I don't get this, a critter don't die from energy, it dies from blood lose or air loss. Now if you use the wrong bullet say like Bramble mentioned a round nose very little bleeding will take place. On a side note if that was the only bullet available then the user would have to go for brain shots, no problem.
But why does it matter if a bullet after causing good blood loss passes through and wastes the rest of it self doing nothing? Why is that of so much concern once the job is done? Dead is dead.
With respect, Bramble mentions using cartridges that are marginal in his opinion with softs but then goes on to relate how with a reconised large game cal and a soilid R nose it failed which unless I'm missing something says to me it don't matter what you use because if you work outside the caperbilities of the bullet it will fail and equally if you work with a lesser cartridge with a heavy slower big Flat nose and get close it will and does work.
I'll say it again, how the hell do arrows that cut say 11/2" do it?
They do it by trying to impart very very little "energy" so they can cut and cut and cut, so in other words energy transfer has now't to do with death.
Show me an example of something where we extract 100% energy transfer, there is none. Fore every four gallon of gas we put in our cars only one actually gets us somewhere, nobody complains about the waste going out the pipe afterwards! Nuclear power, alot of folk think it's free energy. Nothing is free, try and work out the energy in getting the power from it and the energy involved in cleaning it up after. Embarrasingly wastfull. Humans are wastfull in everything we do but I have no problem with a slow FLAT nosed bullet that'll penertrate to much as long as I or someone else puts it through the boiler room and leaves two holes. If it trots of I'll light the pipe for a few minutes reflect and then put the dog on the blood line, whats all the stress about

Nath.

mklwhite · Post by **mklwhite** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:52 am

Nath wrote:I don't get this, a critter don't die from energy, it dies from blood lose or air loss. Now if you use the wrong bullet say like Bramble mentioned a round nose very little bleeding will take place. On a side note if that was the only bullet available then the user would have to go for brain shots, no problem.
But why does it matter if a bullet after causing good blood loss passes through and wastes the rest of it self doing nothing? Why is that of so much concern once the job is done? Dead is dead.
With respect, Bramble mentions using cartridges that are marginal in his opinion with softs but then goes on to relate how with a reconised large game cal and a soilid R nose it failed which unless I'm missing something says to me it don't matter what you use because if you work outside the caperbilities of the bullet it will fail and equally if you work with a lesser cartridge with a heavy slower big Flat nose and get close it will and does work.
I'll say it again, how the hell do arrows that cut say 11/2" do it?
They do it by trying to impart very very little "energy" so they can cut and cut and cut, so in other words energy transfer has now't to do with death.
Show me an example of something where we extract 100% energy transfer, there is none. Fore every four gallon of gas we put in our cars only one actually gets us somewhere, nobody complains about the waste going out the pipe afterwards! Nuclear power, alot of folk think it's free energy. Nothing is free, try and work out the energy in getting the power from it and the energy involved in cleaning it up after. Embarrasingly wastfull. Humans are wastfull in everything we do but I have no problem with a slow FLAT nosed bullet that'll penertrate to much as long as I or someone else puts it through the boiler room and leaves two holes. If it trots of I'll light the pipe for a few minutes reflect and then put the dog on the blood line, whats all the stress about
Nath.

I think it just started out as a discussion of when too much punch through was too much wasted. I could use a 50 cal BMG to hunt deer with. It would kill it too. Not damage any more meat than a 50 cal muzzleloader since there would be no transfer of energy

. But maybe I should back down the firepower a bit and hunt my whitetail with something a bit less penetrating.

Your right about "critter don't die from energy, it dies from blood lose or air loss" but tissue damage that causes the critter to die can come from energy transfer and not a cutting/punching projectile. (though those are usually are what gets the job done)

"Show me an example of something where we extract 100% energy transfer, there is none. "

Here I am afraid we left the kinetic energy of the projectile and jumped into the energy required to give the projectile its kinetic energy. If you do some reading on "Kinetic projectiles" you can see some nice charts/information on the amount of energy that can be contained in a projectile. The trick then is what to do with that energy. Try to punch through the object or to try to push to impact area with such violence as to dump the maximum amount of energy into the target.

I bow to the wisdom and experience of others, such as JimT, in difference on the practical applications and net effect. I just agree that too much penetration can be had for certain applications and any (major) additional penetration is wasted.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:46 pm

While these types of discussions are fun, we must be cautious that they do not generate more heat than light.

(pun intended)

Since everyone has a pet theory they like to work with, often egos get it the way. It's nice to have differing opinions without that.

Personally, when it comes to shooting through something, I do not worry if it's too much of a good thing. If you look in the latest Speer Reloading Manual there is a photo in there of a fat little guy with a hog he killed using Speer's 400 gr. JSP in the .475 Linebaugh.

The bullet went in the rear end of the hog as it ran away, missing the anus by about 1". It exited the hog's mouth, made a nice large dust cloud and bounced off through the trees.

I could hear it go "whack whack whack" as it hit at least several of them.

The hog dropped where it was.

That is the kind of performance I like.

Would the hog have died quicker, faster or deader if the bullet stayed in it?

As much as possible, do your bullet and load testing on critters that live and breath. Shoot lots of them. Keep good records. While theories are good, experience is the best.

Montanan · Post by **Montanan** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:53 pm

JimT

There is alot of wisdom in what you say, and well founded I might add.

Thank you

NonPCnraRN · Post by **NonPCnraRN** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:00 am

Paco Kelly has an ariticle where he shot a 1800 lb range steer with a homemade 300 gr 375 Win bullet using copper tubing as the jacket with a lead core. He loaded it in 38-55 brass which allowed for a little more powder. The bullet went through the steer lengthwise and kept going IIRC. Can we say steer sammiches? I don't think the steer would have been deader if the bullet stayed inside. He made his own bullets because he wanted a heavy for caliber bullet that would hold together and plow through. Me, I'm not as tallented and Hawk Bullets makes the equivalent of Paco's creation. Point is the bullet was designed to meet a certain set of criteria. Expand but plow through any critter at any angle. Guess he knew what he was doing. So when Paco or Jim T use dead critters as their body of evidence it is hard dispute it with a calculator!

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:10 am

Bullet shape, velocity, and momentum all play a part.

When dealing with a cape buffalo, I'd MUCH sooner use a dead soft, round nosed, 450 grain .50 caliber bullet out of a .50-70 at a lazy 1300 fps than a 180 grainer out of a .300 Win Mag. Why? That big ole ounce+ of .50 cal lead is gonna blow about through almost any critter alive, and it is gonna tear things up along the way at roughly .800 to 1.0 inch diameter as it goes. The 30 cal rifle bullet at roughly 3000 fps is NOT gonna reliably even get to where it needs to be without exploding, deflecting, etc.

On a much more mundane end of things, a .44 mag or .45 Colt with a bullet like the old Speer JHP250-260 grainers might simply punch a hole through small to medium game no more effective than stabbing it with a fat pencil. I've seen woodchucks shot with .44 mag 240 factory JHP or SP bullets that still had enough life left to get back to their holes. BUT, shoot that same critter with a 150 grain .44 mag half jacketed soft point with a pure lead core at 1900+ fps, and there is not enough left of it to pick up, and the bullet didn't exit. I've seen very fast driven 160s not exit a SKUNK (but it was badly pureed,. Took a strong stomach and devoted desire to know to find that bullet)

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:11 am

OOPS doubletap

Hillbilly · Post by **Hillbilly** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:00 pm

Heavy bullet x slow velocity= energy Y
Light bullet xfast velocity= enrergyY

Bullet should stay intact after impact

Bullet should impact point of aim. and that point of aim should be a fatal area on the body of what we are shooting at.

condensed.. "Shot placement is king, penetration is Queen , everythng else is fairys dancing on the heads of pins"

I think I understand.

Jeff

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:05 pm

I've been working a lot lately and haven't posted much, but I just can't resist the feeling of a nice warm brown pile of topic squishing up through my toes as I step in it ...

preventec47 wrote:I was reading recently how one of the huge 550 gr hard cast bullets would shoot through a 4 ft diameter tree and I think the guys are hurting themselves if they really come up on an angry grizzly bear in the same way that military FMJ bullets pass right through the enemy without stopping them.

In the original post, I think preventec47 was perhaps comparing or grouping the 550gr hard cast FN and a large FMJ together as being comparatively the same in effect ... which I disagree with. I do think an FMJ in a spitzer shape is probably a poor choice for a hunting bullet unless you're trying to minimize pelt damage or such. If I were hunting the big Alaskan Browns, I think I'd put pelt damage on back burner.

I think his point though ... about going overboard on weight is valid.

When I think large JFP, I'm thinking of say the Hornady 4503 which is a 350gr jacketed "interlock" flat point in .458 caliber. Compared to say a hard cast 420gr lead wide flat nose with a meplat in the .40-.42" range (though something in the .35" range would make it look less like a can of spinach that had lost its label).

I consider the former JFP to be like a convertible, while the HCWFN is like a hardtop.

The guy driving the hardtop is asking his bullet to potentially drive / punch through bone without deflecting, form a moderate cavitation front on his large meplat and thus form a long and moderate wound channel, and potentially exit the animal. His hard lead meplat with its steeply angled perimeter should make easy work of bone ... like a machine tool punch working on sheet steel. He doesn't need to expand because he's got a nice flat frontal area to create moderate cavitation in the tissues. He will shed velocity moderately over a long distance through the tissue and create a wound channel somewhat in the shape of a baseball bat (to borrow a visual from preventec47) and once he drops below the minimum velocity to maintain cavitation, he will still have the momentum to continue passing through causing damage through normal tissue displacement.

The guy driving the convertible is asking his bullet for a better ballistic profile while traveling downrange, but then to convert to a shape with more frontal area once he enters the target. Assuming his JFP or JSP is of a soft lead core and jacket (love those HAWK projectiles), it should expand quickly to a larger diameter than Mr. Hardtop (say .700" or more) where he starts shedding his velocity much more quickly by cavitating a large wound channel (temporary displacement though still destructive) and then dropping below a certain velocity point where he too loses his ability to cavitate through the viscous fluid (my approximation for flesh) yet still travels forward some distance causing tearing as he displaces tissue. I like to picture his wound cavity as that of a football followed by a short distance of a simple tube like tunnel where he likely comes to rest somewhere in the innards though potentially he could pass through as well.

All of that was my way of saying what JimT said here in one short point in a prior post ... "3. A bullet does not have to deform to do the job. The nose of the bullet is the working end. A good flat-nosed hard bullet at the proper velocity will often destroy more tissue all the way through than a softer expanding bullet. The softer bullet may make a larger entrance wound and a larger intial wound cavity, but because of the nose getting larger it slows the bullet down. Thus the deeper the penetration the smaller the wound cavity along the track of the bullet."

At this point, I'll point out what may be obvious to many. First, if the HCWFN left the animal then it certainly didn't use all of its energy creating tissue destruction. (If it entered at 1900fps and exited at 300fps, it exited with a measly 2.5% left over.) But second, neither did the soft lead JFP. If you take a look at the pictures of the recovered bullets in Bramble's post, you will see mechanical deformation ... lots of it. It takes energy to mechanically deform the projectile and convert it from its more ballistically friendly shape into Mr. Slasher. Sure, the new shape provides a shorter and more violent temporary wound channel ... but is that necessarily better than a longer channel? JimT's point #3 argues in favor of the longer channel. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Hornady 4503 that enters an animal with 6000 joules spend 700 to 1200 joules deforming ... maybe more. (This is a rectally procured estimate from an older engineer and should be taken as such.)

Sorry, I'm an electrical engineer ... I work in joules. That 6000 joules is about 4425 ft-lb. Mr. Convertible weighing in at 350gr is doing just under 2400fps. Mr. Hardtop is sporting less energy traveling at 1900fps, but then he's not doing any deforming when he enters the target either.

I've got no issues hunting with either bullet ... it really depends on the situation. Honestly though, if I were facing Cape Buffalo or Rhino, I would have to go HCWFN with a massive meplat in deference to Montanan who has "settled on a 430-gr WFN GC produced by a local Montana company." If I hit bone in the shoulder or head, I need to know that I'm going through and traveling into the internals. The 350gr JFP might give up all of its effort before it reaches the good stuff on an animal like that. Of course, Mr Convertible on an Elk or a Moose with good placement is going to be devastating. And let's face it, internal bleeding is still bleeding. It's just not giving you that extra splashy blood trail you may be after by making two holes instead of one.

As for a 550gr HCWFN or truncated cone solid ... I think that has perhaps swung too far in the heavy non-deforming direction as several posters have already suggested in agreement with preventec47. Again, using a preventec47 visualization, a bullet that large and slow is probably going to make a wound channel that is shaped like a pool cue ... probably not optimal but then it may depend on the circumstance.

Though I will pass on KirkD's proposed test and have never been shot by a bullet, I have taken shrapnel. A nice jagged 3/4" piece to the mid-back that exited the top of my shoulder where it came to rest draped around the edges in meat and fat ... my own. It felt like I had simply brushed up against a tree branch. I never knew I was hit until I went to use my right arm and it didn't operate as expected. Of course, had I had eyes in the back of my head like my wife claims that I do, I probably would have known a bit sooner. On this point, I have to concur with JimT about being shot. It's probably doesn't feel the same as it looks. Until the blood loss sets in of course ... then it feels pretty bad.

So do I use Mr. Convertible or Mr. Hardtop? Neither, I took my last deer with the great compromise ... a Swift A-Frame in 270 Win. It entered the chest squarely, expanded and made mush of the heart, stopped expanding at the bullet's internal partition, and traveled back to be located near the deer's testicles slicing and dicing all along its merry way.

How's that for not taking a hard stance on a topic.

Hopefully someone with a hose is standing by to wash the mushy brown stuff from between my toes. I think I've hit my word count quota for June.

Montanan · Post by **Montanan** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:53 pm

Rimfire McNutjob wrote:Montanan who has "settled on a 430-gr WFN GC produced by a local Montana company." If I hit bone in the shoulder or head, I need to know that I'm going through and traveling into the internals. .

aaah but I already know that my choice has put down plenty of North American big game. Many have bought it in its commercial loading and have used it. The same with they're 300-gr Speer Uni Core, 350-gr JFN and the 405-gr JFN loadings sold under 45-70 Magnum offerings.

Some believe a wide meplat is everything.... instead of a quality constructed bullet.

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:42 pm

Montanan wrote:... The same with they're 300-gr Speer Uni Core, 350-gr JFN and the 405-gr JFN loadings sold under 45-70 Magnum offerings.

Some believe a wide meplat is everything.... instead of a quality constructed bullet.

You must be using the Buffalo Bore stuff. I'm all for quality construction as are probably most people here. Where do you put the 405gr Remington JFP though? I mean, I'm all for a 45 caliber rifle bullet that's $28 per 100 but at that price I have to wonder about the jacket thickness. I mean, in comparison to something from HAWK or Speer, etc. Not that it wouldn't kill mind you, but do you consider it top quality construction that you'd put to work on dangerous game? Just asking ... I've never loaded it but I am tempted to see how it does on paper at those prices.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:02 pm

preventec47 wrote:Friend, I dont know how to debate things with people who
make things up. I guess you think the hi velocity hollow
points with all the extra heat go ahead and cook the meat
for you so it is ready to eat.

Wouldnt hurt if you spent some time googling hydraulics and
fluid dynamics.

I happen to know that two of the people you are arguing with are experienced engineers, they don't need to Google anything. In fact, from what I've seen over the years, at least one third of this board is an engineer of some type, so back off the air of superiority. Also, you simply bobbed and weaved KWK's last analysis of your comments, which anyone with a lick of common sense could see were flawed.

For example: Larger frontal area creates more pressure??????? Does a Mack truck standing still create pressure?

Are you sure your name isn't Chuckwagon?

Montanan · Post by **Montanan** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:31 pm

Rimfire McNutjob

but do you consider it top quality construction that you'd put to work on dangerous game?

Any of the jacket stuff that Buffalo Bore is puting out is quality constructed jacketed bullets, and the hard cast bullets that he is using are of super quality construction as well.

I do not load my stuff to the same fps that Tim Sundle is using, nor do I claim the same consistant results, but I do reload to achieve my goals with a lowered fps.

This whole argument over jacketed vs heavy hard cast bullets is apples to oranges as each one serves a differant purpose for the intended game the hunter is going after. I choose the heavy 430-gr WFN GC bullet because of the country I live in and what I might meet out in our neck of the woods, because I feel it is heavy enough for the largest of our grizzly bears here.

A very close friend of mine was black bear hunting, and happened to have one of these in the 45-70 he was using. He met the bear head on, and took the shot which was right between the eyes, and then exited out the very close to the anus.

The bear dropped on the spot as a result, resulting in no tracking what so ever. I will be visiting my friend later this week, and will take pictures of the skull that shows the enterance hole.

Sure there are those that can sit and say, "what if, what if" or "I would have used this or that type of bullet". That is the nice thing about bullets these days..... it's a buyers choice for what they want and not what someone else feels is better or worse.

The end result is what we are after, and that is a dead animal to tag out and take home.

Now if I were hunting dangerous game up in Alaska such as the coastal brown bear, I would be using Randy Garrett's 540-gr Hammerhead cartridge without any questions ask, and gladly pay the $70.00 per 20 he asks for them.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:15 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
preventec47 wrote:Friend, I dont know how to debate things with people who
make things up. I guess you think the hi velocity hollow
points with all the extra heat go ahead and cook the meat
for you so it is ready to eat.

Wouldnt hurt if you spent some time googling hydraulics and
fluid dynamics.
I happen to know that two of the people you are arguing with are experienced engineers, they don't need to Google anything. In fact, from what I've seen over the years, at least one third of this board is an engineer of some type, so back off the air of superiority. Also, you simply bobbed and weaved KWK's last analysis of your comments, which anyone with a lick of common sense could see were flawed.

For example: Larger frontal area creates more pressure??????? Does a Mack truck standing still create pressure?

Are you sure your name isn't Chuckwagon?

Oh Sore Shoulder dont' be so hard on him. He's already admitted in another thread that he has killed only "a couple does". So his whole argument here is based on theorys of physics. Which has been determined by many others here as not necessarily the way it works in the real world when lead meets flesh and bone.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:29 pm

I choose the heavy 430-gr WFN GC bullet because of the country I live in and what I might meet out in our neck of the woods, because I feel it is heavy enough for the largest of our grizzly bears here.

A very close friend of mine was black bear hunting, and happened to have one of these in the 45-70 he was using. He met the bear head on, and took the shot which was right between the eyes, and then exited out the very close to the anus.

I think you would get just about the same exact results on any north American bear, regardless of the name tag. Regardless of hydraulic theories too.

LOL

Grizz

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:58 pm

Montanan wrote:Rimfire McNutjob

but do you consider it top quality construction that you'd put to work on dangerous game?
Any of the jacket stuff that Buffalo Bore is puting out is quality constructed jacketed bullets, and the hard cast bullets that he is using are of super quality construction as well.

I was just curious about any specifics with the Remington bullet. I'm attracted by the price for reloading purposes.

In case anyone's interested, the latest edition of Rifle has a short writeup by Brian Pearce on the Belt Mountain Punch bullet.

Montanan · Post by **Montanan** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:44 pm

Rimfire McNutjob

In a local shop, they get the Remington 405-gr JSP in bulk buy's, and have them priced at $17.99 per 50 ct. I have bought these and they do work well and are very accurate out of my 1895G. My personal load is 45.0 gr of IMR 3031.

I have really enjoyed the dialog here in this discussion

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:59 pm

Easy Sore Shoulder, easy. He's new here, and doesn't know who he is dealing with.

I'm on your side, but its a new forum and we need to be polite to our new cousins.

Preventec, I see what your saying, but I also have to question whether even the 700 grain slow moving bullets are ineffective or leave a narrow wound channel that is not lethal. The reason I say this is the famed Buffalo rifles shot very heavy bullets at slow velocity (like 1000-1300 fps depending on range and bullet) and they would cleanly kill buffalo.

There is actually a formula that I found once that measured a wound channel by volume: long and skinny or short and fat. It did provide a way to compare "apples and oranges" so to speak, but I lost the link with my old hard drive. Anyhow, our theories are still struggling to explain bullet lethality and terminal ballistics in the "real world". In that sense, Jim T., Garrett, John Linebaugh and Marshall Stanton are on the cutting edge and have done experiments and written articles to prove it.

Many P.H.'s in Africa also have their own wealth of experiences of why they use and prefer one cartridge over another, and it has nothing to do with armchair ballistics but only what has worked time and time again in the field.

Personally, I would choose to side with those who have tried their loads in the field, and were willing to bet their life on it.

I love theories as much as anyone, but they have yet to invent a theory that describes the effects of blood and pressure loss to an animal from a pass-through wound channel; or to measure the "shock effect" or "knock-down" power of certain cartridges. These things simply can't be measured yet. Which brings me back to what seems to work in the field.

Rimfire, regarding the Punch Bullets, I did do my own penetration testing with them from 20 ft into a box of 20 lb weight copy paper in a 454 Puma rifle. I compared it to a 360 grain Cast Performance bullet at less velocity (the PB weighed 316 grains). The lead bullets shattered, but the PB I could have reloaded and shot again. Made a big believer out of me, and that's why I use them as my "bear load" in my Ruger 45 Colt.

-Tutt

Post by **Old Savage** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:09 pm

Now Andy that is one of the most eloquent things I have seen here for a long time.

Gone overboard with heavy hard bullets

Gone overboard with heavy hard bullets

Re: Gone overboard with heavy hard bullets

recap