Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Barnes vs Partitions vs Ballistic Tips

These "versus" threads always come up as well as the questions about "energy" "momentum", etc. The terminal performance discussions are some of the most heated and hotly contested topics, short most likely only to the "ethics" discussions. Lots of opinions get bantered back and forth with very little factual information being presented while everyone involved believes they are right. The problem is that very few have the background, done the research and study, and have killed enough to overcome the mass of misinformation that we have been told, taught, read and learned about on the subject. Instead of sticking to simple facts the shooting and hunting industry and a lot of writers would rather delude you with article after article of mystical concepts such as "energy transfer," "neural shock," "Taylor knockdown power," "momentum," et al. Although this stuff makes for interesting and entertaining reading, it's really nothing more than a bunch of sophisticated junk-science they've invented to have something to write and because they truly have no idea what they are talking about.


When I do research I want to find the correct, factual information given objectively and without regards for my own preconceived notions and opinions. Something I have been meaning to do is to take a picture of the wound cavity that different bullets produce in tissue and overlay them on top of a picture of a deer to provide a visual reference as to the differences in performance. If you do not like reading and just want to stare at pictures skip to the bottom of the post.





First we need to define what terminal ballistics encompasses. Terminal ballistics is everything that the bullet does from the moment of impact with the target to its final resting place. For our desires it is really how bullets kill and how they do it.

These quotes from Dr. Martin L. Fackler who is probably the father of modern science based study of wound ballistics should start us off nicely-



















Read them again. Nowhere is "kinetic energy," "hydrostatic shock," "knockdown power," etc discussed as measurements of wounding. In fact, quite the opposite. The discussion of kinetic energy and minimum Ft-Lbs of energy for hunting animals is a myth. Energy doesn't tell us anything about bullet performance. A 200gr round nose solid impacting at 3,000fps and a 200gr varmint bullet impacting at 3,000fps both have exactly the same "energy" and yet behave completely different in tissue. Yes, energy is a number. Yes, it can be measured. But it is a completely worthless number in regards to bullet performance in animals. Energy is not a wounding mechanism. The only things that matter are how deeply the bullet penetrates and how wide the path is. That is it. Given identical placement and two different types of bullets that both penetrate through the vitals, the one with the widest path will kill faster. If a 180gr 30 cal bullet and a 60gr 22 cal bullet both penetrate through the vitals, but the 22 cal produces a wider path, hence destroying more tissue, then the 22 cal will kill faster. There is simply no way around this.



The FBI, all organizations within the DOD- US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, US Special Operations Command, Navel Crane and the International Wound Ballistics Association all use the same tests and standards to evaluate bullet performance. Ballistic gelatin that is properly calibrated and tested is used to simulate tissue. Bullets are fired into it and then the performance measured. Namely- neck length (how deeply the projectile penetrated before expansion began), max temporary cavity (how wide the tissue was damaged) and total penetration. With those three things we now have a very good idea how that bullet compares to others and what that bullet will do in flesh.



Picture taken by Dr. Gary Roberts.





With that I'll get to the pictures....

Again what I did was take pictures of properly calibrated and measured ballistic gelatin testing and overlaid them onto a picture of a deer. I did broadside, quartering away, gut shot, and rear shot for each. I utilized three different bullet types to show the different effects. Bullets used were a Barnes TSX, Nosler Accubond, and Hornady AMAX. All were fired from a 308 Winchester with the same muzzle velocity. All were the same weight class.

Bullets of like construction exhibit remarkably similar performance even in different weights so the results for any comparable bullet will very, very similar. IE the Barnes is one of the "hardest" bullets producing some of the smallest wound channels but almost all of the copper bullet such as the Nosler E-Tip, Hornady GMX, Remington Premier Copper Solid, Federal Trophy Copper, etc will preform closely. The Hornady AMAX is one of the "softest" bullets suitable for deer hunting that fragments consistently and as a result will produce the widest wound channels but fragile bullets such as the Nosler Ballistic Tip, Hornady SST, etc will produce similar but slightly narrower wound channels.

In testing and actual field observations on numerous deer the 168gr NBT and Winchesters CBST penetrate more with channels more in line with typical bonded bullets of the same weight class. The Nosler Accubond is the middle of the road in performance with controlled expansion bullets like the Nosler Partition, Trophy Boned Bear Claw, Swift A Frame, etc.

Keep in mind the representations offer idea of what to expect. There always exceptions and while different bullets will behave differently in animals, bullets in the same class really are more alike than they are different.




First up is broadside


168gr Barnes TSX notice the relatively long and narrow wound path.


In my experience it actually is slightly smaller then shown due to less tearing of the temporary stretch cavity.




Next is the Accubond


It still penetrates deeply yet the wound cavity is around 20% larger.




Lastly the frailest of them all the 168gr Hornady AMAX


Notice that while the others will penetrate further, the AMAX offers enough penetration and by far destroys the most tissue.

It isn't a great feat to get full penetration on broadside deer, but what about quartering-away?





Barnes TSX






Nosler Accubond



Hornady AMAX





Again we see the characteristic deep, but relatively narrow path from the Barnes which easily achieves full penetration and exits. The Accubond has a wider path while still exiting most times. The AMAX may or may not exit but as shown will tear and disrupt considerably more along the way.

You put alot of time and chopping into this post...

Why?

Jayco

Should have stated all impacts are coming from the left side-exiting right. Will post more later.


Looking forward to the discussion....

I did. And I did it because I thought some might be interested in what actually happens when our favorite bullet hits animals.

Good explanation and drawings but for most hunters excess meat damage is a real issue - as are factors like striking bones on heavier game.

Absolutely. Meat damage is one of a few good reasons to choose certain bullets/cartridges. As is bigger game.

Your pictures and charts show nothing but(I guess) the perfect shot missing all bones and ribs for the perfect gelatin expansion.

Two deer shot behind the shoulder,one in an '06 with 180 grain Core-Lokts and the other with the very same shot placement within reason with a 45-70 and 420 grain cast....

Which bullet did more damage?

Jayco

Cool post. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

Eric

Since you had Partition in the title, and it's been used with success for decades. I would like to see your results for it?

Not that it would change my opinion of it. I never had one fail me, but i'm curious.

Very interesting.

But, as bone strikes, and running into bigger game than deer (even when targeting deer) can happen quite frequently - this gives a reason why I prefer using Barnes products. They punch through long tracks of tissue and go through bone more reliably than anything else I have ever used.

But, I'll be the first to admit that on perfect shots (no bone) on animals that are only deer sized - homogeneous bullets might not drop the animals quite as quickly as the lead-filled fast-expanders.

There is absolutely know way you can predict what will happen once you pull the trigger in the field with any bullet not knowing exactly where it will hit and what it will have to deal with getting to the vitals.

Gelatin test or any test are poor examples of field conditions and what a bullet will do..Under "Perfect" circumstances even gelatin test are not game animals with hide/bones and ribs and different substances than gelatin.

Nick a rib on a broadside(perfect shot) with a volatile bullet like the A-Max and see what happens.Way different than your graphs.

Jayco

This is really excellent...something that at least gives a graphic illustration of the effects of the bullet in the anatomy, and even if not perfect,provides a great approximation.

And I say not "perfect" not to be critical, but we have to remember that the data is based on bullet strikes in a relatively homogeneous material of consistent hardness and densitty through it's entire length of travel,unlike, for example,where we hit a bull elk that has come out of a wallow (with hide caked with dried mud),hide and hair,along with maybe shoulder bone that must be penetrated to reach those vitals, and still be able to destroy relatively soft, stretchy tissue after all that....there are many examples we could conjur up.

Along with this we have variables of impact velocity(distance) and jacket/core composition to consider in the equation.Running through variables involved, it is no wonder we struggle sometimes to get a grasp on terminal wounding effect of the various bullets out there.

Also I think there is the issue that physiologically some animals are simply tougher than others,and I don't know how we measure that!

What is obvious is that bullets aren't the same in a general sense in terms of how they inflict wounds and penetrate,and what they "do" after they land.

Formidilosis this is a great thread and IMHO one of the more important one's posted on this site.....This should be flagged.Thanks for taking the time to do this for us.

How so?

How do these photos come close to on actual game performance?There not real kinda like watching Star Trek...I am not knocking them but just trying to get across even if everything was perfect,the performance on game would be different.....

The internet has changed hunting and not in the right way!

Jayco

Let's just take Elk as an example....If there rolling in there waller,first there wet then it turns into hard caked mud,the first barrier the bullet comes in contact with.Then there is the hair,then the hide then the bodily fluids if you do not contact muscle or bone.

So how do these gelatin test approximate real game and what a bullet will really do?

Jayco

Good stuff Formi. Thx for posting it.

I really find it hard to believe that the majority of us have learned something here. Really?

While I certainly agree with the main message and point of your posts, I can't say that I totally agree with the scientific details you've outlined. While scientific metrics like momentum, kinetic energy, etc, may not be very good comparative tools between bullets, they certainly are important, since without kinetic energy or momentum, it would be absolutely impossible for the bullet to move or penetrate or damage anything.



This paragraph by Dr. Fackler summarizes the subject perfectly, from a scientific point of view. Bullet mass and velocity are the only things that are used to calculate kinetic energy and momentum, so indirectly he's saying that both of those things are important! They certainly represent the potential that the bullet has to do damage, but as he points out (and you do, as well!), other factors determine how much actual damage and penetration the bullet achieves.




Again, I agree with you in principle, here, but energy is not meaningless, since it takes bullet mass and velocity into account, both of which are important in determining penetration and wound size. The non-scientific terms are fairly useless, though, like "hydro-static shock" (what is that, anyway?!), "knock-down power", etc.

At the end of the day, I'm with you all the way! The scientist in me just had to mention the trivial details that you had overlooked

Internet hunting is a whole different animal.

Jayco