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

Jayco: To a lot of older guys like yourself,who understand this stuff and have a whole lot of experience killing animals, this may seem sort of basic and rudimentary.

But personally I can tell by a lot of the questions and comments on here, by the younger guys, or even the guys without your level of experience,that there are a lot of questions and mysteries to them about what bullets do,why they kill,and how they do it.If there wasn't, you wouldn't have so many "This or That" threads.

I agree with your comments about the variables involved (I think I commented on them myself),but it sure doesn't hurt to have it illustrated to them in plain language and in terms that are easy for them to understand.As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.And I think it also helps illustrate that,just because an animal "died",does not mean it's the end of the conversation....because it might not happen exactly the same way the next time, if you pick the wrong bullet.

Yeah the Internet has changed things.....but this really is not much different than what we learned from guys like Hagel and others 3 decades ago,and confirmed by shooting animals ourselves.......just a different means of communication.

With respect Bob...You are an Internet hero taking the young and old into your wings and trying to make it right,whatever it is.To that I tip my hat, but enough is enough repeating time after time something like the A-Max is an all around, in every circumstance,Elk bullet, know matter what graph you show or what gelatin it is shot into..

Hope you understand as I have to hit the road right now not looking over my post.I trust you take it as it is without looking down at anyone.Just off the tip of my tongue without thing to much about it.


Jayco

First the earth cooled....

Oh and for deer at standard velocities, just about any bullet will do...

Within reason, I think that today just about any bullets works pretty well.

Jeezus.. Is killing critters this hard to some people?

Great post. There is so much BS floating around about terminal ballistics it's good to see some scientific info with supporting evidence making it into a hunting forum.

Ballistic gel simulates what happens in tissue in a repeatable and measurable way. It has been compared to terminal performance in human and animal tissue for decades and found to be the best method available to predict what a projectile will do in an actual tissue impact. The absolute worst-case scenario is that gel provides a relative/comparative measurement of bullet performance. No don side to that.

You're kidding, right?

Its only hard if you make it so.

I could rock on with Ballistic tips for the rest of my career and not fret it. In fact I may.

Nope. It's been correlated thousands of times over, primarily in human tissue, but also in animal research. Ballistic gel is the best stimulant we currently have and accurately predicts what a bullet will do in tissue.

Respectfully, you're smoking crack.

Gel will never duplicate mud, hair, hide, cartilage, bone, muscles and internal organs.

The title is just to get people to look. However I will try to get one up of a Partition, though it will look very similar to the Accubond.
















Gelatin, while not perfect, has proven to be THE best predictor of what a bullet will do in tissue. As far as bone and hide do you really think that hasn't been tested?

Your AMAX comment is also wrong. That picture shows almost perfectly what that bullet consistently does whether it hits shoulders or not. The only difference being that if it hits shoulder/leg bones both shoulders will typically be lost and the exit wound will be around 4-5 inches in diameter rather then the 2-3 inch if only hitting the soft tissue of the chest. I do not mean this as a measuring test or ego but instead simply as a data point, however it is likely that I have shot more deer with any single variation of 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, and 30 cal AMAX then you have shot total. I have no questions as to what AMAX's do in deer. The 168gr from a 308 has no issue penetrating bone and reaching the vitals in deer type game.








You are of course correct on all your points. While in an ideal world we would have millions of animals that are the exact same size, age, health, and mental state to test bullets on. Unfortunately there is no way to be consistent from bullet to bullet and shot to shot on animals and therefor comparisons would be less then accurate. Gelatin provides that consistency and also happens to nicely correlate with what we see in light boned mammals. IE deer and humans. Your point about some individual aniamls being physiologically tougher is spot on as well as phsycological differences as well.









Because they do. Barnes TSX exhibit relatively narrow, deep penetration in ballistic gel. Barnes TSX exhibit relatively narrow, deep penetration in real animals. The wound patterns are very similar when measured. Nosler Accubonds exhibit wide expansion with a little fragmentation in the first part of its path producing a good sized max temp cavity, and medium to deep penetration in ballistic gel. They also exhibit wide expansion with a little fragmentation in the first part of its path producing a good sized max temp cavity, and medium to deep pentration in real animals. The Hornady AMAX exhibits extremely wide wound cavities with medium penetration producing extreme tissue destruction in ballistic gel. Ironically AMAX's exhibits extremely wide wound cavities with medium penetration producing extreme tissue destruction in real animals. Funny how that works......










Please point out where I have mentioned elk? In any case intermediate barrier penetration is tested. While there are some differences in general bone causes bullets to open/fragment more and usually penetrate less.










Agree on all accounts.

Exactly who brought up elk? Who has said that an AMAX is an all around, in every circumstance, Elk bullet? Oh that's right, no one did.










You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not that if a bullet penetrates 13.7 inches in gel that it will penetrate 13.7 inches in real animals from every angle and no matter what structures are hit. It's that if a bullet demonstrates wide, shallow penetration in gel it will also produce wide, shallow penetration in animals. The general shape and characteristics will be the same. Hair, bone, mud, etc does not change that.

Another example of the internet making people more stupid..

Call up the major bullet manufacturers and ask them if they design and market bullets on gel performance alone.

Then get back to us.

This is a faily reliable dissertation I put together on ballistics...

Best artwork ever.

I do like my NBTs , for years. maybe a little theatrical in elk up close.
NBTs seem an extra margin of expansion at distance. Insurance for the lack of another word!

I wouldn't mind if someone tossed a few in my coffin and said a few nice things about Nolsers when I die!

But the more the curse of overthinking the wheel strikes, the more I think ABs might be a better choice, say I punched a scapula, or grazed a leg bone? (I am fine with ribs, things just happen sooner)

Just a question , if I were to try ABs?
How do they fly compared to BTs ?

Same power charge/sweet-spot?
Pressures about the same?
Velocity ? (Mv and down range?)

Depends on the Ballistic Tip. Some have more jacket than others.

Formidilosus, thanks for this thread. It matches my experience in shooting both a few hundred big game animals and different kinds of media.

I have been involved with more then a few R&D's with manufactures designing, tweaking and testing bullets. The good ones test the holy F out of bullets in gel. Then they validate that testing in animals.

Jayco,I don't think Formidilosis is trying to establish the Amax as an all around elk bullet;only illustrate what it does and how it behaves in thin skinned game in comparison to others.

You know I am a Partition and Bitterroot shooter,which means I shoot the same bullets you do...mostly. I try to relate what I've seen, shooting animals But there are a lot of bullets out there.It's good fun to take the data from shooting media,and correlate to what we see in the field.

Thank you for the thread, it is a lot of fun to see the gel effects theory set into a visual in game.

Through the years, reliability has been an issue. Never as bad as marginally placed shots, still was an issue.

Devastation is a word that comes to mind when we field dress quick-clean kills.
Something those that use the no-gut method might fail to realize?

Your comparisons reassure something years of field observation have shown us all along.

It would be interesting to see the effects slower/controled-expansion bullets have at lower velocities. Something unavoidable at distance.

Not a study, more of an observation. It seems anything works 'well' up close. But even the stout-ist manglems lose their devastation appeal at distance.

Not a study, just in other words. A 300-Mag bullet slows through -06 speeds, down past .308 speeds and eventually has the potential of a 30/30 and could still be effective on game. That in a nut-shell is why I have leaned more toward the more aggressive bullets.

Thanks for the thread!