NIKON PROSTAFF - 480 CLICKS OF CAN-DO!
 

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#7287979 - 01/09/13 Terminal Ballistics -
65BR Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Registered: 02/22/07
Posts: 12630
Loc: NW Louisiana
_________________________
Rule #1 - Destroy Vitals



Top
RV 728 BP
#7288409 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 65BR]
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 30532
65: Thanks for posting.I have the entire work saved somewhere in my computer,but had not read it in awhile.

General items that jump out are how good bullets like the Barnes X,Swift Aframe,TBBC,North Fork,really are by objective analysis;and how well the 60+ year old design of the Nosler Partition still hangs right in there with them all,across the spectrum of calibers and impact velocities.A lot of this gets borne out in real life.

None of this should come as any surprise.There are a couple of anomolies that jump out....one was the amount of penetration frequently given by the Swift Aframe,despite its substantial frontal area,frequently hanging close to the Barnes X.Another was the increased penetration of the 140 NF as velocity increased;noted by the author.

Pretty obvious these (Barnes X,Aframe,Nosler Partition, TBBC,North Fork)are among the very best designs for BG hunting,clearly demonstrating their superiority in a number of categories.

I love the stuff about the heavy flat point handgun bullets penetrating deeper than anything else.

Interesting read;always worth reviewing.
_________________________
You can't say very much on here without pissing at least SOMEBODY off-get used to it.

Top
#7288550 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: BobinNH]
mtrancher Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 543
Loc: Eastern Montana
I've had that page bookmarked for quite a while and refer to it occasionally. I find terminal ballistics fascinating and have done my own wet newsprint testing for years. My little experiments have pretty much confirmed what is reported here. Bullet construction -- the Partition aside -- has changed so much in the past 10 years that its worthwhile to study whats available because the new bullets do open up many possibilities. It's not that older styles are not worthwhile, it is more that newer styles add flexibility to calibers and cartridges.

Top
#7288676 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: mtrancher]
1tnhunter Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 2054
Loc: Tennessee
I didn't read the entire article but there was some interesting findings in what i've read.Got to bookmark it.
But how does this type of testing actually compare to the reality of shooting game?

Top
#7288735 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 30532
gravestone I think it correlates pretty well, in general.

Of course I'm only speaking from the standpoint of having used a relatively few designs extensively enough to get a realistic handle;that is meant to say that unless you are doing a lot of cull work on various sizes of game(not just deer),it's hard to get a broad range of experiences with relatively few animals.

North American bag limits don't give a guy a chance to shoot enough animals to really get a grip on a wide variety of designs....and since many here have a "dead is dead" approach, it might look like lots of bullets "work".

Like mtrancher says above,I think the results correlate pretty clearly to what I have seen from things like the Nosler Partition, and the bonded bullets based on my own use of the Bitterroot (similar to TBBC,NF, and Swift Aframe);enough to convince me they stand head and shoulders over C&C designs across the board.



Edited by BobinNH (01/09/13)
_________________________
You can't say very much on here without pissing at least SOMEBODY off-get used to it.

Top
#7288756 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 65BR]
jwall Online   content
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 09/06/10
Posts: 5027
Loc: Southern Arkansas
Cliff -

THNX, haven't read it yet but have SAVED it on my 'puter' to read when I have time.

I emailed UR op to myself and 'deposited' in my handloading folder.

THNX AGAIN

Jerry
_________________________
jwall

aka - 3100 guy.

There is no aftermarket FIX for operator error. jw


Top
#7288769 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
mtrancher Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 543
Loc: Eastern Montana
Gravestone, it simply provides a baseline. Hunters tend to be very loyal to what has worked for them and will defend what they have had success with. Nothing wrong with that. Even with whitetail deer, the most common big game animal, the few inches of difference between a meaty shoulder and a good rib shot can make quite a difference with some bullets so the onus is always on shot placement. In most cases common sense and avoiding extremes are sufficient. When you compare a true match bullet and/or a true varmint bullet against a monolithic, for example, it is easy to see why one might move more into the center for all-around performance. Or, if one is counting pennies, a comparison between two less expensive bullets might tip the balance a certain way. Mostly, terminal ballistic testing is simply fun. (Messy with newsprint, but fun.) With bullets like Northforks and the Barnes MRX it can be quite a challenge to have enough newsprint to stop the bullet. M.L. McPherson was of the belief that saturated phone books were better than gelatin to replicate big game results.

Top
#7288799 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: BobinNH]
Mako25 Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 16718
Loc: TX
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

1) Keith-style bullets' shoulders not being responsible for wound channel diameter.

2) Observations on calibers smaller than .257 (.224, and .244 guys are gunna be goin' apechit).

I'm sure there are others, but in my initial reading - those are the two that popped out at me.

Top
#7288809 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
GaryVA Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 03/07/05
Posts: 2357
Loc: The Backcountry Mountains
Originally Posted By: Gravestone
But how does this type of testing actually compare to the reality of shooting game?



First sentence, "There aren't many predictive methods calibrated to actual field results or to controlled tests."

You can use theory and perform a lab test in an effort to simulate shooting game, but the only true validation is the actual results from actually shooting game over a period of time. It doesn't exist, but even if we could invent the perfect lab model, the perfect theory, the perfect controlled tests, and the perfect method to predict results.....the proof would not be in the lab results, but the proof would be in the results from the field model when you actually shoot game.

Take results of lab model tests as a way to compare particular characteristics under particular sets of circumstances. Such comparison in a lab model may or may not relate to desired effects when observing results from use in the field.

Best smile
_________________________
I've never met a genius. A genius to me is someone who does well at something he hates. Anybody can do well at something he loves -- it's just a question of finding the subject.

- Clint Eastwood

Top
#7288868 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: Mako25]
1tnhunter Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 2054
Loc: Tennessee
Originally Posted By: Mako25
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

2) Observations on calibers smaller than .257 (.224, and .244 guys are gunna be goin' apechit).



This is one thing that popped out at me also. There's a fair amount of guys on the fire that have both deer and elk with .243 & .25 calibers.Then there's others that say they've had good results withh 223's on deer.

Top
#7288979 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 30532
I don't think he said that 24's and 25's wouldn't kill deer and elk, nor that 223 cal's would not kill deer.Rather he seemed to imply that for both jobs there were better options.
_________________________
You can't say very much on here without pissing at least SOMEBODY off-get used to it.

Top
#7289064 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
1tnhunter Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 2054
Loc: Tennessee
After my 2000 season experience using the .243 Winchester I don't feel terribly confident in this caliber for big game either

Taken from the article

Top
#7289082 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
Mako25 Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 16718
Loc: TX
Oh, it's on now! grin

Top
#7289180 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: Mako25]
1tnhunter Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 2054
Loc: Tennessee
No mako i'm not looking to go down that road.I appreciate a man putting in that kind of time and sharing with everyone.By no means am i a ballistian. In my limited experience with the 243 it seems to a very adequate cartridge for deer,at least for me.

Top
#7289265 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
Mako25 Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 16718
Loc: TX
The ire won't be directed towards you for simply pointing out what the study says (well, it shouldn't anyway).

I have zero hesitation in using a .244, and while I don't prefer the .22's - I've seen the results, and it's dead critters. Many times, LARGE ones.

Top
#7289302 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
mtrancher Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 543
Loc: Eastern Montana
What I see as valuable in newsprint testing is to determine for yourself if the bullet performs as the manufacturer describes. There will always be those claiming the exception rather than pointing out the rule, but, if you test enough bullets from a variety of calibers at varying velocities you do get an idea if the bullet is performing in accordance with its design and marketing. And, of course, the medium has to be consistent. The best cup and core bullet is likely to disintegrate if the newsprint is too dry, but even then, if the medium is consistent, you can determine which penetrated more before shattering. I've drawn my own conclusions, of course, from my own testing but I'm hesitate to mention them due to the flammability of the electronic media.

Top
#7290486 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: Mako25]
doubletap Offline
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 12/05/07
Posts: 5194
Loc: Atlanta
Originally Posted By: Mako25
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

1) Keith-style bullets' shoulders not being responsible for wound channel diameter.

I read about a test where they painted the front of Keith style bullets prior to shooting test medium. It seems the paint on the shoulders was undisturbed and it was concluded that the shoulders never made contact. I think it was Ross Seyfried who wrote about it but I don't remember if he was involved in the testing.
_________________________
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

- Albert Einstein

Top
#7290760 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: doubletap]
jwp475 Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 04/25/05
Posts: 19400
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: doubletap
Originally Posted By: Mako25
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

1) Keith-style bullets' shoulders not being responsible for wound channel diameter.

I read about a test where they painted the front of Keith style bullets prior to shooting test medium. It seems the paint on the shoulders was undisturbed and it was concluded that the shoulders never made contact. I think it was Ross Seyfried who wrote about it but I don't remember if he was involved in the testing.



This is true, the wound channel is determined by the size of the me-plat on the bullet. I have shot enough game with these bullets to have observed this in the field as well as in test media
_________________________
Originally Posted By: Jeff_O
.they WAY over penetrate on deer...


Top
#7290900 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: doubletap]
65BR Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Registered: 02/22/07
Posts: 12630
Loc: NW Louisiana
Posted link for 'informative value' smile

Re: the author's statement, sort of 'premature' to base his assessment of the 243 on a few kills w/random bullets. Have to know more info to conclude anything on those WW powerpoints. Suffice to say, I have had GREAT results using 95BTs and 85 TSX, as well as others. The 100 PT may not make the widest wound channel, but it will give 2 holes, my first deer kill was using it, but I wanted something more, and think I have found it.

Alot of good info in the article/review. I can say, just like in medicine, the OUTCOMES Data (what happens in field) may be far more important than stats/pics of bullets.

Use what works for YOU. Often certain bullets have 'trends,' and I find myself going w/those that are most favorable - in their actual shooting/hunting - those results showing up from many sources.

Most often, a bullets reputation over a LONG time will be seen by it's results. IF the cost of ALL bullets were equal, I'd fathom the majority of hunters would choose a premium of one kind or another.
_________________________
Rule #1 - Destroy Vitals



Top
#7290962 - 01/09/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: jwp475]
mathman Online   content
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 06/03/04
Posts: 22452
Originally Posted By: jwp475
Originally Posted By: doubletap
Originally Posted By: Mako25
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

1) Keith-style bullets' shoulders not being responsible for wound channel diameter.

I read about a test where they painted the front of Keith style bullets prior to shooting test medium. It seems the paint on the shoulders was undisturbed and it was concluded that the shoulders never made contact. I think it was Ross Seyfried who wrote about it but I don't remember if he was involved in the testing.



This is true, the wound channel is determined by the size of the me-plat on the bullet. I have shot enough game with these bullets to have observed this in the field as well as in test media


An LBT WFN does does have some "whop."

Top
#7291026 - 01/10/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: doubletap]
1tnhunter Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 2054
Loc: Tennessee
Originally Posted By: doubletap
Originally Posted By: Mako25
I see several controversies brewin', among them:

1) Keith-style bullets' shoulders not being responsible for wound channel diameter.

I read about a test where they painted the front of Keith style bullets prior to shooting test medium. It seems the paint on the shoulders was undisturbed and it was concluded that the shoulders never made contact. I think it was Ross Seyfried who wrote about it but I don't remember if he was involved in the testing.


Doubletap would you please explain this further. I guess you're talking about Elmer Keith and the cartridges and heavier bullets he liked to shoot?But what does makos quote mean?

Top
#7291057 - 01/10/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
JoeMama Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 07/09/05
Posts: 1454
Loc: Eaton Rapids, Mi
Originally Posted By: Gravestone
I didn't read the entire article but there was some interesting findings in what i've read.Got to bookmark it.
But how does this type of testing actually compare to the reality of shooting game?


http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Half way down the page

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/game_study.html

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/1shotstops.html
_________________________
I am a conservative with a lowercase "c".

Top
#7291094 - 01/10/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: JoeMama]
1tnhunter Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 2054
Loc: Tennessee
Originally Posted By: JoeMama
Originally Posted By: Gravestone
I didn't read the entire article but there was some interesting findings in what i've read.Got to bookmark it.
But how does this type of testing actually compare to the reality of shooting game?


http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Half way down the page

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/game_study.html

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/1shotstops.html



Ok i'm definately missing something i still don't get it!!

Top
#7291130 - 01/10/13 Re: Terminal Ballistics - [Re: 1tnhunter]
mathman Online   content
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 06/03/04
Posts: 22452
I believe this is the idea: Consider two .430" diameter cast bullets, one is a Keith with a .270" meplat and .430" shoulder, the other is an LBT flat point round nose with a .340" meplat. Despite the lack of a full diameter shoulder, the LBT hits harder and makes a bigger hole.

The second bullet makes a bigger hole than the first:



Note: Photo lifted from elsewhere on the 'fire.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Moderator:  RickBin, SYSOP 
RV 180 2
CLICK HERE for GREAT PRICES on LEUPOLD OPTICS at CAMERA LAND!
RV 160 1 2
CLICK HERE for HUGE SUMMER DAYS SAVINGS on ZEISS OPTICS at CAMERA LAND!
RV 160 2 2
CLICK HERE for GREAT PRICES on LEUPOLD OPTICS at CAMERA LAND!
Who's Online
517 registered (1beaver_shooter, 300MAG, 16gauge, 30Gibbs, 67 invisible), 1076 Guests and 346 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RV 160 3 2
Forum Stats
53,262 Registered Members
72 Forums
687,254 Topics
9,926,764 Posts

Most users ever online: 4,830 @ 12/02/14










Copyright © 2000-2015 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.