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

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!

thanks 4 the info!!!!

Bob is correct. Nowhere I have offered opinions on what bullet should be used for what game.


I picked three bullets to illustrate the differences in projectile selection and that even though they all have exactly the same "energy" they perform very, very differently. The Barnes is used because it is one of the deepest penetrating, narrowest wound channel bullets, the AMAX because it is one of, if not, the most violent heavy for caliber expanding/fragmenting bullets, and the Accubond because it is right in the middle and approximates what almost all controlled expansion bullets will do.




This is how I select what bullet to use in what cartridge and caliber and on what animal. First I want to be able to use the rifle to its limit. Which for just about all normal centerfire, bolt action rifles is +/-600 yards. So for me that bullet has to be able to expand/upset at 1,600 to 1,800 fps. Then I want it to exit the animal most of the time on quartering shots. I'm talking from the back of the ribs, to the offside shoulder.

Once those parameters have been filled I will choose the bullet that offers the biggest wound channel available while still meeting the expansion/penetration I want.


Quite a few have asked what bullets I use and so below are the cartridges and bullets I use the most for deer, for the results I want. That doesn't mean I'm saying they are the best for you.



223/5.56- Just about any of the controlled expansion, blind to barrier 62+ grain bullets available (Federal 62gr Fusion, and the identically constructed Speer 64gr Gold Dot, 60gr Partition, Federal MK318 SOST, 62gr TBBC, etc. The Barnes TSX (esp. the 53gr, and 55gr) offers good performance out to 200 or so yards as velocity drops too low past that. The Hornady 75gr AMAX is good in bolt actions and at long range.


243Win/243WSSM- 95gr Nosler Ballistic Tip. This bullet offers nearly perfect penetration and expansion for deer in my experience. That bullet was designed, made, and tuned for the 243Win by Gail Root from what I understand and deer just collapse at the shot. The Barnes 85gr TSX with its narrow wound channel does not damage enough tissue for me and we get a lot of runners. In addition past the 250 to 300 yard mark wounds are small due to low expansion. It does offer great penetration for bigger game, though oddly enough we have caught more 85gr TSX's in deer then any other bullet. For specific LR bullets the 105gr AMAX and 105gr HPBT from Hornady, the 105gr Berger VLD, and the 115gr DTAC have all worked well.



7mm WSM- these are our dedicated LR guns and we use bullets for that. Mainly the 162gr AMAX and 162gr HPBT from Hornady.



308Win- 168gr AMAX. This bullet performs like a larger 95gr NBT in the 243. Nearly perfect IMO. If I wanted a bit less expansion and more penetration the 165/168gr Nosler Ballistic Tip is wonderful. Of course almost any bullet works great in this cartridge though.



300Win Mag- 178gr AMAX. Most devastating cartridge/bullet combination I have seen. I rarely use it anymore as the meat damage can be extreme.







Those are what I and the group I hunt with tend to use for deer. For Elk and bigger things might change. When I have an Elk and deer tag in my pocket I use a bullet that is good for the bigger animal and it will work on the deer too. Even though I can specialize a bit because I mostly hunt Whitetails and Mule deer, Bob, Mule Deer, etc have it right. For an all around bullet the Partition, Accubond, Bitterroot, and other similar bullets are most diffidently the best performers across the board from Moose to Antelope. if I had to pick one type of bullet for everything those would be it.

Good illustrations, good contrasts and good basic information for those w/o much experience.
It's long been known that the better or best deer bullets are those that expand quickly. Add enough mass to make sure you get some penetration and you are good to go.
If more penetration might be needed, one then has a choice to make as to how far one needs to go in choosing a bullet.
Good stuff. E

I have been using Barnes TSX since 2004 with excellent success. I have no plans on changing but there are plenty of good bullets to choose from these days.

Respectfully, you're speaking from a position of ignorance. That's your choice and I have no problem with it. For those who care to advance their understanding of terminal ballistics the info is readily available. Furthermore, you're the only one who said anything about gel "duplicating" anything.

He's good at that.

A lot of gacking going on here, hunt season can't be too far away is it...grin

I saw take a good bullet, put it in a good place and good things will happen. Cepting of course for the volunteer who took the slug.

Pick your poison, and go fill up some arks. And, on a side note, personally I feel that as bullet testing medium goes elk is the way to go. Gel and deer don't take much for killing. Or at least that's the way I see it.

Dober

Well, except for a .270 win. We all know those will just bounce off. Hard for a serious rifleman to bring himself to carry such a turd.

Formidilosus �

�Energy transfer is not a �myth�. Without energy being transferred to the target (or momentum if you prefer, the two are inextricably related), absolutely NO damage is done to the target. That means not the slightest wounding - zip, zero, nada � and the animal walks on totally unscathed.

Bullet mass and velocity determine the momentum and energy possessed by a bullet. A bullet may not transfer all its energy/momentum to a target but no bullet can transfer more energy or momentum than it possesses. Fackler acknowledges this when he states the following:


Fackler then goes on to acknowledge the role that bullet shape and construction play in energy transfer:


Tools are only as good as the person that uses them. Energy and momentum figures are no different but they are hardly useless. Taking things to extremes for the purpose of demonstration, consider the following loads:

.17 Mach2 with 15.5g bullet @ 2050fps, 149fpe
.30-30 with 150g bullet @ 2050fps, 1400fpe

Knowing nothing else about the two loads, which would you choose for elk? The velocity is the same so velocity can�t be the determining factor. If you accept �energy transfer� is a �myth� and �momentum� is �junk-science� then energy and momentum don�t matter and the difference in bullet mass is irrelevant. That leaves you with the .30-30�s larger diameter as the only reason left for choosing the .30-30. Not even VP Biden is that dumb.

Now consider the following:
.30-30 with 150g bullet @ 2050fps, 1400fpe
.270 Win with 150g bullet @ 2840fps, 2686fpe

Both are acceptable for elk at close range but which one are you going to want at 500 yards where the .30-30 load retains 907fps/274fpe and the .270 Win retains 1929fps/1239fpe? The .270 Win is smaller diameter so greater diameter isn�t the determining factor. If you are like most people the .270 Win would be the easy choice but since you�ve already stated �energy transfer� is a �myth� and momentum �junk-science�, just what are you going to base you decision on?

The truth is that energy/momentum (take your pick) must be transferred to an animal to create wounding. The laws of physics demand �equal and opposite� reaction � the more energy/momentum that is transferred the greater the wounding.

Choosing between two bullets with different velocities but the same mass, the one with the greater velocity has greater wounding �potential� per Fackler and the laws of physics. The construction of the bullets determines how and how much of that �potential� (which is actually momentum and kinetic energy) gets transferred to the target. A fast, sharp spire-pointed solid with lots of energy may zip through with little effect (not much energy transfer) while a slower expanding bullet may transfer much more or all of its energy and create far more wounding.

Energy/momentum figures are just tools to be used for comparison. Bullet construction, weight, velocity and energy figures, when taken alone, don�t begin to tell the whole story. They are all just tools for comparison but are far from useless.

Wish I had your artistic skills. Still laughing!

But I still prefer my .45 for serious work...

Wow.grin

Energy transfer *as a wounding mechanism* doesn't exist. That's the point, not that energy can't be used as a technical data point to compare *potential*.

Accelerating flesh and bone past its limits of elasticity is what causes wounding. (That includes compression or crushing.) The bullet delivers the energy but it is the transferred energy that accelerates the flesh and bone and does the wounding work. Some bullets are more efficient than others at transferring their energy. If the bullet passed through without transferring energy no wounding would occur.

Many high energy sub-atomic particles pass through us every day. Only rarely do they collide with the particles that make up our body and therefore pass through us harmlessly.

The problem comes when we try to correlate 'X' amount of bullet energy to a specific amount of wounding. Bullets transfer their energy with varying efficiency depending on impact velocity, bullet construction and density of the target (mud, hair, hide, bone, flesh, contents of the stomach and bowels, etc.). The infinite permutations of circumstances make it impossible to create a formula that accurately predicts the amount of wounding a particular amount of energy will cause. About all that can be said is that the amount of wounding is positively related to the amount of energy transferred.

Substitute "momentum" for "energy" above if you choose.

Formi and all - I've enjoyed the heck out of this thread and the comments pro & con. Thanks for posting. BTW, I tend to agree with your observations, particularly on that terrific little 95 gr Ballistic Tip - what a great bullet.

I've used several different bullets on deer, from little .22 cal 55 gr soft points up to 385 gr lead .50 cal bullets from the muzzle loader & 405 gr JSP from a .45/70 - it's been real interesting to see the different results on game.

Best of luck to all this season!

Regards, Guy

Easy example:

.30 180 gr varmint bullet impacts at 2,000 fps and immediately shatters and fragments into a million little bits in the first three inches of flesh outside the scapula transferring 100% of its energy.

Or

.30 180 gr monolithic bullet impacts at 2,000 fps, expands to only 2x diameter, penetrates from one shoulder through the other and keeps going across the bean field having transferred only 15% of its energy to the deer.

Easy choice between those two examples.


The detail that you're missing is that *energy transfer* is not a wounding mechanism. Read in depth some of what Fackler et al have written and you'll understand what I'm saying. Tissue that is crushed, cut, torn, etc., forming the permanent cavity is the only effective damage done that will reliably cause incapacitation. The energy transfer/hydrostatic shock as a wounding mechanism theory has been soundly proven to be non-effective. With the exception of a couple tissue types, temporary stretch /hydrostatic shock is not a reliable wounding mechanism.

Not missing anything. Without energy transfer there is ***NO*** wounding, period. NONE. It is energy/momentum transfer that accelerates flesh and bone past the limits of its elasticity and causes wounding, whether by crushing, cutting, or tearing, etc., whether temporary or permanent. Although the mechanics of transfer and the wounding characteristics are very different, this is as true for arrows as it is for bullets. (The transfer mechanism for the arrow is simply far more efficient at delivering the required wounding energy to a particular and particularly small area, a scalpel�s razor edge versus a bludgeon.)

I agree 100% that the wounding has to be effective to be effective � 100% energy transfer is of little use if the wounding isn�t in the right place. The largest bull I�ve ever seen walking was shot in the hind quarter with a .243 Win but was still easily outdistancing the youth that shot it.

Your example is a good one and why I prefer bullets that provide reliable but controlled and limited expansion across as wide a range of impact velocities as possible. I don�t much care if a bullet transfers 100% of its energy in the target as long as it transfers ***enough*** in the right places. A bullet that blows up in the ham 3� after impact isn�t going to transfer ***any*** energy to the heart/lungs. The same blow-up bullet on a broadside will generally do a good job as long as it gets through the ribs.

Bottom line is: Who cares Any sane hunter does not choose his bullets by this horse pucky..He chooses from experiences from yourself or even outfitters who have seen what works and what don't.

Never seen two old timers talking elasticity.Elasticity is what keeps your swimming trucks up not what kills game.

Jayco

i'll take Formid's word on this schitt LONG before i'd take yours.

Hey old friend, old timers may not have used the word �elasticity� and the concept may have been foreign to them, but they certainly observed and discussed the results of the limits of elasticity being exceeded or not when they discussed bullets that expanded versus blowing up and small wound channels versus large ones.

So Coyote...Explain why a .458 flat nosed bullet penetrates farther than the same in round nose or why that flat pointed cast did more damage than a 180 grain Core-Lokt on basically the same shot.

Everything I read here say's it ain't true or never could be,but it is and was.

That old saying you can eat right up to the hole with a solid bullet with a wide meplat is pure bs.

I don't understand the physics of it or anything but I do know what I see.

Jayco

WTF is a swimming truck?

Leave it to you...Swimming trunks/sweat pants anything with an elastic band.My bad spelling.

Jayco

Even old timers could spell that one correctly.

I have the option to respond to you in a bad way or just ignore you like a man without the ignore button.....

I take the first option this time.

Jayco

What experience? Most hunters get the opportunity to shoot one or two animals a year. One can't even begin to get a statistically relevant number in a lifetime of two animals a year. In my experience it takes about 50 animals to even begin to get a reliable idea of what a particular bullet will do in game if that is the only data used. Even then most actually kill one deer 50 times rather then having killed 50 deer.

The problem with most (most all??) hunters that have killed enough is that they have no idea what they are looking at when it comes to terminal ballistics. They walk up to a deer and see a hole. Maybe some blood in the chest. That's about it. This is one of the reasons why people are so concerned with what a bullet looks like after it has killed. It gives them something they can hold in their hand, stare at, and "compare" to something else because they don't know how to interpret the damage they see in animals. To a ballistician it's just one more piece of data. What they really care about is what that bullet did before it stopped.



As far as your experience from outfitters, it is my experience that while guides may be good guides and they may be good hunters they are generally behind when it comes to the technical side of gear. If one tells me that a certain valley has elk in it I will probably check it out, however if that same one freaks out when I go to adjust my turret.... well excuse me while I get my kill on......

One or two? I don't live in Rhode Island.

That's why I never quoted you..... grin

Sorry, all information is rendered moot if you are not shooting a 257 Weatherby Mag. Deer rifles begin and end there. (Couldn't Resist!)

Dober, I found a Vanguard BackCountry that did wonders on my first Dall ram using 120 Gr Partitions(Duh!)

Too many unknown variables there to explain or even confirm anything. What I can confirm is that a .308� 180g Barnes MRX can out-penetrate a .458� bullet or be out-penetrated by one, do more damage than a .458� bullet or less � depending on a variety of factors.

The photo below shows a number of bullets recovered from water jugs. From left to right:
Speer 300g Uni-Cor .458", Speer 350g FP .458", North Fork 350g .458", Cast Performance 460g WFNGC .458", Hornady 220g FP .375", Barnes 180g MRX .308"



Sorted by number of jugs penetrated with bullet type, velocity and energy:
5 jugs = Hornady 220g FP .375", 2230fps, 2429fpe (.375 Win)
6 jugs = Speer 300g Uni-Cor .458", 2247fps, 3363fpe (.45-70)
6 jugs = North Fork 350g .458", 2189fps, 3726fpe (.45-70)
7 jugs = Barnes 180g MRX .308", 3100fps, 3841fpe (.300 WM)
8 jugs = Speer 350g FP .458", 2147fps, 3582fpe (.45-70)
9 jugs = Cast Performance 460g WFNGC .458", 1812fps, 3362fpe (.45-70)
9 jugs with exit = Speer 500g African Grand Slam .458�, 1554fps, 2681fpe (not recovered) (.45-70)

Interestingly, the bullet that penetrated best (in repeated tests over the years) has had the least velocity and energy:
11 jugs with exit = Oregon 300g Trail LaserCast .458�, 1167fps, 907fpe (none ever recovered) (.45-70)

The number of jugs penetrated doesn�t begin to tell the story of the damage done. The most destructive was the 350g North Fork, which blew a hole the size of the water jug base in the 5/16� plywood supporting the lead jug. That bullet also blew up several jugs behind the first. The 500g bullet did more damage than some, less than others, and passed through 9 jugs before exiting the side and continuing on. The .308� 180g MRX was very destructive and penetrated well. The best penetrators, the 300g LaserCast FP at a paltry 1167fps/907fpe, also did the least damage by a significant margin. We have never recovered one of these.

Water jugs are water jugs not game, so take the above results for just that � results in water jugs. My on-game results are limited to three of the above bullets:

.375 Win/220g Hornady FP, antelope at 167 yards, broadside with exit, death leap and down.

.45-70/350g North Fork, buck mulie at 192 yards, quartering away with exit, a few feet and down with massive leakage.
.45-70/350g North Fork, 6x6 bull elk at 213 yards, broadside, obliterated a section of left front leg, obliterated a section of near-side rib, shattered far side rib and stopped under the hide. The bull just toppled over.

.300WM/180g MRX, doe mulie at ~300 yards, front to rear with exit, straight down.
.300 WM/180g MRX, doe mulie at ~ 300 yards, broadside with exit, straight down.

What design penetrates best or does the most damage? It all depends�

I'll be honest. Before coming on hunting forums. (not that long) I never thought about any of this. I used a Partition since the 50's, killed game, and never thought about it.

When a bullet never fails you. I don't see a need to change, or think about it very much. My concern was to always become a better hunter.

We use a saying in fly fishing to those who are new to casting.

Paralysis by analysis.

You'll never go wrong doing that, as you obviously already know.

I have noticed a generally higher level of trauma than smaller calibers when 30 caliber bullets are started at magnum velocities;especially with bullets designed for lots of splash.....this can vary a bit with bullet construction,but is the reason I have always "lumped" 30 caliber magnums with medium bores,like 338 and 8mm, giving similar velocity with similar weight bullets,etc.

Based on my own half-assed observations the next "breaking point" in the caliber line up is 375 bore.This SEEMS to me to be the point where I see more wounding trauma,but I could be wrong.

Coyote Hunter, we're dancing around two sides of the same coin here. My example shows my point, though. Even though projectile 1 transferred 100% of its energy, that doesn't buy me ANYTHING on its own. Projectile 2 (identical energy up to impact) takes care of business with minimal energy transfer. That's the point of the statement that energy transfer is not a wounding mechanism. It does establish (among other factors) the *potential* of a projectile. Even with that given, it still isn't *doing* any wounding.

It is the transferred energy that accelerates and thus causes deformation (wounding) of the target. The amount of energy available, the amount and efficiency with which it is transferred and the time element for the transfer all play a role in determining the amount of deformation/wounding.

You say it is not the "wounding mechanism", basic physics says that without the energy transfer no wounding occurs.

My only concern is doing my best to make sure the deformation occurs in the right place. To that end I chose bullets that perform according to specific criteria that I believe increase the odds of a favorable outcome when things go south. Most any bullet will work when things go as planned.

I'm just gonna hunt so good this year that every critter is relaxed and broadside and inside 100 yards. And Boone & Crocket. I'll just pass on any other opportunity.

Then I'll lord over y'all what puzzies you are.

It's gonna be GREAT.

Formidilosus,
thank you very much for this thread. The charts with the cavities in gelatin made by the different bullets, scaled and super imposed on the deer drawings are formidable.
I have been interested in temrina ballistics for a long time, and have taked the trouble of testing different bullets in a large number of animals including 5 cull hunts in South Africa and Namibia which account for almost 350 animal on their own.
My experience agrees with your conclusions regarding the effectiveness on soft-frangible bullets on game.
In the last years of my hunting life I have shifted towards harder bullets like Lutz M�ller's KJG and MJG, Barnes TSX and now TTSX, GS Custom's HV, and the like.
The reason is that I now take an added enjoyment in careful and precise shooting and bullet placement, and that I find somehow disgusting the amount of damage a fast, soft, frangible bullet may produce.
Again, thank you for your observations, and best regards,
Alvaro

PS: have you worked your charts with any .224 bullet on deer?I'd love to see them!!

Hey! Get your own story. That's mine ya puzzy!

Without the gunpowder in your cartridge no wounding occurs, but it isn't the gunpowder doing the wounding.


Which is meaningful to determine the the nature and extent of the damage done by a projectile:


Bullet A transferred 3,000ft/lbs of energy to the target

Bullet B expanded to 0.650" diameter, penetrated 17" through the vitals, and left a permanent cavity that averages 1" in diameter


Clearly the figures for "energy transfer" are meaningless. Of course energy is transferred. Of course energy is required to create a permanent cavity. But energy transfer tells us jack squat about the wounding that's done.


This has been fun. I haven't had a good civil internet argument in a while. Makes me feel young & stupid again.

Civil is good and I appreciate your sincerity and your civility. I think we agree on the major points.

It�s clear the energy transfer and wounding needs to be done in a manner that is effective - on that we agree completely.

Hey I see you're a NRAWC life member. You in Raton? I LOVE it out there. Raton may not exactly be a garden spot, but I love the area. Haven't had the salad wagon at K-Bobs in a couple years now. Used to make it out a couple times a year.

I havent read all 8+ pages of comments on this thread. Seems like a waste. Bullets are very good these days. Pick the one that shoots best in your rifle and be done with it. You will kill plenty of game.

If I have to choose, give me the Barnes TTSX, but I`d hunt with any of them.

No, NRAWC is about 3-1/2 hours from here. Don't get there often enough but love the steel range.

good on you!
use what works

Nice post and I love shrapnel's contribution as it still has me chuckling to myself. Basically to me it shows the futility of most of the arguments on here concerning bullet performance. What I actually see in the illustrations is 6 very dead deer and filled tags.

Maybe I missed it... at what range were these gel tests made? Which is to ask, the pictures illustrate expected results at what range?

I'm a little late to the party, but here goes: Speaking in terms of energy transfer, I'm with Coyote on this -- which is to say that I'm on the side of physical science.

According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, all energy within a closed system is constant -- it cannot be created or destroyed (only transferred). The reason that we don't hunt with FMJ spire points is not because they don't expand...that would be putting effect before cause. It's because they transfer very little energy to the surrounding tissue. Barring an impact with bone, they make pencil-thin entry and exit wounds. They lose so little energy, in fact, that they easily have sufficient remaining momentum to penetrate fully in almost every case.

Wounding is caused by energy transfer, and it cannot happen any other way. Now, how or where that wounding occurs -- and whether it's sufficient to cause quick death -- is another matter. I tend to put monometal bullets in the upper shoulder because I want to ensure that sufficient energy is transferred to the parts that matter. They still penetrate 9 times out of 10, and energy remaining in the bullet after it passed through the far side is of no use to me.

I agree but I would like to point out that because a bullet does not exit you cannot assume that all its energy has been transfered to the animal, as a substantial part of the energy the bullet carries may be spent in the bullet deformation/fragmentation.
Also, you cannot assume that all the energy that is transfered to the animal is spent in destroying tissue as, again, a substantial part of its energy maybe wasted in the form of heat transfered to the animal with no lethal effect whatsoever.
BBerg

As Richardca99 states:

"Wounding is caused by energy transfer, and it cannot happen any other way. Now, how or where that wounding occurs -- and whether it's sufficient to cause quick death -- is another matter. "

That is exactly the point I've been trying to make and ricardaca99 states it well and succinctly.

BBerg, we disagree, but only on one subtle point. If a bullet comes to rest inside an animal, it most certainly expended all of its energy into the animal during the process of transit and deformation (save whatever miniscule amount of potential energy remains as a result of gravity and its distance from the ground at rest -- sorry, couldn't resist).

All energy would be expended into the animal as a result of inelastic collision; some is transferred to kinetic energy (tissue damage), some is lost as heat, some acts as momentum, etc. You are absolutely correct that not all of it is "useful" in killing the animal, however.

As hunters, we get to decide how that energy is expended by selecting our bullet type, velocity, and shot placement. At nominal velocities, I like a cup-and-core to go into the lungs; I like a monometal for high shoulder shots, and I'll put a Partition absolutely anywhere! In a way, I'm choosing to expend a particular bullet's energy in a way that I think will be most destructive/useful for the game at hand.

tag

Geez not this again... ..... the physics of energy transfer leaves my eyes glazed over.i haven't looked at an energy table in years......

The mechanics don't.

Energy figures don't take into account the expansion characteristics of the bullet,which will vary with its construction(wide or narrow expansion,penetration,etc),velocity level at impact,and the part of the animal it strikes(ribs, lungs, shoulder bones muscles etc),all of which in the aggragate determine the size and nature of the wound channel.Its a different discussion for every single hit due to all the variables involved.

I fail to see how the bullet being stopped against the off side rubbery hide,somehow makes it a better killer than the one that punches an exit hole;or vice versa... so long as the vitals are scrambled in the process.


Let the games begin! Popcorn?

FORMID-

i think you have a good idea here but some of your choices are flawed seriously...

why would i shoot a 168 TSX at 308win velocities at a deer?

thats just not taking true advantage of the TTSX bullet design...

the consensus on ttsx (whcih open more reliably and faster than the tsx) is shoot light for caliber and drive as fast as possible


i would bet your finding with the 130 TTSX out of the 308win at 3100 fps or the 110 TTSX at 3400fps would differ from the 168 TSX at pedestrian speeds..

i welcome your thoughts on this but from my seat the study was designed for the barnes to lose...a 168 CNC and a 168 mono are different animals

Good post Sako, right on point.

SAKO75,

On the other hand, I've shot big game animals with both the .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum using the 168 TSX and the 168 Berger VLD. The muzzle velocity from the .30-06 was about 2900 fps, and from the .300 Winchester 3150. The Berger crated a MUCH bigger wound channel, whether it was started at 2900 or 3150, than the 168 TSX. The same could be said of the 185 Berger VLD at 2750 from the .30-06.

Md-

Not doubting the VLD makes a bigger wound channel...

I'm doubting that 168 tsx at 2620 leaves the Same footprint on deer as the 130 ttsx at 3100 or the 110 at 3350

In your case, you examined the Barnes wound channel thus you had a dead animal so the channel was big enough apparently

If we are talking deer here, most folks live in states where they can take several. I don't see meat damage as a big issue in states where you can take multiple deer, beside, there is really not much meat at all on deer ribs.

When I use a Barnes they are light for caliber. Matter of fact I would probably choose the 110gr Blackout bullet in both. 308's and 300 WM if I wanted a Barnes in 30cal. However I choose bullets that will work across the entire spectrum of a particular rifles range. That means at least 600 yards for big game rounds. The BC and terminal ballistics of Barnes bullets is not optimum for lower velocity impacts nor do the kill as quickly as others at any range.

I agree, I would not use Barnes for longer distance with my 308, I would look to the 168 BT or a VLD in 168 or 175

Your diagrams at the beginning of the post show 168 tsx and 308 ...
That's why I mentioned it in my thread. I think you would agree that monos driven super fast and impacting at highe speeds or impacting bone are better than slow speeds and or no bone

I must say.... I don't know how you measure that?
I've killed 5 deer all within 50 yards with the 130 ttsx out of 308 win
Results:
1 ran 20 yards
1 ran 10 yards
3 bang flops, didn't take a step

5 deer total of 30 yards between all of them.... 6 yards Per deer average

I guess their is a chance that one could run 50-100 yards but I haven't seen it....

I used the same bullet weights for all to keep things even/fair. All else being equal a TSX/GMX/etc will have a long, relatively narrow wound channel in comparison to other bullets.


I have shot hundreds and have witnessed many more than that killed, and deer on average travel much farther when shot with hard bullets such as Barnes than with bullet such as NBT's, Amax's, Bergers, Etc. Which makes sense of course since those bullets create a bigger wound channel.

Going to see for myself here shortly, insofar as a sample of one tell a guy anything. My 7-08 is running the 120 TTSX at roughly 3175 fps. I'm not going to shoot for bone on purpose, just shoot it like I normally do, if possible. Which is to say I'll try to keep the entrance side out of the "meat".

Wicked looking little bastids loaded up, I'll give them that!

So a Barnes 168 tsx @ 2620 makes the same exact channel, expands to the same diameter, etc as the 130 ttsx @ 3100? good to know....

Have I just been lucky that the 5 deer have traveled only an Average of 6 yards?

I punch shoulders when I shoot, if I put a ttsx through both shoulders it ain't going far and might not take a step...
i have a hunting partner that has zapped 6-8 deer with his 243 and used 85gr TSX and 80gr TTSX, he said one of them ran 50 yards or so most were bang flops...

for what its worth here are some of the narrow 130 TTSX "wound channels", i cant imagine deer running for miles with holes like this

168g TTSX from a .308 Win seem to work fine on antelope, as do 100g from a .257 Roberts.

SAKO,

My experience on a LOT more than 5 animals is the same as Formidilosus's.

You can indeed compensate for the smaller wound channel of hard bullets to a certain extent, but softer bullets will still kill more quickly on average. And I have seen deer punched through the "shoulders" (a pretty broad definition) with a TSX got a lot further than 20 yards.

One example: My wife and I spent considerable time one evening looking for a mule deer buck she'd shot through both shoulders with a 100-grain TSX from .257 Roberts. The muzzle velocity was 3150 fps and the range only 50 yards, so it didn't lack for zip. Yet the deer stagged off through sage taller than itself for around 75 yards before going down. There wasn't a blood trail, contrary to what we often hear about TSX's, and it took 45 minutes of spiraling the area where the deer had been shot to find it.

MD


I first posted in this thread because i didnt feel it was a fair comparison in wound channel size when comparing 168 mono vs a 168 cup and core. we all know monos expand more reliably/violently when the speed is higher and/or bone is impacted.
I'm not stating that Barnes bullets make the biggest would channel or kill as "quick" as a VLD.
But I'm not buying that a 168 tsx at 2600 makes the same would channel as a 130 @ 3100...
Or a 110 at 3350

Am I wrong?


http://www.shootingillustrated.com/mobile/article.php?id=463

Based on the Info below... Same bullet with different impact speed changes size of wound channel and penetration.


"The most important bullet characteristics with regard to terminal performance are expansion, weight retention, penetration and wounding qualities. Without knowing these, you are pretty much shooting in the dark as to bullet suitability for a particular game species and downrange performance. To test these traits across a spectrum of muzzle and impact velocities, I shot sample 130-grain TTSX bullets through a .300 Whisper, a .308 Winchester and a .300 Weatherby Magnum into Bullet Test Tubes with Extenders at 25 yards.

With a muzzle velocity of 2,013 fps, through the .300 Whisper the TTSX expanded to .541 inch, retained 129.2 grains of its weight, penetrated 14 3/4 inches and produced a .667-inch-wide wound channel. At a similar velocity, the TSX expanded to .439 inch, weighed 130 grains, penetrated 13 1/2 inches but veered severely off course at the 6-inch mark while creating a .638-inch-wide wound channel.

Propelled through the .308 Winchester at 2,878 fps, the new bullet enlarged to .614 inch, kept 129.3 grains of its weight, pierced 15 inches into the media and formed a 2-inch-wide wound channel. The most punishing evaluation came when I launched the TTSX from the .300 Weatherby Magnum at 3,562 fps. It penetrated all 20 inches of Test Tube and Extender and exited, but not before leaving a 2.371-inch-wide wound channel and shedding a single, 11.8-grain petal at the 11 1/2-inch mark. It�s possible to argue the recovered bullet weight would be between 117.3 and 117.6 grains. "


so here is the results
130 TTSX
speed---- expansion --- penetration-- would channel
2013 --- .541" --- 14.75" -- .667"
2878 --- .614" --- 15" -- 2.00"
3562 --- n/a --- 20"+ -- 2.371"



also MD, your story involves the TSX like this post does.... I submit the ttsx is a different animal as indiacted by the hollow point difference below


130 TTSX with polymer tip pulled out.

On the right is a 168gr TSX. I would rather shoot the 130 TTSX at deer based on this picture

SAKO,

Oh, I agree that TTSX's expand more reliably and a little wider than TSX's, which is why I've switched to plastic-tipped monolithics like the TTSX, E-Tip, etc., when I decide to use that sort of bullet anymore.

But the TTSX still doesn't make a bigger hole than a TSX of the same size that expands completely. There's a limit on how much damage a monolithic bullet will do when they don't shed any weight. Velocity has some effect, but as much in bullets that lose some weight.

The same thing can be said to a certain extent of Berger VLD's. I haven't seen all that much difference in the huge amount of damage they do at normal hunting ranges, whether the animal is under 100 yards away or 400, regardless of whether the bulleyt is driven at 2700 or 3200 fps. They all make a BIG hole in the innards. Now, beyond 400 the amount of interior damage drops off a little, but not nearly as much as with a harder bullet.

Thanks MD

I personally haven't between me and my hunting partner seen the need to switch from the ttsx....
It doesn't always leave huge blood trails despite always having exited for us... As you know sometimes the skin covers the hole but I haven't had to look for the couple deer that weren't bang flops.

Now If I was shooting long range. I'd use a soft bullet like a vld or BT but in close I like driving a light ttsx as fast as its accurate... I know it will penetrate no matter what and reach the vitals no matter what

SAKO75 �

Like you, I�ve seen no reason to switch to fragile, thin-skinned bullets like the VLD or A-MAX. Even on antelope the TTSX have proven to be rapid expanders with most going straight down. (I did have one make it about 25 yards, by far the most any have gone after being hit.)

Of the last 4 deer I�ve killed with TTSX or MRX, the one this year made it the furthest � and that was only a few steps. The rest went straight down on the shot. One was shot facing and the bullet went full length with an exit.

No big blood trails, but you don�t need them when the animals don�t go more than a few steps. Here�s a pic of this year�s buck, 180g MRX, taken at maybe 50 yards. The blood shows the exit hole.



Entrance�


Exit�


This year�s cow, shot at 399 yards with a 180g MRX, stayed up for just a few seconds and made maybe 15 yards. This pic shows the exit side:



The question for me is not so much what bullet will drop them faster on a perfect broadside, and in many cases the difference is vanishingly small at best. My primary concern is what happens when things don�t go as planned. Give me a bullet that works very well when things go right but has what it takes to reach deep when needed.

The discussion you and MD are having is precisely why I stick with Partitions when MV's are below 2700 and calibers under say 33(or Hornady Interlock in my 06 ONLY). Last month I shot an Axis with a 100gr TTSX out of a 257 Weatherby at 3700 fps and about 125 and the exit hole clear expansion, internals were jellied and the kill instantaneous. Then again I obtained similar results from the 100gr Interlock only exit holes were few and far between and no doubt their rapid expansion/disintegration often-times results in quicker kills. Same for the 7WBY, and 300 WBY and H&H mags.

Still, I made my decision to switch to TTSXs in all my calibers except on those occassions where the use of Premium cup and core are a sounder choice, like for leopards for instance. In my double I stuck with Woodleighs but have since switched to the CEB Monos. The other reason I switched is because at least in my experience, T/TTSXs have been the most consistenly accurate bullets I've ever used across all my rifles.

Jorge

What do you think of a 308 launching a 110 ttsx at 3300-3400?

I think it's deadly, but the BC will kill it on longer shots, and expansion suffer. I'd rather launch a 130 personally.

Better yet, in a 6.5mm

Agree w/above, I'd rather have a bullet that will work when chips are down and you get a less than optimal shot w/a bullet that is on the 'softish' side.

For deer, the Ballistic tip is a fine bullet, run them often in 243 and 6BR to deadly effect, and have run 140s in 7/08s. I think a 'mono' can be deadly and ruin less meat, yet for lungs broadside, most cup/cores work fine.

Soft targets = softer bullets IMHO. When I launch a mono, it will be thru shoulders, etc. before getting into vitals, unless not possible. Most any bullet short of an FMJ thru lungs will kill fine, some quicker than others.

BTW, re: penetration on an angling shot on deer, I was shocked shooting a good sized WT buck years ago w/a 338/06.

200 gr Ballistic Tip, 2910 mv - chronied.
Range 25 yds
Shot - from a ladder stand - angling down
Hit - back of ribs high thru lungs, etc, busting off shoulder

Deer jumped about 3 leaps and down.

Bullet STOPPED on offside under hide. Weighed 120gr IIRC.

Was that a bullet failure? Not in my book. I am confident a partition or mono would have punched thru, but it did not matt

in mono's, since they dont fragment and send shrapnel everywhere, i prefer bigger bore... .308 + expansion (thats why speed is key) might expand to around .65" whereas a .260 + Expansion probably wont expand as wide thus might not create as wide of wound channel....were splitting hairs but wider wound channel is wider wound channel

also i agree no distance for me with the ttsx out of a 308, it cant launch the ones with a good BC fast enough...softer bullets with better BC for distance

down in GA, i rarely shoot more than 200 yards and lately its been a 100 or less when i get in thick spots where i see more deer

Sako: I'm sure it would be ok on deer sized animals, but there has to be a point in the equation where diminishing returns are reached. Personally I draw the line at 168gr in the 30 cals, 100 in the 25s,210 in the 33s, 270 in the 375s, 350 in the 416s and 450 in the 458s, etc.

No replacemtn for displacement IMHO. And by that I mean be suited for the worst task you may have at hand.

Having seen cup and core come apart, and even stop on small critters like 50 pound pigs, the only bullet I"ll trust any more is one by Barnes. Even the partition has left me scratching my head more than a few times.

For specific tasks about any bullet could do, but when I want to load one in the chamber that covers anything that I feel the need to pull the trigger on and have a positive outcome... Barnes gets the nod. Simple as that. When you see others not able to penetrate stem to stern on 150 pound deer, you tend think differently.

Though ideally one could argue for what you do in fur bullets, fast and fragile, gets in far enough, explodes and has NO exit. IE dead, and no meat loss.

Sako - under YOUR conditions, I'd have to question, what would happen if your 100 TTSX in 30cal hits any brush enroute, at such hi-vel, vs a heavier slower longer bullet?

I don't know, but outside of that, the 100 TSX should give a high shock value I would assume at such great speed. The Hydrostatic shock alone would surely do massive tissue damage i.e. lungs, etc. w/o any bone being hit, if you like to shoot lungs.

BTW, all equal, a larger dia bullet pre n post fired, gives a larger wound channel no doubt.

Let us know how that 100 works, b/c I think you aim to try it I have no doubt it will do just fine, I just wouldn't want to hit any brush at that velocity, so that would be my only comment, but do endorse given your range.

Hola John,
When shooting VLDs, what do you think is more important in order to produce the better killing effect, mass or velocity?
In other words, in my 7x65R which one would you shoot at mountain game at distances in the 350-550 yards range, 140gr at 3,100fps or 168gr at 2,800?
Muchas gracias,
Alvaro

Hi Alvaro,

To tell the truth, I dunno if mass matters as much with Berger Hunting VLD's as it does with high-weight-retention bullets. All the Bergers penetrate 2-3 inches before starting to expand, and do a lot of interior damage, whether the bullet is aa 115-grain .25 or a 185-grain .30.

The real advantage in extra weight is higher ballistic coefficient, which reduces wind drift and increases impact velocity on longer shots. At 500 yards the 168 will be going the same velocity as the 140, and beyond that will be faster.

What are you launching those 180 MRXs from? .308, .30-06, .300 Mag?

Thx,
Expat

Ruger .300WM, 3033fps.

Not many left now so will switch to TTSX as I've had to do with some other rifles/weights.

Many thanks! I ask because I got a great buy on Federal Premium .30-06 w/180 MRX and am really wondering how they will perform at the 2550-2700 mv they will probably run from my 22 inch barrel.

Expat

Make sure another animal isn't standing behind the first! We have yet to recover an MRX or TTSX, whether 100g, 140g, 168g or 180g.

Drove a 180g MRX stem to stern with exit through a mulie. Near as I can calculate with estimated range of 350 (POS Leupold RX-IV rangefinder wouldn't get a reading, kinda glad I lost it), impact velocity was 2359fps.

That is good to know. Thank you.

Your point about extra weight is true if other factors, such as velocity, are the same. That's not the case here, though, where Alvaro states a 140g @ 3100fps and a 168g @ 2800fps. Given those starting velocities, your conclusion about velocity at 500 yards is incorrect.

Assuming 10,000 feet for "mountain game", 70 degrees and MPBR zeros for a maximum 3" rise above LOS, the facts are these:

140g Berger VLD @ 3100fps, BC .517, Zero = 270 yds, MPBR = 318 yds
145g Barnes LRX @ 3100fps, BC.486, Zero = 269 yds, MPBR = 317 yds
168g Berger VLD @ 2800fp ,BC .617, Zero - 248 yds, MPBR = 293 yds
168g Barnes LRX @ 2800fps, BC .550, Zero = 247 yds, MPBR = 291 yds

500 yards
=================
140g VLD = 2487fps, 1923fpe, -24.8" drop. 9.96" drift
145g LRX = 2459fps, 1947fpe, -25.2" drop, 10.5" drift
168g VLD = 2320fps, 2007fpe. -32.0" drop, 9.27" drift
168g LRX = 2265fps, 1913fpe, -33.0" drop, 10.6" drift

800 yards
=================
140g VLD = 2157fps, 1447fpe, -103.1" drop, 27.3" drift
145g LRX = 2116fps, 1441fpe, -105.2" drop, 29.8" drift
168g VLD = 2056fps, 1577fpe, -124.9" drop, 25.4" drift
168g LRX = 1974fps, 1453fpe, -129.6" drop, 29.0" drift

1000 yards
=================
140g VLD = 1952fps, 1184fpe, -191.2" drop, 44.5" drift
140g LRX = 1902fps, 1165fpe, -195.4" drop, 47.1" drift
168g VLD = 1889fpe, 1331fpe, -225.8" drop, 40.9" drift
168g LRX = 1793fps, 1199fpe, -237.0" drop, 47.2" drift

The facts are that inside 1000 yards the 168g VLD never catches up to the 140g VLD in terms of velocity and at 800 yards has 22" more drop with only 2" less drift. If stuck with using VLDs, I'd choose the 140g.

Given a choice, though, I'd choose the 145g LRX. One of the problems I've experienced over the years is my shot ranges are not always what I expect. In 2007 I was expecting shots at 400-600 yards across open land. Instead I ended up taking a cow at 125 yards, passing on a second (already clearly wounded) at 25 feet and then taking one at 40 yards. This year I passed on shots at elk at 220 so my hunting buddy and son-in-law could take one, had another opportunity at maybe 150 but passed because they were moving, waited until they stopped, then took one at 399. My deer this year was in open sage and once again I expected long shots but took one well under 100 yards. I trust the Barnes TTSX and LRX at any range I'd be willing to take a shot, and, having driven them through mulies lengthwise, at any angle. Can't say the same for a bullet that is advertised to produce a 13-15" wound channel. The VLDs might be great at long ranges but I simply don't trust them to hold together at close range. The Barnes tipped X bullets do hold together and more game we've taken with them have dropped instantly than not.

Coyote Hunter,
Bergers do not kill by holding together. On the contrary, they kill by violentley being turned to shrapnel after the first two-three inches of penetration producing a rather instant kill, as those whp have used them can attest.
Alvaro

It just seems odd that they always penetrate 2-3" prior to any expansion, no matter if bone is hit, no matter if they are going 3500 or 2100

Coyote Hunter,

I don't know what ballistic program you're using, but I first used Sierra Infinity with Berger's own G1 ballistc coeffcients for both bullets. Today I ran it through the Point Mass Ballistics Solver from Bryan Litz's book, using Berger's G7 ballistic coefficient. I listed the 168 at 2850 fps, because that's what I've found to be a more realistic velocity when comparing the two bullets, if the 140 is started at 3100.

The programs didn't produce identical results, probably because of the different G1 and G7 BC's used, but they both agreed that the 168 at 2850 would catch the 140 in velocity at right around 500 yards. With both programs the difference in widn drift was about twice as much as you indicate.

Any difference in drop is irrelevant these days, what with laser rangefinders and an easy means of compensating, whether with a multi-point reticle or by twisting the elevation turret.

Just like varmint bullets except they tend to be heavier and fatter and it takes a hair longer for them to come apart as a result.

There are several reasons I won't use them, including these, based on the manufacturer's claims as well as various field reports:

1. I don't trust them to penetrate deeply enough on bad angles.
2. I DO trust them to be excessively destructive. I saw what my son-in-law's 168g A-MAX did to an antelope ham and don't expect anything different form Berger VLDs. No thanks.
3. Other bullets perform just fine without the drawbacks, especially at ranges I'm prepared to shoot (600 yards max). There is no compelling reason for me to go to VLDs.

If you like them use them. I'd be worried a broadside on a goat or sheep would blow a baseball-sized hole, or larger, in the off-side, ruining the pelt.

Can they kill quickly? Sure. But so can other bullets and the difference in time between the shot and the animal on the ground is often often measured in milliseconds at best.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. A-Maxes and VLD's do not expand in the same way. And any bullet will ruin considerable meat if placed in an animal's "ham."

Most expanding bullets (even TSX's) begin expanding as soon as they hit an animal's hide, and are fully expanded by the time the rear end of the bullet goes through the hide. Berger VLD's don't even begin to expand until they're 2-3 inches into the animal. Then they do indeed expand violently--inside where it counts.

If you don't want to use Bergers, fine. Obviously you firmly believe expensive, deep-penetrating bullets are best for shooting forkhorn mule deer and doe antelope. That's also your privilege. But don't try to convince the thousands of people who like the charactertistics of VLD's that they're wrong when you don't have the slightest bit of experience with VLD's.

The program I use most often, and again in this case, is Point Blank - which I've found to be pretty consistent with other programs. I also used 2800fps because that was the velocity specified.



Comparing the Point Blank results for the 168g VLD against the JBM online calculator (http://www.jbmballistics.com), Point Blank's calculated drift is less and retained velocity is greater than the jbm results. Nevertheless, the differences were small (15fps and 1.3" at 1000 yards). All results were using G1 BCs.

Very few hunters are prepared to shoot over 600 yards, including myself. For those that are the VLDs might be the best thing since sex. For those that aren't, I think there are better choices and put my money where my mouth is.

As far as VLDs and A-MAXs, both are relatively frangible bullets that produce lots of shrapnel. Up to 85% for the VLD, according to Berger. Thanks, but no thanks. I simply haven't found that to be necessary and don't deem it desirable.

While I've driven 140g North Fork and 180g MRX through mulie hams, from opposite directions, neither caused the wastage we saw when my son-in-law destroyed an antelope ham with A-MAX shrapnel.



Considering that I've driven TTSX and MRX pull length through mulies and that most animals we've used them on went down at the shot, the fact that tipped X bullets may begin to expand on impact is hardly a negative in my book. More like a plus.



One of the great things about the human mind is that they can learn from shared experience and deductive reasoning as well as direct experience. There is no shortage of negative reports about VLD performance, just as not everyone is happy with the performance of tipped X bullets.

Yes, I shoot forkhorn mulies and doe antelope with MRX and TTSX. Don't forget mulie does, elk of both sexes and the occasional coyote and prairie dog. Smaller critters are good practice for the main event, which for me is elk hunting. I've also used North Forks, AccuBond, Grand Slams and cup-and-core bullets. My loads for deer and antelope are, with the sometimes exception of my .257 Roberts, the same as I use for elk. So far I have yet to find them wanting. Both buck and doe antelope hit with a 100g or 168g TTSX have, with only one exception I can think of, dropped immediately or within a few faltering steps, with little or no shrapnel ruining the off-side meat. The exception only made it a 20 yards or so. Works for me.

Yes, I firmly believe deep penetrating bullets are best for me. The tipped X and my favorite, the North Forks have performed great and the added expense, as I've pointed out many times, is negligible when compared to the rest of my hunting costs. My 4x4 buck and cow elk this year cost me a total of two 180g MRX bullets. Whoopee. I load my own so even with the added bullet expense I'm paying less for my ammo than most people who shoot factory ammo. Frankly, a slight additional cost to my ammo doesn't matter a whit. Nor does what bullet I use matter when things go right, as most any bullet will do in such circumstances. What I do care about is performance when things go wrong and more penetration is needed.

Of all the things that matter to me when I plan, prepare, and spend money to go on a hunt, bullet cost isn't on the radar.

If I start worrying if I can afford a 70 cent bullet instead of a 40 cent one, ill quit hunting. A can of coke costs more than the difference

But that's just me...


Anyways:
Its intriguing that Bergers ALWAYS penetrate at least 2-3" before they expand in anyway, no matter how fast they are going and no matter whether they hit bone or not...
Truly unique design

So a 155 vld loaded to the max out of a 300 RUM impacting an elk shoulder at 20 yards quartering towards you won't explode?

This may have nothing to do with nothing, but I got to field test some 7-08/120 BT loads this past weekend on hogs. I shot 4 of the vermin, from 120-275lbs (estimating), from 50-200 yards. All were broadside, complete pass-throughs shot behind the shoulder, about mid height. They all dropped imediately on the spot, quivered a little, and laid there dead. Remarkable performance from this little bullet IMO.

"Truly unique design" = Thin-skinned target bullet coupled with great marketing, liberally sprinkled with holy magic shrapnel dust. Thou shall not doubt...

Ditto here.

Midway is selling 180g TTSX at $36.49 per 50 ($0.73 each) and 180g VLDs for $46.00 per 100 ($0.46 each). That works out to a difference of $0.27 per bullet. This year I used two bullets to take my 4x4 buck and cow elk. The cost difference between TTSX and VLDs would have amounted to a whole $0.54.

By contrast, this year's OTHER hunting expenses for my deer/elk hunt, at least the ones I kept track of, were a little more significant:

$ 93.12 Groceries
$ 92.50 Campground fees
$ 254.21 Fuel and wash
$ 453.30 Processing
$ 76.02 Truck repairs after the hunt
$ 209.00 Licenses and a restaurant dinner I bought for everyone
================================================
$1,178.15

And that total does not include the oil change and new rear shocks I put on just before the hunt.

How much would 2 TTSX have added to the cost over VLDs? Not 4%, not .4% or .04% but a vanishingly small .004%.

I think it costs me more to sneeze.

OK, I screwed up on the math. The total cost of this year's hunt was around $1350 with the new shocks and oil change. The extra cost of using two TTSX over two VLDs would have been $0.54 as previously stated. Using TTSX would therefore have added an extra .04%, not .004%.

Even so, it's still not enough for me to get worked up about. Using VLDs and saving $0.54 per year, it would take over 12 years to save enough to buy a cheap glass of wine with my dinner out.

Yup, those TTSX are damned expensive. Lucky I have enough left to feed myself...