Home
Posted By: 65BR Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
Interesting read...

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

Posted By: BobinNH Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: mtrancher Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: 1tnhunter Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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?
Posted By: BobinNH Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.

Posted By: jwall Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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
Posted By: mtrancher Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: Mako25 Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: GaryVA Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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
Posted By: 1tnhunter Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: BobinNH Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: 1tnhunter Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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
Posted By: Mako25 Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
Oh, it's on now! grin
Posted By: 1tnhunter Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: Mako25 Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: mtrancher Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: doubletap Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: jwp475 Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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
Posted By: 65BR Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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.
Posted By: mathman Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/09/13
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."
Posted By: 1tnhunter Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
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?
Posted By: JoeMama Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
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
Posted By: 1tnhunter Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
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!!
Posted By: mathman Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
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:

[Linked Image]

Note: Photo lifted from elsewhere on the 'fire.
Posted By: 1tnhunter Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
Thank-you Mathman GOT IT!!!!!! Like i said i'm NOT a ballistian.Thanks.
Posted By: doubletap Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
Mathman explained it better than I would have. smile

That doesn't mean that the LBT style is always better. It seems that the LBT bullets aren't as accurate with reduced loads as the Keith style.
Posted By: mathman Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
That depends on the particular LBT. There are several nose configurations, and some are better balanced overall for use at different velocity levels.

Here are some comparison figures if I remember them correctly: A classic Keith for a 44 has a .270" meplat, an LBT LFN has a .300" meplat, and an LBT WFN has a .340" meplat.

The LFN is usually a good balance between aerodynamics, weight distribution, and "smack" that works over a range of load levels.
Posted By: DocRocket Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
Originally Posted by mathman


The LFN is usually a good balance between aerodynamics, weight distribution, and "smack" that works over a range of load levels.


I agree. LFN-type bullets tend to be a good choice for hunting revolvers and large-bore hunting rifles of the lever variety, in my experience. I say "LFN-type" because there are non-LBT bullet moulds out there that aren't LFN's but are close enough that I call 'em LFN's in conversation with other shooters/hunters.

But that doesn't mean I only shoot/hunt with LFN bullets. Over the past 15 years or so I've been messin' around with cast bullets quite a bit, and in the process I've learned that there's a lot of variables that have to be accounted for. There is quite simply no single bullet that will "do it all". When you take into account caliber, meplat, alloy, and velocity (both muzzle and impact) you'll find that there is a place for RFN's, SWC's, WFN's, LFN's, and HP versions of all them.

Like many others, I used to worship at the altar of the LBT hardcast bullet. I've since learned there's a lot more useful cast bullet stuff out there and am far more ecumenical in my loading and shooting. Veral Smith's book mentioned in the link in the OP, is a good place to start learning about this stuff, but Glen Fryxell's book is a far more comprehensive and advanced cast bullet technology opus for those who want to explore further.
Posted By: DocRocket Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
Originally Posted by 65BR


Thanks for posting the link. I've read that article before, but had lost the link to it. I'm gonna print it out for my files when I get home tonight.

I think one of the concepts that trips people up in this discussion is that the study of terminal ballistics is NOT the same thing as the study of terminal effects. Terminal ballistics is essentially the study of the physics of missile impact on a terminal medium, whereas terminal effects is the study of the physiological effects of the missile's impact on a living organism. I have done a lot of work with terminal ballistics experts over the years, but I am not a ballistician. (My interest and expertise (such as it is) has been much more in the area of terminal effects. My background is medicine, physiology, and biochemistry, not physics or engineering.) Ballisticians need physiologists, and vice versa, when we start looking at questions of lethality of bullets.

Unfortunately, too many people take the simplistic view that if they can only quantify terminal ballistics to a sufficiently fine degree they will have the miraculous answer to all their hunting/killing questions. This is nonsense. There is no such thing as a "perfect bullet", although some bullets perform sufficiently well over a specific range of physical parameters and desired terminal effects that they might serve for all of one's hunting/killing needs.

I find it interesting to read of the experiences of older fellows who have a lot of experience hunting and shooting animals... Karamojo Bell, John Taylor, Elmer Keith, Bob Hagel, and Craig Boddington come immediately to mind. In each case they settled on a basic bullet/caliber "theory" and stuck with it over many, many kills. Despite a lot of experimentation on each man's part, they each settled on one or two solutions and then just shot the heck out of everything they hunted. Our own Mule Deer wrote a column a short while back describing his own full-circle experience with Nosler Partitions, as a point of interest.

Just my dos centavos anyway.
Posted By: mathman Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/10/13
I haven't done any casting in a long time. When I get back to it, probably the first mold I'll warm up is a Lyman 358429. It's a nice one with a full size front driving band and a generous, flat bottomed lube groove. Simply classic for my 38 Special chambered S&W 586.

The next mold to see lead will be a Walt Melander made NEI 454-270-PBK. That one has a sharp edged, WFN size meplat and a full diameter SWC shoulder.

I'm not LBT all the way either. grin
Posted By: DocRocket Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/11/13
Elmer Keith killed a lot of game with SWC's, and I know a lot of other guys who've killed a lot of game with 'em, too... myself included.

I've been playing with HP cast bullets lately. I have had a lot of success on small game with cast hollowpoint bullets in .32 caliber and want to find a .38 caliber SWC-HP mould soon. This winter I've done some target/load testing with a new .452" mould (an LBT WFN converted by hollowpointmoulds.com) in several alloys, and in a month or so will start doing some expansion/penetration tests with these bullets.
Posted By: Ken Howell Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/12/13
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Elmer Keith killed a lot of game with SWC's, and I know a lot of other guys who've killed a lot of game with 'em, too... myself included.

I've been playing with HP cast bullets lately. I have had a lot of success on small game with cast hollow-point bullets in .32 caliber and want to find a .38 caliber SWC-HP mould soon. �

Me too. Including moose and wild boar.

Around 1955 or so, I had Lyman cherry a set of hollow-point blocks for the 357446 SWC (IIRC), to bring that 158-grain spin-off of the Keith .358 SWC to about 148 grains. It proved to be very accurate.

For heavier hollow-point .358 bullets, I used Elmer's original hollow-point version of his scaled-down .44 bullet, a standard offering from Lyman at the time. Accurate and deadly.
Posted By: mudhen Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/12/13

The title of this thread brought back some memories. When I was about 14 or 15 and just beginning to become "gun crazy", I read everything I could get my hands on. My scoutmaster at the time was a homicide detective with the Houston Police Department. I asked him if he had any books on ballistics and he brought three to the next troop meeting for me to read.

They were all on wound ballistics and were full of the goriest photographs that I have ever seen. I didn't learn anything about trajectories and drop tables. I did acquire a healthy respect for just about any load from a shotgun or center-fire rifle impacting the human torso at close range.
Posted By: Ken Howell Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/12/13
Years and years ago, Homer Powley lent me some of the same stuff. It fascinated me. I was surprised after a while, therefore, to find myself getting sick to my stomach.
Posted By: doubletap Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/12/13
When you find yourself no longer affected by it, that's the time for concern.
Posted By: Ken Howell Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/12/13
That's what others have told me.
Posted By: DocRocket Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/13/13
Meh... I have to disagree somewhat with that assertion, although it's a small quibble. There's a big difference between not being affected by gore and/or traumatic suffering, and being numb to it.

I have to be able to be "unaffected" in order to function in a trauma setting, and this applies in a lot of people in fields where they have to deal with nasty stuff.
Posted By: Take_a_knee Re: Terminal Ballistics - - 01/13/13
Originally Posted by Ken Howell
Years and years ago, Homer Powley lent me some of the same stuff. It fascinated me. I was surprised after a while, therefore, to find myself getting sick to my stomach.


That is a classic parasympathetic response. You had no sympathetic response (thereby raising your bloodpressure and offsetting the para) to counter/offset it.

When you pull up to an accident scene or when your buddy gets shot in combat, this typically won't happen.

I had the same thing happen to me in 91B school many years ago from a film entitled "Medicine in Vietnam". I've seen a bit of blood and gore since then with no issues.
© 24hourcampfire