Why do some guys still think terminal performance can be determined by looking at recovered bullets?
Show the wound channels in the gel.
I imagine it was less to do with the test being setup to favor one over the other, and more about ignorance of wound ballistics. Look at the responses in this thread.....
People can't grasp that what a bullet looks like at it's final resting point tells you little about what type of wound it created along the way.
What, no 200gr. partition????? Damn...
A Partition at 800 yards?
The Partition probably would have had a pretty good showing in that test.
Also, if the two/three bullets that tumbled actually did so inside of an animal after impact, then that would have worked pretty well anyway.
Again, you believe a Partition is going to do well at 800 yards?
Tumbling can cause tremendous damage, however at low impact velocities with no fragmentation it's not quite as impressive. The Berger VLD's do create good wounds even when they tumble.
I would like to see how an E-Tip would have performed.
Horribly. A that impact velocity 180gr 30cal E-Tip will have an expanded diameter between .30 and .35 inches and will generally remain point first through 16-18 inches of penetration. It will feature almost no secondary wounding effects and consequently will have a very narrow wound channel.
Gored oxen are never a pretty sight.
What exactly was gored?
Shooting into test medium won't reveal exactly how bullets will perform on game, but do show how they compare against each other in identical circumstances.
The ELD-X looks good. I'll never shoot at 800 on game, but it appears they should be reliable both near and far, with good wind performance to boot. When I get my .270 sorted out, they'll be on the list. Hoping for a 6mm as well.
Actually properly calibrated 10% Ballistic gel has proven to be a relatively reliable indicator of soft tissue performance.
