SAKO;
I felt that overall it was a very thorough test.
Especially interesting to me was the fact that they used several different methods to show the different aspects of bullet performance. Some of them such as the rain barrel were new to me and indeed would be educational I'd think.
The only question I have with this or some other bullet tests I've read is when the testers use reduced loads to duplicate what happens at extended ranges.
My reasoning for that is as follows and hopefully I can articulate it in an efficient manner.
Once upon a time a couple decades back, we loaded 165gr Hornady BT bullets up in my wife's .308 carbine at 2600fps, an '06 I had then at 2850fps and a pair of .308 Normas and a .300 Win Mag at 3150fps. Please note the speeds were averages more or less and ranges at which animals were shot were estimates measured only by how long it took to make our way across the mountain over to the dead buck.
So we went out and shot a few mulie and whitetail bucks with them to see what we could see. I should note as well that we cut and wrap our own meat and in so doing perform a de facto necropsy more or less.
Based upon the tissue damage we saw on those bucks I'd say that overall the bullets that had a faster muzzle velocity did more tissue damage at extended range than bullets that started slower.
Now to be sure it wasn't as much difference as I'd expected to see, but I did feel that the bullets with a faster initial velocity created more tissue damage when the impact velocities would have been close to the same.
As all the bucks were killed - by one bullet in all cases I should add - in all likelihood the point is close to moot.
I need to say too that using a bullet of different construction might have entirely different results, but when I read any bullet test that uses reduced initial velocity to try to duplicate impact at extended ranges that question always pops into my mind.
Hopefully that explanation made some sense?
All the best to you and yours again sir.
Dwayne
