Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Why Ballistics Gel Works And Caliber Arguments Are Dumb

Waders, we agree on this point. Many years ago I picked up a kernel of knowledge from Paco Kelly, who advised his readers to test ALL of their bullets and loads in test media, so one could say with confidence how those loads would work on game (and critters). I took that to heart, and boy, did I learn a thing or three.

I've been testing my "serious" handloads in ballistic media of various descriptions for a long time now. Initially, a good friend and I were able to use animal carcasses pretty freely (his grandfather owned a rendering plant), and it was eye-opening. (Suffice to say I learned I don't need to drive my 45 Colt bullets quite as hard as I'd been driving them...) I had a lot of opportunities to shoot ballistic gelatin for a time, as well, when I still lived in Wisconsin. These days I use the plastic gel media you can buy on the internet, which is a lot less messy than gelatin and a lot less temperature sensitive. That and water-filled milk jugs. All of my hunting loads, including the ones I shoot out of my rifles at game, get tested.

But I buy my personal defense pistol ammunition, for exactly the reason you cite. The guys at the ballistics labs at Federal-ATK, Winchester-Western, and Buffalo Bore (among others, of course, but those are the ones I use primarily) optimize their ammunition for best bullet performance and reliability. It's worth spending the extra dough for that. I reload all my training ammo, which is incidentally tailored to match my carry load ballistics. Win win.

We used to slaughter hogs on the farm using an old knife that hung on the wall in the barn. My dad persuaded my uncle in the mid-60's that his .22 pistol did a better job, and was less messy. It did, and it was.

Dad's .22 didn't work quite as well on cattle, though... thicker skulls, I expect. They certainly look so when you run them through the bandsaw, though I never got out the dial calipers to quantify. Anyways, we used my grandfather's .455 Webley (the only other handgun Dad owned) on the slaughter steers after the first couple of .22 caliber rodeos. I prefer 45's myself, nowadays, although I'd be just as comfortable with a .38 Special for such purposes.

YMMV.

Great vid.

Notice that the professionals didn't recommend wide-meplat hardcast as the ultimate permanent wound cavity maker. Why? Because hardcast is a deep hole-driller - nothing more.

But can make consistently ugly wounds.

Um... yes, and no. They didn't mention wide meplat bullets because Federal doesn't make any, nor load any in their defensive ammunition... and the discussion was about personal defense ammunition, not hunting ammunition. I have discussed WFN and LFN cast bullets with Johann Boda, though, and he/they have tested them. They work as advertised and drill very deep holes.

A permanent wound cavity is, essentially, a deeply-drilled hole. Which is exactly what you want in a solid bullet used on dangerous game. The best-performing solid bullets are wide-meplat flat nosed bullets, made of hard and heavy metal such as tungsten or mild steel. These bullets will run straight as a die from one side of an elephant's head to the other, which increases your chances of hitting the brain for a stopping shot. They'll also run lengthwise through a charging buffalo or hippo. They're not for shooting impala or pronghorn, they are for stopping dangerous game.

You don't need such bullets for North American hunting, or for personal defense. I used to load WFN bullets at velocities that would run them lengthwise through a dead Clydesdale horse carcass. I eventually figured out that I didn't need 6 feet of penetration to kill a whitetail deer standing broadside to me, and stopped worshiping at the altar of Our Lady of High Velocity LBT Bullets at that point. They work very well in the right place, but nearly all my cast hunting bullets now are cast to a hardness that's about what Elmer Keith used to use (he called them "hard cast", with a BHN of 12-14, much softer than the BHN of 18-20 of many of today's commercial WFN-type bullets). And I've found that WFN bullets don't kill deer and hogs any better than Keith SWC's. But I still cast and shoot both types.

As several have pointed out, there is some really complex physics involved. Duncan Macpherson's book would be a good place to start, if you can find a copy.

I'm in the same position on all except a difference in that last paragraph: The commercial manufacturers have to "optimize" their ammo for function in every firearm that consumers might use, but I can optimize my own serious loads for just my gun; I don't have to make concessions to function in anyone else's gun, and can find the best load for mine. I load my own defensive ammo for that reason. (That does NOT mean loading in a different velocity range than the bullet was designed for, it just means minor tweaks in seating depth, powder charge and type, etc to get best performance in my own equipment.) It's the same reasoning for loading my own precision rifle ammo instead of buying commercial match ammo.

The bit about the "right" speed is absolutely important, and makes a lot more difference than the average consumer realizes.

If I ever piss off Anheuser-Busch, I'm calling you...

Yondering, you make a good point. I have no quarrel with you on that point!

I usually carry a 1911 in 45 ACP as my personal defense weapon, so of course all ammunition in that caliber will function flawlessly in my defensive pistols...

I wish we had a “like” button on this forum. Lots of great posts in this thread.

Like!
🤓

I thought that the "crux or key" in this presentation is between 9:25 -- 9:35, and that about summed it up for me...

Been my experience as well.

The expanding handgun bullet is rife with speed do's and don'ts and the mechanics of such are what limits them at spitting distances and over yonder, which is why they need to advertise how awesome they are (and some are very good) within their windows.

Handgun solid testing is probably repetitively boring...

Yep; ammo manufacturers, if it weren't for the need for a one size fits all, would cover more ground with just using lead alloys and ditching the jackets, for handgun rounds.

Being a long time revolver hunter, I have never found a media worth shooting into. My tests have been necropsies on deer. There is bone and lungs that contain liquid but also a lot of air. I do not carry and never had a need to shoot a perp but placement to put a hurt on him should do the trick. Penetration in the field is what you want but energy must be applied in just the right distance and even if a bullet goes to the moon after, it will kill fast.
I understand carry means less penetration to protect innocent people. The problem is most carry guns are not accurate enough, have fixed sights, etc.
However we always played with all kinds of stuff to shoot into for fun. Once we were fishing Rocky River and found a bank of blue clay. We went back to get a few 5 gallon buckets of it to make clay blocks. It was pretty stuff. I had to go to work but my friend took his and poured water in and could not wait to test. He failed to make a block. He set it up in his basement and took the .44 mag and shot it. Every joist dripped blue muck and it took him a week to wash the basement.
My fastest deer killer is the BFR in .475 Linebaugh. By setting up gallon jugs of water it will blow 4 sky high and split the fifth.Then my bullet penetrated all 17 jugs in a straight line. I figured I could catch it but NOT. It showed where the energy was. I made the mold as an almost WFN cast from WW's and water dropped. Never would I use it for defense as it would take out my 4 runner too. If inside every wall would be penetrated.
I recently acquired a pile of guns from a friends son when his dad died. I have 2 .380's and the most accurate is the 1908 Colt pocket pistol with a Browning second. A friend carries a newer gun and has to aim well off to hit. Under stress he would not remember where to hold.

bfr... I used to shoot heavy loads on deer, as well. I eventually figured out it wasn't necessary. If my bullet puts 2 holes in the deer and punctures lungs and/or heart on the way through, the deer will die in short order. Much like your 17 water jugs demonstrated, most of the energy of those 325 gr bullets leaving the muzzle at 1300+ fps was expended long after perforating the deer I was shooting at. I eventually realized that a 265 gr bullet stepping out at 900-1000 fps would do the job just as well, and did a lot less damage to my hand.

The FBI protocol for defense/service loads is 12-14 inches. They chose that penetration depth for a reason: these bullets/loads won't shoot through the torso of a human being, averting the liability of subsequent perforation of bystanders downrange. As hunters, we know that having 2 holes in what we are trying to kill is better for tracking game to the location of the dead animal. When shooting humans, tracking to find the carcass ain't quite as important. So I can live with the FBI's penetration model, and that is why I don't carry WFN loads in my carry pistol(s). I should note that when I'm out in the field or mountains, where overpenetration is a virtue rather than a liability, my sidearm is (usually) stoked with flatnose cast bullets.

Not being able to remember where to hold under stress is a huge problem with police firearms training. I've tried to do my part in addressing this training problem, and so far it's working. www.tacticalanatomy.com

Link is bad.

Hmm. Checking with webmaster.

Doc: How do you define WFN? Specifically what percentage of the bullet diameter does the meplat diameter need to be to qualify as a Wide Flat Nose as opposed to a Long Flat Nose? Would you consider the Federal 41 Rem Mag 250 Grain Castcore (P41B) a WFN? The meplat diameter is 79% of bullet diameter (.325 divided by .410).