Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Does Speed Kill or Just Make Range Estimation Easier??

This is one of the more enlightening posts I've participated in in a while.<P>JJ,<P>I really like you reasoning behind the exploading water jugs.<P><BR>350 RM,<P>Were any of the studies you mention published (in English)?<P><BR>Ellie Mae,<P>How can I read the study you refer to?<P><BR>Doc,<P>Where can I get a copy of the Army's "Wound Ballistics?"<P>Blaine

AFP, E4E, <P>True, these are the Strasbourg tests it seems you heard about.<BR>There is another town which is deeply involved in ballistics applied to flesh: Marseilles. A university program there is about these things only.<BR>olivier

One more thing I had forgotten: it seems that the hydrostatic shock can have an importance if it is big enough: shoot a crow with a 243 and it blows up.<BR>But then, getting this result with a large animal is impossible with a portable weapon. And what will the blaster eat ?<BR>olivier

Blaine, good post. I'm going to catch a lot of flack beacuse I'm dragging the dreaded topic of kinetic energy into this, but here goes. There are many variables that go into the total performance of a game kill, all of which deal in physics. I think if you fire identical bullets, one having an impact velocity of 2800 fps and the other 2300 fps, the greater impact velocity and kinetic energy will open a larger wound cavity. You simply can't separate velocity and kinetic energy, and heres why. <P>I'm only concerned about impact and what happens after that. In a high-velocity bullet, as the bullet enters the animal, there is a "tail splash effect", or the backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the animal, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30 times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the temporary cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. <P>The higher the velocity, the greater the kinetic energy, the greater the internal pressures, which causes a greater expansion of the tissue walls in the temporary cavity. This in turn leads to more severe damage. <P>Internal pressures develop as a result of kinetic energy transfer. These pressures created in the cavity from the passage of the bullet produce both positive and negative streams of alternating pressure, or a suction effect. This is the work done as a result of kinetc energy transfer, and as such, injuries to blood vessels, nerves, and organs that are of a considerable distance from the path of the bullet can occur even without direct contact from bone or bullet. <P>The lower velocity and kinetic energy of the slow large diameter bullets have their maximum rate of loss in kinetic energy happen quickly and with less length of travel. They still exert positive and negative pressures that effect surrounding tissue, but the lineal path is shorter so the effected area is smaller. They make up for slower velocities by optimizing with their larger diameters. <P>High velocity bullets loose their maximum kinetic energy rate over a longer time period. As a result, they create longer lineal temporary cavities with greater positive and negative oscillating pressures over a larger body area doing damage to tissue that is not even in the direct path of the bullet. <P>Obviously, bullet construction and the mass of the animal must be considered to ensure proper penetration. I have no doubt that a slower moving projectile of the same makeup will kill game just as effective as the higher velocity, but the internal actions are different because of that change in speed.<P>It is a matter of optimizing bullet weight, velocity, bullet diameter, expansion, ballistic coefficients, sectional density, and kinetic energy. You can play variables with the laws of physics any way you want as long as you try to optimize all components in the selection. ~rossi~<BR><p>[This message has been edited by rossi (edited April 13, 2001).]

Well said rossi,<BR>When trying to make a point in one area, (in this case velocity), it is easy to be perceived as not recognizing all the other variables involved. As rossi has stated there are many components involved that all are important and need to be properly balanced. This is largely determined in the field by witnessing results.<P>Although I believe that the temporary cavity contributes to the demise of an animal it is almost impossible to quantify how much it aids in the death in addition to the permanent cavity.<P>Every big game hunter knows that the only thing that he can absolutely count on, though, is the size of the permanent wound cavitation, for lethality. That is the fundamentals of choosing a caliber; does it make a big enough hole for the size of the game that is harvested. This also must take into account a bullet's construction and be balanced with the velocity at which it will be fired. <P>The results that come from velocity may vary depending on the anatomy that was impacted. The results of additional velocity offer greater potential for lethality if harnessed by the correct bullet construction. It is almost impossible to quantify the effects of velocity but the potential itself (I believe)can be demonstrated in tests and is real in the field.

Genntlemen:<BR>I have reead with interest the subject on this thread and a case can be made from both sides, However, there is a subject out there on the internet about terminal ballistics. called, Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories: I have copied it and it is 50 pages long. If you are interested, try this.<P><A HREF="http://ulfhere.freeyellow.com/ballistics/wounding.html" TARGET=_blank>http://ulfhere.freeyellow.com/ballistics/wounding.html</A><P>George

Gentlemen;<BR>I have anotheer question for the group while we are on this subject. Which is the correct usage: Hydraulic or hydrostatic shock?? I have seen it used both ways in outdoor mags. Hydrostatic, it seems is something that is stationary, i.e. a pipe with a column of water will have hydrostatic pressure of x psi at the bottom. Hydraulic is concerened with pressure transmitted by force. Somebody clue me in.<BR>George

George, thanks for posting that link.<P>I read this article and posted the link over on the old Shooter's board several months ago, but then forgot the link. <P>Theories can be hashed over and over and maybe not everybody will agree with the conclusions, but this particular study seemed to explain it to me about as well as anything I've read. I'd strongly encourage anybody interested in terminal ballistics and wounding effect to read the article and even print it out for future reference.

It has been quite a while since we had a real thought provoking thread over here, and now we have 2 going at once!<P> George, now you went and did it- asked a question that is going to really make this thread interesting. Now, in my laymans' dense brain, I guess I always considered hydraulic and hydrostatic to be practically interchangable for purposes of my understanding, but now you bring up a good point about the terms being loosely applied to the discipline of terminal ballistics and wound channels.<BR>Spike and I shot several rock chucks with a 22-250 with highly frangible ballistic tips last weekend, and the damage was pretty dramatic- as the pictures posted show. Now, since these bullets don't penetrate in the manner that is being discussed about the big game bullets, what is causing the tremendous damage and removal of huge chunks? I have to believe that the hydraulic shock wave travelling through the surrounding tissue is literally expanding beyond the vessel's elastic/time capacity and exploding- much as a water balloon hitting a solid object and exceeding the elastic capacity of the balloon and "exploding". <BR>This brings up an interesting phenomenom. If this works this effectively on small game, what is to stop if from working on larger game? Simple mass just doesn't seem to explain it, since the damage seen on smaller game would be sufficient if applied to larger game. I believe the thickness of the skin can cause premature over-expansion for one explanation, and the fact that the internal cavities of most larger game is made of larger air cavities, that won't respond to the hydraulic/hydrostatic pressures in the same ways as a more compact vessel of fluids would. Therefore, blood flow must be achieved in addition to wound channel damage from hydraulic pressures. <BR>As this thought process works it's way through my thick head, I have to conclude that larger, slower bullets and smaller (or larger), faster bullets are actually 2 completely different animals when it comes to lethality and must be treated in such a manner. One kills from hemmhorraging tissue and blood loss, and the other kills by disrupting fluid-filled tissues and shocking the animal through hydraulic pressures to organs, nervous system components, and the brain. If we try to understand this up front, our projectile selection process becomes easier. Of course, it won't do anything to stop these periodic discussions, but I see that as a good thing- to revisit these topics once in a while. Hopefully, I'm not the only learning a great deal through these discussions and the anecdotal and scientific evidence brought to the table. -Sheister

Sheister,<BR>You are on the right track, the whole hitch in the whole theory, is, to kill an elephant that way it would take something shooting with about a 3" frontal area and mounted on a 20 ton truck. As we go up scale in body size and weight we have to use a different set of parameters for killing. This usually means larger and tougher bullets for deeper penetration. This, I think, is the reason for the two schools of thought we see here on velocity vrs. heavier slower bullets.<BR>George.

I read this information some time ago, before it was compiled the way it looks now. What a great resource and it's FREE!<P>After about 6-7 years in Africa hunting I found the bullet of my dreams in the swift Aframe. I tested some of the first 270 grain 375 bullets there and was stunned by the massive damage and quick kills. Even from the puny 165 grain 30/06 I often use there. <BR>I liked the Barnes X bullets but just never saw the consistant accuracy or performance on game. The guns I was using did not shoot them well either. For years the X bullet was going through one prototype version after another and I did not feel like being the testing lab for them when the A frame was just a killer bullet from my guns and everyone else who used them was having 100% success as well. No failures and no accuracy or fouling troubles. <P>I must admit the single best group I have ever shot in my life was with the X bullet sub 1" at 300 yards! I will probably never manage that again. The fouling caused so much problem that I could only get 4-6 accurate shots before accuarcy went bad. <P>Within this document George speaks of there was a comment made by the "experts" who are really hard to argue with or even question on this because they have done more research and testing on every aspect of ballistics and penetration then anyone has probably ever done before. <P>The comment is: The swift A frame and the trophy bonded bear claw are probably the two most lethal hunting bullets made"<P>I find this identical to my findings after actual field experince not controlled lab testing. It is nice to have the technical back up to your "gut feeling" after the many hundreds of game you see taken out. This is not intended to put down the X bullet. When it works it may be the best bullet ever designed. It just does not give the 100% the bonded core bullets do, it does not expand as well as the bonded core bullets do, and it penetrates with a much smaller wound channel then the bonded core bullets do. It fails to open and often when it does the petals break off causing an even smaller "bore Dia" wound channel. <P>When the X is on it's game with the spinning boat prop effect and cutting it's way through tissue like a meat grinder it is the best bullet going. I just don't care to work with prototypes when I'm hunting. so I will stick to the A frame until this X bullet gets the final wrinkles out. At which time I may never use anything else! Clearly it is easier to make a bullet go fast then it is to make it perform correctly. This confusion leads to manufacturers pushing the speed kills theory, which is in fact true if the projectile is up to the task. I have seen the Aframe with the rear of the jacket split and the lead come free when driven too fast. Speed kills is right on, it kills the bullet as much as the game!jj<P>------------------<BR>The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the best of everything they have.<p>[This message has been edited by JJHACK (edited April 05, 2001).]

A very thought provoking thread guys! There's no question that speed kills with a bullet matched to the game. I have ran off a rather long string of drop at the shot,kills on deer with a 200grBT in a 338 Win.Mag. A couple were with terrible shot placement(paunch)and they simply dropped and didn't move. The same shot with a slower bullet would have resulted in the animal running off.I have seen back pressure blow chunks of lung tissue out of the entrance hole. This past season I tested the 338 Ultra on deer and Wild Hogs. The last hog I shot at 25yds with a 200gr BT that started out at 3373fps. I hit the spine at the shoulder on a broadside shot and the belly skin split open from the balls to the diaphram. It was an incredible display of hydraulic pressure. The guts weren't leaking but were partialy hanging out. I don't know at what size game this hydraulic shock quits working but for anything I'm likely to shoot at,I'll take as much velocity as I can get.

JJ,<BR>I must agree about the Swift, at least in my 416, I have killed everything in africa except elephant. I am sure I could even do that with a frontal chest shot. I know one fellow that did it with the solid base TBB 400 gr bullet. However, before someone says that I am recommending using soft on elephant.....I am not!<BR>George

I was suggesting that "hydrostatic shock" or whatever we call it, i.e. the rippling effect that extends beyond the actual bullet diameter and increases with velocity, actually contributes to the PERMANENT wound channel. The study I referred to was the one posted by Jim on shooters a while back and is the same one posted by George H. here. The effect of velocity on permanent wound channel diameter is discussed with regard to non-expanding, wide meplat bullets. I assume it should also apply to expanding bullets. Thanks both. It's a good read.<BR>-al

What a great thread! Terminal ballistics has to be the most fascinating topic in the big game forums. That is why we're always fighting over which cartridge/bullet is the proper one to use on the intended prey. We all want to take game quickly and cleanly and hope our hunting brothers do the same. <BR>One of the reasons that terminal ballistics is so fascinating is it's complexity. (Pretty obvious if you've read the thread). I'd like to try to see if I understand the basics of what has been written previously. <P>#1 Bullets kill by damaging vital tissue.<BR>#2 A large bullet of the same construction and the same velocity as a smaller bullet will create a larger hole and cause more tissue damage. <BR>#3 A bullet, with the proper construction, will cause more tissue damage when driven to higher velocity.<BR>#4 Bullets can occasionally kill due to hydraulic/hydrostatic shock alone.<P>Let's say I shoot a .50 cal hardcast bullet into an animal with enough velocity to punch a clean .50 cal hole through both lungs and exit the animal.<P>Take the same animal and shoot it with a 220 Swift using a Barnes X or other premium bullet. You take the same shot. Both lungs are pierced and the bullet exits the animal.<P>In which scenario does the animal live? Which bullet caused the most tissue damage?<P>I'd like to continue but I have to get to bed. Later... <P>

sagerat,<BR>The results would be the same, because the animal size that would allow the 220 swift to exit would have to be on the smallish side. Now try that on a Cape Buffalo, and see what you get, one darn mad bufflo, thats what. There is a place for small high velocity bullets, but it is not a be all, end all, cure. High velocity will help to deliver the same wt bullet at a longer distance. i.e. a 300 wby over the 30.06 using the same bullet. However, even if you are in love with your super rip-snortin magnum when you get into heavier tougher animals, lets say 1200 and over you simply need more bullet wt than the 30 calibers provide. This is the reason for most African recommending the 375 H&H as a minimum caliber. Here in the states, our game is not that large and most of the calibers we use are adequate thus we find the popularity for 270, 7mm mag, 30 calibers etc. This is what we have the most experience with, therefore our frame of reference is for these. I too used the argue the merits of the 270 vrs 3006 etc. until I started hunting in Africa. I quickly had a different frome of reference and have changed my mind considerably in terminal ballisstics.<BR>Have a Good Day<BR>George

Great thread, both this one and the parallel topics on bullet weight. My experience is more limited but it brought me to the same conclusions as JJ and George Hoffman. <P> On one of these threads someone rated close shots as 75 to I think it was 150 yards. That kind of surprised me. I consider close shots to be 25 yards or less and my first bull elk had powder burns on it that would indicate a 4-6 inch range from the muzzle. I was too busy shooting and jumping out of the way at the same time to estimate precisely. My last bull elk was a 6 point at probably 30 yards. A recent blacktail buck was about 15 feet.<P> For me I want a bullet that performs well from the muzzle to 350-400 yards. I've never been able to predict what range I would get a shot at an animal. I blundered within 35 yards of a herd of elk with a good bull in open range land where we could see for miles. They were bedded in a slight swale.<P>The Swift A-frame has performed superbly for me, with muzzle velocity a little over 2800 fps, from 15 feet to over 400 yards on one shot I shouldn't have gotten myself into. It has both mushroomed and penetrated with remarkable consistency on on soft tissue at close range, bone at close range, and both situations at longer ranges, though most of my shots are under 100 yards. By a fortunate coincidence, the 180 Swift A-frame is by far the most accurate bullet I've tried in my persnickety light weight 06. I have not tried the Trophy Bonded Bearclaw.

<BR> Somewhere in that mish-mash of figures is the majic answer to all this. Right now there seems to be enough variables to allow for Some! personal interpretation based on personal use.<P> One thing for sure, just a few years ago we wouldnt even be having this conversation because the bullet available just werent up to snuff, so obviously the bullet construction , or energy transfer medium, is an impostant qotient in this.<P> Another important qotient, and one we cant control, is the tenacity of each one of the individual animals we kill. Just look at any mammal, they are all individuals as to their tenacity on "holding on to the ghost". Im personaly convinced that there is to much importance placed upon species and not upon individual. What do you Buff hunters think about that one ?<P> Thats the good thing about balistic medium's, like gelatin ; They simply dont have individual traits.<P> You know what would be cool ? If we, "the 24 hour guy's", filled out forms on each animal we kill this year. The questions could include all the applicable info concerning ballistic performance in our rifle/cartridges. I could make up the form's and you guy's could help me by telling me what to ask for on them.<P> That was the whole point in me making that "Impact Video" last year. The problem was that, despite some great help by a few guy's, it would have just turned out into a Saeed/Africa/300 grn X-bullet/.375 wildcat video. I just didnt have enough useable video to give even a decent cross-section on cartridges and animals, I really DID! do a trememndous amount of work on it, hopeing all the while more varied footage would trickle in. I still have that work on digital tape.<P> So lets say we make a detailed questionaire ? Would we be able to fill it out objectively, and without bias towards our personal favorites ? I know I could ; Rifles,bullets,loads,performance are just tool's to me, and facts are facts. I bet anyone here can.<P> Lets start by asking our Africa crowd to take detailed notes on their upcoming hunts. Loads,velocity,performance,pictures "most of all kill/autopsy pics", recovered bullets, energy figures based on range estimation, animal reactions, weather condition's, we all know the basic's. Just think of the pool of info we could gather if we worked together. If we all focused on shooting video this year it would just add to it all as I can make the final study a video Documentary type thing. "Pics are great for video's also".<P> In one hunting year we could get a tremendous cross section of info , and , we could do most of it in E-mail.<P> What do you guy's think ?.........Rick

Another important qotient, and one we can't control, is the tenacity of each one of the individual animals we kill. <P>Good point, Rick, and well made. There is a wide range from one species to another on the tenacity of life scale, and there is also a range from one animal to another in the same species. All the more reason for us to go slow in making a case for cartridge, etc. from one or a few examples. Just a trace of humility would do us all good when we make pronouncements.<P>As to keeping track of animals, bullets, etc. this year by posters, it would build an interesting and valuable base of information, much more than we would gather alone.<BR>

Most of this discussion is nothing more than picking fly **** out of the pepper. Sorry, but men have been successfully harvesting game well before "premium" bullets were even a wet dream in some red neck's beer induced coma. If you like to hand load, do it. If you want an effective killing projectile without a bunch of hassle, go down to Walmart and buy a couple boxes of Winchester or Remington ammo and go for it. Aedes