Terminal Ballistics

[rscott5028]

Has anyone published a thorough study and comparison of terminal performance for long range hunting bullets comparing a variety of calibers, makes, and models?

There are plenty of well done interior and exterior resources. But, most of what I see on terminal performance is anectodotal or very limited samples. ...not that it isn't useful data.

I did see information from my CHL class about handgun bullets and the principles are similar. But, it would be nice to have a well funded, statistically significant, and scientific comparison.

How would you structure the study to be (a) realistic and worthwhile, (b) isolate the important variables, (c) minimize subjective characterizations, and (d) provide repeatable results such that new bullets could be compared in the future.

Thanks!
Richard

 

[Varminator 911]

Would this interest you? More reading on the subject than I ever got through.

Knowledge Base


There was another study I've seen several times but can't find it now. Compared many bullets, velocities, and calibers. Seems that it was more based on media than live game. Maybe someone else can refrance that.

 

[rscott5028]

Would this interest you? More reading on the subject than I ever got through.

Knowledge Base


There was another study I've seen several times but can't find it now. Compared many bullets, velocities, and calibers. Seems that it was more based on media than live game. Maybe someone else can refrance that.

That's certainly heading in the right direction.

At first glance, I see their conclusions as to the effectiveness of different projectiles/cartridges. But, I don't see the data.

They do indicate that they have supporting data...

As of 2011, over 7000 head of game were killed and autopsied for the initial body of work. To obtain a set of results, animals were taken at differing ranges, differing shot placement and angles. The tests then had to be retaken several times with each cartridge and each bullet to ensure repeatable results. Naturally, while testing so many cartridges over so many years, firearms expertise occurred by attrition.

I'll have to keep reading and see what they've published.

Many thanks!!
Richard

 

[rscott5028]

Having read a bit more on that website (which appears to be still under construction), I think it's an excellent and necessary resource/methodology. But, I don't think it's scientific enough to my satisfaction.

I don't beleive that multipe parties could necessarily go out and conduct the same studies and draw the same conclusions.

There are lots of references to topics like hydrostatic shock for which I don't see quantitative measurements. Terminal ballistics is a huge subject. So, the research may be there and I just don't yet see it.

To be fair, the proprietor of that website admits to being a small business with limitted resources relying on donations.

Nonetheless, I'm not satisfied reviews like the following...
.25-06 Remington

One last bullet worth mentioning is the Berger's 115 grain VLD hunting bullet. Like the 120 grain Speer BTSP, this is a highly frangible projectile and not ideally suited to larger bodied animals at close ranges. This particular VLD is best suited to lighter bodied game weighing up to 60kg (130lb), perhaps heavier game at a push, out to ranges of around 625 to 650 yards. BC is a very high .523.

I would characterize the above quote as an expert opinion. But, it's still very subjective. If we take a poll, as is often the case here on LRH, we're going to get all kinds of opinions.

Caliber, Weight, MV, ES, SD, and BC are all quantitative and you can argue the relative importance of each one for your application. But, they form the basis for intelligent discussions.

I see people use terms like highly frangible, hydrostatic shock and primary and secondary wound channels. But, I'd still like to see someone publish a study where they came up with a meaningful methodology for measuring these in a way that others could (a) reproduce the same results under the same conditions, and (b) provide consistent testing with new projectiles at varying range, velocity, spin rate, etc.

Has this been done yet?

Or, am I alone in believing that it's necessary/attainable?

Thanks for your input!
Richard

 

[Dr. Vette]

A small sample, but an interesting video nonetheless:

[ame="http://youtu.be/nMKvetaMqhE"]Federal Premium® BULLET BREAKDOWN - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rscott5028]

A small sample, but an interesting video nonetheless:

Federal Premium® BULLET BREAKDOWN - YouTube

We're definitely getting warmer.

I could do without the marketing hype and the cartoonish depictions.

But, they did at least conduct the same type of test on 4 different bullets and discuss the results.

While this was a simple demo for marketing, a real study would delve a good bit deeper.

What they didn't provide in the video...
- rifle and barrel specs including length and twist
- cartridge specs and load data
- environmental conditions include temp, pressure, altitude, wind
- muzzle velocity for each sample
- distance to target
- impact velocity

Also, it was nice to see the ruler added to the high speed video to indicate penetration distance.

But, I'd also like to have seen some measure of the outward expansion of the ballistics gel due to hydrostatic shock. That might be as simple as freezing the frame at the maximum expansion of the block as well as the maximum expansion of the wound channel and then quantify those results.

They discuss weight retention, but it wasn't measured or reported.

You might want several controls to ensure consistency. E.g. same weight/diameter bone +/- some tolerance.

... and then no less than 30 samples for each bullet at the same distance and/or muzzle or impact velocity.

Then, repeat the whole thing at different distances or impact velocities.

It's a non-trivial feat. But, the results would be very interesting to me.

If I didn't have a day job, I'd champion a board to test and certify bullets as such.

You might find a few under-performers and a few over-performers. But, I think it'd be a more objective way to sort out the BS. And, most bullets will do well within some set of parameters.

Perhaps you design a slightly different test method for varmint bullets? It's not really relevant for target bullets. ...although with a published methodology, independent persons might want to evaluate the SMK. ...certainly Sierra or the US Gov won't condone it.

While the people that really care are in the minority, I think the bullet makers could put a marketing spin on useful information thus putting pressure on the competition to get their bullets tested. Or, perhaps it'd be better not to accept funding or fees from the ammo industry?

Does anybody care?

Or, are internet popularity poles the preferred method for gauging bullet performance?

-- richard

 

[HARPERC]

If you are talking about a comparative study of just bullet terminal performance, Gary Sciuchetti's work with .308 caliber 180 grain bullets is good within it's limits. There used to be a wall size chart picturing the results, my partner has one in his loading room. Wolfe publishing used to sell them I think.
I hope I spelled his name correctly, but I think it's close if you choose to look it up.

 

[rscott5028]

If you are talking about a comparative study of just bullet terminal performance, Gary Sciuchetti's work with .308 caliber 180 grain bullets is good within it's limits. There used to be a wall size chart picturing the results, my partner has one in his loading room. Wolfe publishing used to sell them I think.
I hope I spelled his name correctly, but I think it's close if you choose to look it up.

thanks!

Googling that name led me to this website...
Terminal Ballistics

I don't know for sure who the author is. But, they've obviously put a lot of thought and testing into it. I'll be on the road a few days and will have to spend some time studying it when I return. But, it looks interesting to say the least.

-- richard

 

[nralifer]

Has anyone published a thorough study and comparison of terminal performance for long range hunting bullets comparing a variety of calibers, makes, and models?

There are plenty of well done interior and exterior resources. But, most of what I see on terminal performance is anectodotal or very limited samples. ...not that it isn't useful data.

I did see information from my CHL class about handgun bullets and the principles are similar. But, it would be nice to have a well funded, statistically significant, and scientific comparison.

How would you structure the study to be (a) realistic and worthwhile, (b) isolate the important variables, (c) minimize subjective characterizations, and (d) provide repeatable results such that new bullets could be compared in the future.

Thanks!
Richard

One major problem is funding. The second is deciding what media to use. The proprietary nature of terminal performance means the US military is not really interested officially in expanding bullets becaise of conventions attempting to establish "rules of war." We know in hunting big game that reliable expansion equates to increased rapid lethality, but for the military it is not so much lethality as taking the enemy out of the fight. An injury sufficient to your enemy to have him no longer function and shoot back in many ways is better than an outright kill. They are much more interested in barrier and body armor penetration, so they aren't going to fund a large scale study of expanding hunting bullets. That leaves the private sector whose prime motivation is selling their products over competitors. Given that, we are left with anecdotal experiences of our hunting colleagues, and our own personal experiences. Who is going to donate money to an agency that may probe their product inferior to the competition?

 

[choprzrul]

Ok....necrothread Monday.....

I harvested this formula/info from this guy's site: https://bigborefan.wordpress.com

Plug your numbers into the formula and it spits out the max body weight of the animal. Granted, it doesn't take into effect bullet construction....and I have no idea how precise this is in real world applications, so I just use it as a guideline but YMMV...

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Yep this is a really old thread. I really like the idea, but likely pie in the sky. To give an idea, we just got 9 Clear Ballistics gel blocks. At nearly $1,500.00 it will be good for about 4 clean shots. Maybe 6 if penetration doesn't get to the second block.

 

[cohunt]

Yep this is a really old thread. I really like the idea, but likely pie in the sky. To give an idea, we just got 9 Clear Ballistics gel blocks. At nearly $1,500.00 it will be good for about 4 clean shots. Maybe 6 if penetration doesn't get to the second block.

Yup- necro thread for sure from 2011

There are soooo many variables to explore that this study would be "never ending" and require huge amounts of funding .

Just think how many .308 bullets there are-- how many speeds you can shoot them at from different cartridges, how many distances you could test them at, how many twist rates there are to test - get into gain twist rates too, differences in bore land/groove diameters and styles even, how many weather/altitude variables there can be .

I'm not sure Elon Musk could come up with enough net worth to fund a project like this .

You would have to limit the variables some how-- but then there would always be the " but what about this?" Question

And if you were to use live animals for real testing then differences in animals, type of animals, where you shot them-- the list is endless

 

[HARPERC]

Yep this is a really old thread. I really like the idea, but likely pie in the sky. To give an idea, we just got 9 Clear Ballistics gel blocks. At nearly $1,500.00 it will be good for about 4 clean shots. Maybe 6 if penetration doesn't get to the second block.

I like all manor of destroying bullets. At the risk of injecting silliness though, its not really terminal (IMO) until something is terminated.

Given the age of the thread how many products of the time are unchanged? Meaning the quest for the most lethal projectile never ends.

 

[NorthRiverGuide]

One major problem is funding. The second is deciding what media to use. The proprietary nature of terminal performance means the US military is not really interested officially in expanding bullets becaise of conventions attempting to establish "rules of war." We know in hunting big game that reliable expansion equates to increased rapid lethality, but for the military it is not so much lethality as taking the enemy out of the fight. An injury sufficient to your enemy to have him no longer function and shoot back in many ways is better than an outright kill. They are much more interested in barrier and body armor penetration, so they aren't going to fund a large scale study of expanding hunting bullets. That leaves the private sector whose prime motivation is selling their products over competitors. Given that, we are left with anecdotal experiences of our hunting colleagues, and our own personal experiences. Who is going to donate money to an agency that may probe their product inferior to the competition?

That's incorrect misinformation created by Hollywood. A wounded enemy is not better than a outright kill. Nobody is ever taught that we are taught to kill. A wounded enemy can recover, detonate a bomb, call in your position, etc. They don't stop and try and get the down guy like us. The whole wound one and then wait for his friends is complete bs. In my multiple deployments and training I have never been taught wounding is better. In fact if you were shooting to wound you can find yourself up on charges. Dumb politicians set in place that the military can't use bullets designed for hunting. Manufacturers get around that with marketing. Like snipers use match bullets which are designed to expand and have great terminal ballistics especially at long range. They do ballistics gel testing in house. The fbi also doesn't ballistics testing on all the match bullets for law enforcement etc. There's very specific requirements like with Berger. They have to have it labeled as OTM (open tip match) for all their military contacts. The ridiculous view that wounding is better than killing is something that drives us nuts and is almost comical. There's no military school or training that teaches that. It's nothing more than misinformation from people who never served and watch too many Hollywood movies