6.5 smk recovered

I think the point I was trying to make was lost somehow. Let me put it another way.

If you take a 338 cal 300 gr SMK and cross section that bullet and then take a 140 gr 6.5mm SMK and cross section it, the percentage of that cross sectional area that is made up of jacket material will be MUCH higher for the 6.5mm bullet compared to the 338 cal bullet.

The amount of lead in the cross section will be much higher for the 338 cal bullet. Lead deforms on impact MUCH easier then jacket material.

Another thing to consider is kenetic energy. I know, I know, this is not a good idicator or killing power, BUT, what makes a bullet deform on impact? Energy in the bullet(kenetic energy) and resistance in the target at impact. If you try to drive a needle through a watermellon it goes through the skin very easily with very little resistance at all. If you try to drive a pencil through the same watermellon, it goes in easy but there is much more resistance. The larger the diameter the object being forced through another object, the more resistance will be encounted.

Now, because the 338 bullet is carrying MUCH more kenetic energy and will have much more resistance on impact, its is a fact that the 338 SMK bullet WILL expand easier and more reliably on target then the smaller caliber bullets. I have actually tested this time and again on all the SMK including the 80 gr 22 cal, 107 gr 6mm, 142 gr 6.5mm, 175 gr 7mm, 210, 220, 240 gr 30 cal and 300 gr 338 cal.

If retained velocity was kept over 1500 fps with the 30 and 338 cal bullets, there was significant bullet expansion over nominal bullet diameter. At 1400 fps or so, there was enough tip deformation to cut a larger permanent wound channel. Below this there was not much of any expansion. Over 1800 fps there was pretty much full expansion with these bullets.

With the smaller calibers, the 7mm needed around 200 fps more velocity for same expansion. The 6mm and 6.5mm SMK performed very similiarly as well and to get good expansion, I needed 1800 to 1900 fps retained velocity. Anything below this resulted in very little expansion.

At 1000 yards, I also tested these bullets shooting into a soft wet sandy bank and it was interesting to see the results. Even starting out at much lower muzzle velocities or impacting with nearly identical velocities, the larger the SMK was in caliber, the more aggressive it expanded on impact.

Again, I was in no way trying to flame anyone. Just stating some facts on bullet expansion testing I have done myself with this same bullet design. There are many that think the only reason alot of us use large caliber rifles for long range hunting is for sure ego as represented in reply posts already posted. For some yes, that is likely the reason for for those that are serious about long range hunting, ego has nothing to do with our decision to use these larger calibers.

Again, not saying the smaller calibers go not work but the larger calibers will work better and will perform more reliably at long range and that can not be denied.

That was my only point.
 
Not sure the purpose behind the initial post but it is always good to see actual results that one would expect from any given set of circumstances. As someone new to LRH, I tend to "go to school" on the experiences of many who have been at this game much longer than I. One thing I do appreciate after all my 67 years kicking around on this orb, is if given the choice, one chooses the right tool for the job. Probably wouldn't use a Farrari to go gather wood in the forest when my pickup truck is better suited. Therefore I would most likely choose a projectile designed for hunting than one use for punching paper. As with the vehicle analogy, we all know we can probably get the job done while making an inappropriate choice, but it is in the choosing where the experience factor kicks in. Of course, your milage may vary:D.
 
Well after that description at least I know what a broadhead looks like now, and I am by no means a doctor qualified to do a autopsy but the hole thru one lung and heart sure looked like a bullet hole to me, and the blood on the ground and inside the chest cavity made it appear that he bled out so I naturally assumed thats why he died. I guess a broadhead wouldn't do that? after all these years watching things get shot with a arrow I really thought thats what they did. I'm going to have to start paying closer attention I guess. but now I'm stumped. I really did think the bullet was what killed him.

Well Bud, sounds to me like you did do a thorough autopsy. I figured all along the bullet kilt the deer :) Just wondering how and it seems fairly clear now. I would have to assume that the pierced heart is what killed the deer. A heart with holes in it causes some serious hemoraging. Other than that, one lung with a less than .264 hole through it wouldn't kill it very quick and maybe not all.

Now you're not really gonna say that what a broadhead does is the same as that nonexpanded bullet are you? I think that bullet would have a lot more in common with a field point and I have never gone after game with a field point and dont know anyone else who has. I wonder why?

Like I said, I'm not going to tell anyone else how to hunt. If putting pencil holes through game floats your boat, have at it... I'll pass.

One other thing that seems curious is this comment from you...

....way to far and slow it would seem.

Did you mean that, or was it just bait for a debate?
 
Last edited:
Kirby, I totally agree with you that a larger bullet with the same jacket thickness will deform easier. I was just adressing the case when it doesn't deform.

And just to be anal... enrgy isn't what deforms a bullet... it's the friction of the body resisting the momentum of the mass of the bullet that deforms it. Transfer of energy, i.e., deformed bullet and damaged tissue is the product.:)

Cheers...
 
Last edited:
Well, first thanks for posting the results. It is always educational to see another data point.

However, if you want to draw the archery analogy you shot that deer with a field point not a broadhead. I am not sure how many archers think it's ok to shoot a deer with a field point but probably not many.

Proper shot placement will kill anything as long as the bullet has sufficient energy to penetrate. However I think we are obligated to build in a certain margin for error, especially at long range, even the best of us would be hard-pressed to guarantee shot placement on a target organ at 1000 or more yards.

While my longest shot on game is 683 yds I only carry a drop chart to 900 yds in the field with my 300WM. Based on all the research I have done and indirect experience through others, this is as far as I trust a 200AB driven at 3000 fps to expand and I do believe you must get some expansion from a bullet or don't use it. An animal can travel a long, long ways if a penciling shot fails to deflate the lungs or is a little off and hits the liver instead. No reason to have drop values for 1000 yds if I should not be shooting that far. If I wanted to shoot 1000 yds I'd get a 300RUM and if I wanted to shoot further I'd get over my dislike of brakes and get a 338.
 
This has been an informative post but I think everyone lost site of it's purpose and
I think what BUD was trying to show was that even a good bullet will not perform if
improperly used.(To far,to slow,wrong game,wrong caliber,ETC) Correct me if I am
wrong BUD.

There are bullets that are designed "NOT" to expand because on large dangerous game
the intent is to penetrate deep into the body of a very tough animal intent on ruining your
hole day.

On thin skinned game there are bullets designed to expand and expend as much energy
as possible and still penetrate deep enough to damage the internal organs.

Bullets for varmints are normally designed to expand very rapidly because the game is small
and the energy needs to be transferred in a short distance.

Target bullets have no design efforts for expansion and there for are not as predictable
if used for anything other than shooting paper.

Any style/type of bullet will kill if placed in the right place but the recovery may be diffacult or
impossible .

One can adapt to a particular bullet by shot placement but a hunter does not always have the
perfect set of circumstances and then a decision has to be made to take the shot or not.

I have had bullet failures even though shot placement was good and this can happen from
time to time but if the wrong bullet is used it will happen more frequently.

As to the arrow issue : It is unlawful to use a field tip/point for the harvest of game animals
because of the wound potential with almost no visible blood trail. A broad head of a designated
size by the state or county must be used,

So it becomes a personal choice whether or not to reduce the distance a little or use a target
bullet and increase the distance . I chose to use a bullet that is designed for that type of
shooting/ hunting.

The debate rages on................

J E CUSTOM
 
Ahhhhhhh---lest we forget---the amount of spin imparted on the projectile and how that relates to "upset" of the core as it passes through whatever!!!!

I use the SMK for everything--use the 155 in my WSM all the way to the 250SMK for the 338 Slowpoke (improved 338 Lapua) and after at least a hundred kills albeit most of them feral hogs to deer never had one fail. In fact have had more than 1 exit wound (300 to 450) that made a softball size exit wound in a feral hogs shoulder. Not too may things are tougher than a 300 to 400 lb feral hog shoulder.

The SMK has been extensively documented (for military applications) to have been designed for accuracy not expansion thus if the marketing was changed the SMK would no longer be able to be used for military ammo around the world.

This will explain all:


Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

SUBJECT: Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition

DATE: 12 October 1990

Summary.

This memorandum considers whether United States Army Snipers may employ match-grade, "open-tip" ammunition in combat or other special missions. It concludes that such ammunition does not violate the law of war obligations of the United States, and may be employed in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.
Background.

Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail For more than a decade two bullets have been available for use by the United States Army Marksmanship Unit in match competition in its 7.62mm rifles. The M118 is a 173-grain match grade full metal jacket boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet, while the M852 is the Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with an open tip. Although the accuracy of the M118 has been reasonably good, though at times erratic, independent bullet comparisons by the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard marksmanship training units have established unequivocally the superior accuracy of the M852. Army tests noted a 36% improvement in accuracy with the M852 at 300 meters, and a 32% improvement at 600 yds; Marine Corps figures were twenty-eight percent accuracy improvement at 300 m, and 20% at 600yds. The National Guard determined that the M852 provided better bullet groups at 200 and 600 yards under all conditions than did the M118. [FNa1]

The 168-grain MatchKing was designed in the late 1950's for 300 m. shooting in international rifle matches. In its competitive debut, it was used by the 1st place winner at the 1959 Pan American Games. In the same caliber but in its various bullet lengths, the MatchKing has set a number of international records. To a range of 600 m., the superiority of the accuracy of the M852 cannot be matched, and led to the decision by U.S. military marksmanship training units to use the M852 in competition.

A 1980 opinion of this office concluded that use of the M852 in match competition would not violate law of war obligations of the United States. (citation omitted) Further tests and actual competition over the past decade have confirmed the superiority of the M852 over the M118 and other match grade bullets. For example, at the national matches held at Camp Perry, OH in 1983, a new Wimbledon record of 2--015 X's was set using the 168-gr. MatchKing. This level of performance lead to the question of whether the M852 could be used by military snipers in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.

During the period in which this review was conducted, the 180-gr. MatchKing (for which there is no military designation) also was tested with a view to increased accuracy over the M852 at very long ranges. Because two bullet weights were under consideration, the term "MatchKing" will be used hereinafter to refer to the generic design rather than to a bullet of a particular weight. The fundamental question to be addressed by this review is whether an open-tip bullet of MatchKing design may be used in combat.
Legal Factors.

The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury." In some law of war treatises, the term "unnecessary suffering" is used rather than "superfluous injury." The terms are regarded as synonymous. To emphasize this, Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Although the U.S. has made the formal decision that for military, political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to Protocol I, U.S. officials have taken the position that the language of Art. 35(2) of Protocol I as quoted is a codification of customary international law, and therefore binding upon all nations. The terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" have not been formally defined within international law. In determining whether a weapon or projectile causes unnecessary suffering, a balancing test is applied between the force dictated by military necessity to achieve a legitimate objective vis-à-vis suffering that may be considered superfluous to achievement of that intended objective. The test is not easily applied. For this reason, the degree of "superfluous" injury must be clearly disproportionate to the intended objectives for development and employment of the weapon, that is, it must outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile. The fact that a weapon causes suffering does not lead to the conclusion that the weapon causes unnecessary suffering, or is illegal per se. Military necessity dictates that weapons of war lead to death, injury, and destruction; the act of combatants killing or wounding enemy combatants in combat is a legitimate act under the law of war. In this regard, there is an incongruity in the law of war in that while it is legally permissible to kill an enemy combatant, incapacitation must not result inevitably in unnecessary suffering. What is prohibited is the design (or modification) and employment of a weapon for the purpose of increasing or causing suffering beyond that required by military necessity. In conducting the balancing test necessary to determine a weapon's legality, the effects of a weapon cannot be viewed in isolation. They must be examined against comparable weapons in use on the modern battlefield, and the military necessity for the weapon or projectile under consideration. In addition to the basic prohibition on unnecessary suffering contained in Art. 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, one other treaty is germane to this review. The Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899 prohibits the use in international armed conflict:

". . . of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."
The U.S. is not a party to this treaty, but U.S. officials over the years have taken the position that the armed forces of the U.S. will adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose of Art. 23e of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, quoted above.

It is within the context of these two treaties that questions regarding the legality of the employment of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet must be considered.
Bullet Description.

As previously described, the MatchKing is a boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with open tip. The "open tip" is a shallow aperture (approximately the diameter of the wire in a standard size straight pin or paper clip) in the nose of the bullet. While sometimes described as a "hollow point," this is a mischaracterization in law of war terms. Generally a "hollow point" bullet is thought of in terms of its ability to expand on impact with soft tissue. Physical examination of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet reveals that its opening is extremely small in comparison to the aperture in comparable hollow point hunting bullets; for example, the 165-grain GameKing is a true hollow point boat tail bullet with an aperture substantially greater than the MatchKing, and skiving (serrations cut into the jacket) to insure expansion. In the MatchKing, the open tip is closed as much as possible to provide better aerodynamics, and contains no skiving. The lead core of the MatchKing bullet is entirely covered by the bullet jacket. While the GameKing bullet is designed to bring the ballistic advantages of a match bullet to long range hunting, the manufacturer expressly recommends against the use of the MatchKing for hunting game of any size because it does not have the expansion characteristics of a hunting bullet.

The purpose of the small, shallow aperture in the MatchKing is to provide a bullet design offering maximum accuracy at very long ranges, rolling the jacket of the bullet around its core from base to tip; standard military bullets and other match bullets roll the jacket around its core from tip to base, leaving an exposed lead core at its base. Design purpose of the MatchKing was not to produce a bullet that would expand or flatten easily on impact with the human body, or otherwise cause wounds greater than those caused by standard military small arms ammunition.

PART II



Other than its superior long range marksmanship capabilities, the MatchKing was examined with regard to its performance on impact with the human body or in artificial material that approximates human soft tissue. It was determined that the bullet will break up or fragment in some cases at some point following entry into soft tissue. Whether fragmentation occurs will depend upon a myriad of variables, to include range to the target, velocity at the time of impact, degree of yaw of the bullet at the point of impact, or the distance traveled point-first within the body before yaw is induced. The MatchKing has not been designed to yaw intentionally or to break up on impact. These characteristics are common to all military rifle bullets. There was little discernible difference in bullet fragmentation between the MatchKing and other military small arms bullets, with some military ball ammunition of foreign manufacture tending to fragment sooner in human tissue or to a greater degree, resulting in wounds that would be more severe than those caused by the MatchKing. [FNaaa1]

Because of concern over the potential mischaracterization of the M852 as a "hollow point" bullet that might violate the purpose and intent of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets, some M852 MatchKing bullets were modified to close the aperture. The "closed tip" MatchKing did not measure up to the accuracy of the "open tip" MatchKing.

Other match grade bullets were tested. While some could approach the accuracy standards of the MatchKing in some lots, quality control was uneven, leading to erratic results. No other match grade bullet consistently could meet the accuracy of the open-tip bullet.
Law of War Application.

From both a legal and medical standpoint, the lethality or incapacitation effects of a particular small-caliber projectile must be measured against comparable projectiles in service. In the military small arms field, "small caliber" generally includes all rifle projectiles up to and including .60 caliber (15mm). For the purposes of this review, however, comparison will be limited to small-caliber ammunition in the range of 5.45mm to 7.62mm, that is, that currently in use in assault or sniper rifles by the military services of most nations.

Wound ballistic research over the past fifteen years has determined that the prohibition contained in the 1899 Hague Declaration is of minimal to no value, inasmuch as virtually all jacketed military bullets employed since 1899 with pointed ogival spitzer tip shape have a tendency to fragment on impact with soft tissue, harder organs, bone or the clothing and/or equipment worn by the individual soldier.

The pointed ogival spitzer tip, shared by all modern military bullets, reflects the balancing by nations of the criteria of military necessity and unnecessary suffering: its streamlined shape decreases air drag, allowing the bullet to retain velocity better for improved long-range performance; a modern military 7.62mm bullet will lose only about one-third of its muzzle velocity over 500 yards, while the same weight bullet with a round-nose shape will lose more than one-half of its velocity over the same distance. Yet the pointed ogival spitzer tip shape also leads to greater bullet breakup, and potentially greater injury to the soldier by such a bullet vis-à-vis a round-nose full-metal jacketed bullet. (See Dr. M. L. Fackler, "Wounding Patterns for Military Rifle Bullets," International Defense Review, January 1989, pp. 56-64, at 63.)

Weighing the increased performance of the pointed ogival spitzer tip bullet against the increased injury its breakup may bring, the nations of the world-- through almost a century of practice--have concluded that the need for the former outweighs concern for the latter, and does not result in unnecessary suffering as prohibited by the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets or article 23e of the 1907 Hague Convention IV. The 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets remains valid for expression of the principle that a nation may not employ a bullet that expands easily on impact for the purpose of unnecessarily aggravating the wound inflicted upon an enemy soldier. Such a bullet also would be prohibited by article 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, however. Another concept fundamental to the law of war is the principle of discrimination, that is, utilization of means or methods that distinguish to the extent possible legitimate targets, such as enemy soldiers, from noncombatants, whether enemy wounded and sick, medical personnel, or innocent civilians. The highly trained military sniper with his special rifle and match grade ammunition epitomizes the principle of discrimination. In combat, most targets are covered or obscured, move unpredictably, and as a consequence are exposed to hostile fire for limited periods of time. When coupled with the level of marksmanship training provided the average soldier and the stress of combat, a soldier's aiming errors are large and hit probability is correspondingly low. While the M16A2 rifle currently used by the United States Army and Marine Corps is capable of acceptable accuracy out to six hundred meters, the probability of an average soldier hitting an enemy soldier at three hundred meters is ten percent.

Statistics from past wars suggest that this probability figure may be optimistic. In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier. The risk to noncombatants is apparent.

In contrast, United States Army and Marine Corps snipers in the Vietnam War expended 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each claimed and verified kill, at an average range of six hundred yards, or almost twice the three hundred meters cited above for combat engagements by the average soldier. Some verified kills were at ranges in excess of 1000 yards. This represents discrimination and military efficiency of the highest order, as well as minimization of risk to noncombatants. Utilization of a bullet that increases accuracy, such as the MatchKing, would further diminish the risk to noncombatants.
Conclusion.

The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. Like most 5.56mm and 7.62mm military ball bullets, it may fragment upon striking its target, although the probability of its fragmentation is not as great as some military ball bullets currently in use by some nations. Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United State Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. The military necessity for its use-- its ability to offer maximum accuracy at very long ranges--is complemented by the high degree of discriminate fire it offers in the hands of a trained sniper. It not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat.
This opinion has been coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, and the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, who concur with its contents and conclusions.

An opinion that reaches the same conclusion has been issued simultaneously for the Navy and Marine Corps by The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.


Authored by W. Hays Parks, Colonel, USMC,
Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch
FNa1. The M118 bullet is loaded into a 7.62mm (caliber .308) cartridge. In its original loading in the earlier .30-06 cartridge, it was the M72.

FNaa1. While this review is written in the context of the M852 Sierra MatchKing 168-grain "open-tip" bullet and a 180-grain version, the MatchKing bullet (and similar bullets of other manufacturers) is also produced in other bullet weights of 7.62mm rifles (.308, .30-06, or .300 Winchester Magnum).

FNaaa1. For example, 7.62mm bullets manufactured to NATO military specifications and used by the Federal Republic of Germany have a substantially greater tendency to fragment in soft tissue than do the U.S. M80 7.62mm ammunition made to the same specifications, the M118, or the M852 MatchKing. None fragment as quickly or easily upon entry into soft tissue as the 5.56mm ammunition manufactured to NATO standards and issued to its forces by the Government of Sweden. Its early fragmentation leads to far more severe wounds than any bullet manufactured to military specifications and utilized by the U.S. military during the past quarter century (whether the M80 7.62mm, the M16A1, M193 or M16A2 5.56mm) or the opentip MatchKing
 
Boss Hoss

Nice to hear for a change from someone who put them through the test and not someone who never put them on fur but is willing to tell why they dont work. The only one I didn't like is the 142 had some mixed results with them other all the others that I used just plain out kill.
My 300 WSM with a 175 SMK has killed more deer than I want to talk about. I was asked to shoot off another 10 next week and since the SMK's shouldn't work or be used I wont tell you I'm still going to use them:D

Seems everyone I hunt with is impressed with the rifle / bullet performance as long as I dont tell them what bullet I'm useing.
 
je custom, everybody has been arguing about how theirs is bigger, harder, longer, faster and better looking I ain't been paying much attention to this thread. bottom line is the bullet killed the deer, it did not preform like I would have liked it to but most don't at that kind of range. it did preform much like I expected it to. the deer was past the outer limits of the rifle and I knew that when the trigger was pulled. I simply posted the pic so everyone who was interested could see the bullet and if they don't like it simply don't look at it, that would save those of us who were interested the boredom of having to hear how much those who aren't know about it. lightbulblightbulb
 
Bud
Great shooting, I kind of figurer that would be the result at that distance. I had the same thing happen with a 6BR and a 107 pushing the limit.

Do you have any results at shorter distance with the same bullet?
 
Bud
Great shooting, I kind of figurer that would be the result at that distance. I had the same thing happen with a 6BR and a 107 pushing the limit.

Do you have any results at shorter distance with the same bullet?
Rimfire, here's a pic of a 140 smk recovered from a 638 yard deer. the bullet went completely thru the deer and was a couple inches in the dirt on the off side. the deer was lying down at the shot and never got up. by the exit wound and internal damage I THINK the bullet deformation was internal on the deer but that's just a guess. Impact velocity would have been about 2100 and energy about 1330 on this one.
638smk.jpg
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top