Ok, I've had it with terminal ballistics theories—what happens when the bullet hits the thing.
After years of trying to ignore the discussions, I feel there is no choice but to launch a discussion of my own. I propose a new theory.
Imagine a green onion (scallion to some). Turn it horizontally in your mind with the bulb at one end and the long, slender stalk extending from there. Let's use that as our metaphor for the performance of an expanding hunting bullet when it strikes a target—it undergoes an almost immediate expansion/transformation (the bulb) and then continues penetrating through the target in its transformed shape (the stalk). But like most metaphors this one is lacking because the penetration of the bullet begins with robust energy creating a permanent wound channel and then peters outs out to the point where it is penetrating, but not really creating much damage. Let's call the bit where it penetrates robustly with a permanent wound channel the "fuzzy" portion of the stalk. There it is. The Fuzzy Green Onion theory.
[Someone with graphics skills, please provide us with an initial image for FGO to focus on. Thanks in advance.]
To be fair, FGO (Fuzzy Green Onion) also produces search results for a Japanese mobile game called Fate/Grand Order. My apologies in advance to the Fate/Grand Order people. Good news: I don't think we will become the dominant search result. Searches for "Fuzzy Green Onion" mostly brought up methods of dealing with mold in your garden, so I think we're good there also.
What am I talking about? I'm looking for a way to reasonably discuss terminal ballistics. It would be nice if we had a research institute that systematically hauled out bull elk onto a range and asked them to stand still while subjected to various bullets at various velocities, but that doesn't exist (Truth: it really wouldn't be nice for such a thing to exist). In the absence of that, let's at least establish a language that is removed from every other 'formulaic' approach to terminal ballistics. If you're a fan of energy-on-target, yes, I'm dissing you. Prefer the Hornady H.I.T.S. factor? Nice initiative, but let's talk. Maybe the Taylor KO Value? Points for digging, but we can do better.
Let's make it clearer—how will this work? Let's define terms. An expanding bullet strikes a target and almost immediately transforms—that transformation and associated release of energy is the bulb (1). It then powers through the target in its transformed shape producing a permanent wound channel—that's the fuzzy bit (2). If it's still inside the target, it then slows and continues to penetrate but the damage is less severe/less permanent—that's the stalk (3). Bulb (1), fuzzy (2), stalk (3).
Let's put a nominal scale on each factor of 1-10. A bulb (1) factor of 10 means the bullet is absolutely explosive, producing a massive initial wound cavity. A fuzzy (2) value of 10 means severe and extensive permanent wounding along the initial penetration channel. Extensive penetration beyond the fuzzy bit is sweet and photogenic, but not frankly so important to hunters, so does not deserve a score. ONLY THE BULB AND FUZZY BITS MATTER FOR TERMINAL BALLISTICS! Granted, some might argue that the stalk could matter if it produces a blood trail to be followed. I would argue that unless the bullet exits during the fuzzy stage, the blood trail will not be extensive. That's a discussion point.
So have I said anything of substance? No. I'm merely trying to toss up a way of talking about hunting bullets in a manner that does not yet exist. Reference points? The community will need to come up with those, but as guideposts I would suggest the following:
1. Traditional soft-point, unbonded bullets would rank highly on the bulb (1) scale and poorly thereafter (target bullets used on game might be in this category also-discussion point).
2. Bonded lead-core bullets would rank well on the bulb (1) scale, relatively well on the fuzzy (2) scale depending on construction, and who cares after.
3. Barnes-type monolithics would rate ok on the bulb (1) scale depending on velocity, and highly on the fuzzy (2) scale (again, who cares after).
4. Hammer bullets would rate highly on the bulb (1) scale and highly on the fuzzy (2) scale (again, who cares after).
So I've set it up. It might be a lame duck. The good news is that I'm used to ignoring discussions about terminal ballistics, so I won't be too put out if I need to "ignore" my own post. Hope you get some enjoyment out of it.
And maybe, maybe, it will encourage people to realize that the relevant question is not "what cartridge?" or "what caliber?" but in today's world with the options we have available to us "what bullet?".
Thanks for your comments and my apologies in advance for starting yet another horrific and unending terminal ballistics madhouse.
After years of trying to ignore the discussions, I feel there is no choice but to launch a discussion of my own. I propose a new theory.
Imagine a green onion (scallion to some). Turn it horizontally in your mind with the bulb at one end and the long, slender stalk extending from there. Let's use that as our metaphor for the performance of an expanding hunting bullet when it strikes a target—it undergoes an almost immediate expansion/transformation (the bulb) and then continues penetrating through the target in its transformed shape (the stalk). But like most metaphors this one is lacking because the penetration of the bullet begins with robust energy creating a permanent wound channel and then peters outs out to the point where it is penetrating, but not really creating much damage. Let's call the bit where it penetrates robustly with a permanent wound channel the "fuzzy" portion of the stalk. There it is. The Fuzzy Green Onion theory.
[Someone with graphics skills, please provide us with an initial image for FGO to focus on. Thanks in advance.]
To be fair, FGO (Fuzzy Green Onion) also produces search results for a Japanese mobile game called Fate/Grand Order. My apologies in advance to the Fate/Grand Order people. Good news: I don't think we will become the dominant search result. Searches for "Fuzzy Green Onion" mostly brought up methods of dealing with mold in your garden, so I think we're good there also.
What am I talking about? I'm looking for a way to reasonably discuss terminal ballistics. It would be nice if we had a research institute that systematically hauled out bull elk onto a range and asked them to stand still while subjected to various bullets at various velocities, but that doesn't exist (Truth: it really wouldn't be nice for such a thing to exist). In the absence of that, let's at least establish a language that is removed from every other 'formulaic' approach to terminal ballistics. If you're a fan of energy-on-target, yes, I'm dissing you. Prefer the Hornady H.I.T.S. factor? Nice initiative, but let's talk. Maybe the Taylor KO Value? Points for digging, but we can do better.
Let's make it clearer—how will this work? Let's define terms. An expanding bullet strikes a target and almost immediately transforms—that transformation and associated release of energy is the bulb (1). It then powers through the target in its transformed shape producing a permanent wound channel—that's the fuzzy bit (2). If it's still inside the target, it then slows and continues to penetrate but the damage is less severe/less permanent—that's the stalk (3). Bulb (1), fuzzy (2), stalk (3).
Let's put a nominal scale on each factor of 1-10. A bulb (1) factor of 10 means the bullet is absolutely explosive, producing a massive initial wound cavity. A fuzzy (2) value of 10 means severe and extensive permanent wounding along the initial penetration channel. Extensive penetration beyond the fuzzy bit is sweet and photogenic, but not frankly so important to hunters, so does not deserve a score. ONLY THE BULB AND FUZZY BITS MATTER FOR TERMINAL BALLISTICS! Granted, some might argue that the stalk could matter if it produces a blood trail to be followed. I would argue that unless the bullet exits during the fuzzy stage, the blood trail will not be extensive. That's a discussion point.
So have I said anything of substance? No. I'm merely trying to toss up a way of talking about hunting bullets in a manner that does not yet exist. Reference points? The community will need to come up with those, but as guideposts I would suggest the following:
1. Traditional soft-point, unbonded bullets would rank highly on the bulb (1) scale and poorly thereafter (target bullets used on game might be in this category also-discussion point).
2. Bonded lead-core bullets would rank well on the bulb (1) scale, relatively well on the fuzzy (2) scale depending on construction, and who cares after.
3. Barnes-type monolithics would rate ok on the bulb (1) scale depending on velocity, and highly on the fuzzy (2) scale (again, who cares after).
4. Hammer bullets would rate highly on the bulb (1) scale and highly on the fuzzy (2) scale (again, who cares after).
So I've set it up. It might be a lame duck. The good news is that I'm used to ignoring discussions about terminal ballistics, so I won't be too put out if I need to "ignore" my own post. Hope you get some enjoyment out of it.
And maybe, maybe, it will encourage people to realize that the relevant question is not "what cartridge?" or "what caliber?" but in today's world with the options we have available to us "what bullet?".
Thanks for your comments and my apologies in advance for starting yet another horrific and unending terminal ballistics madhouse.
Last edited: