As a matter of fact I did that very thing with a .340 Weatherby. First let me cry on your shoulder. The first time I fired it I casually pointed it at the ground and fired to work up a load. The bolt knob went INTO the webbing between my thumb and index finger! Say what?! Anyway back to the question...OK I am a fan of the original barnes .0049 bullets, I think for dangerous game they are the best.
Has anyone compared the Serria Gameking to these all copper bullets.. If you do I think you will have a real surprise.
Ballistics gel represents neither. It's just a consistent medium the FBI uses to test the performance of projectiles. It will give you an idea of how a bullet performs in soft tissue but is not directly comparable to animals. Back in the day I used water-soaked newspaper. I found it to be far tougher on bullets than actual game animals, but it was messy.Very cool. Question, does ballistic gel in any way represent the resistance of bone or only flesh (which is what I would guess)? Reason I ask, is it seems if you shot behind the shoulder you'd get pretty good penetration and expansion, but I am curious as to how to measure gel test performance against a shoulder shot on a Bull Elk - which is pretty stout, as are the shoulders of Rky Mtn Goats and all bears especially the big ones. I know you'd have to be a fool to take a 7mm against a Brownie with 140gr bullets, I'm just curious on bone perf in general.
Barbourcreek likes doing tests at about 600. They have a few videos including one with a 175 Accubond and a 155 Hammer Hunter at 600. I just wanna see how they do when they are tested below the traditional threshold. Maybe Steve makes a better bullet than he thinks. Either way, I’ll be trying some in 2 different calibers soonNo one ever does ballistic gel at longer ranges, truth is pretty darn scary!