Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Needed Energy for killing.... is it a myth??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Guest" data-source="post: 29588"><p>Rick,</p><p></p><p>I can only offer the data based on our penetration tests. </p><p></p><p>First I would say that bullet construction, geometry and materials all together do in fact make a difference in penetration or lack thereof. </p><p></p><p>Lets consider shape (bullet geometry): A blunt, wide meplat bullet has a wide frontal area already, this being the case it will meet more resistance then a pointy bullet. </p><p></p><p>Material: A jacketed, lead filled bullet is going to be more frangible than a bullet made from solid copper. Copper is tougher/stronger then lead. </p><p></p><p>A bullet made from solid copper, to a point, without a hollow point, will penetrate better, with less energy required, then a lead filled bullet of the same shape - considering other factors. The solid copper bullet will deform less then the lead filled bullet simply based on materials used - same design.</p><p></p><p>We conducted a test using a 210gr lead filled bullet that is manufactured/designed for high penetration. We loaded and shot this bullet out of a 338 win mag at 100 yards. We then loaded a 206gr EXP Groove Bullet for the same rifle with very similar velocities and shot it at 100 yards. Both bullets were shot into the same media. The 206gr EXP Groove Bullet had almost double the penetration of the lead filled bullet. The lead filled bullet opened much more then the 206gr EXP. This frontal area slowed the penetration - common sense. The 206gr EXP lost its petals, as designed, and the back of the bullet drove onward. Because the copper bullet, 206gr EXP, is made of solid copper it did not expand to anywhere near the degree of the lead filled bullet thus providing additional penetration. </p><p></p><p>That was a head-to-head example. Now I offer this data. </p><p></p><p>We took the same exact bullet, a 159gr EXP Groove Bullet, and loaded it up in a 300 win mag and produced a reduced load in a 30-06. Both were shot at 100 yards into the same media. The 300 win mag produced a velocity around 3200 FPS and the 30-06 (reduced load) produced a velocity around 2000 FPS. After shooting both into the same media the bullet that started at around 2000 FPS had almost the same penetration as the same bullet starting out at around 3200 FPS. Obviously the bullet starting at around 2000 FPS had less energy then the one starting at around 3200 FPS. </p><p></p><p>The reason that both had about the same penetration has to do with what physically happened, or didn't happen, to the bullet. The bullet launched at around 3200 FPS, upon impact, lost its petals, as designed, and the back of the bullet drove onward. The same bullet launched at around 2000 FPS did not loose its petals and did not loose much of its original form, retaining all of its original weight allowing it to penetrate to almost the same degree. </p><p></p><p>Conclusion: The fact that the bullet starting out at the higher velocity did in fact open up, causing for a larger frontal area, slowed its penetration. Although the energy played a role, its role was minimal. </p><p></p><p>These examples are why I don't hold much regard for a certain "energy" level to effectively kill any animal. There simply other variables that come into play. </p><p></p><p>Don</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guest, post: 29588"] Rick, I can only offer the data based on our penetration tests. First I would say that bullet construction, geometry and materials all together do in fact make a difference in penetration or lack thereof. Lets consider shape (bullet geometry): A blunt, wide meplat bullet has a wide frontal area already, this being the case it will meet more resistance then a pointy bullet. Material: A jacketed, lead filled bullet is going to be more frangible than a bullet made from solid copper. Copper is tougher/stronger then lead. A bullet made from solid copper, to a point, without a hollow point, will penetrate better, with less energy required, then a lead filled bullet of the same shape - considering other factors. The solid copper bullet will deform less then the lead filled bullet simply based on materials used - same design. We conducted a test using a 210gr lead filled bullet that is manufactured/designed for high penetration. We loaded and shot this bullet out of a 338 win mag at 100 yards. We then loaded a 206gr EXP Groove Bullet for the same rifle with very similar velocities and shot it at 100 yards. Both bullets were shot into the same media. The 206gr EXP Groove Bullet had almost double the penetration of the lead filled bullet. The lead filled bullet opened much more then the 206gr EXP. This frontal area slowed the penetration - common sense. The 206gr EXP lost its petals, as designed, and the back of the bullet drove onward. Because the copper bullet, 206gr EXP, is made of solid copper it did not expand to anywhere near the degree of the lead filled bullet thus providing additional penetration. That was a head-to-head example. Now I offer this data. We took the same exact bullet, a 159gr EXP Groove Bullet, and loaded it up in a 300 win mag and produced a reduced load in a 30-06. Both were shot at 100 yards into the same media. The 300 win mag produced a velocity around 3200 FPS and the 30-06 (reduced load) produced a velocity around 2000 FPS. After shooting both into the same media the bullet that started at around 2000 FPS had almost the same penetration as the same bullet starting out at around 3200 FPS. Obviously the bullet starting at around 2000 FPS had less energy then the one starting at around 3200 FPS. The reason that both had about the same penetration has to do with what physically happened, or didn't happen, to the bullet. The bullet launched at around 3200 FPS, upon impact, lost its petals, as designed, and the back of the bullet drove onward. The same bullet launched at around 2000 FPS did not loose its petals and did not loose much of its original form, retaining all of its original weight allowing it to penetrate to almost the same degree. Conclusion: The fact that the bullet starting out at the higher velocity did in fact open up, causing for a larger frontal area, slowed its penetration. Although the energy played a role, its role was minimal. These examples are why I don't hold much regard for a certain "energy" level to effectively kill any animal. There simply other variables that come into play. Don [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Needed Energy for killing.... is it a myth??
Top