Ballistics Nerd Talk - SD Reduction Rate, Energy Reduction Rate

[Stinky Coyote]

been building up rigs for a long time, some like more range time than others, some like more hunt time, you do you, i'll do me, let me know when you've topped my 620 yard coyote

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Stinky Coyote

been building up rigs for a long time, some like more range time than others, some like more hunt time, you do you, i'll do me, let me know when you've topped my 620 yard coyote

If that’s the best you’ve done your barking up the wrong tree

[Stinky Coyote]

I know very few people who have a coyote past 6 so if you have well done. You’re the one that barked up the wrong tree, just can’t help yourself. I suspect it’ll be a long time, maybe never, that you’ll dump a coyote past 500 let alone 600.

[Dean2]

So why don't you guys just wip them out, put them on a table and measure?

This was a good conversation, lets not turn it into a school yard fight.

[Stinky Coyote]

Lol i hear you, he suggested i just spend more time at the range and practice. Just gauging whether the pot was calling the kettle black.

[marky_mark]

There is too many variables that you cant put into an equation when selecting a hunting bullet. To simply take the data you get from a simple ballistics gel test as gospel. Do you not think that companies do this already? Why do you think there is a eldm and an eldx? Sure there are situations where a eldm may work, but there is a lot where it doesnt. Hence hornady doesnt officially market it as a hunting bullet. They are saying that if you choose to use it for hunting, and it fails. Dont blame us.

Im on the opposite end of the spectrum as you. I want a bang flop every time. I want to shoot the biggest baddest bullet as fast as possible. Im willing to accept a lot more recoil to not be limited by anything other than my skills, ethics or environmental conditions.

When I said theres no such thing as perfect. I mean there is no such thing as a perfect bullet. There is no bullet that will perform excellent in all situations or conditions. Its physically impossible. Something is always compromised in the quest for other features.

I used the 147 gr eldms last year on a few critters
Muzzle velocity was a pedestrian 2633 fps
Their performance was terrible!!
I repeat terrible!
I would never use them again for hunting anything other than maybe an antelope, but they dont even work that good on them

Its odd because ive had nothing but success and happy results with berger eol bullets at higher muzzle velocities. Both the 140's and 156's

Heres a question for you.... I think I just found a load for my one rifle
Im shooting 300 gr accubonds, so a semi controlled expansion bullet with an SD of 0.375 out of my 338 at 2800 and change fps. What animals would it be ethically capable of harvesting , at what ranges, and what shot angles would have to be avoided?

[Stinky Coyote]

But why?

So where i'm going with this is to get less 'opinion' and more data that explains 'why'...or 'what to expect' so it makes easier for one to choose what they prefer most. Ie; you and i prefer different based on our field experiences.

So if all the bullets were compared to each other the same way, same impact velocity, and these data parameters could/should account for; expansion qualities, energy transfer qualities, penetration qualities.

Ie' your 300gr accubond at the same 2250 fps impact, maybe it penetrates 35", expands 2x, sdrr of 3%/inch and energy transfer 110 ft/lbs per inch? Maybe it retains 95% of it's weight and retains 50% of it's SD over that 35" also?

Just a hypothetical example of what the data could show if you did 2 things.

1. Develop the test standard and data parameters.
2. Compare all the bullets to each other to the standards above.

The option you choose could very well embarrass most other choices in a lot of of those parameters and more than likely would. Just be nice to see the differences from a known standard rather than all the opinions from those who actually shoot things with it or not.

Once people settle on their chosen bullet (the bullet is what does all the actual 'work') then they can see what cartridge they need to drive it at the velocities they will want at distances they intend to hunt for the game they intend to hunt.

I also agree that the bullet manufacturers likely have more data than we do. I believe there's room for improvement, like we've dipped our toes into the water of where we could go, now we can get in the water.

I do think the gel and standardized impact velocity can show much more of the 'why' for hunting bullet performance.

This isn't a cartridge comparison discussion or caliber preference discussion.

This is a ballistics discussion about hunting bullets, and how we are missing out on important data, still too many mysteries explained away with opinions, yet we are in a time where there really shouldn't be that many mysteries, we have the technology and brain power to answer the 'why' much better.

[Nyksta]

These bullet construction/energy/sd/bc threads were quiet for a while. Stinky, Where were you for the last little bit? Any fun adventure stories?

[Tronneroi]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

I used the 147 gr eldms last year on a few critters
Muzzle velocity was a pedestrian 2633 fps
Their performance was terrible!!
I repeat terrible!
I would never use them again for hunting anything other than maybe an antelope, but they dont even work that good on them

Its odd because ive had nothing but success and happy results with berger eol bullets at higher muzzle velocities. Both the 140's and 156's

Aren't you comparing apples to oranges? Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you expect a match bullet to perform better on game than a hunting bullet?

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Stinky Coyote

But why?

So where i'm going with this is to get less 'opinion' and more data that explains 'why'...or 'what to expect' so it makes easier for one to choose what they prefer most. Ie; you and i prefer different based on our field experiences.

So if all the bullets were compared to each other the same way, same impact velocity, and these data parameters could/should account for; expansion qualities, energy transfer qualities, penetration qualities.

Ie' your 300gr accubond at the same 2250 fps impact, maybe it penetrates 35", expands 2x, sdrr of 3%/inch and energy transfer 110 ft/lbs per inch? Maybe it retains 95% of it's weight and retains 50% of it's SD over that 35" also?

Just a hypothetical example of what the data could show if you did 2 things.

1. Develop the test standard and data parameters.
2. Compare all the bullets to each other to the standards above.

The option you choose could very well embarrass most other choices in a lot of of those parameters and more than likely would. Just be nice to see the differences from a known standard rather than all the opinions from those who actually shoot things with it or not.

Once people settle on their chosen bullet (the bullet is what does all the actual 'work') then they can see what cartridge they need to drive it at the velocities they will want at distances they intend to hunt for the game they intend to hunt.

I also agree that the bullet manufacturers likely have more data than we do. I believe there's room for improvement, like we've dipped our toes into the water of where we could go, now we can get in the water.

I do think the gel and standardized impact velocity can show much more of the 'why' for hunting bullet performance.

This isn't a cartridge comparison discussion or caliber preference discussion.

This is a ballistics discussion about hunting bullets, and how we are missing out on important data, still too many mysteries explained away with opinions, yet we are in a time where there really shouldn't be that many mysteries, we have the technology and brain power to answer the 'why' much better.

How do you account for hitting bones?
Different sized animals of the same species have the different bone, hide and fat thickness
The angles you hit them can affect how the bullet reacts to it as well
Then your counting on a mass produced <$1 item being built uniformily

They already have lots of comparative tests using ballistics gel
Only one ive seen with bone is by federal

Then you have to consider how these bullets react under different velocities

Like I said, i prefer to error on the side of caution

I totally understand where your coming from

I think its factors that most people dont consider when choosing a bullet

[Stinky Coyote]

Nyksta, not much to report, mostly kids/work and fit our play in when we can. We paddleboard/camp/fish a fair bit, hunting less that used to be, i expect a shift there as the round an age corner or two. Lots of pies.

marky_mark, the only way to account for bone is to simply have all the bullets compared in something stable and homogeneous first (gel) , there's no real way to duplicate the 100's of angles through all the class 2/3 game, one could surmise or hypothesize that a femur bone could be worth 6" of gelatin penetration for example, but that's about as far as you could take it for prediction

the info in having all options compared as i've laid out would show you the best choices for what your goals are on game

as this particular example i laid out it maybe shows more accurately why the same bullet through the deer broadside maybe 12" at 70.2 ft/lbs per inch then at best that deer got 842 ft/lbs of the 1383 ft/lbs and maybe the expansion wasn't fully realized either...so all the remaining potential work ended up in the dirt beyond, and if encountered more bone then more of that work would have been done in the animal rather than the dirt, the moose got it all and it showed, i shot both the same day and you would not believe it was the same cartridge/bullet combo, same distance 125 yards, same 115 yard recoveries, very interesting stuff

would a 300 gr accubond at 2800 have done more impressive work, you bet it likely would have, likely on a moose but maybe not on a broadside deer, i would wager a good many combo's on a young broadside buck at 125 yards you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a handful of common choices, 3/4" in, 1.5-2" out, maybe baseball size diam. of damaged tissue through the lungs pretty common stuff when most of the potential work was done beyond the animal

anyway, i just see opportunity to look at our hunting bullet ballistics with higher quality glass, we're looking at it through some cheap bushnell binos when we could be looking at it through some leica ultravid hd's

[Stinky Coyote]

**edit above, 15 yard recoveries