Non-magnums

[HunterDave]

I don't want to swim with the sharks but I'd like to throw this out there. I'm not even sure if this fits into the penetration discussion.

I'm one of those guys with the "exploding" bullets mentioned in the original post. I never saw anything like it before and I actually started a thread about it. I took up reloading last winter and this Fall I shot 3 deer and the bullets seemed to disintegrate inside the deer. I was using a 3006 with 165gr Nosler BT at about 2800 fps.

All deer were shot in the boiler room standing broadside. The first 2 were about 150ish and 200ish yds give or take and the bullets entered, turned the lungs to mush and did not exit. The 3rd deer was shot at about 300ish yds. The bullet hit a rib entering causing a odd shaped twoonie sized hole, hit the bottom of the heart and made 2 bullet sized holes on the exit. None of the bullets were recovered.

Does this example fit into the velocity/penetration discussion or is it a bullet construction issue?

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

I'm not going to argue with you, as you obviously have your oppinion and I'm not going to do a 10 page thread back and fourth arguing physics, (did my 5 years, that's plenty) What I will tell you, is that the equations you have posted with your calculations and comparison are actually flawed/inaccurate also resulting in an inaccurate conclusion.

I'll leave it to you to figure it out....based on your posts, theories, laws of physics regurgetation, I have no doubt you'll find your mistake rather quickly.

this post is almost perfectly correct except for the last line. i dont think he wil find it quickly....if at all. this whole thing is entertaining for sure though, lol.

Originally Posted by Traps

Huck yuck, uhhhh heeeeulllck .....too funny, when you chime in with your LOL.....yup it reminds me of goofy's laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRmgQPfmigw

What about when penetration doesn't reach the far side? Is the glass only half full?

LOL...sometimes you bring some intelligent, well thought out discusion to this board Traps...other times not so much.

[Traps]

Originally Posted by chuck

As usual, the real world has a tendency to dispel theory rather quickly. While your argument is valid it is so in a very simplistic vacuum. Velocity is not the enemy of success and here is a Pronghorn that took a 55 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip shot from a .243 at a muzzle velocity of 4000 fps. The bullet entered his chest and lodged on the inside of a hip bone.

It's all about the bullet and how it reacts and/or performs.

Nosler's website describes it as an ultra thin jacket for use up to a coyote. The pictures of it at 3000 fps show fragments.

http://www.nosler.com/Bullets/Ballis...p-Varmint.aspx

I suspect the piece that you found in that antelope is a fragment in the hip. Congratulations on proving that you use a varmit load on an antelope. Did you actually plan on eating it or did you use it for testing?

A better example would be the 257 Hot Tamale cooking a 100 grain TSX along at 4100 fps that went through the front shoulders of a bison. It lost its petals resulting in a blunt cylinder almost the same size as the caliber.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by Traps

Nosler's website describes it as an ultra thin jacket for use up to a coyote. The pictures of it at 3000 fps show fragments.

http://www.nosler.com/Bullets/Ballis...p-Varmint.aspx

I suspect the piece that you found in that antelope is a fragment in the hip. Congratulations on proving that you use a varmit load on an antelope. Did you actually plan on eating it or did you use it for testing?

A better example would be the 257 Hot Tamale cooking a 100 grain TSX along at 4100 fps that went through the front shoulders of a bison. It lost its petals resulting in a blunt cylinder almost the same size as the caliber.

your formula will come in godd and handy here...

[Traps]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

LOL...yup...whether it hangs on hide on far side...passes through by three feet or three hundred feet, penetration is irrelevant at that point in regards to lethality. Most bullets at most speeds make it to the far hide.... within reason.

Well Sheep your right I should be a bigger man and ignore pictures of baited hooks and regurgitated info with nothing of added value except a LOL.

I think this forum benefits from your presence, just tone it down with the LOL's, it really comes off as arrogant even if its not meant as such.

[Arn?Narn.]

gots da love da interwebs !!!!

[Traps]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

How did you calculate "momentum intensity" in your first equation, and then compare it to the "momentum intensity" of your second equation.
Data out put is only as good as data input.

You a big fan of FMJ?

Its comparative analysis based on two observations, what happens here versus what happens over here. I do admit that I am basing my second observation on someone else's extensive bullet testing data. This is charted on the following webpage:

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...s/methods.html

If you look down the page to the graphs called "Wetpack Penetration vs Impact Velocity for Conventional Bullets" You'll see what reference point I am taking for my own calculations. At the end of the day its just a theory.

Now I know a lot of people rely on experience on this board which is good, but the very basis for many of the things we do are based on what we don't know or that we can't quite quantify but have a general understanding of. Take for example gravity, what is it? Its an imaginary force that drives anything with mass towards another mass. Does mankind know what causes gravity......no but we quantify it and use it to send people to the moon.

I also realize that frangible bullets are lethal, but when it comes to an animal that it going to be eaten there is generally a difference in bullets between varmit and big game (not always if you want to save the pelts). The main objective of a hunting bullet is one that stays together for the most part to limit damage to meat. So my whole point is if a hunting bullet is meant to stay together its lethality is meant to drill a hole. No big game animal is hunted with a frangible bullet expecting that a less than perfect shot results in shards exploding and hitting the vitals. A hunting bullet whether it be a FMJ (which I am not a huge fan of) or an expanding bullet will cause the animal to expire if hit in the vitals.

[Traps]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

So why did you not shoot a cooler round?

If slower is better, why shoot at 2689 fps???? hmmm...

I have a bunch of cool rounds. Its useable range that generates the balance between what muzzle velocity is needed to get within that 1800-2000 fps at 400 yards. I only shoot to 300 yards now but I am looking ahead and if in a few years with more practice I can shoot to 400 yards with the right conditions I'll have all my loads set up for where I want them.

Below rougly 1800-2000 fps penetration decreases with no expansion therefore acting like a FMJ which is not what I want.

All my hunting loads are as follows:

150 grain 7mm going at 2675 fps at the muzzle will get me out to 400 yards at a velocity of 1949 fps.
160 grain 338 going at 3030 fps at the muzzle will get me out to 400 yards at a velocity of 2025 fps.
185 grain 338 going at 2800 fps at the muzzle will get me out to 400 yards at 1869 fps
168 grain 308 going at 2700 fps at muzzle will get me out to 400 yards at 2003 fps

Does that answer your question?

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by Traps

Its comparative analysis based on two observations, what happens here versus what happens over here. I do admit that I am basing my second observation on someone else's extensive bullet testing data. This is charted on the following webpage:

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...s/methods.html

If you look down the page to the graphs called "Wetpack Penetration vs Impact Velocity for Conventional Bullets" You'll see what reference point I am taking for my own calculations. At the end of the day its just a theory.

Now I know a lot of people rely on experience on this board which is good, but the very basis for many of the things we do are based on what we don't know or that we can't quite quantify but have a general understanding of. Take for example gravity, what is it? Its an imaginary force that drives anything with mass towards another mass. Does mankind know what causes gravity......no but we quantify it and use it to send people to the moon.

I also realize that frangible bullets are lethal, but when it comes to an animal that it going to be eaten there is generally a difference in bullets between varmit and big game (not always if you want to save the pelts). The main objective of a hunting bullet is one that stays together for the most part to limit damage to meat. So my whole point is if a hunting bullet is meant to stay together its lethality is meant to drill a hole. No big game animal is hunted with a frangible bullet expecting that a less than perfect shot results in shards exploding and hitting the vitals. A hunting bullet whether it be a FMJ (which I am not a huge fan of) or an expanding bullet will cause the animal to expire if hit in the vitals.

My main problem, (well not problem, but gets me posting lol) with threads like this is that the comparison between my bullet in the 30/06 as to yours in the .308 or 300 WM is an obsolete arguement today with the vast array of bullet construcion available today.

It's a comaprison of the almost obsolete...

This would be a good arguement decades past... but a useless one today unless people are set on using one basic type of bullet which can be compared to all other calibres with that one basic type of bullet.

High velocity mey be hard on the shoulder at times, it may be expensive at times, ...but if I got the shoulder and I got the money, who cares.

I don't shoot magnums, as I don't own any, but have used them enough and seen them used enough to know that they work as well as the sum of the components from bullet to shooter ability.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by Traps

I have a bunch of cool rounds. Its useable range that generates the balance between what muzzle velocity is needed to get within that 1800-2000 fps at 400 yards. I only shoot to 300 yards now but I am looking ahead and if in a few years with more practice I can shoot to 400 yards with the right conditions I'll have all my loads set up for where I want them.

Below rougly 1800-2000 fps penetration decreases with no expansion therefore acting like a FMJ which is not what I want.

All my hunting loads are as follows:

150 grain 7mm going at 2675 fps at the muzzle will get me out to 400 yards at a velocity of 1949 fps.
160 grain 338 going at 3030 fps at the muzzle will get me out to 400 yards at a velocity of 2025 fps.
185 grain 338 going at 2800 fps at the muzzle will get me out to 400 yards at 1869 fps
168 grain 308 going at 2700 fps at muzzle will get me out to 400 yards at 2003 fps

Does that answer your question?

Setup as you find works... that is all any of us can do.

Originally Posted by Traps

Well Sheep your right I should be a bigger man and ignore pictures of baited hooks and regurgitated info with nothing of added value except a LOL.

I think this forum benefits from your presence, just tone it down with the LOL's, it really comes off as arrogant even if its not meant as such.

LOL....you just have to laugh at some things Traps!

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

My main problem, (well not problem, but gets me posting lol) with threads like this is that the comparison between my bullet in the 30/06 as to yours in the .308 or 300 WM is an obsolete arguement today with the vast array of bullet construcion available today.

Amen!

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

LOL....you just have to laugh at some things Traps!

I particularly liked the one with the wife calling the husband to bed, but someone is wrong on the internet..."

[Traps]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I don't want to swim with the sharks but I'd like to throw this out there. I'm not even sure if this fits into the penetration discussion.

I'm one of those guys with the "exploding" bullets mentioned in the original post. I never saw anything like it before and I actually started a thread about it. I took up reloading last winter and this Fall I shot 3 deer and the bullets seemed to disintegrate inside the deer. I was using a 3006 with 165gr Nosler BT at about 2800 fps.

All deer were shot in the boiler room standing broadside. The first 2 were about 150ish and 200ish yds give or take and the bullets entered, turned the lungs to mush and did not exit. The 3rd deer was shot at about 300ish yds. The bullet hit a rib entering causing a odd shaped twoonie sized hole, hit the bottom of the heart and made 2 bullet sized holes on the exit. None of the bullets were recovered.

Does this example fit into the velocity/penetration discussion or is it a bullet construction issue?

Its meant to retain 50-60% of its wt. It is a thin walled, hollow point (plastic tip inserted) bullet that expands violently on impact as verified by the odd shaped toonie size hole and two exits. It worked for you for on broadside shots but I would not want to hit anything in the shoulder. It would probably do the job but the effect it would have on meat would be bad. This year I hit a moose in the shoulder with a TSX and I didn't have any meat loss - no black mess just a little shredded looking meat that went into hamburger. Its a bullet construction issue and I would move away from that bullet. This bullet is claimed to be a "One shot, watch em drop" bullet but the same thing can be achieved if you put a premium bullet through its front shoulders.

[Traps]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

I particularly liked the one with the wife calling the husband to bed, but someone is wrong on the internet..."

Having 1500 posts in little over a year your probably not far off that statement.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Traps

Its a bullet construction issue and I would move away from that bullet.

Thanks Traps.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by Traps

Having 1500 posts in little over a year your probably not far off that statement.

There's a saying about people who mention post count and trader ratings...

I think it would be pretty bang on for you...

[elkhunter11]

This thread is still going and may yet reach 100 posts,pretty good for a thread started for no other reason than to do some trolling.

[Arn?Narn.]

damn trolls, ...them and my lack of willpower have precipitated the explosion of my post count ovet the last year...lol !

Gahee, Guhuh, golly gee....

[Traps]

If you've got nothing of substance Arn then the debate is done, at least with you.

[Pines]

Originally Posted by Traps

If you've got nothing of substance Arn then the debate is done, at least with you.

Geez Traps u give too easy ...Arn nice pics by the way

[Marlin xl7]

I believe that this thread was started as a trolling expedition, we all have different opinions on penetration and bullet construction. You cant always go buy what the box says, you really won't know how a bullet reacts until you actually shoot something with it. So perhaps next time can we not all fall into the "trap" .

But im pretty sure this picture sums this thread up,

[Pines]

Originally Posted by chuck

As usual, the real world has a tendency to dispel theory rather quickly. While your argument is valid it is so in a very simplistic vacuum. Velocity is not the enemy of success and here is a Pronghorn that took a 55 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip shot from a .243 at a muzzle velocity of 4000 fps. The bullet entered his chest and lodged on the inside of a hip bone.

It's all about the bullet and how it reacts and/or performs.

if ONLY that was u ..TROLL..and I can prove it MR ..from cgn and moot ..

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by Traps

If you've got nothing of substance Arn then the debate is done, at least with you.

You devised an outdated formula that is orginally based on an outdated interest in the sectional density equation. You took the long away around by changing two variables, both speed and bullet shape, to prove nothing more than that a solid aerodynamic bullet with little frontal area will meet less resistance at a given fps than if the same grain bullet was shot as a pancake at the same fps.

pssstt...not your theory.

[Arn?Narn.]

A read I have enjoyed numerous times...

Hope you do too....


Sectional density is a number that describes the relationship of the weight of an object to any one of its sides. When applied to a bullet, it is generally used to apply a number to the relationship of the weight of the bullet to the diameter, as observed from the front or rear of the bullet.

The question then arises: Of what use is this information? Does it have any value and can it be used to describe a function that is of importance, value or interest to the mind that enquires? Let us embark on a search for the value of Sectional Density as applied to the world of ballistics.


Starting with a box of 180gr .30 calibre bullets, we observe that the sectional density of the sealed box sitting on the loading bench can be calculated from the point of view of the side that is in contact with the loading bench. If, however, the box falls off the loading bench and falls on its side, the sectional density value changes from the point of view of the floor. At this basic level then, it must be accepted that sectional density can vary, depending on your point of view. One need not use a box of bullets to draw this conclusion. The same would apply to a single bullet standing on its base on the bench. If it falls off the bench and rolls to the furthest corner of the workshop, the bench and the floor will argue deep into the night about which sectional density value is the valid one.

Sectional density values are usually quoted as indicative of the performance, or lack thereof, of a particular bullet. So we should move our investigation forward to beyond the stage where the bullets are loaded and ready to fire, as sectional density is not of interest in the actual reloading procedure. We must investigate where the value of sectional density is of importance, once we light up a primer behind a load and the bullet starts moving down the barrel.

We compare two bullets of identical sectional density but of different construction. Both are 180 gr .30 calibre bullets but one is a round nose, flat base, solid shank bullet that is virtually parallel sided. The other is a hollow point, spitser, boat tail, match bullet with a thin jacket and a bearing surface as short as is prudent. The barrel time and muzzle velocity of these two bullets will differ from each other. Should one attempt to load them to the same muzzle velocity, the powder charges and pressures will certainly vary. So with identical sectional density values, these two different types of bullet will perform in different ways down the bore of the rifle. Clearly, there is no usable connection between sectional density and anything else here.

Possibly sectional density values could be useful somewhere in the external ballistics picture. External ballistics consist of stuff like trajectory, wind drift values, time of flight, gyroscopic stability and retained speed. Trajectory is determined by the ballistic coefficient of the bullet and its speed. We observe that two bullets of identical sectional density fly over two very different trajectories, if their bc values and speeds differ. And of course two bullets of differing sectional density values fly over the same trajectory, if their bc values and speeds are the same. So sectional density has nothing to do with determining the trajectory of a bullet.

How about resistance to wind? Surely a bullet with high sectional density will be better in wind than one with a low sectional density? Using an external ballistics program, we find that changes in wind drift for a given bullet will only occur if the wind speed, bullet speed or bullet bc values are changed. Changing the weight of the bullet and thereby the sectional density, makes no difference to the wind drift values. While experimenting with the wind drift values in the ballistics program, we noticed that the time of flight and retained speed also remained unchanged, regardless of the weight of the bullet. Surely sectional density must be of use somewhere, so let’s take a close look at gyroscopic stability.

Gyroscopic stability is what makes a bullet fly in a stable manner. If the variety of conditions governing gyroscopic stability culminate in a gyroscopic stability value of less than one, the bullet is unstable and will fly funny. No amount of lecturing the offending bullet will make it straighten up and fly right. Something has to be changed to bring the gyroscopic stability value to more than one.

Gyroscopic stability is a rather complicated subject and one often hears of the Greenhill formula being used to calculate whether a bullet is stable or not. Using the Greenhill formula is better than nothing, like some makes of chronograph, but for more exact calculations and a true picture, one must turn to the work of one R.L.McCoy. Using the Greenhill formula results in an inconsistent effect on the gyroscopic stability of a bullet if sectional density is changed. The equation does not ask for the right information to accurately take into account varying material densities and forms.

Using McCoy’s method requires inputting the specific gravity of the bullet material as well as a number of form variations that will affect gyroscopic stability. Specific gravity denotes how dense a material is. If specific gravity changes, density changes. This must therefore lead to a change in sectional density! Eureka! A connection! Now we must investigate more thoroughly by making some comparisons to prove the connection.

Still using McCoy’s method, we find that two bullets, identical in form but made from different materials, have different gyroscopic stability values as well as different sectional density values. Changing the sectional density therefore changes the gyroscopic stability. The connection seems to stand. As expected, two identical bullets, made from the same material have identical gyroscopic stability and sectional density values. Not changing the sectional density, leads to no change in the gyroscopic stability and we have two out of two. Now we are cooking! Now we compare two bullets, made from the same material, with identical sectional density values but with different forms, one a semi-wadcutter and the other a spitser boat tail. Alas, they have very different gyroscopic stability values and disprove once again what seemed to be a possible use for sectional density. It is form, rate of twist, diameter and speed that are the big hitters when gyroscopic stability is calculated. As usual, sectional density just tagged along as a coincidental by product of the important stuff.

At this stage, someone will probably enquire indignantly whether the numbskull writing this realises that sectional density is only of importance when it comes to terminal ballistics. Sectional density is a measure of how well a bullet will smite the good, the bad and the ugly, they cry. There is an ideal sectional density and it is 0.3, they intone. So we must investigate, with a modicum of seriousness, this bullet with a sectional density of 0.3.


To compare a variety of bullets with a sectional density of 0.3, we shoot a hypothetical animal, which is self healing, in the same spot, several times. The distance is 50 paces and we aim for the shoulders in order to break it down so that it cannot come and stomp on us when it gets tired of being shot at with a sectional density of 0.3. It should also be tied down to ensure consistency of shot placement.


First we use a jacketed hollow point match bullet at 3000 fps. When it strikes, it turns to dust and the sectional density becomes nil. The animal also does not fall down. It seems there is a link: Zero sectional density equals animal not falling down. For the second shot we use the same bullet but slow it down some. This time the animal falls down and the recovered bullet weighs half of what it started at. It has also expanded to almost double calibre. The sectional density is difficult to calculate because of the deformed shape and we thumb suck it at about 0.12. Encouraged by the much better result, we still use the same type of bullet and slow it down some more. In fact we slow it down to 100 fps at impact. To deal with the trajectory of this shot we have to fit a new scope with a taller elevation turret. At the shot, the animal would have run away if we did not have it tied down. Upon examination we find the undeformed bullet stuck in the hide on the near side. It has retained all its weight and thus all its sectional density of 0.3. The fact that the animal has not fallen down is a problem. How is it possible that a sectional density of nil and a sectional density of 0.3 can have the same not falling down result? Clearly this type of bullet cannot be made to conform to the theory of a sectional density of 0.3, so another type must be tried.


These three bullets have the same weight but wildly differing sd values. Although all three once had the same sd, the more they deformed, the better they worked and the worse the sd became.


At the other end of the spectrum is the indestructible monometallic solid. We find one with a sectional density of 0.3 and shoot. The animal falls down. The bullet cannot be recovered and a careful search for fragments and a lack of same, supports the position that, this time, a sectional density of 0.3 resulted in success. Using the same monometallic solid, we speed it up and slow it down and, as long as it has enough speed to penetrate deep enough to reach a vital organ, the animal falls down. This is great as it seems that this sectional density of 0.3 works well, providing the shape and construction of the bullet can be relied on to stay more or less in one largish piece. One anomaly occurs with the solids with a sectional density of 0.3. Firing it at 100 fps produces the same not falling down result as with the match bullet that prompted us to try the solids as well. A nagging thought creeps in at this point. Is it possible that speed and bullet construction and post impact shape could be the important factors that determine fall down? We must experiment further!

Unfortunately we have run out of solids with a sectional density of 0.3 and all we can find is a box of solids with a sectional density of 0.25. Curiosity gets the better of us and we load them up and shoot. They seem to work as well as the sectional density of 0.3, providing we keep hitting the vital organs. Confused by this anomalous result, we load up partition style bullets, bonded core solids, monometallic hollow points and some others, all with a sectional density of 0.3. Some fail and some work. Some retain all their weight and some very little. The starting sectional density of 0.3 varies, after impact, from zero to 0.3 with no apparent connection to animals falling down. However, some patterns do emerge that support a number of theories that hold water.

1. Animals fall down reliably if a vital organ is destroyed, regardless of sectional density of the bullet.

2. Animals fall down reliably if the bullet retains enough weight and has enough speed to penetrate to a vital organ regardless of sectional density. This is interesting, weight and speed are the factors that determine momentum and energy values.

3. The sectional density value seems to be of no importance at all, providing it did not disappear completely.

4. The post impact sectional density of a bullet is almost always less than the starting sectional density.

This leaves only one question unanswered. Who first came up with the theory of sectional density? Was it some ballistician with a macabre sense of humour? Did he put forward this theory as a joke and it got out of control? Sectional density seems to be the ballistic equivalent of an internet chain letter. No matter how illogical or outdated or disproved it is, it keeps on popping up. Almost like the concept of hydrostatic shock, but that is another story.

To your success,

Gerard Schultz

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Pines

if ONLY that was u ..TROLL..and I can prove it MR ..from cgn and moot ..

Prove it then. I'm so sick and tired of you slandering me for entertainment. Put up or shut up.

[Traps]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

You devised an outdated formula that is orginally based on an outdated interest in the sectional density equation. You took the long away around by changing two variables, both speed and bullet shape, to prove nothing more than that a solid aerodynamic bullet with little frontal area will meet less resistance at a given fps than if the same grain bullet was shot as a pancake at the same fps.

pssstt...not your theory.

Pssst.......no wonder you didn't post with substance earlier, you overlooked a vital piece of the pie. Reread, post or edit if you have time.

[Arn?Narn.]

Traps...

You know your thread is nothing but a troll...and foolish enough you have been fed...


on about your way troll...

by the way, what penetrates further an expanding or non expanding bullet?

[7 REM MAG]

one question for the op, what does it matter to you what i shoot? i dont give two ****s how you go about things and i expect the same from you, i dont need to be told how a bullet penetrates or that a non expanding bullet will penetrate more than an expanding bullet, if you think about it its kind of common sense, but you start shooting barnes bullets that expand to twice their size and they go right through the animal what has more killing potential the barnes that goes from .284 to .50 or the fmj that stays .284? penetration isnt everything in the killing equation, lets say you shoot a deer at 275 yds that takes a step as you pull the trigger and you shoot it in the guts, better to have the slow non expanding bullet or the fast expanding bullet? like i said continue going about things your way but dont think that they're the only way to do things because they arent and they are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. just for the record i shoot a 7 rem, 270, 243 and a bowtech maybe you should add the penetration of an arrow to your theory if you have it all figured out. the answer to your question by the way is people shoot magnums because they can, yes maybe not all of the people who shoot magnums should but things are the same at the other end of the spectrum too, they're a lot of hunters shooting 30-30's and other similar cartridges that should not be using them for the applications that they use them for, so now my question to you becomes why do people shoot slow, low to non expanding bullets at animals?
p.s. there could be an argument that slower cartridges are less ethical but ill leave that one for another day