Thread: A question for the doubters

I think we are talking the same thing. Energy on on one hand has to be balanced on the other with bullet performance. A heavier faster bullet of the same construction and terminal performance will create a wound that in all probability will debilitate an animal more quickly

Originally Posted by Mararoa

I think we are talking the same thing. Energy on on one hand has to be balanced on the other with bullet performance. A heavier faster bullet of the same construction and terminal performance will create a wound that in all probability will debilitate an animal more quickly

In theory- the evidence we have is that the bullets in question in this thread meet the threshold of "Sufficiency" and therefore anything "quicker" than that is theoretical.

Yep. So there is nothing mystical about a .224 caliber bullet it’s the same as any other. The laws of physics are going to apply.

Originally Posted by Mararoa

Yep. So there is nothing mystical about a .224 caliber bullet it’s the same as any other. The laws of physics are going to apply.

True I think the point is that the reverse is true and that when using specific projectiles a 7mm 308 338 etc don't make as big a difference as most like to believe. They are all able create absolutely traumatic wounds and when comparing similarly constructed bullets impacting at similar speeds they have similar wounding capacity. The reason 224 projectiles is talked about so much is probably because it can achieve higher velocities for less recoil and with modern bullets can have BCs able to hold the required velocity to or beyond the effective range of most modern shooters abilities in field conditions.

This is a good illustration of the limited predictive value of energy in wound size. Same construction similar speed different diameter and energy.


106gr ELDM 6mm at 2625fps. 1622 FTLB





147gr ELDM 6.5mm at 2693fps. 2353 FTLB.






30% more energy with the 6.5mm bullet but the permanent cavity (the important characteristic) isn't any bigger.

Calibrated ballistic gel is used for such tests precisely because it closely represents results in actual tissue.

Originally Posted by gimp

This is a good illustration of the limited predictive value of energy in wound size. Same construction similar speed different diameter and energy.


106gr ELDM 6mm at 2625fps. 1622 FTLB





147gr ELDM 6.5mm at 2693fps. 2353 FTLB.


Attachment 258212


30% more energy with the 6.5mm bullet but the permanent cavity (the important characteristic) isn't any bigger.

Calibrated ballistic gel is used for such tests precisely because it closely represents results in actual tissue.

Had a think about this one last night. The larger projectile is shedding/ Imparting energy faster due to bigger surface area. That seems pretty intuitive?

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Had a think about this one last night. The larger projectile is shedding/ Imparting energy faster due to bigger surface area. That seems pretty intuitive?

It's also light for calibre by comparison. Not apples n apples

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

It's also light for calibre by comparison. Not apples n apples

A 147gr in 6.5mm is light for calibre?

Originally Posted by gimp

A 147gr in 6.5mm is light for calibre?

I was referring to the .308 offering. To be apples n apples both projectiles need to be of same make n model and at same end of weight spectrum for calibre.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Had a think about this one last night. The larger projectile is shedding/ Imparting energy faster due to bigger surface area. That seems pretty intuitive?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're thinking here. Why would shedding energy sooner lead to the wound cavity being negligibly different in size?

Have to remember that ballistic gel is incontrovertibly a suitable representation of wounds in actual tissue. And these results show that with the only major difference being a .5mm larger bullet and 31gr more mass, and ~30% more energy, the wound isn't physically as different as the numbers would predict if energy was a major factor in wound size.

Originally Posted by gimp

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're thinking here. Why would shedding energy sooner lead to the wound cavity being negligibly different in size?

Have to remember that ballistic gel is incontrovertibly a suitable representation of wounds in actual tissue. And these results show that with the only major difference being a .5mm larger bullet and 31gr more mass, and ~30% more energy, the wound isn't physically as different as the numbers would predict if energy was a major factor in wound size.

No its not. its a model. Its not representative. Its a standard medium, that has no difference in tissue structure. No skin. No bone, Its 18 or more inch of constants. Its a way to hold water together without any fibres.

Compare too a deer, 20mm thickness of hair and possibly foreign material, 5-10mm of very tough barrier layer, 100mm of flesh and bone, A 150-250mm cavity of low pressure and low density material, and then the first 3 again in reverse.

The heavier projectile has stopped shorter than the lighter one was what I was talking about. as too the "wound cavity" in ballistics gel. Its a sign the projectile is working, but it may not accurately show imparted energy. Thats a dubious claim.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

No its not. its a model. Its not representative. Its a standard medium, that has no difference in tissue structure. No skin. No bone, Its 18 or more inch of constants. Its a way to hold water together without any fibres.

Compare too a deer, 20mm thickness of hair and possibly foreign material, 5-10mm of very tough barrier layer, 100mm of flesh and bone, A 150-250mm cavity of low pressure and low density material, and then the first 3 again in reverse.

The heavier projectile has stopped shorter than the lighter one was what I was talking about. as too the "wound cavity" in ballistics gel. Its a sign the projectile is working, but it may not accurately show imparted energy. Thats a dubious claim.

Maybe we should go back to using pig carcasses for comparative analysis like various military forces worldwide used to do before they moved to ballistic gel which is cheaper and easier to source. Pigs were thought to be closest to human body structure for wound analysis, bullet performance.

Maybe the squads for Sparrowhawk should be divided up into the 224 boys and the rest - with a wager on the result!

I'm a bad shot remember

E: who else is bringing a .223?

223 222 22-250 etc. is great on deer for an experienced hunter who can put the bullet exactly where it needs to go and doesn't get too excited and take less-than-ideal shots I know a guy whose main hunting rifle is a 204 Ruger 40gn bullets
he's shot all but one species of deer in NZ with it as with everything you just got to put it in the right spot