Thread: A question for the doubters

really there is only one rifle to consider if you had to go one gun - a drilling - one or two 12gauge or 28 gauge over a 6.5 or 30 cal barrel open sights -or two sets of barrels one shot the other rifled - I go for the 4-5 method 12gauge 22 222 308

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

really there is only one rifle to consider if you had to go one gun - a drilling - one or two 12gauge or 28 gauge over a 6.5 or 30 cal barrel open sights -or two sets of barrels one shot the other rifled - I go for the 4-5 method 12gauge 22 222 308

I'll go sell my 12x12 over a 7x65R then. I knew I should have checked here before I bought it, but 30 cal is so last century.

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.

Excellent point. “All models are wrong, but some are useful” quote attributed to someone I can’t recall

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.

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

really there is only one rifle to consider if you had to go one gun - a drilling - one or two 12gauge or 28 gauge over a 6.5 or 30 cal barrel open sights -or two sets of barrels one shot the other rifled - I go for the 4-5 method 12gauge 22 222 308

Drillings and whatever the Eurosexuals call their triple-barreled hunting rifles are an excellent way to make a very expensive rifle that is crap at everything.

Originally Posted by caberslash

Drillings and whatever the Eurosexuals call their triple-barreled hunting rifles are an excellent way to make a very expensive rifle that is crap at everything.

The next time I shoot a deer or pig with the 7x65 while out pheasant shooting I'll remember this and realise how wrong I am. Carrying a separate rifle is so much more convenient.

There are many roads to paradise, Grasshopper - not just the one you are currently on.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

I'll go sell my 12x12 over a 7x65R then. I knew I should have checked here before I bought it, but 30 cal is so last century.

Tell ya what... I'll be a good bugger and take it off your hands for a box of beer. Can't get faier than that eh

Originally Posted by caberslash

Drillings and whatever the Eurosexuals call their triple-barreled hunting rifles are an excellent way to make a very expensive rifle that is crap at everything.

bull shit many of us would love to own one the craftsmanship the quality you scots guys stick then to ya cabers and long pointy sticks

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.

It's interesting that this far no one has mentioned the combination the cartridge was DESIGNED around... 55grn fmj with rifling slow enough to make it barely stable.... The fast twist negates it somewhat but the concept is still there and some of the harder borderline stable projectiles may have merit. Having used many norinco yellow box 55grn fmj on game....holy smoke they work alright.

Originally Posted by woods223

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.

Yeah something is up with the pictured comparisons, that lets me think its not giving us a true indicator. Im not a physicist, and maybe i'm missing something?Its quite possible, this isn't things i think about every day. To my Mind the heavier projectile at same speed should have more kinetic energy and more momentum. yet the final wound channel looks similar and the penetration of the heavier projectile was less.
So what that leads me to beleive; is that maybe the elasticity of the ballistic material is covering up some info, and that the heavier projectile is transferring its energy more efficiently.

Years n years ago tv show that's incredible did a demo. Sand bag at five yards.stops a bullet but arrow said through.all about sectional density.arrow didn't deform.bullets do. Similar frontal area/resistance to push.arrow hadmu h more shove up the bum of that frontal
area. Now that .223 is pushing a soft pill of 80grns at 2800 ....it begs question as to a 80 grn from 243. Which is better??? The .223 has smaller area to push through. No different to 150s in 30/06 vs 270. Same weight,same speed but one is skinnier.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Yeah something is up with the pictured comparisons, that lets me think its not giving us a true indicator. Im not a physicist, and maybe i'm missing something?Its quite possible, this isn't things i think about every day. To my Mind the heavier projectile at same speed should have more kinetic energy and more momentum. yet the final wound channel looks similar and the penetration of the heavier projectile was less.
So what that leads me to beleive; is that maybe the elasticity of the ballistic material is covering up some info, and that the heavier projectile is transferring its energy more efficiently.

The end product does not show how much the entire block of gel expands during the bullets passage either.
Could this expansion be aligned with blunt force trauma? Another factor in an animals death unrelated to the wound channel?

Originally Posted by Shearer

The end product does not show how much the entire block of gel expands during the bullets passage either.
Could this expansion be aligned with blunt force trauma? Another factor in an animals death unrelated to the wound channel?

yep. there are alot of factors that might lead too misleading representations in such presentations. Watch some of the slow mo vids and see how much the blocks jump around for example.