Thread: A question for the doubters

Mickey duck. The show in question was “that’s incredible”. They fired a 30-06 at the sand bag and couldn’t believe their eyes when the arrow went straight through. That was back in the days you were either outside doing something or watching tv.

Matt and Bruce Grant covered this about a bazillion years ago when they had their wooden box full of sand and showed that a cricket ball moved it as much as a 174 grain .303 round.

Sometimes the world doesn't look like the math's suggests it should.

Originally Posted by Hunty1

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

Not if I have to drive to Vegas to collect.
If youre delivering.....

Originally Posted by gimp

Because there is no advantage.

Serious?
No advantage in generating more energy or extending point blank?

Just remember sufficiency is not excellence. A toyota corolla might tow a boat sufficiently. A land cruiser will do so excellently.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Just remember sufficiency is not excellence. A toyota corolla might tow a boat sufficiently. A land cruiser will do so excellently.

Bit like my theory on testing projectiles.
Test them on something that will chew or stomp you if they aren't suitable.
To many people like to "experiment" at expense of animal welfare, but no consequence to themselves.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Just remember sufficiency is not excellence. A toyota corolla might tow a boat sufficiently. A land cruiser will do so excellently.

And more isn't better. We aren't arguing 223 is sufficient in wounding we are saying it's good at it. Can't be deader than dead. In fact comparing 223 with the projectiles talked about in this thread wounding is better than a huge portion of conventional loads in 308 etc.
Also more comes at a cost. A Semi truck tows more that your landcruiser does that make it better for its purpose or has towing ability gone too far at the cost of day to day driving, fuel efficiency, offroadability etc. Maxing out one trait comes at the cost of another. Maxing a trait out with big magnums doesn't give a whole lot of killing ability inside of 95% of hunting shots.

In this case more is better I think. We’re talking about 50 or so grains of lead and 30 grains of powder, not tons of steel. And explain to me how an 88 grain Eldm is better at killing than a boring old 180grain power point. Both are conventional cup and core bullets, one just has a higher bc. And you can certainly have an animal less dead than dead. No need to have a big magnum to do the job better, plenty of room in a 308 sized case

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Bit like my theory on testing projectiles.
Test them on something that will chew or stomp you if they aren't suitable.
To many people like to "experiment" at expense of animal welfare, but no consequence to themselves.

Theres no animal welfare issues using a 223, there has been plenty of information shared by experience forum members to show its effectiveness and I know none of these good folks are using a 223 to go out and cause animals pain and suffering.

The 223 has been proven beyond doubt to be a worthy humane killer.

I didn't mention 223.
It was a generalisation about projectiles being used for purposes not recommended by their manufactures.

In structured experiments, some of the least effective projectiles are those recommended for hunting by their manufacturers. All that is worth looking at is the evidence of actual performance.

One myth that all of this has busted is that a perfect mushroom shaped bullet is the ideal.

I have just finished listening to "The hunt backcountry" podcasts which were mentioned somewhere near the beginning of this thread.
I know they are long, but they are well worth it and answer a lot of the questions or rebuttals that are being brought up, length of projectiles, heavy for calibre, cup and core vs copper vs hybrid and effect in the wound channel.
It's unlikely to make you change your poison for choice but you may revisit the type of projectile you choose.

Anyway youtube links for the podcast are below, but they are also on spotify and probably platforms

episode 469 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gopZ5gS1NdY

episode 470 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZoBhm81fx0

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.

What other model would you use other than gelatin?

Observed actual results in animals over large sample sizes would be best no doubt but not terribly practical

Gel tests in 10% gel have been shown to match penetration in tissue very well. This indicates that the rate of energy deposition is similar and the density of gel closely matches the "average" density of bodies. Fackler et al 1984, Mabbot et al 2015, etc. It is the standard used by anyone seriously working in the field.


Predictive/speculative theoretical approaches based on secondary projectile characteristics (energy) don't seem to hold up in observed data. Since the tissue we are largely shooting into (lungs and muscle) is also elastic (like gel), it appears that a lot of energy is dissipated through the elastic deformation of the temporary cavity, and the additional contribution of that to immediate incapacitation or death is small. Certainly it happens - the temporary cavity is observable and measurable - and bullets with more energy seem to create a larger temporary cavity.



The questions are:

What size of permanent wound is required in [animal] in most circumstances [tailored to meet user requirements], to incapacitate or kill within [timeframes satisfactory to the user]?
Does [cartridge and bullet selection] have the ability to create a wound of that specification within [users likely impact velocity window]?


Those shooting .223s with heavy bullets mostly seem satisfied that the data they have suggest the answer to question 2 is yes.

There appears to be another group that speculates that the answer to question 2 is no.

Originally Posted by Tahr

One myth that all of this has busted is that a perfect mushroom shaped bullet is the ideal.

No I don’t think so. It strongly supports a heavy for calibre frangible projectiles as being very effective.

There is no paired comparison here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk