Thread: A question for the doubters

I don’t think many are saying that a 223 with heavy bullets is not doing a good enough job. I do think plenty are saying a bit more weight and some more velocity is better.

The thread title is "A question for the doubters" - we are now approaching 300 posts, to the OP - do you feel validated? There's been some good discussion sure, not sure if anything has been achieved.
People can and do choose to hunt with whatever takes their fancy - why would anyone care what anyone else hunts with....unless they have to share a hut or campsite with someone who wanks on relentlessly about how one calibre is better than the other?

Originally Posted by Dicko

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

Frangible being the key. Nice mushrooms do not demonstrate "frangible". Frangible is violent expansion of the bullet even to the point of bits of it whizzing around inside. With adequate penetration to reach the vitals.

Originally Posted by Tahr

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

Yes. Nice looking recovered mushrooms don't seem to have a strong correlation to actual performance.

Originally Posted by gimp

What other model would you use other than gelatin?
thats not what i said. BG has its purpose, but its not telling the whole story, does not mean I think there is something better. I just think its disingenuous how you presented it
Observed actual results in animals over large sample sizes would be best no doubt but not terribly practical
I think thats what most of us end up doing in some way

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.
I repeat. It shows how a projectile functions in a standard medium. its a model. Most notably they never try to simulate projectile contact with bone.

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.

Not everyone seems to agree with you, Its definitely not my opinion

https://www.sporting-rifle.com/featu...-wound-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]?

Your timeframe might be different too mine. This is bias thats suits the instigator

Does [cartridge and bullet selection] have the ability to create a wound of that specification within [users likely impact velocity window]?

Velocity but not weight gets a mention?
Those shooting .223s with heavy bullets mostly seem satisfied that the data they have suggest the answer to question 2 is yes.

Thats not surprising

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

I think thats not quite correct. We are saying yes, with caution and reservations.

You know something really funny about your last two lines in green???? That is pretty much eggzachary what Philip Holden wrote in pack n rifle all those years ago...long before heavy pills were a commonly used thing.

I used the old 196 grn in the old 8x57 , it was all you could get . Boat tail i think .

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

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

Push a 75eldm at 3400fps and at 300yd it's about the same as a 223 MV...

Can you be more specific about which part of this link you mean?

Not everyone seems to agree with you, Its definitely not my opinion

https://www.sporting-rifle.com/featu...-wound-cavity/

He states this, however there is no citation or explanation of why it is the most important, in his view

Everything that can be seen is related to the temporary cavity, which is possibly the most important concept in terminal ballistics.

Others disagree that it is the most important factor in creating wounds.

He concludes that bullet construction is more important than energy figures in predicting wounds

In terms of stored energy, there is only 4ft/lb difference between the 20-grain and 17-grain at 100 yards, and virtually nothing at the muzzle. Yet, as is evident from the pictures, the effect in the gel is vastly different. This comes down to bullet construction. Almost the same amount of energy has been transferred to the gel, but each bullet has completed this at very different rates. If we look at the total depth penetrated (which has been averaged over a number of tests), we have a difference of 21cm. That means that the 20gr hollow point had more than double the penetration of the ballistic tip. On the flipside, the initial expansion of the B-Tip is very violent, and many times the diameter of the 20-grain bullet. In fact, there isn’t much between the 20-grain HP and a .22LR bullet with regard to the wound channel left behind.

He concludes that gel is a better medium that soap, as gel displays the important permanent cavity rather than the misleading temporary cavity

It is for this reason that using a plastically deforming ballistic material (such as soap) cannot tell the whole story. It is clear from the analysis of the gel that the difference in terminal effect in the first inch of the 17-grain bullet is vastly different to that of the 20-grain bullet. Although the soap shows a more delayed expansion, the true extent of the permanent wound profile is hidden. Having said that, there is a fixed relationship between what we see in the soap and the lasting result in tissue when we are looking at non-fragmenting bullets.

note - all lead bullets that have an exposed, hollow, or polymer tip are "fragmenting" bullets to some degree. Including bonded bullets -some of these will ~ 30% of weight through fragmentation.


This part may be what you are referring to -

With the tissue relaxed back to its stable state, we are left with a permanent wound channel of destroyed tissue, and an area around this known as the extravasation zone. Unlike the permanent wound channel, which can be defined visually from the by the residual signature left behind in the ballistic gel, the extravasation zone shows no visual destruction. Here, the stretching imposed by the temporary cavity isn’t sufficient to tear tissue, but is enough to rupture sensitive parts of the body such as capillaries.

This is true. The size of this zone depends on the elasticity of the tissue. It appears that in the elastic tissues that we are generally target with front shoulder placement are not greatly affected, and the damage may not contribute much to immediate incapacitation or death - e.g. korac 2006, based on clinical observations from shooting pigs -

Within every gunshot wound three different zones can be distinguished: (a) the zone of direct trauma necrosis – it is immediately seen and can range from a few millimeters to a few centimeters; (b) the zone of massive quakes – a temporary cavity that depends on numerous ballistic characteristics. In several hours, irreversible changes manifesting as circulation problems,thrombosis and necrosis can develop in the tissue; and(c) the zone of molecular quake – it is caused by molecular movement in the tissue and involves the largest area. Clinically it is seen as an edema. The damaged tissue can fully recover.

Note that there are plenty of gel tests that compare bare gel to penetration through various intermediate media. The FBI standard requires clothing, steel, wallboard, plywood and autoglass.

This is 106gr ELDM in 6mm through 2 0.9mm sheets of steel, 75mm apart - much stronger than any bone in a deer. The wounds aren't spectacularly different to those produced with bare gel, except that expansion is initiated earlier.



and 308 155gr ELDM through steel



225 75gr TAP SBR (at low velocity - might look similar to a 300-400m impact from a normal length barrel)




Ultimately it seems like what we differ on, in any measurable concept, is the relative importance of the temporary cavity to immediate incapacitation or death. My observations from experience indicate that incapacitation and death appears satisfactory in the .223 with the bullets in question and my attempts to understand that by reviewing available data lead me to conclude that the temporary cavity isn't important. Your view is different. It may not be productive to explore it any further without additional evidence.

Although I have no scientific evidence for this, so am unlikely to impress @gimp, (and my apologies if this has already been covered in the screeds of research that I haven't looked at) but I find it hard to believe that the "shock' of a bullet entering an animal does not have a big impact on its immediate incapacitation. You sometimes see on slow motion video a ripple run through the animal when it is hit, as the bullet releases energy into the animal. I liken it to being hit in the chest with a sledgehammer. In this case, because the impact is spread over a large area, no wound channel is created and there is no apparent tissue damage, but the blow will definitely incapacitate. As we have all probably experienced, being "winded" can be totally incapacitating, to the point of not being able to stand or breath. Usually within a few minutes we recover, but in the case of a terminal bullet wound, the animal will not. I don't believe the results of a ballistic gel test would have any way to relate this effect to the shooting of an animal because there is no permanent physical damage caused that can be observed and measured.

Originally Posted by Barefoot

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

Everyone following this thread should listen to these two podcasts. Very informative.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

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.

Or shoot both with a shotgun?

That's why even lethally hit dear run off when Bow shot, minimal impact shock?

So more of everything is still better?

Originally Posted by Bushline

That's why even lethally hit dear run off when Bow shot, minimal impact shock?

Wound is less than the minimum size required for fast incapacitation with lung shot. Very small wound from a bow through lungs. No incapacitation from CNS damage in most cases. Bullets make bigger wounds. We don't know how small the minimum is for "satisfactory" results but it appears that an arrow wound is often below that minimum.