10 Head of Big Game - 6.5 Grendel – 4 Seasons

[Stinky Coyote]

Thanks guys, terminal ballistics isn't quite as fully developed as the in-flight ballistics. We sure know how to get the bullet to the target but after that it's still wildly subjective discussions, many arguments etc. I'd like to see us equalize these two. Currently I don't think we're measuring enough parameters and coming up the right numbers, measures, or predictors so that we can compare bullets more objectively on the terminal side. There's a very interesting thread over on the Rokslide forum where a lot of guys have been killing quite a bit of big game with a .223 running 77gr tmk's...there's elk/moose, piles of deer etc. and the wound channels are incredible. So we have a ways to go to better explain bell's 1100 elephants to the old schoolers of 'just throw a 180 out of a 30 and you're good' to a lot of us having a more modern understanding of it all but still explaining it subjectively. I think in the 21st century we can improve our ability to compare and anticipate between bullets on the terminal end. I'd like Hornady to hire me and give me unlimited gel budget and I'll figure it out. They do more with the FBI standards in gelatin but we don't have anything like it for 'hunting'. The more you do this and witness, the more you're left wondering what's actually needed, we've all seen it, something with a very impressive head stamp show less performance than something most would scoff at. I digress...we'll get there.

I think what we're missing most is measuring the bullet 'after' it's done it's work. There's apparently a fair bit of work done late 20th maybe early 21st century studying wound channels and temporary stretch cavities and permanent wound channels etc. but that's not where we need to go next. We need to look at the change in the bullet from start of hide to stop a lot more. There needs to be new numbers on the packages outside of bc, sd, velocity etc. We know energy is mostly useless number. I digressed again...gotta run