07-27-2022, 01:35 AM
DNS,
I have heard other "experts" claim for hydrostatic shock, and I think they were thinking of African BIG game, you need an impact velocity of 2400 fps or so. Obviously the 6.5 Grendel with a 123gr. bullet may not even reach 2400 fps depending upon barrel length and specific load, though some do. But that implies impact velocity at or above 2400 fps with a 123gr. bullet for hydrostatic shot will likely not happen much past 50 yards or so. And for the bullet to tumble, it's going to have to remain long for caliber, so going to a lighter, and hence shorter, bullet to up the MV to try and get some hydrostatic shock going will reduce the tendency of the bullet to yaw in tissue, which is what the manufacturer is claiming causes significant wounding.
Hunters have been experimenting with bullet design for hunting big game with small calibers for about 120 years now. I would think that by now, if bullet yaw was as repeatable and effective as the manufacturer claims, it would have been used a long time ago as making a long FMJ would be much cheaper than say a Nosler Partition or a TTSX in comparison.
I am not convinced yet, and your gathering more field data proving otherwise would change my mind, that these bullets would yaw consistently enough as they pass through tissue of varying densities, to be reliable enough at quick kills as compared to current expanding hunting bullets given the same game animal / shot presentation / bullet placement / impact velocity. So far your data seems to indicate that the bullet needs to travel through the critter quite a bit before you notice yawing signs in the wound channel.
Another hunting bullet characteristic that many tout is the ability not only to expand but to keep on a straight path through the critter while expanding so that the bullet can reach the vitals. Even with "standard" bullets this doesn't always happen, depending upon the shot circumstances. I would like to see it though "most" of the time. If you need to shoot through the shoulder to reach the heart/lungs one surely doesn't want the bullet to change direction radically at impact and say skim along the outside of the rib cage under the hide. Nasty wound for sure, but perhaps survivable.
So it will be quite educational to see what you observe as you put the claims to the test with the rest of the supplied ammo. With the small sample size so far, I'm not impressed too much, but who knows, by the end of the evaluation the results may prove quite different.
Again, thank you for your willingness to try these and your discipline and thoroughness of your field work. Well done.
-tdbru
I have heard other "experts" claim for hydrostatic shock, and I think they were thinking of African BIG game, you need an impact velocity of 2400 fps or so. Obviously the 6.5 Grendel with a 123gr. bullet may not even reach 2400 fps depending upon barrel length and specific load, though some do. But that implies impact velocity at or above 2400 fps with a 123gr. bullet for hydrostatic shot will likely not happen much past 50 yards or so. And for the bullet to tumble, it's going to have to remain long for caliber, so going to a lighter, and hence shorter, bullet to up the MV to try and get some hydrostatic shock going will reduce the tendency of the bullet to yaw in tissue, which is what the manufacturer is claiming causes significant wounding.
Hunters have been experimenting with bullet design for hunting big game with small calibers for about 120 years now. I would think that by now, if bullet yaw was as repeatable and effective as the manufacturer claims, it would have been used a long time ago as making a long FMJ would be much cheaper than say a Nosler Partition or a TTSX in comparison.
I am not convinced yet, and your gathering more field data proving otherwise would change my mind, that these bullets would yaw consistently enough as they pass through tissue of varying densities, to be reliable enough at quick kills as compared to current expanding hunting bullets given the same game animal / shot presentation / bullet placement / impact velocity. So far your data seems to indicate that the bullet needs to travel through the critter quite a bit before you notice yawing signs in the wound channel.
Another hunting bullet characteristic that many tout is the ability not only to expand but to keep on a straight path through the critter while expanding so that the bullet can reach the vitals. Even with "standard" bullets this doesn't always happen, depending upon the shot circumstances. I would like to see it though "most" of the time. If you need to shoot through the shoulder to reach the heart/lungs one surely doesn't want the bullet to change direction radically at impact and say skim along the outside of the rib cage under the hide. Nasty wound for sure, but perhaps survivable.
So it will be quite educational to see what you observe as you put the claims to the test with the rest of the supplied ammo. With the small sample size so far, I'm not impressed too much, but who knows, by the end of the evaluation the results may prove quite different.
Again, thank you for your willingness to try these and your discipline and thoroughness of your field work. Well done.
-tdbru