Fort Scott TUI Ammo: 4 Hog First Blush

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

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.

On the hydrostatic shock, I am 100% certain that it is a matter of more than just velocity. No doubt velocity, weight, and diameter of the bullet all play parts as do the size and weight of the animal being shot. I don't think you could run a 2 mm Kolibri round up to 3000 fps (impact velocity) and expect hydrostatic shock to drop African big game, lol. You would not expect a .223 55 gr. at 2800 fps impact velocity to drop most African big game due to hydrostatic shock, either. The bottom line here is that hydrostatic shock isn't just a velocity issue.

As for the tumbling, I believe it does consistently tumble, but that the tumble is not consistent. In other words, it is going to tumble, but whether that happens at 3 inches or 6 or 9 inches is not going to be known by the shooter when s/he pulls the trigger. Based on FSM's own gel videos, their product does not appear to tumble upon impact as claimed. Instead, it tumbles well after impact at some unknown distance, but likely inside 9".

They make a big deal out of stating/showing that the first 4 or 5 inches of gel count as skin. Their bullets never seem to tumble that soon in the gel tests shown. So anything that opens up inside that distance in gel is opening in the skin (at least that seems to be implied) and hence the damage/expansion shown in that zone is pretty much just worthless damage. I am not sure who came up with the notion that 4 or 5" of penetration potential is taken up by the skin. I haven't seen any data on that that would even support the claim. Gene Wolberg's work in the early 1990s indicated that skin offers virtually no barrier or effect on penetration depth when comparing 9mm data from autopsies and gel tests. Of course, this was for human skin and many animals have skin thicker than humans, but the skin of coyote is nothing like that of a deer and a deer's skin seems pretty tame compared to hogs which is pretty tame compared to moose. I would go on to say that the skin on a young boar tends to be thinner and easier to cut than the skin on an older boar. The point here is that you can't say X amount of gel simulates skin unless you know what type of skin you are talking about and have the data to back up the results. I don't know that anybody really has all this data on skin and penetration impact to say that 4 or 5" is the golden average or if it even has any significant impact on hunted game animals. If anybody knows of such studies, I would enjoy reading them.

Wolberg EJ. Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 grain sub sonic jacketed hollow point bullet in human tissue and tissue simulant.
Wound Ballistics Rev 1(1):10-13, 1991