02-03-2023, 05:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2023, 05:53 PM by Stinky Coyote.)
Yup, it's a wildly subjective mess. Good post. Ran into a guy on rokslide that's considered a top authority there and he's pretty well versed in all the 'temp wound cavity, permanent wound cavity, stretch study results' and whatever else work was done either at tail end of 20th century and he's a top student no doubt, he studied it all and apparently applies things more than most can and is on cull level kills of elk each year etc. and I tried to point out what we're still missing to make this a far more objective topic. It's the end result of bullet as compared to the travel.
They were measuring all this internal damage and trying to make objective sense of it. When the bullet may be able to tell the story far more objectively and no one is measuring it. Final SD...which then gives you the starting point to then apply to distance traveled and can then use the energy figure to help explain that internal damage along side what's left of the bullet. Anyhow, those of us that do this for long time and have analytical minds (as many in a forum like this do) then we can feel our way through this better than most. The formula I outlined is currently the best simple way to properly apply(sd, construction, impact velocity - for game intended). But until we can actually come up with a standard of measure to put all bullets against each other, measure final sd, distance travelled, come up with sectional density reduction rates and energy reduction rates, over said travel, add in expansion and loss of mass perhaps etc. then this will remain a subjective mess. It has to be applied to all the known winners afield so comparison can be made, this would spur future bullet development. As you could imagine guys might have specific desires in penetration depth, energy shed along that depth, and expansion etc. so it may be discovered some holes in the market to be filled by manufacturers etc. Long bullets that do lots of shedding/expansion up front while keeping lots of mass in rear for penetration (a formula many of us love) in velocity ranges to match desired field ranges etc. Some guys may want something that only 25% of it opens up, little less expansion and loss for much deeper penetration and others may prefer 75% roll back, 3x expansion and shorter penetration for greater internal dump over that shorter travel. I digress...thinking outloud.
If I were Hornady or bullet manufacturer I'd break the budget for gel wide open and start crackalackin. First guy through the wall will get bloody (ask me how I know?
) but it will pay off in the end. I picked hornady to mention as they seem to be the most on the ball provider at the moment.
This is truly the only way to bring terminal ballistics knowledge and data to the same 21st century level of understanding as we have of the in-flight ballistics. IMO.
In the end, if this is developed, it would show why Bell did so well on those elephants with the 6.5 Mannlicher and why the 700 nitro express may get your azz turned into a grease spot in the dirt.
They were measuring all this internal damage and trying to make objective sense of it. When the bullet may be able to tell the story far more objectively and no one is measuring it. Final SD...which then gives you the starting point to then apply to distance traveled and can then use the energy figure to help explain that internal damage along side what's left of the bullet. Anyhow, those of us that do this for long time and have analytical minds (as many in a forum like this do) then we can feel our way through this better than most. The formula I outlined is currently the best simple way to properly apply(sd, construction, impact velocity - for game intended). But until we can actually come up with a standard of measure to put all bullets against each other, measure final sd, distance travelled, come up with sectional density reduction rates and energy reduction rates, over said travel, add in expansion and loss of mass perhaps etc. then this will remain a subjective mess. It has to be applied to all the known winners afield so comparison can be made, this would spur future bullet development. As you could imagine guys might have specific desires in penetration depth, energy shed along that depth, and expansion etc. so it may be discovered some holes in the market to be filled by manufacturers etc. Long bullets that do lots of shedding/expansion up front while keeping lots of mass in rear for penetration (a formula many of us love) in velocity ranges to match desired field ranges etc. Some guys may want something that only 25% of it opens up, little less expansion and loss for much deeper penetration and others may prefer 75% roll back, 3x expansion and shorter penetration for greater internal dump over that shorter travel. I digress...thinking outloud.
If I were Hornady or bullet manufacturer I'd break the budget for gel wide open and start crackalackin. First guy through the wall will get bloody (ask me how I know?
) but it will pay off in the end. I picked hornady to mention as they seem to be the most on the ball provider at the moment.This is truly the only way to bring terminal ballistics knowledge and data to the same 21st century level of understanding as we have of the in-flight ballistics. IMO.
In the end, if this is developed, it would show why Bell did so well on those elephants with the 6.5 Mannlicher and why the 700 nitro express may get your azz turned into a grease spot in the dirt.