01-19-2014, 11:35 PM
GMinor Wrote:I dont hunt sub sonic. Loading sub-sonic is for the birds anyway
"Loading subsonic is for the birds anyway?" I admire your confidence, if not your opinions.
I have done some 'wet-pack' (wet newspaper) testing of the Hornady and Sierra 220 gr RN round noses (only) with all other results from hunting. Sample sizes are few with about a couple of animals per bullet type, so hopefully that puts it in perspective.
Your pictures are not what happens in flesh. I sometimes use 'wetpack' testing but have found it a poor proxy for live animals, the aim being to kill them as quickly and humanely as possible. With wetpacks it depends what type of paper and how compressed the pages are to each other. For example telephone books act like solid wood, even after being soaked in water for a week. What they are good for is relative penetration testing and recovering the bullet easily. Regardless, if the bullet exits 12" of wetpack then that suggests over-penetration in flesh.
Your top photo is pretty much what I have seen in all types of subsonic rounds on flesh. Slight bending of the bullet in flesh but still pretty much in one piece. No temporary wound cavity and no kinetic shock like a supersonic impact. The animals are slow to die compared with supersonic. Every one has required a follow-up shot at close range to dispatch them.
You are weighing manufacturer information (biased?) having used wet paper as a clumsy proxy for flesh against someone with no agenda who has actually used them on flesh. If the results differ and you are wondering who to believe I'll leave that up to you. If it is important for you to hold dearly the information that first comes to you then by all means, believe what you want. From my perspective I am happy to share my experience with someone who has none.