243 Win bullets

[Formidilosus]

It’s also laughable that someone who has explicitly stated “kinetic energy does not expand bullets, velocity expands bullets” is considered knowledgeable in ballistics….or anything to do with physics in any context.

How much KE is required to expand a bullet? Any bullet- you pick. Every single major manufacturer uses a lower limit of velocity for expansion/upset.

No legitimate terminal ballistics facility or organization uses KE for discussion of expansion. The FBI BRF, Navel Crane, IWBT, etc, etc.

Yes, energy is required to do work, but no bullet is designed to “open at 3,000 Ft-lbs energy”. Or 2,000 Ft-lbs. they are designed however to open at 1,800 FPS, or 2,000fps, etc.

You like a lot of people want to make this a math problem. It’s not. Shoot the projectile through tissue or properly calibrated tissue simulate and measure how deep and how wide the NL, TC, PC, PD, and over all shape of the wound.


The 77gr TMK needs about 1,700fps for good expansion. At that speed fragmentation is somewhat erratic, and being below 2,000’ish FPS the temporary cavity will cause relatively minor tissue damage, however the permanent crush cavity and total penetration depth is still quite good and the wound will look remarkably similar to a heavier Barnes TSX with an impact velocity of around 2,300-2,400fps.

 

[Newtosavage]

Bullets change. There wasn’t a bullet made 20 years ago that could do what bullets now do.
Please regale us with your knowledge and use of .224 projectiles on 100-300 pound mammals. Projectile, placement, range, angle, results.

Some bullets have changed. Arguably the best hunting bullet ever created (Nosler Partition) hasn't changed in over 20 years. Or many other very popular bullets like the Core-Lokt or Interlock or SGK or Speer or so many others. I think what you're suggesting is the idea that hollow-point and ballistic tip match-grade bullets that expand violently, and were never intended for use on game, have now proven that in some cases they can be very lethal quick killers on game. Is that right? This is still new to me so forgive me if my conservative opinions on caliber selection (i.e. use enough gun) frustrate you.

I am willing to learn however, as I've chosen a 7mm-08 for my elk rifle and learning that it's more than enough gun and possibly even overkill for an elk, will save me a lot of time and money.

 

[Newtosavage]

The ethics apply to the user not the tool.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, the users have been known to make poor choices often enough that state game agencies have had to legislate what tool the users can use.

 

[204guy]

Actually state's have been moving to legalize the use of centerfire 22's for big game when previously they where not legal. WY and MN come to mind immediately. But using some panel of beurocrat's idea of a min caliber for hunting and relating it to ethics is pretty funny.

 

[Pro953]

Unfortunately, the users have been known to make poor choices often enough that state game agencies have had to legislate what tool the users can use.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I would never look at the implementation of a regulation as justification of a logical argument. Do you know the history as to how any why those laws were implemented?

The devlopment of laws and regulations is often driven by forces well outside the range of actual data.

Regulations and laws do not start from some agency thinking, “we should really make that illegal”, no they are often pushed for by someone based on agenda and beliefs. They do not need to have “facts” to backup what they want. Just the influence to get it in front of the right people.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

I don't make it a math problem or anything else. In fact it's just entry level mechanics of materials. Kinetic Energy in the system results in material deformation based on the projectile's geometry and material qualities, no question, no opinions, that's just how the universe works. Bullets do in fact "open-up" because of the forces imposed - again, this is just basic mechanics. Saying otherwise just says you don't have a solid grasp on the science. You don't need to know the science be a good shot, ethical hunter, experienced, or nice guy. But you do need to understand the science to be considered knowledgeable.

Your quoted ballistic facilities are predominately focused on the effects on people using a relatively limited array of bullets in a relatively limited caliber selection. Hunting is a different environment with a significantly larger swath of calibers and bullet selections. Not to mention, people are more fragile than big game. Energy-in minus energy-out approximately equals work. Humans have shorter distance to perform work, thinner skin, smaller bones, etc. so you are looking at a different set of parameters regarding bullet selection to maximize efficiency.

Ammo manufactures use a lower limit of velocity for marketing purposes....that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Go look at any individual bullet line......notice the differences from caliber-to-caliber? Using the marketing material and then adding a factor of safety is a wise choice. But looking at the marketing materials and conflating it for science is just silly.

How much work needs to be performed to destroy the vital organs of an animal?

And what is KE dependent on?

 

[Pro953]

Some bullets have changed. Arguably the best hunting bullet ever created (Nosler Partition) hasn't changed in over 20 years. Or many other very popular bullets like the Core-Lokt or Interlock or SGK or Speer or so many others. I think what you're suggesting is the idea that hollow-point and ballistic tip match-grade bullets that expand violently, and were never intended for use on game, have now proven that in some cases they can be very lethal quick killers on game. Is that right? This is still new to me so forgive me if my conservative opinions on caliber selection (i.e. use enough gun) frustrate you.


Saying the Nosler partition has not changed in 20 years is a pretty big assumption. Tooling, quality controls and lead alloys continue to improve every year. You are stuck with proprietary data here but I would bet good money that the Nosler partition of the 90’s is not the same as a partition of today.

Also, not sure anyone is frustrated here. Just voicing different opinions and perspectives based on experience. Can folks with different perspectives not have a discussion and not make it personal?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

Actually state's have been moving to legalize the use of centerfire 22's for big game when previously they where not legal. WY and MN come to mind immediately. But using some panel of beurocrat's idea of a min caliber for hunting and relating it to ethics is pretty funny.

Yea, it's a shame all the internet experts aren't running the state game orgs because I hear they could do a much better job. It must be true, because I read it all the time on the internet.

 

[Newtosavage]

I appreciate what you are saying, but I would never look at the implementation of a regulation as justification of a logical argument. Do you know the history as to how any why those laws were implemented?

The devlopment of laws and regulations is often driven by forces well outside the range of actual data.

Regulations and laws do not start from some agency thinking, “we should really make that illegal”, no they are often pushed for by someone based on agenda and beliefs. They do not need to have “facts” to backup what they want. Just the influence to get it in front of the right people.

Has it ever occurred to you that the people who make recommendations might actually be experienced hunters and fishermen themselves or have consulted experienced hunters or fishermen before making their decisions? I didn't see that scenario in your statement above. But sometimes, believe it or not, that may actually be the case, as hard as it may be to believe.

 

[Newtosavage]

How much work needs to be performed to destroy the vital organs of an animal?

And what is KE dependent on?

No one answer to that question because we don't know how much tissue, or what kind of tissue, the bullet has to travel through to get to those vital organs. The other question is how much damage does a bullet need to do if it doesn't hit all the vital organs, before it can still put down an animal in a humane way. I think this is the argument for some of the magnums, is it not?

 

[Newtosavage]

All this from a innocent question about .243 bullets. LOL

My aren't we a salty bunch.

 

[204guy]

Yea, it's a shame all the internet experts aren't running the state game orgs because I hear they could do a much better job. It must be true, because I read it all the time on the internet.

Am I recalling correctly that you helped to right G&F regulations for Texas? This thread should be proof enough that those writing regs are not experts on terminal ballistics, nor do I expect them to be. Hence why I would draw zero ethical conclusions from min cal requirements put out by the states. But you calling out Form, a literal terminal ballistics expert for being irresponsible in his application of a cart/bullet combo is pretty funny. So, sally forth.

 

[Newtosavage]

Am I recalling correctly that you helped to right G&F regulations for Texas?

I never helped "right" "G&F" regs for TX.

Keep it personal 204. It takes the attention off the topic.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

I think you have misunderstood the entire discussion. Internal, external, and terminal ballistics are all complex sciences. To just be frank, if you can't solve a differential equation, your understanding will be limited. I did not, and have never stated that KE and/or W kill animals. These are boilerplate counterpoints that do not take into account the actual science and are merely looking at the variables of a single equation instead of looking at the entire set of equations that constitute the given scenario.

Trying to boil a complex science down to a singular variable means everything else must remain static, which obviously is not the case. However, comparing the velocities of a particular bullet in a specific caliber is appropriate because you are just shortening how you compare energy.

Not being a smart ass, go Google "Work-Energy Relationship", "Stress-Strain Relationship", "young's modulus", and "moment of inertia". This might give you a decent jumping off point into better understanding what is being discussed.

Yes I am very familiar with all of those concepts. I apologize if it seemed like I was accusing you of saying KE will kill animals.

Why can't we boil it down to a couple of variables? If we know a bullet design will expand down to a certain velocity and the typical penetration characteristics, we can then choose the performance we prefer. I think its obvious that some hunters prefer bullets to pass through and others prefer the bullets to expend all it's energy in the vitals.

To Form's point certain bullets are designed to expand down to a specific velocity. For instance Nosler ABLR is designed to expand down to 1300fps regardless of caliber to allow hunters to get expansion at extended ranges. Unfortunately it seems as if some people are more concerned about the diameter of the bullet instead of how it might have been designed to operate.

 

[Newtosavage]

Yes I am very familiar with all of those concepts. I apologize if it seemed like I was accusing you of saying KE will kill animals.

Why can't we boil it down to a couple of variables? If we know a bullet design will expand down to a certain velocity and the typical penetration characteristics, we can then choose the performance we prefer. I think its obvious that some hunters prefer bullets to pass through and others prefer the bullets to expend all it's energy in the vitals.

To Form's point certain bullets are designed to expand down to a specific velocity. For instance Nosler ABLR is designed to expand down to 1300fps regardless of caliber to allow hunters to get expansion at extended ranges. Unfortunately it seems as if some people are more concerned about the diameter of the bullet instead of how it might have been designed to operate.

Even the idea of "expansion" needs further details. How deep does that bullet need to penetrate once it expands? I can shoot FMJ's at a steel plate, and they expand violently but they don't penetrate. So to simply say a bullet will expand (whatever that means... 1.5x ? 2x? Fragment?) at a given velocity without also considering other variables like how deep does it need to penetrate to reach the vitals and what it needs to penetrate to get there, simply isn't enough information.

I think the idea some of us are trying to convey is that why should we corner ourselves into a place where there is no margin for error, when we really don't have to ?

Again, the idea of "enough gun" to provide a reasonable margin of error but that the shooter can still shoot accurately enough and often enough to be proficient, is what we should want to promote.

I'm out on this one, since the discussion is so far from the OP

 

[Cahunter805]

I wonder what bullet the OP is going to try first??

Form- Any personal experience with the 105gr Berger on deer/elk at LR?

 

[ARK_Ginger]

No one answer to that question because we don't know how much tissue, or what kind of tissue, the bullet has to travel through to get to those vital organs. The other question is how much damage does a bullet need to do if it doesn't hit all the vital organs, before it can still put down an animal in a humane way. I think this is the argument for some of the magnums, is it not?

Since we don't know how much KE we need, we select a bullet that gives us the desired penetration to get to those vitals while operating at a velocity that it will expand at. Some people might select a 224 bullet that does those two things. If that hunter cannot put a bullet in the vital organs by not being proficient at field shooting then that is inhumane

 

[Lawnboi]

I wonder what bullet the OP is going to try first??

Form- Any personal experience with the 105gr Berger on deer/elk at LR?

I’m going to put an order into midway soon for some ammo.

I already know the accubond will shoot out of this gun well.

I plan on trying the precision hunter load in the gun and also would like to try the new Sierra game changer. I want all the help with the wind I can get. If neither of those shoot I’ll just suck it up and stay with the accubond.


I don’t mind the terminal ballistic conversation at all and think it applies to me, as I’m thinking of shooting deer at what I think is an okay range with pretty small bullets. I’d have no problem with sending one out a little farther with this gun, if I know the bullet will do the job.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Even the idea of "expansion" needs further details. How deep does that bullet need to penetrate once it expands? I can shoot FMJ's at a steel plate, and they expand violently but they don't penetrate. So to simply say a bullet will expand (whatever that means... 1.5x ? 2x? Fragment?) at a given velocity without also considering other variables like how deep does it need to penetrate to reach the vitals and what it needs to penetrate to get there, simply isn't enough information.

I think the idea some of us are trying to convey is that why should we corner ourselves into a place where there is no margin for error, when we really don't have to ?

Again, the idea of "enough gun" to provide a reasonable margin of error but that the shooter can still shoot accurately enough and often enough to be proficient, is what we should want to promote.

I'm out on this one, since the discussion is so far from the OP

Yes I agree that penetration is important, which is why I mentioned knowing the typical penetration characteristics and the expansion velocity.

I would argue that hunting with a 224 projectile isn't cornering yourself as much as most people think and that the margin of error is mostly behind the gun. Especially with deer sized game. A 223 should promote someone to become a more proficient shooter because of ammunition costs and recoil.

As for the OP, they should buy the ammo that expands at their farthest anticipated range based on the known velocity threshold and then choose how far they want the bullet to penetrate based on their preference and how the bullet is known to preform. Then get out there and shoot a bunch

 

[mtmuley]

I already know the accubond will shoot out of this gun well.

And there you have it. mtmuley