Considering downsizing to 6 cm from 7 PRC

hereinaz

WKR
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
3,591
Location
Arizona
Man believe me... Despite reading all of the threads here, kill results, great evidence for the .224s I was still hesitant. I sent off several messages to folks up to just a couple weeks before I took off for Alaska in September with my 22 Creedmoor. Spent time on the phone with experienced killers asking "am I really good to go here?" haha.

It's just been engrained in our heads all of our lives that "bigger is required" when talking big game animals. It was a bit freeing this year to see what happens in real life.
There is a Joseph von Benendict podcast with a Hornady dude who went to Africa with a bunch of guys and they killed 7-9 animals each with 22 creed and 22 arc loaded with ELDx. So dozens of animals. And, they talk about Tyler Freel (?) who killed a pile of stuff with his 22 creed.

Get that, they smashed dozens of African game with the 22 creed and arc.

It’s funny because JVB agrees with him but can’t bring himself to endorse 22 creed. At the end, he has to give all sorts of caveats. He always goes to scenarios where he endorses shooting “through the paunch cause that’s the only angle and I know you are going to take it if this is a once in a lifetime hunt and it is your only shot opportunity.” He also repeats his canards about rutted up elk and “penetration” of hunting bullets.

The way he went along with him on this episode but then trashed the Exo podcast makes me wonder. Don’t know him, but it’s a reasonable impression to me that JVB is a good industry man, and he probably believes his opinions. It’s not a conspiracy.

I listen to his podcast quite a bit, some interesting things, but he definitely represents the status quo.

They also talk about how the ELDx is explosive at close range/high velocity and very devastating on game, with no exits. Several DRT.

But, when hit at long range it then exits and leaves blood trails like a good hunting bullet.

It’s only a few episodes later that he goes off about small calibers are not good for game.

Bottom line is the .22 cal bullets kill stuff dead if you put it in the boiler room. There are certainly tradeoffs, but shootability is such a high priority for killing, that we smaller caliber shooters sacrifice the ability to make a Texas heart shot with a Barnes triple shock out of a 300 rum.

All the “rodeos” I have witnessed were because of bad shots and because few have embraced small cartridges, they are all big calibers. Two rodeos were my own, but I ultimately got the deers killed.
 

Runwilderness

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
May 21, 2020
Messages
172
Location
Idaho
from the intro, paragraph 1:

Introduction​

Ballistic gelatin, hereafter referred to as gelatin, is often used as a simulant for studying impact damage in soft biological tissues (Maiden, 2009, Nicholas and Welsch, 2004). Gelatin, a protein derived from either skin or bone (Kneubuehl, 2011), is produced by submitting collagen to an irreversible process that renders it water-soluble. Two common gelatin formulations, 10% by mass at 4 °C and 20% by mass at 10 °C, are often used by researchers (Nicholas and Welsch, 2004, Jussila, 2004); henceforth “by mass” is omitted for brevity when describing the gelatin. For simulating the impact of a projectile into gelatin one needs its material properties over the range of strains, strain-rates and temperatures likely to occur at anticipated impact velocities.

Note: this says that gel is often used to study impact damage to tissue, but doesn’t provide evidence that it does. At minimum you should be citing Maiden or Nicholas and Weldch. Form suggested you used AI for your answer. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and say you googled and read the free Intro yourself, citing a modeling paper (without providing the source), and relying on statements in the free Intro rather than the actual data results and conclusions from those original papers is scientifically lazy at best and suggests you don’t understand what you’re reading at worst.

Oh, pressure = force/area and energy = force * distance, so a pressure wave traveling through biological tissue is very much a part of any energy system equation.
 

LONE HUNTER

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Feb 25, 2018
Messages
281
My argument is: adding large amounts of kinetic energy around the hole increases the odds of killing exponentially. Additionally, when the hole may not be perfectly placed, the large amount of energy may have a killing result when it is large enough and powerful enough to damage the organs and create shock to the system. shutting down the nervous system and in some cases liquifying the organs.
But will they increase the probability of hitting the animal correctly? That is part of the "odds of killing" as you stated it.

Your arguments which could theoretically be stated as "shooting a larger cartridge/caliber increases the size of the kill zone" on game when compared to a smaller cartridge. Which I neither agree nor disagree with.

However, if we assume your position is true and that a larger cartridge increases the margin of error for a bad shot.... does it increase it enough to matter for someone? What I mean by that is, do they shoot that bigger rifle well enough to benefit from that? Honestly ask yourself if average joe hunter is gonna be a good enough marksman to benefit from a 7MM PRC vs a 6mm Creedmoor.

I can only speak for myself, but my lethality went up, shooting a 6.5 hipster over a 7mm RM.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2024
Messages
387
In what I’ve personally seen on very large bodied northern whitetails, the mature does that I like to kill have always travelled the furthest when hit. This is the case from .338 down to what I also saw this year with .224.

If you look at the photos most of the hits were in the heart and lungs. Some animals drop dead from these hits and some do not. Animal size doesn’t have anything to do with it in what I’ve seen in general. More the animals will to survive or make it to cover. For whatever reason, those doe up north like to move after being shot.

I’m a heart/lungs shooter in general but there are certain shot situations where I don’t want an animal to go anywhere. A higher placed shot works wonders for this in most cases, allowing for paralysis and then a follow up killing shot when needed. This was the case on the bull a couple weeks ago but the bullet fragmentation did enough damage to lungs and heart that I could see him dying through the scope and bare eyes after, not requiring a grounded neck, head, or vitals shot.
Quick side question. What is your barrel twist on your 22creed. I want to shoot the 80eldx you shoot and also 62eldvt on coyotes.
 

hereinaz

WKR
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
3,591
Location
Arizona
I hear you

As stated - my premise has never been that a big enough hole in something kills it.

My argument is: adding large amounts of kinetic energy around the hole increases the odds of killing exponentially. Additionally, when the hole may not be perfectly placed, the large amount of energy may have a killing result when it is large enough and powerful enough to damage the organs and create shock to the system. shutting down the nervous system and in some cases liquifying the organs.

Matching was never the idea. The OP was considering going from a 7 to a 6mm. the two photos were not meant to directly compare a bunch of the same. They were meant to support that staying with bigger bullets for hunting will penetrate better, transfer more energy, and damage more tissue than smaller.
I used to endorse that 100%, but see much more nuance now.

The apparent growing body of evidence is that there are diminishing returns in the amount of tissue damage between a 100 grain 6mm and a 200 grain grain 308. The tissue damage isn’t twice as much. Often, it is indistinguishable.

But in the flip side the recoil is much more than 2x making shootability between them an enormous gulf.

Kids can’t shoot 300 win mags with lower body weight and smaller muscles. But they can slay with 6 creeds.

That’s two points of the big calculus. The “what” 1) small calibers with match bullets cause enough damage and the “why” 2) they are more shootable for everyone increasing lethality on first shot and ease of spotting and second shots.

Because point 1 satifies the initial question: can the bullet kill efficiently? The next question addresses if there is a benefit to giving up a little killing power.

Number 2 emphatically pushes the calculus to small calibers by indisputably increasing the lethality of the human/rifle system.

The tradeoff in shootability for a small reduction in damage is huge.

Now, if a shooter practices and is skilled enough to shoot a 300, then go for it. I keep a 7mm mag just cause, but I know I will have to really “do my part” to execute a shot that is much easier with a creed.
 

hereinaz

WKR
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
3,591
Location
Arizona
Quick side question. What is your barrel twist on your 22creed. I want to shoot the 80eldx you shoot and also 62eldvt on coyotes.
Hornady specs an 8 twist in SAAMI for up to 80 grain ELDm to stabilize that range bullets. If you go 88 gr, that might be to slow a twist at extremes, so Hornady doesn’t make factory 88 grain ammo.

It depends on barrel, velocity, and other but you are safe at 8 twist.
 

mxgsfmdpx

WKR
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
6,121
Location
Outside
Hornady specs an 8 twist in SAAMI for up to 80 grain ELDm to stabilize that range bullets. If you go 88 gr, that might be to slow a twist at extremes, so Hornady doesn’t make factory 88 grain ammo.

It depends on barrel, velocity, and other but you are safe at 8 twist.
88s shoot better than the 80s so far in my tikka 8 twist. On par with the 77s which shot the best previously.

15 shots at 100 yards from this week.

IMG_9765.jpeg

IMG_9766.jpeg

Edit: That is comparing factory loaded ammo versus hand loads to be fair.

We shall see what @huntnful comes up with for a load for this Tikka using 80 ELDXs 😎
 

hereinaz

WKR
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
3,591
Location
Arizona
88s shoot better than the 80s so far in my tikka 8 twist. On par with the 77s which shot the best previously.

15 shots at 100 yards from this week.

View attachment 807008

View attachment 807009

Edit: That is comparing factory loaded ammo versus hand loads to be fair.

We shall see what @huntnful comes up with for a load for this Tikka using 80 ELDXs 😎
Yeah, most rifles with the 8 twist will stabilize the 88s, but there needs to be 100% that factory stuff works without any possible problems. Some factory gun somewhere would not stabilize 88s so they won’t make factory ammo per a podcast with Seth S from Hornady on Backcountry Hunting.
 

Dioni A

Basque Assassin
Shoot2HuntU
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
1,803
Location
Nampa, Idaho
88s shoot better than the 80s so far in my tikka 8 twist. On par with the 77s which shot the best previously.

15 shots at 100 yards from this week.

View attachment 807008

View attachment 807009

Edit: That is comparing factory loaded ammo versus hand loads to be fair.

We shall see what @huntnful comes up with for a load for this Tikka using 80 ELDXs 😎
39-40 grains of h4350 has been the answer for the 7 or 8 22 creeds I’ve been around
 

MarkOrtiz

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 24, 2022
Messages
247
Location
Minden, NV
Yup she was spot on… I have checked my ballistics 1000 times since and I was dialed 4.3 on that initial shot and that’s what jt should have been.

I’m chalking it up to nerves and just pooor execution tho I do remember where those crosshairs were when the shoot broke… but hey I’m not perfect.
Can you shoot at the same distance and see what your shot does dialed at 4.3? Maybe the data is off?
 

Choot

FNG
Classified Approved
Joined
Feb 28, 2024
Messages
23
As another set to what Dioni may have… Herr is my personal kill list from Sept 2024 to Dec 2024 shooting all with 22 Creedmoor and 80 ELDX. I gathered the data this year to be able to share with anyone interested.

I have necropsy photos of all the kills and have shared them in the .223 thread and the “22 Creedmoor thread”.


1. Bull Moose: Yardage: 523. Impact Velocity: 2,180. Shot Position: Seated Supported. Impact Location: What most would call "high shoulder". Distance Traveled After Shot:20-30 feet.

2. Black Bear Boar: Yardage: 110-130 (never ranged). Impact Velocity: 2,900ish. Shot Position: Standing Supported. Impact Location: Mid Body Distance Traveled After Shot: 80-90 yards full sprint before collapsing.

3. Mule Deer Buck: Yardage: 636. Impact Velocity: 2,150. Shot Position: Prone Supported. Impact Location: High Brisket. Distance Travelled After Shot: 180-220 yards tumbling/rolling downhill.

4. Coues Deer Buck (Different Shooter): Yardage: 212. Impact Velocity: 2,720. Shot Position: Seated Unsupported. Impact Location: 1st Shot Neck. Ran 40-60 yards and stumbled but stayed up. 2nd shot broke as it started jogging forward again, impacted rear quarter. Deer dropped and died. Distance Travelled After Shot: 40-60 Yards.

5. Whitetail Doe: Yardage: 203. Impact Velocity: 2,740. Shot Position: Seated Unsupported. Impact Location: 4th Rib Bone. Distance Traveled After Shot: 20 Yards.

6. Whitetail Buck: Yardage: 40-50 (Never Ranged). Impact Velocity: 3,050. Shot Position: Standing Unsupported. Impact Location: Between 4th and 5th rib bones. Distance Traveled After Shot: 0 Yards.

7. Whitetail Buck: Yardage: 404. Impact Velocity: 2,390. Shot Position: Prone Supported. Impact Location:Scapula. Distance Traveled After Shot: 20 Yards.

8. Whitetail Doe: Yardage: 20-30 (Never Ranged). Impact Velocity: 3,070. Shot Position: Standing Unsupported. Impact Location: Quartering Away, 5th and 6th ribs. Distance Traveled After Shot: 110-130 Yards.

9. Whitetail Doe: Yardage: 272. Impact Velocity: 2,610. Shot Position: Seated Unsupported. Impact Location:Between 3rd and 4th rib bones. Distance Traveled After Shot: 120-140 yards.

10. Whitetail Doe (Different Shooter): Yardage: 208. Impact Velocity: 2,740. Shot Position: Kneeling Supported. Impact Location: Forward-Facing Neck (head up smelling us). Distance Traveled After Shot: 0 Yards.

11. Whitetail Doe: Yardage: 510. Impact Velocity: 2,225. Shot Position: Seated Supported. Impact Location: 1 Shot, 5th Rib. Deer ran 60-80 yards and stopped. 2nd Shot, Scapula. Dropped. Distance Traveled After Shot: 60-80 Yards.

12. Whitetail Buck: Yardage 232. Impact Velocity:2,730ish. Shot Position: Standing, supported by tree branch. Impact Location: 3rd Rib. Distance Traveled After Shot: 5-10
Yards.

13. Bull Elk: Yardage: 120ish (never ranged). Impact Velocity: 2,920ish. Shot Position: Kneeling Unsupported. Impact Location:High on the 5th Rib Bone. Exited 5th Rib Bone. Bullet lodged in offside fat/hide. Massive fragmentation, damaged spine, damaged lung, heart was chunked up mess. Distance Travelled After Shot: 0 Yards. Paralyzed. Heavy and labored breathing for around 90 seconds.
What are the blood trails normally like?
 

mxgsfmdpx

WKR
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
6,121
Location
Outside
What are the blood trails normally like?
The average distance travelled between all the kills was less than 50 yards. I found all the animals without having to go back to impact location and begin looking for blood. Another benefit of watching the animal through the scope the entire time and memorizing the last known “landmark” before losing sight of the animal.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
2,523
Long Spartan bipod or shooting sticks is infinitely quicker and can be incredibly stable. I actually videos of two “shot opportunities” yesterday while stalking through some drainages here in AZ. Both were on moving animals who spotted me but would have still allowed for kills if I wanted to kill them. No way would there have been time for a tripod and prone off of pack or using my shorter Spartan bipod didn’t allow me enough height to get a sight picture. Seated with a long Spartan was faster than getting pack off and allowed me plenty of height for the 26 degree up hill angle shot.

I do plan to practice with a tripod this off season more to try it. Any recommendations on a unit and what type of head/adapter? I currently use all outdoorsmans stuff.
If our paths end up crossing in a few weeks, you’re welcome to shoot off my RRS ascend. I’m not convinced that tripods are the answer but I’ve certainly given them a good shake. Slower, more stable…not a substitution for getting stable quick and killing shit.
 

Article 4

WKR
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
672
Location
The Great Northwest
from the intro, paragraph 1:

Introduction​

Ballistic gelatin, hereafter referred to as gelatin, is often used as a simulant for studying impact damage in soft biological tissues (Maiden, 2009, Nicholas and Welsch, 2004). Gelatin, a protein derived from either skin or bone (Kneubuehl, 2011), is produced by submitting collagen to an irreversible process that renders it water-soluble. Two common gelatin formulations, 10% by mass at 4 °C and 20% by mass at 10 °C, are often used by researchers (Nicholas and Welsch, 2004, Jussila, 2004); henceforth “by mass” is omitted for brevity when describing the gelatin. For simulating the impact of a projectile into gelatin one needs its material properties over the range of strains, strain-rates and temperatures likely to occur at anticipated impact velocities.

Note: this says that gel is often used to study impact damage to tissue, but doesn’t provide evidence that it does. At minimum you should be citing Maiden or Nicholas and Weldch. Form suggested you used AI for your answer. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and say you googled and read the free Intro yourself, citing a modeling paper (without providing the source), and relying on statements in the free Intro rather than the actual data results and conclusions from those original papers is scientifically lazy at best and suggests you don’t understand what you’re reading at worst.

Oh, pressure = force/area and energy = force * distance, so a pressure wave traveling through biological tissue is very much a part of any energy system equation.
No AI for the answer, I looked it up. Your endorsement or approval is not necessary to reach a conclusion or truth but go ahead and do your thing since you seem to be an expert on what I should be citing

You quoting the math only confirms exactly what I am saying - pressure, kinetic energy, and shock waves are all a part of the killing cycle - but maybe you missed that part

Here is another good study to read about it
Talks about gelatin, both temporary and permanent cavities, and angles affecting the outcome. Uses some measuring equipment as well.

Here is a great study that actually uses modern hunting bullets
 

Article 4

WKR
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
672
Location
The Great Northwest
But will they increase the probability of hitting the animal correctly? That is part of the "odds of killing" as you stated it.

Your arguments which could theoretically be stated as "shooting a larger cartridge/caliber increases the size of the kill zone" on game when compared to a smaller cartridge. Which I neither agree nor disagree with.

However, if we assume your position is true and that a larger cartridge increases the margin of error for a bad shot.... does it increase it enough to matter for someone? What I mean by that is, do they shoot that bigger rifle well enough to benefit from that? Honestly ask yourself if average joe hunter is gonna be a good enough marksman to benefit from a 7MM PRC vs a 6mm Creedmoor.

I can only speak for myself, but my lethality went up, shooting a 6.5 hipster over a 7mm RM.
I my research the answer is yes, it will increase the odds.

You neither agree or disagree - ok cool. That is what sharing thoughts and ideas are here for. Whether it increases it enough is pretty subjective. Are we talking hitting it in the rump? Probably not. Are we talking hitting it just outside the vitals - according to some of these finding, probably yes.

I think there is some worth to smaller calibers being more accurate, at times. Especially with less experienced shooters or those trying to call their shot or have fast follow ups. They are also more pleasurable to shoot for long sessions when compared to larger magnums. For me I can shoot my 6Cm or 25Cm all day and the heavy 30s are good for way less and my 470 is good for about 20, even with a gel pad.

My initial thoughts have been if someone shoots a 1/4 MOA group with a 6CM and then shoots another 1/4MOA group with a 300 PRC, why is the PRC less accurate? If a guy in the field has one shot on an animal at 1000 per forms test, are they gonna miss with any caliber? I dont know the answer and not sure anyone does.

My own personal experience shooting animals at longer ranges has been pretty equal with larger and smaller calibers (6 and 7 through 30 cal). I have hit them with first shot, and there have been a couple that I have missed. Luckily I was so bad that I missed completely, so my suck was big enough on that shot that it didnt matter what caliber.
 

Article 4

WKR
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
672
Location
The Great Northwest
from the intro, paragraph 1:

Introduction​

Ballistic gelatin, hereafter referred to as gelatin, is often used as a simulant for studying impact damage in soft biological tissues (Maiden, 2009, Nicholas and Welsch, 2004). Gelatin, a protein derived from either skin or bone (Kneubuehl, 2011), is produced by submitting collagen to an irreversible process that renders it water-soluble. Two common gelatin formulations, 10% by mass at 4 °C and 20% by mass at 10 °C, are often used by researchers (Nicholas and Welsch, 2004, Jussila, 2004); henceforth “by mass” is omitted for brevity when describing the gelatin. For simulating the impact of a projectile into gelatin one needs its material properties over the range of strains, strain-rates and temperatures likely to occur at anticipated impact velocities.

Note: this says that gel is often used to study impact damage to tissue, but doesn’t provide evidence that it does. At minimum you should be citing Maiden or Nicholas and Weldch. Form suggested you used AI for your answer. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and say you googled and read the free Intro yourself, citing a modeling paper (without providing the source), and relying on statements in the free Intro rather than the actual data results and conclusions from those original papers is scientifically lazy at best and suggests you don’t understand what you’re reading at worst.

Oh, pressure = force/area and energy = force * distance, so a pressure wave traveling through biological tissue is very much a part of any energy system equation.
here are a few more to read through if you have the time. They also point to numerous other studies that I am in the process of reading as references - I havent read them all yet nor do I expect them to come right out and say, these results are absolutely definitive and 100% true. Havent found a study that will.

This is one of the most recent done by PhDs in ballistics and physics at West Point - specifically talking about incapacitation - they cite 39 other studies not listed below as some of their references.

Here are some others - just 28 more citations.
  • Liu Y.Q., Wang Z.G., M Y.Y. People's Military Medical Press; Beijing: 1991.
  • Kneubuehl B.P., Coupland R.M., Rothschild M.A., et al. Springer; Berlin: 2008.
  • Li M.A., Wen Y.K., Zhang J.B., et al. 30th International Symposium on Ballistics. California, USA. 2017. Numerical analysis of rifle bullet impact armor covered human torso.
  • Su Z.L. Third Military Medical University; 2012. The Characteristics and Mechanism of Remote behind Armor Blunt Brain Trauma in Swine.
  • Chen Y., Miao Y., Xu C., et al. Wound ballistics of the pig mandibular angle: a preliminary finite element analysis and experimental study. J Biomech. 2010;43:1131–1137. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.12.009.
  • Janzon B., Seeman T. Muscle devitalization in high-energy missile wounds, and its dependence on energy transfer. J Trauma. 1985;25:138–144. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198502000-00009.
  • Jussila J., Kjellström B.T., Leppäniemi A. Ballistic variables and tissue devitalisation in penetrating injury--establishing relationship through meta-analysis of a number of pig tests. Injury. 2005;36:282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.09.010.
  • Breeze J., James G.R., Hepper A.E. Perforation of fragment simulating projectiles into goat skin and muscle. J Roy Army Med Corps. 2013;159:84–89. doi: 10.1136/jramc-2013-000065.
  • Appleby-Thomas G., Hameed A., Fitzmaurice B., et al. 2016. On the Selection of Tissue Simulants for Ballistic Testing. 29th International Symposium on Ballistics. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
  • Riva F., Mattijssen E.J.A.T., Kerkhoff W. Rifle bullet deflection through a soft tissue simulant. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;291:199–206. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.08.024.
  • Riva F., Lombardo P., Zech W.D., et al. Individual synthetic head models in wound ballistics - a feasibility study based on real cases. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;294:150–159. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.11.020.
  • Xiong M., Qin B., Wang S., et al. Experimental impacts of less lethal rubber spheres on a skin-fat-muscle model. J Forensic Leg Med. 2019;67:7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2019.07.009.
  • Mabbott A., Carr D.J., Champion S.M., et al. 27th International Symposium on Ballistics. Freiburg; Germany: 2013. Comparison of 10% gelatine, 20% gelatine and Perma-Gel for ballistic testing.
  • Jain P., Kaur S., Bhatacharjee D., et al. Hyderabad; India: 2019. Effect of Various Backing Materials on BABT in Ballistic Evaluation of Body Armour. 31st International Symposium on Ballistics.
  • Korać Z., Kelenc D., Hančević J., et al. The application of computed tomography in the analysis of permanent cavity: a new method in terminal ballistics. Acta Clin Croat. 2002;41:205–206.
  • Jin Y., Mai R., Wu C., et al. Comparison of ballistic impact effects between biological tissue and gelatin. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;78:292–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.11.033.
  • Liu L., Jia Z., Ma X.L., et al. A spherical cavity expansion model of large elastic deformation and its application to ballistic gelatin penetration problems. Int J Impact Eng. 2014;71:106–116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.04.007
  • Schyma C., Madea B. Evaluation of the temporary cavity in ordnance gelatine. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;214:82–87. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.021.
  • Wen Y., Xu C., Jin Y., et al. Rifle bullet penetration into ballistic gelatin. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;67:40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.11.021.
  • Schyma C.,Hagemeier L.,Greschus S., et al.Visualisation of the temporary cavity by computed tomography using contrast material. Int J Leg Med. 2012;126:37–42. doi: 10.1007/s00414-010-0546-1.
  • Schyma C.W. Colour contrast in ballistic gelatine. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;197:114–118. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.01.002.
  • Schyma C., Greschus S., Urbach H., et al. Combined radio-colour contrast in the examination of ballistic head models. Int J Leg Med. 2012;126:607–613. doi: 10.1007/s00414-012-0704-8.
  • Bolliger S.A., Thali M.J., Bolliger M.J., et al. Gunshot energy transfer profile in ballistic gelatine, determined with computed tomography using the total crack length method. Int J Leg Med. 2010;124:613–616. doi: 10.1007/s00414-010-0503-z.
  • Jussila J. Measurement of kinetic energy dissipation with gelatine fissure formation with special reference to gelatine validation. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;150:53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.06.038.
  • Mo G.L., Li Z.X., Wu Z.L. A theoretical model of non-deforming bullets penetrating ballistic gelatin. Int J Impact Eng. 2018;114:105–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.12.004.
  • Mo G.L., Jin Y.X., Wang X.J., et al. Ballistic modelling and experimental studies of rifle bullets penetrating ballistic gelatin. J Beijing Inst Technol (Soc Sci Ed) 2018;38:1244–1251. doi: 10.15918/j.tbit1001-0645.2018.12.006.
  • Lynch N.J., Pitcher P. 29th International Symposium on Ballistics. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 2016. The influence of yaw on the perforation of fragments.
  • Bartlett C.S. Clinical update: gunshot wound ballistics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;408:28–57. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200303000-00005.

Once again, if some of the folks here expect a scientist to come out and say, my evidence is irrefutable and as such is the only answer, are going to be deeply disappointed. No scientist would ever do that.

And according to some here who think theirs is the ONLY answer, none of this matters. I am good with people thining what they think - i think what I think based on personal experience and some of this data, not emotion. Nor do I expect any credit for actually doing my own reading and studying.

But of course, this is all Fuddery according to some flat earth, gravity doesn't exist, and unicorns are real kinda people and any differing opinion than what some here think is true is complete BS.
 
Last edited:

fwafwow

WKR
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
5,615
I'm all for reading studies to see how they may shed light on a topic. The list in post #179 appears to be close to the list of references from the first study you linked in post #177. In the back and forth, I've actually lost track of your hypothesis. Do you mind summarizing the hypothesis (or theory) the two articles in post #177 support?
 
Top