Fragmenting bullets versus controlled expanding bullets

[Formidilosus]

As for the article, the synthetic may in fact be softer, but that article is going on 5 years old, mentions the supplier will be making adjustments to ensure it’s closer to 10% and he will follow up, then in 5 years no follow up article? For something so widely used today, nothing more recent is available?

There are a lot of shooters like me that look for good performance when conditions aren’t ideal, so I don’t feel bad whatsoever pointing out apparent weaknesses in bullet performance when used at extreme edge of acceptable velocity.

Apparent weakness? If you do not understand the subject- and you do not, why are you pontificating about it? Ask questions instead of giving answers.

Your beloved Partitions often do not upset at 1,800fps impact in clear gel- or at 2,000fps, yet they do in organic gel and tissue. Clear ballistics gel does not correlate to calibrated organic gel or tissue- it is used by the lazy and clueless. Water is a significantly better indicator of potential bullet upset than clear gel if someone is not going to use organic 10%.

 

[hereinaz]

For something so widely used today, nothing more recent is available?

Widely used? By whom? Only non serious people.

I know you are trying to bolster your argument, but I cant take you serious if your arguments are technically flawed.

Fake gel is used cause it is stable and easy for YouTubers to get cool videos.

I was gonna do a video, almost ordered the fake stuff until I finished research on it. Making and dealing with scientifically proven gel is actually kinda hard and needs to be precise.

 

[TaperPin]

Apparent weakness? If you do not understand the subject- and you do not, why are you pontificating about it? Ask questions instead of giving answers.

Your beloved Partitions often do not upset at 1,800fps impact in clear gel- or at 2,000fps, yet they do in organic gel and tissue. Clear ballistics gel does not correlate to calibrated organic gel or tissue- it is used by the lazy and clueless. Water is a significantly better indicator of potential bullet upset than clear gel if someone is not going to use organic 10%.

I wouldn’t use a Partition at low velocity, so that’s neither here nor there. Quite honestly I could care less who uses what bullet, but it’s easy see when ideas haven’t been well thought out, and simply repeated over and over.

If synthetic gel isn’t correct to judge bullet performance, the word needs to get out - all the big expansion cavities bragged about wouldn’t be quite as big. I think that makes sense.

I hate to be the first person to ever tell you this, but water over expands bullets - any junior high kid comparing the bullet they pulled out of an animal with the exact bullet fired into water filled plastic barrels at the same range could tell you that.

 

[TaperPin]

Widely used? By whom? Only non serious people.

I know you are trying to bolster your argument, but I cant take you serious if your arguments are technically flawed.

Fake gel is used cause it is stable and easy for YouTubers to get cool videos.

I was gonna do a video, almost ordered the fake stuff until I finished research on it. Making and dealing with scientifically proven gel is actually kinda hard and needs to be precise.

One manufacturer of synthetic gel has 100,000 blocks floating around out there, so it’s being used by more than YouTubers.

What videos do you recommend that use propper gel?

 

[TaperPin]

Tell me what you know about the optimal storage temperature for FBI gel.

I know enough that cold gel is harder than warm gel and when it’s calibrated that only applies to the temp it’s calibrated at. Isn’t that pretty basic?

 

[fwafwow]

Never concede anything - even a point!

 

[TaperPin]

Never concede anything - even a point!

I do agree with everyone that says I’m apparently not smart enough to know which source of Hornady information to blindly accept. I’m just like a lot of people looking for information - there’s a lot of inconsistencies in the available information. When I bring it up one person wants me to only watch videos with FBI gel, and the other wants me to shoot into water jugs. Others want me to just accept what Hornady says, and I trust Hornady least of all.

 

[FredH]

You are incorrect, 1800 fps is a velocity at which 99% of highly fragmenting bullets will break apart and create lethal would channel. It is not on the margin if 99% will open. It’s the number given by many manufacturers and proven by experience.

It’s not insane to say a .223 is as lethal as a 7mm bullet, because the size of the wound channel is effectively the same when it comes to damage necessary to be lethal. The wound channels have been shown to be nearly as large in circumference and penetration.

At about equal impact speeds, I could not really tell any meaningful difference between a 133 .257 and 180 7mm Berger. At 100 yards with both I had exit holes larger than a tennis ball. Does it matter that the 7mm blew a larger sized hole? Both actually pulled lung tissue out of the exit.

The same thing holds true for internal damage of .223 vs .308. The difference in damage is not directly proportional to the bullet diameter. It is more on a logarithmic or exponential scale.

Doubling the weight of a highly fragmenting bullet doesn’t double the diameter of damage or double the penetration. It might double the total damage, but the wound channel isn’t that much larger. It only adds and inch or two to the diameter and a couple inches to the penetration.

The difference with higher weight retention bullets (after a much smaller fragmentation wound channel) is much more related to the size of the bullet because of the way they cause damage. Like archery, the damage is more directly related to the cutting diameter of the blades.

And, the .223 fragmenting bullet objectively damages more total tissue than a larger mono metal with a narrow wound channel.

Now, higher velocity changes dynamics of all bullets, so monos can create devestating wounds at higher velocity bands.

Tell me more about how lead disperses into meat outside of the visible wound channel and bloodshot. I don’t believe it can physically travel through tissue much beyond the bloodshot meat, because the particles are so small it takes little meat to stop it.

Perhaps there is something I don’t know or an error. In my logic.

That said, the minimal amount of lead that travels, doesn’t appear to be outside of the wound channel enough to bother me. Sure, I can’t predict everything, but I have not seen anything travel in a weird trajectory. Once a bullet starts to break apart, it spreads out in a vector consistent with the trajectory and substance it is traveling through. Physics seems to limit the trajectory.

In lung/rib shots how unpredictable do you think lead will spread?

I said nothing about ethics or advisability of shooting to 800, except to point out that your 400 yard number has nothing to do with bullet performance as identified above.

I understand and agree that distance adds variables. That doesn’t create worse probabilities for all “long range” shots. I agree that an animal with reasonable potential to take a step makes a less ethical shot. I very likely won’t take that shot.

Question: If you knew with high confidence that you could put a bullet into a 4” spot on a bedded buck who is relaxed and chewing his cud, so you know he isn’t moving, would you factor time of flight to determine if the shot is ethical?

Hunting ethics are necessarily dependent on all the variables. I can create hundreds of scenarios where even a 50 yard shot is unethical, but that speaks nothing of 50 yard shots.

It’s Ok for you to draw a line where you feel comfortable, or even ethical. But, many will disagree, including me. You can even call me unethical, and I am OK with it.

As for the line at which lead contamination begins, I want to understand how far you think it travels beyond blood shot meat. And, why. I honestly don’t know.

So it fragments. It is still not moving very fast. Doubling the mass would certainly double the amount of fragments wouldn't it. I am not comparing mono bullets to the fragmenting bullets either. I said virtually all lead cored expanding bullets fragment to some degree. And yes a 7MM 140 grain bullet that expands and breaks apart is going to make a more extensive wound than a 77 grain bullet of the same type. Where is this documetation that they are indistinguishable? They also maintain generally enough mass to give a reasonable amount of penetration. As for the depth a fragment travels that would depend on the size of the fragment.

 

[FredH]

Would you bet your truck that it won’t? Let’s meet up and do it. I will load cartridges in front of you and prove they are loaded to impact at 1800 fps by a chronograph and then shoot one into ballistic gel for score.

Slow is a relative descriptor. 1800 fps is blinding fast compared to a desert tortoise. Slow doesn’t tell us anything.

You make straight assertions and I don’t know how or what makes you believe it. You called it magic and slow, and asked if I would bet my truck.

I am using factory numbers and documented experience.

Hornady says that the ELDx expands reliably down to 1800 fps. The fragmentation of the X is initiated from the tip and would be relatively indistinguishable from the ELDm.

1800 fps is fast compared to a 100 year old turtle but it is a bit slower than a 22 magnum at the muzzle. Here is a low velocity gel test using the 88 gr. ELDM. Not very promising is it.

 

[FredH]

Found just what you wanted.

This is a gel test comprising of a standard soft point 7-08 high and low velocity

This is a gel test of the ELDX at high velocity.

You might notice the 77 gr. Tipped Matchking is dwarfed by the performance of the 7MM bullets.

 

[hereinaz]

1800 fps is fast compared to a 100 year old turtle but it is a bit slower than a 22 magnum at the muzzle. Here is a low velocity gel test using the 88 gr. ELDM. Not very promising is it.

Did you verify what kind of “ballistics gel” he is using?

I couldn’t tell what he was using until the fourth or fifth video when he mentions that the melts it to “recast” it. Although it is not clear in the video, it was clear at one point. And, by melting it and reusing it, the physical properties can change. There have been NO scientific experiments or studies of which I am aware to verify how accurate this fake stuff is.

But, the Vortex video above and my discussion about it does.

Ultimately, you are presenting, what I call pseudo science by a random YouTuber. That should have no persuasive effect on a balanced, inquisitive, open mind.

Moreover, your point doesn’t prove what you think it does. The 88 is the exception that proves the rule. Find me all the other videos showing all the other ELDm do the same, but in actual ballistics gelatin properly prepared from the approved powder and water.

You have merely shown that this particular bullet isn’t as explosive. So, is the 88 isn’t a highly fragmenting bullet. If I accept that, then your point causes this one particular bullet to fall outside of the premise of your argument.

It certainly falls outside my arguments because YOU chose the 88. It looks like you specifically chose the 88 to make a point, but you have excluded it from the discussion.

Moreover, I personally would not use it for hunting, because I typically choose Berger.

My point remains the same, generally speaking “fragmenting” bullets do what they do.

 

[hereinaz]

Found just what you wanted.

This is a gel test comprising of a standard soft point 7-08 high and low velocity

This is a gel test of the ELDX at high velocity.

You might notice the 77 gr. Tipped Matchking is dwarfed by the performance of the 7MM bullets.

It’s still pseudo science in fake gellatin.

 

[hereinaz]

What bullet did this and how far?

 

[mt terry d]

This would make a great Rokslide event and I bet @Ryan Avery could arrange the meeting, live stream, video and title and key exchange.

Exactly what trucks are we betting?
I may want in on this action.

 

[Skydog]

I am new to the "small caliber/light fragmenting bullet" school of thought, but I do find the reasoning behind it and the evidence (autopsy photos) presented on this site to be very convincing. However, I do have a couple of lingering questions:

• There seems to be some debate over minimum velocity thresholds (1800 fps) and the lack of expansion at long range. However, for the type of hunting I do, I would be more concerned about high impact velocities at close range. Is this a valid concern? How does this small/light/fragmenting bullet philosophy play out at much shorter ranges, for example, almost point-blank range out to 100 yards?
• Do the small caliber/light fragmenting bullets destroy more meat?

 

[eoperator]

I've shot enough bullets into gel to know for damn sure i wouldn't bet my truck on any bullet fragmenting at 1800fps.

If you really dig into the specifics of fbi gel most if not all outside of a lab environment would fail.