Quantified Wounding

[PistolPete]

We all know it's true, but convincing people of the 223 is difficult. "Sure it kills, if you're lucky derrrp" kind of stuff. Wondering if anyone had quantified/charted wound channels? Something like "at A fps, bullet B created C cubic inches of PWC, over a span of D inches"?

We know what it would say, but it seems the hard data would go a long way in convincing others (state agencies). It would be expensive, and I assume that's why it hasn't been done to my knowledge. But showing someone the wound statistics of a 223/TMK vs something like a 30-06/TSX would do wonders.

Pete

Full disclosure: I work for a state agency and am on the committees that make these regs, and I can't convince the fudds and butterfly biologists to allow 223s for deer...

 

[24valve]

There are several other 223 bullets tested here:

5.56mm | Black Hills Ammunition

www.black-hills.com

 

[24valve]

The post linked below has a link to the Hornady TAP application guide that contains many ballistic gel tests of various hornady bullets with stated MV and wound channel measurements:

R

Post in thread 'Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)'

Mar 4, 2025

here's a question, you got a 6.5 grendel 123 gr eldm on one side of you while sitting in camp, a 308 168 gr eldm on the other side of you, both launching same sd bullets at same velocity, big ole g-bear strolls into camp and starts acting up, what rifle are you picking up and why? any objective information there to support your answer?

Here's a question: Have you tried to look anything up on your own about this type of data? Do you know about gelatin testing, FBI protocol on the testing, etc?

Here are some links to get started. They are more long winded than your posts, but...

• RancherJohn

• 

 

[ElPollo]

We all know it's true, but convincing people of the 223 is difficult. "Sure it kills, if you're lucky derrrp" kind of stuff. Wondering if anyone had quantified/charted wound channels? Something like "at A fps, bullet B created C cubic inches of PWC, over a span of D inches"?

We know what it would say, but it seems the hard data would go a long way in convincing others (state agencies). It would be expensive, and I assume that's why it hasn't been done to my knowledge. But showing someone the wound statistics of a 223/TMK vs something like a 30-06/TSX would do wonders.

Pete

Full disclosure: I work for a state agency and am on the committees that make these regs, and I can't convince the fudds and butterfly biologists to allow 223s for deer...

As a former State F&W biologist, I would suggest avoiding diving into organ/cavity measurements unless you are directed to conduct an actual study by your director or commission.

I would use a different tactic. I believe that at least 35 states that allow harvest of big game with a 22 centerfire as a minimum. Of the remainder, four don’t allow any centerfire rifles due to safety concerns and another 5-7 restrict centerfire cartridges to straight-wall or 35 cal plus for similar reasons. So your state is an outlier. The vast majority are using 22 centerfire as a minimum and none of those have documented changes in harvest rates, population numbers or sex ratios related to the use of the 22 CF minimum.

I would also point out that a 22 CF minimum reduces entry barriers for entry for young people and women to hunting. One of the primary concerns for state F&W agencies for decades has been declining hunter numbers. More tags sold, means more revenue for the agencies for conservation.

Don’t get into wound cavities, bullet types, or anything requiring complicated math. Only a handful of states do what your state does, and most use a 22 CF minimum for stuff that is way bigger than anything that can legally be harvested in your state. They need to get on the bandwagon with the other states. Simple as that.

 

[PistolPete]

As a former State F&W biologist, I would suggest avoiding diving into organ/cavity measurements unless you are directed to conduct an actual study by your director or commission.

I would use a different tactic. I believe that at least 35 states that allow harvest of big game with a 22 centerfire as a minimum. Of the remainder, four don’t allow any centerfire rifles due to safety concerns and another 5-7 restrict centerfire cartridges to straight-wall or 35 cal plus for similar reasons. So your state is an outlier. The vast majority are using 22 centerfire as a minimum and none of those have documented changes in harvest rates, population numbers or sex ratios related to the use of the 22 CF minimum.

I would also point out that a 22 CF minimum reduces entry barriers for entry for young people and women to hunting. One of the primary concerns for state F&W agencies for decades has been declining hunter numbers. More tags sold, means more revenue for the agencies for conservation.

Don’t get into wound cavities, bullet types, or anything requiring complicated math. Only a handful of states do what your state does, and most use a 22 CF minimum for stuff that is way bigger than anything that can legally be harvested in your state. They need to get on the bandwagon with the other states. Simple as that.

Yep, all good approaches that I have used and will continue to use. I do think having "hard data" would convince a lot of these folks (one might imagine they'd need hard data to convince why it shouldn't be allowed, but we're long past that...)

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Just tell them the TV says you can't eat a deer shot with an AR15 because it will obliterate them.

 

[PistolPete]

The post linked below has a link to the Hornady TAP application guide that contains many ballistic gel tests of various hornady bullets with stated MV and wound channel measurements:

R

Post in thread 'Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)'

Mar 4, 2025

here's a question, you got a 6.5 grendel 123 gr eldm on one side of you while sitting in camp, a 308 168 gr eldm on the other side of you, both launching same sd bullets at same velocity, big ole g-bear strolls into camp and starts acting up, what rifle are you picking up and why? any objective information there to support your answer?

Here's a question: Have you tried to look anything up on your own about this type of data? Do you know about gelatin testing, FBI protocol on the testing, etc?

Here are some links to get started. They are more long winded than your posts, but...

• RancherJohn

• 

Great stuff, thanks!

 

[PistolPete]

Just tell them the TV says you can't eat a deer shot with an AR15 because it will obliterate them.

I actually have that clip in my presentation... ha

 

[ElPollo]

Yep, all good approaches that I have used and will continue to use. I do think having "hard data" would convince a lot of these folks (one might imagine they'd need hard data to convince why it shouldn't be allowed, but we're long past that...)

Hard data has its place, but I think that Rokslide has been a great example of how it works for some, but others seem impervious to it. I appreciate what you are doing and keep up the good fight.

 

[PistolPete]

Put together a few slides on wounding, depth, and width. I graphed some of the Hornady data (and the Black Hills TMK) and arbitrarily assigned lines at 2" wide and 12" deep as visual minimums for big game. This is what I was looking for - a simple chart to show the lack of wounding difference between 223 and others, that the scientists and data-driven types I work with can easily visualize.

I also used a Martin Fackler quote: "If a neighbour told you that a meteorite had fallen into his back yard, wouldn't you ask him how deep and how large a hole it had made? If he replied that he had, on good authority, an estimation of the meteor's striking velocity and the amount of kinetic energy it had "deposited" and gave you both these figures, you might be impressed by the sophistication of this information, but you still wouldn't know how big a hole he had in his yard.”

Thanks, all.

 

[RWT]

IMO they should consider a minimum bullet weight, bullet construction and velocity as a means to determine what is legal. Many states already regulate no FMJ's and straight wall/shotguns are designated for lower velocity less distance traveled.

Any bullet diameter is permitted as long as it meets the following
projectile must equal or exceed 2000 fps at 100 yards in the weapon to be used
minimum 70 grains in weight
bullet is designed to:
expand twice its diameter at1800 fps
OR
designed my manufacture to separate or fragment into more than 2 pieces at 1800 fps

All of these are required to be published data from the manufacture
If using personally developed loads. Load data must be provided and agreed to be tested to meet minimum standards.

 

[SDHNTR]

Don’t we have bigger battles to fight?

 

[PistolPete]

IMO they should consider a minimum bullet weight, bullet construction and velocity as a means to determine what is legal. Many states already regulate no FMJ's and straight wall/shotguns are designated for lower velocity less distance traveled.

Any bullet diameter is permitted as long as it meets the following
projectile must equal or exceed 2000 fps at 100 yards in the weapon to be used
minimum 70 grains in weight
bullet is designed to:
expand twice its diameter at1800 fps
OR
designed my manufacture to separate or fragment into more than 2 pieces at 1800 fps

All of these are required to be published data from the manufacture
If using personally developed loads. Load data must be provided and agreed to be tested to meet minimum standards.

There are loads of ethical dilemmas that could be regulated, but I don't like starting down that road - especially since hunters are highly incentivized to know these things. We don't regulate shot distance, shot selection, impact point, shooting capability, etc etc.

Hunters know firearms and want to cleanly kill animals. Then, they have to take a hunter ed course to teach them that again. We don't need to regulate the minutiae and try to catch them slipping up to write them a ticket on top of it, IMO.

 

[ElPollo]

Don’t we have bigger battles to fight?

If you do, you are welcome to pursue them.

 

[SDHNTR]

If you do, you are welcome to pursue them.

Nope. Not worth it. I’ll just hunt with a 6mm+ and be happy.