Questions for Form and other "small caliber for big game" folks

[DagOtto]

I think if you read post 151, it will answer your question about larger bullets and their wounding potential.

Thanks for the reference.

However, I meant for this question to focus specifically on hydrostatic shock rather than permanent wound channel and I believe that post is focusing on PWC. (and massive ones at that!)

As a note, I've heard Form talk about temporary stretch cavity as a phenomena of bullet performance (a new term that I have not read others use,) but everything I've been able to listen to or read from him has focused solely on PWC in comparing different bullet and caliber terminal ballistic performance.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form et al,

One aspect of terminal ballistics that I am curious to get your take on is what I think some have called "hydrostatic shock" and maybe also related to the term that I see used here called "temporary stretch cavity," and also sometimes referred two as "temporary wound channel," and maybe to the mythical and derided term, "Knock Down Power."

I've read hydrostatic shock described as displacement of water within tissue caused by the transfer of energy from bullet to tissue. And I've also read that velocity has a major affect on the size of this temporary wounding mechanism.

I'm sure I'm butchering this, so please help me understand!

I'm confused as to 1) Are these terms really all the same and 2) Does larger of inflicted hydrostatic shock cause faster incapacitation (either permanent or "stunning.") If the answer to 2) is "yes" then a follow-up question: 3) Do bullets of larger caliber create a functionally larger affect.

I have the strong sense that the answers from the small caliber crew will be 1) Who cares because 2) This wounding mechanism doesn't have any affect on time to incapacitation and 3) heck no.

But I'm also sneakily suspicious that the "big calibers for big game" crew will say otherwise.

Has FBI or any other terminal ballistic researcher published any data about this wounding mechanism?

The reason I am curious about this is because while I'm pretty-much convinced that smaller caliber bullets create permanent wound channels that are functionally on par with larger calibers. But I'm also noting that it's common for animals who are double lung and/or heart shot to travel 50+ yards and sometimes much longer. So far this year I've witnessed or taken 6 heart/lung shots and 3 were DRT and 3 went 50, 25 and 25 yards +/-.

Faster and DRT always the goal!

Thanks!
DO

Have you read this thread?

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/why-match-target-bullets-for-hunting.203770/

 

[wyosam]

Beating on the horse a bit on monos... Most of us all agree velocity is key and notable more velocity than barnes states is needed for "full" expansion, along with shot placement that a narrow wound channel will rapidly kill. With that out of the way do you have any thoughts/observations on velocity vs internal damage. IE 2700fps vs 3100fps with the same bullet (both are well into the effect velocities), is the faster one tearing up more soft tissue internally in any discernable magnitude due to the forces radiating outward perhaps tearing more tissue or do things top out once the bullet is at full expansion?

I've shot quite a few things in the past with a 7mm 145lrx from 50-700yds which all fell and died relatively quickly if not bang flops but I cut nearly everything gutless and paid little attention to the internal damage, I'd break a rib or reach through the diaphragm to grab the heart if it wasn't hit. The damage on meat was all pretty similar and was only increased if bone fragments was involved. I can't readily say too much about the internals unfortunately to comment about the above question.

There is a guy in Australia (and a few others) that do testing for Hammer, and it varies a little bullet to bullet, but at least with petal shedding monos, velocity (and rpm) both significantly add to internal damage, both to permanent and temporary wound channel. They note several “steps”, from lower and minimum impacts, to normal fast to say 2800-3k, then a big jump in destruction as speeds go up from there. Varies by bullet some. I recall some necropsy photos from impacts in the 3500+ range that were far more damage than anyone hunting meat probably wants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

There is a guy in Australia (and a few others) that do testing for Hammer, and it varies a little bullet to bullet, but at least with petal shedding monos, velocity (and rpm) both significantly add to internal damage, both to permanent and temporary wound channel. They note several “steps”, from lower and minimum impacts, to normal fast to say 2800-3k, then a big jump in destruction as speeds go up from there. Varies by bullet some. I recall some necropsy photos from impacts in the 3500+ range that were far more damage than anyone hunting meat probably wants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I forgot about the RPM component but yeah I recall seeing that too.

 

[RockAndSage]

Have you read this thread?

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/why-match-target-bullets-for-hunting.203770/

For some reason, I missed that entire thread the entire couple of years I've been active on here. Don't know why/how. But just read it front to back, and it's absolutely excellent. I've seen small bits and pieces of the content in various other replies and posts you've made, but not all in one place like this. Frankly, I'm not sure there's much at all anyone asks you about small caliber/match bullets - including some questions from me - that wasn't answered in very deep, patient detail in that thread.

That thread's the Easy Button for questions on match bullets, and small caliber. Honestly, it should be basic reading for someone before they ask you questions on match bullets. The depth of detail and nuance between calibers and specific bullets, and all the reasoning and data behind it, was exquisite. Combined with the photos of the .223 success thread, anything else is just repeating what's in these two threads.

 

[DagOtto]

Have you read this thread?

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/why-match-target-bullets-for-hunting.203770/

i have not and will read carefully

thanks

 

[DagOtto]

For some reason, I missed that entire thread the entire couple of years I've been active on here. Don't know why/how. But just read it front to back, and it's absolutely excellent. I've seen small bits and pieces of the content in various other replies and posts you've made, but not all in one place like this. Frankly, I'm not sure there's much at all anyone asks you about small caliber/match bullets - including some questions from me - that wasn't answered in very deep, patient detail in that thread.

That thread's the Easy Button for questions on match bullets, and small caliber. Honestly, it should be basic reading for someone before they ask you questions on match bullets. The depth of detail and nuance between calibers and specific bullets, and all the reasoning and data behind it, was exquisite. Combined with the photos of the .223 success thread, anything else is just repeating what's in these two threads.

Holy Cow,
Agree.

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/why-match-target-bullets-for-hunting.203770/

Form, your posts in that thread are the best explanation of the issues I have seen and should be published as a book. Or at the least they should be pinned and included as a primer for anyone going through the painful process of questioning the last 100 years of bullet and caliber "best practices."

As for my previous questions about terminal ballistic performance these specific posts are invaluable:

Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

My belief has always been that wind would cause more misses than any other factor, but I don't have the experience to state that definitively. Just too many variables with the wind. Learning to read it, especially over mixed terrain, would take a crapton of experience. Wind is by far the...

rokslide.com

Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

My belief has always been that wind would cause more misses than any other factor, but I don't have the experience to state that definitively. Just too many variables with the wind. Learning to read it, especially over mixed terrain, would take a crapton of experience. Wind is by far the...

rokslide.com

I will dig into Fackler and Roberts to better understand. Curious as to why they even reference Temporary Cavity when it appears that it has no real affect on terminal ballistic performance. If it tears due to high velocity bullet impact doesn't it just become part of the Permanent Cavity anyway?

So, let us rule out hydrostatic shock or temporary cavity as a meaningful contributor towards fast and ethical killing!

 

[Formidilosus]

Holy Cow,
Agree.

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/why-match-target-bullets-for-hunting.203770/

Form, your posts in that thread are the best explanation of the issues I have seen and should be published as a book. Or at the least they should be pinned and included as a primer for anyone going through the painful process of questioning the last 100 years of bullet and caliber "best practices."

As for my previous questions about terminal ballistic performance these specific posts are invaluable:

Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

My belief has always been that wind would cause more misses than any other factor, but I don't have the experience to state that definitively. Just too many variables with the wind. Learning to read it, especially over mixed terrain, would take a crapton of experience. Wind is by far the...

rokslide.com

Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

My belief has always been that wind would cause more misses than any other factor, but I don't have the experience to state that definitively. Just too many variables with the wind. Learning to read it, especially over mixed terrain, would take a crapton of experience. Wind is by far the...

rokslide.com

I will dig into Fackler and Roberts to better understand. Curious as to why they even reference Temporary Cavity when it appears that it has no real affect on terminal ballistic performance. If it tears due to high velocity bullet impact doesn't it just become part of the Permanent Cavity anyway?

So, let us rule out hydrostatic shock or temporary cavity as a meaningful contributor towards fast and ethical killing!

The temporary cavity is one of the four main wounding mechanisms. Depending on bullet type and impact velocity, it can have little to no effect- or massive effects.

“Hydrostatic shock” has been disproven in medical studies in conjunction with terminal ballistics testing for the last 30+ years.

 

[wawa]

@Formidilosus I've listened to and read everything I can of yours, most of it multiple times - thank you. I understand your points and in agreement. Here's a couple questions from it all:

1. Copper monos out to 100yds - at their highest velocities, are they still very small wounds or does the max velocity 'guarantee' full expansion and a wound cavity that makes them desirable over a bonded or fragmenting bullet? Are the tiny wound channels you reference at longer ranges or does that include in the woods distances? I know you use them for meat hunts, especially in the open (not woods), and I know the concerns about blood trailing.

2. I chose a 243 for velocity, bullet size, and availability in Alaska after listening to the Exo small caliber podcast. Do you see a benefit or use case for bonded bullets over ELD-X? Many of the bondeds fragment and it seems the ones that dont fragment REALLY upset into very wide mushrooms. What's the thought process in selecting which kind of bullet to use? Or, if the rifles shoot the ELD-X well, just stick with that? Curious to hear your decision process thoughts on bondeds, as I heard you recommend SSTs, etc. I really do not see myself taking very many shots on animals beyond 300 yds, but would like the ability to do so, if needed.

Thanks!

 

[wawa]

@Formidilosus one more:
3. I remember you saying SSTs are essentially the same as another Hornady bullet. In the same thought process as question #2, which Hornady bullet do you recommend and why, or, what's the actual differences in the V-Max, ELD-X/M, and SST? I see the jacket thickness, space behind the tip for increased ability to upset, and the SST's crimp below the ogive, so the question is more like why/when pick each of these bullets - V-Max or SST instead of ELD-X/M if I have all three and they all shoot well? For example, the 75gr V-Max has the best velocity and trajectory at 500yds by far, AND Hornady actually says it 'upsets' to 1600fps, as we can assume by the bullet construction compared to the others.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

1. Copper monos out to 100yds - at their highest velocities, are they still very small wounds or does the max velocity 'guarantee' full expansion and a wound cavity that makes them desirable over a bonded or fragmenting bullet?

Desirable is subjective to the desires of the user which aren't black and white, your question is flawed. Petal peeling monos, for example, will ALWAYS have a narrowish wound channel, you just maximize it with velocity (edit to add, hitting bone creates more damage but that is the bone fragments enlarging the wound channel not the bullet itself). A narrow (but sufficent) wound channel being labeled "desirable" is not a one size fits all answer.

I have very successfully hunted monos well past 100yds, that is silly short distance limitation out west, but I put that narrower "broadhead like" wound channel through the heart/arterial bundle area and I do not purposely shoot rear lungs.

A user has to decide where they rank things like pass throughs, meat damage, recoil of the cartridge vs distance shot (you can shoot a high BC match bullet further and remain effect than a mono, a mono NEEDS more velocity and tend to have lower BC so you'd have a bigger cartridge to be effective at the same distances), etc.