Who else hunts the west with a black rifle?

[Boltgun]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I am enjoying this thread. I would point out that gel models are not particularly good indicators of terminal ballistics in warm-blooded creatures and humans. In particular, the viscoelastic properties of ballistic gelatin poorly reflect the anisotropic nature of human or animal soft tissue. And of course, homogenous and isotropic material of any type cannot be used as a proxy for bone. Really, the best source of data, uncomfortable as it is to say, is empirical evidence from careful measurements of actual wound channels. But that's seriously compromised by unknown variables such as range, angle of impact, external clothing, etc.

If only someone were conducting these studies on living creatures and compiling the data, perhaps onto an online location, like a forum?


Enough anecdotal evidence becomes data, and some of the threads on here are beginning to have A LOT of evidence that includes wound channel width and depth, as well as range and impact velocity. Although clothing really hasn’t been addressed, not too many deer or elk wearing Carhartt’s!

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I am enjoying this thread. I would point out that gel models are not particularly good indicators of terminal ballistics in warm-blooded creatures and humans. In particular, the viscoelastic properties of ballistic gelatin poorly reflect the anisotropic nature of human or animal soft tissue. And of course, homogenous and isotropic material of any type cannot be used as a proxy for bone. Really, the best source of data, uncomfortable as it is to say, is empirical evidence from careful measurements of actual wound channels. But that's seriously compromised by unknown variables such as range, angle of impact, external clothing, etc.

What?

 

[dreadi]

The majority of deer I've brought home have been shot with this rifle.

 

[atmat]

What?

The correct usage in this scenario is “Wut?”

 

[Rotnguns]

Calibrated ballistics gelatin is intended and calibrated to provide representative results. Again, lots of work done by the fbi to figure this out and develop a repeatable testing material. They're very interested in being able to kill people.

Ballistic gel does provide consistent results, and the penetration channels are easily measured. But it has never been calibrated to give results similar to terminal ballistics on living mammals. Really, how could it possibly be representative? Terminal ballistics depends not only on the projectile, but on the properties of the target that it hits - bone, fat, soft tissue, or any combination. That doesn't include clothing - which some researchers have tried to simulate by draping various coverings on blocks of ballistic gel. And of course, the elasticity and strength of bone is orthotropic; it's impedance to a projectile is highly dependent upon direction.

 

[atmat]

But it has never been calibrated to give results similar to terminal ballistics on living mammals.

Um, wut?

It’s literally calibrated to pig tissue.

 

[Rotnguns]

What?

I did not explain my opinion well. What I'm saying is that while ballistic gel is uniform and consistent, it does not begin to represent the layers of bone, muscle, fat, and soft organs encountered by a projectile striking a mammal.

 

[Rotnguns]

Um, wut?

It’s literally calibrated to pig tissue.

How could you make a uniform block of ballistic gel calibrated to different layers of fat, muscle, bone, and soft organ tissue? Or any single material, for that matter? Not to mention, the physical properties of bone are not the same in all directions.

 

[hereinaz]

Ballistic gel does provide consistent results, and the penetration channels are easily measured. But it has never been calibrated to give results similar to terminal ballistics on living mammals. Really, how could it possibly be representative? Terminal ballistics depends not only on the projectile, but on the properties of the target that it hits - bone, fat, soft tissue, or any combination. That doesn't include clothing - which some researchers have tried to simulate by draping various coverings on blocks of ballistic gel. And of course, the elasticity and strength of bone is orthotropic; it's impedance to a projectile is highly dependent upon direction.

Ballistic gel is a calibrated test medium, and you are correct that it cannot exactly match the variabilities of shots on a living animal, from deer to moose.

This thread consists of undeniable evidence that bullet construction/velocity are the only two factors necessary that can be used to predict tissue damage. All the "energy" type arguments are irrelevant if they do not discuss bullet construction, because a jacketed hollow point .308 bullet has more energy than a .223 fragmenting bullet, but the .223 will destroy much more tissue.

.223 for bear, mountain goat, deer, elk, and moose.

DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ 176 PAGES? HERE'S THE CHEAT SHEET. “Bullets matter more than headstamps.” “Spent primers offer the supreme tutorial”. I’ve read it here and elsewhere online. It got my attention. I started digging and asking questions and listened. The 77gr TMK delivered by a .223...

rokslide.com

 

[hereinaz]

How could you make a uniform block of ballistic gel calibrated to different layers of fat, muscle, bone, and soft organ tissue? Or any single material, for that matter? Not to mention, the physical properties of bone are not the same in all directions.

The .223 thread, and many other threads in this forum are the subcontext for the discussion you stepped into, and the points that are being made above...

I doubt that in reality many people would argue that ballistic gel is not a perfect simulation, and ultimately the "proof is in the pudding" with the hundreds of pictures and thousands more reports of the use of small fragmenting match bullets.

I actually agree with you that ballistic gel cannot accurately demonstrate the damage, because I have seen shots with my 7mm 180 grain bullets that absolutely wrecked a deer at 700 yards and reliably killed elk inside 500. Independently, that caused me to drop in caliber and weight to a 25 cal 133 grain bullet, because I saw that I didn't need the giant magnums to kill deer/elk.

 

[Rotnguns]

Thanks for the comment and the link! Wow, 445 pages on the matter. I like that someone made a cheat sheet after about 170 pages or so. And I would add to your comment - bullet mass is important as well. Not only that, but stability during the collision is very important - there are numerous studies on various 5.56 NATO rounds fired from barrels with slow twist rates that yawed during impact, creating an oversized wound channel. Also, the relationship of velocity in terminal ballistics is nonlinear - at higher speeds, the energy imparted by the bullet is partitioned into heat, tissue damage, and a hydrostatic shock wave. All dependent upon physical properties of bone, muscle, organ tissue, etc. Very hard to model this - maybe impossible.

 

[Rotnguns]

The .223 thread, and many other threads in this forum are the subcontext for the discussion you stepped into, and the points that are being made above...

I doubt that in reality many people would argue that ballistic gel is not a perfect simulation, and ultimately the "proof is in the pudding" with the hundreds of pictures and thousands more reports of the use of small fragmenting match bullets.

I actually agree with you that ballistic gel cannot accurately demonstrate the damage, because I have seen shots with my 7mm 180 grain bullets that absolutely wrecked a deer at 700 yards and reliably killed elk inside 500. Independently, that caused me to drop in caliber and weight to a 25 cal 133 grain bullet, because I saw that I didn't need the giant magnums to kill deer/elk.

Yes, very frustrating and interesting as well. My humble opinion is that ballistic gel is a convenient and repeatable medium to compare terminal effects of bullets, but it is not a good representation of terminal ballistics in an actual animal or human.

 

[robtattoo]

I'm packing my little Nerf gun up to Wyoming next weekend.
Three-and-a-bit pounds of Elk whomping, .300 Ham'r glory!

 

[robtattoo]

Thanks for the comment and the link! Wow, 445 pages on the matter. I like that someone made a cheat sheet after about 170 pages or so. And I would add to your comment - bullet mass is important as well. Not only that, but stability during the collision is very important - there are numerous studies on various 5.56 NATO rounds fired from barrels with slow twist rates that yawed during impact, creating an oversized wound channel. Also, the relationship of velocity in terminal ballistics is nonlinear - at higher speeds, the energy imparted by the bullet is partitioned into heat, tissue damage, and a hydrostatic shock wave. All dependent upon physical properties of bone, muscle, organ tissue, etc. Very hard to model this - maybe impossible.

Now go read it.

There's at least 2 of your statements quoted that are thoroughly debunked.

 

[Weldor]

I'm packing my little Nerf gun up to Wyoming next weekend.
Three-and-a-bit pounds of Elk whomping, .300 Ham'r glory! View attachment 775253

I like my 300 Ham'r, shots lights out. Wilson is making the new Nula in it now. But pricey. What you shooting out of it? I took a cow a few years back at 130 yds 110gr BT. Pinned her in the ear, so no wound data. Good Hunting!

 

[hereinaz]

Yes, very frustrating and interesting as well. My humble opinion is that ballistic gel is a convenient and repeatable medium to compare terminal effects of bullets, but it is not a good representation of terminal ballistics in an actual animal or human.

I think I am now understanding at least one thing you are saying and a possible divergence in the reasoning in the two sides of the discussion.

Are you saying, you trust ballistic gel because it is a repeatable medium to see how a bullet deforms and acts in terminal performance, because there are too many variables in actual animals. So it is the only thing we can trust.

I agree with that if you compare 5 shots fired into ballistic gel balanced against 5 shots into animals. The gel allows for a conclusion from a smaller sample, than the anecdotal evidence.

Those who are disagreeing, including myself, will actually agrees with you, and reach another conclusion, based on the absolutely massive data set collected as evidence in the .223 thread. That thread solved the problem with the variability of shooting bullets into live animals with the many variables with a huge sample size.

Marketers will use a "focus group" which is a small representative sample of consumers (ballistic gel) to test a product. But, nothing is better than seeing aggregated sales to consumers.

In the end, the .223 thread has factually established what a 77 tmk will do. Whether that is the "best bullet" to use becomes a personal decision balancing factors like meat damage and personal preference.

Now go read it.

There's at least 2 of your statements quoted that are thoroughly debunked.

robtatto is more blunt with his comment, but I 100% concur. Your position is missing discussion of the .223 thread, and frankly, if you read that, you should be convinced by the evidence.

BACK to the thread topic,

I think I am now going to build a .223 "bolt action" upper. I have always thought they were cool since I saw the lightweight/lightweight thread.

 

[Formidilosus]

I did not explain my opinion well. What I'm saying is that while ballistic gel is uniform and consistent, it does not begin to represent the layers of bone, muscle, fat, and soft organs encountered by a projectile striking a mammal.

Yes, very frustrating and interesting as well. My humble opinion is that ballistic gel is a convenient and repeatable medium to compare terminal effects of bullets, but it is not a good representation of terminal ballistics in an actual animal or human.

This is factually incorrect and has been disproven ad nauseam. Properly calibrated 10% organic ballistics gelatin has been proven to correlate with expected outcome in tissue. What you are writing is engineer nonsense that is nonsense that is not educated in legitimate, medically validated terminal ballistics research.
Almost every modern hunting bullet made was tested and validated in FBI spec ballistics gel. Bare gel when combined with the barrier protocols does indeed correlate to tissue.


Google “dr Martin Fackler terminal ballistics” and “Dr Gary K. Roberts terminal ballistics” then read every paper. If that isn’t enough-


https://www.researchgate.net/public...I_Bullets_ballistics_and_mechanisms_of_injury



Here’s a few of the relevant papers that you can google.



Lindsey D: The idolatry of velocity, or lies, damn lies, and ballistics.

Swan KG, Swan RC, Levine MG, Rocko JM: The US M-16 rifle versus the Russian AK-47 rifle

Ordog GJ, Wassererger J, Balasubramanium S: Am Emer Med

GM, Sim FH: Missile wounds of the extremities: A current concepts review. Orthopedics


Barach E, Tomlanovich M, Nowak R: Ballistics: A pathophysiologic examination of the wounding mechanisms of firearms, Part I. J Trauma Part II. J Trauma

Newman D, Yardley M: New generation small arms ammunition


Lindsey D: The idolatry of velocity, or lies, damn lies, and ballistics. J Trauma


Swan KG: Misile injuries: Wound ballistics and principles of management. Milit Med

Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, Bowen RE: Bullet fragmentation: A major cause of tissue disruption. J Trauma

Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, Bowen RE: Wounding potential of the Russian AK-74 assault rifle. J Trauma 1984:24:263-256.
Lindsey D: The idolatry of velocity, or lies, damn lies, and ballistics. J Trauma


Fackler ML, Maiinowski JA: The wound profile: A visual method for quantifying gunshot wound components. J Trauma

Fackler ML, Bellamy RF, Malinowski JA: Wounding mechanism of projectiles striking at over 1.5 km/sec. J Trauma

Fackler ML: Ballistic injury. Am Emerg Med

Fackler ML: Wound ballistics, in Trunkey DD, Lewis FR (eds.): Current Therapy of Trauma - 2, Toronto, BC Decker Inc

Fackler ML: Physics of penetrating trauma, in McSwain NE Jr, Kerstein MD (eds.): Evaluation and Management of Trauma, Norwalk, Conn, Appleton, Century, Crofts Inc.,



Kocher T: Ueber die Sprengwirkung der Modernen Kleingewehr-geschosse. Correspondenz-Blatt fuer Schweitzer Aerzte


Kocher T: Neue Beitraege zur Kenntnis der Wirkungsweise der Modernen Klein-gewehr-geschosse. Correspondenz-Blatt fuer Schweitzer Aerzte


Kocher T: Ueber Schusswunden. Experimentalle Untersuchunaen ueber die Wirkungsweise der Modernen Klein-ewehr-eschosse. Leipzig, Verlag von FCW Vogel

Kocher T: Die Veresserung der Geschosse von Standpunkte der Humanitaet. 11th International Medical Congress, Rome. 29 March-5 April, 1894;

Kocher T: Zur Lehre von den Schusswunden durch Kleinkaliber-geschosse. Cassel, Th.G. Fisher & Co

Bruchey WJ Jr: mmunition for law enforcement: Part I, Methodology for evaluating relative stopping power and results. Ballistics Research Laboratory Technical Report TR-02199, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Bruchey WJ Jr, Frank DE: Police Handgun Ammunition Incapacitation effects, National Institute of Justice Rep 100-83. Washington, DC, US Govt Printing Office, 1984, Vol I: Evaluation.

Ragsdale BD: Gunshot wounds: A historical perspective. Milit Med

Harvey EN, Korr IM, Oster G, McMillen JH: Secondary damage in wounding due to pressure changes accompanying the passage of high velocity missiles. Surgery

Kahnosi RJ, Lingemen JE, Coury TA, Steele RA, Mosbaugh PG: Combined percutaneous and extracorporeal shoc wave lithotripsy for staghorn calculi: An alternative to anatrophic nephrolithotomy.

Kuwahara M, Kambe K, Kurosu S, Orikasa S, Takayama K: Extracorporeal stone disintegration using chemical shock waves. J

Gill W, Long WB III: Shock Trauma Manual. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1978

Rybec B: Missile wounding and hemodynamic effects of energy absorption. Acta Chir Scand

Owen-Smith MS: High Velocity Missile Wounds. London, Edward Arnold

Swan KG, Swan RC: Gunshot Wounds: Pathophysiology and Management. Littleton, Mass, PSG Publishing Co.

Owen T, Piecuch T, Domaniecki J, Badowski A: Mechanisms of development of shot wounds caused by missiles of different initial velocity

Litwin MS: Trauma: Management of the acutely injured patient, in Sabiston C Jr (ed): Davis- Christoher Textbook of Surgery, ed 12. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co

Whelan TJ Jr: Missile-caused wounds, in Emergency War Surgery--NATO Handbook, 1st US Revision. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office

Marcus MA, Blair WF, Shuck JM, Omer GE: Low-velocity gunshot wounds to extremities.

Morgan MM, Spencer AD, Hershey FB: Debridement of civilian gunshot wounds of soft tissue.

Harvey EN: Studies on wound ballistics, in Andrus CE, Bronk DW, Corden GA Jr, et al (eds): Advances in Military Medicine. Boston, Little, Brown

Dziemian AJ, Mendelson JA, Lindsey D: Comparison of the wounding characteristics of some commonly encountered bullets.

Mendelson JA, Glover JL: Sphere and shell fragment wounds of soft tissues: Experimental study.

Hopkinson DAW, Watts JC: Studies in experimental missile injuries of skeletal muscle.

Fackler ML, Breteau JPL, Courbil LJ, Taxit R, Glas J, Fievet JP: Open wound drainage versus wound excision on the modern battlefield. Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco, CA (in press)

Breadue JPL, Fackler ML, Taxit R, Courbil LJ: Trajet lesionnel ou nWound Profile" et vasomotricite cutanee. in Travaux Scientifiaues des Chercheurs du S S A durant l'Annee 1986. Direction Centrale de Service de Sante des Armees, Paris, Republique Francaise Ministre de la Defense, 1987.

Dimond FC Jr, Rich NM: M-16 rifle wounds in Vietnam.

Dudley HAF, Rnight RJ, McNeur JC, Rosengarten DS: Civilian battle casualties in South Vietnam.

LaGarde LA: Characteristic lesions caused by projectiles, in Gunshot Injuries. 2nd revised edition. New York, William Wood and Co

Borden WC: Military surgery. Proc Milit Surg

Amato JJ, Rich NM, Billy LJ, Gruber RP, Lawson NS: High-velocity arterial injury: A study of the mechanism of injury.

Belkin M: Wound ballistics. Prog Sur

Rich NM, Spencer F: Experimental arterial trauma, in Vascular Trauma. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co

Herget CM: Wound ballistics, in Bowers WB: Surgery of Trauma. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott Co

Pavletic MM: Gunshot wounds in veterinary medicine: Projectile ballistics -- Part II. Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian

Scott R: Proiectile Trauma an Enquiry into Bullet Wounds. Trauma Unit, Chem Defence Establishment, Porton Down, England

Bellamy RF: Department o Military Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Medical School, Bethesda, Md, personal communication

Hopkinson DAW, Marshall TK: Firearm injuries. Br

French RW, Callender GR: Ballistic characteristics of wounding agents, in Beyer JC (ed): Wound Ballistics. Washington, DC, Office of the Surgeon General, Dept of the Army

Amato JJ, Rich NM: Temporary cavity effects in blood vessel injury by high velocity missiles.

Wang ZG, Feng JX, Liu YQ: Pathomorphological observations of gunshot wounds.

Kokinakis W, Neades D, Piddington M, Roecker E: A gelatin energy methodology for estimating vulnerability of personnel to military rifle systems.

Janzon B, Seeman T: Muscle devitalization in high energy missile wounds, and its dependence on energy transfer.

Berlin R, Janzon B, Rybec B, Sandegard J, Seeman T: Local effects of assault rifle bullets in live tissues.

Wang ZG, Qian CW, Zhan DC, Shi TZ, Tang CG: Pathological changes of gunshot wounds at various intervals after wounding.

Ziervogel JF: A study of muscle damage caused by the 7.62 NATO rifle.

Ferguson LK, Brown RB, Nicholson JT, Stedman HE: Observations on the treatment of battle wounds aboard a hospital ship.

Ireland MW, Callender GR, Coupal JF: The Medical Department of the US Army in World War I. Washington, DC


Hardaway RM III: Vietnam wound analysis.

Janzon G: High energy missile trauma. Department of Surgery II, University of Goteborg


Fackler ML: Tissue simulants: Use and misuse.

Dugas R, D'Ambrosia R: Civilian gunshot wounds.



Albreht MA: Data presented at the 5th International Wound Ballistics Symposium, Goteborg, Sweden

Stolinski DC: Stopping power--a physician's report, in Bell EG

 

[robtattoo]

Thanks!
I'm 50/50 between 125gr Sierra TMK with the tip clipped off (just to fit the mag) and 125gr Nosler BT.

 

[Formidilosus]

I think I am now understanding at least one thing you are saying and a possible divergence in the reasoning in the two sides of the discussion.

Are you saying, you trust ballistic gel because it is a repeatable medium to see how a bullet deforms and acts in terminal performance, because there are too many variables in actual animals. So it is the only thing we can trust.

I agree with that if you compare 5 shots fired into ballistic gel balanced against 5 shots into animals. The gel allows for a conclusion from a smaller sample, than the anecdotal evidence.

Those who are disagreeing, including myself, will actually agrees with you, and reach another conclusion, based on the absolutely massive data set collected as evidence in the .223 thread. That thread solved the problem with the variability of shooting bullets into live animals with the many variables with a huge sample size.

Marketers will use a "focus group" which is a small representative sample of consumers (ballistic gel) to test a product. But, nothing is better than seeing aggregated sales to consumers.

In the end, the .223 thread has factually established what a 77 tmk will do. Whether that is the "best bullet" to use becomes a personal decision balancing factors like meat damage and personal preference.


robtatto is more blunt with his comment, but I 100% concur. Your position is missing discussion of the .223 thread, and frankly, if you read that, you should be convinced by the evidence.

So that is a perfect example- across a very large sample size of live tissue in that thread, the wound channels produced by the 77gr TMK show the depth of penetration, width, and overall shape created are nearly 1 for 1 with properly calibrated FBI spec protocols for ballistic gel.

 

[Rotnguns]

Now go read it.

There's at least 2 of your statements quoted that are thoroughly debunked.

Which ones?