Who else hunts the west with a black rifle?

[Rotnguns]

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.

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.

Yes, to the red text - pretty darn close. Ballistic gel does have value because it is uniform, consistent, and leads to repeatable results. They MAY have some relevance to a soft-tissue impact. Obviously, not bone. I will explore the thread you mentioned and try to locate the remarks about the 77 tmk.

 

[hereinaz]

Yes, to the red text - pretty darn close. Ballistic gel does have value because it is uniform, consistent, and leads to repeatable results. They MAY have some relevance to a soft-tissue impact. Obviously, not bone. I will explore the thread you mentioned and try to locate the remarks about the 77 tmk.

An AR 15 shooting the right bullets, is a killer for sure.

You will see in the thread that bone fragments often increase the total tissue damage because it becomes additional “shrapnel”. And, hitting a rib going in initiates faster fragmentation and therefore damaging more of the vital tissue, vs. slipping between them.

This is why many just shoot behind the shoulder, it kills faster and doesn’t bloodshot meat.

All this action in live animals isn’t predicted in ballistic gel testing, but is real.

Ballistic gel also doesn’t “turn to jelly” like lung tissue… which is actually not as resilient as gel.

The pictures in the thread will really tell the story to you. That’s the scoreboard after the game…

 

[hereinaz]

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.

And, the pictures show, to my mind, that hitting bone can have the effect of increasing tissue damage, and conversely almost never seems to decrease it, even “thick elk shoulders” or the actual big round ulnar bones.

I like how you compare scapula to cardboard…

 

[Formidilosus]

They MAY have some relevance to a soft-tissue impact. Obviously, not bone. I will explore the thread you mentioned and try to locate the remarks about the 77 tmk.

Again, incorrect. Properly conducted ballistic gel testing involves barriers, which very much do show relevance to bone.

In any case, scapula and ribs are not that ballistic barrier that people believe.

 

[robtattoo]

Which ones?

Bullet mass & hydrostatic shock.

 

[hereinaz]

Bullet mass & hydrostatic shock.

And, that ballistic gel cannot accurately reflect variability in actual animals.

I think we can forget how “cutting edge” this is to the general public, even though a big portion of Rokslide has been learning and aware for years now.

Sounds to me like more information will bring him up to speed.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

And, that ballistic gel cannot accurately reflect variability in actual animals.

I've made homemade ballistic gel since March of 2014 looking back at photos on my PC. Basic 10% FBI recipe copy but certainly would not pass any sort of "test" or meet any standardized "spec"...

Testing on this gel, along with other mediums placed in front of/behind/in between blocks/etc. our conclusion was enough for us to start confidently hunting with plastic tipped bullets marketed as "target" or "shock tipped" bullets at the time. These were bullets, that we were told, would simply explode on impact and not penetrate enough to kill.

The more testing we did with reduced hand loads, gaining us information on various impact speeds, the more we learned. Certain "target" bullets in .30, 6.5mm, and 6mm were out performing bullets that we were told to use on deer and elk our entire lives. So did this then translate to animals? We put this to the test in Fall of 2014 and the correlation was undeniable.

None of us have hunted with anything but "match" "target" or the now popular "tipped hunting bullets" since. 10 years and hundreds of animals later, I still use gel/medium tests to simulate bullet performance on animals. Particularly this year when moving down to .224 bullets for big game killing for the first time. The correlation has, again, proven to be reliable in killing so far, as the 80 ELDX has 3 one shot kills in the last month.

.Moose 2190ish impact velocity.
.Black Bear 2,900ish impact velocity.
.Mule Deer 2150ish impact velocity.

 

[hereinaz]

I've made homemade ballistic gel since March of 2014 looking back at photos on my PC. Basic 10% FBI recipe copy but certainly would not pass any sort of "test" or meet any standardized "spec"...

Testing on this gel, along with other mediums placed in front of/behind/in between blocks/etc. our conclusion was enough for us to start confidently hunting with plastic tipped bullets marketed as "target" or "shock tipped" bullets at the time. These were bullets, that we were told, would simply explode on impact and not penetrate enough to kill.

The more testing we did with reduced hand loads, gaining us information on various impact speeds, the more we learned. Certain "target" bullets in .30, 6.5mm, and 6mm were out performing bullets that we were told to use on deer and elk our entire lives. So did this then translate to animals? We put this to the test in Fall of 2014 and the correlation was undeniable.

None of us have hunted with anything but "match" "target" or the now popular "tipped hunting bullets" since. 10 years and hundreds of animals later, I still use gel/medium tests to simulate bullet performance on animals. Particularly this year when moving down to .224 bullets for big game killing for the first time. The correlation has, again, proven to be reliable in killing so far, as the 80 ELDX has 3 one shot kills in the last month.

.Moose 2190ish impact velocity.
.Black Bear 2,900ish impact velocity.
.Mule Deer 2150ish impact velocity.

That’s cool you went to the effort for your own satisfaction. You figured it out a long time ago.

I think the data and plenty of evidence is out there, once I started looking I found the scholarly papers that Form talks about. I found Form and others talking about it online.

But, the industry and fudd lore is so powerful…

Form has done so much in here and podcasts to spread the word. I just finished his podcast with Exo.

He has really polished the arguments and explanations. I am impressed with the many ways he can talk about it sensibly.

Others like you and PWNgator do as well.

I just was loading some 80gr ELDm for my 22 BR for final testing before a hunt.

 

[H82miss]

Both of my girls shot their first deer with an AR-15 in 6.8 SPC




\

 

[dreadi]

Both of my girls shot their first deer with an AR-15 in 6.8 SPC




View attachment 775820\View attachment 775825

6.8 SPC for the WIN!

 

[Dobermann]

Yes, to the red text - pretty darn close. Ballistic gel does have value because it is uniform, consistent, and leads to repeatable results. They MAY have some relevance to a soft-tissue impact. Obviously, not bone. I will explore the thread you mentioned and try to locate the remarks about the 77 tmk.

As you're working your way through the 223 thread (and the 6 cal thread), and Form's references, don't be put off if people are disagreeing with statements you're presenting here ...

Many of us arrived here with similar 'information' that we'd gleaned from various places, and then had to revise this in light of the evidence.

Welcome aboard!

 

[Tobe_B]

Does it count if it’s not actually black? I rarely use a bolt rifle anymore. I’m not a long range enthusiast, and I like the modularity of the AR platform.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnB]

Cool, another interesting thread that has devolved into the classic 223 discussion rather than it's initial focus.

If someone is "wrong" about ballistics it's ok to not correct them.