Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[Formidilosus]

How would you explain this? What am I missing?

EmperorMA stated about bone hits, however how did you determine that there were popped blood vessels throughout the carcass?

 

[BjornF16]

EmperorMA stated about bone hits, however how did you determine that there were popped blood vessels throughout the carcass?

Examined the carcass once skinned.

Neck impacts had visibly popped vessels on surface (just under hide) even back on hind quarters but were absent on vitals shots.

 

[Formidilosus]

Examined the carcass once skinned.

Neck impacts had visibly popped vessels on surface (just under hide) even back on hind quarters but were absent on vitals shots.

I don’t know what to tell you. How many did this happen in?

This has been tested repeatedly in live animal shooting and autopsies with zero evidence in any of the studies that it exists.

Here’s some reading to start- Martin Fackler: What’s Wrong With Wound Ballistic Literature and Why

 

[BjornF16]

Yeah...I don't think it would happen with humans so much...too squishy and bony.

I saw it on all neck shots I've or my son have taken (all within 100 yds) using 6.5 Grendel.

I'll take pictures next time I run across it.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yeah...I don't think it would happen with humans so much...too squishy and bony.

I saw it on all neck shots I've or my son have taken (all within 100 yds) using 6.5 Grendel.

I'll take pictures next time I run across it.

Please do. In hundreds of neck shot animals, including that exact combination, I have never seen any evidence of things like that.

From a terminal ballistics and physiological perspective, there is very little difference in like weight deer and humans.

 

[Squincher]

I wonder how Dr. Fackler's conclusions might have differed if he conducted research for an employer that wasn't prohibited from using expanding bullets. You know, because they cause more severe wounds.

 

[Rich M]

I really like the Sierra bullets - Game King is the boat tail version and Pro Hunter is the flat tail version. Shooting the Pro Hunter out of a 243 and 3006, there is nothing more I want. Both guns shoot an inch at 250 yards and are amazing.

I have some Sierra game changers (TGK) and they shoot okay, but not as tight as the Pro Hunter in my 9.5 twist .243. They would work better in your 6 mm due to a higher twist rate. The numbers seem nice and the ballistics seem superior but I've not shot anything with em as of yet.

Nosler partitions are my premium hunting bullet when not using the Pro Hunters. It won't shoot as tight but is gonna expand and dig deep.

Be very careful about reading the horror stories about bullets. Many bullet brands out there I never heard of until recently - Berger is one of those, Barnes is another - some guys get what they call penciled shots where the bullet supposedly didn't expand.

Anyway, these guys had bad breaks and we can learn from those. Don't use those bullets.

Use a real bullet - designed for hunting with some history behind it. Your 6mm will probably shoot the Game King or Pro Hunter bullets exceptionally well with the higher twist rate, will do okay with the partition and probably do just fine with the accubond. 4 proven bullets that will expand and do their thing.

Hope you get it figured. Find a load & bullet that shoot exceptional and stick with it.

 

[hereinaz]

I wonder how Dr. Fackler's conclusions might have differed if he conducted research for an employer that wasn't prohibited from using expanding bullets. You know, because they cause more severe wounds.

Seems like he tested lots of bullets, including expanding ones from what I have read. He actually advocated for opening the tips more so they were more lethal, because he tested a wide variety. He was testing for surgical purposes, so his testing and reports seem to include more. Cause enemy forces don't always and won't comply with the "rule".

Also, the "rule" isn't really a rule as it is portrayed in myth and is evolving.

Open Tip Match: When a “Hollow Point” is Not a Hollow Point – Small Arms Defense Journal

www.sadefensejournal.com

 

[Squincher]

So what did he have to say about permanent wound cavities of expanding bullets vs non-expanding?

The rule against the U.S. military using expanding bullets is indeed a rule, as highlighted in the article you posted. The MatchKing wasn't approved until it was proven to be non-expanding despite the "hollwpoint" designation used by Sierra.

 

[Formidilosus]

So what did he have to say about permanent wound cavities of expanding bullets vs non-expanding?

The rule against the U.S. military using expanding bullets is indeed a rule, as highlighted in the article you posted. The MatchKing wasn't approved until it was proven to be non-expanding despite the "hollwpoint" designation used by Sierra.

Google and read. There’s nothing magical about expanding bullets. They crush more tissue, and tend to have better straight line penetration. However, all else being equal, an expanding bullet that doesn’t fragment, will have a narrower wound than a bullet that does fragment.

Your understanding of US mil projectile approval and The Hague guidance is incorrect. As a general thing, a bullet can expand- it just isn’t supposed to be designed to expand. But that is t always the case either. As for it being a “rule”. No, we generally follow The Hague, but the US was never a signer of it and can and has deviated.

 

[LimeSpoon]

I figure I'll use my first post to add to the plethora of useful data contained here, because it's frankly quite rare that you see such a worthy resource of sound terminal ballistics information on a firearms forum thread, outside of maybe something like a pistol-forum post started by Dr. Gary Roberts anyway.

In his time as a member of the IWBA I'm fairly certain Fackler had evaluated, reviewed, attended, or himself conducted tests on many different expanding bullets in many different wound ballistics workshops that were not under military jurisdiction.

As a generality - there will be exceptions just due to the nature of bullet design - rifle bullets that begin their deformation process via hydraulic expansion have a lower velocity threshold versus yaw dependent fraggers, along with a shorter neck and more consistent disruption. Accordingly, given similar terminal characteristics in other respects, an expanding design is usually preferable (e.g. 77 gr TMK vs Nosler CC).

That is however comparing an expanding heavyweight fragger to a yaw dependent heavyweight fragger. Start changing variables and you'll alter the wound profile:

As has been mentioned, effective fragmentation will greatly increase the damage caused by the temporary stretch cavity, all else equal. This has been common knowledge in terminal ballistics circles for some decades, but gets lost within all the drivel that gets tossed about in casual firearms discussion...some people dismiss it while others think that a 40gr varmint bullet that blows apart in 6" is ideal for antipersonnel use. More damage is of course good but it means little if you are not damaging the right structures.

Expansion, not counting the effects of any fragmentation it may cause, can be said to have 3 primary effects that enhance effectiveness:

1. Increases the size of the crush cavity. This is tissue that the bullet destroys by directly contacting and cutting/crushing. This is the primary effective method of wound formation in service caliber handgun rounds but plays a much smaller role in rifle effectiveness, at least until the bullet has slowed down (either by traveling far enough in tissue or just by impacting at a lower velocity to begin with) to the point where the role of the temporary cavity is diminished.

2. The increase in the frontal area of the bullet increases its drag resistance as it pushes aside more tissue. This enlarges the temporary cavity of the bullet.

3. Ruins the aerodynamic shape of the bullet. A mushroomed projectile has a much flatter face than a projectile in its original state, resulting in a much higher drag resistance coefficient; this in turn leads to an increase in temporary cavitation.

I'd also like to take a second to go over yaw, or tumbling as it's sometimes called...this wounding mechanism gets a lot of attention from certain sorts (*cough* 5.45 fanboys *cough*) and is oft referenced in firearms 'pop science' (i.e. bullshit) but is not nearly as impressive as it's made out to be. Contrary to the public imagination, tumbling does not entail a bullet bouncing 20 billion times inside the body like a pinball, the truth is much less dramatic.

Usually all that happens is the bullet flips end over end once or twice, or it flips on its side and then flips nose forward again. It is only exposing its maximum side profile for a very brief stretch of track. What you see is often a fairly impressive temporary cavity in gel, but in practice this tends not to be very efficient for damaging flexible tissues, probably because 1) the drag coefficient of a yawing bullet is not as high as that of an expanded one, 2) the area presented is a bit lower, 3) as mentioned, it is only presenting its maximal side profile and drag coefficient for a very short stretch of track.

What yaw is good for inducing fragmentation. As the bullet turns on its side, the stress emplaced upon it can cause it to break apart, provided the projectile is fragile enough and the forces are great enough. This is how many OTMs fragment.

(As a bit of an aside...it is known that, upon its initial introduction to service, the M193 FMJ bullet used in AR15s/M16s caused more damage at close range than legacy full power rifle rounds. This was initially attributed to the tumble myth by many, including I think even Eugene Stoner himself...I believe it was Fackler who was primarily responsible for dispelling that myth and attributing the damage to its true source, fragmentation. Previous spitzer-shape rifle rounds were also universally capable of yawing, but few consistently fragged to any substantial degree.)

Note that a yaw-dependent OTM can and usually does expand after it fragments via yawing, as the lead core is then exposed and starts mushrooming itself against tissue. However, we do not generally refer to it as an expanding bullet because the process is not initiated by hydraulic expansion. Compare that to a TMK where the polymer tip and any fluid/flesh that gets jammed into the hollowpoint cavity causes the bullet to start mushrooming from the inside out without the bullet ever having to turn or change its position in space besides traveling straight forward.

 

[Squincher]

Google and read. There’s nothing magical about expanding bullets. They crush more tissue, and tend to have better straight line penetration. However, all else being equal, an expanding bullet that doesn’t fragment, will have a narrower wound than a bullet that does fragment.

Your understanding of US mil projectile approval and The Hague guidance is incorrect. As a general thing, a bullet can expand- it just isn’t supposed to be designed to expand. But that is t always the case either. As for it being a “rule”. No, we generally follow The Hague, but the US was never a signer of it and can and has deviated.

I guess the U.S. Army lied to me for many years. Is the above what they told you in all of the International Humanitarian Law and Law of War training you attended? I also never once laid eyes on a bullet that wasn't an FMJ.

 

[Gorp2007]

I guess the U.S. Army lied to me for many years. Is the above what they told you in all of the International Humanitarian Law and Law of War training you attended? I also never once laid eyes on a bullet that wasn't an FMJ.

The military does that from time to time. A nuanced interpretation of how the United States decides to adhere to international guidelines gets boiled down to "no hollow points ever." Here's a pretty good rundown of the issue (https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod-law-war-manual-returns-hollow-point-bullets-armed-conflict/) with elements of particular interest below.

Section 6.5.4.4 of the DOD manual, “Expanding Bullets,” states that “[t]he law of war does not prohibit the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body.” Hollow point bullets “are only prohibited if they are calculated to cause superfluous injury.” The manual goes on to provide three reasons why expanding bullets are lawful for use in armed conflict:

(1) The 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets “only creates obligations for Parties to the Declaration in international armed conflicts in which all the parties to the conflict are also Parties to the Declaration” (the United States is not Party to the Declaration).

(2) The Defense Department determined in a 2013 review that the 1899 Declaration does not reflect customary international law.

(3) Expanding bullets as manufactured today are not “inherently inhumane or needlessly cruel.”

These rationales represent a significant shift in policy that Judge Advocates practicing international law need to understand.

 

[Squincher]

The military does that from time to time. A nuanced interpretation of how the United States decides to adhere to international guidelines gets boiled down to "no hollow points ever." Here's a pretty good rundown of the issue (https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod-law-war-manual-returns-hollow-point-bullets-armed-conflict/) with elements of particular interest below.

Did you ever use, see, or even hear of anyone using expanding bullets in the Army?

 

[Gorp2007]

Did you ever use, see, or even hear of anyone using expanding bullets in the Army?

Air Force, but yes I've worked with several people who, in previous assignments/missions, used non-standard ammunition and I have personally watched people loading hollow points into their handgun magazines with complete legal authority to do so.

 

[Spoonbill]

Did you ever use, see, or even hear of anyone using expanding bullets in the Army?

Black Hills makes the 77gr bullet OTM for the military.

MK 262 MOD 1-C, MIL PACK | Product categories | Black Hills Ammunition

www.black-hills.com

 

[LimeSpoon]

Black Hills makes the 77gr bullet OTM for the military.

MK 262 MOD 1-C, MIL PACK | Product categories | Black Hills Ammunition

www.black-hills.com

As noted previously, the 77 gr SMK bullet used in the Mk262 loading is not really an expanding bullet, at least not in the legal sense of the term. Accordingly, it is allowed for use by both signatories and non-signatories.

A better example might be the 9mm Winchester XM1153 JHP:

The "Browntip" 70 gr TSX is an older example, though since, to my knowledge, it was introduced before the DoD justification, it may have only been approved for use against irregulars.

 

[PNWGATOR]

LimeSpoon,
WELCOME to the forum and THANK YOU for your willingness to share your knowledge!

 

[Formidilosus]

Did you ever use, see, or even hear of anyone using expanding bullets in the Army?

M1153 and XM1196 are the last two and are public knowledge.

Edit: See above.

 

[LimeSpoon]

LimeSpoon,
WELCOME to the forum and THANK YOU for your willingness to share your knowledge!

Many thanks!

I assume that most of us are aware of the performance of 77 gr TMK already, but if I may add my own personal data points:







A couple of photos of my personal ballistic gelatin testing of the Black Hills loading, conducted a few years ago with a couple of friends. Top photo shows the track of a round out of a 24" barrel, middle is the path of a 16" shot with the round from 24" in the back, and the bottom gel block was shot twice with the 16".

Penetration measurements were initially recorded as 11.45" for the 24". Of the three 16" shots, the first passed entirely through the 12.5" gel block and bounced off another block a few inches behind. The other 2 were initially recorded as 12.1" and 12.9". Due to measurement errors and other factors however I think our numbers may have been a bit of an underestimate - the 24" shot in particular may have actually made it to the 12" mark.

Average expansion (max distance between petals + min diameter/2) was around 0.43" and retained weight ranged from about 30-35 gr, however we only recovered 3 whole bullets and we don't know which bullet was from which shot. Temporary cavities for the bullets fired from the 16" measured about 5" wide at the widest point and about 7.75" long. Neck length was not clearly measurable but was less than an inch in all cases.