Wound Channel Volume Estimates from Hornady FBI Organic Gel Test

[streamerfish]

Can only go so far in 'ability to compare' terminal ballistics by studying 'result of work' instead the work itself.

Result of work view is too 'coarse' and works fine for fbi needs in a very short impact velocity window which is off the end of the barrel. We have to extrapolate that via imagination and or shooting things at distance to see if our imagination was correct, and even then we don't have decent metrics to aid in splitting c-hairs we wish to split. Inches of damage as seen through blood is pretty coarse. Even if we shoot gel at lower impact velocity we are still looking at all the rate of change and work transfer in the same coarse window that is only good for that impact velocity range.

Hunters are looking for a different solution, whether they see it this way or not. We are wanting ability to compare at a far more granular, finite and consistent scale(or units of measure via numbers what have you) at ranges 10-20x greater. We would need to move to studying the work itself.

The bullet being the variable, gel being the constant. The bullet doing the work by way of rate of change, which varies constantly between impact velocity ranges, this impacts depth, work transfer rates etc. We don't measure the bullet rate of change, the velocity change in gel, the work transfer in gel (in work unit) at all the nodes of impact we are most interested in. We have no 'terminal coefficients' for these bullets that correspond with each velocity node etc.

Until we start going down this path we don't gain any ground on what we know and feel by doing by trial and error on game as we always have so it's hard for us to split c-hairs and 'see' the performance in scale we wish to see of all the choices we already know to work well, but also then be able to use this ability to then develop and test to create better performers for our needs and desires.

We're here because we advanced inflight side of things where our dynamic ranges are so much larger than they were before as we can now land bullets on target in ALL the velocity impact windows than 'the old day's where this was a non-issue as everything landed in a much narrower band because we all shot the same stuff in the same short ranges. And inflight is where the bullet is constant and the air is the main variable but distance in air, tof etc. we have developed a lot of technology and instruments to measure and solve for all of that to get the bullets to land accurately to as far as we can keep them above grade.

But now we need a similar evolutionary step on the terminal side, as our focus has narrowed there and we like fast incapacitation vs two holes better than one eat to the hole as well as this way larger range of performance we are asking of these bullets...while maintaining adequate penetration over this much wider range we use now.

This just won't advance by studying 'result of work'...it's too coarse.

I think maybe I get what your trying to say.

I agree that it would be nice if we had a way to get better data on how bullets are going to react at different speeds. But, the variable's of the target we are hitting really makes that all but impossible, every impact is unique into an animal, and every animal is unique in its reaction. The best we can do is see trends over large data sets. And at this point most people that are paying attention know what the different bullets do most of the time.

The distances are irrelevant really. The velocity at impact is all that matters. And I would argue that for the most part, impact velocities haven't changed a whole lot. Maybe its trending a bit slower on average, but you still have people Shooting magnums at animals still hunting in timber with impact velocities around 3k+, the majority of people are having impact velocities somewhere in the 2800-2300 range (most people, most non hot magnums impacting 100 to 500 yards). And a subset pushing the lower end of the velocity train, but again they are still generally keeping it 2,000 and up (outside of a small subset of people).

Funnily enough, the vast majority of bullets are designed to function best between 2000 and 2800 or so fps at impact. Which covers the vast majority of hunters. (I know a lot of companies advertise 1800 min fps, but personally i think that's pushing it a bit for of the bullets.)

The longer range hunting is being pushed by external equipment advancements, and its the better B.C./shape that's really driving it. Not necessarily speed. Long, skinny, aerodynamic bullets drop slower.

Realistically, the only advancements in bullet terminal function that I am "hoping" for is the holy grail....A high BC/modern shaped Nosler Partition. Or some other bullet that would equate to the same thing terminally....

Plenty of bullets out there that have very high weight retention with minimal to moderate expansion and little true fragmentation.

Plenty of bullets out there that have moderate to little weight retention with very high fragmentation.

Only one bullet that really has roughly medium weight retention and medium fragmentation. With by design a basically 100% repeatability rate (it never pencils, it never "explodes", it always does exactly as it should) The only downsides being cost and low BC/not good for long range.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I think maybe I get what your trying to say.

I agree that it would be nice if we had a way to get better data on how bullets are going to react at different speeds. But, the variable's of the target we are hitting really makes that all but impossible, every impact is unique into an animal, and every animal is unique in its reaction. The best we can do is see trends over large data sets. And at this point most people that are paying attention know what the different bullets do most of the time.

The distances are irrelevant really. The velocity at impact is all that matters. And I would argue that for the most part, impact velocities haven't changed a whole lot. Maybe its trending a bit slower on average, but you still have people Shooting magnums at animals still hunting in timber with impact velocities around 3k+, the majority of people are having impact velocities somewhere in the 2800-2300 range (most people, most non hot magnums impacting 100 to 500 yards). And a subset pushing the lower end of the velocity train, but again they are still generally keeping it 2,000 and up (outside of a small subset of people).

Funnily enough, the vast majority of bullets are designed to function best between 2000 and 2800 or so fps at impact. Which covers the vast majority of hunters. (I know a lot of companies advertise 1800 min fps, but personally i think that's pushing it a bit for of the bullets.)

The longer range hunting is being pushed by external equipment advancements, and its the better B.C./shape that's really driving it. Not necessarily speed. Long, skinny, aerodynamic bullets drop slower.

Realistically, the only advancements in bullet terminal function that I am "hoping" for is the holy grail....A high BC/modern shaped Nosler Partition. Or some other bullet that would equate to the same thing terminally....

Plenty of bullets out there that have very high weight retention with minimal to moderate expansion and little true fragmentation.

Plenty of bullets out there that have moderate to little weight retention with very high fragmentation.

Only one bullet that really has roughly medium weight retention and medium fragmentation. With by design a basically 100% repeatability rate (it never pencils, it never "explodes", it always does exactly as it should) The only downsides being cost and low BC/not good for long range.

Partition I assume?

And agree with everything. Inflight we solved for the variables to progress that, and a lot of things get measured to do it. The result of work being impacting where we want. The work isn’t much to calculate as it takes a fraction of the potential the bullet is carrying to get down the tube and fight the air.

To take good performances we know and like and start tuning to try and improve that we will need a different more accurate way to compare. Solve for all the variables of a variable sd bullet, jacket thickness, ogive to diameter relationships, type of lead, type of tips and core around it. Using the constant of gel rather than animals which are anything but constant for this fine of scale required, and learn how to measure the work curves of each bullet in the gel not the result of work which is what you see in the images...it’s not accurate enough.

We developed a lot of sensors and instruments to measure air and also distances and also speed of bullets through air and I think we take for granted. But we haven’t developed anything to compare in instruments or measures for the gel side besides a tape measure and now we have some volume of wound cavity coming into things which is at least better in that you can at least see by a volume number the differences between options but it is still study of result of work rather than dyno curve of bullet (engine).

So by trial and error using these course measures of result of work we may develop new bullets. The crew here is grinding off tips and comparing and making theory and applying, with game manufacturer help, and then will be tested on animals for awhile to see if theory has merit. And it probably will. They are only ones even attempting to make the most reliable terminal options. We just figure out what they are by shooting animals and the internet and connectivity allows a pretty good collective and speed to this now so it is ramping up.

Seeing what we’re missing in comparative capabilities we aren’t looking at.

With work curves and as much fine data that could provide then theories could be applied to new bullets and tested and we’d start learning what changes to bullets make the differences we need to chase to get the end goal which is currently improve reliable and consistent high bc partition like performance...but just for a pretty small group of lr western big game hunters that seem most keen to chase this ability down.

We have so many great options so it’s not end of world if we don’t decide to go down this path but just one I saw as a way to advance the subject and I see it would benefit a lot more than the small alpha lr western hunters crowd. I see it could benefit all hunters of all game sizes period...and no doubt le and military could utilize the info as well. Africa, varmint, coyotes, all hunters have various goals and desires for the games they chase and all have figured out what the standards are by trial and error. I we had was work curve data we’d have baselines of the proven performers and see by more accurate info why other options can work but are marginal and why other options are just a bad idea period.

Would shoot a lot more gel and get well tuned before going to animals for verifications and have lot less surprises. Each hunter could choose more accurately the type of performance he wants for whatever type of hunting or culling etc he’s going to do.

Anyway don’t want to start another gong show, the miss I see has been met with a lot of resistance since I first brought it up elsewhere in 2020. I have never brought this up with intent as a troll subject for fun. And I don’t help as I tend to meet if not raise any level of resistance encountered. View will never change on it, just logic to me, not be taken personally. Study work instead of result of work.