Subsonic kill power ballistics

[Sam1911]

As I've read some people have problems with bullets bouncing off the hide.

Really? I'm going to have to call complete BS on that one.

 

[mortablunt]

Totally different wounding mechanism between an arrowhead traveling at 2-300FPS and a bullet a bullet traveling at 2-3000FPS.

Not really all that different. An arrow makes a big gash in your body. It also has some blunt trauma to it, weighting a good amount more and still going rather quickly. On an interesting note, arrows are highly effective against soft ballistic armor of any grade.

2) Also obviously the key is you want the bullet to enter the target, fragment inside and not leave out the other end.

You want big penetration and to go through the target while expanding and deforming on the way through. Exit wounds are always bigger than entry wounds, by the way. Fragmenting isn't so useful as you'd think, especially with the 55gr rounds that people love to recommend for HD. They have issues with getting enough penetration to hit anything vital. And a guy who is in a lot of pain, determined to kill you, and not taking any rapidly incapacitating damage is very scary.

3) let's say point blank range so we don't have to argue ballistic coefficient, and every caliber hitting the game at 1050 fps.

Short range maximizes damage and energy.

4) Finally since I'm interested in subsonic ammunition anyway and that eliminates one extra factor of kill power from the equation: velocity lets discuses that.

Velocity isn't quite so important as you think it is. What matters is mass when it combined with velocity about a certain level.
__________

Data on hydrostatic shock is inconclusive and the effect is unpredictable. It's not to be counted on as a crucial factor. The body is quite elastic, so hydrostatic shock is more like a sudden punch.
__________

There is something called the big hole theory, which states that the biggest hole compromising the most tissues and opening the most holes in the body is the deadliest.

 

[NG VI]

.300 Whisper or Blackout is generally not loaded with the same bullets for both sub and supersonic. It usually uses the lightest commonly found bullets for supersonic, which gives it an abominable BC, or the heaviest available for subsonics, giving it a high BC, even though it doesn't really have the legs to go all that far with it.

 

[moxie]

Well EOU, you still have a lot more to study. Although you pontificate like an expert, by your own admission you're a newbie. And it shows. In post #5 I gave you some places to start. I can see by your responses you've been surfing the net, so I'm surprised you haven't yet mentioned AAC, Adavanced Armament Corp. They are the daddys of the .300 AAC Blackout which has been mentioned, and suppressors for it and for your .300 WinMag. Just buy their stuff and you won't have to learn much of anything!
http://advanced-armament.com/
And by the way, it's muzzle BRAKE.

 

[moxie]

Sam,

Amen on #21 and #26. It's getting deep in here.

 

[Owen Sparks]

At subsonic velocity bullet diamiter and shape make the biggest difference.

 

[eou_edu]

Well EOU, you still have a lot more to study. Although you pontificate like an expert, by your own admission you're a newbie. And it shows. In post #5 I gave you some places to start. I can see by your responses you've been surfing the net, so I'm surprised you haven't yet mentioned AAC, Adavanced Armament Corp. They are the daddys of the .300 AAC Blackout which has been mentioned, and suppressors for it and for your .300 WinMag. Just buy their stuff and you won't have to learn much of anything!
http://advanced-armament.com/
And by the way, it's muzzle BRAKE.

Expert? I wouldn't put myself and expert in the same sentence. I didn't even know what ballistic coefficient meant until a few months ago. Actually I had to look up and see what pontificate meant (that's a ballistic term right?). BTW I'm sorry if I spoke: in a pompous or dogmatic manner. I just tend to throw out a theory that makes sense then try to figure out why I'm wrong. In the meantime try to sort out all the right and wrong things that I read on the good old internet. Such as the bullets bouncing off hides. Also I could just buy it and shoot it, but I tend to be a perfectionist about most things and if I buy something that later doesn't fit my needs because I didn't do enough research I won't be very happy with my decision. That's just me though. Thank you all for helping me in my quest for knowledge.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Even though the hydrostatic shock theory and several others like that seem neat, I don't think there's enough evidence to believe them.

Oh, it certainly exists, it's just not enough to be a reliable wounding mechanism at subsonic velocities. Bullets moving at 3,000 FPS produce a very large permanent crush cavity, much larger than the bullet itself. But this phenomenon doesn't begin to occur until you start pushing 2,000 FPS, and though there is temporary cavitation with lower velocity rounds, it typically does not lead to significant tissue damage except in the case of very inelastic tissue, like the liver. Most of our tissue is quite elastic, and the cavity will shrink back down after the pressure dissipates, often with little more than bruising from torn capillaries that were stretched beyond their limits.

There are a great many studies on this, and there actually are some people who present a convincing argument that low velocity rounds can produce hydrostatic wounds (Michael Courtney being the most notable at present). But then there are those of us more in the Fackler camp, who haven't seen sufficient evidence of cavitation with pistol bullets on larger animals.

All bullets do produce it, and if the elastic limits of tissue are exceeded, it tears. Shoot a bunny with a .45 ACP and you'll witness this. But people hit with the same bullet do not tear apart from one end to the other like a 25 ounce rabbit. In fact, handgun bullets are often quite ineffective, even with good hits. Similarly, despite the devastating wound channels produced in ballistic gel, real live human beings have taken high velocity rifle rounds with little effect, and certainly not 6" wide paths of tissue destruction as the gel would lead one to believe.

I do however think there might be something to smaller bullets having more penetrating abilities.

Not necessarily, and especially not on animals. A big, flat-nosed 500 gr. .458" bullet fired around 1,800 FPS will penetrate far more critter than a 180 gr. .308" bullet moving at 3,000 FPS. This is where momentum (and bullet construction) come into play. That's why dangerous game hunting is done with large bore rifles using heavy bullets, very often made from solid copper, bronze or brass

This might come into play when your shooting subsonic for thick skin hog hunting.Although I've never been hog hunting (but it is very future soon plans) A smaller bullet is going to produce more PSI and therefore more likely to penetrate the thick skin.

Hog's ain't bulletproof. The guys I go with often use .223 and .22-250. I personally am using a .350 Rem Mag, but that's because 1) I like to anchor them where they stand and 2) it's the only rifle I had that was scopeless and begging to accept my ATN Mk390 night vision scope.


In summary, there's wayyyyyyy too much involved with terminal ballistics for you to gain a good understanding in one message board thread. Heck, books upon books are written on the subject, with many contradicting each other on various points. As well, there are many a paradox with terminal ballistics, such as the fact the .223 is less likely to overpenetrate a structure than most handgun rounds, despite it's much higher velocity and energy and greater ability to perforate hard barriers.

Some of us have immersed ourselves in this stuff up to our eyeballs for years and years, and are still learning new things constantly.

Hang around here, get involved in the ballistics threads. And don't stop researching on your own!