Terminal performance test standards for big game bullets?

Deer? Yes, if you choose a broadside shot. Quartering toward or away, 12" would be a poor metric. It's a minimum standard after all.

Jason_W said:

Just as there are test performance standards for defensive rounds (the FBI standard of 12" of penetration in 10% gelatin) what would performance standards for medium/big game bullets be?

I'm thinking the standards might be more difficult to establish as what a bullet does to a gel block 10 feet from the muzzle isn't indicative of performance at typical hunting distances. Also, there would need to be a different set of standards for each CXP class of game.

Does the 12" penetration benchmark cut it for say, deer?

Click to expand...

That's the most extensive published testing I've seen thus far, obviously it's not completely comprehensive, but it's a good start/jumping off place.

There isn't any type of standardized test that I'm aware of. But it would be a good idea. There have been numerous attempts by hunters, gun writers, and ammo manufacturers to test different bullets and there have been multiple articles written in books, magazines and on the internet. But each was somewhat different. And insightful. When put to the test many bullets and cartridges don't live up to their reputation.

I've looked at quite a few of these and believe it would be a far better way of predicting which loads would be more effective in each situation. Most people want to look at energy numbers, and if comparing apples to apples energy numbers can be pretty accurate in determining which bullet and load is more effective. But when looking at 2 cartridges, with different bullet types energy numbers can be very misleading.
.
The 2 things you want is proper shot placement to hit vitals, and a bullet with enough penetration to hit the vitals. The more it expands, or the larger the caliber to start with then it is a plus, but not a requirement. If the caliber is so large that it limits penetration, then a smaller bullet is often more effective. Heavier bullets don't give better penetration, longer bullets do. Within the same caliber heavier is longer, but when comparing different calibers with similar bullet weights the smaller caliber is always better. For example, a 150 gr 270 bullet will always penetrate better than a 150 gr 30-06 bullet. In fact 150's from a 270 just about equal 180's from a 30-06.

A bullet that gives 12" of penetration would hit a deer's vitals from a broadside shot and maybe give complete penetration. But from an angling shot 12" may not be enough. On larger game you could need 3' of penetration to reach vitals on an angling shot. Some bullets that only penetrate 6" or so will often drop game the quickest, but will only work on perfect broadside shots.

The best advice I'd give is to look closely at different bullets and loads and understand what they are designed to do. They can all be effective, just don't ask a bullet to do a job it wasn't designed to do.

This is a very convoluted issue. Folks want something simple (like energy, which is useless) and the world of terminal ballistics is anything but simple. You also have wide variations in expectations. Some folks wait for the perfect broadside shot and are satisfied if the bullet reaches the vitals and completely disintegrates. Some want the bullet to maintain its integrity and exit at any angle. Others fall in-between.

Jason_W said:

It would be useful to at least have test data available in the highly unlikely event that a state wanted to rewrite it's legal cartridge laws based on science as opposed to generations of lore and myth.

Click to expand...

good luck w that on any legislation whatsoever

I'll wait for a broadside shot ±10°. It's taken me years to learn that some shots are best passed on and to do so without regret.
I don't want the bullet to fragment or tumble , nor exit. If it's smaller than .35, I want it to expand, as in mushroom but stay together.
I want it to have enough steam to make it through a shoulder.
IMO 6.5mm should be the minimum caliber for big game.

stoky said:

IMO 6.5mm should be the minimum caliber for big game.

Click to expand...

Oh my goodness! Is it time to pop the popcorn?

Jason_W said:

So maybe 20" of penetration in 10% gel should be the benchmark?

Click to expand...

Maybe, if all big game was "mature whitetails."

.308 Norma said:

Maybe, if all big game was "mature whitetails."

Click to expand...

Sorry Jason_W. I'm affected by foot-in-mouth disease. I went back and read your first post where you did ask about the "penetration benchmark" for just deer - not all big game.
So yeah, I'd guess 20" penetration in 10% gel would be a decent benchmark.

It's my considered opinion that gel standards for rifle bullets, especially for game animals, is impractical. The process should be:

1) Establish which loads kill deer best, including specific type of bullet, range and angle. This has largely been established, by years and years of hunters' observations.

2) Do gel tests of those loads, which will only be a rough approximation of real world performance. This should include high speed photography to show how the bullet "kills" the gel with cavitation. Still photos alone are misleading.

3) Verify that unknown loads are similar to the "good" gel samples. In the end all of this is still secondary to field reports.

To give an example of why gel is misleading for rifles, I once tested two calibers back to back. These were a .30-30 150gr load and a .270 130gr. The gel results looked identical. But with the .30-30, the block just sat there. With the .270, the block shot 3 feet into the air and bounced across the shop floor.

Obviously the .270 produces a lot more "shock," which causes quick kills on broadside shots, which is why so many hunters around here carry guns in 7mm Mag, .30-'06, and so on. A lot of those bullets are caught on the opposite hide.

But for quartering shots, I want something like a 170 gr .30-30, which has deep penetration with a long, narrow cavitation zone. Tons of hunters around here carry those too, and did for the past 100 years, for that reason.

The best data we have on this stuff is based on field reports. Artificial tests are exactly that.

You asked for field reports, here they are!
http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase.html
From Nathan Foster of New Zeland.Just about every bullet,in every load,in every big game caliber.Excellent reading.

Jason_W wrote:
Just as there are test performance standards for defensive rounds (the FBI standard of 12" of penetration in 10% gelatin)...

Click to expand...

The FBI tests are useful for comparing a particular bullet under controlled conditions. Such tests have nothing to do with how the bullet performs in game or a human target.

Gey_Y_Ballostics wrote:
The process should be:

1) Establish which loads kill deer best, including specific type of bullet, range and angle. This has largely been established, by years and years of hunters' observations.

2) Do gel tests of those loads, which will only be a rough approximation of real world performance. This should include high speed photography to show how the bullet "kills" the gel with cavitation. Still photos alone are misleading.

3) Verify that unknown loads are similar to the "good" gel samples. In the end all of this is still secondary to field reports.

Click to expand...

No.

The test protocol is inadequate.

Any test protocol of this type must control for the angle in incidence on the target and a post-Morten observation of which (if any) vital organs were impacted by the bullet; discarding those "results" that impacted the head or which impacted none of the vital organs.

"Establish which loads kill deer best," How do we go about that? Does the particular vital organ have any impact on the results? If I manage to sneak up on deer and shoot them through the head with a 9mm Luger pistol, does that mean it is the load that kills deer best? Of course not. But this just discloses how your criteria do not satisfy the scientific method.

3) Verify that unknown loads are similar to the "good" gel samples.

Click to expand...

Such "after the fact" verification excludes the loads that kill deer but bear no similarity to the "good" gel samples. If an entirely different mechanism of action (i.e. hydrostatic shock, tissue liquification, exanguination, etc.) were identified as the cause of death, this process would fail to identify it.

carpboy wrote:
You asked for field reports, here they are!
http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase.html
From Nathan Foster of New Zeland.Just about every bullet,in every load,in every big game caliber.Excellent reading.

Click to expand...

The link didn't work when I tried it.

I don't know if mechanically devised standards for game bullets would be useful or absolute. Too many variables in the real world. But I agree on some caliber/case capacity minimums for game ammo from an ethics stand point. Without getting into a debate, for instance, no one should hunt deer with a .17 Hornet, even if you can hit 'em in the eye!

My favorite cartridge is the .270 Win which I have hunted deer with for a lifetime & seen others do the same. Great killer up to 450yd, the furthest I have personal experience with. My only complaint is that it is devastating on deer under 200 yds. I like to eat my venison & not throw big bloody chunks away! It's the price you pay for the capability of easily making that rare loooong range shot with a bullet that still expands & assures recovery. I've tried the various high-performance (i.e. high co$t) bullets & now have gone back to my Speer/Sierra cup-n-core's. The dead deer have never filed a complaint, so why change!