Terminal performance test standards for big game bullets?

Well placed bullets kill animals fast, and effectively.

Use the rifle. bullet combination you can shot best with.

The selection is up to you.

In my humble experience, Rem 100 grain Coreloks in,243W kill Caribou, Brown Bears Muskoxen and Moose about as effectively as 7.62x54r Czeck 147 LPS, when placed correctly in the vitals of most any large animal

caribou said:

Well placed bullets kill animals fast, and effectively.

Use the rifle. bullet combination you can shot best with.

The selection is up to you.

In my humble experience, Rem 100 grain Coreloks in,243W kill Caribou, Brown Bears Muskoxen and Moose about as effectively as 7.62x54r Czeck 147 LPS, when placed correctly in the vitals of most any large animal

Click to expand...

So placement is all that matters and there's no difference between an FMJ and a light varmint bullet? No offense intended but superficial reports like the above are exactly what I'm talking about.

I suppose when talking about 100gr bullets killing a wide variety of stuff may well be true. However, this assumes that one for the most part has the perfect shot. You get big game and then you get big and dangerous game that may well require stopping at short notice and at very short range. I surmised that was the focus for this post.

I have yet to hear this type of conversation with big game hunters. Large calibre rifles are the order of the day and guides will opt for doubles. In the Kruger Park the minimum calibre for a trails ranger is a .458. No talk of a well placed this or that bullet in this or that calibre. You want a big hole with yards of penetration, literally.

CraigC said:

So placement is all that matters and there's no difference between an FMJ and a light varmint bullet? No offense intended but superficial reports like the above are exactly what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

No offense taken; I should not be so kurt sometimes....

Using light varmint bullets or FMJ's, is, as I said, up to you, the shooter.

Do you think that the game you are targeting needs a heavy bullet? Maybe.....Maybe not. Thats up to you. Maybe you do need a varmint bullet , but if its not well placed, its no good, terminally....
Wolves are thin skinned, Caribou , too, and Whitetail and Elk are not exactly armored....or are you carrying Polar Bear defense tonight....? 12 gauge 3 inch magnum slugs would be in order.

But what ever bullet you can effectivly shoot, and again the time, place and target are your choosing, choose an appropriate bullet and place it in the vitals. If you dont actually hit a vital area, "Termination" may take a long painful time for that animal, or perhaps even recover from.... Even with a great hit, anything less than a brain blowout takes time to die anyway.....no matter the "Terminal effects"

Maybe its a trick question, about "Terminal effects"....... "termination" requires a combination of factors to come together, the bullet simply hitting the animal isnt always terminal.....

I am not going to do a lot of legwork for anyone, but for the benefit of CraigC's challenge, and anyone else who can't use a youtube or other search engine here are some examples of meaningful bullet testing on animals. Yes, DRT designs and sells bullets and are peddling their wares in which I have no interest. There are a lot of folk posting results on live animals on youtube...

CraigC said:

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.

Click to expand...

I cannot improve on that so I'll just say "ditto" (especially on the Kinetic Energy part - a very misleading property). Regards the original post about gelatin do understand that 10% ordnance gelatin represents porcine muscle as to penetration comparison - neither critters nor people are made up of strictly muscle and there are all sorts of hard or soft materials as well as liquid to pass through - been in law enforcement for many decades - the FBI protocol is only an idea of how to compare one bullet to another *in 10% gel and through the barriers they use* - it does not tell you what performance to expect in the case you are involved in - that is a lot more variable than a lab test.

Onward and upward

Jim

The FBI standard of 12" of penetration in 10% gelatin applies to their handgun cartridge.
The only standard for hunting bullets is how well a particular bullet sells. The only testing that ever gets done is by the manufacturer's engineers. Who are told what to do by the marketing department. Said marketing department will discontinue stuff that works really well, but doesn't met their projections. Winchester Silvertips, for instance. The semi-jacketed, al capped bullets, not the current hand gun HP bullet or their Ballistic Silvertip that's the same as a Nosler BT or a Hornady SST.
Buckshot is unethical for deer hunting because it's unreliable.

Walkalong said:

It's an age old argument (But of course some folks love to argue), which will never be concluded.

I tend to agree with caribou, any decent game bullet in the right spot on a game animal will be very effective. Of course we can all debate what a good game bullet is from here to eternity as well.

Any decent hunter with experience who is looking to kill game quickly/humanely knows what works for them and the game they hunt.

Click to expand...

There it is............ That sums it up so well for me that I have no idea or desire as to what else I could add. But then; this is one of the oldest ongoing discussion topics in the field of firearms / hunting.

Walkalong said:

It's an age old argument (But of course some folks love to argue), which will never be concluded.

Click to expand...

Maybe so but this discussion is actually asking the right question. It's fascinating the difference in the perception of terminal ballistics between the hunting community and the self defense community. Hunting is filled with actual hands on experience but its seriously devoid of standards and recorded data. Self defense is devoid of experience but at least there are standards based on theory and ballistic media testing. Neither side fully grasps terminal ballistics. Meeting in the middle would result in a greater understanding for all. Especially if we could stop clinging to old crap like foot-pounds of energy.

Walkalong said:

I tend to agree with caribou, any decent game bullet in the right spot on a game animal will be very effective. Of course we can all debate what a good game bullet is from here to eternity as well.

Click to expand...

IMHO, this is far too vague. What does "very effective" mean and how is it quantified? That's part of the issue we're addressing here, that "very effective" means very different things to different people.

Walkalong said:

Any decent hunter with experience who is looking to kill game quickly/humanely knows what works for them and the game they hunt.

Click to expand...

And what about those that don't already know? How many critters should be lost or wounded in the learning process?

Walkalong said:

You buy premium bullets, or buy ammo that has a track record of good results, and you do everything you can to make a good shot.

Click to expand...

+1

Bullet placement is everything. Select a quality bullet that shoots accurately in your rifle. If you're a new hunter talk with experienced hunters and study the anatomy of the game animal you're hunting. i've killed a few hundred white tail deer and a few hundred wild hogs.

For many years i tracked wounded deer and elk for other hunters: The vast majority of the animals i tracked and located were gut shot. One hunter stated the stinking gut shot 160-170 class buck i located was not his because his buck was "double lunged".

IMO: Bullet performance in ballistic gelatin means nothing when it comes to bullet performance in live animals.

My test media is wild hogs: Preferably big hogs. If dumping the hog under the feeder would cause problems, i can make the animal die 50-100 yards away.

Walkalong said:

You buy premium bullets, or buy ammo that has a track record of good results, and you do everything you can to make a good shot. Other that that, it's so subjective no one will ever win the argument. I'm not sure some folks want a successful conclusion.

Click to expand...

^^^This. Ammo companies also have guidelines for proper bullet selection for newbies and those that may be confused. Look at the side of the ox and many times there are pictures of what game the ammo is appropriate for . Winchester has a bullet selection guide on their web site showing what bullets in specific calibers are most appropriate and describe specifics. Ammo/bullet companies put their reputation on Hunter success. When a hunter is unsuccessful, it's generally not the bullets fault, and when it is, it's generally cause the wrong bullet was used. One only needs to do a small amount of research in order to find something that has proven to work. Core-Loks have been around so long for a reason.

alsaqr said:

Bullet placement is everything.

Click to expand...

No it isn't but that is the default argument for many folks who may have killed a lot of game but have very little actual understanding of terminal ballistics. In any discussion of terminal ballistics, proper shot placement is assumed. So to drone on about bullet placement is really to avoid the real topic at hand. Bullet selection is extremely important and cannot be overstated.

For example, there is a big difference between the various 165gr cup and core .30cal bullets and a Barnes or Nosler Partition. That becomes even more profound when you start looking at different bullet weights. The about the different applications for which a 180gr Barnes and a 150gr ballistic tip are appropriate. It becomes even more convoluted when we look at different calibers. There may not be much difference between shooting deer with a 100gr .243 and a 165gr .308 if you always wait for a perfect broadside shot but if that 165gr is a Barnes you don't have to wait for a perfect shot. Take a quartering shot with the wrong 100gr .243 and you could easily lose the animal. There should be a way quantify that difference.

alsaqr said:

IMO: Bullet performance in ballistic gelatin means nothing when it comes to bullet performance in live animals.

Click to expand...

How do you think they develop those bullets, shooting hogs?

We have to make some basic assumptions as Craig has remarked.

1. That we can shoot under stressful conditions. Watch a Lion hunt gone wrong and see just how many large calibre bullets they take before they finally succumb.
2. That its very possible we will not get the perfect shot. Being charged and you have to penetrate the wall of chest muscle. Buffalo and Lion are notoriously tough from the front.
3. That the calibre is not marginal and will have sufficient energy to penetrate deep, so enough whack with bullets that hold together.

Now I would happily hunt Buffalo with a .375 .... with a second rifle in attendance. Would do it alone if was required but life is about mitigating risk and not dancing with it. If alone I would like a nice big double rifle thank you very much and one with as much thump as possible.

The minute one is marginal and or is questioning calibre / bullet etc. then you are already on the wrong path. You have to plan on the worst case scenario and not the best case scenario.

So this side of the pond a .375 with premium 300gr bullets @ circa 2 500fps and 4 200ft./lbs would be the entry level for me.

Development of minimum criteria aside, I'd just love to see more gel testing of popular hunting bullets, say, at 150 yds and with a 1/4 piece of plywood or some such embedded to replicate a rib. With a common test bed across different bullets you could look at the performance of a BT vs a AB vs a Sirocco vs an ELDx, etc in different weights and calibers. Admittedly performance in gel wouldn't exactly equal performance in animals, but at least you could get an idea of comparative expansion, penetration and tissue destruction in a somewhat flesh-like medium.

There are droves of tests both in videos and write-ups available with this kind of info for pretty much all self defense rounds, but comparatively little is available for different hunting rounds. What test data there is for hunting rounds is usually from the manufacturer, or well meaning DIY-ers that may not have any uniformity and therefore may not be comperable from test to test.

"No it isn't but that is the default argument for many folks who may have killed a lot of game but have very little actual understanding of terminal ballistics."

You do not have a monopoly on the understanding of terminal ballistics. Besides a good friend of mine is a well known ballistician: We shoot together often.

"Bullet selection is extremely important and cannot be overstated."

Malarky. Over a 30 year period i used .30 caliber 150 grain Remington Core Lokt and plain old 150 grain Winchester Power Point bullets on about 125 deer. Never had a deer get away.

Most of my hogs are killed with muzzleloaders. 25-30 of those hogs have been killed using .50 caliber and .54 caliber patched round balls. Put in the right place; those patched round balls are as effective as saboted .430 and .452 240-250 grain bullets at 1,800-2,000 fps.

"There may not be much difference between shooting deer with a 100gr .243 and a 165gr .308 if you always wait for a perfect broadside shot but if that 165gr is a Barnes you don't have to wait for a perfect shot."

Yeah, and i wonder how many game animals have been lost because of this hype. Few years i hunted with a guy who gut shot a 250 pound sow with the 180 grain Barnes Triple Shock bullet. Sow ran into a small thicket where it was gut shot again with another Barnes 180 grain Triple Shock bullet. Sow ran off again and was finally killed. Saw the same hunter gut shoot a a big buck and another hog. The guy wonders why i no longer hunt with him.

i've used the .30 caliber 165 and 180 Triple Shock bullets on deer and hogs. Fired from .30-06 and .300 Win Mag guns, those bullets kill no better than 150 grain and 180 grain Remington Core Lokt bullets.

CraigC said:

No it isn't but that is the default argument for many folks who may have killed a lot of game but have very little actual understanding of terminal ballistics. In any discussion of terminal ballistics, proper shot placement is assumed. So to drone on about bullet placement is really to avoid the real topic at hand. Bullet selection is extremely important and cannot be overstated.

For example, there is a big difference between the various 165gr cup and core .30cal bullets and a Barnes or Nosler Partition. That becomes even more profound when you start looking at different bullet weights. The about the different applications for which a 180gr Barnes and a 150gr ballistic tip are appropriate. It becomes even more convoluted when we look at different calibers. There may not be much difference between shooting deer with a 100gr .243 and a 165gr .308 if you always wait for a perfect broadside shot but if that 165gr is a Barnes you don't have to wait for a perfect shot. Take a quartering shot with the wrong 100gr .243 and you could easily lose the animal. There should be a way quantify that difference.



How do you think they develop those bullets, shooting hogs?

Click to expand...

We can assume accurate shot placement within a practical parameter a given. But the choice of target shot placement is very relevent because it must be matched to the bullet/loading used. With a properly contructed bullet, you might be able to plug an elk, or moose with a .243 .. through the ribs. But not quartering where it might strike a leg, or rear quartering where it may not reach the vitals. Bullet type, construction, impact velocity range (distance) should be matched to (which?) shot placement. The bullet might be be capable of penetrating the vitals from any angle. I have read accounts by writers over the decades of using small to medium bores with long heavy bullets that had enough penetration to kill deer from the south end.

The way to qualify the difference is what others have used with high rates of predictable success. Gel tests are not going to be a useful standard.

CraigC said:

How do you think they develop those bullets, shooting hogs?

Click to expand...

I am sure they do. Manufacturers use things like gel to develope bullet designs, but ultimately they would test them on animals before committing their resources into mass production. There is too much money at stake to develope a bullet design, produce a pilot run in various calibers and weights tested in gel, and then mass produce hoping they will work on intended game categories.

Gelatin is intended to simulate muscle tissue, which is of a different consistency than bone, liver tissue, lung tissue, heart tissue, etc. It may be impossible to simulate.

Click to expand...

Gelatin simulates typical soft tissues. The different "consistencies" between various soft tissues result in negligible differences compared to terminal performance observed in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin. The primary force encountered by a bullet penetrating soft tissues is inertial force which far exceeds the small amount of sheer force encountered when penetrating soft tissues of various densities. The range of penetration is usually greater in live tissues but the average penetration depth is the same for both soft tissue and gelatin.

As for bone, all we want is for a bullet to blast through bone to reach and damage vital tissues, all of which are soft tissues. The FBI automotive windshield test provides a good indication of how a bullet will perform when it encounters heavy bone.

Most hollowpoint handgun bullets recovered from shootings resemble bullets recovered from gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth (per IWBA protocol).

Rifle bullet upset is the result of bulk deformation caused by high pressure impinging on the leading edge of the bullet as it penetrates. In soft tissues the pressure is the result of inertial force. In bone the pressure is the result of shear force.