About the dumbest bullet test I've seen.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did a test like that 20 years ago.
I looked up a long range ballistics table for the BC of bullet I was shooting, made reduced loads, shot them through a chronograph to match the expected V at the max distance. So we have the technology.
 
Well, he has a pretty good idea how they will perform if he shoots game at 10 yards.

It is extremely rare for a bullet to fail. Most of the time they perform just as they were designed. When you read someone talk about bullet failure it is usually because they asked the bullet to do a job it wasn't designed for.
 
Well, he has a pretty good idea how they will perform if he shoots game at 10 yards.

It is extremely rare for a bullet to fail. Most of the time they perform just as they were designed. When you read someone talk about bullet failure it is usually because they asked the bullet to do a job it wasn't designed for.
Yes "My job" and "its job" don't always align, but when the bullet does "its job" as designed, though improperly applied, it is definitely the bullet's fault the the results did not match expectations.
 
If you use a bullet that will not break apart at any velocity and the hole is big enough, bullet design parameters begin to matter very little.
 
If you use a bullet that will not break apart at any velocity and the hole is big enough, bullet design parameters begin to matter very little.
I've seen a 58 round ball go through a deer and lodge in the rear leg. The deer still ran over 100 yards. The next one was hit by a 40cal 200 gr sst and crumpled. I believe it depends more in the animal than the bullet.
 
I've seen a 58 round ball go through a deer and lodge in the rear leg. The deer still ran over 100 yards. The next one was hit by a 40cal 200 gr sst and crumpled. I believe it depends more in the animal than the bullet.

Im unsure if your agreeing or disagreeing, maybe both, but I see very little difference between say, a slowish (1100-2000) hard cast 44 bullet and a modern expanding High velocity 2-3000 fps) 25-30 cal bullet as it pertains to terminal effectiveness.

There are a plethora of differences and variables between the two types as well but the point I was trying to make is that let’s say I have a 444 Marlin with a hard cast 250-280 gr bullet going around 2000-2200 FPS. I could make a shot between 1 and 200 yds and not have to worry about the bullet being within a designed impact velocity. It just going to plow through with little expansion but the holes left behind will be pretty large. Maybe not large enough for a DRT but nonetheless large enough to make a relatively fast death for a critter.

Vs say a 308 with a jacketed soft point bullet that is designed for ideal expansion with less fragmentation between 1500-2200 FPS. Close range shots may be suspect with non bonded cup and core bullets that are typically used. Even monolithic copper bullets will shed petals at close range. A cup and core bullet may splatter and not penetrate much past the hide. A bonded or mono bullet will at least carry through to the oft side hide.

This why I use heavy for caliber bullets and/or a bigger gun. Marginal shots or unknown marginal factors that reduce a shots effectiveness can be made up for with heavier and larger diameter bullets.
 
Last edited:
Im unsure if your agreeing or disagreeing, maybe both, but I see very little difference between say, a slowish (1100-2000) hard cast 44 bullet and a modern expanding High velocity 2-3000 fps) 25-30 cal bullet as it pertains to terminal effectiveness.

There are a plethora of differences and variables between the two types as well but the point I was trying to make is that let’s say I have a 444 Marlin with a hard cast 250-280 gr bullet going around 2000-2200 FPS. I could make a shot between 1 and 200 yds and not have to worry about the bullet being within a designed impact velocity. It just going to plow through with little expansion but the holes left behind will be pretty large. Maybe not large enough for a DRT but nonetheless large enough to make a relatively fast death for a critter.

Vs say a 308 with a jacketed soft point bullet that is designed for ideal expansion with less fragmentation between 1500-2200 FPS. Close range shots may be suspect with non bonded cup and core bullets that are typically used. Even monolithic copper bullets will shed petals at close range. A cup and core bullet may splatter and not penetrate much past the hide. A bonded or mono bullet will at least carry through to the oft side hide.

This why I use heavy for caliber bullets and/or a bigger gun. Marginal shots or unknown marginal factors that reduce a shots effectiveness can be made up for with heavier and larger diameter bullets.
Just saying I agree to a point. A larger diameter is usually better. A good bullet is always better. But some animals don't care if they got hit by a howitzer.
 
It is extremely rare for a bullet to fail. Most of the time they perform just as they were designed. When you read someone talk about bullet failure it is usually because they asked the bullet to do a job it wasn't designed for.

^^^I gotta agree. Most of the time when I read on these types of forums about bullet failure, there is also a failure to retrieve the animal and in reality, no way to determine whether or not the bullet really failed. Just a handy excuse for some folks when they make a bad shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top