Terminal performance test standards for big game bullets?

[Gen_Y_Ballistics]

hdwhit:

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.

me:

gel standards for rifle bullets, especially for game animals, is impractical.

me:

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

So we are in agreement. My point is, THR, other forums, back issues of Successful Hunter and Guns and Ammo, etc, are already far better sources than gel. Gel or other artificial tests are bound to be abused and/or misinterpreted.

 

[Jason_W]

Read Boddington and others. No "Uncle Pete" lore there. Experience.

hdwhit:


me:


me:


So we are in agreement. My point is, THR, other forums, back issues of Successful Hunter and Guns and Ammo, etc, are already far better sources than gel. Gel or other artificial tests are bound to be abused and/or misinterpreted.

I'm actually more distrustful of field reports and accounts than empirical data. Humans have a tendency to mis-remember, embellish, over/under estimate conditions etc. even if not done consciously. To elaborate, In 2008 I caught a 20" salmon while ice fishing. It's quite likely that by 2035, that salmon will have increased size to 25".

There's also the confirmation bias constantly at work. We all have our favorite guns/cartridges and we want on some level to prove to the world that they are the be all and end all of all things ballistic. So, the tendency is there to remember successes and forget failures. The opposite is true for the cartridge/rifle combos we hate.

 

[.308 Norma]

Read Boddington and others. No "Uncle Pete" lore there. Experience.

Uh-huh. That's why Elmer Keith and Jack O'Conner agreed on everything big game hunting. Experience.

 

[Gen_Y_Ballistics]

Jason_W:

I'm actually more distrustful of field reports and accounts than empirical data.

Jason W:

Also, there would need to be a different set of standards for each CXP class of game.

Field reports on the scale we are talking about, are empirical. The last time I looked, a box of Winchester .30-'06 150s had a picture of a deer on it. A box of 180s had a big deer and an elk. Those recommendations are based on 100+ years of empirical evidence, filtered and refined by a reputable firm.
The same with letters to the editor, which go back 150+ years: "I want to hunt X. What caliber should I use?" And the editors, with a strong background in the subject, give a recommendation. Forums are less solid, but most of the advice is good and sound in spite of this.

Jason_W:

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

That "benchmark" has been several different measurements in the past 30 years, and is really not solid. There should be a ton of other variables, and most of them are tough to emulate in gel. A lot of broadside shots with .30-'06-150s and similar loads will get about that much penetration, but it's dangerous to "empiricize" that into gel because people will compare it to handgun gel tests. I don't know of many men who hunt deer with their carry guns.

Somebody, I think it was Hornady, has photos on their website of their bullets, and what expansion they got at what velocity. This is pretty close to what you are asking for. The hunter will need to know what velocity his load gives at a given range, and how much penetration he needs for a clean kill.

As to different sizes of game, the burden here really needs to be on the hunter to make sure he/she has sufficient background knowledge for big game. I don't think it's a good idea for factories to put out a lot of big game gel tests (aside from gel having nothing to do with boar and thick-boned dangerous game). Long range elk shooting and so on is something novices screw up on a regular basis, because they "know" so much off of the internet.

 

[Jason_W]

Jason_W:


Jason W:


Field reports on the scale we are talking about, are empirical. The last time I looked, a box of Winchester .30-'06 150s had a picture of a deer on it. A box of 180s had a big deer and an elk. Those recommendations are based on 100+ years of empirical evidence, filtered and refined by a reputable firm.
The same with letters to the editor, which go back 150+ years: "I want to hunt X. What caliber should I use?" And the editors, with a strong background in the subject, give a recommendation. Forums are less solid, but most of the advice is good and sound in spite of this.

.

I should be a little more specific. At this point, it's kinda pointless to explore the capabilities of the ubiquitous 30-06 and .308 class rounds. Few people would argue that these aren't enough for deer and Elk as long as the range limitations of both the hunter and the round are respected.

Where things get interesting is with the rise in popularity of the light and intermediate rounds. If you research, for instance, whether or not the .22 centerfires are now adequate for medium game given advances in projectile technology, you'll find a roughly even number of yea's and nays. If you start a thread on a gun forum asking such a question, it won't be long until all hell breaks loose. I imagine the only other forum topic to result in the eruption of more hemorrhoid clusters and the explosion of more forehead veins would be "Is birdshot good for home defense?".

There are good reasons for a hunter to want to use an intermediate round for deer hunting (or something like the .25-06 for elk) but there is no good study on whether or not this is a good idea. Only biased anecdotes on both sides.

 

[buck460XVR]

One would first have to set standards as to what constitutes "Big Game". In some states Turkeys, Javelina, pronghorn and wolf are considered "Big Game". On the "Dark Continent" most consider Leopard, lion, cape buffalo, rhino, elephant, crock and hippo as "Big Game". Big difference in penetration needed for Turkey or Speed-Goat as compared to Hippo or Cape Buffalo. Most bullets designed by reputable bullet manufacturers to hunt deer size game with, perform excellently when used within their design parameters. Failing to push them fast enough or pushing them faster than they are designed for will have dramatic effect on terminal performance, and much more so than shot placement. I always get a kick from those folks that post on hunting forums complaining about "bullet failure". More than once I heard the phase "I double-lunged him, blood trailed him for half a mile and then lost the trail. Only thing I can think of is that the bullet failed to perform!". How does one know if they "double-lunged" an animal if they never recovered the animal. How do they know the bullet failed if they never recovered the bullet? Much less, that any deer, double lunged with any legitimate deer caliber bullet, is going more'n half a mile.

 

[Jason_W]

As a North American, I tend to think of big game as hooved critters with deer and pronghorn on the small end of the scale. Bears are of course included, but I don't know why any state fish and game dept. Would consider turkey big game. Javelina? I don't know much about them, but I'd personally be reluctant to consider any animal smaller than a black lab big game.

 

[gspn]

It seems like it would be a colossal waste of time...but hey...at least it would give the internet forums one more thing to argue about.

 

[Jason_W]

It seems like it would be a colossal waste of time...but hey...at least it would give the internet forums one more thing to argue about.

I'd argue that acting on curiosity is seldom a waste of time. I mean, unless curiosity means, "what does draino taste like". But if that's the case such an individual isn't long for this Earth anyway.

I'd say that the very act of designing an empirical test would be a fun way to exercise the meat computer.

 

[gspn]

I'd argue that acting on curiosity is seldom a waste of time.

See? We don't even have it yet and people are arguing.

Designing such a test as you describe reminds me of the old joke about the economist yelling "I know it works in practice...but does it work in THEORY?!?!" The point being we have hundreds of years of actual evidence from real live tests to base our decisions on...a model can't give more meaningful results than reality. I suspect that if we'd shot a few hundred million people in this country with handguns the way we've done with animals, the FBI wouldn't need a penetration test...they'd just use the actual data.

I'd also say that the vast majority of calibers are very capable of doing the job, the hunter and his shot placement is the biggest weakness of the entire formula in hunting failures.
I have seen very few bullets perform poorly, but I've seen MANY hunters do so.

I have an acquaintance who was the head of the game and fish department for one of our western states. He killed an elk every year for well over 40 years, and he killed every single one of them with a .257 Roberts. I wonder what the model would say about that?

You know from the get-go there's no "one size fits all" answer to the question, so while it may "seldom" be a waste of time to act on curiosity, this particular instance looks to be exactly that. Obviously that's my opinion, and you are free to do with your time what you wish.

 

[CraigC]

My point is, THR, other forums, back issues of Successful Hunter and Guns and Ammo, etc, are already far better sources than gel. Gel or other artificial tests are bound to be abused and/or misinterpreted.

That's laughable. Anecdotal evidence is limited and heavily flawed, at best. Fact is, most people don't really care beyond whether or not the deer died and how quickly. Very, very few go to the trouble of examining wound channels or weighing recovered bullets. Very few expectations are the same so reporting will always vary. Some folks will look at the dead deer and say their bullet worked fine. Others will look at a bullet that came completely unglued within just a few inches of entry and see a complete and utter failure, regardless of how quickly the deer expired. Those are two very different perspectives of the same example.

The problem with gel tests is not the tests themselves but how they're interpreted. They are useful in comparing loads to each other with as few variables as possible. Not predicting exactly what a bullet will do on flesh.

The biggest issue is that people want something simple like their precious "foot pounds" and that has never been an accurate gauge.

 

[carpboy]

The link didn't work when I tried it.

It worked fine for me.I just checked it.I hope some of the participants of this thread took the time to check it out.

 

[hdwhit]

Jason_W wrote:
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?

Start with the local deer. Given that each year the United States harvests something on the order of 6 million deer*, it would seem that it would be fairly easy compile a huge database of relevant empirical evidence in short order.

In states where harvested deer must be checked in with a game warden, have the shooter fill out a short survey indicating gun type, caliber, bullet configuration and weight and distance from which fired as well as subjective information about whether the deer fell immediately or ran off and if it ran, how far. Have the game warden complete the rest of the form indicating entrance wound, exit wound (if any) and subjective description of the wound area(s). Assuming something on the order of a 50% participation rate, within three years there would be on the order of 10 million data points.

Then determine what a lethal wound is. Some wounds are obvious, others not so. For example, if a shot was aimed for the deer's vital organs and missed, but in missing shattered the deer's hip so that it could not run and the hunter ran over and finished it off, is such a random shot considered a lethal wound?

From this, construct a suitable "deer analogue" from gelatin, resin and fabric that will replicate lethal wounds seen in the empirical data. Publish details about how to build the deer analogue and evaluate damage to it. This will allow firearms makers, ammunition and bullet makers, and others involved in the shooting sports to test their products on a real world analogue of the prey.

Using information gathered from the project, expand into other common game species.

Not simple. Not cheap. Not fast. Not easy. But it would produce a workable, generally repeatable model whose results could be evaluated via peer review. But anything much less comprehensive and we're back to shooting bullets into tubes of gelatin and telling ourselves that the deeper they go, the better.

* Source: United States Fish & Wildlife Service: Deer Hunting in the United States: Demographics and Trends, 2006-10

 

[stoky]

Designing such a test as you describe reminds me of the old joke about the economist yelling "I know it works in practice...but does it work in THEORY?!?!"

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is."
--Yogi Berra

 

[strambo]

I think it would be relatively straight-forward to come up with big-game testing criteria similar to the FBI protocols and way easier to validate and refine them given all of the hunting data available.

Unlike self-defense shootings, a hunter is placing usually 1 shot and noting whether the animal drops or runs, if so how far etc. and there are no "psychological" stops, all physical. They then see the impact and wound channel. In a gunfight, a stop could be physical or psychological and the fatal shot could have been #1 or the last one or in the middle so we don't really know how they performed after being fatally hit (if they don't drop instantly).

Like the FBI test, I bet experts already know what percent ballistics gel would replicate game tissue (12%, 15%?) Then, determine minimum desired penetration for whatever game (let's say deer). Instead of 4 layers denim, you could do 2 layers deer skin. I wouldn't put a max on penetration since "over-penetration" isn't a concern hunting (and some desire an exit wound). I would add in a measurement of the length and width of the temp cavity since at rifle velocities this is all tissue damage.

 

[RPZ]

For me I tend to shun the idea of "standards" based on artificial media. Gel comes in many varieties, but regardless of which one, it only represents a homogenous media - no difference between bones of various sizes, muscle tissue, or aerated lung tissue. Gel affords a very basic comparison but is completely void of the bone factors.

Better is the testimony regarding actual shot animals with specific loads. And if possible, I would also steer towards self defense ammo (be it pistol, rifle or shotgun) tested on live animals for the same reasons.

 

[CraigC]

Gel affords a very basic comparison but is completely void of the bone factors.

That is precisely what makes it valuable for comparing loads, TO EACH OTHER.

Testimony is only relevant if it is thorough and objective.

 

[RPZ]

That is precisely what makes it valuable for comparing loads, TO EACH OTHER.

Testimony is only relevant if it is thorough and objective.

Yes, compares in a rough equivalent to soft tissue only. It eliminates the effect of impeding bones; a major consideration in shooting any game animal or dangerous animal.

Testimony is a matter of trust. I grew up reading Elmer Keith, Ross Seyfried, Bob Milek et al going back to people like Walter D. M. Bell. These days we have additional filmed testimony on media like Youtube where the load is stated, you see the shot(s), results can be seen as recorded. Better than jello for me.

 

[CraigC]

Yes, compares in a rough equivalent to soft tissue only. It eliminates the effect of impeding bones; a major consideration in shooting any game animal or dangerous animal.

Testimony is a matter of trust. I grew up reading Elmer Keith, Ross Seyfried, Bob Milek et al going back to people like Walter D. M. Bell. These days we have additional filmed testimony on media like Youtube where the load is stated, you see the shot(s), results can be seen as recorded. Better than jello for me.

No, you're still looking at it the wrong way. The results do not translate directly to tissue. They are FOR COMPARISON. The "effect of impeding bones" is irrelevant. "Jello", as you so condescendingly refer to it, is absolutely relevant unless improperly interpreted, as you have done. Using a medium that closely replicates tissue gives usable results, similar to what can be expected in tissue. Unlike trees, logs, boards, drywall, water jugs or whatever else. In other words, if Load A penetrates better than Load B in gel testing, it will in all probability do the same in live tissue.

Testimony from accepted authorities like those you mention is fine, even preferable. Problem right now is that those folks are dead or not writing very much and we have a lot of new bullet technology hanging in the balance. Testimony from anonymous internet folks is heavily flawed for all the reasons previously stated. I've never seen a YouTube video with a thorough postmortem.

 

[RPZ]

No, you're still looking at it the wrong way. The results do not translate directly to tissue. They are FOR COMPARISON. The "effect of impeding bones" is irrelevant. "Jello", as you so condescendingly refer to it, is absolutely relevant unless improperly interpreted, as you have done. Using a medium that closely replicates tissue gives usable results, similar to what can be expected in tissue. Unlike trees, logs, boards, drywall, water jugs or whatever else. In other words, if Load A penetrates better than Load B in gel testing, it will in all probability do the same in live tissue.

Testimony from accepted authorities like those you mention is fine, even preferable. Problem right now is that those folks are dead or not writing very much and we have a lot of new bullet technology hanging in the balance. Testimony from anonymous internet folks is heavily flawed for all the reasons previously stated. I've never seen a YouTube video with a thorough postmortem.

Animals - all game animals - have bones. What a bullet does in gel does not translate into real world. Unless the bullet misses any bone at all. This has been a fundamental issue in the development of game bullets for decades. A good example is the original Nosler Partition, and the Swift A Frame.

Gel is a nominal, and from a practical standpoint, inconclusive measure. Actual shots at specific game, with specific loads, exact entrance points - and if applicable including any bone, and exits, are a far more accurate measurement of performance.

I've seen plenty of YouTube's showing the impact, and the behaviour of the animal struck, through to it's demise. And post exam. That, tied to a specific load is more conclusive

Many of those authors are dead. But you can still read those articles - and books. Bullet "technology" has really not progressed that much. Some yes, but not much. Bonded bullets are nothing recent. Ease of production maybe, but nothing really new in that regard.

 

[Jason_W]

How about this: we take two commonly accepted "minimum requirement" rounds and fire them into the jello (or the synthetic reusable jello).

We see what the .30-30 150 grain soft point bullet does to a gel block at 100 yards, and what a 100 grain JSP from a .243 win does to a gel block at 200 yards.

The results of those two benchmarks are our baseline minimum in terms of penetration and maximum permanent cavity diameter.

We then fire various rounds into gel at various distances. The distance at which the round neither meets nor exceeds the above two benchmarks is the distance at which said round is no longer a deer capable round.

Yeah, it's still imperfect, but it's the best idea I have.

 

[CraigC]

Animals - all game animals - have bones. What a bullet does in gel does not translate into real world. Unless the bullet misses any bone at all. This has been a fundamental issue in the development of game bullets for decades. A good example is the original Nosler Partition, and the Swift A Frame.

You just don't get it and all I'm going to do again is repeat myself.

The whole reason for using gel, which is what is used to develop every bullet on the market, is to eliminate variables. Why? So your results are comparable, TO EACH OTHER. See a recurring theme here? Bone or simulated bone could easily be adapted to any test regimen but it is unnecessary. You don't need the test to involve bones. If you know anything about terminal ballistics, you can easily extrapolate what happens with bone. We know what bullets react well to bone and which bullets do not. The fact remains that bullets that outperform others in ballistic media, tend to do the same in tissue. Bullets that expand properly in ballistic media, tend to do the same in tissue. If you're expecting a load that penetrates 18" in gel to penetrate 18" in tissue and expanded bullets to look exactly the same between ballistic media and tissue, then your expectations are flawed and you do not understand the purpose of ballistic media testing.

I've seen plenty of YouTube's showing the impact, and the behaviour of the animal struck, through to it's demise. And post exam. That, tied to a specific load is more conclusive

The impact and the animal's behavior are extremely variable and therefore irrelevant. You can shoot 100 deer with the same load and get 20 different reactions. Like I said in my first post, you can have the deer drop in its tracks but experience a complete bullet failure. I'd love to see a link to a YouTube video where the wound channel was unearthed and examined.

Many of those authors are dead. But you can still read those articles - and books. Bullet "technology" has really not progressed that much. Some yes, but not much. Bonded bullets are nothing recent. Ease of production maybe, but nothing really new in that regard.

Nonsense. Bullet technology has changed a lot and so has the knowledge base.

 

[RPZ]

You just don't get it and all I'm going to do again is repeat myself.

The whole reason for using gel, which is what is used to develop every bullet on the market, is to eliminate variables. Why? So your results are comparable, TO EACH OTHER. See a recurring theme here? Bone or simulated bone could easily be adapted to any test regimen but it is unnecessary. You don't need the test to involve bones. If you know anything about terminal ballistics, you can easily extrapolate what happens with bone. We know what bullets react well to bone and which bullets do not. The fact remains that bullets that outperform others in ballistic media, tend to do the same in tissue. Bullets that expand properly in ballistic media, tend to do the same in tissue. If you're expecting a load that penetrates 18" in gel to penetrate 18" in tissue and expanded bullets to look exactly the same between ballistic media and tissue, then your expectations are flawed and you do not understand the purpose of ballistic media testing.



The impact and the animal's behavior are extremely variable and therefore irrelevant. You can shoot 100 deer with the same load and get 20 different reactions. Like I said in my first post, you can have the deer drop in its tracks but experience a complete bullet failure. I'd love to see a link to a YouTube video where the wound channel was unearthed and examined.



Nonsense. Bullet technology has changed a lot and so has the knowledge base.

Sure, animals struck can drop in place, or run 100 yards with the same bullet at the same velocity with the same path. But there are samples out there of good predictable results even when bones are struck. Which is a much better measure. Many YouTube's out there with entrance and exits.

Bullet "failure" is not going to be objectively predictable in gel, unless you are simply going to drive lightly constructed bullets at higher velocities to where they consistently come apart. And even if you have a consistent penetration and expansion at x velocity, it is not going to tell you what is going to happen if the bullet strikes a rib, foreleg or shoulder. Zip zero.

Bullet technology has progressed some, but not that much. The original Nosler Partition, Swift A Frames, etc brought reliable performance to the table a long time ago. About the only real leap has been with expanding monolithic solids, and the mass production of bonded lead cores. In the past the issue was that premium bullet factory ammunition was only available in certain chamberings and bullet weights.

 

[CraigC]

You clearly have very little understanding of ballistic test media. It is not gentler on bullets than live critters, bones or not.

I fully disagree with your assessment of currently available information. If there was much out there of use, we wouldn't be having this discussion, or many other arguments that litter the internet for that matter.

 

[RPZ]

You clearly have very little understanding of ballistic test media. It is not gentler on bullets than live critters, bones or not.

I fully disagree with your assessment of currently available information. If there was much out there of use, we wouldn't be having this discussion, or many other arguments that litter the internet for that matter.

Yes. We disagree.

And we also disagree on your last point; there is always room for discussion.