• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Amazing Results of a Shooting.

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
Very interesting discussion. It is well established that at certain velocities water acts as a solid due to his incompressibility. The first I heard about that concept was as a child when my father explained that to me that when I wanted to jump off something high into the water, a fact that was drilled into pilots in parachute school. That's what kills people who jump into the water off bridges high enough for them to reach near terminal velocity before hitting the water surface.

Look at water jugs or watermelons. At some cross section/velocity the bullet just goes straight through, at another the water jug or watermelon will explode. Small, pointed and boat-tailed rounds moving really fast really penetrate. Larger caliber pistol wad cutters tend to cause explosions (I loved finding over ripe melons and cucumbers in my grandparents garden). I would anticipate that somewhat similar effects occur in a mammal. However, skin does a really good job of keeping everything together which is I would guess is why we don't see abdomens exploding from certain rounds.

I'm sure that at the major ammo manufacturers they have engineers who have worked out all this stuff and there are probably ballistics formulas, I would guess based on fluid dynamics, that are used to calculate the balance between bullet weight, cross section, shape and velocity. Still, as with any commercial enterprise, that doesn't mean that a product that doesn't quite do what it is advertised to do in quite the way it is advertised to do it isn't marketed.

Interesting contention about the slow big bullets but not factual.

I use 405 grain lead bullets to hunt with and the pass right thru the target, .458" in and .458" out. Look at the following;



and this and tell me which is the bigger bullet and which is the slower bullet.

 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Firstly, what is the velocity of those rounds. Probably moving pretty good compared to pistol rounds. Secondly, I said "tend" and did not state an absolute which is why I said at "some cross section/velocity" so obviously, the rounds you are using are not at that particular cross section and velocity.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
Firstly, what is the velocity of those rounds. Probably moving pretty good compared to pistol rounds. Secondly, I said "tend" and did not state an absolute which is why I said at "some cross section/velocity" so obviously, the rounds you are using are not at that particular cross section and velocity.
You would be extremely wrong with that velocity supposition. The firstround was less than 1100fps and the second less than 1000fps at the muzzle.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

OK. What are we arguing about now?

We were talking about possible reasons why boosting the velocity beyond a certain point actually results in less penetration.

I just want to know so I can pickwhich sideto jump in and help argue. :D
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
OK. What are we arguing about now?

We were talking about possible reasons why boosting the velocity beyond a certain point actually results in less penetration.

I just want to know so I can pickwhich sideto jump in and help argue. :D
Well, both Garrett and Linebaugh did tests and proved it happens. Never heard a theory from a terminal ballistics expert, but I think most of them are of the old school, higher velocity penetrates deep. The pressure wave theory is the best one I've ever heard and it fits both what actually happens and seem logical too.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
Citizen wrote:
OK. What are we arguing about now?

We were talking about possible reasons why boosting the velocity beyond a certain point actually results in less penetration.

I just want to know so I can pickwhich sideto jump in and help argue. :D
Well, both Garrett and Linebaugh did tests and proved it happens. Never heard a theory from a terminal ballistics expert, but I think most of them are of the old school, higher velocity penetrates deep. The pressure wave theory is the best one I've ever heard and it fits both what actually happens and seem logical too.


That would beintuitive as long as your bullet always went all the way through your test medium and you never had a chance to notice that after a certain point faster got shallower.

I think the way this came to light was that the testing you quoted earlier in the thread always stopped the bullet in the medium for measuring. That's the only way you'd discover this, I think. Unless you were an engineer familiar with fluid dynamics.

I mean, really. Who besides elephant hunters test for SIX AND 1/2 FEET of penetration? Or even 4 1/2 feet? Thats 78 inches and 48 inches respectively. You'd otherwise have to be interested in hunting whales. And whales wearing ballistic vests at that! :)

Otherwise, you'd never find out.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

This is a quote from Randy Garrett's website, Q&A page.

"Does the 540-grain Hammerhead Ammo actually out-penetrate the 458 Winchester Magnum and 500 Nitro Express when using solids? Yes, as was demonstrated for all to see at a recent John Linebaugh seminar. The penetration results, which parallel ours, demonstrated that the 458 Winchester Magnum produces 47-inches of penetration in wet newspaper with 500-grain roundnose solids and that the 500 Nitro Express produces 48-inches of penetration in wet newspaper with 570-grain roundnose solids. By comparison, our 540-grainer with its super blunt front end produces an impressive 55-inches of penetration in the same material. Nearly 20% deeper penetration than the 458 or 500 Nitro Express with roundnose solids!"
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
This is a quote from Randy Garrett's website, Q&A page.

"Does the 540-grain Hammerhead Ammo actually out-penetrate the 458 Winchester Magnum and 500 Nitro Express when using solids? Yes, as was demonstrated for all to see at a recent John Linebaugh seminar. The penetration results, which parallel ours, demonstrated that the 458 Winchester Magnum produces 47-inches of penetration in wet newspaper with 500-grain roundnose solids and that the 500 Nitro Express produces 48-inches of penetration in wet newspaper with 570-grain roundnose solids. By comparison, our 540-grainer with its super blunt front end produces an impressive 55-inches of penetration in the same material. Nearly 20% deeper penetration than the 458 or 500 Nitro Express with roundnose solids!"

Good info!

I guess at some point it becomes academic. Am I wrong to say there aren't any game animals that need as much as 48" of penetration? Or 78"?
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

Well, all these rounds were designed for African dangerous game except for Garrett's. They were designed to stop North American dangerous game, like pissed off Brown Bears. But they seem to work fine on the African variety too and checking out Randy's website will show you plenty of picture proof.
 

showpro

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

All those "wound channels" in the ballistic gelatin photo at the top of the thread are rougly equivalent. You're really splitting hairs if you think the differences are significant. If you want to see a significant difference, compare any one of those gelatin impact pics with one from a rifle round. Do that, and you'll really understand that handgun rounds aren't all that different from each other.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

showpro wrote:
All those "wound channels" in the ballistic gelatin photo at the top of the thread are rougly equivalent. You're really splitting hairs if you think the differences are significant. If you want to see a significant difference, compare any one of those gelatin impact pics with one from a rifle round. Do that, and you'll really understand that handgun rounds aren't all that different from each other.
I don't believe you are correct. Slower rifle rounds act just like pistol bullets and bigger in diameter and heavier bullets cause more damage, everytime.
 
Top