Taylor's Knock Out Values? Packy

First off, shot placement is the most important, if shooting past 50 yards. Anybody could probably hit the boiler room at 50 yards but at 350 yards that changes the situation.

With that said, I would probably be shooting a 338 magnum if I could shoot it as good as my 270 but sadly, it is not going to happen.

To answer your question, first off, you take into consideration 2 things when dealing with "knockdown power" which I assume you mean, lethality.

What you are basically aiming for is the diameter of the hole produced vs. the penetration capability. The variables involved in these 2 things is velocity, expansion and weight retention. Weight retention is not the be all-end all if your bullet turns into a pancake when it enters the animal. I don't care how fast you drive that bullet, if it opens up too much it will either penetrate very little or simply explode and ruin your meat.

The goal is to have the bullet enter and exit completely through the animal, be it deer, elk, moose etc. This means the bullet must retain lots of its weight yet not open up too much to turn into a pancake and stop short of exit. An exit would simply gives you a much, much greater chance at a blood trail, very important IMO.

So there you have it. The best bullet will open up just enough to give you a decent surface area to catch vital tissue. It will also retain most or all of its weight to pass completely through therefore giving a bloodtrail.

What you don't want is either a soft bullet that will mushroom and pound a basketball size hole into your animal or explode inside of it, neither do you want a hard bullet that barely opens and merely punches a tiny holes on both sides of the animal.

To make a long story short, see here:

http://www.barnesbullets.com/

You probably wont like the sectional density article here either.

/

Interesting replies. All things considered, it seems the heavier weight bullet will outpenetrate the lighter one. So on bigger game, I'd prefer to use the heavier bullet. I don't buy into energy figures. Tissue destruction is what kills animals so the more penetration I can get, the more tissue destruction I achieve.

As a different example, years ago when I started handloading the Barnes X-bullet in 338 WM, I called Barnes and asked em what kind of performance difference I could expect when shooting the 225 vs 250 grain X-bullets. The gentleman whose names escapes me said the 250 grain bullet generates 100 ft lbs more energy and two inches more penetration. Because both my 338 WMs absolutely hate 250 grain bullets I've hunted exclusively with the 225 grain version...with great success.

On the issue of what some folks call the hydrostatic shock of the bullet, I personally think there is something to it at rifle velocities but not enough to make a substantive difference. I would not be comfortable shooting Elk with 130 grain bullets.

/

ALF, I agree, instead of typing "all things considered" I should have more precisely typed "with bullets constructed the same". As in my example of the 225 vs 250 X-bullet. Obviously, velocity plays a part in this equation too.

With all the ballistic work that has been done by military arsenals and commercial ammo manufacturers, you'd think there would be some standard of measure for bullet performance in terms of expansion and penetration through a uniform media. Granted, animals aren't uniform media but at least we'd have a specific idea how different bullets will perform at different velocities vs each other.

Sectional Density is a useless figure. It does not take into account the expansion properties of a bullet upon impact.

If your bullet turns into a pancake it stands a great chance to fail exiting. If it doesn't expand at all it will punch a pencil hole through both sides.

The goal is to get a bullet that will exit the animal. It will open up just enough to provide good surface area and retain its weight for inertia. Sectional density provides no information to these properties.

Any ballistics formular that uses FPE as a basis to rate Wound Trauma Incapacitation is doomed to failer.
Why you ask? Read the following for the answer

"The first law of Thermodynamics requires conservation of total enrgy in any collision, but this information is not useful in analysis of the collision because there is no direct way to determine what fraction of the kinetic energy is transformed into other forms of energy (usually most of this is heat or thermal energy)"

"Foot pounds is the Unit typicaly used in ballistics and many other dynamics problems. The British Thermal Unit (BTU) is often used for "heat energy"; one BTU equals approximately 778.1 foot pounds. Joule is the unit of energy in metric (or standard international) units' one joule is equal to one newton meter or one watt secound, and equals approximately 0.73756 foot pounds."

The above quotes are by Duncan MacPhearson and are technicaly and scientificaly correct....

Kinetic energy absorption (the process of the transformation of kinetic energy into thermal energy does not equate to tissue damage in many physical processess...

Newton's laws of motion describe forces and monemtum transfers not energy relationships.. The dynamic variable that is conserved in collisions is momentum; kinetic energy is not only not conserved in real colisions but is transformed into thermal energy....


If anyone can disprove these basic laws of science, then a Pultzer Prize in Science is a cinch

/

This thread is getting very interesting, yet very complex for the dumb (like myself) who is just looking for a decent bullet for a specific hunt. Case in point, looking at the new barnes offerings, they have the new Tipped TSX in 110gr. (.270 Win). I look at this and say "Wow what a great pill for deer and speed goats" This I state , when comparing to other similar caliber (25.06, 7mm08...) I have also talked with a barnes rep who said that it would be perfect for deer sized game.

This being said would anyone attempt a 110gr out of a .270 for mules? Or stay with the 130gr TSX? If the latter, what the hell did they create the 110gr for?

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Beutler:
This thread is getting very interesting, yet very complex for the dumb (like myself) who is just looking for a decent bullet for a specific hunt. Case in point, looking at the new barnes offerings, they have the new Tipped TSX in 110gr. (.270 Win). I look at this and say "Wow what a great pill for deer and speed goats" This I state , when comparing to other similar caliber (25.06, 7mm08...) I have also talked with a barnes rep who said that it would be perfect for deer sized game.

This being said would anyone attempt a 110gr out of a .270 for mules? Or stay with the 130gr TSX? If the latter, what the hell did they create the 110gr for?

I would shoot a Mulie with a 110 grain TTSX in a heart beat.. The mono metal expanding bullets like the TTSX and GS Custom bullets penetrate EXCEPTIONALY well for thier wieght when compaired to lead core bullets...

Alf

quote:

Do you think this article is in fact correct in it's conclusion that SD is somehow a bizzare joke ?

I do not have the knowledge to express an opinion. I just pointed to the article. However. The article leaves me with the impression that the author is poking fun at those who believe that sectional density is a good indication of how much or how little a bullet will penetrate. It is written so that I can understand what is being said. From what you have said so far I gain the impression that you differ from the point of view expressed in the article entirely. I do not understand what you said but that is my impression.

However. You quote corey and say

quote:

sectional density is a useless figure

?????????????????????????

Dependening from what position you view it
from !

I gather from this that you agree with the article in part and that under certain circumstances sectional density is a useless figure. You further say that it is not true that a heavy bullet will penetrate better than a light bullet. This is the point of the article as I read it.

You have thoroughly confused me regarding what your point of view is. I can say this much. My limited experience has shown me that sectional density of a bullet does not matter to me. I am using 130gr bullets now and previously used heavier bullets. I have more success with 130gr bullets than with heavy bullets. There apears to be a similarity between bullets and barrels and pistons and cylinders. Providing a piston is strong enough to do what it is supposed to do a light piston delivers power easier than a heavy piston. If you build two identical engines but use heavier pistons in one the dyno will tell you which one makes more power and is more efficient.

Could be a connection or maybe not. I cannot debate this with you because I do not know.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:
Sectional Density is a useless figure. It does not take into account the expansion properties of a bullet upon impact.

If your bullet turns into a pancake it stands a great chance to fail exiting. If it doesn't expand at all it will punch a pencil hole through both sides.

The goal is to get a bullet that will exit the animal. It will open up just enough to provide good surface area and retain its weight for inertia. Sectional density provides no information to these properties.

this is nothing against you ar corey, many of you want a bullet that exits and for deer sized animals im yet to see why

why should the bullet HAVE it exit for? 99% of the time i shoot a deer the bullet never exits, i have no need for tracking an animal for 300miles because im yet to have one go more than 50 meters.

unless your've track hundreds of animals from a blood trail its pretty useless seeing a few drops of blood where you took the shot at the animal, and lets face it if your've had to track the many animals why they hell are you still hunting?

and in any case, your've already made one hole in its side, any good hunting dog will be able to follow that.

I make no claim to have hunted buffalo or anything bigger than an elk, the experts probably say you should use a deep penetration bullet and they are most likely right, if i ever hunt them id use what is tried and true.
but for anything deer sized i dont think you really need a 'premium' bullet.


- stick to what you know and use

/

I put little faith in energy, its a man made phenominum that means zilch..

Knock down is nebulous to say the least...

I do believe that SD is a good barometer for penetration and that is an important part of the equasion for killing..Perhaps it is diluted by the monolithics, not sure however as a heavy monolithic should have more penetration than a short monolithic, so there ya go.

Taylors knock out values, are not very scientific I douny that they would hold water under heavy scrutiney, but guess what, they are pretty damn accurate and from a man who killed many animals and knew his business. After evaluation by so called experts they come up with about the same results as Taylor so go figure!

What kills is tissue distruction, penetration, blood loss and the stopping of the flow of blood to the brain, called a stroke.

This of course is an over simplification, so what, why make a big deal out of nothing unless you just don't have anything better to do, or perhaps I have discussed this subject too many times over the last century!

Alf,
We must be clear on one thing: All I have ever said is that SD is no indication of the probable terminal performance of a bullet. Any other impression that has been created is false. Certain other posters who like going to warrior over trivial and imaginary things, have ascribed opinions to me that never existed. I have never said that SD does not exist, or has no place in the big ballistics picture, only that it is not a reliable indication of how well or badly a bullet will penetrate or kill. You should not perpetuate the myth that I have said anything else. The last paragraphs of the second page of the article state:

"Based on the last table, a direct comparison of penetration and sectional density in the chart above, shows that any link between the two is imaginary, as are comparisons of penetration to speed or momentum or energy. Terminal performance is a highly complex subject and an interaction of a multitude of factors. The closest one could probably come to a single factor for gauging terminal performance, is Momentum/Cross Sectional Area (Mo/XSA) and then only if the numbers are tempered with bullet shape, bullet construction and the effect of speed induced stagnation pressure.

The bottom line is that, choosing between two bullets based purely on sectional density, is as foolish as choosing a bullet based on the colour of the packaging."

Do you disagree with this?

quote:

In fact it is a defining part of what that article is trying to market ie a bullet of certain construction which claims somehow a "new way" of looking at ballistics

If GSC has not opened "new" avenues, why is every man, woman, child and their dog, since 2000, trying to imitate with all manner of flat nosed bullets, grooves and bands, and claims of pressure reduction and increased speed? Specifically, what will give the deepest penetration: 1.) Equal weight, caliber and speed round nose or flat nose? 2.) 30-06 - both loaded to the same pressure levels - 180gr jacketed lead soft or 150gr HV?

Which will give the largest volume permanent cavity as well as the deepest penetration?

Have we not caused a shift in how shooters look at ballistics? How often did you see discussions concerned with the twist rate of hunting rifles, before we started becoming anal about the subject? Who pointed out that the transition of bullet from air to tissue determines to a large extent whether good or bad things happen after that? Who has consistently refused to pander to popular demand for traditional weight bullets and unwaveringly ties bullet length to twist rate? Who defended specific gyroscopic stability values for solids and thereby achieved a level of reliability of terminal performance that is without equal in the field?

Do you place the above into the category of marketing hype or a new way of looking at an old subject? Is it unsubstantiated thumbsucking or does GSC offer something that has not been offered before?

quote:

180gr jacketed lead soft or 150gr HV?

How is this for a choice? Jacketed lead soft versus copper monolithic? The one is frangible, whereas the other one is durable. Why limit the choice to compare against the worst? Quite skew if you ask me. Better comaprison woud be copper type bullet vs copper type bullet. HV vs TSX or any other brand that exhibits expansion charateristics and there is quite a few of them. Then at least we compare one genre of bullet more equitably in its class - not cotton balls vs tungsten.

But if it has to be jacketed lead vs copper ...
Then there is a multitude of premium Softs,
Let us take a 180gr Swift A-Frame (premium type Soft bullet) for example?
The choice is not quite so clear cut as you may think then?
There are other factors as well.
If velocity is such that petals get ripped off within the first inch or two, then we have just a solid again.
More extereme would be a comparison between a 200 gr Swift A-Frame and a 130 gr HV in the 30-06 Spr?
It become horses for courses, as the shooting distance and game will influence our decision.

Warrior

Spend your time getting the 130 gr. driving tacks and that load will last you many years, perfect for all deer and goats.

Corey

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Beutler:
This thread is getting very interesting, yet very complex for the dumb (like myself) who is just looking for a decent bullet for a specific hunt. Case in point, looking at the new barnes offerings, they have the new Tipped TSX in 110gr. (.270 Win). I look at this and say "Wow what a great pill for deer and speed goats" This I state , when comparing to other similar caliber (25.06, 7mm08...) I have also talked with a barnes rep who said that it would be perfect for deer sized game.

This being said would anyone attempt a 110gr out of a .270 for mules? Or stay with the 130gr TSX? If the latter, what the hell did they create the 110gr for?

G/

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,

As usual you miss the point so badly that one has to wonder whether it is intentional (the Agenda comes to mind) or whether you just do not know. Either way time is wasted to explain things so that the observer is not taken in by your duplicity.

quote:

How is this for a choice? Jacketed lead soft versus copper monolithic? The one is frangible, whereas the other one is durable.

The discussion is about SD not differing construction types. You and Alf incorrectly state that I have said SD does not (should not) exist. In my article I make the point several times that SD is not a likely indicator of probable terminal performance, least of all ability to penetrate. As one clearly sees when comparing a 180gr lead core bullet with a 150gr mono. Your agenda makes you look stupid again.

quote:

Why limit the choice to compare against the worst? Quite skew if you ask me. Better comaprison woud be copper type bullet vs copper type bullet.

So, in your opinion lead core bullets are worse than monos. Thank you for the endorsement.

quote:

HV vs TSX or any other brand that exhibits expansion charateristics and there is quite a few of them. Then at least we compare one genre of bullet more equitably in its class - not cotton balls vs tungsten.

This would be a comparison of construction types not a comparison of SD. You reinforce the missing of the point so well that congratulations are in order. Well done on an excellently missed point and a brilliantly executed futile start to an imaginary argument!

quote:

If velocity is such that petals get ripped off within the first inch or two, then we have just a solid again.

Another lie that you repeat ad nauseam. Which mono bullets lose the petals in the first inch or two? GSC? Here is a quote from an independent test and where to find the rest of the test.

"Recovered bullets by max diameter and description of remains:

1600 fps: .659" = 167%, expanded down two-thirds of hollowpoint, symetrically, with 3 petals partially folded back.

2500 fps: .768" = 194%, broke off 2 of 3 petals, petals found in third bucket with bullet, one petal still attached.

2725 fps: .554" = 140%, blew off nose and left a widened, nose-heavy penetrator, one loose petal found on ground beside bucket train."

There are precious few premium bullets that assure good expansion from 1600fps impacts and will retain better than 75% weight at impacts over 2700fps. Even fewer will, at such high impact speeds, have a pre meditated design after deformation that ensures continued reliability of performance.

quote:

More extereme would be a comparison between a 200 gr Swift A-Frame and a 130 gr HV in the 30-06 Spr?

The comparison has been done between a 200gr premium lead core and a 150gr GSC HV - in a 30-06 by someone whose opinion you often quote as beyond reproach. In his 30-06 centeniary article on the 30-06, Koos Barnard mentions penetration tests done with 200gr premium lead core bullets and 150gr GSC HV bullets. The 150gr HV went 5cm deeper than the 200gr lead cores and produced a larger volume single wound channel. Of course you would choose to use our 308Win bullet for a comparison in a 30-06 to suit the Agenda. I have news for you, the 130gr HV also outpenetrates the 200gr lead core and produces a larger volume wound channel.

Alf,

quote:

Why the defence

Because it is becoming tiresome when you and Chris continue to infer that I have said SD has no purpose anywhere.

quote:

All I asked was does RATMOTOR endorse what your article on SD claims, that SD is somehow a joke in terminal ballistics ?

This is not what you did. You dragged in all manner of other arguments that are far removed from the scope of the article.

quote:

When in fact SD in it's true form is likely the central determinant of penetration and the creation of a potentially lethal wound ! Yes it is because of SD that your FN bullet in it's function is superior to old style RN bullets.

This is nonsense. How can SD be a factor when two copper mono bullets of identical caliber, weight and speed will see the FN bullet penetrate deeper than the round nose? They have identical SD, momentum and energy numbers so how does SD figure in the increased penetration of the FN?

quote:

And by the way that is not new ballistics science, it is as old as the gyro itself yet those who have made bullets commercially in the past did not get it or simply do not understand how their products are supposed to work.

The inference is once again that I claim to have discovered a new science. Follow the New Rules link from our HV Bullets page and the first paragraph states:
"The New Rules
The HV concept is enough of a departure from the norm, that it requires an open mind to fully evaluate all of the aspects. There are several traditional theories that are seriously challenged by the new set of rules that has evolved as a result of HV."

I do not claim a re-invention of science but the fact that several traditional theories no longer hold water. Perhaps we do have, as you put it, a better understanding of how these products are supposed to work, and design accordingly. In the process there are changes in the rules such as that SD, which is important when dealing with the choice of lead core bullets, is no longer valid when choosing a copper mono. Another change in the rules is that closer attention must be given to twist and bullet length when using monos and so on.

quote:

The projectile has 3 determinants that create the wound. (and the next three paragraphs)

And SD would be a factor when choosing a lead core bullet. With expanding monos it is such a minor factor as can be ignored.

quote:

Your FN bullet is in fact an endorsement of dynamic SD in it's purest form !

How you arrive at that statement is beyond me. Coining new phrases such as "dynamic SD" is also confusing. It is "momentum" and that is easy to understand, but how it is brought into play with an FN I do not understand.

Gerard,

From your website, the last paragraph, supposedly your conclusion:

..... "However, some patterns do emerge that support a number of theories that hold water.

1. Animals fall down reliably if a vital organ is destroyed, regardless of sectional density of the bullet.

2. Animals fall down reliably if the bullet retains enough weight and has enough speed to penetrate to a vital organ regardless of sectional density. This is interesting, weight and speed are the factors that determine momentum and energy values.

3. The sectional density value seems to be of no importance at all, providing it did not disappear completely.

4. The post impact sectional density of a bullet is almost always less than the starting sectional density.

This leaves only one question unanswered. Who first came up with the theory of sectional density? Was it some ballistician with a macabre sense of humour? Did he put forward this theory as a joke and it got out of control? Sectional density seems to be the ballistic equivalent of an internet chain letter. No matter how illogical or outdated or disproved it is, it keeps on popping up. Almost like the concept of hydrostatic shock, but that is another story.


My answer:

1. True in some cases only. The catch phrase here is "fall down reliably". Small holes through the hart is less effective than large holes, especially if we go to tougher game like the African Buffalo. That is why controlled expansion bullets are preferred and most people are using it. Invariably they use higher SD bullets that expand to a larger diameter.

2. You mention "if the bullet retains enough weight". It thus helps to start off with a heavier bullet, and to pick one that retains a high percentage of its weight. That means picking a higher SD bullet, but with the condition that it retains sufficient weight and that brings in construction that we cannot ignore. It goes hand in hand.

3. True, but we need to mention immediately that the dynamic SD (post) as opposed to the pristine SD (pre) is bound to become less in deforming bullets that expand. That is very important as that is when the bullet performs that extra work in creating a bigger hole into the vitals. That is the design or built-in intelligence of a controlled expansion bullet ... that it must expand without losing its petals and keeping most of it weight. That is the magic of this design over a Solid. Solids are for extreme penetration where it is the foremost requirement. What we need to ensure is that there is enough momentum to drive the bullet sufficiently deep to effect a kill and that need to be brought in line with the bullet's expansion capability. (Mo/Xsa) . Over expansion will rob a bullet's penetration ability. It is thus very clear that SD and construction goes hand in hand like two cart horses.

4. True, and that is not a negative. In fact it is a positive, and that is part of the design aspect for a specific wounding effect on game. If this was not so there wound be no justification for expanding bullets that lose some of their pristine SD value in its dynamic state whilst inside the animal.

I have stated many times before that SD must be used intelligently and not stupidly, i.e. in conjunction with other factors to make up a holistic view. SD cannot be increased indefinitely as the twist rate will limit you at one point, the nose shape in Solids becomes especially import for deeper penetration where it is called for, the overturning moment of the bullet (lenght, shape & COG relationships), does the bullet expand evenly not to veer off, at which point does it lose its petals (early or near the end of its path) and its velocity dependant, does the bullet shatter or over-expand (construction characteristics).

SD alone is not indicative of penetration as a single statistic, especially if cross-caliber comparisons and different constructions are involved. It would be utterly foolish if such a position is advanced by anybody, but frankly I do not believe such a person exists. We know that Mo/Xsa is a better yardstick and even this ratio operates in a given velocity window and penetration will vary from target medium to target medium (wet paper, dry paper, derivatives of wood mediums, steel plates, flesh and bone). Thus it is not an absolute measure under all circumstances, but rather just as a guide or and indication when we attempt cross caliber comparisons, which cannot be done with the SD ratio on its own. It is helpful then with the Mo/Xsa ratio to see why some of the big bore bullets with so much more momentum penetrates the same or less than some smaller calibers with a better relationship of momentum to cross sectional area of the bullet and when it comes to differing expansion rates of the same SD bullet. (Example 500 gr Wdl Soft over expands in a 500 Jeffery vs say a Swift A-Frame)

However, SD is inextricably linked to bullet weight, which forms part of momentum and so it finds its way to Mo/Xsa and the same applies for its diameter that expands in the terminal ballistic phase. SD also plays its role in internal ballistics (combustion & pressure dynamics) and the external ballistics (in flight). That cannot be denied, and as such we have to conclude that SD is central to the total ballistic event. We just have to be clear on its role when we get specific as to penetration potential as a single entity.

Warrior

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,
You say:

quote:

SD alone is not indicative of penetration as a single statistic

Given that that is what I have been saying all these years, no more and no less, you therefore agree with me.

You then add to that:

quote:

especially if cross-caliber comparisons and different constructions are involved. It would be utterly foolish if such a position is advanced by anybody

Yet you have spent thousands of words apparently advancing a disagreeing position. Are you then the fool of your own making?

Gerard,

Perhaps you are just as foolish as me to not have understood what I have been saying all along over a 5 year period.

Personally I do not believe you are a fool though, just being difficult and paranoid.

Warrior

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,

quote:

Perhaps you are just as foolish as me to not have understood what I have been saying all along over a 5 year period.

It is difficult to take you seriously when you hold the following views:

1. The faster the powder the less complete the burn.
2. CIP maximum is absolute and cannot be exceeded.
3. CIP and SAAMI maximum specs differ because the measuring system is different.
4. If they are the same weight and caliber and constructed from the same material, a boattail bullet is shorter than a flatbase bullet.
5. If two balls are the same diameter but made from different materials, the heavier one will have the greater volume.
6. A drill will center itself automatically when drilling a rod in a CNC lathe. (I think the reason was because the rod spins and the drill is stationery, or some such nonsense.)
7. Various murky ideas about bullet length, twist rate and stability factors that prove you do not have a grip on the concept at all.

This is just what comes to mind from recent posts and older ones that were too hillarious to forget. There are many more, it is a long list.

A good example of how you operate is the "From your website" post above. You mention four points. About the first you partially agree but miss the point and wind up trolling down the wrong path. In the second, you seem to disagree, argue with yourself and then prove my point for me. On the third and fourth points you say that you agree. All this takes up 938 words and then you whine about not being understood.

I can't believe how many words have been printed in this thread regarding this issue.

I truly believe that for the most part it boils down to shot placement. It's all good.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard

quote:

If velocity is such that petals get ripped off within the first inch or two, then we have just a solid again.

Another lie that you repeat ad nauseam. Which mono bullets lose the petals in the first inch or two? GSC? Here is a quote from an independent test and where to find the rest of the test.

"Recovered bullets by max diameter and description of remains:

1600 fps: .659" = 167%, expanded down two-thirds of hollowpoint, symetrically, with 3 petals partially folded back.

2500 fps: .768" = 194%, broke off 2 of 3 petals, petals found in third bucket with bullet, one petal still attached.

2725 fps: .554" = 140%, blew off nose and left a widened, nose-heavy penetrator, one loose petal found on ground beside bucket train."

There are precious few premium bullets that assure good expansion from 1600fps impacts and will retain better than 75% weight at impacts over 2700fps. Even fewer will, at such high impact speeds, have a pre meditated design after deformation that ensures continued reliability of performance.

Gerard,
I still have these recovered bullets. I bet I could get some recoveries from game impact at about 2400 fps that would show 200% diameter and 95% weight retention, if only I had some more of your perfected design.

I cant even remember the question now! And I wrote it