A lot of people disagree with this fact, but often bullets of the same construction and sectional density will penetrate a lot further if they are slowed down! I realize it is counterintuitive, but what seems logical, or what "just stands to reason" OFTEN just ain't so in the real world. Not too long ago, a tester found that a .45/70 500-grain solid launched at 1550 FPS out-penetrated several British .45 and .50 caliber doubles firing similar bullets at velocities of 2200-2400 FPS. When these results were published, all the pundits announced "it just cain't be true"!! But the results spoke for themselves! (Don't confuse me with the facts! My mind is made up! )



(C= Pi x D, where C is circumference, Pi is 3.1417...., and D is diameter. To get the diameter, divide circumference by Pi. Very simple.....



For your 39" tree, the diameter is 12.413" or therebouts. So your 6.5 is going through close to 12.5" of wood and bark.



I have also noted that the German 8X57mm Sweresspitzgeschoss military load, fired from a german military barrel, penetrates better than the U.S. M2 ball load in tree trunks. I suspect that part of the reason for this may be that, in addition to having greater SD, the Kar98's have a faster twist, that tends to keep the bullet from diving off-course. The same is true of the 6.5X55.....

Quote:

---

This new 6.8 Rem round, based on the 30 Rem necked to 270 with a 115 grain bullet, for me, personally I would rather see the same case necked down to 6.5 and loaded with a Nosler Ballistic tip, or a Partition when the enemy might have body armour of some type.

---

I agree, Seafire, but surely you know we have to use non-expanding bullets in military ammo!

This is just a side note but I am posting it in case anyone finds it of interest.



In my testing of loads for Blue Dot with the 338 Mag, the 300 Win Mag, the 30/06 and the 6.5 x 55, I have used a tree as a back stop about 15 to 20 feet behind the chronograph since I am doing most of this out in Oregon woods, where I am in a mountainous area.



I have gone to the local range to do accuracy tests., but I have to drive thru town, which is a pain, as I am really getting use to avoiding traffic and stoplights.



I take the scope off of the rifle to chronograph unless I have a low power scope on it.



The several trees that have been used as a back stop were measured for their circumference with a tape measure after I noticed the abilities of the bullets to penetrate completely thru or not. This was not part of the tests, but something that I noticed afterwards.



These bullets were traveling at 2000 fps or more up to about 2400 or so fps. Bullets used were Speer 200 grain in the 338 bore, 150 and 165 Grain REM SPs in the 300 WinMag and the 30/06. In the 6.5 x 55, I used 120 grain Sierra Match kings, 129 Hornady SP, 140 gr Rem SP and Sierra 160 gr SMP,. The 6.5 x 55 was tested to velocity as low as 1500 fps and as high as 2500 fps with the 120 grainers.



Of all of the bullets tested, all of the 6.5 bullets actually penetrated completely thru the tree. In 30 caliber or even the 338 bore, noneof the bullets penetrated completely thru those trees. I noticed this as I was testing the 6.5 mm bullets.



So I went home and got a tape measure and came back and measured the circumference of the trees at the point that the bullets were shot at the tree.



I apologize not remembering the high school formula for diameter when the circumference is known. However, the circumference of the largest of the trees was the one that was used as the back stop for the 6.5. Even though the other ones for the other two calibers were close, the 6.5's tree was the largest with a circumference of 39 inches. These are all the same type of pine trees. The other two were 34 and 32 inches in circumference.



I am just sharing the results since this was an aftermath observation, but I thought it might be of interest. I am a 6.5 fan based on several reasons, to include its reputation for penetration, even at low velocity.



Minus range potential, I was impressed with what a low speed 6.5 can do. Not that I can walk out in the bush and try it on elephants in Oregon, or African Buffalo either, I thought the results were satisfying to a fan.



Instead of gloating over what the 6.5 bore did, I was instead disappointed with what the 30 caliber and the 338 caliber didn't do instead. However since we don't HUNT trees, or can you eat them ( or at least most don't) the results are inconclusive on game hunting. But I think they are an effective indicator.



Cheers and good shooting

seafire

Bullet companies can construct bullets to penetrate, blow up, do just about anything. Bullets of high sectional density, regardless of caliber, can penetrate astoundingly well if they're built tough enough to stay together. And tests such as your's can tell you just enough to be deceptive.

While it's true that you can even load 220 gr. solids in a .30-06, for example, and actually use that load to shoot completely throught the head of an elephant and kill him stone-dead (it's been done more than once), that doesn't mean that a 220 gr. solid fired from a .30-06 is as good an elephant load as a 500 gr. solid fired from a .458 Lott case.

A more down-home example would be some of the tougher .308 diameter bullets (180 gr. Barnes X, fired from an '06, for example) that can be built to penetrate just about as deeply as more conventional premium bullets of larger caliber and heavier weight such as the .338 diameter, 250 gr. Nosler Partition. Once again, there's just enough truth revealed to be deceiving. Even though that Barnes X might penetrate just as much as the heavier, bigger 250 gr. Nosler Partition, is STILL lacks the mass and material to hit stuff as hard and cause the same damage on large animals as the Partition, and it lacks the mass to perform as well against heavy bones, or work as well from bad angles, etc. And even though the front core might not stay together on the Partition, that material has to go SOMEWHERE, and indeed it does! Bullet weight still counts, as does frontal area.........

AD

I take the scope off of the rifle to chronograph unless I have a low power scope on it.

Why??

Divide the circumference by 3 and then take 5% of the answer and you will be close enough and even if you don't take off the 5% you will still be close

Mike

Seafire--intersting test-I'd say though as AD sugegsted that you may want to try some more testing.

I'd suggest trying hard bullets of the same brand in each cal and at speeds that a bullet would be traveling at say 100 yards and also at the speed a bullet would be running at say 400 yards. That's just the way my mind works, so that is the tests I'd try.

I'd also be curious to see/here what the off side holes looked like!

Keep us informed if you do anymore testing, or have you run out of tree tags??????grins

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dogz

AD--some time I should tell you about the bullet testing we did down in Sonora on the various big a$$ cactus. It was a rather fun way to spend a morn.

because it is just easier to just look over the top of the rifle and shoot thru the chrony's center. Most of my rifles have quick detach scope mounts anyway.

I own a lot of Rugers.

And that is easier, than divide the co efficient by the co sign etc.

Thought you Aussie guys were more simplier and straight forward than that Mike.

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire

If we hold bullet construction constant, penetration will be a function of sectional density times velocity (SDV). Even in a solid, this is a curve, as double the velocity does not double the penetration....one of those diminishing return things.

SDV is an excellent predictor of lethality, once one has around 2000 ft lbs of impact energy, assuming that bullet construction is appropriate to the task at hand.

Mark,

It was not really a test, it was the sort of a by product observation, but I thought some might find it interesting.

I am not going to dispute my fellow Oregonian Allen. I know what he has seen, and his opinions are born from experience, not what he reads in a book.

Allan has mentioned going hunting for dangerous game in Alaska and Africa I believe. Both being things that I will not do in my lifetime probably. Alaska I would love to, and Africa, I have no Interest in at All.

But a lot of polar bears have fallen to 6.5 x 55s in Scandanavia and Greenland with a 156 grain load. I also have a lot of faith in a 250 grain Round Nose in a 338/06 that I frequently carry out Elk hunting. But I also carry a 7 x 57 with a 175 grain Round Nose and 175 grain SP also. I use what my fancy suites me that particular morning, but both are in the old 4 Runner, ready to go. Shot placement still goes a long way.

And I hear, not personally verified, but that a lot of Elephant culling is done in Africa with 308s and 220 grain round noses.
The round is available anywhere and the bullets are the heaviest hitting, cheaply available bullet. So the combo makes sense and the range I am sure is not far. I have a lot of faith in that old 220 grain Round Noses ability to penetrate, and that is based on personal experience.

My first choice in bullet is a Round Nose, and with sectional density as high as it offers, I will carry it any day. IN fact, 220 grains is my choice for bigger game in the field, either in an '06 or a 300 Win Mag. I will take its slower speed over a 180 grain any day in either caliber. But that is just me.

Allan is an example of someone I can respect and carry a different conclusion to the same subject as he does. Whatever works, for either one of us, until we see something fail.

ON the tree tags, I have a "IN" at the Oregon Tree Dept of Fish and Wildlife.

Cheers and good shooting.
seafire

Speaking of hunting trees, I was suprised at how well a 147 gr ball load penetrated out of my .308 win, while the 165 and 180 gr rounds failed to do so. I also know that my 480 Ruger revolver with a 460 gr bullet will penetrate like there is no tommorrow. All that said, penetration is but one measure of a rounds terminal performance. The diameter of the wound is of equal or greater importance.

I shoot a 250 gr hornady rn @ 2700 fps out of my 350 Rigby, because it is much more accurate than any of the 225 and 250 spitzers I've tried. I really wish Hornady still made the 275 gr .358" round nose, as I'd like to try that @ 2500 fps out of the 350.

there seems to be an efficient-penetration formula at work here: well-constructed bullets of 300 or better sectional density moving at 2000-2500 fps. i know this from my own experience with the swede and whitetail. it's only book-learning on the other calibers. if you'll load up, all to the same moderate velocity, some 200s in that '06; 175s in that 7x57; 220s in an 8x57; 250s in a .338; and 300s in a .375 (you get my drift) - all with SDs of 300 or better - i'd betcha a coca-cola they all go through them there trees. of course, the swede will recoil much less than the rest while penetrating just as deeply - or more. that makes the ol' swede ever more special.

Fish,

right ON!

cheers and good shooting
seafire

Seafire
Your experience bears out the gist of a converssation I had on the range one day.
We were discussing military firearms in particular and some testing that could be done to determine evffectiveness of a new cartridge. I lamented that as a fan of the 6.5 bullet I was disappointed that the varmint hunters won out and we have a 223 military cartridge. (fine for the wound and tie up resources kind of enemy, but not good to shoot opposing forces when they know there is NO medical help and that they can take out one or more good guys before succumbing to a mortal wound).
It was explained to me that if one wants to penetrate through a truck, the long 6.5 is a performer, but wounds were even LESS effective than the 223. This is NON expanding bullet.

One of the top performers in the testing . . . a cartridge I had never . . . NEVER heard of something like 7.62X39.
Guess there was a reason for copying the 7.92 Kurz way back when!

TC:

I would not argue that the 6.5 with a FMJ would penetrate thru a truck.

From what I have seen a 100 grain 6.5 mm do to a deer, I can see why the Geneva convention outlawed such bullets. One thing that you had to admire the Russian Communists for was their lack of concern to what was politically correct, or what the liberals at the Geneva Convention or the United Nations thought.

This new 6.8 Rem round, based on the 30 Rem necked to 270 with a 115 grain bullet, for me, personally I would rather see the same case necked down to 6.5 and loaded with a Nosler Ballistic tip, or a Partition when the enemy might have body armour of some type.

I think the case was a good choice, and don't know why they did not choose it in the 1960s. From all of the wildcat varmint cartridges of the 1930s and 40s, the Donaldson Wasp, the 219 Zipper etc, they don't have much more powder capacity than a 223, nor are they much more larger in size.

The 223 was chosen for pure politics. Once the case is made available commerically I can see it necked to 6.5 and it will be one wicked, low kicking, highly effective hunting cartridge for deer/antelope/black bears, in a light recoiling , light weight rifle.

With bullet weights from 90 grains to 120 grains, in 6.5 I see it being a lot flatter shooting and providing a lot more, on target damage and performance than the 270 bore, 115 grain bullet.

But everyone is going to be so darn happy over having a round with more punch than the 223, that they are going to ignore the obvious and just continue to play politics when our troops have to carry this into harms way to defend themselves with.

I saw some troops on the news tonight carrying M16s with a RED dot site on them. That is a major improvement for a combat zone over open sites on an M 16 in my opinion.

Since wildcats were made on the 30, 25 and 32 Remington cases 70 yrs ago, what took the military so long to just see the obvious? Once again, politics! Politics has no place in the military defending our nation, or having to carry weapons into harms way.

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire./

Well a 200 gr. 338 compared to a 160 gr. 6.5 is not a fair test and the results are as I would expect, but a 300 gr. 338 would be a different story all things equal..

All things equal is the fallacy of your test..and I realize it was not a test but just a happening...

All that said I agree that a the higher the sectional density the more penitration one will get with bullets in the 2000 to 2400 FPs velocity, providing all bullet construction is the same...

But then we bring the monolithic H.P.s and solids into this equasion and everything we have learned over the years goes to hell in a handbasket

Ray,

Always appreciate your prospective on the subject. Thanks for giving it here.

cheers and good shooting
seafire

I don't know that my findings agree with yours. I use my Remington Classic in 6.5x55 for moose in Ontario with the Sierra 160gr. It does a good job tearing up the boiler room in fine fashion. I guess the Scandanavians have known this for years. A moose isn't any harder to kill than a deer, just bigger. I've had 2 friends lose moose in the late afternoon with .300Win. Mags. Judging by the blood trail both were lung shots, but the moose made it into the brush on both occasions and couldn't be tracked for very long before darkness. Neither were found the next day. I'm certain both died, and that's a terrible waste of a majestic beast, sad. I think sometime you can have a little too much power. A bullet that passes on through the animal without expanding is no bonanza for sure. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

I don't think there is such a thing as too much power. I do firmly believe that some folks use the wrong bullets for an application, and place there shots poorly.

I've never heard of the 300 win mag being a poor killer for moose, but I have heard of folks placing their shots less than ideally. There is something to be said for taking out the off side shoulder joint to keep Bulwinkle from making it to cover, or worse yet, water.

Diameter of Trees,

1.12.42"
2.10.82"
3.10.19"

You really think those trees are perfectly round to within 1/100"!?

I believe it.....Rojelio

CAl,
I suspect the failure was due to poor bullet choice with the 300s and not caliber..I am sure the 300s kill better than the 6.5s and you can take any shot presented with a 200 or 220 gr. bullet..

Apparantly your skill is such that you do not need more power and thats good as you are using a very soft bullet which tells my you place your shots very carefully indeed and off the shoulder bones, therefore it works for you.

It appears to me that you are using "light for calibre" bullets in the larger rifles while using a "heavy for calibre" bullet in the 6.5. This might make a difference. Shoot a 200gr bullet from your 300WM and see what happens. Or a 250 from the .338. Not that I have anything against the 6.5. I'm waiting for my .260 nee .243 to come back from the smiths.

Thanks Beeman; I did however also shoot 120 grain bullets and 129 grain bullets in the 6.5 mm and those have a sectional density close to the 165 grain 30 Caliber bullet.

Just reported observation, but even if the 6.5 mm penetrates further, it is no way negating that the 30 caliber bullets are POOR performers.

IN fact my personal preference when I use a 30 caliber is to load 180s on the light end, and usually go with 200 grains if I need a spitzer and 220 grains if I don't. You will usually see me carrying 220 grains in my 30/06 and almost exclusively in the 300 Winchester .

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire

Eldeguello,
I don't know why anyone would argue that point, all things being equal you are definately correct, slowing down a bullet slows down expansion, slow expansion equates to less cross section of bullet, less cross section of bullet equates to more penitration, end of story..

Change any part of the bullet construction and the story will change to one degree or another..then these kind of conversations can get so garbarged up with theory and mathimatical conglomerates as to reach a point of ridiculasness in a short time

EldeG:

I know by the Geneva Convention we have to, but the Soviets never let the Geneva Convention get in the way. I am sure Al Quida and family will not also.

It is also against the Geneva Convention to carry shotguns into combat, but we did so in WW2 and in Viet Nam also.

I believe you fight on the same playing field as your enemy does. Period, and become better at his game than he is.

The USA needs to use Guerrilla warfare tactics in Iraq, against Insurgents just like we did in Viet Nam.

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire