Do spitzer solids such as Barnes in .277 or .308 travel straight or tumble in game?
Anyone out there fired the into ballistic gel?

Mark

They tumble as do any other projectile with a longitudinal axis longer than transverse axis ( excluding such projectiles with other means of stabilization other than gyroscopic stabilization)

I will venture an opinion based on real world tracing of bullet paths through animals.

Virtually all rifle bullets CAN tumble. That does NOT mean they always do tumble when striking an animal.

As a generalization, with all the weaknesses of any generalization based on observation rather than on theory, I would also venture to say that the longer, more solid construction, and "pointy" the bullet, the greater the liklihood it WILL tumble. The closer the center of mass to the rear of the bullet, the more likely it has appeared that as the front of the bullet was suddenly slowed greatly by impact, the more likely the weight (mass) at the aft end of the bullet would act in an "overturning" movement and cause the bullets to tumble, if the strike was not absolutely square to the body struck.

Some shapes, such as bullets with large flat meplats, particularly blunt round noses, and so on, tend to tumble less often on impact than those with pronounced (VLD) spitzers.

I have traced bullet paths through a pretty fair number of game animals, and most of the rifle bullets they were struck with DID NOT tumble, if the angle of impact was relatively close to 90 degrees to the surface struck.

That may or may not be supported by theory, but it does match what I have seen.

Some solids are designed (intentionally or by accident) to be unstable in tissue. Solids may tumble in uncontrolled manner and some will turn 180 degrees during penetration and continue base forwards. Some will stay nose forwards, it depends on what the designer wants or hopes for.

How a bullet reacts during penetration depends on its attitude when it arrives at the target and that, in turn, is governed by the twist rate of the rifle and the distance over which the bullet travels to reach the target.

The question is: Spitzer, Solid, Barnes bullet, Does it tumble in Game? by that we assume at least the animal is shot in the body.

The Answer is YES it does, not sometimes not in theory, not perhaps.

A Spitzer Solid copper or brass bullet is statically unstable, by definition and by the rules! it has to be stabilized and if it is stabilized and you remove the mode of stabilization is is once again unstable !

Instability by definition means that if the bullet is in motion it will increase it's angle of attack over distance..... it will tumble as long as there is enough forward velocity to drive drag.

It's like an apple dropping from a tree, it will fall to the ground, always! The "rules" dictate it, that is why they are called "rules".

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The question is: Spitzer, Solid, Barnes bullet, Does it tumble in Game? by that we assume at least the animal is shot in the body.

The Answer is YES it does, not sometimes not in theory, not perhaps.

A Spitzer Solid copper or brass bullet is statically unstable, by definition and by the rules! it has to be stabilized and if it is stabilized and you remove the mode of stabilization is is once again unstable !

Instability by definition means that if the bullet is in motion it will increase it's angle of attack over distance..... it will tumble as long as there is enough forward velocity to drive drag.

It's like an apple dropping from a tree, it will fall to the ground, always! The "rules" dictate it, that is why they are called "rules".

Yeh, sure Alf.

But not all bullets are the ones he asked about. So if he doesn't want them to tumble, then it might be of help to him to post what actual tracing of bullet paths of other kinds of bullets shows actually occurs in real life with THEM. And The truth is, they don't tumble all the time, every time. Maybe they haven't all read the rules, who knows? Some shapes and constructions appear more prone to tumble than others.

Lets ask the OP if he meant a true solid or the more common Hollow-point Barnes that could be called a solid.

The Barnes bullets are NOT know for tumbling-rather provideing consistent expansion when used with in their velocity envelope.

SSR

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:
Lets ask the OP if he meant a true solid or the more common Hollow-point Barnes that could be called a solid.

The Barnes bullets are NOT know for tumbling-rather provideing consistent expansion when used with in their velocity envelope.

SSR

I think that's a good idea.

Whatever OP had in mind, I will not be getting into a debate over it. Any time a person uses words like "always" or "never" about dynamic events such as bullets' behavior in game, I have to wonder how much shooting experience he has. Those two words sort of set my teeth on edge.

I was refering to the ones from this page, http://www.barnesbullets.com/p...rifle/banded-solids/ in the smaller calibers they look like this, http://www.barnesbullets.com/w...er-Solid-300x204.jpg


Mark

AC:

If the bullet is a spitzer and it is a solid ( not a expander ) and it requires spin for stabilization when fired from the gun it will tumble in a dense visco-elastic target !

Whether it read the rules or not !

These are the "rules of flight" it is a physical fact, not a theory, not some whim nor a maybe.

If it did not well then why use rifles, why all the hoopla with twist rates etc. We can simply launch them from smoothbores much cheaper not so?

Alf,
Define 'tumble'.

Gerard:

Tumble: Implying that the long axis of the projectile turns about it's axis through 90 degrees relative to the line of flight of the projecitle.

For purposes of study and description some have concluded that once the projectile's long axis reaches a position of 20 deg relative to the line of flght the projectile will complete the motion as long as there is sufficient kinetic energy to keep on penetrating. Once this action is set in motion it happens very rapidly, relative to the rest of the penetration process. The whole process of penetration from impact to the projectile coming to rest in the target is only about 4 milliseconds.

Static Stability defined as a reduction in induced motion by an outside force acting on the projectile over distance travelled. Instability defined as the opposite of the above and there is a third condition where the induced motion remains constant and that is referred to as repose.

Typically,longer for calibre bullets and certain variations in nose profile, can make a bullet more prone to tumble.
.. even relatively shorter-blunted [expanded Nosler Partitions] have exited "base first" on game.

http://www.africanoutfitter.co...tisbulletfailure.php



...It has been said repeatedly that no bullet enters an animal in a perfect perpendicular manner. If a bullet hits terminal matter like bone, muscle and flesh at different angles, it can produce irregular expanded frontal areas, as the 470/500 grain Swift A-Frame bullets in this picture clearly show.

Some supporters of solid bullets only on big and dangerous game reckon that soft-nose bullets, especially upon constant heavy contact with bones on animals like buffalo, can produce irregular shaped frontal areas which, on its own, can alter the flight paths within the animal drastically. Simply put, those bullets are assumed to become unstable within the animal and to often follow the path of least resistance.

This photo shows a .416 Nosler Partition bullet which barely went through the skin on a buttock of a brindled gnu, with its base facing forward
The loss of velocity as the bullet penetrates into the animal together with a skew frontal area can also be conducive to bullet tumbling.

Terminal ballistics is a perfect example of an Illusion, that "slight of hand" often brought about by the speeding up of an action or event designed to decieve the eye into seeing or the mind, thinking something happened that in fact did not.

The illusion percept is brought about by an observation of an apparent effect that decieves the observer in making assumptions regarding how the effect came about.

Because the action happens in a time frame measured in thousands of a second and the fact that action cannot possibly be visualized without the aid and means of specialized testing equipment which has the ability to record events as they unfold within that very short time frame, observers often reach erroneous conclusions. The lay shooting press abounds with such misconcpetion and disinformation, not only that it was not long ago that even the scientific press was at fault as well.

Because of the shear magnitude of forces involved during the event and the speed at which the action occurs observers are inclined to think that penetration of one medium is the same as another because some coincidences are thought to have occured. illusion!

An example is looking at a deformed bullet and claiming the deformation was due to the bullet meeting "hard" substance like bone in the target, or coming to a conclusion that the bullet veered because it follows " a path of least resistance".

The very rules that dictate flight of a bird, plane or a rocket flying into outer space is at play. The spatial distribution of a body's mass about it's centre of gravity in flight and the effects forces acting on that mass is as important in the flight of a bullet, spear, arrow or even stone flung from a catapult on its way to the target. Once it impacts the target the flight continues allbeit in a much denser often structural environment.

The very reason we spin bullets in a rifled barrel for stable flight is valid in target though the density of the target may increase a thousand fold.

If the bullet is statically unstable and needs to be spun to give stability in flight just think of how unstable it is going to be in the target !

If that bullet does not deform or fragment during penetration of a dense visco elastic target it will flip head over arse. Why because it has 1125 ftpound of drag force that says it will do so.

That bullet will decellerate at a rate of about minus 2.625 million feet per second squared !

quote:

Do spitzer solids such as Barnes in .277 or .308 travel straight or tumble in game?

ALF

quote:

They tumble

quote:

The question is: Spitzer, Solid, Barnes bullet, Does it tumble in Game? by that we assume at least the animal is shot in the body.

The Answer is YES it does, not sometimes not in theory, not perhaps.

quote:

it will tumble in a dense visco-elastic target !

Alf, everything I have done with these spitzer solids---solids not expanding---concurs with everything you state. They tumble, they are NOT STABLE in aqueous material or tissue. They veer off course, they tumble, end of story. So far every one I have tested in a few various calibers has done so, 100% of the time. I have never shot animal tissue with one, but from everything I hear from those that have, same exact story.

For once, we are in 100% agreement.




Michael

Michael:

Good morning to you and yes your observation seems to concur.

Now here is the problem, as we are dealing with bullets and their potential lethality in game and thus their potential effectiveness.

Your test in paper shows "massive destruction of the paper medium" and 22 inches of penetration in the paper. How lethal do you conclude this particular combination may be on say a big ungulate like a buffalo shot in the chest?

And how would this compare to say a Solid FN shot along the same path in another buffalo of the same size...... or say one of those bullets with the noses that blow off.

If all impacted with the same velocity and mass thus the same potential energy and all shed their energy totally in the animal which would be less or more potentially lethal ( given the above ? )

Alf

Top of the morning to you as well!

quote:

Your test in paper shows "massive destruction of the paper medium" and 22 inches of penetration in the paper. How lethal do you conclude this particular combination may be on say a big ungulate like a buffalo shot in the chest?

Buffalo! I would not trust the bullet that does this, even though there is more destruction to aqueous materials than most solids, one cannot predict the outcome--the path the bullet may or may not take. While all were average of 5 inches off course, all were in different directions, even to the point of loosing one out the top and into the berm, somewhere? A proper solid, 65% meplat of caliber will do much more damage for the first 12 or so inches of penetration than this spitzer of the same size.

quote:

And how would this compare to say a Solid FN shot along the same path in another buffalo of the same size...... or say one of those bullets with the noses that blow off.

I will take the flat nose solid anytime over a flipping tumbling spitzer solid, no issues or even a thought. As for the NonCon, absolutely zero contest, NonCon all the way. I don't want anything I can't predict what it might do once it starts terminals. One absolutely cannot predict what a spitzer solid may do, other than that it will tumble and veer off course every single time. No thanks.

Depth of penetration with both solid and NonCon is far deeper than a tumbling spitzer, destroying more tissue due to depth of penetration. Flat Nose solid and NonCon both destroy far more up front than the tumbling spitzer. Both of those being totally predictable in their performance. While a tumbling bullet may be devastating on lesser creatures, I would trust no such luck on buffalo.

quote:

If all impacted with the same velocity and mass thus the same potential energy and all shed their energy totally in the animal which would be less or more potentially lethal ( given the above ? )

I personally do not concur with energy dump or potential lethal results from energy dump. What is important to me is which bullet will destroy more tissue, that will be the most lethal, and the more predictable. Trauma inflicted and repeatable, and predictable.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:


The very reason we spin bullets in a rifled barrel for stable flight is valid in target though the density of the target may increase a thousand fold.

If the bullet is statically unstable and needs to be spun to give stability in flight just think of how unstable it is going to be in the target !

And I gather that if we use a solid of non-monometal construction, the inconsistencies in core/jacket combined with less than ideal spin rate,
.. would cause the bullet to become less stable in flight, altering/increasing its yaw or "angle of attack" with target,
making it more prone to tumble.

Thanks for the responses.

So the answer is yes, they tumble.

Michael, what you posted was just what I was looking for. I am trying to read the 227 pages of the Terminal Performance thread but must have not read that one yet.

I had some offered to me and wondered if they may be good for hunting. I think I will put my time into using flat noses and not mess with the pointy ones.

Mark

There is a difference between tumble and overturn. One can determine which it will be, depending on what one wants.

Sadly this is exactly what is wrong with the assumptions derived from these tests and it reinforces the notion of the illusion and why testing in media has to be interpreted only to what they truly represent.
The users and testers of bullets in gelatine or soap know this and they have taken exhaustive steps to define exactly what their tests actually prove and what not.


As Knuebeuhl in his latest edition of Wound Ballistics ( 3rd edition) points out study of terminal ballistics is also a study of the material properties of the targets used. Without an understanding of targets used one cannot come to any valid conclusions regarding how wounds are created.

What does the pictures of the bullets above tell us:

1. The bullets were found base forward, thus implying that they tumbled.

2. The bullets veered in direction.

3. The bullets caused "massive damage" to the stacked paper target.

4. The bullets penetrated around 22 inches in the paper target.

What is assumed:

1. Because of the tumbling and veering they are not reliable in terms of killing large animals ? ( i did not see where that was tested for so it has to be assumed) Most animals have vitals that lie within 22 inches from the skin. A tumbling bullet inducing massive drag in this window is fatally lethal !

2. They do less damage to tissue than FN solids or so called non cons and hence are less lethal in large game? ( that too is assumed as the volumes of target damaged was not tested for)

3. And last but not least an summation regarding the issue of "energy dump" and some inference that tissue damage has nothing to do with energy dump?

Really ? It is all about energy deposit to the target and the reaction of the target to this gift of energy, this is where knowledge of the structure and behaviour of the target is essential to making assumptions regarding the effects seen. What many do not realize is all build down to energy and it is energy that does work to move tissue and ultimately damage. Only tissue that is moved can be damaged, if tissue is not moved no damage occurs. ( the heat energy and acoustic energy generated does little or no real damage)

Here is the problem:

The tests did not test for lethality ! though it is implied based on assumptions .


The tests show coincidence in terms of certain behaviours on the side of the bullet such as the tumbling behaviour and depth of penetration but that only, it shows absolutely no coincidence with the behaviour of the target when a similar bullet is fired into living muscle or other targets nor is there any similitude in the behaviours of the simulant to a living tissue. Finding similitude is essential in making simulation valid.

So any reference to a bullet's apparent ability when compared to another as it pertains to the actual killing or wounding is done based on a preconceived ideas and not based on the results of the tests shown. This in essence is a bias found in many lay publications on bullet behaviour. Kneubeuhl warns against this. Testing to prove a preconceived idea or notion is fatally biased.

What the observers have done is to assume that this is what happens..... a perfect illusion. If one were to present this very same scenario in any setting where the science is discussed the result would be rejected simply because the test did not test for the assumption made.

I have no problem with the observation of the bullet tumbling, I have no problem with the fact that this very bullet did not penetrate as a FN does.

What I have problem with is how one is to explain how theFN bullet both penetrates deep and straight and then also causes more damage when compared the bullet that tumbles and penetrates shallow.

If both types of bullet are of same mass and impact at the same velocity both would have the same potential energy. if both come to a stop in the target it de facto implies both shed all of the energy to the target.

For the FN to penetrate deep it has to by definition induce the least amount of drag per unit distance penetrated and hence the amount of damage per unit distance travelled has to be less than the spitzer that induces massive drag over a short distance. As the bullet is a passive kinetic energy penetrator no new energy is created or added to the system, energy is only transferred from one body and gifted to the other.

If both shed the same amount of mechanical energy one has to assume that both moved the same amount of tissue hence the same amount of damage..... the only difference is where in the course of the penetration the damage occurred. This in essence is where bullet design is a factor. The design and construction determines where in the path energy will be shed and how much.

If pure amount of tissue damaged is the assumed measure of lethality both would ultimately cause the same amount of damage thus given this assumed measure of lethality
both would be equally lethal ( But in practice this measure is not the whole story so measuring amount of tissue damaged alone is not the answer)

This fallacy of the spitzer solid being less lethal is one that sadly has been taken up in legislation. A example is the hunting regs in British Columbia where the use of those bullets are outlawed for hunting. The regs are based on an assumption born from illusion and not from evidence of good sound science.

Trax:

There are two stabilities, one is static stability the other is dynamic stability. Both are necessary for the stable condition.

The inconstancies in jacket and core leads to asymmetry of mass relative to the centre of gravity, this impacts dynamic stability condition.

As statically stable projectile is one that increases it's static stability condition over distance, ie the ratio of the gyro force relative to the overturning force increases as it moves to the target.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

..If both types of bullet are of same mass and impact at the same velocity both would have the same potential energy. if both come to a stop in the target it de facto implies both shed all of the energy to the target.
..
..For the FN to penetrate deep it has to by definition induce the least amount of drag per unit distance penetrated and hence the amount of damage per unit distance travelled has to be less than the spitzer that induces massive drag over a short distance. As the bullet is a passive kinetic energy penetrator no new energy is created or added to the system, energy is only transferred from one body and gifted to the other...

..If both shed the same amount of mechanical energy one has to assume that both moved the same amount of tissue hence the same amount of damage..... the only difference is where in the course of the penetration the damage occurred. This in essence is where bullet design is a factor. The design and construction determines where in the path energy will be shed and how much...

..If pure amount of tissue damaged is the assumed measure of lethality both would ultimately cause the same amount of damage thus given this assumed measure of lethality
both would be equally lethal ( But in practice this measure is not the whole story so measuring amount of tissue damaged alone is not the answer)

Whilst the amount of energy is not insignificant factor, the actual rate of energy dump would also have effect on the level of permanent tissue damage[plastic deformation]..no?

A bullets ability to be effective or "lethal", would alter depending[among other things] on where the highest rate of energy dump actually takes place in the anatomy of the animal...true?

Trax:

You are partly correct in your statement regarding energy dump, now just complete the picture ! The two way street ! ie How the target reacts to the gift of that energy !

The terminal ballistic process is a combination of "actio" and "Reactio"

Lethality is the sum of action and reaction.

Energy dump is part of the action portion of the equation but not all of the dumped energy has to ability to do damage, only part of it and then to boot, the type of target will determine how it reacts to that gifted energy.

So if the same energy is dumped in say Muscle, gelatine, stacked paper, bone, liver etc each may have recieved the same amount of energy and yet the reaction of each would be very different.

The bullet in flight has a certain amount of energy, lets just call it potential energy ( kinetic energy)

As it impacts and penetrates that energy gets shed in the commonly referred to forms of heat energy, Acoustic energy and the majority termed mechanical energy. The first two are small and insignificant in terms of their ability to produce damage to the target. This has been studied at length.

Heat and time of heat exposure to tissue not enough to be counted in the accounting of lethality.

Acoustic energy in the form of a acoustic wave ( ultrsound shock wave) that preceeds the penetrating projectile roughly at the speed of sound in the target material does little mechanical work, there is some evidence that it may alter conduction in nerve tissue by altering membrane permeability. This to in terms of lethality is negligible.

The energy at play is mechanical energy, that fraction of energy that has the ability to move tiissue ! and as tissue is a solid and has structure in space and volume this energy has the ability to move the tissue and break down the structure, hence what we see as damage. Because some tissues are largely ductile they may be moved but may show no or little structural damage.

The structural strength and mechanical behaviour of the target will determine how it will react to the gift of this energy and thus how the wound looks. Hence our onbsession with study of mechancal behaviours of targets and why only certain components can be simulated when testing.

( examples: The constituant behaviour of properly constituted Ballistic gelatine is largely ductile whilst ballisic soap is largely elastic -plastic, both a have a mass density of around 1060 kg/m >3) Only specific behaviours can accurately be deducted from each. And this is where the rubber hits the road with testing.

The hole we see in ballistic gelatine does not equate to the hole we see in muscle, the hole in gelatine is measure of the temporary cavity in a tissue with some similar properties as gelatine ! This is part of the illusion created !

Many bullet manufacturers now post video on their websites showing slo mo footage of bullet penetrating gelatine and everyone goes wow! look at what that or this bullet does ! Stunning !

Really????? if one is critical and has knowledge of how gelatine reacts vs how muscle reacts then suddenly that picture looses it's value as a marketing tool.

So what is the hole we see in stacked paper, does that equate to actual damage in muscle? does it equate to the temporary cavity in muscle? The answer cannot be deducted because there is no similitude between the behaviour of paper and muscle to stress. Hence the fact that paper is a not suited for testing of this nature.


By optimizing the behaviour of a projectile, ie tumbling, fragmentation, ductile deformation or a projectile that does none of the aforementioned one can manipulate at least one portion of the equation ie the action part.

What is difficult if not impossible to model and predict is the reaction portion, the main reason being that living tissue in terms of mechanical behaviour is found in a non homogenous fashion.

Alf,

Its interesting how some people in their minds will equate the level of tissue damage[or wetpack damage] as a measure of lethality.

An animal can be heart-shot with an arrow,..or heart shot with a fast stepping super magnum-premium bullet.
An autopsy of each would reveal two very different levels-degrees of tissue damage,
However, animals heart-shot by appropriate HV magnums, have run the same distance or farther,and taken same time or more to expire, than this wild boar taken by arrow.

That arrow & corresponding level of tissue damage, is just as lethal as a HV hunting bullet going throughout that boars heart.

Bull Giraffe taken with single arow goes 40yds,....cant really complain about that kind of performance!

Fire both broadhead and HV-hunting bullet into wetpack, and some will be utterly convinced[by the differential in media displacement]..that the HV-rifle bullet is more lethal.

Trax:

You have the nail on the head and this is exactly why one has to understand what you are observing and why when trying to simulate behaviours between different media.

I will illustrate:

In ductile materials ( gelatine as an example) penetration is a function of sectional density.

Whilst in a medium like paper penetration is a function of energy density and calibre.

Which means the two media differ fundamentally in what would give the best penetration. Large calibre high energy density bullets are favoured in paper !

In ductile materials slim body penetrators ie high sectional density penetrators will give the best penetration whilst in paper the opposite is true.

The ballistics of a pointed target arrow is very interesting in that it is no different to a bullet fired from a gun, it is a missile with fin stabilization as well as some gyro stabilization, it has amazing sectional density and thus loses very little velocity over distance, unlike a bullet .

A typical pointed arrow caliber .31 inches fired from a bow will lose only a few fps over a distance of about 90m ( FITA range) if it starts out at say 229 fps it's velocity at impact will be around 227fps.

The energy density of that arrow at 90m will be around 882 ( ft pound force per square inch) it will penetrate no more than about 4 inches into stacked paper but here is the thing it will penetrate in excess of a meter in ballistic gelatine.

So if we look at a pointed arrow shot form a bow and we take and say volume of tissue damaged as a criterium it will have a wound tract of about 8mm diameter in gelatine x 30 inches...... and this fired at a starting velocity of only 229 fps ! This is very very efficient !

This is by all accounts a very very lethal weapon !

Add a broadhead that cuts one and half inch tract through tissue then we suddenly see why the hunting arrow is so efficient at killing.

It is a very difficult thing for people to wrap their heads around.

They would say the gun and bullet is way more lethal but the fact is that it is not.

What the gun and bullet does it extends the physical range of application but when compared to a arrow shot within range the arrow is as lethal and in some cases more lethal than a bullet.