Michael458:
Forgive me for frothing, but a question you can answer better than perhaps anyone: what is your take of the argument of softs vs. solids as to penetration? i.e. a solid passes through the animal and leaves two holes for blood to escape. Some say the bullet's energy is wasted as is passes through and on its way.

The soft destroys more tissue due to expansion and leaves all its energy expended in the animal but leaves only one hole.

I've heard this debate for years. What is your take on it?
Pappas

I have heard this argument for years as well. The bottom line is that 'energy transfer' is a myth in the sense of bullet penetration. You cannot kill anything with the energy that a bullet carries with it. Two holes, entrance and exit, bleed more and ventilate the cavity penetrated better than one hole. Animals are killed by an effective cavity volume and that cavity volume must be in the right place. A major organ or central nervous system must be disrupted sufficiently so that life is not sustained.

There is the additional fact that, a bullet/cartridge combination that cannot shoot through on a broadside shot, cannot be used for a straight going away. If a bullet/cartridge will shoot the length of an animal, it will shoot through on a broadside shot.

As Gerard has mentioned, energy means nothing.

It is the destruction of vital organs that kills an animal.

I will take penetration over expansion anytime - given a choice.

But, with today's mono metal hollow point bullet, one gets the best of both worlds.

From an exit hole and blood trail point, I have seen instances where there are two holes, an entrance and an exit, but hardly any blood trail.

All the bleeding has happened inside the animal.

I concur 100% with Gerard and Saeed................

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
I have heard this argument for years as well. The bottom line is that 'energy transfer' is a myth in the sense of bullet penetration. You cannot kill anything with the energy that a bullet carries with it. Two holes, entrance and exit, bleed more and ventilate the cavity penetrated better than one hole. Animals are killed by an effective cavity volume and that cavity volume must be in the right place. A major organ or central nervous system must be disrupted sufficiently so that life is not sustained.

There is the additional fact that, a bullet/cartridge combination that cannot shoot through on a broadside shot, cannot be used for a straight going away. If a bullet/cartridge will shoot the length of an animal, it will shoot through on a broadside shot.

Exactly.I hunt with firearms almost exclusively that "develop" (this is a misnomer as energy is calculated and not measured) relatively low energy figures, yet they kill large critters with aplomb. Despite this "disadvantage," loaded properly I get more exits than bullet recoveries.

"As Gerard has mentioned, energy means nothing.

It is the destruction of vital organs that kills an animal."

On all animals? smack a 150-200kg moose in the shoulder with a 9,3x62 with a 286grain bullet moving 2300 fps.. with a soft bonded bullet. It may run a bit Before it goes down... and the wound channel is a nice 20mm hole straight through.

Now smack the same moose with a .378 WBY loaded with a soft bonded 300 grain bullet going 3000+fps. The result would not be as nice as with 9,3x62 but the moose would not go far or anyway with this kind of shot.

Thats the results of released energy!
And if you Hit a major "bigger" bone in the shoulder with that 378 load you have to throw away that what is left of the sholder or both shoulders

I dont know about the real big game as buff or hippo, elephant.

But I Think a lion, bear or elnad is in the same class as a big moose?
What do you Think about my toughts on this Michael458??
//
Overkill

Agree completely little energy transfers in an inelastic collision which a bullet strike is. Penetration through vital tissue or central nervous system is what kills. Momentum transfers in all collisions.

Energy determines the volume of the wound channel.
Momentum and bullet area exposed to direction of travel determine depth of penetration.
Bullet shape exposed to direction of travel determines the shape of the wound channel.

Example: A solid and a soft going at the same speed and of the same weight will have very similar volumes in the wound channel but the solid will be deep and narrow and the soft will be wider and shallower.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Energy determines the volume of the wound channel.
Momentum and bullet area exposed to direction of travel determine depth of penetration.
Bullet shape exposed to direction of travel determines the shape of the wound channel.

Example: A solid and oft going at the same speed and of the same weight will have very similar volumes in the wound channel but the solid will be deep and narrow and the soft will be wider and shallower.

I agree with the above statements. But what has been ignored is that the wound channel volume of the bullet that exits is only the same as the soft point if it remains inside the animal for the length of its travel. If it exits, much of its tissue destructive ability is wasted on the ground , trees etc. after it leaves the animal.

For those that say energy doesn't kill an animal, please show me a bullet that has no energy that can kill anything. It is a combination of many things that kill, including momentum along with bullet shape and construction. Leave any of these out and you will not be pleased with the result.

465H&H

A bullet that exits as opposed to one that does not, is more effective. So it is faster, or better constructed, or retains more weight or a combination of these. That is why it exits and the other does not.

If it is faster, the wound channel has more volume, if it is better constructed, the wound channel has more volume, if it retains more weight, the wound channel has more volume. If the bullet creates a bigger volume wound channel and exits, it does not matter what happens after that. It has done it's work more effectively.

Even if two bullets somehow leave identical wound channels but one exits, it is better and it does not matter once it has exited.

What bullet would you use on Buffalo when you don't want a pass thru specifically Buffalo in a herd situation? My last trip I used 416 Raptors with great effect on Buffalo but carried Nosler partitions for herd situations. not the best arrangement.

When I do not want a pass through on a buffalo, I use a Woodleigh Soft...

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

For those that say energy doesn't kill an animal, please show me a bullet that has no energy that can kill anything. It is a combination of many things that kill, including momentum along with bullet shape and construction. Leave any of these out and you will not be pleased with the result.

465H&H

The OP was about "energy transfer", not impact energy. All subsequent mentions of "energy" per se were references to original OP I think.

Of course, impact energy matters as it contributes to penetration.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
A bullet that exits as opposed to one that does not, is more effective. So it is faster, or better constructed, or retains more weight or a combination of these. That is why it exits and the other does not.

If it is faster, the wound channel has more volume, if it is better constructed, the wound channel has more volume, if it retains more weight, the wound channel has more volume. If the bullet creates a bigger volume wound channel and exits, it does not matter what happens after that. It has done it's work more effectively.

Even if two bullets somehow leave identical wound channels but one exits, it is better and it does not matter once it has exited.

Gerard,

While I agree with your previous post, with all due respect, I don't agree with this [post. It is your opinion as is mine, neither of which are fact.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
A bullet that exits as opposed to one that does not, is more effective. So it is faster, or better constructed, or retains more weight or a combination of these. That is why it exits and the other does not.

If it is faster, the wound channel has more volume, if it is better constructed, the wound channel has more volume, if it retains more weight, the wound channel has more volume. If the bullet creates a bigger volume wound channel and exits, it does not matter what happens after that. It has done it's work more effectively.

Even if two bullets somehow leave identical wound channels but one exits, it is better and it does not matter once it has exited.

Gerard,

While I agree with your previous post, with all due respect, I don't agree with this [post. It is your opinion as is mine, neither of which are fact.

465H&H

If Gerard's post were correct then a, say, NF Cup Point is ALWAYS superior to, say, a Woodleigh soft. And that is not always true.

Assuming the same velocity and bullet weight the Woodleigh will be stopped in more game than the Cup Point. When the Cup Point exits smaller game the wound channel must be smaller than that created by the better expanding Woodleigh since much of the potential wound channel is lost when the Cup Point exits. If the Woodleigh exits, as it will on smaller game, then the disparity between wound channel volume is tremendous.

Weight retention will be somewhat similar, expanded diameter very dissimilar. For some few animals the NF Cup Point would be the more effective bullet, for most the Woodleigh will be more effective.

Substitute any mono metal hard "soft point" for the Cup Point and any well made expanding cored bullet for the Woodleigh and the results don't change much, only the ratio of which bullet is better suited for which animals.

JPK

quote:

465H&H: It is your opinion as is mine, neither of which are fact.

This is where you make an assumption that is less than correct. You may have an opinion but my statement is based in fact. Just because you have not seen the results and just because the comparisons I made was done before I became internet literate 14 years ago, does not mean the comparisons were not made.

Example:
Take any two identical, reasonably robust bullets you would use for dangerous game and fire one substantially faster than the other. Which one will result in the larger volume wound channel?

JPK,
I hear you but bear in mind that we are not comparing radically different bullet styles or different animals here.

I heard a guy describe 'killing power' once.
He simply said " killing power is a simple matter of an enterance hole, an exit hole, and vital organs in between. Simple."
Made sense to me then and still does now..

A truck will kill any animal with no penetration?

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
...

JPK,
I hear you but bear in mind that we are not comparing radically different bullet styles or different animals here.

Gerard,

There was no mention of a particular animal or class of animal in the OP's post.

If you want to limit the discussion to large game, say cape buffalo or eland size, then the view you advocate is more likely to lead to the better bullet selection, imo, but things vary. For example, a Woodleigh soft is going to be better for broadside shots where there are concerns about herd members which may be unseen behind the target, like in heavy brush...

Personally, I like two holes.

Also, regarding an earlier comment by you in this thread and in others, energy dump and the time and distance involved is, in my opinion and experience, an important consideration when taking brain shots at eles. The shorter the time and distance, and so the closer to the brain the more effect it has on the elephant. Not every brain shot attempt is going to be perfect, and when the hunter errs - as I have on several occasions, the solid with the least but still adequate penetration provides the greatest effect on the elephant. That buys the hunter time, which is critical in the situation.

It is even more important in a charge situation where killing the elephant is not the primary goal, but stopping it is.

Regarding 465H&H and your response, he is not debating velocity and it's effect but wound channel volume when comparing a limited expansion deep penetrating "soft" that is likely to exit to a bullet that expands more and penetrates less, as I was.

Also, fwiw, I think you will find examples where the wound volume is greater at lower velocity because of limited expansion and deeper penetration. Woodleighs and Trophy bonded Bearclaws I have used have exhibited this trait, or so it seems upon inspection of the dead animal. I think A Frames might be prone to it, though I have never used them. Angle of shot must provide sufficient depth so the slower bullet does not exit.

JPK

Gents:
I appreciate your diverse and well-thought opinions. It has been both a pleasure and an education reading this.
Thanks.
Cal

quote:

Personally, I like two holes.

JPK:
I guess the photo illustrates the two hole theory. This is from a caribou I shot last week. Two is certainly better than one.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
A truck will kill any animal with no penetration?

Yep, nice 8 pointer at that. Sure screwed the front end of the truck through...

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

Personally, I like two holes.

JPK:
I guess the photo illustrates the two hole theory. This is from a caribou I shot last week. Two is certainly better than one.
Cal

10-4 that!

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
A truck will kill any animal with no penetration?

Yep, nice 8 pointer at that. Sure screwed the front end of the truck through...

An illustration of an expanding bullet with a quick energy dump?

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

Personally, I like two holes.

JPK:
I guess the photo illustrates the two hole theory. This is from a caribou I shot last week. Two is certainly better than one.
Cal

The perfect example of what two holes can do!

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
A truck will kill any animal with no penetration?

Yep, nice 8 pointer at that. Sure screwed the front end of the truck through...

An illustration of an expanding bullet with a quick energy dump?

JPK

Metaphorically. Perhaps a better example would be using a 'poorly constructed projectile' ('cause deer was a sack of jell) causing only superficial damage (grill, fender, and headlight and truck all fresh again).

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
...

JPK,
I hear you but bear in mind that we are not comparing radically different bullet styles or different animals here.

Gerard,

There was no mention of a particular animal or class of animal in the OP's post.

If you want to limit the discussion to large game, say cape buffalo or eland size, then the view you advocate is more likely to lead to the better bullet selection, imo, but things vary. For example, a Woodleigh soft is going to be better for broadside shots where there are concerns about herd members which may be unseen behind the target, like in heavy brush...

Personally, I like two holes.

Also, regarding an earlier comment by you in this thread and in others, energy dump and the time and distance involved is, in my opinion and experience, an important consideration when taking brain shots at eles. The shorter the time and distance, and so the closer to the brain the more effect it has on the elephant. Not every brain shot attempt is going to be perfect, and when the hunter errs - as I have on several occasions, the solid with the least but still adequate penetration provides the greatest effect on the elephant. That buys the hunter time, which is critical in the situation.

It is even more important in a charge situation where killing the elephant is not the primary goal, but stopping it is.

Regarding 465H&H and your response, he is not debating velocity and it's effect but wound channel volume when comparing a limited expansion deep penetrating "soft" that is likely to exit to a bullet that expands more and penetrates less, as I was.

Also, fwiw, I think you will find examples where the wound volume is greater at lower velocity because of limited expansion and deeper penetration. Woodleighs and Trophy bonded Bearclaws I have used have exhibited this trait, or so it seems upon inspection of the dead animal. I think A Frames might be prone to it, though I have never used them. Angle of shot must provide sufficient depth so the slower bullet does not exit.

JPK

JPK,

Thanks for saving me have to answer Gerard.

465H&H

465H&H and JPK,

I understood the original question to be:

"Forgive me for frothing, but a question you can answer better than perhaps anyone: what is your take of the argument of softs vs. solids as to penetration? i.e. a solid passes through the animal and leaves two holes for blood to escape. Some say the bullet's energy is wasted as is passes through and on its way."

This was the illustration Cal used to demonstrate the difference between one hole and two. It set the situation for the question which was:

"The soft destroys more tissue due to expansion and leaves all its energy expended in the animal but leaves only one hole.

I've heard this debate for years. What is your take on it?"

I took the question to be whether it is better to have a bullet that enters and then 'expends all it's energy' and does not exit or, whether it is better to have an exit hole and the bullet 'energy is wasted as is passes through and on its way.'

Was I wrong? Did you understand something else?

Specifically 465H&H,

Take any two identical, reasonably robust bullets you would use for dangerous game and fire one substantially faster than the other. Which one will result in the larger volume wound channel?

What is your take on this?

Gerard,

Your answer is overbroad, and your illustration does not fit all situations well [just as one bullet cannot fit every situation well.]

The advantage of two holes is the ventilation which can/should/will collapse lungs and the better chance of an easy to follow blood trail where at least one hole does not plug with fat, etc. But a bullet that can penetrate like the dickens is unlikely to cause as much damage on a broadside shot as a softer, greater expanding bullet which may or may not exit.

One reason to love Partitions. Relatively soft up front for lots of expansion but with a long shank behind the partition and likely to loose its front end to become a "FN solid" to gain the second hole.

See my earlier response regarding deeper penetration (and so greater wound volume) from the slower of two similar bullets.

JPK

JPK,

There is no question about the fact that an exit hole is desirable.

What you see as overbroad is simply the statement that, no matter what type of bullet you use and no matter what specie you are hunting, an exit hole is better than the bullet that does not exit.

Whether you are using a solid and hunting cape buffalo or elephant with a 500, or whether you are hunting plains game with a 30-06, as long as you use an appropriate bullet for the application, one must strive for an exit hole.

Wound channel volume is determined by the energy that the bullet has on impact. The construction of a bullet and how it deforms, determines the shape of the wound channel. A slower bullet will penetrate deeper than a faster bullet because it expands less and therefore has less area exposed to the direction of motion, unless it tumbles or yaws.

This is a multi-faceted event with many scenarios but wound channel volume between a slow bullet that goes deep and stops, and a faster bullet that breaks up quickly and stops, will be very similar, if both bullets have similar kinetic energy levels.

http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a570469.pdf

I prefer the bullet to remain in the animal.

I can add it to my collection

quote:

I prefer the bullet to remain in the animal.

I can add it to my collection clap

Use a 22 Rimfire :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
JPK,

There is no question about the fact that an exit hole is desirable.

What you see as overbroad is simply the statement that, no matter what type of bullet you use and no matter what specie you are hunting, an exit hole is better than the bullet that does not exit.

Whether you are using a solid and hunting cape buffalo or elephant with a 500, or whether you are hunting plains game with a 30-06, as long as you use an appropriate bullet for the application, one must strive for an exit hole.

Wound channel volume is determined by the energy that the bullet has on impact. The construction of a bullet and how it deforms, determines the shape of the wound channel. A slower bullet will penetrate deeper than a faster bullet because it expands less and therefore has less area exposed to the direction of motion, unless it tumbles or yaws.

This is a multi-faceted event with many scenarios but wound channel volume between a slow bullet that goes deep and stops, and a faster bullet that breaks up quickly and stops, will be very similar, if both bullets have similar kinetic energy levels.

http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a570469.pdf

In my experience, animals go down quicker on heart lung shots when the bullet is a soft rather than a solid and also quicker if the soft stays in the animal rather than exiting. If the total amount of bullet energy is converted to tissue trauma the animal goes down quicker than if the bullet doesn't dump all of its energy in the animal and wastes some by exiting. If the animal goes down quicker, the added blood trail is of less importance to the recovery.

Shoot a kudu with a solid or heavily constructed soft through the lungs and expect a longer follow up track than if it was shot with the same rifle but using a soft that stayed in the animal. Most animals I have shot with softs that have stayed in the body have seldom gone out of sight before falling. Not so with more heavily constructed fully penetrating bullets.

465H&H

465H&H,

Take any two identical, reasonably robust bullets you would use for dangerous game and fire one substantially faster than the other. Which one will result in the larger volume wound channel?

Holy shit ! Perhaps a short course in physics is what is needed !

IT IS ALL ABOUT ENERGY !!!1 Without energy there is no motion, there is no penetration there is no wound ! Whether it is a stone that is cast , a spear that is thrown , a arrow fired from a bow or a rifle firing a bullet.

Energy is stored in the system then imparted to the missile and that missile in turn imparts its energy to the target to cause injury or destruction !

Now granted not all of the energy causes damage, one has to define what specific type of energy is I play to cause damage.

It takes ENERGY to move target tissue away from the passing bullet to form the wound cavity. ie mechanical energy.... claiming energy has nothing to do with wounding is simply absurd !

The act of destruction by a bullet is a energy dependent action, without the transfer of energy there is no bullet motion, no momentum no wound, even a bullet sitting in a box on your loading bench has energy allbeit potential energy. If your bullet has mass it has by definition a certain amount of energy locked up in it. That is a law of nature !

I have no DG experience.

Having said that, I have posted before of the bullet hitting a rib. I am really surprised that I have never seen any major discussion in Hunting magazines or forum about this issue.

When I hit a large deer (Red stag) behind the shoulder and the rib, I notice a few things that happen

* Firstly the bullet expands faster than if it just hits skin / flesh - & the effect is a bit different to a skin & flesh shot
* Secondly the rib itself breaks and a number of bone pieces enter the heart lung area and the internal tissue damage from the bone fragments is far greater than from just an expanding bullet
* the rib also moves & vibrates from the shock & this transfers shock to the spine if the shot is high - hence the dramatic DRT effect (IMHO - but I am not sure if this happens with larger game like buffalo)
* The TSX causes as much if not more damage as a soft point when hitting a rib

My theory / opinion is that the CEB has a similar effect to a bullet hitting bone - even a skin & flesh shot shears off the 6 petals and they go in different directions as large chunks - the effect on the internals of the animal are quite different to other bullets.

Again - just my opinion with some experience on large deer.

Gerard,

I am not sure of the relevance of your question in relation to the question posed by the poster of this thread. he is apparently talking about the same rifle and caliber. In most cases the ammo used will be at or near the maximum for that caliber and only a small amount of velocity increase is possible, if any. That small amount of increased velocity will not show a significant increase in trauma volume.

I assume that you mean identical bullets in all respects except velocity and that the impact velocity is proportional to the muzzle velocity of each.

Intuitively, we would assume that the increased velocity will increase the volume of traumatized tissue due to the increased energy of the bullet.

But, in a recent series of articles presenting a Relative Trauma Potential formula, in African Hunter Magazine, Pierre van der Walt makes the case that wound trauma volume is independent of velocity if both fully penetrate the animal. I am not qualified to argue against his assertion. I will leave it to you to read his article and answer your own question.

CHEERS!


Walt

Alf, I agree with your principles of physics but there are many variables involved.

* How is the energy transferred by a solid compared to an identical soft point?
* How is energy transferred by a lead core soft point compared to a TSX of same weight & velocity?
* What kind of energy is in operation when bone fragment lacerate the lungs across a large area (which just bullet injury does not do)?

Another way of looking at this issue is to look at bal gel tests. I am not into high maths but I can see the bal gel displacements.

* Nosler Bal tip wound channels are typically a large early balloon right next to the entry with a short quick tapering tail (less penetration).
* Bonded core bullets like NF & A frames tend to have slightly smaller balloons and a thicker tail that does not taper as quickly (more penetration compared to Nosler bal tip)
* TXS tends to product long balloons, which starts a few inches inside the animal, with much thicker tails. In other words TSX wound channels have a stalk at the beginning like a fruit on a tree, before the balloon starts to expand
* Military Solids have a balloon only after they have penetrated the gel a fair bit - like in the middle and end of the gel block
* CEB in bal gel has a large balloon that is long AND has many tails that go in all directions!

See some video clips here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9cVl8xaegM

To me the wound channel of a CEB bullet looks like it has far greater volume than any other simply from a large balloon AND several tails.

Going back to physics - a sharp knife causes more tissue damage with less energy than a blunt knife with the same energy. Less friction etc. (Edited) But a blunt knife cut is often more painful!

Therefore the damage caused to internal organs is a combination of energy transfer from the projectile mass and tissue damage caused by a single or multiple disintegrating projectiles (and bone fragments) that retain enough energy to cause the damage.

Alf,

quote:

IT IS ALL ABOUT ENERGY !!!

1. Is it therefore possible that more energy causes more damage in the wound channel?
2. Can more energy give a worse effect in wounding or is it always better to have more energy?
3. Does bullet construction and shape play a role in transferring this energy?
4. At which level does this energy kill an animal?

465H&H,

quote:

I am not sure of the relevance of your question in relation to the question posed by the poster of this thread.

He asked whether it is better to have a bullet exit as opposed to a bullet that does not exit.

quote:

Pierre van der Walt makes the case that wound trauma volume is independent of velocity if both fully penetrate the animal.

In your apparent answer, quoting Pierre van der Walt, he compares two bullets that both exit. I am not sure that your answer is relevant.

The question to you was: "Take any two identical, reasonably robust bullets you would use for dangerous game and fire one substantially faster than the other. Which one will result in the larger volume wound channel?"

You avoid the question by saying: " In most cases the ammo used will be at or near the maximum for that caliber and only a small amount of velocity increase is possible." This not correct as the same cartridge probably produces similar speeds but the same caliber could be used at substantially different speeds. Examples would be a 375H&H and a 378 Weatherby or a 45-70 and a 450 Rigby.

My question remains asked but not answered.

You and Alf are making a habit of not answering questions.

The wound is the result of the target's receipt of energy. Or more specific how the target reacts to the receipt of energy based on the mechanical properties of the target.

A specific amount of a specific type of energy (mechanical energy) deposited in say a targets of varying mechanical properties show vastly different reactions. If the target is primary water like with poor cohesion and elastic properties ( brain) the reaction is explosive.
The same energy deposited in a dense cohesive / elastic medium say tendon or skin has very little effect. If the medium is dense and brittle fracturing and shattering may occur such as cortical bone..... same amount of energy, vastly different reactions and wounds.

Not all energy has the potential to do damage.
in terms of wounding we find that heat energy and acoustic energy from a passing bullet does little damage, it is the mechanical energy that does damage because it has the potential to transport matter. it will displace matter and that is what causes injury.

Bullet design influences how and where energy is deposited.

This is reflected in the differences observed in wounds created by different bullets.

Just a point on Momentum.

Pure momentum on its own does no damage.

In wound ballistics it is the change in momentum that does damage ! Physically a huge difference between the two entities.

Change in momentum immediately infers that energy is deposited to the target and again that energy takes on many forms, heat, acoustic, mechanical with only mechanical having the potential to do damage based on how the target reacts to it.