Need for Solids?

[Brian]

Action bob, Thanks for the informative post and link. I will look into it maybe I won't be so judgemental. Brian

I looked around the web a bit and saw a recent video of Steve H. hunting cape buffalo, I have to admire him, he is an old guy now and looks in pretty good shape.

I know what brand of bullets his hunting pal uses sometimes, but I couldn't find out what make of bullet Steve Hornady uses. ( That's is my attempt to be funny ! No offence intended.)

 

[ActionBob]

Action bob, Thanks for the informative post and link. I will look into it maybe I won't be so judgemental. Brian

Oh I think you you should stay judgemental, they've earned it

 

[Brian]

Oh I think you you should stay judgemental, they've earned it

This gonna be easy!

 

[Fordy]

Gday
Here’s a little bit for people to digest & see how we are so conditioned to what we are told & not look outside of the square


On looking @ these pictures below one is a hydro & one a Barnes both in 375

1st pic is Entry into the chest of a bovine of around 850/900 pounds

Exit side on inside of the chest

So a solid does less damage than an expanding ??

Yes if we listen too what we are told & lead to believe by individuals or companies is the only way & we blindly follow the pied piper & don’t understand what we actually need for a chosen critter & how to apply it to the best of its ability , we will get no where near this that I can guarantee

Yes the hydro out preformed the Barnes easily well on what I saw lol

Barnes on left hydro on right in the pictures above

barnes 350 tsx
Hydro 235
With both not being slow as I’m a speed freak lol


Cheers

 

[Brian]

Gday
Here’s a little bit for people to digest & see how we are so conditioned to what we are told & not look outside of the square


On looking @ these pictures below one is a hydro & one a Barnes both in 375

1st pic is Entry into the chest of a bovine of around 850/900 pounds
View attachment 705019
Exit side on inside of the chest View attachment 705015

So a solid does less damage than an expanding ??

Yes if we listen too what we are told & lead to believe by individuals or companies is the only way & we blindly follow the pied piper & don’t understand what we actually need for a chosen critter & how to apply it to the best of its ability , we will get no where near this that I can guarantee

Yes the hydro out preformed the Barnes easily well on what I saw lol

Barnes on left hydro on right in the pictures above

barnes 350 tsx
Hydro 235
With both not being slow as I’m a speed freak lol


Cheers

Fordy, This a very valuable post. Thanks for posting.

Your photos reveal the actual terminal performance of solids of a certain design and construction and it is the opposite of what some peoples concepts are about solid bullets for dangerous game.

It has been explained several times in different threads here on AH in the last few months, how a solid with a specific design and construction will penetrate straight and deep creating a large/wide wound channel and why it does it. The CEB Safari Solid was usually used as one example of this kind of bullet.

I think that some hunters already have their minds made up about solids, based on outdated concepts and theories and are closed to the new innovations in DG bullets.

I notice that hunters who still believe the Sectional Density theory seem to have some difficulty accepting what this new generation of DG solid bullets do.

No matter, they still have a great time hunting!

 

[Brian]

I have a very big fan of the 67%-70% meplat truncated cone bullets like CEB SS and similar. They don't expand in the traditional sense. They do penetrate deep but the flat meplat does introduce a hydrostatic shock effect. When handgun hunting hogs with the 7.5 FK or 10mm, and flat meplat bullets, the results are very effective. Certainly when hunting brownies with all the fat to get through, I use flat solids to get through. They work great in buffalo as well.

I've been a fan of the Swifts and TSX and have good stockpile but consider adding a flat solid in the mix.

Challer, I sure agree with you. They are excellent. Some folks think that they are "just another solid", they definitely are very different than the traditional solids.

 

[Fordy]

Gday Brian

Fordy, This a very valuable post. Thanks for posting.

Your welcome hopefully the following is one that may get a few ticking in the fascinating world of terminals

Your photos reveal the actual terminal performance of solids of a certain design and construction and it is the opposite of what some peoples concepts are about solid bullets for dangerous game.

So true reality has hit home potentially to a few , others still won’t get it

Using a good true solid over a mushroom pill that is of a mono construction or to a less extent a bonded using old school thoughts is not hard to equal or surpass terminally for some applications if one clears their head but move to a shedding mono or more limited applications a frangible ( the highest trauma pills ) I have failed to see / how to get better terminal results out of a true solid except where penetration is required or velocity is real low where the trauma pill becomes erratic in the terminal journey or lastly deflection

It’s why a true solid & higher trauma causing pill matched together in a dual load is pretty darn hard to improve on ( still room but it’s getting real hard these days ) but all shedding are not equal to the same level & a frangible both have serious weaknesses also if one is not careful & under penetration is more often a issue yet we here so many times that the pill on a broadside shot was found against the hide or in it or in the leg meat yet its so called perfect preformance hmmm define perfect is one that is a individual thing as what are we comparing it to & more importantly how big is the pool it’s against ( this has nothing to do with the need for the pill to stay in the critter as that is a parameter of requirements & one that is vastly different to actual terminal wounds but yes they are some what linked but separate if one wants to get in the fun terminal world )

You see this time after time & once the terminal path is studied / measured & put against other styles or patterns you see these pills all have a taper in the wounds

it also occurs the other way of for better words pencils the first lobe

till it’s expanded to full diameter the gives better wound in 2nd lobe

but those pills also taper & understanding the different zones a pill has is one that must be understood to get a better understanding of what pill is actually better for the intended situation to come
( pictures are just random critters for illustrations)

So once again knowing the weaknesses of designs & limitation’s is extremely important & this is not when THINGS GO RIGHT as it’s the other side that will give you more insight yep I love to explore & dispatch the critter asap across the many variables that do occur in the field
Also I like to cover as many bases as possible
But I’m darned if I can think of a dual load for elephant so I’m on another path that maybe better than what we already have ????? Time will tell on this & guidances are being sort & put in place from the best in the industry I know of so stay tuned on that

It has been explained several times in different threads here on AH in the last few months, how a solid with a specific design and construction will penetrate straight and deep creating a large/wide wound channel and why it does it. The CEB Safari Solid was usually used as one example of this kind of bullet.

I like watching those types of discussions & don’t overly get to involved in them as I’m way to time poor to get into those especially when you see the mind of the individual is already made up especially when you see wounds like they quote as being great which is correct if you haven’t seen the better ones but defining the best is often harder

There are only a few bullets that are on the market today that can make use of what I’m showing ( the ceb Fn solid surely doesn’t need a introduction lol )
The 375 & that 235 gr hydro is also one but specific it is , I don’t know wether woodleigh will make anymore but it does have limitations so match that to the hatch & watch it outperform any mushroom pill of what is outdated information yet all will still kill yes but the good shedding it hasn’t been able to reach those levels .
In all reality though the 235 is a touch light on buff & better served with a ?250/260 ish weight pill but I doubt it will ever come as on the very brief talk I’ve had with Geoff on the 235 in a 7twist going flat out , his answer to me was “why” due to the 300 version
& all respect to him but that as you come to in a minute is old school thoughts while backed up from good reliability it doesn’t put critters on the ground as quickly if one uses a different method like above, end of story !! but make sure one covers the bases in this scenario is paramount “impact to tip” shows us a lot & one’s own need’s & acceptance level plays in here also

I think that some hunters already have their minds made up about solids, based on outdated concepts and theories and are closed to the new innovations in DG bullets.

Yes
A better outcome on the
“impact to tip “part dosent concern some but the next generation once they are shown & shoot the different types they see it so easily that the tide is a turning but slowly yes even had some older school thought guys change as I have over time

I notice that hunters who still believe the Sectional Density theory seem to have some difficulty accepting what this new generation of DG solid bullets do.

Yes this goes with above part & why one needs to clear their heads & look @ what’s occurring not what we believe to be the case .
Sectional density in terminal form is extremely different to sectional density in flight

Got a Funny one on SD ( well not really ) I did some work for a bullet company & a zoo that had extremely tight tolerances & criteria's to meet on what a certain bullet needed to do for the few scenarios put forward to me but couldn’t exceed for fear of secondary wounding & I ended up coming up with a combo that filled the roles as best as I could find & yet when the ballistic gurus came back & wanted more sectional density which contradicted what was wanted as a outcome & shown to be the case & I let that be known he better go & clear his head & look what the criteria's were @ the start then study the hard factual evidence yep he was stuck in the past of needing x amount of sectional density to do a job
he had no clue
Yes not funny as lives were on the line in a already very very tight room for error


Yes it’s a hard road forward that’s for sure & just like here so many are still fixated on the past of yesterday’s best , if we clear our heads the older styles don’t come close to a better aligned pill /s for the job @ hand today

it’s just a design & application system we fail to understand what can or can’t occur , if we understand that we can move forward with even better results but a blanket statement like we often see is completely flawed

No matter, they still have a great time hunting!

Yes this line is very true & one that a blanket statement should always apply too but when it goes off the rails even a touch you have 2 types of people here also

One that goes I wouldn’t use that again & another you just get bullets to fail every now & then

so acceptance or wanting better is also a personal decision but still facts remain facts


Lastly I should set the record straight before that is interpreted wrongly or I get labeled on something I’m not on when I say “worked “ for a company
This is factually wrong as I’ve never “worked” for anyone in the industry/s & one that I would be better to use the word/s of see / help /find differences & hopefully a better way forward

I do this all @ no charge
I have received the very odd boxes of projectiles for testing @ no charge from various companies ( I’ve received way more from individuals) but it would be less than I don’t know 100th of 1% of the total pills I use & it’s a few more than a few lol
As I am a firm believer in staying independent & just showing facts , ( I love running theories also & confirm either way & not worried on being wrong as it’s learning )
Thats where “work for “ comes in so please don’t label me as trying to do whatever as I’m about finding the better mousetrap & definatly no financial gain

I’ve been offered employment for my services but if I cross that line I see the parts of you can’t say that or don’t show this as one needs to tow the line of what the boss tells the employee to say/do /show for fear of not getting payed or having a job
Man alive I’ve had one company still try & do it , yes that went down like a lead balloon .
No I do it for love of the journey & finding a better outcome


The only issue I really have is I’m my own boss & I just won’t do what the boss is telling the muppet to do lol but that day is coming as I’ve been put on notice a few times now


Cheers

 

[Brian]

Gday Brian

Your welcome hopefully the following is one that may get a few ticking in the fascinating world of terminals

So true reality has hit home potentially to a few , others still won’t get it

Using a good true solid over a mushroom pill that is of a mono construction or to a less extent a bonded using old school thoughts is not hard to equal or surpass terminally for some applications if one clears their head but move to a shedding mono or more limited applications a frangible ( the highest trauma pills ) I have failed to see / how to get better terminal results out of a true solid except where penetration is required or velocity is real low where the trauma pill becomes erratic in the terminal journey or lastly deflection

It’s why a true solid & higher trauma causing pill matched together in a dual load is pretty darn hard to improve on ( still room but it’s getting real hard these days ) but all shedding are not equal to the same level & a frangible both have serious weaknesses also if one is not careful & under penetration is more often a issue yet we here so many times that the pill on a broadside shot was found against the hide or in it or in the leg meat yet its so called perfect preformance hmmm define perfect is one that is a individual thing as what are we comparing it to & more importantly how big is the pool it’s against ( this has nothing to do with the need for the pill to stay in the critter as that is a parameter of requirements & one that is vastly different to actual terminal wounds but yes they are some what linked but separate if one wants to get in the fun terminal world )

You see this time after time & once the terminal path is studied / measured & put against other styles or patterns you see these pills all have a taper in the wounds View attachment 705476it also occurs the other way of for better words pencils the first lobe View attachment 705559till it’s expanded to full diameter the gives better wound in 2nd lobe
View attachment 705560but those pills also taper & understanding the different zones a pill has is one that must be understood to get a better understanding of what pill is actually better for the intended situation to come
( pictures are just random critters for illustrations)

So once again knowing the weaknesses of designs & limitation’s is extremely important & this is not when THINGS GO RIGHT as it’s the other side that will give you more insight yep I love to explore & dispatch the critter asap across the many variables that do occur in the field
Also I like to cover as many bases as possible
But I’m darned if I can think of a dual load for elephant so I’m on another path that maybe better than what we already have ????? Time will tell on this & guidances are being sort & put in place from the best in the industry I know of so stay tuned on that



I like watching those types of discussions & don’t overly get to involved in them as I’m way to time poor to get into those especially when you see the mind of the individual is already made up especially when you see wounds like they quote as being great which is correct if you haven’t seen the better ones but defining the best is often harder

There are only a few bullets that are on the market today that can make use of what I’m showing ( the ceb Fn solid surely doesn’t need a introduction lol )
The 375 & that 235 gr hydro is also one but specific it is , I don’t know wether woodleigh will make anymore but it does have limitations so match that to the hatch & watch it outperform any mushroom pill of what is outdated information yet all will still kill yes but the good shedding it hasn’t been able to reach those levels .
In all reality though the 235 is a touch light on buff & better served with a ?250/260 ish weight pill but I doubt it will ever come as on the very brief talk I’ve had with Geoff on the 235 in a 7twist going flat out , his answer to me was “why” due to the 300 version
& all respect to him but that as you come to in a minute is old school thoughts while backed up from good reliability it doesn’t put critters on the ground as quickly if one uses a different method like above, end of story !! but make sure one covers the bases in this scenario is paramount “impact to tip” shows us a lot & one’s own need’s & acceptance level plays in here also

Yes
A better outcome on the
“impact to tip “part dosent concern some but the next generation once they are shown & shoot the different types they see it so easily that the tide is a turning but slowly yes even had some older school thought guys change as I have over time

Yes this goes with above part & why one needs to clear their heads & look @ what’s occurring not what we believe to be the case .
Sectional density in terminal form is extremely different to sectional density in flight

Got a Funny one on SD ( well not really ) I did some work for a bullet company & a zoo that had extremely tight tolerances & criteria's to meet on what a certain bullet needed to do for the few scenarios put forward to me but couldn’t exceed for fear of secondary wounding & I ended up coming up with a combo that filled the roles as best as I could find & yet when the ballistic gurus came back & wanted more sectional density which contradicted what was wanted as a outcome & shown to be the case & I let that be known he better go & clear his head & look what the criteria's were @ the start then study the hard factual evidence yep he was stuck in the past of needing x amount of sectional density to do a job
he had no clue
Yes not funny as lives were on the line in a already very very tight room for error


Yes it’s a hard road forward that’s for sure & just like here so many are still fixated on the past of yesterday’s best , if we clear our heads the older styles don’t come close to a better aligned pill /s for the job @ hand today

it’s just a design & application system we fail to understand what can or can’t occur , if we understand that we can move forward with even better results but a blanket statement like we often see is completely flawed

Yes this line is very true & one that a blanket statement should always apply too but when it goes off the rails even a touch you have 2 types of people here also

One that goes I wouldn’t use that again & another you just get bullets to fail every now & then

so acceptance or wanting better is also a personal decision but still facts remain facts


Lastly I should set the record straight before that is interpreted wrongly or I get labeled on something I’m not on when I say “worked “ for a company
This is factually wrong as I’ve never “worked” for anyone in the industry/s & one that I would be better to use the word/s of see / help /find differences & hopefully a better way forward

I do this all @ no charge
I have received the very odd boxes of projectiles for testing @ no charge from various companies ( I’ve received way more from individuals) but it would be less than I don’t know 100th of 1% of the total pills I use & it’s a few more than a few lol
As I am a firm believer in staying independent & just showing facts , ( I love running theories also & confirm either way & not worried on being wrong as it’s learning )
Thats where “work for “ comes in so please don’t label me as trying to do whatever as I’m about finding the better mousetrap & definatly no financial gain

I’ve been offered employment for my services but if I cross that line I see the parts of you can’t say that or don’t show this as one needs to tow the line of what the boss tells the employee to say/do /show for fear of not getting payed or having a job
Man alive I’ve had one company still try & do it , yes that went down like a lead balloon .
No I do it for love of the journey & finding a better outcome


The only issue I really have is I’m my own boss & I just won’t do what the boss is telling the muppet to do lol but that day is coming as I’ve been put on notice a few times now


Cheers

Good stuff!

 

[Brian]

Gday Brian

Your welcome hopefully the following is one that may get a few ticking in the fascinating world of terminals

So true reality has hit home potentially to a few , others still won’t get it

Using a good true solid over a mushroom pill that is of a mono construction or to a less extent a bonded using old school thoughts is not hard to equal or surpass terminally for some applications if one clears their head but move to a shedding mono or more limited applications a frangible ( the highest trauma pills ) I have failed to see / how to get better terminal results out of a true solid except where penetration is required or velocity is real low where the trauma pill becomes erratic in the terminal journey or lastly deflection

It’s why a true solid & higher trauma causing pill matched together in a dual load is pretty darn hard to improve on ( still room but it’s getting real hard these days ) but all shedding are not equal to the same level & a frangible both have serious weaknesses also if one is not careful & under penetration is more often a issue yet we here so many times that the pill on a broadside shot was found against the hide or in it or in the leg meat yet its so called perfect preformance hmmm define perfect is one that is a individual thing as what are we comparing it to & more importantly how big is the pool it’s against ( this has nothing to do with the need for the pill to stay in the critter as that is a parameter of requirements & one that is vastly different to actual terminal wounds but yes they are some what linked but separate if one wants to get in the fun terminal world )

You see this time after time & once the terminal path is studied / measured & put against other styles or patterns you see these pills all have a taper in the wounds View attachment 705476it also occurs the other way of for better words pencils the first lobe View attachment 705559till it’s expanded to full diameter the gives better wound in 2nd lobe
View attachment 705560but those pills also taper & understanding the different zones a pill has is one that must be understood to get a better understanding of what pill is actually better for the intended situation to come
( pictures are just random critters for illustrations)

So once again knowing the weaknesses of designs & limitation’s is extremely important & this is not when THINGS GO RIGHT as it’s the other side that will give you more insight yep I love to explore & dispatch the critter asap across the many variables that do occur in the field
Also I like to cover as many bases as possible
But I’m darned if I can think of a dual load for elephant so I’m on another path that maybe better than what we already have ????? Time will tell on this & guidances are being sort & put in place from the best in the industry I know of so stay tuned on that



I like watching those types of discussions & don’t overly get to involved in them as I’m way to time poor to get into those especially when you see the mind of the individual is already made up especially when you see wounds like they quote as being great which is correct if you haven’t seen the better ones but defining the best is often harder

There are only a few bullets that are on the market today that can make use of what I’m showing ( the ceb Fn solid surely doesn’t need a introduction lol )
The 375 & that 235 gr hydro is also one but specific it is , I don’t know wether woodleigh will make anymore but it does have limitations so match that to the hatch & watch it outperform any mushroom pill of what is outdated information yet all will still kill yes but the good shedding it hasn’t been able to reach those levels .
In all reality though the 235 is a touch light on buff & better served with a ?250/260 ish weight pill but I doubt it will ever come as on the very brief talk I’ve had with Geoff on the 235 in a 7twist going flat out , his answer to me was “why” due to the 300 version
& all respect to him but that as you come to in a minute is old school thoughts while backed up from good reliability it doesn’t put critters on the ground as quickly if one uses a different method like above, end of story !! but make sure one covers the bases in this scenario is paramount “impact to tip” shows us a lot & one’s own need’s & acceptance level plays in here also

Yes
A better outcome on the
“impact to tip “part dosent concern some but the next generation once they are shown & shoot the different types they see it so easily that the tide is a turning but slowly yes even had some older school thought guys change as I have over time

Yes this goes with above part & why one needs to clear their heads & look @ what’s occurring not what we believe to be the case .
Sectional density in terminal form is extremely different to sectional density in flight

Got a Funny one on SD ( well not really ) I did some work for a bullet company & a zoo that had extremely tight tolerances & criteria's to meet on what a certain bullet needed to do for the few scenarios put forward to me but couldn’t exceed for fear of secondary wounding & I ended up coming up with a combo that filled the roles as best as I could find & yet when the ballistic gurus came back & wanted more sectional density which contradicted what was wanted as a outcome & shown to be the case & I let that be known he better go & clear his head & look what the criteria's were @ the start then study the hard factual evidence yep he was stuck in the past of needing x amount of sectional density to do a job
he had no clue
Yes not funny as lives were on the line in a already very very tight room for error


Yes it’s a hard road forward that’s for sure & just like here so many are still fixated on the past of yesterday’s best , if we clear our heads the older styles don’t come close to a better aligned pill /s for the job @ hand today

it’s just a design & application system we fail to understand what can or can’t occur , if we understand that we can move forward with even better results but a blanket statement like we often see is completely flawed

Yes this line is very true & one that a blanket statement should always apply too but when it goes off the rails even a touch you have 2 types of people here also

One that goes I wouldn’t use that again & another you just get bullets to fail every now & then

so acceptance or wanting better is also a personal decision but still facts remain facts


Lastly I should set the record straight before that is interpreted wrongly or I get labeled on something I’m not on when I say “worked “ for a company
This is factually wrong as I’ve never “worked” for anyone in the industry/s & one that I would be better to use the word/s of see / help /find differences & hopefully a better way forward

I do this all @ no charge
I have received the very odd boxes of projectiles for testing @ no charge from various companies ( I’ve received way more from individuals) but it would be less than I don’t know 100th of 1% of the total pills I use & it’s a few more than a few lol
As I am a firm believer in staying independent & just showing facts , ( I love running theories also & confirm either way & not worried on being wrong as it’s learning )
Thats where “work for “ comes in so please don’t label me as trying to do whatever as I’m about finding the better mousetrap & definatly no financial gain

I’ve been offered employment for my services but if I cross that line I see the parts of you can’t say that or don’t show this as one needs to tow the line of what the boss tells the employee to say/do /show for fear of not getting payed or having a job
Man alive I’ve had one company still try & do it , yes that went down like a lead balloon .
No I do it for love of the journey & finding a better outcome


The only issue I really have is I’m my own boss & I just won’t do what the boss is telling the muppet to do lol but that day is coming as I’ve been put on notice a few times now


Cheers

Good stuff !

 

[Brian]

Got a Funny one on SD ( well not really ) I did some work for a bullet company & a zoo that had extremely tight tolerances & criteria's to meet on what a certain bullet needed to do for the few scenarios put forward to me but couldn’t exceed for fear of secondary wounding & I ended up coming up with a combo that filled the roles as best as I could find & yet when the ballistic gurus came back & wanted more sectional density which contradicted what was wanted as a outcome & shown to be the case & I let that be known he better go & clear his head & look what the criteria's were @ the start then study the hard factual evidence yep he was stuck in the past of needing x amount of sectional density to do a job
he had no clue
Yes not funny as lives were on the line in a already very very tight room for error

Fordy, That is good one about the geniouses on the defunct Sectional Density theory.

You won't believe this one!

Kevin Robertson was interviewed on a international North Fork podcast at the 2024 Dallas SCI show.
He stated out loud with an assuring grin on his face that ,
"Sectional Density is the key to hunting ". The key! Can you believe it?

Hunters will be repeating that ridiculous statement for years to come as if it was biblical. Weird stuff.

 

[Brian]

There is a good definitive article on Section Density in the Field and Stream magazine 2022 by Richard Mann. You can google it if you want.

What You’ve Been Told About a Bullet’s Sectional Density and Penetration Is Wrong​

Many shooters believe that the sectional density of an unfired bullet predicts penetration, but for the vast majority of bullets we use, that just isn’t true

 

[Brian]

I am unable to transfer the whole SD article to AH, so I have copied and pasted this paragraph. More to come. Stay tuned.

We need to talk about the sectional density (SD) of an unfired bullet. Why? Because you’ve been led to believe that it matters. And it doesn’t really. Not for most of us. I know this may come as a shock, given that many shooters believe that the higher a bullet’s initial SD, the deeper it will penetrate. Bullet catalogs list unfired SD as an important specification, after all, and the supposed correlation of SD and bullet penetration is all over Internet chat forums and even articles like this one. But if you just think about a bullet made of cheese, you’ll see what I’m getting at.

First, let’s define the term: SD is the ratio of a bullet’s weight to its diameter. It’s calculated by dividing the bullet’s weight in grains by 7,000, which gives you it’s grains per pound, and then dividing that by the bullet’s diameter, squared. With solids or bullets that do not deform, SD can be representative of penetration. But here’s the key: Most of us use bullets that do deform, and with these projectiles, the SD of the unfired bullet means very little. Rather, it’s the SD of the mushroomed bullet (which isn’t given in catalogs or much talked about) that truly influences penetration.

 

[Brian]

Ta-Dah... Here is some more.

To better understand SD, you have to realize that its calculation does not consider what bullets are made of or how they’re constructed. SD may seem to reflect how hard or tough a bullet is, but it doesn’t. Which brings us to the bullet made of cheese. Consider one bullet made of lead and another one made of cheddar. If both weigh the same and both have the same diameter or caliber, their sectional densities are identical. Unless you’re hunting field mice, the cheddar cheese bullet is as useless as a lasso on a whale.

 

[Brian]

What Really Matters in Terminal Sectional Density​

More practically, let’s look at two bullets commonly used in the .30/30 Winchester. A 150-grain .30-caliber Barnes Flat-Nose Triple Shock has the same SD as a 150-grain .30-caliber Winchester Power Point. If the SD of the unfired bullet was such a good indicator of penetration, these bullets would penetrate to the same depth. But they don’t.

The Barnes bullet deforms with a frontal diameter of 0.600 and has a recovered weight of 150 grains. The Power Point bullet deforms with a frontal diameter of 0.634 and has a recovered weight of 134 grains. Impacting at the same velocity, the Barnes bullet will penetrate about 20 percent deeper. It’s not the SD of the unfired bullet that influences penetration, it is the terminal sectional density (TSD) of the deformed/expanded bullet that matters. The Barnes bullet has a TSD of 0.060 as compared to the Power Point’s TSD of 0.048.

 

[Brian]

Last one!
Terminal sectional density uses basically the same formula—but after the bullet has been fired, deformed, and recovered. Richard Mann

The TSD of a bullet—its recovered weight divided by the square of its recovered diameter—is highly influenced by impact velocity and will vary depending on how fast it is traveling when it hits something. After only a couple inches of penetration, bullets fully mushroom and establish their terminal shape. The remaining 90 percent of the bullet’s penetration journey is then dictated by the mushroomed bullet’s TSD and remaining velocity. Because bullets are constructed differently, made of different materials, and react differently to impact, you cannot reliably predict penetration based on the SD of the unfired bullet. TSD, on the other hand, is a very good indicator of penetration potential. But ironically, to calculate a bullet’s TSD you must recover it, weigh it, and measure it. If you can do that, you already know how far it penetrated.

TSD is the heart of terminal performance when it comes to bullets that deform or expand. It is the reason some hunters prefer a certain type of bullet to another. Just look at the three .30-caliber, 150-grain bullets from Nosler pictured below. From left to right, they are a Ballistic Tip, an AccuBond, and a Partition. They all have the same SD, but their TSDs, when captured in ordnance gelatin at about 2600 fps, are 0.045, 0.051, and 0.063 respectively. And these TSDs correlate very well to their respective penetration depths of 17.5, 21.0, and 22.5 inches.

 

[Fordy]

Gday Brian

Fordy, That is good one about the geniouses on the defunct Sectional Density theory.

You won't believe this one!

Kevin Robertson was interviewed on a international North Fork podcast at the 2024 Dallas SCI show.
He stated out loud with an assuring grin on his face that ,
"Sectional Density is the key to hunting ". The key! Can you believe it?

Hunters will be repeating that ridiculous statement for years to come as if it was biblical. Weird stuff.

With all respect to Kevin that is just plain wrong

SD is one that still requires a lot to be educated on & why you have guys like that who are not willing to clear their heads & look @ factual information , yep it is going to be a long road

Or is it they just plain don’t understand basic physics & must be basic if I can get it

Posts 71 to 75 of yours are definitely a step in the right direction ( thankyou )
Once those are understood by a lot more we might beable to have a even better terminal discussion without the white noise brigade bringing up outdated information

SD I still use a bit but IT’s always from a terminal sectional density point & one that if one goes back to the way true solids work you’ll find extremely similar traits appearing in a expanding & shedding once we can get to that level watch the discussions really move forward

Once again it’s understanding how wounds are created & one sadly too many people assume yet it becomes folk law like in cases you’ve put up @ the Dallas show

Cheers

 

[Brian]

Gday Brian

With all respect to Kevin that is just plain wrong

SD is one that still requires a lot to be educated on & why you have guys like that who are not willing to clear their heads & look @ factual information , yep it is going to be a long road

Or is it they just plain don’t understand basic physics & must be basic if I can get it

Posts 71 to 75 of yours are definitely a step in the right direction ( thankyou )
Once those are understood by a lot more we might beable to have a even better terminal discussion without the white noise brigade bringing up outdated information

SD I still use a bit but IT’s always from a terminal sectional density point & one that if one goes back to the way true solids work you’ll find extremely similar traits appearing in a expanding & shedding once we can get to that level watch the discussions really move forward

Once again it’s understanding how wounds are created & one sadly too many people assume yet it becomes folk law like in cases you’ve put up @ the Dallas show

Cheers

I agree completely. Great post !

 

[ftrovato]

Gday
Here’s a little bit for people to digest & see how we are so conditioned to what we are told & not look outside of the square


On looking @ these pictures below one is a hydro & one a Barnes both in 375

1st pic is Entry into the chest of a bovine of around 850/900 pounds
View attachment 705019
Exit side on inside of the chest View attachment 705015

So a solid does less damage than an expanding ??

Yes if we listen too what we are told & lead to believe by individuals or companies is the only way & we blindly follow the pied piper & don’t understand what we actually need for a chosen critter & how to apply it to the best of its ability , we will get no where near this that I can guarantee

Yes the hydro out preformed the Barnes easily well on what I saw lol

Barnes on left hydro on right in the pictures above

barnes 350 tsx
Hydro 235
With both not being slow as I’m a speed freak lol


Cheers

Was the animal already dead before the bullet on the left was fired? There is no hemorrhaging.

 

[Fordy]

Gday ftrovato

Was the animal already dead before the bullet on the left was fired? There is no hemorrhaging.

Good pic up sir got me looking a little more so thankyou but not quite dead but dead on feet i guess you could call it ? i believe was basically so yes I guess as it just kinda froze on impact of the hydro & then wobbled a touch as I put the Barnes in it as it dropped ( I don’t know probably 4 to 6 seconds between shots) here’s another pic of entry & that shows way less than normal blood splash or Barnes types of wounds

The interesting part of this was the lungs also as they had no colour of a normal type of wound ( sorry don’t have pics of those )
Now I need to delve a little deeper here to hopefully answer some parts while others I’ve got no idea & only a theory so anyone else know the finer details please speak up

Overall you see more blood shot meat /bruising or bloody layers ( I guess that’s what your referring to as haemorrhaging ) from cup & core bullets than the monos
Now you’ll see some extremely clean wounds with the earlier hammer bullets but todays you see more bloodshot meat this I believe is from 2 different systems of killing

One is the hydraulic action that for better words is like a air compressor has blown the critter up & the nervous system has gone into shock & the body as a self defense mechanism stops everything working but I think this air compressor effect pushes the blood away from the wound site & hence you get very clean wounds heres some others in various critters

Now the part that’s fascinating to me on this one is Barnes don’t usually produce a clean wound & act more like the hydro on the right to more bruises again like the bonded but not as much as some non bonded pills as these seem to crush the meat not cut it & I know I’ve got better pictures than these but please excuse me for not being thorough enough

Todays hammer pills are very easy to follow wound paths unlike these of the hydraulic pills they use to be as was case here

Now the other part you see a lot of bruising in /on meat is when the critters run & this one definitely didn’t run so that gives us a plus on that but still it’s a very clean wound
Now the position of the hydro cut a lot of stuff off @ the top of the pump house so could that have effected the part of no blood pressure in the back of those lungs & ribs ????

I just don’t know why or what occurred & be good for a little more clarity if you or anyone else has any ideas

Thanks for the pickup as now has me ticking & im going to do a little testing on this now & see if I can replicate those clean wounds again with the 350 Barnes?
Cheers

 

[Fordy]

Gday @Brian
I’ve got a fair amount of data on different weight projectiles in the 375 I done up for hammer & was the bases of the 270SH being developed & one I’ll get some stuff together & break the penertration parts down into terminal & flight SD
So give me a little time as be interesting to put the numbers up & it will no doubt raise a few eyebrows as it did mine & others & I’ll add a couple of .510 for comparison for a little more reference why SD is down the list of priorities imo of course

Cheers