Can we please stop talking about "flat shooting" cartridges

[C.W. Richter]

Ok, I admit. I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

If you're being serious you might have misunderstood what I posted. Let me clarify. Two identical bullets shot at a target 500 yards away. One is averaging 2000fps and rises 3 feet before descending to hit dead center. The other, averaging 2250 fps has a perfectly flat path. No rise at all. Without digging up a geometry formula the slower bullet with the arc travels an additional 6 feet on it's way to the target (500yds + 3 ft rise + 3 foot fall) and takes .753 seconds to get there. The faster bullet covers it's flat 500 yards in .667 seconds. A difference of .4% distance (500 yds vs 502 yds) and .086 seconds travel time. All you math majors out there feel free to correct my arc distance vs flat trajectory distance. I may not have that part exactly correct but it doesn't change my hypothesis in any meaningful way.

Will allowing the wind an extra 2 yards and an additional .083 seconds to deflect the bullet yield any real world difference in wind deflection? No, it won't. That's why I said the difference is mainly just a theoretical exercise. Quantifiable? Yes, but the effect is not enough to matter at normal hunting distances. Stretch it out to 1000 yds or more and the potential wind deflection will have to be dealt with.

If you were just joking about KY I'm cool with that. No thin skin here.

You've heard of Kentucky windage??

 

[C.W. Richter]

Ok, I admit. I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

If you're being serious you might have misunderstood what I posted. Let me clarify. Two identical bullets shot at a target 500 yards away. One is averaging 2000fps and rises 3 feet before descending to hit dead center. The other, averaging 2250 fps has a perfectly flat path. No rise at all. Without digging up a geometry formula the slower bullet with the arc travels an additional 6 feet on it's way to the target (500yds + 3 ft rise + 3 foot fall) and takes .753 seconds to get there. The faster bullet covers it's flat 500 yards in .667 seconds. A difference of .4% distance (500 yds vs 502 yds) and .086 seconds travel time. All you math majors out there feel free to correct my arc distance vs flat trajectory distance. I may not have that part exactly correct but it doesn't change my hypothesis in any meaningful way.

Will allowing the wind an extra 2 yards and an additional .083 seconds to deflect the bullet yield any real world difference in wind deflection? No, it won't. That's why I said the difference is mainly just a theoretical exercise. Quantifiable? Yes, but the effect is not enough to matter at normal hunting distances. Stretch it out to 1000 yds or more and the potential wind deflection will have to be dealt with.

If you were just joking about KY I'm cool with that. No thin skin here.

Totally joking and the Kentucky rifle is the same as the Pennsylvania rifle probably something to do with Daniel Boone moving around so much!

 

[CBH Australia]

Ok, I admit. I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

If you're being serious you might have misunderstood what I posted. Let me clarify. Two identical bullets shot at a target 500 yards away. One is averaging 2000fps and rises 3 feet before descending to hit dead center. The other, averaging 2250 fps has a perfectly flat path. No rise at all. Without digging up a geometry formula the slower bullet with the arc travels an additional 6 feet on it's way to the target (500yds + 3 ft rise + 3 foot fall) and takes .753 seconds to get there. The faster bullet covers it's flat 500 yards in .667 seconds. A difference of .4% distance (500 yds vs 502 yds) and .086 seconds travel time. All you math majors out there feel free to correct my arc distance vs flat trajectory distance. I may not have that part exactly correct but it doesn't change my hypothesis in any meaningful way.

Will allowing the wind an extra 2 yards and an additional .083 seconds to deflect the bullet yield any real world difference in wind deflection? No, it won't. That's why I said the difference is mainly just a theoretical exercise. Quantifiable? Yes, but the effect is not enough to matter at normal hunting distances. Stretch it out to 1000 yds or more and the potential wind deflection will have to be dealt with.

If you were just joking about KY I'm cool with that. No thin skin here.

Sorry Bonk but I don’t see this working. The theory and math might work but the data won’t work.

bullets have a muzzle velocity that slows as it goes. I guess you could work out the average speed for a given range.

secondly the difference of 250fps won’t make the trajectory flat.

no bullet path is flat, that’s the purpose of the thread but to be considered a flat shooting cartridge it might need to be a whole lot faster than 2250fps

 

[CBH Australia]

The sad part of this conversation is, I can for see a time when we will be required to use none lead bullets. Then we will have a whole new conversation.

I think I’ve read it’s heading that way in some states of the US.

the good thing is people are testing them and working on new designs so at least they are available and they do work.

 

[BeeMaa]

I think I’ve read it’s heading that way in some states of the US.

the good thing is people are testing them and working on new designs so at least they are available and they do work.

Not exactly a shocker…California I know other states are considering it, but haven’t yet.

 

[Tom Leoni]

Regarding "energy dump" (by any other name), the best and most scientific thesis I've ever seen is in Gregor Woods' Rifles for Africa (Safari Press, 2002). His points:

1 - The notion that kinetic energy gets somehow transferred to the animal with lethal effects is false.

2 - The value of energy is only in pushing the bullet forward with enough momentum to crush tissue at given distances.

3 - As the tissue slows down a fast bullet, a temporary cavitation is created for a fraction of a second. However, this temporary cavitation is seldom capable of killing, due to the resilience, elasticity, and diversity of tissue. Animals simply aren't water jugs. The permanent wound channel created by the bullet, however, is what kills--the rapidity of death depending on what the bullet is capable of destroying.

4 - In gelatin, the temporary cavitation remains, due to the substance's relative lack of elasticity--this (along with a century of marketing) is misleading. It is true, however, that if the permanent cavitation is relatively big compared to the animal (e.g., hitting a mouse with a .22-250), the latter will burst.

5 - Temporary cavitation can occasionally contribute to the bullet's wounding potential, especially when bullet fragments traveling radially help detach tissue segments that have stretched. But this is nowhere near reliable and cannot be expected.

6 - Penetration and the ability to destroy tissue--cutting off the circulation of blood to the brain--is what kills. The bigger the bullet (due to caliber and/or expansion), the more reliably this will happen.

7 - Two holes--entry and exit--are better than one.

8 - It is best to use either conventional bullets pushed at moderate velocities, or premium bullets that can hit at higher speeds without breaking up. With this formula, a hunter can rely on what his rifle will rather than may do--with the obvious premise that the hit has to occur in the right place.

I have always found this thesis quite persuasive, also due to the amount of evidence and expert opinion he presents. Conversely, I haven't yet heard or read an opinion buttressing the "shock" or "energy dump" thesis in a convincing, non-anecdotal manner. My ears remain open, though.

 

[marksman]

There is no such thing as "flat shooting". Flat means horizontal or level. Every bullet has an arc of trajectory from the instant it leaves the muzzle until it reaches target. Each bullet has it's own unique trajectory depending on caliber, weight, powder charge, barrel length, etc. Some have less arc than others.

not trying to be a sm@rt@rse but l have to disagree because as a bullet exits the muzzle it starts falling straight away as it is slowing down
we make the ark by the way we point the bore above the line of sight that is a straight line
l get what you are saying but l also realise that even though there is no such thing as a flat shooting round the saying is really about a round that shoots pretty flat compared to others

 

[Tom Leoni]

not trying to be a sm@rt@rse but l have to disagree because as a bullet exits the muzzle it starts falling straight away as it is slowing down
we make the ark by the way we point the bore above the line of sight that is a straight line
l get what you are saying but l also realise that even though there is no such thing as a flat shooting round the saying is really about a round that shoots pretty flat compared to others

Good points. We all know what we mean by the expression "flat shooting." It's just an expression and nobody takes it literally.

 

[Hogpatrol]

More mud in the eye:

Effective Game Killing

Effective game killing- How bullets kill and where to aim to ensure a fast clean kill.

www.ballisticstudies.com

 

[Inline6]

More mud in the eye:

Effective Game Killing

Effective game killing- How bullets kill and where to aim to ensure a fast clean kill.

www.ballisticstudies.com

Thanks for that article. It does a good job of explaining the results that I have witnessed. The reasons he has stated makes a lot of sense looking at it from that perspective.

 

[akrifleman]

More mud in the eye:

Effective Game Killing

Effective game killing- How bullets kill and where to aim to ensure a fast clean kill.

www.ballisticstudies.com

Ahh, there it is. Updated version by a different author, but essentially the article I was trying to paraphrase from memory. I had forgotten about hydrostatic CNS disruption, and just lumped them together. Superbly written.

 

[375er]

The sad part of this conversation is, I can for see a time when we will be required to use none lead bullets. Then we will have a whole new conversation.

This is likely true. I had a conversation with a gentlemen from Denmark when I was in Africa. He said non-lead bullets will be mandatory there in the next 2 or 3 years.

 

[F. Vaccaro]

And this is why we can't stop talking about flat shooting cartridges....

The heart is one of my favorite cuts from any animal, furred or feathered, so I prefer mine not to be served as soup.
Massive tissue damage is not the only cause of death, or the only way to have an animal DRT after the shot. Hydrostatic shot plays a part; we will get that to varying degrees based on where the hit occurs. Blood loss plays a part; 2 holes with an open channel between will improve this. CNS impact, perhaps the hardest to directly call unless the head or spine is directly impacted. But at the end of the shot, the goal is a quick, humane kill. And meat in somebodies freezer or drying/smoking rack.
Sometimes, even the perfect shot results in an animal traveling various distances. My first deer, 180gr 30-06, shot through both lungs (mush) and dead center of the heart, broken left shoulder, jumped and ran 30 yards. Would have been farther, but the wet aspen leaves and only 3 legs caused him to wrap around and aspen tree. Bear hit at 30 yards with 405gr 45-70 at 1750fps, both lungs mush, top of the heart gone with 1st shot. Hit twice more as he spun. Left a blood trail waist high for a curving 60 yards where he piled up against a tree. He did give the death moan where he stopped. Antelope hit at 120 yards with a 130gr 270Win broadside, slightly down hill. Both lungs mush, heart was torn up. He ran about 150 yards in a big circle, almost right back to where he started. I was about to put another round in him when he just toppled over. All of these were pass throughs, but the tissue damage was massive. Why didn't they just fall on the spot?
Made a bad hit on an antelope as he stepped forward at the same time the trigger broke. 250-3000 with 100gr bullet at 110-115 yards quartering towards me. Missed the boiler room, but clipped the liver. He took 2 steps and dropped. No exit wound. So is the trick to start aiming at the liver instead of the heart?
The only animals I'll use match bullets on is a prairie dog or coyote, I haven't found a good recipe for them yet . But for big game, my preference is a hole on both sides with edible meat in between. That requires a better bullet, hopefully that mushrooms as designed, but punches through the other side.

Haha one of my favorite ctgs. the .45-70, favorite load too, a 405gr REM.SP only mine is going 1730fps….. Love it in the timber hunting elk where I could bump a Grizzly.
I’ve shot two bears, the only way I’d shoot another is in self defense.

 

[Grouser]

I remember learning in high school physics that if you fire an absolutely level rifle on level terrain at, say, three feet off the ground, and at the same instant drop a like bullet from the same height, the bullets will hit the ground at the same time.
Sadly I’ve never been on the level to test this.

 

[Inline6]

I remember learning in high school physics that if you fire an absolutely level rifle on level terrain at, say, three feet off the ground, and at the same instant drop a like bullet from the same height, the bullets will hit the ground at the same time.
Sadly I’ve never been on the level to test this.

Myth Busters did.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

I remember learning in high school physics that if you fire an absolutely level rifle on level terrain at, say, three feet off the ground, and at the same instant drop a like bullet from the same height, the bullets will hit the ground at the same time.
Sadly I’ve never been on the level to test this.

True, very true. Projectiles have very little lift if any, other than "spin drift". Spin drift is wind and rifling direction dependent and not enough to worry about other than at long, long range.

Gravity is constant for the same elevation. If one drops a bowling ball and a marble together from a tower, they will both hit the ground together. There may be a little resistance as they fall to the ground, but I don't know if the average Joe could notice it. I know I can't.

In a nutshell, the amount of drop, if all other variables are the same, depends on the time of flight. A shorter time of flight of a projectile to a specific range/target, will have less drop than a projectile that has a longer time of flight to the same target.

 

[Inline6]

True, very true. Projectiles have very little lift if any, other than "spin drift". Spin drift is wind and rifling direction dependent and not enough to worry about other than at long, long range.

That sounds like what I would call Aerodynamic jump.

Have seen up and down drafts move bullets, like you said it is just not something most can see.

 

[BeeMaa]

Gravity is constant for the same elevation. If one drops a bowling ball and a marble together from a tower, they will both hit the ground together. There may be a little resistance as they fall to the ground, but I don't know if the average Joe could notice it. I know I can't.

This is absolutely true in the classroom because the assumption is made that no other forces are acting the object. In reality, the factor of friction (in this case, air resistance) will change the rate of gravitational acceleration (9.8 ㎨) and slow the marble down to a terminal velocity faster than it would act on the bowling ball. Of course this would have to take place over several hundred feet to be noticed by the naked eye...but it is still a factor.

This is more easily demonstrated by dropping a 5 gram feather vs a 5 gram steel ball bearing from waist high.

 

[Grouser]

In a vacuum, for that steel ball and feather.
Regardless of speed, gravity is a constant. Well, outside of Einstein.

 

[sgt_zim]

It not apples to apples. We need to be talking about the same weight bullet, going the same speed, so that the energy levels are the same.

For instance, 300WM 180gr mono passed through the deer. It is not much bigger going out because it doesn't have a lot of resistance to open the bullet up. You still have part of the heart and lungs that are easy to identify.

A 168 Berger or SMk out of the same gun is producing close to the same energy do to speed difference. That bullet may not exit, it will come apart. The lungs and heart are not identifiable. It looks like blood soup. The amount of meat damage is more extensive, the body of that animal absorbed most of the energy of that round.

The mono deer is going to run, the Berger is going to fold up. I think we are on two different pages of the way we are viewing energy.

The best way I know how to say it is all things are equal meaning mono bullet is make 2000ftlb of energy and Berger bullet is making 2000ftlb of energy. The one that does not exist is going to be the one that transferred the most amount of energy into the animal.

I hope that makes sense, I'm not trying to say you are wrong. I just don't think we are looking at this the same way. Hopefully I did a better job of explaining it.

The amount of energy transferred to an animal doesn't kill it. The amount of energy used to cause mortal wounds, of the sort that destroy the heart or CNS, or the sort that cause them to bleed out, is what's important. I agree with you on the monos, and I'm not a fan for a number of reasons.

A 40 gr Varmageddon fired at 4000 fps from a 22-250 will absolutely dump all of its energy in a deer. But unless you shoot it in the head, you're probably just going to create a nasty wound that gets infected and kills the deer a week or 3 from now. Even at 100 yards, it still has what is considered sufficient energy (a little north of 1000 ft lbs) to kill a deer. What it clearly lacks is the capacity to penetrate to the vitals.

Yes, fragmenting bullets "dump all their energy," but I'm not sure how that's a positive. The fragmenting largely occurs at the point of impact. Because the pieces have less mass than an intact bullet, each of them lacks the momentum to penetrate deeply. The deeper the penetration, the more likely it is that more vital tissue will be destroyed. This is one case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Instead of a single, large wound channel, you end up with a bunch of smaller, shallower wound channels that ultimately only damage flesh, not vitals. If there is wasted energy, it is all of those small fragments which fail to reach the vitals. They do not penetrate as deeply precisely because they lack the energy to overcome the resistance of the flesh.

I'm not saying cup-and-cores do not work. They clearly do. But there are better choices today, just as cup-and-cores were a better choice a century ago.