I was taught these things as a Navy corpsman back in the late 80s and early '90s when we were taught how bullets wound. The full metal jacket when it tumbles is extremely devastating.
So many people don’t understand ballistics and bullet performance. Oddly, people get very emotional when you tell them that no round is perfect and all rounds have their pros and cons. Caliber selection is important, but so is the bullet type for the job. I prefer 7.62x39 for hogs and general purpose, but that isn’t to say I don’t respect 5.56 and 223. I just prefer the heavier bullet for penetration through material, plus I’ve seen first hand how deadly 7.62x39 is through material. 7.62x39 seems more popular than ever nowadays, and I also see more of a trend towards bigger and heavier chunks of lead in pistols as well.
Ooh, I wouldn’t say 7.62x39 is more popular than ever. It was popular and cheap 10 years ago, before Russian ammo was banned and there were cheap AKs to be had. Most of the guys I know who had 7.62x39 guns have offloaded them now or barely shoot them.
Thank you. I am a self defense and firearms instructor. When I do youth classes I always end the range day with ballistics gel and terminal ballistics primer. The kids love it and it gets them thinking a little deeper about ballistics. Great info in a very easy to understand way, thanks for putting it out.
I wish more people were just scratching the surface of these topics! Too many people want to mystify this stuff and it leads to a works of problems or in the worst cases, bad policies from our overreaching government.
Absolutely not boring ! So interesting. Somewhere in this, is the reason the .270,out of a older Remington 700 , for me, has been best by far, on game animals of any size…. ? Thanks…👍🏻. looking for your books.
I'm glad you hit on the fallacy of temporary cavities in gel. I see a lot of guntubers focusing way too much on the appearance of the temporary cavity without understand how much easier it is to tear gel compared to actual tissue. Especially with handgun loads.
BTW, I have some of the .38 spl 110 gr "For Law Enforcement Use Only" rounds you mentioned. The headstamps are WCC +P+ 84. I shot one into water filled milk jugs from a 4" barreled .357 magnum. I got the following results using your "Water Jug Terminal Ballistics Test Form": 9.67" penetration, .496" diameter, 63.4 gr.
Nothing I didn't already know, but a wealth of concise information in one video. If I'd seen it 15 years ago, I'd be far ahead of where I am now. Well done. Excellent presentation.
Dick, I want to thank you sincerely for this superb video. I have been studying this subject - not with experimentation, nor with great expertise - for over four decades. Why, because it interests me, because my second (22 year) career with Lockheed involved a great deal of aerodynamics and conceptual fluid dynamics involvement, because my two decades as a Naval officer (principally, tactical aviation programmatics) also deeply incorporated these subjects, and because my formal education provided the basic understandings that facilitated continuous learning. Okay, I full agree with EVERY WORD you said, but I’d respectfully add one further point: momentum. Momentum is calculated by multiplying velocity times mass (mv); unlike kinetic energy (.5mvv), momentum does not “put an exponential premium” on velocity. A few years ago, I watched two highly regarded firearms experts express real surprise that 230 gain .45 ACP JHPs would outperform 125 grain .357 Sig JHPs, both fired from a 4.5 inch barrel at a 100 meter target. They were shocked that almost twice the muzzle velocity didn’t govern the results. IMHO, what they had neglected to fully appreciate was the major effect momentum has on terminal ballistics at distances beyond normal handgun ranges.
Thank you, that was a very refreshing explanation. I started teaching shooting in 1970. I've taught through changes in whole procedures, even though by the mid to late 1970s I was already teaching people to use the Weaver stance, not the easiest hold, but the most practical especially if you're in tight quarters or having to shoot a distance with a pistol. Another Advantage with the Weaver hold is you can shoot pistols with high recoil and have a quicker recovery. In the late eighties I started training a number of Michigan State Police Officers when they were allowed to transition into semi-autos. I did have to tell at least three of them to take the Beretta they had purchased back and get a different pistol. The Beretta has a decocking liver at the back of the slide and when you put your hand on top of the slide to to racket you can disable the firearm by hitting that decocking lever. The decocking levers at that time, would not automatically be spring loaded so that they would come back off and allow the firearm to fire. The Beretta was never a good defensive weapon. But I suppose it was officer proof enough to keep officers from shooting themselves with the damn thing. That is why I carried a 4-inch 3:57 for at least 25 years before I transitioned into a semi-auto for a primary firearm, and that was a CZ pattern 40 Smith. It will hit almost as hard as a 45, and had a little bit of extra ammo. I do own a singular 9 mm. It is a P35 Argentine military Browning pattern pistol. It has enough barrel length to get the velocities out of a 125 grain Speer Gold Dot plus P or plus P plus I prefer, to make that round appreciably effective. Yet I did find that the 165 grains Speer Gold Dot in the 40 Smith was more than capable of coming very close to 357 Magnum 125 grain hollow point in effectiveness. And just like you, this idea that you can get a 9mm be just as effective as a 40 Smith or 45 is a bunch of garbage. It isn't even as effective as the 357 125 grain hollow point, by far, it's not that effective. When I finally set the 3:57 aside, I believe it was in 2007. The hollow point 9 mm were as good as they've ever been, or damn close to it. That still did not inspire a lot of trust. Because I knew that you needed that 1200 + feet per second minimum to make a properly effective defensive load out of the 9mm. An example of that was the 115 grain law enforcement load that the Illinois State Police were using back in the I believe the early eighties. From train Shooters they were getting one shot Effectiveness very close to the 357 Magnum that's used by people who can shoot and people who can't. So it still was lacking, but it was a very effective cartridge. It's still available from what I understand but it's muzzle velocity was about 1275 or better. I believe the best 9 mm load out there is the Lehigh defense plus P plus with the Speer Gold Dot 125 grain hollow point. With a long enough Barrel to get it up into the 1300 to 1350 ft per second range. As for most of these other ammos, the reason the 9mm pistols have such a large ammo capacity, is because you're going to freaking need it. I will carry 12 rounds of 40 Smith against 15 or 16 rounds of 9 mm every day of the week. Per shot the 40 Smith provides at least a 20 to 25% greater permanent wound cavity then a 9mm will ever produce at the velocities that's currently propelled at. If you want to go to the 357 sig, the 9 by 23 or the capabilities of the 38 super, now you're talking a completely different firearm. But the 9mm parabellum, unless you load it really hot, it ain't getting the job done. And these police officers that are out there doing shooting splits whether dumping five or six rounds inside of 6/10 of a second, they're shooting faster than they can think.
Oh my God ! Where have you been for the last 20 years??!! I've been saying ALL these things almost verbatim for 2 decades ! THANK YOU !! I feel vindicated now... You've made my decade ! 😃 It's all logical.
The magic of 55.6 ends at 120 yards and a 16' AT 90 yards. That is when the velocity falls off, and why BHI 77gr SMK's work all the way out. Also, the M16A1 had a1/12 twist for arctic use. The M4 and M16A2 had a 1/7 twist for M256 tracer round meant for the M249. The logistical tail wags the dog.
Dick, wow! Incredible content. Your channel has become an absolute favorite of mine. Your experience and knowledge is so valuable to the civilian population. Thank you for sharing with us and keep up the great work! Looking forward to more great insightful content. Just awesome!!
I have not conducted terminal ballistic bullet experiments myself after more than 50 years of shooting. My methodology in determining which projectile and propellant choice is done by finding a reputable and well known online expert and then to follow his advice faithfully unless I spot something worrisome at which point I investigate further. Thank you for all the information you provide.
Very informative information in an easy to understand format that makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Also, not boring at all, I found it quite fascinating since I’ve studied this over the years with all the different theories, etc.
I'm literally all in with the underwood extreme defender as far as my own experience. It's most likely the route all ammo makers will eventually lean toward. Coyotes are fairly easy to put down and i mostly use #4 buck these days. But i have killed coyotes with 22 LR, even a 22 short in my trapping days to minimize pelt damage. But having killed a couple coyotes while ginseng hunting with the 68 grain underwood defender. I can attest that wound channel is for real. While that's not much of a test considering a 40 pound canine. They absolutely create as large or larger trail than most JHP, with easy pass thru penetration.
I knew a lot of this but learned some new things that answered questions I didn't know I had. My wife was casually listening and her eyes glazed over 😂 but I was soaking it all in! Velocity and FMJs in the 5.56 was something I didn't fully understand not having a ton of experience with them. I'm much more familiar with hunting and pistol bullets. Thanks for the info, Dick.
I hunted deer with a 1915 6.5 Swede . I was hunting timber from a tree . I used Nosler 90 gr. balistic tip , to avoid shooting through into the next county. I got 3 inch exit wounds .
Machined copper "external hollow point" bullets are indistinguishable from wide flat nose cast bullets in their performance on living targets. They just have much better marketing.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb I wish you well. I just hate seeing great channels blow up. You wouldn't even be replying to me if you had millions of subscribers and thousands of comments on each video. I understand why it happens, but I also hate losing the engagement with the content creator. I used to talk to several fairly famous youtubers back when they barely had any subscribers and now those same guys won't even acknowledge my existence, let alone respond to a comment. I'm happy they are successful, but man, it sucks losing the small channel vibes they all once had. Just try to remember to engage with your audience no matter how big your channel gets. They are the ones that make you successful, yet they are typically the first ones to be forgotten/ignored once the big bucks start rolling in.
@@Watchdog_McCoy_5.7x28 I think I will always appreciate viewers. I consider it an honor when folks like you take the time to listen to me ramble and comment.
This guy is right Mr. Fairburn. I do hope that you start getting more views, I'm a retired officer myself, I understand. But having the personal interaction is pleasing.
Nah, those extreme defenders (“Philips screwdriver bullet”) have been around for a long time. They’re nothing really “super” about them. A Federal HST performs much better on two legged zombies.
@@touofthehighplains Yes I know. That’s why .45super for two legged defense is really a less effective cartridge. The round basically passes all the way through a torso, thus expelling wasted energy. The xtreme defender round penetrates way too deep for a human zombie and therefore, becomes a less effective defense round as well. If you’re talking about using for big game hunting or bear defense, then by all means is a viable option to choose from. Otherwise, it’s a worthless performer for bad guy defense.
@colt10mmsecurity68 just the other day turkey's opinion uploaded a clear ballistic gel test tape on these 45 super. It Penetrated 20 inches. At worse that is on the high end of the fbi spec. And still performs better than a jhp that failed to expand. While also being barrier blind. And the prevalent use of body armor these days by the criminal elements is another case for these Phillips head rounds.
@@touofthehighplains I’ll agree with you about the criminal element stuff. Indeed true.Either way, no matter what bullet is used, I’ll also fully admit that I’d never want to get hit with .45 Super of any projectile that leaves the barrel for that caliber. It would ruin my whole day.
I carry 38 Special +P handloads with 140 grain Lehigh defender bullets in a .357 Mag, 5 shot 2" revolver. I've seen the gelatin tests in slow motion and I am very impressed with these bullets. They are less affected by barrier other than being slowed depending on the barrier. Clothing doesn't seem to affect the performance. Best answer so far IMHO.
Excellent information! The story of the 6.5 Creedmore at 600 yards reminds me of people who insist that a .357 magnum or .44 magnum SJHP is going to vastly out-penetrate their respective special loads (.38 spl/.44 spl). When from what I've seen the slower (often too slow to expand) rounds penetrate much further. Now, that depends on overall bullet construction, but still, all things being equal, slower often equals more penetration. It's really just physics. Whatever energy there is, winds up applied to the bullet by the medium same as the bullet applies to the medium. Slower bullets with less energy receive less energy and my take is the energy it receives is not sufficient to arrest the projectile's momentum as fast as an expanding round with higher energy.
I'm often using a hot glue gun to easily pour bullets that are similar to a sabot, going faster, but not accurate at any distance. Examples: .38 or .22 bullet in .45 cal.mold, and .22 balls in .32rimfire or .32 H&R magnum with heat glue gun. Sometimes i don't feel like melting lead, and want to use percussion powder, or Trail Boss powder for safer pressures. I Enjoy every moment of your videos!
Yes, the bullet is going to expend its energy several different ways. Some of the energy goes into deforming the bullet. Some of the energy goes into heating the bullet and media due to friction. Some of the energy goes into expanding the media from the hydrodynamic reaction. And some goes into pushing through the media to give penetration depth. How the energy gets apportioned depends on the bullet type, material properties and velocity. At higher velocities, more energy goes into bullet deformation, heat and a large initial cavity. At higher velocities, less energy goes into bullet deformation, media cavity and heat and a greater proportion of the energy goes into penetration.
You're very good at explaining in a way most could grasp. I disagree completely on screwdriver bullets at handgun velocities...Parlor trick in easily torn Clear ballistics typically...maybe at 10kfps plus from Bolt Guns someday. Perhaps Gov killed Devil patent holder because of them long ago thinking they wanted it...the rest was great however. 75-77 grain extends things very far and even if yaw is fairly deep blowing out someone's back half seems to work. Some 7.62by39 does yaw...perhaps most ice picks 0-100 yards but I suspect 100-218 yards it's very effective at intermediate range as well as close up barrier penetration in cities. Heavy 5.56 seems overall better for being good cqb to far out though. 9mm just as goof as 40/45 is B.S. and everything Fackler and to some extent Gokor says so but Gokor seems to fell to 9mm just as good even though contradicts
I shot a feral hog last year with a .45-70 loaded with 430 grain cast flat point bullets. Impact velocity was barely 1500 fps. I was shocked to find significant blood shot meat in the off-side shoulder.
I very much enjoyed this video! I am very new to rifles and so this is very eye opening and incredibly informative! Thank you for the time and effort put into this!
Thank you for the time you offer freely. Information from highly qualified and skilled resources is extremely valuable. This day of UA-cam and rumble has really given us wealth beyond financial gain. The information way outweighs money in the world we are heading towards. Thanks Dick. You make a great difference
I found this to be an excellent lecture of the details of terminal ballistics and the work of Dr. Fackler - some of whose findings are currently in dispute by the Courtneys, particularly with respect to the effects of, and thresholds of, hydrostatic shock effects - and revelatory of just how much systematic and detailed work has been done by researchers to bring us to the point of understanding that we have reached about the subject today. The historical perspective is valuable, and the speaker is obviously knowledgeable. This I found to be a valuable contribution to the community of those who are interested in deeper understanding of what does and does not work in wounding, lethality, and incapacitation. Thank you for making this video.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb They did some of their work at/for West Point. Here's a link to one of their papers, and I've seen them referenced elsewhere. apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA526059.pdf
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb Do you have any sources or pictures on the performance on animals and the mentioned police and military use on the flutted bullet design that you could share by chance? I am not for or against the design currently, as they seem to perform well but all the experts (and others) seem to say they do not work. As such I am trying to again gather data, and while I don’t lean either way, I will admit I am honestly not understanding how the standard for testing is ballistics gel, the design seems to perform well in ballistics gel (sometimes as well visually as JHP’s), using the standard test protocol, and yet the claim is they don’t work. Again NOT saying I am on board and a fan, nor am I saying that they are garbage or the like. my mind is always open to new technology in the gun world and I would rather see it given a proper chance and testing instead of outright dismissal.
@@taylorroberts8288 Michael and Amy Courtney - both researchers who take issue with some of Fackler's findings regarding hydrostatic shock effects. Try Googling "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation" for a pdf of a report written by them.
Just for the wing analogy on airplanes (18:22). The different length along a wings shape is not significant. A pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wing creates the lift. Thanks for sharing. I'm glad I have a 20'' barrel in a compact format.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb It is not about the length along the wing but the shape and angle towards the incoming air. Particles above and below meet at the end at almost the same time, the length is nearly identical. And there are symmetrical shapes to create lift and drag like on the tail to steer. The air very close to the wing doesn't act the same as bit further from it. The shape of the wing changes the flow of laminar air to take a turn. An area of lower pressure is created above than below by the forced turn. And now after the pressure difference is created the velocity has to change based on Bernoulli. The airflow leaving the wing downward is forced to speed up and with Newton's help the force pointed in the opposite direction pulls up on the wing. We induce an impulse on the air volume that is pushed downward. That is just for laminar, subsonic cases. No fault on your side, it is often described with the length in some literature but the cause is different.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jbThat is the equal transit time theory which has been debunked both mathematically and by wind tunnel observations. Lift is very complicated and is a combination of pressure difference and change in momentum of the airstream. The details aren’t of great relevance to this topic, but if you have more interest in the details (no math in this video), this isn’t a bad video to start with. ua-cam.com/video/J6h2UOlZQTI/v-deo.htmlsi=ZjEbGYhlOHna-VZc
the best .45 jhp ammo is no longer produced. It was the Corbon 165 jhp at 1250 fps, 5" barrel. That works very well on animals, but the recoil is a bit hard to handle in a lw, compact pistol. The 90 gr, 1500 fps 9mm jhp outperforms all of the other .45 jhps on animals, when 4" or shorter barrels are used. and it's a very controllable load.
Great summary of Fackler's terminal ballistics, bullet length v. rifle twist = stability and velocity. I always like how KE can show potential 1/2 m v^2, but agree it doesn't reliably indicate terminal effectiveness.
It is both simpler and more complex. It can be broken up into 3 parts. Low velocity- drll bit or icepick effect, sub 2k fps High velocity - hydrostatic shock resulting in conversion of temporary to permanent cavity 2k and above Hyper velocity - hydrostatic shock creates sufficient pressure to cause permanent damage to hard tissue like bone 3k and above Bonus class - some projectiles fragment, shedding fragments radially away from the path of the bullet, due to the spin from stabilization. Construction dependant.
From your description of permanent wound channels, it would lean towards using larger calibers to obtain larger permanent wound channels, thus greater damage and more efficient results in stopping a bad guy or wild game?
Great information! However, your assessment that your friends 6.5 Creedmoor penetrated deeper because of a less expanded diameter of the bullet is incorrect. A non-expanding bullet out of the 6.5 Creedmoor would still penetrate deeper at 600 yards than it would at 6 feet, although the wound cavities will be much larger at close range. The reason for this is because of the non-linear relationship between resistance through a medium versus velocity. Within a certain range of velocities a bullet will actually penetrate deeper as velocity decreases. This normally isn't demonstrated very well because bullets usually break up because of the resistance due to the high velocity at close range. Also, you shouldn't discount kinetic energy. Kinetic energy and how fast that energy is dissipated is what determines the size of the temporary and permanent wound cavities, which determines the lethality and incapacitating ability of a given shot. Tumbling, fragmenting, and expanding bullets are more lethal because of how quickly they dissipate their given kinetic energy. The fluid transfer bullets work as well as they do because they are aerodynamically or hydro-dynamically inefficient so they dissipate their energy quickly which is what causes the shock wave that causes the temporary and permanent wound cavities. They cause just as much, although more symmetrical, damage even if they don't fragment, expand, or tumble. Again, it is usually because these bullets are loaded for higher kinetic energy. They wouldn't be near as effective at lower velocities.
Some of these will do more damage than some Hollow points. But the permanent wound cavity is far more consistent with hollow points than they are with these gimmicky monolithic bullets the most effective one I've ever seen literally had a a scoop cone on it where it's actually goes to a point and then spreads out as a curve to the width of the bullet. But it doesn't run through a semi-auto very well. Permanent wound cavity with pistol bullets is absolutely required to be good stopping load. The best first shot fight stopper on the planet is still to this day a 357 caliber hollow point moving at somewhere in the vicinity of about 1300 to 1500 ft per second. The 40 caliber at about 1250 ft per second in about 155 to 165 grain bullet is almost as good. Plus the heavier bullet of the 40 cal will destroy tactical barriers almost twice as fast as 9 mm bullets. 9 mm is a poultry load to be carrying to defend yourself with. If you have two or three other guys with you that can also return fire the number of rounds that can be brought on Target is overwhelming. But if you're by yourself you better be carrying either a very fast 9 mm. Something that very few 9mm loads are capable of Fred such as a 357 Sig or 357 Magnum. Maybe a 9 by 23, or you better be carrying a good hollow point in a 40 Smith or 45 ACP the permanent wound cavity is easily 30% greater than the best 9 mm out of a 40 or 45 ACP
I've always used gallon jugs filled with water to give me an ideal of pistol/revolver bullet performance according to the splash it made. Later on I built a trough fixed to a saw horse that would easily hold 6 jugs. That way I could retrieve the expanded bullets, most of the good hollow points would look like a flower after they've expanded. My favorite factory load in the 9mm & 45acp are Federal hydra shock and now the Hst. My favorite large/dangerous game loads in the 357 mag, 10 mm auto and 44 mag are the Underwood loading's. I'm definitely surprised about what you are telling us about the 55 gr fmj and their terminal performance. I'll need to start stocking up on these for my factory defensive loads. I always use factory loads for such possibilities. I'm a fan of Elmer Keith and the 44, what is your opinion of his theory of a heavy semi-wad cutter?
Look up my water testing video and you can accurately predict penetration in 10% Gelatin, Keith SWC bullets are very accurate and give great performance. I prefer the Wide Flat Nose WFN cast bullets made by several companies for terminal effect.
Great video. By the way, I agree the honey badger/xtreme defender is a good load also very light weight. You do know that the xtreme defender penetrates less than the extreme penetrator but they look the same fyi. You said u like the defender for bear defense. It’s not bad if you only have that or jhp , but I would switch it out for woods carry
Yes, the Lehigh Extreme Penetrators penetrate deeper by design, but the Extreme Defenders still give reliable penetration deep enough for bear defense and do more damage to the tissue at the same time.
With a few bonded deer/antelope kills under my belt, I'm backing off to a standard (Nosler Ballistic Tip) for the lighter stuff, I think they succumb faster. For elk, moose, bears and such, bonded only.
@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb see I only hunt whitetails in the north east upstate ny Essex County. It's thick and close shots only unless ur in fields. I've had terrible experience with cup n core eldx blowing up just inside yhe shoulder. Since that happened I've went bonded and because I'm so close they hit hard as hell and open up big. I think bonded also make sense ware your shots are close and impact vel is really high
I like Paul's videos, but I think his meat target shows us very little. With gelatin and water being vetted so thoroughly, they seem a better choice to test in. Check out my wat jug testing video if you haven't. Not my best video production work, but the protocol is sound.
What would you suggest as a bullet for self protection in an AR with 10 " barrel and a 13" barrel? Ive been loading 55 gr Speer soft point( varmint) bullets in my 10" and Sierra 55 gr gameking fmjbt in my 13" and also my 16" AR .
Since the velocity drops so rapidly when a .223/5.56 is fired from a barrel less than 16 inches, the varmint-style bullets are a good choice. They often fragment badly and suffer from inadequate expansion at high speeds, but are good choices for short barrels, IMO.
Years ago I found a copy of Hatcher's textbook of pistols and revolvers, and learned to calculate the Hatcher formula for stopping power - which Jeff Cooper promoted heavily. KO, Hatcher Scale, pounds/feet (momentum) are all fun to play with. I think kinetic energy can compare the "power" of one load to another, but predicts nothing about the terminal performance of a bullet. I think gelatin testing is the most scientific predicter we have, but it still falls a little short of real-world performance. The smack of a bullet on a steel target doesn't fit into the gelatin's predictions. When a .45 smacks a steel plate, a 9mm sounds small, despite similar kinetic energy. Hit that plate at 300 yards with a .308 and you get a solid "smack" to a "tink" from a 5.56mm hit. Not science, but a fascinating topic, though!!!
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb The “smack” you hear is momentum which translates to penetration. 9mm and 45 obviously penetrate roughly the same. It’s nothing special given to the .45 unless you’re doing just that….slapping steel plates. Otherwise, it’s not really a big deal.
Which means they may exit before the tumble, depending on bullet placement. The same effect is why 5.56mm FMJ loads give unpredictable performance, but excellent performance when the target is deep enough.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb when they hit bone they immediately start to tumble I've witnessed it with hogs gut shots as stated late tumbling hitting just about any bone immediately initiated tumbling and the performance difference I feel is slightly in favor of 5.56 because of circumstances 5.56 has not encountered armored targets where as 7.62x39 has so theres not enough data to reliably say 7.62 wont do the same with a center mass shot most 7.62 wounds have been in fleshy areas neck, arms, legs which surgeons on the field encounter more often since the soldier is wounded not dead had the wounded soldier not been wearing any armor I'd bet we'd hear more about 7.62 causing more severe wounds since hydrostatic shock doesnt happen with just speed alone bullet style, and shape plays a major role
Don't agree with your assessment, of the "Original" Russian 5.45 X 39 military projectile. It's construction, with a hollow cavity in the bullets nose underneath the jacket. Promotes rapid tumbling, causing severe and fatal wounds. The Wolf commercial ammo in this caliber to the best of my knowledge? Are loaded with a conventional cup and core bullet, that doesn't have this hollow cavity.
The Soviet rounds differed a lot depending on what country produced them, but you're right - some of the bullets turn at sharp angles when they enter a body.
I was taught these things as a Navy corpsman back in the late 80s and early '90s when we were taught how bullets wound. The full metal jacket when it tumbles is extremely devastating.
So many people don’t understand ballistics and bullet performance. Oddly, people get very emotional when you tell them that no round is perfect and all rounds have their pros and cons. Caliber selection is important, but so is the bullet type for the job. I prefer 7.62x39 for hogs and general purpose, but that isn’t to say I don’t respect 5.56 and 223. I just prefer the heavier bullet for penetration through material, plus I’ve seen first hand how deadly 7.62x39 is through material. 7.62x39 seems more popular than ever nowadays, and I also see more of a trend towards bigger and heavier chunks of lead in pistols as well.
Not to mention it's superior brush performance. It's a great caliber. Way better than most people credit it for
Great information. This is the knowledge that eludes the other tubers. Really appreciate you sharing this. Thank you.
Ooh, I wouldn’t say 7.62x39 is more popular than ever. It was popular and cheap 10 years ago, before Russian ammo was banned and there were cheap AKs to be had. Most of the guys I know who had 7.62x39 guns have offloaded them now or barely shoot them.
Excellent presentation! Not too dry at all. I enjoy this type of content.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you. I am a self defense and firearms instructor. When I do youth classes I always end the range day with ballistics gel and terminal ballistics primer. The kids love it and it gets them thinking a little deeper about ballistics. Great info in a very easy to understand way, thanks for putting it out.
Thanks for the kind words.
Loved it. I didn't expect to watch the entire video, but was hooked 'til the end.
I wish more people were just scratching the surface of these topics! Too many people want to mystify this stuff and it leads to a works of problems or in the worst cases, bad policies from our overreaching government.
Absolutely not boring ! So interesting. Somewhere in this, is the reason the .270,out of a older Remington 700 , for me, has been best by far, on game animals of any size…. ? Thanks…👍🏻. looking for your books.
I'm glad you hit on the fallacy of temporary cavities in gel. I see a lot of guntubers focusing way too much on the appearance of the temporary cavity without understand how much easier it is to tear gel compared to actual tissue. Especially with handgun loads.
BTW, I have some of the .38 spl 110 gr "For Law Enforcement Use Only" rounds you mentioned. The headstamps are WCC +P+ 84. I shot one into water filled milk jugs from a 4" barreled .357 magnum. I got the following results using your "Water Jug Terminal Ballistics Test Form": 9.67" penetration, .496" diameter, 63.4 gr.
Nothing I didn't already know, but a wealth of concise information in one video. If I'd seen it 15 years ago, I'd be far ahead of where I am now. Well done. Excellent presentation.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Dick, I want to thank you sincerely for this superb video. I have been studying this subject - not with experimentation, nor with great expertise - for over four decades. Why, because it interests me, because my second (22 year) career with Lockheed involved a great deal of aerodynamics and conceptual fluid dynamics involvement, because my two decades as a Naval officer (principally, tactical aviation programmatics) also deeply incorporated these subjects, and because my formal education provided the basic understandings that facilitated continuous learning. Okay, I full agree with EVERY WORD you said, but I’d respectfully add one further point: momentum.
Momentum is calculated by multiplying velocity times mass (mv); unlike kinetic energy (.5mvv), momentum does not “put an exponential premium” on velocity. A few years ago, I watched two highly regarded firearms experts express real surprise that 230 gain .45 ACP JHPs would outperform 125 grain .357 Sig JHPs, both fired from a 4.5 inch barrel at a 100 meter target. They were shocked that almost twice the muzzle velocity didn’t govern the results. IMHO, what they had neglected to fully appreciate was the major effect momentum has on terminal ballistics at distances beyond normal handgun ranges.
Thank you, that was a very refreshing explanation. I started teaching shooting in 1970. I've taught through changes in whole procedures, even though by the mid to late 1970s I was already teaching people to use the Weaver stance, not the easiest hold, but the most practical especially if you're in tight quarters or having to shoot a distance with a pistol.
Another Advantage with the Weaver hold is you can shoot pistols with high recoil and have a quicker recovery. In the late eighties I started training a number of Michigan State Police Officers when they were allowed to transition into semi-autos. I did have to tell at least three of them to take the Beretta they had purchased back and get a different pistol. The Beretta has a decocking liver at the back of the slide and when you put your hand on top of the slide to to racket you can disable the firearm by hitting that decocking lever. The decocking levers at that time, would not automatically be spring loaded so that they would come back off and allow the firearm to fire. The Beretta was never a good defensive weapon. But I suppose it was officer proof enough to keep officers from shooting themselves with the damn thing. That is why I carried a 4-inch 3:57 for at least 25 years before I transitioned into a semi-auto for a primary firearm, and that was a CZ pattern 40 Smith. It will hit almost as hard as a 45, and had a little bit of extra ammo. I do own a singular 9 mm. It is a P35 Argentine military Browning pattern pistol. It has enough barrel length to get the velocities out of a 125 grain Speer Gold Dot plus P or plus P plus I prefer, to make that round appreciably effective. Yet I did find that the 165 grains Speer Gold Dot in the 40 Smith was more than capable of coming very close to 357 Magnum 125 grain hollow point in effectiveness. And just like you, this idea that you can get a 9mm be just as effective as a 40 Smith or 45 is a bunch of garbage. It isn't even as effective as the 357 125 grain hollow point, by far, it's not that effective.
When I finally set the 3:57 aside, I believe it was in 2007. The hollow point 9 mm were as good as they've ever been, or damn close to it. That still did not inspire a lot of trust. Because I knew that you needed that 1200 + feet per second minimum to make a properly effective defensive load out of the 9mm. An example of that was the 115 grain law enforcement load that the Illinois State Police were using back in the I believe the early eighties. From train Shooters they were getting one shot Effectiveness very close to the 357 Magnum that's used by people who can shoot and people who can't. So it still was lacking, but it was a very effective cartridge. It's still available from what I understand but it's muzzle velocity was about 1275 or better. I believe the best 9 mm load out there is the Lehigh defense plus P plus with the Speer Gold Dot 125 grain hollow point. With a long enough Barrel to get it up into the 1300 to 1350 ft per second range. As for most of these other ammos, the reason the 9mm pistols have such a large ammo capacity, is because you're going to freaking need it. I will carry 12 rounds of 40 Smith against 15 or 16 rounds of 9 mm every day of the week. Per shot the 40 Smith provides at least a 20 to 25% greater permanent wound cavity then a 9mm will ever produce at the velocities that's currently propelled at. If you want to go to the 357 sig, the 9 by 23 or the capabilities of the 38 super, now you're talking a completely different firearm. But the 9mm parabellum, unless you load it really hot, it ain't getting the job done. And these police officers that are out there doing shooting splits whether dumping five or six rounds inside of 6/10 of a second, they're shooting faster than they can think.
Agreed sir.
Oh my God !
Where have you been for the last 20 years??!!
I've been saying ALL these things almost verbatim for 2 decades !
THANK YOU !!
I feel vindicated now...
You've made my decade ! 😃
It's all logical.
29:20 yep! After hearing this discussion I had to subscribe. I often wonder how many understand the principle you’re discussing.
The magic of 55.6 ends at 120 yards and a 16' AT 90 yards. That is when the velocity falls off, and why BHI 77gr SMK's work all the way out. Also, the M16A1 had a1/12 twist for arctic use. The M4 and M16A2 had a 1/7 twist for M256 tracer round meant for the M249. The logistical tail wags the dog.
Dick, wow! Incredible content. Your channel has become an absolute favorite of mine. Your experience and knowledge is so valuable to the civilian population. Thank you for sharing with us and keep up the great work! Looking forward to more great insightful content. Just awesome!!
Thank you for the kind words!
I have not conducted terminal ballistic bullet experiments myself after more than 50 years of shooting. My methodology in determining which projectile and propellant choice is done by finding a reputable and well known online expert and then to follow his advice faithfully unless I spot something worrisome at which point I investigate further.
Thank you for all the information you provide.
Thanks for the kind words.
I hope I'm giving you stuff you can use.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb
Absolutely. Your experience, recommendations, advice and tips are invaluable. Thank you.
Very informative information in an easy to understand format that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
Also, not boring at all, I found it quite fascinating since I’ve studied this over the years with all the different theories, etc.
Thank you.
WOW! I knew the terminalogy but you explained the information in a way I understood. Thank you.
Thanks for the kind words.
I'm literally all in with the underwood extreme defender as far as my own experience. It's most likely the route all ammo makers will eventually lean toward. Coyotes are fairly easy to put down and i mostly use #4 buck these days. But i have killed coyotes with 22 LR, even a 22 short in my trapping days to minimize pelt damage. But having killed a couple coyotes while ginseng hunting with the 68 grain underwood defender. I can attest that wound channel is for real. While that's not much of a test considering a 40 pound canine. They absolutely create as large or larger trail than most JHP, with easy pass thru penetration.
I knew a lot of this but learned some new things that answered questions I didn't know I had. My wife was casually listening and her eyes glazed over 😂 but I was soaking it all in! Velocity and FMJs in the 5.56 was something I didn't fully understand not having a ton of experience with them. I'm much more familiar with hunting and pistol bullets. Thanks for the info, Dick.
Hope I gave you some good info.
Sounds like my wife! 😂
I hunted deer with a 1915 6.5 Swede . I was hunting timber from a tree . I used Nosler 90 gr. balistic tip , to avoid shooting through into the next county. I got 3 inch exit wounds .
Sounds like a deer hammer.
Machined copper "external hollow point" bullets are indistinguishable from wide flat nose cast bullets in their performance on living targets. They just have much better marketing.
I suppose that the first jacketed bullets were the paper patched bullet. They are really cool.
This channel is a hidden gem and I selfishly hope it stays that way.
I selfishly hope my channel grows to make some real $$. Nothing personal.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb I wish you well. I just hate seeing great channels blow up. You wouldn't even be replying to me if you had millions of subscribers and thousands of comments on each video. I understand why it happens, but I also hate losing the engagement with the content creator. I used to talk to several fairly famous youtubers back when they barely had any subscribers and now those same guys won't even acknowledge my existence, let alone respond to a comment. I'm happy they are successful, but man, it sucks losing the small channel vibes they all once had. Just try to remember to engage with your audience no matter how big your channel gets. They are the ones that make you successful, yet they are typically the first ones to be forgotten/ignored once the big bucks start rolling in.
@@Watchdog_McCoy_5.7x28 I think I will always appreciate viewers. I consider it an honor when folks like you take the time to listen to me ramble and comment.
This guy is right Mr. Fairburn. I do hope that you start getting more views, I'm a retired officer myself, I understand. But having the personal interaction is pleasing.
This really rounded out my knowledge of terminal ballistics. Your presentation is excellent!
I carry the underwood xtreme defender in 45 super. Those bullets are the future.
Nah, those extreme defenders (“Philips screwdriver bullet”) have been around for a long time. They’re nothing really “super” about them. A Federal HST performs much better on two legged zombies.
@colt10mmsecurity68 45 super pushes these Phillips heads much faster than 45 acp loading.
@@touofthehighplains Yes I know. That’s why .45super for two legged defense is really a less effective cartridge. The round basically passes all the way through a torso, thus expelling wasted energy. The xtreme defender round penetrates way too deep for a human zombie and therefore, becomes a less effective defense round as well. If you’re talking about using for big game hunting or bear defense, then by all means is a viable option to choose from. Otherwise, it’s a worthless performer for bad guy defense.
@colt10mmsecurity68 just the other day turkey's opinion uploaded a clear ballistic gel test tape on these 45 super. It Penetrated 20 inches. At worse that is on the high end of the fbi spec. And still performs better than a jhp that failed to expand. While also being barrier blind. And the prevalent use of body armor these days by the criminal elements is another case for these Phillips head rounds.
@@touofthehighplains I’ll agree with you about the criminal element stuff. Indeed true.Either way, no matter what bullet is used, I’ll also fully admit that I’d never want to get hit with .45 Super of any projectile that leaves the barrel for that caliber. It would ruin my whole day.
I carry 38 Special +P handloads with 140 grain Lehigh defender bullets in a .357 Mag, 5 shot 2" revolver. I've seen the gelatin tests in slow motion and I am very impressed with these bullets. They are less affected by barrier other than being slowed depending on the barrier. Clothing doesn't seem to affect the performance. Best answer so far IMHO.
Id say thats a nasty load 👍 especially if I had to / wanted carry that tiny revolver those rounds are perfect
Excellent information!
The story of the 6.5 Creedmore at 600 yards reminds me of people who insist that a .357 magnum or .44 magnum SJHP is going to vastly out-penetrate their respective special loads (.38 spl/.44 spl). When from what I've seen the slower (often too slow to expand) rounds penetrate much further. Now, that depends on overall bullet construction, but still, all things being equal, slower often equals more penetration. It's really just physics. Whatever energy there is, winds up applied to the bullet by the medium same as the bullet applies to the medium. Slower bullets with less energy receive less energy and my take is the energy it receives is not sufficient to arrest the projectile's momentum as fast as an expanding round with higher energy.
I'm often using a hot glue gun to easily pour bullets that are similar to a sabot, going faster, but not accurate at any distance. Examples: .38 or .22 bullet in .45 cal.mold, and .22 balls in .32rimfire or .32 H&R magnum with heat glue gun. Sometimes i don't feel like melting lead, and want to use percussion powder, or Trail Boss powder for safer pressures. I Enjoy every moment of your videos!
Those bullets are a new one on me. Glad you enjoy the videos.
Thank you, excellent explanation of ballistics. Keep up the good work.😊
As always fantastic video
Right ON!!! 1000% Thanks. Jerry
Yes, the bullet is going to expend its energy several different ways. Some of the energy goes into deforming the bullet. Some of the energy goes into heating the bullet and media due to friction. Some of the energy goes into expanding the media from the hydrodynamic reaction. And some goes into pushing through the media to give penetration depth. How the energy gets apportioned depends on the bullet type, material properties and velocity. At higher velocities, more energy goes into bullet deformation, heat and a large initial cavity. At higher velocities, less energy goes into bullet deformation, media cavity and heat and a greater proportion of the energy goes into penetration.
You're very good at explaining in a way most could grasp. I disagree completely on screwdriver bullets at handgun velocities...Parlor trick in easily torn Clear ballistics typically...maybe at 10kfps plus from Bolt Guns someday. Perhaps Gov killed Devil patent holder because of them long ago thinking they wanted it...the rest was great however. 75-77 grain extends things very far and even if yaw is fairly deep blowing out someone's back half seems to work. Some 7.62by39 does yaw...perhaps most ice picks 0-100 yards but I suspect 100-218 yards it's very effective at intermediate range as well as close up barrier penetration in cities. Heavy 5.56 seems overall better for being good cqb to far out though. 9mm just as goof as 40/45 is B.S. and everything Fackler and to some extent Gokor says so but Gokor seems to fell to 9mm just as good even though contradicts
I shot a feral hog last year with a .45-70 loaded with 430 grain cast flat point bullets. Impact velocity was barely 1500 fps. I was shocked to find significant blood shot meat in the off-side shoulder.
Thank you sir for this invaluable information. As a retired Infantryman of 22 years and former LEO of 10, I learned a good bit from this video!
Glad it was helpful!
Very interesting! Thanks!
Explains many of the vids I've seen with the bullets inverted in the gel block. Very informative! Great video.
Still watchin' my stuff ... you need more to do!
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb You do nice work. Very impressive.
Excellent video.
good stuff, thanks
I very much enjoyed this video! I am very new to rifles and so this is very eye opening and incredibly informative! Thank you for the time and effort put into this!
Thanks for the kind words.
Thanks for the kind words.
Thank you for the time you offer freely. Information from highly qualified and skilled resources is extremely valuable. This day of UA-cam and rumble has really given us wealth beyond financial gain. The information way outweighs money in the world we are heading towards. Thanks Dick. You make a great difference
@@tamadrummer001 Thanks for the kind words.
Thanks for the kind words!
Another great video..
Glad you enjoyed it
I found this to be an excellent lecture of the details of terminal ballistics and the work of Dr. Fackler - some of whose findings are currently in dispute by the Courtneys, particularly with respect to the effects of, and thresholds of, hydrostatic shock effects - and revelatory of just how much systematic and detailed work has been done by researchers to bring us to the point of understanding that we have reached about the subject today. The historical perspective is valuable, and the speaker is obviously knowledgeable. This I found to be a valuable contribution to the community of those who are interested in deeper understanding of what does and does not work in wounding, lethality, and incapacitation. Thank you for making this video.
Thanks for the kind words. Refer me to the "Courtneys," please.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb They did some of their work at/for West Point. Here's a link to one of their papers, and I've seen them referenced elsewhere.
apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA526059.pdf
Who are the Courtneys?
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb Do you have any sources or pictures on the performance on animals and the mentioned police and military use on the flutted bullet design that you could share by chance? I am not for or against the design currently, as they seem to perform well but all the experts (and others) seem to say they do not work. As such I am trying to again gather data, and while I don’t lean either way, I will admit I am honestly not understanding how the standard for testing is ballistics gel, the design seems to perform well in ballistics gel (sometimes as well visually as JHP’s), using the standard test protocol, and yet the claim is they don’t work. Again NOT saying I am on board and a fan, nor am I saying that they are garbage or the like. my mind is always open to new technology in the gun world and I would rather see it given a proper chance and testing instead of outright dismissal.
@@taylorroberts8288 Michael and Amy Courtney - both researchers who take issue with some of Fackler's findings regarding hydrostatic shock effects. Try Googling "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation" for a pdf of a report written by them.
Great video thanks. Not to dry 😊
Thanks
Hope your next video shows examples of the bullet performance
What’s your preferred carry round for a Commander 1911 in 45? Thx
Nice video. 👍
Thank you
Just for the wing analogy on airplanes (18:22). The different length along a wings shape is not significant. A pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wing creates the lift.
Thanks for sharing. I'm glad I have a 20'' barrel in a compact format.
I was told the length difference creates the pressure difference.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb
It is not about the length along the wing but the shape and angle towards the incoming air. Particles above and below meet at the end at almost the same time, the length is nearly identical. And there are symmetrical shapes to create lift and drag like on the tail to steer. The air very close to the wing doesn't act the same as bit further from it. The shape of the wing changes the flow of laminar air to take a turn. An area of lower pressure is created above than below by the forced turn. And now after the pressure difference is created the velocity has to change based on Bernoulli. The airflow leaving the wing downward is forced to speed up and with Newton's help the force pointed in the opposite direction pulls up on the wing. We induce an impulse on the air volume that is pushed downward.
That is just for laminar, subsonic cases. No fault on your side, it is often described with the length in some literature but the cause is different.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb
He explains it better and I've added a mistake: /watch?v=uyRx25MSWng
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jbThat is the equal transit time theory which has been debunked both mathematically and by wind tunnel observations. Lift is very complicated and is a combination of pressure difference and change in momentum of the airstream. The details aren’t of great relevance to this topic, but if you have more interest in the details (no math in this video), this isn’t a bad video to start with. ua-cam.com/video/J6h2UOlZQTI/v-deo.htmlsi=ZjEbGYhlOHna-VZc
great info.
Thank you, Sir.
Great info, thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Awesome presentation!
Great information. Thanks.
Glad it was helpful!
the best .45 jhp ammo is no longer produced. It was the Corbon 165 jhp at 1250 fps, 5" barrel. That works very well on animals, but the recoil is a bit hard to handle in a lw, compact pistol. The 90 gr, 1500 fps 9mm jhp outperforms all of the other .45 jhps on animals, when 4" or shorter barrels are used. and it's a very controllable load.
Great summary of Fackler's terminal ballistics, bullet length v. rifle twist = stability and velocity. I always like how KE can show potential 1/2 m v^2, but agree it doesn't reliably indicate terminal effectiveness.
It is both simpler and more complex. It can be broken up into 3 parts.
Low velocity- drll bit or icepick effect, sub 2k fps
High velocity - hydrostatic shock resulting in conversion of temporary to permanent cavity 2k and above
Hyper velocity - hydrostatic shock creates sufficient pressure to cause permanent damage to hard tissue like bone 3k and above
Bonus class - some projectiles fragment, shedding fragments radially away from the path of the bullet, due to the spin from stabilization. Construction dependant.
From your description of permanent wound channels, it would lean towards using larger calibers to obtain larger permanent wound channels, thus greater damage and more efficient results in stopping a bad guy or wild game?
Great information! However, your assessment that your friends 6.5 Creedmoor penetrated deeper because of a less expanded diameter of the bullet is incorrect. A non-expanding bullet out of the 6.5 Creedmoor would still penetrate deeper at 600 yards than it would at 6 feet, although the wound cavities will be much larger at close range. The reason for this is because of the non-linear relationship between resistance through a medium versus velocity. Within a certain range of velocities a bullet will actually penetrate deeper as velocity decreases. This normally isn't demonstrated very well because bullets usually break up because of the resistance due to the high velocity at close range.
Also, you shouldn't discount kinetic energy. Kinetic energy and how fast that energy is dissipated is what determines the size of the temporary and permanent wound cavities, which determines the lethality and incapacitating ability of a given shot. Tumbling, fragmenting, and expanding bullets are more lethal because of how quickly they dissipate their given kinetic energy. The fluid transfer bullets work as well as they do because they are aerodynamically or hydro-dynamically inefficient so they dissipate their energy quickly which is what causes the shock wave that causes the temporary and permanent wound cavities. They cause just as much, although more symmetrical, damage even if they don't fragment, expand, or tumble. Again, it is usually because these bullets are loaded for higher kinetic energy. They wouldn't be near as effective at lower velocities.
Excellent!
Some of these will do more damage than some Hollow points. But the permanent wound cavity is far more consistent with hollow points than they are with these gimmicky monolithic bullets the most effective one I've ever seen literally had a a scoop cone on it where it's actually goes to a point and then spreads out as a curve to the width of the bullet. But it doesn't run through a semi-auto very well. Permanent wound cavity with pistol bullets is absolutely required to be good stopping load. The best first shot fight stopper on the planet is still to this day a 357 caliber hollow point moving at somewhere in the vicinity of about 1300 to 1500 ft per second. The 40 caliber at about 1250 ft per second in about 155 to 165 grain bullet is almost as good. Plus the heavier bullet of the 40 cal will destroy tactical barriers almost twice as fast as 9 mm bullets. 9 mm is a poultry load to be carrying to defend yourself with. If you have two or three other guys with you that can also return fire the number of rounds that can be brought on Target is overwhelming. But if you're by yourself you better be carrying either a very fast 9 mm. Something that very few 9mm loads are capable of Fred such as a 357 Sig or 357 Magnum. Maybe a 9 by 23, or you better be carrying a good hollow point in a 40 Smith or 45 ACP the permanent wound cavity is easily 30% greater than the best 9 mm out of a 40 or 45 ACP
Very good presentation, thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you great video and information much appreciated
Thanks! Informative!
Great video
Thank you.
I've always used gallon jugs filled with water to give me an ideal of pistol/revolver bullet performance according to the splash it made. Later on I built a trough fixed to a saw horse that would easily hold 6 jugs. That way I could retrieve the expanded bullets, most of the good hollow points would look like a flower after they've expanded. My favorite factory load in the 9mm & 45acp are Federal hydra shock and now the Hst. My favorite large/dangerous game loads in the 357 mag, 10 mm auto and 44 mag are the Underwood loading's. I'm definitely surprised about what you are telling us about the 55 gr fmj and their terminal performance. I'll need to start stocking up on these for my factory defensive loads. I always use factory loads for such possibilities. I'm a fan of Elmer Keith and the 44, what is your opinion of his theory of a heavy semi-wad cutter?
Look up my water testing video and you can accurately predict penetration in 10% Gelatin, Keith SWC bullets are very accurate and give great performance. I prefer the Wide Flat Nose WFN cast bullets made by several companies for terminal effect.
If i could give you 2 thumbs up I would. Thanks for the great content.
thankyou for your insight
Thanks great info !!!!!!!!!!
Thank you.
Great video. By the way, I agree the honey badger/xtreme defender is a good load also very light weight. You do know that the xtreme defender penetrates less than the extreme penetrator but they look the same fyi. You said u like the defender for bear defense. It’s not bad if you only have that or jhp , but I would switch it out for woods carry
Yes, the Lehigh Extreme Penetrators penetrate deeper by design, but the Extreme Defenders still give reliable penetration deep enough for bear defense and do more damage to the tissue at the same time.
Bonded is the way to go. For high velocity rifle rounds. Good energy on target because they expand wide. also pennatrate great. Idk what else ya want.
With a few bonded deer/antelope kills under my belt, I'm backing off to a standard (Nosler Ballistic Tip) for the lighter stuff, I think they succumb faster. For elk, moose, bears and such, bonded only.
@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb see I only hunt whitetails in the north east upstate ny Essex County. It's thick and close shots only unless ur in fields. I've had terrible experience with cup n core eldx blowing up just inside yhe shoulder. Since that happened I've went bonded and because I'm so close they hit hard as hell and open up big. I think bonded also make sense ware your shots are close and impact vel is really high
@@REDNECKROOTS You're right, the bonded will hold up better to high velocity impacts.
Very well said.
Thank you.
👍
Great info. Thanks.
That was fascinating! (I must be an incredible nerd.)
What do you think of Paul Harrell’s “meat target” tests?
I like Paul's videos, but I think his meat target shows us very little. With gelatin and water being vetted so thoroughly, they seem a better choice to test in. Check out my wat jug testing video if you haven't. Not my best video production work, but the protocol is sound.
What would you suggest as a bullet for self protection in an AR with 10 " barrel and a 13" barrel? Ive been loading 55 gr Speer soft point( varmint) bullets in my 10" and Sierra 55 gr gameking fmjbt in my 13" and also my 16" AR .
Since the velocity drops so rapidly when a .223/5.56 is fired from a barrel less than 16 inches, the varmint-style bullets are a good choice. They often fragment badly and suffer from inadequate expansion at high speeds, but are good choices for short barrels, IMO.
Thx
Kinetic energy is a funny marketing helper for sure . Do u think we should use Taylor ko power for on paper ?
Years ago I found a copy of Hatcher's textbook of pistols and revolvers, and learned to calculate the Hatcher formula for stopping power - which Jeff Cooper promoted heavily. KO, Hatcher Scale, pounds/feet (momentum) are all fun to play with. I think kinetic energy can compare the "power" of one load to another, but predicts nothing about the terminal performance of a bullet. I think gelatin testing is the most scientific predicter we have, but it still falls a little short of real-world performance. The smack of a bullet on a steel target doesn't fit into the gelatin's predictions. When a .45 smacks a steel plate, a 9mm sounds small, despite similar kinetic energy. Hit that plate at 300 yards with a .308 and you get a solid "smack" to a "tink" from a 5.56mm hit.
Not science, but a fascinating topic, though!!!
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb The “smack” you hear is momentum which translates to penetration. 9mm and 45 obviously penetrate roughly the same. It’s nothing special given to the .45 unless you’re doing just that….slapping steel plates. Otherwise, it’s not really a big deal.
So many sources are saying the new 9mm loads are just as good as .45?
I've even heard many mainstream news sources report that President Biden is brilliant and virile!
I really enjoy all the information you give out , I can listen about how bullits work all day, It’s just fascinating to me
7.62x39 aaaand 545 do tumble the 7.62 causes damage through energy it just happens way deeper in tissue than 5.56 and 5.45
Which means they may exit before the tumble, depending on bullet placement. The same effect is why 5.56mm FMJ loads give unpredictable performance, but excellent performance when the target is deep enough.
@@lockloadwithdickfairburn-cr1jb when they hit bone they immediately start to tumble I've witnessed it with hogs gut shots as stated late tumbling hitting just about any bone immediately initiated tumbling and the performance difference I feel is slightly in favor of 5.56 because of circumstances 5.56 has not encountered armored targets where as 7.62x39 has so theres not enough data to reliably say 7.62 wont do the same with a center mass shot most 7.62 wounds have been in fleshy areas neck, arms, legs which surgeons on the field encounter more often since the soldier is wounded not dead had the wounded soldier not been wearing any armor I'd bet we'd hear more about 7.62 causing more severe wounds since hydrostatic shock doesnt happen with just speed alone bullet style, and shape plays a major role
As always, your knowledge and experience come through. I gained helpful insights. Thank you.
Love it!
Don't agree with your assessment, of the "Original" Russian 5.45 X 39 military projectile. It's construction, with a hollow cavity in the bullets nose underneath the jacket. Promotes rapid tumbling, causing severe and fatal wounds. The Wolf commercial ammo in this caliber to the best of my knowledge? Are loaded with a conventional cup and core bullet, that doesn't have this hollow cavity.
The Soviet rounds differed a lot depending on what country produced them, but you're right - some of the bullets turn at sharp angles when they enter a body.