Your thoughts on bullets tumbling on impact?

[coldboremiracle]

Hey guys, I got thinking about this subject a while back. I wrote down my thoughts and experiences on the subject, I'm curious what you think about the subject?

Bullet Penetration and Tumbling

A discussion on what happens when bullets hit living targets

coldboremiracle.com

 

[WSnyder]

Nose ringed DTAC’s can show some yaw in animals. Not every time but often. I and others assume the longish section from the tip to the cut folds over sideways initiating the yaw?

 

[Knotwild]

That's an interesting read and it makes me wonder too. I've only hunted deer in SC at short ranges (under 300) though.

So my thoughts are irrelevant. However, your site did turn me on to deer shanks, which I LOVE.

 

[K22]

This fellow did quite about of research and study on the topic and I respect that he based his conclusions on his extensive observations. I am always interested in hunting bullet performance studies.

I always wonder why the 85 Sierra BTHP in the 243 Win was so effective on deer. When I first started using it, I was skeptical but decided to test it based on the recommendations of a positive results, I lost my apprehension, and it became my "do all" bullet for the 243 Win. Perhaps his study explains why this bullet is so effective on a deer size animals.

 

[Bill K]

Tumbling to me is an object, even a bullet, flipping end over end. I feel a bullet is not tumbling when it hits a object, game or otherwise, but it can be deflected and change it's line of course due to striking bone and/or soft/hard tissue and this can be caused by the shape of the bullets nose and expansion in it forward travel.
So I guess you could call it a play on words to use the term tumbling, if you like.

 

[coldboremiracle]

your site did turn me on to deer shanks, which I LOVE.

My absolute favorite deer dish!

 

[WV Hitman]

That's original way JD Jones developed the 300 Whisper to perform by using LONG (Sierra 240 gr. HPBT Match) bullets). i tested shorter bullets (220, 200 HPBTs) on deer. They were too short to get unstable when hitting deer and didn't tumble.
A surprise I found through tested were that Sierra 220 gr. RN Game Kings tumbled plus expanded. They gave about 90% instant drops on deer, groundhogs, turkeys, coyotes. The shorted bullets plus the 240s did not do this, although the 240s did drop most deer after a few yards run. The short ones took many yards to perform.
All the above applies to suppressed, subsonic rounds.

 

[coldboremiracle]

All the above applies to suppressed, subsonic rounds.

Interesting information for sure. I am a little bit more focused here on what supersonic bullets do. Like the traditional hunting scenario, or even the more modern one where we are taking longer shots and bullets are hitting with less velocity but still supersonic.

 

[Lefty2506]

Personally, I don't like the idea of trying to get a bullet to tumble on impact. I'd much rather have a projectile that's designed to reliably expand across a wide range of impact velocities that encompasses my particular application.

 

[jds holler]

Back in the Viet Nam era, it was common knowledge that the "mega-deadly" M-16, was designed for the bullet to tumble wildly upon impact. It would often shatter every bone in the body of the unfortunate victim who received an impact. jd

 

[Loudenboomer]

They had to install a little urban folklore around the 5.56. Compared to the 7.62 it was a little anemic. I will say though early twist rates were slow 1-14 or 1-12 and on the verge of instability . This became real obvious when firing tracers. The slightest bullet contact would many times send the little bullets in a completely different direction.

 

[coldboremiracle]

Personally, I don't like the idea of trying to get a bullet to tumble on impact. I'd much rather have a projectile that's designed to reliably expand across a wide range of impact velocities that encompasses my particular application.

I suppose I too would fall into that category of thought. But one of my main questions in the piece was whether that even was preferable. Because based on what I've seen, I'm not entirely sure one is better than the other. Or perhaps they are simply close enough to be indistinguishable to anecdotal analysis.

 

[Tommie]

They had to install a little urban folklore around the 5.56. Compared to the 7.62 it was a little anemic. I will say though early twist rates were slow 1-14 or 1-12 and on the verge of instability . This became real obvious when firing tracers. The slightest bullet contact would many times send the little bullets in a completely different direction.

100%
Otherwise the troops would realize they were bringing a knife to a gunfight.

 

[Tommie]

Back in the Viet Nam era, it was common knowledge that the "mega-deadly" M-16, was designed for the bullet to tumble wildly upon impact. It would often shatter every bone in the body of the unfortunate victim who received an impact. jd

Lots of magic bullets in the 1960’s.
Just ask JFK.

 

[philip brousseau]

Tag

 

[Yote Hunter]

I too tested the Sierra 220 gr SMK in a 300 blackout 1:8 twist AR 15 subsonic and suppressed on coyotes and everyone I shot with this bullet I would hear the bullet whizz off into the distance like a Zizz wheel and the exit wound was a tear in the hide the length of that bullet. That killed coyotes quite well and thinking I could make a good thing better I switched to the 240 SMK (No longer in production) with the reasoning that a longer projectile would create a bigger tear therefore it would be even more effective on killing. Not true! These 240 SMK’s would not tumble and just drilled a 30 cal hole through with no blood trail with runners on just about every coyote. I would find the coyote sometimes and sometimes not (usually hunted creek bottoms in thick cover). Could not figure that one out. I shot one coyote that came right to me probably 5 yards away and wouldn’t stop because my ghillie suit was so concealing and shot him point blank with my Blackout (240 gr SMK) and watched him run 25 yards away and then slowly trot 100 yards up the creek bottom like he wasn’t going to stop and about the time I was going to loose site of him I thought he might have collapsed. Good shot placement with no blood even on his hide. Abandoned those bullets. I assumed the 1:8 twist had something to do with the 220 gr SMK to initiate tumbling

That's original way JD Jones developed the 300 Whisper to perform by using LONG (Sierra 240 gr. HPBT Match) bullets). i tested shorter bullets (220, 200 HPBTs) on deer. They were too short to get unstable when hitting deer and didn't tumble.
A surprise I found through tested were that Sierra 220 gr. RN Game Kings tumbled plus expanded. They gave about 90% instant drops on deer, groundhogs, turkeys, coyotes. The shorted bullets plus the 240s did not do this, although the 240s did drop most deer after a few yards run. The short ones took many yards to perform.
All the above applies to suppressed, subsonic rounds

 

[Lefty2506]

I suppose I too would fall into that category of thought. But one of my main questions in the piece was whether that even was preferable. Because based on what I've seen, I'm not entirely sure one is better than the other. Or perhaps they are simply close enough to be indistinguishable to anecdotal analysis.

Destabilizing an FMJ or ball projectile to the point that it tumbles produces less repeatable results across the wide range of potential impact velocities that a person is likely to encounter regardless of whether you're talking about self defense, or hunting where as both cup-and-core and monolithic projectiles can be designed to give consistent and reliable performance across a pretty wide range of conditions and impact velocities. That's not to say that ALL cup-and-core projectiles perform like they are supposed to. Many do not, especially in the world of handgun projectiles, but even with handguns there are some projectiles that have demonstrated very consistent performance in the field. Hornady FTX style bullets come to mind. With rifles, the impact velocity is usually sufficient to produce good expansion unless you're trying to reach way out there on something, or you're using a cartridge with a comparatively small case capacity and a heavy projectile that was designed to be pushed a lot harder. 300 blackout comes to mind on that one. There are good projectile choices for the 300 blackout, but most .308 projectiles were designed to impact well over 2000 fps and the 300 BO will struggle to achieve that velocity with projectiles that are 150 grains or more. Then there are the monolithic projectiles. Barnes makes some EXCELLENT monolithic expanding pistol bullets, but their rifle bullets have developed a reputation for not expanding consistently below 2000 fps which isn't a problem so long as the user is aware of it. Other manufactures such as Maker and Cavity Back are getting good expansion at impact velocities as low as 1300 fps.

And then there's the whole issue of what actually happens when a projectile tumbles. It's lost its ability to stabilize, so there's nothing aside from its forward momentum to cause it to remain on a straight path after impact. Once the projectile starts to yaw, it will normally also want to start deviating from its intended path, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. I've had this happen a few times on whitetail using expanding projectiles that were too soft or "thin skinned" for the application that I was using them in. The end result was still a dead deer, but in one instance a 110gr vmax from a 300 blackout deflected over 30 degrees after striking a rib on entry at around 2100 fps. What should have been a perfect heart shot on a nice doe that was slightly quartering away at 12 yds ended up being a liver shot. I'd say that this is an extreme example that wouldn't technically apply, but my point is that when I send a bullet down range I have in mind where I want it to travel through the entirety of its trajectory, including the path it takes through its intended target. A bullet that destabilizes after impact can not be relied upon to do that with any consistency.

So for me, my only application for non-expanding projectiles is cheap blasting ammo for the range.

 

[WV Hitman]

You don't have to "try" to get a bullet to tumble on impact. When JD Jones invented the Whisper his extensive testing showed that LONG .30 cal bullets were inherently unstable & tumbled on impact. This was true for 240, 250 gr. Sierra HPBT Match, NOT lesser weight and shorter BTMatches (not long enough to tumble). The tumbling causes irregular exit holes & strange internal damage. They also would not drop a der at the shot some of the time.
He appointed me to experiment more with other bullets. I found that the Sierra 220 RN would tumble & also expand causing more damage than the BTs. They also caused about 98% DRT hits on deer, groundhogs, turkeys, coyotes.
I don't know if the newer sub bullets will do this. I doubt if they would tumble due to their shorter length. I've never tried any due to my extensive success with the 220 RNs like this WV 8 pt. taken at 240 yds with my Whisper & 220 RN. He dropped from a high shoulder hit. Internal damage was about 2" in diameter right at the bottom of the spine.

 

[searcher]

Back in the Viet Nam era, it was common knowledge that the "mega-deadly" M-16, was designed for the bullet to tumble wildly upon impact. It would often shatter every bone in the body of the unfortunate victim who received an impact. jd

Yes - those were designed to tumble - with the effect more to wound than to kill. Wounded soldiers take up resources.

 

[Coyotefurharvester]

In the early 80's a few guys I knew were trying 55gr fmj for red fox(22-250's) some of the wounds we could only attribute to the bullet tumbling after contact. I never messed with them(fmj in a 22-250), I like to see a bit(2 inches) of penetration followed by rapid expansion and shedding of 50%+ of the bullet weight. For deer/elk(game) 3-4" penetration with 12-15 inches of wound channel.