Low Velocity Expansion Bullets
- Thread starter USAF Ret
- Start date
Will do!
Watching the Norma Tipstrike 170 grain. I have a couple hundred of those on hand. At 1680, very impressive. Thanks for pointing me to the channel.
Is "marginally lethal" like being "slightly pregnant"?? 
or is it like "less lethal" which is only part of the term "less likely to be lethal" which gives a distorted and inaccurate impression?
Every bullet that is longer than it is wide will yaw, and eventually tumble after striking something. Where the differences come in is in how much, and how soon (in inches of travel through the target).
Some calibers and bullet designs are more stable plowing through tissue than others. And if the bullet doesn't reach its "upset point" inside the tissue, but after it exits, most folks assume it doesn't tumble, but it does, just not where it can be seen. And when that happens, most assume they don't tumble, instead of realizing they just haven't tumbled yet.
Nosler partition bullets are famously effective at lower velocities, because the forward portion can be made "soft" to expand at low speeds while the reat portion retains full mass and "pushes" them to achieve good penetration.
I'd say that non expanding or low expanding bullets are not "marginally lethal" they absolutely do kill. They're not as efficient as expanding bullets, but that doesn't make them any less deadly.
or is it like "less lethal" which is only part of the term "less likely to be lethal" which gives a distorted and inaccurate impression?
Every bullet that is longer than it is wide will yaw, and eventually tumble after striking something. Where the differences come in is in how much, and how soon (in inches of travel through the target).
Some calibers and bullet designs are more stable plowing through tissue than others. And if the bullet doesn't reach its "upset point" inside the tissue, but after it exits, most folks assume it doesn't tumble, but it does, just not where it can be seen. And when that happens, most assume they don't tumble, instead of realizing they just haven't tumbled yet.
Nosler partition bullets are famously effective at lower velocities, because the forward portion can be made "soft" to expand at low speeds while the reat portion retains full mass and "pushes" them to achieve good penetration.
I'd say that non expanding or low expanding bullets are not "marginally lethal" they absolutely do kill. They're not as efficient as expanding bullets, but that doesn't make them any less deadly.
Very good information. Thank you.Is "marginally lethal" like being "slightly pregnant"??
or is it like "less lethal" which is only part of the term "less likely to be lethal" which gives a distorted and inaccurate impression?
Every bullet that is longer than it is wide will yaw, and eventually tumble after striking something. Where the differences come in is in how much, and how soon (in inches of travel through the target).
Some calibers and bullet designs are more stable plowing through tissue than others. And if the bullet doesn't reach its "upset point" inside the tissue, but after it exits, most folks assume it doesn't tumble, but it does, just not where it can be seen. And when that happens, most assume they don't tumble, instead of realizing they just haven't tumbled yet.
Nosler partition bullets are famously effective at lower velocities, because the forward portion can be made "soft" to expand at low speeds while the reat portion retains full mass and "pushes" them to achieve good penetration.
I'd say that non expanding or low expanding bullets are not "marginally lethal" they absolutely do kill. They're not as efficient as expanding bullets, but that doesn't make them any less deadly.
Interestingly, on another forum years ago, Randy Garrett described a test done at the Linebaugh Institute on ago, comparing 500-grain round nose Hornady bullets fired into wet newspaper media by a 45-70 (20-inch twist), a 458 Win Mag (14" twist), and a 458 Lott (10" twist) to get a penetration comparison. The 45-70 had the lowest velocity but the deepest penetration and the 458 Lott had the most velocity and the poorest penetration. It was fired at a relatively short distance, IIRC.
The Lott bullet was clearly canted or turning the most in the media. I don't know why Lott gave it such a fast twist, as bullets fired from a given twist increase stability with a velocity slightly. The short range meant too little range for coming motion to dampen significantly. The faster spinning bullet will be coning more slowly, so if you had the same initial yaw in all three, it would be expected for that bullet to hold that yaw better, and that may be the causative factor.
It would be better to know how the bullets in either that test or the video would behave when fired from a considerably greater distance. Hatcher's Notebook has photos of how 30-06 M2 ball bullets penetrated solid oak. IIRC, one fired at 50 feet penetrated about 11 inches due to the bullet turning sideways on the way in. The one fired at 150 yards went straight in for about 32 inches and never turned. It had time to dampen out the majority of its initial yaw on the way to the target, so it struck the wood more nearly head-on. To be fair, it also hit more slowly so that even with the same yaw, the turning forces would have been lower, but the comparison is still interesting.
The Lott bullet was clearly canted or turning the most in the media. I don't know why Lott gave it such a fast twist, as bullets fired from a given twist increase stability with a velocity slightly. The short range meant too little range for coming motion to dampen significantly. The faster spinning bullet will be coning more slowly, so if you had the same initial yaw in all three, it would be expected for that bullet to hold that yaw better, and that may be the causative factor.
It would be better to know how the bullets in either that test or the video would behave when fired from a considerably greater distance. Hatcher's Notebook has photos of how 30-06 M2 ball bullets penetrated solid oak. IIRC, one fired at 50 feet penetrated about 11 inches due to the bullet turning sideways on the way in. The one fired at 150 yards went straight in for about 32 inches and never turned. It had time to dampen out the majority of its initial yaw on the way to the target, so it struck the wood more nearly head-on. To be fair, it also hit more slowly so that even with the same yaw, the turning forces would have been lower, but the comparison is still interesting.
Nathan, that YouTube channel has the wealth of info I was looking for. Thanks!!
FrankenMauser
New member
Are you looking for "long range, decreased velocity" type performance?
Or appropriate for subsonic loads?
Or appropriate for subsonic loads?
Long range decreased velocity in a shorter range. I am not going subsonic. I am just loading reduced recoil loads that will probably have a max range of about 250 yards with 270, 308 and 7mm-08. I have medical issues that are amplified by recoil. I am also looking at getting a suppressor to reduce the sound concussion to make it more comfortable to shoot. I have several very nice 270 rifles, specifically, I cannot put a muzzle brake or suppressor on. They are light weight. I love the rifles, but the recoil is too much for me. While I could just go to my 6.5 Creedmoor and Grendel, I do not want to get rid of them and don't want them just sitting in the safe.
FrankenMauser
New member
Reasonable.
And the clarification helps.
I'll think about this.
And the clarification helps.
I'll think about this.
Open to your wisdom sir.
The lehigh defense controlled chaos are good down to 1500fps.
I follow a channel, simple minded fella, on youtube. Does a lot of low velocity testing. Heres his vid on the lehighs.
https://youtu.be/cJ1acqSLms0
I follow a channel, simple minded fella, on youtube. Does a lot of low velocity testing. Heres his vid on the lehighs.
https://youtu.be/cJ1acqSLms0
reloader28
New member
Last edited: