Terminal Sectional Density Theory

[Anonymous]

http://www.snipersparadise.com/tsmag/July03/july03.htm

Well, what do you think :?:

 

[Rifleman]

Good article, I did not really read it all that close but what I did browse though looked on target.

 

[Anonymous]

Good article, I did not really read it all that close

I was referring to those who had.

 

[Rifleman]

Seems like a real crowd is gathering don't it.

 

[Admin]

I read it a long time ago when Randy first posted it. I agree with the guy a bunch. Indeed it seems like he has a good handle on it.

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone who buys into the article (and that isn't me) would HAVE to be shooting hard cast bullets only. Who is?

"In all muzzleloader hunting circumstances imaginable, especially those involving heavy game, hard cast flat point bullets are dramatically more capable. TSD predicts it, scientific testing supports it and repeated results on game confirm it.

Nothing supports that. :?

 

[Admin]

Anyone who buys into the article (and that isn't me) would HAVE to be shooting hard cast bullets only. Who is?

Not neccisarily. How many animals have you killed with a Barnes 300 gr now?

We never know when we buy or build ammunition exactly how much will be required of each bullet we send down the barrel toward big game. Thus, it is foolish to not use bullets with design characteristics that are up to the toughest assignments. The same design characteristics that restrict expansion also protect against major component separations. So, because toughness goes with the territory in high TSD bullets, they routinely survive violent impact with bone and continue on with their assigned task. With regularity, they deliver enough energy where it matters. And gratefully, in all but the most extreme circumstances, any bullet with that capability is certain to continue helping us by opening a leak on the far side.

Sounds like a good description of a Barnes bullet. Going hard cast only is the extreme end of TSD. For thinned skinned game like deer it's hardly neccisary. Your 300 Barnes will do the number on several different species of game.

To be fair, assuming the use of adequate weapons in the first place, game the size of deer does not demand the highest TSD in bullet choices. But for the sportsman who uses the same weapon for deer, elk, moose, etc., a wise decision is to select one bullet and load for all game. It saves on re-sighting, helps avoid ammunition mix-ups and requires that only one trajectory be remembered. Of course, in such a plan the ammunition choice must be governed by the most challenging hunting assignment anticipated.

 

[Anonymous]

Going hard cast only is the extreme end of TSD.

It sure states that nowhere. The entire article was written to support hard cast bullets. The quote is easy enough to read: ""In all muzzleloader hunting circumstances imaginable, especially those involving heavy game, hard cast flat point bullets are dramatically more capable. TSD predicts it, scientific testing supports it and repeated results on game confirm it.."

There is no scientific basis to "support it" and documentation to "confirm it." Saying "ALL muzzleloader hunting circumstances imaginable" is clear enough. You can try to make it into Barnes MZ- Expanders by tortured logic, but they are not close to what is touted-- no way are they "flat point," and they DO expand.

 

[Rifleman]

OK then the guy who wrote it is biased towards hardcast, guess thats why I just skimmed it, once again my time management skills amaze me.

 

[Admin]

It sure states that nowhere. The entire article was written to support hard cast bullets. The quote is easy enough to read: ""In all muzzleloader hunting circumstances imaginable, especially those involving heavy game, hard cast flat point bullets are dramatically more capable. TSD predicts it, scientific testing supports it and repeated results on game confirm it.."

There is no scientific basis to "support it" and documentation to "confirm it." Saying "ALL muzzleloader hunting circumstances imaginable" is clear enough. You can try to make it into Barnes MZ- Expanders by tortured logic, but they are not close to what is touted-- no way are they "flat point," and they DO expand.

Did you read the same article I did? :?

The same design characteristics that restrict expansion also protect against major component separations. So, because toughness goes with the territory in high TSD bullets, they routinely survive violent impact with bone and continue on with their assigned task. With regularity, they deliver enough energy where it matters. And gratefully, in all but the most extreme circumstances, any bullet with that capability is certain to continue helping us by opening a leak on the far side.

The way the whole article read was that he advocated tough bullets. So what if he uses hard cast personally, those aren't the only tough bullets out there. Your own Barnes 300 gr are a perfect example of a tough bullet. There are a number of tough bullets out there that will work fine. The theory is sound but it's not neccisary to take it to the extreme. So what if he takes it as far as it goes. If it works for him so what?

 

[Anonymous]

The "so what" is not whether it works for him, or whether he even thinks it works for him. The "so what" is whether there is any sound basis to advocate the use of non-expanding bullets for anyone.

Outside of some African game-- there is no basis. No basis at all for muzzleloading deer hunting, which is what most muzzleloader hunting is.

 

[Loggy]

I killed a deer with the TC Maxi-Ball 370 grain and it was 1/2" in & 1/2" out and some trailing work to do. I think they are cast bullets. I dont usem anymore.

 

[Admin]

A .45 cal bullet is gonna do some damage whether or not it expands. You've still got far more frontal area going in than many rifle bullets will have going out. As long as you hit your animal with a reasonable velocity and in a good location you'll have your animal.

 

[Anonymous]

A .45 cal bullet is gonna do some damage whether or not it expands.

So will a .357 magnum. So will .30 cal hardball. So will a .223! Minimalistic wounding, or minimalistic harvesting just isn't much of a goal.

 

[Rifleman]

Goal? I like not having goals, I never fail that way

 

[RogerDailey]

So will a .357 magnum. So will .30 cal hardball. So will a .223! Minimalistic wounding, or minimalistic harvesting just isn't much of a goal.

How far past "dead" is an adequate goal?

 

[Anonymous]

Zero steps. The goal is the shortest travel, quickest harvest possible-- with one shot.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.hawkbullets.com/terminal.htm

By no means complete, this is the more accepted description of proper terminal performance.