Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

benEzra

(12,148 posts)
16. Thoughts...
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 07:33 PM
Jul 2015

Here's what you said:

"If cavitation occurs the animal can wander off & be in unbearable pain for days, moreso than with other hunting bullets."

There is no "if cavitation occurs"; rifle bullets cavitate, period, and most larger calibers cause more cavitation than .223 does, since the volume of the temporary cavity is roughly proportional to the energy transferred.

A fragile, light-for-caliber bullet at 3000 to 4250 ft/sec (40 or 55gr .223 JHP, 55gr .22-250, 58gr .243, 90gr .270, 55gr .30-06) will produce a much shorter, but wider, wound track than a limited-expansion, bonded-core bullet (like .223 50gr Barnes TSX, 60gr Nosler Partition, 62gr Remington Core-Lokt) or heavy-for-caliber bullets (77gr bonded core .223, 110gr .243, 140gr .270., 180gr .30-06). But the temporary cavity size is still proportional to the energy.

For killing a large game animal humanely, the wound has to be deep enough to reach the vital organs after penetrating the shoulder. A .223 can create a deep cavity with a bonded core hunting bullet, but it's not very wide, and hence requires very precise shot placement. For example, a Nosler 60gr .223 deer hunting bullet penetrates 18.5" and doesn't fragment, but the permanent cavity is less than half an inch across, requiring a much more precise shot than you would need with a bonded core 130gr .270 traveling 300+ ft/sec faster.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/862243/hornady-superformance-sst-ammunition-270-winchester-130-grain-sst-box-of-20

"it's the degree of cavitating expansion which causes the damage, moreso to surrounding internal organs. Handgun bullets below ~1,000 fps (iirc) generally don't cause significant cavitation, their wounds are often considered akin to being stuck by a dagger or run thru by a thin fencing foil (sword) - the permanent wound cavity."

Yes, exactly. And for all bullet styles, rifles like .243, .25-06, .270, and .30-06 produce more cavitation and more severe wounds than .223 does, whether you are comparing light-and-fragile .223 to light-and-fragile .25-06/etc., or tough bonded-core .223 bullets to bonded-core .25-06/etc. .223 is the least powerful rifle caliber in common use, and it shows.

"After fragmenting, the .223 inside an animal could result in two separate temporary cavities, just like in a human, but greater likelihood than larger hunting rifles for the .223 wound NOT to be fatal, thus resulting in the animal running off mortally wounded & in great suffering."

Choosing a fragmenting .223 bullet instead of a bonded core .223 for hunting small deer would be as stupid as choosing birdshot over buckshot for the same purpose. Fragmenting bullets are for small game and to limit penetration at in-home distances, not for shooting deer. .223 deer loads would be the NON-fragmenting bonded core rounds, like Nosler Partition, Barnes TSX, Remington Core-Lokt, etc., which typically give 18" or so of penetration and no fragmention.

The exact same scenario of a shallowly wounded animal running off would occur if an idiot hunter were shooting fragile loads out of a .243, .270, or .30-06 (or 12ga birdshot, for that matter). A 58gr .243 doesn't penetrate any more than a 55gr .223 does, it just fragments more violently and makes a wider wound.

"Well aware that bullet characteristics are finicky, and that fragmentation is not solely a function of caliber."

Limiting the discussion to modern rifle cartridges, fragmentation isn't a function of caliber at all; it's a function of bullet construction primarily, and velocity secondarily (which in turn depends on the bullet weight chosen within that caliber). A 58gr .243 will fragment more violently than a 55gr .223, more in line with a 40gr .223, even though .243 is a respected deer caliber.

"wiki, eh; most all of this you will concur, but it backs me up: Most handgun projectiles wound primarily through the size of the hole they produce. This hole is known as a permanent cavity. For comparison, rifles wound through temporary cavitation as well as permanent cavitation. A temporary cavity is also known as a stretch cavity. This is because it acts to stretch the permanent cavity, increasing the wounding potential. The potential for wounding via temporary cavity depends on the elasticity of the tissue, bullet fragmentation, and the rate of energy transfer.

Many handgun bullets do not create significant wounding via temporary cavitation, but the potential is there if the bullet fragments, strikes inelastic tissue (liver, spleen, kidneys, CNS), or if the bullet transfers over 500 ft·lbf (680 J) of energy per foot of penetration."

Yes, absolutely. Common handgun velocities are in the range of 850 to 1500 ft/sec, primarily due to the short barrel length (making high powder capacity superfluous). There is some question about whether temporary cavity can affect some tissues above 1100-1200 ft/sec (e.g., +P 9mm at 1300+ ft/sec, or 125gr .357 Magnum at 1600 ft/sec) but at the 2600-4300 ft/sec velocities of hunting rifles, temporary cavity can be a big deal.

What you're missing is that if either temporary cavity size and fragmentation, or velocity, are your criteria for banning rifle calibers, then .223 would be waaaay down the list. You seem hung up on .223 FMJ or light JHP, but go look up the ballistics of .22-250, or .243/.25-06/.270/.308/.30-06 with the light bullets, and get back to me. The little .223 is a rifle round, but its lack of power shows when you compare its terminal ballistics to other common rifle calibers.
Great rebuttal Ben DonP Jul 2015 #1
Great post! Hangingon Jul 2015 #2
Wait a minute! I smell a rat! Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #3
I would assume you can use both, depending on your target Travis_0004 Jul 2015 #4
The author of the OP you just fisked posted this a few months ago: friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #5
"In my case, you called me names, insulted my intelligence and integrity." pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #6
More guns than fingers? Ooooh. Sooo impressive. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #31
Another outstanding takedown, benEzra. pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #7
You are approximately five times more likely to win the lottery than be murdered by a .223 cal rifle the band leader Jul 2015 #8
It seems a response to this thread was posted Somewhere Else... benEzra Jul 2015 #9
picking nits & bigger game jimmy the one Jul 2015 #10
Facts inconvenient to your thesis = "nitpicking". benEzra Jul 2015 #11
+1. Once again, verifiable truth is shown to be superior to mere weight of verbiage friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #12
cavitation jimmy the one Jul 2015 #13
You are confusing cavitation with fragmentation. benEzra Jul 2015 #14
cavitation jimmy the one Jul 2015 #15
Thoughts... benEzra Jul 2015 #16
incredible super cavitation jimmy the one Jul 2015 #17
Given that we are talking about the least misused guns... benEzra Jul 2015 #18
the dancer undulates to the music jimmy the one Jul 2015 #19
Well, to get pedantic... benEzra Jul 2015 #21
pink floyd is wrong jimmy the one Jul 2015 #22
modification jimmy the one Jul 2015 #23
Then you should tell all the physicists working on supercavitating projectiles, blades, and foils benEzra Jul 2015 #24
What's the big deal? discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2015 #25
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;... friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #27
This subthread gives me life. Brickbat Jul 2015 #28
enriched jimmy the one Jul 2015 #30
. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #20
This is all the more hilarious if you know the origins of this image. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #33
I'm afraid I don't. Now I'm aching with curiosity. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #34
Allow me AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #35
Oh my. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #36
Possibly the most expressive cat I've ever seen AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #37
Um, no. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #32
As I'm sure you know HassleCat Jul 2015 #26
The posters were arguing for bans, not background checks. benEzra Jul 2015 #29
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»More scaremongering about...»Reply #16