Posted: 3/7/2011 6:56:23 AM EDT
| So I have a question. In a recent debate with a very knowledgable gun friend, we got into the topic of FMJ vs soft points for hunting purposes. Without getting into which side chose which I was wondering what the consensus was. Also I was wondering if the caliber had an affect, with it being russian 7.62x54r. One of the arguments for FMJ not being a terrible choice for hunting is the fact that the bullet is designed to tumble, thus perhaps negating the axial expansion argument. So are softpoints really that crucial for a round designed to tumble, or is tumbling not effective. Thanks for any help. |
| For hunting, a projectile designed for expansion and adequate penetration is what you're after. FMJ projectiles are far from ideal. Yes, FMJ's will kill an animal, but often not as quickly or cleanly as a bullet designed for expansion (ie: a softpoint or something like it), all other things being equal. |
|
All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. |
|
There is more to it than your simple question. I had not heard that the 7.62x54r was designed to tumble. The 5.45x39 actually has a hollow space in the nose that tends to cause it to tumble when it hits tissue. Whether it was designed that way or not is open for debate. The 168 gr SMK tends to yaw and break in two. I doubt it was designed to do that considering it is intended to punch paper. For hunting thin skinned game, a soft point or hollow point projectile is generally a better choice, given the correct match up of bullet to game. For thick skinned, dangerous game, solids (homogenous bullets made of copper or similar) and/or FMJ bullets have been the go-to projectile. So, one cannot say, unequivically, that FMJ is always prefered or SP is always prefered. |
|
Quoted:
All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. fly straight through the air but tumble in something more dense than air. |
|
Quoted: So I have a question. In a recent debate with a very knowledgable gun friend, we got into the topic of FMJ vs soft points for hunting purposes. Without getting into which side chose which I was wondering what the consensus was. Also I was wondering if the caliber had an affect, with it being russian 7.62x54r. One of the arguments for FMJ not being a terrible choice for hunting is the fact that the bullet is designed to tumble, thus perhaps negating the axial expansion argument. So are softpoints really that crucial for a round designed to tumble, or is tumbling not effective. Thanks for any help.  |
|
On a more serious note: Your friend with extensive knowledge should stick to what he knows. Bullet performance isn't one of them. Head over to the Ammo forum, and read the "Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo" FAQ lickety-split. |
|
I shot a deer with FMJ's out of an 8mm Mauser. I fired 3 shots before the deer even moved with all 3 being solid hits. It died after the 5th round went through its head. 3 of the bullets punched straight through with NO tumbling whatsoever and I didn't even think I was hitting the thing. Luckily one of the bullets struck a heavy bone and I was able to run down the wounded deer and put it down with the last shot in the magazine through the head. Only after I had engaged the target did I realize that I had the magazine loaded with FMJ's I thought It was still loaded with soft points, but I had forgotten that I had shot some steel gongs with it at the range and had switched them out for the FMJ's and forgotten to switch back before I went hunting that afternoon.
I have seen much better results with the 5.45x39 FMJ. I believe it is adequate for deer size game animals, but not Ideal. Its quick tumbling effect causes sufficient tissue damage to put an animal down fairly quickly with a shot to the vitals. It does not slap them to the ground like a softpoint does, but they do react to being shot and go down within about 50 yards. Any other caliber besides maybe the 5.56/.223 within fragmentation range is too stable and will punch through an animal long before the loss in gyroscopic stability causes sufficient tumbling to create an instantly fatal wound. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. Elongated bullets are designed to fly straight. Accuracy is the reason. When they travel through something of greater density than air, they will eventually tumble. Smaller diameter bullets will do this earlier. Tumbling is tertiary to accuracy. And most often, unintentional. HPBT bullets (what military lawyers call OTM) were designed to also have higher ballistic coefficients. The large hollow point allowed for a more streamlined shape while still being able to be stabilized due to mass distribution near the maximum diameter. Or in other words, they are lighter than a "solid" bullet if the nose were completely filled, allowing higher velocity. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. Elongated bullets are designed to fly straight. Accuracy is the reason. When they travel through something of greater density than air, they will eventually tumble. Smaller diameter bullets will do this earlier. Tumbling is tertiary to accuracy. And most often, unintentional. HPBT bullets (what military lawyers call OTM) were designed to also have higher ballistic coefficients. The large hollow point allowed for a more streamlined shape while still being able to be stabilized due to mass distribution near the maximum diameter. Or in other words, they are lighter than a "solid" bullet if the nose were completely filled, allowing higher velocity. That. The big full-house battle rounds drilled holes. Some of the varmint rounds or intermediate rifle rounds (5.45, 5.56, etc) may tumble, but not the .30+ bores. |
|
Quoted: That. The big full-house battle rounds drilled holes. Some of the varmint rounds or intermediate rifle rounds (5.45, 5.56, etc) may tumble, but not the .30+ bores. Wanna bet?  ALL conical bullets will yaw when they become unstable when they enter tissue. The .303 British and M80 bullet paths shown above represent near-perfect behavior, as the instability causes ONE 180-degree rotation to allow the bullet to travel base forward (center of gravity). Side note: Some people think "tumbling" is equivalent to a bullet spinning around like a helicopter blade, which is also patently false. Some bullets MAY start to yaw, settle, and only then make the 180 degree flip as shown in the 8mm Mauser pic above. It's certainly not spinning around though. The temporary cavity is pronounced, but nowhere near as effective as when a bullet fragments, such as the 155gr Hornady AMAX or the 175gr SMK in the pic above (The SMK's fragmentation is highly variable, however, and it often behaves like FMJ unfortunately). |
|
I love these threads. They remind me of gunshops. By nature, bullets (particularly elongated/spitzer bullets) will tumble through a denser medium, such as tissue. The center of mass of a bullet is behind the aerodynamic center. The bullet is stabilized through flight, in a medium of low resistance. But when it encounters a medium of high resistance (such as tissue, or water, etc), it is no longer stabilized gyroscopically. The rear of the bullet will want to be out in front, with the ogive now becoming the tail. They are not specifically designed to tumble. It's a byproduct of the shape and ballistics of a projectile. Some, however, ARE designed to fragment during this "tumbling" for a greater wounding potential. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. fly straight through the air but tumble in something more dense than air. I want a source that says that a specific fmj was "designed" to tumble in flesh. I have no doubt they do, but I doubt it was part of the original specs. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. Elongated bullets are designed to fly straight. Accuracy is the reason. When they travel through something of greater density than air, they will eventually tumble. Smaller diameter bullets will do this earlier. Tumbling is tertiary to accuracy. And most often, unintentional. HPBT bullets (what military lawyers call OTM) were designed to also have higher ballistic coefficients. The large hollow point allowed for a more streamlined shape while still being able to be stabilized due to mass distribution near the maximum diameter. Or in other words, they are lighter than a "solid" bullet if the nose were completely filled, allowing higher velocity. this is exactly what I thought. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. fly straight through the air but tumble in something more dense than air. I want a source that says that a specific fmj was "designed" to tumble in flesh. I have no doubt they do, but I doubt it was part of the original specs. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73651 A few posts down is a translation of the Russian story on the development of the 5.45x39. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I have a question. In a recent debate with a very knowledgable gun friend, we got into the topic of FMJ vs soft points for hunting purposes. Without getting into which side chose which I was wondering what the consensus was. Also I was wondering if the caliber had an affect, with it being russian 7.62x54r. One of the arguments for FMJ not being a terrible choice for hunting is the fact that the bullet is designed to tumble, thus perhaps negating the axial expansion argument. So are softpoints really that crucial for a round designed to tumble, or is tumbling not effective. Thanks for any help. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=1213 
Man . . . some of ya guys just kill me 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I have a question. In a recent debate with a very knowledgable gun friend, we got into the topic of FMJ vs soft points for hunting purposes. Without getting into which side chose which I was wondering what the consensus was. Also I was wondering if the caliber had an affect, with it being russian 7.62x54r. One of the arguments for FMJ not being a terrible choice for hunting is the fact that the bullet is designed to tumble, thus perhaps negating the axial expansion argument. So are softpoints really that crucial for a round designed to tumble, or is tumbling not effective. Thanks for any help. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=1213
Man . . . some of ya guys just kill me especially when He's the guy 
|
|
Quoted:
especially when He's the guy I know
Hey....  stupid question ...but how would a 308 or a 54R with FMJs ( compared to a standard soft point ) be against something with really thick hides , like wild hogs, some of the exotic antelopes or maybe even Cape Buffalo ?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. fly straight through the air but tumble in something more dense than air. I want a source that says that a specific fmj was "designed" to tumble in flesh. I have no doubt they do, but I doubt it was part of the original specs. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73651 A few posts down is a translation of the Russian story on the development of the 5.45x39. It is interesting they gave it some thought on that particular bullet but I have seen no evidence it was a primary design factor on most fmj bullets. It's not even described as a design motivator in any of the other bullets mention in the story. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. fly straight through the air but tumble in something more dense than air. I want a source that says that a specific fmj was "designed" to tumble in flesh. I have no doubt they do, but I doubt it was part of the original specs. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73651 A few posts down is a translation of the Russian story on the development of the 5.45x39. It is interesting they gave it some thought on that particular bullet but I have seen no evidence it was a primary design factor on most fmj bullets. It's not even described as a design motivator in any of the other bullets mention in the story. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You asked for "specific" bullet. This is the only projectile that I'm aware of where they specifically set out to design it to tumble in tissue and enhanced an already existing phenomenon with design features. The muja hadeen called them the "devil bullet" or some such because of the nasty wounds they made. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. fly straight through the air but tumble in something more dense than air. I want a source that says that a specific fmj was "designed" to tumble in flesh. I have no doubt they do, but I doubt it was part of the original specs. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73651 A few posts down is a translation of the Russian story on the development of the 5.45x39. It is interesting they gave it some thought on that particular bullet but I have seen no evidence it was a primary design factor on most fmj bullets. It's not even described as a design motivator in any of the other bullets mention in the story. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You asked for "specific" bullet.
This is the only projectile that I'm aware of where they specifically set out to design it to tumble in tissue and enhanced an already existing phenomenon with design features. The muja hadeen called them the "devil bullet" or some such because of the nasty wounds they made. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All elongated bullets stabilized by rifling will tumble when traveling through a medium of significantly greater density than air. PERIOD. That is the nature of elongated bullets stabilized by rifling. Tumbling bullets are always inferior to controlled expansion for hunting. Were they designed to tumble, or to fly straight? We all know that fmj bullets don't always tumble fast enough to do so inside the target. fly straight through the air but tumble in something more dense than air. I want a source that says that a specific fmj was "designed" to tumble in flesh. I have no doubt they do, but I doubt it was part of the original specs. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73651 A few posts down is a translation of the Russian story on the development of the 5.45x39. It is interesting they gave it some thought on that particular bullet but I have seen no evidence it was a primary design factor on most fmj bullets. It's not even described as a design motivator in any of the other bullets mention in the story. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You asked for "specific" bullet.
This is the only projectile that I'm aware of where they specifically set out to design it to tumble in tissue and enhanced an already existing phenomenon with design features. The muja hadeen called them the "devil bullet" or some such because of the nasty wounds they made. Good to know! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: You asked for "specific" bullet. This is the only projectile that I'm aware of where they specifically set out to design it to tumble in tissue and enhanced an already existing phenomenon with design features. The muja hadeen called them the "devil bullet" or some such because of the nasty wounds they made. Bunch of nonsense. You simply cannot design a bullet to tumble to any great degree. All a non-fragmenting bullet will typically do is to turn ONCE by 180 degrees to travel base first. The 7N6 does have a strange double-lobe pattern but it not necessarily due to something specific they did to the bullet design (aka the hollow air cavity at the tip). There was an article written by Dr. Fackler in regards to a perfectly normal FMJ design that showed the same double-lobe pattern of the 7N6; unfortunately, I didn';t save the link to the article and haven't been able to find it again. You might be surprised to know that the current military round, 7N10, eliminates the air space at the tip of the bullet. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
especially when He's the guy I know
Hey.... stupid question ...but how would a 308 or a 54R with FMJs ( compared to a standard soft point ) be against something with really thick hides , like wild hogs, some of the exotic antelopes or maybe even Cape Buffalo ?
Cape Buffalo might be pushing it.Thats just a WAG though. |
|
Quoted: Hey.... stupid question ...but how would a 308 or a 54R with FMJs ( compared to a standard soft point ) be against something with really thick hides , like wild hogs, some of the exotic antelopes or maybe even Cape Buffalo ?Overkill on wild hogs - even a .223 will take them down. I don't see antelopes being much of a challenge either. With a Cape Buffalo, you'll be way undergunned - not so much because of the thick hide, but because it's a BIG animal, and you need a bullet to absolutely penetrate deeply enough, even if it hits bone. To accomplish that, you need a much heavier bullet and a jacket that will keep things together if some big bones are hit. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You asked for "specific" bullet. This is the only projectile that I'm aware of where they specifically set out to design it to tumble in tissue and enhanced an already existing phenomenon with design features. The muja hadeen called them the "devil bullet" or some such because of the nasty wounds they made. Bunch of nonsense. You simply cannot design a bullet to tumble to any great degree. All a non-fragmenting bullet will typically do is to turn ONCE by 180 degrees to travel base first. The 7N6 does have a strange double-lobe pattern but it not necessarily due to something specific they did to the bullet design (aka the hollow air cavity at the tip). There was an article written by Dr. Fackler in regards to a perfectly normal FMJ design that showed the same double-lobe pattern of the 7N6; unfortunately, I didn';t save the link to the article and haven't been able to find it again. You might be surprised to know that the current military round, 7N10, eliminates the air space at the tip of the bullet. Did you read the RUSSIAN story about the RUSSIAN round that the RUSSIANS developed? Whether or not a projectile can be made to tumble within a certain distance or number of times, the fact is, they tried to design a bullet to do so. If our moon mission would have failed, would you say that the Saturn 5 rocket was not designed to go to the moon?  They eliminated the airspace to improve performance against armor (also mentioned in the story I posted.) |
|
Quoted: Did you read the RUSSIAN story about the RUSSIAN round that the RUSSIANS developed? Whether or not a projectile can be made to tumble within a certain distance or number of times, the fact is, they tried to design a bullet to do so. If our moon mission would have failed, would you say that the Saturn 5 rocket was not designed to go to the moon? They eliminated the airspace to improve performance against armor (also mentioned in the story I posted.) I don't care what the Russians CLAIM they tried to accomplish. They were wrong, as is your analogy. |
|
My analogy is correct. Just because something does not perform doesn't mean it wasn't designed to. How many airplanes were designed to fly but wouldn't? The question wasn't "How many bullets tumble by design?" it was "How many bullets were designed to tumble?" There's a difference. Telling someone their analogy is wrong and not explaining why or giving a counter reference is weak. |
|
Quoted: My analogy is correct. Just because something does not perform doesn't mean it wasn't designed to. How many airplanes were designed to fly but wouldn't? The question wasn't "How many bullets tumble by design?" it was "How many bullets were designed to tumble?" There's a difference. Telling someone their analogy is wrong and not explaining why or giving a counter reference is weak. Fair enough. They tried to design a bullet that would do all kinds of magic tricks. It didn't really work. I see your distinction... |
|
Quoted: So given the overwhelming support for soft points, what (other than legal issues/Geneva Convention) keeps militaries from using HP/soft points? Just the Hague convention - that's it. The US didn't even sign it, but we still adhere to it. All ammunition has to be deemed land warfare legal by the JAG corps. |
|
Quoted: So given the overwhelming support for soft points, what (other than legal issues/Geneva Convention) keeps militaries from using HP/soft points? I'm sure most here have heard this but... The goal of a hunter is to kill one animal as cleanly and quickly as possible. The goal of the military is to take as many people out of combat as possible. A wounded man would take several to care for him is the logic. Now, there are situations in the military (specifically urban/close combat) where a rapid incapacitation is needed. So that would be counter to the above scenario. Then you have certain segments of the world who will step over a wounded comrad to continue to fight you. So the original logic doesn't apply there either. Of course, there's the line of thought that the Geneva (or Hague, don't remember which) convention was just a bunch of useful idiots who wanted to make war "less attrocious and a bit more tidy". Well good fucking luck with that. More directly your question reads to me: So, other than laws and rules, what keeps law abiding citizens following the laws and rules? You'll notice that not everyone plays by the "rules", bombing civilians and so on. Hell, we wrung our hands over starting to use the 77gr SMK which is technically an HP, but performs like ball ammo. I'm not sure who finally had to give the OK for that, but we're using it now. |