Hornady H.I.T.S. terminal effect calculator

[Jack-O]

http://www.hornady.com/hits/calculator

someone sent me a link to this today. I'm skeptical, but does this provide us with a decent indicator of anything?

What would this indicate other than maybe "potential"


http://www.hornady.com/hits


HITS Classifications

The Hornady Index of Terminal Standards (H.I.T.S.) is intended as a guideline to help hunters compare cartridge and bullet combinations. Beginners and seasoned hunters alike will find these standards useful when sorting through online chat room discussions and gun shop “hype” to make sense of an onslaught of varying information.

The index considers variables such as impact velocity, ballistic coefficient, sectional density and bullet weight. Bullet construction is another important factor in determining the best combination. H.I.T.S. is intended for use with hunting bullets, as match bullets may perform unpredictably on game animals.

[mark5pt56]

I see it as another tool to plug into the other variables. I would value personal experience from seasoned hunters on a higher level. Not that this data isn't useful.

[NMBigfoot02]

It's useful as a starting point for hunting, but as with most of the "calculators" out there, they only address a few of the thousands of variables that come into play when talking about terminal ballistics.

[481]

After looking at, and running some numbers through Hornady's HITS calculator, I am completely unimpressed.

While it harkens to the OGW (Optimal Game Weight) formula suggested by E. Matunas quite some years ago, the "results" are presented on what appears to be an arbitrary numerical scale, whereas Matunas' OGW yielded its results (whether you accept them as vaild or not) in pounds of applicable game weight.

While I find the idea to be an interesting one, and it certainly has merit, the execution of this particular "calculation tool" leaves much to be desired.

Too many underlying factors (bullet construction, shot placement, type/weight of game animal to name a few) that are left unaddressed in addition to the arbitrary points scale (<500 pts. for small game, 500-900 points for medium game, 900-1,500 for big game, etc.) have me wondering just what a "point" is really worth and how those who designed this "calculator" came up with this rating scale.

Too often, I find "mathematical models" offered that seem to offer "neatly packaged" results that seem to be just a little too "sterile" to be of any real value.

This is one of those cases.

[Glock17JHP]

382 was given for the Winchester Partition Gold 180 grain .357 Magnum load fired from a 4 inch S&W Model 686...
The calculator said that <500 was for 'small game'???

I'm not impressed, either... :confused:

[NMBigfoot02]

For those interested, the formula is

(Bullet weight)^2*(Bullet velocity)/(700000*Bullet diameter^2)

Near as I can figure, they've taken the sectional density and multiplied it by a made up factor composed of the weight, velocity, and a random factor for good measure.

In short, they made most of it up.

Still, you have to remember that this tool is geared toward hunters and not necessarily for self defense purposes. In that regard, in order to get a clean kill, you would rather have a larger, more powerful bullet rather one that would be marginal for the type of game you're hunting.

[Glock17JHP]

I would hardly consider the following data an indication of a load that is a small game load...

Winchester Supreme .357 Magnum Partition Gold JHP
Expansion - .65-.70 inches
Penetration - 16 inches

This load should be entirely adequte for an average-sized whitetail deer (or human-sized felon)...

[NMBigfoot02]

Again, remember that this calculator is made to cater to hunters, whose main goal in the taking of game is to avoid unnecessary suffering. With this goal in mind, you would want a heavier caliber rather than a lighter one.

While a .357 from a handgun could certainly take a deer at 50 yds assuming good shot placement, it is likely that the greater tissue disruption offered by a rifle round would end the animal's life faster.

Like I said, the calculator is good as a starting point, but I wouldn't take it as gospel.

[Glock17JHP]

I definitely understand... I just think it may not be wise to rely on a program like this since it doesn't have the ability to take into account enough variables.

I would rather talk to other experienced hunters I thought knew what they were doing and had shown themselves to be succesfull at hunting, and get their advice on calibers and loads... rather than use a program like that. Sort of like asking your fellow fishermen what line, hook size and bait seems to be the best in their experiences at a particular lake. Even when you do that, it can vary depending on the seasons, etc. In other words, too many variables.

I would rather see a table that allows you to pick a game animal/weight and then reads across to a caliber/bullet style/weight.