Solid Copper and Bonded Rifle Bullets Produce Less Wound Trauma?

[Shawn Dodson]

It seems to me that solid copper rifle bullets, like those offered by Barnes, and bonded lead-core rifle bullets don't produce the same amount of wound trauma as conventional unbonded lead-core expanding rifle bullets, because the former do not shed lead fragments as they expand, which pepper surrounding tissues with small holes that are then torn open by the subsequent temorary cavity.

All seem to produce similar sized temporary cavities, which may or may not cause soft tissues to tear, however the amount of permanent disruption appears greater for conventional unbonded lead-core because solid copper and bonded lead-core rifle bullets merely expand whereas conventional unbonded lead-core expand AND fragment. The fragments work in synergy with the temporary cavity to tear and detach soft tissues.

Given a choice between a 5.56/223 load that uses Nosler 60gr Partition and a load that uses Barnes 50gr TSX, it appears to me that the Nosler will produce greater wound trauma than the Barnes.

Am I missing something?

[DeltaKilo]

It seems to me that solid copper rifle bullets, like those offered by Barnes, and bonded lead-core rifle bullets don't produce the same amount of wound trauma as conventional unbonded lead-core expanding rifle bullets, because the former do not shed lead fragments as they expand, which pepper surrounding tissues with small holes that are then torn open by the subsequent temorary cavity.

All seem to produce similar sized temporary cavities, which may or may not cause soft tissues to tear, however the amount of permanent disruption appears greater for conventional unbonded lead-core because solid copper and bonded lead-core rifle bullets merely expand whereas conventional unbonded lead-core expand AND fragment. The fragments work in synergy with the temporary cavity to tear and detach soft tissues.

Given a choice between a 5.56/223 load that uses Nosler 60gr Partition and a load that uses Barnes 50gr TSX, it appears to me that the Nosler will produce greater wound trauma than the Barnes.

Am I missing something?

I'm by no means an expert, however I would suppose that because the fragments when they shear off will be traveling at far less velocity with far less energy, are going to produce less trauma to tissue than you think.

If we suppose a resistance value of R for tissue, then to overcome 1cm of tissue, the lead fragments would be robbed of R amount of energy as it overcomes it (It takes X amount of energy to overcome R resistance, so a value of X(t) is reduced by X(r) per CM of penetration).

So, if that's the case, it seems to me that fragments with very little mass would have equally little momentum value, and would very quickly lose energy overcoming tissue.

A bonded bullet, on the other hand (or a solid copper), is going to do more damage, in my opinion, because theoretically it retains its mass, and therefore its momentum, and loses less energy per CM of penetration due to loss of momentum, and would maintain its temporary cavitation longer and penetrate deeper.

From my experience in hunting, this is held up in the real world where bonded core bullets seem to more uniformly penetrate more deeply than traditional lead core, and in more cases, anecdotally, cause more traumatic damage.

[481]

It seems to me that solid copper rifle bullets, like those offered by Barnes, and bonded lead-core rifle bullets don't produce the same amount of wound trauma as conventional unbonded lead-core expanding rifle bullets, because the former do not shed lead fragments as they expand, which pepper surrounding tissues with small holes that are then torn open by the subsequent temorary cavity.

All seem to produce similar sized temporary cavities, which may or may not cause soft tissues to tear, however the amount of permanent disruption appears greater for conventional unbonded lead-core because solid copper and bonded lead-core rifle bullets merely expand whereas conventional unbonded lead-core expand AND fragment. The fragments work in synergy with the temporary cavity to tear and detach soft tissues.

Given a choice between a 5.56/223 load that uses Nosler 60gr Partition and a load that uses Barnes 50gr TSX, it appears to me that the Nosler will produce greater wound trauma than the Barnes.

Am I missing something?

I don't think so.

I shoot a lot of large game and this attribute is why I have gone to the solid copper alloy projectiles. In the past, have used the Remington Core-Lokt and observed greater disruptive effect earlier in the wound track than I've seen in the homogenuous alloy projectiles like the TSX. I like them because they destroy less meat should they strike a ham or tenderloin.

While I've often recovered spent Core-Lokts typically in less than 24" worth of travel inside the game animal, I've have yet to recover a homogenuous alloy design under any circumstance save for two from the same animal- a pair of Winchester .30-06 180 gr. Failsafe JHPs from a somewhat largish 43" Cape Buffalo shot lengthwise in Tanzania in late 2002. (This little stunt was done with the TGA's permission)

Recovered dimensions were nearly identical-

1.) avg RD: 0.375" (0.405" x 0.344") RW: 149.9 gr. RL: 0.834"

2.) avg RD: 0.376" (0.407" x 0.345") RW: 148.1 gr. RL: 0.826"

Penetration was ~48" IIRC, but I didn't take terminal penetration measurements since it was getting dark and we didn't want to stay in the mopane longer than necessary with all that blood and meat.

I agree with DeltaKilo- less work done by the bullet to the target per unit distance of travel means that penetration depth necessarily increases.

[bernieb90]

It seems to me that solid copper rifle bullets, like those offered by Barnes, and bonded lead-core rifle bullets don't produce the same amount of wound trauma as conventional unbonded lead-core expanding rifle bullets, because the former do not shed lead fragments as they expand, which pepper surrounding tissues with small holes that are then torn open by the subsequent temorary cavity.

All seem to produce similar sized temporary cavities, which may or may not cause soft tissues to tear, however the amount of permanent disruption appears greater for conventional unbonded lead-core because solid copper and bonded lead-core rifle bullets merely expand whereas conventional unbonded lead-core expand AND fragment. The fragments work in synergy with the temporary cavity to tear and detach soft tissues.

Given a choice between a 5.56/223 load that uses Nosler 60gr Partition and a load that uses Barnes 50gr TSX, it appears to me that the Nosler will produce greater wound trauma than the Barnes.

Am I missing something?

No I don't think you are missing anything. I think the answer is simply that any bullet choice is a compromise between maximum tissue disruption on an unobstructed target, and effective real world performance under difficult conditions.

I think that the Nosler 60gr vs 50gr TSX is not so much of an issue. The entire Nosler bullet weighs 60gr with the front core accounting for less than half the weight. Most of the gel tests I have seen show recovered weights in the low 50gr range so you are getting a whopping 10gr of fragments at best in the entire wound channel. Either load is acceptable for general barrier blind use.

The big question comes when we compare something like 75gr OTM loads that show massive ammounts of fragmentation vs. a Barnes TSX bullet. In this case as Dr. Roberts has mentioned earlier the OTM is fine for unobtructed shot, but what happens when the bad guy decides to take cover. A general purpose defensive load must work under all conditions expected to be encountered. Despite what the gelatin tests show (12"+ penetration) if an OTM penetrates an outstretched arm it may begin to fragment in the arm. The fragments exiting the arm will have to deal with the "holdback effect" of the arm skin, any clothing the subject is wearing (sleeves and torso covering), and then penetrate into the vitals. A single bonded projectile will have a much greater chance of achieveing this.

.223/5.56 due to the light weight of the projectiles requires such compromises to be made. If we step up to .308 we can get loads that can afford to shed fragments yet still will penetrate any common barrier with enough authority to still penetrate into the vitals.

[DeltaKilo]

No I don't think you are missing anything. I think the answer is simply that any bullet choice is a compromise between maximum tissue disruption on an unobstructed target, and effective real world performance under difficult conditions.

I think that the Nosler 60gr vs 50gr TSX is not so much of an issue. The entire Nosler bullet weighs 60gr with the front core accounting for less than half the weight. Most of the gel tests I have seen show recovered weights in the low 50gr range so you are getting a whopping 10gr of fragments at best in the entire wound channel. Either load is acceptable for general barrier blind use.

The big question comes when we compare something like 75gr OTM loads that show massive ammounts of fragmentation vs. a Barnes TSX bullet. In this case as Dr. Roberts has mentioned earlier the OTM is fine for unobtructed shot, but what happens when the bad guy decides to take cover. A general purpose defensive load must work under all conditions expected to be encountered. Despite what the gelatin tests show (12"+ penetration) if an OTM penetrates an outstretched arm it may begin to fragment in the arm. The fragments exiting the arm will have to deal with the "holdback effect" of the arm skin, any clothing the subject is wearing (sleeves and torso covering), and then penetrate into the vitals. A single bonded projectile will have a much greater chance of achieveing this.

.223/5.56 due to the light weight of the projectiles requires such compromises to be made. If we step up to .308 we can get loads that can afford to shed fragments yet still will penetrate any common barrier with enough authority to still penetrate into the vitals.

I agree, 100%.

[JimmyB62]

I agree, 100%.

In the original reply your contention was that bonded bullets cause more damage than a convention copper/lead non-bonded load.

This is counter to what bernieb90 just wrote (which was very well written by the way).

I won't attempt to address your formula, since even simple math is over my head, but how to you account for the substantial damage an OTM bullet causes while fragmenting massively, given your assertion that the lead fragments lose their effectiveness so quickly overcoming tissue resistance? It's possible I may be misinterpreting you here.

[Robb Jensen]

News to me that bonded isnt as good.
I've shot 7 deer with Federal Fusion 165gr bonded .30-06 and every wound channel looked far better than any other .30-06 load I've ever used or seen used. All the Fusion shots were 1 shot stops and all completely existed the body. The wound channels usually look like I've used a larger or much faster caliber.

[DeltaKilo]

In the original reply your contention was that bonded bullets cause [b]more[b] damage than a convention copper/lead non-bonded load.

This is counter to what bernieb90 just wrote (which was very well written by the way).

I won't attempt to address your formula, since even simple math is over my head, but how to you account for the substantial damage an OTM bullet causes while fragmenting massively, given your assertion that the lead fragments lose their effectiveness so quickly overcoming tissue resistance? It's possible I may be misinterpreting you here.

If you reread what I said, and what bernie said, neither contradicts the other. My assertion is that, based solely on the physics, fragments will not necessarily penetrate a great deal. I also point out that a bonded/solid copper bullet will, theoretically penetrate to a greater degree due to a lower loss of momentum due to loss of mass.

I think the balancing point here is in the comparative effects of a deeper wound channel of some nonzero amount, compared to the potential increase of trauma caused by fragments of the bullet. Based on what I have observed, the deeper wound channel is more beneficial, however this does not preclude the potential for bullet fragments to add to the wound's effectiveness, either.

In any case, bernie's well-written post speaks well to the realities that choosing an effective load is a compromise between terminal effects and intermediate barriers, so, while I may hold my own theories on whether fragmentation plays as large of a part in effectiveness as is supposed (and i'm by no means an expert, so I can only go by observational data), bernie's post is absolutely right.

[DeltaKilo]

News to me that bonded isnt as good.
I've shot 7 deer with Federal Fusion 165gr bonded .30-06 and every wound channel looked far better than any other .30-06 load I've ever used or seen used. All the Fusion shots were 1 shot stops and all completely existed the body. The wound channels usually look like I've used a larger or much faster caliber.

This has been my experience as well.

[MegademiC]

From everything I've read from Fackler and Roberts, this is what I've interpreted the info to mean:

Bonded ammo produces great wounding capabilities AND allows barriers to be penetrated without severely reducing the capability to incapacitate a threat that is behind said cover.

Unbonded projectiles produce better results for exposed targets as the fragmenting is the best wounding mechanism. However, when shooting through intermediate barriers, these projectiles are damaged to the point that wounding capabilities are greatly compromised.

For long range shots and home defense type roles, heavy OTMs rule. For general combat and LEOs who are around vehicles and such, bonded projectiles and solid copper bullets like tsx-x are best as they still provide great term ballistics on bare targets and on targets that may need to be penetrated AFTER penetrating a barrier such as a car door, auto glass, walls, etc.

News to me that bonded isnt as good.
I've shot 7 deer with Federal Fusion 165gr bonded .30-06 and every wound channel looked far better than any other .30-06 load I've ever used or seen used. All the Fusion shots were 1 shot stops and all completely existed the body. The wound channels usually look like I've used a larger or much faster caliber.

I would think ammunition choice has less (obviously still important, but not to quite the same extent) of an impact once one moves up to 308 or larger. 223/5.56 is where ammo choice is critical.

That said, If you use any of the recommended loads, I doubt you would tell the difference if you had to use it. There is a pig hunting thread going on right now and people have dropped hogs using both OTMs and bonded ammo. Any expanding or fragmenting bullet going through the vitals will effectively remove them and result in very fast incapacitation.