Low Velocity Expansion Bullets

[USAF Ret]

Looking for information on low velocity expansion bullets. Been trying to find information, but every article I find I read 5 paragraphs explaining it but not listing the information. Specifically 7mm, 270 and 308.

[Nathan]

The problem is most aerodynamic bullets tumble around 1500 fps regardless of if the6 are designed to expand slower. Bullets shaped like pistol jhp’s expand around 800-1200fps without tumbling.

[USAF Ret]

Was told Nosler long range Accubonds open at 1300 fps.

[zeke]

Depending on what you mean by low velocity, Hornady makes 2 308 expanding bullets designed for sub sonic velocity's. The 190 grain version is tough to find, the 175 grainer is in stock various places.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by USAF Ret

Was told Nosler long range Accubonds open at 1300 fps.

Check out SimpleMindedFella on YouTube. I’m sure they do in at test that keeps them stable at 1300fps.

[USAF Ret]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Check out SimpleMindedFella on YouTube. I’m sure they do in at test that keeps them stable at 1300fps.

Will do!

[44 AMP]

The problem is most aerodynamic bullets tumble around 1500 fps ...

Tumbling before or after impact???

[Nathan]

After, according to his testing which makes them marginally lethal if you buy into the theory of expansion and straight line penetration as key factors in killing.

[USAF Ret]

Originally Posted by Nathan

After, according to his testing which makes them marginally lethal if you buy into the theory of expansion and straight line penetration as key factors in killing.

Watching the Norma Tipstrike 170 grain. I have a couple hundred of those on hand. At 1680, very impressive. Thanks for pointing me to the channel.

[44 AMP]

Is "marginally lethal" like being "slightly pregnant"??

or is it like "less lethal" which is only part of the term "less likely to be lethal" which gives a distorted and inaccurate impression?

Every bullet that is longer than it is wide will yaw, and eventually tumble after striking something. Where the differences come in is in how much, and how soon (in inches of travel through the target).

Some calibers and bullet designs are more stable plowing through tissue than others. And if the bullet doesn't reach its "upset point" inside the tissue, but after it exits, most folks assume it doesn't tumble, but it does, just not where it can be seen. And when that happens, most assume they don't tumble, instead of realizing they just haven't tumbled yet.

Nosler partition bullets are famously effective at lower velocities, because the forward portion can be made "soft" to expand at low speeds while the reat portion retains full mass and "pushes" them to achieve good penetration.

I'd say that non expanding or low expanding bullets are not "marginally lethal" they absolutely do kill. They're not as efficient as expanding bullets, but that doesn't make them any less deadly.

[USAF Ret]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Is "marginally lethal" like being "slightly pregnant"??

or is it like "less lethal" which is only part of the term "less likely to be lethal" which gives a distorted and inaccurate impression?

Every bullet that is longer than it is wide will yaw, and eventually tumble after striking something. Where the differences come in is in how much, and how soon (in inches of travel through the target).

Some calibers and bullet designs are more stable plowing through tissue than others. And if the bullet doesn't reach its "upset point" inside the tissue, but after it exits, most folks assume it doesn't tumble, but it does, just not where it can be seen. And when that happens, most assume they don't tumble, instead of realizing they just haven't tumbled yet.

Nosler partition bullets are famously effective at lower velocities, because the forward portion can be made "soft" to expand at low speeds while the reat portion retains full mass and "pushes" them to achieve good penetration.

I'd say that non expanding or low expanding bullets are not "marginally lethal" they absolutely do kill. They're not as efficient as expanding bullets, but that doesn't make them any less deadly.

Very good information. Thank you.

[Unclenick]

Interestingly, on another forum years ago, Randy Garrett described a test done at the Linebaugh Institute on ago, comparing 500-grain round nose Hornady bullets fired into wet newspaper media by a 45-70 (20-inch twist), a 458 Win Mag (14" twist), and a 458 Lott (10" twist) to get a penetration comparison. The 45-70 had the lowest velocity but the deepest penetration and the 458 Lott had the most velocity and the poorest penetration. It was fired at a relatively short distance, IIRC.

The Lott bullet was clearly canted or turning the most in the media. I don't know why Lott gave it such a fast twist, as bullets fired from a given twist increase stability with a velocity slightly. The short range meant too little range for coming motion to dampen significantly. The faster spinning bullet will be coning more slowly, so if you had the same initial yaw in all three, it would be expected for that bullet to hold that yaw better, and that may be the causative factor.

It would be better to know how the bullets in either that test or the video would behave when fired from a considerably greater distance. Hatcher's Notebook has photos of how 30-06 M2 ball bullets penetrated solid oak. IIRC, one fired at 50 feet penetrated about 11 inches due to the bullet turning sideways on the way in. The one fired at 150 yards went straight in for about 32 inches and never turned. It had time to dampen out the majority of its initial yaw on the way to the target, so it struck the wood more nearly head-on. To be fair, it also hit more slowly so that even with the same yaw, the turning forces would have been lower, but the comparison is still interesting.

[USAF Ret]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Check out SimpleMindedFella on YouTube. I’m sure they do in at test that keeps them stable at 1300fps.

Nathan, that YouTube channel has the wealth of info I was looking for. Thanks!!

[FrankenMauser]

Are you looking for "long range, decreased velocity" type performance?
Or appropriate for subsonic loads?

[USAF Ret]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

Are you looking for "long range, decreased velocity" type performance?
Or appropriate for subsonic loads?

Long range decreased velocity in a shorter range. I am not going subsonic. I am just loading reduced recoil loads that will probably have a max range of about 250 yards with 270, 308 and 7mm-08. I have medical issues that are amplified by recoil. I am also looking at getting a suppressor to reduce the sound concussion to make it more comfortable to shoot. I have several very nice 270 rifles, specifically, I cannot put a muzzle brake or suppressor on. They are light weight. I love the rifles, but the recoil is too much for me. While I could just go to my 6.5 Creedmoor and Grendel, I do not want to get rid of them and don't want them just sitting in the safe.

[FrankenMauser]

Reasonable.
And the clarification helps.

I'll think about this.

[USAF Ret]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

Reasonable.
And the clarification helps.

I'll think about this.

Open to your wisdom sir.

[44 AMP]

I have several very nice 270 rifles, specifically, I cannot put a muzzle brake or suppressor on.

I have to ask, mechanically speaking, why not??

I can think of a number of guns and reasons why one would not WANT to put a suppressor or brake on, but none mechanically.

Some designs would require more work than others but I don't know any that it couldn't be done to....

[Shadow9mm]

The lehigh defense controlled chaos are good down to 1500fps.

I follow a channel, simple minded fella, on youtube. Does a lot of low velocity testing. Heres his vid on the lehighs.
https://youtu.be/cJ1acqSLms0

[reloader28]

[USAF Ret]

Originally Posted by reloader28

I would look at target or varmint bullets.
The reason target bullets work so perfectly at long range hunting is because they are slowed way down by the time it gets out there and the thinner jacket lets it expand while a thicker jacket hunting bullet would not.

Good info, thanks!

[USAF Ret]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

The lehigh defense controlled chaos are good down to 1500fps.

I follow a channel, simple minded fella, on youtube. Does a lot of low velocity testing. Heres his vid on the lehighs.
https://youtu.be/cJ1acqSLms0

Jon, I wish I could but Hodgdon specifically said lead. I pulled down a ton of data last night from LoadData, and none of the loads I saw were with copper monolithic bullets.

[44 AMP]

The reason target bullets work so perfectly at long range hunting is because they are slowed way down by the time it gets out there and the thinner jacket lets it expand while a thicker jacket hunting bullet would not.

Did they change target bullet construction and I missed the memo??

None of the target "match" rifle bullets I've ever used, seen or heard of was made for controlled expansion or for penetration and expansion.

I've used 52/53gr match bullets very successfully, for varmint hunting, driven at high speed from a .22-250. They work well, because not only accurate, but they BLOW UP when they hit a target.

That same performance that zaps woodchucks and smaller varmints and nails coyotes with a proper hit is miserable performance on deer, elk, bear, or other larger game animals.

The best big game bullets combine controlled expansion, penetration and weight retention. And, of those three, expansion is the least important, UNLESS it interferes with the other two.

Additionally, besides the practical and ethical issues of using target bullets for hunting, you might want to consider the game laws. Some places specifically state soft point, or expanding type bullets must be used.

Match bullets, though often hollow points are not considered "expanding type bullets". If you've got something in writing from the maker saying their match bullets are also made for hunting, fine. But if you don't, you might be breaking the law....

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by reloader28

I would look at target or varmint bullets.
The reason target bullets work so perfectly at long range hunting is because they are slowed way down by the time it gets out there and the thinner jacket lets it expand while a thicker jacket hunting bullet would not.

Target bullets are meant for targets, varmint bullets for varmints. For larger game, you want controlled expansion and penetration, not rapid fragmentation. I know lots of people do, but I will NEVER use a TARGET bullet on medium to large game.

[USAF Ret]

Well, ciphering up and looking at ranges and ft lbs, I think with these loads and the distance I would be shooting I can go with the 1800fps rule.