Hornady Index of Terminal Standards

[lcq]

This has truly baffled me.

7mm mag 160 AccuBond @ 2950 hits 1179
300 wsm 150 barnes @3052 hits 768
308 win 180 accub @ 2570 hits 1091

Obviously something doesn't compute in the real world. Your thoughts.

 

[Harv6]

I've used Hornady's H.I.T.S. calculator a few times but not enough to really see where it shines or has flaws. I'd say this relies a bit much on bullet weight & sectional density... which isn't always a bad thing for people that don't know whether or not they've got enough gun for a specific task. If you'd be using cup and core spire points in the weights listed I'd rank them the the way the calculator did.

 

[lcq]

I've used Hornady's H.I.T.S. calculator a few times but not enough to really see where it shines or has flaws. I'd say this relies a bit much on bullet weight & sectional density... which isn't always a bad thing for people that don't know whether or not they've got enough gun for a specific task. If you'd be using cup and core spire points in the weights listed I'd rank them the the way the calculator did.

Makes more sense now that you mentioned cup and core. The new monometals have changed things radically

 

[FOTIS]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_hits_table_syn.htm

 

[truck driver]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_hits_table_syn.htm

Thanks for the link Fotis, very interesting.

 

[lcq]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_hits_table_syn.htm

It makes very interesting reading, thanks. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything comparing jacketed to copper. Some people think copper bullets will drop anything that moves :roll: out of a marginal caliber but it would be nice to see something more scientific.

 

[efw]

Problem is "scientific" is vague; you mean in the classic (observed) sense or the modern "algorithmic" sense?

Monos penetrate deeper largely because of their smaller frontal diameter relative to cup-n-cores. Mono's ability to open at extended ranges (after speeds have diminished) are highly suspect in my mind.

How does one come up with a formula to account for those variables? There have been many attempts over the years... I remember the KO factor... But none can account for what we actually observe in the field, nor critical differences in individual billet performance under even subtlely different circumstances.

Bottom line? I love the bullet test board here. Animals aren't bottles of water or phone books I know, but those medium do offer insight into one bullet's behavior relative to another on an observable, measurable basis which IMHO is as good as it's going to get.