In January 2023, this website began its 24th year. It is in need of a complete overhaul, but in the meanwhile I have completely revised and updated the section on Analytical Modeling of Terminal Ballistics.

I still intend someday to conduct my Classic Cartridges test, using real vintage bullets: .256 Mannlicher, 7 x 57 mm Mauser, .303 Lee-Metford, Holland's Super .30 (aka .300 Holland & Holland Magnum), .318 Westley-Richards, .333 Jeffery, .400/.350 Rigby and others. I have assembled quite a collection and it should be most interesting. Realistically, I may need to retire first in order to have the free time to do it. When that Herculean task is done, I will definitely be done with wetpack testing.

However, I have posted several new pages on Classic Rifles, Pistols and Cartridges: Shooting and Restoring Vintage Sporting Arms.

South Carolina DNR Game Study	Statistical research into the physical responses of deer shot by rifle bullets
Street Statistics: The Case Against One-Shot Stops	My personal assessment of the street results data and the debate
The Tactical Loads Test	A comparison of defensive ammunition for the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO
The Classic Cartridges Test	A comparison of classic vintage loads from the dawn of modern sporting ammunition
The Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune	Or, the hazards of being published in cyberspace
Mail to: Ulfhere at Rathcoombe.net	Comments or correspondence?

What's Wrong with the Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why	Dr. Martin L. Fackler's seminal treatise on the wound ballistics of small arms (required reading for the serious student of wound ballistics)
Wound Ballistics	The US Army Medical Department's official report on wound ballistics during World War II and the Korean War
Rifle, Handloader & Successful Hunter Magazines	The online home of Wolfe Publishing magazines
Shikari Connection: African Hunter Online	Articles from African Hunter magazine and contact information

Classic Rifles, Pistols and Cartridges: Shooting and Restoring Vintage Sporting Arms	A collection of pages on my greatest interest in firearms
A Medium Bore Rifle for Alaskan Caribou	Custom work and load development for my 1999 hunt
A First Safari in Namibia	Details and photos from our 2001 plains game safari
A Custom Browning 1895 for Hunting the North Country	I return to Alaska in 2004 with a new medium-bore rifle
A Medium Bore Rifle for Alaskan Caribou, Part II	A classic rifle finally completed and my 2008 hunt in the Alaskan Arctic
Practical Rules for Hunting	Some lessons learned in the hunting fields

No subject in the firearms industry generates more print or heat than terminal performance. Since the 1980s, this issue has become one of considerable moment with federal agencies, leading to the decision to replace entire arsenals of sidearms for the FBI and numerous (often abortive) programs to replace the service rifles, sidearms and ammunition of the military. Similarly, within the commercial industry we have seen the development of numerous, and occasionally exotic, bullet designs based upon various theories of wounding behavior. Some have worked well, while others have not. Since this page was published in 1999, I have observed a general improvement in the appreciation of the terminal performance of bullets, particularly the velocity required for bullet expansion. But for the most part, shooters and many in the firearms community still do not understand why these things work well or fail and there remain deeply entrenched misunderstandings of wound ballistics and lethality.

My purpose in this study is to examine what we do know and to reconsider the theories which attempt to account for the observed behaviors. I intend to cover the entire field of terminal ballistics controversy as fairly as possible, but I do have some very definite conclusions of my own which I believe I can explain and defend to the satisfaction of most. Furthermore, I will offer some criticism of the popular formulas for calculating terminal performance and suggest a couple which may provide a real estimate of absolute performance on game (not just a relative comparison to other loads). Although this discussion is intended for the sportsman, I will include material and argument which is of interest to the individual using small arms for self-defense or in police or military applications.

A brief word about my background is warranted. I am a mechanical engineer by profession and am employed in the defense industry where I worked as an analyst and designer of anti-armor lethal mechanisms (ie, warheads and penetrators) for many years. Terminal ballistics has been both my hobby and my profession. On the job, I used an Eulerian finite-difference computational tool known as a hydrodynamic model (hydrocode for short) called CTH, which was developed by Sandia National Laboratory, to perform explosive calculations and penetration analyses, along with code that I wrote for specific applications. My knowledge and professional studies cover the entire spectrum of penetration mechanics from small arms to penetration bombs, blast and fragmentation warheads and high explosive shaped charges.

Further, I have extensively read the best mechanical and forensic studies of bullet behavior, as well as the classic works on field performance by Whelen, Baker, Selous, Taylor, O'Connor, etc. While I freely admit that I haven't personally shot a great number of game animals, I have witnessed others being shot and examined still more post-mortem, to confirm or refute by my own experience the published observations and pontifications of hunters and firearms pundits. I try not to speak dogmatically on subjects beyond my ken, but where the physical evidence and concensus of thought by sage and seasoned scientists and hunters tends toward a clear conclusion, I am not hesitant to assert it.

As an aside, over the years, a handful of inquirers have been bothered by my insistence on anonymity. Anyone who works in the defense industry will understand my posture. About twenty years have passed now, so I will allow this much: I was once a shell member of the Joint Service Wound Ballistics IPT. More of that later when I discuss tactical ammunition. I am now only a few years away from retirement, and while I continue to hold a clearance and work on those projects which are my real occupation, I will remain anonymous to the broad public and will not be publishing a resume anytime soon to satisfy the curiosity of some.

Understand that I am not publishing this material to pick a fight with anyone or start a raging debate with online pundits. I seek the truth and speak it, to the best of my knowledge, but I am not an evangelist. It is not my task in life to persuade anyone of anything. This is intended to be an educational site, but if one takes exception to anything herein, that is quite alright. Believe what you will. I am older and wiser than I was when I started this site, and I just don't argue anymore with people who are entrenched in their beliefs.

I believe in being forthright, so I will jump in with both feet and state the premise of my own theory of terminal ballistics. The title of this article is a hint. Plainly stated, I maintain that the effect of bullets on living targets is caused by the wound track made by the bullet. Now, before you accuse me of being a wise guy, recall that most explanations of wounding that are batted about in the shooting sports community are tied to the kinetic energy or momentum or "hydrostatic shock" or some other such physical quantity or calculated attribute of the bullet which is "transferred" or imparted to the target. My theory of wound ballistics recognizes the physical characteristics and penetration mechanics, but relies on a fundamentally different premise, which is that two physically equivalent wound tracks in a game animal will have an equivalent physiological effect, no matter how different were the kinetic energies or other physical attributes of the bullets which caused them.

There are some rarely encountered exceptions to the general rule (I'll discuss these in due course), but for most purposes the wound (i.e., penetration cavity) caused by a bullet is its only measure of lethality. By the way, I am not alone in this view. This is the prevailing scientific consensus of the professional wound ballistics community.

Continue on to:

II. The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics

These pages are intended for a serious examination of the subject of terminal ballistics as it applies to the hunter (principally). Necessarily, some of the details of the discussion involve matters which many persons in this age may regard as gruesome, possibly even disturbing. While there are no graphic depictions of wounds on this site and its associated pages, the effects of bullets are discussed in graphic (albeit scientific) terms. Anyone who finds the whole subject of hunting and guns to be unsettling or disturbing may well want to depart without perusing the contents of this site. I accept no responsibility whatsoever for any psychological traumas, mishaps, misfortunes, or bad karma alleged to result from viewing this site, whether real, imaginary or pretended.

On the other hand... if one's mind is not frozen in prejudice (or alternatively, absorbed by perverse morbidity), then I would invite newcomers to the world of sport hunting to examine these pages and discover the non-sensationalized real face of modern hunting. I hold very high ethical standards and one will find that ethics is a recurring theme on this site.

In regard to legal issues, all the references used on this site are annotated where known (or if not, please bring them to my attention). This is not a commercial site, nor does the author receive any remuneration from any manufacturer. The purpose of this site is purely educational and the views expressed (except where noted) are those of the author. I will not accept any responsibility for mishaps alleged to result from the use of information contained on this site. All of the information here is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge (which is limited). Beyond that, you're on your own.