New bullet test (unbiased)

[Scott Slough]

White flag - I quit - but it only tells you how they do with RESPECT TO each other IN WATER - I am trying to imagine us at Fort Benning and Fort Sill trying to decide upon terminal effects based upon milk jugs and swimming pools. Hey, but have at it. It at least has to be fun.

Double white flag!

 

[Art Lambart II]

Hopefully we can all agree that today's premium bullets have a proven track record on African game. In my opinion these types of tests are conducted to try and find a "cup & core" bullet that preforms as well as a premium bullet, my question is why? It fine to use a "cup & core" bullet that shoots like a premium bullet for practice but when the practice is done hunt with a premium bullet.

 

[Ray B]

Hopefully we can all agree that today's premium bullets have a proven track record on African game. In my opinion these types of tests are conducted to try and find a "cup & core" bullet that preforms as well as a premium bullet, my question is why? It fine to use a "cup & core" bullet that shoots like a premium bullet for practice but when the practice is done hunt with a premium bullet.

It is incorrect to assign motive for the tests. I did it to see how some bullets compared to each other. This was done prior to the major companies getting into the bonded market. At the time Barnes still made their conventional bullet and had recently introduced their X bullet. There were a few bullets made by sole proprietors that have either sold their designs to major companies or have gone out of business. The test results involved number and pattern of jugs penetrated as well as bullet factors. In addition to relative results the test showed some undesirable characteristics of some of the bullets- which evidently also showed in the makers tests since I note that the various bullet designs were changed ostensibly to correct those problems.
the re-run of the test that I'm considering would involve the plethora of new "super-premium" bonded bullets- just to see how they compare to some of the old standards such as the Nosler Partition and the Bitterroot Bonded Core.

 

[Art Lambart II]

My father, brother and I just returned from a safari in South Africa, each one of us took six animals with a 35 Whelen. My dad used a 225grn Barnes TSX, my brother used a 225grn Accubond and I used a 250grn Nosler Partition so which bullet worked better? I don't know and neither do the 18 animals we took with with the Whelen. What would your destructive test on these three bullets tell us that we don't already know?

 

[BWH]

Today's premium bullets are all superior & effective. I don't have the time or money to blow on silly experiments. I'd rather spend time & money on quality ammo & range time perfecting accuracy.

 

[Ray B]

The proposal for the next test will be a comparison a few heavy cartridges all using similar bullets. One test involved how the ,458 Win Mag using a 400 grain bullet with manuals how travels initially at 2450 fps, compared to the 404 Jeffery which shows a muzzle velocity 2300. It is likely that Woodleigh and Swift bullets would be used for this test. the expected results would follow standard expectations: Both 400 grain bullets, but the smaller diameter has a smaller frontal area-s deeper penetration, The larger diameter bullet had larger velocity which also affects penetration. the larger frontal area and speed is expected to make a larger splash. Despite what some may think out the validity of the test, a controlled test of the characteristics shown above leads to valuable knowledge about how on bullet compared to another when their structures are stressed- And this is far less than a trip to Africa and shooting several Buffs. With the proviso that the results are only a comparison of hos the bullets performed under the test conditions and may preform differently if shot into actual animals.

 

[Red Leg]

Seriously? I know I surrendered, but the idea of drawing a conclusion about bullet performance based upon the subjective evaluation of a "splash" is nonsense. Hey, but have fun.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

My father, brother and I just returned from a safari in South Africa, each one of us took six animals with a 35 Whelen. My dad used a 225grn Barnes TSX, my brother used a 225grn Accubond and I used a 250grn Nosler Partition so which bullet worked better? I don't know and neither do the 18 animals we took with with the Whelen. What would your destructive test on these three bullets tell us that we don't already know?

@Art Lambert 11
The 225grain woodleigh PPSP works well on big zebra stallion and the 250grain hornaday roundnose pole axes gemsbuck/ Oryx as well.
Bob

 

[flatwater bill]

Ray B........I'll bet you learned a lot during your testing. Hope you do another test series...........FWB

 

[samu]

Realistic or not, testing on any standardised media becomes more useful when large variety of bullets are tested at multiple velocities. Then few relevant conclusions can be made.
Firstly if new bullet performs similarly to some previously game proven bullet, it probably performs the same.
Secondly it can be used to determine lowest velocity the bullet needs to have on impact at game. Still hunter needs to consider also sufficient kinetic energy related to game size but poor expansion is one probably cause of passthrough with slow killing effect.
Reality is that these days it's harder to find actually poor bullet than well working one apart from few unnamed exceptions that are designed around flawed concepts. Not the point here.

Anyways, a Finnish group of hunters started to gather evidence of bullet expansion using soaked newspaper. Project was initiated by multiple lead free options coming to market but is by no means excluding leaded options. Either way the bias is in bullets that are new or less known so there isn't as much real world experience on them. Hence they will not test Swift A-frame since it has proven itself long time ago. Also they'll gladly accept donations of bullets for testing. http://hardhittingshootinglab.com/

 

[Fastrig]

I’m curious about this experiment. You shot water jugs then recovered the bullets to evaluate. Where did you recover the bullets from? Where did they come to rest? In what media did they come to rest? How far into the backing media did they penetrate? How far away were the shots taken and was each round measured for velocity/energy at the muzzle and at POI? If so, were the rounds relatively consistent in these measurements or different? If different, what was the variation in velocity/energy at both points? Were the rounds loaded to the same spec, i.e. powder, etc.? Lots of factors effect bullet performance, expansion, etc. so you would need to identify and quantify the rest of the factors within the experiment to get an accurate account of each bullet’s performance.

There is a reason why ballistic gelatin was developed, i.e. it essentially removes the majority of the external variables from the equation thus producing a equal test environment for accurate, quantifiable and measurable results between the bullets. The rounds also need to be apples to apples, i.e. loaded identically, or the test results are marred by inconsistencies in a controllable variable.

 

[Fastrig]

The proposal for the next test will be a comparison a few heavy cartridges all using similar bullets. One test involved how the ,458 Win Mag using a 400 grain bullet with manuals how travels initially at 2450 fps, compared to the 404 Jeffery which shows a muzzle velocity 2300. It is likely that Woodleigh and Swift bullets would be used for this test. the expected results would follow standard expectations: Both 400 grain bullets, but the smaller diameter has a smaller frontal area-s deeper penetration, The larger diameter bullet had larger velocity which also affects penetration. the larger frontal area and speed is expected to make a larger splash. Despite what some may think out the validity of the test, a controlled test of the characteristics shown above leads to valuable knowledge about how on bullet compared to another when their structures are stressed- And this is far less than a trip to Africa and shooting several Buffs. With the proviso that the results are only a comparison of hos the bullets performed under the test conditions and may preform differently if shot into actual animals.

I’m failing to understand the control parameters and measurable results from this test....are you only measuring the size of the “splash” relative to bullet diameter and sectional density? How do you measure and quantify a “splash” result?

 

[Fastrig]

Realistic or not, testing on any standardised media becomes more useful when large variety of bullets are tested at multiple velocities. Then few relevant conclusions can be made.
Firstly if new bullet performs similarly to some previously game proven bullet, it probably performs the same.
Secondly it can be used to determine lowest velocity the bullet needs to have on impact at game. Still hunter needs to consider also sufficient kinetic energy related to game size but poor expansion is one probably cause of passthrough with slow killing effect.
Reality is that these days it's harder to find actually poor bullet than well working one apart from few unnamed exceptions that are designed around flawed concepts. Not the point here.

Anyways, a Finnish group of hunters started to gather evidence of bullet expansion using soaked newspaper. Project was initiated by multiple lead free options coming to market but is by no means excluding leaded options. Either way the bias is in bullets that are new or less known so there isn't as much real world experience on them. Hence they will not test Swift A-frame since it has proven itself long time ago. Also they'll gladly accept donations of bullets for testing. http://hardhittingshootinglab.com/

Have yet to have a quality bullet from any manufacture not drop an animal I shot at, assuming I did my part. Having said that, I’m finding it difficult to understand some of the tests people do as the results seem fairly subjective in many cases. That’s probably my science side kicking in. Field reports I tend to pay more attention to since test results don’t necessarily equate to field results.

 

[Nhoro]

Ray B, it seems a few people are a bit grouchy at the moment ! I think that your tests can produce useful information. I was thinking last night about soft points and impact velocity. Think of a Swift A-frame or monlithic copper bullet. They can only expand to the partition or solid part of the shank. However some bonded softs can practically turn themselves inside out. Huge expansion will impact penetration. So by filming your bottles from the side, you can get an indication of how quickly the soft opens up and where it transfers more energy.This would tell you if a bullet was tailored for a particular impact velocity and if it was suitable for smaller game or larger (how quickly it opens). Yes, newspaper wetpack or ballistics gelatine would be better but....... sometimes an imperfect test is better than nothing at all. A wounded water bottle costs you almost nothing but a wounded 'test' animal ?

I wanted factual information on flat nose solids vs round nose. I had lots of people tell me flat were better and quote 1 supercavitation article (1 single purely theoretical article). Only one guy had done wetpack tests and he had done a lot of tests with good scientific method. So now I know that flat nose solids are better-supercavitation theory I am not so sure.

 

[Fastrig]

Ray B, it seems a few people are a bit grouchy at the moment ! I think that your tests can produce useful information. I was thinking last night about soft points and impact velocity. Think of a Swift A-frame or monlithic copper bullet. They can only expand to the partition or solid part of the shank. However some bonded softs can practically turn themselves inside out. Huge expansion will impact penetration. So by filming your bottles from the side, you can get an indication of how quickly the soft opens up and where it transfers more energy.This would tell you if a bullet was tailored for a particular impact velocity and if it was suitable for smaller game or larger (how quickly it opens). Yes, newspaper wetpack or ballistics gelatine would be better but....... sometimes an imperfect test is better than nothing at all. A wounded water bottle costs you almost nothing but a wounded 'test' animal ?

I wanted factual information on flat nose solids vs round nose. I had lots of people tell me flat were better and quote 1 supercavitation article (1 single purely theoretical article). Only one guy had done wetpack tests and he had done a lot of tests with good scientific method. So now I know that flat nose solids are better-supercavitation theory I am not so sure.

Problem with an imperfect test is it can give you imperfect, or at least inconsistent, results. Both the newspaper or old phone book type tests are much better testing materials than a water jug...outside of possibly initial impact expansion, and a big splash, that water jug test isn’t telling you squat about the bullet’s penetration and overall expansion. Plus, you would need a very good video camera capable of fast frames per second to capture the initial impact and delineate what the initial expansion actually was and that the observed expansion didn’t come from impactIng on the backing media behind the water jug. Expansion happens throughout the course of the bullet’s travel within a given media, not just on impact, so to truly see how the bullet performs you would want to have it travel through a material that simulates how it will perform as it passes through an animal, thus newspaper blocks, phone book blocks, ballistic gelatin, with gelatin being the best.

If you want factual information, then I’d think you wouldn’t want to accept data from flawed testing methods.