Will this test achieve closest emulation of reality, excluding using live target?

[Naphtali]

Moderator: If you believe this query should be place in different sub-forum, please move it to where it belongs.
***
I choose to afford to try this two different occasions only. I have been trying to identify how effective will be three loads, two of which are muzzleloading, one a smokeless powder cast bullet cartridge. What I want to identify is how close to reality will the test medium be.

I've done my dry duct taped magazine tests to measure penetration. And I compared results with handloaded 30-06 150-grain Barnes Triple Shock bullets at a chronographed [average of] 2900 fps.

When winter ends - if it ever does here in Seeley Lake - I intend to buy a pork ham with bone left in. At ambient temperature I will fire two shots of each of the three loads at 50 yards, a total of six shots. I'll mark the location of the femur to be sure of shooting through it if the load can do it.

How close in penetration, and possibly projectile expansion, will this target emulate a shoulder shot at a legally antlered elk at the same distance? I ask about the shoulder shot because I believe this shot placement especially for muzzleloaders' single shots is more likely to significantly reduce the distance the elk might run. If this test, repeated on a different day, will not be closer to reality than any other all of us can create - excluding live target - I'll not do it and save $50-75.

[jdfoxinc]

Ham is less dense than pre cured meat. Buy an uncured ham hind quarter from a butcher.

Or go hog hunting with these loads.

[Naphtali]

Ham is less dense than pre cured meat. Buy an uncured ham hind quarter from a butcher.

Or go hog hunting with these loads.You have identified one of several problems with my queried test. Rather than circle the money drain with no prospect of reliably obtaining an answer, I shall revert to my penetration test. At least I have an analogy from a known test result. Instead of my being yet more self-confusing, what I did was choose penetration as my only test factor. After all, a broadhead arrow from a 50-pound draw bow can penetrate more deeply and more reliably than nearly all bullets.

One of my hunting companions has taken more than ten elk with a 30-06 shooting 150-grain Barnes Triple Shock bullets at [give or take] 2900 fps. The bullet was tested on 12-inch thick duct-taped-together New Yorker magazines - it's published weekly, and my library always has bazillions in its "freebie" pile. It penetrated right at 6.5 inches in a straight line. It petaled exactly as is shown in Barnes' display advertising with expansion being the increase of hollow "jacket" doubling over - close to no expansion. Yet it kills effectively and predictably. This handload is my basis test. The analogy is: If Triple Shock's penetration in elk, with nearly zero expansion, kills reliably, and Triple Shock bullet/handload penetrates my test medium 6.5 inches give or take, any bullet with larger diameter that penetrates straight the same or nearly the same distance into the same bundled New Yorker magazines will kill just as effectively.

My purpose for bothering to test for this result was to determine whether muzzleloaded conicals and/or round balls from my double rifle would have adequate penetration for my once in a lifetime cape buffalo hunt. And while I was at it, I tested some 45-70 handloads. So what I'm reverting to should be a valid comparison - but only for penetration. . . . Which brings me back to that broadhead arrow from a 50-pound draw bow.

[JSnover]

Did your friend recover the bullets from those elk and did they match your test results?

[JSnover]

My purpose for bothering to test for this result was to determine whether muzzleloaded conicals and/or round balls from my double rifle would have adequate penetration for my once in a lifetime cape buffalo hunt. And while I was at it, I tested some 45-70 handloads.[/SIZE][/FONT]
I haven't been there yet but after much consideration, gathering as much information as I could for my own upcoming hunt, I'm betting on penetration with a tough, heavy bullet at near max velocity: Break a shoulder to anchor the animal for the second shot or bust the skull to shut it down. I have heard of Cape buffalo being properly killed with a 45-70 but I don't know what the load was. Expansion in my opinion is gravy IF you get good penetration on dangerous game. It isn't worth much if you don't penetrate.
Your elk hunting companion proved it with his non-expanded bullets in dead-right-there elk.
Best of luck to you! What kind of double are you shooting?

[country gent]

One problem with using processed meats is the lack of fluids in the material, hence not the same hydrolic effect on the bullets as live animals. it might be better to cast the ham femur into 20% ballistics gel and test that way.

[Naphtali]

Did your friend recover the bullets from those elk and did they match your test results? I have seen two of them. Except for particles of dried blood and tissue, they could have been shot into New Yorkers.
***
I own two copies of Don Kettlecamp's privately published book, Hunting Southern Africa with Muzzle Loading Rifles. The book, its topic is what got my motor running about penetration testing. While it is not a "great read," it is an interesting one. His information pertaining to loads and shot placement I treat like gospel because Dr. Kettlecamp is a retired orthopedic surgeon

Testing 45-70 bullets' penetration was close to an afterthought - detecting any differences between air dropped and heat treated LFN-GC of WW +2.

[shooter93]

One thing I can say about hunting Cape Buffalo is if you go to a country where it is a truly a fair chase hunt....there are very few countries left like that, I went to Zimbabwe for that reason.....which rules out South Africa.....those animals that live in the real wild and survive at times they simply seem bullet proof no matter what they are shot with. They are very tough animals. Some seem to g down fairly easy but I watched one hit three times all excellent placement and it still ran. I'm not sure there is a test to determine how shots at game in the wild can be duplicated.

[Lloyd Smale]

what we did was make an open topped box about 3 feet long and sized to fit a magazine. Stack magazines in it. You don't have to duct tape them or even cram them in. For a couple days before your going to shoot start every couple hours in the daytime soaking it with a hose. One the side of the box your going to shoot into use 1/4 to 3/8s plywood and make your box so that can be changed out. the plywood pretty much mimics the smaller bones you encounter in deer ect. If you want to test for BIG game penetration take the front board out and go to your butcher or a local beef farmer and ask him for a shoulder bone. We are fortunate to have a friend the does bison fenced hunts and he gives us bone to use.

[MaryB]

Ballistics gel is probably cheaper, you can mimic bone with the aforementioned plywood or use a real bone(rack of ribs for a typical heart/lung shot)

[JSnover]

I've never worked with ballistics gel but my understanding is it needs to be mixed properly and tested at the right temperature to to the right viscosity.