Real Gel Tests: 38 Special and 357 Carbine

[curioushooter]

Do the typical defensive JHP's like XTP's, Gold Dots, etc offer a wider range of "effective' velocities than cast bullets?

Basically yes. That is the principle advantage to a JHP. The copper jacket is tough and arrests expansion at a certain point which allows the bullet to carry deeper than it would if allowed expand freely. This is why for example the 158 grain XTPHP at 357 mag handgun velocities (like ~1250 FPS) penetrates ~20" but expands more modestly to about .550-.6. The MiHec Hammer 359 CHP with the small HP pin casts up around 162 grains checked and lubed. It expands to ~.65 and goes about 16" deep at 1200 FPS. The same bullet going 1600 FPS (same load of 13.5 grains of 2400) from a rifle shears off the HP walls and breaks up leaving a core and fragments at about 8-10" deep (BAD PERFORMANCE for deer) while the XTP holds up better. But even the XTPHP blows up at 1900 FPS. At that velocity you want to use the XTPFP (flat point) or cast solid.

This also means that potentially a CHP can outperform the JHP since it can expand to its greatest potential and generally has 99% weight retention as it is monolithic, so you end up with potentially the largest and cleanest wound channel. There are many things at play here, and honestly, I would test before I would trust a cast hollowpoint. I can tell you strait up that hollowpoints (cast or jacketed) are going to outperform soilds (cast or jacketed) at handgun velocities. It really needs to be rippin to get a reasonably hard alloy to expand in a solid. I'd imagine that a soft cast (like 32:1) at full power 357 could expand...but accuracy and leading would be bad.

With handguns which are used a short ranges where normally the projectile is going to be going close to what the MV is then CHPs work great. That narrower window of velocity isn't much of a problem.

Rifles needs to work at a greater velocity range since they work at a wider range of distances from target. The spread between MV and impact velocity can be significant and it is important that the projectile work properly at both.

With bottleneck rifle cartridges like 30-30/ 35 Rem the velocity and BC can be sufficient that the solid boolit will work well at both the muzzle (2000 FPS or so) and at 150 yards (1600 FPS or so).

The straight wall cartridge in some ways requires more careful consideration of the boolit. With 357 Mag for example I use the 180 grain XTP in any place I expect there a possibility of a long shot (150 yards) because I know it will hold together at 1700 FPS and still expand at 1100 FPS. If I am hunting a place where a long shot is unlikely, then I use the solid cast boolit (which actually outperforms the XTP in terms of weight retention, expansion, and depth). It expands beautifully a 1800 FPS (muzzle) and well enough at 1500 (75-100 yards).

As far as "defensive" matters go there are other considerations to be made which I think favor the use of JHPs, particularly if the handgun is a bottom feeder.

[Cary Gunn]

Curioushooter,

I'm hoping you continue to post your experiences in shooting gel with cast bullets.

Unlike the single grumpy forum member who gave you grief for taking up space on a hunting subforum with "unrelated" info on gel penetration testing, I find your offerings extremely useful and interesting.

Cast-bullet hunters who aren't interested in the effect of their slugs on impact with game have no business in the hunting fields. And, as you so lucidly point out, there's no better way to compare consistent cast-bullet effectiveness than shooting the big hunks of gelatin. It's what I'd be doing myself if I wasn't so old, lazy and cheap.

So, continue to post your results here, and tune-out the very few naysayers.

Thanks again.

Happy trails,

-- Cary Gunn --

[dverna]

Basically yes. That is the principle advantage to a JHP. The copper jacket is tough and arrests expansion at a certain point which allows the bullet to carry deeper than it would if allowed expand freely. This is why for example the 158 grain XTPHP at 357 mag handgun velocities (like ~1250 FPS) penetrates ~20" but expands more modestly to about .550-.6. The MiHec Hammer 359 CHP with the small HP pin casts up around 162 grains checked and lubed. It expands to ~.65 and goes about 16" deep at 1200 FPS. The same bullet going 1600 FPS (same load of 13.5 grains of 2400) from a rifle shears off the HP walls and breaks up leaving a core and fragments at about 8-10" deep (BAD PERFORMANCE for deer) while the XTP holds up better. But even the XTPHP blows up at 1900 FPS. At that velocity you want to use the XTPFP (flat point) or cast solid.

This also means that potentially a CHP can outperform the JHP since it can expand to its greatest potential and generally has 99% weight retention as it is monolithic, so you end up with potentially the largest and cleanest wound channel. There are many things at play here, and honestly, I would test before I would trust a cast hollowpoint. I can tell you strait up that hollowpoints (cast or jacketed) are going to outperform soilds (cast or jacketed) at handgun velocities. It really needs to be rippin to get a reasonably hard alloy to expand in a solid. I'd imagine that a soft cast (like 32:1) at full power 357 could expand...but accuracy and leading would be bad.

With handguns which are used a short ranges where normally the projectile is going to be going close to what the MV is then CHPs work great. That narrower window of velocity isn't much of a problem.

Rifles needs to work at a greater velocity range since they work at a wider range of distances from target. The spread between MV and impact velocity can be significant and it is important that the projectile work properly at both.

With bottleneck rifle cartridges like 30-30/ 35 Rem the velocity and BC can be sufficient that the solid boolit will work well at both the muzzle (2000 FPS or so) and at 150 yards (1600 FPS or so).

The straight wall cartridge in some ways requires more careful consideration of the boolit. With 357 Mag for example I use the 180 grain XTP in any place I expect there a possibility of a long shot (150 yards) because I know it will hold together at 1700 FPS and still expand at 1100 FPS. If I am hunting a place where a long shot is unlikely, then I use the solid cast boolit (which actually outperforms the XTP in terms of weight retention, expansion, and depth). It expands beautifully a 1800 FPS (muzzle) and well enough at 1500 (75-100 yards).

As far as "defensive" matters go there are other considerations to be made which I think favor the use of JHPs, particularly if the handgun is a bottom feeder.

Appreciate your response. I will continue to use JHP for defensive use in my 9mm’s and .38/.357’s. The .38/.357 are loaded to +P level as my fiancé cannot handle.357 loads.

There is no reason for me to hunt deer with pistols or pistol caliber carbines. I still learned from your testing and enjoyed your posts.

[curioushooter]

Some states require the use of pistol caliber ammo in rifle (or shotguns)...Indiana now allows rifles on private land (at least for a while).

[ACC]

Curioushooter,

I'm hoping you continue to post your experiences in shooting gel with cast bullets.

Unlike the single grumpy forum member who gave you grief for taking up space on a hunting subforum with "unrelated" info on gel penetration testing, I find your offerings extremely useful and interesting.

Cast-bullet hunters who aren't interested in the effect of their slugs on impact with game have no business in the hunting fields. And, as you so lucidly point out, there's no better way to compare consistent cast-bullet effectiveness than shooting the big hunks of gelatin. It's what I'd be doing myself if I wasn't so old, lazy and cheap.

So, continue to post your results here, and tune-out the very few naysayers.

Thanks again.



Happy trails,

-- Cary Gunn --

I'm with you. A hunter needs to know what his gun will do. How can you know with out testing it? He must test the ammo as well. I have hunted with cast bullets most all my life and have come to know which alloy to use for what game. But then I am an old man.

ACC

[Phlier]

Curioushooter,

I'm hoping you continue to post your experiences in shooting gel with cast bullets.

Unlike the single grumpy forum member who gave you grief for taking up space on a hunting subforum with "unrelated" info on gel penetration testing, I find your offerings extremely useful and interesting.

Cast-bullet hunters who aren't interested in the effect of their slugs on impact with game have no business in the hunting fields. And, as you so lucidly point out, there's no better way to compare consistent cast-bullet effectiveness than shooting the big hunks of gelatin. It's what I'd be doing myself if I wasn't so old, lazy and cheap.

So, continue to post your results here, and tune-out the very few naysayers.

Thanks again.

Happy trails,

-- Cary Gunn --

Please tune out the naysayers... I'm sure there are a lot of guys that are watching and learning from this thread, but don't post because they have nothing to add... they just read and learn.

You're doing the testing a lot of us would *like* to do, but lack either the time or the resources... or both.

Thanks for sharing your results.

[onelight]

Please tune out the naysayers... I'm sure there are a lot of guys that are watching and learning from this thread, but don't post because they have nothing to add... they just read and learn.

You're doing the testing a lot of us would *like* to do, but lack either the time or the resources... or both.

Thanks for sharing your results.

you describe me , i don't cast HP because i don't need or want to go to that much trouble....but i might some day and it is interesting to see how the all the details are worked out to get the results.
Phlier done good.

[dverna]

I'm with you. A hunter needs to know what his gun will do. How can you know with out testing it? He must test the ammo as well. I have hunted with cast bullets most all my life and have come to know which alloy to use for what game. But then I am an old man.

ACC

Wise words and worth heeding.

[USSR]

...i don't cast HP because i don't need or want to go to that much trouble....

No trouble really, as long as you are using a Cramer type mould. It's pretty much all I cast anymore. The thing with hollowpoints as opposed to solids is, the alloy is critical. You should do just the opposite of what the commercial casters and swaged bullet manufacturers do. While they keep the tin content down and rely on antimony (hey, it's a lot cheaper), if you want your handgun hollowpoints to function as intended then you will use a lot of tin and little antimony. In the below pic, my bullets cast to be used in my version of the FBI load and shot out of my snubbie are in the middle and on the right. Note how the penta point retained all it's petals. With a high antimony and low tin alloy, one or more of them would likely break off.

Don

[onelight]

No trouble really, as long as you are using a Cramer type mould. It's pretty much all I cast anymore. The thing with hollowpoints as opposed to solids is, the alloy is critical. You should do just the opposite of what the commercial casters and swaged bullet manufacturers do. While they keep the tin content down and rely on antimony (hey, it's a lot cheaper), if you want your handgun hollowpoints to function as intended then you will use a lot of tin and little antimony. In the below pic, my bullets cast to be used in my version of the FBI load and shot out of my snubbie are in the middle and on the right. Note how the penta point retained all it's petals. With a high antimony and low tin alloy, one or more of them would likely break off.

Don

very nice expansion

[USSR]

very nice expansion

Thanks.

Don

[Rescue1008]

Thank you so much for posting this! As a new caster this information is very beneficial to myself. I am diving into the world of .357 magnum casting and loading for my 20" carbine specifically for hunting. I have a mold on order from MP that I hope and believe is going to work. Have you considered adding another type of variable such as PC or Hi-tek to possibly act a little bit like a copper jacket? I would think you could get the velocity up on the .357 so terminal ballistics would be more favorable at the 100 yard mark. The negative to this is the possibility of shearing that you do not want at the closer velocities. I am beginning to mess with some pure lead and tin ratios to see just where the threshold is of soft enough to expand at say 100-150 yards but malleable enough to hold together at closer impact ranges.

[Rescue1008]

No trouble really, as long as you are using a Cramer type mould. It's pretty much all I cast anymore. The thing with hollowpoints as opposed to solids is, the alloy is critical. You should do just the opposite of what the commercial casters and swaged bullet manufacturers do. While they keep the tin content down and rely on antimony (hey, it's a lot cheaper), if you want your handgun hollowpoints to function as intended then you will use a lot of tin and little antimony. In the below pic, my bullets cast to be used in my version of the FBI load and shot out of my snubbie are in the middle and on the right. Note how the penta point retained all it's petals. With a high antimony and low tin alloy, one or more of them would likely break off.

Don

That is beautiful expansion! The penta points are what really interest me in all things casting. Specifically in my .309 mold that is cast for subsonic .300 BLK velocity. If I can find an alloy content that reliably allows expansion down to some slow velocity I will be in business.

[USSR]

That is beautiful expansion! The penta points are what really interest me in all things casting. Specifically in my .309 mold that is cast for subsonic .300 BLK velocity. If I can find an alloy content that reliably allows expansion down to some slow velocity I will be in business.

My suggestion would be use only 0.5 - 1.0% antimony with 2.5 - 3.0% tin.

Don

[Gamsek]

That is beautiful expansion! The penta points are what really interest me in all things casting. Specifically in my .309 mold that is cast for subsonic .300 BLK velocity. If I can find an alloy content that reliably allows expansion down to some slow velocity I will be in business.

The only penta .309” mould I know is 314-140 Sledgehammer, all other’s flat points are to small for penta.


I would follow USSR advice, 2-3% of tin with pure, not over 5%

Those are with 5% of tin. All around 1000-1100 fps. It all depends on alloy, velocity and size and shape of HP cavity how HP will perform.

Those are from my test with 10%tin alloy in 300 BLK and 357. Low speed let say 38 level they open slower, but once you pass some threshold, nose will break off. the blue 311410 that you see is made from pure lead GC but with short HP, green is 10%Sn and deep HP. 130grs and I shoot 2 roebuck with blue.

[dg31872]

Great pictures, Gamsek. It really shows the expansion possibilities.

[Rescue1008]

The only penta .309” mould I know is 314-140 Sledgehammer, all other’s flat points are to small for penta.


I would follow USSR advice, 2-3% of tin with pure, not over 5%

Those are with 5% of tin. All around 1000-1100 fps. It all depends on alloy, velocity and size and shape of HP cavity how HP will perform.

Those are from my test with 10%tin alloy in 300 BLK and 357. Low speed let say 38 level they open slower, but once you pass some threshold, nose will break off. the blue 311410 that you see is made from pure lead GC but with short HP, green is 10%Sn and deep HP. 130grs and I shoot 2 roebuck with blue.

That is what I love to see! 300 blk and .357 are the two rounds I'm focusing on right now. I have thought about a 30:1 possibly 40:1 alloy to get reliable expansion without the petals shearing. I have a new mold coming that should be just what I'm looking for in the 300 blk. Also have a 180 grain .357 coming that will be using the penta HP. I think these two molds should be perfect for hunting. If I can just keep the velocity of the .357 up.