expansion test of a 350 gr saeco fngc

[Griffin]

hi there,
i made a test recently on a isotope lead boolit with 3-5% tin.
i also did raise the speed of the boolit from before and was a bit puzzled of the results.

the boolit was backet with 51 gr of norma 200 powder and a std primer the pure isotope lead bullet was backed by 50 gr N200.
the expansion cavity looks very different and is about 2,5-3" wide and 25cm deep in wet newspaper, then it shrinks to expanded bullet diam. the 50 gr bullet more or less plows through the wt paper
i know wet newspaper is a too hard medium still it serves my purpose of checking whether the bullet breaks or not.
here is what i am thinking:
i raised the speed to a speed where the behavour when the bullet hits changes to not just penetrating deep, at the same time speed is expanding the bullet more than before and the tin makes it hold togehter penetration was 4 " more than before and this do puzzle my brain.
pic is showing from the left a tin alloy bullet, a pure isotope lead bullet and a 150 gr nosler part as reference.
any thoughts?

[GLynn41]

1. you did a good job
2. not sure what you are asking
3. looks like you found a good balance in expansion, and penetration
4. I would rather shoot your boolit // what was the caliber

[Griffin]

GLyynn41,
my caliber is 45/70.
1. Thanks!
2. I wonder if someone have experienced the same thing, going from small hole through the paper to a large wound cavity in the paper just by increasing the speed and adding tin to the alloy. i am sort of a rookie and while i get better penetration the expanded bullet is holding together better and with a greater diameter still penetrates deeper than before.
perhaps there is more stability in course now, i dont know really.

[GLynn41]

I would think that the tin did what tin does-- it adds in flowing of the alloy whether in the pour or in impact- instead of breaking off they will flow-- and retain more weight--leading to better expansion and likely more retained weight --ie your deeper pent. you look good to go

[MtGun44]

Looks like .45-70, I assume this is your Marlin.

Interesting that the tin addition seems to increase the expansion.
Tin doesn't really add very much hardness, but maybe just enough
that with the higher velocity it expands more, but doesn't break
up.
Seems like they might be a bit on the soft side for moose, wonder
what it would do if it hits a bone? A lot of hunters report excellent
killing power with a flat nose with no expansion whatsoever. Also,
you have a .45 caliber hole, even if you get no expansion, so I wonder
if you want to give up any penetration for expansion? Do
you know the velocities? What final weights?

Excellent expansion, seems perfect for deer sized game, maybe
just a bit too much expansion at the expense of penetration on
elk or moose. For very large animals, I think I (personally) would
go for more like a 405 gr FN and fairly hard alloy, not worrying
about expansion. OTOH, my experience with wet newspaper is
that I get identical expansion to reports of ballistic gelatin with
the same factory JHP pistol ammo and almost exactly half the
penetration depth as reported for ballistic gelatin. So, if this
holds true, you may see 50 cm (about 20 inches if I do the math
correclty) penetration with this excellent expansion. That may
be plenty for a broadside shot on moose, although it will
probably be caught by the (very elastic) skin in the far side.

Bill

[mroliver77]

Griffen,
The very large cavity I would say comes from "hydraulic" effect if you will. I compare this to a splash in water from a fast moving projectile. My very flat nose, hard cast 30-30 boolit will cause a 1" wound channel through soft meat with little or no deformation. I used a lead tin boolit on a pig and it expanded just like yours. Luckily little bone was hit and boolit stopped on off side ribcage. Massive boiler room damage and pig dead right there. IF I would have hit a bone I feel it would have had a bad outcome.
Lee Jurras (super vel) wrote an article about a .44 mag bullet he once tried to market. It was a very tough, hard, heavy jacketed 240gr meant to be driven full bore and get deep penetration. His tests proved his theory(to his satisfaction) and bullet drove through large game leaving 1"ish wound channels. He sent a bunch out to different gun writers with an explanation of his theory and loads. Almost all wrote back(ones that did bother) that bullet never expanded and just passed through animal tissue and kept on going. I assume they experienced the large wound channel also if they drove bullet to his targeted velocities. My limited experience with hard,tough flatnosed boolits back this up. Wound channels 2-3 times the boolit diameter with no boolit expansion. Jay

[rob45]

Karl,

Is this for large game such as moose, or smaller game like deer? I will assume moose considering the caliber and velocity parameters selected.

Your situation is the classic argument of expansion vs. penetration. Terminal ballistics is a very complex science that I can only pretend to understand, but I can relate my experiences to the advice given by others. There is no free lunch in this area, and only you can determine which characteristic you want to trade for another. Your 45-70 is capable of producing all the penetration needed, but I personally would not sacrifice penetration for expansion, and please permit me to go into detail on why I feel that way.

To begin, I will state that I feel there is nothing wrong with your use of wet newspaper as a test medium. Untold numbers of very qualified individuals use it for their comparison testing. I collect old telephone books for the same purpose. To minimize variables, I pull out any of the glossy advertising pages and also tear off the covers.
Very few people can afford to do extensive testing with a ballistic gel; even if cost were not a factor, the test conditions required for valid results are so stringent as to make such testing very impractical. I have used it once simply because I wanted to section it and get an impression of what a "wound cavity" looks like. One day at the range and 5 shots later may not be considered by some to be a thorough test, but it was definitely enough for me to form what I believe are valid conclusions.

Consider the posts by mrolliver77 and MtGun44. I believe they are on the right track.
Even with a nonexpanding bullet, part of the internal wound cavity is considerably larger than the bullet diameter. Careful postmortem inspection of various game animals reveals this. To further back that up, my one test with the ballistic gel showed cavities that had a bullet-sized entry hole, quickly expanded to a large diameter, and then tapered down upon exit. The recovered hardcast bullets showed no signs of expansion, just slightly deformed or flattened noses. While this may offer no proof, I believe this may help explain why we get good results even though the exit hole may seem to show no expansion.

Remember that expansion of the projectile tends to decrease penetration. I am one of the "old school" proponents of penentration. For us to successfully down the animal, we need to shut down the central nervous system. Whether it be directly (brain/spinal shot) or indirectly (heart/lungs which supply the oxygen), we need to shut it down for the animal to quickly die. Remember my test from above? We cannot predict where in the animal the expansion will take place. When hunting, we do not know what type of shot may be presented. We do not know the range to impact; therefore we do not know the impact velocity. After impact, how far does the bullet travel before reaching a vital organ? What type of material does it pass through before hitting that vital spot- bone from a shoulder shot, wood pulp from going through the stomach cavity on a rear raking shot? Penetration allows you to reach a vital area regardless of shot angle; I like to call it insurance against the variables.


My belief is that there are two main considerations to obtaining penetration- continued momentum and sectional density.

Momentum is not a problem with large-bore calibers due to weight. Your choice of the 45-70 cartridge is good for the same reasons it has been good for over 130 years- it puts out a large-caliber, heavy bullet. As noted above, it doesn't need to expand for a good wound channel.
But everyone knows the 6.5x55 has downed plenty of moose. It is not a large caliber. It is not a super-velocity magnum that supposedly dumps tons of "energy". The diameter of the wound channel does not approach that of a 45 bore. So why does it work? Look at the sectional density of the typical 6.5 bullet- what the small caliber lacks in weight (momentum), it makes up with a higher SD that enhances penetration. Note that this is accomplished without high velocity- for that matter, I know a few guys that have successfully used the lowly 30-30 on moose (not that I advocate such practice; just stating that velocity is a very small part of the ability to down our game).

Simply put, for large game I do not believe in compromising penetration. The most effective way to retain penetration is to:
1. Retain the bullet weight- the heavier the bullet remains, the more continued momentum you have. This is best accomplished by balancing alloy with velocity (more on that below).
2. Limit expansion- Even if the bullet retains all of its weight after expanding, it now has a less favorable sectional density because it is shorter. I realize that I may draw a lot of heat for saying this, but I truly believe that, for the large- bore calibers, NO expansion is needed. The 45 caliber is already producing a large-diameter wound shortly after impact, and that is with nonexpanding bullets. To me it only makes sense to limit expansion so as to preserve sectional density.


To further expand on weight retention mentioned above, higher velocity will always be a test of bullet alloy integrity. Depending upon the alloy being employed, the bullet will do three things upon/after impact:
a.) Slightly flatten the nose or otherwise deform, yet keep penetrating.
b.) Expand, yet stay together, along with possible decreased penetration.
c.) Start fragmenting or fracturing, thereby decreasing retained weight (which limits penetration).
With penetration being the goal, bullet integrity obviously becomes the determining factor if you're pushing the bullet at higher velocities.

You mention in your testing that even though the "tin" bullet expanded more, it penetrated further. Have you weighed them to identify retained weights? If the bullet without tin shed more weight, of course it will penetrate less. You also mentioned that the two different alloys were fired at different velocities- for accurate conclusions, you need to test the different bullets at similar impact velocities into the same medium.

Here are my thoughts on your bullets:
Pure lead is very cohesive, as are the lead-tin alloys. They will expand at (comparatively) low velocities while exhibiting minor (if any) weight loss at the higher velocities. But for optimum results with your pressures/speeds (MV circa 1900-2000 fps?), you need some antimony in the alloy, otherwise you will probably experience leading problems, even with a gascheck. As a general rule, you're probably limited to about 1600 fps with lead-tin.
The addition of antimony changes things somewhat because it introduces brittleness into the equation- in other words, it is now easier to have the bullet fragment, thereby reducing retained weight (and hence the decreased penetration). The higher the antimony percentage, the less expansive and more brittle the bullet. The higher the impact velocity, the more fragmentation is likely to occur. In my experience, the addition of tin helps offset the "brittleness" introduced by the use of antimony, thereby promoting cohesion and bullet integrity.

Penetration/bullet integrity testing with Lyman No.2 (5-5-90) versus "hardball" alloy (2-6-92) really opened my eyes. Although the two different alloys are very similar in hardness and casting characteristics, they are very different upon impact. The same type of test was performed with straight wheel weights versus WW+tin.
All of the test samples were fired at the same range (25 yards), same velocity levels, and into the same medium (dripping wet phone books stacked horizontally in a 6-foot long frame). All bullets were recovered and weighed. Keeping in mind that these are all antimonial alloys, consider these results:
The bullets with more tin content penetrated farther, and upon recovery, they weighed more than the bullets with less tin.
By the way, the above testing was done with a Ranch Dog 460350 fired out of a T/C Encore.

The "isotope lead" that I have is not pure lead; it tested at 2.8% antimony. Without knowing the antimonial content of your alloy, I would venture to say that it has a minor amount of antimony in it, and your addition of tin is giving similar results to my own testing above. I cannot state why, but I can see the difference in the results.

Here is an interesting quote from an encyclopedia article concerning 19th century hunting of the North American bison:
"The hunter would customarily locate the herd in the early morning, and station himself about 100 yards from it, shooting the animals broadside through the lungs. Head shots were not preferred as the soft lead bullets would often flatten and fail to penetrate the skull, especially if mud was matted on the head of the animal."
The cartridges used during that time period were huge; the 45-70 was not considered to be "large", it was considered "normal". The "power" of those cartridges did not rely upon velocity; they relied upon big bores and heavy bullets. The alloys in use at the time were the soft lead-tin alloys, but most likely the concept of expansion and its terminal effects were either not even thought of or were considered to be a moot point. Those hunters simply knew that bigger bullets made a bigger hole, and heavier bullets penetrated better (side benefits of trajectory notwithstanding).

Obviously you are not taking a head shot on a bison, but it does help to illustrate the fact that expansion is not always the determining factor. I have shot three moose, and only one presented the classic broadside shot. I know that may not seem like much "moose experience" to some, but consider that, because of where I live, I have to spend $$$ on guided hunts. Maybe some of our members up north can offer more experience and insight. But two elk and several large hogs are also part of what form my opinions. Plus the fact that I am friends with a butcher who has allowed me to occasionally do some "large game testing".


In summation, take a hardcast bullet and drive it to whatever velocity your regulations require for the "minimum energy standard". (Are you subject to that? I have heard some places in Europe have such regulations.) Don't worry about expansion- the 45 caliber bullet is already expanded before it even leaves the barrel. If your particular combination expands, fine, but focus on developing a bullet that stays together. In other words, weigh those projectiles after recovering them and pick the one that best retains the weight- that's the one that will work best for you.

Good luck in your quest for Bullwinkle and his brothers.

[Griffin]

i really value your opinions. they are very detailed and i believe you are right (bill and rob)
i do have to think about this a bit more and i will come back.
Thanks
Karl

[Griffin]

a short update:
CB deer premiere!
i was on hunt today and tried one of my 350 gr on a deer from a forward slightly angled shot at 10 yards, the deer was running like maniacs towards me and i took the small one down.

the effect the bullet had has put things in perspective. Entrance hole was 25mm from my 45/70 marlin, exit hole 45mm.
Nothing was left of the lungs and heart, and then i mean nothing

something really mean happened inside and the deer bled out instantly.
I would say now that i have to bring expansion to a minimum and perhaps slow down the bullet a bit. i never found the bullet and i did a lot of digging.
the meat was fine afterwards but of i would have hit any bone that part would be gone. i have a few pics but i will not show any, only on request, they look a bit bad but is good information.
/Karl

[MtGun44]

This is exactly what I would expect. I think you now see that hitting a large
leg or shoulder bone of a moose would possiblely shatter a too-soft boolit. Too
brittle (especially linotype which is amazingly brittle) would be very bad, too.

I don't know what your velocity is, but I would suggest 1500 to 1750 fps should
be very effective with a flat point 350 or 405 gr boolit on moose, and certainly
extremely effective on deer. I doubt that ANY shot on a deer will not result in a
full shoot through, even end to end and bones.

You have a real world example on why the .45-70 is very popular among hunters,
as long as the range is under 200 yds.

My hunting load is 405 gr FP at 1750 and when sighted in at 150 yds it is not
too high at shorter ranges (2-3" at 100 yds, IIRC) and 8 inches low at 200 yds.
So, aim just a hair low at 100, on at 50 and on at 150, and hold 2/3 the way
up from the bottom at 200 yds. Not hard to remember.

Bill

[Griffin]

me not answering is me thinking a lot. i will get back on this. thanks bill

[Griffin]

ok, i have given this a lot of thought.

I will continue with my 350 gr boolit because i do like the trajectory and i find no need for a heavier cast.
I have done a lot of water quenching for smaller calibers earlier and i have had good success with those since i have found them to hold well together and little/no deformation in the wet paper tests. When i used a 170 fn gc boolit for the 30-30 and brought it up to 1850 fps (i know this speed) i had some deformation of the nose but great penetration. i had a 50% increase in diam. and very good weight retention.

So if i would go on your tracks with a hard cast, and would harden the bullet as i have done before, the hardness will go down a bit due to the added tin? the tin is needed to get good filling and not a parameter i will change, i have tried without too long and it doesnt work well.
do i get new problems due to the bullet hardness or will the .45 barrel handle the hard bullet as if nothing was changed?
i have looked at the entrance damage done by the bullet and the skin was gone around the entrance. this i suspect comes from the start of the expansion of the soft bullet (described above). this is a unsatifactory i belive.
Since the damage was so severe inside the small deer i can't expect anything else if i fire on a larger game. the effect with this bullet will still be there but perhaps at the wrong place and only destroying the meat which is the purpose of my hunting, this i also would find unsatisfying! (Very!)
So it feels like i am copying Rob's and Bill's writing above, but still this comes from my own experience.

There is no need for expansion.

The fault in thought i have made is mixing/connecting expansion with ability to kill. A fmj bullet will also kill game but with a very prolonged timeline. The smaller calibers need expansion to fasten the timeline and ensure the hunter to find the game close to the place it was fired up on. 45/70 doesnt need any extra help in fastening up any timeline the way i use it and on the game i hunt. This is somehow rather embarrassing actually, but perhaps understandable. we read about for ex 6,5x55 and norma oryx ensuring expansion to double diameter, the same feature is later searched for in a big bore (and for me reached) with devastation as a result. This with no knowledge of what else mechanisms in interaction the bullet is standing for. The expansion is not needed due to OTHER effects that will do the killing. those effects are too small for smaller calibers and therefore expansion is needed.

My god, this have been a very heavy mentally load to think this through, but i understand what you are talking about now, or i think i do.....

please feel free to continue the discussion on how to meet the goal with a harder bullet. I have to mention that i have little features and knowledge to get different lead than the one i got.

Best regards to you all
Karl

[Griffin]

Ok. shot myself two larger deers this saturday at two different ranges, 20 yds and 60 yds. my discussed tin bullet, the saeco 350 gr fn is a beast.
i got a broadside at the first one standing and i took the shot standing. the deer walked 30 yds...

the second one came in full speed driven hard by the dog, a group of three and i took the shot on the last one.
the first shot was a perfect hit but it was close to neighbours and field line so i took a second shot to ensure the deer to fall on the face. the bullet came in slightly from behind and broke the right front leg off.
i have attached pics of the deers skinned for you to watch.
the bullets went further than a yard down in the ground and i couldnt find them.
i no longer fear that they are too soft for moose, i still think hard cast is best choice not destroying the meat too much.
have a lovely new year all.
first two pics is exit for the double shot, entrance side.
next two is the single shot deer, in and out.
one thing puzzle my mind, the entrance hole is bigger than the exit hole

[GLynn41]

different hole size may be because of higher impact speed than exit
maybe what thebullet impacted on as it hit
thanks for the pics

[runfiverun]

griffin when you add tin to your alloy you are making a SbSn chain in the alloy which toughens it up.
you are having a problem similar to the one 44 man was having.
his was velocity related,the frontal part of your boolit is shoving in on the skin tearing it making the larger hole,the exit is the boolit expanding somewhat pushing the skin out but tearing through it a bit easier.
your earlier test with the deeper penetration was caused by both the higher velocity and the higher weight retention of the tougher alloy.
notice i said tougher not harder?
look in the stickies for an alloy toughness test done.
if you want a bit less meat damage done slow down your boolits.
there isn't a deer on this planet that is gonna walk too far after a 350 gr boolit hits it at 1600 fps.

[Griffin]

thanks for all your answers. I know the load is a bit hot for meat preservation but i have (thanks to all you that have helped) found harmony between me, rifle and load.
i am attaching two pics of shooting with only forehand support from bench (i have found that being equal to freehand shooting) on the green area is three shots, squares 1cm, and the shots inside the 60mm square is four shots, range only 50m but still this is a step forward.

I want to take the opportunity to mention the easy look at the position of hitting the target. if i have hit the game its very easy to see on the ground if i did. Things tend to come out on the other side from the bullet exiting. this i have not seen with my smaller calibers and its very satisfying , at least for me.
its very funny hunting now when i have figured some things out and i am repeating myself now when i say that jacketed bullets are not needed at all.
Karl

[danny.k]

Griffin

I hunt whith Ranch-dogs 350grain (mine weigh in at 360grs whith lube and gascheck) boolits made of waterdropped wheelweights.
Load them up whith 52 grains of Norma 200 (2050f/s or 625m/s) and have "poleaxed" ALL game ive encountered.
Woundcavities are 1-2 inches through and through, havnt recovered any boolit yet and meatloss is almost nonexistant.

I dont think that the boolit expands alot, if any.... but it doesnt matter as long as the game is put to sleep swiftly.

Some pics...

[Griffin]

that was some lovely pics you shared there, since we both live in the same country and i am curious about the ranch dog, perhaps i could pm you for further discussion? small world.
may i ask you in what city you live?
karl

[Griffin]

my two deers in pose...
my friend Christians 9,3x62 also called "pinky" is there on one pic.

[danny.k]

I live some 25km southeast from Örebro in the village Pålsboda

I could send you some boolits if you would like to try them out?
Got both the one weighing 360grs and the heavier 440grs...