Soft Point Cast Boolit Expansion

[curioushooter]

Has anyone evidence of solid cast boolits expanding at real world handgun velocities (< 1400 FPS) on water or meat?

I have seen some reports of softer alloys like 20:1 expanding moderately in this velocity range. The trouble would seem to be avoiding leading and maintaining accuracy.

I've read some threads on casting two-alloy bullets and have come to the conclusion that effort is a whole lot more trouble than either paper patching (which allows the use of a much softer alloy) or casting a hollowpoint.

[Outpost75]

1:20 tin-lead alloy with SPG lube will do as you wish in the .44 Magnum without leading and will maintain accuracy.

It does for me and it did for Elmer Keith.

Elmer Keith’s book Sixgun Cartridges and Loads (1936) on pgs. 69-70 states:

“For most revolver cartridges, including all light and normal pressure loads, there is no use to having the bullets harder than one part tin to twenty parts lead for really heavy loads a one to fifteen mixture is hard enough… For automatic pistols, the bullets should be very hard, consisting of about one part tin to ten parts of lead, in order for them to slide up easily out of the magazine into the chamber… A mixture of part tin and part antimony works very well for some heavy loads, but such very hard, brittle bullets are not needed for any revolver load except in the case of extreme penetration, where no upsettage or expansion is wanted.”



I have found Keith's suggestions to work in my last 50 years experience following them.

[curioushooter]

I can quote the Prophet Keith as well. Sixguns, Chapter XVI, Page 232: "A mixture of part tin and part antimony works very well for some heavy loads. Hollow point bullets with velocities up to 1000 feet, to insure proper expansion, need not be over one part tin to sixteen parts lead."

I have shot 358429s made of 16:1 into gel blocks at 1200 FPS. Zero expansion.

[Outpost75]

I can quote the Prophet Keith as well. Sixguns, Chapter XVI, Page 232: "A mixture of part tin and part antimony works very well for some heavy loads. Hollow point bullets with velocities up to 1000 feet, to insure proper expansion, need not be over one part tin to sixteen parts lead."

I have shot 358429s made of 16:1 into gel blocks at 1200 FPS. Zero expansion.

Have you experienced failures and lost game with #358429s which didn't expand?

I'm more concerned with failures of soft HP bullets which come apart and fail to penetrate.

I've never been attacked by a Jello Monster, but seen my share of HP bullet failures on feral hogs and a few bear.

I like to see through and through complete penetration and exit, with a meplat not less than 0.6 of bullet diameter and not harder than 1:20 in .357 and .44 Magnum, and 1:30 in .38 Special +P, .44-40 and .45 Colt.

[megasupermagnum]

To answer your question, yes, I've seen some impressive expansion of soft cast solid bullets from handguns. I have not played with them much, as I consider it much easier to cast a hollow point, plus you can get away with less velocity with a HP.

My favorite was a 120 grain SWC from 327 federal, left the 5" barrel at 1500 fps, and at 25 yards was recovered from water jugs. It had expanded to about 1/2", and was flat fronted, not just mushroomed. To get accuracy with these soft alloys pushed hard, you will likely need a gas check.

Expansion from solid bullets certainly is possible at less than 1400 fps, the question is how soft do you have to go. Look no farther than muzzleloaders. I recently shot a deer with a pure lead round ball. The ball was doing about 1200 fps at the impact 40 yards downrange, it expanded heavily. Since it was such an angled shot, I even caught the ball in the shoulder after penetrating about 20". Hopefully I will recover the ball, but the offside hole was about 3/4".

If I were to look for an expanding bullet in a handgun I would choose a gas check design, with a flat nose, possibly lighter in weight for more velocity. In 357 magnum, I would try a design like the Lee C358-158SWC, or the 158 grain ranchdog gas checked. You can approach 1500 fps with a 158 grain.

[bmortell]

I hunted for 2 weeks and failed to get a deer so i didnt get to show meat results like i was hoping, so all i can show is my test boolits.
253220
Left is 300gr with 100gr of 20-1 nose and heat treated 50-50 bottom 200gr. Tested in paper mush and water at 1350 because its 150 less than MV. Nose expanded from .360 to .630

Right is only 1% tin lead for the front 1/3, same base, tested at 1500 since mv is 1650. Nose expanded from .280 to .655 almost shedding the nose off as you can see.

Its slow making soft points feels like maybe 1 every 2 minutes or something. But if you dont have time to make 10 once a year for hunting you might be in the wrong hobby. Of course hollowpoints can work too but softpoints have the attractive quality of being free assuming you already have a normal mold and some stuff to make alloys

[curioushooter]

I like to see through and through complete penetration and exit, with a meplat not less than 0.6 of bullet diameter and not harder than 1:20 in .357 and .44 Magnum, and 1:30 in .38 Special +P, .44-40 and .45 Colt.

So, have you observed any expansion with 20:1 (pb:sn) at 1000-1200 FPS or so? All of those cartridges with a bullet weight appropriate to the caliber should easily penetrate through a deer if they don't expand. Unless you deer wear body armor. .495 caliber dead soft lead round ball (only 180 grains or so) out of my Lyman Deerstalker clock 1400 FPS (if the wad doesn't get clocked!) pass through.

[KVO]

Cast from Roto Metals 20:1, fired from 20" barrel Win 92. Fired into Clear Ballistics gel covered w/ 2 layers of cloth. 357 magnum, 360-640 solid loaded over 14.0gr Alliant 2400 and 359-640 cup point HP over 13.5gr 2400. Unfortunately my chronograph was not cooperating that day but I do have velocity data for the same loads out of several handgun barrel lengths.

253221
253222
253223
253224

Not a perfect apples to apples comparison but ~20:1 alloy solids seem to need 1500-1700+ fps to appreciably expand.

Curioushooter I've done a fair amount of gel testing over the last 2 years with the same medium you ate using, PM me if you'd like to compare notes on any particular bullet designs. I have a fair number of Mihec and NOE HP molds I've worked with.

[Outpost75]

So, have you observed any expansion with 20:1 (pb:sn) at 1000-1200 FPS or so? All of those cartridges with a bullet weight appropriate to the caliber should easily penetrate through a deer if they don't expand. Unless you deer wear body armor. .495 caliber dead soft lead round ball (only 180 grains or so) out of my Lyman Deerstalker clock 1400 FPS (if the wad doesn't get clocked!) pass through.

I have neither recovered a bullet nor lost an animal well-hit with solids, so I don't care if the bullet expands or not. Expansion doesn't compensate at all for poor shot placement.

[curioushooter]

Not a perfect apples to apples comparison but ~20:1 alloy solids seem to need 1500-1700+ fps to appreciably expand.

This is pretty much what I expected. I have observed basically only very modest expansion (not mushrooming, more like the bullet looks like an upside down tree stump) right at 1350 FPS with 16:1 alloy.

One of the things I've learned is that there are people who make statements about cast boolit performance and there are people who shoot gel. PM incoming.

[GregLaROCHE]

So why don’t people want to shoot 100% lead for hunting? Is it barrel leading? Can you reduce the charge and still have an effective kill shot? I’ve hunted a lot in the past, but not with cast boolits.

[curioushooter]

I have neither recovered a bullet nor lost an animal well-hit with solids, so I don't care if the bullet expands or not. Expansion doesn't compensate at all for poor shot placement.

I don't see any problem with getting a bigger "well placed" wound channel, do you?

[onelight]

There are pictures of Elmers expanded hollow points recovered from game , but you can't read much that he wrote and not understand that he preferred large solid bullets for the deepest penetration possible from any angle and the best chance of breaking heavy bones.
It is certainly easy to understand his reasoning with the experiences he had with live stock and large and dangerous animals

[Outpost75]

I don't see any problem with getting a bigger "well placed" wound channel, do you?

I prefer to avoid the excessive meat damage, especially on raking shots.

"The rear end of a deer is to eat and not to shoot, (unless you are from Texas) 8-)

[curioushooter]

So why don’t people want to shoot 100% lead for hunting? Is it barrel leading? Can you reduce the charge and still have an effective kill shot? I’ve hunted a lot in the past, but not with cast boolits.

I use nearly pure lead (about 99.5% and .5% tin) in my muzzloader (patched round ball). It works plenty well and has taken several deer despite having terrible sectional density, no meplat whatsoever (its a round ball), and only weighing ~180 grains. It is .495" so it makes at least that sized wound.

I've used nearly pure lead in 12 gauge lee slugs. Still the most devastating projectile I've ever witnessed on an animal. No Meplat. It puts about a 1" hole through the animal though and hits them like a piano dropped from from the fourth floor.

The key here is neither comes in contact with the barrel. One is protected by a piece of pillow ticking and the other by a shotgun wad.

[curioushooter]

you can't read much that he wrote and not understand that he preferred large solid bullets for the deepest penetration possible from any angle and the best chance of breaking heavy bones.
It is certainly easy to understand his reasoning with the experiences he had with live stock and large and dangerous animals

That's because he was dealing with big critters. There are no big critters where I live. Our deer weigh about 200 lbs if you are lucky. Their bones are thin.

Basically any solid cast bullet which doesn't expand of reasonable sectional density for the caliber and impacting at a respectable velocity (like a 158 grain .357 hitting at 1000 FPS+) will penetrate more than 28" of calibrated ballistic gelatin. I haven't found one that doesn't. I've never found a deer that thick broadside.

[curioushooter]

The rear end of a deer is to eat and not to shoot, unless you are from Texas

This is unintentionally funny. I process deer semi-professonally and a little doe came to me this year shot near her anus. The .429 240 grain XTP wandered up her body cavity and I found it on the inside of her skin half way up her neck.

Needless to say she was not particularly fun to butcher and there was plenty of corn & bean salad all over the place.

So apparently it's an Indiana thing, too.

[Outpost75]

This is unintentionally funny. I process deer semi-professonally and a little doe came to me this year shot near her anus. The .429 240 grain XTP wandered up her body cavity and I found it on the inside of her skin half way up her neck.

Needless to say she was not particularly fun to butcher and there was plenty of corn & bean salad all over the place.

So apparently it's an Indiana thing, too.

I take it the 240 XTP performed as advertised, better than 1.75 times original diameter and 85% weight retention. I've always found the Hornady 240s to be really great .44 Mag handgun bullets and I've used the 200-grain XTP at rifle velocity in .44-40, 1600 fps with 28 grains of IMR4198 in my El Tigre carbine.

That penetration is truly impressive! Imagine the meat damage was too...

[bmortell]

One of the things I've learned is that there are people who make statements about cast boolit performance and there are people who shoot gel.

is there any evidence that gel expands bullets to a more realistic amount than other water based fluids. I feel like gel is just breakable water so you can get a snapshot of what happened when you shot the water. but that don't seem relevant to expansion amount.

[Outpost75]

Some in the law enforcement community question whether clear ballistics gel being sold gives repeatable results which are comparable to those obtained using calibrated gelatin tissue simulant prepared in the manner as used by the Army and other government labs:

https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/accessories/ammunition/articles/ballistic-gelatin-comparisons-part-i-ndmFBGUHw79F9s0a/

ABSTRACT

Until the early 1990s, there was no accepted industry standard for evaluating the terminal ballistic performance of duty handgun ammunition for law enforcement. As a result, agencies that wanted to conduct an objective examination of duty ammunition were forced to develop their own test protocols and standards, or rely on the data provided by manufacturers or other agencies (frequently federal agencies, since they had the budgets to do this kind of testing).

A significant limitation of this approach is that it was impossible to compare data from different sources. Every test differed from the next and introduced variables, assumptions and theories that made direct comparisons of the data fruitless. For example, differences in test mediums (water jugs, clay, gelatin of different concentrations and temperatures), pet ballistic theories (temporary cavities versus permanent cavities, “energy dump” versus penetration), and desired performance (penetration depth, expansion, retained weight, cavity measurements) made each set of data individually unique and incomparable.

To illustrate, it’s useful to consider the critical variable of penetration depth, which was measured and rewarded in very different ways in major studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s. In National Institute of Justice testing, bullets were evaluated and scored on their ability to penetrate between 1.6 and 8.7 inches in the test media (20% gelatin), while US Secret Service testing focused on the 1–5.9 inch range (20% gelatin), US Navy testing focused on the 7–12 inch range (20% gelatin), and US Immigration and Naturalization Service testing favored performance in the 9–12 inch range (10% gelatin). Based on this factor alone, it’s easy to see how a bullet that scored highly in one test could fail the test conducted by another agency.

SETTLING ON A STANDARD

When the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) introduced its own standards for terminal ballistic performance in December 1988, they were met with a mix of enthusiasm and resistance. In fairness, there were things to both like and dislike about the FBI standards in their first iteration, but over the course of time, “the protocol” – and, more importantly, the interpretation of the data derived from the protocol – has improved and matured to the point that it’s now the uncontested industry standard.

The protocol has been widely accepted by both the law enforcement and manufacturing communities and has given them a standard to work from. The FBI protocol has established a common language, a standardized testing process and standardized benchmarks for performance that have allowed a variety of different agencies, companies and individuals to conduct their own testing and contribute data that is directly comparable to the data derived from other tests and sources.

This has been a positive influence on the development of duty ammunition. The improvements in communication and information sharing have led to the development of several new generations of duty ammunition that were designed to excel in the stages of the FBI protocol.

The first generation of FBI protocol-inspired bullets – represented by designs such as the Federal HST, Hornady XTP, Remington Golden Saber, Speer Gold Dot and Winchester SXT – dramatically improved the capabilities of law enforcement ammunition. However, a desire for “barrier-blind” bullets that offered more consistent performance after encountering the intermediate barriers of the FBI protocol has led to an even more advanced second generation of bullets, typified by designs such as the Hornady Critical Duty Flexlock bullet, Speer G2 Gold Dot bullet and Winchester Ranger One bullet. Absent the FBI protocol, and its influence on bullet development, it’s doubtful that law enforcement officers would have access to such innovative and capable duty ammunition today.

FULL CIRCLE

In an interesting twist though, the law enforcement community is currently in danger of repeating some of the mistakes of the period that predated the adoption of the FBI protocol. Specifically, they are in jeopardy of returning to the time when data sets were not comparable, due to the choice of different test mediums.

Before the FBI standardized the use of (nominal) 10%, calibrated, ballistic gelatin, various groups used materials as disparate as wet newspaper, clay, water jugs, ballistic soap (still popular in Europe), or 20% ballistic gelatin (favored by the US military), shot at a variety of temperatures, to test ammunition performance. Since the widespread adoption of the FBI protocol however, all serious testing done in the United States has been conducted with organic gelatin prepared according to FBI specifications, promoting a high degree of standardization.

Now, with the introduction of a new, clear, synthetic “gelatin” product to the market, this standardization is potentially in jeopardy...

[bmortell]

ya gel is used for the consistent data points that can be collected. but im not sure knowing exact penetration in gel for example is usefull.

like a week ago my relative hit a broadside deer with a 220gr air coww 30-06 at ~1800fps and got no exit, who thought that was gonna happen. anyone?

I feel like anything that gives a close amount of expansion is as good as your gonna get. from weight, surface area and speed you can infer or calculate the damage well within the huge amount of variation that comes from actually shooting a deer. gel is an consistent simulation of shooting water 10x more than it is a simulation of deer. of course federal bullet company or whatever needs actual data numbers, they cant say "likely to work" like you or I

personally id test like paul harrell does on youtube with porkchop>ribs>oranges>ribs>catcher, but hes crowd funded for that cost of doing that. even if that gives results that are half as consistent as gel I feel its still a better test of expansion, what happens after that isn't that usefull to try and simulate exactly.

[onelight]

Gel has its place there are accepted standards on the test format that can be duplicated so a great way to compare performance in gel that is as good as it gets .It is not possible to introduce all the variables that there are in the real world .
As far as I am concerned you mix the gel results with common sense and add to that field experiences of your own or people you trust and decide what you believe when you see a 22lR 36grain hp not exit a 1.5lb squirrel you kinda question the stuff that says expect 8 to 12" of penetration
It seems I remember a story from Elmer shooting an elk in the head with factory 38-40 soft points at just a few yards and none penetrated the skull.
I neck shot a whitetail at about 25 yards with a 220 grain RB from a .54 at about 1800fps he went down with a chunk knocked out of 1 side of the spine the ball was flattened laying on the spine did not exit maybe 8" penetration I then shot him in the head with a Ruger old army RB on 40 grains pyrodex p it did not exit. Most any one who hunts much with handguns or traditional black powder can probably tell the same type stories.
Bone stops bullets , unless they have the sectional density to push on through when they expand they loose that sectional density if a .357 bullet expands to .50 you have a pitiful .50 cal bullet if it's work is done fine if you need it to keep going you are out of luck at revolver speeds .

[edp2k]

The problem I have with a rapidly expanding nose, which ends up with a very mushroomed bullet, is that the now very mushroomed bullet
is now very likely to not continue to travel/penetrate in a straight line.

This is in addition to the mushroomed bullet now not being able to penetrate much and also now not typically being able to cause an exit wound
(which leaks more blood for tracking and accelerate the demise of the critter due to more and quicker blood loss).
Think of it as now having a drastically reduced "sectional density".

If you have ever played the game of "drop the nickle/dime/quarter into the water cooler jug (inverted) and filled with water,
with a shot glass centered in the bottom middle", you will know what I am talking about.
You used to see these in hardware stores and at county fairs and carnivals.
If your coin made it into the shot glass, you won something, typically 1/2 of the coin contents of the jug.

No matter how straight you dropped the nickle, it flutters and deviates from a strait path, and ends up typically hitting the side of the jug
before getting to the bottom.

Now apply this to shooting a deer.

A few years ago I shot a medium-to-large deer about 20 yards away when I was in a tree stand about 20 ft. up.
The deer was coming towards me up a trail with a slight rise, and the trail was angled to pass about 10 ft. to my left.
I was shooting a 12 Ga smoothbore with a Winchester factory sabot load containing a ~380 gr. 45-70 bullet listed at ~1600 FPS.
I forgot exactly what Winchester was naming the bullet on the packaging, however it was clear from examining the bullet
that it was the exact same construction as the Winchester Ranger SXT bullet, which is merely a renamed black talon.
It had a black surface finish and a very thick jacket (SWAG of 0.060" or so) covering the nose
and the jacket continued down into the hollow point cavity and covered the cavity.
There were pre-skived lines in the cavity where the HP petals were to fold back, and the fired,
expanded bullet had the classic, jacket metal, sharp "talons" on the ends of the folded back petals.

I aimed and fired at a spot on the front of it's left shoulder where the neck meets the shoulder,
about 1/3 of the way down from the top of the shoulder.
With this line of sight the bullet should have penetrated the chest cavity front to back, diagonally,
and exited through the last rib at the bottom of it's right rib cage.
Upon butchering and skinning I found the flattened bullet under the skin just behind it's upper right shoulder,
now about 0.300" tall and a perfect match of the very mushroomed picture on the cartridge box.

Instead of straight line, or almost straight line penetration, the bullet mushroomed after a couple inches of penetration by the neck/spine,
did a sharp left turn, went up over the spine at the neck, curved down, and stayed under the skin and ended up
between the skin and ribs on the right side.
Luckily the initial penetration shocked the spine enough that it did him in,
as the bullet did NOT penetrate through where I was aiming.

With everyone correctly stating "its all about shot placement", a well mushrooming bullet can and will often defeat you shot placement
by making the nickle flutter around the carcass and go a very different way, and not the way you intended.

[curioushooter]

To address some of the questions. First, I actually I conducted these tests according to "the protocol" as close as I am able. This isn't conjecture or wondering. I was surprised by it. A lot of the conventional "wisdom" is wrong. Some of it is correct though.

Getting expansion is neither difficult, nor that impressive for hunting purposes IMO. What is difficult is getting expansion and ample PENETRATION. Solid bullets excel at penetration. Every appropriate weight for caliber (like 158 for 357) solid cast boolit shot at normal handgun velocity (800-1200 FPS) into gel has penetrated through my "double block" which is 28" long. By comparison 38 Special 158 grain cast HPs out of snubs (442) and service sized revolvers (model 19) both expand to over .5" easily with a soft 32:1 alloy. The problem is they go only 8-9" deep. The greater velocity of 357 gives more momentum so the same bullet will go deeper. Increasing mass of the bullet increases the momentum and so it will go deeper (provided it holds together, a key shortcoming of the equations to determine predicted penetration depth from water). A lot of cast HPs I've shot have fragged badly past 1300 FPS. Some absolutely explode at 1600.

As to the question of wound tracks...they are nearly always perfectly straight if the shot is perpendicular to the gel face. Actually, cast boolits track straighter than JHPs for whatever reason (my hypothesis is that its because they mushroom and do not open up like a flower). One thing I have noticed is that certain HP cavities, the long narrow ones (like the Keith HPs), tend to collapse and not expand and track off if you shoot the gel with a 45 degree pie slice taken off the front. The conicial shaped (rather than bowl or cylindrical) HPs work better and more consistently with the alloys I've used (91-6-3 pb-sn-sb for magnum and 32:1 for special). I drill holes in other bullet designs using drill bits that I grind to shape and a drill press. I center using a centering gauge and clamp a H&I die to a drill press vice so I can do a few with centered holes.

The major advantage to gel is it allows for in-situ determination of penetration depth. You can lay a ruler on top of the gel (which is a solid material) and measure it easily directly (as long as the gel hasn't clouded). This is impossible with liquids like water. Water is a passable alternative to obtaining expansion data which can be used to predict penetration depth using a number of equations (wet phone books, clay, etc. are not valid mediums and are a waste of time...uncalibrated gel is almost as useless). Get Charles Schwartz's book "Quantitative Ammunition Selection (http://blog.westernpowders.com/2019/09/the-next-step-for-reloading/)" to get the math (warning, if you lack a collegiate mathematics education don't bother). Gel is also less messy, splashy, doesn't require a wheelbarrow of milk jugs or plastic bags or a calculator. Water is cheaper and allows multiple shots to me made in one outing, allowing much greater number of data points to be collected. Gel blocks, especially if working at rifle velocities, are a one shot deal. With 38 special you can get two to four shots before the gel is wrecked.

Penetration > Expansion for hunting to my thinking. You want the bullet to go through the animal you are going to shoot. This is why I think that for anything bigger than a whitetail that you really ought use a largebore solid cast boolit. 45-70 to my thinking is the ideal cartridge for large animal cast boolit rifle performance, and 44 Mag the ideal handgun cartridge. 30-30 or 30-40 I imagine are about the ideal rifle cast boolit cartridges for medium game.

Now for the smallish whitetails that most American hunters are dealing with, I think that an expanding boolit is what you want, but an expanding boolit that goes deep enough. The ammo manufacturers have developed (for the most part) their designs around the FBI protocol which takes humans as the target animal. Humans are thin bodied and thin skinned and we walk upright so we present a thin target. Deer by comparison have thicker skin and longer wound tracks and walk on all four and present a rather thick target despite a similar body weight. This is why if you hunt with expanding JHPs use one designed for medium game like the 158 grain Hornady XTPHP or the 180 grain XTPHP in 357. The 158 grain XTPFP is for rifle velocities, but even it doesn't hold together at 1900 FPS. I suspect that all the bigger bore XTPs in revolver calibers (.410, .429, .454) are designed for hunting, not for LEO use. Hornady uses thicker jackets than Speer and Sierra and with few exceptions I've found the Hornady XTP to be the premier JHP out there. That .429 XTP that hit the deer butt actually hardly expanded, and this is not surprising. The tissues around the anus are gristly connective tissues that act more like drumskin than muscle. Basically the boolit makes a hole in them and is not terribly upset. Then it hits the guts and the liver, rumen, and lungs which are all softer than muscle. The XTP did expand at little (I didn't measure but I doubt it expanded to a half inch) and that why it went about 40" deep. I gave it back to the guy without taking a picture. It did hold together. Typically XTPs lose about 10-20% of their weight if they hit near their upper design velocity. At the lower end of the design velocity they hardly expand at all.

Holding together is the best thing about cast HPs. If they don't break apart due to velocity they typically retain 99%+ of their weight leaving nice clean meat.

Cast hp boolits expand in a rapid and "uncontrolled" manner since they have no jacket. The jacket arrests expansion. The 158 XTPHP when launched at 1200 FPS penetrates consistently to over 20" but only expands to about .55". The 162 grain MP-Molds Hammer with Small HP pin made of 91-6-3 alloy launched at 1200 expands to .63-.67" and penetrates only ~16." With cast HPs you need to increase weight to increase penetration since you don't have the variable of jacket thickness to play with to control the expansion. I would think that a 180+ grain cast HP in the 357 launched at 1100-1200 FPS would deliver the goods (like two feet of penetration and >.6" expansion with 99% weight retention, but I have not tested it because I am cheap and can't decide what NOE HP mold I want to try next! I am not sure if I really believe Glen Fryxel's recommendation on the 358156 HP having "controlled expansion" (http://www.lasc.us/FryxellCastHollowPoints.htm) but NOEs version, the 360-165-HP seems very versatile and there is lots of good data for a 158 grain GC CB since the 358156 is in Lyman's 4th. Then there is NOE's 360-198-HP which my experiments indicate would be the best choice (plus no gas check). I would have to use data for the SAECO #354 and back off 10% from start load.

Personally I like shooting 357 for a number of reasons, mainly because I shoot it a whole lot better (assisting in the all important good shot placement) and don't develop a flinch, don't mind carrying a <40oz revolver on my hip, and practice with it a whole lot more because I actually enjoy it. I simply did not enjoy shooting my supertuned super blackhawk and sold it to a friend years ago (so I can shoot/borrow it if I wanted to). If I ever go on some bear/elk/moose/big critter handgun hunt (extremely unlikely in my lifetime) I will use it, but I will almost certainly opt for a rifle if I ever have such an opportunity.

My overall goal with this whole project is to get 357 to perform as well OR BETTER than 44mag with a solid cast boolit (which I consider the benchmark) on whitetails using cast HPs (I've already accomplished this with two JHPs: the 158 XTPHP and the 180 grain XTP). The easy part has been getting 357 to expand to well beyond .429 inches. It's getting it to go "through the deer" (two feet of penetration) that is proving difficult.

I also don't trust the incredibly expensive synthetic gel. The only advantage I see to it is that it will probably be able to reused longer as it wont mold and has better visibility. Clouding of the gel is what makes it no longer useabe. I've got more than 10 recasts out of my original block...it was killed by my kids unplugging the refrigerator temp controller and making it freeze my block. After that I neglected it for a while and it molded. My 2nd block I still going strong.

[charlie b]

If you want to check real world expansion then get some shoulders, lungs, ribs, etc and see what happens. Makes for interesting results. Father-in-law and I used pork roast and ribs for some testing we did. Expensive but you see some interesting things. That was what drove me to use solids for hunting. SWC or large flat noses.

I would not rely on gel alone to determine bullet performance. HP in gel may go straight but they don't in many animal shots. Even solid lead bullets have problems when they graze a rib and 'bend'.

When I had a .45colt I remembered an interview with a pro hunting guide in Africa. He carried a Ruger BH in .45 colt with a cylinder slug of 300 or 350gn (don't remember which). He wanted bigger dia rather than higher vel of a .44mag. He said it was good enough for a charging lion. Penetrated deep and broke things along the way.

[megasupermagnum]

Wow this thread really escalated quickly.

Curious Shooter, you just have to ignore a lot of the people on this forum when it comes to expanding bullets. So many have bought into the penetration is king, all else is useless mentality. Likely because it does work, and doesn't require any effort on the casters part.

You have a perfect goal in mind, we both think alike. I still shoot my 44 magnum, but the smaller calibers are superior for shooting. I developed a bullet for my GP100 in 327 federal with only one goal in mind. Deer hunting by maximizing what the cartridge was capable of in the GP100. I did this at the possible sacrifice of range, but I am only capable of great hunting accuracy with an open sight revolver to 50 yards anyway. I used a multitude of test mediums including water, clay, wood, and wet newspaper. I may try gel again in the future, that's for another day. I ended up with a heavy bullet (148 grain), about as long as I though would stabilize in my handgun, and a hollow point. I tried lighter soilids, but did not find the accuracy I wanted. Likely you will find that penetration with heavier bullets. A bullet that casts 200-215 grains as a solid would be a good choice in 357 magnum.

I do question why you want 24" of penetration though. That deer I mentioned taken with a round ball was shot facing away at about the farthest angle I would ever feel comfortable taking. The ball entered just at the last rib, and went through the ribs on the other side about 3" from the collar bone. I have not recovered the ball yet. I measured the penetration at about 20". That was the most extreme angle shot you could really expect to make on a deer, any more and you would be having to shoot through the rear legs. That was a full grown MN doe.

I have never bought into "energy dump", hydrostatic shock, or any other jargon people come up with. I never will either. Still, I find myself wondering more why a pass through is that important? For every person who claims a better blood trail, there is another who didn't find a drop of blood. There is no doubt a 44+ caliber solid that doesn't expand is adequate hunting even large game, although not all that impressive on medium size animals. 357 magnum with expanding bullets can be as good as a 44 with solids, but you also get a gun that is far easier to shoot well.

I find it funny how guys argue about the difference in diameter of 44 vs 45, a difference of .022". I consider the difference from 38 to 45 caliber to be a slight jump. When I think large bore, I think 12 gauge (.729") or 10 gauge (.780"). My 54 caliber muzzleloaders don't look big to me at all. To me 45 caliber is a small bore.

Unless we are talking true large bores like shotgun slugs and muzzleloaders, I'll take expansion in everything else.

[bmortell]

I forgot about this boolit actually from a deer
253271
Technically ive never seen a cast boolit exit yet but this is the only one in the velocity of the original question. Its a 250gr lee real 50 hit the deer at about 1300 lengthwise. Its pure lead making it easy to expand but its also a truncated cone which id think is one of the harder shapes to expand since triangles are very strong. But it did expand a bit and got something like 2 feet of penetration.

[edp2k]

Using gel so that bullet tests are repeatable and comparable between different people/test-instances/bullets
is the correct and scientific thing to do so that test results are scientifically comparable to each other.

Taking those results, and then thinking that the straight line track they may see in gel from a very flattened bullet
will indicate a straight track penetration in a real person/critter, is a fallacy which many people fall into.

Remember the nickle-in-water effect.

[onelight]

I think the gel tests are good and informative and for comparing bullet performance.
I also think that a hollow point might be a good choice for hunting with a revolver that is a choice the hunter makes for himself within local laws some states require expanding bullets.
and we can all have our own opinion on what a big bore is , but what is commonly accepted is .40 and up usually .44 or .45
The XTP being a common exception like was pointed out most pistol hp bullets are designed to limit penetration and to perform properly in a narrow velocity range it would seem that would limit shots to broadside on deer .
I would not want that limitation even for deer when I know that a Keith or other large flat nosed bullet 250 to 300 grains will do it broadside or any angle with even midrange loads if you bring bigger critters into the mix bear , hogs and up the any angle and better chance of breaking bones is a plus cause you only get to pick the first broadside shot. And if you carry for defense against animals the same big heavy bullets are still my choice .
I see single shot pistols as a different category than the traditional 44 and 45s they bump into rifle power.
One thing I am absolutely sure of is we will all be wrong on this topic in somebody's real experience .
That's what makes it interesting :smile:

[Outpost75]

https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/accessories/ammunition/articles/ballistic-gelatin-comparisons-part-ii-NVdpfONSxRFxBwTL/?utm_source=PoliceOne+Member+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fdc9cadcdc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_19_06_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ca044a84ea-fdc9cadcdc-64690535

...I worked with Hornady Manufacturing Company representatives to design a comparison test of the two mediums. Before we committed resources to a large-scale test, we began with a small-scale test that compared the performance of Hornady’s 9mm +P, 135 grain, Critical Duty Flexlock bullet in the two mediums. If this small test indicated there was a discrepancy, we would proceed with plans for a more exhaustive comparison.

In Hornady’s tests of its 9mm +P, 135 grain, Critical Duty Flexlock bullet, the projectile normally penetrated around 14.5 inches in bare, calibrated gelatin. Independent testing of this projectile by the US Department of Homeland Security (14 inches) and the FBI (14 inches), as well as joint Hornady/agency testing with the Mesa (Arizona) Police Department (14 inches), Nebraska State Patrol (14.75 inches) and the Texas Department of Public Safety (14.25 inches), validated this performance (using a variety of pistol makes and barrel lengths) and confirmed Hornady’s expectation for this projectile.

However, when Hornady tested the same ammunition in the clear, synthetic gelatin substitute (same test protocol and conditions, including barrel length and lack of an intermediate barrier) the 9mm FlexLock bullet penetrated around 19 inches. This represented a 31% increase in penetration in the clear synthetic product compared to FBI-calibrated gelatin.

Additionally, the profile of the wound tracks was different in the synthetic product in comparison to FBI-calibrated gelatin, with an almost nonexistent Maximum Temporary Cavity (MTC) dimension, and a longer Depth to Maximum Cavity (DMC), followed by an “ice pick” kind of penetration after that.

Based on these initial results, plans were made to proceed with a large-scale comparison test of the two products.

LARGE-SCALE TEST PROTOCOL

It was important to ensure that large-scale testing would be conducted in accordance with standard FBI protocols, with the highest measures of quality control and consistency, to develop a useful set of data for comparison.

This meant a professional facility would be required for testing. While there are many “backyard ballisticians” who prepare and shoot organic gelatin, such settings can introduce variables that will skew data. For instance, since organic gelatin is highly sensitive to temperature and can break down quickly in heat and direct sunlight, it must be carefully preserved at consistently low temperatures and shot for record before it warms. It’s difficult to maintain these temperatures when a block must be transported to an off-site test facility in a cooler, and shot in warm, ambient conditions – perhaps even in direct sunlight. It’s even more difficult to do this with multiple blocks and keep them all at a consistent temperature for reasonable comparison to each other. Spread the testing process out to multiple days, and the consistency challenge becomes even more complex.

The two-day test would be conducted at the same facility that Hornady uses for internal research and quality control testing, as well as testing for its extensive list of law enforcement, military and industry clients. This environmentally controlled facility would allow for consistent and measurable conditions and would allow access to calibrated equipment for measuring bullet velocities and weights. Organic gelatin blocks could be preserved at ideal and consistent temperatures in nearby industrial refrigeration units until they were removed for immediate testing, conducted only yards away.

All gelatin blocks – both organic and synthetic – would be tested for calibration in accordance with FBI standards, immediately prior to shooting. This test would involve firing a 0.177” steel BB into the gelatin at a measured velocity of 590 +/- 15 feet per second, and checking for penetration depth between 2.95 – 3.74 inches. Any organic gelatin block that failed to meet these calibration standards would be rejected to ensure the synthetic product was only compared to FBI-spec ballistic gelatin.

A single pistol (same serial number) would be used to conduct all testing for consistency. The Glock 17 was chosen as it is the most widely used 9mm service pistol in U.S. law enforcement. The test pistol was a Glock 17M model, as currently issued by the FBI.

In order to generate a data set that was not limited to Hornady products, the author solicited assistance from other major ammunition manufacturers to supply product samples. Law enforcement duty ammunition was received from both Speer and Federal in response to this request. Winchester and Remington were unable to supply samples, so the author purchased ammunition from these marques via commercial channels, to ensure they would be represented in the data.

A variety of bullet weights, velocities, pressure levels, styles and designs were represented in the data, to ensure the broadest comparison of the two test mediums. “Barrier blind” bullets from Hornady (Critical Duty 124+P and 135+P) and Speer (147 grain G2) were included, as well as advanced hollowpoint designs from Federal (124 grain HST) and Winchester (127+P+ Ranger SXT). A “low-tech” traditional jacketed hollowpoint from Remington (115+P HTP) was also tested to help broaden the selection.

The synthetic gelatin was sourced from a commercial vendor and the order was filled and shipped to Hornady by the manufacturer, who had been fully briefed that the blocks would be used in this testing.

The organic gelatin was prepared in accordance with FBI instructions. The blocks that were shot on the first day of testing were prepared in advance of the author’s arrival by Hornady personnel, and the author personally prepared the blocks which were used on the second day of testing.

Two individuals – one from Hornady and the author – would take all the measurements, and compare results with each other to identify errors and correct discrepancies before the final results were recorded.

AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

It’s important to understand that the FBI specifications for gelatin calibration constitute a range of acceptable penetration depths for the test BB projectile. This is because organic gelatin may demonstrate slight variations in density as a result of mixing ratios, environmental humidity and the source of the organic gelatin itself. Additionally, the density may change slightly as the core temperature of the gelatin varies between acceptable extremes.

The FBI has determined that organic gelatin will provide useful and comparable results as long as the 0.177” calibration BB penetrates to a depth between 2.95–3.74 inches. Anything on either side of this band is considered unacceptable for measuring bullet performance in accordance with FBI standards for penetration, expansion and retained weight.

In order to provide the fairest comparison for the synthetic gelatin, it was important to quantify the performance change between bullets that were fired into “minimum spec” FBI gelatin and “maximum spec” FBI gelatin. This would allow us to compare the synthetic results to the full range of acceptable measures from organic gelatin, mixed in accordance with FBI standards.

To determine this difference, the ratio of organic gelatin powder to water was slightly altered to create gelatin blocks that would calibrate at both the high and the low ends of BB calibration. The “minimum spec” block we prepared calibrated at 3.00” and the “maximum spec” block calibrated at 3.625” when tested with the 0.177” BB, which was about as close as you could get to the FBI goalposts.

Three rounds each of Hornady 124+P and 135+P Critical Duty were fired into the minimum and maximum blocks, then measured. Retained weight was 100% in both blocks for all 12 rounds, and there was negligible difference in expanded diameter between them (an average of 0.005” more expansion – less than a 1% difference – for rounds fired into the minimum block). However, the penetration distance changed about 1.25” for the 135+P and about 1.0” for the 124+P between the minimum and maximum block. These distances were slightly longer than those noted in previous testing conducted by Hornady, using industry-standard 5 round samples (in lieu of our abbreviated 3 round samples), which revealed a 1.00” maximum (typically, less than 1.00”) difference between gelatin that calibrated at the minimum and maximum FBI specs.

From this, we conservatively concluded that any variation in penetration of less than 1.5” (including a generous 0.25” buffer over the already high 1.25” maximum average penetration observed in our 3-round test) in the synthetic gelatin could be ignored as statistically insignificant. Restated, if bullets penetrated 1.5” more in the synthetic gelatin than in the calibrated organic gelatin, we would judge the synthetic results as comparable to the organic medium.

SHOTS FIRED

Armed with this knowledge, and with a protocol that maximized consistency and repeatability, we began to shoot synthetic and organic gelatin with the selected ammunition.

Ambient temperature on the indoor range was 70-72 degrees, and organic gelatin blocks were kept at 38 degrees in a commercial refrigerator until they were taken out for calibration and testing, which occurred within minutes of removing them from the refrigerator. The synthetic gelatin blocks were stored on the range overnight and were kept at the 70-72 degrees ambient temperature of the range.

The organic and synthetic blocks were shot with 3 rounds each of the 6 models of ammunition (2 from Hornady, and 1 each from Speer, Federal, Winchester and Remington). In accordance with the FBI protocol, the blocks were shot at a distance of 10 feet from the muzzle of the Glock 17M pistol to the front face of the gelatin.

The heavy clothing testing was conducted in accordance with FBI standards, using materials that met FBI specifications. (Photo/Mike Wood)

The heavy clothing testing was conducted in accordance with FBI standards, using materials that met FBI specifications. (Photo/Mike Wood)

Each test medium was shot in accordance with Tests One and Two of the FBI protocol. In Test One, bullets are fired into bare gelatin, and in Test Two, the gelatin blocks are covered with FBI-standard “heavy clothing,” which consists of four layers of material, to include:

One layer of cotton t-shirt material (approximately 5.25 ounces per yard, 48 threads per inch);
One layer of cotton shirt material (approximately 3.5 ounces per yard, 80 threads per inch);
One layer of Malden Mills Polartec 200 fleece, and;
One layer of cotton denim (approximately 14.4 ounces per yard, 50 threads per inch).

OBSERVATIONS
The results and implications of this test will be discussed in the final segment of this series.

About the author
Mike Wood is the son of a 30-year California Highway Patrolman and the author of "Newhall Shooting: A Tactical Analysis," the highly-acclaimed study of the 1970 California Highway Patrol gunfight in Newhall, California. Mike is an Honor Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, a graduate of the US Army Airborne School, and a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with over 26 years of service. He’s a National Rifle Association (NRA) Law Enforcement Division-certified firearms instructor, serves as a member of the PoliceOne Editorial Advisory Board, and has written the “Tactical Analysis” column at PoliceOne.com since 2014. Mike is the senior editor at RevolverGuy.com, and has been a featured guest on the Excellence In Training Academy and American Warrior Society podcasts, as well as several radio and television programs. He’s grateful for the opportunity to serve and learn from the men and women of law enforcement.

[Outpost75]

THANK YOU SCHWARTZ! I was hoping that you would chime into this thread and tie the ribbons on decisively.

[Tripplebeards]

I haven’t tried it on game yet but 16:1 pure lead and pewter I mixed has a BH of 7.5 and holds up in the dirt at 1575fps in HP configuration out of my Ruger 77/44.

Water test, Weighed a 136 grains. It started out at 263 grains...

https://i.imgur.com/voYsBiZ.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/raPrYxH.jpg


Water is too hard of a test.


Here’s another one recovered from a dirt backstop (with the same 1575fps load) at 25 yards that weight 184 grains...

https://i.imgur.com/9FZ2hCA.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0oV8SVp.jpg

The tin holds it together nicely and makes the soft alloy tuff. I don’t think I’d want an alloy any harder for deer or any other thin skinned game. I like expansion,kinetic energy transfer, and as little tracking as possible.

Im Sure it would expand just fine in a solid boolit and slower velocities.

[curioushooter]

I am not quite sure why the clear gel was brought into this thread. It's expensive and doubtful. I don't use the stuff and don't think anybody should when water or actual gelatin can be procured at any bulk foods store and costs less. Go tell Chris Baker he's wasting everybody's time.

My entire gel testing rig cost less than $100 and that includes the Daisy 880 I purchased to do the BB test. I'm not trying to sell anybody anything either. Just for my own benefit and those of others.

Mike Woods' work is very interesting, I've read his book (Newhall) and follow his posts on his blogs. But he is from an LEO perspective. It's not really relevant to this thread.

I started this thread seeking EVIDENCE in meat, a live animal, water, or gel (valid test mediums) of expansion of solid cast boolits at ordinary handgun velocities (800-1300 FPS). I have not found any evidence myself, and wanted to give the whole soft alloy crowd a chance to present the evidence before I cease testing solids and conclude they don't expand.

I already have proven that most solids will expand well at ~1600 FPS and some as low as 1400 FPS. Don't bother uploading pictures if the solid impacted above 1300 FPS.

I was thinking about the matter of bones. I don't worry about them because the bones on deer at least where you are supposed to shoot them are pretty weak. I've yet to find a bullet that bounced back after hitting one. They usually break through or deflect in which case they still go into the animal and cause damage. Nothing is perfect in hunting except in our imaginations. The issue I have despite having a massive sample size of actual deer wounds to examine is that almost nobody hunts with cast boolits let alone cast hollowpoint bullets in my area besides me a few of my relatives/friends. And they are not the best at "shot placement" mostly because they all stubbornly refuse to use scopes.

[megasupermagnum]

As has been shown, pure lead will expand the velocities you state. I think what you really want to know is how soft you can go and still maintain decent accuracy, at least as good as a slightly harder hollow point. I can't answer that for you, but the original 357 magnum load was supposedly a very soft lead SWC sent at 1550 fps from an 8 3/8" barrel. I don't see where accuracy was ever a problem either. How true this is, or how soft the bullet really was I doubt we can know for sure.

I do think a solid soft bullet can do what you want, I would keep testing. I'm sure I said it earlier, but use a gas check design, choose a moderate weight like 158 grain, flat nose, and a soft lead like 40:1 if you want expansion below 1300 fps.

[wnc435]

I have many deer that have been harvested with the muzzle loader Pure soft lead bullets and or round balls a lot of different styles when the deer is leaking out both sides with a well placed shot I really don't care if it mushroomed or not. but the exit holes are always bigger so it either mushrooms or tumbles through? I was fortunate enough to harvest 2 with one shot with a round ball. It wasn't planned just happened. First one ran 50 yds. second was smaller and laying right there. All OK and legal WI has been very generous with bonus tags for decades. The second deer was hit in the front shoulder and ball was intact but very disfigured. I think a steel ball well placed would be just as deadly as a perfectly mushroomed lead bullet or ball. I have loaded .222 Rem with GC 55gr. 2300 fps and it went right through a 1/2 steel plate cold rolled at 50 yds. Makes a good dent at 100.

[Outpost75]

Agree with CuriousShooter that actual field results on game trump any other test.

I say this because it is hard to obtain a valid assessment based upon less than a dozen or so animals. Many pseudo-experts base their opinions on only a few. Those fellows who butcher game for a large hunting camp or semi-professionally, who observe multiple dozens of deer or other big game over a period of years can speak authoritatively. The fellow who changes his loads every year based on the current Internet whim cannot gain this knowledge. Black powder hunters who use weapons little changed from those of our ancestors know the truth, and are most knowledable, as are those who listen to those have "figured out what works" and stick to their well-proven formula.

My classmate the late Col. Gregory Kalnitzky shot hundreds of head of deer-sized game and hogs using either a .44 Magnum S&W Model 29 or a Marlin 1894S carbine with Saeco 260-grain #430 bullets cast of wheelweights, driven with 16 grains of #2400. He found heavier loads unnecessary. This powder charge was found in testing to be the lightest with #2400 which gave acceptable ballistic uniformity in both revolvers and rifles. It was also the heaviest which could be shot accurately using a soft, plain-based bullet in his MicroGroove Marlin. Velocity is about 1000 fps from a 4-5 inch revolver and 1300 fps from a 20-inch carbine. I have used similar loads in the .44 Magnum for 50 years, and similar loads with a 230-grain bullet of similar shape in the .44-40, using 17.5 grains of IMR4227 or 16 grs. of #2400 in both rifle and revolver.

When Greg was a licensed PH in Africa he used a .375 H&H Winchester Model 70 with #375449 cast from wheelweights and shot air-cooled without gascheck using 13 grains of Bullseye, approximating .38-55 black powder velocity, about 1300 fps, to shoot hundreds of Impala and similar sized game for biltong. My friends and I have killed over 100 whitetails with this load over the last 30 years. Greg used the same #375449 bullet gaschecked and water-dropped being driven by 65 grains of IMR4350 with a 2-grain Dacron fuller for about 2200 fps on heavier game such as Kudu and warthog. It also makes a great woods elk, black bear and moose load. George Martin from the NRA used similar loads which I prepared for him for a succesful African hunt which was written up in American Rifleman in the early 1980s.

[curioushooter]

Restating because some don't seem to get it.

What I want is EVIDENCE of a solid CB expanding at 800-1200 FPS made out of an alloy that can deliver at least useful accuracy and not lead up the barrel. For the record I am not going to bother testing pure lead because I know what is going to happen and know I will be the scraping it out with a Lewis Lead Remover. I'm sure not going to put it through my marlin.

I have already PROVEN that even fairly hard alloy (like 91-6-3 pb-sn-sb) expands greater velocities ~1600.

I already know that Lee slugs and round balls made of nearly pure lead expand...both use means to prevent leading and deliver useful accuracy.

So I ask again...anyone got the goods? So far nobody has...

[Outpost75]

Restating because some don't seem to get it.

What I want is EVIDENCE of a solid CB expanding at 800-1200 FPS made out of an alloy that can deliver at least useful accuracy and not lead up the barrel. For the record I am not going to bother testing pure lead because I know what is going to happen and know I will be the scraping it out with a Lewis Lead Remover. I'm sure not going to put it through my marlin.

I have already PROVEN that even fairly hard alloy (like 91-6-3 pb-sn-sb) expands greater velocities ~1600.

I already know that Lee slugs and round balls made of nearly pure lead expand...both use means to prevent leading and deliver useful accuracy.

So I ask again...anyone got the goods? So far nobody has...

And I would ask again, why is expansion so important?

Are solid, flatnosed bullets of suitable shape, having a meplat 0.6 or more of the bullet diameter, ineffective?

I would think not.

I simply don't understand the fixation upon expansion in a hunting bullet, unless there is some legal requirement in your state game laws which mandates it.

[megasupermagnum]

And I would ask again, why is expansion so important?

Are solid, flatnosed bullets of suitable shape, having a meplat 0.6 or more of the bullet diameter, ineffective?

I would think not.

I simply don't understand the fixation upon expansion in a hunting bullet, unless there is some legal requirement in your state game laws which mandates it.

What bullet has a .600" meplat? If you mean .060" then no. a bullet like that is a lost animal every time without expansion. A 30 caliber bullet of any kind that doesn't expand is dumb luck if you find the animal after a very long track. It's bad news if a 50 caliber spitzer pointed bullet doesn't expand.

A good expanding bullet will put a medium size animal down within 50 yards 90% of the time. A non expanding bullet will not do that unless you are into the larger bore sizes, 44 caliber+.

[Outpost75]

What bullet has a .600" meplat?...

I DID NOT say .600 meplat, what I said was 0.6 of the BULLET DIAMETER, as typical in ogival flatnosed cowboy and Keith SWCs.

I do agree with you in preferring the larger calibers, most simply stated as something which starts with a "4" throwing a half-ounce of lead at 900 fps as a floor level, specifically the .44-40 black powder load fired from a 5-1/2 inch revolver, a well-proven load of long experience. Fired at carbine velocity 1250-1300 is also well proven within 100 yards. Soft bullets will rivet a bit at revolver velocity and will expand at rifle velocity.

253325253326

The .357 Magnum is marginal until you get into WFN bullets with meplat 0.7 of bullet diameter over 180 grains at full-charge velocities.

[wnc435]

I am under the impression that some want the most expansion without leading. I would be then be using the biggest hollow point I could get in desired caliber. Then I would powder coat and lube bullet. Then push it until I found out when the velocity would strip or shed powder coating from bullet. I know this would require some testing and loading and testing and loading. But I am pretty sure that is why most of us are here? Looks to me like a few days of test and tune when the weather cooperates.

[Tripplebeards]

Approx 475fps out of my S&W 329NG. Accoww...and a hollow pointed...not what your looking for...I know, solids. I shot them through 2 wood pallets at 10 yards. I found them laying right next to the pallet. They were loaded with 6.5 grains of trail boss. My soft HPs I posted earlier shoot sub MOA at 100 yards and are clear PC’d and GC’d. You can see a piece of wood wedged in the Middle HP and the one on the right and they all shedded their GCs.

https://i.imgur.com/a2OAsXu.jpg

[bmortell]

What I want is EVIDENCE of a solid CB expanding at 800-1200 FPS made out of an alloy that can deliver at least useful accuracy and not lead up the barrel. For the record I am not going to bother testing pure lead because I know what is going to happen and know I will be the scraping it out with a Lewis Lead Remover. I'm sure not going to put it through my marlin. So I ask again...anyone got the goods?

there's several ways of using softer lead it just sounds like you don't want to try them.

1. powder coating can allow softer lead. but if I recall correctly your not a fan of trying powder coating.

2. you can drop 100gr of pure for the nose and make a soft point. but you said that takes too long.

3. you can paperpatch pure lead. ive shot it well in both my revolver and lever action, it is do-able.

if you cant even expand pure lead in your hunting gun and its not inherently big enough already. your using a gun that's too marginal and need a bigger gun.

it sounds like your main limitation is yourself.

[bmortell]

if you took a 357 solid flat point GC mold and dropped 80gr of unoxidized pure lead in the cavity, melted it by setting the mold in the pot, take it out set it flat to harden then pour the rest with 50-50 from the pot. set mold back in melt for few seconds after sprue solidifies, the sprue re-melts showing you the 2 alloys were liquid togather. shake it in powder coat. cook it in the oven for 30 min then straight into cold water. put a gas check on and size, load.

If you try that I guarantee you can have a 357 boolit that don't lead your barrel, expands cause it has pure nose, and penetrates enough since the base is hard.

but you have to be willing to try something new.

soft points is free it only takes a bit of time, you'd need to slowly pour the nose alloy into a water bucket to get small unoxidized pieces to use. if you have 2 pots you can pour the nose from another pot with a small made dipper.

powder coating takes maybe 20 dollars-ish assuming you have a toaster oven and plastic container. then you just need a pound of powder and some bb's both of which smoke sells here of good quality.

if you have all the time to test things that don't work, you have the time to make something that can.

[curioushooter]

And I would ask again, why is expansion so important?

This isn't the reason why this thread was started. I don't need to be convinced of the advantages of expansion on medium sized game. The advantages are so obvious that I feel I am being obnoxiously pedantic explaining it.

The reason why expansion is valuable (and therefore "important") is that it creates a larger diameter permanent wound channel, which achieves more rapid blood loss, which results in sooner anoxia of the CNS of the animal, which means shorter blood trails, more rapid humane death, lesser probability of somebody jumping your claim, the critter going over the fence to your hostile neighbor's place, finding the deepest lowest coldest creek to go die in, etc, etc.

And it does this with less bullet mass/caliber, therefore less recoil, and therefore a lighter, handier, easier, more pleasant to shoot firearm.

Cast HPs allow the home caster to match the performance of the JHPs using home cast projectiles.

Solid cast projectiles at normal handgun velocity will make the same caliber hole as whatever the bullet is.

An expanded bullet (and it's not unusual, for example, to get over 60 caliber expansion from a 36 caliber bullet) makes the same caliber hole of whatever the expanded diameter is. The difference in peformance is very obvious with gelatin blocks which you and see into. A Lyman 358429 cast an alloy hard enough to prevent leading (like 16:1) pushed out a barrel at ~1200 FPS (which is the real world velocity of a 4" revolver) makes a 36 caliber hole through 28"+ of gel block. All that extra penetration does nothing once it exits the animal. It goes in so cleanly it barely upsets the gel. A MP-Hammer Small HP cast of the same alloy pushed at the same speed with the same charge of powder (so the same recoil approx) will open to .63-.67" and go 16-19" deep and it can make the gel jump off the table making large cracks in first 8" or so of gel. If it passes through at lets say 16", and it probably would on most dainty Hoosier whitetails, this is 3.3x the wound channel volume offered by the solid. 3.3x times the bleed out. 3.3x. For comparison it is 2.3x the wound channel offered by a non-expanding 44 mag solid slug. Yes, a 357 mag can deliver the same level of performance as a 20 gauge slug on medium game. Once the bullet goes through it doesn't do anything anymore.

One of my favorite of all time bullets is the 358429. It's the most accurate cast boolit I've ever shot in my revolvers. It's what I go for when I want to cause MINIMUM damage to an animal, like a rabbit. And while I am sure a well placed shot would kill any deer eventually (like maybe when it's over on the neighbor's or across the highway), I prefer to kill animals as quickly/humanely as possible without undue meat damage.

[Tripplebeards]

That’s why I shoot cast hollow points because I want expansion. I still had failures last year because my alloy choice was way to hard. It was a 15.4 BH alloy ran at 1750 FPS. I had three Complete pass throughs, zero expansion, and two runners that went over a 100 yards with double lung shots.

[onelight]

I don't know if any factory or cast soft nose will give much expansion at 1000 to 1200 FPS in game unless you hit bone , I believe they will have to be driven faster to get much reliable expansion .

[curioushooter]

That’s why I shoot cast hollow points because I want expansion. I still had failures last year because my alloy choice was way to hard. It was a 15.4 BH alloy ran at 1750 FPS. I had three Complete pass throughs, zero expansion, and two runners that went over a 100 yards with double lung shots.

Sounds like you should have tested on gel. While you never know unless you test, I concur with your hypothesis. That is way too hard, and needlessly hard. Also very fast. Many hollowpoints I've tested have sheared off above 1300 FPS. I've been using an alloy of 91-6-3 (pb-sn-sb) in magnums which maybe is ~13 BHN and I am beginning to think it too hard. A good amount of tin seems needed to get the bullet to be ductile and malleable (hold together). I think a balanced alloy like 94-3-3 may be ideal, but I have not tried it yet. It is not good to go more than 3% antimony. While antimony makes the alloy hard it makes it brittle. I like 99% weight retention because I eat the things. And this is the greatest advantage to the cast HP vs the JHP. Cast HPs seems to stick together better!

The size and shape of the cavity matters too. There are many variables, which is why it is worth testing before you experience a disappointing outcome.

What mold did you use?

[Tripplebeards]

Here’s one of my posts with water testing at higher speeds than you were asking about.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?362842-More-testing-with-the-Lyman-devistator-and-my-ruger-77-44

And my first deer I tried the hard alloy on...

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?373867-First-deer(s)-with-cast-boolits!-Used-my-devastators!!!

[onelight]

I don't understand the dynamics involved with what keeps a bullet from coming apart . I loaded quite a few Barnes 300 grain semi spitzers in my 45-70 they were advertised as pure lead and copper at the range one time another shooter was shooting a Garand with surplus ball at a steel plate at 100 yards no damage to the plate he said to shoot it with the 45-70 I fired 3 shots at it the Barnes bullets punched right through it.
I shot a deer with that same bullet ,I was in a tree that looked over a 200 yard clearing and a deer walked under my tree so I shot nearly strait down the bullet did not exit when cleaning the deer the bullet had completely exploded nothing bigger , lead or copper than a grain of rice. :shock:
I obviously used the wrong load , but how did that bullet punch through a steel plate and blow up in a small white tail ?

[444ttd]

bull shop says

"A very basic rule of thumb I use to determine if an alloy hardness can be expected to expand is this, BHN X 100 = impact velocity.
If your impact velocity (not muzzle velocity) stays higher than BHN x 100 then your bullets should show some expansion. The higher the impact velocity over the BHN x 100 the greater degree of expansion can be expected."

its a start

[megasupermagnum]

That can't be right. My clip on wheel weights which run about 13 BHN do not expand at all at 1300 fps. Same with 20:1, at 10 BHN. You won't see expansion at 1000 fps.

It's been my experience that COWW needs rifle's, usually 1600+ fps at impact to expand appreciably, and 20:1 closer to 1400 fps at impact.

With a hollow point, that rule of thumb is probably quite accurate, but not for a solid bullet.

[444ttd]

I don't understand the dynamics involved with what keeps a bullet from coming apart . I loaded quite a few Barnes 300 grain semi spitzers in my 45-70 they were advertised as pure lead and copper at the range one time another shooter was shooting a Garand with surplus ball at a steel plate at 100 yards no damage to the plate he said to shoot it with the 45-70 I fired 3 shots at it the Barnes bullets punched right through it.
I shot a deer with that same bullet ,I was in a tree that looked over a 200 yard clearing and a deer walked under my tree so I shot nearly strait down the bullet did not exit when cleaning the deer the bullet had completely exploded nothing bigger , lead or copper than a grain of rice. :shock:
I obviously used the wrong load , but how did that bullet punch through a steel plate and blow up in a small white tail ?

speed, pure and simple. if you would have moved the steel plate to around 10 yards, it would still splatter. if you moved the steel plate to 200 yards, it would be like an '06 with factory ball.

before i started to get cast, i was disappointed with the 130gr nosler bt in my 270. whenever i shot a deer under 100 yards, it was lung soup with chunks of heart and NO exit wound. over 100 yards then the bullet would expand and go out of the deer. fps or speed was to blame. 2900-3000fps is just too much to take deer with a nosler bt. 2700-2800fps is the ticket. goes in, expands and goes out. thats what i'm looking fer!!!!!!

[curioushooter]

Not being as experienced as you in alloying, would an alloy that has no antimony be an option in the pursuit of eliminating the embrittlement that causes the expanded petals to shear from the bullet shank during the penetration event?

I am not very experienced in alloying. I am just going off what books say, which I have found to be true. Anitmony makes alloys brittle and between 2-3% is about as much as can be added before they begin to break up. Straight aircooled WWs and Lyman #2 both break up.

No antimony IS an option. 16:1 (357) and 32:1 (38 SPL) are both alloys I've played around with and they both work extremely well. Very malleuble ductile alloys. The problem is they are both pretty soft and you will observe some leading potentially. They are also "sticky" alloys, especially with brass molds (my HP molds are brass). Lead-tin is basically solder. Binary solider was used to stick brass and copper plumbing together.

Tin is also very expensive. 16:1 alloy costs more in the tin than the lead. Tin is $10/lb where I live. Dead soft roof lead scrap is was 35 cents/lb when I bought a lifetime supply of this about a decade ago, as much as my little dodge dakota was able to bear.

Binary lead-tin alloys also do not shrink back as much tertiary (pb-sn-sb or quatenary (pb-sn-sb-as) alloys. This makes casting them, especially in HP molds, troublesome.

I recently cast up a bunch of HPs using 94-3-3-.1 (pb-sn-sb-as). This was an absolutely lovely alloy to cast with and bullets dropped just at the stated size off the mold. It costs about 1/3rd less than 16:1 due to the reduced tin content. Though I weighed out this alloy very carefully (using a powder scale to measure the sn, sb, and magnum shot used to obtain the arsenic), it can be approximated easily with typical clip on wheel weights.

Pound of ww metal to a pound of pure lead and add 2 oz of tin. WW should have the antimony and arsenic needed.

I will restate that the trouble of paper patching and casting a soft nose solid greatly exceed the difficult of casting HPs.

I might be convinced to PC by the tumble lube with airsoft BBs method. But I still think it is silly to size and then go through the trouble of lubricating in another process. Also, the oven bake stuff bothers me since it makes it hard to control bullet hardness, which makes figuring out what works with a HP more difficult, which it is definitely related.

32:1 alloy expands more generously and at a lower velocity than 16:1. I ran a test where I isolated just that variable and proved it.

It resulted in me getting out the Lewis Lead remover, too. So I can save you the trouble. 32:1 will lead up a 357 in short order and it over expands and under penetrates, too.

The other discovery is that the old school FBI 38+P load is darn effective. Cast of 32:1 it expanded to .6-.65" and went 9" deep out of a snub nose revolver (S&W 442). I used 5 grains of Unique which is definitely not over pressure with the MP 359 Hammer Large HP. Clocked 800 FPS. Out of my Model 19 it went 50 FPS faster but penetrated an inch less and expanded a bit more. This old school cast bulleet load bested all of the best 38+P defense ammo out there but one. Only the Federal 130 grain HST compared. It expanded slightly less and went to 11". All tests done with the same fabric...4 layers of lightweight denim.

[bmortell]

But I still think it is silly to size and then go through the trouble of lubricating in another process.

what do you mean by this? youd just shake and bake after casting, then size with whatever you size with. the only extra step is the powder after casting, after that you treat it the same as lead except it don't need lube.

[megasupermagnum]

what do you mean by this? youd just shake and bake after casting, then size with whatever you size with. the only extra step is the powder after casting, after that you treat it the same as lead except it don't need lube.

Powder coating is at best an extra step on to of having to size them, plus the time of manning the oven. With a lube sizer you pull the handle and in one step you have a sized and lubed bullet ready to load.

[bmortell]

alright but i still don't know how putting a boolit that don't even need lube through a lee sizer is any more steps than any other lubesize operation

[megasupermagnum]

alright but i still don't know how putting a boolit that don't even need lube through a lee sizer is any more steps than any other lubesize operation

I'm not ripping on powder coat, but how can you not see the extra work?

1. Swirl bullets in a container with powder coat
2. Dump bullets in some kind of baking tray
3. Constantly monitor the oven for 15+ minutes minimum

That's three steps as a bare minimum. Most guys also set bullets on their base before baking which is plenty of work. Then you need to size everything as another step.


Compare this to a bullet lubed in a lubrisizer like a Lyman or Star

1. Pull handle

[bmortell]

I wasn't talking about the coating he said "I still think it is silly to size and then go through the trouble of lubricating in another process" im trying to imagine what process he thought hed have to do where he sizes then lubes a powder coated bullet after sizing. unless its poorly worded and hes calling the powder coat a lubing process and also made it sound like it comes after sizing, so I couldn't figure what he was thinking so I asked, in that case its nice series of misunderstandings and we wasted our time for a few hours of posts.

[curioushooter]

what do you mean by this? youd just shake and bake after casting, then size with whatever you size with. the only extra step is the powder after casting, after that you treat it the same as lead except it don't need lube.

This seems hard for many people to realize, so I will approach explaining it another way, by demonstrating the process I use and comparing it to the hypothetical process needed to PC.

I heat up my Lee 4-20 with the alloy I want, throw planer shavings into the pot and stir it around, and take my mold off my wife's electric stove where it pre-heats. I then begin pouring and usually drop the first few throws into the pot. The rest I drop into a cardboard box lined with old cotton towels. I cast as fast as I can and sort out the duds from the keepers later (this is why I like molds that throw 100% keepers from all cavities).

I sort the duds from the keepers by picking them up from the box and putting the keepers into my RCBS Lube-a-Matic II loaded with Carnuba Blue. Ones that need a gas check will have it pressed on before putting it into the LAMII. Handle down and up and bullet goes into a labeled plastic bag for loading.

I have handled the bullet twice, once into the LAMII and once out, and it was easily inspected on both ends as I moved it. Checking, lubing, and sizing (I size all bullets I cast) accomplished in a single straight forward process, albeit one that requires handling bullets individually (which is necessary no matter the process if you desire to inspect each bullet, which I do and consider essential).

I'd imagine powder coating would go something like this. I would cast the same way and sort the keepers from the duds individually putting them through a lee push through sizer (which would probably require lubrication of some sort) to both size and to check if needed. The lubricant would need to be cleaned off the bullets, this could be done in mass but would be an extra step. Then I would do the shake in another container for that purpose. Then I would have to pick each one up to make sure it got coated and to place it its nose (a problem for round nose designs) on a sheet to bake. Then I would bake, waiting however long it takes. Then I would have to pick each one up to make sure it baked right and put it in a labeled bag. So I've multiplied the handling, the inspections, and the steps greatly.

Time-motion wise PCing is a disaster compared to the traditional lube-sizers (the Lyman, RCBS, and SAECO all seem fine to me). This is because the lube-sizer accomplishes many tasks in a single process. It sizes, checks, and lubricates all at once instead of breaking these into individual processes. It is true that with PCing many steps are done in mass, however, sizing/inspection is still and individual bullet operation. Push through-sizers I've found to be only nominally faster than lube-sizers and they do not lubricate. Also, I've never found anything that compares to high pressure injection of lubricant into the grooves. I've tried pan lubing and tumble lubing. I think LLA is a deficient lubricant for everything besides lower powered, low velocity handguns. Pan lubing can be done with good lubes (like Carnuba Blue) but it still doesn't accomplish gas checking or sizing. Getting a Lube-a-Matic II was something I should have done from the get go instead of goofing around with other methods. It produces the most accurate bullets I've used and with quality lubricants leaves little or no leading under casual operating conditions in cartridges that operate withing the pressure/velocity limitations of lead-alloy bullets.

[Gamsek]

Wrong, wrong, wrong! I have been reading this thread with great interest but sometimes it hurt my eyes when you talk about PC.

Please be informed that you cast, put them in a plastic container, shake for 60 seconds, put them in a oven and bake for 15-20minutes. Size. Load.

No need for lube since PC acts as polyester jacket.
All basics are here. Read.

https://www.mp-molds.com/tipstricks/powder-coating-lead-bullets-dry-tumble-dt-method/

It takes more processes yes, but I can change my push through sizer die for all my calibers in 10 seconds, while changing sizing dies in lubrisizer, (and lube - or do you use same lube for pistol and rifle bullets?) takes... ?
....and we all cast, size and load for many many calibers, so unless you have 10 Star sizers.....

I am not bashing lubrisizers (have one) but PC has more advantages than you think. Like using very soft lead which would solve some of your problems....been successfully shooting lead bullets in my Glock, even one test with pure lead bullets was very successful.

You can attach GC with push through sizer.

Tin
Have many brass moulds too, my most used alloy for 357,44, 300 BLK is pure with 2-3%, 5% tin- tining is not a problem and if you have some proof that someone’s mould got tined, I would like to see it and I know it’s only some lead specks - easily removable.

Keep up with testing but don’t bash on PC if you don’t understand it completely.

[bmortell]

ya theres no reason to pre size or lube or nose stand them. I cast and inspect a pile of boolits as normal. put a handful in the shake container with a little scoop of powder. shake 60 seconds. base stand them on a tray if your picky shake 3 more seconds for some left that have a bare spot, some just dump them all on mesh type thing. go play with the cat while they bake. then I bring them down to the house to where my press and everything else is. then tap a check on if applicable and push through a dry lee sizer.

so ya its has some steps but coloring bullets is the only part that's fun it don't feel like work. I wouldn't replace something that's the funnest part and nearly free and has some performance advantages with a 200 dollar system.

for lubing id spend money to get rid of the step If I was pan lubing or something and all boolits had to have lube but that's just not the case anymore

[curioushooter]

Neither Gamsek nor bmortell have convinced me PCing is somehow faster than lube-sizing. It's JUST NOT FASTER, because it adds steps. I read MP-mold's tutorial a few times. It seems like the least hassle of compared to other PC methods, but it is still more of a hassle than a lubesizer. How people can keep up the argument makes MY EYES hurt. It's obvious that adding more steps is going to add time and trouble. Every additional step added to making bullets makes it harder to isolate variables and find out what's going on.

I know how a push through sizer works. I used them for years until I started using H&I dies. I know they can be used to check. They still need a little lube to work. They are meant to be used with Lee Liquid Alox. When you put through a bullet dry they don't work as well. I found that when using them without LLA the best thing to do was to spray the bullets with a little case lube. I would get consistent, round, pretty bullets this way. I never was satisfied with the outcome putting them through dry in any caliber I ever worked with.

Neither have I been convinced that there is any advantage to PCing besides colorful bullets. I already get low or no leading and good accuracy they way I am doing it. Granted, I don't shoot high-powered bottleneck rifle cartridges anymore and I haven't in years.

It takes me about 1 minute to change out my sizer die in my LAMII. Finding the two wrenches to do the job takes longer. And it doesn't occupy my reloading press.

The oven baking is yet another variable that will alter hardness. When it comes to working with HPs that is not something you want.

If I become convinced that PCing can deliver some performance advantage, which I think may exist in rifle cartridges, I will try it.

[Tripplebeards]

I get sub moa groups and zero leading in my rifles. I'll still with tumbling PC. I use Smoke's clear PC so it looks like bare lead.

[Gamsek]

Neither Gamsek nor bmortell have convinced me PCing is somehow faster than lube-sizing. It's JUST NOT FASTER, because it adds steps. I read MP-mold's tutorial a few times. It seems like the least hassle of compared to other PC methods, but it is still more of a hassle than a lubesizer. How people can keep up the argument makes MY EYES hurt. It's obvious that adding more steps is going to add time and trouble. Every additional step added to making bullets makes it harder to isolate variables and find out what's going on.

I know how a push through sizer works. I used them for years until I started using H&I dies. I know they can be used to check. They still need a little lube to work. They are meant to be used with Lee Liquid Alox. When you put through a bullet dry they don't work as well. I found that when using them without LLA the best thing to do was to spray the bullets with a little case lube. I would get consistent, round, pretty bullets this way. I never was satisfied with the outcome putting them through dry in any caliber I ever worked with.

Neither have I been convinced that there is any advantage to PCing besides colorful bullets. I already get low or no leading and good accuracy they way I am doing it. Granted, I don't shoot high-powered bottleneck rifle cartridges anymore and I haven't in years.

It takes me about 1 minute to change out my sizer die in my LAMII. Finding the two wrenches to do the job takes longer. And it doesn't occupy my reloading press.

The oven baking is yet another variable that will alter hardness. When it comes to working with HPs that is not something you want.

If I become convinced that PCing can deliver some performance advantage, which I think may exist in rifle cartridges, I will try it.

Just sometimes faster. More steps, maybe more time (I have a RCBS lubrisizer and it takes more time for me to change dies and to “dial the settings”) but for some of us, who use them daily, PC bullets have advantages and they are worth extra time. Not a lot of extra time. I save that time when I cast with 8cav.

Forget colours, it’s just pigment and actually clear PC is one the best.

Variables? Baking them doesn’t change them ...if after baking you do exactly what you do when casting. Nothing - let them air cool or water quench.

Push through sizers work just fine with dry powdercoated bullets, I don’t blame you are not familiar with that information - you haven’t try it.
PC is very very smooth. But sometimes a little alcohol or sizing them wet after water quench helps when sizing from .360” to .357”.

I really love your actual testing with ballistic gel, trying to find practical answers and not speculating. Just don’t be so harsh when someone is not sharing same views, we are not always right, neither you. That’s why this forum is great place to exchange our experience, share a view, state what we know, stay polite.

Balistic gel is valuable, but for sure not only worthy testing medium if you know how to compare and we are here hobbyists not working for ammo company or state agency.

In last 2y I used a metric ton of soft paper for my testing, paper was made in same company over the years (I got it for free!) and compared my results with media as water, clay, clear ballistic gel, I compare those results with results from labs with ammo they used and was available to me.

Solid CB. Expansion. Have very similar experience as you. Totally agree. Still finding where is actually limit with my flat points to expand. All my recovered solids just slightly expand or mostly not. More interested in HP’s because our game is small, roe deer, chamois, fox...

Hope those colours will not hurt some eyes, they show how oven isn’t one of variables.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200104/638e18bf5df53561f8091a0ae2b676c3.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200104/a9b0e4cdd217c8df0fd031c2d2e2f4ae.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200104/1290df4e6f43f5e6607618eb08095b5d.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200104/984fa2096f9ecbac570d91c7ff68237c.jpg

[bmortell]

I didn't say powder coating is the fastest way, I just was asking why you think it takes so long, which im glad I did since you believe a list of problems or steps that people don't actually have.

as I said before the best your gonna get for a homemade expanding solid is to be a 2 alloy soft point that is powder coated and gas checked, that maximizes your advantages by having a soft nose, hard base, coated lead, and a gas check. it gives the most advantages because its more complex to make and takes longer. much much longer mainly for the soft point part. but since im gonna hunt for a week straight trying to get 1 deer with the bullet in my chamber I feel like I can spend more than 5 seconds making that bullet.

for target bullets sure make whatever is fastest that works good enough. but if you really don't have enough time to try anything besides the fastest way to make a hunting bullet maybe you should get a box of xtp's