Cheap Terminal Ballistics Testing

[405grain]

On a different thread an interesting topic came up, so I'd like to discuss it here. Long ago, in a bygone time, we few with the grey hair and the wisdom of olden days had some pretty full-proof methods of testing the performance of our cast bullet loads on the cheap. Back in the day it was common knowledge that a water soaked stack of newspapers would exactly duplicate the wound cavities of deer, elk, bear, and all other game animals on Earth (even though it didn't). We knew this because every shooting & hunting magazine on the shelf said so. A big selling point was that because this target was a stack of layers, you could remove a layer at a time to expose the bullets path and the resulting "wound channel". The recovered slug would tell you if your bullet alloy was too soft or too hard. You could even see if that fancy hollowpoint bullet mushroomed like it's supposed to, or came apart like a cheap happy meal toy the moment it hit pay dirt. Those were good days.

There were basically two ways to procure the vitals for this type of experiment: Either saunter downtown to the building where the telephone company was, and ask for a pile of the old phone books that they would invariably keep in dusty boxes stacked into a basement store room like gold bricks at Fort Knox. Generally they were happy for you to haul off their trash, so it could make room for them to store even more old and useless phone books forever and ever.

The second way was to be a devious little turd, and go down to the bus depot/train station downtown where all the newspaper stands were. You took a gander at those newspaper vending machines and noted which one was the fullest. It didn't really matter what the published information was; it could be real estate flyers, auto parts sales, or just an actual newspapper: we didn't care. Sunday editions were best because they were generally twice as thick. You look around and make sure that there are no Karens present, then put a pair of quarters in the machine, open the lid, and abscond with all of the papers! You need ninja like stealth to pull this off - don't be a duffuss and just dump those papers into the bed of your pickup, or they won't still be there when you get home! The guilt that you might have been feeling for pulling off this Oceans 11 type of heist is soon displaced by the reckoning that these otherwise temporary tales of printed international intrigue, local dilemmas, and that weekend sale at the Montgomery Wards, are being shuttled off for a higher purpose.

Now that we'd acquired the goods it was time to soak them in a bucket, barrel, or tub of water. My personal preference was a wheelbarrow, because it could be easily dumped out once the saturation was complete. You didn't want the papers to soak so long that they turned to mush, but long enough for them to get wet through and through. Once accomplished, the papers were stacked and bound together to form a bail about 16" to 20" thick (give or take). You could use tape, bailing wire, even rope or cord to bind the pile. You were now ready to proceed with testing at your own personal ballistics laboratory.

At whatever range was appropriate for the load you were testing, you could let loose and plug that pile to see what results would ensue. By use of the expert marksmanship that we all possess, you could generally get 3 or 4 shots into the bale. That first and 3rd shot that went into the dirt didn't count because of (wind, sights were off, I was distracted, I meant to do that, "flyer") <pick one. Afterwards we could disassemble the bale and see how our handloads stacked up. If that fancy looking hollowpoint broke up in the first three inches or that swc didn't hardly expand, it meant that the alloy was too hard. If a slug mushroomed out like a fifty cent piece, but failed to penetrate to far and lost more than half it's weight, that meant that the alloy was too soft. Also, you could examine the "wound channel". It was easy to see if a bullet had penciled all the way through, expanded and worked well, or exploded like an atom bomb.

Well it looks like those days are over. Newspapers have gone the way of the Dodo bird and the lead clip on wheel weight. Everybody gets their news from their phone and computer nowadays. Though it would be devilishly satisfying to shoot a stack of cell phones, it just wouldn't give you the ballistic information that we'd be looking for. There are alternatives to these old methods; like ballistic gel, or even a lump of clay, but those cost money. I'm looking for people's input on what they've found to use at the El Cheapo discount. Let's hear it: a stack of carpet samples, Pumpkins stuffed with mud, boxes full of 40 year old government reports, that annoying tree that only grows one crab-apple a year - what do you use for low budget testing of your cast bullets?

[Texas by God]

Gun magazines. Someday I'll run out.
I did some of this about a month ago!

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[fastdadio]

Don't forget the old stand by milk jug full of water.

[Winger Ed.]

Getting paper is still pretty easy, but not in the form we did in the old days.
Put the word out you want the paper from under the office or home shredder, and it should come to you.
Getting it wet and putting it all in a 5 gallon bucket should be doable.
Maybe even put in a piece of thin plywood in there to simulate bone, and carpet on top to simulate hide.

[charlie b]

We did a lot of experimenting in the 'old days'. Gel was just too expensive. We even tried a small batch and mixed shredded paper in it to 'bulk it up'. Still cost too much for the amount of use we wanted. Back then newspaper worked, but, it was a bit cumbersome to deal with for a lot of shooting (took forever for the water to soak through a stack).

So, we 'compromised'. I had access to a secure shredder (1mmx4mm). We tried all kinds of different paper in it. Best was rag paper, but, it was also expensive. Telephone books were next, then newspaper. Shred, mix with water (paint mixer or cement mixer, depending on amount), pour into 'mold' and let drain. The block was then put in a plastic bag. Day of shooting a certain amount of water would be added. Worked really well and we didn't need to haul around boxes to hold it.

We would use wet 1" dowels to simulate bone. Layers of denim or wool blanket. One year we used an elk hide (wet).

'Final' testing was done with a 5lb beef roast. The good part is it confirmed our test media was pretty close to muscle.

[fixit]

I used to do terminal ballistics experimentation using whatever mudbank I could find. Of course, this only works if there are no rocks in the way. The pure lead bullets of my .54 and .58 gave spectacular wound channels in those tests.

[MT Gianni]

Bob Hagel had a great bullet box mixed with wet sand every 12" and wet newspaper alternating ever 12 ". A piece of cardboard between thin paneling would be easily removable and show the depth and expansion. It does require a permanent shooting area. Paco Kelly used gallon milk jugs or oil containers. He also talked of buying cheap cans of tomatoes and taping 6 together in line to set on a table.

My local weekly paper is put out by an awesome person who runs a continuous ad giving away old newspapers and end rolls.

[poppy42]

Recently did the wet newspaper test. Boy was it a pain, literally! That stack of wet newspaper was heavy, 3 different stacks no less, and my back was not happy! I was putting to the test Hornaday’s claim that they’re 158 grain XTP 38 special bullets would expand and velocities of 700 ft./s and above. As I have an old Smith & Wesson model 10 I don’t shoot any +P ammo out of it! I don’t have a chronograph so the best I could do was load them to the max for standard velocity ammunition. For the three loads I picked that put me between 713 and 760 ft./s. What I found out was Hornaday lies! The 18 bullets I fired of the ones I recovered were in pristine condition! If it wasn’t for the rifling marks I gotta load them up and shot them again!
As for my newspaper collection process you guys would’ve been proud of me! If I went to the local grocery store in search of their week old circulars! Unfortunately I couldn’t get enough of the old ones so when no one was looking I snagged handfuls of this week circulars!

[dverna]

For handgun bullets used for serious work, it is cheaper to go to the Lucky Gunner site and look at the testing on dozens of bullets. BTW popper, it shows the 158 gr XTP loaded in .38 Spl does not expand.

https://www.luckygunner.com/hornady-38-spl-ammo-for-sale-38special158xtphornady-25#geltest

I use the data on that site to select self defense handgun bullets/ammo. So much easier. But I only use common calibers for self defense, so there is quite a bit of data out there. I can understand folks who want to use cast bullets for serious work needing a way to test expansion. Seems easier to buy commercial bullets and practice with cast, but I am lazy.

I do not use cast bullets for varmints or hunting. Not worth the work, and expense for the amount of hunting I do. Cheaper to use jacketed bullets. Plus, they offer advantages in range and accuracy. I paid $125 IIRC for 500 GameKing bullets about 12 years ago and will likely never use them up. Still working through the 6000 Hornady 55 gr SP I bought a few years ago...$420.

IMO there is no easy way to test expansion. It is a lot of work and not sure how relevant the results are on flesh. Ballistic gel seems to be the current "gold standard". Not sure if that is due to it being a closer match to real world performance or easier for ballistics labs to work with than tons of wet paper or mountains of milk jugs.

[mdi]

I used wet newsprint for testing my 38Special loads (early '70s). I just saved the newspapers we got and at that time the Sunday papers were quite thick. Cast bullets only as I don't remember any "high tech." SD bullets available. Last time I used this method I was testing 38 HBWC loaded backwards over an upper medium load of Bullseye. FWIW, my tests with that load failed...

[BLAHUT]

I was cheap, I used scrap 2 x 6s cut about 12" long and stood on end with about 2" space in between, to see what my bullets would do and penetrate??

[megasupermagnum]

For handgun bullets used for serious work, it is cheaper to go to the Lucky Gunner site and look at the testing on dozens of bullets. BTW popper, it shows the 158 gr XTP loaded in .38 Spl does not expand.

https://www.luckygunner.com/hornady-38-spl-ammo-for-sale-38special158xtphornady-25#geltest

I use the data on that site to select self defense handgun bullets/ammo. So much easier. But I only use common calibers for self defense, so there is quite a bit of data out there. I can understand folks who want to use cast bullets for serious work needing a way to test expansion. Seems easier to buy commercial bullets and practice with cast, but I am lazy.

I do not use cast bullets for varmints or hunting. Not worth the work, and expense for the amount of hunting I do. Cheaper to use jacketed bullets. Plus, they offer advantages in range and accuracy. I paid $125 IIRC for 500 GameKing bullets about 12 years ago and will likely never use them up. Still working through the 6000 Hornady 55 gr SP I bought a few years ago...$420.

IMO there is no easy way to test expansion. It is a lot of work and not sure how relevant the results are on flesh. Ballistic gel seems to be the current "gold standard". Not sure if that is due to it being a closer match to real world performance or easier for ballistics labs to work with than tons of wet paper or mountains of milk jugs.

I love Lucky Gunner. The are the go-to for any hollow point expansion. I too am unsure on the relevance of gel, but I have to think it is at least the most consistent test bed we currently have that doesn't cost a crazy amount of money. Based on what I've seen, expansion is pretty close in gel to what I see for real. I'm not as impressed by the penetration. There are way too many variables, but I've shot plenty of deer with rounds that only penetrate 14" or so in gel that blew clean through deer diagonally 20"+

There's no replacement for putting down the books and doing it for real.

[scottnc]

duplicate- sorry 'bout that!

[scottnc]

Around here the counties provide rural folks with "convenience centers" for trash and recyclables placing them on various back roads and secondary highways. Most are manned by graybeards like myself. I hit a backwoods recycling dumpster this morning on the way to Wally World and scored a goodly stack of magazines. News stands used to yank the front cover of out-of-date magazines before throwing them out. Last news stand I knew of closed quite a while back but grocery stores with magazine racks may still do the same thing with out of date issues.

[fredj338]

Coated magazine paper sucks but newsprint is still out there. I have maybe 30 phone books left. I should just go to gel for testing but its time consuming & messy but reusable.

[41mag]

For quite a while at work we got tablets for our water treatment similar to the chlorine tablets used for pools. We had pallets of them and usually just squashed them for recycling. I found that they made awesome catch buckets filled with the baby powder like sand we have at our place in the country. Just fill them up, drop them from about 6" a couple times to pack it, pour in a bottle of water evenly over the top and put the lid on. We usually let them sit a day or even week with the lids on tight to allow the water to sorta percolate and evenly moisturize the sand.

Once your to this point, just lay them on their side and tape a target to the top, the plastic lid gives something similar to a scapula to hit first, and then the bullets expand into the slightly damp sand. This has worked on just about everything we have tried it with. You do however have to adjust velocity or range depending on what your actually trying to catch.

In most cases with handgun calibers your good at 50yds, some even at 25, but all rifle needed to be at 100 in order to keep from fully penetrating with a hunting type bullet. Works equally well with both cast or jacketed. I have compared recovered bullets to the dozen or so i have recovered from deer or hogs through the years and found it is very similar, plenty close enough for my uses. Once your done shooting just scrape the sand out of the bucket a little at a time and if it was packed prior, you will see the wound channel and can measure depth of penetration. The best part is that you also end up with your bullets back and if you wash them off when done you can recycle the remains for more testing as needed....

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=81564&d=1378939949
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=81563&d=1378939907
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=167585&d=1462485263

[Bigslug]

One consistent theme I've noticed in "official" gel tests is that expansion, if it occurs, happens within a very short depth past the initial impact. On game, that PROBABLY means the strike with the chest cavity wall is enough to get the bullet disrupted and open. Makes sense - the impact speeds are high, the tissue's pushing back, and the bullet core is soft.

So I tend to think that if a bullet's constructed to expand, we probably don't need any special magic mojo to make it do so. My bigger question is how it holds together after it does. Water has a lot of density, and the double layer of plastic between two adjoining milk jugs is a fair simulant of thicker, gristle-like tissue, a deer's rib, or hide. If a jacket is going to separate, or the nose of your cast hollowpoint snap off in the real world, it'll probably happen in water jugs.

I think inches of penetration in various media is a useful figure for knowing if a bullet's tendency is to parachute and stop vs. keep on truckin', but it's worth remembering that the advantage of gel, newsprint, or water jugs is that they are consistent and repeatable mediums for study rather than a 100% analog to a live target.

It isn't GREAT science, but the propellerheads at the FBI have determined that 12"-18" inches in gel is what's desirable for a duty pistol load for use on 2-legged "test subjects". Call it 15" inches for an average. I've observed that most of the duty loads that do exactly that will stop in 3-4 milk jugs. By that, we can sort of suss out that 1 milk jug and the two layers of adjoining plastic between two of them is roughly equal to 4"-5" inches of gelatin. Call it 4.5"

One minor fly in the ointment is that you can't always tell if the bullet was finally stopped by water or the more rigid boundary layer of plastic. A good example of this was when I tested 175 grain 10mm Silvertips. LOTS of energy converted into a perfectly flat .75 caliber mushroom that proved a poor penetrator of that plastic. I can't recall if it stopped in 2 or 3, but if you consider that I've had non-expanding 9mm and .45 take 9 jugs to bring to a halt you get an idea of the braking power frontal area can have.

Another fly is that since you there's no firm tissue simulant to hold the bullet at its last point of forward progress , you have to call a bullet in your 3rd jug as capable of penetrating somewhere between 9 and 13.5 inches of gel. If you're into the 4th, you can call it between 13.5" and 18" and so on. If you get a dented jug wall or a leaker, you can obviously zero in a little tighter.

I've never killed wet newsprint, but the same method should apply - shoot it with a duty round for which you have known calibrated FBI gelatin data for, then do the comparative math.

I figure using jugs requires me to drink lots of calcium and vitamin C-rich milk and O.J., so selecting them for ballistic testing must be good for me. :mrgreen:

[charlie b]

The only issue we had with hollowpoints was when clothing would clog up the cavity. Then you get a solid bullet kind of penetration. Now days most mfgs have solved that for duty ammo, thanks to the FBI's standards.

But, casting your own you need to test that if this is for something other than hunting. We used two layers of denim and a layer of wool blanket. Just for grins we also tried a piece of fleece lined leather coat.

Some designs did better than others and higher velocity was always better. We were using straight wheel weights.