Proving hunting BULLETS — must replace testing material

[Naphtali]

We hunt only with cast bullets. Until Red Chinese "Batwing Soup" virus, I would stop at Missoula Public Library's freebie magazine dump for New Yorker Magazine. Testing occurs for accuracy and for penetration because I rely on Hogdon's manual and powder. The first needs only paper. Penetration must be equally reliable.

For 20+ years I have used 12-inch thick batch of dry New Yorkers duct taped horizontally and vertically on center as test medium. During its acceptance tests, no 458 Winchester or 338 Winchester or 30-06 jacketed bullet penetrated 12 inches. No cast bullet of any shape or hardness penetrated 12 inches. My test medium also verifies bullets' stability during penetration — that is, I want penetration to be straight. No veering off from point of aim. Veering occurred with more than one bullet configuration. With cast bullets hardness mattered. We shoot semi-wadcuttters and LBT-style truncated points. Surprisingly jacketed bullets, during proofing of test medium 20+ years ago, had more unintentional veering than cast bullets. I anticipate veering is no longer an issue with jacked bullets. Having proved test medium, bullets in test medium, and ultimately bullets on game, I was set. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. My testing was verified valid for what I want and expect from my game bullets.

Okay, to my problem. Because of arbitrary regulations intended to "deal" with Batwing Soup virus, there is no freebie pile of magazines. I would not subscribe to such an offensive magazine despite its being a weekly. (I don't know if publication rate has changed, and don't care.) I need a new test medium. Ballistic gel is too expensive and appears to be inappropriate for testing game bullets. Wet newsprint appears to cause all bullets to penetrate straight regardless of my intentionally deforming test bullets. John Linebaugh held penetration test events several years ago. These would probably do the job, but cost may be a factor.

I'm open to methods to use, say half-a-dozen time each year, to verify that handloaded ammunition continues to do what it is supposed to do.

I'm also open to negatives up to: Get a life!

[curdog007]

Just pick any of today's newspapers - this is the only thing they're suitable for. The paper quality is so bad, they are unfit for the usual "purpose" (in the outhouse).

Having said that, I had a conversation with the original owner of Northfork Bullets at a show several years ago, and was admiring his display of penetration tested bullets at different impact velocities. He told me they had been shot into wet packer feed (I think it's a filler like wheat mids or something like that) which they put in a box they had constructed. He just bought it at the local feed store.

[cwtebay]

Wet sand in a cardboard box, wet jeans, etc all work well. I have a buddy that uses the "road kill" tags to get FRESH deer or elk to use for handgun bullet testing.

Also, pretty easy to substitute cast off protest posters from U of M students, and hundreds of copies of the Kaimin are likely available as well!


Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[35remington]

Recall that Linebaugh used wet newspapers, and ponder why he did that.

[curioushooter]

I am a fan of making properly calibrated ballistic gelatin, though it is spendy.

This is how you do it. Get a Daisy 550 bb gun and steel bbs. Shoot steel bbs into meat at around 600FPS. You will find it will penetrate a certain distance, about 3-3.5 inches. Then you mix up gelanin-water until that bb at the same velocity penetrates the same distance into the gel. This is how you calibrate. 9:1 is about what will deliver this, but it is essential to calibrate it. And when you melt down and re-cast your gel it will get softer.

Once you have calibrated gel you are doing real ballistic lab testing. I consider this essential when using hollowpoints, which can behave erratically, but when they work well, are excellent.

Shooting solids is boring and predictable. I can tell you it is basically a waste of time. Even a 38 special cast solid at ~900 FPS can penetrate well more than a foot in property calibrated gel. Usually solids at substantial velocities pass through my 28" block until you get to rifle velocities which deform bullets and make them "parachute" like a hollowpoint does.

Comparing things like 44 special to 45 colt to 45 ACP with solids is splitting hairs. Same with comparing things like 9mm to 38 special. Only with HPs does this become interesting when small velocity, hardness, shape differences can have big effects.

This all said I like to handgun hunt with big bore solids. They are comforting and predictable and work well enough, even if they are not stunning stops. I've always had them pass through and leave plenty of blood to follow. They also do this at comfortably low velocities, so you don't have performance differences over range.

[MUSTANG]

We hunt only with cast bullets. Until Red Chinese "Batwing Soup" virus, I would stop at Missoula Public Library's freebie magazine dump for New Yorker Magazine. Testing occurs for accuracy and for penetration .......

I'm also open to negatives up to: Get a life!

Get "Life" Magazines instead. They seem to have no other use after I perused 3 of them in the Dentist waiting room a few months ago.

[Elmer Fudd]

Ever try using gallon milk jugs full of water? It isn't an approximation of flesh, which has many variables, but it is the same, relatively, day to day. Until they get slushy on the drive to the range. Or freeze. But that's a rabbit hole.
My kids drink a lot of milk, so we can do a test twice a month if we want. Unless testing non-expanding, heavy 45/70 loads. Those go through more than 14 jugs. But HP 45 colt at 1000 stops in #2 or 3. Solid 190 gr FN 10mm goes about 8. Jacket and gilding metal expanders from a rifle go between 4 and 6, mostly. Varmint bullets go 2. You get the idea.
Cheap and easy. Simple cleanup. Just my thing.

[curioushooter]

Ever try using gallon milk jugs full of water?

Water is the only other valid ballistic testing medium, as it is very consistent. They are formulae you can use to convert water measurements to gel, though I've never done this.

Water testing is IMO more trouble than gel. It splashes, and can get your chrony wet.

Once you shoot a milk jug or whatever (I used 20L saline bladders I got for free) it has a hole in it and cannot be used again. Unless a hose is nearby this is toting a lot of water.

Also, water doesn't arrest a bullet, so the measurements you collect from it are very approximate. It's just inferior for a number of reasons to using gel, which is the best approximation of flesh that is available and is just as consistent as water if you properly calibrate it.

I know there is a new synthetic gel that one can purchase. It is very expensive. Much more than gelantin costs. So I don't use it.

[405grain]

I don't have much to offer as far as a testing medium except to say that you might try a block of clay. What I'm actually responding to is the pointed bullets "veering". That's exactly the way that physics says they should behave. When you have a cylindrical object moving along it's central axis, and one end has more mass than the other, when you try to decelerate it the heavier end will try to rotate to the front, and the lighter end will try to take the trailing position. A spire point bullet has it's greatest mass at the back, and the pointed end has less mass.

The pointed bullet will "balance" on it's point as it decelerates and will penetrate straight only if it is not upset. The slightest change in resistance or other inconsistency will send the bullet "veering" off course as it begins it's attempt to swap ends. This effect is usually mitigated by the expansion of modern hunting bullets: the "mushroom" pushes the mass back toward the base of the bullet, which makes it more stable. You will see the tendency to veer off course more with pointed bullets that don't expand, like full metal jackets.

From 1888 to 1905 almost all smokeless bottle necked military cartridges used long for caliber, heavy, round nosed bullets. This was because they offered the best penetration. They're blunt nose coupled with their high sectional density insured that they would travel straight and penetrate deeply into their targets. The thinking was that these types of bullets would go clean through an enemy soldier wearing a backpack, bed roll, great coat, and uniform (and probably through the guy standing behind him too). There was much less chance of cover deflecting this type of bullet as well: There are many recorded instances of these types of bullets passing completely through a tree to kill the man hiding on the other side.

There were military developments that were displaced by the spitzer type bullet that was developed for the 8x57 Mauser. The lighter pointed bullets that we use today, though very efficient, are designed around lots of different performance parameters and don't focus solely on penetration. When experimenting with terminal ballistics remember, unless the bullet mushrooms properly and retains mass somewhat equally around that mushroom, veering off course is what it WANTS to do.

[cwtebay]

I don't have much to offer as far as a testing medium except to say that you might try a block of clay. What I'm actually responding to is the pointed bullets "veering". That's exactly the way that physics says they should behave. When you have a cylindrical object moving along it's central axis, and one end has more mass than the other, when you try to decelerate it the heavier end will try to rotate to the front, and the lighter end will try to take the trailing position. A spire point bullet has it's greatest mass at the back, and the pointed end has less mass.

The pointed bullet will "balance" on it's point as it decelerates and will penetrate straight only if it is not upset. The slightest change in resistance or other inconsistency will send the bullet "veering" off course as it begins it's attempt to swap ends. This effect is usually mitigated by the expansion of modern hunting bullets: the "mushroom" pushes the mass back toward the base of the bullet, which makes it more stable. You will see the tendency to veer off course more with pointed bullets that don't expand, like full metal jackets.

From 1888 to 1905 almost all smokeless bottle necked military cartridges used long for caliber, heavy, round nosed bullets. This was because they offered the best penetration. They're blunt nose coupled with their high sectional density insured that they would travel straight and penetrate deeply into their targets. The thinking was that these types of bullets would go clean through an enemy soldier wearing a backpack, bed roll, great coat, and uniform (and probably through the guy standing behind him too). There was much less chance of cover deflecting this type of bullet as well: There are many recorded instances of these types of bullets passing completely through a tree to kill the man hiding on the other side.

There were military developments that were displaced by the spitzer type bullet that was developed for the 8x57 Mauser. The lighter pointed bullets that we use today, though very efficient, are designed around lots of different performance parameters and don't focus solely on penetration. When experimenting with terminal ballistics remember, unless the bullet mushrooms properly and retains mass somewhat equally around that mushroom, veering off course is what it WANTS to do.

Well said and very valid point!
There's a reason you don't see dangerous game bullets in a spitzer profile.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Michael J. Spangler]

Clear ballistic gel. Cheap considering it can be reused indefinitely. Though it gets cloudy after a while.
If you don’t like the 10% gel for the big heavy hitters get the 20% gel equivalent. Results will be different from 10% gel but will still offer great ballistic test comparisons.

I don’t think you will find a better more repeatable medium and the price is really really good considering how many time you can use it. Check out their outlet section for some discount blocks.