How would I test bullet expansion from my .327 Henry?

[mobilemail]

I have two handloads developed that I would like to use with my Henry rifle, and I'm curious if there is a way to test bullet expansion without doing the whole ballistic gelatin thing. One uses a Hornady 100-gr. XTP bullet, the other uses a 115-gr. RNFP cast/coated bullet.

[Misery-Whip]

Jugs of water? Wet phone books or newspaper? Sand? Paul Hurrell on youtube uses mellons, and or slabs of pork, and a wad of fleece blankets behind the medium. The fleece does a good job of stoping the round.

I use water myself in empty cat litter jugs. The plastic is thin but hold maybe 3 gallons each. It took 3 of them to stop a 158gr 357 round from a Henry.

[indian joe]

simple first test - fire a couple into a soft dirt bank at 100yards - if they mushroom properly you can go further and refine the process if they dont do it there theys too hard for sure. (bet the cast coated boolit fails!)

[kend]

We used to stand on the diving board and shoot into the pool, retrieving the bullets in winter sucked but it worked

[BLAHUT]

I just stand 2x6s on end with a space between.

[Milky Duck]

plastic bottles are too easy..old oil containers,milk cartons..tetra pack ones work too. fill them with water and see how you go,ive even used a large garbage bag filled with water,that stopped a soft point 7.62x39mm . basically whatever you use,you need it to be repeated with another type of projectile to see the difference.

[35 Whelen]

A very inexpensive, easy to use and re-use method consists of a couple of Dollar Store laundry baskets lined with trash bags, plastic sheeting or $2.99 poly tarps then filled with water.(Water/milk jugs are optional)



If you fold the liner over the bullet holes the water leaks out more slowly and one can easily get several shots in. For heavy, deep penetrating bullets you might want some sort of wood backer.

A suggestion- load you bullets down to the expected impact velocities rather than testing them at muzzle velocities.

35W

[Tripplebeards]

Besides the milk jugs I’ve even just grabbed old totes and filled them with water. Normally two giant ones back to back. Just start shooting high and work low or you’ll lose all your water on the first shot. What are you testing for deer hunting penetration? A lot of people have different opinions here but I like casting mine soft enough that I only get 3 to 3 1/2 milk jug penetrations before the bullet stops, comes apart, and gets as flat as a penny. That way you know it’s gonna dump a lot of energy into a deer for a quick clean kill or a drop in its tracks bullet. You have to remember water is way too hard of a media to test Boolits. Best way to test is on a live subject. There’s been hundreds of people testing and proof on animals from member on cast boolits. All you have to do is search old threads here. I would think you will get enough velocity using a 327 chambered rifle to benefit from a soft cast boolit to dump some GOOD energy into what ever you shoot. Shot a few deer with a HP using 15.4 BH alloy in Ruger 77/44 zero expansion unless I hit backbone. Loaded at 1750 fps. Long tracking and no blood I learned really quick on 3 deer I shot in a group that came running by. All recovered but it was a guessing game where I had to find them. Just made sure to remember where I last saw them. I switched over to a 40/1 alloy loaded at 1600 fps but haven’t been lucky enough to shoot a deer with the softer boolits yet.when you do your testing I am guessing what penetration you get with the XTP would be a good judge to tailor your cast boolit alloy with. They dump a lot of energy for quick kills.

[mobilemail]

I tell myself it's to test for deer hunting, but it's really academic since IL law requires "factory ammunition with published ballistics". It's as dumb a requirement as only allowing single shot pistol cartridge rifles...but until this year we didn't even have a rifle option. I would be happy to provide the chrony data and load specs for my handloaded ammo! ...rant over...

[longbow]

From LASC's Glen Fryxell:

My standard test for bullet expansion is to fill a 2L pop bottle with water and lay it on its side so I can shoot through it lengthwise. I back this with a tightly bound "bale" of newspapers (about 6-8" thick) that are leaning against the cap of the 2L pop bottle such that the bullet will cause the bale to fall away on impact. I bind up the bale with duct tape, and arrange things such that the bullet will have to pass through the duct tape upon entering the bale. This allows me to see what size the bullet was after expanding in the water bath, but before it breaks apart in the newspaper (dry newsprint is very hard on a bullet). Now some people say that using water to test bullet expansion is not a valid test method because water is "hard" on a bullet. The reason they say this is because water is an incompressible fluid, and if you shoot into a large body of water (like a lake or a swimming pool) there is nowhere for the water to go as the bullet passes through, so the bullet experiences greater resistance and may expand more under those conditions than if it were passing through, say, a whitetail buck. This is all well and good. However, shooting through a 6" cylinder of water held together with a thin, stretchy layer of polyethylene means that the water can, and does, get pushed out of the bullet's way. While the water itself is no more compressible under these conditions than it is in the swimming pool, it provides far less resistance to the bullet's passing due to the fact that it gets pushed aside. The bottom line is this test has proven to be a reliable (and reproducible) method for evaluating bullet expansion, and I've learned a lot about cast HP’s using this test.

While not "meat and bone" it is a comparative test and easily repeatable as he says so it makes sense to me.

YMMV

Longbow

[35 Whelen]

From LASC's Glen Fryxell:

My standard test for bullet expansion is to fill a 2L pop bottle with water and lay it on its side so I can shoot through it lengthwise. I back this with a tightly bound "bale" of newspapers (about 6-8" thick) that are leaning against the cap of the 2L pop bottle such that the bullet will cause the bale to fall away on impact. I bind up the bale with duct tape, and arrange things such that the bullet will have to pass through the duct tape upon entering the bale. This allows me to see what size the bullet was after expanding in the water bath, but before it breaks apart in the newspaper (dry newsprint is very hard on a bullet). Now some people say that using water to test bullet expansion is not a valid test method because water is "hard" on a bullet. The reason they say this is because water is an incompressible fluid, and if you shoot into a large body of water (like a lake or a swimming pool) there is nowhere for the water to go as the bullet passes through, so the bullet experiences greater resistance and may expand more under those conditions than if it were passing through, say, a whitetail buck. This is all well and good. However, shooting through a 6" cylinder of water held together with a thin, stretchy layer of polyethylene means that the water can, and does, get pushed out of the bullet's way. While the water itself is no more compressible under these conditions than it is in the swimming pool, it provides far less resistance to the bullet's passing due to the fact that it gets pushed aside. The bottom line is this test has proven to be a reliable (and reproducible) method for evaluating bullet expansion, and I've learned a lot about cast HP’s using this test.

While not "meat and bone" it is a comparative test and easily repeatable as he says so it makes sense to me.

YMMV

Longbow

Very good comment and I agree that water, especially in an open container, is about the best way to see if a bullet will expand.

35W