/

Norbert,

What was the original use of the 5 liter water containers you used?

And did you use a lid on the top to help keep a uniform depth of water on top of the bullet?

The dimensions sound ideal for what we are condiering. I will try and find something similar here in the US.


I am still much more interested in testing soft points in water than FMJ's, but since I have already tested them all (20 some now), would like to try the solids.

PS We need a high velocity .458 (450 Ackley, Dakota, or 460 GA) with a standard 1-14 twist as I have a 1-12. This will make a difference with the heaviest monometals.

So far we have RIP with 375 and 375 Weatherby, me with 450 Dakota (1-12), and Norbert with whatever he chooses.

We need volunteers!

Andy

Andy,

I am interested in helping if you can define some consistent testing procedure. I am interested in doing a test of the 12" and 14" twists with .416 solids, specifically the Hornady FMJ and Speer AGS solid. I would be open to testing other solids.

I think we should have a consistent experiemntal setup and testing procedure. You might want to survey potential participants as to their thoughts. Maybe some possibilities to get it started:

Caliber: ____________

Bullet: ____________

Measured Muzzle Velocity (at 10 feet): ________

Number of Containers Traversed: ________________

Bullet Recovered: Yes_________ No______________

Tumbling of Bullet: Yes _________ No ________

Further Tumbling Details: __________________________

Etc.

Somehow there must be consistency as to what water containers are used. 2-liter Coke bottles? Something that everybody has a chance of finding and acquiring. To be of value everyone should be using identical containers.

Somewhere along the line, it must be assured that the shot is actually taken in the center of the whole row of containers, so that deflected bullets are not due to poor alignment.

How many times are the identical bullet and muzzle velocity to be repeated?

Karl,

I would love to make this an international collaborative effort. By all means you are welcome to join us. And you will be providing one of the more difficult to find (and shoot) cartridges.

I am trying out two inexpensive water containers this week end. One of 7 gallon capacity and one of 16 gallons. They are flat sided and 7 1/2 and 16 inches thick respectivley.

If a FMJ does not blow them apart we can re-use them by inserting plastic garbage bags in them and using them essentially as a plastic water bag holder.

I am not surprised that Norbert has had a hard time recovering bullets in such small (5 liter) water jugs. I really think a larger container is needed. I expect we will need 9 feet of water containers to stop the worlds most powerful hunting cartridges using FMJ and monolithic bullets.

One advantage of decelerating the bullet in boards as I have already done, or water as we propose to do, is that you can see the bullets deformation. By stopping it at 6 feet as Norbert has with a steel plate, the bullet is deformed and you cant tell what happened to it in the water jugs.

I am not critisizing Norberts technique, as I have done the same thing myself by placing a stack of 3/4 inch thick wood boards behind my 5 gallon water buckets to stop FMJs and monometals. They are just very very hard to stop in water, which is why Mike LaGrange and many others have used the wood stop box.

Ill let the group know how the flat sided garbage containers work from WALMART. The smaller size will be preferable but the larger may allow for several shots in rapid succession.

I will post a draft protocol we can all agree on prior to starting. Something like Will outlined looks fine.

Ray, I do certainly plan on testing Mikes Cup Point when it is available. He told me he thinks it will penetrate 70% of a solid, and thats probably a pretty good guess based on your experience.

My 450 Dakota is zeroed for his 450 grain bonded soft point and will stay that way. But we can certainly recover Cup Points in this water set up and that will help relate the penetration of the FMJ's to the real world.

Thanks all for your help.

Andy

ALF,



I think you're misunderstanding Norbert. He's not saying that there will be zero penetration of the target; rather, he's saying there will be no straight line stable penetration. The bullet will immediately tumble, and veer off course. This may indeed be related to Norbert's use of English as a second language-- though Norbert your English is very, very good.



On a different subject, that gun arrangement looks like it's designed to create reproducible wounds. Which kind of supports the general consensus: bullets don't want to follow a consistent direct path.





Pertinax

Andy,



Answer for 1.) Basic physics are not different for slow moving projectiles ( handgun bullets) and fast moving ( rifle bullets) projectiles. But the complex interrelation of translatory velocity, rotationary velocity, mass, lenghth, shape e.a. can result in different observations of penetration for handgun bullets compared to rifle bullets.

Some handgun bullets are subsonic, some supersonic. A big difference with respect to their dynamics.

Their relative low rotational speed is exposed to a strong decelaration. If rotational speed approaches zero, penetration stops at all. Handgun bullets shot from barrels without twist show no penetration in water.

To generate full supercavitation, a translatory velocity of around 200 f/s is needed. Collapsing is not exactly known.

Answer for 2.) If only supercavitation is discussed, around 200 f/s. But at the transition from supersonic to subsonic velocity in the cavitation bubble strange, but unknown effects may occur.

Answer for 3.) The pressure wave in aqueous tissue and the dissipation of more energy with the FN cause more damage and less "real" penetration than the slender RN.

Answer for 4.) see 3.)

Answer for 5.) Not so. The Kursk torpedos are rocket driven to more than 300 miles per hour.