/

ALF,

We just did our own penetration test - non scientific I am afraid, but just to wet our own appetite for more testing.

We made a box 12x12x48" of 1/2" plywood, open at teh top. We made slots in it at 2 inches intervals, so 1/2" baffles could be placed. In the 2 inch space between the baffles we filled with moist sand.

We fired 375, 404, 416, 458 and 585 caliber bullets into this setup. With velocities ranging from 1888 to 3100 fps.

I will try to put all the results together within the next few days, and put all here for the members to see.

My friend Roy Vincent did all the shooting.

Alf,

This is anecdotal evidence of the good effect of a bluff nose solid in soft tissue, apparently due to cavitation reducing the drag. Why it is referred to as "super" cavitation, I do not know.

For the results on "bone" or at least some bone, there didn't seem to be much difference. Possibly more important than penetration is straight line stability, which is probably more difficult to measure.

Most everything gives good penetration on stuff up to and including buff, so maybe it's overkill? Once you hit bone in elephant, it appears that all bets are still off, assuming I interpreted the data correctly.

If cavitation does improve penetration, to what extent is the effect? Does it improve penetration by 2%, 10%, or 50%. If it is in the range of 25% or better, then there is a strong argument that the 45-70 may in fact be the best dangerous game caliber after all...

In the field, I have yet to have a problem with bullet penetration. Woodleighs damn near shoot through everything from almost any angle. Not sure that added penetration makes a hill of beans unless you want to shoot through the entire herd.

I am not pizzing on the concept, just trying to understand if this is another solution for a problem which does not exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Zero Drift:
If cavitation does improve penetration, to what extent is the effect? Does it improve penetration by 2%, 10%, or 50%. If it is in the range of 25% or better, then there is a strong argument that the 45-70 may in fact be the best dangerous game caliber after all...

In the field, I have yet to have a problem with bullet penetration. Woodleighs damn near shoot through everything from almost any angle. Not sure that added penetration makes a hill of beans unless you want to shoot through the entire herd.

I am not pizzing on the concept, just trying to understand if this is another solution for a problem which does not exist.

In our tests with 458 caliber bullets, the two that penetrated furthest had a muzzle velocity of 1880 and 1980 fps!!

And the 375 penetrated further than the 404, 416, 458 and 585 caliber bullets. And the bullets in 375 that penetrated furthest, had a velocity of around 2660 to 2720 fps!!??

Alf,

I think that your specific questions might be addressed by Norbert Hansen (I am sure you have read his website), Dr. Martin Fackler (an internet search will turn up many nice articles based on real world experienced analyzed through a scientific lens), and Andy who posts here on AR and who used to test munitions for Jane's defense publications.

Will,

The only caveat that I would add is that round nose brass bullets (e.g., Barnes) seem to have relatively shallow penetration on elephant skulls compared to all other bullets, and especially when compared to flat nose brass bullets. But RN WOodleighs do not seem to have the same failing for whatever reason.

Saeed,

One very interesting phenomena in home made penetration tests is that they sometimes predict the opposite of what occurs when shooting game. The Linebaugh wet newspaper tests suffered from that defect (he should have known something was wrong when the 25-20 and 9.3 x 62 had the same depth of penetration). Shot to shot consistency of the test medium is also difficult to control.

I would also add "Ulfhere" who does research in this area.

jim

500grains,

I don't have any idea what others have experienced with the old round nose Barnes solids, but I experience relatively poor penetration with them, as also reported in the African Hunter magazine.

Saeed,

Quit stalling! I need bullet weights and diameters and velocities so I can see if Penetration Index corrolates to your results, when your penetrations are eventually disclosed.

With the incredibly good bullets we have available today (and I agree with ZD that the Woodleighs are right at the top of the heap, albeit along with many others), this whole line of inquiry seems to me more about killing trees on the other side of the game than killing the game itself.

/

quote:

In our tests with 458 caliber bullets, the two that penetrated furthest had a muzzle velocity of 1880 and 1980 fps!!

And the 375 penetrated further than the 404, 416, 458 and 585 caliber bullets. And the bullets in 375 that penetrated furthest, had a velocity of around 2660 to 2720 fps!!??

www.accuratereloading.com

Hi Saeed,
I'm curious if you used the same bullets at different velocities to end up with the 458 results or were the bullets different shapes. I tried using heavy for caliber bullets of the same shape and weight at differnt velocities and the faster they went the deeper they penetrated.
Take good care,
Dave

Gentlemen,

For the 458 we used both our own Walterhog bullets, and the Hornady FMJ.

In 416, we used the Walterhogs, Speer Tungsten Core, and Barnes Super Solids.

Our own had teh following weights:

375 - 310 grains
416 - 381
404 - 385
458 - 472
585 - 750

Saeed,

Come on....I want data!

Will,

I am putting the article altogether now, but, here is the bullets that penetrated furthest.

375 - 2665 and 2726 fps penetrated 27.5 inches.

404 - 2475 penetrated 25 inches

416 - 2020, 2087, 2181, 2216 penetrated 22.5 inches

458 - 1888, 1985 penetrated 20 inches

585 - 2594 penetrated 22.5 inches.

Bullets at other velocities did not do as well, as you will see when I get the tables done.

If I ever decide to hutn buffalo with a 45 caliber rifle, I will use the 45-70

Saeed,

I'm inputting your data into my spread sheet as you dribble out the information. It looks like PI correlates pretty well so far, for plywood anyway.

Gentlemen,

The bullets we tested were all solids, and I will post plenty of photos of our setup and recovered bullets.

Hardly any weight was lost, except for the Hornady FMJ - one of which had the jacket and core seperate, and the TB Bear Claws, which we shot just out of interest.

I think the sand tended to through a monkey wrench in this test.

I am considering doing the test again, with wood baffles alone, no more sand.

Saeed, wasn't sand wet? Did you have a way to maintain consistent water content of the sand shot to shot? Just wondering.

I like the idea of a wood only test because in the event that I get attacked by charging office furniture, I want to know exactly what my bullets will do.

Would it be legal for you to shoot up some live camels in order to test bullets?

500 grains, I'll let Saeed reply of course but I doubt if there is an excess of camels. But it brings up the problem of consistancy of results in any case. If the bullet in every test cartridge exited the camel you wouldn't be able to say much about the differences in performance unless you had a way to recover the bullets. And you would need autopsies of every animal; a monumental undertaking even if possible.

The sand was moist - not wet, but I suppose bullets shot into it one hour after start m ight have encountered a slightly less moist sand.

Not sure what difference that will make.

Walter suggested we shoot a few camels, but I had to veto that idea.

here are some photos

Wink,

It should be a relatively simple matter to get 3 or 4 camels to stand in a row. I have seen it on tv.

Gentlemen,

From what I have learnt in the field, no test is going to be conclusive.

I have seen some strange bullet behaviour in animals, and I have seen a few things which seem to be born out in our test.

My friend Roy Vincent was here - in fact, he did all the shooting.

I have shot Barnes X bullets for many years, at different velocities in our 375/404 rifles. And we noticed that bullets starting off at around 2650 - 2750 fps seem to penetrate more consistently than those with either higher or slower velocity..

Our own Walterhog solids seem to be the same. The design of the bullets is exactly teh same as the HPs, but in the solids we left them without drilling a hole at the nose.

Pictures will be shown in my final article.

Pointed bullets?

Saeed,
That is a pretty severe test of a bullet.

I can give a reference point for a similar .404 Jeffery bullet, the 380 grain North Fork FP solid (truncated cone, flat nose, copper):
2528 fps MV
penetrated 112 inches of water and 8 standard plastic (nylon) bucket lids and bottoms, lodging nose first in the 9th bucket lid up to mid shank.

Your test medium seems to be 4 times as tough as 5 gallon water buckets laid end to end.

My medium seems to be a little bit softer than a Portuguese-Texan heart shot on a cape buffalo.
Yours is a bit harder.

I will get to work on the "RIP Bullet Coffin" that will be boards with plastic bags of water between them, and tune it to a result intermediate between 25" and 112" of penetration

How long is a cape buffalo from stem to stern?
I assume one buffalo unit as such is the desired penetration and about equal to 27.5" of your medium.

However a little greater spread to about 6 to 7 feet might allow the bullets to distinguish themselves more distinctly.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Gentlemen,

From what I have learnt in the field, no test is going to be conclusive.

I have seen some strange bullet behaviour in animals, and I have seen a few things which seem to be born out in our test.
....

I think that points to the problem any test is going to encounter. A living body has a variety of densities, from voids to bone. The best we can hope for is to come to a limited understanding of penetration. But I know of no research that uses (or has occurred) on living tissue.

From a hunter's view point, I have believed for years that we another variable in the mix. The best way to describe it is to attribute it to "personality". Why does one game animal fall dead, another jump and run, a third run for 100 yards and collapse and yet a fourth continue on as though nothing had occurred when hit with a bullet?

If one shoots a game animal broadside taking out the heart, one would expect the same result each time. Yet, perhaps because of the "personality" of the game, the results often differ.

Does the cavitation theory even care about this?

Saeed,

Glad to see that you are having some success with your method. I will be interested in reading your full results when you are ready.

Alf, haven't read thru and thru the other postings, but isn't what your talking about, the same thinking or line of thinking NORBERT who post here from time to time came up with, or reasoned to use his flat nosed bullets that have a small dixk on the nose? I know some time back I read a little some thing on his site about it.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

1..... Is it possible to evoke flow regimes within the living body that would be conducive to the generation of supercavities?


2 ..... Given target volume and actual target time ( microseconds)?? of a modern hunting bullet is there really a supercavity or do we actually have a splash scenario with a simple vacuum behind the projectile as a Mr Ashley of C-tech Defence Corp out of Port Angeles Washington contends. This is by all accounts the scenario the water entry scenario for all projectiles for the first .5 ??or so microseconds ??of penetration, thereafter only is supercavitation evoked...... given that time frame and target time the projectile has already passed trough the traget or come to a stop ?


3 ..... The second issue and related to this is exactly why flat meplat bullets penetrate better..... actually do they really?

Do flat meplat bullets have more stability and therefore penetrate better and / or how does this fit in with the increased resistance offered by a flat point vs a rounded or pointed nose shape.

Any thoughts on this?

Alf,

I believe #1 is yes. While testing .223 bullets modified with initiators for extremely violent expansion I observed the following. Bullets (or their remains) could be stopped in one Coke can of water a mere 65 m/m thick (2 9/16") except for sharpnel, yet the can following ruptured as well! A piece of 1/4" plywood 8" behind one water-filled can had a 5" hole blown in it! A second piece of plywood did the same thing when repeated. From what? Was it a leading or trailing force! Was it the remaining pieces of bullet? When one inch planking was used instead of plywood, it showed a shotgun like pattern of sharpnel 10" in diameter with the biggest pieces only 2 grains in weight! Moving the one inch plank to six inches behind the single water filled can could induce spliting of the plank into several pieces. When the pieces were re-constructed only the particles that couldn't even penetrate the one inch plank were visable! What hydraulic force is at work? Is it pre-bullet position or post- bullet?

#2.......... Are you sure you mean microseconds Alf? If you were talking about the shockwave propagation of an extremely rapid and violent explosive I could see microseconds. For time in our animal I think milliseconds would suffice.

Let's take a 9.3 x 62 bullet as it is a favorite on the African site. For ease of math let's say it contacts our "hydraulic" mammal with an impact velocity of 2000fps with an expanding bullet and penetrates 24" deep and then stops.
In the atmosphere our 9.3 bullet will traverse 24" in one millisecond or 1000 microseconds. With the retarding forces at work rapidly slowing our impact velocity ESPECIALLY RIGHT AT FIRST......... It must take longer to traverse 24" into our animal vs. 24" through the air (if we missed) How long? A couple milliseconds? 5, 10, 20? Oh if we only knew!

.5 Microseconds is only .012" linear travel at 2000fps. I don't think anything would happen hyraulically at this point other than a slight "push" against the hide...... Now a couple of inches in is a different story! I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THE "STAGNATION" TIME ELAPSE FOR THIS TO TRANSPIRE!

3 ..... Flat nose solids has a worse coefficient of form than round, whether it be air or meat. B U T , that said they penetrate better because they stay STRAIGHTER DURING. Shortness due to form helps as would quicker twist if it were there.

Another think rarely if ever mentioned is the bullet seeing different forces on one side or other, or up and down due to sinew, or other "toughies" less so than hitting bone. If we look at the shape of our bullet as a triangle (two opposed triangles) then the ogive and round nose can have a lever moment and a mechanical advantage working against us to more easily "bend or turn" from course due to whatever differental is induced one-sided and then magnified by increasing the mechanical advantage via the one-sided inclined plane over that of a flatter point along with straighter ogive in an identical situation.

BigRx

Gentlemen,

While in the process of trying to put this article together, I realised that we only shot one round of each bullet and velocity, which one cannot take as giving an example.

Hence we have decided to redo the test, this time ommiting the sand, and only using wood baffles.

Also, Walter suggested we try smaller calibers too. If only to give us an indication of how they stack up against the larger calibers.

We will shoot 5 rounds of each load, and report how far each has peenetrated.

Still, for those of you who might be interested in our previous test, here are the resulst we have gotten in our wood baffles and sand box.

375 caliber Walterhog solids - rifles used were 375 H&H, 375/404 and 375/416 Rigby

2523 fps - penetrated 10.5 inches
2221 - 13 inches
2950, 3030, 3117 penetrated 15.5 inches
2420 - penetrated 22.5 inches

404 caliber Walterhog solids - in a 404 Jeffery

2510 - 10 inches
2550 - 12.5 inches
2409 - 15 inches
2105, 2210, 2592 - 20 inches
1860, 2565 - 22.5 inches
2475 - 25 inches

416 caliber - Walterhog solids - 416 Weatheby

2522 - 7.5 inches
2216, 2742 - 10 inches
2420 - 12.5 inches
2250 - 17.5 inches
2082 - 20 inches
2020, 2087, 2181, 2216 - 22.5 inches

Barnes Super Solids

2568 - 15 inches
2652 - 20 inches
2456 - 22.5 inches

Speer Tungsten core

2317, 2586, 2655 - 15 inches
2070 - 17.5 inches

TB Bear Claws

2496 - 10 inches - I used this same load in Africa, on broadside shots on buffalo, a few times the bullet would excit, but most times in remained in.

458 Walterhog solids - 460 Weatherby

2597 - 10 inches
2239 - 12.5 inches
1946 - 15 inches
2096, 2175, 2262 - 17.5 inches

Hornady FMJ

2442 - 12.5 inches
2387, 2336, 2074, 2239 - 17.5 inches
1989, 1888 - 20 inches

Barnes X

2275 - 7.5 inches

585 Waltehog solids - 577 T.Rex

1109 - 12.5 inches
2594 - 20 inches

Saeed,

I think you are getting inconsistant results because the sand is not uniformly wet for each shot.

The most important thing about an artificial test medium is that the penetration, expansion or weight retention must duplicate living animals. If you have 2 out of 3 of these factors isdentical to real animals, and the 3rd is close then you have a suitable test medium.

With sand, wet or not, you might as well have been shooting bullet proof steel.

Wood alone is a little bit too hard for an expanding bullet. A 500 grain Barnes X at 2,400 fps only penetrates 28 boards. In 5 gallon water buckets it it will penetrate four buckets (44 inches).

It does tumble (turn over 180 degrees) in both.

A 500 grain .458 soft point from a Win Mag will penetrate 21-23 boards depending on velocity 2,000 - 2150 fps).

Yet with FMJ's the wood closely correlates to elephan theads. 61 boards for 375, 58-59 for .458, 69-71 for 416 and 450 Ackley.

The boards will probably not give you meaningful data on bullet profile (RN or FN meplat) which is borne out by the excellent AH article. What it will give you is the relative penetration index of various calibers when using the same bullet profile.

In other words it will tell you what percentage a 9.3 x 62 FMJ RN penetrates compared to a 375 FMJ RN and what improvement a wildcat 458 has over a std 458 Winchester.

If you compare your new date to front on and side on elephant shots I think you will see why so many of us use a wood stop box for solids.

Andy

Shock and Awe, or Knock and Yaw in wood and sand?

That recent article, you guys are referring to was written by our own 500 grs. if I am not mistaken...

Whatever anyone thinks of the article, it certainly parrelled my use and experience with the same bullets to a tee.....

I still have a world of faith in woodleigh softs and solids, they have always worked for me with one excuseable exception...but the flat nose solids from Northfork and GS Customs are a wonder, and the cup point from Northfork is the best buffalo bullet yet under any circumstances. I have 7 of them on my desk from Cape Buffalo, and the rest passed through, you got to shoot them in the Keyster to get a bullet back and it will be in the neck as a rule and sometimes it will even punch a second hole..I did notice that I got more penitration with the cup point in my .470 at 2020 FPS than at 2245 FPS, that had to do with the superior expansion of the 2245 velocity, but both had more than needed in every case..

There are a world of good bullets out there today, and that says a lot for our bullet makers, I, for one, appreciate all there hard work to give us the bullets we need.....

Alf, I don't know much about terminal ballistics but have two thoughts on the posted subject. 1) As indicated above, once you have penetration such as provided by the Woodlieghs anything more seems to hold small value. 2) I would not slight the issue of super cavitation however, for it is quite real. From what I've seen it may be created by large meplats and by injecting gas into the flow interface(right term?) on other shapes, to include pointed forms. The Russians are allegedly using the former for high speed torpedos, and the US Navy is studying both for the same application. They have demonstrated multi hundred MPH speeds thru water with the injection technology and are said to be pursuing supersonic velocities with underwater rocket powered torpedos, or equivalent to Mach 4 or thereabouts in air. Long story short, it seems to have great potential in some circumstances but I would not be able to judge the merits of big game bullets.

I do like the suction theory if I understand it correctly. It is the only way I can visualize that large parts of internal organs get sprayed on the ground on the off side of big game that I have shot. I see this nearly every time I chest shoot a deer with nearly any cartridge, and seriously doubt it occurs because the parts are pushed ahead of the bullet. I suppose it is possible that muscular contraction might eject some of this or perhaps the abrupt closure of the wound channel for other causes, but it happens regardless.

You pose an interesting topic here, wish I knew more about it.

why not use wet mews paper in each baffle, just stick a newspaper in each slot and soak the whole works with a garden hose

quote:

Originally posted by cummins cowboy:
why not use wet mews paper in each baffle, just stick a newspaper in each slot and soak the whole works with a garden hose

The problem is keeping the newspaper mush consistent from shot to shot. That is the same problem that Linebaugh faced with his tests, hence the squirrely results.

Ballistic gelatin can work well, but only if some skill is used in handling it.