It seems we all agree that the truncated cone flat nosed solid is the "superpenetrator" even though we cannot simply attribute that proven fact to "supercavitation" alone.

One day Alf may fully explain the phenomenon. Until then, have faith.

Alf,

Thankyou for reformating the data from my excell spread sheet. It did not transl;ate to the post I made here very well.

Dan and I, plus Hal Ledbetter (Redfield Arsenal), Bill Steigers (Bitterroot bullet company), Mike (North Fork), and the late George Hoffman have all discussed the data from my LaGrange stop box for several years now. Bill Steigers supplied me w three of the rifles and helped collect some of the data.

The purpose of the test was to establish if increased rotational velocity increased penetration. Not to see if a RN out penetrated a FN. (I knew it would not in a hard test medium). I chose the stop box because I had used it earlier to test military projectiles and fragmentation weapons in the early 1980's and had a data base I could relate it too.



(Note that the NF CP does not expand enough in wood stop box. Does not correlate to live animals.) Water w 5 gallon nylon water buckets was much better and I trust them completely for expanding bullets.



Hal charted the FMJ stop box results and concluded that ,"once adequate stabilization has been achieved in the test medium (not air), increased RV does not increase penetration any further." or words to that effect.

Based on these results, I would not hunt elephant w a 1-14 twist 458.

the lagrange stop box demonstrated that energy over unit of frontal area with some form factor for the percentage of energy that comes from mass (calculus required?), comes pretty close to predicting penetration of bullets of equal RV, SD, and bullet profile. (I think Duncan Macpherson used a formula similar to this in Bullet Penetration).

The rough and ready penetration index of Art Alphin corresponded to emperical data more closely than energy over unit of frontal area only, energy, momentum, or the Taylor KO value.

Remember what I said in earlier post:

"I assumed an elephants head was more like a solid than a liquid, and tested FMJ RN, monolothic RN and TC-FN in a wood stop box. the TC-FN and RN-FN always had less penetration than the RN of similar bullet weight.

then I met 500 grains.

So I tested a few of them in water and the FN always out penetrated the RN, often by double.

then I went elephant hunting.

the RN had great penetration in body shot (water) and lousy penetration on head.

Just the opposite of what you would expect from BOTH tests!"

End of quote.

The stop box is useful for comparing the penetration of bullets w similar construction and profile across numerous caliber and cartridge case configurations. For instance, if you have had good luck w a 9.3 x 62 shooting 286 grain Woodleigh, and want to know how fast you need to push a 458 winchester to equal penetration, I would trust the stop box.

It tells you for instance that a 416 w qucik twist has similar penetration as a 450 wildcat w similar twist. And that you give up about 10% penetration for a 450-465 grain 458 compared to a 500 grain. An acceptable trade off. Droping down to a 400 grain 458 in a FMJ is not a good idea.

Remember the FN out-penetrated the RN in water, often by more than twice as much!!!!



(Testing 5,000 ft pound energy FMJ's in water is really not any fun!)

The FN was always predictable and often exceeded expectations. The RN was not predictable in water. There fore use a FN if your rifle will cycle w it reliably.



(Pictured old style 450 grain North Fork FN).

My PH in Dande North, Myles McCallum recommended I test bullets in a buffalo stomach. Fill a 55 gallon drum full of cut grass and fill w water. Shoot 55 gallon drum. Measure penetration.

Not a bad idea!

Any testing is better than theorizing without correlating to emperical data.

Dan used best test medium. Dead elephants.

Alf, since you enjoy reading scientific literature, I would suggest you use IWBA calibrated gelatin to do your testing. You will not be able to be published, or taken seriously, unless you use an internationally recognized test medium like 10% gelatin.

It is so difficult to stop FMJ bullets in water that I will probably go back to Kind and Knox gelatin if I ever do this again.

Cheers, Andy

By ANDY

quote:

then I met 500 grains.

So I tested a few of them in water and the FN always out penetrated the RN, often by double.

then I went elephant hunting.

the RN had great penetration in body shot (water) and lousy penetration on head.

Just the opposite of what you would expect from BOTH tests!"

End of quote.

I'm confused as this is the opposite of what 500grs reported in the African Hunter Magazine article.

465H&H

I was shooting 465 grain TCCI (A Square) RN monolithic at 2550 fps.

It had great penetration on body shot, going through 21 iinch thick rear leg of epehant, including 6 inches of solid bone, and still made it into heart/lungs.

Yet this same bullet had lousy penetration on elephant head, barely going from eye to eye.

Mikes 450 grain NF FN had up to 60 inches penetration exiting head and going deep into body.

I dont think this contradicts Dans article at all.

It supports it.

What is odd is that based on my two tests, the RN should have done better on hard target than soft. And it did just the opposite.

Take home lesson is that the FN did well on elephant, water and descent on boards. There fore use FN if it will function reliably in your rifle.

Andy

Okay now I see what you said. I thought you were quoting 500 grs but you were refering to your use of the A2 solid on elephant. I assumed you were talking about all RN solids. I think if you had used handloaded Wnchester, old style steel Hornady or Woodleigh RN solids your results would have been different. The Woodleigh RN solids were for 500 grs on elephant heads and had greater head penetration than the FN solids. Although his sample sizes were small, I would think it safer to say there was no difference in penetration on elephant head shots between them.

465H&H

Alf,

I have re-read your reformatted version of my data. You may want to fill in appropriate rifling twist for your own records.

450 Dakota was 1-12.

375 improved was 1-8. (Ive really got to try a 350 grain Woodleigh FMJ in this).

416 x 375 improved was the original reamer for G. Hoffmans 416 Hoffman, except George did not know it came from Bill Steigers and always took credit for it. A real gentleman none the less. this was a 1-10.

458 x 404 (a 460 GA with 25 degree shoulder) was 1-10 unless noted otherwise. (My 1-12 458 x 404 was rechambered to 450 Dakota).

Ron,

It is a pitty you have put away the iron buffalo as oyu may have the ultimate set up. Obviously, large homogenous water tubs like I used allow the FN to penetrate much more than they do in elephant (by double). The wood is actually much closer but it gives advantage to RN instead of FN.

Any artifical test medium should duplicate expansion and penetration in an animal, and pure water does not work for FMJ RN or FN. The 5 gallon nylon buckets work so well on soft points (90-95% correlation to expansion and weight retention) because the nylon swages down expanded bullet more than water alone does.

Your alternating baords and water should correlate very closely. Do your 416 FN show circa 60 inches penetration? I suspect that is what Dan would want from a test medium to simulate elephant skull.

Dan, if you were calibrating this contraption, would you want 60 inches penetration for a good FN.

Andy

.

Andy,
While everyone is digesting the latest on flash X-ray, as an aside:

Thanks for the encouragement. The Iron Buffalo is ready to go when I get the time. My Pop is trying to die soon of the "Big C" and I have been flitting between jobs at military posts, bases, and Indian reservations, and have one kid left to get through college. You know.

I have some comparison data for the .375/300gr GSC FN that proved quite stable and repeatable at 2526 fps MV from a 12" twist barrel, impact at 25 yards.

I tried initial setups with first impact on board(s) followed by water bag then board(s) then bag, and so on, using wood partitions of 1 board, 2 boards, or 3 boards for each compartment. These are 15/32" or about ~1/2" plywood sheeting cut to make the boards to sandwich together for each compartment partition.

For the initial plywood board impact setup, with .375/300grGSCFN/2500fps:

A. 1.5" plywood thickness to 6.5" waterbag thickness in 2.5 mil plastic bag:
Bullet stopped in sideways impact with 7th wood partition(3 of the ~1/2" plywood boards for each of the partitions) ... total penetration inches = 6(1.5" + 6.5") = 48"

B. 1.0" plywood to 7" waterbag:
Bullet penetrated 8th wooden partition, sticking out nose first 3/4 of its length, with trailing base of bullet still imbedded in the wood ...
total penetration = 7(1.0" + 7") + 1" = 57"

C. 1/2" plywood to 6" waterbag:
Bullet zipped through 10 compartments laser straight and kept going out the other side, nose first. This was the "Pine Box" or "RIP Bullet Coffin" that was a failure and lead to the longer and sturdier "Iron Buffalo" with adjustable brackets. (The "Six-foot Pine Box" was discarded for a "Nine-foot Iron Buffalo.")
...
total penetration = >>60"

Setup "B" might be pretty close to "elephant medium."

Thanks again. The "Iron Buffalo" shall be resurrected eventually.

Norbert had an interesting setup with 1.5" particle board thickness to 7.3" plastic water container thickness.



Condition B above might give just about 60" with a .416/380grGSC-FN or .416/370grNF-FP @2400 to 2500fps.

Every round nose solid I have tried in it wants to fishtail and stop well short of the FN monometals.

Alf,
I have really enjoyed your posts and appreciate you and others taking the time to do so. I have a question regarding Bell and his 275 (7x57) Rigby with 173 fmj's. His sample size is sure big enough to say that that round gave him fantastic penetration in a straight line. Could you venture an educated guess on why that round did so well? Thanks and best regards.

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
500 grains:

Where on earth do you get that from? That I claim the water in tissue is a solid ? Pray show me where that was inferred.

Alf, in a previous thread on this topic you said that flesh of an animal behaved more like a solid than like a fluid, and that seemed to be why you doubted that supercavitation occurred. My observation is that it behaves much like a fluid which is why the FN has a significant penetration advantage, and retains a large permanent wound channel due to its attributes as a solid.

Do you now take the position that flesh of a game animal behaves as a fluid not as a solid?

Alf,
I am sure your spot on that Bell knew exactly where he wanted to shoot and could do that a very high percentage of the time. However he shot those 1100+ jumbos from every angle and claimed and must of had fantastic penetration. I remember him showing a drawing of shooting them from a obilique angle in the back of the neck and taking out the brain. He also said that with the .275 there was small room for error and the "knock down" effect was very small for a near miss. He claimed the .318 was much better in that regard. I am sure I don't know all the reasons why but I am certain that the speed, size and shape of that little round worked very well for Mr. Bell. I have only shot a couple of deer and one elk with solids and they all worked very well. The elk with a 300 grain Old style Barnes .338 Solid was the most dramatic with the shot going in the flank and coming out the lower throat with the heart Lung junction inbetween. The 40 yard blood trail was VERY easy to follow. I had always assumed that the grass from the stomach being accelerated by the solid was what did such a job on the lungs and helped make the large exit hole but maybe it was the yaw? Hard to say but the elk sure was dead. Thanks for the reply.

[IMG]



You may like to save these pictures, cause I may not keep them in my photo file.

Wow. Neat picture. thanks

.

Fluid vaporizes. FN bullets expoit that characteristic of fluids by creating a large vapor bubble around the bullet. Hence penetration is increased.

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
If muscle tendon or bone, which all contain the same basic building blocks in the form or collagen ( a solid) were fluids then we would see wave action the same as a bow wave of a boat in the ocean happening in the tissue, that does not happen. Water has no elasticity !

Sure it happens. Didn't you ever slap a dead animal and see the flesh slosh a bit from one end to the other and then back? It is not a true wave as in your bathtub, but it is a wave nonetheless. Much more of a wave, in fact, than if I slap an oak tree.

RIP,

My condolences about your father. Loosing a parent is a life changing experience.

I am very interested in your version B iron buffalo.

Can you post a picture of your water bags. What did you use?

And can you show me a picture of the version B set up with wood and water bags in place?

Alf,

Was Boyers study using FMJ-BT 5.56 mm M193 or M855 projectiles? You say they fragmented. These bullets typically fragment within 100 meters about 80% of the time.

They fragment when they break in two at the cannelure, and they do that by pitching or yawing ("tumbling"). Marty Fackler has operated on hundreds of 5.56mm wounds (both our guys and enemy soldiers) and an M193 typically makes a 7 cm diameter hole in human bowel. (No bone hit).

I assume the human cadavers were missing the femur because they were used for bone marrow transplants?

Gelatine is not intended to replicate muscle but a composite of muscle and bone. Bone obviously helps a bullet fragment, pitch or yaw.

High speed x ray photography is nothing new. I think it was first used at Aberdeen in the early 1950's.

It is still an interesting study but it hardly undoes 20 years of research using 10% gelatine which was calibrated to penetration and deformation of US and Russian ammo that was shot into the rear leg of live pigs and hundreds if not thousands of shots into human beings.

Andy

Andy,
Thanks.



Here is Condition B in a different view showing the 2-board thickness (3-ply 15/32" PLYWOOD two boards backing each compartment), so 1" of wood to 7" of water, approximately.

You can see the plastic insulated copper wire used to hold in the sides of the bags. I have also used parachute cord as the latest refinement, as no sharp wire ends to puncture a bag, which is a large 2.5 mil plastic trash compactor bag. The bags are placed in the compartment and filled with water until bulging past the tops, bottoms and sides of the compartment. It takes about 4 gallons of water, IIRC, for each bag, more for spillage if filling from the pond via 5 gallon bucket, and a garden hose sure is nice. Bulging bags are sealed at the top with a wire tie.

I do not have access to other photos at present, as I am on a secret mission in Kansas, lying low, worried that Will might hit me up for a 45/404 Dakota 2.5" reamer before I get my own version of the 450 Vincent Short done.

You also see above that the .375/300 grain GSC FN stopped at the juncture point of the second and third sections of the telescoping Iron Buffalo. Each section is about 3 feet long minus the overlap of the telescoping stainless steel tubes at the four corners, so depth of penetration was very close to a specified 60" as stated. The first section is 2" square tube, the second section is 1.5", and the final section is only 1" where the bullets are low energy in the "trap."

The first section of the trap is also creatively reinforced with side members of square tube, in addition to the angle iron that makes the board brackets.

This trap will not be damaged except for the tumbling roundnose bullets that will not stay centered for even half as far as the FN. In such cases, the angle iron or even the steel sawhorses that form the legs of the Iron Buffalo, may be damaged and need repair. Modular and easy.

This is a good trap for rifle solids. Overkill for any soft point. Good witness for straight line penetration and where the yawing starts.

RIP,

Thanks for photos. Can you give me a rough materials list? What do you call the angle iron w pre cut holes in it? Is it all stainless? And how did the 2.5 mil water bags hold up. Are you pretty sure they held together long enough to offer resistence? For instance did you try the set up without them to see how much the water slowed the bullet down compared to just wood?

Well done. Andy

Andy,
About $800.00 (800 bucks retail) of hardware there. Just go to Lowe's and check the aisle where pre-drilled stainless steel square tube, pre-drilled angle iron, and other related hardware, nuts, bolts, and washers, are stacked and racked. It will be obvious.

These are 12 guage and 14 guage steel members.

No question the water bags offer resistance, and very significant. The mere inertia of the water would do so all by itself. Bucket or bag matters not.

One can solve simple equations for relative resistance of bag and board. I have done this before, and found the significance, and posted it here before: compare the 1:7 to the .5:7.5 penetration distances (that is wood thickness to water thickness/depth, per compartment, ratio).

Those water bags will fling the first board fragments 20 feet uprange or straight up, on impact.

About 6 bucks per shot for bags and boards and water. No re-use of bags or boards once penetrated. You could recycle the water, if you could catch it.

Hmmm.

Fluids obey Navier-Stokes equations (googleable). Solids support shear. Some materials are sort of in-between -- non-Newtonian fluids (silly putty, which sort of does both -- it can break if you hit it with a hammer, or it can flow much more slowly; glass is like silly putty).

The question is whether things we think of as solid (muscle) look more like fluids or solids -- does their coligative character provide anything like the force required for a bullet to percieve any behavior different than Navier-Stokes behavior?

Even much lower speeds -- such as someone jumping from a bridge, may find water behaving much more like a solid than they expected. It can break bones and rip limbs. I suspect bullets experience much the same when they hit muscle. But muscle doesn't reassemble itself after getting hit; yet the parts of the muscle tissue that did not break maintain their ability to support shear and compression. That leaves a wound channel. Even momentum transfer to bone fragments at high velocities is likely to be more significant than the force required to break the fragments free (now I should go calculate what that should be, if I can get stress/strain #'s for bone...).

Dan

Yes indeed a water bag can be very hard.

I went back and found my simplistic calculations of relative resistance of water bag versus board.

10.5 inches of water resists the FN solid as much as a 1.0 inch thickness of plywood.

This seems to be "approximate" over the 2100 fps to 2700 fps velocity range. Don't hold me to any standards of statistical significance nor scientific validity. Just anecdotal.

Water favors an FN solid. Wood favors a RN solid.

However, water seems to destabilize the RN to a much greater degree than it does the FN, so the FN wins.

BTW, those were 1.5", 1.25", and 1" telescoping pre-drilled stainless steel square tubes for the main longitudinal members, three feet long for each of the three sections that bolt together.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Will:

How does energy kill when placement is poor or the bullet does not reach vitals ?

ALF,

Because, according to a book I have read a long time ago, one needs a certain amount of energy to kill a certain animals.

It was all explained very scientifically, way beyond anything I could undersatand.

It was a very comprehensive book, it dealt with birds as well as animals.

A duck needs a couple of foot pounds of energy to get it ready for the stove, while a white tail deer needs about 1000.

As I said earlier, I gave up trying to understand that book when I realised I was putting my life on the line by shooting buffalo and elephant with a 375 that does not have the required amount of energy to kill them.

I then remembered my friend Roy Vincent saying once we were out hunting. I had a 270 Ackley with me then, and we found the tracks of a big lion. Apparently not even the authorities in Zimbabwe think the 270 is good enough for lion, so I mentioned this to Roy, just in case we came across that lion.

He said "We'll ask the lion after we shoot him if he had noticed any difference!?

By the way, there was no mention of shot placement in the book I mentioned, so I presume it is not relevant to killing anything.

Yep,
FN's stay on course better in any medium it would seem, elephant or whatnot. Shot placement ...

Saeed,

You need one of Rons Version B "iron buffalos" in the UAE. I think it is a good set-up. I know you did not want H2O in your underground tunnel but its only a little bit of water!

Andy

quote:

Originally posted by Andy:
Saeed,

You need one of Rons Version B "iron buffalos" in the UAE. I think it is a good set-up. I know you did not want H2O in your underground tunnel but its only a little bit of water!

Andy

Take heed Saeed. Better to hear that from Andy than any other authority in the world.

Even though Saeed could have Walter hang elephant and buffalo corpses from a baobab for "tests," he would still get more consistent and useful data with an Iron Buffalo.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by Andy:
Saeed,

You need one of Rons Version B "iron buffalos" in the UAE. I think it is a good set-up. I know you did not want H2O in your underground tunnel but its only a little bit of water!

Andy

Take heed Saeed. Better to hear that from Andy than any other authority in the world.

Even though Saeed could have Walter hang elephant and buffalo corpses from a baobab for "tests," he would still get more consistent and useful data with an Iron Buffalo.

Where can one hunt Iron Buffalo?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Where can one hunt Iron Buffalo?

This unendangered species is more of a "shoot" than a "hunt." No high fences involved though, and no taxidermy. Game management involves only a bit of cellulose "feed" and adequate water.

Norbert had another interesting critter for this kind of shoot that required alternating 1.5" thick particle board and plastic water "jugs" of a uniquely suitable conformation, with square cross section.

Next time out, I might try particle board and one gallon milk jugs in a row. The Iron Buffalo has easily adjustable brackets.

The FN/FP solids are easy to keep centered, but any round nose solid would soon be exiting the sides of the water jugs between boards.

Pre-filled gallon jugs of water in the back of a bakkie would sure make the "shooting" easier at the "range."