I asked on this forum if anyone had experience with it, and got no response. Have now bought and used it on two bullets, and have quite a few more I'd like to try it on.

Would be happy to learn or share info on this tool, especially on the recycling of the ballistic wax compound. Send me PM.

In case anyone wants to know:

Shooting a 338 win mag, the 210 Nosler Partition penetrated 16" and the 250 partition penetrated 19". Retained weight on both was right at 82%. Loads were very close to max. Cavity volume on the 210 was 430ml and for the 250 it was 540ml.

Provides a good way to do a comparison.

HT, I've used wet phone books for years. It's not live medium but I've found that bullets recovered from game look amazingly like those from wetpack. Example, my 210grNP @ 2650fps impact vel. expands to .72caliber & penetrates about 16 1/2". The right bullet below was taken from a Kudu bull, penetration was a good deal more than 24" but expansion & retained wt.(168gr) are almost identical. Left bullet is wetpack strike.

Fredj338,

Were both bullets fired from the same weapon? The reason I ask is the rifling on the right bullet seems at a different twist than the left one.

Good question on the rifling twist. But what an amazing similarity between the two bullets. Lends credence to the idea that the wet phone books give a pretty good picture of performance. What's tough is to have the same conditions to fairly compare two bullets side by side - same phone books, same amount of moisture, etc.

Your retained weight of 80% compares very closely with the retained weight of 82% that I got.

Expanded diameter is an interesting measurement, and mine was very similar for both bullets, very close to the 0.72 yours had. However, I really don't know that it's all that important. The wound channel is a lot bigger than the bullet diameter, at least until the bullet has churned through a lot of animal / target. So the expanded diameter only measures the size of the hole at the far end of the penetration depth. I used to think the size of the expanded bullet had a lot to do with the size of the hole in the heart/lungs area. In looking at the post mortem on animals, the holes in lungs seem to correlate pretty closely with the bullets expanded size on the entry side. On the far side, not at all the case, and we see fist size holes coming out of deer. On larger animals like elk, the exit holes approximate bullet diameter again. In between though the damage done is in a far larger area than simply carving a 3/4" tunnel, such as an arrow would do.

I don't have the answers, and welcome the conversation.

Flute, same rifle, my .338-06. I think it;'s camera angle vs light on the twist. The wetpack bullet was at 50tds the kudu bullet @ about 115yds.
HT, I don't want to imply that wet phone books or any other man made product can duplicate a bullets performance in game but seeing is believing. I use the phonebooks because their density when wet is repeatable. With care you can fire 4 loads on one set of books.
It just gives me an idea how diff. bullets may work on game. A bullet that fragments & penetrates to a shallow level may not be a good choice for heavy animals & bad angled shots. A bullet that doesn't expand well may be too stout for deer/anteolpe broadside. It's all fun, & I hope it keeps me from a long tracking job someday.
On the bullet expanded dia. vs wound channel, I agree that one doesn't necessariliy correspond to the other. THe Nosler partition for example, expands violently initially & then looses ppart of it front core. They resulting expanded diameter is often smaller than the initial (if you could measure that). I've seen NPs exit w/ just a caliber size hole but the internal damage was massive, lending me to think the nose fragmented & the base exited.

HT, I'm VERY interested in the test tube. I've been to their site many times, just about ready to order a set-up.

I've always used water filled milk jugs to test expansion. There's really nothing to show EXCEPT the expanded bullet! Oh and trying to judge penetration by how many jugs it took to stop the bullet.

The ability to photograph the wound channel and get a reading on size is fantastic. Also the test media is NOT biodegradable, so no storage problems!

My problem is the expense of and shipping costs of the containers used to cast the media. Cutting them up means they have to be replaced each time? Can you use anything else as containers?

Grizz, that's the challenge I've had - how to reuse the ballistic compound after you've cut up the cardboard tubes.

I've been trying to find a source for foil-lined or mylar-lined cardboard tubes, not very thick walls, and 6" in diameter. So far, no joy.

So, the next step (until I find a source) is to buy some 6" cardboard tubes and use them. In order to keep the waxy/sticky compound from adhering to the sides of the tube, I've experimented with PAM spray (you know, the one used for cooking). With some smaller tubes, it worked great and the ballistic compound was easily separated from the cardboard wall.

Now to try it full scale !! (that's next)

I'll try to find some affordable tubes with thin walls that are anywhere from 18 - 24" long, again staying with the 6" diameter.

I talked to the BUllet Test Tube manufacturer, and they related the following:

"What I would suggest is purchasing an inner mold and target disk for each TUBE / Xtender you wish to recast. This mold and disk fits inside the end cap from a Test Tube. You can tape the re-cast TEST TUBES together to have a
TEST TUBE and Xtender. This is the most affordable method we offer.

Or you can purchase complete molds for each product and go from there. We should have a re-useable (permanent) mold available in about 30 days. Still in the testing process."

So while they're testing, I'm gonna try buying some tubes and using PAM. Will post on this forum how it went.

Couldn't you use PVC pipe and line it with a trash bag?

Has any one tried metal stove pipe or clothes dryer vent pipe ?

Some are curved sheet metal held into a circular pipe shape by bands. Pour the melted material in the pipe, let it set and form, then undo the bands and release the Bullet Test Tube material. Have not tried it myself, just a thought.

On another site someone suggested candle molds.

Maybe cake baking pans would work to form bricks or layers.

So how many inches of wet phone book material does it take to stop a round? Figure a 200 grain TSX from a 300 Ultra Mag with a muzzle velocity of 3050 fps.

/

quote:

Originally posted by H T:
...I'll try to find some affordable tubes with thin walls that are anywhere from 18 - 24" long, again staying with the 6" diameter. ...

Hey H T, 1. How "thin walled" are the Paper tubes that came with the Set-Up?

2. When you shot into the Gel, did the Paper Tube swell or split?

3. How did you hold the Tube in place so that it did not get pushed out of position when shot?

They're pretty thin - I measured at 0.80". The tubes I've been able to find so far are a bit thicker - 1/8". We'll see how that does.

As to what happened when shot, they split longitudinally in the places where the internal cavity (and the swelling) was the greatest.

As to holding in place, I set the tube and the extender on a board, and taped them in place. Then put a shock cord on the board so it could give a little. Sounds complicated, but it's really not. Anyway, when I shot, no problem with movement other than they bounced about some.

And Alf is correct about wanting really comparable data for the shooting. That's why I got enough material to do two shots at a time, so I can compare at least two bullets with each other on the same day. However, with holding everything else the same - tube length, thickness, and especially temperature of the ballistic compound - I should get comparable results even though I'm shooting a re-mold on a different day. We'll see if repeating the test using the same bullet on a re-mold makes any changes in penetration, etc.

As to actual performance in an animal, depends a whole lot on what animal. The manufacturer related that their approximation is 2:1, i.e. 16" penetration in the compound is equivalent to 32" of penetration in an animal. Whether correct or not, the ability of the bullet to retain weight, mushroom, penetrate, and hold it's shape can indeed be well gauged with this product, IMO.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by H T:
The manufacturer related that their approximation is 2:1, i.e. 16" penetration in the compound is equivalent to 32" of penetration in an animal. [QUOTE]

This also applies to the cavity diameter?

quote:

Originally posted by H T:
They're pretty thin - I measured at 0.80". The tubes I've been able to find so far are a bit thicker - 1/8". We'll see how that does.

Guessing (actually pretty certain) you meant .080" vs 1/8" (.125").

.80" would be something other than "thin".

/

ALF, nothing ever can replicate living tissue, not even living tissue! No animal alive has consistant density in it's body. The classic straight through the lungs shot may encounter bone right under the skin, maybe not. Lungs are partly air filled, hardly very dense.

The beauty of the test tube medium is the ease of re-casting it over and over. Since few of us have a lab enviroment, we can't use ballistic gellatin. It HAS to be kept at a steady temperature, and it will spoil in a few days if not refridgerated.

Corbin has some stuff called sim-test. It CAN be re-cast, and is near what bal. gelatin is for density. Also it don't spoil.

quote:

Originally posted by H T:
They're pretty thin - I measured at 0.80". The tubes I've been able to find so far are a bit thicker - 1/8". We'll see how that does.

Hey H T, I suspect you meant 0.080" since you said the 1/8" (0.125") is a bit thicker.

Will you be shooting the 1/8" Tubes anytime soon? The reason I ask is because I might have a suggestion for you, but have not had an opportunity to see if it is readily available.

When you do shoot the heavier Tubes, I'd also be interested to hear if they split, and/or if the Gel is forced back out the front of the Tube(Back Spray?, Back Splash?, A better Term?).

quote:

As to what happened when shot, they split longitudinally in the places where the internal cavity (and the swelling) was the greatest.

Yes, it is trying to contain a lot of Energy. Random strength of the Paper, actual placement of the Bullet, random anomolies would indeed cause the remaining "Cavity" to be questionable. Used in a side-by-side comparison, I can see where it would be interesting though. Surely you are taking "pictures" of the Cavities to archive.

quote:

As to holding in place, I set the tube and the extender on a board, and taped them in place. Then put a shock cord on the board so it could give a little. Sounds complicated, but it's really not. Anyway, when I shot, no problem with movement other than they bounced about some.

I see. Interesting to me that it was able to be restrained that way. I expected it to have a bit more movement.

quote:

... the ability of the bullet to retain weight, mushroom, penetrate, and hold it's shape can indeed be well gauged with this product, IMO.

Approximately how long does it take you to remelt the Gel, pour it into a Casing and for it to "set-up"? Is this something you would feel comfortable doing on a Colman Stove at the Range, or too complicated?

Best of luck with it. Always nice to see someone trying something new, even if it has a few tricky parts to making it work.

The first Bullets I Moly Coated left a lot of room for improvement. Now, it isn't such a big deal. Hopefully your Test Tubes will do the same.

/

The Corbin stuff can be diluted to pass the BB test but it is pretty flimsy at that dilution rate; too flimsy for the blocks to stand up, as I use them.

You're right - it was 0.080" wall thickness.

Interestingly, the cavity formed was far larger than the swelling on the outside would have suggested. Not sure if the material compressed somewhat, but it looks that way. For certain no material was ejected. I did take photos and they looked just like the brochure. Now we'll see how they look with the thicker wall.

As to doing this at the range, I don't think so. Besides the reported flashpoint of 170 degrees that I wouldn't want to breach there's also the issue of time for the compound to cool down to the 72 degree optimum temperature. They recommend that it be kept inside for 48 hours (room temp) to be sure the temperature is uniform throughout. If that's anywhere close to right, I'd guess it's out of the reach of something able to be done practically on a remote basis. I'll be using an old crock pot.

Alf, I appreciate your keep us on the straight and narrow as to validity of the results. I have to say though that while I understand the desirability of scaling material characteristics and simulating living tissue properties, my experience with bullets tends to support what I've seen with this product so far, and vice versa. So I'll have to settle for somewhat flawed comparability, but useful nonetheless.

There's a particular bullet I want to test and see if it performs as poorly in this test as what I witnessed in hunting with them. Will let the forum know.

quote:

Originally posted by H T:
Interestingly, the cavity formed was far larger than the swelling on the outside would have suggested. Not sure if the material compressed somewhat, but it looks that way. For certain no material was ejected.

Excellent info.

quote:

I did take photos and they looked just like the brochure. Now we'll see how they look with the thicker wall.

I agree that any change you make will have some impact on the final results.

quote:

As to doing this at the range, I don't think so. Besides the reported flashpoint of 170 degrees that I wouldn't want to breach there's also the issue of time for the compound to cool down to the 72 degree optimum temperature. They recommend that it be kept inside for 48 hours (room temp) to be sure the temperature is uniform throughout. If that's anywhere close to right, I'd guess it's out of the reach of something able to be done practically on a remote basis. I'll be using an old crock pot.

I stopped by two different places yesterday to see if they had anything close to what I was thinking about mentioning to you, but apparently it isn't made, or they do not carry it. Last year I got involved in a project that needed a "Form" to hold some stuff in place while it set-up. Also wanted to be able to remove the Form and re-use it. And the Form needed to "release" cleanly without damaging the Form.

Looked around a bit and noticed some Low Pressure "Flexible Pipe Connections". They are made out of a heavy black rubber and come with a couple of Hose Clamps. I split them lengthwize with a razor knife and coated the inside with regular car wax. The hose clamps held them together well enough that the mix did not leak through the split. They were held in place, while the mix set-up, by using RTV as a temporary glue/seal along the bottom edge when pressed against the object. Then the mix was poured in the open end, allowed to set-up over night and the Forms were peeled away the next day for re-use.

But... I could not locate a thick rubber pipe long enough to provide a Form for you. It would be possible to stack a few 6" Flex Couplings, but they are only 6" long and $16 each. Obviously you would need at least 4 of them to make just one Test Tube, so I eliminated them.

So, how about a piece of 6" ID PVC? A 10' length is about $21 and you could possibly get 3 Test Tubes from one stick. Of course they would need to be split straight(maybe a bandsaw) and the inside waxed, but the edges could be RTVed to hold two halves together, or Duct Tape might do just as well while your Gel sets-up. And a couple of Hose Clamps just to make sure they don't slip apart during transport, which can be removed for the shot.

The only thing I can see wrong is the Bullet Impact in the Gel "might" fracture the PVC - don't know. Perhaps Schedule 40 PVC might take it in stride.

If it did work, you would have reusable Tubes. And as long as you "compared" the results from Bullet to Bullet shot into the same style of Test Tube, the comparisons would have some useful significance. Not too expensive if you just want to try it and see if it works.

I'll keep looking for a source to provide a heavy rubber tube, but I'm not sure where to check next. Darn shame to have to buy new Tubes for each shot, but I can see where the company that sells them would like that part.(Need a money-grubbing hand-wringing icon. )

Best of luck to you with the Testing.