Before ballistic gelatine was the norm. most bullet manuf. used....................wetpack! It's not an indication of how a bullet will necessarily perform in game, but bullets I have recovered from game look amazingly like the ones I recover from wet phone books. Penetration is much less in the wetpack but expansion is very close to what happens in flesh.
Similar studies were done by Anow & Marshall on terminal balistics w/ handgun rounds. They used BG, but also found that expansion was very close to that achieved in wetpack. For that matter, water works well too. I've found, if the bullet fragments in wetpack it pretty much does the same in flesh, definetly bone. If it holds together well & penetrates deep, it does the same in game. One on the left is wet phone books, one on the right is taken from a big kudu bull. They weigh exactly the same & almost identical expansion. Wow, they even kinda look alike!

I have shot alot of phone books to see what the bullet does and have found it tells alot
about what a bullet will do.

Its fun too

.

Maybe true Alf, but I am not trying to sim. wounding ability, but compare one bullet to another. As you can see by the photo, pretty darn close.
As far as S&M, not defending their study, but I haven't seen/read any theory or study that is really better. Good bullets in the right place always work well. Wetpack gives ME a good idea of what the bullet will do when it hits flesh, not whether it kills better or the wound size but just how the bullet will hold up, expand, fragment, etc. For those of us who don't live in a hunting paradise like Africa, so we can do many live tests, it's a decent test medium (BTW, I never really like water tests either).

Hey Fred, Your flick does shut down all the totally incorrect negative arguments. Any chance we can get you to do it for all the same bullets and velocities that Mr. Sciuchetti did? Or maybe just the new ones added since he did his absolutely excellent Test?

Hey ALF, I see you are still here, but you did not answer my question, perhaps you missed it.

Have you actually read Mr. Sciuchetti's Test Report?

If I don't hear from you this time, I'll accept that you either did not read it or did not comprehend what he was actually trying to accomplish.
---

Nearly forgot, if you or AIU have anything, make that ANYTHING, better than Mr. Sciuchetti's Test Report for a Trend Analysis Comparison of Expansion and Weight Retention for a similar amount of Bullets at that many different Impact Velocities, I for one would be interested in reading it. How about a link to it?

.

Obviously this animal had recently eaten and its bowels were very full. At death the lungs deflated due to pressure from the massively filled stomach, liver, and other abdominal organs. I believe, if alive, the animal's lung area would be inflated and larger than shown - maybe twice the volume, but not necessarily twice the area shown, but cetainly, larger.

Notice the location of spinal column - circa mid "thorax" and the large amount of overlying neck/upper back muscles. I've shot into this area before - it won't drop the animal for long - maybe a short period from the blow (like getting hit in the head with a rubber hammer). Shooting too high can be a REAL PROBLEM with guns sighted in 3" high at 100 yds. Such guns are ~4" high at 175 yds. Likewise, notice the large gut area. When big game animals are shot into either of these two areas (gut or high neck/back area), I don't care what bullet you're using, they'll run away and become potentially lost!

As I've stated before, I want my bullet to go into the lung heart region and open up quickly. Getting through the rib cage (and even the relatively midly built shoulder) is not that difficult. You don't need a torpedo.

Alf, that guy in RSA must have really been bored. There is only a reasonable comparison between a live animals organ placement & a dead ones, muscles relax, lungs deflate, etc.

A comment about telephone books and the like. Just because it's the ONLY DATA doesn't make it valid data. This is shown by the comments in reference to legal testimony - to be effective in court (VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS), where hopefully the truth rules, one must introduce VALID DATA. This is good; I'm glad to hear our court systems have, at least, some scientific credibility.

I'm interested in the terminal ballistics of big game animal vital organs not telephone books. Actually, Gary's data further re-inforced my belief that solid copper bullets (and the like) are risky bullets for big-game, because they're contructed TOO TOUGH. Gary's pictures show that they hardly open-up at all, even when fired into a telephone book - let alone though a thin rib cage and spongy/airy mass of lung tissue. Also, as a result of Gary's study, I know why NBTs and the like are so deadly - killing quickly and humanely, when properly placed into the lung/heart cavity, because they are expanding producing massive organ damage.

Alf, you are entirely correct about the standard of proof being (rightly) higher in a court of law. What the heck does that have to do with this discussion? This is about relative expansion performance of bullets in wetpack. The connection to on game performance can be argued ad nauseum, but I think any reasonable person with extensive experience with any of these bullets can use the chart and have a decent idea how another would perform on the same animal.

That in and of itself is quite useful. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

Alf is right, besides none of these test produce the same results twice in a row...

However the results were pretty obvious on this one, so nothing earth shattering came out of it. Most of us knew the results as accepted by word or mouth and general knowledge..Monolithics penetrate best followed by Noslers, now thats pretty well known...

AIU, truth in the courts, please. Everyone knows what goes on in a court room has little to do with the truth, but who puts on the better show.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
...Now I will sketch a simple little example for you and all who think these tests are valid:

You and 3 other hunters are out in the woods hunting. All 4 of you are hunting with the same caliber and bullets and take shots at game.

The next day someone stumbles across a body of a person shot in the woods, it appears that he has been shot / hit accidently by a stray hunting rifle bullet.

You now get singled out, charged by the cops for the homicide of this person and the charge is based on the premise that a bullet from your gun did the fatal wound.

This premise is made, based on a comparison of: a wetpack test firing / a whitetail deer roadkill test firing picture on a pretty chart / firing at soap / clay / wood baffles / firing through a line up of 10 safeway milk jugs filled with water? Take your pick?

Will you and your defence accept that ? No way !

I tell you what if it were OJ or Michael Jackson ( heaven forbid) thus accused, their sharp eyed lawyers and their expert witnesses would have that testimony out so fast there would not even be a case ! ...

Hey ALF, First off, thanks for responding.

Not intended as a joke in any way, but in the above situation, the dead guy would probably be charged with "Trespassing" where I usually hunt.
---

Also want to tell you how much I enjoy the flicks of the "Sectioned Critter". I do not believe I would have noticed anything at all concerning the inflation level of the lungs. And if you hadn't mentioned it was frozen, I feel sure it would have taken me awhile to think of someone having done that. Nice flicks indeed.

I can't remember ever having seen the lungs in that condition. They are either mush or intact and removed as an entity on the Game I kill.

So, I do appreciate the flick.
---

I still have the impression that we are somehow discussing two completely different issues concerning Mr. Sciuchetti's Report. I don't see the tie-in to human corpses in his Report anywhere. So, I'm at a loss as to how you got to there from his Report. I must be missing something.

Meanwhile though, I still find the Report to be about as close to reality on Black Bears, Hogs and Deer as I have experienced with a good number of the "styles" of bullets he tested. If you ever decide to hunt any of those, I can recommend a look at Mr. Sciuchetti's Test Report to get an idea of how well your bullet selection will do on them.

Best of luck to you.

Truth can win in court. I've seen it happen.

.

Nice post. Thanks.

Hey ALF, I've got a feeling we are thinking about different things again, but I'll be glad to share my thoughts with you. Always nice to be able to "discuss" something where I disagree, cause I realize there is a HUGE potential for me to learn something. And hopefully the other fellow as well.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Why do we as hunters even compare projectile behaviour in targets?

I think of it simply as a means to gather some data on a large amount of bullets in a short time. And lots of different Designs as well.

quote:

I mean why would someone want to shoot roadkill whitetail deer or fire bullets into packs of wet newsprint?

Ballistic Gelatin is quite expensive and requires extensive amounts of time and manpower just to gather input from a single shot. The cost and amount of time required to take and record the number of shots fired during Mr. Sciuchetti's Test would surely prohibit it being done outside a Government Test Facility.

I can see a Winchester size company running a few tests with Ballistic Gelatin on a new Design in their R&D group. But, I still don't see them doing it on as grand a scale as Mr. Sciuchetti was able to do.

quote:

Is the object not to find answers as to what constitutes the best killing ability projectile?

I believe the best way to get that kind of information is by first understanding the actual "intended" Design Envelope of a specific bullet. As you know, some bullets designed to do a specific task just don't do it very well, some do it just fine and some do it superbly.

With that historical knowledge, I see a great advantage to firing it into a medium that is "similar" to a medium that has been used for a similar task that has good retained data concerning the Expansion, Depth-of-Penetration, and Weight Retention characteristics at different Impact Velocities.

So you take the "new" Test Bullet, run it into the medium and see how well it's "Design Envelope" compares to those previously tested. By doing so, it simply gives you a spot from which to start. For example, using the old Nosler Partition as an example, if a new bullet (like a Fail Safe) Expanded the same or slightly less, showed deeper penetration at high impact velocity, then I would have expected it to perhaps provide Exits on shoulder-to-shoulder shots on Large Game that would normally retain the Nosler within the animal from the same angle.

Another example being more appropriate to the Game " I " hunt would be the Remington RN compared to a Sierra MatchKing or Nosler Ballistic Tip. Here Mr. Sciuchetti's Test provides a great start to understanding the "potential" of how the REM RN performs in comparison to the other two.

Now, once you have that knowledge, all you have to do is go out and kill a lot of Game. Then see how well the First-Hand kills using bullets having a "Similar Design" by the "same manufacturer" compares to the information provided in Mr. Sciuchetti's Test Report.

I've no intention on starting a bragging contest concerning kill-count, as I detest that in anyone. I will say I've killed a good number of Black Bears, Deer and Hogs over the 50 years I've been intentionally trying to kill things. And from what I can see in Mr. Sciuchetti's Report, the Comparative Trend Analysis is extremely close to what I've experienced. Not exact, since each shot is different, but enough cumulative viewing of the inside of those critters that I sure appreciate how close to reality Mr. Sciuchetti's Report actually is.

quote:

So if we go to all this trouble why would we accept then results that are in fact meaningless or fatally flawed? ...

As an example, if I had personally experienced Ballistic Tips performing like the Partitions in Mr. Sciuchetti's Report and also experienced Partitions performing like the Ballistic Tips in Mr. Sciuchetti's Report, then I'd be right at the head of the line condeming it. But from what I've experienced First-Hand on a huge number of kills, Mr. Sciuchetti's Report is just excellent. I don't find any meaningless or fatally flawed data in it as you mentioned.
---

Let's try and narrow the questions down to where we can see where the difference we have actually exists in Mr. Sciuchetti's Report.

How about picking "one" specific bullet in Mr. Sciuchetti's Report that you have First-Hand Experience with which does not Expand or Penetrate in a "similar way" as shown, in comparison to the Nosler Partition. I personally do not believe it is appropriate to discuss actual First-Hand bullet performance on bullets that I have less than 24-25 kills with and much prefer 100 or more. So it would be nice if the bullet you do mention is one you have at least 24-25 kills with so you have a good data base.

Of course, you will also have to have enough First-Hand Partition kills to make the comparison worthwhile.

I look forward to your First-Hand observations.

Alf, it only gives you a relative comparison frm bullet to bullet in a fairly repeatable, inexpensive material. Nothing more, liek I said for lack of a better mouse trap, wetpack works well enough to allow me to compare a NBT to a NP to a Barnes, etc. & then help me to make a decision on what I want to hunt this or that critter with.
AIU, yeah I've seen truth win in court I've also seen pure BS win in court too. He who has the better game wins almost always, truth ir not.

quote:

Let's try and narrow the questions down to where we can see where the difference we have actually exists in Mr. Sciuchetti's Report.

How about picking "one" specific bullet in Mr. Sciuchetti's Report that you have First-Hand Experience with which does not Expand or Penetrate in a "similar way" as shown, in comparison to the Nosler Partition. I personally do not believe it is appropriate to discuss actual First-Hand bullet performance on bullets that I have less than 24-25 kills with and much prefer 100 or more. So it would be nice if the bullet you do mention is one you have at least 24-25 kills with so you have a good data base.

Of course, you will also have to have enough First-Hand Partition kills to make the comparison worthwhile.

I look forward to your First-Hand observations.

Hey ALF, Where did you go?

When does TELEPHONE-BOOK SEASON open? I'll know from Mr. Sciuchetti's report, which bullet to use.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
When does TELEPHONE-BOOK SEASON open? I'll know from Mr. Sciuchetti's report, which bullet to use.

Hey AIU, I'd guess it depends on where you live. Where I'm at it is open year round.
---

Do you all suppose ALF is out Testing some bullets so he can answer my simple question for him? Surely asking for his actual "First-Hand Experience" on what he sees as different to Mr. Sciuchetti's absolutely excellent Test Report, isn't creating problems for him.

HC, this debate will continue forever. Each of us has our preferences - like fishermen and their lure choices. I say "fish" with what you've got confidence in - you're likely to aim straighter and hunt better. To each his own.

Hey AIU, Didn't realize I was "arguing" with you. I think we agree on using the proper bullet for the task at hand.

What were we arguing about? Sure don't want to let my "side" down on what ever it is.

HC, absolutely - the right bullet for the specific application - I couldn't agree more. Yet, many of those posting on this forum will have a different opinion as to what the right bullet is for that specific application. Differences in opinion and approach are fine with me - heaven forbid, if we had only one bullet manufacturer and one philosophy of bullet design. Variety makes this hobby FUN! Happy/safe hunting/shooting - Regards, AIU

.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
How about picking "one" specific bullet in Mr. Sciuchetti's Report that you have First-Hand Experience with which does not Expand or Penetrate in a "similar way" as shown, in comparison to the Nosler Partition. I personally do not believe it is appropriate to discuss actual First-Hand bullet performance on bullets that I have less than 24-25 kills with and much prefer 100 or more. So it would be nice if the bullet you do mention is one you have at least 24-25 kills with so you have a good data base.

Of course, you will also have to have enough First-Hand Partition kills to make the comparison worthwhile.

I look forward to your First-Hand observations.

Hey ALF, I do somehow believe you have answered something, but once again I really don't think you answered the above question. I don't see any mention of the actual Bullet, it's Expansion, Weight Retention or Penetration you have First-Hand Experience with, that indicates a problem with Mr. Sciuchetti's Report.

Are you still talking about fruit?

.

quote:

Originally posted by denton:


A few years back, Handloader published the results of a test of 180 grain 30-06 bullet penetration vs. impact speed, using wet phone books as the target. [/i]

So they got about 3100 fs from an 06 pushing 180's? The final penetration results must have been from point blank. They are more capable handloaders than me because I cant get that from any 06 Ive ever owned.

ALF, you're right on the money with your analysis - animal tissues and especially the thoracic cavity share little with wet telephone books. Likewise, Wstrnhuntr, I hadn't noticed the 3100 fps for the '06, which is too much. Nice posts! AIU

Hey ALF, Though I've asked the question numerous times, I see you are still avoiding answering it.

Perhaps the question is too confusing for you, so I'll go a step at a time. If this proves to be too large of a challenge for you, I will understand.

Name a bullet listed on Mr. Sciuchetti's Report you have made 24 or more kills with. If it more than 100 kills, that is even better.

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
... So where do you want me to start?

Hey ALF, I realize you are a "politician" at heart. I do understand your reluctance to answer the question, since doing so truthfully will validate the accuracy of Mr. Sciuchetti's Report.

.

ALF, you have made and defended your points very well. Obviously, you're likely the most qualified on the forum to speak authoritatively on this subject - I haven't killed as many big-games animas as you, although my experience mirrors yours. Stick to you points - you're on the money, so far as I'm concerned. Big-game animals are not telephone books, not even close. The doubters should study mammal anatomy and they would see why.

quote:

Ok so how many rotations does this "buzz saw" make before coming to a stop or giving a shoot through, methinks he should do the math.

Read the rest of his report, instead of doing math he performed a test to prove that the "buzz saw" effect is bunk. Of course, maybe it has a huge effect on live game animals, just not phone books.

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
...Sadly this site does not allow me the space to post the hundred or so more similar articles I have here filed on this subject. Nor the ones that deal with the mathematical modelling of wounds in tissue.

Sadly? Just the opposite.

We ask for "First Hand Experience" about ANY bullet you have used and all you have to offer is "other peoples articles" that have nothing to do with the actual questions being asked.

Of course there is a rational reason for avoiding a question. You just don't know the answer.

It is obvious you have some fooled Just not everyone.

ALF, as a result of your experience and scholarly approach to the subject, what bullets would you recommend for big game in the following live-weight categories? Please, be manufacturer type specific.

1. 100-150 lbs.
2. 150-250 lbs.
3. 250-500 lbs.
4. 500-1000 lbs.
5. 1000-2000 lbs.
6. 2000-5000 lbs.
7. >5000 lbs.

Regards, AIU

.

.