Hornady GMX
I got in a mood to do a little expansion testing. The Hornady GMX interested me in that it wasn't pure copper, so it would be less likely to copper foul the barrel.

This is hardly the first time I've done this sort of thing. Back in 2002 I did some tests on the then new Hornady interbond. Anyway, here's some pics of 2 recovered GMX bullets fired from my Browning A-bolt 300 WSM;












Now aren't those some beautiful mushrooms? Expansion is .615 and .640, retained weight is written on the paper in the bottom pic. Which is the absence of the plastic tip for one and maybe the loss of some of the metal and the tip on the other.

The story behind this bullet is that it is built from gilding metal, the same stuff most jacketed bullets use for their jackets. Therefore it's like shooting any other bullet, as far as the fouling goes.

I loaded these with my favorite powder for my 300 WSM, H-4831 SC. I choose a mid range load, Lyman 48th said start at 65.0 to 72.0,(for 165's), I went with 68.5, loaded 15 for testing. I forgot to write down the chrono readings, but remember 3000+ for two rounds.

These were fired into water filled gallon milk jugs laid on their sides, one behind the other, @ 100 yds. The first three were lost in the grass, the bullets kept skipping out the side of the 3rd jug. Finally 4 and 5 were captured. One came to rest in the third jug, one barely made it into the forth.

The first jug was mostly blown into 4 pieces, the second was split wide open, the third simply had a hole through with the bullet laying in the bottom, the one that made it to the forth barely made a slit in the bottom.

Thanks for the review.

Have you shot them for accuracy yet?

Another range trip today, this time was all handgun shootin. Had some jugs left, AND some water, so I devised a small test using some HP s-auto rounds. First came my SA 1911 45. I got some 185 XTP Hornady's some time back loaded them with 6.9 231.

I lined up 4-1 gallon milk jugs filled with water. Good thing I used 4 for the 185 XTP! Bullet was inside the fourth jug!







That's the 185 45 XTP on the right. It expanded to .550 and penetrated 3 jugs to end up in the fourth.

Left bullet is a speer gold dot 40 S&W in 165 grain weight. It expanded to .656, and stopped in the second jug! At least the first one did---since I had four jugs end to end. that meant I had 2 left. Soooooo I lined them up and shot again. Welllllll that time the bullet penetrated the second jug to be lost in the berm.

My take on this is I was disappointed in the performance of the XTP. I would expect it to expand further. I was pleasantly surprised in the gold dot's expansion, AND the weight retention! However 1 bullet of each proves almost nothing as far as statistics are concerned.

Maybe this will interest more people than the rifle test!???¿

thanks.. looks cool.. would be nice for .416!

quote:

Thanks for the review.

Have you shot them for accuracy yet?

K-22, I shot 4 while checking the scope was still on target. With no load development, it went into 1.750 I wasn't being especially careful, but that's a place to start. I seldom load the starting loads to mid loads, just start halfway between min and max.

That rifle is capable of ¾ inch groups with BT's. One inch with my hunting load for Hornady interbonds. I haven't decided whether I'm gonna hunt with these. The interbonds work quite well on our Wi. whitetails. BUT after having a 180 interbond disintegrate on a 2 inch poplar sapling, causing me to completely miss a deer, I may switch to the GMX. ( yeah I know you're not supposed to shoot through brush, but a running deer at 75 yds, I waited for an opening. That was the ONLY sapling in a good sized opening!) Had it dead to rights too!

Hey Grizz-

Those are great looking mushrooms from your test. I've done a little bit of water testing of bullets myself and I know how tedious it can be. One of the makers of an unnamed custom bullet says that water is one of the most harsh tests for bullets. He claims that the ballistic gelatin and book binders glue doesn't tear them to shreds as badly as water can. Just passing on another person's opinions I guess.

Take care and good luck making your decision on which one to use this Fall!

Kenati, I became aware that water was not the best for performance testing of bullets. It is real hard on most of them. BUT it is cheap and repeatable. I got a week off of work, thanks to the economy, so I have a little time to complete some shooting projects for once. We're supposed to make loud noises for the fourth ain't we?

I used to fill the jugs here at home, then transport them to the range. Now I have a 35 gallon tank in the back of my Saturn vue, that I use to water my garden,(community victory garden). Just take a "G" bag of jugs and fill them at the range!

Joyce Hornady used wet lap to test his bullets when he was developing the early Hornady soft nose bullets. Grand Island Nebraska was a big paper town, the wet lap was the paper pulp before it was rolled out. We can get close to that by wetting phone books or newspaper, but it's a lot harder than the wet lap he used.

Anybody remember Col. George C. Nonte? He wrote a column for Shooting Times w-a-y back when. He used something called dux seal to test handgun bullets. It was used to seal where utilities entered a building. About the consistency of modeling clay.

I seem to have lost track of a test tube for expanding bullets. The media could be re-melted and used as many times as you wanted. I thought I had a link stored in my bookmarks. It wasn't cheap, and it could only be used for one bullet, then you had to re-cast the stuff to test the next one. Best part of that system was you could see the wound channel by cutting it lengthwise. Damn failing memory, I can't even remember their name!

I am surprised at the penitration. I have been playing with 50 gr Barnes TSX 22 cal in a 14 inch contender 218 Mashburn Bee with 8.5 gr Bluedot and they go into the third galon milk jug of water.
Lyle

The Water test is great for showing if a bullet expands to much and fails, this one performed perfect, but now we need a test on a less harsh of a target to prove that this bullet will expand enough on a lung shot that goes in between rib bones. It might be like the barnes X bullet and act like a solid on soft skin game at lower velocities. Hornady says this bullet will expand at 2000fps-3500fps. I guess i would prefer expansion at 1000fps-3500fps but I have not seen and havnt found the b.c. on this bullet yet to know how long range capable it is. I need to call hornady to find out BC's and see if they have built the perfect bullet. The E-tips in 180 are ballisticly awesome and accurrate and I shot a aoudad with a 300 ultra mag at 400yds and it did the job but definetly didnt slam him to the ground. small hole in small hole out I just wish i had the bullet to see how much it expanded without hitting shoulders Iam afraid not enough.

GMX BCs are listed on the GMX page at Hornady.

http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=792

thanks

i was just on there a few days ago looking for the bc's and couldnt find them, thats what i get for trying to navigate with a blackberry.

They better hurry up with some more bullets to compete with the E tip. E tip looks to have the advantage on paper, but its a start. i want a 250gr 338 E tip or GMX with high bc's I just cant trust the accubond on a shoulder shot at 400yds or beyond, but it does seem to be accurate.