Jim -- one consideration for the use of round noses is that they are much easier to make feed in a bolt action rifle......I know this doesn't apply to double rifles!

My question is, has anybody done any penetration tests comparing a 240/250 Keith bullet to say a Federal 300gr Cast Core, or Garretts Hammerhead load?

NE 450 -- I am actually planning on performing such a test -- a 250 grain Keith-style load versus a 320 grain WFN load that I use. Plus, will be testing some fairly light weight .454 Casull loads along side of the 400 grain WFN loads that I use. Stay tuned.

A few thoughts on this subject. We hunters seem to often loose sight of what we really want to know. What we really want to know is whether a given bullet is suitable to reliably kill a given animal, under given shot placement amd range.

If we want to drill holes in mushy newsprint or clay, then such tests are valid in and of themselves. But to say such tests are the be all end of how a round will perform on game, well that's a bit of a stretch.

So how does a bullet kill an animal, it either disrupts tissues to cause death by bleeding, or it destroys vital organs or the nervous system.

Tissue destruction is based on both the depth and DIAMETER of the wound channel. What is always never mentioned when comparing the heavy hardcast moderate velocity deeply penetrating bullets to the faster rifle bullets is the DIAMETER of the wound. Why is this? Could it be that a major factor in the ability of these bullets to kill is never mentioned, because it would show the difference in terminal performance betwee these rounds?????

I have nothing to gain by bashing rounds, and enjoy shooting and hunting with handguns and rifles. I just try to keep emotionally detached from the arguments, and let the body of evidence from real world performance on game over the past century be a guide to what I use.

While I enjoy shooting my 480, and plan to use it on some hunts, I'll never delude myself into thinking it is any way shape or form equal or better to a high powered rifle. It neither has the power, accuracy or shootability of a rifle over a broad application of uses. In thick brush and close range it does have a slight advantage, but in every other application it has slight to extensive disadvantages.

Paul, I agree with you. I use both high-powered rifles and pistols to hunt with and enjoy both, and appreciate what they have to offer. But, with regards to pistol performance, I want a large diameter, heavy bullet that will punch a big hole all the way through the animal at whatever angle.

Paul,

I do not believe anyone on this forum made the statement to the effect that the slower moving hard cast bullets were more effective than high-powered rifles. They sure as hell can and do out penetrate them in the wet newsprint testing. I've also got a good bit of game under my belt that does somewhat correlate with what we are doing with the tests. They are as you put it, not the end all be all.

This whole thing got started when raym got his question answered then got his ass on his shoulderblades; something that is his personal problem. Velocity is however, a diminishing variable and bullet weight needs to be heavy enough to work for one.

The fact that the .475 and .500 Linebaughs are capable of dumping an elephant on his arse have been proven. Same for Capes and other large game. These cartridges do not develop the wound channel of the larger rifles, but when one puts a bullet through a game animal's brain or breakes them down with a handgun instead of a rifle; what is the difference?

I was just trying to point out that penetration isn't the only factor in terminal performance. If wound channel is a moot point, than a 357 mag with a bullet heavy enough to penetrate on par with the 475 and 500 will kill just as well. And, given certain shot placement that is true.

Paul,

As you well know, wound channel does indeed come into play heavily when hemorrhage is the mechanism for killing. More bleeding usually occurs through the exit wound, so I believe penetration to be important as well.

When one makes a brain shot and shuts down the CNS, then penetration is the key and in my opinion, wound channel a moot point.

I am sitting on the sidelines watching as I am a BIG Bore Nut and I do want to stay that way,but I believe another very determined poster did a test on this and it was Very Thorough here on AR ahile back.I will try to find it,but I hope one of you may have seen it and can locate it if I cant? He took a 470 rifle and made a test box like Linebaugh uses and proceeded to video and WELL documented his results...He took the SAME bullets and loaded them at 3 or 4 velocities,lets say 1000-1500-2000 and 2400 or so (memory not sure?) and then measured depths of penetration.I think they were all cast bullets and Lord and behold,he finally "shot" holes in the Liebaugh seminar theory.(Note;I am NOT saying handguns dont do Fantastic jobs,I am hunting Brown Bear next week with a 50-110 600grs at 1400fps 5"BFR!)..OK,back to the gist of this..his results showed -Faster the SAME bullet,the more panels/boards the SAME bullets went through/penetrated)...Now,I (me) feels that this is more correct and makes sense.I am not here to put any of you down,or say I know more,just relaying a factual test with ALL being equal...Sure,a 45/70 540 Garret in a lever will do fantastic at 1500fps,but take that SAME cartridge and push it 500fps more in the Same rifle and I would bet a tab at one of my bars that the faster bullet will go a lil deeper.No prejudices here..The Linebaugh seminars are fun and very interesting and Otto Candies and I are hunting partners and both believe and have proved that 1250fps with a GOOD solid,shaped properly (Blunt,sq shouldered)will kill elephant,buffalo and so on)He has done it many times and so have I on 2 buff...Now,I will look for this Really Fantastic test and come back to this hopefully with a link)...Also,Rob (Robogunbuilder) is a pioneer with this ballistic stuff and I bet he would like to add his 2 cents! : )...OK,I found it and I am sure many have seen it,but just in case,here it is...a "apples to apples" test! (now dont start kicking sand in my face,or I will have to go get my Mighty Mastodon" out! http://www.470mbogo.com/PenetrationComparison.html Read his opening page on this link,esp the bottom paragraph and then click on to his video...Neato!...OR http://www.470mbogo.com/

this is all fine and dandy and I think most are splitting hairs on this matter. I have an instance in which 500 fps made absolutely no difference in depth of penetration. The .50 Alaskan just did not outpenetrate the .500 Linebaugh using the same bullet. After hearing all the hype and reading 470mbogo's penetration test myself, I wonder why it is I'm supposed to throw out all the data we've collected over what appears to be six data points. Yes, increasing the velocity will increase penetration in certain instances, 470's study is the velocity level where it starts to make a difference. Go back down into the area where revolvers operate and he may just find out what we've been doing.

raym got his ass on his shoulderblades simply because he was provided data from testing that did not agree with his preconceived ideas. He really got put off when I asked him about his background and why he was quoting "men of great African experience". Then he took this over to the big bore forum where a group of big bores proceeded to make asses of themselves with the crack pipe remarks and taking the information out of context. I have not to the best of my knowledge ever stated the data I have accumulated is the end all, be all on the subject; quite the opposite.

Driving bullets at faster velocities than standard cartridges was commercialized by Roy Weatherby over 50 years ago, and he wasn't the first to do this.

I am not arguing the fact that a .460 Weatherby will create a larger wound channel than a .45-70 or a .458 Win Mag for that matter. But for pure penetration, I've seen the straight wall revolver cartidges out penetrate a .416 Rigby. If the big bore folks can't accept this, then that's their own problem not mine. Likewise, I watched John Wooters .416 Taylor put a 400 grain FMJ through 72" of wet newsprint and ricocheted off downrange. Get your Mighty Mastadon out or not; make it easy on yourself.

It looks like the 470 Mbogo test box was with squares of plywood. It would be interesting to see the same test but with wet newprint.
Several articles in the gun mags say that wet newprint is a pretty good comparison to flesh. I guess a first big question is- Is this an accurate statement? Is wet newprint a good medium for compareing penetration in an animal?

I think that the big slow bullet question should be:
Is this an acceptable level of power and penetration for (insert big game animal here)? Not is it better than a 470 NE.

(everything below assumes a good quality bullet suitable for the job)
The 475 and 500 Linebaugh rounds in revolvers have been used for Brown Bear, American Bison, Cape Buff, Elephant... and they seem to have done a good job(from what is being published and reported).
Sooo, If the 475 Linebaugh from a 5.5" barreled revolver(400gn @ 1350fps) is good enough for Cape Buff, then why would it not be good enough from a Puma M92 Levergun with 16 or 20" barrel?
If the 475 Linebaugh is enough gun, then why is the 45-70 not enough?
Maybe we need to use a different name for the 45-70?. .458-405 @ 2000fps

From what I've read, many hunters use a smaller rifle(416 whatever) and the PH will carry the stopping gun (470, 500, 577 whatever).
If this is an acceptable way to hunt dangerous game, then why would it still not be acceptable for the hunter to carry a gun/round that has been proven reliable for takeing(Cape Buff, ...) and have the PH still carry the stopping gun?
Didn't Bell use the 7x57 for piles of Elephants? It's not considered big enough, but it still worked well for him.

Is the 30-06 better than a 338Win mag for hunting Elk? I think that most everyone here would say no, but the 30-06 still works well on Elk and I'm only useing a 165 Rem Corelokt at 2700fps.

/

Alf, could you give the source for the info?

I do know that a Garrett Hammerhead from a 4" S&W 44 Mag will penetrate to the brain, side brain shot on a cow elephant.

Also a Buffalo Bore 420 gr cast bullet from a 5" FA 475 Linebaugh will penetrate into the brain on both a frontal, and a side brain on a bull elephant.

/

I see how they show that wood and dry paper are different from muscle, but how about water soaked newsprint?

I think from all of the various people/groups that are doing penetration tests with various availible materials, that wet news paper seems to give a fair representation for penetration in an animal.

Some of the Linebaugh seminar stuff that I have read shows that they put a beef knukle at the front of the box to shoot through. That way if shooting through a shoulder or whatever would upset a bullet and cause it to vear off path or upset and come apart, it should show in the penetration box also.

The 470 Mbogo test of shooting through a stack of boards showed exactly what it was supposed to. You put more energy in and the bullet penetrates farther in a uniform solid material.
People and animals are mostly made up of water, so the test medium should include the properties of water.

There have been many different experiments with varying flat points on the bullet. The Cavitator comes to mind as they varied the size and shape of the cavitator flat. With a big enough flat the bullet penetrated much farther than a round nose or smaller flat. Their theory was the big meplat created a wave in front of the bullet so it traveled inside of a bubble so the drag on the side of the bullet was much less.
Once the velocity was down far enough, then the bubble closed in and the penetration was limited. Or if the meplat was damaged enough or too small to start with, then the penetration was greatly reduced.
(I may have butchered the whole explenation or theory, so please correct me where I've erred)
The Cavitator flat was larger then the nose of the bullet and they claimed that with the right proportions that the penetration was increased.
I think that just a large flat meplat would do just as well and I think that this is what is being shown with the big penetration figures for big and slow bullets from the hand cannons.
It would be interesting to see the side by side penetration of the same bullet at pistol velocities up to rifle velocities. This should be done with cast bullets and with a solid non deforming bullet.
It might be interesting to do calibers as well to see if the results are similar from 358, 375, 416, 458, 475, 510...
At the Linebaugh seminars, have they checked heavy 357 bullets?

/

/

From what I have seen at the Linebaugh seminars in wet newspaper a meplat of 78% of the projectiles diameter has penetrated better than a smller or larger meplat......

/

Alf,first off I want to say that your knowlege is awesome and by no way am I argueing with science..On the other hand what I have seen at the Linebaugh seminars and on game performance has held pretty consistent...The 500 JRH with a 425 grain Flat point hard cast and a 78& meplat of bullet diameter out pentrated the 475 Linebaugh with a 420 grain flat point hard cast with a 76% meplat and both were very close to the same velocity and the Sectional density was in favor of the 475... I will also admit that certain media,such as steel plate penetreation certainly favore velocity with out a dought.

The picture below show 2 exit holes produced be y the 500 JRH... He is pointing to a bullet under the hide that was fired after the animal was dead and this has been a pretty cosistent trend in that bullets do not penetrate as far in a dead animal as they do in the same animal when it is still alive... do not have a clue as to why.....

rigamortise?

/

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
what is at issue though are erroneous assumptions made based on obsrvations of their effectiveness.

I think what must be clearly understood about the issue of comparison is firstly that all of the parameters regarding the target and path in target have to be the same, and this is extremely difficult if not impossible to mimick in live game.

The reason is that tissues are a random mixture of cohesive, viscous and water like behaviours and duplication of exactly the same amount of each behaviour is practically impossible to duplicate or mimick.

where we falter and no one has ever been able to objectively model the living target behaviour to a predictable and reproducable model.

So only the one direction of a two direction pathway is really known to us.

To further the discussion.
The above are your words.
-each behaviour is practically impossible to duplicate or mimick.-
If this is so, then why should we accept the medium that you are in favor of?

-where we falter and no one has ever been able to objectively model the living target behaviour to a predictable and reproducable model. -
If this is true, then how can we have confidence in your mathmaticle models?

-So only the one direction of a two direction pathway is really known to us-
Or do we only choose to look in one direction and disregaurd or discredit the other?

Next subject- Linebaugh seminar penetration tests :
-This brings us back to the choice of simulants and why the Linebaugh seminars are fatally flawed.

They ignore the basics rules of the scientific experiment ! Their choice of simulants used makes any derivation useless ! You cannot come to any credible conclusion if the simulant is not valid for the material you wish to simulate. No matter how nice and how elloquently the derivations are presented, if it fails to meet the test of scientific scrutiny it is junk science.-

The penetration tests do seem to parrallell actual performance on live game.
They make some observations, come up with a theory, test the theory, adjust it as needed from actual experience(empherical data), does the theory hold? Yes
This gives us reason to believe what they are presenting.
The test conditions can not be identically reproduced each time, But it is close. So do we throwout everything learned from it? NO We take what we've learned and go forward with it.

All of the mathematical models you talk about say that the big flat point(BFP) should not penetrate X distance. The BFP does indeed penetrate X distance in the test medium and on actual game animals.
What does this tell us? that we should not apply your model to our application.

You say Junk Science, but it has to start somewhere.
Maybe you should be the one to adjust the mathematical model to our application? Maybe it needs another variable?

What readily availible and inexpensive test medium is availible to us?

To discount wet newpaper as a test medium, you could compare it in a lab next to the others in your list. Vary the moisture content and see what effect it has on the results.
Then show the results for all to see.
Prove to us that it is not valid, then suggest something that is.

Do you have an open mind, or would you have condemned Copernicous also?

/

Alf,

I'll agree with you that wet newsprint is easily available and not an equivalent simulant of living tissue. I'll also agree that wet newprint is a plastic material rather than an elastic one and does not represent the dynamic range of material density found in living animals, however;

Based on your recent posts, you seem to have totally missed the point that the testing is to show relative penetration of different bullet weights, styles, calibers, fired velocities, into a similar material. Regardless of the lack of homogenity of the testing material, firing the rounds into "similar" material does not make this junk science. Animals by their very nature have incongrutities which make them individuals and neither they nor the bullets fired into them respond the same each and every event at which a bullet is fired into one. Now, enough animals have been shot and killed over time to have established patterns in which one can reasonably expect to shoot an animal properly and have it die from the wound. Does the animal react the same every time, hardly.

The material you cite is indeed interesting to read and goes into depth of what many to consider a fascinating subject. I do not agree with some of your earlier assertions regarding the shooting, accidental or not, of someone with a Linebaugh caliber. One is this position would be treated no differently than if it were a Winchester, Remington, or other caliber.

Let us not loose sight of the forest for the trees.

/

I had a thought about the Wet News Print(WNP).
If we hobbyists are going to use it for comparison, then the ratio of lb paper to water should be established. For every 20lbs paper, add 1 gallon or 5 gallons... Whatever the ratio is.
It would help us to be more uniform.
At the Linebaugh seminars, how much water is used with how much paper and how long does it need to sit before useing?

/

Alf,I have always known that shooting WNP does not mimic animal tissue..But it is easy to use and it gives a reasoable expectation of a bullets ability to be utilize in hunting...The WNP will show if a bullet is to explosion or not...It is in no way an idication of the acctual penetration on live animals..It does tend to IMHO (at least compare penetration on that particular day to the other rounds tested.. WNP does not tell you what a bullet will do when it hits bone and niether does ballistic gellitan..Once WNP has been used of course we most move on to the real test and that is the taking of animals.....The handgun rounds in my experience do not out penetration Flat point solids from a rifle (but don't lose by much, but I have seen them out pentrate round nose solids from a rifle (both a 458 Win and a 416 Rigby) granted the handguns all used flat points,but the round nose solid from large bore rifles has been a standard for decades.... Of course the results from WNP does not answer any scientific questions...
I have also seen a higher speed not produce any more pentration,but do not know why....

So what is an acceptable test medium that can be utilized by the lay person? It would see to me that the nature of wet newsprint would favor a flat nose bullet. What concerns me is that it tears and builds up in front of the bullet and is pushed forward.......

Would ballistic gelatin be a better medium for testing?

It all depends on what one wishes to accomplish. If you need a relatively inexpensive bullet trap with which one can compare penetration in a single medium, wet newsprint will give an idea. If one is testing the actual performance of a bullet, ballistic gelatin is a step in the proper direction.

I do not completely agree with the statement about not being able to deduct, at least on a crude level, the performance of a particular projectile based on its performance in wet newsprint. I shot a .45 ACP case as a projectile from my .475 Linebaugh. The wound channel was impressive. Based on a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, this projectile would create an extensive wound channel in a live animal. Same goes for the results obtained from hard cast bullets. The almost none-existent wound channel mirrors what I have seen during necropsies of game I have shot with hard cast bullets.

Lar, the newsprint is soaked in water until saturated. Not every set-up has the exact same water content due to drying and this will alter the penetration to some degree. However, the testing has not nor to the best of my knowledge been passed off as the end-all, be-all of ballistic testing as some of the detractors have stated

But is ballistic gelatin a better penetration indicator as well?

/

The Bullet Tubes look interesting. Does anyone know what is inside of them? It looks like a soft wax to me. After it's shot, don't they melt and pour back in the tube?
If the bullet tube is reuseable, then you would be out the initial investment and be able to reuse it many times. You could only shoot it once, then have to melt and wait for it to cool.
Could we make our own from 6 or 8" plastic pipe and a wax mixture?

Can ballistic gelatin be reused? How expensive is it?

I thought the tube was full of ballistic gellatin, but I don't remember what I read!

The test tube is wax.....Ballistic gelatin is not reuseable as far as I know....

Then I stand corrected! Saw them mentioned in American Hunter. Wonder how it compares to ballistic gelatin........

From a scientific stand point nothing compares to Ballistic Gelletin at 70* F and calibrated with a BB....The test tube wax does not remain constnt from hot to cold weather and you only get one shot per tube...At about 65 dollars a tube (if memory serves correctly) one would need to speed a tidy some inorder to have enough to do much testing at one range session

I was under the impression they were reusable. I'll have to dig up the magazine.......