Have some of ya'll tested this stuff ?

www.thebullettesttube.com



How does it compare to this stuff ?

www.corbins.com/sim-test.htm



Hammer

I've been using soaked phone books for years w/ very good results. I have found expansion in soft wetpack is very sim. to what I achieve in recovered slugs from game. Penetration is about 2/3 of what you can expext in game but expansion is almost spot on. It's cheap & repeatable, you can get 4-5 rounds in one session then toss them.

.

While that may be true Alf, I defer to your experience, I have found expansion sim. w/o impacting bone. Bullet on left from wet phone books, center unfired, right from Kudu bull, all .338/210grNP. Both recovered bullets weigh almost exactly the same, 185gr v 187gr. Close enough to give me an idea of what to use or not use as a hunting bullet.

.

Hey Hammer, It is quite obvious that Fred is absolutely 100% correct about his findings. The wet phone books work very well, are easily replaceable and all it takes is asking people for their old ones. The only cost is your time to get them, wet them down and dispose of them when you are done.

I looked at the Bullet Test Tube site a few months ago and it does look like a nice product. And it will provide a "cavity" to view.

In order to compare that cavity to other projectiles, you either have to retain the cut-open Tube or take flicks of it with some Scales laid beside it for a reference.

Plus you have to haul all the stuff back to the house to re-Prep it for another single shot Test. And once you cut it open, a new Tube is required for each shot. Not a bad thing for a Ballistics Lab which has everything available to do the Preparation and take the flicks with right at the Range. But for me it would be a bit more time than I'd want to put into it.
---

Fortunately there is also the very best Bullet Test I've ever seen in the civilian world available for you right here at Gary Sciuchetti's Bullet Test. It is a bit dated now, but the results of Mr. Sciuchetti's Testing provide the best comparison of Expansion, Weight Retention and Penetration, all done in the same test medium, that you will find anywhere.

But, even better news is that the results of what Mr. Sciuchetti recorded are so close to what I've seen first-hand, on-game that it is just amazing. And I've been fortunate to make lots of kills with many of the same Bullets he used when testing.

Occasionally you will see some fools attempt to put down Mr. Sciuchetti's results and it simply shows the limited amount of actual field experience they have.

.

Yes Alf, I do remember trying to discuss this with you before. And I remember you refused to provide a straight answer to anything I asked you concerning actual Bullet Performance.

So, I stand by my original post and have found Mr. Sciuchetti's Test results to be very close to reality. Of course, I'm just speaking from lots of first-hand experience, not a list of books.

I see no need to attempt to discuss it with you since I've already determined that is just a waste of time.

Hot Core,

Have copies of Gary Sciuchetti's charts. Very interesting. Obviously a lot of work went into doing the testing for them. Not too many folks have the dedication an effort like that takes.

Still interested in an objective comparison of bullet testing materials. Have been involved in testing things for quite a while. Know there are many ways to test things which are comparable. Also know there are test procedures that do not compare with others. Myself, have no axe to grind. Just interested in any comparison that has been made and documented.

The only two methods that am aware of a quantified comparison between is ballistic gelatin and the Fackler Box. Don't have my sources handy, but seem to remember that Fackler actually produced an equation -- similar to Fahrenhiet to centigrade conversion -- that compared results from ballistic gelatin to his Box.


Hammer

.

Alf,

What do you think of ballastic gelatin with a couple bones imbedded in it?

Hell, Alf, I'm still using inline bars of fel's naptha soap. Does the media matter when running comparative testing? What happens when we throw in bones, sinew, hide and a lot of fur or hair?

What is the academic selected media to simulate Rump, hip shot through the pansa and into the vitals or same bullet pensiling through the chest cavity and not touching any bone?

I may be totally off base but I seem to be hearing negative interjections to emperical bullet testing on whither it should or should not be used in the field. The testing is not a perfect simulation but with the use of a little gray matter (inteligence) it can be a damn fine indicater.

The results after long or multiple usage is the evidence. Did it or does it work on the intended game? From what I can see all the other is just a fart in a wind storm. Mox nix. roger

.

Often I am looking for "extreme" differences in bullet performance during my testing. For example, if I find that bullet A repeatedly and severely breaks up upon firing into wet phone books versus bullet B that retains a high weight percentage and forms a mushroom configuration (under the "same" conditions, velocity, distance, etc.) I believe that I have gained at least some insight into bullet performance and that is often all that I need.

Hey Hammer, I got one of the Full Size Charts from Mr. Sciuchetti and they were still $15 including the Shipping. You mentioned you have copies, but if anyone else would like a Large Frameable full color Print here is the guy to contact:

gsciuchetti@yahoo.com
Gary D. Sciuchetti
14610 E. Bill Gulch Road
Mead, WA 99021

Sure would be nice if he would do an "Update" on the original excellent Test to include all the new Bullet Designs that just weren't around when he first did the Test.

Completely agree with the amount of effort that went into it - just amazing.
---

I'd agree there is no "Perfect" Bullet Test Medium. Kill 100 Deer with the exact same bullet, at the exact same Point-of-Impact, at the exact same distance, and you will still see variation in the way the 100 Deer respond. It is easy to understand how all the folks get into the monthly "Which Bullet is Best?" arguments.

Anything added to a homogenous Test Medium in an attempt to better replicate On-Game performance adds a "non repeatable" variable. Nothing at all wrong with doing it, but it makes it totally impossible to duplicate the exact same conditions for subsequent Bullets.

Tex and Roger mentioned adding some Bones and skin to the mix, and I can see where that could provide some interesting results. Only problem is trying to do a "Comparison". Replacing a Bone with another one of the exact same size, density, moisture content, angle of impact, etc., would tend to skew the results, or make them arguable.

The "Trick" is to do the Testing with as close to the exact same homogenous medium as you can possibly get it. Next shoot enough Bullets into it at equivalent Velocities that the data is reliable. And then do as many different Types of Bullets the exact same way so there will be a basis to make a comparison between them.

Nothing however actually duplicates On-Game performance - not even 50 Deer to 50 Deer with the exact same shot.
---

And I do believe Don is on the right track while looking for "extreme differences" in various Bullet Design Envelopes. Once you know how a Bullet "compares" to another Bullet that you have both Tested and have actual On-Game performance with, it is relatively easy to determine if the next one being Tested will "normally" penetrate deeper, open wider, hold together, fragment - or whatever your interest in it happens to be.
---

To me it seems simple that with the excellent Bullet Test Data available from Mr. Sciuchetti's Test, it just makes good sense to run "comparisons" in similar material.

Or use whatever medium you desire so you can repeat the Test when you want to try a different Bullet Design and be able to do a comparison.

Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills.

.

.

Assume a variety of test materials.

Plain water
Wet paper
Dry paper
Gelatin
Solids like wood 2x8
Cape Buffalo shoulder bones
Moose hides
Peat moss
Other media that ya'll can dream up
Combinations thereof

Test bullets in all those media and their combinations.

Test the bullets at different impact velocities simulating different cartridges and distances.

If a bullet performs well in all those scenarios and other bullets do not, can we conclude that bullet is superior ?

What if all those scenarios lead to the same answer ? Economics would dictate that we don't waste time and money on all in the future but just use the cheapest, easiest material for future research. Business does this all the time. We would never get products to the market place otherwise.

If a bullet works well in hard materials (bone), softer materials (gelatin), liquid materials (water), and their combinations, what else are we thinking we're going to encounter ?

Since shooting the necessary samples at live animals which are large enough to matter (not prairie dogs) is not going to happen in today's climate, do we have any other choices than that ?

Assume for a moment you are a business. Time and profit matter. You want to introduce a premium grade big game hunting bullet line. There is a banker checking your Gannt chart execution. Delaying introduction kills your business. A product that flops kills your business. What material would you choose for testing the new bullet introduction ?

As far as computer simulations...

Hammer

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Just as an afterthought:

To Hotcore and the proponents of wetpack testing:

Scenario: You are on the range shooting on Saturday afternoon and someone has an AD.

You get accidently shot in the thigh and you are rushed off to hospital.

You now have a choice of 3 very experienced up to date surgeons:

...

Always want the best medical support I can get. Always seek multiple opinions when time allows and frequently get varied opinions and recommendations for treatment.

As far as wound treatment, have some personal experience with that which involved a 44 Mag revolver with 240 grain JHP pressed against flesh when it fired. Accepted whatever doctor was in the emergency room at the time. Didn't question his credentials. Happy to have him at the time regardless.

As my doctor relatives tell me, "We're practicing the currently accepted witchcraft."


Hammer

One more comment on the doctor/wound scenario.

The reduced area of treatment is not just in bullet wound treatment. It also true in most other medical scenarios including cancer.

Hammer

Wet newsprint is a particularly poor bullet test medium as it often produces just the opposite result of what is seen on game. Apparently this is because of packing of the newsprint in front of the bullet and impeding its penetration. The Linebaugh tests are especially laughable.

Alf,

Short of a defense department funded laboratory scenario...

What bullet testing material do you recommend ?

Hammer

Over the years many folks have tried to test bullets and report their findings. Some have actually done quite a bit of testing.

There have also been a lot of attempts to report data from after the fact shooting events. Many times the sources of these data have been either challenged as to their original credibility or challenged as to their conclusions even if we accept the original data.

Years ago sought out a lab who advertised doing bullet testing with ballistic gelatin in true laboratory conditions. At that time, was willing to fund an extensive statistically designed test to answer my questions. Lab went out of business before tests were reported.


Is there a commonly available source of data for a wide range of hunting bullets using methods other than wet paper ? Would love to see it.

Hammer

Alf, you may or may not be right, I just know what I see. The pic I posted is a bullet recovered from wet pack & one from a Kudu, sorry it's only one but it's uncanny how much they look alike. BTW the bul was shot facing on w/ the bullet impacting the heavy chest muscle & found on the offside, last rib.
I use the paper, like Don, for bullet comparisons. I have no real illusion that the bullets will perform exactly as they do in paper (even if my lone examole here seems to fit), but I agree, if the bullet "fails" in wetpack I won't trust it for a difficult angle shot or heavier game animal like elk, Gemsbok, etc. That's my best WAG based on my experience. It helps me, may not anyone else, but I pretty much know what bullets to stay away from for certain shooting situations & short of shooting dozens of animals a year, it seems to work for me.
BTW, I don't think your self inflicted wound scenario has anything to do with this.

Alf,

How does the Hagel Box do in overcoming your objections to wet paper ?

As you know, Hagel had sixty plus years of personal hunting and guiding experience. And this meant many big game animals every year.

Hagel performed autopsies and kept notes on nearly all the animals shot by either a client or himself. As a highly curious individual, Hagel tested everything from 17s to 460 Wby on game. He tried every bullet make and style he could get including Bitterroots, Noslers, Speers, Sierras, Hornadys, Winchester, Remington, Trophy Bond, Swifts, etc. His targets included antelope, sheep, mountain goat, deer, elk, moose, bear, etc across the Rockies from Alaska to the Mexican border.

By the way, Hagel objected to wet paper (wetlap) too.

Hammer

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Tex and Roger mentioned adding some Bones and skin to the mix, and I can see where that could provide some interesting results. Only problem is trying to do a "Comparison". Replacing a Bone with another one of the exact same size, density, moisture content, angle of impact, etc., would tend to skew the results, or make them arguable.

Actually that was what I was trying to show by interjecting these variables.

It seems that before you pick a scientific approach, an engineering approach, an emperical approach or a combination of these, you should define your goal. What are you looking to achieve?

If you're looking at a way to kill a mosquito are you going to devise a series of tests to determine the the durability of different manufacturors fly swatters, or are you going to grab a can labled bug spray and give it a squirt?

Let's say the goal is to test a barrier 60 gr. bullet to see what happens when***** and do you think it would be adequate to handle Black Tail coastal deer. Been there done that.

The load was chronoed at 3100 fps. at 15 ft. The bullet penetrated .030" polyethlene, 6 sheets of .010" mild steel, 3/16" styrene, and 9" of totally soaked yellow pages.

Evidence of hole sizes, cracked plastic and phone book devastation were noted. The jacket came off at about 6" of book travel and a flattened piece of lead alloy about .425" diameter .050" thick was found at 9" of book travel. The original goalo you think it would be adequate to use on Black Tails. Answer : Maybe, but a little more velocity might help.

Now, Was this approach equal to the job????

Had the goal been to evaluate the performance of the bullet using the latest and greatest techniques and in depth observasions be noted, well I wouldn't have been able to step out into my back yard and get the job done.

Someone might ask two folks if they can identify a brown lump of material. The first person cuts the lump in half and wraps it and sends it to a lab. The second person says " Well it looks like and smells like shit to me." Am I making a point here? roger

As to the original thread question...

Take it no one has tested the two materials.

Hammer

Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman maintained that the usefulness of a theory was directly related to how far its assumptions could be violated and it still produce useful results.

A theory that required all its assumptions to be met in order to have predictive value was a useless theory.

As pertaining to bullet testing...



Hammer

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
FredJ338:

If the object of the excercise is purely finding out how a projectile will expand than firing it into a water filled tank or water filled bullet trap should be sufficient. The problem is that that this tells us very little or actually nothing about the projectiles true behaviour in tissue...


... Many here love to quote Fackler ?

Well rightly so cause Fackler single handedly and arguably so, exposed the junk science and BS associated with the interpretation of the terminal ballistics event. In fact I would go as far as to state he and other like minded scientists brought about a revolution in the way we think of penetrating wounds...

What is a Fackler Box filled with ?

Hammer

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer:
Assume a variety of test materials.

Plain water
Wet paper
Dry paper
Gelatin
Solids like wood 2x8
Cape Buffalo shoulder bones
Moose hides
Peat moss
Other media that ya'll can dream up
Combinations thereof

Test bullets in all those media and their combinations.

Test the bullets at different impact velocities simulating different cartridges and distances.

If a bullet performs well in all those scenarios and other bullets do not, can we conclude that bullet is superior?...

Hey Hammer, it depends on what you mean by "performs well".

Whenever a person runs a Test, parameters and goals must be set in order to determine if they have fallen short, have been met or exceeded the requirements.

Otherwise you have data that by itself has no value.
---

By the way Hammer, alf specializes in confusing the Bullet testing issue with non-relevant information. I found that out the last time I tried to discuss this with him.

Not trying to tell you what to do at all, just mentioning it so you will be able to see through him quicker than I first did. alf's ability to exchange "useful" input on the subject with actual knowledge concerning Bullet Performance is basically non-existant.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
... The Linebaugh tests are especially laughable.

Other than your disagreement with the use of wet newspapers as a test media, what in particular do you find laughable in Linebaugh's tests ?

Hammer

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer:
...

Hey Hammer, it depends on what you mean by "performs well".

Whenever a person runs a Test, parameters and goals must be set in order to determine if they have fallen short, have been met or exceeded the requirements.

Otherwise you have data that by itself has no value.
...

Hot Core,

Yes, one must have goals and parameters. My goals aim a little lower each time they're revisited.

As a child expected to combine the achievements of Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft -- Cowboy, President, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Congressional Medal of Honor, Author, Explorer, and Nobel Prize.

Today...

Would settle for measurements of bullet channel depth, volume, depth at maximum bullet channel diameter, max bullet channel diameter...

And how far did the wet newspaper confetti flutter to upon being hit by a 500 A-Square at point blank range !

Hammer

500grains, see my pic??? There are others, like Marshal & Sanow that have tested wetpaper vs geletine vs actual peformance (in humans w/ handgun bullets) & find wetpaper does offer sim. exp. results, but penetration is less, pretty much what my limited experience has also proven.
Testing on steel, wood, dirt, etc. is only going to tell you how that bullet performs in those materials (ie, high speed soft points often blow holes in 1/4 steel plate but there is no ref. to penetration in game.

.

In 30+ years of SA plains game hunting experience I've tried all of the following on real game:
Kynoch metal cohered soft nose bullets;
Dominion Sabre tip;
Winchester Super X power-point;
Norma SPRBT;
Hornady SP Interlock bullet;
Finland Sako Soft point;
Federal High Energy Trophy bonded as well as
locally produced Claw bullets handloaded and a few more.
(Some of these are so old you don't see them anymore in gun stores!)

Not a single one of these gave the excellent results that I nowadays achieve with premium quality GS Custom HV's!!!

That only tells you something about the bullets and yet actually much more, because the test material was real game shot over many years.

I agree with Alf, the one and only perfect test material is the real thing - the results you are truely satisfied with on the game you have hunted.

quote:

Would settle for measurements of bullet channel depth, volume, depth at maximum bullet channel diameter, max bullet channel diameter...

Hey Hammer, The Bullet Tube "looks like" it would provide that information for you. But I've no experience with it.

And you sure wouldn't have to shoot as many bullets as Mr. Sciuchetti did in his excellent Bullet Test to do a comparison with other bullets of your choosing.

Some of your Research into which bullets to do the testing on can probably be gained from people on the African Board. And folks like Jagter who actually have a good bit of experience with the various LARGE bullets of your interest on-game(unlike alf). And that would reduce the actual number of bullets you would need to Test.

So, I guess the questions are- when does your Bullet Tube arrive? And will you be showing us flicks of the results?
---

Hey Jagter, You mentioned:

quote:

Not a single one of these gave the excellent results that I nowadays achieve with premium quality GS Custom HV's!!!

Speaks well for the GS Customs indeed.

1. What problem did you see with each of the other Bullets? (Lack of penetration, small wound channel, too fragile, didn't continue in a straight path, didn't Exit, etc.)

2. And roughly how many kills were made with each of those other Bullets either by yourself or with others, to base your conclusions on? (5, 50, 200)
---

If you don't set High Goals then Lofty Accomplishments can't be achieved.

Hot Core wrote:

quote:

1. What problem did you see with each of the other Bullets? (Lack of penetration, small wound channel, too fragile, didn't continue in a straight path, didn't Exit, etc.)

2. And roughly how many kills were made with each of those other Bullets either by yourself or with others, to base your conclusions on? (5, 50, 200)

Re 1. Seldom 'lack of penetration' as in total lack of penetration, poor penetration yes; small wound channels specifically with Claw on small/soft types of plains game; most of them were too fragile, didn't continue in a straight path, didn't Exit and if they did made a massive exit hole damaging large quantities of meat. (Especially 7mm RM, not so much with .308)

Whereas with GS Custom HV's you get straight line penetration (even from very difficult angles) each and every time, small exit holes, minimum meat damage and one shot kills each time with proper shot placement - no more guessing as to what will happen after you have squeezed the trigger or what will be left of the poor animal. (Both 7mm RM, .308 and in my son's .270)

Re 2. Difficult to say, with some only a few due the poor results achieved, with others more because of reasonable results - on the larger plains game the Claw bullets did the best of the lot. Still not half as good as the GSC HV's, though!
Over the years I have easily shot 500 + head of plains game ranging from Steenbok, Grey Duiker right through up to Impala, Kudu, BWbeest and Eland.

And the best test is still too shoot the animal to know what results you can expect - not to mention what type of bullet to use.

.

Alf,

Let's accept that compressed wet newspapers are tougher than animal tissue.

In engineering and business, we frequently use accelerated testing conditions such as extreme temperatures, humidity, etc to test materials and parts, e.g., electronic components.

Any comparison ?

Hammer

Alf, just a note, M&S used geletin along w/ actual studies of shootings. Their one shot stop theory is disputed, not the bullets actual performance. They draw a parallel to wetpaper which to me is as valid as using a BB to calibrate geletin.
I am not saying that wetpaper can give you a determination of the damage a given bullet causes in an animal but I think you can determine the diff. between diff. bullets by using wetpaper or geletin for that matter.
I know from testing that say a 7mm/140grNP will give me the penetration & expansion I desire for penetration to organs from any reasonable angle on deer size game. The 140NBT has proven that it can not do this every time. Both bullets shot into wetpaper show the NBT fragments & penetrates much less than the NP. I have also verified this in the field. The wetpaper test offers a valid comparison which you can draw conclusions. There really is no argument here, it is what it is. It's a bit like gloabal warming, I'll believe it when I see it, not when a scientist tells me so (since none can seem to agree).