quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
.... So, I guess the questions are- when does your Bullet Tube arrive? And will you be showing us flicks of the results?

Would be afraid to post the pictures here.

Since there would be no gelatin and I don't have a .177" 5.25 grain BB pellet, I might get banned from the forum.

Hammer

.

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer:
...Would be afraid to post the pictures here.

Since there would be no gelatin and I don't have a .177" 5.25 grain BB pellet, I might get banned from the forum...

Fortunately anyone disputing the Testing Methods IS NOT in charge of the Banning Detail.

If you decide you do need some Jello and a "BB", I can send you a few, but they happen to be Moly Coated which I feel sure would invalidate the Set-Up!
---

Hey Jagter, I kind of thought you would be describing 40cal and above bullets. I do appreciate the Report on what you saw.

Is there a particular reason you do not have Nosler Partitions on the List?

Maybe Alf, but before those 30 scientist agreed to agree, there were others before w/ different theories. Remember the world used to be flat & dinosaurs used to be reptiles in the world of science. Leaches & shock therapy were quite the rage in the scientific community at one time & we won't even talk about global warming.
I will not dispute or offer any wounding/killing ability from one test medium to another, I don't even think 10% geletin can tell you what exactly a bullet can do to this or that animal. For comparing a bullet to bullet for expansion purposes, I still think water or soft wetpaper can tell one a lot about a bullets ability. I've seen bullets pulled from wet paper & live/dead animal & see enough reseblance to be convinced until someone can show me different (no computer models please, crap in is crap out).
BTW, I don't believe in global warming either, I am pretty sure the world is round though.

.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
...For comparing a bullet to bullet for expansion purposes, I still think water or soft wetpaper can tell one a lot about a bullets ability. I've seen bullets pulled from wet paper & live/dead animal & see enough reseblance to be convinced ...

Hey Fred, There is the BIG difference - you are talking about actual first-hand experience, from lots of shots.

"Theory" when argued against Reality always comes out the looser. It always seems the loudest shouting Theorists never get enough hands-on experience to realize the difference.

.

These discussions always crack me up. Here we have arguments about scientific repeatability and correlation to real life, when the state of the art barely correlates to simple muscle tissue.

As an engineer I enjoy the mental mastrubation as much as anyone, but to hold any of these 'modern' ballistics experiments too closely is to invite this ridicule upon yourself.

Alf, what % of the average human body is muscle tissue? What % of a rhino is muscle? Hippo? Elephant? Whitetail deer? Polar bear? All different you say? How well does ballistic gelatin simulate an abdominal cavity hit? What's the longest reasonable path a bullet can take in a deer sized game animal and only encounter muscle tissue? How much does the fat content of the muscle (say an obese human vs. a marathon runner, or a hippo vs. an antelope) change the results? Oh, too many variables? Throw in clothing and/or bones to pre-expand (likely by a variable amount) the bullet and the simulation is no better than our field observations IMO.

Get out and shoot some animals and make up your own mind! Talk about it, but don't take yourselves (plural intentional!) too seriously!

Hot Core wrote:

quote:

Hey Jagter, I kind of thought you would be describing 40cal and above bullets. I do appreciate the Report on what you saw.

Pleasure, hope it helps you to experience the benefits of real premium designed and manufactured bullets in your hunts!
Any meat hunter using 40cal and above for plains game hunting where ever in the world should rather stay at home!

Also:

quote:

Is there a particular reason you do not have Nosler Partitions on the List?

If you have looked carefully there were lots of types of bullets not in that list, namely our own local manufactured Frontiers and others, Barnes and many more. No reason at all, but very happy I didn't have to struggle through their low or not as good as the GSC HV performance rankings as well!

With that I'm just saying after five different SA plains game hunts I did lately, the results achieved with the GSC HV's were outstanding - hunter friends who saw the results was highly impressed and even took over some of my loaded rounds while we were hunting achieving equally as good results for themselves.

Alf,

From your testing in your preferred materials and shooting in game ...

How would you rate the following bullets, say on a scale from A to F.

Nosler Partition
Swift A-frame
Trophy Bond Bear Claws
Winchester
Remington
Hornady
Sierra
Speer

etc.


Hammer

.

Alf,

Am truly sorry that you feel you no longer wish to participate.

Realize that strongly held opposing viewpoints have been presented with vigor.

And I personally apologize if anything I have written has been found offensive.

Am truly interested in this debate. Have been reading on the topic for 30+ years. Have run my own experiments and am not satisfied with them. Know that men of science have strongly disagreed on this topic, so am not sure that the book is closed.

My work experience includes designing experiments/tests in military/defense related work and am aware of the need for rigor in such tests. Also know that results need to be robust so they can be depended on when the assumptions are not met in the real world.

Again, will miss your viewpoint. And respect your decision.

Hammer

Hey Hammer, You have basically asked the same thing to alf that I did the last time I "tried" to discuss Bullet Testing with him. Couldn't get any relevant comment from him then either. Just off the wall nonsense.

So, I figured the question was obviously too hard for him and tried a different approach. Then I asked him to simply rate a Single Bullet in comparison to the results in Mr. Sciuchetti's excellent Test. Got more double-talk and irrelevant ramblings from alf.

I have alf figured out.

Actually Hammer, I think it's difficult to give a "grade" to the bullets because they all should be matched to game/bullet wt./cartridge, that's just a bit broad.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
Actually Hammer, I think it's difficult to give a "grade" to the bullets because they all should be matched to game/bullet wt./cartridge, that's just a bit broad.

Agree.

Then give a grade (or choose your measurement) to a bullet style, weight, velocity combination and its suitability to given game.

There are different purposes for testing bullets. A manufacturer may want to improve its performance or performance range.

A potential bullet user wants to determine its suitability for his hunt. The hunter cannot know in advance the conditions of the shot, just as the best prepared pilot must fly the weather he finds, not the forecast. An African hunter could find himself with one rifle/one ammo for his entire hunt ranging from short range to longer ranges from bushbuck to eland. Can he find any comfort in his bullet's test results ?

Hammer

.

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer:

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

Look at his test results. He finds the 25-20 on par with the .500 nitro. Any chance there is something wrong with his test?

Well there you are Hammer.

Three sentences of information "relating to the question" and the rest irrelevant nonsensical rambling.

I will admit the three relevant sentences are more than I've ever gotten from alf in the past. And as he said, even those three mean - Nothing!

It is good to have alf figured out.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer:

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

Look at his test results. He finds the 25-20 on par with the .500 nitro. Any chance there is something wrong with his test?

Again, appreciate a disagreement as to the test material used. And I am not an advocate for any material as I am still asking questions.

From my knowledge of John Linebaugh, doubt he would consider the 25/20 the equivalent of the 500 Nitro Express or 500 A-Square given that he has spent so much of his life with the 500 Linebaugh, 475 Linebaugh, and high performance 45 Colt conversions.

Not sure anyone believes that penetration is the only criteria or else we would all use armor-piercing solids. Think Elmer Keith wrote that the 9mm Luger outpenetrated the 45, but does anyone believe Elmer preferred the 9mm ?

Hammer

quote:

What about lab data: Many here abhor lab data and scientitis but the current peer reviewed literature on terminal ballistics show clearly that "street derived data" no matter how numerous and plentiful gleaned by the most experienced people, without correlation to lab derived data and proven models is useless.

I disagree. The standards we as hunters strive for are much lower than what these publications and labs are intended for. This is not intneded to prove anything in court beyond a reasonable doubt, but to give general insights into RELATIVE field performance in a very narrow set of circumstances. Same rifle/powder/velocity, different bullet. While the data may not hold up to the level of scrutiny you are quoting, it is plenty good enough to give us hacks meaningful insight for choosing our hunting bullets for everyday hunting.

quote:

The penetration of tissue or materials by projectiles is a physical event and adheres to set of physical rules and can be modelled, so that accurate assumptions and predictions can be made based on each set of physical circumstances. Granted when faced with penetration of complex materials or material combinations it becomes difficult to simulate but it can be done. It is not voodhoo or black majic.

Agreed, but well beyond the reach of 99.999% of the hunters in the world. How much of the existing data is actually using hunting rounds at hunting velocities? How much is likely to appear anytime soon? While I'd love to see it, it is not likely to happen in our lifetime, so we make do with what we have.

I put wetpack testing in the same category as our buddy Hot Core's favorite tool, strain gauge systems. The data may not hold up as laboratory grade, but it is useful as long as it's limitations are noted and understood. 95% certainty is good enough for me.

"street derived data" * is useless.

I put wetpack testing in the same category as our buddy Hot Core's favorite tool, strain gauge systems. The data may not hold up as laboratory grade, but it is useful as long as it's limitations are noted and understood. 95% certainty is good enough for me.[/QUOTE]

wellsaid roger

.

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:
...Hot Core's favorite tool, strain gauge systems. ...

Hey CDH, Come to think of it, alf does seem to know as much about Bullet Performance as your close and personal buddy denton knows about HSGSs.

HC, 3 for 3 in one sentence.

Alf obviously knows a lot about bullet performance IN GENERAL.

Denton is not a personal buddy (never met the man).

Denton knows a lot about HSGS...

Regarding the first point...Alf and I just differ on the applicability of and need for peer-reviewed scientific analysis to ADEQUATELY judge bullet performance in our hobby of hunting. Short of buying a ballistics lab very little of what he is talking about is useful for our task at hand...we can read all we want and follow the literature ad-nauseum, but until I have a facility to design or replicate these experiments for my own set of bullets/rifles, it is only serves to educate me. That education improves the chance that my intuition is accurate...and Alf is fighting the very use of that intuition! IMO, to use my career of engineering as an example, ALF is using the specifications required to build the space station to design my desk. That level of detail and replication is just not needed...

My simple question for Alf is...what do we have access to that is adequate in his estimation for a flesh simulator? Ballistics gel is not an option due to cost and logistics (temperature maintenance) concerns. Dead game animals are not in sufficient supply. Cows and pigs are too valuable resource to destory in that quantity...and too hard to standardize in any case. Are we to just quit and trust the magazine writers? I think I'll stick with my experience and intuition!

CDH,

In south Texas ya'll got enough feral hogs to run large statistical samples for every combination of bullet weight, bullet style, and velocity imaginable.

We hereby commission you to run the complete test, keep exhaustive records, and report back tomorrow.

Make sure you shoot a BB into each one.

Hammer

I have the will, desire, and rifles, just not enough ranch access and free time. A salary would be nice too... Besides, I love my wild pork ribs and sausage too much...I'd get all fat and happy and never complete the test.

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:
I have the will, desire, and rifles, just not enough ranch access and free time. A salary would be nice too... Besides, I love my wild pork ribs and sausage too much...I'd get all fat and happy and never complete the test.

CDH,

Ranch access is hereby granted. If anyone ask, you're searching for alternative fuels for Al Gore.

With regards to wild pork, there are sacrafices one must make for science. In addition, you can run experiments on different BBQ-ing techniques.

As far as salary, please submit the proper forms to FEMA.

Now git 'ur done.

Hammer

quote:

you're searching for alternative fuels for Al Gore.

ARE YOU TRYING TO GET ME SHOT!?!?!? I'd rather not become the subject of bullet testing myself...and I'll tell you want, mentioning that POS on most ranches around here would pretty much put you in mortal danger! Gotta love Texas!

To me the "calibration" of bullet test medium using a BB or pellet is flawed to start with. If all you are testing is penetration & some sort of "wound channel", how does that correlate to an expanding bullet? I'll agree that bullets in wetpack penetrate less than geletin, but even that could be roughly equated w/ side by side testing & measuring thus giving you comparative data. Obviously testing on live game small enough to not allow recovery is of limited value if you are trying to compare bullets. I'll stick w/ wet phone books, it's cheap & repeatable & gives ME a realistic idea of what this or that bullet will do @ a given vel. in muscle. My call, & the rest of you make yours.
Hammer, as far as rating bullets, here is my best bet, although I have not hunted w/ all of these:
7MM/160gr @ 2750fps impact vel. in muscle (not lungs) let's say cow elk size game.
#1 Swift, TBBC & NF
#2 Nosler Part.
#3 RCL
#4 Hornady IL
#5 win PP, SGK & SpeerHC
I think the Nosler partition is probably the best all round bullet for a one bullet load in just about any caliber. It has shown it will expand, even out at 400yds & will still hold together inside 50tds. The NorthFork would also do well as a one bullet for antelope to elk/moose, obviously JMO.

A friend of mine was a slaughterer, skinner, and meat packer in his younger day (about 70 now). He handled a lot of wild game in the elk, moose, bear class. Also handled a lot of wild cattle in the field that folks gave up trying to round up.

He saved about a 1,000 recovered bullets found when skinning and cleaning the game.

Now this has been many years ago so his samples don't include the newest Swifts, Trophy Bonds, Fusion, etc.

As the slaughterer and as a hunter, he was involved directly with many kills, but obviously not the majority of the 1,000. So his observations are mostly from "autopsy" results.

He rated Nosler Partition as absolute tops. Followed their wound channels through a lot of animals. Says nothing came close to their performance.

Rated Remington Core-Lokts distant second, but not bad.

Rated Winchester Silvertips dead last. Said a lot of them were pancaked just beyond the entrance wound.

Asked him about Barnes. He had nothing good to say about them. The lead-core originals did not penetrate. He retired from butchering before the X-bullet came along. The X-bullets never gave him enough accuracy for his personal use in the field.

He has killed scores of elk with a 25/20. Thinks we're funny using anything bigger.


Hammer

Quote from ALF

quote:

What about lab data: Many here abhor lab data and scientitis but the current peer reviewed literature on terminal ballistics show clearly that "street derived data" no matter how numerous and plentiful gleaned by the most experienced people, without correlation to lab derived data and proven models is useless.

Is the field data useless because it doesn't correlate with the lab ?

Or is the lab useless because it doesn't correlate with the field ?

Hammer

Peer Review

A Good Idea

But who are the peers ?

The hunting community is a very large group worldwide. There are many scientists, engineers, doctors, and researchers in the hunting community. There are also a lot of wise and educated folks in the hunting community who are knowledgeable about decision making in business.

Wouldn't their review hold a stronger degree of respect than the academic community with those who will be using hunting bullets on a frequent basis ?

Also, there has been some reference to bullet performance which is obviously more directed toward military/police concerns. On what basis do these have relevance to big game hunting ? This last point is brought out due to previous threads' replies concerning rifles. Folks pointed out that few current military rifles use controlled-feed or Mauser claw extractors and therefore these other systems must have proven themselves worthy. Those folks were immediately pounced on by some arguing that military/police operations are of no predictive value for what will work in the hunting fields.

Hammer

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:
...Alf obviously knows a lot about bullet performance IN GENERAL.

Denton knows a lot about HSGS...

Hey CDH, I hope you don't mind if I quote a fellow who I have a good deal of respect for in regard to those two comments:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I seem to recall that the topic at hand was BULLET TEST MATERIAL and that Hammer had some questions regarding the "stuff".

1. "Have some of ya'll tested this stuff ?"

2. "How does it compare to this stuff ?

So with that in mind efforts were directed at clarification to the use of Simulants !

So to all who scoff at the notion of why and how simulants are used and calibrated ( yes they have to be in order to qualify as a valid simulant) obviously have not a clue of how simulants are used or how findings are correlated to the tissue you are trying to simulate.

If shots into these two media are presented into evidence as valid simulant data, or simply used to cmpare projectiles tohunting conditions the person / persons doing the testing must be able to show how the simulant is equivalent to the tissue he/she is trying to simulate.

No more no less.

Otherwise any deductions / data gained from shooting into this simulant is invalid.

So sorry boys get out the BB gun and fire your projectiles into this stuff at the set velocity to show it is the same as the BB pellet in the tissue you are trying to simulate.

Just had an hour long conversation with one of the fellows behind the stuff -- The Bullet Test Tube.

He was very friendly and very informative. He has also written extensively on bullet performance.

Along with several other writers, a book on bullets is being written for release in January 2007. The writers are ones we would all recognize from many different publications and organizations. See website for rifle bullet book


Without revealing what may not be ready for publication, they have done extensive testing of many different bullet testing media and prepared correlations amongst them. This is something I would be very interested in.

He shared that some materials produce good results for taking pictures of, other stuff was good for comparing penetration, and other stuff was good for measuring wound channels.

They have recently spent time at many different bullet manufacturers testing bullets with a variety of materials and also comparing it to their personal and highly documented field experience on game animals.

One thing found interesting was his comment on 10% ordnance gelatin. It was easier on bullets than real game was. But it produced pretty pictures. Said that 20% ordnance gelatin better represented their field experience on game.


Hammer

.

quote:

2. MacPherson, Duncan, "Bullet Penetration – Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma." Ballistic Publications, El Segundo, California. 1994

Hey ALF,
Do you have a copy of this book? It took me two years, but I finally found one. It weren't cheap, either.

.

Am familiar with some of the references cited.

Is it possible that the best gelatin for modeling flabby overweight human beings is not the best gelatin for modeling Cape Buffalo, Alaskan brown bear, or pronghorn antelope ?

Hammer

.