In the last 10 - 15 years there's been an enormous expansion of bullet offerings & advances in design. Three parameters of bullet design seem to have benefited most from these advancements: bullet integrity, depth of penetration, and ballistic coeffecients.

Given the tremendous change in bullets, I was thinking whether someone could offer a "standardized" comparison of projectiles along a certain number of parameters (someone with more time than I have on my hands! ), and present the offerings in a fashion similar to a "burn-rates" chart like powders.

I know someone did this sort of thing about 15 years ago for .30 cal projectiles, and have seen the chart a few times. That was good stuff! So this idea is sort of an "update" of that first offering.

But what "standard parameters" would we choose? If we compare .308/180 gr. projectiles, and ranking them "softest to hardest", what would the criteria be?

Let's assume a impact velocity window of 1800 fps to 3200 fps?

Depth of penetration would be an inetgral component. But so also retained weight? And what about "wound channel" (and how does one measure that?!)?

Naturally, for those elements, a standard impact velocity would be necessary; 2500 fps? And yes, penetration also varies w/impact velocity.

By the Way, Let's not get into a "Sectional Density" argument!!! I don't need another anuerism!

So, here's my completely unscientific, biased, anecdotal guess about softest to hardest:

Berger
Hornady SST
Sierra BT Gameking
Nosler BT
Standard Cup & Cores
Hornady IB
Nosler Accubond Long Range (?)
Swift Scirrocco
Nosler AB
Nosler Part.
Swift A-Frame
Trophy Bonded (Tip?)
Northfork Bonded
Winchester XP3
Barnes X bullets
Nosler monolithic (name?)
Hornady monotlithic (name?)

Others? Or a different ordering?

Let's have some good, clean fun!

friar

Just a theory here. The hardness of bullet metal could change significantly once the trigger is pulled. The bullet being hammered out of the brass by the powder then being forced down the barrel could induce work hardening. I think a test of fired and unfired bullets is in order.

While I haven't used all of the bullets Frier mentions I have used most of them. The list looks pretty good to me. Although it is kinda difficult to properly place the Nosler Partition because it does open up easily yet penetrates deeply. Although at high velocity (above about 2400-2500fps) the latter half of the wound channel will be less than with a Trophy Bonded or Swift A-frame due to the jacket folding back, which creates a wound channel that more closely resembles that of a solid. With an impact velocity around 2700-3000fps. the tremendous damage done by a Trophy Bonded Bear Claw or Swift A-frame has to be seen to be believed.

quote:

Berger
Hornady SST
Sierra BT Gameking
Nosler BT
Standard Cup & Cores
Hornady IB
Nosler Accubond Long Range (?)
Swift Scirrocco
Nosler AB
Nosler Part.
Swift A-Frame
Trophy Bonded (Tip?)
Northfork Bonded
Winchester XP3
Barnes X bullets
Nosler monolithic (E-Tip)
Hornady monotlithic (GMX)

I think those are what you meant.

I think we have an amazing amount of viable choices the performance of which has never been better. I have been using Woodleigh PP in 250gr out of my .338WM, and some 180's in .308 for the '06 and .308W and have been very happy with them. I think they are a little tougher than the Nosler Partition and hold together well.

The BT vs. SST is a tough one for me as I think both are way soft. The differences between many of the traditional bullets seem to vary from one caliber to the next. I have not been given the chance to shoot a boatload of animals to compare them all though.

Frier, I like your idea.
I'm suprised you haven't received more love on this thread.

What if we shot them into a cavity capturing medium, like modeling clay, can compared the width of vs length of the various cavities.

Shallow fat cavity = soft
narrow long cavity = hard?

I have been wondering how hard it would be to use a ballistic gel. I don't have an easy way to melt and mold something that big though. The gel itself isn't excessively expensive though.

I think someone like Michael458 could really shed some light, even if not working-up an actual comparison. I know he does a lot of comparisons w/ big bore bullets in a fashion similar to this.

I too have often wondered, BigNate, if gel wouldn't be the best test media, especially in terms of repeatability. But I think you're right about the difficulty of preparing it.

This guy used saturated phone books, as did the other person I mentioned above (who is also referenced in the link below...but I forget his name off-hand).
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-...ods.html#338_caliber

I think, A.S., that the gel Nate mentions would preserve the outline of a wound cavity. Too bad we don't have the high-speed film you see on the Barnes & Federal websites!

From a practical viewpoint, I'll be shooting 150 gr. Partitions in my .270 for the first time this fall, and hope to see what they do deer (I suspect the deer won't be pleased!). They give me great accuracy w/ RL 17, but I don't have the first idea how fast they're going, which bums me out.

Good luck & best wishes hunting!

friar

It's hard to define with variations in lead hardness, jacket material & bonding. For example, I would say the Partition is harder than a pure lead & copper jacketed A-Frame. One is bonded with soft lead, opens wider and retains most of it's weight. The other is more brittle up front, shed's 35% of it's weight and lets the hard back half penetrate. Also, Ballistic Tips aren't very soft. The tip initiates expansion but they can be tougher than a lot of cup & core bullets. Cup and Core also has a wide degree of hardness in that group. Bonding also makes things softer. It's really complex.

Maybe a better way to rate them is on a scale from wide expanders/explosive to penetrators. Partition would probably be in the middle since it does both.

Velocity also changes things considerably. You can turn a soft bonded bullet in to a pancake that doesn't penetrate if impact velocity is too high.

quote:

Maybe a better way to rate them is on a scale from wide expanders/explosive to penetrators.

Right - that's pretty much what I'm imagining.

The bonding process & consequences are also very interesting to me. In particular, with the A-frame, I've noticed two examples which have shed most of the front core - one in a moose & one just recently into a backstop of loose, dry & soft black dirt. Both shots were about 200 yards, so I imagine impact velocities were similar. The surprising thing to me is that both expanded bullets are almost identical!

No doubt there are any number of variables in such a comparision; the question I suppose is: could a fair/reasonable comparative chart be made?

Thanks for the thoughts!

friar

I have done some "testing" of sorts with a economy version of a water trap just to compare bullets knowing full well it isn't a real world test. I does however give you some idea what to expect from one bullet to the next.

I shot several different bullets into plastic milk jugs lined up. The density of the water is heavier than muscle but doesn't simulate bone at all. I found some interesting results in that some bullets held together better than I expected, and some "cheap" bullets proved to be quite viable. The one problem was not being able to compare wound channel. You can weigh the recovered bullet and measure frontal diameter. The number of jugs penetrated is inverse to the violence so rapid expanding slugs may be found in the third while and X might shoot through six or seven. In fact I don't think I was able to trap an X at all.

Here is one pic of a 175gr Win PP from my 7mm RM that looked as good as many much more expensive bullets. There is one of a CCI Mini-Mag for the .22 mag also. It looks exactly like one I recovered from a large Bobcat.