I think the Bullet Test as presented in HL-193 dispells the myth. For monometal bullets, the penetrate best/farthest at 1,800-2,000 fps. C&C bullets show decreased penetration above 1,900 fps.

MuskegMan:

What are your thoughts on the fact that your citation uses wet paper as a target medium?

What I am getting at has to do with the special mechanical qualities of stacked paper that makes using it as a test medium so difficult.

A search of the paper engineering literature shows just how special stacked paper is and how difficult it is to penetrate it and more so how difficult it is to model it's behaviour to insult.

The modes of failure of stacked woven materials is very specific and differs fundamentally from other media.

As I have pointed out on many occasion is that paper exhibits a specific behaviour when penetrated by a projectile which negates valid comparison and that is the phenomenon of "plugging".

This is the formation of a stacked paper plug in front of the projectile that in itself becomes a missile with failure margins greatly in excess of the widest diameter of the penetrator even if the projectile has expanded.

This plug is ejected as confetti when the penetrator passes through the paper.

The problem is that this behaviour is not a constant across the board for all projectile shapes and velocities, unlike behaviours of other media like soap, clays and ballistic gels. As a valid media this sadly invalidates comparative testing or simulation.

The "rules" of valid simulation testing clearly dictate that there should be similitude across the board for all testing conditions, you cannot have one target behaviour for one type of bullet and another for another type or one behaviour at low velocity and another at high velocity.

A sharp tipped ogived bullet will cause mode 1 failure ( tensile failure ) of the fibres in paper whilst the flat nosed bullet will cause mode 2 ( shear ) failure of the fibres, The net effect of these two modes of failure basically determines the nature of the cavity seen in the paper after the bullet has passed; Because of this there is a reason paper punches used to punch holes in paper are shaped the way they are !

The plug that form causes mode 2 failure of the fibres in it's path. Bullets in gels do not do this !

I realize this test was done a while back.

It there more current data with ballistic gel that you can share?

BTW - I don't think wet paper is used in a paper punch.

Muskegman:

I have no studies available that are peer rewiewed available that deal with commercial bullets.

And I fear we will never have unless the recreational shooting industry is willing to sponsor valid study to the level which the defence industry or medical establisment is willing to sponsor study.

Back to wet paper:

One of the rules of simulation states that in order for a simulation to be valid, it has to show similitude to whatever quality you wish to simulate.

And this is where the rubber hits the road.

Example:

The above test tries to simulate penetration depth of a number of projectiles as to compare them.

As such in order to make the test valid the medium has to react and behave the same for each of the projectiles fired, so that medium bahaviour is standardized across the board and in itself does not become a confounding factor.

Penetration as a process is not a linear event in as much as rate of decelleration and shedding of energy is not linear in the target medium. If graphed on a simple velocity vs penetrating graph or a angle of attack vs penetration depth graph or even a sectional density vs penetration depth graph we clearly see this fact.... this of course assumes that the target behaviour does not add to the phenomenon.

In the case of paper we have plugging of medium in front of the projectile commensurate with the mode of failure of the paper and the rate and magnitude by which this happens skews any similitude one wishes to try and achieve with the test.

At best wet paper is a good bullet trap, just like Kevlar, acting just like Kevlar would. Study into the Defeating Kevlar shows exactly how complex the issue is !

ALF






Michael

Micheal I'm glad I make your day !

Yep its as simple as junior school science, that part where they teach us about the states of matter...... fluids flow, solids do not etc etc.

If you can show me that the holes you see in the stacks of paper you so fondly refer to as massive trauma is actually dirictly caused by the bullet and not the slug of paper that compacts in front of the bullet I will buy into these tests. Untill then I stand by my statments ! And I do believe I have enough literature to back me up on this one !

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

The problem is that this behaviour is not a constant across the board for all projectile shapes and velocities, unlike behaviours of other media like soap, clays and ballistic gels. As a valid media this sadly invalidates comparative testing or simulation.

Alf:

How about water as a test medium?

Michael:

I'm actually quite blown by the idea that you find my statements so funny and entertaining whilst your own testing in paper actually validates exactly what I have stated.

Did you not once remark on how you have to clean up after shooting through all that paper as complete penetration of the paper stack leaves the floor covered in paper ? So why would that be?

And not so long you posted that picture of chunk of wood broken free and penetrating a board. How did that happen ?

I mean it's there for anyone to see, your own tests show exactly what I'm talking about.

Penetration and perforation of wood as an example of a composite continious fibre composite is an example of all the behaviours I have eluded to, the same applies to paper, just in paper you have short non continous fibre composite.

The Modes of failure and the behaviour of the paper and wood typical for this type of solid material penetration.

Pure water is fluid, it flows. Muscle whilst containing water is solid, it has structure, it does not flow, it supports shear and when penetrated will leave a cavity ! The mode of cavitation for a fluid water differs from muscle a solid.

A projectile penetrating water or a fluid will cavitate irrespective of the shape of the projectile as long as flow regimes are evoked around the projectile to support caviitation, the nature of the cavity dependent only on the mass density and vapour pressure of the fluid in question.

Once the projectile has come to rest in the fluid there will be no evidence of it's passing other than that the temperature of the fluid would have risen commensurate with the amount of energy shed to the water in terms of heat energy and the potential energy of the water would will have increased by the displacement of the water volume by the volume of the projectile. There is no residual cavity in fluids, ( unlike solids)

As to the bahaviour of the projectile itself it would be subjected to a drag force where the magnitude of drag is proportional to the square of the impact velocity.

This force could be so great that it causes the projectile to undergo deformation or fragmentation; or if the projectile remains instact and does not deform it may based on the spatial distribution of mass about it's centre of gravity be subject to change in orientation relative to the direction of it's motion. ie it may become unstable, dependent on it's striking angle of attack, angle of incidence and it's shape.

Solid material penetration also causes cavitation but the modes of failure of the structure of the solid is fundamentally different to fluid behaviour.

In penetration and perforation of solids we see plugging, ductile piercing, petalling, scabbing and spalling of the target material.


The modes of failure of the structure of a composite solid with fibres we see the fibres failing either by Mode 1 failure or Mode 2 Failure ( shear) . The point of failure of a long fibre composite is not neccesarily at the edge or magins of the bullet, the fibres fail some distance away and it leads to the formation of a plug of compacted material.

At low velocities we see delamination of the fibres from the matrix it is embedded in at high velocities we see plugs or wads. Water does not do this, muscle does not do this !

Skin will do this...... skin fails the same way as kevlar and paper !

Any testing method that simulates very closely how the wound channel will look, is expensive in time and money. Prohibitively so if many tests must be done.

However, we have learned that, if a certain amount of energy and momentum is available and if the deformation of a bullet is managed in a particular manner, a particular result will follow.

To design for a particular management of bullet deformation, it is required that the catch medium be consistent and have certain properties. To that end, GSC tests in water. Testing in any other simulation is inconsistent and good for very rough comparison only.

Any test that is not done on live game, tests only what the bullet looks like after the test, for that test. No conclusions can be made about the wound channel from the test medium and it has only a coincidental similarity to game.

quote:

Originally posted by GAHUNTER:

Your viedo is already linked in this thread. Good job, BTW.

Cheers mate and Thx.

Hey Guys, I am Michael from upstairs, I mostly stay in big bores as that is where most of my personal interests are, however I have a few mediums I am partial to that I work with as well.

I don't recognize many of you from being upstairs, but I do a lot of test work, and of course I do terminal tests and I use a mix of Wet Newsprint and magazines, and have for 15 + years or so. I also hunt, and have hunted and shot extensively throughout many areas of the world. A great deal in Africa. I have never went to the field without having tested the bullet I am using. And in every single case I have never been surprised by the outcome of the bullet behavior. Bullets that are successful in the test work, are successful in the field. Bullets that have failed in the test work, have also failed in the field. I could show you literally 100s of comparisons between the two, one with paper residue, the other with blood and tissue, and other than that you could not tell the difference between them, with the exception if the one that has blood and tissue on it hit bone somewhere in it's travels. Other than that, the same.

Alf and I have been at this since 2008, and he lacks the capacity to consider anything other than what he reads about. I would hate like hell for his influence to cause you poor judgment. Alf and I cannot find any middle ground here on this issue, I have been there done it, tested 1000s of bullets in this test medium and know exactly how things react and work. He has never done any, and has no idea of what can be possible. Not only do I test, but I have enough experience in the field to be able to correlate the data between animal tissue and the test work, and have proven it so literally hundreds of times. I am not going to get into totally useless arguments with Alf on these matters again, frankly it is a waste of my time and takes away from other work I am doing here. What I post is for those of you that are not quite sure of what is going on.

quote:

If you can show me that the holes you see in the stacks of paper you so fondly refer to as massive trauma is actually dirictly caused by the bullet and not the slug of paper that compacts in front of the bullet I will buy into these tests. Untill then I stand by my statments ! And I do believe I have enough literature to back me up on this one !

Wet newsprint/magazine mix that I use, and many variations that others have used to test and compare bullets have been used for many years, and have brought you many of the bullets that you now use today. Case in point, all the original Trophy Bonded Bullets were tested by Finn Aagaard and Jack Carter using phone books down in Texas. Jack Carter designed the original Trophy Bonded bullets, and from all the test work that Jack and Finn did, they later took it to the field on buffalo and other such animals--What was successful in the test work, was indeed successful in the field as well! But one example of such.

Wet newsprint or any wet paper IS NOT A SIMULATION of animal tissue. NO TEST MEDIUM CAN SIMULATE ANIMAL TISSUE EXACTLY. Even DEAD ANIMAL TISSUE will not suffice on this, as dead tissue is not live and flowing. So the one and ONLY possible way that you can 100% simulate Animal Tissue is on LIVE ANIMAL TISSUE. This is just not feasible to begin with, nor would it be humane either. So we as Terminal Testers, do the best we can to compare one bullet and it's behavior to the other. Perfect Solution? Of course not, but the perfect solution is just not feasible, therefore there must be alternatives, but those alternatives have to be "Reasonable Media", they must be aqueous, as animal tissue is aqueous. Example, solid wood is not a "reasonable media", it is far too hardened, and basically dry and I have not had a call to shoot too many Wood Animals of late. Shooting STEEL is not a reasonable media, as I have never run across a steel buffalo, some may have thought they were made of steel, but in reality they are still aqueous tissue, not steel. The various ballistic gels you normally see are a beginning, but in my opinion far too easy on the bullets, putting very little stress on them. I find that the wet newsprint/magazine mix does in fact put a proper amount of stress on the bullets themselves. If it is successful in the test medium I use, then it will be successful in the field, bullets behave on animal tissue exactly as they do in the test medium here, that I have been working with for over 15 years. I have worked with and tested basically all the bullets from the major manufacturers, most from smaller manufacturers, I am the co-design of new bullets from Cutting Edge Bullets, I have also been involved with North Fork the last few years with designs that will work in my rifles as well. All of these tested in the test medium, taken to the field, zero surprises, all behaved in animal tissue EXACTLY as they did in the test work.

From the statement in quotes above, I see no real experience doing test work in any medium, only a reference to "Literature to back me up". I could care a hoot in hell about so called literature, show me the real deal, I don't care to read theories and work done by others that may or most likely not relate to the test work done here. What is important to me is that I go to the field with a successful bullet that I have proven to be successful by doing proper and real research. End of Story.


Some bullets do exhibit what I call Trauma to both test medium and animal tissue. If it is substantial, then I call it "Massive Trauma" inflicted as I can have no other term available to describe it! Does this "Massive Trauma" I refer to in the test work relate to "Massive Trauma' in animal tissue as well? We will see. Thus far from study done in actual animal tissue I am able to correlate back to the test work done in my test medium. Since I insert a mix of magazine/catalogs, this vastly changes the test medium from straight newsprint, and adds quite a bit of extra stress on the bullets themselves. So the correlation between animal tissue and the test work is only valid for this test medium. It works like this as a "RULE OF THUMB"-- For expanding bullets and or NonConventional bullets one gets from 80% to 100% more penetration in animal tissue than in the test medium. For Solids one gets 30%-35% more penetration in Animal Tissue than in the test medium here. There are variables in the field that take place and this is why it's a "Rule Of Thumb", and not to be taken EXACT in every single case. Bullet behavior is exact unless bone or similar comes to play.

Does this "Massive Trauma" with some bullets translate to field operations, or simply put, in a hunting scenario? Yes, it does. The last few years I have been watching animal reactions to taking particular bullets, and so have many others. Animal reactions relate to this massive trauma inflicted, and rather easy for all to observe, and I think a very important part of the equation of whole. Massive trauma inflicted, is most of the time readily seen by the animal reactions taking the bullet. In all follow up examinations, this trauma is rather evident as well. Perhaps it's best I show you these things;

I was in Zimbabwe and South Africa in June of 2011. I was working with the new BBW#13 NonCons and BBW#13 Solids in both rifles, 458 B&M and 500 MDM. These HP bullets are what we call NonCons--NonConventional, they don't really behave in a conventional manner when expanding and inflicting trauma to target. They are HP brass bullets, a .400 deep cavity HP, and after 2 inches of penetration into medium, animal tissue or test medium, 6 blades shear off at the same point, and begin to travel away from center wound channel, in which the remaining bullet continues to penetrate, straight. Total penetration of these far exceeds conventional expanding bullets. But what happens up front after penetration is the trauma inflicted by the separation of the blades from the main bullet. For a short period these blades are working close to and with the main remaining bullet. For this period of time they are slicing their way through animal tissue as the main bullet expands the tissue in it's path. Conventional bullets do the same thing, they expand the tissue around it, but in most cases this is elastic tissue and comes back into place after the bullet passes. With hi velocity tissue tears, and is traumatized no doubt, but with these 6 blades ripping tissue that is moving away from the center wound channel, then it does not snap back in the conventional sense, it is ripped, torn, pulverized in some cases for a short period of time along with the main bullet. As the bullet travels forward, the blades begin to get further from center wound channel, and become small slicing projectiles on their own. If the animal is a thin skinned animal and small, deer sized or impala sized, some of these blades will actually exit broadside, and have done so on many occasions. These blades move in a perfect star pattern away from center, animal tissue, test medium, does not matter. On a buffalo size animal the blades do not exit of course, and they are found inside the body cavity along with all the MUSH that is removed.

Below is an example on a witness card of the pattern the blades take on after shear;










This pattern is 100% consistent across the board in caliber, from .224 up to .620 that I have tested here.

This is the particular test work I did with the .458 420 gr BBW#13 NOnCon and the .500 460 gr BBW#13 NonCon before going to the field with them.





From these two early tests, I did not add "Massive Trauma" to the label or tag with these bullets, however I promise you that both of them exhibited Massive Trauma to the test medium, in fact, it was so massive and out of proportion to many other bullets that I did photograph it and talked about it. This was with the 460 BBW#13 NOnCon in 500 MDM.



In my opinion this is fairly massive, and I just don't have a better term for the destruction of test medium!

OK, all well and good, these did very well in the test work, but what about Animal Tissue? Does this same trauma and penetration occur in Animal Tissue? According to some, it's all just junk science, not real, does not work, can't be relied upon, all test work is useless, blah blah blah................

Below is the heart of a cape buffalo that was shot with the 500 MDM and the 460 BBW#13 NonCon
It was nearly cleaved in two, and part of it actually missing. Photo was taken in complete darkness upon our return to the skinning shed. Trauma inside the body cavity was MASSIVE to say the least, mostly goo and mush coming out.




Below is the heart of another buffalo that was taken on a frontal shot with the 458 B&M and the 420 BBW#13 NonCon. As you can see a massive hole blown completely through the heart--Massive? I would put it in the category of "Massive".




I see mention of "Solids" and the mention of the "So Called Extra Trauma Induced by FN Solids". I want to show you the heart of an elephant that I shot in June with a 500 gr BBW#13 Flat Nose Solid, 67% meplat of caliber, and the trauma induced by that Flat Nose Meplat. I have shot other elephants in the heart in the past, and buffalo and other critters with RN solids--there is a hole and that is it with those, there is no trauma, no nothing from a RN solid, just a hole is all. Here you see again what I would call massive trauma inflicted to this heart and take note of the radial tears from center impact. THEY say that this is not real, that trauma induced by flat nose solids is only theory, that they do no better than RN, and all this is just "So Called Trauma"---I am sorry, I beg to differ, and I call pure BULL SHIT on that. This particular bullet also showed extensive trauma to test medium as well, as does ALL PROPER FLAT NOSE SOLID DESIGNS! Theory my Ass!




Below you see the top of a 12 ft Croc head. Was not the biggest croc in Zimbabwe, but was the biggest in the pile I was looking at, so I shot him! Using again the 458 B&M, a 420 BBW#13 NonCon at 35 yds as he rose out of the water to grab a piece of that dead elephants leg. Trauma? Massive? Well, looks like to me the croc thought is was very dramatic, as there was no brain left in this cavity, I don't know where everything went that was supposed to be in there, just that it was empty when we got him out. From this shot the entire top of the jaw was completely broken, hanging on by only a thread on the right side, during photos the top part of the jaw/head in front kept falling off to one side, rather hideous to say the least! Massive? In my opinion you damn right, pretty massive trauma transfer, the croc thought so as well I assume!

















I present these bullets to you not as a sales pitch to these particular bullets, but to show you correlations between what happens in the test work, and what happens in the field. These are examples only of recent bullets I have been working with. I can go back and show you the same sorts of things with Swifts, Woodleighs, Hornadys, and others as well. Years past I don't have the animal tissue photos to show, just the bullets and data to go with them.

Now if "Literature" says that this is not Massive Trauma--Both in the test work, and in animal tissue, then I say Bull Shit, and I don't give a rats ass if the literature comes straight from the Holy Alf Bible, it's wrong! I don't deal with theories, I deal in the real world. I test, then I take the test to the field and that is that.

While Alf and I are far apart on some subjects, such as this one, and we will never be close as he cannot understand or comprehend that one can actually do test work and understand how the mechanics of things actually work, and then take it to the field and the same thing happens there, there are many areas in which we are in agreement upon, this one is NOT ONE OF THEM. And from the appearances of such, never will be as we have covered this same ground for years. I cover it again not for him but for you to try and have an understanding. A proper one, free of BS and theories and so called literature.

My apology for the hi-jack of a simple question asked by GAHUNTER, and it has a simple answer, but has been taken astray it seems!

Alf, for your part, there is not going to be a continuing argument on this, as I am not going there, I don't have time, nor the inclination to do this over and over and over again with you. I am finished and have no more to reply concerning this matter to you. Frankly I have better thing to do, I have test work to conduct! LOL................

Michael

GAHUNTER

Now on to the real and original discussion, hopefully without the BS.

quote:

I know a guy who believes that velocity is everything when it comes to bullet penetration. Utilizing standard cup and core bullets, his assertion is that, even if a bullet comes apart, the pieces will continue doing damage and out-penetrate the same projectile launched at a slower speed.

quote:

I argue with him that velocity is the enemy of penetration, especially with cup and core bullets, and that a bullet launched at a speed that does not cause it to turn inside-out will out-penetrate a bullet that does.

I used to have a little saying, or a quote myself

"Velocity is Not Always Your Friend"

Your statement above is absolutely true with most all conventional expanding bullets. Depth of penetration will not increase with more velocity, and in fact the opposite is true, and especially with the old "cup-n-core". The very reason that Premium Soft Points come along, such as Swift A, Trophy Bonded, Woodleigh and so on came about was so that they could withstand that extra velocity, hold together, and penetrate deeper. Penetration is everything, if you cannot reach vitals, then you cannot effectively cause trauma to vitals causing in the end death. Even most all conventional premiums react the same way to velocity. While most will hold together, fact is, more velocity with premium bonded bullets results in either no more, or even less penetration than moderate velocity. Trauma during the first few inches of penetration is increased by velocity, but overall penetration is decreased even with premiums.

With Premium Soft Points, with lead cores, there is one Exception to that rule, and that is with the North Fork Premium Bonded bullets. Here, actually more velocity does indeed result in deeper penetration. A North Fork cannot fold into itself, but the nose does fold further back causing less frontal area to contend with the medium, test or animal tissue, makes no difference, therefore resulting in deeper penetration than at lower velocity. But this is the ONLY exception to the norm with any lead core bullet premium or otherwise.

NonConventional Bullets, such as the brass BBW#13 NonCons I mentioned, also react to higher velocity by deeper penetration. But, these are NonCons, and one of the very reason they are called NonCons--As they do not adhere to "Conventional Rules".


You sir, are 100% spot on correct. Your friend, like some of mine, is full of crap!



Michael

I am not argueing with anyone just stating fact in terms of the theory and practice of penetration of materials by projectiles and missiles.

The original question asked had to do with the effect of velocity on penetration.

As such one has to define what mechanical properties the target has to answer the original question hence the discussion about the behaviour of materials.

I do not sell bullets, I do not make bullets to be sold. But I do deal in trauma and it's effects. I unduce trauma every day of my life and I work with biomaterials and the effects their properties have on living tissue. I continually study trauma as mandated by those who regulate my profession.

Oh and by the way, I work for no bullet company, I own no bullet company, all the research I have done is for myself and my rifles I have built, and my success in the field. I am a forester by profession, and own a Foreesty based company, I shoot for fun. I do carry a line of bullets that I keep on hand from CEB and North Fork for my B&M series built by SSK Industries, for my use, and the use of those with the rifles.

I get paid by no bullet company either. Or rifle company for that matter.

Michael

The irony in all of this is that I have no arguement with the concpet or fact that FN projectiles penetrate deep and straight in dense viscoelastic targets, nor is there any conflict with their ability to kill large game.

As to the so called self annointed "noncons" all they are, are partially frangible projectiles with the rear of the projectile behaving like a cilindrical solids and the fore part then breaking up into large "chunky" missiles. Again no conflict as to their behaviour.

Where then the difference in opinion? The differnece lies in the interpretation of why we see what we see and therefore the assumptions made as to why we see what we see.

Is this important? absolutely because if the basic science is erroneous then any further development based on the erronoues premise is wrong..... This is exactly what was wrong with wound ballistics all the years before the 80's when the errors were corrected.

We have generations of published misinformation regaring how bullets work and right here we are once again rehashing the same errors!

The Scuichetti article as it appeared in HL June /July 1998:

Would this stand the rigors of scrutiny as a valid test, after all the man must have done a whole lot of very hard and tedious work to get to the point of producing that fold out chart. As well as those impressive graphs?

The answer is no and the reason perhaps not so obvious.

It's not that he chose paper to do his test in. It's not that there is a problem with his observations. The problem with the whole test is that he makes conclusions and assumptions on stuff not tested for.

Now one may think this is not important this is just a game and past time.

Think on it. The Zimbabawe Caliber restrictions for hunting was derived in much the same way. Based on a premise not tested for in what was presented as a valid test. You cant balme them really after all the great Holland and Holland for years did testing in exactly the same setup as Mike Lagrange used.

The very same applies to the pictures posted above of the fired bullets and then a series of pictures of wounds in animals.

No matter how nice a guy Mr Scuichetti may be and how honest and well meaning he may be, the fact is he published a premise ( and a premise that may in real life actually effect someons business and livelyhood) fact is what he publsihed is not true. It is bad science and it is false !

What kills the valdity of all that hard work is the fact that in both instances the authors of all this hard work make the same basic mistake and that is they draw conclusions on premises not tested for.

Mr. Scuichetti in his title to the article refers to "best bullet" ?

He does not define what in his opinion a "best bullet" is. If he put down a set of criteria that defines in his opinion "best bullet" and then tested for each attribute his article may actually gain some credibility. He makes the fatal error of equating penetration depth and fragmentation to lethality based on his results , results that did not test for lethality in the first place.


He tests for 3 things, but reports only on 2

The Two are bullet behaviours (Depth of penetration and projectile fragmentation)

The 3rd component is the channel left in the paper, but he does not actually produce a valid comparison on on this to come to any conclusion.

So where lies the problem.... the problem is he infers that lethality or possible lethality is somehow linked to the results of his test.

Lethality has to do with living target reaction to insult and no where but no where in any of thse tests is this actually tested for !

The anecdotal reference to similitude to shooting road kill deer is offered and yes in terms of the rules of determining levels of evidence in testing this is anecdotal at best and actually no similitude was shown because that too was not actually tested for !
The same applies to the pictures above.

The pictures of the bullets shot through stacks of paper and the results then posted below each are not in dispute, the observations are as far as we can see and accurate reflection of what the author observed. The wound pictures are actual hard evidence of the passage of bullets, that is not in dispute, what is in dispute is how do the authors come to the conlcusion that one is related to the other by means of what was tested for.

What is in dispute is how those who follow and cheer this effort on get from this to claiming that the pictures of wounds in animals are somehow related based on the outcomes of the paper tests.

In their blind enthusiam they even go as far as to claim that other bulelts like Round Nosed bullets should not be used..... am I intepreting that correctly?

RN bullets are no longer needed because they are perhaps not "the best" and therefore not lethal? or less lethal ? That is a big assumption to make when the lethality of neither bullet type was tested for in the paper test. So by virtue of the outcomes of the tests how do we expalin the multitude of animals that fell before those old Kynoch bullets, were they not lethal, did they not produce similar wounds?

Yes we show that FN bullets penetrate deep and yes they are "Stable" , both desirable traits we believe but are they necessarliy more lethal? not by virtue of these test results they are not ! We assume it based on intuition and anecdotal evidence. I shoot FN bullets , have been doing so since Gerard produced and sold his first, I shoot Mononmetals, same reason but other than my own preferance based on intuition and anecdotal evidence I cannot lay claim regardiing lethality.

Untill someone actually tests for lethality we will never really know.

No whilst the article in HL is an elegant presentation and the efforts of the author commendable the content is sadly a fine example of bad science !

This is like studying the traffic on a two lane highway, what we are doing is looking at one lane only, studying it, putting it to the test. We are not testing for the other lane, no where in any of these tests is the other lane under scrutiny and yet when we come to a conclusion the two lanes are compared and a outcome ifs predicted when the two interact? That in essence is not science !

Alf

You remind me of one of those little yelping dogs, running in circles trying to catch it's tail! Careful, you talk in so many circles that you may end up chewing your own ass off!



Michael

Guys,

I hate to get into this and I know many of you have done considerable testing that I have found very valuable. I am a old engineer that has forgotten most of what I learned earlier in life but I do remember that energy can be dissipated in 4 finite ways ( heat/friction, elastic deformation, plastic deformation and fracture).
If a "solid" non deforming projectile is penetrating deeper than another than it is not transimiting as much energy to the target/medium than the like projectile with less penetration given they are the same weight and traveling at the same velocity.
Could be that the less penetrating projectile creates a more tearing action (elastic or plastic deformation to the medium) thus transmitting energy to the target.
Another note: I hear all the time that a soft is more apt leave all its energy to the target if it does not exit (that is a misconception). A lot of energy is expelled in the plastic deformation of the soft. The only method a projectile will pass all its energy to a target is for it not to deform/fracture and stay in the target medium. I am not saying that is the best killing method, simply math/physics...

Alf is correct in that the testing reported above would not pass the test of it being a scientifically valid test. There isn't any way any peer reviewed journal would accept it for publication. I think Michael realizes that fact. Saying that, it does not mean that the results and or conclusions are wrong. Simply they leave a question as to their validity. Some will accept the results others will demand more scientific proof. I suspect Alf actually believes the results are likely true or he wouldn't be using FN solids.

465H&H

Poking fun at someone who is correct, is one way of not accepting that point of view.

quote:

Alf is correct in that the testing reported above would not pass the test of it being a scientifically valid test. There isn't any way any peer reviewed journal would accept it for publication.

Not sure which test you are speaking about H, mine, or the other fellow. I recall some time ago seeing that test, but I don't recall the particulars of it.

Scientifically Valid--Peer Reviewed Journal! Well, good thing I am not writing a book eh? Nor have any aspirations of doing so, although asked to by many. Most Journals, magazines, will print anything you want, as long as you are advertising in it! Fact!

Scientifically Valid. Well, I can tell you this, I have been testing in my test medium for over 15 years now. I can repeat what I did 5 years ago, with the same bullet, same test medium, same cartridge and bullet at the same velocity. While penetration depth might change an inch or two, one way or the other, bullet behavior never changes, not ever, not once, with the exception of a particular bullet being inconsistent from one manufacturing date to the next, but that is not seen often. On occasion, but not as a rule. If we have a date of manufacture and have 100 bullets all the same, then that 100 will behave the same over any period of time here.

Now, admittedly, a 1 or two bullet test is not enough to be "SCIENTIFICALLY VALID", or statistically so. And especially in the minds of those who have NEVER DONE any controlled test work at all, but still yet puts up the challenge of it's validity.

I get paid nothing for this. This is all at my expense, my time, my energy, my dollars. I started doing this for my own knowledge, and still do so. I hunt. I go to the field most years two trips, sometimes more, sometimes less, somewhere. Many of those times are for dangerous game, but even if not, hunting trips are not cheap, and I don't take these things lightly. It is my goal to be as successful as I can possibly be in the field. Rifle, Cartridge, and the bullet are all part of that success, or failure as it may be. I believe the bullet to be a very important component of success or failure many times. The bullet does the work in the end, regardless of rifle or cartridge. I Believe strongly in knowing the limitations of my bullet long before I go to the field with it. I wish to find out the stress points on a bullet, what it will do, what it won't do, and if it is suited to my particular needs or mission at hand.

Now you guys can believe this, or not, in the end it matters little, as I am going to do what I do regardless of what you may believe or not believe. You see, I KNOW, because I have done it, 1000s of bullets downrange tested over the years. Many that have gone on to the field, and behaved exactly as they did in the test work before hand. I have never gone to the field with a bullet that was SUCCESSFUL in the Test Work, and have it FAIL in the field. Never happened. And, it never will. Why? Because I have done this enough to KNOW EXACTLY what is going to happen long before hand.

I can repeat it, time and time again. I cannot get every test medium exactly 100% the same as the last--But they are very close, if not, then I would get some really off the wall numbers every time I did it. I keep very good records and have many years worth of them. Today, a particular bullet might penetrate 24 inches. Next year, it might be 23 or it might be 25, or 26, but it will be in the range of 10% depth of penetration 90+% of the time. While depth of penetration might change a bit--Bullet Behavior NEVER CHANGES. IF the manufacturer has consistent manufacturing quality control, then they will behave the same time after time, after time again! Do 2, or do a 100, results are the same. Come visit with me, we will build a couple of test medium boxes, and we will test 100 of them at a time! You will have 100 bullets that perform the same, if the manufacturer has done their part! 2 or a hundred, makes no difference.

Now this speaks to the test parameters that I work with for the last 15 + years. I can't speak for anything else.

There are those that DO, and those that DO NOT. The DO NOT, at times wish to throw DOUBT on the DO. The DO NOT has no basis nor proof, just wishes to tear down the DO. No other reason! I stand behind what I DO, all the way. I have the proof, test work, field work. Now if the DO NOT wishes to Disprove, then show me THE "DO NOT" work and prove it!

If you have never done test work in a controlled environment, with consistent test medium, YOURSELF, then you have no basis to say anything, nor a right to do so. Anything else is pure BS.

Now really, I leave it to you, I am going off notification of this, so ya'll can have at it. I have other works to do, shooting, testing, pressure traces, load data, and of course terminals, and no time to waste here. Good Bye all! Find me on big bores and even doubles, under terminals, or bullets or what have you.

Later Ladies! Have fun with yourselves.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
At best wet paper is a good bullet trap, just like Kevlar, acting just like Kevlar would. Study into the Defeating Kevlar shows exactly how complex the issue is !

Kevlar is indeed designed to trap[certain type,vel. and momentum]projectiles that react-behave in a certain way when making contact with kevlar, that would otherwise travel through living tissue with comparative ease.

However, introduce a projectile [of certain construction & design]...like a particular design of knife blade or the diminutive .17cal PDW cartridge ,...which are designed in a way that does not allow Kevlar to trap it-stop it from penetrating...and its a whole new ball game.

..and I doubt very much H&K would see any sense in using wet telephone books[behind a kevlar vest].. to simulate the performance & effects of their PDW cartridge in live tissue....

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
To design for a particular management of bullet deformation, it is required that the catch medium be consistent and have certain properties. To that end, GSC tests in water. Testing in any other simulation is inconsistent and good for very rough comparison only.

Any test that is not done on live game, tests only what the bullet looks like after the test, for that test. No conclusions can be made about the wound channel from the test medium and it has only a coincidental similarity to game.

Trax:

Yes you are correct ! and no I did not infer or suggest that anyone use wet phone books as kevlar; though the model to which paper fails when impacted by a missile is the same as Kevlar.

Both are woven composites consisting of a fibre mat captured in a matrix.

With paper the fibres are short and the weave is random.

In Kevlar long continious fibres woven in a ordered pattern is used and this then layered and compressed into a matrix .

With mode 2 failure the strands of fibre absorb energy and fail due to shear at distances away from the actual frontal area of the projectile.

When this happens a slug of kevlar is formed.

The same thing happens when you penetrate skin with a flat meplat blunt needle.

A sharp pointed penetrator such as thin sharp pointed missile or a knife epsecially a thin bladed knife or pointed arrow causes mode 1 failure of the long fibres in the kevlar at the point of contact.

This allows the penetrator to penetrate and ultimately perforate the kevlar.

If the velocity of the sharp penetrator is low the plugging may occur, as the velocity goes up perforation may occur and we see petlalling at the edges of the perforation.

No slug of kevlar is fomed in mode 1 failure

The problem with this type of testing is that people think they observe a certain behaviour when in fact they did not or they observe something and then draw a conclusion on something that was not even tested for.

This is not meant as a insult to anyone or aimed at any person as a slight. It unfortunataely happens and it happens not just here , it happens in the real world of science as well.

An example of this is the observation or rather the conclusion that somehow sectional density no longer is applicable when describing the behaviour of these so called "new bullets".

What is amazing about this is that the tests using the "new bullets" and how they behave actually beare out is that SD is a factor and that the behaviour of the bullet and it's wound created is dependent on it's existance.

I suspect the reason for this happening is that the definition of SD is not understood.

Another example of this was the whole issue of supercavitation and this was taken at it's word and even shamelessly put to print not just here on AR but also in books on big game bullets. Pierre van der Walts first edition on big game carridges as an example.

The behaviour of the FN monometal bullet and it's apparent ability to form bubbles around itself then leading to it's particular traits of stability and deep penetration.

This was and still is a fallacy, not the fact that it cavitates but that the cavity itself is the reason for the stability and it was implied that other bullets form no cavity.

No one actually had any notion that perhaps stability, drag, cavitation and sectional density were closely linked on how these projectiles behave and cause wounds. ( they actually are, in fact they all are linked and cannot be separated )

The very behaviour of the FN monometal solid is a direct testimony that SD is important, the fact that all bullets not just FN bullets cavitate is manipulated through it's design to increase the Sectional density of this type of bullet and thus cause a specific reduction in energy dump per unit distance penetrated ( ie drag reduction) and this allows for deep penetration. Drag reduction will then by necessity mean that the diameter of the wound channel will be lower than a non drag reducing projectile.

The most stunning of statements made was that somehow energy had nothing to do with how wounds are created when in fact all that we see in wounds are the results of energy transfer from one body to another and how the racieving body reacts to that gift. It is in fact all about energy and no more.

The observers in the paper tests corectly see the deep penetration of the FN bullets they shoot, but then they proclaim that these bullets make bigger holes than the RN bullets and based on this they say SD is not important ? Did they consider that perhaps there was something about the paper as a material that confounded what they saw? Or perhaps that what they think SD is is not quite true ?

As Gerard correctly points out it is all about management of these phenomena through applied design that we can get bullet to do what we want in terms of the creation of a certain wound profile.

Alf,

I am no expert or prophet on these issues. Saying that, I can't help but wonder if drag doesn't play a more important role than it has been given credit for. It has been my observation after using both types, RN and FN, on elephant that the RN tends to push through soft tissue while FN designs tend to cut their way through. We see something similar when comparing a RN 45 ACP hole through a paper target vs one made with a semi-wad cutter design. The RN hole is less than bullet diameter and it will show radial tears out to bullet diameter. The semi-wad cutter (FN design) will leave a sharp edged clean hole of bullet diameter. Does this mean that the FN design has less drag through soft tissue.

465H&H

465H&H:

Absolutely ! drag is the key ! without consideration of drag and the mechanics of drag we have nothing !

This is where Benjamin Robins failed in his experiments shooting balls into wood. He did not have the knowledge of the mechanics of drag at his disposal because it came after his discoveries.


Our problem with observations of bullet behaviour is that tend to look at the bullet only without due consideration to the target and it's effects. It's a two way street with 2 way traffic !

Of the oldest tests ( and current) performed in modern ballistics are the ones that deal with penetration of steel balls into gelatine, these chosen on purpose so one can standardise on variables such as stability and projectile deformation.

The cavities left behind in the gelatine are a direct measure of drag or alternately a measure of the amount of mechancial energy dumped to the target due to drag.

If the drag is high the cavity is big and it means a lot of energy was deposited to the target ( it stands to reason because you need a lot of energy to transport the gel away from the speeding bullet) if the cavity is small, drag was small and little energy was lost to the target.

The high SD projectile leaves a small dimater deep cavity, the low SD bullet a big shallow cavity.

The total volume of gel displaced would be roughly the same but where the displacement occurs is what is important and this is where Gerard came in with his assertion on bullet design.

If you know how this happens you can design a bullet to do what you want it to do !

Gerard did exactly this with his FN and his HV bullets !

As to your observation regarding the differences in the hole seen in a target between a FN and a RN it has to do with the mode of failure of the solid medium on penetration or perforation. The RN penetrates by means of tensile failure of the solid at point of contact. The FN does so by shear.

The behaviour of the medium to the insult is important, for instance ballistic gel behaves mostly elastic whilst ballistic soap behaves largely plastic.

Well to the lay man all you need a projectile to do is:

1) Cut the nervous system
or
2) Break bone
or
3) Disrupt the flow of oxygen to the brain
and
4) Penetrate to where it can perform those functions.

It seems like this thread has taken on a life of its own. Obviously, there is no agreed upon consensus on all the factors that affect bullet penetration.

It's a shame we don't all live close enough to each other to organize a rendezvous to test different calibers and different bullets in different media.

A couple of days doing that would be awesome!

GAHUNTER:

The reality of organizing and testing bullet behaviour is that in order to do it so it has any value and validity you have to have money, lots of it and you are going to need a specialized facility.

By specialized one would need doppler radar and high speed shadow photography equipment for one thing and secondly one would need a facility where large volumes of a acceptable standardised target medium can be made. And by large volumes I mean you have to have at least one block of this stuff for every shot taken!

As we are testing projectiles with penetratin qualities in excess of 5 ft the blocks of target medium is going to be massive..... or the alternate is that one shoot scaled down versions of our projectiles from specialized air guns..... ballistics is scalable as long as the rules of correct scaling are followed.

I have thought about this on many an occasion and the only way I see us doing it would be if one could come from an angle where one could convince a university or similar institution that these monometal bullets are now widely available and no one has actually studied and defined their ability to injure hence then the need to study them.

One thing I would personally like to do is the make large scale models of a FN bullet out of say aluminum and to put that into a pool of flowing water in a hydromechanics lab such as the one used by the military in Maryland to test underwater bodies.

As projectile behaviour is scalable this would be valid.

One could then study and photograph exactly where the cavitation point on the surface is.

By changing the size of the meplat one could also determine the threshold surface area size where cavitation inception no longer occurs on the edge of the meplat but at the edge where the conical portion of the nose meets the body of the projectile.

This would give us an accurate idea of how big to make the meplat in order to achieve the least amount of drag.

Wow! I thought we'd just shoot some bullets into some wet phone books and carboard, and see what happened.

Then we'd all go to a bar and get drunk.

Both are racing cars. They have four wheels, an engine and wide wheels. They go fast, they win, lose, crash and burn. But, they are not the same.

quote:

Originally posted by GAHUNTER:
Wow! I thought we'd just shoot some bullets into some wet phone books and carboard, and see what happened.

Then we'd all go to a bar and get drunk.

Either way, I'm in.

Hey code4 - great vid - did you ever find the other 2 bullets? I'm curious to know how much they expanded.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

quote:

Originally posted by GAHUNTER:
Wow! I thought we'd just shoot some bullets into some wet phone books and carboard, and see what happened.

Then we'd all go to a bar and get drunk.

John Nosler was inspired to develop the NP after shooting mud caked moose[not wet phone books], with insufficiently constructed bullets from his .300H&H.

Clearly he was not interested in slowing down impact vel. to achieve lethal penetration, but rather more interested in improving the design/integrity of the bullet to better overcome target resistance to penetration.

Trax:

I ask my myself to what purpose do I hunt ?

If I am a meat hunter, why on earth would I chose a bullet/ cartridge combination that induces massive drag and a massive wound?
Especially if it is a small animal ?

If i were the target a trophy which on some species may be of the highest priced and prized species, why would I chose the same high drag high velocity bullet cartridge combination?

Going after the All African small 10 for instance with frangible high velocity bullets is in my opinion makes absolutely no sense?

Shooting a elephant with one of these combintations also makes no sense.

The reality is whether we inetentionally think on it or not, more than often our choices of bullets ( or in manufactured ammo) makes that choice for us without us even considering it.

The notion of using solids on elephant and the fact that manufacurers actually load with solids is testimony to the fact that drag and it's effects are catered to. The same is applicable to so called varmint loads.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

quote:

Originally posted by GAHUNTER:
Wow! I thought we'd just shoot some bullets into some wet phone books and carboard, and see what happened.

Then we'd all go to a bar and get drunk.

John Nosler was inspired to develop the NP after shooting mud caked moose[not wet phone books], with insufficiently constructed bullets from his .300H&H.

Clearly he was not interested in slowing down impact vel. to achieve lethal penetration, but rather more interested in improving the design/integrity of the bullet to better overcome target resistance to penetration.

Trax,

John Nosler was interested in designing a bullet that could be used for long range shooting so it had to have controlled expansion at high velocity and long range as well as at close range. A flat trajectory was a huge advantage for these calibers. For dangerous game we are looking at short range scenarios where flatness of trajectory is not of importance but having the bullet perform to cause maximum damage at suffecient penetration depths is important. You comapared apples and oranges.

465H&H

John Noslers intention was to create a bullet[NP] that delivered more reliable performance/sufficient penetration in a broad range of scenarios.


"In the fall of 1946, a stubborn, mud-caked Canadian moose failed to go down, despite a well placed shot from John Nosler’s 300 H&H. On the way home from that trip, John started thinking about a way to make a bullet that would perform well every time, no matter what the size of the game or the shot angle."

One could choose to launch a 160WL from 7x57 instead of faster 7mmMag,[too achieve more penetration],
or one could exercise another option to gain better penetration at 7mmMag velocities;... select a differently constructed/differently behaving projectile.
There are premium softs available that do not "parachute" like Woodleighs, at the higher impact speeds.





For what its worth,..Some results for those that rely on wet-pack tests ....

.30/06 : ranging from 150gn-X to 250gn Barnes orig.,...165gn Failsafe proved the best penetrator.

150 gr Barnes X-Bullet
2850 fps
0.532 in
16.5 in

180 gr Woodleigh Weld-Core
2750 fps
0.870 in
15.7 in

200 gr North Fork Technologies
2550 fps
0.652 in
15.7 in

220 gr Nosler Partition
2470 fps
0.460 in
20.5 in

the slower,less expanded 200NF penetrated less than the faster -larger expanded 180WL,
according to theory it should have been the other way around,..yes?
would you realistically expect those bullets to exhibit the same performance/behaviour in game as in WP?

340Weatherby : ranging from 200NBT to 275gn A-frame,...the 210x proved the greatest penetrator.

200 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip
3025 fps
0.590 in
17.3 in

210 gr Nosler Partition
3050 fps
0.639 in
16.3 in

210 gr Nosler Partition
2840 fps
0.633 in
16.2 in

275 gr Swift A-Frame
2600 fps
0.668 in
21.7 in

Now according to the WP-test 200gnBT is a better penetrator than the slower 210NP.

Anyone honestly believe the performance in W-P is truly indicative of how they will each actually perform on game?

Of the two Nosler bullets, which would you really prefer to load in your 340wm if intending to hunt elk and Moose?...and why would that be?

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

quote:

Originally posted by GAHUNTER:
Wow! I thought we'd just shoot some bullets into some wet phone books and carboard, and see what happened.

Then we'd all go to a bar and get drunk.

Either way, I'm in.

Me too however the results maybe anything but scientific . Pity we are all at diametrically opposed ends of the planet. I know a rather nice Rum from Barbados....