The Steel Maiden is a smashing success.
Front:

Side:

Aft:


Chief Thunderstick is pictured, assisting me today. He is standing there daydreaming about buffalo, Tanzania, and his .470 Capstick.

Only two shots were fired today in the shakedown run:

1) .375 H&H: 300 grain FN solid at 2526 fps
2) .375 RUM: 300 grain FN solid at 2730 fps

An orange, stick-on, paper target dot was placed on a 15/32" plywood board as the aiming point for bullet entry.

Then followed a 2.5 mil plastic trash compactor bag of water (6.5" thickness of water between boards).

Then followed three of the 15/32" interior plywood boards, as a sandwich.

The Steel Maiden had 12 compartments in a train, each compartment 8" thick, with approximately 1.5" of plywood and 6.5" of water to traverse, per compartment.

Result: It's a tie!!!

Both shots #1 and #2 traversed 7 bags of water and bounced off the seventh 3-board sandwich. Both bullets finally tumbled in the seventh bag of water and left a sideways impression in the surface of the first board in the seventh wood sandwich.

Both bullets stayed in the seventh bag of water, where they were easily recovered. No bending or deformation of either bullet. Just rifling marks and all the moly coating was scrubbed off both.

Conclusion: The extra 200 fps of velocity made no difference in this test medium regarding penetration. Medium resistance at higher velocity stacks up about as fast as any gains in Mo/XSA. There may indeed be something magical about the old traditional wisdom of "2400 fps" velocity as most efficient.

There was more violence and hurt put on the first (target) board by the faster bullet. The target dot was blown off the board by the 2700 fps bullet, not so the 2500 fps bullet. There was a visibly bigger splash of water and the entry board was cracked and splintered a bit more with the 200 fps faster bullet.

The final compartment damage and total depth of penetration was the same with both bullets: Indistinguishable.

The steel maiden retained all boards and suffered no damage herself.

So it seems that 2700 fps bullets penetrate as deeply as 2500 fps bullets. No horrible loss of penetration.

2700 gets more total trauma to the target and the shooter's shoulder, and longer range potential, than 2500 fps.

Gains and costs are marginal.

Pick your poison, either 2500 fps or 2700 fps with .375 caliber 300 grain FN solids.

This does not address expanding bullet penetration.

Now I have the .375 caliber 270 grain FN at 2921 fps MV to test.

Target distance was 25 yards.

Next I will test the new North Fork .474 caliber
Cup Point "Solid" versus the Flat Point Solid by North Fork. These 500 grainers will be at about 2100 fps and 2300 fps then maybe 2500 fps:

.470 NE
.470 Capstick
.470 Mbogo

Then finally, we can throw in some old Round Nose Barnes Brass Solids to see how they tumble.

Then the Bridger .505 Gibbs brass solids ...

More pictures to follow after I see a patent attorney.

Rip,

I guess we should call her the "Iron Hussie" now that she is no longer a "maiden"

Thanks for your time, money, and effort in this project. How about the Lott for a later series of test?

Hog Killer

Hog Killer,
"Iron Hussie" is funny but I've got about $800 of hardware in this baby and must show a bit more respect!

I will definitely want to test the .458 Lott. Got any burning questions to be answered about any specific loads?

After the initial investment, subsequent shots get cheaper. She'll last forever, is modular, and if any bullets take to tumbling and trying to take out a section of steel tube or angle iron, easily repairable.

RIP,

Not all "Hussies" are cheap.

As for testing the Lott loads. How about, 500gr Hornady @ 2100, 2200, and 2300(if you can safely get there). Then maybe, RN FMJ vs NF FN. Any good data would be interesting.

Post some pictures after you get with your patent attorney.

Hog Killer

Hog Killer,
This apparatus is not good for the fine gradations of 100 fps increments with the same bullet. It did not show any difference with 200 fps with the same bullet.

The comparison of FMJ Round Nose versus Monometal Flat Nose of the same weight and velocity (or different weights and velocities like for a 500 grain RNFMJ versus a 450 grain Flat Point North Fork at higher velocity) would be a good starting point, looking for a load to distinguish itself.

I'll get on it.

Note: I don't have a steel plate on the end of the trap. It doesn't look like it will be needed. We only "busted" 7 of 12 bags of water, and did not completely penetrate the 7th wood sandwich.

Of course we need to show reproducibility of results, and larger sample sizes.

Other design improvements to be added are already evident after today. Chief Thunderstick is helping with ideas. Two heads better than one, even if the extra head is bald.

We have more work to do, in the interest of science ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Got any burning questions to be answered about any specific loads?

Yeah, how about a GS 260 or 230 vs. a Rhino 380. Maybe that would shut those two up. Nevermind, I'd hate for any actual test results to get in the way of their bickering of semantics.....

Jon A,
If we could get Chris to mail a few bullets to me ...

RIP:

you wrote.
>Then finally, we can throw in some old Round Nose Barnes Brass Solids to see how they tumble<
Better would be to check the new Barnes FN banded solids, their answer to the "FN" competition.

What is a "15/32" plywood board" ? Can you show a close up from the side?
I am using in similar experiments a resin bonded board ( sold for a working plate in a kitchen). The SP bullet penetrates 17 to 20 boards á 1.5". Stacked with water containers will be made in the future.

>There was more violence and hurt put on the first (target) board by the faster bullet. The target dot was blown off the board by the 2700 fps bullet, not so the 2500 fps bullet. There was a visibly bigger splash of water and the entry board was cracked and splintered a bit more with the 200 fps faster bullet.<

The initial interaction on impact with the target has been neglected up to now. There is some energy eaten up depending on velocity and influences the total penetration. I want to study this "splash" effects further. I think many controversial discussion has to do with this phenomenon.

Ron,
excellent..
did you use unistrut to build her? .or modular shelve square tubing?. i was going to make a joke about "hair" but i'll pass.. the stick on target should work just fine..

I bet some chickenwire (hardware cloth) in a "baggy" or loose wrap, from top left corner under the bottom, to top right corner, would catch most of the plastic ejecta... might even leave a "throw" that you could toss over the top from the top right corner to past the top left.

not trying to improve the design, just hate finger picking tiny bits of plastic. This should NOT contain the hydrolics... just catch the plastic and/or bullet as the water pushes it out

well done...

Nobert,
15/32 is what they are calling "1/2" anymore..

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Jon A,
If we could get Chris to mail a few bullets to me ...

oh man, a shot a chris... well, gotta keep it even... go ahead and order some of gerards... they'll get there about the same time

jeffe

RIP,

Three cheers for seeing this through.

I would love to see the Barnes round nose solid results to see if they do indeed tumble, or have reduced penetration.

Keep up the good work.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Got any burning questions to be answered about any specific loads?

Christmas here already?

Would you to test a fast and slow load in 416 Rigby with 410 grain bullets?? Preferably Woodleigh solid and soft.

Test with 404 Jeffery, 400 grain bullet fast and slow load with both soft and solids

A 500 Jeffery test, shooting 535 and 600 grain soft/solids would also be very interesting.

Finally, I would like to see how 450 Rigby or 450 Dakota works with 500, 550 and 600 grain Woodleigh

Cheers
/ JOHAN

Well done RIP!

But please be kind to bald heads..............

I think we all want to see flat nose solids compared to round nose. Not only depth, but when they turn or yaw by reading your board prints. Old Nitro velocities of 2100fps compared to Lott velocities would be great too. (But I think you may have an idea already as to results)

I would really like to see a NorthFork comparison to your favorite mono as well!

It is very refreshing to see someone "doing" vs. "talking"! Thanks for your effort!

BigRx

RIP:

I have some .458 caliber 450 grain GSC FN solids
and I would be willing to donate a few to the cause.

If you need a whole box (50) that is a slightly different proposition and I would sell them to your group at original cost.

PM me if interested. Thanks for the interesting test.

Regards,

RCG

Aha! you did steal your kids tinker Toy set! I should have known!

RIP,

Eureka! Way to go! The light bulb works!

I'm afraid that your request for wish lists of bullet tests will lead to your having a full-time job on your hands!

Having said that, though, I'd love to see some results of flat vs. round noses.

Also, some results with Woodleigh solids at 410 grains in .416 (whatever the make, but at 2,400 fps or thereabouts), and 500 grains in .458 Lott (say, at the old N.E. or Win. Mag. velocity of 2,150 vs. 2,300), and 600 grains in .500 A2 (again, say, at the old N.E. velocity of 2,150 vs. 2,300+).

The Woodleighs ought to be tested, to see if they hold up the British end, because they're as close to the old, classic, Kynoch-shaped round noses that we can get.

quote:

Originally posted by Norbert:

Q/Norbert:
... Better would be to check the new Barnes FN banded solids, their answer to the "FN" competition. ...

A/RIP: Of course! Good idea. The old round nose and then the new Flat Nose, of same velocity, weight, and caliber of the two brass solids.



Q/Norbert:
What is a "15/32" plywood board" ? Can you show a close up from the side?

A/RIP: It is just the thickness of the standard interior grade (cheap) plywood, about 1/2" thick(15/32") as Jeffe says.



Norbert: I am using in similar experiments a resin bonded board ( sold for a working plate in a kitchen). The SP bullet penetrates 17 to 20 boards á 1.5". Stacked with water containers will be made in the future.

RIP: I thought of masonite and pressed board and veneered and laminated materials, such as yours, but my cheap plywood seems adequate in the current quantities. I need to stick to my consistent scale. Maybe mine will work with softpoints too, eventually???


Norbert:
The initial interaction on impact with the target has been neglected up to now. There is some energy eaten up depending on velocity and influences the total penetration. I want to study this "splash" effects further. I think many controversial discussion has to do with this phenomenon.

Norbert,
I agree. Any assistance with the "science" is appreciated.

Subjectively, and objectively, it seems the slightly faster .375 load did more damage along the way, and did not lose any penetration over the slower one. I think it would kill better with the nondeforming solid.

Jeffe,
Thanks.
You hit on the necessary improvement: webbing or "chicken wire" of whatever sort to contain the water bags from bulging out so far beyond the sides in the filling/setup before each shot. There is no bag debris, the bags just split or perforate and drain. The first three feet of trap causes a big splash.

The materials are the modular "telescoping" steel tubing, plated and pre-drilled with a hole every inch.
Square tubing and angle iron.
5/16" hex bolts with nuts and washers hold it together.
Wingnuts are used on the joints that come apart to break it down into three foot sections.

The first section is 1.5" tubing for the main members, the second section is 1.25" tubing, the third section is 1" square tubing. Fits together nicely, telescoping. The first section is built sturdier due to the higher impact forces.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
RIP,

Three cheers for seeing this through.

I would love to see the Barnes round nose solid results to see if they do indeed tumble, or have reduced penetration.

Keep up the good work.

Thank you, Will.
The next time out I will indeed do a comparison of the Round-Nose-brass-blue-coated-Smurf-Bullet solid by Barnes, in .470 Capstick at 2300 fps (500 grain) in comparison to a flat nosed .474 caliber copper solid by North Fork.

Johan,
Thanks.
I could do them all except I will have to substitute a .505 Gibbs (.505) or .500A2 (.510) for the .500 Jeffery (.510). Close enough?

It will be slow going, but your requests have merit, so I will try to get to them.

quote:

Originally posted by BigRx:
Well done RIP!

But please be kind to bald heads..............

I think we all want to see flat nose solids compared to round nose. Not only depth, but when they turn or yaw by reading your board prints. Old Nitro velocities of 2100fps compared to Lott velocities would be great too. (But I think you may have an idea already as to results)

I would really like to see a NorthFork comparison to your favorite mono as well!

It is very refreshing to see someone "doing" vs. "talking"! Thanks for your effort!

BigRx

Big Rx,
Chief Thunderstick is a sharp dude, even if he is bald.

You know where I am going with this, eh? Hopefully I will get there.

Also, for the record, North Fork is my preferred bullet, with Bridger Bullets up and coming soon, hopefully.

The GSC's used here offered the same nose shape on a 270 grainer and a 300 grainer, FN monometal copper solid. The results of more velocity and less bullet weight will be interesting.

RCG,
Thanks for the offer, but I have gobs of North Fork .458/450gr Flat Point, Cup Point, and Soft Point bullets. I would rather use those.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Aha! you did steal your kids tinker Toy set! I should have known!

Ray,
Close, but it is not a "Tinker Toy" set. It is an "Erector Set." Just like your kids used to play with, only on a slightly larger scale.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
RIP,

Eureka! Way to go! The light bulb works!

I'm afraid that your request for wish lists of bullet tests will lead to your having a full-time job on your hands!

Having said that, though, I'd love to see some results of flat vs. round noses.

Also, some results with Woodleigh solids at 410 grains in .416 (whatever the make, but at 2,400 fps or thereabouts), and 500 grains in .458 Lott (say, at the old N.E. or Win. Mag. velocity of 2,150 vs. 2,300), and 600 grains in .500 A2 (again, say, at the old N.E. velocity of 2,150 vs. 2,300+).

The Woodleighs ought to be tested, to see if they hold up the British end, because they're as close to the old, classic, Kynoch-shaped round noses that we can get.

Agree.
Every shot fired will be either a help in confirming the conventional wisdom, or maybe it will point in a new direction ... ???

Mass, velocity, caliber, and nose shape with solid/nonexpanding bullets is the groundwork.

Then some expanding bullet explosiveness ... that's where it starts getting complicated.

quote:

Note: I don't have a steel plate on the end of the trap. It doesn't look like it will be needed. We only "busted" 7 of 12 bags of water, and did not completely penetrate the 7th wood sandwich.

RIP,

You must not be planning on testing any hard cast loads in a .45-70 or you would have made the "Maiden" twice as long and parked an old Buick behind it.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Johan,
Thanks.
I could do them all except I will have to substitute a .505 Gibbs (.505) or .500A2 (.510) for the .500 Jeffery (.510). Close enough?

It will be slow going, but your requests have merit, so I will try to get to them.

RIP,
Sure . Guess 500 Jeffery and 500A2 are fairly similar in terms of velocity, so 500 A2 would be good substitute

Cheers
/ JOHAN

Ron,

Don't forget cast bullets I have a 500 gr .458" mold, and plan to re-cut the nose to drop a fp of ~530 gr. I'd be curious to see how it does loaded to ~1800 fps, as well as at 2200 fps. I also have a 460 gr .475" and 470 gr .512" in fp configurations.

Paul and Paladin,
Ah ha!
A perfect issue for the Steel Maiden to put to rest:

Hard cast lead .458/500gr at 1800 fps
vs.
Copper FP NorthFork .458/450gr at 2400 fps

Which penetrates deeper?
Which splashes water and splinters boards better?
Which is the better killer???

I must remain objective, keep an open mind and quit using the smilies here.

Thanks for the report. Don't forget to test the Garrett Hammerheads!

500grains,
What is a .45/70 Marlin Rifle with a Ballard barrel? What makes it so special? Fast twist or no?

In the interest of science ...

RIP,

I think Garrett is trying to warn people off from using his bullets, or other cast lead bullets, in the Marlin microgroove barrels from the 1980's. Although the microgroove barrels were quite accurate with jacketed bullets, they did not do so well with lead.

I think they mean not ot be used in the Micro-groove rifling of some Marlins.

Damn, beat me to it, 500.

I believe that the Micro Grove rifling in the Marlins has an undeserved bad rap . I have seem them shoot hard cast very well and with out leading problems

Ah yes, the Marlin micro-grooves ... forgot about that. And now I would like to forget about the .45/70 and hard cast lead for awhile, until I run out of more important things to do ... like, just trying the copper FP North Fork and Bridger brass at low, moderate, and high velocity, eh? That will tell all.

News flash:
A brain storming session with others has resulted in the suggestion of decreasing the boards from three down to two boards (equals about one inch of wood to each 8" deep compartment).

This will give a ratio of 1 to 7 for wood to water depth per compartment.

This might stretch out the stop to give greater resolving power to distinguish any greater tendency to tumble, between two test loads.

Once the bullet gets sideways, it is "in the bag to stay" with the current setup, and hopefully two boards will do as well as three, per compartment.

Any thoughts on this? What is best, the current 1.5:6.5 ratio or the proposed 1:7 ratio for wood to water thickness?

I'm inclined to agree that a lesser thickness of wood barriers would be better, especially since the Iron Maiden has so much excess capacity within current testing parameters.

Subtle differences, after all, are what separate girlfriends from wives, and generate the saliva necessary for true ballistical arguments, n'est ce pas?

Sometime will have to try a rig like that,with
Rob's 700 BMG Imp or 700 HE, and one
of John's great 1000 gr banded
solids. I say only one as it should go all
through and tear-ass out the back.
That is a nice realistic tester for
all types of bullets, able to mimic the
variations of flesh and bone that big
game has...Ed

quote:

Originally posted by hubel458:
... That is a nice realistic tester for
all types of bullets, able to mimic the
variations of flesh and bone that big
game has...Ed

Thanks, Ed, that means a lot, coming from you.

Anyway, it sure beats hanging dead elephants from baobab trees and trying to get the proper angle for a shot. Bullet recovery is easier in a bag of water than in an elephant too. I don't know how Ray does it.

1:7 it is for the next shots, since MR thinks it would be advisable.

I know you're already drowning in potential tests for the maiden but I might just as well throw my dream experiment in there:

Standardize for energy and bullet type. Specifically I would like to test the "low and slow" vs. hi velocity "Roy rounds" for penetration. It would be interesting to set a standard ME at, say, 4500 foot pounds...

500g .458 2000 fps
400g .416 2250
270g .375 2750
210g .338 3100

I'd use barnes X bullets to minimize weight loss as a variable.

I THINK I know what the results would look like but....

what a great contraption---keep us posted!