Michael,

If you look at my reported results with 450gr FN North Forks and 500gr RN Woodleighs on elephant heads and bodies, which we have discussed before, you will note that the Woodleigh is loaded to higher portential than the NF. The heavier Woodleigh has more enregy as well, but the NF out penetrates it by something on order of your observed 35%. I can't accurately calculate the % difference I've observed since so many NF's exit that it skews results downward.

My requirements for solids is for them to get where they need to go, regardless of what they must penetrate. After they get to where they must go, I am not too concerned about the rest of their trip, though more straight line penetration is favorable. That is why I use Woodleighs for first shots on eles. I have never recovered one with nose damage, so I am confident that they will breach the bone they must on brain shots. Not so with NF's. I have recovered NF's with divoted noses and I know one veered, albeit mildly - maybe 8" over about 54", with most curve being in the last 2' of penetration. Nevertheless, I fear the veer!, even though I know that FN's will provide significantly greater penetration. Veering on a second shot to the heart or lungs is close to irrelevant since the target is so very large and penetration at a premium for these second and subsequent shots, which may be at some considrable quartering away angle.

On bullet length, think boats. The longer the waterline length, the faster a boat will go given the same power, up to a point. Then weight and friction will intervene. On the other hand, the longer a bullet the more spin it need to remain stable in air to flesh transition. GS Custom's web site has much on this topic worth reading. Same shape bullets, etc, etc, with different results. For their bullets shorter is better down to a point, and then physics and SD take over.

As for velocity, your observations contradict mine, but mine are more limited because the velocities I have used are within a tigher boundary. For, say, the 500gr 458 Woodleigh RN, increasing velocity from ~2025fps or so to ~2145fps makes a world of difference in penetration.

Also, according to others who report their results on eles, the increase in penetration for the same bullets is significant when you jump from ~2100fps to 2300fps.

Common sense tells me that early disipation of energy from a higher velocity bullet cannot alter the performance of the bullet once its energy has dropped to that reflective of the impact velocity of the slower bullet - assuming like bullets. So, a bullet raveling at, say, 2400fps strikes the target and begins to penetrate. It is also disipating energy faster than a slower bullet would by displacing more non permanent wound channel tissue. But it slows to the velocity of the second, slower bullet at impact. The second bullet and the first will behave exactly the same from the point where they have eqaul velocity, but the first bullet will already have penetrated some distance. The faster bullet will ALWAYS penetrate further, all else being equal, including stabilization at transition, which naturally favors the faster bullet.

Also, FWIW, flat noses, at least truncated cone flat noses, favor velocity, with apparently non-linear gains in penetration reflected as velocity increases. At least that is my take. Not enough comparative data to be sure. Seems to be one reason lighter, faster but less energy potential possessing flat noses out penetrate heavier more enegry potential possessing RN's. Like my Woodleigh 500's vs my NF 450's.

JPK

Jeffe

Close enough for me too! You guys were up way too late last night working on this! I think it is safe to say the subject has been covered pretty well.

JPK

As for velocity it may be the respective nose configurations that is showing our differences in penetration with respect to velocity. As you have not worked with the bullets I work with, and I have not worked with the ones you work with. Other than the Woodleigh, and I have not tried it at different velocities. So that could be the factor involved with that. And as stated before, any differences in penetration I have seen related to velocity is minor and insignificant anyway. But again, type, and nose profile.

And once again we are in agreement, even though your 500 Woodleigh has a higher SD it has less penetration than that of your lighter, less SD, 450 NF all because of nose profile. Therefore Nose Profile being the deciding factor in penetration, and not SD.


Now I think we hi-jacked this far enough, I think all the collective data we currently have is tabled, anything further will most likely be moot and repeat.

I see no other way to avoid this, but I think we are going to have to load up and do some more shooting now!

Good Show Gentlemen!

Michael

Spoken like a true gentleman!

Michael,

You miss my original point. On purpose I suspect! SD IS THE DECIDING FACTOR! - one that must be reiterated every time some dope tries to compare a 400gr .458" slug against a 400gr .408" or .411" slug.

Again: a low SD 400gr .458" solid of whatever construction will be out penetrated by a higher SD .408" or .411" bullet of the same shape at the same velocity. Bullet construction won't matter, but all other factors the same, ie, velocity, shape.

Jeffe's .2 SD factor didn't work with Barnes RN solids, with the same velocity they under performed steel jacketed solids. It isn't the material, it is the shape. But you control for shape comapring .458" solids vs .408" or .411" solids.

JPK

JPK

In your first statement concerning the subject you never mentioned nose profile or even that the bullet was a solid (thus me bringing up nose profile and construction in the next post) so I was not clear at the time exactly what sort of bullet was being discussed.

I did not miss your point,other than the fact you were not specific of bullet type. As I stated before and have many times--Nose Profile is everything--other factors are SD-Construction-Material-twist rates-Velocity-and probably other minor factors that I can't think of at this very moment in time. I have always proclaimed from day one from 2005 that NOSE PROFILE is everything when it comes to penetration of solids---ALL OTHER FACTORS take a back seat to NOSE PROFILE--including Sectional Density!

All Nose Profiles are NOT created equal--neither flat nose--nor round nose. Just because it has a flat nose, does not mean the bullet is going to do well, just because it has a round nose, does not mean it is going to do poorly!

Thus in THEORY ONLY your statement does have common validity. Your statement concerning the comparison between a 400 gr 458 caliber and a 400 gr .408-.411 or even .416 is a good "rule of thumb" if the NOSE PROFILE is the same on both bullets. But keep in mind--Rule of Thumb, and in the bullet business there are very very few Absolutes. To say SD is the Deciding Factor is for sure setting yourself up to be proven wrong. There are other factors that can come into play. One that comes immediately to mind is the "diameter" factor. For instance: A larger meplat can be put on a 458 caliber bullet, than on the .408-.416 caliber bullets, this could be a contributing factor with a flat nose design? If you had two round nose bullets, both had exactly the same rounded nose profile, then yes I believe the deciding factor would be SD in that case and your statement obviously correct on that count, or as far as I could see it would be correct.

But regardless of all the conjecture, the rules of thumb, and common validity, I myself would insist on testing the theory to make sure for myself. There have been many times that my theory proved to be something else, I am like those good old boys from Missouri, gonna have to show me!

Michael

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

470 Nitro + several boxes of Woody's + load to 2100FPS + learn to shoot double = one dead elephant.

I hope I did not do anything wrong.

quote:

If you look at my reported results with 450gr FN North Forks and 500gr RN Woodleighs on elephant heads and bodies, which we have discussed before, you will note that the Woodleigh is loaded to higher portential than the NF. The heavier Woodleigh has more enregy as well, but the NF out penetrates it by something on order of your observed 35%. I can't accurately calculate the % difference I've observed since so many NF's exit that it skews results downward.

The North Fork is a lower SD bullets and proves conclusively that the higher SD bullets do not always out penetrate lower SD bullets. There is more to the equation than just SD.

JPK,

The .411 400gr pills has a considerably larger length to diameter ratio than a 400gr .458 pill. Momentum and energy have more to do with penetration than SD does, considerably more. As so the mechanical properties of both the target and the penetrator, the nose profile and it's resistance to deformation, the area of contact is also important. Nowhere does sectional density, which by the way is not even a density, appear in a real penetration mathematical model. By mathematical model I am not referring to some gun scribes wet dreams either, but to military terminal ballistic science.

However all of this is, from a practical viewpoint, academic so you just go on believing all you want in the total importance of sectional density.

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
JPK,

The .411 400gr pills has a considerably larger length to diameter ratio than a 400gr .458 pill. Momentum and energy have more to do with penetration than SD does, considerably more. As so the mechanical properties of both the target and the penetrator, the nose profile and it's resistance to deformation, the area of contact is also important. Nowhere does sectional density, which by the way is not even a density, appear in a real penetration mathematical model. By mathematical model I am not referring to some gun scribes wet dreams either, but to military terminal ballistic science.

However all of this is, from a practical viewpoint, academic so you just go on believing all you want in the total importance of sectional density.

Michael,

Yes, I omitted nose profile while typing my post and thinking about it, and shouldn't have assumed that what I was typing and thinking were the same things, its even worse when I speak. On construction, doesn't matter what the bullet is made of, so long as it performs as intended, either keepong it shape or pattern deforming. I thought that the fact that I was discussing solids was obvious.

On small vs large diameter bullet meplat, it is a failing of the ogived solids that they loose so much relative meplat. And that loss is relative to a 9.3 compared to a 458 or a 458 vs a 500. That is why truncated cone solids are a better shape.

But SD is the critical factor that will determine which bullet will penetrate further - albeit all other factors the same.

I agree with the testing, but as you know, believe it is only relevant in actual target animals. At least until someone comes up with a suitable material that produces results repeatable in the real thing. Only ballistic gellatin and one or two "knock offs" come close so far.

ScottS,

That length to calibre difference is subsumed within SD calculation for similar construction bullets and all but subsumed for dissimilar construction bullets.

Momentum and energy determine penetration only with the same bullet. Try this: a 400gr bullet of the same profile in .458" and .408". Equal velocity, so equal momentum and energy. But the .458" bullet has lower SD. The .408" bullet WILL penetrate further. And so down in flames goes any 45/70 vs 450/400NE comparison.

Or this, two .458" bullets of the same shape, one 450grs and one 500grs. Load them to equal energy and then momentum will favor the 500, load them to the same momentum and energy will favor the 450. Bit of a quandry, eh? Which do you predict will penetrate more in each example?

On deformation, explain how the pure copper mono GS Customs, which are designed to deform even in elephant head honeycomb, out penetrate the harder brass Barnes, which are not supposed to deform - and ussually do not. Both flat noses, eh?

JPK

ScottS,

I see that you have deleted your last post. Nevertheless, here is my response:

If I am an expert here it is limited to performance of solids on elephants, and maybe cape buffalo.

On trees, I know that a 16" Husqvarna will out perform either the M1 or the 7.62!

On the battleship rifles, look into the barrel length of the Bismark's rifles. Their velocity was greater and the shells' flight isn't purely ballistic (ballistic = gravity being the exclusive source of downward speed, as in ballistic missles.) "The distance that the shell travels under pressure of the expanding gasses in the German large naval guns is longer than any other large naval guns, that I know of, except the Iowa class 16"/50 gun." From the Naval History Forum. And, "A special characteristic of these guns was their high muzzle velocity and low shell trajectories with a short flight time." From KBismark.com The rifles were 15"/~52, though the German system did not lend itself to direct comparison with American or English designation. The Rodney's were 16/45's.

Bismark's shells - 1760lbs @ 2690fps; Rodney's shells - 2048 @ 2614fps. Momentum, energy, SD favors the Rodney. Perhaps with steel as a target, the velocity makes the difference.

(Not that I entirely buy that the Bismark's guns outpenetrated the Rodney's.)

JPK

Sectional density would have to play some part in penetration. I believe someone already mentioned that a 4 bore ball carries allot of momentum but little penetrating ability.
Throw a baseball at 100 mph and if it hits you in the chest it will hurt like the devil but it is not going to penetrate.
Take a projectile with 1/2 that mass and shape it in the form of a slender pencil and hurl it with the same kinetic energy and it will probably stick you pretty good.
Your target is going to distribute that momentum over a larger area with a larger front on a projectile.
Frontal shape appears to be a variable with respect to penetration of flesh with a solid. There is allot of experience on this forum that substantiates that claim.
I am in the JPK camp in that if the frontal design is the same a higher SD will have a positive effect on the penetrating abilities if the bullet is stabilized.
IF a SD is over .3 and the projectile has a proper frontal design. From most indications, penetration is substantial given an adequate velocity.
Perhaps that is the reason a 416 (400 gr; SD .330) @ 2400 fps has such a sterling reputation for this discussion; good mass, good SD, good velocity.

JPK,

I deleted my post as it had nothing to do with big bore rifles. You did not explain why the M1 carbine outpenetrates the 7.62X39 Soviet however.

The Bismarck's rifles were 48.5 calibers long when directly compared to the American, British, Japanes method. Long tubes for sure but not as long as those used on the American 14" and 16" rifles which were both 50 long (there were 45 long in the USN also). Believe me the German 15", as well as, the British 15" both handily beat the Rodney's 16" shells in armor penetration.

anukpuk
wow after all this you could go out and test it on a tree

Well you are correct, I could, and have done just that recently. However, it was not a pure "scientific" controlled test. On a recent trip down under we were finishing up some ammo after a buffalo shoot. Set up some targets against some sort of dead Aussie Cypress something or other. Now the boys down under say this tree is so dense that one cannot even drive nails thru it, has to be drilled according to them. The 500 MDM with one of my 510 gr Solids was burning thru about 14 inches of this tree like it was hot butter. I can't tell you if this was good or not, but the boys down under were pretty impressed with it. What this proves exactly I don't know, but it was fun regardless!

458 Only
. In other words, bullet length and design for rate-of-twist in a particular caliber is an important factor in bullet stability.

You are very correct on this point. My first .500s were 1:18 twist rates. All seemed great during all the load data workups, accuracy work ups and so on with bullet weights from 325 to 512 grs in the first 50 B&Ms. Even terminal tests with expanding bullets was going very well too, no issues there. But when I started looking for a solid that's when everything went to hell in a basket! In particular with the round nose design we started with. Finding the light for caliber 405 gr Brass RN bullets extremely unstable during terminal penetration I went to the copper alloy we now use, and increased the weight to 512 grs. I was pretty convinced at the time this would solve the issue. Penetration in my test medium went from 28 inches with the 405 to 36 inches with the 512. Neither of them stable in the 1:18 twist barrels, with both starting to veer off course at 25 inches. In fact neither would stay within the confines of the box. This was not acceptable performance to me.

Well .500 caliber barrels are not all that easy to come by, we use only PacNor barrels. But none the less within a couple of weeks we managed to quickly put together a rifle with a twist rate of 1:12. Now the 512 gr RN was driving to 42 inches total penetration up from 36 inches. It was now stable to roughly 90% of it's overall penetration before starting to veer off course as it lost velocity, and momentum, and become unstable at that point. The 1:12 had made a real and decent increase in stability and therefore penetration. However, still not satisfied, especially having compared these to the new 450-500 gr 458 caliber Barnes FN bullets. I was about a year behind Barnes on the learning curve with making a move to the FN solids. Having just come off a hunt in Tanzania where I shot 3 buffalo and a hippo with a 500 Barnes FN in 458 Lott, and noticing a considerable difference in reactions of these animals with this bullet as opposed to the older RN Barnes I decided it was time to look at some .500 caliber FN designs. What we discovered was that even a very much lighter bullet, with considerable less SD but now with a flat nose would out penetrate the heavier RN bullet by serious margins, and on top of that stable to 100% of it's entire penetration! I was sold immediately on the new designs. Now for giggles and grins I tested the new flat nose bullets in the older 1:18 twist rate. Knowing that I had terminal stability issues with this twist I wanted to see how bad the flat nose design would do in comparison to the RN. I was taken completely by surprise, and received very near the same exact results in terminal penetration as I did in the 1:12 twist barrels. The only difference at all was the bullet with a .300 meplat become somewhat unstable during the last 2 inches of penetration. The other bigger meplat, to around .350 caliber showed no instability and had 100% straight line penetration with the slower, less stable twist. The flat meplat it appears does far more for stability than other factors, including marginal twist rates for terminal penetration. While twist rates are extremely important, it is very obvious that other factors can and do become extremely relevant in terminal performance of solid bullets.

eezrider

I wish before deciding that you belong in "one camp" or another that you would go over the data a little better, and maybe have a little better understanding of what is being and has been discussed. As for my part, I really don't see that there is a "camp" to join??? See the following quotes by both JPK and Myself, this of course assuming that I AM THE OTHER SO CALLED CAMP?????????

JPK---2. Two bullets, both either RN or FN - but the same shape, of whatever construction, one higher SD, equal velocity, the higher SD bullets will out penetrate the lower SD - assuming appropriate spin rates for both bullets.

Michael---I had to read this one at least twice before getting it exactly, but this says exactly what I said above with two bullets being exactly the same, then SD will win out! I agree with this no exceptions. As shown and stated in my above example and statement! You are correct


Michael---Speaking of nose profile, the worst solid I have ever tested is the 500 gr Woodleigh FMJ that is supposed to be .474 caliber, for the 470s. It penetrates the same mix to a max of 26 inches and is found backwards if it stays in the box, which most of the time it exits the top or the sides and goes everywhere! Starts to veer off course at 20 inches. It is undersized also at .4725 if that has something to do with it. The barnes RN is not much if any better either. The 500 gr 458 Caliber bullet fairs much better and I think it is nose profile and the less diameter of the 470 caliber bullet, see below: I think you can see the difference in the two bullets, with the 458 caliber bullet being the better RN profile in my opinion

JPK---I was going to mention round nose shape to you, but you have already noted the difference. The "pointier" 470 Woodleigh has the traditional shape for the 470NE and that shape has a long history of being less than ideal. Historical reports of increased tendency to tumble and veer.


JPK---If you look at my reported results with 450gr FN North Forks and 500gr RN Woodleighs on elephant heads and bodies, which we have discussed before, you will note that the Woodleigh is loaded to higher portential than the NF. The heavier Woodleigh has more enregy as well, but the NF out penetrates it by something on order of your observed 35%. I can't accurately calculate the % difference I've observed since so many NF's exit that it skews results downward.

Michael---And once again we are in agreement, even though your 500 Woodleigh has a higher SD it has less penetration than that of your lighter, less SD, 450 NF all because of nose profile. Therefore Nose Profile being the deciding factor in penetration, and not SD.

Yes JPK and I have some differences and always will, but in overall concept I cannot see a "camp" as you call it. In the above statements, which camp are you in???

eezridr---Sectional density would have to play some part in penetration.

eezridr---I am in the JPK camp in that if the frontal design is the same a higher SD will have a positive effect on the penetrating abilities if the bullet is stabilized.

eezridr---IF a SD is over .3 and the projectile has a proper frontal design. From most indications, penetration is substantial given an adequate velocity.


Michael--- Two bullets-same material-same construction, same caliber, same nose profile then the higher SD will penetrate deeper! All else being equal this is very true, but there has to be equality on every count, other than SD

Michael---If you had two round nose bullets, both had exactly the same rounded nose profile, then yes I believe the deciding factor would be SD in that case and your statement obviously correct on that count, or as far as I could see it would be correct.

Michael---As I stated before and have many times--Nose Profile is everything--other factors are SD-Construction-Material-twist rates-Velocity-and probably other minor factors that I can't think of at this very moment in time. I have always proclaimed from day one from 2005 that NOSE PROFILE is everything when it comes to penetration of solids---ALL OTHER FACTORS take a back seat to NOSE PROFILE--including Sectional Density!


Well eez, I don't know much about camping, I normally leave that up to the camp staff! I just do the shooting!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
JPK,

I deleted my post as it had nothing to do with big bore rifles. You did not explain why the M1 carbine outpenetrates the 7.62X39 Soviet however.

The Bismarck's rifles were 48.5 calibers long when directly compared to the American, British, Japanes method. Long tubes for sure but not as long as those used on the American 14" and 16" rifles which were both 50 long (there were 45 long in the USN also). Believe me the German 15", as well as, the British 15" both handily beat the Rodney's 16" shells in armor penetration.

You are incorrect regarding the Bismark's rifles' length. You are also inorrect regarding the comparability of the very different chamber/powder systems between the English and the US vs the German large naval rifles and how it affects measuring the barrel length. In fact your error in the second case causes you error in the first.

I'm usure of whether the M1 bullet will outpenetrate the 7.62 in elephant heads. Could care less about trees. Animal flesh as a target appears to follow a fluid model regarding bullet penetration. Elephant heads too I think. Trees clearly do not. Neither does newsprint, wet or dry.

For some fun and edification on penetration of bullets in flesh, do some reading of the discussion involving Gerard, proprietor of GS Customs, and Alf.

JPK

JPK,

Well I may well be wrong about the German barrels lengths, but I never professed to be an expert. I do know from my limited knowledge that the "high" muzzle velocity achieved by the German rifle has much to do with shooting a "light" for caliber shell. I believe only the RN used a "heavy" for caliber shell in the 15" bore. The Italians, it would seem, are the ones who pushed that envelope to the highest.

quote:

Animal flesh as a target appears to follow a fluid model regarding bullet penetration. Elephant heads too I think.

Anyway, would that be bull or cow elephant skulls?

quote:

Neither does newsprint, wet or dry

JPK

And you get this information from where? Experience? Reading something?

And does any test material do better? Can others give correlation between test material and animal flesh and bone? If so I want to hear it.

Can you tell me of your test experience other than shooting 18 elephant heads, and how it is that you know that wet print and any other test material has no bearing or relevance?

I also want more information as to how qualified you are concerning several different calibers, cartridges, rifles, and of course all the bullets that you have worked with and tested. Is your experience learned from actual work that can be documented, or are you reading this somewhere? Have you ever tested or documented terminal performance of any bullets in any test material, or medium other than elephant heads? Are the elephant heads the smallish tuskless elephants, are full size bull elephants, there is a tremendous difference, as I have done both?

Since you mention being an expert on elephant and buffalo can you please tell me the different type bullets that you have personally tested on buffalo? I dearly love to shoot buffalo of any sort, I am sure you could enlighten me on proper bullets to use, since my wet print medium has little or no bearing on anything.

Michael

quote:

You are incorrect regarding the Bismark's rifles' length. You are also inorrect regarding the comparability of the very different chamber/powder systems between the English and the US vs the German large naval rifles and how it affects measuring the barrel length. In fact your error in the second case causes you error in the first.

Actually JPK, he's right. German naval nomenclature represented the overall length of the entire gun, whereas British and American represented only the length of the actual bore.

For example, the RN's 15 inch/42 caliber gun had a bore 630 inches long (15" x 42 calibers). This is the measurement of the actual Mark I bore, not the entire gun.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm

The RN's 14 inch/45 caliber Mk. VII of the KGV class also had an actual bore bore length of 630 inches (14" x 45 calibers).

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm

The German 38cm/52 (14.96 inches/52 caliber) of the Bismarck class was actually a 51.66 "caliber", but this represents the overall length of the entire gun (14.96" x 51.66 = 772.8 inches) of 772.8 inches. The actual length of the bore itself was 724.6", making it a 48.4 caliber gun when converted to English nomenclature.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm
-------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Michael- 14, JPK- 0

I make no claims at being any sort of expert at all concerning terminal performance of any bullets, nor terminal ballistics. I do claim to be an "avid" student of terminal ballistics however, and strive to learn as much as possible, either from others that are capable and experienced, or by my own tests and research both in the "lab" as I call it and in the field.

As stated there is no test medium that will exactly duplicate animal flesh. This is true, and rather "common" knowledge. Most hunters never test a bullet or load except by shooting game in the field. Shooting animals in the field is never a satisfactory way to conduct true and proper test work, no two shots can be alike, one may hit bone, another soft tissue, one straight on, one at an angle. This does not mean one cannot learn from field tests, quite the contrary, but this is not the arena in which to begin test work! I do not wish to go to the field "ignorant" of how any of my equipment may or may not perform, I would much prefer to have some prior knowledge of how a bullet may or may not work long before possible costly, and unethical "failures" occur in the field.

Again, for those who cannot comprehend the written word---No Test Medium Exactly Duplicates Animal Tissue! However, proper test medium will give one reasonable comparisons not only between different bullets, but will give us some insight into how a bullet may or may not perform in the field. There are many test mediums that can and have been used, Ductseal, Clay, Wooden Boards, Gelatin, wet news print, water, sand, dirt, and probably other materials I can't think of right now. Many years ago I tried some different mediums but settled on wet news print as it was readily available, reasonably easy to work with, and I believe a reasonable medium in which to put reasonable stress on a bullet for test purposes. I also decided that this would be the only medium that I would test with as I could record and keep data concerning performance, I could see wound channels, measure penetration, retain fired bullets for study. By gathering this data one could later correlate this back to findings in the field on animal tissue. Now one can do this with nearly any reasonable medium, but one has to stay with that medium and collect quite a bit of data over the years to be able to correlate the two. By "reasonable medium" I mean a test medium that will have some relevance to what you intend to accomplish in the field on targets you intend to destroy! For instance, if you are a hunter, then why would you want to test on cold rolled steel test medium??? If your intentions are to test armor piercing ammo, then by all means you need to test on a steel medium.

Being an avid student--not an expert--I have become better over the years at collecting and using my data. Twenty years ago it was enough for me to just shoot a bullet into the mix and see that it did not break up and then go hunting. Wound channels and penetration was looked at, not recorded. Ok it works, lets go to the field. Over the years I developed into recording even the impact velocities most of the time, depth of penetration, retained weight, noted wound channels-not really gathering volume of, and other information I deemed important to know. As much as possible I would also study these same bullets in animal tissue when it was possible to recover and study. There are many that exact depth of penetration, or wound channels could not be gathered, but where I could I did record this information as best as possible, and then correlate the data back to the test work done BEFORE the field tests. Over roughly a 12-15 years of shooting various critters in the field I have been able to study and gather some data that gives me a very reasonable correlation between the test work and the actual field tests on animal tissue.

There are no absolutes in our shooting world. There are far more variables to consider in the field with animal tissue and one would be a fool to say that each and every bullet will perform exactly in the field as it does in the test medium. The test medium gives us consistent medium in which to work with, it does not have bones (although this can be injected into the mix) it does not have many of the various issues that you will run into in the field. There are no absolutes! But, if one is persistent with collecting proper data, then one is able to "predict" how most bullets may or may not perform in the field, if using a reasonable medium that is pertinent to the field tests.

Field work and tests on animal tissue is the number one priority, and is without doubt the most important and the one that counts the most. This is where the metal hits the meat, this is the one that can either give you success or failure. But I can tell you this, I would not go to the field to test or shoot animal tissue with zero knowledge of how a bullet may or may not perform. It is pure ignorant and stupid to do so in my opinion.

There are some people, so called hunters, not shooters per say, that believe that no valuable information can be "learned" from doing prior test work in any medium. Those people are "correct"---Those people with that attitude cannot learn anything! In the meantime the rest of us common folks can usually learn a great deal from test work done prior to field trails.

This is true with any sort of bullet, expanding, solid, and non conventional bullets.

I do not have the time nor inclination to test everything there is. I mostly work with bullets that I intend to use in the field. Keep in mind, this is my personal data, I am not testing for you--I am testing for me, I do not wish to go to the field ignorant and stupid, and suffer possible failure in the field due to that. I also do not go to the field (normally) with bullets that have failed or performed less than expected in the test work in wet print medium. I have in my more ignorant youth done this on a few occasions, I did not listen to my test work, and I had those same miserable failures in the field every single time! Fortunately I am a decent student and sometimes I even learn from my mistakes. I take test work pretty seriously, regardless of whether it is simple load data when working up loads, cartridge development, bullet design and development, and of course terminal performance data. After all, it is the bullet that will make you successful or not. It is good to know the operating ranges of different bullets, especially with todays high velocity capable cartridges, and I think even more important with our big bore cartridges, which may be used in somewhat dangerous circumstances.

I shoot mostly big bore cartridges from 416-.500 caliber, and have paid a lot of attention to 458 and my own .500 caliber cartridges over the years. In particular the .500s in which proper dangerous game bullets had to be designed, as there were none available on a commercial basis. I dabble in other calibers from time to time, mostly .338, .358 and recently .366. Very little but some work done in small bore under .338 caliber.

You will see a reasonable variety of bullets available on my shelves.

Almost all the time a new bullet hits the market I want to try them out, especially the larger bore diameters.

I have a passion for Winchester M70s as most of you know, but I do love the lever guns, and the single shots, mostly Winchester 1885s and Ruger #1s. All of which are in bigger bore diameters.



I have an outdoor range behind my house with test benches at 50 yds, 100 yds, and 150 yds. Very little work is done there anymore, as I do most of the research and test work on my personal 50 yard indoor range with test benches at 25 yds and 50 yds. I have 3 chronographs set up to collect data at both these points and also one down range should I need to collect impact velocities.



The range is a complete facility set up to do load data and various other types of test work, which does include pressure tests when desired or needed.

I have over the years of doing the test work been fortunate enough to be able to put bullet to animal tissue, and be able to create some "rules of Thumb" to correlate back to the terminal performance tests done with my wet print mix, which for the last 5-6 yrs has consisted of a mix of 65-70% wet news print and 30-35% catalogs/magazine mix. This just happens to coincide with an increase of 30-35% tougher than wet news print alone. The paper of the catalogs/magazines being thicker, glossy, and tougher overall. The following is a "rule of thumb" only, but from bullets recovered from animal tissue I find that one can expect from 80% to 100% more penetration in animal tissue than this wet print mix I use, for expanding bullets. For solid bullets one can expect 30-35% deeper penetration in animal tissue than that of the wet print mix. This data base is continuing to grow each year, as stated I consider it a "rule of thumb" and NOT an absolute! For expanding bullets I have found that a bullet tested in wet print mix expands and reacts very close, very similar, and sometimes indistinguishable from those found in animal tissue. How it expands and performs in the wet print mix is almost identical in every case to what a bullet will look like when recovered from animal tissue. Exceptions being bullets hit by bone. At times I add items that will put some bullets under more stress than normal wet print mix. I do this by adding some pieces of wood about 2-4 inches inside the front of the mix. No, this is not bone, but it does tend to put a particular bullet under more stress than normal to see how it reacts. It might just tell me if a bullet will break up on a 2X4 then it will for sure break up on bone, which is more dense and solid than a normal piece of pine 2X4 or even sometimes a 4X4. I have also stressed some solids with a piece of fiberboard up front (after initial positive tests in wet print mix alone) which is extremely dense, more so than bone, just to see if I could stress the bullet to the point of failure to penetrate properly. If it failed this test--THEN IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE--MIND YOU "POSSIBLE" it could fail in the field. A bullet that could pass all the stress tests, would be very very likely to be successful in the field. However, as stated, there are no absolutes!

I have been able to collect a good many samples to be able to compare wet print bullets with animal tissue bullets;










These are but a few examples, I have many many more in from which to draw, and in nearly every case, correlating data can be drawn between wet print bullets to animal tissue bullets. Factors such as impact velocity in the field needs to be taken into account also.

My experience in the field includes calibers such as 6.5X55, 6.5 WSM, 308 Winchester, 300 WInchester, 300 Dakota, 338 Winchester, 358 STA, 35 Whelen, 38/55, 416 Remington, 416 B&M, 45 ACP, 45 Colt, 45/70, 458 Winchester, 458 B&M, 458 Lott, 50 B&M, 500 MDM. Of these calibers my percentage of animals taken is 8.78% with calibers of .308 and less, 27.03% taken with calibers from .338-.358, and 64.19% taken with .416-.500 caliber. By far the majority of my field experience is with the larger bores. As for my test work although I have tested many different bullets in several calibers, my main interests lie in 338-.500 caliber, and by far leans toward the large bores also. 71% of animals I have taken are with Winchester rifles. Some data to show where my interests are.

It is my hope that I will be able to continue to learn, study, and advance in my studies. Again none of this makes me an expert by any stretch of the imagination. I have done enough to have some fairly reasonable opinions on some matters. I shoot regular, each week. If I am in a serious load data session then I may have several sessions a week, shooting anywhere from 150-250 rounds a week, mostly big bore cartridges. Last year one way I was able to keep up with how many rounds went down range, either in the field, but mostly on the range, I had purchased 5000 Fed 215 primers--90% of which are used in 416 calibers and up, and also 5000 Fed 210 Primers in February of 2008. Those 5000 Fed 215s ran out in July of 2009, and I had fired 3000 of the Fed 210s--which for the most part were in cartridges such as the 50 B&M Super Short and 50 B&M Alaskans, along with some in other minor cartridges. That is 8000 rounds of rifle shooting in 17-18 months roughly. Now I do admit that was a bit much, but I was also doing a tremendous amount of work on my own various cartridges in 416 B&M--458 B&M--50 B&M--50 B&M Alaskan--50 B&M Super Short-and the 500 MDM during this time.

I really do not care if you agree or disagree with my methods, or any of the work I do here. I do not do it for you! I do not do it for $$. I am not in the gun, bullet, cartridge, business in any way, shape, form, nor fashion! I do this for myself, my own curiosity, to further my knowledge, to increase my potential for success in the field, and because I enjoy it most of all! Not for you! For those that are willing to learn, or would like for me to share my information I am more than happy to do so, it is in my nature to help anyone I can if desired. But what I will not stand for is for someone with very little test experience, or none, to attempt to discredit the things I choose to do. If you do not agree, fine, no issues with that, state it and move on, continue to do so and I promise I will make a fool out of you, and in the world of real shooters you will be a fool. You may impress your buddies at dinner parties, the country club and those with even less experience than yourself, but you will not impress a group of true shooters, I know this, I live in a world of shooters every day and have done so all my life. I stand behind the work 100% on the basis as I have stated several times. I have stated many times, see above this post, no test medium is equal to animal tissue, it is a test to compare performance of different bullets, if you do enough of this with nearly any reasonable test medium, then you can correlate data between animal tissue and test medium of your choice. Again, there are no absolutes, but I choose to NOT be ignorant when going to the field, what you choose is up to you, and really I could care less what you choose to do. This is my choice.

Michael

MM ..
WOW .. what am amazing , well, calling it loading room and range seems to minimize it . AMAZING

Michael 458,

I think I will just e-mail you for direction prior to any initial investigations on my own.
I have been told (especially by my wife) that I have too much "stuff".
I think I will show her your shop! LOL

Very nice set up Michael!
It's really refreshing to read reports from one as yourself that speaks from experience both fom the lab, AND from the game fields. One that never, as from what I can tell, speaks from theory, or that recites someone else that had not a real clue.
Pretty hard to dispute facts when they are come by honestly. Very nice Michael!

That set-up is beyond impressive. Do you sell tours? It is like Disneyland for shooters.

Jeffe--eez--dwright
Thanks, appreciate it. Anytime I can be of assistance glad to do so.

Mike

Nah, won't sell a tour, but if you are ever in my area feel free to touch base and visit free of charge! We'll down a beer or two, shoot some rifles or handguns, then shoot the Sh*%!

Michael

Some other views of the lab.






I keep complete data records and separate files on every rifle being shot and tested from the first shot to the last on each. All load data is recorded after each range session, or field test and kept on separate spreads sheets per cartridge, divided within that per rifles individual data. These are all on computer, and backed up daily to two other hard drives. In addition books are kept in hard copy and new sheets printed out with each new entry within the cartridge/rifle category. One cannot possibly keep up with such a data base by memory. There are many times I refer to a file folder on a rifle just to see where and what it is sighted in for last. But the info is there and available when I need it.

Also as most of you know SSK Industries (AKA JD Jones & Company) does all my work for my rifles. I have been extremely fortunate to become closer to JD and have learned a great deal from a true master, with experience most of us could only dream about, both in shooting, test work, and field experience. In many ways I think JD has taken me somewhat under his wing and I have to say that it has been a pleasure learning from him too! Without his assistance and that of Brian Alberts with SSK I would be far more ignorant, and many of the great bullets we have designed together for my .500s would be far less effective than they have proven to be. To be associated with such great people as that has been a wonderful and great learning experience for me. I have also had the great pleasure to be able to assist JD when he wanted some samples of other things tested both here at my range and in the field. There have been several occasions I have had this opportunity and it has been a pleasure for me.

Michael

Michael will you adopt me please! yes a fine 53yr baby boy your luving son Clint

clintsfolly

OK then, consider yourself adopted, but there are rules!

1. Homework must be done as soon as you get home from school!

2. No Play until all chores are completed in a satisfactory manner.

3. Must be in before 12 midnight on Friday and Saturday nights--No Exceptions.

4. You must always clean your plate and rinse your dishes and put them in the dishwasher after dinner! And eat all your veggies!

5. Don't talk to daddy when he is loading--he gets confused when you do that and bad things happen!

Follow these simple rules and all will be fine!

Michael

can do DAD! will be home for Christmas let go shooting Clint

Nice lookin model '71 Michael.
Also like that model '70 Win! LOL

Sheesh! And I thought I had a couple of rifles.

I do have the twin to your blue chair in my gun room.

Michael.

As well I must say: WOW!!!

I have plans making a inndoor (underground) 100 m (110 yards) shooting range (and 50 m as well ) when building a new house in the comming 2-5 years, just have to persuade the wife to move to a ranch first instead of living in the city...
But mine will for sure be a lot more simple compared to yours..
Again - WOW, amazing really..

Clint
Better be ready to load your own, getting tired of loading stuff for you kids to go shoot up!

Dwright

Like those 71's do you?? Those have been turned into 50 B&M AKs! .500 caliber--18 inch barrels, NECG front barrel band, SSK blue---500 gr Hornady at 2000 fps! Nice little guide gun size package! I have had three of those Hi Grade Brownings done so far, they turn out very well. It only says Browning on the original 348 barrel, and I let brian keep those, so it says nothing on them, so as far as I care those are Winchesters now! End of story!

What M70 you talking about, there are a few of those about???

That old blue chair has been around the block a time or two! Still sits pretty good too!


Buffalo

Thanks, I can tell you now the indoor range is fantastic and so much better to do test work, work load data, and what have you. All equipment stays set up all the time, just walk in and start shooting! Close too, right outside the back door. Talk about working up load data on a particular bullet--easy and fast. I can now start from zero and have reasonable load data complete on a cartridge in just a manner of a few days depending on how many bullets I work with, and how many powders I start with. Now I have to stretch it out a little longer or I will get bored and have nothing to do!

Thanks
Michael

Yes I do like '71s. I had one rebarreled, and chambered to .35-348 AI. That was a mistake. Should have left it alone. Sold it.

Was just flickin you S--t about the model '70. Lot's of nice custom jobbies there I see. You must now be on a first name basis with NECG.

Very impressive.

Hmmm, have not heard any contradictions to your test findings lately. To bring your testing to the next level, I am sending you 18 Elephant heads via. UPS. They should arrive this week. It IS the only way to really be sure of your findings you know. Sorry, but had to send them with the shipping charges collect. I hit one of them with my Jeep, which should help explain the large gash on the right side.

Cheers!

DW

You are a trouble maker I can see! But will accept the collect charges for the shipment! I am down to having only one head left, and plan on keeping the skull. Of course there are no bullets to be found in it, all dead straight complete pass thru, was shooting them with the 50 B&M and those 510 SSK Solids! Nothing but a .500 caliber hole from end to end. Sorta just like my wet print box, come to think of it!

Anyway, you might find a M70 or two just laying around here somewhere!

If we had that 71 back we could put a .500 caliber pacnor on it, damn! Well one can always get a Marlin for that too!

Michael

yes Dad i will load all my stuff and help you if you want your son Clint

The .45-70 is very much underrated.
I think the big bore rifles mostly get pushed to hard (fast) to get maximum penetration.
Here is a study on penetration of the .45-70 that is a little hard to believe but I found true by running a penetration test myself.
This is an interesting read.

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/Penetration.htm

Hans

quote:

Originally posted by Hans-A:
The .45-70 is very much underrated.
I think the big bore rifles mostly get pushed to hard (fast) to get maximum penetration.
Here is a study on penetration of the .45-70 that is a little hard to believe but I found true by running a penetration test myself.
This is an interesting read.

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/Penetration.htm

Hans

Wow .. i think this is the first time, this YEAR, that anyone has posted a link to that RUBBISH

Try this for unstaged reality
http://www.470mbogo.com/PenetrationComparison.html

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I make no claims at being any sort of expert at all concerning terminal performance of any bullets, nor terminal ballistics. I do claim to be an "avid" student of terminal ballistics however, and strive to learn as much as possible, either from others that are capable and experienced, or by my own tests and research both in the "lab" as I call it and in the field.

As stated there is no test medium that will exactly duplicate animal flesh. This is true, and rather "common" knowledge. Most hunters never test a bullet or load except by shooting game in the field. Shooting animals in the field is never a satisfactory way to conduct true and proper test work, no two shots can be alike, one may hit bone, another soft tissue, one straight on, one at an angle. This does not mean one cannot learn from field tests, quite the contrary, but this is not the arena in which to begin test work! I do not wish to go to the field "ignorant" of how any of my equipment may or may not perform, I would much prefer to have some prior knowledge of how a bullet may or may not work long before possible costly, and unethical "failures" occur in the field.
Michael

Michael458,

It is such a pleasure to read and learn from your posts. Yours along, with Jeffe, RGB, Ed Hubel and a few others, put science alongside experience and meld the two into something worthwhile and valuable. Evidence-based discipline + real-life experience - keep the info coming!

Paul

CCMDoc

Thanks Paul. I appreciate it more than you know! I will continue to strive for real truthful data that has the potential to help us when we go to the field. Of course the field work is important, but I strongly believe in doing our best to have that knowledge long before we get to the field. While there are no absolutes in shooting, bullets, and life its self, that does not mean we should not do our best to get there! What I do (at least when I adhere to my own work) has never let me down yet, what I have found in the "lab" as I call it, I find in the field.
Thanks Again

Hi Hans-A, welcome to our little party! Like most of us here we are pretty aware of the "garrett test". Although I must admit it has been some time since I paid much attention to it. But I have read it again in an attempt to be able to respond proper. I myself chewing a hell of a lot of wet print for solids the last few years have not seen such a drastic amount of difference in penetration in my medium, which is a bit tougher than straight wet print. Since I don't know the exact test parameters it is hard to say for certain. I believe they were using what I would call a soft mix, straight news print, loosely packed, possibly not as consistent as it should be. In all the solids I have tested in the mix I use I have found that once you drop below 1900-2000 fps that penetration tends to be less--never more. From say 2000-2400 fps penetration with the bullets I have used most, in particular Flat Nose Designs, there is little to no difference in total penetration. I have found that in some of the round nose designs I have tested increased velocity gave increased penetration, if the bullet was reasonably stable during penetration. In some round nose designs increased velocity gave no extra penetration at all. So once again no two FN or RN designs are created equal. I do not believe that slower velocity down in the 1500 fps area will give MORE penetration, I have never seen that.

Jeffe brings up an excellent point with the 470Mbogo test, of which I would tend to lean towards more so than the garrett tests. I think these tests are with wood inserts, or plywood I think. Have to look at the video again for sure. However, these tests come very close to what I have experienced with my mix, which is wet news print/catalogs. It also begins to demonstrate another factor.
Let's take two seconds and analyze the numbers. All tests are with the same exact bullet--1550 fps gives us 20-22 inches total penetration--an increase in velocity to 2150 fps roughly a 28% increase gave us 36.5-38 inches total penetration or an increase in penetration of 43%! Then to 2400 fps a 10% increase in velocity for say 43 inches of penetration a 14% increase in penetration. Another way to look at it is that from 1550 fps to 2150 fps we got an increase in penetration of 2.66 inches per 100 fps of velocity. From 2150 fps to 2400 fps we get an increase of 2.4 inches per 100 fps of velocity. It is very slight differences from 2150 fps to 2400 fps, but it is starting to taper off. I find this exact same situation when velocity starts to creep over 2400 fps or so depending on the bullet design of course. What I do see is a tremendous amount of what I call "Energy Transfer" and "trauma" caused to the target at the higher velocity too. While one may be able to measure a slight reduction in penetration once that velocity gets to a certain level, the trauma and energy transfer to target is worth the effort and what might be a minor loss, but a loss none the less, one that we probably would never notice in the field. Now that being said--the bullet at the higher velocity must not break, bend, or deform in any way in which that would cause a reduction in overall penetration, or the possibility that it could loose it's stability. So know the velocity that your particular bullet will hold together proper. Most will do so at 2400 fps easy. Personally I never seen a need for more velocity in a solid than that, and with 458-500 caliber I normally run my solids from 2100 fps to 2300 fps, with a majority falling in around 2200 or so. With the solids I use that is more than enough to accomplish any mission I could ever ask of them.

My personal opinion and that is all it is and is worth what you pay for it, garrett is trying to sell cartridges for 45/70 and that is the jest of that. But, that's just an opinion and not worth the paper it's written on.

I can tell you this for a certain fact---I have half dozen or more 45/70s, and I have tried a lot of bullets in them because I am a penetration freak! I never ever once had any bullet launched from a 45/70 that will out penetrate one from a 458 Winchester or my 458 B&M---and some of my .500s is way out of the question for a 45/70. I love 45/70, but compared to a 458 Win or better, it's just not in the same class! That extra velocity that a 458 Win or Lott or B&M can churn up makes one hell of a big difference in transfer of energy to large animals, or in that fact any animal. I hate to tell the 45/70 crowd, as I am one of them, but I have never once been very impressed with the "knock down" power of anything I have ever shot with one, which has been a few critters! Either increase the velocity into 458 Winchester levels-or beyond, or increase diameter of projectile, then things start to get interesting. Sorry, but that is a fact.

Just some rambling thoughts! Sorry for rambling on.

Clint, load your own, and no but hell no you ain't helping me load! You probably just like my 16 yr old, break everything you touch! Kids, I swear!

Later guys
Bedtime my end of the world, it's been dark as 6 ft up a, well a couple hours now anyway, time for me to go!

Michael

Ya, I might be a bit of a trouble maker for sure, but I just could not resist. It was simply way too tempting.

Great facts regarding lack of penetration with the .45-70s. Maybe that will end the contraversy once and for all.

I only use a Sharps rifle for all of my hunting loaded with black powder and a round nosed government type of bullet cast bullet using alloy that is good for the game I want to take so my velocity with the .44-90 BN, .45-90 and the .50-90.
My velocity I use does not exceed 1300 fps even when I can load higher but I have recovered very few bullets in the 40 odd years of hunting that did not pass through even with busting through both shoulders on Buffalo or a bull Moose using the big .50 with 115 grains of 1FG powder and a 730 grain gov bullet.


Sorry if I opened some wounds with my first post, but I did shoot my .45-90 into a gelatin blocks that a guy had set up at the range when he was testing his .458 Win Mag and mine at 1280 fps went deeper.

Hans.