The 300 gr at 2700 fps has a higher SD, & longer profile, If the bullet is made strong enough to hold up to the faster load it should
should out perform the other two loads.

JD

JD,
I hope to shoot the test next weekend. The wood splinters in my hands should be festered and healed by then, for proper rifle gripping.

A second box of African Sheep Bullets for whomever can first predict the three loads from greatest to least penetration in the wood&water box.

And to think that Gerard says the .375/270gr GSC FN at 2900 fps is the way to go ...

Will there be a detectable difference between the three loads? If they all go out the back end of the box, I will have to increase the thickness of the plywood panels.

Anyone with any sense knows that copper .404 bullets are useless, cannot penetrate a thick skull, and do not make even good pennies!

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Anyone with any sense knows that copper .404 bullets are useless, cannot penetrate a thick skull, and do not make even good pennies!

Will,
The African Sheep Bullet has a bonded lead nose core and a solid copper grooved shank. North Fork soft. The North Fork bonded lead nose core is the only surefire way to prevent "shedding of nose petals."

But I digress. The contest here is about predictions for solid bullet penetration.

Let me remind you of why I will never use an FMJ/solid bullet with a lead core exposed on the base of the bullet:

My previous water bucket train was very instructive for this. The Kynoch 400 grain steel-jacketed, lead core "solid" for .404 Jeffery had an MV of 2401 fps. It keyholed in the third 5 gallon plastic bucket, made it through the fourth bucket (end-to-end) and stopped in the fifth bucket. The back end of the Kynoch was slightly flattened, and a sure cause or result of fish-tailing. Chicken or egg, which came first?

A .423/380gr North Fork Flat Point at 2528 fps (truncated cone) solid kept going nose first and stuck in the lid of the ninth bucket of water. That was a solid copper banded bullet.

I shot a lot of the 400 grain Kynoch FMJ's at 2200 fps into an earth berm to get rid of them. Every one of them that I was able to dig up was severely flattened and bent on the back end, even if the nose portion survived relatively unscathed.

I am convinced that a round nose may veer off course more likely than a flat nose.

The round nose monolithic solid may bust wood and bone better initially, but will sooner veer off course in the nonuniform/variable medium. Then it fishtails/tumbles. The RN/FMJ "solid" will additionally flatten its tail, rivet, bend, etc.

The flat nose may be better in keeping to a straight course in any medium.

The copper solid may be longer than the FMJ of the same weight. The brass solid even more so.

A wood&water contest between copper versus brass Flat Nosed solids, of the same weight, would also be interesting. Brass is harder but longer/less stable???

Higher velocity increases the resistance of the medium to the bullets passage???

There is a lot going on in a simple 3 load test, I am sure you will agree.

.

RIP,

I agree that flat or bluff nosed bullets have a better probability at straight-line stability (SLS?), and this may contribute to their apparent increased penetration. I have had a couple non-bluff nosed, non-homogeneous bullet manufacturers admit the SLS is better with flat-nose bullets.

Whether bullet length has any effect on SLS or penetration is going to be tough to decipher, since no manufacturer is making same weight brass and copper bullets (Saeed to the rescue?).

Flat nose bullets are a trade-off between SLS/Penetration, potential feeding problems, material toughness, and bullet volume.

The relatively large volume of the homogeneous brass and copper bullets eat up a lot of case volume, especially a problem in my Taylor, and what is the trade-off between bullet weight and their relative velocities to achieve the same bullet muzzle energies, and SLS/penetration?!!

In my experience, Speer AGS solids have given me "Sufficient" penetration. But what effect bones, teeth, flesh, etc. have on penetration and SLS might be tough to determine.

I bought some 416 North Fork solids and may try one this year. As long as the copper is hard enough and doesn't mushroom on bone, it may be instructive, but may not prove anything either!

Anxiously awaiting your data. Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
RIP:

My numerical calculators say the 300 gr 2700 fps option will outpenetrate the 300 / 2500 fps option and that in turn should outpenetrate the 270 gr / 2900 option.

The difference though is marginal all within 5 cm of each other and given your test target model it may not accurately be able to reflect this.

Alf,
Could you dazzle us with information on what test medium the 5 cm difference relates to, and what formula is being applied in your calculations?

This is meant to be a close horse race, for a fine distinction.

A few brave souls have voted.

Thanks all, you too Will.

With the amount of building material involved, the 270/2900 and the 300/2700 will be pretty close and both will be better than the 300/2500. On game the 270/2900 will be best. It will give the largest permanent wound channel and would be first choice.

Thank you Gerard, maker of the test bullets.
We'll just keep shooting critters to verify or refute the findings of the wood and water box.
Another 5 gallon plastic water bucket test (end to end, straight and level) will add to this.

MY guess is the 300 grain at 2500 fps then the 300 grain at 2700 fps and last the 270 grain at 2900 fps

.

The 15/32" plywood can flex a bit and trash bags full of water may act as "air bags" in a collision, etc., lots of hard to analyze possibilities. It is not a bad simulator of the game animal, just not the real thing ...

What is very helpful is the ease of finding the bullet, and the repeatability of the medium from shot to shot, and the witness marks of the bullet passing through the boards, nose first or sideways.

Replace the perforated boards and plastic bags, and fill up the bags to over flowing with water from a hose, and you have another essentially identical shot.

I have 96 of the one foot square plywood "baffles" stacked up. Ten boards and ten bags of water for each shot. The toughest plastic trash compactor bags that I can find ...

RIP
It would be interesting for you to shoot a couple of soft points as a comparasion.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
RIP
It would be interesting for you to shoot a couple of soft points as a comparasion.

NE450No2:
A buddy with a .470 Capstick wants to shoot a 500 grain XLC at 2300 fps into it. I am saving that until after the solids are done. The soft point will be a little rougher on the front half of the box than the solids will.

All the 2x4 (1.5"x3.5") and 2x6 (1.5"x5.5") studs are held together with many, many 2-1/2" screws. Some 1-5/8" screws were used to initially attach the 2x6 brackets to the 1" laminated pine board sides of the box, for alignment purposes. Then these boards are sandwiched between the 2x6 and 2x4 members, using the 2-1/2" screws from every which way.

Some steel strapping wouldn't hurt for exterior reinforcement, if expanding soft points are used. The solids will be easier and deeper penetrators, of course. We'll see if the box survives the .470 Capstick XLC.

Although my vote went to the 300 gr. as 2700, I really have not clue, nor will any more tests change that situation for any of us, but have at it...

Several things come to mind and mostly that high velocity can deflect a bullet more so than lower velocity or make it tumble...Also the more resistance a bullet gets the less it will penitrate, and the FASTER it goes the more resistance it gets and thats a good case for the 300 gr. bullet at 2500...There are so many varibles and therorys in this penitration game that its plumb scary and no yet has come up with the answer...

The only way it will ever be solved is when the African govt. allows some ingenious individual to gather 300 Buffalo put them in a squeeze chute poke the barrel about 1/2 inch up their keysters and when they are straight, pull the trigger..do 100 for each bullet and then you will have a 75% accruate test..

In the meantime its fun and games and business as usualt, shooting bullets into the cat box.

Oh yes, and one important thing I left out is I know the 270 gr. at 2500 to 2600 and the 300 gr. at 2500 will nearly shoot through a buffalo at regular ranges as I have used them, ocassionaly one will exit if the angle is a bit short...at 2900 I don't know...

No bullet manufactured today that I know of can be depended on to exit full length on a buffalo, it happen only rarely, and its really not even needed...

quote:

...poke the barrel about 1/2 inch up their keysters...

Is that a cleaning job for Wipe-Out?

Alf,
If we read posts properly, much repetiton can be avoided. Which part of my three sentence post did you not understand? Let me guess.

Sentence one: I stated my opinion of what would probably happen in the baffle box. You imply that I did not address the question at all. Did you miss the sentence entirely?

Sentence two: Contains my opinion that the 270/2900 will be better on game. Still you ask if I think the 270/2900 will be better on game. I guess you did not see that middle sentence.

Sentence three: Contains my reason for pointing out the difference between shooting through wood and water as opposed to tissue. This must be the only sentence you read then.

What happened? Did you pound out a reply after reading just the last sentence of my post in your haste to disagree and start an irrelevant discussion?

I am not so sure you should be using Poncelet. According to him, a 110gr standard jacketed lead 6.5mm bullet at 3000 fps is adequate for a 500lb animal and a 400gr .423" premium at 2300fps will do the job on a bison.

RIP,
Anyone who has not done this kind of test, has no idea how much trouble you are taking over this. After building more of these devices than what I want to think about, I salute your project and your effort.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
RIP,
Anyone who has not done this kind of test, has no idea how much trouble you are taking over this. After building more of these devices than what I want to think about, I salute your project and your effort.

I second Gerald's comments as well RIP. If we were all out "doing it" more; getting a real and proven baseline; then trump the results on real game we would have much more truth and less speculation and all would benefit.........

Well done!

BigRx

I think we all spent too much time discusing this theme the game just ran over the hill and are in a game preserve that only rangers and poachers my trespass on. Charlie

I agree, inasmuch as all three combinations will work like a charm, who cares which one is best, the best one will richochet further off a rock after full penitration than the other two will after full penitration!!

Ray,
Devil's advocate for ignorance you are right now, eh? This is a close horse race to see if there is any difference, amongst three fine ways to get meat.

Also, to establish a benchmark for something besides wood alone, boring "wetpack," water alone, monotonous sand, fussy ordnance gelatin suitable for handguns, and other messy and less tractable stuff.

If you use a 15/32" 3-ply wood panel and 6 inches of water as a unit, how many of those units does it take to stop these effective loads, that are sworn by in three different camps?

Saeed has done the plywood panel plus sand, with some puzzling results.

Open up your mind, Ray, and think about the possibilities to learn something new for a change. Maybe, just maybe, to further our knowledge.

It's getting boring with the same old stuff here. Time to learn a few new tricks, Old Dog.

Thanks to all the inquiring minds that think this might be interesting.

.

I have printed out and filed all the formulas and links going back to Sir Harald of Ulfhere, Chris Bekker, and Alf, etc., etc. I usually come to a dead end needing some constant to approximate some medium. Fudge factors are involved too much in even the best of models. They have to get there fudge from somewhere.

Splintering and splashing penetration must yet be done.

Alf,
Don't go away mad. You will get used to me calling a spade a spade without the swearwords. I can't help picking up on picky stuff when you get picky with your posts. Like the 3000fps 110gr 5.6 Nato bullet Poncelet did not have access to.....

Are you going to be in the EC when you come here this year?

RIP,
Ok but I hate to pee on your parade, but your re-making a wheel that has been made many times, but tinker aways little buckaroo, blow up boards and waste earths water and wood until your hearts desire has blossomed....If you learn anything new I will applaud you....

Myself, I am going to hang live elephants in trees and shoot through them, now thats a test.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
RIP,
Ok but I hate to pee on your parade, but your re-making a wheel that has been made many times, but tinker aways little buckaroo, blow up boards and waste earths water and wood until your hearts desire has blossomed....If you learn anything new I will applaud you....

Myself, I am going to hang live elephants in trees and shoot through them, now thats a test.

Ray,
You gotta video tape that one. Saeed might even post it with The Champions of the T.Rex. That would be a great contribution to science and entertainment. That will take some big trees, and it could get messy ...

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Alf,

Just a few notes on Poncelet. Poncelet was punted strongly by Lutz Moller on his website and Lutz derived his formula from Poncelet's work as you know. Gerard changed his position on Lutz and only afterwards Gerard stated that his approach was flawed, but never offered his help to his former friend to correct it. Why-why-why?

Your question is valid, if we want to do a theoretical calculation, which one of the many available ones should we actually use? Gerard will not give you a STRAIGHT ANSWER on that. His analogy of the 6.5 mm bullet and the .423" bullet is not clearly stated and can be interpreted differently. For eg ... "a 400gr .423" premium at 2300fps will do the job on a bison" My contention is that I will replace the word bison by elephant, but do I prove Lutz wrong by saying that - I don't think so, but I am adding more flavour. Would I use a 110gr standard jacketed lead 6.5mm bullet at 3000 fps on kudu - no, I do not belong to that school - at short range we will most likely have bullet brake-up, but at 350 yards it may just work fine when the impact velocity is down by some 700 fps on a perfect broadside shot. (Application ... ) Mo/xsa may just be the simplest formula on penetration that we have that is usable on a wider scale, although it does not give an absolute answer of to how many inches in flesh it will penetrate. It is a comparative tool that needs to be related to the hunting of game. Ask Gerard to pick his penetration calculator so we can debate it - he may just have his own devised formula. (I noticed the mix up between "Penetration" and "Killing")

Rip applauds the people who support him in his 'new' medium that he is building for his test. Gerard is one of them. I also tip my hat to Rip for doing this, but there is a inconsistency in Gerard's behaviour here. I am not allowed to test his bullets and nor MY FRIENDS. I do not understand this duality. I hope it carries Gerard's approval then that I just state in my next article (comparison of Impala with LM bullet) that GS Custom elected not to have their bullets included in my test for reasons best known by themselves.

In closing, what I want to do is also echoed by BigRx's words ... "If we were all out "doing it" more; getting a real and proven baseline; then trump the results on real game we would have much more truth and less speculation and all would benefit........."

Rip, let the penny fall where it wants to!
Looking forward to your results.

Chris

Chris,

RIP's new bullet test is very labor intensive and a huge pain in the butt. It is difficult to predict whether the test material will prove consistent, and whether it will correlate to penetration in game. Until the experiment is tried, no one can know for sure.

Well, Chris! The gang's all here! I'll be back, gotta go labor over some reloading ...

But before I go, a word to the naysayers:

The RIP Bullet Coffin is not so difficult once it is built. I can stack 3 sheets of 4'x8' plywood and rip it into 96 squares for baffles in no time flat. It's called a Skillsaw from Sears and Roebuck and some saw horses.

Then slide 10 of them into the box, then insert 10 plastic bags and fill them with a garden hose until they stand up over the baffles and close them with a twist tie.

Then shoot and watch boards get drilled and water go skyward.

This medium is as consistent as it gets. The laminated plywood is more consistent than plain wood, due to the averaging effect toward uniformity when you put different layers together with glue: like a laminated gunstock. The water bag is absolutely consistent. The combination of two dissimilar media in series of 10 each is absolutely uniforming.

Much more consistent than live game where you can never be sure of your bullet path or the physiologic state of the tissues from moment to moment, and evidence must come from a vast collection of anecdotes, of all recorded history to "uniform it."

A lot less "labor intensive" than ordnance gelatin that must be refrigerated and kept at proper temperature throughout the tests, mixed precisely to start with, and would require about 3 meters thick of gelatin, for a rifle, not the puny handguns of MacPherson et al, which I have read all about, similar to the water bucket train actually. The gelatin is mostly water.

If the current plywood and water bags don't stop the bullets within six feet, I shall thicken the boards. It wood be easy to just use two of the ones I have now in each slot if necessary.

Dr. Ron, I'm excited about it. If it yields consistent results, let's also see the various 458s (maybe somebody else, must be alot of sawing involved, etc.).

I want high speed photography

Every wooden container that I used had insufficient life span.

Chris,
I do not want to contaminate RIP's thread with replies to your infantile whining so, henceforth you will find my replies here.

RIP,

Will you be able to keep the wetness of the boards consistent from shot to shot? I have noticed that wet wood reacts differently to a projectile than dry wood.

RIP,
I got one elephant hung up today, and its a real job when you don't have any help, I will get my grandson to help on the rest, got some film for the camera, so we can compare results at a later date, good luck to you and wish me success, I'm off to see the chiropractor (SP ?) but you get the picture...Oh yeah, I had to stake his trunk to the ground to keep him still, but learn as you go.

Ray,
Cool! Just be sure to shoot from 25 yards so the bullet goes to sleep and the back splash doesn't slime you.

500grains,
I have enough boards for 9 shots all dry first go round. Those that don't get perforated but get wet will be removed for drying and later use. Of course I cannot do this if it is raining. Need a dry day. This is as consistent as it gets.

Forrest,
If the box survives long enough I will do the .458 bullets in the form of .458 WM Long Nose loaded to 3.8" length to equal and exceed .458 Lott.

RIP:
Why don't you consider filling the space between your boards with grass clippings. I have shot a buffalo stem to stern with a 458 Lott with a solid and we recovered it from the paunch. Did the same thing twice with sable using 375 Swift A Frames and also recovered from full bellies. It seems clippings might replicate exactly what you will partially encounter with the real thing. Good luck with your project!

LJS,
We could fill it with some cow chips too, then grass, then entrails, bones, meat, road kill, ... nah, to messy and inconsistent. I would have to wet the grass clippings by weight of grass and water. I would have a harder time finding the bullets.

Wood, water, and plastic trash compactor bags will be easier. Lord willin' and the cricks don't rise, I shall shoot tomorrow.