When I were optimizing the design of the SuperPenetrator for hunting purposes, I used test media for the supercavitating effect and the penetration in aqueous media and for penetration in hard materials separately. For the penetration in water I used plastic 1.32 gallon containers in a row, each 18.5 cm ( 7.3" ) width, up to 3 meters total. But I could not stop the bullets. For simulation of bone, hide, sinew etc. I used particle boards, 38 mm thick, in a row up to 20 boards which stopped the bullet after penetrating around 17 boards.

Old setup:


This experimental setup was not optimal for quick tests for a comparison of different bullet designs, especially for the numerous new FN designs. In the meantime the better penetration ability of FN bullets is common sense and many manufactures are offering such bullets. E.g. "Dzombo" in SA. When Barnes, as a major manufacturer, came with their new FN banded Solids, I repeated my tests for comparing the original SuperPenetrator with the new Barnes FN. Stimulated by the experiments which RIP is performing, I now use for a quick characterisation of different bullets a setup. which consist of an alternating row of 1.32 gallon water containers and 38 mm particle boards. I need maximum 10 containers/boards, so the resolution is not enormous, but sufficent for a quick impression.

The setup:

The sequence is: container1, board 1, container 2, board 2, container 3, board 3,..............
A video of the shooting: Video (to play with DivX codec)

By chance the Woodleigh RN, after leaving the setup, hit a paper target. Apparently it was flying nose down and turned over 90 ° :


The procedure of the bullets travel through the setup is always resembling:
It starts tumbling in a container number N. (It alwasy starts tumbling in the water, never in the particle board.)
Then it penetrates board N more or less keyholing.
It veers off in the container N+1 and exits the setup.
The board N+1 remains intact.

Bullets tested so far:

1.) .458" 490 grs SuperPenetrator Vo= 2350 f/s N = 7
2.) .458" 450 grs Barnes FN Vo= 2445 f/s N = 5
3.) .458" 400 grs SuperPenetrator Vo= 2460 f/s N = 4
4.) .458" 500 grs Woodleigh FMJ Vo= 2300 f/s N = 3

Bullets recovered with exception Barnes FN:


Conclusions:
Tumbling and veering occurs only in water resp. aqueous media.
Velocity doesn´t compensate for weight, see 2.) vs. 1.)
Higher SD performs better, see 2.) vs. 3.)
RN solids are absolutely obsolet, only reliable for broadside shots.
For similar design the Penetration Index shows a good proportionality.

great stuff. this is going to be a lightning rod of a thread especialy with the

"RN solids are absolutely obsolet, only reliable for broadside shots."

but i do agree

Hello Norbert,

Quite an interesting experiment that you have done. It seems that the higher SD bullet clearly demonstrated it superiority in your tests.

The truth about SD is starting to surface slowly but surely - not absolute but not totally insignificant either as some pundits would like us to believe.

Take care
Chris Bekker

Thanks Norbert. For the same bullet, SD and PI are still true, though not sure why they are ever doubted.

Haven't tried the Flat Nose bullets, only the semi-flat Speer AGS solids. They have worked so far, but the bigger flat nose bullets may be better...now need them filled with lead to reduce their length.

.

quote:

By Norbert:

Conclusions:
Tumbling and veering occurs only in water resp. aqueous media.
Velocity doesn´t compensate for weight, see 2.) vs. 1.)
Higher SD performs better, see 2.) vs. 3.)
RN solids are absolutely obsolet, only reliable for broadside shots.
For similar design the Penetration Index shows a good proportionality.

Norbert,
I concur. You have duplicated my findings with your apparatus on the other side of the world. It must be UNIVERSAL LAW.

To increase the resolving power, make the boards thinner and use a few more compartments. Your N = 7 stop will become an N= 10 or 11 if you cut yor board thickness in half, my guess.

If I had found such plastic water containers as you have, I would not have spent $800 building the Iron Buffalo. Of course my plastic water bags and plywood boards are cheaper once the fixed cost of the Iron Buffalo is "eaten."

Of course, greater portability and lesser volume of water required, makes your method the clear winner, and the Iron Buffalo is now obsolete. Bravo Norbert!

It is very interesting that a .375 caliber GSC FN of .305 Sectional Density at either 2500 fps or 2700 fps always beats a .375 caliber GSC FN of the same caliber but only 270 grains (.274 sectional Density) no matter whether that lesser SD bullet is going 2500 fps or even up to 2900 fps.

Imagine that! This is true whether my boards were single, double, or triple thicknesses of 15/32" plywood and whether the water bags were 7.5", 7 ", or 6.5" thick (total compartment thickness 8").


Let's run the Penetration Index on those, eh?

I assume the PI discussed above is Art Alphin's Penetration Index:

PI = (KE/XSA)SD

For a 300 grain .375 at 2550 fps, PI = 120
For a 300 grain .375 at 2900 fps, PI = 154

I need to try a 300 grainer at 2900 fps to see if velocity adds to penetration in these wood and water media.

Water gets more resistant to penetration at higher velocity. It may be that velocity is just splashed away in the first container.

Live game may not be the same as wood and water,
but you can never make shot-to-shot conditions the same with game animals, even if you could reanimate the dead animal and hunt it again.

Nevertheless Norbert's apparatus and the Iron Buffalo can prove some things, like that a .375/300gr will out penetrate a .375/270gr in wood and water, whatever the mix.

The .375 Wby, .375 RUM, .375/.404 Saeed, .375 Lapua, and even the .378 Wby can do more with a 300 grainer than the .375 H&H can do with a 270 grainer. That seems pretty certain. (This is for Gerard since he pushes those 270 grainer so hard.)

The gut shot Iron Buffalo:

Penetration Index =

[(mass squared)x(velocity squared)]/[(bullet radius to fourth power)x(a constant)]

1. This gives equal effect to mass and velocity.

2. This also makes caliber seem very important being involved with a ^4 exponential factor.

This is all screwy, and is only a close enough fit to a limited set of conditions to make it seem true.

A. PI of .470 NE .475/500gr@2150 fps = 95
B. PI of .375 H&H .375/300gr@2550 fps = 120

By Art Alphin's own calculations, the .375 H&H is supposed to be a 26% better penetrator.

In the Iron Buffalo they penetrate the same, and the bigger bore does more splash and board breakage.


Here is an instance where the PI and the Iron Buffalo agree pretty closely:

C. (.375/270gr at 2900 fps GSC FN) ... PI = 125
and
D. (.375/300gr at 2700 fps GSC FN) ... PI = 134

Compared to the Iron Buffalo score of crude resolution:
C. N = 9
D. N = 10

.

Alf,
Then you think that giving equal weight to mass and velocity in a game animal is a true picture for Penetration Index?

Please address this fundamental concept before going ballistic about 101.

You are also totally ignoring the particle boards and plywood in these media. They give the water a bit of a different flavor and serve as witness to tumbling that would be impossible to track in water alone.

We know that bullets can tumble and veer in "flesh and blood" similarly as they do in water compartments between boards.

Wood and water may not be flesh and blood, but it is very consistent and is a way to come up with a real life Penetration Index of some sort. It certainly proves that a 300 grain .375 caliber FN monometal copper solid is not too long to be stable. (Gerard are you listening?)

Keeping 3 meter long troughs of ordnance gelatin of the proper mix at 4 degrees C for repeatable consistency in testing rifle solids ... that would be like herding cats.

We are not talking about handguns and 20" lengths of gelatin and dead piglets. Nor pigskin draped over gelatin.

These stopping rifles take some real stopping.

I am open to suggestions of anything better than Norbert's setup, please!

quote:

Bullets tested so far:

1.) .458" 490 grs SuperPenetrator Vo= 2350 f/s N = 7
2.) .458" 450 grs Barnes FN Vo= 2445 f/s N = 5
3.) .458" 400 grs SuperPenetrator Vo= 2460 f/s N = 4
4.) .458" 500 grs Woodleigh FMJ Vo= 2300 f/s N = 3

Conclusions:
Tumbling and veering occurs only in water resp. aqueous media.
Velocity doesn't compensate for weight, see 2.) vs. 1.)
Higher SD performs better, see 2.) vs. 3.)

Norbert,
With respect to your conclusion centering around bullet weight, speed and penetration, I see another scenario. My take on your results is that the penetration depths are largely the result of differing bullet shapes and construction.

If higher Sd performs better, how do we explain 4 vs 3, 2, and 1?
In 1 vs 2, the weight is reduced by 40gr and the speed is increased by 100fps (near enough) Penetration is reduced by N=2. In 2 vs 3 the weight is reduced by 50gr and the speed is held the same, yet the penetration only reduces by N=1. Makes no sense if one ignores nose shape as a factor that influences penetration. What would happen if 1 vs 2 were both Superpenetrators and 2 had a velocity of 2550fps?

Ultimately wood and water tests measure only penetration. This is not enough and other factors such as temporary cavity contribution to permanent cavity, which is velocity driven, is not assessed.

Any test that compares varying bullet weights of the same calibre, should be done with cartridges loaded to similar pressure levels if the comparison is to be meaningful. In the test above, what calibre did you use and what would be the approximate pressure levels of the three different loads?

RIP

quote:

I need to try a 300 grainer at 2900 fps to see if velocity adds to penetration in these wood and water media.

Now you are getting the idea

quote:

Live game may not be the same as wood and water, but you can never make shot-to-shot conditions the same with game animals

You can if the sample is big enough and spans a year or two.

quote:

I am open to suggestions of anything better than Norbert's setup, please!

Unless you are prepared to spend silly amounts of money, water and wood is as good a starting point as any. Once a basic performance level is established, the bullet can only be tested by taking it hunting.

.

Norbert,

Please do your test again with the very same bullet; ie the SP if you can, but use differing bullet weights - 90 grains up and 90 grains down:

1.) .458" 490 gr
2.) .458" 400 grs
3.) .458" 310 grs

Then fill the case to the brim with powder.
Go shoot again and let us see the results.

In my opinion you will prove the same as what I have done as well as RIP, but please do the test so there is no disputing of the facts.

Then we can adress the non believers - the Judases of this world.

Thanks in anticipation
Chris Bekker

quote:

Gerard:
With respect to your conclusion centering around bullet weight, speed and penetration, I see another scenario. My take on your results is that the penetration depths are largely the result of differing bullet shapes and construction.
If higher Sd performs better, how do we explain 4 vs 3, 2, and 1?

Of course the bullet shape is predominant for comparing the properties. 4 vs. 1, 2, 3, is just confirming the theory of supercavitating bullets. The RN cavitation bubble is not as stable as the bubble of the SuperPs. And that is why FN´s are better than RN´s.

quote:

Alf:
Fact is you cannot use water as a ballistic simulant for appoximation of bullet wounds in tissue..... the courts do not allow it.

A good place to start is YC Fungs widely accepted and quoted work called Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living tissues.

It is a fundamental part of the basic science of my subject and Speciality of orthopaedic surgery.

Because living tissue is made up of about 80% water it does not mean the water is pure and non newtonian. Yes we have water in our cells and tissues but it is in non newtonian form and it is bound.

Alf, I admire your knowledge with respect to rifles, history and the like. But your bellyache with respect to weak tissue releasing water enough for generating cavitation bubbles I don´t understand.
It is not biomechanics but biochemistry we are dealing with. 80 % water is water and not converted to another liquid or bonded as crystal water or other molecules. Only very weak bonds if it is the intracellular water. The 40 % extracellular water is just a solution and differs not too much from pure water looking at the parameters which are important here (e.g. vapour pressure).
You are fond of citing scientific papers. You should not use orthopaedic surgery, but modern wound ballistics.
In europe, a well known ballistician scientist is the swiss B. Kneubühl. In his very recent publication 2004 he writes that water is a very suitable simulans for biological tissue. The behaviour (deformation etc.) is the same as with ballistic gelatine. His complaint is, that he can not prepare the bullet´s channel: RIP and me have approached this problem with the compartments.

BTW: B.K. was a proponent of the theory of "shoulderstabilisation". Now he denies this and discusses it only for special cases.

quote:

RIP:
Penetration Index =
[(mass squared)x(velocity squared)]/[(bullet radius to fourth power)x(a constant)]
1. This gives equal effect to mass and velocity.
2. This also makes caliber seem very important being involved with a ^4 exponential factor.
This is all screwy, and is only a close enough fit to a limited set of conditions to make it seem true.

RIP:
We shouldn´t overrate the PI. If we break down the formula, we see that it is proportional to the momentum density, a basic figure for penetration.
But it is only valid, if we have a steady deceleration and constant drag function.
For example, the PI is useful for similar nose design in a hard material as the particle board. But in water and aqueous tissue the penetration is limited by the stability of the cavitation bubble. So, in pure water the PI has no value.
In our water/board mix a proportionality indicates a stable penetration in the water compartments together with an important deceleration from the boards. For the RN bullets the penetration is determined by the stability in water and the PI has no meaning.

Norbert:

I understand from your writings that your 458 design is optimized for 500 gr at 2350 f/s.

What are the optimization specifications for your 9.3 mm? What are the design specifications?

Thanks

John

.

Things are just getting to complicated for me around here. I'm just a simple man.

Here we go with science shit again. Scientists think they know everything. Most of them are a bunch of educated fools.

Heck Shakespeare had a vocabulary of like over 22,000 plus words, and he wasn't even university educated. The closest poet to him only had a vocabulary of like 12,000. It just burns the Phd's because he could outperform them. I personally think it's funny.
That's the problem though with you Phd type, not all of them but a lot. They think they know it all and think everyone else are idiots.

Alf,
We are talking about averaging the static resistance and fluid dynamic properties of the wood PLUS the water. No it is not a critter, but what is better/more practical? Not autopsy reports on several years culling all across Africa, unless Gerard could collect this data for us.

So we shoot the subject caliber and weight bullets, of same construction and nose shape, and see how velocity affects the penetration through layers of water and wood, as Chris is suggesting for Norbert's SP.

I have studied medicine, and chemical engineering as a pre-med, and I have read a bit of the wound ballistics literature as a hobby.

I believe there is some contribution from free fluid in a living body as well as a vapor bubble that leads the flat meplat on its course. There may be some shoulder stabilization involved too. These cannot be totally denied on either count.

I have enough GSC FN's to try the .375/300gr at other velocities. I have done 2500 fps and 2700 fps: not enough difference to distinguish, both are N = 10 by my recipe.

2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
3100

I might be able to get that last one in my .378 Weatherby with the GSC driving band help ... The Iron Buffalo will roam again, but time is money.

I have done the mass side of the coin, finding heavier is better for penetration, regarding 270 gr versus 300 grain GSC FN bullets. No surprise. Now I need to get more velocity spread with the known better performer, .375/300grain.

Alf, you may just consider this a form of reality testing limited to Portuguese heart shots on Iron Buffalo, in a parallel universe.

.

Alf,

quote:

Oh shit, here we go again! Fact is you cannot use water as a ballistic simulant for appoximation of bullet wounds in tissue.....

Stop arguing with me, I agree with you.
I said "water and wood is as good a starting point as any. Once a basic performance level is established, the bullet can only be tested by taking it hunting." It would be senseless to design a new bullet and first take it hunting. In fact there is a lot of testing that is done with a new design that involves only a paper target first.

Once we have progressed to more solid media, which includes a stop box (I have built more than what you can shake a stick at), the bullet is taken hunting. If you do this often enough, lessons are learned and conclusions can be made going from one medium to another. One conclusion is that shooting wood and water and a variety of building material, does not simulate shooting animals. This is why, despite RIPs results in the Iron Buffalo, I know that our 270gr FN is the better bullet for a 375H&H.

When RIP first talked about building a stop box (the bullet coffin) I posted: "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." That view still stands and has been proven, if RIP will consider penetration as well as total damage to the setup.

Norbert,
What calibre did you use for the 458 testing above?

O.K. Gerard,
If it came down to the choice in my .375 Whatever Magnum between 270gr/2900 fps and 300gr/2700 fps: I would use whichever was the most accurate in that rifle.

However, I do not think it would be feasible to load up the .375/270gr FN or 265 gr HV to 2900 fps in most .375 H&H rifles. Your .375 H&H must be very "Improved.".

Saeed's preference for .375/300gr bullets must be strictly due to personal peculiarity, or maybe Walter has had undue influence in bullet selection.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
Here we go with science shit again. Scientists think they know everything. Most of them are a bunch of educated fools.

Jarrod that is BS, what is science? it is the study of how things happen in our universe. Everything we are and do revolves around science. Everything we do and experience today is touched by the ineventions of scientists and believe you me if it were not for those PhD types mankind would not have survived.

If it were not for these bloody fools you and I would still be living in caves and would be clubbing our game to death with clubs.

Because you may not understand science does not make the scientists fools.....

Why would we not have survived? We mankind were surviving before there were scientists right? So what makes you think we would have not survived?
Sorry Alf but man survived a loooong time before there was ever any such thing as a PhD right? So what is next are you going to start trying to tell me how I evolved from Monkeys or something?

I tell you what the definition of science should read.
It should say
"Science"- A group of people who refuse to believe in reality.

The Ignorance Crater should be reserved specifically for scientists

Jarrod,
I am surprised by your remarks. There are more than 70 Forums on AR, most with several hundred topics. The vast majority do not interest every member and when I open a thread and it turns out I have no interest in it, I just move on. When a scientist bumps into a thread that interests him or her, why begrudge them an opinion?

Engineering and Science are the very reasons why you are able to post your opinions here.

I take no offense to Jarrod's remarks as long as he never again flies in a plane, gives up his vehicles, shuts off the electricity to his house, doesn't eat any food he hasn't grown or killed himself, lives in a house he designed and built himself (out of lumber he cut from trees by himself), when he or one of his family get sick he doesn't go to the hospital for those damn scientists to help him.....

Other than that, I have no problem with it.

I wasn't specific enough. It's just that I dont like it when scientists try to tell me that I evolved from apes or some shit.
Or when they spend millions of dollars on cloning and other bullshit like that. We dont need to clone sheep, sheep do a perfectly good job of making other sheep all by theirself.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:
I take no offense to Jarrod's remarks as long as he never again flies in a plane, gives up his vehicles, shuts off the electricity to his house, doesn't eat any food he hasn't grown or killed himself, lives in a house he designed and built himself (out of lumber he cut from trees by himself), when he or one of his family get sick he doesn't go to the hospital for those damn scientists to help him.....

Other than that, I have no problem with it.

You know man lived this way for a few thousand years. You know planes, and electricity, and vehicles, and modern medicine and all that hasnt been around all that long. I have nothing aganinst science that is good.
As I stated in my above post, science that spends millions of dollars for no useful cause is what I have a problem with.

One problem with people like you is that you probably never grew any of your own food, or built anything on your own, god forbid if you had to go a mile without your car.

And as a matter of fact no one was ever hired to build the house I live in now.

Oh by the way I have a lot of Amish friends, but you probably wouldn't know anything about there way of life even today would you?

I'd tell you to go joint the Amish, but they'd probably kick you out.

As for "people like me" your description is what happens when one makes ASSumptions. You know, some people who grow enough food to feed not only themselves, but hundreds, build their own houses, sheds, barns, do more physical work than you'd be able to relate to....

....are also quite educated.

Jon A,
Ok asswipe. Before you go talking about more physical work than I can relate to. You have no fucking idea what can of physical work I do or have done. All i've ever known is physical work. You could probably only dream of what kind of physical work i've done or do. So dont go making assumptions about me then if you dont no. Kind of contradicting yourself huh.

You insult educated rational persons, calling them "fools", then have the gall to be offended when _they_ are offended?

Yes, Jarrod-- you are indeed a simple man.

But one with a strange temperament.

pertinax,
What is so strange about my temperament??
No im not offended. A lot of educated people are not rational at all. They live in their own little world and what they say is the way it is, and if you disagree they think your irrational. My biology professor got upset with a girl because the girl said she didnt believe in evolution but she would put whatever she wanted her to on the test. You call that rational Mr. PhD ???

Jarrod,

You're conflicted between what you would like to believe versus the credence given (or ought to be given) the best explanation for which there is supporting data from a rational point of view.

You most definitely have right to your beliefs driven by faith ... just don't confuse them with science.

Otherwise, you are at risk of proving that your ability to do physical work outstrips your ability to think about the physical world in a rational way based on observable data about that world.

(The Ignorance Crater is one of the last places a scientist is likely to enjoy.)

mike, Ph.D. Chemisty, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1980 (for real)

Oh hell here we go again. I'm not confusing anything. When you can prove to me that I evolved from something then I might listen to something you have to say.

I never even brought faith into this. I just believe in good ole common sense and faith. Just trying to leave faith out of this one. A lot of you scientist type should employ a lot more common sense in your daily lives.

quote:

Originally posted by mstarling:
Jarrod,

You're conflicted between what you would like to believe versus the credence given (or ought to be given) the best explanation for which there is supporting data from a rational point of view.

You most definitely have right to your beliefs driven by faith ... just don't confuse them with science.

Otherwise, you are at risk of proving that your ability to do physical work outstrips your ability to think about the physical world in a rational way based on observable data about that world.

(The Ignorance Crater is one of the last places a scientist is likely to enjoy.)

mike, Ph.D. Chemisty, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1980 (for real)

Would you even know what physical work is?

mstarling,
They offer those PhD's in knife making these days?
Does that make them better than a hillbilly made knife?

Alf.

quote:

You say biochemistry, ok I did that too, 3 times in fact as subject to degrees. Go look at your biochemistry and how water is distributed in living tissue and what part of that water is in fact free water with in the Newtonian form. You will note that even protoplasm ie the water in cells is non newtonian and has visco elastic properties.]

I am not doubting your effort in studying ballistic matter. But I think, you are on a wrong path with your conclusions and statements. You are always referring to "free water" and "newtonian fluid". I never used such notions when explaining my experimental findings. Water vapour is released, no matter from what solution or encapsulation. "Ideal" or newtonian fluid is only a virtual model. In real systems it is not existent and I am talking about real fluids. Viscoelastic properties are not counter arguments against my modelling.

quote:

Further you are dead wrong if you think that the basic science of my subject has nothing to do with how wounds are created in tissue or how tissue reacts to intervention.

That is not subject of my investigation and not disputable in this context. I am only dealing with the straight-line penetration.
BTW, if I remenber right, you wrote, that a wound channels diameter of a non deforming bullet measures the same as the bullets diameter. That is not the case with the SP and may be also with FN bullets. It is more than twice.

quote:

So If you can show me how you in any way approximate pure water in a plastic jug to living tissue I will buy into your theories, untill then I will stay with the proven currently accepted science.

What do you mean with "proven accepted science"? Water doesn´t behave as water? Water vapour can not released from biological tissue? You are overinterpreting my results. The water jug are not living tissue for sure. They are only used to simulate the interaction of water with moving bullets.
I remember in the past you often used claims, which had nothing to do with the subject under discussion or even were wrong.
So, PLS give me some citations that I can prove whether I am wrong or not.

I guess I'm just kinda dense, but I don't see how a thread about solid bullet penetration turned into a discussion of evoloution

It should also be noted that there is a difference between micro evolution, ie survival of the fittest or rather evironmental adaptation by species, and macro evolution ie people evolved from monkeys.

Science is good at recording observations in an organized manner, and seeing how things are expected to change when controlled changes are introduced in a controlled environment. Where science can go amuck is when experimental results are used to formulate theories that cannot be proven in the real world. Theories are great, but are just that until proven.

The funny thing is, I see Jarrod jumping on Alf regarding scientific method, when it was Alf that stated that a scientific approach is meaningless if the scientific tests do not correlate to the real world that the scientific tests are intended to emulate.

The real question about bullet testing should be, what media provides consistant test results that can be correlated to performance on game animals.