With all of the discussion regarding bullet design, penetration and velocity, I was surprised I didn't see some of the usual suspects responding to the thread on the reloading forum:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2511043/m/376103323

Also see the link below to what I thought was a very interesting chart. It's a little cumbersome but great data. Maybe it's been discussed here before, not sure.

http://www.seahook.com/bestbullet.jpg

.

Wetpack is unreliable and often produces inconsistent results and results which differ substantially from those seen in game. Just look at the John Linebaugh wetpack tests. He found that a 25-20 penetrates just as deep as a 9.3 x 62. Not much of a test IMO.

So even though the wetpack is not ideal does it still not allow one to make some conclusions? For instance, the Barnes X bullets as one might have predicted was an excellent penetrator as well as the Winchester Fail Safes. I was also surprised at how well the TBBC performed in this test. The Hawk bullets are junk as I have found personally to be true. I think some of this might also hold up to be reliable in the field in respect to some of the bullets mentioned and used in the test. Outside of specific bullet types, it seemed the higher the velocity with non-bonded bullets or non-monometal bullets the shorter the penetration and lower weight retention. And there seems to be a trend or sweet spot with a majority of the bullets from around 2500-2800 fps where near maximum penetration is attained and high weight retention with a large wound channel. Very low velocities still produced high penetration but a small wound channel.

If this test were repeated in you ideal media, wouldn't some of this data still hold true???

.

quote:

Originally posted by Prewar70:
So even though the wetpack is not ideal does it still not allow one to make some conclusions?

Yes, but only incorrect ones. Any test media that provides inconsistent results, and results which differ significanly from the way bullets perform in game cannot be used as a reliable predictor, can it?

Can you explain why a 25-20 would predict as deeply as a 9.3 x 62?

The only viable explanation is inconsistent test media.

Experts in the field recognize that only ballistic gelatin is a reasonable preditor of how a bullet will perform in flesh.

one day i am going to build a "bullet buffalo" with two beef briskets ant 1" plywood alternating. i think this would be a great test medium. the wet phone books gives us a ROUGH idea how the bullet will hold up and a ROUGH idea on comparitive penetration. its not perfect but it also does not tell a big lie either.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
the wet phone books gives us a ROUGH idea how the bullet will hold up and a ROUGH idea on comparitive penetration.

Not really.

Too much inconsistency shot to shot.

i gotta make my "brisket buffalo". hmmmmmm... maybe in the spring, grains...you are right its not perfect but can it be at least somewhat of a yardstick? i dont think i have seen 9.3 so many times but after your name, but i guess you can say the same for me and the 45 you know what... i guess we all have our pet cartridges... whats the appeal with you and the 9.3? is it the "do it all" of the caliber or the shootability? or possibly that it is sooooo not a 30-06? just curious...

p.s. thanks for sharing your expertise and knowledge with so many people and for being an avid poster

I may have missed Saeed's final penetration data if it is out, but some of the preliminary data fell right on the line (the slope) of the Penetration Index. What the PI predicts as greater penetration so did Saeed's data. I have failed to see any data to the contrary, though the hype and the search for the "secret formula" continues.

B.S.,

Here are the Linebaugh wetpack tests:

http://www.handloads.org/misc/linebaugh.penetration.tests.asp

Some of his data shows the 25-20 penetrating deeper than the 470 Nitro Express.

maybe we should get r.i.p. to try it out on the iron buff