New bullet test (unbiased)

[Ray B]

About 25 years ago I conducted a test of all the .308" 180 gr and a few 165 grain bullets I could find, the test was to fire the bullets into milkjugs filled with water. Each jug was one gallon in size and the water was drkly tinted with food colloring. the jugs were placed on a rack and the bullet fired into the line of jugs. This was before digital so the documentation of the result were lacking. However a lotwas learned about how one bullet performs to the circumstance, relative to another. Several of the bullets used are no longer available, but several new bullets are available. In addition, I am considering trying bullets from several cali bers so that the data would also show perfofrmance differences between bullets of similar size and construction but also bullets of se=veral different sizes and velocities. the first study was published in Handloader Digest, but I think I'll take a shot at internet publishing to see how it works.

 

[CAustin]

Ok then! Are you going to share here?

 

[Red Leg]

We ought to have a good feel for their effectiveness against water in milk jugs.... ;-) .... I assume your goal was to locate the fired bullet and compare it's expansion to others and not which gave the most spectacular explosion (though the colored water has me wondering).

Seriously though, without fully understanding the relationship between that medium and a game animal, I think all we are learning about is water and milk jugs. One reason so much effort has gone into ballistic gelatin. Years ago, packed racks of wet newspaper were often used to try to create penetration tests. The problem was there was no way to guarantee shot-to-shot density of the medium - water continuously drained away, one rack was packed denser than the next, etc. And at the end of the day, no one was ever quite sure what a soggy New York Times had in common with an elephant's skull. In your case, I would think you would need jugs from the same manufacturing lot to gain a constant expansion baseline of the plastic and hence the water's resistance to the bullets passage.

But even then, and even if you recovered every bullet, I am not sure what we will have learned.

 

[Ray B]

We ought to have a good feel for their effectiveness against water in milk jugs.... ;-) .... I assume your goal was to locate the fired bullet and compare it's expansion to others and not which gave the most spectacular explosion (though the colored water has me wondering).

Seriously though, without fully understanding the relationship between that medium and a game animal, I think all we are learning about is water and milk jugs. One reason so much effort has gone into ballistic gelatin. Years ago, packed racks of wet newspaper were often used to try to create penetration tests. The problem was there was no way to guarantee shot-to-shot density of the medium - water continuously drained away, one rack was packed denser than the next, etc. And at the end of the day, no one was ever quite sure what a soggy New York Times had in common with an elephant's skull. In your case, I would think you would need jugs from the same manufacturing lot to gain a constant expansion baseline of the plastic and hence the water's resistance to the bullets passage.

But even then, and even if you recovered every bullet, I am not sure what we will have learned.

What was learned was how one bullet performed RELATIVE to another or others. The bullets were recovered so they could be checked for retained weight and frontal area. the jugs participated by showing the number and manner penetrated. the coloring was done to show the jugs that were absorbing the most energy. Different colors were added to each jug. On impact a large splash occurred, however variation of color showed which jugs were getting the most energy- which showed the expansion rate of the bullet. The good thing about the water and jugs was that it is very consistent one jug to the next, It doesn't claim to show how the bullet would perform on an elk or a Cape Buffalo- what it does show is how one bullet performs compared to another.

 

[sheephunterab]

What was learned was how one bullet performed RELATIVE to another or others. .

Relative one and other at one distance on milk jugs only. Impact velocity would be the other factor to consider. Some bullets are designed to like velocity and others aren't. No fault of the bullet...the are just designed with different uses in mind. I question your interpretation of energy as well. Penetration and energy have a relationship on identically constructed bullets but not on bullets of different construction. No doubt a fun exercise to watch water filled milk jugs blow up but I'm not certain much applies to the real world.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

What was learned was how one bullet performed RELATIVE to another or others. The bullets were recovered so they could be checked for retained weight and frontal area. the jugs participated by showing the number and manner penetrated. the coloring was done to show the jugs that were absorbing the most energy. Different colors were added to each jug. On impact a large splash occurred, however variation of color showed which jugs were getting the most energy- which showed the expansion rate of the bullet. The good thing about the water and jugs was that it is very consistent one jug to the next, It doesn't claim to show how the bullet would perform on an elk or a Cape Buffalo- what it does show is how one bullet performs compared to another.

I actually thing what you're doing here is reasonable Ray. Provided the setup is the same for each bullet fired, you'll get a reasonable apples to apples comparison of how the bullets performed to one another.

I do think it worthwhile to at least somewhat simulate the conditions under which the bullets will perform. Water is certainly a big part of that. But I wonder if you put a piece or a couple of pieces of 2x6 in front of the milk jugs to somewhat simulate bone if that might not be a bit of fun and/or revealing too?

 

[Ray B]

Relative one and other at one distance on milk jugs only. Impact velocity would be the other factor to consider. Some bullets are designed to like velocity and others aren't. No fault of the bullet...the are just designed with different uses in mind. I question your interpretation of energy as well. Penetration and energy have a relationship on identically constructed bullets but not on bullets of different construction. No doubt a fun exercise to watch water filled milk jugs blow up but I'm not certain much applies to the real world.

In the original project the impact velocity was noted. It was with .30" bullets and impact velocities were 2700 & 3100 fps. Since there was a lot of data available for hunters' experience with several of the bullets, it was interesting to note how those experiences paralleled the results with regard as to which bullet performed "better" than another.

 

[sheephunterab]

Those are relatively high impact velocities...no doubt favoring the bonded and mono metal bullets. I suspect the cup and cores did relatively poorly in comparison if looking solely at weight retention and penetration. But, often that violent fragmenting can cause very quick death on deer sized game. The advantage of ballistic gel is that you can track the fragments. Now run those same tests with 1800fps impact velocities and you'd see entirely different results. Not trying to discount what you are doing but just trying to bring some perspective to the results. One test at one range in a poor testing medium doesn't really prove much. It does sound fun though!

 

[Ray B]

Those are relatively high impact velocities...no doubt favoring the bonded and mono metal bullets. I suspect the cup and cores did relatively poorly in comparison if looking solely at weight retention and penetration. But, often that violent fragmenting can cause very quick death on deer sized game. The advantage of ballistic gel is that you can track the fragments. Now run those same tests with 1800fps impact velocities and you'd see entirely different results. Not trying to discount what you are doing but just trying to bring some perspective to the results. One test at one range in a poor testing medium doesn't really prove much. It does sound fun though!

I disagree that water is a "poor" testing medium. All testing mediums have advantages & disadvantages. the advantage of water is that it has virtually no variance between tests. The results are repeatable and "apples to apples". It is not designed to imitate the bullets behavior for striking this animal or that animal. The test is to show how the bullet responds to impact. Contrary to your suspicions the conventional bullets did well- not as well as the premium bonded, but well enough to show why they have been successful with hunters for about 100 years. the test also showed some performance issues with the mono-metal bullets, that coincidentally have been quietly corrected by the manufacturers.

 

[Scott Slough]

.... One test at one range in a poor testing medium doesn't really prove much. It does sound fun though!

Agreed sounds like a lot of fun ... have done it myself a couple of times ... but water is VERY hard on bullets ... especially at higher velocities. If I wanted to learn anything useful about bullets, I would stick to ballistics gel ... there was a reason that it was invented!

 

[kathy]

I like the way you are testing.
I test different type bullets in water also ( the densest most consistent mater I can find) take a 55GAL drum of water ,get on top of a 10' step ladder and shoot. recover the bullet and weigh ,look how bullet has held together or not . Forrest

 

[Ray B]

I like the way you are testing.
I test different type bullets in water also ( the densest most consistent mater I can find) take a 55GAL drum of water ,get on top of a 10' step ladder and shoot. recover the bullet and weigh ,look how bullet has held together or not . Forrest

A relative of mine that lived in Northern California used to test bullets by shooting them into his swimming pool. He lived in what had been "the country" then it built up around him and incorporated, putting an end to any shooting. they called it pro-gress, but to me it looks like con-gress.

 

[lcq]

Water is a poor test medium as others have noted. I clearly recall a Myth Busters episode where the old Hollywood narrative of bullets travelling through water was debunked. Even the mighty 50BMG failed to make it very far before fragmenting.

a better test

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/ballistics-test-best-300-win-mag-loads-market/

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Ballistic gelatin may provide a better test for evaluating how an individual bullet will do when impacting an animal. But it's damn expensive for the average guy to buy on his own. Quick look I see a block of 6"x6"x16" is about $150. You'll need at least two of these. They are reusable but I believe that requires essentially heating it up. This takes a lot of time if you're only going to get one shot per block. And if you don't have a shooting range out your backdoor, it's that much more problematic.

A pure water test medium may not duplicate very well what a bullet endures upon impact, but if you're doing a bullet to bullet comparison, does it matter? I don't think so so long as the test medium remains constant. I would also want to make sure other things like impact velocity and bullet weights are held constant to ensure a fair comparison.

 

[Art Lambart II]

This is the best website I have ever found for bullet and cartridge performance. No water or ballistic gel where used for these tests, only actual performance on game.

http://www.ballisticstudies.com/

 

[Red Leg]

Ballistic gelatin may provide a better test for evaluating how an individual bullet will do when impacting an animal. But it's damn expensive for the average guy to buy on his own. Quick look I see a block of 6"x6"x16" is about $150. You'll need at least two of these. They are reusable but I believe that requires essentially heating it up. This takes a lot of time if you're only going to get one shot per block. And if you don't have a shooting range out your backdoor, it's that much more problematic.

A pure water test medium may not duplicate very well what a bullet endures upon impact, but if you're doing a bullet to bullet comparison, does it matter? I don't think so so long as the test medium remains constant. I would also want to make sure other things like impact velocity and bullet weights are held constant to ensure a fair comparison.

But it only tells you how those bullets do with respect to water - a medium in which these bullets are neither designed or expected to perform. It must drive designers nuts to know that might be the medium of comparison in a competitive market.

 

[Code4]

Its a great comparison of the effect of each projectile at a given distance into milk jugs and is sooo much better than no test at all.
Humans and animals can comprise up to 95% body fluids which is probably where the water test idea comes from.
Testing at 50, 100, 150, 200 yards would produce a wider range of impact velocities and results.
Unfortunately there are infinitely more variables in the field. Different skin types, angles, bone v muscle v flesh v organs, deflection before, during and after impact. Animal movement, level of adrenaline etc etc.

A manufacturer can only hope to improve consistancy.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

But it only tells you how those bullets do with respect to water - a medium in which these bullets are neither designed or expected to perform. It must drive designers nuts to know that might be the medium of comparison in a competitive market.

Slightly disagree, it tells me how those bullets do in water with RESPECT TO each other. I would not do this and try to take away how they would do on an animal individually.

An example of what I'm saying.....Let's say the test consists of 10 equal volume jugs one behind each other. Two bullets to be compared of equal weight, same calibre and impact velocity are fired into these. If one bullet penetrates through one jug and the other penetrates three jugs, I think I have some information that says one of these is better for penetration and the other is better at energy transfer.

I'm just comparing the bullets and their performance relative to each other and that's it.

 

[Red Leg]

White flag - I quit - but it only tells you how they do with RESPECT TO each other IN WATER - I am trying to imagine us at Fort Benning and Fort Sill trying to decide upon terminal effects based upon milk jugs and swimming pools. Hey, but have at it. It at least has to be fun.

 

[Ray B]

White flag - I quit - but it only tells you how they do with RESPECT TO each other IN WATER - I am trying to imagine us at Fort Benning and Fort Sill trying to decide upon terminal effects based upon milk jugs and swimming pools. Hey, but have at it. It at least has to be fun.

Now if you would have said Camp Pendleton or Lejeune I'd have given your opinion some credit :<) :<)