Woodleigh Hydrostatically Stabilized Bullets

[Panielsen]

Besides, I'm out of phone books.....

 

[ActionBob]

I'm gonna guess that buffalo is denser than a human.... Well there may be some exceptions to that?

 

[matt85]

the 20% gel wouldnt be bad but you would need A LOT of it to properly test these cartridges. total size of the gel target would probably need to be 16"x16"x72" (height x width x length). anything shorter would not be long enough to stop solids or even some of the expanding bullets. however even 72" might not be enough to stop some solids.

-matt

 

[stug]

Also a high speed camera to film it. The videos I've seen of it's use show that the temporary wound channel is WAY bigger then the final wound channel

 

[Panielsen]

the 20% gel wouldnt be bad but you would need A LOT of it to properly test these cartridges. total size of the gel target would probably need to be 16"x16"x72" (height x width x length). anything shorter would not be long enough to stop solids or even some of the expanding bullets. however even 72" might not be enough to stop some solids.

-matt

Yeah, that's the problem with these monster killers. I had found a great article earlier today which I should have posted, but wasn't thinking clearly. It was testing done some years ago by a noted PH in Africa and was in the caliber .458 Win Mag. He tested almost all of the bullets in this thread minus Hornady and North Fork. He used several phone books, wet, in front of an elephant bone, followed by many more phone books and backed up with 3 pine blocks. All of which penetrated into the pine blocks with the Barnes making it into the third! Very good article, so not sure if I will try the gel or not. Now thinking wet phone books, sandwiching hard wood blocks and backed by 3 pine blocks. That will not happen within the next couple of weeks, but should be a decent test if I can get enough of the big books and wood similar to bone structure density.

 

[Panielsen]

Just spoke with Clear Ballistics about their gel and the .458 Win Mag. They seemed excited I called as hunters such as us are a group they are wanting to break into. He is recommending their Gelatin Sniper Pack for my test. He said that the two blocks stopped a .338 Lapua within 32" or so. They are really nice folks over there, so I may have to order some gel. I guess you just rebake the stuff in a mold in your oven, melt it that is, then pull it out and let it cool. No limit to uses and no shelf life so to speak. I put the link below in case any of you want to check them out. Found them last night when googling ballistic gel. Enjoy!

http://clearballistics.com/?gclid=CKiB7ozFg8YCFQytaQodnHcA7g

 

[matt85]

He is recommending their Gelatin Sniper Pack for my test. He said that the two blocks stopped a .338 Lapua within 32" or so.

this alone would make me question the gel. ive seen images of an elephant with a hole in its rear and a matching exit hole in its chest from a 416 Rigby firing a 400gr monolithic solid. if the gel is stopping cartridges like this inside 32" then its MUCH tougher then standard flesh/bone and the test will be meaningless. you need a gel thats similar to the flesh of animals not tougher then them. a good monolithic solid at a decent speed will penetrate 5'+ of flesh if it doesnt hit a bone or a stomach full of plant material.

-matt

 

[Clayton Holland]

I have used the Hydros on water buffalo here and am not a huge fan. They did show amazing penetration. On a frontal chest shot they exited to the rear and sailed though both shoulders on side shots. They were loaded in a .404. For mine the woodleigh softs kill quicker and seemed to hit harder. Other guys I spoke to liked the Hydros so who knows, but I will be sticking with the softs. Didn't have any feed problems in my Jeffery Mauser.

 

[Panielsen]

this alone would make me question the gel. ive seen images of an elephant with a hole in its rear and a matching exit hole in its chest from a 416 Rigby firing a 400gr monolithic solid. if the gel is stopping cartridges like this inside 32" then its MUCH tougher then standard flesh/bone and the test will be meaningless. you need a gel thats similar to the flesh of animals not tougher then them. a good monolithic solid at a decent speed will penetrate 5'+ of flesh if it doesnt hit a bone or a stomach full of plant material.

-matt

The .338 was at range, not up close. He asked me at what range I was thinking of shooting the gel from and I told him I was open to suggestions as I have never used gelatin before, but I know many buffalo are shot from less than 100 yards, so probably 100 yards. IF I do buy the gel, then I am thinking of adding a hard media to the test either between the blocks or in front of them to simulate bone as close as I can. Still in the mad scientist phase of this, but would like a good comparison of all the favorite expanding bullets I have heard so far loaded as close to exactly the same as possible and post the results. I just think it would be fun, and I gotta shoot the damn thing anyway, right?

 

[stug]

The funniest ballistic test I've seen is someone strapping together some ground beef, sausages and steak! Here is the link

The gel will give a good comparison between projectiles, but might not tell you the actual penetration distance you will get. As matt85 as said an animal will probably offer less resistance than the gel. The muscles of the chest might be similar to the gel, but the lungs will offer less resistance than the gel. The stomach will be similar to the gel, or maybe even denser.
I say go for it, it will be a hoot to do.

 

[Panielsen]

OMG thats funny!!!! Blew the weenies right out of'em! Looky there, weenies over here. Weenies over dar! Hell theres weenies spread everywhere!!! Hell, thats one hell of a round there hoss! Blew weenies everywhere.... Lets go to Africa and blow the weenies of them critters there!

 

[Lukev1995]

just thought i would add to this thread, we have used the woodleigh hydros on aussie water buffalo extensively and almost exclusively in our .416 rugers for almost a year now. we have always been a big fan of the Barnes tsx, they are a great bullet, but what we have seen from these hydros is very impressive. we are seeing quicker kills from vital shots, we haven't had a mature animal make it more than 50 yards with a chest shot with most succumbing within steps, whereas the barnes would do the job excellently as well but they would sometimes make it further than that. Like the barnes the internal damage to organs is massive the only difference is the hydros are more intense and widespread damage. i'm even going to trial them in my 300 WM, which is my all round rifle, and see what they can do when launched at much higher velocities on other game. while we don't head shoot animals unless it is a must, we have hit heavy bone and they are virtually unaffected and do their job they were designed to do. if you were thinking of trying the hydros i wouldn't hesitate.

 

[edward]

in 2014 i took a cape bull at around 60 yards with my 9.3x74r double.was using the woodliegh hydro solid at 286 grs.the bull was slightly quarted toward me.hit it in the front left shoulder,complete pass through,out the last ribs on right side.he went about 25 yards as the crow flies and we heard two death bellows.the p.h. wanted an insurance shot so i shot him while laying on his right side facing away.the bullet went in behind the left shoulder and out his head about three inches above his right eye through his boss.earlier, to try out the woodliegh hydro we went to texas as i wanted an scimitar horned oryx.i took that animal at 129 yards.complete pass through the shoulders.in the left shoulder,out the right.entire left shoulder was ruined ,nothing but slop.had to through it away.thats only two results but i will be using these bullets from here on out.