- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,420
- 3,421
An oldie but a goodie
- Thread starter FOTIS
- Start date
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,531
- 6,578
Data acquisition is astonishing. There was definitely quite the investment of time and effort in producing this. It is extensive and telling.
- Thread starter
- #3
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,420
- 3,421
I found this most interesting
salmonchaser
Ammo Smith
- Dec 13, 2013
- 5,151
- 5,569
Never thought about the buzz saw effect, always enjoyed physics, interesting proofs.
- Nov 4, 2004
- 25,568
- 9,676
Interesting read.
JD338
JD338
What a fascinating article. Thanks for posting it. Nice to see how standard cup and core bullets compare to premium bullets. At standard '06 and 308 velocity they fared well. Of course, wet phone books aren't the same as big game animals.
The bullets seemed to hold together better in wet paper than with water jug testing on our bullet test pages. Makes me think the water jugs are a tougher test on the bullets. Also makes me wonder which test is a closer approximation to what actually happens on live game.
The bullets seemed to hold together better in wet paper than with water jug testing on our bullet test pages. Makes me think the water jugs are a tougher test on the bullets. Also makes me wonder which test is a closer approximation to what actually happens on live game.
- Thread starter
- #7
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,420
- 3,421
Water is indeed a hard test.
Guy Miner
Master Loader
- Apr 6, 2006
- 17,857
- 6,403
BretN":1dlhmnpc said:
I thought about that a fair bit over the years, using the water jugs... My reasons for using the one-gallon milk jugs filled with water were:
Could be very consistent. You can use the same doggone jugs as I use, east coast, west coast, no difference. I can use them a year from now and they'll be the same as the ones I used two years ago. Very consistent. So, we can actually compare results.
CHEAP.
Easy clean-up. The water evaporates, and it takes only moments to clean up the plastic bits.
Lightweight and easy to handle - until the jugs are filled...
And - I liked the expansion characteristics. What I saw in general was that the "premium" bullets fared well in the tests - expanding and penetrating deeply - while many standard bullets didn't do as well if pushed too hard. Some of the bullets I tested from my ol' .45/70 really surprised me with how easily they fragmented, while others just plowed on through a great number of jugs.
The few bullets I've recovered from game look fairly similar to the bullets I've recovered from the jugs, so I'm reasonably content that it's at least a viable test material.
.375" 260 gr AccuBond recovered from black bear at close range:
.375" 260 gr AccuBond recovered from water jugs at 20 yards:
Looks to me like the ol' water jugs were a little tougher test than the bear... :grin: Though I was a little more on-alert when shooting the wounded bear at 15' in a brushy ravine.
The water-filled jugs are so darned easy to come by, and use. Not a perfect material, but I do like them. Ever try cleaning up a bunch of water-logged, bullet-riddled newsprint from the range? Ugh!
For a REALLY tough test of a bullet - try DRY newspapers, or better yet, magazines & catalogs... Wow... Can seriously limit penetration, and can also shred a bullet!
Regards, Guy
