close
Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics

Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics Applied Ballistics

Reply

BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #50  
Unread 04-10-2010, 02:55 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: South of Canada and North of Wyoming
Posts: 6,068
Re: BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkaholic View Post
Two constants in both tests (media) are that the Bergers and Sierras tumble when they don't expand and the Sherman and noslers expand and usually continue on straight which is what I have experienced in past tests. It seems that the Bergers either blow or don't expand (not much in between). The Sierras are more difficult to get to expand than the Bergers and usually shed the jacket when they do expand but not as violent as the Berger. Im going to have to work on a larger tank. It appears that one would need at least 5' of water, especially for the non expanded bullets (maybe more)? I'd like to find an old culvert and weld up the ends with a boot (window to shoot through) I may try some of that material that absorbs many times its weight in H20.( It creates a jell like substance.) Suggestions welcome!.........Rich
Rich, I wonder if someone makes a large diameter plastic sewer pipe? You could make your "test tube" as long as you wanted with something like that.

So are you also making partition style bullets? How difficult is that compared to the others?
Reply With Quote
  •   #51  
    Unread 04-10-2010, 04:51 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Dec 2008
    Location: rathdrum, id.
    Posts: 4,869
    Re: BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigngreen View Post
    Most of the guys I know last year shot Bergers, we had 243's shooting 105's, 25-06 with 115's, 270 WSM with 140's, 300 WSM with 190's and 300 WBY with 210's. Most ranges were in the 300-400 yrd.
    The 105 Bergers were awesome, took 10ish deer or antalope all got there clocks cleaned from all angles and all exited with a baseball size hole and goo in between. Also punch a 289 bull elk through the shoulder at 123 yrds, bullet went though the shoulder, devastated a 10-12 in section of spine and we found the jacket under the of shoulder, he dropped like a sack of potatoes.
    The 25 cal 115 Bergers were only used on a few antalope on a couple deer, they did not perform as consistent as the 243's. If they opened they worked but some of the guys had some not open. I have a 250 AI that's getting 115's with R17 this year, we'll see how many deer tags it can fill.
    270 WSM with the 140's only took a cow elk cause I also shot the 140 Accubond which took the deer. It functioned flawlessly on the elk, good enough that it's all I'm loading for that rifle! I will fill all tags next year with it, so I should have a good sample group, starting with bear in a couple weeks.
    The 300 WSM with the 190's took several elk and deer and it function almost flawless, with the deer 1 out of 10 wouldn't quite get opened requiring a second but if any bone was hit it would function.
    The 210's out of the 300WBY had the poorest function of all, only mule deer were shot with it and I suspect it would be real good on thicker elk. All deer shot with it required 2 or more because of nothing opening and and you had to hit heavy bone to get them to set of.
    Out of all of them the 243 was the most unbelievable, they just drop game. The 25 cal seemed to struggle the 270 was a small sample so we'll see, the 30 cal were the least predictable but most shot. This is just what we saw on game between me and my friends and a bunch of other guys at work.
    The plan next season is to shoot the 270 WSM with 140's in the 600-800yrd range, load up 115's in a 250AI and 185's in the 300WBY and one of the guys started shooting HSM ammo in his 300 win with 185's. I'm going to work harder on documenting the hits next year, I need to get a better camera that can handle the cold.
    Take it for what it's worth, it might make 2 cents.
    Thanks Bign! Lots of data there.....Rich
    Reply With Quote

      #52  
    Unread 04-10-2010, 04:57 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Dec 2008
    Location: rathdrum, id.
    Posts: 4,869
    Re: BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    Rich, I wonder if someone makes a large diameter plastic sewer pipe? You could make your "test tube" as long as you wanted with something like that.

    So are you also making partition style bullets? How difficult is that compared to the others?
    Good idea on the sewer pipe! I'm working on partitions to perfect the whole thing but boy are they effective. I can make them open as well as the others and hold together at HIGH velocity. The B.C. loss is marginal. This could well be the answer for a hunting bullet for ANY range. Look at it as a Nosler partition with a .7 B.C They are difficult to make and spendy but I may well be using them this fall!
    Reply With Quote
      #53  
    Unread 04-10-2010, 06:31 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Location: Blackfoot, Idaho
    Posts: 8,841
    Re: BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)

    Guys,

    The work you all doing working with water is to be commended but surely is a lot of work.

    Been there and done that a couple of years ago for similar bullet testing.

    The media container was about 20 feet from the muzzle and beyond the chrono.

    The media was contained in a very forgiving frame about 12" X 18". Only one bullet went beyond the 18" and didn't penetrate the 3/4" plywood backer. That bullet did not open in the slightest, only bent a bit.

    I 'discovered' a peat moss type material out of canada that is processed for soaking up oil spills. I soaks water very well and has me feeling that it is much better and easier to use than water.

    It takes a bit of a 'feel' to get the mix right to approximate flesh isn't too difficult.

    Its reusable and easy to handle though when fully wetted it weighs like water.

    I just set a garbage bag of the wetted stuff inside the frame which is inside a 25 gal barrel and go to shooting.

    The bullet entrance is through a section cut from the thinnish cheapest plastic waste basket you can find.

    Similar sections of the same waste basket are inserted every so many inches in the media to a) make it easier to find the bullet and b) to determine the uniformity of passage (straight, curved, tumbling, fragmenting, etc.) The barrier penetrations tell a tale.

    Slide the plastic barrier out. If there's no hole the bullet didn't make it that far.

    Without the barriers retrieving the bullet is pretty much like giving a constipated horse a rectal.
    Reply With Quote
      #54  
    Unread 04-10-2010, 09:56 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Nov 2008
    Location: SW Montana
    Posts: 5,514
    Re: BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)

    I was thinking about alternate containers and I got to thinking about irrigation main line. I have seen some poly main line that is in the 12 in maybe bigger diameter, you could use a a fairly long section with a cap on one end and use a big hose clamp and clamp something over front and shoot it, it wouldn't take much water and be super durable. I would think a guy could con a hunk of a pivot job somewhere.
    One bullet that we have never been able to catch is the large cast bullets out of 45-70's or 40-65's, my dad want's to blast my blue barrel but I'm afraid that I'll need a bit more length, we want to catch them unharmed to inspect the rear of the bullet for cupping and fins. I might see if I can score a hunk of main line just for that.
    Roy's peat moss stuff sounds like it would be just about right!
    __________________
    "Pain is weakness leaving your body"
    Reply With Quote
      #55  
    Unread 04-10-2010, 10:51 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Dec 2008
    Location: rathdrum, id.
    Posts: 4,869
    Re: BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by royinidaho View Post
    Guys,

    The work you all doing working with water is to be commended but surely is a lot of work.

    Been there and done that a couple of years ago for similar bullet testing.

    The media container was about 20 feet from the muzzle and beyond the chrono.

    The media was contained in a very forgiving frame about 12" X 18". Only one bullet went beyond the 18" and didn't penetrate the 3/4" plywood backer. That bullet did not open in the slightest, only bent a bit.

    I 'discovered' a peat moss type material out of canada that is processed for soaking up oil spills. I soaks water very well and has me feeling that it is much better and easier to use than water.

    It takes a bit of a 'feel' to get the mix right to approximate flesh isn't too difficult.

    Its reusable and easy to handle though when fully wetted it weighs like water.

    I just set a garbage bag of the wetted stuff inside the frame which is inside a 25 gal barrel and go to shooting.

    The bullet entrance is through a section cut from the thinnish cheapest plastic waste basket you can find.

    Similar sections of the same waste basket are inserted every so many inches in the media to a) make it easier to find the bullet and b) to determine the uniformity of passage (straight, curved, tumbling, fragmenting, etc.) The barrier penetrations tell a tale.

    Slide the plastic barrier out. If there's no hole the bullet didn't make it that far.

    Without the barriers retrieving the bullet is pretty much like giving a constipated horse a rectal.
    You've got the horse part right! I have had some pretty good media mixes in the past that I gave up on for that reason. I like the peat moss idea and with the right container, the super absorbing crystals would work really well too.
    Reply With Quote
      #56  
    Unread 04-21-2010, 06:36 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: Alaska
    Posts: 4,637
    Re: BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)

    Look's like I'll be learning how the Hornady Amax performs on game. The accuracy is too good in my .280 RCBS Imp to not give them a try.

    0.008" Off versus Into the Lands --> 162 Amax
    Reply With Quote
    Reply

    Bookmarks

    Thread Tools
    Display Modes


    Similar Threads for: BULLET TEST COMPARISON (as promised)
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    6mm and .243 Bullet Comparison? TnTom Reloading 10 11-18-2010 12:24 PM
    As Promised, 30-30 Load Data justgoto Reloading 13 11-01-2009 12:31 AM
    Seating Die Runout Comparison/Test RockZ Reloading 1 09-25-2009 09:28 PM
    Promised pics of the 510 Allen Magnum... Fiftydriver Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 23 02-28-2008 04:19 PM
    200gr Accubond comparison test of sort Brent Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 12 06-28-2003 06:08 PM


    All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 AM.


    Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
    All content ©2010-2015 Long Range Hunting, LLC