Bullet Trap

[barnesuser28]

I would like to test expansion of some bullets at reduced velocities and I am looking for a bullet trap that is easily and cheaply made and is somewhat portable. My dad is a carpenter so wood would be the preferred material to contain the media. That's where my problem is. What media should I use? There isnt access to water at the range and I don't want a mess in the pickup trunk so water is out. I would like for it to be reusable so I was thinking about using dirt and getting it damp before we leave for the range? Is that a good choice? How should I build the box so it doesn't blowup on the first shot? It will mostly be Barnes bullets used for testing so I figure they will penetrate quite aways.

 

[barnesuser28]

nobody? come on someone must have an idea

 

[barnesuser28]

bump

 

[SidecarFlip]

Riley....

Wood won't cut it, not even for a .22. You need plate with a high Rockwell, as in hardened and stress relieved to contain and deflect (downward) the projectile. Sand should work for containment. You could make a frame from wood but the deflection/containment must be metal and substantial and it must be angled so the return path (of the projectile after it makes initial contact with the backstop metal) is downward and not returned horoziontally.

Interestingly, I've seen telephone books (thick classified ads) used to contain bullets fired at close range from handguns...

 

[rscott5028]

What are you trying to learn?

Backstop?

Recovering copper?

Terminal ballistics?

Best media...
Water jug
Ballistics gelatin
Hog carcass

IMO, sand won't be a good measure of expansion/penetration on game animals.

-- richard

 

[barnesuser28]

i would like to find low end expansion velocity. i thought of phone books but i dont know how i would get my hands on enough of them to stop a bullet. i dont want to shoot water jugs because you can only shoot them once and they leave a large mess and they are heavy if you have to drag 20 of them out and again i dont have a way to get my hands on enough of them to stop a Barnes bullet. thanks for the replies. we dont have hogs in ND so im afraid i cant use them.

 

[bigngreen]

There are a few of us who have built bullet traps, Royinidaho has a thread with one, I built a water one that works well out of a plastic 55 gal drum with a rubber window that you can shoot through and the water won't all leak out so you get multiple shots out of it. Elkaholic built one as well that I think worked.

The problem is media, water is the easiest and least messy IMO and it's on the aggressive side so you will find out if a bullet will blow open early. Water makes it easier to recover all of the bullet and find the bullet easily so you can test bullet instead of rooting through stuff trying to find the bullet. Just shooting them into a pile of sand works decent as well.

 

[barnesuser28]

i might just save newspapers and shoot them or get some phone books. do any of you know if yellow pages charges for a large quanity of phone books?

 

[rscott5028]

Expansion is a matter of degree rather than an true/false question.

Steel makes a great backstop but the bullet will expand way beyond what it would for hunting. Indeed, it'll splatter even at lower velocity.

As such, the first issue is to shoot into/through media that's somewhat representative of your prey. ...notwithstanding that, animals are comprised of soft tissue and bones such that results could be slightly different depending on POI.

The second issue is recovering the bullet. If you use something too dense, e.g. steel or even phone books, you won't get representative performance either.

bigngreen had some great suggestions and I think that's been Barnes' recommendation in various threads on their forum as well.

In any case, you can ask Barnes and I think they've been saying 1800-1900 fps is sufficient for the TTSX's to perform well.

In any case, simulating on static targets will give you a pretty good indication when velocity is completely inadequate. But, it won't really help identify a particular threshold since "hydrostatic shock" is not really measurable and it all comes down to destruction of vital tissue which is a function of many variables.

Regardless, it sounds like a great experiment. Let us know what you find.

-- richard

 

[SidecarFlip]

Of arcane interest...

I used to use an old ash tree (that was dying from borer disease anyway) as a bullet stop/trap. I believe I hastened it's demise with lead poisoning......

The diameter wasn't sufficient for anything larger than a 2 series. 3 or better went right through.....

 

[barnesuser28]

Expansion is a matter of degree rather than an true/false question.

Steel makes a great backstop but the bullet will expand way beyond what it would for hunting. Indeed, it'll splatter even at lower velocity.

As such, the first issue is to shoot into/through media that's somewhat representative of your prey. ...notwithstanding that, animals are comprised of soft tissue and bones such that results could be slightly different depending on POI.

The second issue is recovering the bullet. If you use something too dense, e.g. steel or even phone books, you won't get representative performance either.

bigngreen had some great suggestions and I think that's been Barnes' recommendation in various threads on their forum as well.

In any case, you can ask Barnes and I think they've been saying 1800-1900 fps is sufficient for the TTSX's to perform well.

In any case, simulating on static targets will give you a pretty good indication when velocity is completely inadequate. But, it won't really help identify a particular threshold since "hydrostatic shock" is not really measurable and it all comes down to destruction of vital tissue which is a function of many variables.

Regardless, it sounds like a great experiment. Let us know what you find.

-- richard

you mentioned a Barnes forum, where do i sign up?
i want to test Barnes's claims that the new lrx bullets will expand down to 1600 fps. i dont have access to water at the range and i have tried saving 1 gallon water jugs and filling them before we head to the range but i cant get enough fast enough. thats why i want to use phone books or newspapers. i read a thread that goodgrouper started and it was a test between dry phonebooks/newspaper and wet phonebooks/newspaper and he came to the conclusion that there was no difference except that in the wet paper the bullets penetrated deeper because they where softer.

 

[bigngreen]

If I get a chance tonight I can post a pic of my set up, I can hang test material in the bullet path in the water. I save shoulders from meat cutting and can hang them in the bullet path along with wet phone book or news paper, after the shot I can pull the hangers and the bullet is laying in the bottom.
I'm working on a way to measure the pressure in the rig so I can put numbers to what is happening as the bullet impacts and opens.

 

[rscott5028]

you mentioned a Barnes forum, where do i sign up?
i want to test Barnes's claims that the new lrx bullets will expand down to 1600 fps. i dont have access to water at the range and i have tried saving 1 gallon water jugs and filling them before we head to the range but i cant get enough fast enough. thats why i want to use phone books or newspapers. i read a thread that goodgrouper started and it was a test between dry phonebooks/newspaper and wet phonebooks/newspaper and he came to the conclusion that there was no difference except that in the wet paper the bullets penetrated deeper because they where softer.

My son went through the whole Bares University.
It was good, though a bit self-serving as one might expect.
The forum wasn't very active.
But, you can ask questions direct to Barnes techs.
| Barnes Bullets

 

[rscott5028]

you mentioned a Barnes forum, where do i sign up?
i want to test Barnes's claims that the new lrx bullets will expand down to 1600 fps. i dont have access to water at the range and i have tried saving 1 gallon water jugs and filling them before we head to the range but i cant get enough fast enough. thats why i want to use phone books or newspapers. i read a thread that goodgrouper started and it was a test between dry phonebooks/newspaper and wet phonebooks/newspaper and he came to the conclusion that there was no difference except that in the wet paper the bullets penetrated deeper because they where softer.

I don't think they're liars.

So, I would stipulate that Barnes' tests are as good as any artificial test I could do to estimate that 1600 fps is roughly adequate for expansion of the LRX.

The only way to improve on that information is to go shoot a bunch of game animals with impact velocities in that range.

You could do an internet popularity poll. But, that's pretty lame information.

-- richard