StoppingPower.net Forums
Home
Forums
Commentary
H&S
About
StoppingPower.net Forums

StoppingPower.net Forums - Bullet testing for the common man...
StoppingPower.net Forums
StoppingPower.net Forums
Forums Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ | Invite a friend
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Stopping Power
 Test Bed
 Bullet testing for the common man...
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

LittleBill
Advanced Member

5029 Posts

Posted - November 06 2017 :  7:04:49 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Glad to be of service!

I believe Sundlesí opinions, like Jimís, are based on real life shooting of real live critters. For many years heís been a guide in grizzly country, as well as an ammo maker.


"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at its testing point"--- C.S. Lewis

"There are some ideas so foolish, that only an intellectual could believe them"--- George Orwell

Slow Is Smooth, Smooth Is Fast

Edited by - LittleBill on November 06 2017 7:07:31 PM
Go to Top of Page

Jim Higginbotham
Moderator

USA
9636 Posts

Posted - November 07 2017 :  08:22:00 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LittleBill

So would the converse to that be, 'If you wouldn't choose it to shoot a deer with, why would you rely on it for self-defense against a human?'





That certainly is a personal philosophy of mine though as many will point out - critters can behave differently (and I think a lot more consistently) than humans.

The thing is, in the only peer reviewed study (which is really not about ballistics but *potential* lethal force situations) we know that 90% of people who threaten violence will run away - or at least cease the threatening behavior - when the intended victim just shows he has a gun - without firing a single shot. Another 3-5% cease the attack when shot at and missed.

What is unsaid there is that these are situations reported by others as being the threat of violence - it is unsure how many of them would have actually been attacks had the victim not responds with at least the demonstration of his ability to respond with lethal force.

The other side to the coin is that people come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, mind-set and degrees of effects of mind altering drugs.

Having studied both the hunting aspect and human lethal force I tell my students that you might be faced with a "Pee Wee Herman" or you might be faced with a "Cole Younger" - If you are prepared for Cole then an attacked by Pee Wee, it will probably end up in your favor - if you only prepare for Pee Wee (say a little pocket pistol in .380 and don't train hard to shoot it well) and you wind up being attacked by Cole then that might not work out so well.

Deer and wild boar fall in between those extremes. Me I am extremely unhappy if a critter I shoot does not fall within 2 seconds and my goal is to drop them on the spot - but I don't want folks to think I am successful in that goal more often than not - it is about 50-50. Typically I try to break a major bone because the norm is they run with a heart shot or lung shot.

I've interviewed 7 people shot in the lung - they all killed the person that shot them and they survived (of course or I would not have been able to interview them) - one of those was hit twice in one lung with an 8 X 57 Mauser.

Jim H.


Get the Weaponcraft Journal on Amazon: Print or Kindle!
Go to Top of Page

Jim Higginbotham
Moderator

USA
9636 Posts

Posted - November 07 2017 :  08:29:20 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Regards .380 ball - there is an example of the disconnect between testing in gel and testing in other materials - additional to gel, not eliminating it.

Most have seen the video of the police officer (in uniform) shooting himself in the hand in a gun shop.

Well that happened within 15 miles of the range I ran for a while and the investigating officer taught classes at my range.

The gun was a little Sig 238 and there was a magazine of 95 gr ball in it. The chamber was empty but the officer wracked the slide and in fact loaded it and while testing the trigger shot himself in the middle finger.

If you look carefully at the video there are 4 people right in the line of fire but none got hit.

The reason is that 95 gr. ball round bounced off the bone in his middle finger and turned 90 degrees to the right and hit the wall behind the clerks head that is showing him the gun!

I know of two other cases in which .380 ball bounced off a sternum - one is on film - it was a square on shot that hit nothing else before being perfectly placed.

If a .380 does not hit bone will be adequate? Probably.

But if we are shooting well and facing a threat we are bout 90% likely to hit bone.

Just sayin'

Jim

Get the Weaponcraft Journal on Amazon: Print or Kindle!
Go to Top of Page

gw
Advanced Member

4323 Posts

Posted - November 07 2017 :  09:58:44 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bullets aren't all that predictabe

trooper Coates was killed by a .22 round that turned in his arm and found it's way into the upper body

in turn at least 2 of his .357 bullets failed to penetrate the upper body of his attacker and traveled under the skin until they exited.

Ronald Reagon was almost done in by a .22 glancing off a door post and into his chest

a retired Federal cop tells me of a .45 acp hollow point that penetrated less than 2 inches on a frontal unobstructed hit,required a second round to get the agent out of trouble

folks are stacked up every year killed by .22s, .25s, and .380s, not toys

my .380 has fmj in it just in case I'm right about penetration, my .357 is another story


"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..."

Edited by - gw on November 07 2017 10:15:48 AM
Go to Top of Page

Jim Higginbotham
Moderator

USA
9636 Posts

Posted - November 08 2017 :  09:03:31 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Spot on GW.

For a while we had a detective who when with another agency shot a woman in the face with his 4" .357 shooting the issued 125 gr Remington JHP (the full power one - not a Golden Saber).

The bullet bounced off her cheek bone and she did not go down - but she did drop the gun in her hand so I guess you would call that a success.

The way he described it she was facing him - but he was shooting upward since she had knocked him down - so it was a sort of angled shot - not a huge surprise it bounced off.

Jim

Get the Weaponcraft Journal on Amazon: Print or Kindle!
Go to Top of Page

Tom-R2
Starting Member

USA
31 Posts

Posted - December 28 2017 :  2:24:34 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was present for one real street encounter back in 1984. While on duty and being violently attacked, I shot my assailant 3x with handloaded (approved by the meager firearms regulations of my agency at the time) 115 grain Speer JHP from contact. I was using a Beretta 92, and they were loaded to about max in one of my reloading books. It was Dec 22, cold, about 6:30pm in a ditch, he was wearing an army field jacket and a flannel shirt. Don't know if he had a t-shirt on also. Two went through the liver, almost severing it in two, the third hit a little higher, nicked the aorta and all three bullets blew apart, and I think at least two of possibly all three had separated jackets. The slugs ended up lodged in the spine or the muscles next to it, none exited. I did not see pictures of the projectiles, only heard from others and read the autopsy report. Apparently with all of the broken pieces cutting their own tracks, there was a lot of cutting damage. All I know at the time was he stopped hitting me rather fast, which is what I was after. He and God had a talk about if he was going to live or die, I wasn't asked my opinion. I was crawling and staggering back to the cruiser as best I could to call for help. I've mostly carried heavier bullets over the years, 124s and 147s.
Go to Top of Page

CharlieX
Senior Member

USA
782 Posts

Posted - August 08 2018 :  4:37:12 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Higginbotham



So, the question is - how do we test?

I'm a lot more interested in this field than most and have spent an embarrassing amount of money on learning to shoot, and about bullet performance but even I find that Ballistic Gelatin is too cumbersome and too expensive for my particular needs - it can cost up to $500 to test just one load (if you are testing 5 shots - you might not have to spend as much in the screening process).

This is not a criticism of gel testing. It is a recognition that most of us don't have the time or money to invest in it. Still we need to test each new lot of ammo we buy unless it is something really simple like ball or a handful of bullets/loads that seem to be consistent over time.

So can we depend on the labs or independent testers to do the job for us. while I find that very interesting stuff I don't think so - hearken back to the above - factories change their bullets / loads all the time.

Their results may however give you some clues as to which types/brands of bullets have the traits you are looking for.

I intend to use this thread from time to time to discuss various approaches to testing.

Onward and Upward

Jim H.



For those of us who don't have the opportunity to shoot medium and/or large game animals that we can test our ammo against, what method, other than testing in 10% gelatin, do you prefer or suggest?


Go to Top of Page

Jim Higginbotham
Moderator

USA
9636 Posts

Posted - August 10 2018 :  09:19:22 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Charlie;

I've used a lot of stuff over the years. Some things I've definitely eliminated are Duxeal (which expanded both a 9mm FMJ *and* a 500 gr. Hornady steel jacketed .458 solid!) and modeling clay (which expands a lot of bullets which do not normally expand and it gives huge holes which are very misleading).

What I do find as useful is water. Now to be sure, I ignore what the bullet does to the container - flesh has muscle and sinew and fat and holds together much better than water (even though they tell us the body is 80% water). The same is true of 10% gel - it has the same resistance to force in all directions (there is a technical term for that but I'm always forgetting it) - whereas the damage to flesh caused by a bullet varies with the "grain" of the flesh.

Another useful, and cheaper, test material is the "Ballistic Test Tube" which is a sort of waxy compound that can be reused - it gives results fairly consistent with 10% gel but does not give the exaggerated would channel even though its resistance is the same in all directions. For pistols you can buy a container for about $50 and you can reheat it in a crock pot (use a liner the stuff sticks to everything!).

Another item I've used for decades is water soaked news print. These days I calibrate my "wet-pak" with a BB just like 10% gel is. I soak mine for 48 hours but checking it reveals that left in the bath it give the same penetration for about 7 days - then it gets weaker and must be discarded.

10% gel. is supposed to give ~3.3" of penetration with a steel BB at 590 fps and I find that Wet-Pak gives about 1.7" (Meaning penetration is a little more than half as much as in bare gel). Oddly enough water varies from 1.8 to 2.2 times as much depending on the container(s) and how that container is oriented.

All four materials seem to expand bullets pretty close to the same (some designs are "borderline" and may shore more in one or the other material.

Still, testing bullets only in soft tissue, perhaps with some clothing over it, mostly represents a "miss" (a gut shot) - there is a slim chance an upper chest hit might go between ribs and only hit soft tissue though.

So I test bullets, so far, on two different set ups:

Test #1 (representing the perfect shot to the sternum): 4 layers of denim, followed by some skin (split pig skin which I tested to me Dr. DiMaio's standard of human skin), a 1/2" hard layer of flooring material (which I tested with a BB to meet pork ribs, which I think is similar to human ribs and it should be close enough to a sternum though that is not as hard), then a layer of softer material (which can be 12" of water, 6" of synthetic jell or "Ballistic Test Tube", or 3-4" of wet-pak (all of those represent about the right depth of internal organs - though I would caution against trying to be too precise).

At the rear of that I place 1/2" of plywood - merely to gauge if the bullet has enough "steam" left to damage the spine - it is quite "unscientific" but I feel my only real hope of an instant "stop" is to hit the spine or brain hard enough to disrupt the CNS - I'm not saying folks that disagree are all wet - that is just my requirement.

I also back it up with other materials that have nothing to do with assessing wounding but rather to catch the bullet.

Test #2 (to represent a hit to say a pectoral muscle before hitting a rib): 4 layers of denim, followed by skin, followed by 2" of water (like a small water bottle) 1" of 10% synthetic jell or Ballistic Test Tube, or 1/2-3/4" of wetPak, then the 1/4" flooring (this is not wood but a paper product I think - available cheap at Home Depot), then the above listed "internal organs" and then the plywood "spine" and the bullet catcher behind.

An even simpler test, though not nearly as informative is to fill a 2 liter bottle with water and lay it on its side with the bottom toward you (it is thicker - I did it the other way around in the old days and was shocked at how many rounds would not penetrate this).

If you keep your bullets fairly well centered this will give 11" of penetration in water which is the equivalent of about 5-6" of 10% gel.

It might be just as well to add some cloth over it. For me if the bullet will not exit the jug it is not worth considering for self defense.

You can also stand up half gallon or full gallon jugs filled with water and roughly estimate penetration in gel but it will not be precise - typically you cannot measure just how far the bullet went in the last jug unless it dented the back wall - this means you are off by from 3 to 6" in your penetration estimate.

Just Ramblin'

Jim

Get the Weaponcraft Journal on Amazon: Print or Kindle!

Edited by - Jim Higginbotham on August 10 2018 09:29:45 AM
Go to Top of Page

Pop Pop
Senior Member

USA
895 Posts

Posted - August 10 2018 :  12:12:39 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My grandson and I have plans to test some ammo in water jugs after it cools down some. I want to test Corbon DPX and Barns X, and Sig 357 ammo out of a 2", 4", and a Henry lever gun to see the difference. Also want to test some 9 MM in my new MP 2.0 9C and Kahr P 9. Been saving milk jugs for a year.

Pop Pop
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
StoppingPower.net Forums © 2002-16 StoppingPower.net, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
Thispagewasgeneratedin0.09seconds. Snitz Forums 2000