Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Results from The Bullet Test Tube ?

photobucket

100g TSX

photobucket

115g NBT

photobucket

90g LRT J36

photobucket

GS Custom HV100

photobucket

110g Hornady IB

photobucket

110g Accubond

I do not immediately recognize the LRT name, what is that?

Lost River Technology. They make high ballisic coefficient hunting bullets, the J36 series. Shot really well for me, but as you see didnt expand at all in the test. I shot them into magazines at 100, 200, and 300 yards and only expanded at 100 yards.

Website is down now, I think they were bought out.

I just never found it any problem to measure with water. Also have more faith in measuring volume that way than by the mathetmatics of figuring the volume of an ovoid space. But whatever.

JB

MD,

Are you using a graduated cylinder to measure the water volume or going by weight? Either way would probably give a better number for an irregular cavity.

Graduated cylinder. One is offered on the TT website if you can't find one locally.

JB

To me, the number is arbitrary. If I compare the tubes the same way each time, the numbers are a valid comparison. My numbers mean nothing to you because it is harder for you to compare my numbers to yours, but helps me quantify the cavity volume with less mess.

As you can see from the pictures, the new 110g IB makes a big hole and actually penetrated pretty well and held a good retained wt percentage. The TSX is actually what you would expect, as is the Accubond. The Nosler Ballistic tip actually impressed me, because I wasnt expecting it to perform that well. Jury is still out on the 100g GS Custom (have to catch one), and I will never shoot a game animal with a LRT do to no expansion in this test.

Good shooting.

Very interesting post. I just got some accubonds and interbonds for my .308 and .30-06. Can't wait to try them on some deer and bears this fall.

I think you will be impressed with the IB if they shoot well for you.

Nosler Partitions have been around for a long time and have proven themselves many times over in the field. I wonder how some of the other old bullets designs would do in the Test Tube, like a Remington Bronze point? I'll probably use a Bronze point in an 03-A3 this year, just to traverse the 50 years or so back into the past.

I've talked to Charlie on the phone a few times, and here a few times too. We're the same age. And I'm quite sure we'd get along just fine...........

I MIGHT even be able to teach him a thing or two about rifle design..........grin

Nice to see the AB doing well. I love that bullet.

Why no Partion in your testing?

How much do those tubes cost? That could get ADDICTIVE!

-jeff

I have a 115g Partition loaded now to hopefully shoot later this week. The first tube is $72.99 on Midway, and the magnum extender is $44.99. After that, the molds are $12.99 each. It is not a cheap hobby, although melting down the wax and repouring into the molds costs about $26 each time.

It is very addictive, I have HV100s to shoot again, 120g SAF, 115g TBBC, etc.. You can see my point.

I will post you on my results with the 115g Partition if I get to it this week.

115g TBBC



115g NP

Here are the specifics.
Penetration- 115g TBBC 13 inches
115g NP 16 inches
Expanded diameter- TBBC-0.581
NP- 0.680
% Weight Retention- TBBC- 98.9%
NP- 65.2%

The NP did penetrate the farthest of the bullets that I have tested so far. The expanded diameter is kind of misleading however. The bullet had one sliver of jacket that made it measure that big, without that sliver in measured about 0.45. The TBBC was picture perfect, although it did not really outpenetrate any of the other bullets tested, (the NBT penetrated 12 inches). The bullet still weighed 113.7g and looked like a advertisement. The wound cavity was also quite larger and pretty. I am beginning to like that bullet alot more.

The HV100 bullet from GS Custom went right through the test tube and the magnum extender. It's cavity was almost identical to the prior picture through both the test tube and extender. Will shoot 2 test tubes and an extender and see if I can catch it.

I am planning on trying the 120g SAF sometime this week or next and will continue my quest to catch a HV100.

Let me start with the fact that I have a great genuine respect for the developers of the Bullet Test Tube material and the writers who have researched it and shared with us their findings and opinions.

Have enjoyed the ongoing discussion.


Myself, I have been studying terminal bullet performance since my teenage years a hundred years ago. After reading Hatcher and Keith, my first academic read was Dr. Carroll Peters Handgun Bullet Effectiveness, back in the 1970s I think, but my memory ain't no good no more. Been reading everything I can get my hands on concerning the subject of terminal bullet performance ever since. And have reached no profound insights of my own.

Years ago, even designed a one-half two-to-the-fifth fractional-factorial test and executed it in South Africa on zebra and wildebeest. (Wish all the shooters had hit those beasts where we agreed to.)


Now for the question...

How are we correlating the Bullet Test Tube material to real animals ?

Not meaning to challenge the experience and wisdom of writers and hunters who have used the Bullet Test Tube. Just want to understand the correlation process so that when I discuss it I have a basis for understanding.

I don't know that wet or dry newspapers, wetlap, water, ballistic gelatin, Corbin SIM-TEST, or sawdust/silt necessarily correlate to animals. Maybe they give a basis of relative comparison of bullet performance, especially if tested in several different materials with similar results. Those materials are not unique in that assumed ability to give relative comparison and there may be superior materials.

As to bullet penetration depth, am not really concerned about the Bullet Test Tube. Am guessing on large sample sizes of side-by-side comparisons that the Bullet Test Tube bullet performance will rank similarly to other materials, not exact, but similarly.

The vast number of pictures depicting wound size with the Bullet Test Tube implies to me a greater correlation to animals than the other materials generally are assumed to have. (This may be a misunderstanding or misjudgement on my part.)

So again, with great respect to the book authors and developers of this new bullet testing material, a little insight into the correlation process would be appreciated.



.

I can speak a little for the others, but mostly for me. I have been fiddling with the TT for almost as long as it has been around now, and other test media for 20 years before that. The thing that has impressed me more about the TT than others is the permanent wound cavity, which does seem to correlate very well with the animals I've autopsied that have been shot with the same bullet.

Aside from the general size of the wound cavity (which has corrleated very well in a large number of animals) the most impressive thing so far is that the TT clearly showed that Berger VLD bullets were NOT expanding until they penetrated around 1.5" into the TT. When we shot a bunch of animals in New Zealand with VLD's, we found exactly the same thing during autopsies.

This is not normal behavior for most other expanding bullets. Most start expanding as soon as they hit something, whether animal tissue or the TT's wax. But here the results in the TT exactly matched what we found in animals.

JB

Mule Deer,

Thanks for the reply.

Appreciate the insight.





When the term correlate is used, I envision a scatter plot with a horizontal axis and a vertical axis showing points that are naturally paired. On one axis are the dimensions of the wound channel in the Bullet Test Tube from lab work. On the other axis are the measured animal wounds from the same model bullet at similar velocities. To say the two are correlated, and not necessarily perfectly, there should be a pattern in the scattered paired points. Some pattern different than a trap load fired from a Model 21.

Let's agree that measured animal wounds in the field are not as precise as laboratory measurement in Bullet Test Tube material and may not be quantitatively measured at all. They may be just subjectively observed.


Envisioning that hypothetical scatter plot, would it be as correlated as the number of liberals in Congress and increases in tax rates ?


.

My elk load for this year:

JON,what bullet?

Which begs the question: with what class of cartridge (diameter and fps) does one begin to find a significant difference?