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

That ain't no fun.



.

John,

Thanks for the directions.

jim

Thats why I don't use a 30-30.The extra velocity of the 300ultramag kills everything just fine with much less wind drift and bullet drop to consider.



.

For each specific bullet type, e.g., Barnes Triple Shock, Hornady Interlock...

Using the Bullet Test Tube, seems like a simple factorial experiment could be designed to calculate response surface models (likely nonlinear) for penetration, wound channel volume, depth of maximum wound diameter, etc using bullet weight and striking velocity.

Not even thinking that these equations would predict the variations of real life animals, but the equations would give us easy ways to compare performance between bullets and to determine optimum bullet weights and velocities, or at least determine points of diminishing marginal returns to more recoil.

Who's already done it ?

For which specific bullets ?

If you get close enough, wind drift and bullet drop don't matter.



Wonder if downloading the 300 RUM to 30-30 would be as much a challenge as downloading the 30-378 Wby was ?


Years ago when I had nothing else to do one day, got 30-inch long barrels made for the 7TCU, 7BR, 7-08, 280 Rem, 7mm Rem Mag, 7-300 Wby, and 7RUM to do testing for the 7mm family without having to download any of them too much. Did similar things with other calibers. But downloading can be a hobby unto itself and be quite fun.


.

Wally
A little something to stir the pot.....
Shoot something like a 375 with 4000 ft lbs energy and experience all that knock down power......I've shot several Tubes with 500 grainers from a 458 Lott and enjoyed all those tons of energy.... problem is, the Tube hadnt read about all the energy, and it just laid there, didnt go flying off in the distance like it as supposed to....
Charlie

Is that energy enjoyed more with the use of a Caldwell Lead Sled ?



.

Hammer
Its all the excuse I need to pop the cork on a bottle of Makers Mark....
Charlie

Wonder if a horse trough of White Karo syrup would work for testing bullets ?

A little thicker than water, don't have to wait for melting and resetting between shots, can see right into the tank and see the bullet to find it and measure its penetration, bullet will not sink...

That is something I Intend to do. In fact, I've already noticed
a remarkable LACK of movement with the cartridges I have shot, including the 9.3x62. So much for the old knockdown theory!

Steve

As the Geico caveman so eloquently replies.........."WHAT?"

Sorry, I'm just a simple firefighter, and somewhat of a caveman.

Steve

And deprive you of all the same thrills and expectations I experienced?

Everyone has there own ideas of what a bullet should be. I wanted to use the Hornady as my baseline, reference, or whatever you'd like to say. I also wanted to see for myself what the differences are between the Nosler Partition and the Nosler Accubonds. A noted and respected gunwriter who hangs around here says it is nothing to worry about. No disrespect to him, but I wanted to see for myself.

Most of what I shot was out of my 30-06, my primary elk rifle. Personally,I no longer have any qualms or doubts about the accubond. They looked real good. The partitions, as expected, were the penetration winners in their respective calibers. But, I still want to compare all of them to the triple shock.

On the other hand, if you told me I had to use Hornady Interlocks, I'd load them up and go hunting. This test reinforced the fact to me that as long as you are using a decent bullet, placement is key.

I hope that helps.

Steve

Hammer,

The inventor of the Tes Tube has shot hundreds of different bullets into it now, with all sorts of factorial results.

JB

I'am waiting for some results. Could someone please post some test results?

That's funny, Charlie. I've noticed critters can't read ballistic charts either.

Hammer1
Something else to keep in mind.......Bullet manufacturers change the construction of their bullets from time to time. Here lately it seems they change every few days, bullets getting better and better all the time. So the test you ran last year may or may not be accurate this year, as the label on the box may be the same, but the contents are much much different.
Charlie

I dont know, the test tube seems like a good idea, BUTTTTTT, with todays great bullets their performance is so predictable its boring. Want a great penetrator that wont break up? TSX or maybe you want a bullet to expand really well and not loose its core, Swift scirroco. Most of the others seem to fall in between these two extremes.Of course you always hear the tale of how the TSX didnt expand or something else, but test media never seems to prove this out, in conclusion, test media is not animal media.

I think that Hornady bullets are the best of the conventional cup and core, BUTTTTTTT,they can lose their cores. And surprise, surprise, Nosler partitions are really the best of both worlds.

What kind of surprises me is that the Hornady inter-bond gets no recognition or respect, the true Rodney Dangerfield of bonded bullets. If it wasnt for JJ Hack using them in Africa i would have thought it wasnt being produced any more.Any one test the inter-bomb?

I have tested the .25-06 in the test tube at 100 yards with the 110g AB, 115g NBT, 90g LRT J36, 100g GS Custom HV100, 110g IB, 100g TSX.

Penetration:
90g LRT- 15.4"
100g TSX- 14"
110g IB- 12.5"
110g AB- 12.5"
115g NBT- 12"
100g HV100- still going

Percent retained wt/expanded diameter
100g TSX- 100%/0.583"
90g LRT- 84%/ 0.267"
110g IB- 82.5%/ 0.698"
110g AB-62.7%/0.464"
115g NBT-55.1%/ 0.591"
100g HV100- didnt catch

Volume of wound cavity (length of cavity x width squared)
115 NBT- 17.6
110g IB- 16.9
110g AB- 14.3
100g TSX- 9.3
90g LRT- 1.5
100g HV- 14.8, but still going, width of cavity consistent at 1.125 inches, length of cavity >9.5 inches, number based on 9.5 inches.

Of the bullets recovered, the penetration potential (recovered weight divided by recovered diameter) held true. LRT>TSX>NAB>IB>NBT which correlates to penetration in the tube.

I plan to retest the HV100 because of not catching it. I also found it neat the color of the wax after shooting and the fact that the IB, AB, BT had a black color to it whereas, the monolithics did not change the color of the media. I also plan to test the 115g NP to give a comparison. I have 115g TBBC and 120g SAF to also test. I will post when I get time after I shoot.

If someone tells me how to post pictures, I have pictures of all of the tubes and the wound cavities that I would be willing to post.

Just wondering why the volume of wound cavity was calculated rather than measured with water, as it easily can be, one of the virtues of the TT?

JB

Most notable reason is the fact that it is messy. Also, the HV kept a consistent wound cavity through the tube as well as the extender. Makes it harder to separate and continue to measure the water without making a wreck of your garage. (May just be my experience).

I have found it easier to cut in half, photograph with tape measure and make my measurements based on the pictures.

If you are consistent, is one better than the other?