Have enjoyed the book on terminal bullet performance.

Have those of you who have continued to work with The Bullet Test Tube reached any more conclusions, e.g., do bigger bullets produce bigger permanent cavities ?

Not as much as a lot of people would like to think. As my friend Charlie Sisk says, "It's kind of depressing seeing how similar the wound cavities are from a 6.5x55 and a .300 Winchester."

But yeah, there are differences, and length of the permanent wound channel, or which bullet produces the most immediate big hole, etc., are also interesting.

One thing that has realy interested me is that results in the TT do seem to parallel what happens inside an animal, at least as far as we've been able to observe during a few dozen autopsies. Not that a bullet shot into the wax will perfectly minic penetration depth in animals tissue, but if a bullet expands quickly and violently in the tube, then it also does it in an animal. If the tube shows a certain bullet producing a narrower, longer permanent channel, then that tends to be reflected in animals as well. So it does appear to be a useful tool.

JB

Do you read T. Weiland ?? IIRC his latest book had quite a bit on the subject. My copy is a work, I'll check tomorrow...

I'm not a gunwriter but........

I spent part of my vacation shooting test tubes. I had some questions and wanted to compare certain bullets. I found the tests very interesting, and in some cases down right enlightening. Anyone interested in a bullet's terminal performance should give test tubes a try.

But be warned, like so many other things in our challenging and interesting hobby, the more I learn, the more questions I seem to have. Now I want to shoot and compare even more bullets.

I kept written records, took pictures, and collected the bullets, except for that 9.3 Accubond that wasn't impressed enough about my test tube to stop. Good documentation is important in allowing you to assess your results. You will probably only be shooting a couple of tubes at any given time. Then you have to melt, reform the tubes, and allow them to cure for at least 24 hrs. If I didn't allow them to set this long, my results were questionable. In fact, I want to reshoot that 9.3/250 Accubond to see if my results are consistent.

Otherwise, it didn't take me very long to come to the same assessment as Mule Deer. Bullets in the 270 to 30 caliber range are very similar. Give it a try. To me, it was kind of addicting.

Steve

I shot some Test Tubes last weekend with several Remington .300 Ultra Magnum loads. The ultra mag loads with regular 150-grain Core-Lokts at reduced velocity of 3,000 fps (.30-06 level)produced the same wound channel and penetration as the 150-grain bonded Core-Lokts at 3,350 fps. This tells me I should shoot a .30-06.

I have noticed the even resistance the Test Tube, and other materials, give a bullet often results in recovered bullets having a perfect mushroom withe their core and jacket intact. A good example is the Sierra 30 caliber 180-grain boat tail. The core and jacket of this bullet nearly always separate when the bullet hits game. But in bullet testing material the bullet comes out looking picture perfect.

What are you guys using for a support structure for the tubes when you shoot them at the range?

thanks...jim

I wondered about that myself. All of the bullets I caught had nice pretty mushrooms. But on a test where I got in too big of a hurry, and shot the tube too soon, one bullet went through the tube, and the jacket of the bullet was found on the ground about 6 feet behind the tube without a core. When I shot that same bullet and caught it in the tube, it had a nice mushroom.

That's why I want to shoot as many bullets at possible so I can make fair relative comparisons. By the way, the bullet that did slip the core has an excellent reputation, and penentrated extremely well. The core slipped out at the end of it's trip, and was not found in the test tube.

Steve

Jim,

I shot my tubes at 40 yards. The terrain at the range I was using allowed me to us an 8"x8" wood block about 30" long. I dug a spot in the dirt, that allowed the tube to be level with the bore of the gun, as the gun lay in the bags on a makeshift bench I was using. I chose 40 yards because that was the way everything seemed to work the best at my shooting location.

I screwed a couple of 5/16" eyebolts into the side of the wooden block, and used some rubber tarp straps pulled over the tube, to hold it in place. I was concerned the tube might jump or slide, but that was not an issue for me.

The main thing is, as you will see if you use them, is to get the bullet on the same axis as the tube, and hit the tube as close to center as possible. I used a sighter target next to the tube to make sure of my POI.

I hope that makes sense. I tried to keep things as simple as possible.

Steve

I have taken a test tube, filled it half full with wax, let that cure, then placed a cow bone in the middle(cut to fit exactly across) then filled the test the rest of the way up. I found that tested the bullets a little more. You could then see deflection on the bullet upon striking the bone and how much jacket material is left around the strike. It does however, make it more challenging to cut the tube in halfs.

I also shoot a tester before I shoot my tube. I usually set my test tube on top of my box of journals/dry phonebooks. I shoot a test shot for POI, then the phonebook box, then the test tube. I like to compare the results of the two different media. If I like the way the bullet performs in both, I will then do the cow bone trick to see if I still like the results. I always shoot mine at 100 yards because I rarely shoot any closer than that at game.

I agree with Wally about the addictiveness of testing, I find myself finding new ways to test bullets.

I have tested .25-06 bullets, .270 Winchester bullets, and .30-06 bullets and have found very similar wound cavity volumes. That why I like the quarter bore so much.

kyreloader,

I like that bone idea. Did it spread a bunch of bone fragments throughout the media?

I tried placing 3" of dry phonebooks, tightly taped together, in front of my tubes. The results were interesting, but the wound channels in my tubes were packed full of confetti!

Steve

Maybe a couple of layers of latex to simulate skin elasticity?

While I'm at it, I'd like to expand some more on this mushroom thing. Yeah, I kept retained weights, mushroom diameters, along with a lot of other information, but what I was mostly interested in was the size and shape of the wound channel, and how it compared with the killing effect of bullets with which I have had a good deal of field experience. Wound channels kill, not pretty mushrooms.

For example, I have killed more game, up through and including elk, with Hornady Spire Point Interlocks. I've have always been completely satified with their quick killing effect, and I have recovered very few of them. Most of the time I was shooting them in 6.5 through 30 caliber, including a 7 mag and a 300 Win mag.

While I was loading different bullets to test in the tube, I decided that the Hornady would be my baseline, so to speak. I wanted to compare the wound channels of the Hornadys with some of the premium bullets. I was essentially looking for something that made very similar wound channels as the Hornady, but gives me the insurance of a premium.

If I started testing bullets with which I had no field experience, then I would end up with a bunch of measurements and wound channels that didn't relate to anything I knew about. I have already found a new generation premium bullet that meets the above criteria in my eyes. But, as I said earlier, the more bullets I test, the more I want to test. I also want to branch out into the larger calibers. My Dad has a 9.3x62, and I have a 375 being built. A single early test of the 9.3 was eye opening to say the least, but it may not be a valid test. I want to test these against the smaller bores, and see for myself what the difference looks like. Then I guess I'll be forced to go hunting with them, and see how that experience relates to the results in the test tubes. (What a bummer!) I ran out of time before I could test some triple shocks. I've heard so many good things about them, I want to see how they compare.

The possibilities are endless, and the more I research, the more I want to learn. Too bad I can't make a living at this.

FWIW,
Steve

Steve,

Thanks for the details on your test fixture. One range I shoot at frequently is very organized and picky, and I was thinking about a little rack that looks like a very small wine rack only with level "bottles".

I have also used the Hornady Spire Point as you describe, usually .224 to .308. I also have shot game in Africa with their 270 grain bullet as loaded in .376 Steyr factory ammunition. One animal I shot was a big eland, and the first bullet didn't make it through the shoulder. Granted this was a metric ton of animal (2200 pounds), but it convinced me I wanted to use a tougher bullet on Cape buff (I used a 300 gr Swift A-Frame in my .375 H&H).

I sold my .376 Steyr and bought a .375 Ruger, and I will carry that rifle on an elk hunt this fall. I want to shoot the Hornady factory ammunition into a bullet test tube as well to compare to my .376 Steyr results.

jim

Jim,

Africa, plains game, and a buff are in my future plans for sure! Come to think of it, that would be a good excuse to continue tests, and the perfect place for the field tests.

Good luck on your bullet testing and your hunts.

Steve

I use a ladder to hold the Test Tubes. The way I use steps of different heights so my aim is straight with the Tube.

I generally place the Test Tube on top of a 12x18 inch box full of tightly-packed dry newspapers. After checking POI, I shoot one bullet into the tube, then 3-5 more of the same load into the newspaper.

Have found over the years that dry newspaper pretty much simulates hitting bone. Have also found that "soft" test media like the Test Tube, wet newspaper, etc. pretty much simulate hitting soft tissue.

JB

Actually it only tells you that a 30-06 will produce a similar wound channel with the 150gr core lokt bullet.The results produced with other bullets may vary considerablly.Then again,if your 150gr loads are only producing 3350fps,you are wasting your time shooting a 300ultramag.My 180gr loads produce more velocity than that.

But have you mastered downloading the 300 RUM to 30-30 velocities while maintaining 1/2 MOA ?

.

If I want 30-30 velocities,I will use a 30-30.

Okay Wally,
How about if you tell us what bullets you did shoot, and how did they compare to the horndy bullets.

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?

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?

Hammer,

And that is exactly one of the problems with any such "correlation": Skin, ribs, meat, fat, heart, lungs, liver, paunch, are not as consistent as wet newspaper or the TT.

Which is exatcly why we have to shoot a LOT of animals and reach some sort of conclusion on a rather nebulous average. Plus, of course, any testing of a bullet should conclude with shooting lots of animals.

JB

Have been involved in shooting lots of animals in Africa on occasion. Learned a lot, but at the same time did not reach as definitive conclusions as one needs to in order to call the results scientific.

There have been occasions when alleged scientific studies of shooting lots of animals have been done. Think P.O. Ackley wrote of one such occasion shooting wild horses with 220 Swifts and another concerning WWII military experiments using animals at varying time delays after the animals had eaten.

Remember vaguely another article with some reference to shooting lots of animals with handgun bullets and timing their demise. Some question whether these tests ever really took place and why better documentation wasn't offered if they were truly scientifically undertaken.

The African culling experiences, the New Zealand culling, and Australian large varmint hunts (donkeys, etc) offer the best hope for serious study. Short of a return of the giant Idaho jackrabbits.

Regardless of the number of animals harvested, better experimental design needs to be done. One cannot let the hunters change their minds and shoot different calibers and loads in the middle of a study. Rigorous scientific designs need to be used and adhered to. You'd almost think the hunters are enjoying the trip as opposed to being serious about research. Just because they paid for it.

But we need more quantitative results if we're going to ever make progress on the science part.


The bird hunters have a better situation with both their clay target sports and their many trips to South America.

Still think you are obligated to get NSF funding to continue your research in Africa and elsewhere. We're anxiously waiting results.


.

Now there's a difference.

Bob Hagel would not have used the average but the worst result.

In business, we consider both the average and spread of the results. If you aim only for the average, half the time you'll come up short.

Interesting.

Hagel wrote I think, on the basis of limited hunting opportunities in the US, where money and time allocation is premium. His doctrine to plan for the worst case scenario was sound under this philosophy.

US hunters kill very few animals in terms of numbers compared to some others in their countries and you have already seen Mike378 say that the average Aussie kills animals in the thousands per species.

In this, you can average out the results and you can also compare cartridges and bullets but there is still a caveat, that being, that the bullet manufacturers continually change internal and external design without fanfare.

A bullet that fails miserably can become a better proposition much more likely that a good bullet turning bad, although it does indeed happen.

As an example of hunting opportunities in volume, take a look at this Reuters article I just received:

Camels trampling the Outback
By Tara Ravens
Article from: Reuters

They say camels are horses designed by a committee.
But Aborigines, farmers and outback locals think they are anything but a joke.
Thousands of roaming camels are invading the Australian desert and the environmental cost is mounting as the population skyrockets by up to 100,000 a year.
In the Northern Territory alone it is estimated there are about 300,000 camels, with over a million plodding the arid sands of Australia nationwide.
Work has now begun to protect the land from the unwanted trespassers, who show little respect for sacred Aboriginal sites, the livelihoods of cattle owners and the unique ecosystem of our nation's Red Centre.
Some cattle producers have reported up to 2,000 animals on their land, damaging fences and infrastructure.
Centralian Land Management Association spokeswoman Natalie Turner says stations bordering the Simpson Desert and crown land appear to be the worst affected.
"Because it's dry they are coming into the properties for water," she said.
"They are breeding up and then coming in from the Simpson Desert and Aboriginal land but because they move about a lot the numbers are probably far greater than we can tell.
"You used to see 20 to 30 of them and it was a bit of a novelty, it's not a novelty when you're property is mobbed by a thousand of them."
Up to eighty per cent of maintenance costs are set aside by farmers for camel collateral, with producers spending up to $60,000 a year to fix fences, tanks, bores and buildings.
"And that is not taking into account what they are eating. It's impossible to put a price on that," Ms Turner said.
Australia's traditional landowners are also battling the marauding beasts, which have been likened to the dreaded cane toad.
Trampling their way through national parks and remote communities, the willowy water carriers destroy environmental landmarks such as waterholes and trees.
Attempting to halt the devastation, specialised fences are now being designed to keep them away from sacred Aboriginal sites.
"One of the most critical problems from an environmental point is the concentrated effect they have on waterholes and wetlands," said Greening Australia spokesman Peter Barker.
"They are stripping away the vegetation that survives in those conditions like bush tucker species ... the bush quandong and bush potato.
"Lots of the traditional foods are being destroyed because of their palatability, but the camels are also falling into the waterholes and their bodies kill off the critters that live there and indigenous people who rely on them while hunting can't use it anymore."
Green Australia is working with the Central Land Council to come up with a way of stopping camels invading these areas using federal government assistance.
"Electrical wires require maintenance so instead we've come up with a really strong cable fence between thick pipe concreted into the ground," Mr Barker said.
But, he warned, there was no silver bullet.
"Culling needs to be part of the solution but we also need to look at trying to make the most of a useful resource that can provide financial benefit to pastoralists and remote communities," he said.
There is hope wild camel numbers will be reduced by the development of overseas markets, where the large feral herbivores are wanted mostly for their meat, hide and tallow.
Central Australian Camel Industry Association spokesman Peter Siedel says they hope to send about 25,000 camels a year to lucrative Muslim markets.
"The most significant market worldwide would be Muslim populations and that includes the Middle East, North Africa and South-East Asia," he said.
"But is also involves Muslims who live in the US and Canada."
The first step in this process was building an abattoir to handle the wild camels in Alice Springs, he said.
"That is the key to the whole problem. Consumption in Australia will never amount to enough demand to make an impact on the numbers that are there now so we really need to develop the overseas markets.
"The problem will still be there but it won't be doubling every eight to 10 years."
Mr Siedel said most governments, particularly the Northern Territory, had recognised the extent of the problems.
"Western Australia and South Australia are probably a little behind but people won't go harvesting wild camels unless they know they won't sell at a loss."
Ms Turner said action was needed � and fast.
"Something has to be done and soon," she said.
"What do you do when a thousand of them converge on a homestead, they mill around, trample fences, wreck trees, get into the water pipes ...?
"It's pretty disheartening in drought conditions."
Any attempts to rein in the growing problem should involve all the states, the territory and the commonwealth, she said.
"It's not just a pastoralist problem or an Aboriginal problem alone. A lot of camels are breeding up on Crown land and they are impacting on communities, on tourism, getting into the national parks.
"It's a problem we can't afford to ignore."

There are more wild camels in Australia than in Arabia and few animals would provide a better test of bullets.

AGW

AGW- where do I sign up?

Australia sounds like a paradise for hunting.

If it is not a native species, it is a bullseye.

AGW

So, do guys eat all this meat, the thousands of animals they kill?

IIRC, New Zealand has some similar non-native year round hunting, too, right?

-jeff

Oh... AGW... do you poor guys have to keep your rifles in a big common safe at the police station, as I've heard?

-jeff

I would shoot them and let em lay if my property was over run with stinky camels.

Talk about stinky... buncha dead camels laying around the place...

-jeff

Besides, haven't you heard: "Camel, the other white meat!"

-jeff

Thats what a backhoe is for.

there's a guy in my area what makes half a decent living burying farm animals. I've used him myself once, to bury a big goat on a 100 degree day with our soil hard as a rock (and me with no backhoe). $50 well spent! Mostly people bring him horses.

-jeff

It is against the law to eat meat not processed under conditions in accordance with the butchery and Industrial Relations laws. The Food Acts relating to human consumption are very stringent.

In relation to animals taken in the field, it is not policed. There is no game department or DOW.

NZ has some similar species though not all found in Australia.

AGW

That is false. It was proposed by anti gunners once but cannot be done logistically and was never a law.

AGW

That's great. That would really suck.

Are there any significant restrictions on hunting-type firearms in Australia?

-jeff

Generally, meat is taken and given to the property owners for their dogs and with deer, most hunters take a few prime cuts and walk away. It is generally too hot a country even in winter to make several trips back for meat.

I have shot animals that dissappeared over night from the pigs and foxes and smaller native species. It depends where you are and how much other vermin is in the area.

Usually the property owners tell you what you can kill and what you need to leave alone, and that is usually based on what their wives think is pretty.

It is common to get orders to shoot every 'roo you see but to leave the smaller wallaby's alone.

AGW

Splice some antlers into that genome, call them "Outback Moose," and solve many problems...

Jaywalker

No handguns of any sort (were already outlawed in 1926 and the few remaining for target use were registered for that purpose exclusively) and no self loading or pump action firearms.

Aussies were predominately bolt action uers and most were not undurly effected by the bans made, at least not in my circle of friends and aquaintences.

The reality is that restrictive gun laws are designed more to make a government appear to do something whether it works or not. Gun Registration has never prevented a crime, nor it been used to solve a crime. It is misuse of legislative powers to make excuses for a society that cannot be governed to the enth degree. Nor should it be. Government is there to build roads, build schools, hospitals the n pick up your garbage.

There is little else of value it can provide.

AGW

Looks like some thing don't change no matter where you live

kyreloader,
Thats interesting stuff.The GS-HV is a hard bullet to stop.Of that,there is no dought.If you ever do recover one.Dont expect a mushroom.They typically loose the front end and end up looking like a wad cutter.Even though they dont open up.They still manage to do alot of clockwork damage.
All these bullets are,are a piece of C110 copper with a aerodynamic nose turned on the end and a hole drilled into it.
The 270 WCF.113g CNC lathe turned bullet.Pig at 135 yards.
In....

Out.....

With the GS-HV its odd not to get an exit.
dave

Pork... the other bloody carcass hangin' from a tree...

-jeff ( I really want to hit Cali for a pig hunt someday...)

Dave, what other experiences do you have with this bullet? You can PM me if you dont want to hijack this thread. I would love to here more about how this pig reacted, how far did it go, blood trail, etc.

Thanks so much for the pictures, kind of made my day.