Yesterday a son-in-law and I headed to the range to get him sighted in for antelope and elk. For elk he had a custom 1903A3 .300WM that was handed down to him and a Savage 111GNS .30-06 I gave him as a wedding present he will use for antelope. I took three rifles that will be used for antelope - my Ruger M77 .257 Roberts Daughter #3 will use, a Savage FXP3 .243 Win I plan to use and a 20" barreled synthetic/blue Ruger Hawkeye .30-06 that Daughter #3's intended will get as a wedding present next April.

Part of what I wanted to accomplish that trip was to test some cup-and-core bullets by shooting them through a water jug with a target in the background to catch whatever came out of the water jug. We tested six loads at 20 yards. All loads were chrono'd except the Core-Lokt:

.243 Win, 95g Hornady SST, 2925fps (avg.)
.257 Roberts, 100g Barnes TTSX, 3233fps (avg.)
.30-06, 150g Winchester Ballistic Silvertip, 3005fps (avg.)
.30-06, 165g Hornady SST, 2863fps (actual)
.300 WM, 180g Winchester Power-Point, 2825fps (avg.)
.300 WM, 180g Remington Core-Lokt, 2700fps (factory spec)

Here is a photo of the setup after one of the jugs was destroyed. The two 2x10's on the ground are nailed together. For the shots they were on top of the sawhorses and the one gallon water jugs were placed on top, one jug per shot, on the target end of the 2x10s. The boards are lying where they landed after the .300WM/180g Core-Lokt test. Note that the target is completely soaked.


.243 Win/95g Hornady SST/2925fps. Lots of small holes from lead and/or jacket material. This was the case with all but the Barnes TTSX.


.257 Roberts/100g Barnes TTSX/3233fps. Two holes, the second from a broken petal.


.30-06/150g WW Ballistic Silvertip/3005fps


.30-06/165g Hornady SST/2863fps


More photos below.

Apparently you only get to post 6 photos at a time. In any case, the .as t.300WM photo wasn't displaying. I remeved the one that was and am posting it here with the one that wasn't.

.300WM/180g WW Power-Point/2825fps


.300WM/180g Core-Lokt/2700fps (factory spec)

Cool stuff. Thanks for posting the results.

Barnes has yet to let me down..... and all I'll shoot when it really matters. no more testing need be done.

Thanks for the topic!

Note on the Core-Lokt target. The large hole was due to the backing cardboard having been shot away there.

I think the largest hole on the 150g BST target was there for the same reason - the force of the water hitting the target tore the paper out where there was no backing behind it.

I have always wondered which bullet was deadliest on water jugs...

I'm not sure what these results tell me either, but it looks like a helluvalot of fun in the way of data-gathering.

The point, bwalker, was not to kill waterjugs but to take advantage of them as an easy, repeatable and consistent means of testing the bullets.

Every bullet fired into the water jugs expanded, which was the desired goal. The use of a single jug rather than a string of them also allowed the paper target to capture evidence of any particles escaping the jugs, which was the end goal. Mission accomplished.


What the tests showed was not unexpected - every single cup-and-core bullet tested sprayed lead and/or jacket material, some more than others. To some extent, bonded core bullets will do this as well as any weight not retained represents material that gets sprayed.

The all copper Barnes TTSX expanded while in the jug, a fact which did not surprise me at all based on my experience with them on game but was nice to confirm.

It is unfortunate that the photos don't make it easier to spot all the holes in the targets. Nonetheless most are visible. People can understand how the results were obtained and draw their own conclusions. what they do with those conclusions is up to them.

For myself, I will continue on a path I started well over a decade ago - using bonded core bullets (mostly North Fork, A-Frame and AccuBond) as the minimum in my bolt rifles and using lead free bullets like the TTSX more and more as I develop new loads.

This year's antelope hunt is an anomaly in that I will be using a .243 95g SST and have built 150g BT loads for my future son-in-law to use on the same hunt. Range time was too short this year to allow it (both rifles were acquired this year) but the original plan was to work up initial loads using these bullets and use the data gathered as the basis for developing AccuBond or TTSX/LRX loads. Regardless of the outcome, I do not anticipate using these bullets for subsequent big game hunts. (Varmints, yes.)

Billy_Goat has it right - it was fun, and that as much as anything was the primary goal.

Next time I take water jugs to the range I plan to take 50 or more and capture the expanded bullets. Saddlesore has some he wants to test as well. More fun but probably not very informative as the results are fairly predictable.

If you stopped shooting elk in the guts bullets would be an after thought.
This test is completley useless and has no read across in the real world.

Grow up and get a life.

I’ve been hunting Colorado big game since 1982 and Wyoming antelope for about 10 years. During that time I’ve taken my share of game, including 14 elk since 2000. The only animal I’ve lost was in 2014 when I misjudged the wind and, based on the blood trail, shot it in the liver. You might consider that a poor record or one of ‘shooting animals in the guts’. I don’t and I switched to premium bullets long before that event. As evidenced by chest-high blood on the brush on both sides of the trail the North Fork bullet I used exited, which didn’t surprise me at all.

If you don’t find the information I posted useful or informative feel free to ignore it.

ADFMDL

Maybe this year after elk season when I am done using my jugs for ice,I will give it a try.I have a hard time accumulating more than 5-6 at at ime.

Most likely would be laughed off any shooters forum. Probably the only reason that it appeared here.
This is the sort of thing that the better ranges will never allow and even the less restricted ‘gun club’ ranges will be real nervous about.
They all need to be concerned with keeping their insurance and maintaining a professional shooting atmosphere at each facility.
Conducting ‘experiments’ with high powered rifles is going to look a whole lot like a kid who has been entrusted with fireworks before becoming mature enough to do so.

My local range is one of those "‘gun club’ ranges" and no one has ever expressed any concern about shooting water jugs, let alone been " real nervous about" it.

Shooting water jugs is no more dangerous than shooting big game. In shooting dozens and dozens and dozens of water jugs over the years the only damage done has been to the jugs themselves, one wooden saw horse that got hit when my hunting buddy shot a bit low and one synthetic saw horse where the top rail was broken due to hydraulic pressure.

Guess you're not mature enough to ignore stuff you find no use for - because J'm living rent free in your brain and YOU MUST READ MY POSTS.

LOL

I do read some of your posts.
That was never a question.

I'm under no constraint to ignore something useless - although I can see how you would want that under the circumstances.

We've all sadly experienced the crap people drag out to shooting sites and seen the type of slobs that do it.

When elk become made of water maybe then there will be a place for this on an elk hunting forum.

I really don't care one way or another if you read them or not.

As to what people drag out to the ranges my biggest problem is what they don't pick up afterwards. We always leave the place cleaner than we found it.

While you may not find what I posted useful, others have. No, elk aren't made of just water (just mostly water) but that doesn't invalidate the test results. I never claimed the results would perfectly mimic what happens in an elk or any other animal. Nevertheless, I believe they are similar when it comes to expansion and fragmentation.

The test results were pretty conclusive - ALL of the lead core bullets sprayed lead. This happens in game animals as well as the lead not retained by the bullet has to go somewhere. Some people may see the results and decide maybe mono bullets are the way to go. I'm leaning more that direction every year.

Grow up and get a life? Says the guy wasting his time shooting water jugs.
And are you sure on that one lost elk story? I seem to recall another that ran across a property line after you winged it.

You guys yipping about the water jug shooting remind me of junior high kids trying to me in the "cool" club but just can't make it.

I shoot tv's and propane bottles when testing bullets.. oh and the occasional abandoned car.

one pretty relevant observation here, might be that tiny bits of lead, can and do, loose themselves from the remainder of the bullet (more so on common C&C bullets), and might very well end up in meat.

a shoulder shot is logically tougher on a bullet than water, and more likely to cause tiny lead fragments to come off the main projectile.

when we say "XXXX bullet had YYYY penetration and retained 65% of its original weight", that OTHER 35% went somewhere, yes?

Maybe CH's testing efforts highlight where some of that other 35% goes.

I've not had consistently stellar results with Barnes bullets (copper fouling, less than stellar accuracy, high source costs) but this does make me reconsider a bit.

As for wounded game commentary from the critics...... I cant cast any stones, having lost a couple deer due to poor shot placement.

I'm impressed that's never happened to BWalker, apparently. Good on you, sir. May you retain that trend.

Yes, grow up and get a life. You don't get to determine whether or not I am 'wasting' my time. For the cost of 6 water jugs that would have been shot later, my son-in-law and I had a lot of fun - so I consider the time well spent. I've wasted lots of time in my life but this wasn't one of those times.

In addition the tests confirmed exactly what I anticipated to be the case. All of the bullets expanded while passing through a single jug, including the 'tough' TTSX and the targets show not only did all the lead core bullets spray lead and/or copper jacket material, they demonstrated similarities and differences in the amount and just how wide the dispersal was. Do with that what you will.

Yes, I did wound another elk. It went down in head-high sage. As I approached it made it to and jumped a nearby fence onto private land. The elk didn't go far and in fact had already turned around and come back to the fence where it stopped, facing the fence. I don't know if it had the strength left to jump the fence again or not but the bull's strength was clearly fading. It seemed to me, based on watching other elk that have been shot, that simply standing was about all it could do at that point and I don't think that would have lasted long. A shot by a hunter on the private land made any such questions moot, as it went straight down an arm’s length from the fence. Had the other hunter not been there recovery would have been easy once I got permission to access the private land (the ranch house was a half mile away, maybe less). I don't consider that elk 'lost' as it never went far, was never out of sight and was quickly recovered by the other hunter.

ADFMDL

V

Black & white, or color? It makes a difference, especially when testing vld-type bullets.

Wow, all this crap over a guy shooting water jugs? If a guy wants to shoot jugs I say let him shoot jugs 'til the cows come home.

I may have missed it, but I did not notice coyote hunter making a single recommendation to all of us hunters as to which bullet will be the best elk killer because of his jug shooting.

I agree JG but when you post the results of your "testing" on an open forum, aren't you pretty much inviting others to comment on your "findings?" Why post your results on a forum if you're not interested in hearing what others think?

Your idea of someone commenting would generally not include ridiculous accusations.

+1

And as far as any past woundings.......anyone that hasn't had things go not-exactly-right......hasn't hunted too much.

As an Iowa Whitetail Outfitter, very surprised at the non-resident wound rate, especially for archery. Also, very surprised at the lie rate, when a hunter is asked to explain a faint blood trail.....close to their stand location.

Sorry, I haven't been following that closely. It would be nice if people stayed on topic but then it wouldn't be the 24-hour campfire. And some posters seem to have a knack for inspiring epic threads, or uber threads if you will.

Unless it's an extremely flat screen TV, or a puny 1 lb propane tank.....your beloved Berger VLD likely won't even exit.

I don't shoot TV's with vlds unless they're thin-skinned game (flat screens). For tube TV's and propane bottles, I much prefer mono-metals. I hunt in dense urban zones and prefer two holes and OTART.

How do you get any time for hunting, packing and shipping all those cookbooks?

Take a bow......the cookbook is currently outselling the new Clinton/Kaine book.

Apologies, CH. Sometimes it is just plain fun to throw the poo back at the monkeys.

I see absolutely nothing wrong or irresponsible in shooting milk jugs for testing.....or just for fun. Yes, with appropriate backstop. No, don't shoot them out of trees.

Am I wrong in thinking that the cup N core bullets pictured are doing just what they are supposed to do, and the mono doing just what it is advertised as, except for the seperation of one petal?

Cookbooks? Help me out here.

Perhaps you were mistaken for Mule Deer.
He and Eileen have written a couple of great wild game cookbooks.

Bingo.....smokepole's idol and rumored employer.

We actually shoot our milk jugs on my own acreages. Guess we should send out apology notices to neighbors, for not exuding the proper professional shooting etiquette.

We actually shoot steel plates too.

Have you ever witnessed a bowling pin shoot, at a real life range?

Lastly, do you shoot much?

My preference would be that C&C bullets retain 100% of their weight, meaning no particle spray. If they did that I would use them for hunting in my bolt guns. But that's not even close to realistic.

One of the purposes of the test was to see if I could detect any difference in the amount of spray between bullets, the mono excepted.

The photos tell the story graphically and people can draw their own conclusions. (Sorry the photos aren't better.)

Haven't shot a TV in a few decades. Propane bottles only after they'd already been killed. (Darn it.) Abandoned cars? Have used one as a target stand but it wasn't the main target. Water jugs? By the pick-up load.

Daughter #3 relieved her frustration with her old laptop using my .45-70 and hardcast bullets. A couple through the screen before one hit the lithium battery. Awesome smoke!

If anyone wants a recipe for killing water jugs, a .45-70/350g hardcast @ 1067fps will drive through 12 gallon-sized milk jugs and keep going. Just leaves a couple holes leaking water in most of them. For far more destruction but less penetration, a 460g hardcast at 1812fps works very well.

Thank you for posting, I like seeing your results...

Do you honestly think your observations have an read across to real life flesh and bone?
I expect a no less than 300 word reply..

You can do anything you choose in regard to your neighbors.

I own some properties with acreage where I can shoot but I don’t. I wouldn’t even do it if they were located in Iowa.

I use a small gun club range for my shooting. Shooting trash is not typically permitted but they would make an exception if they could do so without disrupting the members who were actually there for the established purpose – i.e., marksmanship. I believe that activity would raise a red flag in the mind of an adult. It is the kind of juvenile bullsh!t that goes along ‘experiments’, ‘tests’, treating a rifle as a toy, amature marksmanship and ballistics, and eventually tortured lost elk. There is a pretty good group of officers at my club. I suspect would recognize that sort of childish crap and try to steer the purveyor in the direction of making constructive use of the facility.

I shoot more than I actually need to but my actual hunting is based on using some level of ability to move within a range I consider to be reasonable and sporting. I had kills at 496, 650, 390, but that’s just not for me. It did not seem rewarding nor feel like fair chase. It took some amount of shooting practice for those hunts/shots but not by shooting trash.

I’m guessing most everyone here enjoyed shooting at all manner of debris at some time in their lives. I did. It went along with building forts, squashing ants, stealing hooch or hiding porn, and so on. Probably most of all us did stupid stuff up to a certain age and then most of us (not all) grew out of it.

Pshaw, I'm much better looking than Mule Deer.

But MIKEWEINER is right, I do work for him. Whenever he gets a particularly tough assignment, I ghost write it for him. I write all his best stuff in fact.

In Iraq we had a abandoned car to shoot main gun rounds that got stuck in the breech. Car doesn't last long with 120mm HEAT rounds.

Personally,I still like to shoot at reactive targets.Tennis balls up against the back berm with a handgun or lever 22. spinner plates,hanging steel.
Heck,the whole idea of Cowboy Action matches are mostly reactive targets. Three gun competition usually includes falling steel ,falling plates or such. These are strickly hit or miss

Not all shooting is done for the sake of improving accuracy or marksmanship to be put to use for hunting purposes. Most shooting of any type will yield some results of that, though unintended.

There is a whole world of recreational shooting where scores are not kept. Youngsters, wives and newbies would most likely not continue shooting if everything was based on it.

At the gun club I belong to ( Same as CH) there are several things that are prohibited from being used as targets, but watermelons, pumpkins are a lot of fun to explode and can be found often in the trash bins. Clay birds set against the back berm are very common.

Any targets, set on the range floor are forbidden unless they are right against the back stop.

The membership is right at 1500 at present with a waiting list most of the time.There doesn't seem to be a big concern of nontraditional paper targets being used as long as clean up is done at the end of the shooting session

In fact, the traditional target shooters shooting at paper, ,on wooden target stands, usually consume most of my clean up time at the range. Removing used targets,replacing card board backing ,rebuilding target stands,etc.

Your reading comprehension skills are as bad as Alamosa's. And how much have you had to drink? That first sentence is literary garbage but there are enough words in it in the right order that I think I get the gist of the question.

Show me anywhere I've stated that the water jug results will be identical to results in flesh and bone. That said, yes, there will be similarities - which is the most I've ever suggested. Bullets expand in both. Both cause the bullets to lose weight. Etc.

Unfortunately, elk are hard to come by as targets. And when they are available they are invariably at different ranges, different angles, have different sizes and are expensive. Water jugs, on the other hand, are uniform in size, density, they are easy to come by, the range and angle are easily made consistent and they are recycled waste, meaning cheap as in free. I've used them to test bullets from .22 to .50 caliber and velocities from under 1,000fps to over 4,000fps.

I choose the test medium and the bullets to test and occasionally post the results. I don't tell people what bullets to use or guarantee any performance level in the field as a result of said testing but people are free to view the test setup and results and draw their own conclusions. Or not, I really don't care.

If you don't like it why the hell do you bother reading my posts?

I'll let you count the words. I have better things to do.

ADFMDL

saddlesore, I always respect your writing and contributions. Though my opinion may be different I believe your experience and thought always makes for worthwhile reading.

Everyone likes a good train wreck.

GFY

You never have been able to defend your position with logic or reason or facts.

ADFMDL

You out by the Butte?

This is hilarious. Especially given it's coming from someone shooting water jugs.

The guy did a valid experiment, kind of interesting even though the results were predictable it's still good to compare the common C&C bullets. Some people would bitch if they struck gold while digging a hole for an outhouse. Lighten up.

MM

Location will no be disclosed 😁

Thanks so much for the excellent report and post.

Posts like this are why I don't read much paper writings now.

I was thinking of perhaps getting some magazine like "Rifle" again but that paper format can't compete with this net and forums.

Congratulations. Once again you prove my point.

ADFMDL

You really should apply for a position in the Clinton campaign. Your stand for strict and total control of any/all shooting activities likely mirrors Hillary's.

A bowling pin is trash when it has completed it's life as a target. A paper target is also trash when it's thrown-away/recycled.

Do you dream of becoming one of those 'officers' at your club, determining/dictating childish shooting behavior?

Good lord, this thread must have had a run on tampons.....

It's quickly ballooned into a milk-jugs-lives-matter movement......

Nice to see someone look at fragmentation, interesting.

Most of the peanut gallery, not so much.

Growing up in Iowa and calling it home until after I got out of the service, I can tell you a lot of folks there shoot ‘trash’. When I was 6 or 7 Granddad had my older brother and I shooting the aerosol cans he had saved specifically for that purpose. As I got older he had us shooting the buttons on the cans before he would let us hunt squirrels in his timber or the rabbits that were everywhere, as he insisted on head shots. Also when we were older he would toss the tin cans into the air where we learned to hit them with fair regularity. You probably wouldn’t approve of shooting corn cobs as they float downstream, either, but we did a lot of that, too.



The range I use has 11 berms dug into a hillside, a 600 yard range and multiple ‘special use’ berms. One of the berms is set up for cowboy shoots where steel targets are used and a ‘lead only’ rifle range where again steel targets are used, a rimfire range where steel targets are used and a shotgun range where shooting clay pigeons is the norm. ‘Reactive’ exploding targets are also permitted. The club also supports events like NRA and IPSC shoots, among others. In other words, the range accommodates a wide range of member preferences.

One of the range rules is that for high power rifles the steel targets must be a minimum distance downrange. Not sure if the minimum is 300 yards or 400 yards but it the rule exists for safety reasons. You talk about the insurance. Officially sanctioned club events like Cowboy Action and IPSC contests are intrinsically far more dangerous than a couple of guys shooting water jugs.

You also talk about the ‘disrupting the members who were actually there for the established purpose – i.e., marksmanship’. While there are a lot of people who use the range to improve their marksmanship, there are also many for whom the primary purpose is to enjoy a day out shooting and that enjoyment is enhanced with the use of reactive targets – clay pigeons, exploding targets, water jugs and so forth. Moreover, because of the many berms available, this can be (and usually is) done without ‘disrupting’ the activities of other members. As long as the shooting is done in a safe manner, no ‘red flags’ are raised.

Contrast that to ‘members who were actually there for the established purpose – i.e., marksmanship’ who are often inconsiderate of others in the extreme, either because of their activities or their lack of safety precautions. Exhibit 1: A member sets up a braked .50 Barrett in the middle of the shooting line on the 600 yard range. Each shot blows items of the neighboring benches. Exhibit 2: A member uses a Marlin Guide Gun with a brake in the middle of the shooting line. Hot particles ejected from the brake hit members using the benches on either side. Exhibit 3: Members intentionally shoot the steel target stand bases, destroying them. Exhibit 4: During a ceasefire, when touching firearms is prohibited, a member drops a live cartridge into the action of a bolt rifle and starts to close the bolt. Etc., etc., etc. I’d much rather deal with the ‘disruption’ of someone in a different berm shooting reactive targets because that doesn’t disrupt my shooting at all – even when I’m there for the ‘established purpose’.

By the way, news flash to you – the range has many ‘established purposes’. Marksmanship is just one of them. Group events can be and often are disruptive to other shooters. In any case, you are not the arbiter of what the range is or is not to be used for.

And a question for you: What on earth does shooting water jugs at 20 yards have to do with shooting elk?



Maybe you didn’t notice, but the water jug shooting in this thread was not at all about long range shooting or even about marksmanship.

That said, I have used water jugs in lieu of steel or paper at extended ranges. The advantage of water jugs compared to boring paper is that a) hits are not boring and b) you don’t have to wait for a ceasefire and/or go hundreds of yards downrange to see the results. Some of the steel targets at my range are so heavy that even if you hit them there is barely any visible reaction, particularly if using a small caliber rifle. Not a problem with water jugs.

Funny how no one I shoot with has ever noticed that water jugs of various sizes are inappropriate targets if one is attempting to improve their long range marksmanship.




Another news flash for you. Shooting other than paper or steel is not ‘stupid’. If you don’t care to do it, no problem. My favorite targets are clay pigeons on the 500 and 600 yard berm. A few months back a shooter set 12 pigeons up on the 600 yard berm. He was using a .308 with a Nightforce scope. I asked him if 12 wasn’t optimistic given the gusty crosswinds. Later I looked up and saw all 12 had been hit. I guess he didn’t know only paper and steel could help him improve his marksmanship or that he wasn’t making ‘constructive use’ out of the facilities.

CH, you need to let it go, man, morons like to think they are condescending when actually they are showing closed minds.

You have done well.

There are some real tools posting in this thread.

I enjoy and appreciate him posting this kind of stuff.

Same here.

You post your crap on a public forum inviting responses but then when you don’t like the responses you then tell them to ignore it?

These long rambling explanations are common to salesmen, con men, politicians, or anyone who cannot support their position. Same deal here. If you can’t defend your actions no volume of bull$hit will help you. I skimmed a couple of sentences of your response but I can’t find a point therein. The only connection this has to hunting for elk is to serve as a demonstration of juvenile behavior by hunters and to be as a bad example. There is no doubt that a shooting forum would not appreciate that kind of attention either.

You have made it clear that making yourself an embarrassment to hunters is not a problem for you. You’re posts shown an astonishing lack of respect and consideration for other hunters, landowners, elk or quarry of any kind, for yourself, and for your own hunting partners.

If I worked for the Clinton campaign then this is the stupid crap I would actually try to encourage from shooters.
There is nothing better than this type of juvenile foolishness to make elk hunters (and gun owners in general) all look like irresponsible idiots. Clearly you enjoy being regarded as such. You will have many other opportunities.

I actually have put in my time as range safety officer (at a different range). I tried to be vigilant and fulfill the duties. From that point of view the last thing I needed was extra worry about some a$$ clowns treating high powered rifles as toys and hauling junk from home downrange for their ‘tests’. Dictating behavior plays no part in it beyond trying to continue to provide a service to shooters.

All this gibberish......for shooting a milk-jug filled with water?

Extremely heavy with melodrama.

You're not the only one that has put time in as a range officer. I've BTDT as well. And much as you'd like to group me in with "some a$$ clowns treating high powered rifles as toys", my family and friends and I treat the guns with the respect they deserve. Of course you wouldn't know that because you have ZERO experience observing our behavior.

Moreover your claims about what is and is not appropriate at my range doesn't fly either. My long time hunting partner and I had about 45 water jugs out and were in the process of shooting them when one of the club officers stopped by. We chatted for a while and his only concern was that people clean up afterwards. In fact we had already been cleaning up after every few shots, for which he complemented us.

For a know-it-all you know next to nothing.

95 water jugs and the start of a fun day.

Too bad we were 'disrupting' shooters who were there for the 'intended purpose' of the range.

Oh, wait. We weren't because there weren't any. We had this trench and berm to ourselves. That morning there probably weren't 5 other people using the 13 different centerfire ranges.





I don't know, but this setup looks mighty dangerous to me. For the water jugs, that is.

Here's some of the results from the water jug tests performed that day.

Totally useless information to some, not so much to others.



Based on that and similar tests I have pretty much switched to the Barnes bullets for my carry guns.

I'd have preferred testing on actual flesh and blood but could not find any volunteers to be the target. LOL


Here's another:

Steel at the 500 yard berm, steel and clay pigeons (to the right of the steel) at the 600 yard berm.

I don't know how anyone could think the clays could help someone improve their marksmanship skills.
Hell, you can't even see them without the scope.

More bullets recovered from water jugs.

Speer 300g Uni-Cor .458", Speer 350g FP .458", North Fork 350g .458", Cast Performance 460g WFNGC .458", Hornady 220g FP .375", Barnes 180g MRX .308"



This photo explains -- in part -- why I don't use the Speer 300g bullets in my .45-70. The North Fork are my preferred hunting bullet, followed by the Speer 350g.

Ch. Thanks for the post. I guess I'm one of the uninformed members here that found the results interesting. BTY...I belong to two top quality Gun Clubs and both allow jug shooting as well.

Never had too much luck with 300 gr, but the 405 gr out of 45-70 sure enough punched a few elk down right now. Sadly ,I think they are no longer on the market.

Many years ago in my young and stupid days ( now I am just stupid), I loaded some 500 gr cast for a 45-70 1886. I found out right away,I wasn't enough man to torch many of them off.Especially with that curved brass butt plate

Had a bunch of 405's early on but found them a pain to load. Remington shortens the brass to use the crimp while I used a Lee crimp.

The 300g Speer would probably be fine if I hunted where long ranges were the exception. In that case I'd probably drop the velocity as well.

A few years back (10-12) five of us on a Marlin forum split a box of Speer 500g African Grand Slam Tungsten Solids. The box of 25 was something like $100 or a little under and each of us got 5 to play with. Randy Garrett was loading them commercially at the time and he was kind enough to provide me with safe load data. They clocked out of my 1895 at 1554FPS and were actually much milder to shoot than my 460g hardcast at 1812fps.

Never tried any 500g at full power and don't think I'd care to!

For what it is worth, a Speer 500g AGS bullets penetrated 9 jugs before exiting out the side of one and burying itself in the berm.



.

To me rifles not used for defense are toys. They are toys used for my sporting event: Hunting.

Coyote_Hunter,

John Lachuk, Son John, and I took 101 water jugs out one time. That's all the would fit in the back of the pickup. John photographed every shot. Son John recorded every shot the Oehler 33 displayed and I fired everything from .22-250 through a .375 wildcat firing Nosler 300 grainers at about 2,900 feet per second. We took lots of toys. Great day was had by everyone.

Almost forgot the .454. Never caught one. It flat out out penetrated the .375!

This photo shows the results for some rifle bullet testing done the day of the 95-water jug shoot mentioned above.

It shows pretty plainly why I use 225g Nosler AccuBond for hunting in my .338WM and 225g Hornady SST for practice loads.

Due to a cut-n-paste that didn't get fully corrected, the .30-06/165g Sierra says 'XTP' but should say 'Game King'. I refuse to use them for hunting as well, shoosing Nosler AccuBond, Barnes TTSX and North Fork SS instead.

For those who claim there is no such thing as hydraulic shock (why believe their lying eyes?):




Had to do a bit of repair to the leading sawhorse after this one. Fortunately there were come 2x2s from destroyed target frames available and I had some duct tape.

CH, nice work! Thanks for posting your results.

I shoot the factory 165 Federal, P308TT4 HE TBT out of my Ruger 22" .308. Chronos @ 2768 from my Ruger. I also use the 165 Accubond, but the factory Nosler 165 AB gets no where near the velosity the Federal load gets, only 2529fps for factory NAB. Also have chronoed the factory Hornady 165 308 SST @ 2787fps from my 308. The Noslers seem a bit anemic.

After seeing the results of the Hornady 225 SST @ 2707fps, I don't think I'll be using the 165 SST @ 2787fps for any high shoulder work.

Again, nice job, be safe, continue on.

Just so it's clear- "hydraulic shock" is not a wounding mechanism, and water jugs are not a replicant for tissue. It can be used for comparison between bullets, though you will see much more expansion from water than you will in tissue or ballistic gelatin. For instance the Hornady 115gr 9mm XTP consistently fails to upset (expand) in both tissue and ballistic gel, yet nearly turns itself inside out in water.

Those bullets that show "beautiful" expansion in water will not expand/upset nearly the same in tissue. Bullets that fragment in water will not necessarily fragment in tissue.

Interesting, thank you for your efforts CH.

"To me rifles not used for defense are toys. They are toys used for my sporting event: Hunting."

Ringman, I think I understand what you're trying to say but calling guns "toys" is an unfortunate choice of words.

Why? Many people call their airplanes, motorcycles, cars, tools, and other things 'toys' and these often cause much more injury and death than do firearms when all are used in the intended manner.

Its not politically correct to call firearms 'toys' but often that describes them very well and not everyone is politically correct.

Call it what you will but when flesh and bone are accelerated beyond the limits of their elasticity, permanent damage occurs - just as happened with the sawhorse and the plastic jugs.

Formidilosis is exactly right. This is test is useless.

That's what they are. Tools are used to make a living. JJ and Phil can legitimately call guns tools. For me a hoe is a toy I use in my garden. A farmer might call it a tool.

Is a man's entertainment useless? If that's the case hunting is useless.

Why??? I'm surprised anyone who purports to have been around guns for any length of time would ask that question. The answer is very simple, and very basic:

Guns are not toys.

I spend a few evenings each month explaining this to 8 and 10 year-olds. They all get it.

I prefer to end the statement "guns are not toys" with a period. Not a "comma, however."

It is when it's passed off as a test that validates something.
I could care less if CH shoots water jugs, but let's be honest what it is. Screwing around and nothing else.

So a hoe is the same as a gun? If you come to my garden and I point my hoe at you and you can't tell whether it's loaded or not, would that be OK with you?

Get over yourself.

I've often admitted that water jugs are not flesh and blood and that the results will vary depending on the target medium, and I've done so again in this thread. That fact, however, does not invalidate the results. How the resulting data is used may be appropriate or inappropriate, just as any person could choose a sledge hammer to roof a house or a strip dragster for daily commuting.

It is apparent you are neither an engineer or a scientist or you would know that the use of proxies for testing is valid and very common. The reasons for using proxies are many but usually include availability, practicality, repeatability and cost - the same reasons I choose water jugs and other materials for testing as opposed to flesh and blood. Proxies have been used since cave men first picked up a rock and determined by smashing something with it that the rock would make a good weapon. If scientists and engineers were unable to use proxies in their investigations we would live in a very different world - one where our knowledge of the world around us, be it in the realm of sub-nuclear, astrophysical, medical or whatever, would be greatly diminished. Mankind might, in fact, still be living in caves.

Ballistic gelatin might be a better medium for collecting information but it fails the availability, practicality and cost tests for my use. And, frankly, while the results (such as penetration) might be to a different scale, the relative results are not all that much different from those obtained using water. Bullets with high penetration or weight retention in one tend to have the same in the other, etc.

I don't begin to claim my tests are very scientific - they are more for fun than anything else and rarely produce unexpected results. Being an engineer though, I do apply to various degrees some of the same methods I apply in my work. This includes using the 'Scientific Method' whereby I formulate a question, come up with an educated guess (hypothesis), perform the test, collect and analyze the results and come up with a general conclusion. What I have found over and over is that while the results may not be identical to those obtained in flesh and blood testing, there is, as expected, a great deal of correlation.

For example, bullets which have great expansion but poor penetration in animals often perform the same in water jugs. Bullets which will travel end-to-end in mule deer tend to penetrate more water jugs than bullets that can't penetrate half that amount in flesh and blood. Non-expanding wide-meplat hardcast bullets are known for their penetration through flesh and blood at relatively low velocities and this behavior is replicated in water jugs. Increase the velocity and penetration decreases in both mediums. Bullets that display high weight retention when recovered from animals tend to have high weight retention when recovered from water jugs as well. The similarities between water jug and flesh and blood results go on and on and on...

Here are some of the results from my testing. Sorry if the formatting sux, this is a cut/paste from Excel. If anyone is really interested I can send them the spreadsheet.

[Edited to remove spreadsheet as it mage this page hard to read.]

Need a magnifying glass too read the second page.. might be a good thing this thread will now die and be 20 pages back by tomorrow afternoon

Would you point a gun at someone when you didn't intend to use it, loaded or not?

Merriam-Wesbster provides this as one definition of a 'toy'"



Your more restrictive definition is not the only one. Being a 'tool' and a 'toy' are not mutually exclusive and firearms can be both at the same time.

Tools and toys are often very dangerous when used improperly or without safety precautions, whether they are firearms or something else. The problem is not when people derive enjoyment and entertainment using a firearm but when safety precautions are ignored.

You have noticed, perhaps, that ignoring safety precautions is not restricted to one one class of firearms users and that a lot or law enforcement people have shot themselves with their tool?

You can mince words, or parse it any way you like. Hell, you and Ringman can even use your decoder rings to send each other secret messages.

A gun is still not a toy. Period. Anyone who tries to make the case that a gun is a toy is an idiot.




Of course I wouldn't, thanks for making my point. Pointing a toy or a hoe at someone has no consequences, hence, they are not the same as a gun.

I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

There is a reason I offered to send the spreadsheet to interested parties.

smokepole,



Then why are you?

To correct a couple of morons who want to call guns "toys."

Anyone who fails to recognize that a firearm can be a toy is an idiot. Most of mine serve little purpose but to provide enjoyment and entertainment, one of the primary definitions of being a toy. That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous if misused.






If I had to bet, I'd bet that people have been killed with hoes and toys of various types. Granted, using a firearm is easier. Is a baseball bat a toy or an instrument of murder? Been more than one person killed with them.

What something is depends on how and why it is being used.

Are paintball guns toys? I see them used for all kinds of games, yet serious injury or death can occur if misused.

Remember those famous toys.......Yard Jarts?

They were also toys that 'could-be' dangerous.



Perhaps smokepole was top-lopped by a Yard Jart and wants to dictate safety standards for all toys now.

Preserved for posterity.

You can't make this stuff up.

Or perhaps I just object to idiots like you calling guns toys and comparing them to yard darts. Or hoes, or baseball bats.

Keep digging, this is getting good now.

Great analogy, that one really nails it.

Paintball guns are used in games where each player intentionally shoots at other people. And if you get shot, you just sit out and wait for the next round.

Yeah, that works.

You didn't answer the question.

Let me help you. There are paintballs that are intended to be shot at people and there are paintballs that are intended for law enforcement.

So are paint guns toys or tools?

omigosh - a highly enjoyable GAME that involves using firearms?

How scandalous!

Yes, there are plenty of competitions that use guns, whether it be bowling pins at your local range or national championships at Camp Perry.

If you think that means guns are toys, you're a bigger moron than I thought.

Guns are often used as and considered to be toys, like it or not.

I have a safe full of such toys.

I also have a bow. With the exception of one unfortunate rabbit decades ago, it has never been used for anything but targets and competitive games. Basically another toy.

Anyone who considers guns to be toys or calls them toys is a moron, like it or not.

I can't help what people do, or how they think. All I can do is point out the foolishness of considering guns to be toys, or calling them toys.

Especially on a public forum where youngsters can visit.

What denseheads like you fail to recognize is the terms 'firearm' and 'toy' and their plurals are simply nouns used to describe objects that meet certain definitions. Those definitions are not mutually exclusive no matter your claims to the contrary.

A firearm is always a firearm. It can also be a toy.

It's because of that spreadsheet.. remove it and the 2nd page will be readable..

A firearm is a tool... not a toy.. I do not consider my rifles toys they are tools...

I'll remember that next time I'm teaching a room full of 10 year-old's about firearm safety.

I'll grab a rifle, stand up in front, and ask "can anyone tell me what this is?" A few hands will shoot up: "a rifle?" Nope. "A bolt action??" Nope. "A Winchester?" Nope.

Boys and girls, it's a toy.

I hate the direction this thread has taken. What bothered me about this topic from the start has only gotten worse.

I’ll concede that Coyote Hunter’s range is a great layout for that type of activity. It actually looks to be the ideal place.
What has bothered me from the beginning of the post is that it’s not connected to elk hunting (it shouldn’t be), and doesn’t really represent shooting sports very well, et al.

IMO there are probably a tiny fraction of the worlds population entrusted with a high powered rifle and guessing <1% that are so lucky as to also hunt something as magnificent as an elk.
cui multa dantur, ab eo multa expectantur

Right or wrong I personally make a big distinction between elk hunting and shooting and even between elk hunting and other types of hunting. I hold this animal in high regard and try to set the bar a little higher when it comes to elk hunters conduct. Even hunters experienced in other forms of hunting should know that the conduct, responsibility, effort - it’s not really the same.

Even more than that … I think that for those of us for whom elk hunting is deep in our DNA have a particular obligation and responsibility to set a good example. That is particularly true on a public forum.

When I am faced with talking about elk hunting to someone who doesn’t get it I want them to know this activity is regarded as a privilege, a quest for one’s self as much as the animal, passed down from generations since pre-history, something few men can do well, … really fitting words are hard to come by.

Remember that a huge segment of the population isn’t really either for or against hunting – they just haven’t been exposed to it. – many are just somewhere in the middle and very impressionable. I would not want for someone curious about elk hunting to have this post be one of the first reads that they come across. Practicing marksmanship extensively can look like an obsession with killing to the outsider, but that excessive practice should be an effort toward giving that animal a humane death. In fact it is (hopefully) a kinder death than any natural one. When someone asks ‘Why do you hunt?’ there is often this natural reaction to react in an adversarial way, but many times it is simply an honest question and that person is an open book at that point. I cringe at the thought that this type post might be the first impression someone might get of elk hunters. Even someone who might hunt a pheasant or squirrel might give pause at the prospect of taking down something that is clearly a higher life form. Lot of responsibility there.

This kind of post is just a whole lot more appropriate on a shooters forum. At least there the spectrum of topics is a little more wide open.

I really don’t believe that terms like ‘fun’, ‘toys’, ‘targets’, or even ‘sport’ are doing us any favors. A lot of the common English lexicon doesn’t apply and careless words can really leave the wrong impression. Adding photos to those words goes even further the wrong way.

I shot some water jugs with my bow the other day.

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Alamosa,

Earlier in this thread if you and another poster didn't respond like you guys did it would have died already.

I hunt elk because they have more meat on them than deer. They are no more special than a squirrel. You sound like you are almost religious about them.

The spreadsheet is now removed. As I said before, it is available to interested parties. PM to let me know.

Not so far off the mark.
I hike into remote areas and watch elk year round.
I keep cameras set to record them year round.
Collect and file way too many photographs of them each year.
My wife is a saint to tolerate the piles on antlers I have.

The more you learn about them the more special they are. I don't just feel that way about elk though. I think every bird is a miracle of nature (but I hunt them relentlessly when I get the chance.)

That is where I feel the anti's and tree huggers have little argument with me. I'll compare conservation efforts with them anytime.

I wouldn't do that either.

That doesn't mean when I have a firearm in my hands it doesn't meet the definition of 'toy'. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Regardless, they always meet the definition of a 'firearm' and are always treated accordingly, whether I am also using them for entertainment and enjoyment (i.e. a toy) or as a tool.

'Firearm' and 'toy' are not mutually exclusive terms.

I'd give a toy to a five year-old and tell him to go outside and play. I wouldn't do that with a gun.

A gun is not a toy. No matter how many times you say it is.

Thank you for the concession about the range. It is pretty ideal for shooting water jugs when you get a private berm.

What brought this up on this forum was a question about the suitability of 165g SSTs for elk. I can't answer that based on person experience but I can say definitively that I won't use them based on various reports on that use, my results my hunting partners have had using thin-skinned bullets like the AMAX on game ... and my results with water jug testing. For the benefit of those wondering about SSTs, I offered visual evidence of 95g and 165g SST going to pieces compared to other cup-and-core bullets, using both handloads and factory fodder. While I did not draw any conclusions as to their appropriate use by others, they are welcome to view the method and results and decide if they have any relevance for their purpose.

Based on your last statement I guess you think we should ban all dead animal photos for hunting forums and elsewhere?

Yesterday Daughter #1 and I were back at the range with the rifles my family will be taking antelope hunting and elk hunting this year. We didn't shoot water jugs this time. Instead we checked the zero on the rifles at 100 yards, then moved to the long range where we checked them at 300 yards. After splatting clay pigeons at 300 yards we moved on to 10" and 4" steel at 500 yards and 12" steel at 600 yards. I don't know what you would call the paper, clay and steel thingies we were shooting but I would call them 'targets'. It was a lot of 'fun', too. Daughter #1 even got to shoot a Barrett .50 BMG, as did a dozen or more Boy Scouts. She thought that was 'fun', too.


[Edited to add] The Boy Scouts thought shooting the .50 BMG was 'fun', too. Should have seen their smiles afterwards.

What kind of rifles/bullets have you used on coyotes?

Interesting. I carry a machete in the back pack because one time a buck fell off a little ledge into some blackberries. It took me fifteen minutes with a club just to get to the deer and another ten minutes to get it out. The machete is a tool. I needed it after I played with my toy and killed the best buck of my life. You can't see the spectacular four point antlers because they are all caught up in the blackberries. The rump of the deer is still against the vertical rock face.

Happy BD.

Interesting. I once ate a bean burrito from a Shell station and farted for two days straight.

A gun, by definition, is always a gun. Sometimes, by definition, it is also a toy - no matter how many times you say otherwise.

A toy, by definition, is always a toy. Sometimes, by definition, it is also a gun.

You're as FOS as a Christmas Turkey.

Find me any definition of a gun that includes "toy" in it.

.22LR handgun and rifle, both semi-auto
.22-250 bolt, 40g BT and V-MAX, 52g BTHP, 55g FMJ
.257 Roberts bolt, 75g V-MAX
7mm Rem Mag bolt, 160g XLC
.375 Win lever, 220g FP
.44 Mag revolver, 240g FP

Probably others as well.

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said there was a definition of 'gun' that includes 'toy' in it.

What I have said is that sometimes a 'gun' also meets the definition of a 'toy'.

It is kind of like the terms 'wife' and 'whore'. Sometimes they both describe the same woman. Other times only one term is accurate. In any case, like the terms 'gun' and 'toy', they are not mutually exclusive.

I would not, but that exact topic is on the cover of Peterson's Hunting this month. I've shared some ghastly ones. I'd certainly try to be conscious of the audience. I'll admit that I have personally offended people with photos even when I thought I was trying to be pretty careful.

In the context where I used 'targets' I'm talking about referencing an elk as a target. Seems to diminish them to inanimate status. If that is all that an elk has become then why go to the trouble of the hunt?
You have referred to actual elk as 'targets'.

Everyone should argue about bullets until the cows come home. For most it is one of the best variables available to them to improve their time afield. I suspect, however, that there are better bullet comparisons available than your 'tests' that only require a few keystrokes to find.

Ah, the old "reading comprehension gambit." You use that one a lot, don't you?

Nice try but it won't work this time. Here's what you said:




The way you wrote that, "it" is a pronoun referring back to "gun." So what you said was, "Sometimes, by definition, (a gun) is also a toy."

I challenged you to provide a definition of "gun" that indicates a gun is a toy. Even some of the time. You couldn't.

So you see, it's not that I have a reading comprehension problem. The problem is, you don't understand what it was that you wrote. And that's hilarious.

While I'm not sure I've ever referred to elk as 'targets', if I did so it was not to " diminish them to inanimate status".

By contrast, I have often referred to deer as 'targets of opportunity', meaning they were not the primary objective of the hunt and that I would take one if doing so didn't interfere with my chances of getting an elk.



There are many bullets tests available but I've never seen one like the one I performed, shooting through one water jug and capturing the spray of lead and jacket particles in a planar witness target. Whether the others are 'better' or not depends on what you are looking for.

If people don't find the results interesting or informative they are welcome to ignore them. Some people just can't seem to do that.

Remember the voice in the back of your head saying over and over "YOU MUST READ COYOTE HUNTER's POSTS..."

Sweet dreams...

You and Alamosa both have reading comprehension problems. I understand full well what I wrote - you, on the other hand, do not.

Alamosa conflates events that occurred in different years and places to try to prove something occurred that didn't.

You fail to understand plain English. I never said there was a definition of 'gun' that includes 'toy' in it. What I said was this:
" A gun, by definition, is always a gun. Sometimes, by definition, it is also a toy..."


In an earlier post I provided a Merriam-Webster definition of a 'toy'. Let me help you with your comprehension problem by being a bit wordier:
A gun, by definition of a gun, is always a gun. Sometimes, by definition of a toy, it is also a toy - no matter how many times you say otherwise.
A toy, by definition of a toy, is always a toy. Sometimes, by definition of a gun, it is also a gun.


If you still fail to comprehend, I can't help you.

You're right about one thing--you can't help me.

Hell, you can't even help yourself.

CH, I understand that earlier you posted a partial definition of "toy" that you believe sometimes defines "gun."

But even if you were right about that (which I do not concede), it doesn't necessarily follow that a gun is a toy. Can you understand that concept?

The definition you posted fits all manner of things that are not toys. Can you understand that concept? Allow me to illustrate the fallacy of your logic, once and for all.

Here is what you posted:



Condoms fit your definition. Do you believe that condoms are toys? 150-proof rum meets your definition. Does that make rum a toy? War and Peace fits your definition. Does that make it a toy? I could go on and on.

Or, failing that, just answer this simple question, yes or no:

Is a gun a toy? Yes or no. I'm willing to bet you can't answer that question, yes or no.

If you understood what I've written you would understand I've never claimed a gun is ***always*** a toy. Instead I carefully used the qualifier 'sometimes', whose meaning you ignore.

Here is another definition of 'toy'
"something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious practical use." I have a lot of guns and mostly they are used for a less than "serious practical use".

Nowhere have I claimed that everything that is bought for enjoyment or entertainment is always a toy. If the definition doesn't fit the circumstances, don't use it. It often does, however, fit the circumstance where a person purchases or uses a gun. At the moment I don't have, and hopefully never will have, a "serious practical use" for my AR rifles, yet I have two and one in the build process. When I take the two to the range they are simultaneously guns and toys.

Of course I can answer that question but the answer isn't always black or white. Is a gun a toy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is a gun always a gun? Yes.

reads like "grumpy old farts"....

Holy [bleep]... I take it you guys won't be elk hunting together anytime soon

Not likely...

That's right. I prefer to recover my elk, and mine's already in the freezer this year. Plus, I like to get at least out of sight of the pickup. Makes me feel like I'm "getting out there."

Glad you liked it. I haven't read that one, is it good?

That's hilarious coming from a guy who can't answer a simple yes or no question:

"Is a gun a toy?"



Make no mistake CH, I understand your feeble argument better than you do. You found a definition of "toy" in Merriam-Webster that you think defines gun, at least some of the time. Therefore, a gun is a toy. Or can be, some of the time.

Well, I found a definition of "cat" in Merriam Webster:

Simple Definition of cat

: a small animal that is related to lions and tigers and that is often kept by people as a pet

: a lion, tiger, leopard, or similar wild animal

: a man

So, I conclude that a man is a cat, at least some of the time.

Make sense?

I've been hunting Colorado elk, deer and antelope since 1982 and Wyoming antelope since around 2004. During that time I have lost only one animal, a cow elk I shot in 2014. In spite of losing that one, I've managed to put 14 elk in the freezer since year 2000 and I don't know how many deer and antelope.

Rag on me all you want, but I don't think that's a bad record. If you hunt long enough the chances are you, too, will eventually lose an animal - assuming you haven't already but don't have the balls to admit it on a public forum.

Struck a nerve, eh? As far as having the balls to post about losing one "on a public forum," the last time I lost one was about 10 years ago. I wrote a story about that one, it was published in Bugle. Of course, that story had a happy ending. I wasn't hunting next to private property, so I could follow the elk. After looking for the elk until well after midnight the evening I shot it (got dark at 7) I came back the next morning and found it. The meat was still good.

No, what I found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary was a definition of 'toy' that defines 'toy', not 'gun'.
And yes, sometimes a gun fits that description. Many people often describe their guns, cars, planes, tools and other items as 'toys'. They are not wrong.



Of course it makes sense. What you fail to realize (due to your reading comprehension problem again) is that the first two definitions you provide refer to a feline mammal while the third refers to slang usage that does not refer to a feline at all but rather to a humanoid with certain characteristics.

Must be a very tiny world you live in.

Thanks for proving my point.

People call men "cat" sometimes but that doesn't mean that a man is a cat. It's just slang usage.

People call guns "toys" sometimes (personally, I hate that) but that doesn't mean guns are toys. Slang usage.

And you're still as FOS as a Christmas turkey.

This thread is Epic, on its way to Uber.

You are so dense. The word 'toy' has multiple meanings/definitions. You are stuck in the mud on one particular meaning and refuse to acknowledge the one that applies.

How did you ever get out of grade school?

We're 'special' that way.

Congratulations on the recovery. How many other game animals have you lost?

philosophical question, If someone points what appears to be a gun at me they will probably be shot. If it turns out to be a toy gun are they less dead?

Guns may be fun but to consider them toys is fatuous.

To defend that concept is moronic.


mike r

No, to consider them toys, when the definition applies, is to acknowledge reality. Guns are guns, regardless. Sometimes they are toys as well.

CH, I'm about done with this. I'm going fishing with my son and his girlfriend, into a little box canyon that's walk-in only, with browns that will jump all over a dry caddis.

Let me leave you with one final thought/question:

Imagine yourself at your rifle range with your daughter and young grandson. You go to get your rifle out of the truck and absebtmindedly say “let me get my toy.”

Your young grandson gives you a look, and says “grandpa, is that really a toy?”

How would you answer him? Would you say “why, yes it is a toy because one definition of “toy” (out of 8) in the Merriam Webster online dictionary seems to fit.”

Or would you pull your head out long enough to say, “no son, this is most definitely not a toy.”

At that time the firearm would definitely not be considered a toy and I would answer accordingly.

When my hunting buddy comes over there have been multiple occasions when I've offered to show him a new toy that was also a firearm.

Don't understand what is so hard to understand about that but apparently it is quite beyond your mental capabilities.

Have fun fishing. Are you using old equipment or do you have new 'toys'?

new toy blr 81

I already told you, a toy is something I'd give to a five year-old and tell him to go out and play in the yard with. If he breaks it, no sweat.

My fly rods don't fit that definition.

And I will never refer to a gun as a "toy." Lots of others won't either, for (what should be) obvious reasons.

"Don't understand what is so hard to understand about that but apparently it is quite beyond your mental capabilities."

My Sort of New Toy

New toy

Hey Mike, nice avatar, is that you in the photo?

It could be. Merriam-Webster defines "ape" as:

"a large and stupid or rude person."

New toy

So got a chance to play with the new toy today

Wife needs new CC toy

Next season's rifles - Old standbys or new toys?

Popbear's New Toy A .220 Swift

Mike, is your point that some people call guns "toys?"

Some people call guitars "axes." I wouldn't try to split wood with one though.

Some guys call their wives "battle axes." Those would probably work better.

OK, you would never refer to a gun as a 'toy'. Many people do under certain circumstances. You bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge there is more than one valid definition of 'toy' - your definition.

Personally, I have lots of 'toys' I would never let a 5-year old near. And wouldn't let a lot of adults near, either. That list includes firearms.

Those are some pretty nice toys...

My most recent 'toy'. $295 at a gun show in Colorado Springs earlier this year. Savage FXP3. Had it at the range last Sunday. After checking out the zero at 100 yards we headed to the long range.

Busted a clay at 300 yards with the first shot. Second shot, BOOM, clang, 500 yard steel. Third shot, BOOM, clang, 600 yard steel.

Fun toy!

Did you have milk and cookies and take a nap afterward?

More toys.

Ithaca Model 49, .22LR
Browning B92, .44 Mag.
Ruger SP101, .327 Fed.
Ruger Single Six Convertible, .22LR/.22WM
Browning Buckmark, .22LR
Kimber Compact, .45ACP
Walther PPK/s, .380ACP
Ruger Blackhawk, .357 Mag
Ruger Super Redhawk, .44 Mag

Beretta 950, .25ACP

And more toys.

MArlin 1895, .45-70
Marlin 375, .375 win
Marlin 336CS, .30-30
Browning B92, .44 Mag

Hunting toys...

The left two of these are going elk hunting this year.

Ruger MKII, .338WM
Ruger MKII, .300WM
Ruger MKII, .30-06

Fun time toys...

Granddad's High Standard Model C, .22 Short
Browning Buckmark, .22LR
Browning BDM, 9MM Luger
Beretta 950, .25ACP
Kimber Compact, .45 ACP

More long toys...

Granddad's old Remington Model 24, .22 Short


Ruger All Weather Hawkeye, .280 Remington


Ruger MKII, .223 Rem


Ruger Hawkeye Gunsite Scout, .308 Win.

CH you win, volume of dissonance yet again conquers intellectual rigor

mike r

Lol I was waiting for him to go into his muledeer is a liar routine when he runs out stuff to say.. Its his fall back line...

Numerous people here have thanked my for putting up the water jug info, regardless of those who voiced different opinions.

Ditto to calling guns 'toys' when the situation warrants. Some support it, others don't. Those that don't prefer to rely on personal attack rather than rational discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, calling guns 'toys' when the situation warrants is 'intellectual honesty' as opposed to 'political correctness'.

Mule Deer did lie. He has never bothered to deny it because to do so would be just another easily provable lie.

But I'm not the one that brought it up.

No you are the only one that thought that... hey try not shoot a 280 round in your 338 this yr...

No, not the only one and the proof was plain to anyone with open eyes and mind.

I do intend to check my ammo a little more closely this year. In spite of the mistake I did get the bull a few moments later, but at 411 yards rather than 100-ish. Which has nothing to do with the fact that Mule Deer lied.

Epic.

I looked up "lie" on Merriam Webster. One definition is "to recline in a supine position."

So he was probably just taking a nap. May have even had milk and cookies beforehand.

What was this thread about again??

Merriam Webster.

Perhaps he was doing that also, but this definition is pretty much matches the one that I was using to describe Mule Deer's lying behavior:

"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive"

Do you really want to go there again?

It was a response to another forum member's specific question in another thread about 165g SST's performance in water jugs.

Some immature people just couldn't resist taking shots at me for posting the pictures of the results. No pun intended.

Guess that makes them feel like big boys in their minds.

I never "went there" the first time, and if you say I did, you lied.

Old West toy...

Kirkpatrick 'Santa Fe' holster and Ruger Blackhawk .357 Magnum.

Dad had the holster made before he passed away unexpectedly a couple of years ago. He had a Ruger Vaquero which is now with my older brother. The Blackhawk fits perfectly.

So, you admit you lied.

And nice guns, by the way.

You're a fugging goon......

I want to hear about all those coyotes you've killed

You're just jealous.

You apparently don't believe Mule Deer lied, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

At last count, 77 on the two ranches just north of my house. Pretty much quit hunting them in 2007 when one of the ranches was sold and turned into a development, also because my wife needed a lot of care at that time as she recovered from leukemia and multiple joint replacements (hip, knee, both shoulders) necessitated by the drugs that saved her life.

Not that you're really interested.

79S brought it up this time. I responded to him, you responded to my response. So in our responses to each other, you brought it up first.

There have been two long thread about this some time ago (one of them years ago) in which the proof of Mule Deer's lie was presented. A lot of people didn't want to hear it and attacked me instead of honestly reviewing the evidence. In both cases they were started when Mule Deer jumped on my case about something. If someone wants to take me to task for something, fine, let's have a civil and honest discussion. Lie about me and if possible I'll expose the lies and the liar for what they are. In the case of Mule Deer, the timestamps on the posts were the proof he lied.

When I ask if you 'really want to go there again' I was asking if you really wanted to open up that whole discussion again, not suggesting you started those threads. Frankly, I don't remember or care if you participated in them or not.

Personally, I'd just as soon not have that whole discussion again. People know how I feel and they believe the proof or not. Another discussion on it isn't going to change any minds.

Hard to believe we got here when my original post was in direct response to another member's questions about the 165g SST and my water jug tests.

Like it or not, I'm not the one that lied.

Then what'd he say? Then what'd you say?

LOL, you can't make this stuff up!

You can read it for yourself.

This last weekend I was up in Wyoming and shot a doe antelope with my .243 and a 95g SST, something I will not be doing again. The SST made a small hole going in with no exit. When the hide was removed the far side of the rib cage was a mass of blood-shot meat on the outside, about 7 inches wide. The inside of the rib cage showed dozens of tiny wounds where it had been sprayed by lead and/or jacket material.

In short, except for the overall size of the spray, which was smaller due to my test setup where the paper witness target was further away, the results were indistinguishable from the test results.

Actual results for the .308W/130g TTSX combo Daughter #1 used were also indistinguishable from the water jug results obtained with my .257 Roberts/100g TTSX, except there was no evidence of a petal breaking off. No surprise there as her doe was over 360 lasered yards away.

The wound from the .30-06/150g BT a future son-in-law used exhibited the same spray as the water jug test as well, with an exit wound.

The only bullet recovered during the hunt was a 110g AB from my .257 Roberts, from a doe I think I lasered at 179 yards. (Over 175 and under 190, in any case.) The AB was protruding from the flesh on the far side after breaking both front legs. Still had a substantial shank and decent mushroom (i.e. good weight retention). There were no water jug tests for the .257R/110gAB combo but I suspect it would have fared pretty well.

My son-in-law used a .30-06 with a Winchester 'Deer Season XP' 150g bullet. The exit wound on the far side rib cage was larger than a softball. Also lots of evidence of massive lead and jacket spray. Since this is a thin-skinned bullet like the SST, I am not at all surprised by the results.

In short, for those that declared the water jug tests invalid because they were not flesh and blood, there was a tremendous amount of similarity in the results. No big surprise there, as I've seen the similarities many times before.

If you have so much confidence that your tests are accurate, and your tests showed that the 95 grain SST would blow up, why on earth would you use one on an animal?

Verification. Could have been wrong, in which case I could use cheaper bullets.

In any case, the amount of meat lost was restricted to rib cage meat due to intentional placement behind the front leg. In other words, negligible loss.

So, no problem, but you'll never use the bullet again.

Makes sense to me.

I'll use them by the box full for varmints and targets. For game I have better options.

It's been a known fact for a long while that sst bullets don't hold together very well. I got some .338 225gr sst man they shot good out of my 338wsm I talked to my buddy who used them before confirmed what people said they blow up use a different bullet so I use 200gr accubonds in it.

You can't know that unless you've shot 'em through water jugs.

Or read about someone doing it.

One of the human traits most of us share is the ability to learn indirectly through the shared experiences of others. Some folks found the water jug test results useful and it was for them that it was published - including the poster that specifically asked for the results with the 165g SST.

Yet, you, the guy who actually ran the test, ignored your results and used a bullet known to blow up on a game animal. So yes, some humans learn indirectly and some can't even learn by direct observation.

You must be one old sourpuss of a man - and a poor excuse for one at that it you have nothing better to do than act like a grade school bully.

Your behavior says much about you and I'm just laughing at your childishness. If you have nothing better to do, as seems to be the case, I pity you.

I should have clicked on this thread earlier.

Uber.

Not at all. I'm just trying to get you to admit that the only way to judge how a bullet will perform on flesh and bone is to shoot flesh and bone.

But I see you're incapable of that. You ran your test, got your results, then ignored those results. Telling.

And if you want to meet and discuss your definition of "poor excuse for a man" just say the word.

You make my point. Again. Men worthy of respect don't behave as you do.

But to your claim I "ignored" the water jug test results, no, I did not. I merely confirmed their similarity to flesh and blood results. Based on the water jug tests I intentionally waited a full broadside opportunity and was careful to place the bullet behind the front leg where minimal meat damage would occur. The results were as expected.

Whatever you say, CH.

And if you think you can judge a person by what goes on here on this internet forum, more power to you. I don't want your respect, just so we're clear on that. And looking at the people who you have a beef with on here like JB and Pat, I think I'm in good company.

If one wants to run hornady bullets use the good ol interlocks... If one wants high bc run the hornady gmx.. but no way I use a sst and I don't need to do a water jug test to tell me that. You can search the Internet all day long and see similar experiences you had with that bullet.. why hornady still sells it is beyond me or why they haven't tried to improve it is beyond me as well..

So if you expected the bullet to act like that, then you were unethical when you used it on an animal.

The critters deserve our best, not to be science experiments.

What do you think would have happened if the bullet would have landed on a shoulder?

I don't know who Pat is and JB aka Mule Deer lied.

Whatever you say CH.

Not unethical, just cautious. I think the doe would have died even if the SST hit a shoulder, I just would have lost more meat. If I seriously thought the doe would run off or suffer needlessly I wouldn't have used the bullet at all. Some would suggest using the SST was MORE ethical because of the quickness of the death, something that is hard to prove either way.

Ok, so help me out with the CH logic:

1) Test bullets on water jugs.

2) Determine SST's are not tough enough

3) Shoot animal to confirm results


What was the point of your experiment?

Haven't really followed all this, but I do know I put a 140 SST from my .270 through both lungs of a big cow elk.. She was about 300 yards, ran about 200, but dead as a doornail..

The original poster is the resident village moron, a slob hunter and a bull chitter. In addition this "test" reminds me of something an 8 year old might come up with.

This this short post contains more elk hunting related information than the first 10+ pages of this thread.

It now appears that that OP does not even utilize the results produced by this spectacle. TFF

smokepole,



This is truly school boyish. There is more to being a man than trying to show one's prowess in athletics.

Tell us on an adult level how this adds to the conversation .

YEAH?????? My dad can beat up your dad.......

Show off

Well said Ringman. I don't really want to prove my prowess, I just want to see CH piss his pants.

And this reminds me of Buddy Hacketts story of - the duck hunter, the farmer and the duck, Anyone else know this un?

Does the farmer kick the duck hunter in the ass?

In the nuts... I enjoyed Buddy, watched every chance I could.

And just why would I do that?

An oldie, but a goodie.

Depends.

I'm not sure how an old bull chitter like yourself sees this as a big deal. I've heard that similar personalities attract each other, I guess that would make you the other resident village moron. How about coming up with your own test and sharing it with us, if you have so much to say.

That's just it,it's fun to do.I enjoy digging bullets out of the hillside or rock bank just out of curiosity alone.The last time I did it it was with .375 Nosler and Core-lokt bullets..What did it tell me..The Core-lokt is pretty tough in .375 H&H and the Nosler looked exactly like they do out of game.

Shooting done and break out the shovel and the beer cooler in the mountains for the rest of the day.What's better than that.

LC, what in the world is wrong with you? You prefer to have fun while gathering some opinions in the field? Why bother, when you can just listen to gun writers tied to the manufacturers? Why not just crap on threads where others actually enjoy getting out and shooting?

Actually doing it is a bit old fashioned these days.

Also, an antelope doe is no bull elk.

I asked Bill Steigers of Bitterroot bullets what he used to test his bullets. Since he developed the first commercially viable bonded core bullets he did a LOT of testing to tweak jackets and cores for expansion and penetration,and to compare different materials for his bullets.

They enjoyed an excellent reputation for performance on BG animals from Cape Buffalo on down.

He said he used many mediums but likely the most reliable was 55 gallon drums filled with water. These were especially good at long range,say 500-600 yards.

He said regardless of distance,the results with his bullets corresponded pretty closely to what he and his clients experienced on BG animals.

We dug three .308" bullets out of the dirt last Saturday, ranges 500 and 600 yards.

Two were Barnes 'X' bullets of one type or another. If indeed ours (not guaranteed) they were 130g or 180g TTSX or 175g LRX. Both of the recovered 'X' bullets were well expanded with substantial shanks and high weight retention. One had the classic 'X' expansion, the other lost a petal. Exactly the same results I've had with MRX and TTSX using water jugs at 10 yards.

The other was a fragment of bullet jacket bullet unknown origin but obviously a cup-and-core design. The fragment was thin, over an inch long, about a quarter inch wide and essentially flat. It appeared to come from a thin-skinned bullet like an A-MAX, SST or similar.

Neither dirt nor water jugs are exactly the same as flesh and blood, but one must concede that that flesh and blood targets vary very significantly as well depending on the placement, angle, distance that must be penetrated to have an exit or reach the vitals, the amount of muscle and bone encountered, hide thickness, the animal's level of awareness and adrenaline levels and so on. Essentially every animal is a different target, unlike water jugs which are very consistent.

North Fork SS have also performed pretty much the same regardless of whether they were fired into water jugs at 10 yards, dirt at 500 yards, or deer or elk at various ranges. All have resulted in reliable but limited mushrooms with high weight retention.

Here is an example, showing the following:
A .30-06/165g North Fork SS, M.V. 2800FPS, 133.2g retained, fired broadside into a cow elk at 25 yards, breaking a front leg and ribs
A 7mm/140g North Fork SS (experimental hollow point design), M.V. 3200fps, 131.2g retained, fired ham to sternum through a buck mule deer at about 150 yards
A .30-06/165g North Fork SS, M.V. 2800fps, 145.0g retained, fired into dirt at 500 yards



I have other photos of identical North Fork SS bullets fired into water at 10 yards and into a 6x6 bull elk at a lasered 213 yards. Once again the results are very similar - so much so that people often guess incorrectly as to which is which.


[Edited to add: The water jug bullet was captured in the 6th milk jug, the one from the bull obliterated sections of the near leg and rib and shattered a far rib.]

I only have one bullet to compare, but bullets recovered from a target consisting of two layers of particle board and then wet magazines are indistinguishable from the one recovered from a Waterbuck.

Really though, I just find it fun to do things like that.