[chopinbloc]

Video link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbByTqjdGnI)

Video shows a gelatin test of a 12ga bird shot "wax slug" fired into gelatin. The gelatin is not correctly calibrated but it is close. Correctly calibrated gelatin would show slightly less penetration. Details are in the video description.

[Centurian22]

Not going to get many hits on just a 'video link' with no info. What was the process for making the birdshot wax slug? Just opening the shell and dripping melted wax in? Or is there more to it?

[481]

That's surprisingly effective. I'd have thought that the slug would've melted during its travel down the barrel.

[chopinbloc]

A friend made them but I think what he does is open the crimp, dump out the shot, pour a little bit of melted wax into the wad to make the projectile front heavy, then mix melted wax in with the shot and pour it back into the shell.

481, that's only 6" in gelatin that's out of spec and actually showing slightly more penetration than it would if properly calibrated.

[epijunkie67]

I'm pretty surprise at how poorly that penetrated. I was really expecting about twice that. Might make an interesting fragable (sp?) round for home defense for people worried about over penetration or missed shots as long as you're willing to trade off the decreased effectiveness for increased bystander safety.

[chopinbloc]

It doesn't seem to penetrate any better than just bird shot. Way less than recommended for defense.

[Hapworth]

Really appreciate the time you're taking testing and posting...thank you. :)

[CoRoMo]

I have a leather coat that, when the lapel is buttoned up I have four layers of cow hide outside my shirt and sweater.

If he tries it again, have him put a couple layers of clothing next to the gel and then four layers of leather. I'd like to see if it even makes it through to the gel at all.

[chopinbloc]

Maybe, but I think this test pretty conclusively shows that bird shot is useless for defense, even in a wax slug.

Next one will be a buck shot wax slug.

[Fryerpower]

You are throwing more mass with the same amount of powder. It is going to travel slower and penetrate less, but it is going to hit with the same amount of energy.

It will stay relatively together until it hits, at that point it is going to dump all of that energy into the target. Just like every other frangible round out there.

Jim

[Dirtpile]

Actually the overall mass is slightly less. You lose about about 1/8 oz. of shot from a 1-1/8 load. The wax itself replaces only a portion of that mass.
I'm not surprised by the lack of penetration. They are basically somewhere between a breaching round and a frangible round. They may not penetrate very deep but the are dumping 1500+ ft/lbs. of energy all at once. That's gonna hurt. Even if you are wearing a thick leather coat over a sweater.

[Al Thompson]

I think this test pretty conclusively shows that bird shot is useless for defense

I dunno, anything that pokes a hole 6 inches deep is gonna leave a mark. Most of us who recommend something lighter that #4 buckshot (over penetration concerns) usually recommend something like #2 birdshot, not #8s. That detail usually gets over looked. :rolleyes:

[chopinbloc]

I'll see if I can get around to testing #2 bird shot too.

Even #4 buck doesn't put a significant percentage of pellets past the 12" mark. #1 buck is the smallest shot size suitable for defense.

[Qwikls1]

Chopinbloc I have BB's (.17"), #4, #1, #0, #00 and #000 buck. Biggest birdshot I have I think is #7 1/2.

Let me know what you want to test and I'll make it. :D

[chopinbloc]

Yeah, we'll probably do the BBs and maybe #1. Whatever you think is interesting.

[suemarkp]

I would also be interesting to use the same load and compare wax to no wax. That way you can see how much it helps, both in pattern size and penetration.

[PabloJ]

Please do not blow yourselves up with basement or garage modified loads.
Winchester Super X 12ga #1 buck @1250fps is excellent defensive load and available at your friendly neighborhood Walmart.

[mgkdrgn]

If you had a hole in you the size of the cavity in that gel, I don't think "decreased effectiveness" would be the first thought that would come to mind ...

[chopinbloc]

suemarkp, bird shot in gelatin is well documented already and a terrible performer. The only benefit of the wax is in keeping the shot together until impact so that all of the shot can hit at medium range.

PabloJ, I understand your concern and I agree that #1 or low recoil 00 are the best choices for defense. We won't be firing wax loads through a dirty barrel with obstructions.

mgkdrgn, the reason that it is inadequate performance is that "hole" as you describe it, might not be placed on the bad guy's chest. If his arms or other objects are in the way, the pellets have to traverse those objects before reaching the chest. If you have to take a shot from an oblique angle or if your attacker is unusually muscular or obese, that can prevent the pellets from reaching vital organs as well.

It's also important to consider that gelatin shows exaggerated TSC damage. Those pellets aren't moving fast enough to cause significant tissue damage due to stretching but the gelatin still reveals the extent of the stretch. In other words, most of the damage that you see in the gelatin would not be actual damage in tissue. The only real damage would be the myriad of tiny holes caused by the passage of the individual pellets.