How do you use Brass Fetcher.com?

[Brass Fetcher]

Over the past year or so, I have been reviewing the web traffic information for my website, http://www.brassfetcher.com, trying to figure how to best match the testing that I do to the interests of the visitors to the website and also the 'everyday gun owner'.

So, if you have visited my website, I would really appreciate your input as to what you would like to see more of, what you liked, what should be changed and how you used the website. For instance - did you look for test results to compare to another specific caliber or were you looking for gelatin test results for one caliber/firearm in particular?

Thank you,

JE

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I like the pictures and the precise measurements. Typically I'll click on a caliber page that I own and see how my favorite (or potential next) ammo did. One thing I'd like to see is charts on the main page for each caliber comparing averages of all those tested in terms of penetration, expansion, etc. so you don't have to click back and forth to see one versus the other. That way they can get a quick overview, but still click on each load for more detailed results and pictures.

P.S.- Keep up the good work! You are doing a great service.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

John, Your testing has opened my eyes a lot. Keep up the good work. You gotta test BB's new .380's and their .32acp. Gotta be good.

Ken

 

[Soybomb]

I usually come there looking for results in a particular caliber, see whats available, always make sure to see if the block was in spec or not, see how many shots were taken (averages always make me feel better), etc.

If you want to do something to make it more useful to the new user I think maybe compiling some "how to use gel tests" information might be good. Maybe even add a little rating system, put a little star next to your favorite performers, a thumbs up next to rounds that meet fbi standards, etc. I do see though that some of the ammo companies have started to donate and its probably best to use caution I guess with recommendations and comments given the history some ammo companies have with getting the "right" results. I think ammo lab had some interesting stories to tell but maybe it was someone else...

 

[safetyjoe]

While I haven't used it, (yet) I did just go to your site to see what it was. I scrolled down to the bottom of the page and found your links area hard to read. The yellow against the white background made it hard for me see what the words were. The site looks interesting, you asked for any input and that one area jumped out at me.

 

[Feanaro]

I love your site, great info. I generally use it for one caliber only. I've already got most of the things I want, I'm looking for the best load for each. I want to see more full length firearms used in tests. I know compact and subcompacts are quite popular but I don't own any.

Just a minor niggle, I'd like to see the tests on every caliber page sorted by bullet weight and lined up proper.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Thank you for the suggestions, please keep them coming. For simplicity's sake, I will just go down the list, addressing each issue as it comes up :

I'm a big fan of getting the page in some better order, too. I haven't done this for two reasons, one is that the website has grown faster than I could have imagined and the other is that I do as many tests as possible each range session, in order to maximize the amount of ballistic effects data that I am putting out there. So there isn't much time available for ordering things (though this is definately scheduled for a week that I am not doing any shooting).

Full length barrels - yes. I actually like testing those better than the shorter barrels, because the effects of the bullet hitting the block are noticeably more dramatic.

Thanks everyone for the feedback on the precise measurements and their importance. That is something that I have been paying close attention to since my first gelatin test, in 2004.

The comparison chart will be done. That is a great suggestion. As far as ranking the different calibers - I agree with you on the potential conflict of interest. It's true that I have accepted, as donations, ammunition from Cor-Bon and Buffalo Bore. These rounds were tested in ballistic gelatin and no other compensation was asked for or sent by either company. I don't have a problem with such an arrangement and I would do the same work for any other ammo company.

It also might be difficult to rank the bullets, using an arbitrary (or an accepted) rule of measure - some people don't agree that 12.0" is enough, others think it is too much, etc. But the charts with the penetrations and expanded diameters and an explanation of terms and performance criteria will be part of BF.com in the future.

 

[Soybomb]

One other thing that comes to mind is it seems like some of the tests I look at, the block isn't in spec. I don't know what you have to do and where you have to haul the gel to for testing, but if there were a way to get them consistently in spec and not need correction I think the data would be better to cite. Also perhaps a bit of general test procedure data on if the shot was taken on bare gel, iwba fabric, fbi fabric, etc

 

[RyanM]

Personally, I'd like to see pictures of the recovered bullets, head on and from the side. Especially from the side. How blunt and sharp-edged an expanded bullet is makes a fairly big difference.

For ranking bullets, you could try MacPherson's protocols. Penetration <= 8" scores a zero for the number of grams crushed, 8" < penetration < 13" is penalized (9" = 20%, 10" = 40%, etc.), 13"<= penetration <= 15" is full value, and penetration > 15", only the first 15" are counted.

Handgun bullets usually expand pretty quickly, so figure on 0.68 of the bullet's frontal area crushing a hole.

So if you've got bullets that expand to 0.75" and penetrate 9", 12", 14", and 16", then their adjusted wound masses are 8.9 grams, 47.3 grams, 68.9 grams, and 73.84 grams, respectively.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

How is this for a chart, to compare the various rounds that I have tested in a given caliber?

 

[davepool]

i'd like to see the .500 S&W in various bullet weights tested

 

[Lucky]

Half interest in modern commercial performances, half interest in hypotheticals I just want to know about but probably won't purchase soon, "How did German WW2 small arms performance compare to British." etc.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

@Lucky - I am interested in testing historical cartridges too. The only problem that I can see is getting the guns to fire the cartridges, but that is only a time delay - if people want to see those calibers tested, eventually someone will come up with the appropriate gun/caliber to lend me for the test, etc.

Does anyone have feedback on the style/content of the graph?

 

[lesjones]

JE, you might consider switching to blogging software to make site maintenance easier. Many Web hosts have a control panel that will automatically install blogging software (usually WordPress, which is excellent).

Advantages of using blogging software:

• built-in comments (you can disable this feature if you don't want it)
• automatic archiving and permalinking
• RSS feeds so people can subscribe to updates on your site
• easy-to-use, Web-based HTML editor
• you can easily change the look of your entire site by downloading a new theme

 

[gp911]

I really like the graph. Very readable. A quick glance gives me penetration comparisons and by looking at the names I also get the expansion data. Nicely done.

gp911

 

[ThomasT]

I have looked at your site several times. Realy good. Add the velocity to your graph. I would like to see 38 reversed hollow base wadcutters tested.