Ideas for a "pass or fail" terminal performance test for hunting loads

[Jason_W]

In the past I've dabbled in some rudimentary terminal performance testing using gelatin and other media. While fun, it was also expensive and messy and without a controlled lab environment, none of the results could ever be legitimately compared to anything beyond other tests conducted on the same day with the same batch of gel.

What I'm interested in designing is a sort of "go/no go" gauge of terminal performance testing for big/medium game hunting loads.

Basically, it would be nice to come up with a fairly inexpensive test that answers the question: "If load X is capable of ____________________ then it is adequate for use on game species X assuming a broadside, heart/liver/lung shot is made.

 

[illinoisburt]

Pretty much all domestic factory hunting rounds have recommended game indicated by the manufacturers which you can count as accurate. Same goes for most all of the reloading companies' bullets that are specifically marketed for hunting. Failures at intended use are uncommon.

I can see the value on the fringes of bullet performance (small caliber with big animal), bullets not specifically marketed for hunting (VLD target bullets, frangibles), and foreign ammo with unknown propensities (all the steel cased stuff). The old cheap standard has been gallon plastic milk jugs of water. Has downsides including need hose nearby or gets awful heavy, have to reset after every shot, lots of mess, cannot run in freezing weather, etc. I have heard of good results with the wax tube, but seems like it's almost as much headache as the gelatin.

Look forward to folks' suggestions!

 

[Jason_W]

I used to have a supply of bullet test tube media. Honestly, melting and recasting the stuff fringed on nightmare. Splitting the block after shooting was difficult to near impossible, and just touching it left a sticky residue on your hands that in turn transferred to everything else.

If I could muster the funds, I'd go with the synthetic gel, but that stuff is very expensive.

As for the reason for testing: Yes, traditional, off the shelf hunting rounds are pretty tried and true. However, my interest is in examining the traditional "marginals and no-goes" using modern bullets at a variety of ranges from 25 yards out to maybe 150 or so.

If I wanted to test using one block per 25 yards out to 150 yards using standard ballistics gel, I would be looking at hundreds of dollars per round tested.

 

[Jason_W]

It should also be noted that I've tried a variety of improvised media over the years. The modelling clay was an interesting fiasco.

My mom was an art teacher at the time and had a lot of burnt out modelling clay that was no longer good for school use. I molded it all into a block that was about 6x6x16".

I first tried it with a subsonic .22 LR round. So far, so good. I then moved up to a factory 125 grain .357 mag load from a Marlin 1894c. I hit the block from a distance of about 15 feet and half the block basically exploded, raining chunks of clay down over a 20 foot radius.

Spectacular, but impractical.

 

[Tirod]

We do.

1,000 foot pounds of force with minimum 50% expansion.

The problem is that under a certain speed you can't get the expansion, and after a certain distance the force drops under that minimum. And yet the shot could still be fatal due to correct shot placement.

On the other hand, a poor shot within all the above guidelines may still allow the game to escape and even survive. Many whitetails are recovered annually and more than one projectile is found under the skin.

Ballistic gel testing doesn't answer all the issues.

 

[Jason_W]

We do.

1,000 foot pounds of force with minimum 50% expansion.

I would think that penetration is also an important consideration as well as wound channel volume.

Right now I'm wondering if some version of a wet pack might be the way to go. I could use cheap vegetable oil instead of salt in order to delay spoilage making it somewhat reusable.

 

[blarby]

Pretty easy.

Grab two slabs of pork ribs, and fill the space between them with the cheapest ground meat you can get, and tie/wrap it snugly. Adjust the thickness based on your target animal. If you want skin tension or recreation, a few layers of saran wrap goes a long way.

About the closest analogue you'll get to a real animal, other than an actual animal.

Gel is good, but bullets behave radically different through bone.

Most real butchers should be able to get you full shoulder blade cuts if you want to try a sub-optimal strike.


When you're done, BBQ time !

 

[quartermaster]

I always wondered about wet newspapers. Has anyone ever tried that? QM

 

[Jason_W]

I have tried wet newspaper. It's fine for someone who wants to gauge the penetration and expansion of a round or two, but it would be a nightmare for the guy who wants to conduct a comprehensive comparison of 4-5 chamberings, 3 loads a piece, at a minimum of 3 different distances from the muzzle.

 

[rcmodel]

Wet newspapers or catalogs actually replicate meat to the extent if the bullet will expand in it, it will expand in meat.

Dry catalogs at 100 yards better replicate heavy game bones and such.

If a hunting rifle bullet will hold together in dry catalogs at 100 yards, it will hold together in anything you shoot with it in the game fields.

rc

 

[Jason_W]

I've been looking into bulk sales of soap base (which is or was the preferred test medium in much of Europe) but it seems like the savings per pound over clear ballistics gel isn't really worth it.

 

[Roadkill]

Here's an option- I don't recommend it though.


Thompson-LeGarde Tests of 1904

The first somewhat systematic and recorded attempt to test handgun stopping power in the U.S. (at least that I know about) was the Thompson-LeGarde tests of 1904. These were conducted to evaluate a small number of handgun calibers with a view to adoption by the U.S. military. Only round nose lead (RNL) and full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets were used in Thompson-LeGarde, which is an immediate problem, since few use these loads today for personal protection. Such projectiles have repeatedly been proven very inferior in terminal performance to jacketed hollow point (JHP) and other modern bullet designs. The Thompson-LeGarde tests are the underpinning of the Hatcher Relative Stopping Power Formula, Jeff Cooper's Short Form, the Taylor Short Form and many other attempts at estimating handgun stopping power. Unfortunately, although many still don't realize it, the Thompson-LeGarde tests were fatally flawed and revealed nothing about handgun stopping power.

The first test protocol involved shooting hung human cadavers and attempting to measure the swing imparted by the impact of a pistol bullet. No rigorous attempt was made to choose corpses of identical size and weight. No examination of the permanent crush cavity caused by the bullet's impact was made. Nor was there any attempt to determine if this test had any scientific correlation with actual stopping power. (You will probably not be surprised to find that it doesn't.)

The second test protocol involved shooting live cattle with the same small number of handgun calibers and loads. (I believe this took place at a slaughter house.) No attempt was made to differentiate between the sex of the animals, their size, or their vitality. Nor was their any attempt to standardize the number of shots fired at any one animal. Some were shot once, some twice and some animals were shot three (or possibly more) times. Thus, any comparison of loads was fatally flawed from the outset. If you read the raw Thompson-LeGarde data, you will discover that almost all of the animals were finally put down by a sledgehammer blow, not their pistol wounds. I actually read the results of the individual steer tests and the only steer I remember being killed outright by a bullet was hit with a high velocity round from a .30 Mauser pistol, which created secondary bone fragments that quickly killed the animal. However, Thompson and LeGarde ignored this result and did not conclude that the U.S. military should adopt the .30 Mauser cartridge.

 

[Jason_W]

How about 10" of 20% gelatin with a maximum crack diameter of X? Some kind of bone simulant could also be integrated for a secondary test.

 

[buck460XVR]

Basically, it would be nice to come up with a fairly inexpensive test that answers the question: "If load X is capable of ____________________ then it is adequate for use on game species X assuming a broadside, heart/liver/lung shot is made.

The biggest development in bullet design in cased ammo in the last century has been in terminal performance. While at one time most manufacturers offered one JHP design for hunting, most now offer a multitude. They have already done extensive testing and come up with practical applications for all of their modern bullet designs when used for the application intended. I see no real reason to question their testing and suggested application unless one is going outside the parameters of their intended application, such as using the bullets for velocities, caliber, platform not originally intended for the application. In those situations, wet/dry catalogs will suffice, but using the parameter quoted above, reading the bullet manufacturers suggested applications should be sufficient.

 

[MachIVshooter]

^^^^^^^^^

That.

Testing external ballistics in various mediums is fun, but most of us do not have the resources or education to do what the manufacturers have already done to determine which bullets work best in what and for what.

I've used a number of different bullets in an array of cartridges on many species of medium and large game. Guess what? They all poked holes in the animal, destroyed tissue, caused massive blood loss and rendered the critter deceased. Be it the old school Core-Lokt pills from big green, my stand-by Sierra Gamekings or the ultra-modern (and spendy) Accubond, TSX, etc.

 

[Jason_W]

The biggest development in bullet design in cased ammo in the last century has been in terminal performance. While at one time most manufacturers offered one JHP design for hunting, most now offer a multitude. They have already done extensive testing and come up with practical applications for all of their modern bullet designs when used for the application intended. I see no real reason to question their testing and suggested application unless one is going outside the parameters of their intended application, such as using the bullets for velocities, caliber, platform not originally intended for the application. In those situations, wet/dry catalogs will suffice, but using the parameter quoted above, reading the bullet manufacturers suggested applications should be sufficient.

For tried and true medium/big game rounds, I agree. It would be pointless to conduct terminal performance tests of rounds like the .270 win. .308 and .30-06.

That said, the major advances in bullet technology in the last few decades has potentially bumped rounds that have traditionally been considered too weak for medium game into a kind of "marginal" class that starts internet forum fights. I'm speaking of rounds like the .22 centerfires, the .300 blk, and some pistol/pistol carbine rounds like the .357 mag and the .45 ACP.

There seems to be an overall interest in hunting with "marginal" rounds due to the popularity of ARs and the fact that most people want to hunt with the rounds they shoot the most at the range and for the most part, it's more fun to shoot a .223 all afternoon than it is a .30-06.

An idea I had for a project would be to try to figure out the maximum effective range on medium game of some of these rounds when premium bullets are used. Not that the results of any test would put an end to the internet caliber wars. A manufacturers could invent a .223 round capable of literally vaporizing the front half of a deer and a good number of people would still assert that the round is too light for the task.

 

[X-Rap]

The information you seek would be useful to those who wish to dance around the edges of what could be borderline appropriate for a given caliber.
The performance of modern big game bullets is pretty well established, if you wish to delve into more frangible, small/light, non expanding bullets then be my guest but I would question the need and wisdom of it.

 

[buck460XVR]

.

That said, the major advances in bullet technology in the last few decades has potentially bumped rounds that have traditionally been considered too weak for medium game into a kind of "marginal" class that starts internet forum fights. I'm speaking of rounds like the .22 centerfires, the .300 blk, and some pistol/pistol carbine rounds like the .357 mag and the .45 ACP.

There seems to be an overall interest in hunting with "marginal" rounds due to the popularity of ARs and the fact that most people want to hunt with the rounds they shoot the most at the range and for the most part, it's more fun to shoot a .223 all afternoon than it is a .30-06.

In every reloading manual I own, the bullet manufacturer gives suggestions and advice for the bullet type/weight best suited for certain applications, whether hunting or SD/HD in any given caliber/platform. This, even in the calibers you consider marginal, such as .357 and .223(altho some manuals recommend against the use of .223 for deer size and larger game). Again, this goes back to the statement I made......

I see no real reason to question their testing and suggested application unless one is going outside the parameters of their intended application, such as using the bullets for velocities, caliber, platform not originally intended for the application. In those situations, wet/dry catalogs will suffice, but using the parameter quoted above, reading the bullet manufacturers suggested applications should be sufficient.

Thus, if one owns a manual for the bullets they are using, they already know the appropriate applications. For those that don't and insist on only taking reloading recipes from powder manufacturers and strangers on the internet, the cost of a reloading manual will still be cheaper and more precise than the cost of test bullets and other components, the drive to the range and the time spent doing them. There are no magic bullets and if there were, a novice with a stack of newspapers and a few boxes of manufactured bullets is not the one going to discover it. Especially if the result is only this very simple and broad statement ...

"If load X is capable of ____________________ then it is adequate for use on game species X assuming a broadside, heart/liver/lung shot is made.

Internet arguments over marginal calibers/bullets will go on forever, regardless of individual forum posters testing and opinions. Kinda the norm for anything marginal. While different bullets may perform differently as far as accuracy and ballistics from individual firearms, when it comes to terminal performance at similar velocities, it's going to be pretty much the same depending on the medium it hits. The cheapest and most efficient form of choosing the appropriate bullet is to use something intended and designed for the application. While shooting into medium and digging out spent bullets and examining them can be and is fun, it is not going to tell any of us anything more than what the manufacturer of that bullet has already told us. Just my Two cents.

 

[Jason_W]

Definitely valid points.

Obviously before investing a ton of money in a project, it's a good idea to male sure there's an audience for it first.

Honestly, I'm not sure I can compete with all the ballistic testers out there with high speed cameras. I'm a writer and even I would rather watch a slow motion bullet impact than read about it.

 

[jmr40]

You're over thinking this.

If you exclude about 5 of the largest animals on the planet any modern cartridge from 6.5mm on up with almost any modern expanding bullet will do the job.

assuming a broadside, heart/liver/lung shot is made.

It comes down to personal preference.

There are going to be some that are more effective at long range. Some might put down larger game such as elk, moose or bear a little faster, but they are all essentially meant for the same game.

If you start shooting smaller calibers, or hunting a handful of really large animals the rules change slightly.

 

[silicosys4]

One thing I've done is the box of wet newspaper, but with a few layers of leather soaked in water on the front of the box and a 1/2" thick nylon cutting board an inch or so into the box...sometimes two cutting boards one at each end.

 

[d2wing]

You may have noticed that the norm is that no matter what your credentials and test results an awful lot of people will disregard anything that doesn't support their own mythology. Yeah I will believe slow motion videos. The are hundreds of test pictures of any popular round shot in gelatin. The one that really impressed me was where they posted a recreation of a sniper shot at long range, they had a pig heart and ribs molded into the gelatin and cover the end with uniform material. Amusing that the first shot missed the heart. A heart isn't as easy to hit as you might think. Anyway the second shot, shown in slow motion was very impressive. Even at simulated(reduced load) .308 blew up the heart and the block of gelatin. However after the shot the gelatin shrunk back down and did not look as drastic as the video did. That was educational and entertaining.

 

[Jason_W]

You may have noticed that the norm is that no matter what your credentials and test results an awful lot of people will disregard anything that doesn't support their own mythology. Yeah I will believe slow motion videos. The are hundreds of test pictures of any popular round shot in gelatin. The one that really impressed me was where they posted a recreation of a sniper shot at long range, they had a pig heart and ribs molded into the gelatin and cover the end with uniform material. Amusing that the first shot missed the heart. A heart isn't as easy to hit as you might think. Anyway the second shot, shown in slow motion was very impressive. Even at simulated(reduced load) .308 blew up the heart and the block of gelatin. However after the shot the gelatin shrunk back down and did not look as drastic as the video did. That was educational and entertaining.

That is a truth that transcends the realm of firearms.

Maybe it's better to not bother trying to make an audience of those who have already made up their minds 100% about a thing, but to appeal to those who are on the fence about a topic.

 

[Dudedog]

I live I CA so now the choice is sadly simple, no lead allowed.

While I have not hunted in a long time (knee issues) when I did my thought was to spend the extra money to get "Premium" bullets. The additional cost was small compared to that spent for the hunting trip.
Is a Nosler Partition (just what I used at the time)more bullet than what is necessary for a Whitetail deer, quite possibly.
Would it kill as quick on a broadside shot as some other bullets, most likely no.
All the deer I shot were to stupid to give me a nice broadside shot, maybe deer in other states are smarter and line up correctly for the hunter, but California deer are like some California Politicians, not smart enough to do the right thing.
(at least IMO some are not doing the right thing, others may feel differently, no offense intended to the group or anyone in it)
I considered the Partition extra "insurance".
I don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with other non "Premium" bullets, they probably take a far higher % of game.
I always find expansion and penetration tests interesting, but short of setting up something like the pork ribs and ground meat at the distance you expect to shoot I don't know if they prove a whole lot.
I have shot stacks of newspapers (wet and dry, cheap) so I have an idea of what the bullets will do in newspapers, which I feel is somewhat worthwhile and fun.
There is a big difference in terminal performance if a bone is struck than if not IMO, so we need to throw bones in the mix.
I certainly understand the desire to "see" the results of the bullet you are using in advance. Research is always a good thing in my book.

I have never done it but I suppose one way would be to have a couple different loads with you when hunting and actually test against the game animal you had harvested.
Loss of meat, and others might think you are a little wacko if they saw you.

Bill: "John look at that guy he just stood the deer up against a tree and walked back and shot it 3 more times"

John: "that guys not playing with a full deck lets get the bleep out of here"

 

[Jason_W]

I'm a recent transplant to CA myself. Hopefully not for too long, no offense.

I agree that there are simply too many variables present when shooting a live animal for any inanimate test medium to 100% predict how effective a given bullet will be in the field. Even testing a round on live pigs or goats wouldn't yield valid data.

Comparing the results of an unknown round to that of a know round in a consistent test medium might be a possibility.

For example, if we accept that a 150 grain jacketed flat point bullet fired from a .30-30 is sufficient to reliably kill a deer at 100 yards, then maybe we can consider the penetration yielded and permanent cavity created in a given medium by that particular load to be a minimum terminal performance standard to which other rounds can be compared.

It follows that if another load (let's say a .357 magnum handload fired from a carbine) produces penetration and damage similar to that of the .30-30 at a maximum range of 50 yards, then we can call the .357 load good on deer out to 50 yards.

Maybe.