Wherefore you test SD ammo if you lack private land?

[RBid]

I test for cycling in my carry weapon.

I don't have a problem trusting performance reports for SD rounds, because I choose rounds that have great reputations, and which are thoroughly tested. Reports on Speer Gold Dots are incredibly consistent, and they have been used extensively in the real world. If I were to test them, I know how it would go.

That's why I use them.

I won't use trust anything that hasn't been tested enough to be boringly predictable.

 

[Jason_W]

I do quite a bit of terminal performance testing, mostly of handloaded rounds.

Realistically, the average person won't have the resources to conduct truly scientific tests as the gelatin budget to conduct multiple trials would be a nightmare.

However, there is some value in comparative testing in which a relative unknown is tested along side a round of long standing tried and true performance..

For example, if we know that round X has been used to successfully take deer for many years, if round Y generates penetration and expansion on par with round X (given that the test media is of the same consistency) then it's probably safe to assume round Y is also good for deer.

 

[VeeArDoubleyouSee]

Wherefore means "why" or "for what reason"

Sorry, someone had to.

 

[LKB3rd]

any descent hollow point at velocity standards for that caliber (not reduced or watered down stuff nor need for +p either) gun in service caliber will do the job just fine.

I agree. What you should verify is that it works in the intended weapon reliably, and you can do that at any public range or club. I think any hollow point "defensive round" is going to put an attacker in serious trouble quickly with a center of mass hit or two.
It also occurs to me, most private clubs have less strict rules for what you can use as a target, so long as you don't leave a mess, and joining one would be another option.

Wherefore means "why" or "for what reason"

Sorry, someone had to.

We've got a Shakespeare Nazi

 

[SimplyChad]

Quote:
Nobody can accurately predict how a bullet will expand on any given self defense shot

exactly thats why we all should carry 454 Casulls
__________________

My new primary carry is a 454 casull.

 

[M7]

I do quite a bit of terminal performance testing, mostly of handloaded rounds.

Realistically, the average person won't have the resources to conduct truly scientific tests as the gelatin budget to conduct multiple trials would be a nightmare.

However, there is some value in comparative testing in which a relative unknown is tested along side a round of long standing tried and true performance..

For example, if we know that round X has been used to successfully take deer for many years, if round Y generates penetration and expansion on par with round X (given that the test media is of the same consistency) then it's probably safe to assume round Y is also good for deer.

J-

What you said matches a lot of what the book listed in my sig line said. It kinda sounds like you read it. Have you?

Both mediums (gel and water) seem to offer consistent results IME and there is a part of the book (some of it was waaaay over my head ) that explains why both mediums work for testing.

If there is something that is much cheaper than shooting gel and doesn't need to be "calibrated" prior to use, but still gives a repeatable result, it helps a lot of us who don't have the money, but still wanna see what their ammo will do for themselves.

 

[Jason_W]

J-

What you said matches a lot of what the book listed in my sig line said. It kinda sounds like you read it. Have you?

Both mediums (gel and water) seem to offer consistent results IME and there is a part of the book (some of it was waaaay over my head ) that explains why both mediums work for testing.

If there is something that is much cheaper than shooting gel and doesn't need to be "calibrated" prior to use, but still gives a repeatable result, it helps a lot of us who don't have the money, but still wanna see what their ammo will do for themselves.

I haven't read the book in your sig but since I have an interest in terminal ballistics, I'll check it out in the morning when my mind is a little sharper.

What I use for a lot of my tests is a kind of ballistic wax made by Ballistic Technology
http://www.thebullettesttube.com/

While it is pricey to get into, with proper care it's indefinitely reusable. There are, however, some drawbacks to the product. It's sticky and leaves a residue on everything it contacts. Melting and re-casting also takes a lot of time. There are a few tricks that make it more manageable though.

 

[M7]

I haven't read the book in your sig but since I have an interest in terminal ballistics, I'll check it out in the morning when my mind is a little sharper.

What I use for a lot of my tests is a kind of ballistic wax made by Ballistic Technology
http://www.thebullettesttube.com/

While it is pricey to get into, with proper care it's indefinitely reusable. There are, however, some drawbacks to the product. It's sticky and leaves a residue on everything it contacts. Melting and re-casting also takes a lot of time. There are a few tricks that make it more manageable though.

Yeah, its a very good book. I havn't been testing in water for very long, but the results are very good so far. They also match up to the penetration depth in all the gel tests that I compared them to.

The wax tube sounds kinda messy. Is it big enough to shoot more than 1 time?

 

[Jason_W]

The wax tube sounds kinda messy. Is it big enough to shoot more than 1 time?

It depends on the round. One tube will probably take two 9mm rounds but centerfire rifles create a cavity that consumes most of the block.

Another potential way to test penetration and expansion is with a Fackler box in which a small amount of water is placed before 2-3 feet of tightly packed polyester fill material. The water expands the bullet and the fill stops it. The drawback is that there is no record left of cavitation.

 

[M7]

It depends on the round. One tube will probably take two 9mm rounds but centerfire rifles create a cavity that consumes most of the block.

Another potential way to test penetration and expansion is with a Fackler box in which a small amount of water is placed before 2-3 feet of tightly packed polyester fill material. The water expands the bullet and the fill stops it. The drawback is that there is no record left of cavitation.

OK, I kinda got the impression that it didn't have very much of a target area to shoot into.

My testing so far has been using something similar to a Fackler box (it's covered in the book- uses a 6 ft length of 8" PVC half-pipe for the "box" part of the rig) and not seeing the TC is kind of a disappointing. However, most authorities in the field (Roberts, MacPherson and Schwartz), say that pistol calibers don't make a large enough TC to matter much unless something really, really fragile (like brain tissue) gets hit.

Of course, the bags still let loose with a really big shower of water after they get hit, so there is some evidence of the TC. Just not sure that it matters very much.

 

[Jason_W]

The big reason I use the wax is the fact that I have to travel more than an hour round trip to get to a place to shoot. Gel, in addition to being expensive, doesn't travel well. Water jugs can also pop open in the back of the truck.

My new test procedure is an 6x8-inch block of wax in front of the poly fill. The widest part of the cavity will always be within an inch or two of impact so the wax records maximum cavity while the poly fill ultimately stops the bullet.

It should be noted that poly fill is not a good stopper of non-expanding ammo.

 

[Gun Geezer]

In Dallas, Tx you could go down to Harry Hines Blvd on Saturday night. Pretty much a free fire zone sometimes. I'm not sure anyone would notice one more guy shooting!

 

[M7]

It should be noted that poly fill is not a good stopper of non-expanding ammo.

I'll try to keep that in mind.