Post by: bluelake on August 05, 2009, 06:57:31 PM
My first shot I made with my .45 cal. Japanese matchlock with 45gr. of 3F at 50 paces. I nailed it with my first shot; the ball went through all three layers.
I tried shooting it with my .50 cal. flintlock pistol at about half the distance, but my shooting wasn't as good. I switched to my .36 cal. 1861 Navy Colt (EMF) revolver using 15gr. at about 10 paces; the ball went most of the way through the first layer. I then tried 20gr. and it went completely throught the first layer.
Has anyone else tried penetration tests? If so, what were your results?
In the attached pic, the matchlock ball was the top hole; the other two were from the revolver.
(http://www.shinmiyangyo.org/leathercircle.jpg)
Post by: Mitch on August 05, 2009, 07:33:49 PM
Post by: bluelake on August 05, 2009, 07:41:40 PM
Quote from: "Mitch"
I usually use a 2x4 for penetration tests....
I should have mentioned why I used leather. As my dissertation deals with firearms in Korean Joseon dynasty (1392-1910), I wanted to simulate a simple body armor. However, I probably should have added one more layer.
Out of curiosity, what kind of penetration did you get with the 2x4?
Post by: Bigsmoke on August 05, 2009, 10:52:21 PM
I lined up four blocks and shot into them. The first one disappeared, as did the second one. The third one split in half and the fourth one developed a huge conical hole in it. The ball kept going and buried into some frozen ground.
Still having some powder and a few ball left, I then filled up 7 one gallon jugs with water and obliterated all of those, the ball continuing on about a foot into the frozen backstop.
I was out of stuff to shoot at, so called it a day.
When I shot the clay blocks, I have no idea how high the pieces went, but they sure did rain down for quite some time.
I got the idea from Ron Dahlitz at Buffalo Bullet for using the clay. He had a photo of a block puffing out from being shot on his catalog. I asked him how he kept it from going all over the place when he shot it. I don't think he quite got the drift of the question until I explained to him my results. After, he said, well heck, John, you're shooting these darn cannons, what do you expect to happen?
I never shot at a 2 x 4 with one of these, but I don't think one would be much of a challenge to penetrate. I kinda doubt if two would be either. I did blow a hole through a bowling pin once with my 8 bore. I though it might make a pretty good pin gun, just for the heck of it. The layer of plastic on it held it together quite well.
Post by: firefoot on August 06, 2009, 08:44:21 AM
Post by: Mitch on August 06, 2009, 11:34:38 AM
Post by: Three Hawks on August 06, 2009, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: "Mitch"
with my .40, it'll punch thru a 2x4 at 100yds.
A 2x4 what? Oak, Sugar Pine, Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, Cypress, Long Leaf Pine, Poplar, Hemlock, Spruce? All of these come in unknown variations of density. The subject of penetration has been hashed over, chewed on and cussed about for as long as men have been forcing bits of lead out of metal tubes with burning brimstone and nitre.
I'd think it'd be better if we could find something of uniform density and known behavior when hit with a lead roundball. A white tail or Coast black tail deer of 150 lbs. or so comes to mind. I'm gonna do my penetration test this fall with the .40 cal. barrel I'm making for my T-C Seneca. That ought to give some definitive data and with a bit of favor from the spirits, some venison.
I've never been able to develop a taste for splintered lumber, no matter how it's prepared or what sauce is put on it.
Three Hawks
Post by: Mitch on August 06, 2009, 08:40:58 PM
Post by: rollingb on August 07, 2009, 12:52:23 AM
Quote from: "Three Hawks"
Quote from: "Mitch"with my .40, it'll punch thru a 2x4 at 100yds.
A 2x4 what? Oak, Sugar Pine, Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, Cypress, Long Leaf Pine, Poplar, Hemlock, Spruce? All of these come in unknown variations of density. The subject of penetration has been hashed over, chewed on and cussed about for as long as men have been forcing bits of lead out of metal tubes with burning brimstone and nitre.
I'd think it'd be better if we could find something of uniform density and known behavior when hit with a lead roundball. A white tail or Coast black tail deer of 150 lbs. or so comes to mind. I'm gonna do my penetration test this fall with the .40 cal. barrel I'm making for my T-C Seneca. That ought to give some definitive data and with a bit of favor from the spirits, some venison.
It's can even be difficult to achieve an example of true "uniform density" on live critters (the size of deer), espeacily when shooting them with small calibur muzzleloaders such as a .40 calibur.
Just the slightest nick of bone, or a shot placed thru some muscle, can have a HUGE effect on the degree of penetration (on deer-sized game) with the small caliburs.
As calibur size goes up, the less effect bone and muscle has on a round ball's penetration because of increased momentum with a heavier ball (as long as a corresponding powder charge is used to retain nearly the same velocities among varying caliburs).
Quote
I've never been able to develop a taste for splintered lumber, no matter how it's prepared or what sauce is put on it.
Three Hawks
Post by: bluelake on August 07, 2009, 09:24:55 AM
Quote from: "Three Hawks"
A 2x4 what? Oak, Sugar Pine, Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, Cypress, Long Leaf Pine, Poplar, Hemlock, Spruce? All of these come in unknown variations of density. The subject of penetration has been hashed over, chewed on and cussed about for as long as men have been forcing bits of lead out of metal tubes with burning brimstone and nitre.
I think it all depends upon one's need for the test. Mine, as mentioned above, was to look at old-style armor penetration, so I chose layers of leather. I'll call it the Bluelake Leather Test (BLT, but with extra mayo)
I should have made the test piece with a few more layers, but I didn't.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on August 07, 2009, 11:45:09 AM
Phone books, wet phone books, modeling clay, are all good comparing different loads and bullet alloys to one another..., they don't really tell you what happens on impact with living tissue. Even ballistic gelatin fails on that point.
For example if one load and bullet goes through two wet phone books, and a second load and bullet stops 1/3 of the way through the second phone book, it shows that the first load had better penetration, but if all you need is to be able to pass through a single wet phone book from the Washington Metro area to kill any whitetail out to 100 yards, then the comparison is moot as long as everything else is equal.
LD
Post by: bluelake on August 07, 2009, 01:49:07 PM
Quote from: "Loyalist Dave"
Ah but did your layers of leather replicate the armor? 3 layers of deer hide is much different that three layers of bison. Boiled, tanned cowhide is much different than chemical tanned from the same cow.
No, it wouldn't, except in a very general way. The average Korean soldier's "armor" was a padded cotton vest (which, being old and dry, often caught fire when hit). Korean officers' armor varied: layered leather, metal, or a combination thereof. Japanese armor (the Koreans' historic foe) also varied. I mainly used it as a general "bullet resister", so that I could see what happened with different rounds, loads, etc. It really showed me something: that at 50 paces, light armor--or none in the case of US forces in 1871--would not really be protection from a .45 cal. smoothbore matchlock, although it could possibly save a Korean soldier's life if shot with a .36 cal. revolver at about ten paces away (he would probably be very sore, however).
Post by: Captchee on August 07, 2009, 03:16:21 PM
In fact in the mid 1990's i was part of alot of tests to judge penetration test using RB and soft lead conical
We use ballistic jell which is the accepted way to judge penetration on tissue
You can make your own
Now why did we do this . Well basically at that time it was a fight as to how much energy a RB needed at a given distance so as to be adequate to make a clean kill . IE having enough energy to get into the hart and lungs at a given distance .
My opinion at the time was that even at 200 yards a PRB would penetrate substantially.
I basted this opinion on what I saw in damage concerning 200+ yard steel targets with 80 to 100 grains of powder . This link will help you make a jell
ORDNANCE GELATIN
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactica ... ticle1.htm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number2/article1.htm)
What I used was the above recipe but use two 8 oz. boxes of plain Knox gelatin off the supermarket shelf. should cost you around 10bucks .
used a basic formula of one pound of gelatin powder to one gallon of water. mix your gelatin in two batches using 8 oz. of powder and 2 quarts of water. After measuring out the cold water, added the gelatin powder all at once. stirred the powder in carefully, trying to moisten all of the granules without adding too much air. The mixture should be about like mashed potatoes .
set the gel mixture in the refrigerator to chill and hydrate (a process known as “blooming”) for two hours. then set the gelatin over a pan of water “ or double boiler and heated it until its melted.
Use a candy thermometer to make sure the gelatin mixture does not get hotter than 130 degrees.
While its melting stirred carefully ,you don’t want air to get trapped in the gelatin block .
Now prepare your mould . You need a release of some kind or you can use warm water to pop the jell from the mould . In our tests we simply used 2 large salad bowls . Inside each , we lightly coated with Pam non stick spray . This aloud the gelatin to pop out nicely .
On one of our tests we also used a cardboard box lined with 3 plastic bags , one inside the other . This worked good and we were able to simple pull the box and plastic off the jell . But the wife wasn’t to happy with me taking racks out of the frig . LMAO I forgot and left the milk on the counter ..
Now if your going to place bones in the mould IE a shoulder bone , then now is the time to do it . Set it about an inch to 2 inches inside the edge of the mould . Be sure to suport it so it stays in that location tell things are set up
Set the jell in the frig for 24 to 36 hours . You want it set up , all the way through .
When that’s done , get your camp cooler . You going to need to keep the stuff cool on the way to the field . Also keep it cool tell your ready to shoot it . If it’s a hot day , it will start to get runny . Not good for your tests
Now the neat thing here is that when your done , you can re use it …Simply heat it back up , being careful not to get over the 130 deg mark . If you have buts of dirt , bark and grass in it as we did just pour it through a cheese cloth strainer then re cool . It will last along time and give you lots of shooting .
Some of the things we tested with this set up was the difference between hard and soft balls IE wheel weights and soft lead.
We also tested the differences in different conical . IE how the different shapes were effected
Also we tested different calibers , different charges and the resulting wound channels .
Later these same test were again duplicated using certified ballistics’ jell and complied with field data from actual harvests obtained through and with cooperation from the Idaho department of fish and game . Done completely by another individual .
Now I wrote this on another board but I think it needs said here to give folks some idea of the context and why I thought as I did at the time
Quote
to reasons IMO we see what we do .
1) the choice of bullet
2) the distance
see at 5 yards , with a rifle , you have a VERY high Velocity . when the bullet hits , it cant hold together . now thats depending on the bullet design .
the other reason a RB will poke a hole at 150 yards is whats call density and distribution of energy .
See if we go back to the roundball , place that 1/8 target at 150 but let it swing free , you seldom get complet pass through .
But if that same target is mounted on a stand so as its rigid , then the bullet will force its way through .
The reason for that is the steal itself ..
If you really want to be confused , load a 45 cal up with 90 grains of powder and mount a 3/8 steel plate at 100 yards
Then make the same shot with a 54 or 62 but using 80 grains of powder .
Go to the back side of the target and look at what round distorted the steel the most . What you will find is that the little 45 , just about pushes its way through . But the 54 and 60 just leaves a nice dent .
Now ask yourself which round carried the most energy , the 45 , 54 or 62 ?
If you said the 62 , you would be right . See the reason for this is the 45’s energy is contained to a smaller area upon contact . Where the energy of the larger rounds is displaced over a larger area .
But comparing energies on steel , is not directly related to a target such as an animal .
It took some time for me to understand this .
This is also one of the big problems I have with conical manufactures that like to tout energies . They get those energies from mathematics as well as measurement taken from steel impacts .
However , that doesn’t mean that , that is how much energy a conical delivers. It only means that’s what it carries .
See inorder to diliver all that energy , the projectile must come to a complete stop . if it goes through , that means it still carring energy that has not been completely spent on the target .
But what happens on a soft target , is that you have not only resistance but also drag . This is all added to a soft materials ability to disperse that energy quickly away from impact like ripples on a pond or a 4X4 hitting a mud hole , things slow very quickly ,.
As I said , archers already know this and use it in everything from their practice targets right down to designs for their hunting broad heads .
Now here is two targets I had out behind my shop .
These fist two are 1/8 steel . These were and are our 100 and 200 yard targets
the ram was my deminstration targets from the 1990's .
notice it has 2 clear holes . the distorted one is from a 50 cal and the clean one a 45 cal RB
this was shot with a CVA hawkens 50 cal using max loads of 110 grains and a 45 cal CVA kentuck with a max load of 90 grains
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/steeltargets001.jpg)
now i wish i still had the photos of those rounds fired into BJ . but i dont . while the shots were real impressive on steel ,, they were no where impressive when fired into jell .
now here our current targets we use for 25-100 yards . they made of 1/4 inch steel .
now notice the very clear and well defined dimples . the deep ones are 45 cal . you can actualy measure the balls impact .. the bigger the ball the less the depth " concisdering heavy 45 loads comparied to 80-100 grain 54 and 60 loads . again the reason for this is that the larger round distributes its energy more broadly over the area of the steel
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/steeltargets004.jpg)
now here is our clubs current 150 and 200 yard targets 1/4 inch steel
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/steeltargets003.jpg)
Post by: Uncle Russ on August 07, 2009, 06:03:22 PM
Uncle Russ...
Post by: riverrat on August 07, 2009, 08:10:02 PM
Post by: bluelake on August 08, 2009, 01:10:27 AM
Post by: Three Hawks on August 08, 2009, 02:12:09 AM
Quote from: "RussB"
Good post, Cap!
Uncle Russ...
What Uncle Russ said!! That is the kind of test I love to see the results from.
Three Hawks
Post by: Two Steps on August 08, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
Quote
What Uncle Russ said!! That is the kind of test I love to see the results from.
Ditto from me...lotta powder and lead used up for this info.
Al
Post by: Captchee on August 08, 2009, 11:24:00 AM
that’s been along time ago .
What I can tell you is what I saw is what has me a firm believer in the 100 yard rule
Something you will see in these jell tests that you don’t see when firing into wood or paper is that a projectile leave 2 different wound channels . Some of you have heard me speak of this before .
1) is the primary or permanent cavity
2) is the secondary or temerity cavity
The first is the actual channel made by the projectile passing through the object . That what your seeing in the leather targets Blue lake posted as well as the hole in paper phone books or , water jugs , or what have you .
The second is caused by energy transfer not bullet deformation . HOWEVER if the projectile deform prior to contact then you get a larger primary and secondary because the larger area of the projectile , creates a larger area of energy transfer,. However in doing so , the expansion also reduces the penetrating ability of the projectile do to large are a of friction that gets applied to the projectile . So basically in simple terms. A projectile that holds together will penetrate deeper then a projectile that expands. When fired from the same charge . This is because the total energy is contained more to the projectile then transferring into the target
This is what you see when center fire hunting when folks state the lost the shoulder from bruising or blood clotting. This energy transfer causes a disruption of tissue , blood vassals and nerves .
When firing into jell , you will see this
Here is a high velocity bullet test into jell that shows the primary and secondary wounds clearly .
(http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/wp-content/uploads/handgun_gel_comparison.jpg)
Now here is where we run into a rub .. If when doing your tests you don’t use a medium that properly simulates the target you will be shooting at your test will be off , in fact most time WAY off .
Take the leather that blue lakes shot into .
As I understand it , what he was trying to find out , was how well a RB penetrated the leather armor of a soldier of that period .
However its important to realize that while this leather patch might represent the leather armor well .
If he hung it or even mounted it say to a board , his results will be off . Not just in penetration but also in seeing the effects of that penetration on the projectile .
Why ? Because as I mentioned before with steel targets . The resistance is different which changes the energy transfer .
The armor supported / backed by say a human body is not ridged . But at the same time its not fluid like if the leather patch was simply hung from a target stand .
See most folks misunderstand what a bullet does . See we see a hole and we thing WOW!!! look at that . The bullet cut right through that .
But we are wrong . A bullet doesn’t cut or drill its way through . It actually stretches its target to the point the target gives .
so we can draw a wrong conclussion when whe shoot into a more solid target . tissue doesnt act this way , it grabs onto and drags the projetile down .
As a comparison . If you take a balloon and place you finger against it and push , what happens ? The balloon stretches .. The harder you push “ apply more energy , the cavity caused by the elasticity of the balloon gets deeper right . . If you apply enough energy , the rubber the balloon is made from cant take it and it tears away . Tissue is some ways is like that balloon in that as the projectile enters it stretches then fails thus the bullet penetrates .. but at the same time as the projectile passes through tussue that more resitand or denser . it uses more of its stored energy to push and tear its way through
Here is a jell test showing that effect. now this is part of a time laps photo taken while the projectile is moving . thats why the wound channel looks as it does . basicly it hasnt had the split secounds needed to close back up and settle .
If you notice on the right edge of this jell test is a material to simulate skin / Hide. notice the cavity behind it . This is caused by the projectile stretching in the hide until such time it cant take the energy anymore . The rest is the primary and secondary wound , showing the effect of the projectile on the softer tissue
Courtesy of Fire arms ID.com
(http://www.firearmsid.com/Gelatin/223gel.jpg)
So if the reaction of that tissue isn’t accurately represented , your results will be off , not only on penetration but the deformation of that bullet .
This is why materials like Duxseal is no longer used any longer . Because it does not properly simulate the effects of tissue , either in wound channel or in effects to the bullet itself
A Dr named Foster did a write up as well as a video back in the 1970 that showed the differences using poor mediums to test penetration.
Firearms ID .com has the last 12 minutes of that movie posted on their web site ..
Here is the link . Its alittle slow to run and its granny but its well worth watching .
He shows the difference of the effects on both wound and penetration as well as projectile deformity in jell Vs Duxseal
http://www.firearmsid.com/Gelatin/index.htm
This very thing is what we ran into with our jell test in the mid 1990’s and is why after doing such tests proper certified jell was needed to confirm or disprove what was found ..
As a note here. the certified tests actually produced less then what we found with our homemade jell . .
Because the quality of our jell was not adequacy right to withstand the scrutiny of a more scientific evaluation .But what our homemade jell did do was allow us a base of study to start off with , that was much cheaper then certified jell .
now TC has some bolistics test . but they are on modern muzzleloading using modern bullets .
myself , i was less then impressed with the results they found even at 25 yards .
however what the tests did show was the effects of velocity at closer range . which as i stated in my first post , has a large effect on performance especially at high velocities .
Now one would think that closer would equivocate to more penetration. But that many times is not the case especially with soft lead .
see what happens here is that as the velocity increases the lead is less able to stay solid or compact . When it contacts at that velocity it easily mushrooms ? Spreads . Again while this transfers large amounts of energy quickly , it also effect the penetration ability of the bullet.
Now myself IMO I believe this is why we see so many complaints about the RB in 50 and 45 cal . Not dropping big game at close ranges . The tail is in the velocity and the stability of soft lead at that velocity .
I think to often folks look to higher loads so as to raise the energy of a RB at say 100 yards . Which can be a good thing at 100 yards where the velocity has dropped and the lead became more stable .
BUT what they don’t get is that say with the 45 cal shooting 100 to 120 grains of powder , the muzzle velocity is such that its tickling the limit and in many cases exceeding the stability for lead . When that happens say at 35 to 50 yards the ball simply is not capable of staying completely intact . It can spread and thus fracture or reduce penetration.
I think this explains why sometimes folks say :
==================================
I don’t like the RB . I shot a deer at 35 yards one time and knocked it down . But it got up , ran off and I never found it .
=====================================
Now I could be wrong here as this is just my opinion but . I think there is a great possibility that in such a case the soft lead ball simply expanded and transferred its energy to quickly thus not allowing it to penetrate to a depth needed to reach the vitals or at the very least have the effect on the vitals that it should have been about to do rather quickly .
Here is a link to the TC tests if anyone is interested .
It is IMO a very good read and sheds some light on what im am basing my opinion on above
http://www.theoutdoorquest.com/perma-gel_ballistic_g...
Post by: Captchee on August 08, 2009, 11:31:10 AM
IE with the test we preformed it was not uncommon to see that the once say a 40 cal RM eneterd into the jell and penitrated rather well . the channel was effectivly closed back up behind the ball .
just though i would mention that
Post by: Mitch on August 08, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
Post by: Captchee on August 08, 2009, 04:59:48 PM
Quote from: "Mitch"
if the wound channel closes up but the RB destroys the brain or spinal cord or heart(shots I usually take) the "critter" is still dead....as was said somewhere in another post-get to know YOUR gun and what you and it can do.....
yes . however i the ball was to say miss the mark and clip the liver or other vital organ . what you get is little to no blood trail.
the end result is stll death . that much is true
Post by: bluelake on August 10, 2009, 08:24:53 AM
Quote from: "Captchee"
Take the leather that blue lakes shot into .
As I understand it , what he was trying to find out , was how well a RB penetrated the leather armor of a soldier of that period .
However its important to realize that while this leather patch might represent the leather armor well .
If he hung it or even mounted it say to a board , his results will be off . Not just in penetration but also in seeing the effects of that penetration on the projectile .
Why ? Because as I mentioned before with steel targets . The resistance is different which changes the energy transfer .
The armor supported / backed by say a human body is not ridged . But at the same time its not fluid like if the leather patch was simply hung from a target stand .
My problem with the test was I couldn't find anyone to wear the sample
Excellent information, Captchee. I really appreciate your taking the time to explain it.
T
Post by: Loyalist Dave on August 10, 2009, 12:52:05 PM
I was told the "jury" is still out on the secondary channels produced in gelatin, for the fact that the medium is homogeneous and a wave will display well in such a medium, while animal tissues are not homogeneous and do not react as close to gelatin as some people claim.
Further, that the ballistic pressure wave theory of hydrostatic shock had been shown in some cases to work, but that was due to high speed rifle bullets. (So some sources say) Projectiles at handgun velocities, which for most of us would include the loads that we use, do not disrupt or damage tissue, though they will live impressive secondary "wound" channels in gelatin. I have been told by several forensic pathologists to rely on the hole the actual bullet makes, both in hunting and in my job, and to worry about bullet placement.
People like to poo-poo Wikipedia, but here is a link that shows both sides of the story, and I think has pretty good references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock
Basically what I have gotten from reading both sides of the issue, and looking at actual wound effects, is that we have yet to find any medium that does well at telling us what a bullet will do to living tissue.
LD
Post by: bluelake on August 10, 2009, 05:03:27 PM
Quote from: "Loyalist Dave"
Basically what I have gotten from reading both sides of the issue, and looking at actual wound effects, is that we have yet to find any medium that does well at telling us what a bullet will do to living tissue.
Maybe a hog carcass like they use on Mythbusters?
Post by: jbullard1 on August 10, 2009, 05:22:54 PM
Three seasons ago I killed the largest weight (215#) and B&C (154 2/8) scoring, Whitetail deer of my life!! Call it luck, lucky and luckier if you will. This was done with a CVA 45 cal kentuck style caplock, range about 30 yards and perfect broadside shot.
The ball I was shooting was a mixture of 50% wheel weights and 50% pure lead, shot placement was not what I wanted, but it severed the pulmonary artery and sprayed blood out both sides for about 50 yards, full penetration but only ribs in the way
Post by: Captchee on August 10, 2009, 07:07:47 PM
Dave is also right . Normally we do not see the severe secondary wounding that one see;s in high velocity rounds .
However at closer ranges and higher loads we can . A 45 cal can produce that type of wounding if the range is close and the velocity high .
As far as secondary wounds ? I cant say I have ever not shot a deer or elk with a center fire , that did not carry the effects of secondary wounding . In fact most commonly I saw this effect with 190 grain 30.30 clover tips .
IE there carried a large frontal area of soft lead . Now my 65X55 did not show as much effect , even though it was a much higher velocity round . IMO this was do to less lead and more jacket . Thus the round did not expand as great on contact and did not transfer as much energy as quickly .
In the tests we did , I would have to say that what Jell showed concerning the secondary wounds was in most cases less then what I experience in actual animals .
As to only needing 18 inches . I would agree with that . However what im getting at is that concerning soft lead and high velocities , that lead contacting the target may not be structurally sound enough to stay together and even give you half that .
Also , we need to remember that when every we make an alloy . That alloy has different characteristics then soft lead . So a 50 /50 mix of soft lead and WW could passably stay structurally stable to a much higher velocity then pure lead by itself . I cant say , I don’t know but it seems to me that would be the case . So not only would the ball being harder bleed off less of its stored energy into the surrounding tissues . It would then also contain itself more energy to push on through .
Either way , the primary wound channel for the PRB is still larger then most center fire calibers produce even after expansion . so IIMO secoundary wounding is just a + when you see it . but not really needed when a projectile is place in the boiler room or vital life suport systems . the result will be the same , with or without that secoundary wounding
Post by: Loyalist Dave on August 12, 2009, 12:20:37 PM
Quote
However what im getting at is that concerning soft lead and high velocities , that lead contacting the target may not be structurally sound enough to stay together and even give you half that .
Also , we need to remember that when every we make an alloy . That alloy has different characteristics then soft lead . So a 50 /50 mix of soft lead and WW could passably stay structurally stable to a much higher velocity then pure lead by itself . I cant say , I don’t know but it seems to me that would be the case . So not only would the ball being harder bleed off less of its stored energy into the surrounding tissues .
Ah, but WHAT is "high velocity" to Mr lead bullet? I ask as I got into a discussion with a fellow on another board, and it was never defined. All that was maintained in that discussion was it's better to reduce your load to "medium velocity" when using an all lead projectile on large game. One of my objections was that without a definition or some sort of standard threshold..., we have no idea what we are talking about.
I doubt that my round ball at 1500 fps is inclined to so badly mushroom that it will fail to pass through a white tail broadside, at 100 yards or less. The idea presented to me was to reduce my load, and reduce ball deformation to get deeper penetration from less friction. Hence the minimum needed distance to pass through a game animal comment.
I also pointed out that we normally don't shoot deer at the muzzle, and it's the speed at impact that counts. If you go too light on your load..., you run the risk of having an impact velocity so low you're not able to push your round ball through a deer even if the ball was made of steel.
I was taught that modern centerfire rifles didn't do much to the surrounding tissue on a target unless the impact speed was 2000 fps - 2200 fps. That was the minimum speed for muzzle velocity to be condsidered high velocity. (Most ML's don't get that high for most of the loads that I have seen) Medium velocity was from 1100 fps to the 2200 fps, and low velocity was from 1 to 1099 fps. I have also been told that for a long time, a modern, lead, hp bullet would not reliably mushroom in tissue unless they impacted at about 1100 fps or higher.
You are correct on the bullet alloy and not knowing how it reacts on impact. All lead has (iirc) an SAE hardness of 1, and centerfire bullet alloys for the sport of IPSC and such have SAE hardness of 10. I know from harvesting lead at ranges that SAE 10 does not fragment nor mushroom when impacting a gravelly berm, so would be good for the folks who worry about the metal in their round ball loads. Those alloys are made from WW or lead and antimony. Would Zinc fracture on impact? How about bismuth and lead? Who knows? Both are brittle.
LD
Post by: R.M. on August 12, 2009, 12:25:22 PM
Post by: bluelake on August 12, 2009, 01:01:13 PM
Quote from: "Loyalist Dave"
Those alloys are made from WW or lead and antimony. Would Zinc fracture on impact? How about bismuth and lead? Who knows? Both are brittle.
LD
Tin is also used for alloying lead; it pours very fluidly into the mold.
Post by: Captchee on August 12, 2009, 06:21:46 PM
the farther way one stays from that volocity , the more stable the lead .
look at it as heating up your lead pot . the hotter that pot gets , the closer one comes to the lead becoming liquid " read as un stable .
so lets say that a person is shooting a 45 call with a heavy load " we cant say this doesnt happen , how many times have we discussed abserdly high powder charges here on this forum not to mention other forums "
that ball , with a 120 grain charge is leaving the muzzle at over 2200 ft per second .
the real question IMO should be , ;
At what volocity does soft lead , once again reach and avrage hardness that acceptable .
then we can ask.
At what distance does that happen so as to alow the projectile to not deform to the exstent that it effect penitration ?
i dont have an answer for that .
now i can say i have gotten very acceptable penitration with muzzle volocities in the 1700 fps range .
so down to about 1000fps at 100
Post by: Loyalist Dave on August 14, 2009, 02:44:21 PM
LD
Post by: Loyalist Dave on August 14, 2009, 02:51:44 PM
Quote
I've never heard of "SAE Hardness" before. I've always used the Brinell harness Number, which pure lead is 5. I know there are various hardness scales, but thats a new one to me.
That's because I FUBAR's up my terminology
Comes from writing a post after just looking at a catalog of car tools. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Doubt the Society of Automotive Engineers has anything to do with bullet hardness, except maybe on their day's off.
LD