Well, here we go again! John Linebaugh/Todd Corder have their famous/imfamous "Bone Box" to test how well bullets hold up. They fire all types at 25 yards and the results are interesting, to say the least!
Now Dixe Slugs does not use the "Bone Box", but rather has our "Cigar Box"!
You can find these empty boxs everywhere that are 5"x5"x1". Simply set it down in some yard sand and pour it full of pure lead. Then set it up at 25 yards, backed by some water soaked newspaper. Take your favorite big game bullet and have at it!
You are right, this is an extreme test! It sure well will settled the hash as to what bullet will stand up to the rigors of heavy and/or dangerous game!
I am well aware that many shooter/hunters will not use this and rather fantasises (sp?) as to what their Stick will do!......James

Interesting but I don't necessarily think shooting through an inch of lead in any way equates to shooting actual game.

Have you tried any of those faddish high velocity rifles on the lead block?

First of all.....Yes I have even shot old axe heads with .220 Swifts and .22-250 showing off.
Whether the lead test is viable or not, is what bullet you compare one against another. It's all a matter of opinion.....what to look for is what happened on the other side of the lead! While a fast small bullet might well punch a hole, not much will be left on the other side to do much damage. However, when I see a big bullet retaining a great deal of weight.....it tells me something.
I don't even suggest this is a test for tissue damage on game, nor did I say it was!, but rather a test to see how a bullet holds up vs another bullet. This is why I stated that wet newspaper should be place behind the lead to see what happened with what was left of the bullet.
If you plan to hunt heavy and/or dangerous game.......you better have a bullet that will stand up to one heck of a test without fragging.........James

Once again Mr Gates, you have raised the bar. An accurate slug gun would have taken all deer I shot last year in short order, even including the bad hits. The little lever gun just has me in it's power for now.

that was quite a hole in that lead. Whooo Mama!

A test of bullets going thrugh lead shows what bullets do when they go through lead.

So................? Will you suggest another media to test for bullet breakup? ........James

Back to you, Chief.........I have never said the Dixie Slugs were to replace rifles/handguns, etc for deer (thinskin game).....I only say one thing......Dixie Slugs is nothing more than a re-introdution of what the Brits were knocking over heavy and/or dangerous over a 100 years ago.....if it worked then, it will work now......my favorite walking rifle is still my little Marlin 1894P with a Leupold 1x4......and BTB bullets!
It looks like nothing has changed here.....discuss a test/show a test for bullets and someone says "so what".....when are they going to show us their tests?........James

Back to you, Chief.........I have never said the Dixie Slugs were to replace rifles/handguns, etc for deer (thinskin game).....I only say one thing......Dixie Slugs is nothing more than a re-introdution of what the Brits were knocking over heavy and/or dangerous over a 100 years ago.....if it worked then, it will work now......my favorite walking rifle is still my little Marlin 1894P with a Leupold 1x4......and BTB bullets!
It looks like nothing has changed here.....discuss a test/show a test for bullets and someone says "so what".....when are they going to show us their tests?........James

Are lots of things to shoot into for comparison. Lead is only comparable to lead but it is consistant from year to year and does allow some comparison to other bullets. Have tried it on a smaller scale; a common item down here is a wavy sheet of lead for holding oysters while you "shuck" them...but is uusally 1/4 to 1/3" thick.

Now interresting is to hand one of these sheets a few yards in front of a large sheet of paper. Just becasue a bullet makes a hole though a chunk of lead doesn't mean it exited as a bullet...some exit as a spray....good ones exit as a solid (somewhat mangled) chunk.

I am glad to hear that the little lever will be in your hands when the pigs and deer of the swamp come your way.

Just a thought. Will any 30 cal round make it through 1/4 inch steel plate at 100 yds. I know that the 7mm08 in an SP will not. Puts a good dent but thats it.

Wonder how the Dixie Slug would do out of the Marine issue mossburg. I bet it could bust down some cinder blocks if the 50 cal was not handy. Remind me to ask the L Coporal when he rerurns in the spring.

You are all correct. My main concern is what is left of the bullet after the lead test. Lead fired into lead cauaes a flow, not a shatter like steel plate, etc. While it is correct on pentrating steel with high power centerfires......there is little left of the bullet that would continue to penetrate. What slug/bullets we could recover we swaged into almost round balls, but retained a high percent of weight. This lead test is not conclusive by any means, but is just another severe penetration test. At the request of different agencies, we have tested against truck doors with the window rolled down, sheets of multi-layer fiber-glass, and sloping windshields......in addition to Linebaugh's "Bone Box". Some makers pitted there lathe turned copper/brass slugs, but they just did not have the needed weight.
After all the smoke cleared we were right back to the same performace that you will get from Marshall's heavy handgun bullets! The Dixie's are the same, albeit much larger, and have the basic results.
Again......this is no test for tissue damage on game! However you can rest assure it is a severe test to compare one bullets ability to hold together vs another. We people poke fun at this test, I refer them to people testing bullet expansion in wet newspaper.......not conclusive on actual game's tissure, but rather one bullet ability to exapnd vs another bullet. Anyway, I thought it would be interesting for the group! It does seem like today's shooter/hunters are hung up velocity, velocity, and more velocity...without much concern about bullet performance when it hits game!
Regards, James

I think the lead block is a fair test. It is consistent and repeatable. It is not the last word however. No one test can be.
I like to use water when I am compairing bullets for the same reasons. It is not the last word either. It does have the advantage of not having melt/cast it to shape though.
Cheezywan

Interesting. I have used "harsh" media for quite some time to test, as Mr. Gates states, one bullet against another and bullet integrity. I tend to use large blocks of Duct Seal, that way I can measure not only penetration but also wound channel volume.

Nothing simulates animal flesh and bone perfectly, but if a bullet performs well in testing, I have some confidence that it will perform well in the field.

I may have to fill me up one of them cigar boxes.

DC

Again, you are all correct! We use a series of milk jugs filled with water many times to test to see if our alloy is hard enough to not expand. It's just another test media to compare one bullet's composition against another.
And......you are all correct that none truly reflect tissue......those answers come from "Gut-Pile" analysis!
Oh well........Time to feed the bulldogs!.......James

"SO?" I'm merely pointing out the obvious, Mr. Gates. That a test of bullet penetration on a piece of lead shows how a bullet penetrates lead.
If from comparing the penetration and composition of what comes through between one bullet and another leads you to extrapolate those bullets performance in other mediums than lead, then be my guest and do it. But if you're going to do that, please take some time to explain where the similitudes are between lead and whatever other medium you are going to extrapolate to. At least the people who use wet newspaper, water-filled milk jugs and/or wet phone books do so under the idea that live bodies have a lot of water in them and that their test mediums are close enough to that to make comparisons useful. You have made no such claim of equivalency or correlation between lead and anything else.

"We (sic) you suggest another media to test for bullet break-up?"

No, not really. I don't have to come up with a good idea just to prove yours isn't.

People have been hunting and killing animals for a very long time now. All their methods, spears, arrows, stone axes, rocks, have worked after a fashion with a greater or lesser degree of difficulty, danger and rate of success. Just because something worked 100 years ago is not a particularly compelling argument. If you think doing whatever was being done 100 years ago is a better way to do it, at least make a plausible argument for it.
BTW, I'm still working on the premise that you do what you do because you think is best and not the other way around.

Interesting.... note that all bullet tests do one thing, really, when you get down to it: measure the effects of sudden decelleration on the projectile.

I can see advantages of the lead.... easy to make, repeatable, and consistent from batch to batch. And it certainly stressed the bullet pretty good.... a bullet test is not worth much, if it doesn't impart enough stress on the bullet.

Very innovative. Would be interesting to compare the lead to something like 2-3 inches of bone.

Well, let's see if I can answer my critics! Why use lead? Lead under pressure is fluid. Instead of shattering, it moves under pressure. It is consistant. It can be used again. It is heavy enough that the bullet does not use energy be moving it.
It's just another way to test the construction of one bullet against against another's construction in a severe test.
Now, I apologise for the misspelled word......we vs will. I just overlooked it when I see it in posts.
Now, what did I say.....if it worked on heavy and/or dangerous game over 100 years ago, it will work now! Now what is so complicated about that statement? I am not saying it is better than the latest whiz-bang nor am I comparing it to any other cartridge.......just talking about the loads used in a Africa/India and their re-introduction today with modern components.
Am I comparing Dixie's products against others? I have said time and time again that I will submit samples to any recognizesd group, like John Linebaugh/Todd Corder in Cody, to test if those tests are aimed at bullet construction/penetration....just as they test modern handgun/rifle bullets. They use paper pulp and green bones. What's so bad about that?
All in All, I posted this thread because I though it might be interesting. I again see critics, but little of their posting on their idea of tests, etc......What more can I say?.....James

USed thinner lead sheets (as previously posted) to see what condtion a bullet exits..was looking at barrlier penetration and performance. Not real useful in a hunting situation but interresting..have had many bullets blow a big hole in lead sheet but spray a cylinder bore pattern of bits and pieces on the target shoot 2 yards behind it.

Don't understand why the fuss...shooting lead does just show what it does in lead...but shooting paper, water, gel., sawdust, ductseal putty, glazing putty, sheet steel, etc isn't "real life" either.

Afeter one not-as-desructive-as-Katrina hurrican, i collected seven large spoiled hams and proceeded to have a messy/stinky penetration test of myown...but dead/decaying/processed/cooked ham isn't indicative of live game.

One guy, published in an old Law Enforcment Digest...or a Handgun Digest...i forget, as it was about 25-30years ago, but was a yearly collection of stuff...would put a rack of beef rigs up...three or four packs of hotdogs...and another layer of beer ribs an shoot thought this, catching his exiting bullets in a line of poly-filled pillows. He was lookign at .45acp bullet perfomance, and his test rig was at least decenet for that chore.

Mr. Gates was looking to visually show the ability to pentrate...and that is pretty good penetration...but more importantly, used a medium that most of us could duplicate if we had some 12ga. slug idea that we though would do better.

See where you can buy gel blocks, along with a reconditioning oven, from Cabala's now. You can set up and test bullets to your heart's content at the local range.

As for me, I'll just stick with wound channels and the innards of live game to determine a bullet's effectiveness.

See where you can buy gel blocks, along with a reconditioning oven, from Cabala's now. You can set up and test bullets to your heart's content at the local range.

As for me, I'll just stick with wound channels and the innards of live game to determine a bullet's effectiveness.
Ahhh,
there's nothing like getting your hands in a fresh gut pile, and analyzing the content.

We are in the middle of a 4" rain. It started Friday afternoon.
Finally.

Mr. Gates, your posts are always interesting, if not always for what you say, more often for what you leave un-said. Yes, eventually, as the discussing winds its course, you explain yourself better and/or expound on the previous statements.
It makes for lively discussion, which, I'm sure, is your intention. I have read, and maybe even posted responses to your other posts. They have always been interesting and thought provoking. It is just that this test struck me as fairly irrelevant, and I thought to say so. No offense meant.

No offense taken. I have never said I was very literate. I have tried, and will continue to try, to post interesting and thought provoking posts. You all are a cross section of the shoting/hunting game......and if turned loose can post more real data than all the gas-bag writers of today. But, all need to stay within their experience bracket.....that's where strength comes from....combined experience. And, don't be afraid to stick to your findings......note I said finding......concrete, not abstract warmed over ideas.......gut-pile analysis is best.
We can all agree to disagree......as long as it is in good taste.
Now.....we all know that any test on any artificial media has little to do with what happens on living tissue. What we can do is compare the performance (expansion/penetration) of one bullet to another in a test media. We have good tests to compare expansion.....and now various tests for bullet construction. This is well and good, but goes only so far. Today, we seldon can kill enough game to make a final study on lethal performance. Boiled down, there seems to be only two very polerized schools of thought......hyper velocity vs heavyweight bullets. A few of us have tried to set up severe tests for a bullet's ability to hold together.
Some may think I am stuck to these ultra bore ammo's I design and sell........not so! That is only what I am involved with at the present. It is sad, but true, that today we have very few ammo designers......rather we have those that just make a case longer or fatter to create another demand spike. Most is just cosmetic and very little difference in performance.
There is time, frustration, and expense to design a new or re-introduced load......most is behind the scene......cost of pressure tests, etc.
I prefer, as stated before.....to throw the glove down, bring about tests againest other products, and let the cards fall where they may. It's a "rough row to hoe", but only then do your customers trust your product.........James

James:

Just a thought. Perhaps the best presentation of the power/penetration ability of the Dixie Slugs concept would be a comparison of this lead penetration test against other slugs.
Would a "Remchester" foster style slug even make it through? How about the Breneke slug in the same test? Even the Sabot/Bullet crowd would make for interesting competition.

Ultimately, the consumer could see (in a repeatable medium) that the load they would want in their shotgun to face a big tusker, could only be the undisputed champ of this very visual lead impact/penetration test.

Can you see the commercial on the outdoor channel?

The big big tusker is charging, the slug gun leaps to the hunter's shoulder. Fade out to the range penetration test. Close up of the Dixie Slug being thumbed into the chamber. At the shot, a massive hole appears in a lead block as dirt from the backstop erupts from the impact. Fade back to the field. Our hunter, shotgun in hand, the mighty tusker on the ground before him. Dixie Slugs, power and penetration - when YOU need it!

Background music if you please.

Ralph

20 bucks at the back door of the butcher shop will usually buy you all the bone and hide scraps you care to take. A little fixturing with some lumber scraps and you've got yourself a half decent stationary gut pile backed up with wet news print...sure, not as much fun as the real thing but works great for range work.

Don't have the ability or desire to play with the real thing, old leather glove scraps and 3/8" thick hard maple pallet boards or 1/2" thick OSB board and wet news print will suffice. If you want to go one step further, build the set-up front to back; leather, board, wet newsprint the thickness of the size game you're going after then another board and piece of leather on the backside, behind this put more wet newsprint...this will give you a through and through test to see what happens in the middle and on exit.

If you really want to put some work into testing, hang sections of the newsprint on the fold over the individual wires of old refrigerator racks. This give you a non-solid back-up which more simulates the soft tissue interior of game. (wet newsprint after hangning it)

Mr. Gates

Very informative, as always. Dixie Slugs must have taken some game to date. What is the largest animal and what have been the results? Has anyone taken it to Africa yet? I'd love to see what one of these does to a Cape Buffalo or at least a big old range bull!

Yes, my "Swampcrawlers" have killed some nice hogs, a few deer, and some river pest. These boys are not much to take pictures, but I will see what I can get them to do. The real killer......727"-605 gr @ 1555'/" predator II(match for the original Greener) was not fully ready during season.......that one will shine next year!
Now to Ralph and All......your video scenario would be nice, but most would feel it was faked like most of that type today. I really don't need it as long as I have experienced people like you all at ground zero!
Now for the other folks that talked about test media.....most of what you all describe is done by John Linbaugh/Todd Corder at Cody.......green beef bones, etc. I have a file where they shot Dixie slug/bullets available to all.......just email me. Also take a look at John's webpage at his "Bone Box" tests on LBT type bullets.......then you will buy Marshall's bullets!
As for showing tests of other people's stuff. I had rather have them submit their stuff to an independent tester like Linebaugh. I also seldom name other people's stuff .......although we test it here at Dixie. I will say this.....none have beat ours on any of the media designed to be as severe as the lead test. I will say that most of the stuff would work on thin skin game. Some will get you killed on dangerous game.
Please remember, Ole' Dixie, with the exception of our Tri-Ball II (3-.600" buckshot/roundballs at 1100'/"), is nothing more than a re-introduction of the loads proven to work well in Africa/India by the Brits a long time ago.......we just use modern components!........James

I see that the biggest problem with all this media testing is that there is "no standard test or projectile" to compare all of it with. All manufacturers are "trying to establish the standard with thier projectile, and thier test".
I will use a common 9 volt battery as an example; Everready, Duracell, Rayovac, whatever. Connect them all up to a 1 ohm load and let them "cook" until the voltage goes below 8.5 volts and you have performed a test. Make it a 10 ohm load! The results may differ? Is still a test.
My point is, A standard must be set!
For target shooters, the proof is on paper. For hunters, the proof must be on paper and the animal hunted! There is no standard here.
Cheezywan

There is a standard test media, ballistics gellatin but the high cost of it prevents most common folks from buying it and using it. Newsprint & water are cheap and readily available. Doesn't really matter what you use, as you stated with the 1 ohm load vs a 10 ohm load on the battery, as long as you use the same medium for all the tests, you'll get an idea of how one compares to another.

I think everyone is tuning in to the problem. As for gel, back in 72' we did some testing with two chronos set up with gel in between. We checked the velocity going in and coming out. The coming out velocity and the recoverd bullet weight. This gave us KE going in and KE coming out. There was a difference, but everybody still can't decide what it is/was?.....Energy deposit, or whatever.......and I am not going to respond to that again!
At the time, the gel test was aimed at seeing how well a bullet expanded (and held together), as that was the trend at that time with the introduction of jacketed handgun bullets. The gel test does not give a true picture of penetration where heavy muscle and bone have to be torn up. Neither does wet paper. Both work great to test a bullet's expansion against another.....and that is very important on thin skin game!
What is needed to test for bullet performance in heavy and/or dangerous game is a destruction test. In this case a bullet must be hard to resist expansion, but not brittle (fragging). This is why we used pure lead.......and I am open to suggestions......but whatever it is must be consistant.......James.

Just a thought, however my old 220 Swift with 50 grain bullets will penetrate a piece of 1/2" steel plate, where as my .45-70 with it's 400 grain hard cast will not. Which would you rather shoot a Cape Buffalo with? A good medium that acts much like muscle tissue in game, is water soaked phone books. However the 220 Swift will not go through more then about 10" of phone books, where my .45-70, ( that will not go through the steel plate) WILL go through all 5' of my books, and skip across the landscape. Again, just a thought.

James:

Just a thought. Perhaps the best presentation of the power/penetration ability of the Dixie Slugs concept would be a comparison of this lead penetration test against other slugs.
Would a "Remchester" foster style slug even make it through? How about the Breneke slug in the same test? Even the Sabot/Bullet crowd would make for interesting competition.

Ultimately, the consumer could see (in a repeatable medium) that the load they would want in their shotgun to face a big tusker, could only be the undisputed champ of this very visual lead impact/penetration test.

Can you see the commercial on the outdoor channel?

The big big tusker is charging, the slug gun leaps to the hunter's shoulder. Fade out to the range penetration test. Close up of the Dixie Slug being thumbed into the chamber. At the shot, a massive hole appears in a lead block as dirt from the backstop erupts from the impact. Fade back to the field. Our hunter, shotgun in hand, the mighty tusker on the ground before him. Dixie Slugs, power and penetration - when YOU need it!

Background music if you please.

Ralplh

James: You got lost in my "outdoor channel" word picture!

Check out the first paragraph above: Slug vs slug in the same medium. Not a "gut pile analysis" but comparative nonetheless.

Ralph and All.......Sorry, I missed that. We have tested most Foster type slugs......wimps on a destruction test. Passable on thin skin game. The Brenneke 1 3/8 oz might be the best of the lot. It is still swaged and softer than Predator II. Quite frankly, Dixie brought out Predator II (same weight) to go nose to nose with it.
The gentleman with the Swift is correct.....some of these ultra velocity bullets do punch holes in steel.......but from tests, we find there was little solid mass left.
We are having fun thrashing out ideas on bullet costruction, but this is a new game for most of us when it comes to severe penetration tests.
One of the toughtest tests we faced was for the Coast Guard. They have had no end of trouble with multi-layered fiberglass, as in dope boats! It is tough and has some spring to it. Foster's just make a shallow spider web indentation. The other rough test is heavy duty truck doors, with the window rolled down! However, these tests have nothing whatsoever to do with game! They do show that soft slug/bullets just can't cut it, no matter what people think.
I think bottom line is to shoot what you have confidence in.......but keep an open mind!........James

I test with wild hogs :D

Plentiful, no closed season or restrictions in Texas, edible, and a variety of sizes and shapes to choose from :p

And frankly, should one make it to the brush and die somewhere else, well, they are pretty well considered vermin here and the ranchers just want them dead, regardless. Plus coyotes gotta eat too....

If a bullet works well on pigs, it will work well on deer, although sometimes the reverse is not true.

All humor aside.... bullet tests are important, shoot the stuff you know works (or what you can get reliable reports on), and don't go cheap on components!

Mr. Gates, I'm curious about the heavy duty truck door.. Make and model?

I think you could go through the outer layer of my new F-150 with an air rifle. :(

I test with wild hogs :D

Plentiful, no closed season or restrictions in Texas, edible, and a variety of sizes and shapes to choose from :p

I envy you. My brother lives in Plano and he has about an hours drive for his hog hunting. I've eaten some of his critters and they're wonderful. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather have pork than venison any day. My brother hunts on property owned by an elderly guy who's afraid to go out on the timbered sections of his property because he's afraid of the pigs. Keith gets the run of the place and the landowner is grateful to him. Couldn't ask for a better arrangement.

I work with radio alot. The standards that antenna manufacturers use are sometimes used to make one look better than the other.
This is a firearms forum, so I will not go into that territory.

As has been posted above by myself and others, there is no standard. Pure lead is ok with me! Ballistic gel of whatever mix, fine!
Water, newsprint, ductseal, sawdust, pine boards, dog crap, whatever!
Me thinks that folks in the industry are the ones that need to find some common ground.

Some bullet manufacturerers are making this decision as difficult as choosing a cellular telephone plan!
It all leads me back to a cast bullet in a good revolver.
Cheezywan

The door was one the agency brought........from a Dodge Power Wagon with the window rolled down........James
Also, pigs do make a good test media,,,,,and you can est it!

Well, we went from lead to gut piles to fiberglass boats and truck doors.... WOW! Now where else could a single thread make such a wide cross section of applications? LOL

I think, if I read this right, Mr. James's initial post was directed solely at hardened target performance meaning the boats, truck doors and thick skinned big boned game.

If this is correct, I'd agree a good alloy, hard enough to withstand impact with hard materials but yet pliable enough not to fragment or splatter is in order. Got sidetracked myself getting into the gut pile deal but having read the continuation....now I get it!

I really don't think it hurt if we drift some! Seems we have had over 668 hits, so someone must be interested.
Yes, I was first discussing pure lead........but also as a second thought, the construction of a bullet that would stand up the any severe test.
The is a real similarity between the big bores Dixie works with and the hard cast handgun bullets......albeit they are just bigger. They both perform relative to there weight. They both have the same basic alloy. This is a fact that most miss completly! Both will survive severe destuction tests! If a shooter understands, and accepts, the use of hard cast handgun bullets......He should understand where Dixie is going with their products. The difference is only is the size! On the flip side, if the hunter/shooter accepts the idea behind Dixie's products, they should understand where Marshall is going with his bullets. It's the same concept, just different size bullets. Think about it......James

I remember an old Masterlock tv comercial where a paddlock was shot by ?????????? some firearm. I was intriged and shot one myself. I opened it!
Purpose built ammunition 'WILL" perform it's purpose. It may not be "all purpose" ?
One size fits nothing.
Cheezywan

FYI, I've opened dozens of Master Locks with two to three smacks with a hammer and punch.

We have a lot of experience with Master Lock. With and without bullets and I still cant figure out what bullet they used that the lock didn't fail.

Mr. Gates, if I understand correctly, your test was just a simple comparison of bullet cohesion (hold together) when fired through one type of medium, that being your lead sheet as specified and the pattern on the paper behind it. Did the bullet/ projectile hold together and show that on passing through the paper, was the question.

I am very curious about the performance of various premium hunting bullets and how well they held up. Solid copper v. H-Mantle type v. bonded etc. Mainly with 6mm and larger. In relation to my personal needs... :)

Every manufacturer has their own tests and it is in their best interest to perform well at their own test or report well after testing. This affects their bottom line as it affects sales.

I tend to fall in with the heavy bullet crowd rather than the ultra high velocity crowd for the simple reason that "gut pile analysis" has shown for a long time that going heavier does work as you mentioned African and Indian hunting at the turn of the century. Granted, I havent been hunting that long, being only 39, but in my limited experience, basic, heavy for caliber has worked well on critters. :D

Again, you have opened another can of worms, but worms are good for fishing and talking right? I enjoy seeing how a good question develops here with all the various input. Never know what you might learn. Thank you for sharing your work here.

Excellent questions and goes straight to the real meat of this post! What started this "lead" post was questions passed around at Dixie Slugs. First, you must understand that Dixie's products are aimed at only one thing........a large bullet that will hold together and a weight to penetrate heavy bone and tough tissue.That is a very specialized bracket.....and does not in any way replace popular cartridges. After some discussion we chose pure lead......we had it in house, it was fluid under prssure, and not hard enough to frag a bullet on its surface, and had a standard density......just that simple!
What was to be taken into consideration was, what would be left of a bullet under this severe test? Would there be enough to still drive deep and destroy tissure. We considered that it should retain at least one half of its weight. Our bullets retained at least 75% or more of their original weight.
And again! It is only a test to show the construction of various bullets for heavy and/or dangerous game at close in ranges!
I have also seen some solid lathe turned bullets that pass this test with flying colors........if it was large and heavy! I have also seen some full jacket roundnose bullets, touted as dangerous game bullet, that riveted and did not continue penetrating. What also comes at a surprise, is many bulets that are designed to expanded out at 100 yards and over, blow all to pieces at 25 yards, our test distance.There is another severe test also, multi-layered fiberglass, as in dope boats! But, that's another story and has nothing to do with game bullets.
I agree tha most ammo companies have their own tests to push there products......and that's OK if the shooter/hunter can duplicate the media.....few can!
Again, this lead test has nothing whatsoever to do with bullets designed to expand in thin skin game!
No, with do not, and have no plans, to test high velocity game bullets.......James

Well I have been doing the comparative testing of both handgun and longgun ammo for MANY years and the best test median is plain old WATER. It has the same effect as the lead, it is cheaper, you don't need to use it again, and you can get a comparative idea for the penatration as well as the ability of the bullet to stand up to the impact of a HARD object!!! :D

I know these are for shooting wild game, but this link illustrations how drastically different results occur when the same ammo is shot at a hard object: drywall, vs a soft object: 1 gallon jug of water.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=446479

in a nutshell, the 'fang face' ammo penetrated 11 sheets of drywall when only passing thru drywall. When passing thru a jug of water to simulate softer, fleshy tissue, it didn't even penetrate the first sheet of drywall.

the moral: lead isn't game flesh...ammo wont' behave the same way when stricking lead as it will flesh.

It seems I have to keep repeating myself!.......The lead test has nothing whatsoever to do with testing a bullet's performance in tissue! It is a severe test designed only to compare one bullet's construction vs another.......simple! Also, as I have said before......it is designed to test solid hard cast large bullets........430" up to .730".
One should test their bullets, if they do, in a media they are satisfied with.
As far as that goes, there is absolutely no test media that compares to animal tissue and bone.......there are just too many variables.......angle of shot, tissue density, location of impact, etc. If I desired to do so, I could pick apart any one's media.
So.......any test will only compare bullet to bullet construction. The final analysis is gut-pile.......however few shooters/hunters kill enough game to ever finalize that.......in fact I see many now days that can't even butcher what they kill, much less understand what they see.
I deal alot with people that do crop damage control and may will kill 100+ deer/hogs a year.....more than many can kill in a lifetime!
If you are satisfied with your bullets performance, by all means ignore my posts! .........James

I agree compleatly James. Malgore, water is not a 'soft' object. It is as hard on a bullet as the lead James is using and it is used as a 'comparison' test, not an indication of how the bullet will act on a 'soft tissue' target. The purpose is the same as what James is doing, to compare the 'toughness' of various bullets. If one does explode and fragment on impact with the water it will 'probably' not be one that will penatrate very far in soft tissue. Where as if it does not expand to any real degree when it impacts the water it 'probably' will not expand at all in soft tissue. Comparison only!!! :)

Water filled jugs make a good pass-fail test. I line up some 10 liter used herbicide jugs. If a bullet intended for deer blows up in the first jug at close range, just far enough to avoid the spray, it fails. If it doesn't expand at the longest likely range, it fails. Good deer bullets that have passed the gut-pile test penetrate 4-5 jugs. .357 pistol bullets fired with full snort loads in a .35 Remington penetrate 1 or 2 jugs.

Bye
Jack

Jack,
I think you have got it peged! ;)

Jack's test with water and jacketed bullets for comparison is excellent! We also use water filled milkjugs to check that out hard cast solid slug/bullets do not expand. If they do, we harder up the alloy by adding a little more tin to the melt.
Here again, it's a test for bullet vs bullet.........James

Lead has a property that water does not(at the temperatures we are discussing) "memory" of the impact event.
James Gates sir. Have you learned anything from the lead blocks? I will study the milk jugs to get an idea of what condition a bullet was in when it entered/ exited . The plastic does give some insight. What of lead?
Cheezywan

Yes, There are a couple of things we look at......recoverd bullet weight and crater size. and......whether the bullet even penetrated, but left a crater. We then photo the test with a scale included, mark the info, and file.........James

Yes, There are a couple of things we look at......recoverd bullet weight and crater size. and......whether the bullet even penetrated, but left a crater. We then photo the test with a scale included, mark the info, and file.........James

I was asking for more than "yes"!

Can you "expand" on that a little?

Please feel free to decline.
Cheezywan

Friends All......I am not being evasive, but don't know quite what you are looking for me to say? But, I'll try this approach.
Dixie Slugs says they are making ammo for heavy and/or dangerous game. That's a big pair of pants to put on and you have better have some a*s to put in them!
The first thing I test for is how Dixie's stuff compares with ammo touted as dangerous game ammo. It has to be the severest test, but consistant media.
Let's say the ABC company says their ammo is for dangerous game........what would you expect it to do? First and foremost hold together......right?
Now, If I test their ammo in the lead box and it fails to penetrate or loses too much weight........I can test my product against it to see if mine holds together better and/or loses less weight.........I call this factoring.
I don't talk about other's ammo much......but I have to use an eaxmple here. After I first started on a 1 3/8 oz (608+/- grs), another well known company can out with a 1 3/8 oz 12 ga load that theu "say" is a dangerous game load. They hit a velocity quite high (barrel length?).....I revised my bullet deaign, had Steve at Vitory Molds cut a mold for my new design, began study on a new slow burn all weather powder.
After pressure/velocity test, I found I could push my Predator II .727"-605 gr bullet 1555'/" from a standard 24" rifled barrel. Both my load and their's are very close......ballistics. Their bullet is soft swaged lead, while mine is hard cast heat treated alloy. My load will blow through 1" of pure lead at 25 yards (as I have shown and will do in public anytime!) and retain up to 75% of its weight.......their's just crater the lead.
Now.......which bullet do you think is best on heavy and/or dangerous game!
I have already said I liked the lead because it is fluid under pressure. It is not too hard that would cause any bullet to frag. It is consistant in its density. A 5"x5"x1" lead is heavy enough that it will not move and absorb energy.
Now......Please, if you think this test is bullsh*t......use whatever you feel is adequate to test your bullets construction.
What more can I say?........James

Just a couple of notes on bullet testing. Generally bullets that expand well go straight enough to stay in the jugs. Bullets that don't expand go though a lot more jugs, probably more than you have, so a good backstop is necessary. I've had Speer 168 grain HPBT Match bullets and round balls go seriously off course and out the side or bottom of the jugs. Again, you need a good backstop.

Wetpack has memory too, and the size of the hole is a more useful indication of performance than how high the jug flew. Bullets that don't expand will penetrate about 3 times farther in wetpack than ones that expand, but they aren't as likely to get off course as they are in water.

The plastic in some jugs get brittle after a few years and if the jugs are touching the jug beyond the one the bullet stops in will crack open. Separating the jugs by an inch saves a jug, but I got core-jacket separations with some bullets with spaced jugs, when the same bullet stayed together though touching jugs. It seems that the lack of resistance in air lets things get loose.

Expansion testing is a lot more work than shooting groups, but it paid off when I discovered that the 200 grain Hornady round nose won't expand at .35 Remington velocities and the ranges I could expect here on the prairies.

Wetpack and water isn't meat, but it can eliminate the sure losers that won't give you a gutpile to examine.

Bye
Jack

This has me thinking of the lead block backed with water filled jugs?
More information is a good thing!
Cheezywan

Again, let me say that the lead test is not needed on the majority of game bullets! The tests that Jack, and others, use on wet paper pack and water filled jugs is best. Those tests will give you a good idea how one game bullet performs (expansion, wet pack cavity. etc.).......it is only when one wants to set up an exterme test to see how a bullet will perform vs another bullet that is designed to hold together under extreme conditions. The lead test was never meant to replace other tests are for me to suggest it was better.....only another way.
If anyone has a better test, I would like to consider it.....not wet pack, water jugs, etc........James

If anyone has a better test, I would like to consider it.....not wet pack, water jugs, etc........James
Digital vidieo recording has come a long way as of late. I think it would enchance bullet testing using any media that we have discussed here. Several camera angles could be recorded at the same time and reviewed in much detail. One frame at a time as the projectile penitrates whatever media.
Cheezywan

I like that idea. But I can't afford to do that! ;)

Wetpack and water isn't meat, but it can eliminate the sure losers that won't give you a gutpile to examine.

Bye
Jack

Perfect..... it's why we test, no matter what we test with!

I have no hunting experience to contribute, but I’m beginning to wonder if penetration alone, regardless of caliber, equals stopping power when it comes to dangerous game. The India and Africa hunters of old had no high speed rounds with which to compare their paradox slugs. LBT bullets, Dixie Slugs, and Linebaugh tests are relatively recent phenomena. Experience will tell the story, but only if we are looking at the relevant data. I’m fascinated to learn what plays out, I just don’t want to be the guy getting chewed on or stomped while adding to the database.

Darrel

Good post Darrel. I am doing my own experiment because of all this heavy bullet, eat up to the hole mentality. I have been trying for a while now to get a heavy, hard cast bullet to shoot accurate enough to hunt with in my Marlin 1894, 44 mag. I think I have one of Marshall's 290 gr offerings doing that now and if I do my part and the deer cooperate I will have some data after this hunting season. I also shoot a swagged 44 round at low velocity out of a 44 mag handgun. It is a 240 gr loading that I hope may get a shot at a deer at about 25 yds.

I hope the hunting is good.

This has been some run, to say the least! When the gentleman says the Africa/India hunter had no high velocity rounds to test the older "big loads" against......they did not need to as game shot fell over dead! As the game was hunted harder, ranges did get longer and they added velocity.
The problem then and now......was not velocity, but rather having the bullet hold together in dense tissue/bone at that high velocity. John Linebaugh/Todd Corder did find something interesting in their test on large caliber......as the velocity was increased in stages, there was a point of deepest penetration.....then by adding more velocity, the penetation decreased.......even when the bullet did not expand. This can be verified by looking at their tests? This happened more on bullets with a large meplat. They have also done quite a few tests on bullet nose shapes and how the penetrated.....or tumbled.
One question remains in my mind.......if you accept the concept of hard cast LBT handgun bullets, why can't you accept the concept of the large .727"/.730" bullets at the same velocity?? They are just bigger! After all, they both are at the same velocity and construction. and used at the same ranges.Since both have about the same BC and trajectory! Many here are willing to say that even the largest animals have been killed with LBT handgun bullets.....why would you think the even larger bullets at the same velocity would not? Because one is in a brass case and the other in a plastic hull?. I am not trying to justify my designs, however it appears to me that there is some inconsistant attitudes here.The same justification of hunting with these hard cat LBT handgun bullets, also apply the the designs Dixie Slugs sell!......James

James:

I think that it helps to keep in mind that those who frequent the BearTooth site, and use the heavy-for-caliber, relatively slow moving, hard-cast projectiles, are on the cutting edge of exploration in this area of sporting arms. Your experiences fly in the face of dearly held notions of gun magazines, their writers, and the magnumitis infected public. I don’t know if you witnessed the howls of protest when Randy Garrett posted the Linebaugh test results showing that the Garret 45-70 loads had out-penetrated 458 Winchester loads. He never used the phrases, “better, out-performed, better-stopper, more-deadly”, or any other, but that’s what he was accused of.

We can prove that our bullets performed “W”, within the “X” set of parameters, but there is always someone who will get angry because they believe that their bullets will perform “Y” within the “Z” set of parameters. Go figure.

Darrel

Darrel and All.......I completely agree with your comments, but also remember some of us have been here on Beartooth for many years. We have seen Beartooth mature from a small forum arguing over the .44 Mag vs the 45 Colt. The forum has been expanded a great deal.
My comments about shooter/hunters not understanding or being able to see the relationship of the ultra big bores (.625" up to .730") to the same concept they hold on LBT handgun bullets and hard cast rifle bullets (like the .45-70)....same concept, just larger bullets! As I said before, has it to do with cosmetics (brass case vs plastic hull) throw them?
I have tried to show the results of a most severe test to determine the construction of a bullet's ability to hold together......and many confused it with tests for expansion (or lack of expansion). I am not complaining since I sell a lot of the ammo for ultra bores to hunters.......rather I am puzzled at the misunderstanding shown by many that swear by the performance of hard cast, large meplat, handgun and rifle bullets, compared to the ultra bore. Calculate the the ballistic performance of the following with other know hard cast caliber/bullet design: bullet-.727"-600 grs hard cast, heat treated (just like LBT bullets)- BC .145-MV@1555'/"-ME@3221 ft lbs-20" barrel.
........James

Again, you are all correct! We use a series of milk jugs filled with water many times to test to see if our alloy is hard enough to not expand. It's just another test media to compare one bullet's composition against another.
And......you are all correct that none truly reflect tissue......those answers come from "Gut-Pile" analysis!
Oh well........Time to feed the bulldogs!.......James


I have used a lot of different systems to test bullet terminal performance. A very good method I now use (It's also cheap) is to soak telephone books in water, stack them in a plywood box 8.5"X11"X30". (leave the covers on the phone books). I started placing real bone from elk and deer in the box, but found some plywood works almost as well and is not so hard to hit. This makes a little denser media than flesh, but is close. Looking at the bullet and channel it makes is simple as turning pages.

James:

Have you thrown one of your TriBall Buckshot rounds at the lead target?

Ralph

Hello Ralph........You know, I have not thought about that!... I just might though to see what happened! Of course, the Tri-Ball II was never designed for that severe of a test, even on game......but might be interesting.......Regards, James

James,
When I first saw the penatration tests I was a little confused and wondered why some bullets acheived less penatration at higher velocities until you consider that it is the same with the flight through air. For any given density of material (compressable and non-compressable) there is a velocity where the passage is most effective (the lowest drag factor). If you exceed this velocity the drag goes up and slows the object at a rate which reduces the over all penatration. ;)

Jim.....What may be showing up recently in tests on penetration, and not covered in computer programs, may be something like you are discusssing. This new "twist" is showing up on non-expanding hard cast bullets with a very meplat area. The Lindbaugh/Corder test on our .730"-730 gr bullet is an example. Three velocity loadings were tested....1200'/", 1300'/", and 1400'/". The 1300'/" load penetrated the deepest, although there was no expanding of the bullet. I can only surmise that as the velocity increased there was an increased pressure pack on the meplat area, which slowed the bullet down.If this is really happening we need to take another look to see if this is happenig to LBT handgun bullets. Although penetration was less, the cavity in the test media was larger.........James

James,
It would be a guess (somewhat educated) that there is a realtionship here with the sound barrier. As you know the speed of sound is not constant but varies with the material it is traveling through. The density and type of material are the main factors. When the 'bullet' penatrates it must 'move' materal and thus accelearte it away from the path. This requires alot of energy, but my guess is the closer to the speed of sound the material gets the more energy (rate) it takes to move it. I don't have an exact mathmatical relationship but I beleive it could be arrived at with some very extensive lab tests. Because the density of the material is also changed by the impact it would be hard to compute exactly, but some general guidelines could be established. ;)

Jim......I think you are correct! When my Dixie Slugs started testing the re-introduction of .730" (so-called 12 gauge) bullets, all matter of unusual factors reared their heads!
Why was there less pressure when a bullet vs shot charge of the same weight was fired? We arrived at the answer that the shot load produced more sidewall pressure due to it being fluid somewhat. There were many more things that can up and caused us to have a new complete set of pressure standards formed!
As the meplat area increased to be approx that of a .730" diameter, results opened up new concept on the relationship of meplat area vs tissue damage and penetation. Since all of the bullets were .730"-730 grs and did not expand......the only difference being an increase of velocity from 1200'/" to 1400'/" on 100'/" increments........it had to be something (pressure) due to the meplat area. The tests that this showed up in was the Linebaugh/Corder tests at Cody. Further test here at Dixie also proved the same thing happened in water tests with the Predator II-727"-605 gr bullet. As the velocity built up to the 1555'/"...penetation in the number of water filled milk jugs dropped off.....but the number of jugs destroyed increased! This leads me to think there is also some appliction here in handgun bullets with very large meplat areas......all other factors (weight, etc) being the same. It also leads me to think that there as a balance in the design (meplat area, weight, velocity) that would give the hunter the best kill potential! It is certainly a new area to explore........James