|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 8, 2009 8:27:15 GMT -5
  Wilmsmeyer, This is a Barnes X bullet, after passing thru 9 inches of solid medium, opened as pretty as a flower ;D I hope to let you if it will shoot thru a brownie as well |
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 8, 2009 8:49:16 GMT -5
were you pushing it with 4198?
Jeff~
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 8, 2009 8:59:49 GMT -5
Yes, 70grs of H4198
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Mar 8, 2009 9:21:29 GMT -5
Moose, you chrono that load? |
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 8, 2009 11:26:15 GMT -5
yes, I can't find the chart, I thing it was 2370 FPS,
I'm not an expert, but, I think it will be as good or better on game as a 300gr 375 H&H.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Mar 8, 2009 12:07:56 GMT -5
yes, I can't find the chart, I thing it was 2370 FPS, I'm not an expert, but, I think it will be as good or better on game as a 300gr 375 H&H. holy smokes, couple of those will make your eyes water  |
|
|
|
Post by cubdriver55 on Mar 9, 2009 21:58:08 GMT -5
This looks like a good load for Brown Bear. What sabot were you using? Thanks Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Mar 9, 2009 23:04:44 GMT -5
Was that the no longer made X bullet or the newer TSX? Looks like an X to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 10, 2009 9:20:46 GMT -5
rossman
You are right its an X bullet, thanks in part to members of this board directing me to sites that had them for sale, I was able to get about 500 each of the 300 & 350gr X bullets, Barnes tech said the new bullet with the three sizing rings, might not works as well in a Muzzleloader, less bearing surface. The 300 I'll use on Moose 70gr of H4198.
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Mar 11, 2009 10:00:50 GMT -5
Bigmoose, One thing you may want to double check on your X bullets is that they all have the same nose cavity. In the 90's and even later Barnes was big on changing the nose cavities on the X bullets (at least with the smaller calibers) from batch to batch. They were just improving the bullets as time went along. Some of the early X's from what I have seen in .30 and .270 had larger and shallower nose cavities which resulted in shorter and thinner petals. You do not have to check every one but if you have boxes from different lots you may want to check a bullet from each lot or box and maybe look real close if it looks like the box has been on the shelf for 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 11, 2009 10:29:40 GMT -5
rossman,
Thanks for the heads up.
I store all my bullets in 5 1/5 by 5 1/2 blue boxes, w/sabots, so its easy to check them out, they look the same, I did get to buy the little remaining stock that Barnes had.
I like these bullets because they open up picture perfect and are the best penetrators of all the bullets I have tested. Some of the most popular bullets lose 60 to 70 persent of there weight, Those are 100%. Once again I must add, serveral manufactures have said my tests are worthless since flesh is not solid....no doubt they are right, but I think the X bullet will break thru any large bones it encounters
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Mar 11, 2009 13:51:47 GMT -5
Us poor guys can't afford the fancy-dancy testing media. My country boy test medium in the early days was shooting into a creek bank, not scientific but worked for comparison. I was told by a forensics guy that testing to FBI protocol cost $300-500 a shot and there are eight penetration tests with 5 shots each and then up to 80 rounds fired for accuracy and velocity. About $20,000 for the whole test, not done for each caliber but each loading and sometimes even with different weapons.
When it comes to the animal you have the hide to go thru, then maybe a fat layer, then muscle then maybe a bone or two, then organs of different construction (I've seen Barnes Expanders go thru lungs and never expand) and then to exit back thru the same (just to punch a hole thru the hide on the opposite side, due to it's elasticity, is like punching thru 4 inches of tissue). All of this is variable depending on shot placement, angle and condition of the animal. One thing I have seen with both two and four legged creatures is that no two wounds are the same.
There was one gunwriter that made a "ballistic buffalo" to test bullets. He used two layers of truck inner tube to simulate the hide, then a bundle (3-4") of wet newspaper for the muscle, then a sheet of 1/2 plywood for the bone and then wet newspaper behind that (like two feet or more depending on the bullet) to measure penetration and catch the bullet. Not scientific but maybe more real world then a block of jello.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 11, 2009 14:54:01 GMT -5
rossman,
I use old catalogs, do they count as fancy-dancy
|
|
|
|
Post by jims on Mar 11, 2009 19:20:33 GMT -5
 ;D Bigmoose: I think it depends on the type of magazines you are using. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 11, 2009 19:48:01 GMT -5
Low brow, just like me
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Mar 11, 2009 22:49:35 GMT -5
If you didn't pay anything then that isn't fancy-dancy. One guy I know used to use phone books, rip the glossy front and backs off and any glossy pages (for consistency) and bundle them up with plastic straping, then soak them overnight.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 12, 2009 6:10:02 GMT -5
That's me, but no soaking
The no soaking part is what the manufacturers say ruins my tests in their eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tar12 on Mar 12, 2009 6:54:53 GMT -5
That's me, but no soaking The no soaking part is what the manufacturers say ruins my tests in their eyes. Do you shoot a dry moose? |
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 12, 2009 7:23:38 GMT -5
No, but I'm willing
|
|
|
|
Post by tar12 on Mar 12, 2009 9:17:57 GMT -5
LOL! I am just messing with you! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 12, 2009 11:46:30 GMT -5
Tar12,
As I was with you, one of the many good things about this site, is folks have a sense of humor.
I would like to that myself seriously, but my wife wont let me get away with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 12, 2009 15:16:57 GMT -5
I now have my zero, that is the end to benching with this load, Next thursday, I'll start shooting off my sticks [Bog-Pod excellent] leaning against a post, some sitting, although not much chance of shooting sitting on the tundra. But I'll start feeling ready I can honestly say it didn't enjoy benching that load, there was a time when I'd have looked foward to shooting a heavy load, those days are gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Mar 14, 2009 4:11:28 GMT -5
That's me, but no soaking The no soaking part is what the manufacturers say ruins my tests in their eyes. Just ask them to send you some of theirs to run side by side, heck, a test is a test no matter what medium is used |
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 14, 2009 6:57:08 GMT -5
AL,
Your my find a guy. A test is a test, Won't a bullet plow futher thru a wet medium......yes
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Mar 14, 2009 9:59:18 GMT -5
I always thought that using wet newspaper was a decent poor boys medium. It is cheap (free) and everybody can get it so duplicating results is easy. Wet you can see some of the hydrostatic effects. Of course there are those that would say it isn't scientific and those are the same ones that say testing on live or actual animal tissue isn't scientific ether but that is the goal of the bullet. I was told that when developing the 45ACP they would hang bodies from a certain length of rope, shoot into the body and measure the swing to determine how much energy was transferred. As I said in a earlier post builders clay was used in early testing because it would show the wound cavity but if you wanted to rig the test (no manufacturer would do that would they?) you could mix it pretty wet or let it dry out a bit. Then oil based clay was used but no standards, you could say you used #1 (the softest) but if you were showing the competition you could slip in #2 or #3 (harder). Then the scientist get involved and we end up with a block of jello, made from only a certain brand of gelatin in a certain way, shot at a certain temperature and verified by a calibration shot with a BB. Supposed to be so scientific but what gets me is that they show you the results of the bullet but most of the time do not tell you the calibration shot data with which your supposed to adjust the data by up to 20%. If you want to rig the test just let the block sit under the camera lights for a while. True the jello is 90% water and is very close to tissue but is it the same as a tensed up grizzly or some 250lb guy pumped up on PCP? Then the scientist say real world results do not count due to the variables, I hate to tell them but life is one big variable except for birth, taxes and death. Much like the old arguments between Dr. Fackler vs Marshall and Sanow. Your basically boiled down to a guestimate how the bullet should behave.
I commend anybody who takes the time to do their own testing, specially when their life may depend on it. Regardless of the media one uses your doing a comparison not writing the bible. The data is for your use and you have to decide the factors that determine what you think the results reflect.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 14, 2009 13:54:55 GMT -5
Rossman
I have read Martin Fackler work, however I have no high purpose to my testing, I just want is see which bullet will drive the deepest and still hold together, to me thats a good thing.
Simple is as simple does
|
|
;D Bigmoose: I think it depends on the type of magazines you are using. ;D