[JM]

I tested various loads in newsprint for penetration and expansion. The newsprint had been soaked for 48 hours.

The following .45 loads were shot from a 5" Kimber at 3 yards.

Speer Gold Dot 230 gr. JHP:

#1 5 1/2" pen., .65" dia., 229.3 gr. recovered weight.

#2 5 1/2" pen., .67" dia., 229 gr.recovered weight.

Remington Golden Saber 230 gr., JHP:

#1 5" pen., .69" dia., 231.5 gr.recovered weight.

#2 5 1/4" pen., .67" dia, 231.3 gr.recovered weight.

Fiocchi 230 gr. FMJ:

#1 12" pen., no deformation, 229.9 gr. recovered weight.

#2 12" pen., no deformation, 230 gr. recovered weight.

The next load was Winchester .38 spl 158 gr. +p LSWCHP. This load was fired from a S&W 638 snub nose.

#1 4 3/4" pen., .55" dia., 156.5gr recovered weight.

#2 5" pen., .56" dia., 156.5 gr. recovered weight.

Just for comparison I tested a few rounds of 7.62 x 39mm fired from a 16" AK-47.

Wolf 122 gr FMJ:

#1 16 3/4" pen., 109.1 gr. recovered weight.

#2 16 1/2" pen., 113.7 gr. recovered weight.

#3 13 1/2" pen. 108.8 gr. recovered weight.

The first two rounds had completly tumbled, and came to a rest base first. The third round came to a rest sideways.

 

[Guest]

Good work JM,
Your tests seem sound and accurate.
Keep it up....keep testing everyone and have fun.

 

[Jim Higginbotham]

JM;
How are you measuring you penetration and do you let the paper drain? You penetration does not seem to be what I would expect.

I shoot my paper in the water (though that is not how the IWBA protocol does it) and I use a small rod to measure to the base of the bullet (then when recoverd I add the length of the bullet). Most .45 230s give about 7.5 to 8" penetration and expand to .70 or better (the Speer G.D. usually less expansion and more penetration). Same for the factory win +P LSWCHP from a 4".

Just curious... could be the material - I use regular newsprint from the Louisville Courier Journal which is probably the best use of that particular publication other than lining the bottom of a parakeet cage. It is better to be uninformed than misinformed :smile:

Take care,
Jim

 

[JM]

Mr. DiFabio,

Thank you for the comments.


Mr. Higginbotham,

The newsprint was from several Sunday editions of the Indianapolis Star with all the advertisements and coupons removed. The Star has zilch informative value as well.

There was about 35 minutes between the newsprint being immmersed in water and the test. Some water drained but, the paper was thoroughly saturated. I used a wooden dowel rod that was graduated every 1/4 inch, and stuck it in the bullet path behind the bullet. Although, I forgot to add the length of the bullet to the penetration figure. That's a good idea. :grin:

The newsprint was tightly packed together with a top and bottom stip of duct tape; this was to hold the paper together. Perhaps this would account for the difference in results.

If your results showed 7-8" in penetration in newsprint, would penetration be similar in flesh?

Best Regards.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JM on 2001-07-03 02:00 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JM on 2001-07-03 07:46 ]</font>

 

[Jim Higginbotham]

JM wrote;

There was about 35 minutes between the newsprint being immmersed in water and the test. Some water drained but, the paper was thoroughly saturated. I used a wooden dowel rod that was graduated every 1/4 inch, and stuck it in the bullet path behind the bullet. Although, I forgot to add the length of the bullet to the penetration figure. That's a good idea.

The newsprint was tightly packed together with a top and bottom stip of duct tape; this was to hold the paper together. Perhaps this would account for the difference in results.

If your results showed 7-8" in penetration in newsprint, would penetration be similar in flesh?

All of those things together might explain it. I am fairly certain your source of newsprint is very similar to mine (including the quality of the information)

As to comparisons, the article that appeared in the Wound Ballistics Review indicated that wet newsprint (they used a press and weighed 6" stacks to squeeze out just the right amount of water for calibration) was on par with both handgun rounds and rifle rounds (including comparison on game with a .375 H&H)

However I tend to think that bullets go a little deeper on average and think of the newsprint as sort of the minimum realistic figure I can expect. Certainly it is a safer gauge than gelatin.

Take care,
Jim Higginbotham

 

[Guest]

Jim,
I tend to agree with you but I have also started testing in 20% gelatin again as the results seem much closer to the "real world" poor choice of words I know.

What has your experience been with 20% testing numbers?

 

[Matt1911]

Just one question here, fellas. I've done shooting into wetpack, but could never get a good depth measurement because the small dowel I was using wouldn't penetrate into the hole. It was so gummed up with little fragments of paper that there might's well not have been any paper there. What are you guys doing differently than I? Pushing harder on the dowel/rod?

 

[Jim Higginbotham]

David Wrote;

What has your experience been with 20% testing numbers?

_________________

I don't really have any experience with the 20% though I seem to recall some early experimenters used that. Fackler does not like it because it tends to expand bullets that don't expand in the real world.

I beleive the problem is that we are trying to make a homogenous material act as an "average" of several different materials. All the scientist (and most everyone else) insist on homogenous for repeatability but I fear we are off a little on that... each "layer" may be homogenous but I think we must have layers of soft/hard/soft to more appropriately replicate what happens... and then it won't be perfect.

No wonder I give myself a headache :smile:

Take care,
Jim

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim Higginbotham on 2001-07-05 19:26 ]</font>

 

[Jim Higginbotham]

Matt1911 wrote;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just one question here, fellas. I've done shooting into wetpack, but could never get a good depth measurement because the small dowel I was using wouldn't penetrate into the hole. It was so gummed up with little fragments of paper that there might's well not have been any paper there. What are you guys doing differently than I? Pushing harder on the dowel/rod?
----------------------

I use a small stainless rod about .18 in dia (scrap cut from old radio "whips"). Even then I run into "chaff" but it makes a different sound when you hit the base of the bullet. Any small dia. steel rod would do.

Take care,
Jim

 

[Guest]

My method is fairly easy (most of the time), I have a 30" cleaning rod for some of my old Anschutz .177 caliber Olympic rifles.
I use the oval ended attachment and "probe" it through, the oval end seems to help to ease the rod through the newspaper.

 

[Soujurn]

Dear JM.
In your first post in this thread you state the paper was soaked 48hrs.
But in a follow up post you state there was
35 minutes between immersion and test firing.
Which is it?

 

[JM]

Soujurn,

The newspaper bundles were soaked for about 48 hours in a plastic tub. Then the bundles were placed in another tub with no water in my truck for the 35 minute drive to the range.

I would have left the water in the tub but, those things are damned heavy.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JM on 2001-07-17 19:00 ]</font>