Handgun Bullet Testing

[Deleted member 39]

Awhile back when I wanted to decide what brand/type/weight of handgun bullets I wanted to select for my defense loads I enlisted the help of one of my shooting friends to build a homemade bullet trap (I am one of the world’s worst carpenters…bar none) to experiment with various brands of handgun bullets. I wanted to test various brands of bullets of various weights & calibers for my defense hand loads for expansion (bullet upset), penetration, and integrity. After shooting a bullet I would extract it from the trap, put it in a snack zip bag labeled (pre-firing) with the load data (caliber, bullet brand, configuration, weight before shooting, powder type & load weight, primer brand & case brand), and after firing added the penetration data & distance shot. When I got home I weighed the bullet for weight retention, and measured for expansion after firing and added that data on the snack bag label. This is NOT a scientific or official bullet test method, but it does give a very good indication of bullet performance at a reasonable cost.

The trap is built from a 2x12 pine planks. The bottom length is 4’ feet, 2 “; sides are 4’ and are attached from the front & the back side is cut to fit the 2” space in the back (the front is open). With this said configuration I load from the back (I found that easier) with 3 used gallon Arizona Tea jugs filled with water and capped on top (or you need a similar gallon container that is flat, front & back & measure the width of the jug.) I usually bring 10 -12 jugs for 5-7 bullet tests; next approximately 6 to 8” of wet newspaper (taped together when dry & soaked overnight and transported in a 42 gallon construction clean up bag), then insert 6 to 8 sixteen inch long 3/8” wood doweling randomly into the wet newspaper; and last, flush to the front, approximately ¼” of denim cloth (or you could use dry wall instead); I use a ¼” round, 14” long (easier to use) metal rod to probe the bullet hole & find the location of the bullet (or parts thereof) and extract it if the bullet doesn’t exit the newspaper; otherwise, if the bullet punches through the newspaper and penetrates into the water jugs, you can find it on the bottom of the last penetrated water jug OR the bottom (sometimes side) of the trap. If the bullet did not exit the newspaper, then you measure the length of the probe from where it contacted the bullet to the front of the trap and record. If the bullet penetrated the newspaper and some/all jugs, then your measurement would be; ¼” of cloth + 6 or 8” newspaper, and x” of water (depending upon how many water jugs it penetrated). While the measurement of penetration is not accurate it does give you an indication of the penetrative performance of the bullet. The real value of this procedure is it gives you a very good indication of bullet integrity…you would be surprised at the number of core/jacket separations, JHP’s that don’t expand, poor weight retention, & and bullets that don’t penetrate all the way through the newspaper...you also have material proof of bullet condition to bolster your argument if & when discussing bullet performance. The drawbacks here are that you have to replace water jugs after every shot if the bullet penetrates into the water jug/s, AND you must properly dispose of the penetrated jugs/wet newspaper/cloth from the test site (42 gallon construction clean up bags do nicely). The trap has held up nicely over the years, and hasn’t needed any repair. The real work effort is over once you have constructed the trap.

I test handgun bullets at 10 yards with the trap elevated in front of a back stop/berm. Only once did I have a bullet (which has been discontinued many years ago) travel all the way through the trap, and that was a Norma 240 gr, .44 mag, soft steel jacketed SP (which didn’t expand) with a Lyman Manual max load of H-110. This may seem to be a lot of effort initially, but you can use this trap repeatedly. This test gives you some indication about if the brand manufacturer’s bullet performance claim is valid, because it uses four test constituents + you can validate a decision about which bullet (and load) you choose to use in a defense situation, or test any other handgun bullet integrity. It is a hoot to invite your friends to come out to shoot their favorite handgun load; I’ve had our police chief & a former county sheriff change their back up gun factory cartridge. If you so choose and have access to one, you can enhance the test by shooting through a chronograph. I don’t expect anyone to rush out and start building one of these traps, but if you become serious about handgun bullet tests at a reasonable cost, it is a consideration, or a variation thereto, you may wish to entertain.

Respectfully Submitted, Silvertip1

 

[Lawry]

Have you compared your results to calibrated gel tests and did any loads consistently outperform manufacturer claims?

 

[Deleted member 39]

Have you compared your results to calibrated gel tests and did any loads consistently outperform manufacturer claims?

Those are reasonable questions, and require some explanations. The short answer is; “If I knew of any for that particular bullet I would have liked to for curiosity’s sake, but the comparisons would not be compatible”. Explanations are as follows:

1.) Ballistic gel is a mono-component, and must be refrigerated, and temperature controlled; note the following from a test site: "Keeping the ballistic gel refrigerated and cold ensures that it remains firm and retains its original shape, and measurable consistency, which is crucial for consistent ballistic testing." My test medium consists of wet newspaper, wood, water, and cloth, all of which are different components, not temperature controlled, and all of which are different mediums from ballistic gel.

2.) Ballistic gel penetration tests are precise measurements through only one substance, and the penetration measurements I describe are only rough approximations of measurements through 4 different substances.

3.) With regard to bullet upset (expansion through target medium): Ballistic gel bullet upset measurements are performed on a bullet traveling through a consistent mono-medium at a defined velocity at a defined distance. The bullet upset measurements I do are measurements taken on a bullet that has traveled through multi-components of different consistencies, traveling at a defined velocity and distance which are most likely different from the velocity and distance of a controlled ballistic gel test (I do use a chronograph), and the bullet may, or may not, strike wood doweling (a rough bone simulation) which would certainly lead to more bullet deformity than a bullet traveling through ballistic gel. Also, ballistic gel has a different effect on hollow point bullet expansion from one penetrating through cloth or drywall (potential plugs.)

4.) Regarding your question about outperforming manufacturer’s claims, I can only say this: The following brands of handgun bullets I tested over the years penetrated farther, retained all or the most original weight, and expanded at least very near or double their original diameter (all 3 qualities together) for high velocity handloads, or factory loaded ammo for that cartridge (handloads tested were not exceeding the Lyman Max load, nor were any tested at +P velocities) for calibers; .38, 9mm, .44, and .45 (.451) which scored in the top tier which were: Speer, Barnes, Buffalo Bore, and to some extent, Nosler. Given the above criteria the cheaper Remington, Winchester, and Hornady JHP bullets experienced core/jacked separations, and/or failed to expand, and/or penetrate through the newspaper.

Caveat: As I said in the original post above, my testing is not to be construed as being conducted under industry accepted criteria, but it does give one some good reasonable indications of bullet integrity and performance at reasonable expense. Obviously I could not conduct tests on all the brands/types/bullets in the calibers mentioned above, and these tests were meant for me to draw my own conclusions about which bullet I wanted for my defense loads; however, I did offer the above test method which has a reasonable cost to others to conduct their own tests and conclusions if they wished; should others have different methods which they believe better, they should definitely pursue them and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Billinthedesert]

Excellent post, Silvertip. Any chance of a photo of your bullet trap?

 

[Deleted member 39]

Any chance of a photo of your bullet trap?

Yes, but I will do so at a later date if you wish. The reason why is that my friend who built it underwent surgery last week, and the trap is in his storage shed...and it will be awhile before he recovers. In the meantime envision this: The trap consists of a 4' 2", 2X12 bottom plank with both side 4', 2X12 planks attached, flush on the outside to the bottom plank, and 2"s of the bottom plank protruding at the back. The back of the trap is actually a piece 2X12 wood cut to fit to the 2" protruding area on the bottom plank, and fits flush with the side and bottom planks. The entire trap is painted with a water resistant black paint...thus; it is an incomplete long rectangular wood box that is open on the top and at the front.

 

[Alan]

Awhile back when I wanted to decide what brand/type/weight of handgun bullets I wanted to select for my defense loads I enlisted the help of one of my shooting friends to build a homemade bullet trap (I am one of the world’s worst carpenters…bar none) to experiment with various brands of handgun bullets. I wanted to test various brands of bullets of various weights & calibers for my defense hand loads for expansion (bullet upset), penetration, and integrity. After shooting a bullet I would extract it from the trap, put it in a snack zip bag labeled (pre-firing) with the load data (caliber, bullet brand, configuration, weight before shooting, powder type & load weight, primer brand & case brand), and after firing added the penetration data & distance shot. When I got home I weighed the bullet for weight retention, and measured for expansion after firing and added that data on the snack bag label. This is NOT a scientific or official bullet test method, but it does give a very good indication of bullet performance at a reasonable cost.

The trap is built from a 2x12 pine planks. The bottom length is 4’ feet, 2 “; sides are 4’ and are attached from the front & the back side is cut to fit the 2” space in the back (the front is open). With this said configuration I load from the back (I found that easier) with 3 used gallon Arizona Tea jugs filled with water and capped on top (or you need a similar gallon container that is flat, front & back & measure the width of the jug.) I usually bring 10 -12 jugs for 5-7 bullet tests; next approximately 6 to 8” of wet newspaper (taped together when dry & soaked overnight and transported in a 42 gallon construction clean up bag), then insert 6 to 8 sixteen inch long 3/8” wood doweling randomly into the wet newspaper; and last, flush to the front, approximately ¼” of denim cloth (or you could use dry wall instead); I use a ¼” round, 14” long (easier to use) metal rod to probe the bullet hole & find the location of the bullet (or parts thereof) and extract it if the bullet doesn’t exit the newspaper; otherwise, if the bullet punches through the newspaper and penetrates into the water jugs, you can find it on the bottom of the last penetrated water jug OR the bottom (sometimes side) of the trap. If the bullet did not exit the newspaper, then you measure the length of the probe from where it contacted the bullet to the front of the trap and record. If the bullet penetrated the newspaper and some/all jugs, then your measurement would be; ¼” of cloth + 6 or 8” newspaper, and x” of water (depending upon how many water jugs it penetrated). While the measurement of penetration is not accurate it does give you an indication of the penetrative performance of the bullet. The real value of this procedure is it gives you a very good indication of bullet integrity…you would be surprised at the number of core/jacket separations, JHP’s that don’t expand, poor weight retention, & and bullets that don’t penetrate all the way through the newspaper...you also have material proof of bullet condition to bolster your argument if & when discussing bullet performance. The drawbacks here are that you have to replace water jugs after every shot if the bullet penetrates into the water jug/s, AND you must properly dispose of the penetrated jugs/wet newspaper/cloth from the test site (42 gallon construction clean up bags do nicely). The trap has held up nicely over the years, and hasn’t needed any repair. The real work effort is over once you have constructed the trap.

I test handgun bullets at 10 yards with the trap elevated in front of a back stop/berm. Only once did I have a bullet (which has been discontinued many years ago) travel all the way through the trap, and that was a Norma 240 gr, .44 mag, soft steel jacketed SP (which didn’t expand) with a Lyman Manual max load of H-110. This may seem to be a lot of effort initially, but you can use this trap repeatedly. This test gives you some indication about if the brand manufacturer’s bullet performance claim is valid, because it uses four test constituents + you can validate a decision about which bullet (and load) you choose to use in a defense situation, or test any other handgun bullet integrity. It is a hoot to invite your friends to come out to shoot their favorite handgun load; I’ve had our police chief & a former county sheriff change their back up gun factory cartridge. If you so choose and have access to one, you can enhance the test by shooting through a chronograph. I don’t expect anyone to rush out and start building one of these traps, but if you become serious about handgun bullet tests at a reasonable cost, it is a consideration, or a variation thereto, you may wish to entertain.

Respectfully Submitted, Silvertip1

Brilliant post! @Silvertip1
It is an impressive, well-documented DIY approach. Practical testing beats marketing claims every time.

 

[Deleted member 39]

Thank you, Bill & Alan. If the truth be told I was a bit hesitant about posting something like this, because I wasn't quite sure if anyone would be interested.