Has anyone tested the 200gr Nolser JHP bullets for expansion at +1200 FPS? I'm not worried about the media they were fired into (wetpack, water, mud, clay, gel,....whatever), any knowledge would be fine with me as long as the impact velocity was over 1200 FPS.
If you're interested, Nosler says their 200gr JHP bullet overall length is .674".
This guy tested the Double Tap loading of the 200 grain Nosler JHP from a Glock 29. Good results.
There's a good chance the bullet in the video never hit 1100 FPS.
Yeah...I was having the same thought as I posted. Pretty uniformly 10mm loses about 150 fps between a 5" and a 3" barrel. And since Double Tap is not known for making their velocity....these might not even be above 1000.
But, hey it is something. And I don't think the performance is going to vary a bunch from a 15% increase in velocity.
Quote from: sqlbullet on April 16 2013 02:46:21 PM MDT...these might not even be above 1000.
I shudder to think. Then again it just pisses me off how they plainly outright lie. Your 1000 or less FPS guess very well may be closer to reality than my 1100 or so FPS guess. Uuuuuuugh. >:(
Okay, I'm taking a chill pill. :D
Chopinbloc has the DT 200's but hasn't done them yet.
It'll be great to see what he comes up with when he gets around to testing them. Too bad the velocity will probably be a joke.
Advertised 1250 and gave me 1150. He will probably hit the block about 1120 FPS or so with them.
It's a Glock 29, IC. Lacking about 2" of barrel length from the guns you tested.
That puts us right at 1000 fps when you subtract the 150 fps rule of thumb from 5" barrel to 3" barrel.
Quote from: Intercooler on April 16 2013 06:05:33 PM MDT
Chopinbloc has the DT 200's but hasn't done them yet.
I came here to post this. I'll do them soon.
Tax season is over so I should have a babysitter (my mom is a tax preparer) more often and I might be able to get back to doing a test a week.
Quote from: Intercooler on April 17 2013 03:43:32 AM MDT
He will probably hit the block about 1120 FPS or so with them.
Ah...I see. The "He" is not the guy in the video, but Chopinbloc.
Quote from: Raggedyman on April 17 2013 11:55:56 AM MDTI'll do them soon.
Any chance you would chrono 2 or 3 rounds to give us an idea of the velocity when they hit the gel from your gun?
Anything you like.
If the velocity does turn out to be a little low, I'll see if I can buy some and work up a load.
That's awesome. Helps seeing a bigger overall picture to what's all going on.
I will see if I can shoot some wet pack this weekend with the Nosler 200gr JHP (1200+ fps) and the Nosler 180 JHP (1270-1300 fps) . All depends if I have to work or not.
Sean
I ordered a big box of these with some Starline brass to make into some heavy defensive rounds to carry in the Pasayten Wilderness on my deer hunt this year. I hope they are as good as advertised.
It looks as though you would be better off with 200 gr XTPs if you're looking for deep penetration coupled with some expansion.
I actually like the Nosler 200 gr performance better than XTP's. I find the XTP's have shed their jackets more often when I recover them from dirt banks. Yes they do penetrate a little more than the noslers.
Gun
EAA Witness 10mm, 6" bbl, 22 lb recoil spring
The cartridge
200gr Nosler JHP, Starline brass, CCI Magnum Pistol Primers, 10.5 gr of Blue Dot
The bullets did not fare well at those speeds. I shot the first through 2 gallon jugs, then 2 gallon laundry detergent jugs and they ended up in a final gallon milk jug. The second shot was through 2 one gallon laundry detergent jugs and two milk jugs.
Chrono was 1310, 1288 and I fired a third bullet for speed, not at a target and it was 1303
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s47/clarinath/87e4d3dc-a5ee-4570-9430-54424e07e168_zps0ed53f47.jpg)
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 13 2013 11:09:04 AM MDT
I actually like the Nosler 200 gr performance better than XTP's. I find the XTP's have shed their jackets more often when I recover them from dirt banks. Yes they do penetrate a little more than the noslers.
Did you kill the dirt bank? Or did it continue firing on you?
I hate to say this but I do not like Nosler or Hornady 200gr for the reason you can see. They can and do come apart depending on what you are shooting at and how it is hit. If you want penetration use a solid. If you want expansion about any will do that but they might not go deep or they might blow up. If you want both use the all copper bullet as it cannot come apart as it is a solid piece.The only problem is sometimes they expand so much it cuts down on penetration. Ask anybody who shoots them a lot.It is a must that the velocity be up for them to work good. Even in my muzzloader i shoot them at over 2000fps and the will kill anything on the North American continent including Grizzlies.Their solids in the large caliber dangerous game guns have taken over from all others in the African market for buffalo,hippo,elephant. The ones you have to penetrate and break down. I used to love Noslers before Barnes arrived but I had some blow ups with Nosler Partions.Never have I had a Barnes to fail.I have been lucky as all bullets will fail but some are much worse than others. In handgun JHP I like the Speer Gold Dots pretty well also.I guess it is just personal choice and what works in your gun for you when you need it to. That really is all that matters. Shoot them till you figure out what works for you.I never try to tell anyone what to use I just tell them my experience with each.
Quote from: DM1906 on May 13 2013 03:23:31 PM MDT
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 13 2013 11:09:04 AM MDT
I actually like the Nosler 200 gr performance better than XTP's. I find the XTP's have shed their jackets more often when I recover them from dirt banks. Yes they do penetrate a little more than the noslers.
Did you kill the dirt bank? Or did it continue firing on you?
The dirt bank serves two purposes. Its a great backstop so I can shoot at my house. It is also a fairly consistent meidum that I can shoot all bullets, rifle to handgun into and see how they expand when compared to one another when loaded and shot at different velocities. I can then compare this result to what I see on forums such as this one and formulate my own opinion from that based on velocity, expansion, penetration and overall performance. Any 200 grain .40 cal bullet will do the job if and when whatever I am shooting at is shooting back, (many others work well also this was just about 200 grain bullets).
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 13 2013 07:44:47 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on May 13 2013 03:23:31 PM MDT
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 13 2013 11:09:04 AM MDT
I actually like the Nosler 200 gr performance better than XTP's. I find the XTP's have shed their jackets more often when I recover them from dirt banks. Yes they do penetrate a little more than the noslers.
Did you kill the dirt bank? Or did it continue firing on you?
The dirt bank serves two purposes. Its a great backstop so I can shoot at my house. It is also a fairly consistent meidum that I can shoot all bullets, rifle to handgun into and see how they expand when compared to one another when loaded and shot at different velocities. I can then compare this result to what I see on forums such as this one and formulate my own opinion from that based on velocity, expansion, penetration and overall performance. Any 200 grain .40 cal bullet will do the job if and when whatever I am shooting at is shooting back, (many others work well also this was just about 200 grain bullets).
There's nothing wrong with shooting into the dirt. I do it myself, for various reasons. My reason for the question was practicality. If you are using it for comparative purposes, it's only relevant when comparing other bullets shot into the dirt. It has no relevant comparison with bullet performance fired into tissue. Assuming a bullet performs poorly because it frag'd and shed its jacket "in the dirt", tells nothing of bullet performance, when the performance is required in tissue. I used to shoot rounds into a swimming pool and recover the bullets. It was "neat", and the bullets never got away. I got wet, but that's as close as I've ever come to being attacked by a pool, and I started it. If you find your bullets perform remotely similar in dirt (or a swimming pool) compared to tissue, it was only coincidental.
Quote from: DM1906 on May 14 2013 07:19:25 AM MDT
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 13 2013 07:44:47 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on May 13 2013 03:23:31 PM MDT
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 13 2013 11:09:04 AM MDT
I actually like the Nosler 200 gr performance better than XTP's. I find the XTP's have shed their jackets more often when I recover them from dirt banks. Yes they do penetrate a little more than the noslers.
Did you kill the dirt bank? Or did it continue firing on you?
The dirt bank serves two purposes. Its a great backstop so I can shoot at my house. It is also a fairly consistent meidum that I can shoot all bullets, rifle to handgun into and see how they expand when compared to one another when loaded and shot at different velocities. I can then compare this result to what I see on forums such as this one and formulate my own opinion from that based on velocity, expansion, penetration and overall performance. Any 200 grain .40 cal bullet will do the job if and when whatever I am shooting at is shooting back, (many others work well also this was just about 200 grain bullets).
There's nothing wrong with shooting into the dirt. I do it myself, for various reasons. My reason for the question was practicality. If you are using it for comparative purposes, it's only relevant when comparing other bullets shot into the dirt. It has no relevant comparison with bullet performance fired into tissue. Assuming a bullet performs poorly because it frag'd and shed its jacket "in the dirt", tells nothing of bullet performance, when the performance is required in tissue. I used to shoot rounds into a swimming pool and recover the bullets. It was "neat", and the bullets never got away. I got wet, but that's as close as I've ever come to being attacked by a pool, and I started it. If you find your bullets perform remotely similar in dirt (or a swimming pool) compared to tissue, it was only coincidental.
I agree there is no comparrison to tissue. Since only a coroner ever sees how bullets actually perform I use the dirt as just one more tool to help compare bullets to one another then I compare them to any tests on forums and such that do the same thing with both bullets and then maybe find some with water jugs or wet phone books. All I look for is relatively consistent and good performance in all aspects.
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 14 2013 08:15:23 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on May 14 2013 07:19:25 AM MDT
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 13 2013 07:44:47 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on May 13 2013 03:23:31 PM MDT
Quote from: doverpack12 on May 13 2013 11:09:04 AM MDT
I actually like the Nosler 200 gr performance better than XTP's. I find the XTP's have shed their jackets more often when I recover them from dirt banks. Yes they do penetrate a little more than the noslers.
Did you kill the dirt bank? Or did it continue firing on you?
The dirt bank serves two purposes. Its a great backstop so I can shoot at my house. It is also a fairly consistent meidum that I can shoot all bullets, rifle to handgun into and see how they expand when compared to one another when loaded and shot at different velocities. I can then compare this result to what I see on forums such as this one and formulate my own opinion from that based on velocity, expansion, penetration and overall performance. Any 200 grain .40 cal bullet will do the job if and when whatever I am shooting at is shooting back, (many others work well also this was just about 200 grain bullets).
There's nothing wrong with shooting into the dirt. I do it myself, for various reasons. My reason for the question was practicality. If you are using it for comparative purposes, it's only relevant when comparing other bullets shot into the dirt. It has no relevant comparison with bullet performance fired into tissue. Assuming a bullet performs poorly because it frag'd and shed its jacket "in the dirt", tells nothing of bullet performance, when the performance is required in tissue. I used to shoot rounds into a swimming pool and recover the bullets. It was "neat", and the bullets never got away. I got wet, but that's as close as I've ever come to being attacked by a pool, and I started it. If you find your bullets perform remotely similar in dirt (or a swimming pool) compared to tissue, it was only coincidental.
I agree there is no comparrison to tissue. Since only a coroner ever sees how bullets actually perform I use the dirt as just one more tool to help compare bullets to one another then I compare them to any tests on forums and such that do the same thing with both bullets and then maybe find some with water jugs or wet phone books. All I look for is relatively consistent and good performance in all aspects.
Wet phone books or news print is pretty good. Better than bare ballistic gel, IMO. My point being, no matter what results you observe with dirt-fired bullets, it's no comparison to tissue. None. It's only relevant to other bullets fired into dirt, and have no bearing to bullets fired into tissue. In the end, bullet composition and design is overplayed, by a lot, when it comes to actual function. The same bullets fired into the same tissue (animal, corpse, victim, suspect, etc.) will behave differently, shot to shot. More critical is what the bullet strikes once it penetrates. I've seen it many times, I'm a retired sheriff/coroner.
Ultimately nothing behaves like human tissue other than human tissue.
I agree with shooting into what you have readily available as a means of comparative analysis between different bullet types, as long as you understand and quantify what properties of the bullet you are testing and how that may relate to real world scenarios.
For instance..
Dirt would be a great medium for testing absolute penetration of non-expanding rounds. While they would penetrate different absolute distances in tissue than in dirt, you could probably come up with a pretty accurate equation for predicting the penetration in tissue based on the penetration in dirt.
Another is what dover alluded to; absolute toughness of the bullet. Chances are a bullet that both expands and stays together in generic dirt will stay together in tissue. Yes, there may be a few bullet types that are susceptible to hydraulic separation that won't separate in dirt, but overall, I would feel pretty good that 75% of the bullets that hang together in conglomerate sand, clay, bio and gravel (common dirt) would also hang together in tissue (skin, fat, muscle, sinew cartilage and bone).
However, I do agree that dirt, as an overall comparator, is not going to give results relevant to performance in tissue.
Dr. Roberts tells us that calibrated ordnance gelatin is remarkably consistent with human tissue, except for bone, which is very difficult to predict. It is often said that other mediums are as good as or better than calibrated gelatin and that's simply not true, according to physicians who have examined bullet wounds in human beings as well as conducted gelatin tests. It is also a commonly held misconception that nothing can accurately predict the behavior of a bullet in tissue. That is true to the extent that a lot of variables such as impact velocity, angle, clothing, bone, etc. do have some impact but the primary mechanism is the interaction of the bullet with soft tissue and the gelatin accurately depicts that interaction. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it's very close and about as good as you're going to get without shooting thousands of live human beings or pigs.
Dirt is substantially more dense than tissue, water, gelatin, etc. and I would expect it to behave in a different manner. I doubt that it is able to tell you anything other than how a given bullet behaves in dirt.
I plan to use all results and test mediums I can to find a bullet that performs consistently in everything available. To me this ensures the best chance the bullet will perform as designed no matter what. I compare the dirt results with gellatin results on the internet and forums and also water jug tests and phone book/newspaper tests and any other test I find to compare it to. When a bullet performs consistently in all of these mediums at varying velocities then that justifies to me that the bullet will perform regardless of range, velocity, or whatever it hits be it animal or human if necessary.
That sounds reasonable.
Quote from: Raggedyman on May 14 2013 01:03:34 PM MDTDr. Roberts tells us that calibrated ordnance gelatin is remarkably consistent with human tissue, except for bone,...
The only type of human tissue it is meant to represent is muscle. And even that they derived via swine. Bottomline is, at best, the calibrated ordnance gelatin will only give an idea of bullet penetration depth in muscle and only muscle, and even that's not exact. I wonder how much bullet penetration depth varies between penetrating either red or white muscle? Not that that would give us any meaningful data toward terminal ballistics.
What the gel excels for is simply a consistent medium to test any available bullet in for a consistent comparison to any other available bullet. Nothing more, nothing less.
I can't compare pistol bullets and the damage they do inside a human, but after years of hunting deer with a .270, my bullet of choice is a bullet that breaks up, never leaves an exit and destroys the shoulder you hit it on. My ex BIL used a .270 that would mushroom well, never destroy meat, and ALWAYS exited the other side. My deer 9 times out of ten dropped dead in their tracks with a good boiler room shot. His usually ran off 50-100 yards before dying.
Taking that to pistol bullets, for personal defense I will take a pistol bullet that tranfers its energy almost immediately and fragments in short order. More wound channels, more hydrostatic shock. I am not looking for penetration, it's a 10mm, it WILL get inside a human and do massive damage even if it doesn't penetrate 14 inches. I want a bullet that dumps all of it's energy in the first few inches so all those nice soft tissues turn to mush, then get shredded by copper and lead fragments while the bulk of the bullet keeps plowing.
With all due respect bullets at handgun velocities behave very different than rifle velocities.
Hydrostatic shock does not come into play very much if at all and you need to penetration.
The velocity and energy just aren't there.
Insufficient penetration in 10mm or any other service handgun can get you killed.
What are handgun velocities and what are rifle velocities? Some handguns launch bullets at over 2000 FPS and some rifle loads won't get you to 2000 FPS, to use a loose number.
More energy does do more damage assuming the same bullet construction is being compared, period. The difference between 450 ft-lbs and 700 ft-lbs is easily noticeable whether shooting deer or water filled jugs.
Clarinath compared a rifle load to another rifle load using the same cartridge, with the main difference being bullet construction. I don't see what's wrong with that even when bringing handgun rounds separately into the discussion.
I also agree with Clarinath in that I have no interest in a defense round that regularly leaves an exit wound. But that's just my own reasoning for myself and I wouldn't tell anyone they're wrong for using a bullet that does more commonly leave an exit wound.
No question the bullet should be capable of reaching the vital organs the vast majority of the time.
I was able to get the Nosler 200gr and 180 gr Hp's shot in wet pack today even a few 135's. I am still at the land hog hunting but will post pics and data Monday.
Sean
Sweet! Excited to see the results. 8)
Quote from: REDLINE on May 17 2013 12:50:36 AM MDT
Quote from: Raggedyman on May 14 2013 01:03:34 PM MDTDr. Roberts tells us that calibrated ordnance gelatin is remarkably consistent with human tissue, except for bone,...
The only type of human tissue it is meant to represent is muscle. And even that they derived via swine. Bottomline is, at best, the calibrated ordnance gelatin will only give an idea of bullet penetration depth in muscle and only muscle, and even that's not exact. I wonder how much bullet penetration depth varies between penetrating either red or white muscle? Not that that would give us any meaningful data toward terminal ballistics.
What the gel excels for is simply a consistent medium to test any available bullet in for a consistent comparison to any other available bullet. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not quite. As I mentioned, Dr. Roberts noted a very consistent relationship between calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin tests and actual wounds in real human beings. I used to think the same thing but having read his opinions on the subject, I understand that gelatin is a fairly decent analog. Nothing is perfect and there will be some variations but it is actually a fairly decent predictor of how a bullet will perform in real tissue.
That said, my own testing could very easily be flawed. It does not take place in a lab so there is significant potential for temperature change. The media I use is gelatin and I do calibrate it with a BB but it is not 250A bloom photographer's gelatin. I only fire1-3 shots per test, whereas it is recommended to fire at least five to get a good statistical sample. I am a relatively uneducated novice so there are probably numerous other variables that could produce inaccurate results from my own tests. I do not claim that my own tests are good for anything other than VERY general information and entertainment. I am claiming that properly conducted professional tests are a reasonably good way to predict how bullets will perform in tissue.
Food for thought...I like the gel testing so don't take this wrong. The Human body as well as animals have muscle, bone and organs...
Muscle's are fairly solid fibrous tissues-
Bones are dense harder but somewhat porous-
Organs come as solid and hollow, heart & lungs being both, liver, kidneys being solid and stomach, Blood vessels, guts, bladder being hollow type organs.
Bullets which rip into the lungs cause bleeding & force trauma to the tissues and interruption of air exchange.
Bullets hitting the heart can cause trauma to the and bleeding and may incapacitate its function.
Bullets hitting the spine can cause paralyzation or immobilization.
The hydraulic displacement and damage is usually caused by very high velocity impacts...
Quote from: Raggedyman on May 19 2013 12:02:16 PM MDTDr. Roberts noted a very consistent relationship between calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin tests and actual wounds in real human beings.
Based on what I quoted you on the question becomes; Noted based on what data/study/experimentation?
Eugene J. Wolberg reviewed 27 shootings that all involved the Winchester 9mm 147gr Subsonic JHP (all officer involved shootings). He compared the penetration and expansion of those bullets in human tissue at autopsy (only shots into the torso that remained in the body for their entire penetration depth were included in this study and all shots that hit bone were eliminated from the study) to the same bullet's penetration and expansion in 10% ordnance gelatin at 4 degrees C (preparation method of the Letterman Army Institute of Research).
Penetration depth in the gel ranged from 12-14 inches.
Penetration depth in human torsos that didn't contact bone ranged from 10-17 inches.
Eugene J. Wolberg, in 1991 when he did this study, was a Senior Firearms Criminologist at the San Diego Police Crime Laboratory. This study was published in the Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association, of which Martin L. Fackler was the Editor-in-Chief.You and Dr. Roberts may consider that a consistent relationship. I don't, even beyond shots hitting any bone not being included at all and some shots being stopped early by human hide at the far end of bullet penetration depth that were included, therefore fudging the numbers even further. As far as I'm concerned at this point we can agree to disagree, as it can be argued that any aftermath of the data can realistically be open to opinion at this point.
"The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg's material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents."
- Dr. Roberts in a discussion found here: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=106470&page=5 (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=106470&page=5)
When coping and pasting you need to beware of certain characters as that is where the past will stop.
Here are but a few that will cause an issue " - degree an a few other symbols
I figured it had something to do with the software parsing punctuation as code but I wasn't sure what exactly was happening. I even pasted into Notepad and re-copied it to be sure it was sanitized ASCII characters with no formatting but still had trouble.
I found (with help) the quote I was looking for. Turns out it was from Dr. Fackler, not Dr. Roberts but is nevertheless relevant.
QuoteThe test of the wound profiles validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile's course. Shots traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close approximation to the wound profiles.
The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency a good reason was found and when the exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a valid tissue simulant.
From "The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation." (Martin L Fackler, MD, Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 1994; 12-19)
Thanks for your help, Shadow. I think I got it figured out. Oddly, it seems to accept manual input of the characters (apostrophe, in this case) but not pasting.