Opps... My mistake. I must have missed the requirement that "All loads mentioned in this thread must first be tested in validated 10% ordinance gel." Give me a minute while I go back re-read the original post...Originally Posted by DMWINCLE
Nope. It ain't there. In fact, the original post says this:
You can talk about what you've found that works and doesn't. Factory ammo and/or handloads. Ammo for defense or plinking or practice or hunting. The more info, the better.
Another bad thing would be ganging up on the new kid like a bunch of junior high girls. That would be a bad thing if it were actually happening in this thread.
Last edited by pettypace; 12-26-2019 at 10:59 PM.
I would expect JHPs to show more penetration in the Clear Ballistic gel because JHPs won't expand so much in the CB gel. But if the difference is really 40%, then there isn't much on the Lucky Gunner site that meets the FBI 12" to 18" requirement. Where did you find the 40% number?
For non-expanding bullets, hard-cast wadcutters, for example, I would expect penetration in CB gel to be pretty close to that in validated 10% ordinance gel. That should be easy enough to test just by comparing penetration in CB gel with predictions from the Schwartz and/or MacPherson models.
Unfortunately, the models won't help much with two-projectile loads because there seems to be some sort of "drafting" going on -- maybe with the two projectiles somehow sharing the same temporary cavity. I'd be very interested to see how that works out in validated 10% gel.
Given that the issues surrounding increased penetration in clear gel vs. 10% ordnance gel are fairly well established and that you can't know how different the two are without understanding the calibration penetration, it's difficult to know if your clear gel results can be taken at face value.
My default response is to take any clear gel penetration numbers and reduce them by 40%. I averaged the clear gel results and got 17.25" of clear gel penetration, reducing that by 40% gives you an average penetration depth of 10.35". 10.35" is unacceptable penetration for any working load. This should not come as a surprise, given that even if you're driving two bullets, you're still driving two 100-grain bullets, at 600 FPS each. That is a recipe for under-penetration.
Then we arrive at the accuracy concerns. Double-ball/double-bullet loads tend to exhibit sub-par accuracy, due to deformity of two bullets smashing into one another. You also have the issue of firing the rearmost one base-first, which causes massive drag and a dramatic drop in accuracy quickly. If you are shooting better than 8" groups at 25-yards with this load, I'll be surprised. And just to cut the "I don't shoot my J-Frame at 25-yards" strawman off, I do shoot my J-Frames at that distance. They are regulated from the factory with 158-grain ammunition at 25-yards, like they have been for nigh 70-years.
All advocated defensive loads should be capable of <4" groups at 25-yards and penetrate a minimum of 12" and ideally 16-18" of ordnance gel without fragmenting. Anything less is inadvisable for a variety of reasons, but most importantly ineffectiveness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KizfONaOVV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pqPBnSYTIc
Both of those show you a range of 25%-35% increased penetration in clear gel vs. organic gel. A 40% number is an overestimate on my part, but given that clear gel gives you an inflated sense, you'd do better to pick the higher correction factor over the lower.
Let's see, if we go with the 25% number, average penetration is 12.94", with the 35% number 11.22". Neither of those is ideal.
Nobody has ganged up on you. Several people have questioned the wisdom of your pet load, particularly as a real world carry defensive load, but nobody has ganged up on you. I don't know how you found the forum, but stick around and you'll see there's a pretty solid base of expertise here. Many folks here get paid to present the sort of information they provide here gratis and are recognized subject matter experts "in the. Clear gel and other "alternative test media" to include hams, clay, wet newspaper, etc. is of little value here. While interesting from a hobbyist standpoint, the lack of ability to calibrate and the lack of proven correlation to real world results means there's little weight attached to the results for real world use.
I do not suspect you'll find many folks here interested in your dual projectile loads as anything other than a curiosity, but as long as you abide by the rules of the forum you're free to attempt to convince us. So, as I asked earlier, if you're going to increase the recoil by launching 200gr worth of projectile, what are you actually gaining over existing 130gr +P bonded cartridge that will penetrate to the appropriate depth in calibrated testing, shoots to point of aim, doesn't limit your range to baseball bat distances, etc?
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Thanks for the links -- especially the Brassfetcher video. Much bigger difference than I expected and not easily attributable to expansion differences.
That leaves much of the "drafting" I thought I was seeing in the CB gel questionable. But the "predicted" starting point of about 12" is based on models from Schwartz and MacPherson, all of which are tied to validated 10% gel. So that's as valid as the models. But the question of just what goes on when two projectiles traverse the gel at essentially the same time won't be easily answered. It's not hard to imagine that two projectiles somehow sharing the same temporary cavity would out-penetrate either by itself. But if so, how much damage would be done? Dunno.
But thanks again for the links.
I've already apologized to the OP for my role, however unintentional, in the hi-jacking of his thread. I don't want to dilute that apology with further two-projectile discussion here. So, how about I respond to your question about "what are you actually gaining?" via PM. Then, I'm happy to trust your judgment and knowledge of the forum in deciding if it's worthwhile to start a new thread to pursue the topic.
No need to go to PM. I've pulled the relevant posts and created a thread dedicated to your topic.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
When you stack two short wadcutters on top of each other in a 38 Spl case with both bullets fully seated in the case you will experience a gain in velocity over a SWC design of the same weight. This is due to an increase in chamber pressures caused by deep seating the bullets in the case. If you're not careful and knowledgable about what you're doing, this practice could potentially get exciting, and expensive. I have done it with short little wadcutters, and also with undersized bullets stacked on top of each other in a sabot. However, the energy delivered to the target isn't multiplied beyond the effect of a simple controlled pair (okay, double tap) with two bullets of identical weight and velocities. The two lightweight wadcutters will not strike the target at the same exact moment, and I have seen them strike the target as much as 4 inches apart, and rarely under two inches, depending on the distance to the target.
I have done this in the past, and I used 38 Spl cases charged with bullseye. The bullets always separate as soon as they clear the muzzle. If you want to try something like this yourself, NOE Bullet Moulds does offer a 73 gr. wadcutter design for gallery loads that could get you started: http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product...roducts_id=142 The mould I used back then case 60ish gr wadcutters without a button nose, and you could stack up to three of them in a 357 mag case but you had to keep the velocities low or the doggone things would scatter like buckshot.
One enterprising gunwriter, Wiley Clapp perhaps?, cut down 357 max cases and loaded four of them in it and called it the 357 Quadrimaximum. It was a dandy experiment, but he didn't do much with it after his initial development. I also tried multi-ball loads with buckshot in sabots which seemed to work okay, but performance at fruit shoots was uninspiring at best.
Reply With Quote