|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Rifles general discussion
> Ballistics gel tests
Ballistics gel tests
@ 11:01 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifWe can all agree that ballistics gel tests are useless for predicting terminal performance on live game. But gel tests may have some redeeming value for testing manufacturers’ alleged improvements, or for comparing batches of their bullets. For example, Nathan’s tests of Berger bullets on live game showed they were unpredictable - exploding as advertised in some cases, but penciling through in others. Same with Barnes - sometimes they work, sometimes times they don’t. Take the Accubond Long Range. If you knew how the original Accubond performed in ballistics gel, wouldn’t it be valid to compare the performance of the “Long Range” version in gel? While a gel-test is not a simulation of real-life, it could be valid for comparing new permutations or batches of older designs against one another. |
Replies
@ 12:13 pm (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: Ballistics gel testsQuite true Scott. |
|
@ 07:50 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Ballistics gel testsHere’s one my YouTube feed suggested today. It compares the ELDM to the ELDX of same caliber and equivalent weight. According to the “content creators,” the jacket on the ELDX is slightly thicker. But according to their gel-test, there wasn’t much difference in the terminal performance - just a tad more penetration for the ELDX, which you’d expect from a thicker jacket. I remember somebody on here posted about a successful 6.5 ELDX shoulder shot on a mid-sized deer species. I’d be more inclined to take his advice than rely on the gel test results. The gel test says nothing about whether the ELDM would hold up through a shoulder bone. |
|
@ 08:13 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Ballistics gel testshttps://youtu.be/Xm8wAXkVaxU |
@ 02:16 pm (GMT) |
Lane SalvatoRe: Ballistics gel testsI’ve killed both pigs and deer through shoulders with 6.5 ELD-M at 200 yards.they work out of a Creedmore. Much like a 25-06. |
|
@ 02:17 pm (GMT) |
Lane SalvatoRe: Ballistics gel testsThe pig wasn’t a big boar. It was a small boar. Deer was a good sized whitetail. |
|
@ 12:42 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Ballistics gel testsThanks, Lane. After reading Chapter 28 of “The Door” I would not have chosen a Creedmore, with any bullet, for pig hunting, but I’m glad to hear of your success! There are no pigs where I hunt. My concern is, in that split-second where you decide whether to shoot the shoulder, or fore-or-aft of it, is the bullet up to the shoulder shot? |
|
@ 02:48 pm (GMT) |
Lane SalvatoRe: Ballistics gel testsScott, perhaps I should add that I agree 100% with what Nathan has said, and written about using 6.5 calibers for medium game including pigs. I think that the 6.5 Creedmore in particular is the most overly used overly bragged upon, and perhaps over-rated rifle caliber that has ever been designed. For large deer I think it's worthless. For large hogs it's worthless. For 95% of long range hunting it's worthless.I was a guide for many years and saw lots of species taken with lots of different calibers. Bullets weren't as varied a few years ago, but I saw many bullets. A small pig at close range is very killable with a 25-06 which is why I wasn't afraid to take that smaller pig on a chance passing by with the 6.5 Creedmore. But I use it like a Gen. X'er would use a 25-06 or a 243, or how a Boomer would use a 257 Ackley. For medium to large deer I use a 308 or a 270 most of the time. For anything past 400 yards I would default to the 308 or larger. In fact my only kill past 400 yards was with a borrowed 28 Nosler with a bullet that was near 200 grains. So I'm not a small caliber guy. I wouldn't go on like this normally but I wanted to be sure that I was not irresponsible with my previous response. I just don't have disdain for the 6.5 Creedmore because I use it like I've used a 25-06 for decades, and I don't use it for long range work. Sorry, that was long. |
|
@ 07:29 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Ballistics gel testsThanks for the add’l info, Lane. Even though I understand the virtues of frangible bullets, after reading the LR Cartridges book, I’m leery of them in the quarter-bores (6mm-6.5mm). Do they have the mass to compensate for a direct hit on a large bone? They may be the best insurance for long range work, where exact shot-placement is an issue. Nathan is surprisingly charitable in his review of the 6.5 CM in the LR Cartridges book, considering his tales of disappointment with his beloved Swede. |
@ 02:40 pm (GMT) |
David LenziRe: Ballistics gel testsI know Nathan highlights his failures with the Swede and mentions that is the bore/cartridge that has failed him most. However, he also says:"The Partition should be driven into the major bones of the forwards chest cavity on game of all weights, not because of the bullet design but due to the power limitations of the Swede. Used this way, the Swede is brought to optimum performance." I imagine you could apply the same to the TTSX, and perhaps the ELD-X/SST as well. Here in south Georgia, 330 lbs covers anything you're going to find in these woods and then some. |
|
@ 08:27 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: Ballistics gel tests"Do they have the mass to compensate for a direct hit on a large bone? "That's a part of the issue Scott. At close ranges, the quarter bore thin jacket pills don't, if used on tough or larger animals. But at extended ranges, the energy simply isn't there to make use of a tougher projectile. Hence the suggestion of selective or dual loading and methods of shot placement within my writings. In a larger bore, one may take a one size fits most approach. In the smaller bores, more care may need to be taken, matching bullet construction to the job at hand as well as shot placement. Nevertheless, such plans or methods do not always work out. One could spend years arguing over 'what ya shoulda done was..." following a negative result. I actually have the video footage of the pig I wrote about (140gr SST) at the bottom of the Swede article in the Knowledgebase: Article: https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/6.5x55.html Footage (used in a mock tutorial that I made such a hatch of, that I never promoted it): https://youtu.be/1PV-LgloYl8?t=591 |
|
@ 01:44 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Ballistics gel testsThanks, David. I imagine you could apply the same to the .260 Rem or the 6.5 CM. Nobody except Nathan reports the bad outcomes, which apply equally to all the 6.5s. Their virtues are extolled across the rest of the Western world, based on the good outcomes only. |
|
@ 04:18 am (GMT) |
Lane SalvatoRe: Ballistics gel testsYou know....if people were enamored with 7 mm projectiles instead of the 6.5's, this conversation gets eliminated. Which end of the rifle is everyone really concerned about? Is it the dangerous end or is it the thumper? Would Grandpa be ashamed of us? |
@ 05:43 pm (GMT) |
Vincent MarconRe: Ballistics gel testsQuote: You know....if people were enamored with 7 mm projectiles instead of the 6.5's, this conversation gets eliminated. Which end of the rifle is everyone really concerned about? Is it the dangerous end or is it the thumper? Would Grandpa be ashamed of us?
Hi Lane, I was thinking the same thing. Part of the Creedmore's success comes down to marketing, part of it to everything being worked out in advance based on the most recent projectile and powder combinations, leade angles twist rates etc before it was ever released. Presumably if you applied the same principles to the 6.5x55 and loaded to the same pressures in a modern action the swede would out perform it by a fair margin. If you take that thinking further and apply the dimensions etc to a 7mm you end up with something very close to a 7mm Mauser shooting the 162 gr ELDM.... problem solved! Cheers Vince |
|
@ 04:29 am (GMT) |
David LenziRe: Ballistics gel testsScott,That's my thought. There's a slew of cartridges in 6.5 that are within about 150 fps of MV, all generally geared towards modernizing the Swede by putting it into a short action and running higher pressure than the often anemic factory loads. I think of the mainstream gun press, the only American writer I've seen lately preach "enough gun" is Craig Boddington. I can recall specifically that he cautioned against the use of the 6.5 mm for Elk and he recalled a conversation with a younger man that stated its adequacy emphatically... before going on to wound and lose an Elk with it. For a lot of us, ego is a big deal. "I'm an outstanding woodsman and shooter. I only take good shots. I have the discipline to pass on presentations/distances/winds that I'm unable to perform in." Warren Page took game with a .220 Swift... must mean .22 is fine for big game hunting and that it's the right choice for me too, right? v/r, Dave |
|
@ 08:55 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Ballistics gel testsI haven’t read Boddington extensively, but I remember an article in which he said his loaner gun, for people that pay to hunt whitetail deer on his property in Kansas, is a 7x57. Hornady’s website recommends their 6.5 ELD-X and GMX for elk. I would imagine a lot of the Hornady employees hunt elk in Nebraska, where Hornady is located, as well as in neighboring states to the west. They probably all had to sign a non-disclosure agreement stating they would not divulge that they do not the 6.5 CM for elk. |
Please wait
ABOUT USWe are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.
|
KNOWLEDGEBASE |
KNOWLEDGEBASE |