Testing another 160: Need for Speed Part D

[rohk]

Yes, it's a 16" and i moly all my bullets, may lose some initial velocities but usually gain it back and more by being able to push harder. This being territory angels fear to tread I have no clue as to how much more in this caliber.

[pitted bore]

Post #6 - General bullet newsprint test

After a 7-week delay, here is the result of impact testing of the General Bullet 45-cal 160-gr bullet in dry newspaper. As described above, the first attempt to perform this test failed because the bullet blew through the stack of newspapers.

I tripled the thickness of newspaper from that trial, and tightly packed them in a cardboard box. The load was the same as that used above: FL-sized cases with no mouth expansion, CCI 41 primers, 51 grains of Enforcer, COAL of 1.667", and crimped with the modified Lee 45-70 factory crimp die.

Using the Model 70 with the 26-inch bbl, I fired at the stack of newspapers from 10 feet away. Velocity at impact was close to 3140 fps. As with other tests of this load, there were no obvious signs of excessive pressure.

The bullet was recovered about 13 inches into the stack of newspaper. The bullet had shed all six petals; five of the six were recovered from the confetti of the bullet path through the paper. The bullet path was straight, and the bullet was facing front end forward. I could not tell whether it had tumbled along the path. The recovered bullet body was cylindrical with only slight mushrooming at the front end.

The recovered bullet weighed 129 grains, for about 81 percent weight retention. The five recovered petals weighed about 24 grains.

The General bullet showed more frontal expansion in the water jug test than in the newsprint test. In both tests, the hollowpoint expanded as designed, with the petals opening up along the six pre-fracture grooves before breaking off the bullet body.

NOTE: The results of these meager preliminary tests do not reflect how the bullets might perform when used as intended. Both the Barnes and General bullets were engineered for impact velocities of about 1000 fps. Here they were being sent into water and newsprint at three times the velocity for which they were designed. There must be no extrapolation from these tests to any aspect of performance for which the bullets were designed.

At these extreme velocities, the Barnes and General bullets performed differently. Both bullet types retained their basic integrity after shedding petals. The Barnes bullet appeared to be more malleable (ductile?), deforming and flattening more than the General bullet. The General bullet as a result penetrated further.

Below are some photos depicting the front, side, and rear view of the recovered bullets, with the General and Barnes bullets shown side by side.

Suggestions and comments? (I'll probably ignore critiques about sample size. These tests were a side-venture in the search for 450B velocity.)
--Bob

Front view, dry newsprint at 3140 fps

front_GnS.jpg (110.79 KiB) Viewed 5463 times

Rear view, dry newsprint at 3140 fps

rear_GnS.jpg (94.82 KiB) Viewed 5463 times

Side viewq, dry newsprint at 3140 fps

side_GnS.jpg (92.85 KiB) Viewed 5463 times

edited to correct typos

[Colohunter]

Thanks for the update, it's nice to see the photos for reference.