A bit of .223 bullet testing

Slug chucker

I did a bit of terminal ballistics today with some .223 rounds, this is something I was just doing for my own interest and entertainment, I’m sure there are much better ways of doing this so don’t take it to pieces nit picking that its not the correct way to test.
Rifle used:
Savage 10 FLP 1:9 Twist in a 24” barrel.

Medium used:
I used two dry Argos books roughly 41mm each thick taped together with a piece of 7mm thick timber at the bullet entry point to simulate the entry bone damage (rib cage).

I used the following rounds at 100 meters range:

1. Federal Power shock .223 64 Grain SP.
Part number 223L. (published muzzle velocity 3090 fps)

2. Hornady .223 53 Grain HP Boat tail.
Part number #8023 (published muzzle velocity 3330 fps)

3. American Eagle .223 50 Grain HP.
Part number AE223G (published muzzle velocity 3400 fps)

4. American Eagle .223 55 Grain FMJ Boat tail.
Part number AE223 (published muzzle velocity 3240 fps)

5. Hornady .223 60 Grain Vmax Ballistic tip
Part number #22281 (crony speed 3052 fps)

Bullet 1
Penetrated to page 411 of book 2 (51mm depth in total) with good weight retention, it looked like one of the proper expanded mushroom shaped bullets you see in all the shooting books. It looks as if it expanded to twice its normal size and made a good big hole exiting the first book into the second book.

Bullet 2
Penetrated to page 293 of book 2 (48.5mm depth in total) all that was left of the bullet was shrapnel, just small copper and lead fragments with powered lead core.
No distinguishable bullet mass was left. Made a reasonable exit hole leaving the first Argos book into the second one

Bullet 3
Penetrated to page 21 of book 2 (42mm depth in total) all that was left of the bullet was shrapnel, just small copper and lead fragments with powered lead core.
No distinguishable bullet mass was left. Made a good exit hole leaving the first book into the second one

Bullet 4
As expected for a FMJ bullet it zipped through both Argos books with no expansion and kept going, not much more can be said about that. The bullet exit hole was not much bigger that the entry hole which suggests the bullet was fully intact on its exit with a good head of speed left in it. Not a good thing in my opinion for hunting as even if you make the perfect shot its possible that it may keep going on through your target to strike something you didn’t meant to kill.

Bullet 5
This is the round I felt may of had a problem with penetration on a fox, well it didn’t leave the first Argos book stopping at page 1355 of book 1 (32.57mm in depth). All that was left of the bullet was shrapnel, just small copper and lead fragments with powered lead core. But it did leave the biggest amount of damage of all the bullets at its stopping point which suggests a good energy transfer. The Argos book was pulverised at its core with the biggest entry wound channel. I suppose this rapid expansion is what a ballistic tip bullet is meant to do but I would have preferred if it had gone a bit deeper.

Anyway that’s that, I intend to do the same thing again over Christmas/the New Year with wet phone books just to see the difference.
I was most impressed by Bullet number 1 the Federal power shok, I feel that this bullet style will be the one I’ll be opting for in 2008.
Cheers,
Slug Chucker

chem

you should try soaking the books in water next time. Inside a fox is not dry. See how the bullets expand then.

bitemybanger

I use the Federal 64g rounds aswell, super round.
a bit dearer at over a euro a pop. box of 20 for E22

Slug chucker

chem wrote: »

you should try soaking the books in water next time. Inside a fox is not dry. See how the bullets expand then.

I hadn't got any spare phone books today and Argos books don't take water very well due to the print on them, so do you think maybe that's why I said I was doing further testing with wet phone books over Christmas :rolleyes:
Thanks for the nit picking, very constructive.
Slug

Slug chucker

bitemybanger wrote: »

I use the Federal 64g rounds aswell, super round.
a bit dearer at over a euro a pop. box of 20 for E22

What have you used them on?
Ta,
Slug

IRLConor

If you're interested here's a set of instructions for making ballistics gel. It looks easy enough and might give you more realistic results.

bitemybanger

i use them for fox, just got a new 223 and havnt shot many so far but the ones i have shot all dropped on the spot.
All the bullets passed through the fox with big exit holes, some say it might be a bit overkill and messy but they work

Slug chucker

bitemybanger wrote: »

i use them for fox, just got a new 223 and havnt shot many so far but the ones i have shot all dropped on the spot.
All the bullets passed through the fox with big exit holes, some say it might be a bit overkill and messy but they work

That's what I thought from my testing, the round was well deformed and looked like a good killer.
I shot two fox's so far with the hornady ballistic tips, one went down but not dead from a square on chest shot at 120yards and the other one went down but got up again and ran. I shot him up the ass at 200 yards which is the zero on my gun.
He pretty much got it up the hole, I heard the thud and then a crack just before he hit the deck. I stood up to go and get the tail and to my disbelief the bugger got up off the ground and took off into dense cover!

So I'm looking for a round that packs a bit more wallop but won't over penetrate like the FMJ's.

Slug chucker

IRLConor wrote: »

If you're interested here's a set of instructions for making ballistics gel. It looks easy enough and might give you more realistic results.

Yea, I was thinking about ballistic gel. I was going to use a peice of 4" wavin as the mold then transfer the solid gel cylinder into two half peices of wavin strap them together, a bit like the new Brownells ballistic test tubes:
http://www.brownells.com/aspx/ns/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=22956&title=THE%20BULLET%20TEST%20TUBE

At least then i wouldn't have to make great big blocks of the stuff to counteract the hydrostatic shock. I think an unbraced 4" diameter tube of gel would just breakup from a .223 round at 100 yards.
What do you think?

IRLConor

I reckon you're right, a 4" diameter tube of gel would probably split. I've never played with it myself and I've never shot a .223, but my gut would say that it wouldn't stand up to it.

The wavin solution is probably a good one, it'll compromise the results slightly (due to the added stiffness/support) but probably not much more than the error you'll get from the home-made gel. Either way, it's more likely to produce useful results than phone books.

If you do the wavin pipe solution, post photos! I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be interested in duplicating the rig for their own tests.

bunny shooter

Slug chucker wrote: »

So I'm looking for a round that packs a bit more wallop but won't over penetrate like the FMJ's.

IMO should never use fmj's for hunting

johngalway

Slug chucker wrote: »

I shot him up the ass at 200 yards which is the zero on my gun.
He pretty much got it up the hole

So I'm looking for a round that packs a bit more wallop but won't over penetrate like the FMJ's.

Problem no.1, really bad shot placement. Up the ass at 200 yards is no way to shoot a fox. They're tough creatures that can take a surprising amount of lead. Do it right, side on heart/lungs, head shots, OR if he's facing away from you aim at the back of the neck high enough that it won't drop into his body (injury), that way if your bullet goes a bit high it'll get him in the back of the noggin, or if it goes to point of aim it'll take out his spine in the neck. The bullet you were using is a GOOD one.

Don't use FMJ's, they're not for hunting. Hunting ammo is expanding ammo, hollow points, ballistic tips or soft points.

Slug chucker

In from the front or in from the rear a .223 should drop a fox. Most fox's are shot face on into the chest under call. I never suggested using FMJ's for hunting, but a couple of dealers said that these were what all the lads were using for foxing. I was just making a comment that they didn't seem very safe to me!
I am starting to remember why I don't visit this site too many people with hair triggers!

bitemybanger

did you try the V-max?? have a look on youtube for 223 V-max, there should be somthing there. thier supposed to be a serious round

johngalway

Slug chucker wrote: »

In from the front or in from the rear a .223 should drop a fox. Most fox's are shot face on into the chest under call. I never suggested using FMJ's for hunting, but a couple of dealers said that these were what all the lads were using for foxing. I was just making a comment that they didn't seem very safe to me!
I am starting to remember why I don't visit this site too many people with hair triggers!

Sorry that you didn't like my advice. But, that's what it was. You're wrong about in from the rear. Most of the foxes I've shot have been side on or facing me. Fact is you chose the wrong option in shooting the fox "up the hole, then blamed him getting away on the bullet. V-max is a very effective round for foxes. Please have a bit of respect for the animals you're shooting. Things like that can make life harder for the rest of us.

You're right that FMJ's aren't safe for hunting, they'll zip through any fox and keep on going. Most likely any fox shot in the body won't die quickly either, unlike with HP's or ballistic tips.

Instead of getting defensive, why not take the original advice offered?

quackquackBOOM

heres some video on the gel looks interesting as you can see the groves it leaves http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=12e_1194242956

bunny shooter

As Johngalway said it was advice.

A lot of lads using FMJ's for hunting, probably because they are cheapest ammo. Uninformed, ignorant cheapskates. A good reason not to allow 223 for fox shooting. There are a lot of shooters who only want a 223 for cheap, in this case FMJ ammo for hunting. As stated not suitable for hunting. And they will wonder why it will be "restricted"

Slug chucker

I agree with all you comments, a shot from the rear is not the ideal placement and in your opinions far from ideal. But I still stand by my opinion because it is my opinion that the correct .223 round should kill from a front chest or rear entry. I just don't see why it wont, a full body penetration from front to rear will provide enough hydrostatic shock to drop the animal on the spot http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg. I just haven’t found the right bullet yet!
We all have opinions, some may be wrong and some may be right. I'll keep working on getting the results I want. Maybe I can change your mind on the effectiveness of the .223 round
Cheers,
Slug

bunny shooter

223 is effective for fox using proper ammo eg hollow point, soft point etc at suitable ranges eg as far away as the shooter is capable of a clean kill

Slug chucker

bunny shooter wrote: »

223 is effective for fox using proper ammo eg hollow point, soft point etc at suitable ranges eg as far away as the shooter is capable of a clean kill

Define a clean kill; my view would be that the animal drops on the spot dead without a twitch. That’s what I'm looking for anyway. I agree with your choice of bullets, I'm just looking for the one that suits me and will drop a fox on a chest shot every time and if it passes through the animal won’t have any viable trajectory left to do further harm. And before someone takes a pop at me yes, I always insist on a safe backstop before I fire.
I still have a few more to test but the winner so far is the Federal 64 grain soft point.

bunny shooter

Clean kill = dead on the spot, not a twitch

Mellor

I didn't realise I had clink on the shot placement thread again

Slug chucker

bunny shooter wrote: »

Clean kill = dead on the spot, not a twitch

Finally we agree on something, have a merry Christmas and a happy shot placement to all New Year.
Cheers,
Ciaran

bunny shooter

right back at you

foxshooter243

Never lost a fox with a 223 ,use 40 grain v max and load them over
3700 ft /sec and shoot for kill zone.works every time.

Slug chucker

foxshooter243 wrote: »

Never lost a fox with a 223 ,use 40 grain v max and load them over
3700 ft /sec and shoot for kill zone.works every time.

3700 fps!! that seems a hot load, what propellant are you using. Is it a crush load. How's it on the brass?
Do you crimp?
I don't think mine will like that bullet, 1:9 twist.
I've kind of kept my bullets on the heavy side 55-64 grains. I'll be trying the 75grain Amax molly cote shortly (yes I know it's a target bullet) and i've stripped the molly off with an ultrasonic cleaner as i don't trust the stuff in my barrel.
Tell me all
Cheers,
Slug.

foxshooter243

its not a hot load in my sako 75 heavy barrel,the propellant is benchmark,its easy on the brass, although i dont crimp them i
would anneal them every 5 shots to maintain neck tension,the
load has been tested over the chrony and its averaging 3722 ft/sec,
the rifle has a 1:8 twist and i have moved the bullet forward to
achieve best accuracy ,that is consistant half inch groups and sometimes
better if my shooting is up to scratch, my longest fox was 305 yards
{ checked with rangefinder } on a summers evening.
the load was worked up in .2 grain increments...and .2 made a huge difference...benchmark gives good results with lighter bullets in 223,
try varget for the heavier............

tikkamark

Slug chucker wrote: »

I still have a few more to test but the winner so far is the Federal 64 grain soft point.

The 64gr soft points are good killers on foxes but you get a lot of over-penetration with them-ie go straight through and still have a lot of energy which can be very dodgy if livestock is nearby.
I have used every kind of .223 ammo and find the hornady v-max 55gr to have savage stopping power also i found the 45gr remington hp's really good they group very well in my rifle and dump all the energy in the foxes body.
This is not a dig at you slug chucker but if you want a instant humaine kill you have to hit the vital organs pin point through the shortest route possible be it from the side or a frontal hit i would never ever expect any rifle to kill a fox instantly shooting it up the hole as you refer to it:(
The first rifle i used to shoot foxes with was a .17hmr not perfect for foxes i know but it was all i could get,with that you needed to get the kill zone totally right and foxy is dead get it a little bit out and the fox would run at the most 20-30yrds and drop but its the same even with the .223 if you place it perfect and it will do the job every single time-to date i have never had a fox run off after a hit of the .223 thats about 140-160ish foxes so far.
As for your test to simulate a hit on a fox the ply is way to thick a foxes rib is very thin and delicate and the paper in the catalog is far too dense to simulate soft tissue and organs which v-max's work there magic on.

Slug chucker

I did some more terminal ballistics today with .223 rounds, this is something I was just doing for my own interest and entertainment, I’m sure there are much better ways of doing this so don’t take it to pieces nit picking that its not the correct way to test.
Rifle used:
Savage 10 FLP 1:9 Twist in a 24” barrel.
I’m calling all bullets 5.69mm in diameter unfired (.224 of an inch).

Medium used:
I used four fully water soaked yellow pages, each book is about 130mm thick. I bound them together with cling film and a rack of fresh uncooked pork ribs (lamb was too expensive:)) at the bullet entry point to simulate the entry bone damage (rib cage).

I used the following rounds at 100 meters range:

1. Federal Power shock .223 64 Grain SP.
Part number 223L. (published muzzle velocity 3090 fps)

2. Hornady .223 53 Grain HP Boat tail.
Part number #8023 (published muzzle velocity 3330 fps)

3. American Eagle .223 50 Grain HP.
Part number AE223G (published muzzle velocity 3400 fps)

4. Hornady .223 75 Grain Amax (with the molly removed)
Part number #22794 (unconfirmed velocity 2700 fps)

5. Hornady .223 60 Grain Vmax Ballistic tip
Part number #22281 (crony speed 3052 fps)

6. Remington .223 55 Grain Accutip-V boat tail
Part number PRA223RC (Published velocity 3240 fps)

Bullet 1
This bullet went 13mm into telephone book 3 (273mm roughly in total)
The round mushroomed nicely to 11.7mm, with a retained weight of 41.1 grains

Bullet 2
This bullet went 20mm into telephone book 3 (280mm roughly in total)
This bullet mushroomed nicely to 10.82mm but lost a lot of its weight, it only weighed 23.5 grains when it reached a stop.

Bullet 3
This bullet went 7mm into telephone book 3 (267mm roughly in total)
There was nothing really left to weigh, the bullet was totally fragmented.

Bullet 4
This bullet went 55mm into telephone book 3 (315mm roughly in total)
This bulled mushroomed much better than I expected at 15.47mm, with a retained weight of 63 grains. The Amax is meant as a long range target bullet as far as I know.

Bullet 5
This bullet went 65mm into telephone book 3 (325mm roughly in total)
This bullet mushroomed well to 15.55mm, with a retained weight of 47.7 grains

Bullet 6
I was a bit disappointed with this one, it stopped at the end of book 2 (260mm in total)
The bullet was totally fragmented with noting left to weigh. This is also the most expensive bullet I tested with at €33 per box of 20.

We also fired a couple of 6.5 X 55 Swedish Mauser rounds at the same target.
Ammo used 155 Grain Lapua SE
Published velocity 3072 fps
This round nearly reached the last page of book 4 (520mm roughly in total)
The rounds head was perfectly mushroomed to 16mm with a good bullet shaft behind the head and looked like it pretty much retained most of its weight. An interesting thing to me anyway is the last telephone book had a massive wound channel leading up to the bullets resting point. The bullet had tumbled through the last 70mm or so of telephone book shredding it to bits before came to a stop. All in all it made a really good wound channel through the telephone books leading to a massive cavity of mush at the end of its flight.

So summing up I take it all back about the 60 Grain Vmax bullets, they group well and expand well with good penetration. I haven’t tried the Amax yet on paper for groups.
Cheers,
Slug Chucker.

tikkamark

Thats a lot more realistic of a test now slug chucker;)Just out of interest how much is a box of the hornady a-max bullets?

Slug chucker

tikkamark wrote: »

Thats a lot more realistic of a test now slug chucker;)Just out of interest how much is a box of the hornady a-max bullets?

I think they were £18 pounds sterling per 100 as far as I remember but that might have been the Vmax. I got so much conflicting information about the moly cote that I just stripped it off with a ultrasonic cleaner to be on the safe side. It took a good hour in the tank to get rid of it all!!

Remmy

did you manage to take a pic of the recovered 6.5 bullet slug chucker?I'd be interested to see how much of the bullet deformed since its such a long round.

Mellor

Slug chucker wrote: »

Bullet 6
I was a bit disappointed with this one, it stopped at the end of book 2 (260mm in total)
The bullet was totally fragmented with noting left to weigh. This is also the most expensive bullet I tested with at €33 per box of 20.

Why exactly is this not a great result, (I don't own or shoot a rifle btw)
Is 260mm not decent penetration?
And the bullet transfered alot of its energy.

Slug chucker

Remmy wrote: »

did you manage to take a pic of the recovered 6.5 bullet slug chucker?I'd be interested to see how much of the bullet deformed since its such a long round.

Sorry unfortunately not, the retrieved 6.5 slugs went back to the owner of the rifle as a souvenir. It kind of looked like this:
http://homepage.mac.com/perryschneider/.Pictures/pics/200AB.jpg
Cheers,
Slug

Slug chucker

Mellor wrote: »

Why exactly is this not a great result, (I don't own or shoot a rifle btw)
Is 260mm not decent penetration?
And the bullet transfered alot of its energy.

I would of perfered a more controlled expansion personally, the bullet was well fragmented well before its main mass stopping point. It didn't leave a very impressive wound channel either. I just expected better performance from a premium bullet but then again it's designed to shatter like it did.
http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/centerfire/premier_accuTip-V.asp
I dont know really, I just expected better results suppose!
Cheers,
Slug.

Slug chucker

foxshooter243 wrote: »

its not a hot load in my sako 75 heavy barrel,the propellant is benchmark,its easy on the brass, although i dont crimp them i
would anneal them every 5 shots to maintain neck tension,the
load has been tested over the chrony and its averaging 3722 ft/sec,
the rifle has a 1:8 twist and i have moved the bullet forward to
achieve best accuracy ,that is consistant half inch groups and sometimes
better if my shooting is up to scratch, my longest fox was 305 yards
{ checked with rangefinder } on a summers evening.
the load was worked up in .2 grain increments...and .2 made a huge difference...benchmark gives good results with lighter bullets in 223,
try varget for the heavier............

Foxshooter243,
You got me interested in something, what method do you use for annealing your cases. I hadn't thought much about the subject until I read up on it after you mentioned it. I'm using Lapua brass (which is expensive) and would like to get as long as possible out of it.
I am thinking of building something like the carousel if I can come across the bits handy enough:
http://www.6mmbr.com/annealing.html
Looks like the best way of getting uniformity in the process.
What's your thoughts on the matter,
Cheers,
Slug

foxshooter243

Slug chucker wrote: »

Foxshooter243,
You got me interested in something, what method do you use for annealing your cases. I hadn't thought much about the subject until I read up on it after you mentioned it. I'm using Lapua brass (which is expensive) and would like to get as long as possible out of it.
I am thinking of building something like the carousel if I can come across the bits handy enough:
http://www.6mmbr.com/annealing.html
Looks like the best way of getting uniformity in the process.
What's your thoughts on the matter,
Cheers,
Slug

The carousel is the way to go-although i was advised by a good gunsmith
that using a propane torch and rotating the case in your fingers until its
too hot to hold onto then dropping the case into cold water is quite good
and youll never anneal too far down the case cos your fingers wont let you-but in the days before propane torches and such like the old hunters
hunting way out in the wilderness just rotated the case neck over a candle and it gave them enough to do the job-hope this helps

Slug chucker

Foxshooter243,
Yep that makes perfect sense. If you cant hold it you won't over heat it.
Cheers,
Slug