Bullets and Balls vs. Water n' Jugs
This particular round of testing of began after reading about tests performed on modern cartridge ammunition and an article by Peter Sahr, The Lead Issue, which appeared in the Minnesota Deer Hunters Magazine, Whitetales, Summer 2015 issue.
Apparently, hunters were encouraged to shoot modern ammunition from their high-powered rifles into water jugs. The object was ostensibly to test frangibility of a number of bullets from different, high-velocity, necked-cartridges. He asserted that upon impact with jugs of water, the bullets disintegrated into tiny bits of lead. These findings are similar to one of my own tests in which I used poly-tipped cartridge ammo. His test did NOT however, mention traditional solid cartridge ammo. It seemed to me what was missing was the mention of the difference in bullet performance between the contemporary poly-tipped ammo versus ammo without the poly tip. His article also went on to tout the benefits of all copper ammunition and in the end seemed more like a veiled advertisement for copper ammo, than a true objective test.
My own tests using modern poly-tipped ammunition was a first logical next step because eventually, I wanted to compare the performance of poly-tipped muzzleloader bullets as to deformation and frangibility.
I began by studying bullet design, going back to the Bronze Tip® which Remington introduced in the mid 1970’s. It was manufactured to increase the ballistic coefficient for long-range shooting out past 225 yards and up to 500 yards. The tip was resilient to deformation that may occur in loading and unloading. What followed, some years later, were bullets with plastic or polycarbonate tips.
Various bullets and factory ammunition manufactured with polycarbonate tips, have gained in popularity in the last twenty years and in the last ten have substantially increased in visibility and usage. The hunting and shooting magazines (in 2020) are filled with advertisements and vignettes about the accuracy of bullets with polycarbonate tips. Moreover, these firms frequently tout the SHOCK-power, speed and accuracy of the modern “poly-tipped” bullets. Many modern shooters prefer these bullets because they are accurate enough to reach out and drop wary critters standing at 300 + yards due to a higher degree of accuracy in the cartridge rifles. They are soundly effective on coyotes, prairie dogs, varmints and feral critters which are not intended to be eaten.
Though these tips are advantageous to accuracy, because they are not damaged by loading and unloading or loading at the muzzle, they also act as a wedge or plunger to detonate the bullet body into tiny pieces or into dust. After reading a sizeable collection of reviews lauding the accuracy of this type of bullet design, I also found numerous reviews that were directed at its explosive down-side. The frangibility of the poly-tipped bullet was referred to as follows: bullet came apart: bullet completely separated from the jacket; bullet has erratic expansion; bullet has explosive expansion; and most stikingly, detonates like a tactical nuke[i]. The complaints were backed up by recorded losses, on average, from 45% to over 70% of the bullet weight. Shooters and hunters seem to accept that bullet explosion has become part-and-parcel of modern shooting, but it does not have to be so. Expansion of diameter and high retention of mass is the real goal.
THE TESTS
I tested ammunition using, predominantly, one-gallon milk jugs lined up in a row, but I did not stop there. I also tried, at different times, juice bottles, cider jugs, bleach jugs, detergent jugs; just about any plastic bottle capable of holding about a gallon of water. My shots were from 30 to 50 yards. My tests included the use of polycarbonate tipped modern ammunition both cartridge and muzzleloader, all lead bullets and lead round balls. The only rounds that disintegrated or had explosive performance were the poly-tipped rounds, the rest of the bullets faired much, much better. Though water, as a target medium, is not the best test for frangibility of a bullet, water is a consistent medium and I wanted “like” comparisons with the Sahr’s methods, especially in the lesser velocities. Many of the bullets in the author’s tests have velocities averaging a minimum of 2500 fps and up to 3300 fps.
First, I tested the 180 grain 30-06 hand loads, with Nosler, Ballistic tip®[ii] (average velocity = 2550 fps). These bullets broke apart by the time they reached the third jug. I retrieved, at best, a mere 69 grains of copper jacket. Though this tends to make lead look bad, the real lesson shows that any sort of tip whether poly-tip or other similarly tipped ammo, is a poor choice for meat hunting.
The second bullet tested was the 180 gr. 30-06 Remington CoreLokt® (with an average velocity of 2500+fps). This bullet has no plastic tip and it had much better performance with an average recovery of 136 to 141 grains (76%). Most often the spent bullet was found as a core piece and in some cases three to four smaller pieces of lead/copper for an additional 10 to 20 grains. Expansion was about double with high retention of mass.
I also tested several different .22 caliber bullets: hollow points of 36 grains from which I retrieved only 12.5 grains of lead on average, and secondly solid points of 40 grains from which I retrieved the full solid 40 grain bullets. Although the deformation was slight when using the solid all-lead bullets, there was NO lead lost. Thus, I began with modern ammunition and then turned to tests of slower velocities, namely, ML bullets at speeds of less than 1750 fps.
For the next round of testing, I am thankful to Mark Sage, from whom I borrowed his late-father’s CVA Pro-Optima .50 caliber in-line rifle with a 30-inch barrel and pitch of 1:28 rifling. It weighs about 9+ pounds and the 4X scope gives it a little extra weight. I used it for all conical tests.
I shot at the water jugs initially from 40 yards using three different types of bullets:
1) 245 gr Power Belt® (copper jacketed poly-tip),
2) 250 gr. Thompson/Center Shock-Wave (semi-copper jacketed with poly-tip), and
3) 350 gr. all-lead T/C Maxi-Hunter.
For powder, I used a range of measures starting at 75 grains, by volume, of loose Pyrodex – producing approximately 1380 fps to 1435 fps – and graduating up to 130 grains by volume – producing approximately 1705 fps to 1730 fps. I used loose powder so I could incrementally increase the charge. The key with Pyrodex powder is that the conversion from black powder to Pyrodex is 10 to 8. Therefore, 8 grains of Pyrodex by volume is equivalent to 10 grains of FFg black powder by volume, generally. The exception to this being Swiss black powder.
These efforts became, essentially, a comparison of conical muzzleloader bullets with poly-tips versus those without poly-tips. It also turned out to be a comparison of semi-copper jacketed bullets vs. pure lead bullets.
The first conical ML bullet tested was the 255 grain Power Belt®, with a detachable plastic skirt at the base and low profile polycarbonate tip in a rounded nose. I tested the bullet, as is, out-of-the-package (plastic skirt/plastic tip). I found the bullets consistently accurate, BUT the bullets did not expand at all with lesser powder charges. That’s right, ZERO expansion on the water jugs. That is a bad recipe for big game hunting. The powder charges used, graduated from 75 grains by volume to 130 grains by volume of loose Pyrodex. The bullets resisted expansion, until 120 grains had been reached and even at that charge the bullets did not expand consistently. The Power Belt® bullets penetrated through five or six jugs and the only deformation to occur was the poly tip being pushed into the noses slightly. At 130 grains by volume of Pyrodex the unmodified bullets did not merely expand, but exploded into five pieces; the largest of which was only 163.5 grains. The retention was only 60%-65% of the bullet in the third and fourth water jugs which means that the lead and copper broke up into many little pieces, some of which I occasionally found in jugs one and two. A number of the shots using the 130 gr. charge left only small bits and pieces of copper jacket with bonded lead and no core-piece.
In order to compare bullet performance, I also found it necessary to determine a way to rate of deformation by assembling an algorithm into which I plugged the measurements of expansion and retained mass to create a Deformation Index (DI).[iii]
The table for the Power Belt bullet
Pyrodex Feet/sec post-shot grs post shot % Index
80 grains (1436 fps), mass = 245 grs* 100% retention, DI = 1.0
90 grains (1499 fps), “ “ “ “
100 grains (1561 fps), “ “ “ “
110 grains (1600 fps), “ “ “ “
120 grains (1643 fps), “ “ “ “
130 grains (1705 fps), mass = 163.3 grs, 66.5% retention, DI =.98 or less
*255 grains w/plastic skirt, 245 w/o plastic skirt
In an effort to determine the resilience of the lead in the Power Belt® bullets without the poly-tips I removed the plastic tips, drilled out just enough copper to reach the lead, then filled the holes with molten lead. These bullets penetrated six water jugs and one piece of CDX particle board using, the 130 grain Pyrodex R charge (1705 fps). The bullet expanded only slightly but did not explode or fragment. Thus, by removing the poly-tip and creating a solid bullet, it did not detonate upon impact as it had earlier with this charge. Though this bullet retained all its mass, the sad fact is it did not expand either (probably due to the copper jacket), Only high velocity and tip, caused it to explode AND lose one third of its mass by means of the poly-tip.
The two tests I did not attempt were these bullets as hollow points with 1) copper intact versus 2) copper drilled out. As stated earlier the shape is good, highly accurate, but lack of expansion was terribly disappointing.
The second bullet tested was the 250 grain T/C Shockwave® a spear nosed bullet with a polycarbonate tip ahead of incised petals in the front of the copper jacket. Using Pyrodex R-grade, I measured charges and velocities, retrieved masses and Deformation Index (DI) as follows:
The table for the T/C Shockwave® bullet
Pyrodex Feet/sec post-shot grs post shot % Index
80 grains (1575 fps), mass = average of 247 grs, 98.8% Retention DI = .976
90 grains (1598 fps), mass = average of 240 grs, 96 % Retention, DI = .92
100 grains (1628 fps), mass = average of 233 grs, 93.2% Retention, DI = 1.097
110 grains (1672 fps), mass = average of 210.4 grs, 84.2% Retention DI = .79
120 grains (1716 fps), mass = average of 192 grs, 76.8% Retention DI = .824
130 grains (1725 fps). mass = average of 142.3 grs, 56.92% Retention DI = .28
Remember, my sole mission, at the outset of these tests, was to recover the spent bullets from the jugs so I could then determine the deformation characteristics of the bullets. I shot a number of these bullets only to discover just how inaccurate they were. Half-way through the first day I should have had 20 spent bullets; but retrieved only 7. The other 13 missed the jug entirely at 40 yards. In the 7 that did hit the jugs, most of them missed the point of aim by four inches because they tended to corkscrew and key-hole. At least three of them actually veered out of the third jug at an angle. I bought another package from a different store to see if the one lot of bullets was bad, but the new purchase had the same exact, horrible performance. The next day I moved to 30 yards for my tests, but this did little to improve hits-on-target. I was only able to retrieve 2 out of the next 17 shots.
In all the recovered bullets, the poly tip created erratic expansion as the copper jacket peeled back unevenly. The deformation of the bullet showed it was mashed-over from one side severely affecting expansion and revealing a wobbly flight, corkscrewing or tumbling. In all charges of from 75 to 130 grains of Pyrodex by volume, the bullets never stabilized. When the bullets did hit the jugs, they missed the point of aim by four inches and from these bullets it can be determined that expansion was inconsistent, lop-sided and severely limited.
Though I had gone through more than several boxes of Shock Wave bullets my testing was not done. The fact is, these bullets are made in fashion which is the opposite of the badminton shuttlecock and as a result they did not fly true; the plastic tip is actually a hinderance. Therefore, if the “shuttlecock principal” had any merit here, I would have to test it.
One by one, I loaded each of the remaining bullets backwards so the tip was trailing the big, flat backed, heavy base; and set up seven jugs. The results followed the theory as the shots were right on point. Since I was using a scope, I was able to achieve groups under a half-inch at 30 and back at 40 yards. I even shot one bullet backwards a second time. The problem with using these modern bullets in a backward fashion, however, was the near-total lack of expansion (less than .002”). The copper jacket resisted deformation in all the “backward” shots regardless of powder charge, but the shuttlecock theory proved true.
I next tested the T/C Maxi-Hunter, a 350 grain all-lead conical bullet with a small, shallow hollow point. I shot five sets using Pyrodex R, measured at 75 grains, (1300 fps), 80 grains (1341 fps) 90 grains (1405), 100 grains (1489 fps), 110 grains, and 120 grains (1546 fps). In all the sets from which I was able to recover the bullets from inside the water jugs there was NO lead lost. The bullets flattened commensurate with the powder charges. In some instances, the bullets penetrated through five, or six jugs and then also penetrated three and four pieces of plywood. Never-the-less the all-lead projectiles had only lost from 4.3 to 9 percent of mass. In going from 50 to 40 yards, I needed seven jugs plus as many as four pieces of ½” plywood to capture these bullets and still had some that penetrated into the last layer of plywood. Those bullets recovered in the 7th jug or in front of the first piece of plywood lost zero mass. Those that penetrated one or all pieces of plywood lost at most eight percent (8%) of their mass with the balance of the bullet in one piece. At the highest velocities using 130 grains by volume of Pyrodex, the Maxi-Hunter bullet passed through seven jugs, flattened out to double its original diameter upon reaching the plywood and still retained from Ninety-six to One Hundred percent of its mass. There were those found in the fourth piece of plywood with zero percent (0%) loss of mass. The expansion usually had good symmetry.
The table for the T/C Maxi-Hunter® bullet
Pyrodex Feet/sec post-shot grs post shot % Index
80 grains (1341 fps), mass = average of 350 grs, 100% Retention DI = 1.60
90 grains (1415 fps), mass = average of 350 grs, 100% Retention, DI = 1.68
100 grains (1489 fps), mass = average of 318 grs, 91% Retention, DI = 1.547 *
110 grains (1510 fps), mass = average of 343 grs, 98% Retention DI = 1.842
120 grains (1546 fps), mass = average of 350 grs, 100% Retention DI = 1.94
130 grains (1590 fps). mass = average of 343 grs, 98% Retention DI = 1.94
(*These two bullets-not pictured-recovered 318 grs., 317 grs., after penetrating a treated 2x6 board)
In his article, Sahr, also referred to a number of different high powered rifle rounds, but further, grouped lead slugs together the hyper-velocity, necked-cartridges. He stated that,
...higher velocity lead slugs (no copper jacket) fragmented more than similar lower velocity soft lead slugs, confirming that bullet velocity also plays a major role in the amount of fragmentation…
I see a differentiation between “higher velocity lead slugs,” as opposed to “lower velocity soft lead slugs.” Whether intended or not, his statement (Freudian slip?) implies that there are several types of hardness of lead slugs he used, and that both will also fracture and disintegrate, similarly to high powered rifle rounds, when shot at water jugs. What I have found on the other hand, is 1) yes velocity does make a significant difference, but 2) the soft, pure lead shows the highest resistance to breaking apart; unlike the harder doped lead used in the modern jacketed cartridge ammunition. My tests showed that the all-lead projectiles, fired at reasonable velocities, resist fracturing and thus tend to remain in one piece, showing that the all-lead projectiles will work just fine without any poly-tips or hollow point design.
The summation of Sahr’s earlier conclusions, (that the pure lead projectiles were more frangible than copper jacketed lead projectiles) I found to be on the whole…backwards. It seems the best performing conical projectiles were the all-lead T/C Maxi-Hunter, that had good expansion coupled with high-retention of mass, as well as being accurate.
A soft, all-lead bullet will expand just fine without the any plastic tip or even a hollow point. A malleable mass is absolutely necessary for large expansion and when too much mass is lost due to poor design of the bullet or the brittle nature of the material, then expansion is severely limited. Regardless of how intelligently engineered the poly tipped bullets may seem, they did not perform as well as the soft, all lead T/C Maxi-Hunter.
After having shot over eighty conical projectiles, it is clear there is NO need for a poly tip on the muzzleloading bullets. Furthermore, even with moderate pressure during loading, the various jags on the ram rod caused deformation of the noses and/or submersion of the poly-tip, thereby voiding any “perfect-nose” of the bullet. End result? Totally worthless!
Why is a poly-tip (which was engineered to increase ballistic coefficient on much smaller bullets out past 250 yards) being used on a muzzleloading bullet when the vast majority of ML shooters will generally be making shots on game that average less than 80 yards? In my humble opinion it is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
Round Balls
I used my own .58 caliber flintlock rifle with various charges. The round ball velocities were as follows: 1350 fps (80 grs FFg), 1440 fps (90 grs FFg) to 1530 fps (100 grs FFg) I refer to these as reasonable velocities for my ammunition.
I fired eighteen different shots with (home molded) .570 round balls, which average 284 grains of pure lead. I used the same line-up of five jugs and actually had to add an additional jug. The first in a line of water jugs was placed at 40 yards. After two shots at 40 yards, I found I needed six jugs to bring the all-lead round balls to a rest. I recovered slightly flattened round balls, but found absolutely NO lead fragments; the percent of lead retention was 100%. All the water was carefully poured out and there were no tiny pieces of lead in any of the jugs. I weighed each round ball before and after the shots and there was NO loss of mass.
I performed additional tests; shooting .58 caliber lead round balls at deer bones suspended in the water jugs. No lead was lost upon impact with the bones; but, it begged the query, perhaps the bones could move within the water? Therefore, I next taped bones to the outside of the jugs using several layers of duct tape to make certain the bones could not “move or spin out of the way.” I used combinations of several leg bones and rib bones together and found that the balls flattened out and lost a minimal 6.6 percent (ave.284 before, 265+ after). The remaining lead was in one piece. These shots were taken at 26 yards using 85+grains of FFg. velocities were 1370 to 1410 fps on average, using spit-lubed patch. But in all those shots the deformed chunk of lead was in one whole mass not Twenty or Fifty or One-Hundred fragments as Sahr suggests.
WHY IS THE LOSS OF LEAD SO SMALL?
The polycarbonate tips play a direct role as a plunger/detonator on bullets. The poly-tips cause bullets to expand erratically as well as explode upon impact resulting in substantial loss of bullet mass, and at velocities less than 1750 fps. The reason I lost no lead from the all-lead bullets and round balls, in these tests, (of water jugs) is because there are no devices on the round-balls or Maxi-Hunter bullets, to create volatile expansion of the projectile, or cause them to split apart. As stated earlier, the velocities, generally under 1650 fps, are what I would call “reasonable.” The result is a clean wound channel and a lot more meat for the table.
Another shooter, Chris Cheney of Angora MN, uses soft lead in a number of his cartridge guns as well as muzzleloaders. Chris does a lot of shooting! When asked the question about fragmentation he concurred on use of soft lead. He replied,
The softer the lead, the MORE it resists fragmentation. Lead doped with antimony will break up easier or shatter, because it is a harder bullet. Instead of mushrooming, the harder lead cracks and breaks apart. The softer lead is more malleable, it will bend without breaking.
Interestingly, in the last several years of hunting Chris has used a trade gun to take two deer with the same .60 Caliber soft lead round ball. He recovered the round ball against the hide of deer number one, after it passed nearly through the deer. He hammered it back into a sphere and shot it again, and amazingly, recovered it as one mass from deer number two. (The vast majority of round balls pass through the deer in a solid mass) The significant matter is there was NO lead lost. His conclusion about the soft lead round ball is, it has the tendency to transfer its energy into the game animal and make one wound channel with little blood shock and stay together.
The soft lead round balls that we “traditional-shooters” use, do not leave behind a blood-shock spray-trail of lead, copper and plastic fragments. We can, as the saying goes “eat right up to the bullet hole.”
For several centuries soft lead, round balls and bullets have performed admirably to bring down game and meat animals. These bullets do not require any sort of extra components to begin the expansion process. That high propensity to resist fragmentation, aka elastic tension, is a preferred quality for meat hunting. These all-lead projectiles still kill by foot pounds and damage. Further, large ML projectiles do not need to be hyper fast to be effective. There is no need to push velocities of a 280-grain chunk of lead, from a muzzleloader, up over 2100 feet per second range; 1350 to 1650 fps is just fine.
For meat hunting, the tests only reaffirm my desire to use, as my friend Chris Cheney says, “A big, dumb, slow-moving chunk of lead.”
* the scale used is accurate to within one tenth of a gram (+ - 1/10 g).
** When using the index for round balls, a DI over 1.45 with 5-8% loss is good performance. A DI over 1.58 with 2% loss is exceptional
------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Reviews from Midway USA, for all the ammunition with polycarbonate tips numbered in the hundreds and I am thankful to Larry Potterfield and his business for making these reviews available to on-line readers. [ii] Bob Hayes, my brother, hand loaded Federal brand casings using Federal Magnum 215 primer, 51.0 grains by weight of IMR 4350 powder, the bullet has a sectional density of .271 and a ballistic coefficient of .507. The muzzle velocity averages 2550 feet per second. [iii] This is an algorithm I created to measure deformation of a bullet by coupling expansion with retained mass and thus create an index. The deformation index is measured as: (the percentage of retained mass [decimal form] X the expanded diameter; expressed as one plus the percentage increase i.e. 1.50 ), minus the unretained percentage of bullet mass. (RM x ID) – UM = DI. It should be read with the percentage of retention in mind. For conical bullets a high DI rating of 1.75 to 2.0 is obtainable with high retention of mass and great expansion. A DI rating of 1.0 with high retention tends to show an intact bullet but no expansion. A DI rating of less than 1.0 with low retention tends to show low or no expansion but loss of mass; or low retention expansion with explosive tendencies. Example: (100% retention) 1 x (1 + percent of increased diameter 1.94**) = 1.94 – (% of loss of mass) 0 = 1.94. In the equation the number “1” represents the projectile before the shot. If the size of the bullet is unchanged then the bullet is still represented by the “1.” If, however zero (0) were used and the bullet did not expand the combination of factors multiplied times zero would still be zero and the bullet-unfired or fired- would be non-existent; and the results would be measurement for expansion of a non-existent bullet. That is to say nothing minus something. **A .50 caliber bullet expanded to .970 of an-inch, would yield a 94 percent increase in diameter of the bullet. Thus, the decimal of .94 (as percentage of expansion) is added to the “concept of the bullet body” or the number 1, hence 1.94.
I have tested a variety of high powered rifle bullets as I only shoot reloads. I used wet telephone books as they simulate flesh and bone. Ballistic gel is what has been preferred by almost all researchers. The bullet design is all important. Gallon water jugs tend to exacerbate bullets disintegrating. The pressure transfer actually causes its own "explosion." I like shooting 100 grain Nosler Partitions in the .243 Winchester. There is bullet fragmentation and I probably retrieve masses of 50-70% of the original bullet mass. With Barnes, all-copper, bullets, the weight retention has often been over 94%. In calibers of .30 and larger, these monolithic bullets peel just like the advertisements. They travel through deer and deliver…