ThomasT
Member
I knew how they tested back then but never knew it was done at 100 yards. The Mike Venturino test I have seen were all from around 7-10 yards from the photos in the articles.
New project... and it's not a gun.
- Thread starter Michael Tinker Pearce
- Start date
- Status
I knew how they tested back then but never knew it was done at 100 yards. The Mike Venturino test I have seen were all from around 7-10 yards from the photos in the articles.
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
I've done phase one of the test so far, waiting to do phase two, when I'll finish the chronograph tests. The gel tests are still on hold until spring, most likely. I've reported on the tests in my blog, but have been waiting to get through at least the next phase so I can have all of the results before reporting it here.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
Make sure you do and include the BB calibration test with your results. The long story short, use a steel BB going about 600 FPS into the block, should penetrate between 3 and 4 inches. It won't make much of a stretch cavity that would throw off results but you can do it to the back or side of a block to keep it out of the impact test zone.
Not ballistics gel but we did an impromptu test of a .31 Caliber 1849 Colt Pocket with 14 grains FFFg and a .32 Caliber Squirrel Rifle Replica with 28 grains.
The 1849 completely penetrated 4 gallon jugs of water and the .32 Squirrel Rifle completely penetrated 6 gallon jugs. We didn't have additional jugs so balls where not recovered (We expected to recover the 1849 in the 3rd jug at most like a .380 ACP).
I'm uncertain how reliable the Clear Gel is. I've seen comparisons where a .40 S&W 180 gr went 20"+ in 10% Clear and 15" in actual Knox 10% Gel with appropriate calibration of both.
I've also seen comparisons where .380 JHP went about 15% deeper in 20% Clear Gel than 10% Knox Gel.
If you just want to compare it to other Clear Gel Test or your own test it's fine but I don't think it tells you anything about what you would see in an authentic test.
The 1849 completely penetrated 4 gallon jugs of water and the .32 Squirrel Rifle completely penetrated 6 gallon jugs. We didn't have additional jugs so balls where not recovered (We expected to recover the 1849 in the 3rd jug at most like a .380 ACP).
I'm uncertain how reliable the Clear Gel is. I've seen comparisons where a .40 S&W 180 gr went 20"+ in 10% Clear and 15" in actual Knox 10% Gel with appropriate calibration of both.
I've also seen comparisons where .380 JHP went about 15% deeper in 20% Clear Gel than 10% Knox Gel.
If you just want to compare it to other Clear Gel Test or your own test it's fine but I don't think it tells you anything about what you would see in an authentic test.
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
Hmmm... I've seen comparisons to the pork-based gel where they got slightly less penetration in Clear Gel. I should research this some more. If this is consistent then I can adjust values with math... or just compare to other Clear Gel results.
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
That's most of what Phase 2 of testing will be! I even found balloon-head cases for some calibers.
JTHunter
Member
Mr. Pearce - your testing on the .32-20 interests me as that is one of the guns I inherited. I know it is a fairly low-powered round and the only ammo I have been able to find is 100 gr. lead flat point so I doubt if it will penetrate adequately.
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
Modern commercial ammunition is loaded very, very conservatively. If you load your own you can do significantly better. I'll give you a sneak preview of the results so far-
100gr. copper-washed LRNFP (unknown if this is commercial or handloaded.)
779 fps. 135 ft./lbs SD: 23
115gr. LRNFP (unknown if this is commercial or handloaded.)
761 fps. 149 ft./lbs SD: 13
96gr. LRNFP, 3.7gr. of Unique with a CCI500 small pistol primer
744 fps. 118 ft./lbs SD: 35
This load is rather light, as you can see. I usually load this bullet over 4.0 gr. of Unique; I’ll be testing that load in the future.
96gr. LRNFP, 12.7gr. Hodgden Triple 7 FFFg (black powder substitute) with a CCI500 small pistol primer
837 fps. 149 ft./lbs SD: 12
This powder charge is measured by weight, not volume (as was more typical with Black powder.) Triple-7 yields slightly higher velocity than black powder, but cannot be compressed as much. On the balance this load is probably a fair approximation of the original load for this cartridge.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
Here are some reloading tables from Sharp's 1937 'Complete Guide to Reloading'
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
From what I have been able to find, clear gel doesn't have the same resistance as the animal based (yellow) gel. I have also seen more tests with clear gel where the round will "bounce back" a few inches compared to regular 10% ballistic gel. For the most part, the disadvantages in measuring ballistics in clear gel is well known. The advantage of clear gel is well, it is clear. So you can spend less time cutting and digging for rounds to evaluate performance. And usually the clear gel is cheaper from what I have seen.
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
Also the clear gel is much less temperature sensitive and stable. Plus the explosions are cool on high-speed film...
stillquietvoice
Contributing Member
Use almost full and a buffer of grits.
Fill full compress then refill with the ball over top. Just kidding that would be a serious over charge.
entropy
Member
It was said in jest. I used corn meal in my brass framed .44 1851 that someone had overloaded, I kept the charges down to minimum, but still retired it when I got a Walker. The Walker is gone, now I have an 1860 I won't shoot as it was built by my uncle for my Grandpa; he was (as I am) named after his Grandfather, who served in the Civil War as an Artillery Sgt. My uncle built a Colt 1860, but my reasearch (done after he finished it) indicated he was issued an 1858 Remington. I also have a .36 1851, probably ASM, that has one of the chambers drilled WAY off center. I took the nipple off that, and shoot it as a 5 shot.
The 1860 and the case my uncle built, with the original belt buckle:
The cylinder of that .36:
Must have been made on a Monday morning....
stillquietvoice
Contributing Member
I used closer to Max in my 58 rem with target sights. I had a Smith ramp my front sight. That had 2 functions first improved sight picture and second it didn't get caught on things while drawing it. l too had a cylinder that was off. That one cup always shot left. I used that one first on targets as the other 5 hit poa.
I had a Walker too that was a beast. I used to practice quick draw with that pistol and used a nickle plated 51 US Marshall 44 for informal quick draw comp.
The thing I didn't like about the 51's in 44 is that they were built on the 36 frame so loading lever was off center.
Chompiras
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2017
- Messages
- 54
This is awesome and I'm excited to see it even though i'm much more a fan ov the Paul Harrell style 'meat target' than gel. But it would be great to see what these old cartridges can do. I would love to see 455 Webley for sure if you'd entertain it; mk II and mk III "manstopper" bullets are available. As for 450 adams, there is the cautionary note ov the modern factory Fiocchi loading being excessively hot. Good luck with the project.
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
I don't have a .455, and short-term can't afford one... but when I can I will. Hmmm... if I can modify one of my moon clips to take .455, I can use my Mk.1... Got a few .455s lying around that you'd contribute to the cause?
Thanks for the warning; I'm aware that fiocchi's .450 Corto has had some issues, and won't be firing it out of my gun soon... or ever! I will be testing some smokeless loads of my own in .450 Adams and see if I can come up with something useful.
I like Paul's work too, but I want to compare penetration etc. 'apples to apples' with other cartridges, and that means Gel.
JTHunter
Member
Black powder in a modern handgun? Really?!?
When I found out the value of this gun a few years ago at a local gun show, I decided to not shoot it any more. So it is unlikely that I will reload for it.
As for these other loads you mention, what powder and weight are you using to get that MV and KE, esp. the first one (779 fps.)?
JTHunter
Member
Entropy - considering my poor vision, is the bad chamber the one at the bottom in the 6 o'clock position?
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
The first load is an antique round of unknown provenance. Not even 100% sure it's a factory load, but it is consistent with performance figures for ammunition of the period. Why would I not shoot black powder from a modern handgun? Just clean it after. Part of the point of these tests are to do my best to replicate original loads to compare to factory and modern handloads, so for some of these cartridges that means black powder. I just clean the gun promptly afterwards, no problem.
Blkhrt13
Member
I can’t wait to see reports on the 32 long. I have a 3in jframe and love it. I want a 2 “ . I can’t find much othe than Lrn bullets that are slow
OP
OP
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
Got some good stuff for .32 S&W Long. Borrowed some load data from Sharp's 1937 'Complete Guide to Handloading'
Blkhrt13
Member
That’s what frustrates me. I need to get atleast a lil single arm and hand load cause commercial ammo is so bad for the lil 32 Long
- Status
