Quarterbore.Net Forums


Go Back   Quarterbore's Forums > 300 Whisper Forums > 300 Whisper Ammo and Reloading
Home Forums Classifieds Photo Server FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-18-2010, 12:03 AM
rsilvers rsilvers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 482
Nose cavity too large to reliably feed in an AR15.
__________________
R&D for AAC
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-18-2010, 01:08 AM
alorton alorton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 122
I certainly see your point. The 7.1" neck length concerns me, but doesn't disqualify the bullet either. I was just hoping for something a little faster opening. Ideally it would have a very short neck but still show cavitation out to the same depth it did in this test. That said, when working with less energy from the start (this is a 300 BLK, not a .308) you don't have the luxury of excess energy to work with.

While most shots aren't necessarily straight on, I prefer a bullet that will work well in that situation as well as with the full sideways shot. So if you go with an average chest thickness of 9" and width of 20" (including an arm) you would want the largest amount of cavitation to occur between 4.5" and 10" and ideally would run from about 2" to 12". The Barnes TSX performed the best in that regard with cavitation starting essentially immediately but continuing through most of the bullet's travel (shot 1: 0.0"-14.6", shot 2: 0.0"-14.8", shot 3: 0.0"-15.1"). The Barnes didn't have the largest permanent crack diameter, but performed very consistently, which they are known for.

I was surprised that the 125 Nosler penetrated as much as the Barnes. That said, I think it shows some promise in this velocity window. I had high hopes for it as well since it is known for performing well at lower velocities and is a favorite of handgun hunters for that reason.

In the end, I'm grateful that this testing was done and I learned from it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 320pf View Post
You are correct about the average straight on chest thickness. However, I would ask to to stand in front of a mirror and mock-up like you are shooting a rifle at your image. What would be the entry angle to the target? Most likely not straight on but more side-to-side and quartering. The average chest width is about 14-17 inches without considering the thickness of an arm. An arm would add about another 4-5 inches. Hence why I think that the penetration is about right.

Now for four legged critters the average chest thickness is 8-18 inches... Now think of a quartering shot which would add more apparent thickness.

Here is a summary of the gel data.
The Speer TNT
Figure 10&11 max cavitation depth 3.1"-13.6"
Figure 13&14 2029fps max cavitation depth 7.1" – 18.5"
Figure 16&17 2190fps max cavitation depth (7.1 – 18.5 typo??) ~3.1-~12.6 measured from the figure.

Nos125
Figure 19&20 2011fps max cavitation depth 2.7 – 14.8
Figure 22&23 2026fps max cavitation depth 4.3 – 18.1
Figure 22&23 2152fps max cavitation depth 0.8 – 18.1

320pf

Last edited by alorton; 10-18-2010 at 11:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-18-2010, 01:11 AM
alorton alorton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
Nose cavity too large to reliably feed in an AR15.
I saw that you posted this before when asked about the Sierra Varminter and I have to ask, have you tried it and had problems or did you exclude it because of the appearance of the nose?

I have shot quite a few through my 300/221 AR and they feed fine. I've not heard of others having trouble either. I prefer the V-Max, but as far as I know the Varminter will function and would be worth testing IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-18-2010, 09:24 AM
rsilvers rsilvers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 482
Wink

The thing is, if someone had one failure per 90 rounds they probably would not even report it. We really need it good enough for LE or self defense use. I have not tested this exact bullet but did have problems with an open nose on a another bullet, so decided this style of bullet was better for bolt gun use.
__________________
R&D for AAC
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-18-2010, 10:26 AM
rsilvers rsilvers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 482
Photo:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/s...t/IMG_1027.jpg
__________________
R&D for AAC
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-18-2010, 10:38 AM
alorton alorton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
The thing is, if someone had one failure per 90 rounds they probably would not even report it. We really need it good enough for LE or self defense use. I have not tested this exact bullet but did have problems with an open nose on a another bullet, so decided this style of bullet was better for bolt gun use.
I can certainly understand wanting to go with the highest level of reliability. I've put about 100 of them through my 300/221 upper, so not a large enough sample size to claim they would be reliable enough for LE work (I'm an LEO, trainer and armorer by the way).

Have you looked into the Speer Hot-Cor or talked with Barnes about bringing back the 100gr .308" bullet? Given the results of the 125gr GameKing and the Hornady 130 SP something of similar construction but a little lighter might perform very well and Barnes' bullets love velocity so the 100gr bullet they used to make for the .30 Carbine would probably be just the ticket. I missed the boat on the .30 Carbine bullets from Barnes, they went out of production before I got into the 300/221 but if this cartridge goes mainstream there might be enough incentive for them to bring it back and maybe even tweak it a bit for the AR platform.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-18-2010, 10:49 AM
rsilvers rsilvers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 482
The 100 Barnes is a larger nose cavity. Barnes does have a special run of 110 TSX which were manufactured in a way to lower the expansion velocity threshold and I believe those are the best Barnes bullets for this velocity range that are very reliable in an AR15. Call Barnes and order the 110 TSX with the lower expansion threshold. If you can spend that much it would be best to try to get 1000 at a time in case they run out.
__________________
R&D for AAC
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:14 AM
alorton alorton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
The 100 Barnes is a larger nose cavity. Barnes does have a special run of 110 TSX which were manufactured in a way to lower the expansion velocity threshold and I believe those are the best Barnes bullets for this velocity range that are very reliable in an AR15. Call Barnes and order the 110 TSX with the lower expansion threshold. If you can spend that much it would be best to try to get 1000 at a time in case they run out.
Thanks for the tip, I was unaware of the special run.

ETA: In your gel testing, was it the standard TSX or this low velocity version?

Last edited by alorton; 10-18-2010 at 11:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-18-2010, 02:45 PM
buffetdestroyer buffetdestroyer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 74
Rsilvers, is there a chance of a new bullet to be developed due to these results? Something that is compatible for military use, but expands or tumbles well at midrange velocities that would increase lethality without overpenetration?

Maybe something similar to Federal's Expanding Full Metal Jacket bullets?
________
TRIUMPH TRIDENT T150

Last edited by buffetdestroyer; 03-18-2011 at 10:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-18-2010, 04:15 PM
rsilvers rsilvers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 482
We feel that no ideal bullet exists for this velocity range and so are designing two new custom bullets. One for military use that is optimal penetration and barrier blind and another that is for hunting, LE, and self defense.
__________________
R&D for AAC
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.