9.3x62 vs the rest
- Thread starter Slimbo
- Start date
I think water is a great medium
If we want to see how bullets perform I don’t think a “ hard medium” is a bad thing at all. We all know cup and cores at moderate velocities perform well on “ soft” targets. Don’t we want to see what happens when you push them to the edge?
9.3 test was one of the best threads we have had imo. I’d love to emulate it with a 338 bullet test but I’m far too lazy and cheap lol
I’d also mention in terms of repeatable results; water is very far ahead of wetted newspapers (how wet? Are you weighing to determine saturation?) and dry newspapers (same paper every time? Compressed to the same degree every time?) or even bones and jeans and blah blah blah ( too many changing variables to count).
A good experiment has good fixed variables, water is consistent in density all the world over
I always thought ballistic buffalos etc were a poor substitute for water and gel based mediums in terms of consistency
If we want to see how bullets perform I don’t think a “ hard medium” is a bad thing at all. We all know cup and cores at moderate velocities perform well on “ soft” targets. Don’t we want to see what happens when you push them to the edge?
9.3 test was one of the best threads we have had imo. I’d love to emulate it with a 338 bullet test but I’m far too lazy and cheap lol
I’d also mention in terms of repeatable results; water is very far ahead of wetted newspapers (how wet? Are you weighing to determine saturation?) and dry newspapers (same paper every time? Compressed to the same degree every time?) or even bones and jeans and blah blah blah ( too many changing variables to count).
A good experiment has good fixed variables, water is consistent in density all the world over
I always thought ballistic buffalos etc were a poor substitute for water and gel based mediums in terms of consistency
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Any test has aspect of what you make of the results. Can show this is how this bullet responds when driven into jug of water. And this is how this other bullet responds. Maybe up to the reader to decide what that means for other applications - the test does not do that for anyone. Can use water. Or wet newspaper. Or dry newspaper. Or clay. Or sawdust. Or place dowels in the media. Or layers of plywood between the water jugs. Or go hunt and shoot enough things and replicate the impact the same. Nothing says results from any one of those tests is going to be the same as the results from any other of the tests? One is going to take clues and presume or hope that they apply to another circumstances.
But all testing takes time and effort. And to be well enough described that you can repeat for yourself, if you disagree with the reported results of the test.
But all testing takes time and effort. And to be well enough described that you can repeat for yourself, if you disagree with the reported results of the test.
Last edited:
There’s a huge difference between rigorous tests like Phil’s and “ shooting a bunch of animals” which seems good but is ultimately unscientific and wildly subjective.
Take that for what it’s worth but in terms of consistency the jug test rules supreme
Take that for what it’s worth but in terms of consistency the jug test rules supreme
- Location
- Western Manitoba
To be clear - I am not at all dissing the testing - it is what some people think that it "proves" that I wonder about. I think USA Army was trying to improve the on-enemy performance of their bullets - bought many pigs and shot them as experiment - wholly unscientific - wildly subjective - but I am sure you will take that up with them. But is how I read that they arrived at some aspects of their FMJ bullet designs. In their view, I think they had a question or two in mind, and designed a test that they could get information to answer those questions - albeit wildly subjective and unscientific.
It’s too bad none of those accubonds were able to be recovered to measure weight retention, expansion and shape. From the jug test all we really know about them is that they don’t penetrate straight line in water. (Same on game??) Whatever the case some other bullets did drive through straight so perhaps that is a strike against the accubond in this calibre. Whether they actually “fail” we may not know enough to say.
i will 3 extra lanes on each side plus white plastic sheet on the ground to find the accubond bullets ... and 6 more at the back stop ...
we will have fun.
Yes, most living things are made of water, but surrounding that water in the cells there are gases which are compressible and that's what makes the big difference when the bullet hits a body vs a water jug. The compressed gas exploding the cells is also the reason why we can see the "shock wave" which follows the projectile path.
Last edited:
the cutting edge bullets gave me an idea of what a shower is when you shoot them too close ...
and despite all has been said about water i will continue to do the tests with milk jugs and water because they give a chance and a pattern that can be used for all bullets ... some are doing better than other and i can t condede that and there is no wrong bullets in the 9.3 family except maybe the hornady but even that one killed and will continue to kill...
i do know as well that accubond are killing : Anthony proved it with muskox and polar bear in a 9.3x57 and iron sights but i do not think they worth what nosler is asking for and what some users are telling they are while in fact they re just a plain jane bullet with a lovely white tip.
i do know as well that accubond are killing : Anthony proved it with muskox and polar bear in a 9.3x57 and iron sights but i do not think they worth what nosler is asking for and what some users are telling they are while in fact they re just a plain jane bullet with a lovely white tip.
Yes, I get your point.
As much as I love Woodleigh bullets (I really love the RN bullets!) and use it and will continue to do so, from my experience on games I honestly don't see it being any better than the Speer despite the Woodleigh being twice the price or so.
Same goes with the A-Frame vs the Partition when it comes to field results.. I can't say the A-Frame is not a "better" constructed bullet, but in practice, I never saw a difference in real life.
I was lucky enough to build my stock of bullets (including AB) while they were still affordable and honestly, I don't know what I will choose the day I run out of what I have...
I can say that the AB is better than the old Ballistic Tip though, and simply because it's less "explosive" on impact, plus it always worked well for me. I'd really like to try the TUG bullets, as per I saw how it performs in other calibers and I was really impressed, especially with the 8mm...
My opinion is whatever 9.3 bullet one is using in N-A (in the X62 and up), it should do what it's intended for, except maybe, for the 250 TSX on smaller games, because I have first hand (bad) experience with it (but the bears died anyways, I must say).
As much as I love Woodleigh bullets (I really love the RN bullets!) and use it and will continue to do so, from my experience on games I honestly don't see it being any better than the Speer despite the Woodleigh being twice the price or so.
Same goes with the A-Frame vs the Partition when it comes to field results.. I can't say the A-Frame is not a "better" constructed bullet, but in practice, I never saw a difference in real life.
I was lucky enough to build my stock of bullets (including AB) while they were still affordable and honestly, I don't know what I will choose the day I run out of what I have...
I can say that the AB is better than the old Ballistic Tip though, and simply because it's less "explosive" on impact, plus it always worked well for me. I'd really like to try the TUG bullets, as per I saw how it performs in other calibers and I was really impressed, especially with the 8mm...
My opinion is whatever 9.3 bullet one is using in N-A (in the X62 and up), it should do what it's intended for, except maybe, for the 250 TSX on smaller games, because I have first hand (bad) experience with it (but the bears died anyways, I must say).
funny i do like only wooleigh rn too ...
i used the tug with great success in red deer and wild boar but it never expanded enough on the tiny roe deer. the oryx bullet saved that issue.
when i guided in northern quebec i had issues too with the barnes x (not the tsx) and they did not expand on the barren ground caribou in 270 win.
and if you can find them ...
Yes, they're not common, or inexpensive. I do most practice with my 9.3's with 270 gr Speers, as I bought quite a few of them when I bought my first 9.3. (9.3x60). I'll use those on deer and moose, never had a problem. Noslers get used for elk and bears. I think I only have a single box of A frames. Keep an eye out, but dont see them often. I'm down to only three 9.3's , a x57, x62 and x74R. - dan
