I finally got around to a comparison test for some different ammo types today. Test medium was news print bundles soaked in water over night. They were all identical. My main intention was to find out if the new Q3131 fragged like xm193. The short answer is yes. The new win q3131 yawed a bit quicker than the xm193 with 6 out of 7 rnds. tested all performing the same. They began yaw between 3-4" with the main cavity between 5" -9". The deviant rnd yawed about 2" later than the rest. There were plenty of fragments around the main cavity and the bullet tips all penetrated 12" or so. 3 rnds were fired at 25 yrds and 4 fired at 50 yrds. The m193 (3 rnds, 25 yrds.)was about the same with yaw occurring about 1" deeper than the q3131 for 2 rnds and 1 rnd not yawing until about 6".  The Q was the most consistant and left  the most impressive wound channel. 7 rnds of m855pd (3 @ 25 yrds and 4@ 50 yrds) all seemed to have a mind of there own by yawing any where from impact to 8". All seven rnds did yaw and frag with most begining  yaw around 4"-6". These left the least impressive wound channel and were the only rnds. to leave any exit holes through 14" blocks. 3 rnds of Guatamalian 55 gr fired at 25 yrds performed like the q3131 with the exeption of 1 rnd that didn't yaw until about 6".  2 rnds of Remington 55 gr PSP fired at 25 yrds expanded at 1" leaving large cavities and lead fragments from 1" - 5" with the inverted jackets makeing it to 8". Take these tests for what you will, as for me Ill be loading up with the latest Q3131.

Quoted: I finally got around to a comparison test for some different ammo types today. Test medium was news print bundles soaked in water over night. They were all identical. My main intention was to find out if the new Q3131 fragged like xm193. The short answer is yes when shooting attacking hordes of marauding news print . The new win q3131...........

Fixed it for you.

that was funny....


thanks for the test that was really cool!

Consider that he is comparing the fragmentation of the two bullets in an identical medium. Regardless of the medium type, if the two projectiles fragged similarly due to identical (or very similar) construction in one common medium, they should frag similarly in another common medium.

I have two weights that are very similar in construction, each weighs 980 newtons on Earth. Regardless of the location, I can deduce that both weights will weigh the same given a common location be it Jupiter, the Moon, Pluto, ect.

Quoted: Consider that he is comparing the fragmentation of the two bullets in an identical medium. Regardless of the medium type, if the two projectiles fragged similarly due to identical (or very similar) construction in one common medium, they should frag similarly in another common medium. I have two weights that are very similar in construction, each weighs 980 newtons on Earth. Regardless of the location, I can deduce that both weights will weigh the same given a common location be it Jupiter, the Moon, Pluto, ect.

100% false.  The ability and depth of yaw and fragmentation in newspaper has no link to how it will work in the tissue of a living creature.  One ammo can fragment in wood the other not and that has zero to do with the ability to fragment in tissue.

If you guys want to do ballistic experiments the procedure for making calibrated 10% gelatin is readily available.  Brouhaha would probably even give you some pointers on releasing agents, tubs used for the mold, etc.  Wet newspaper tests have no place in
proving anything and should never be used to pick ammunition for defensive purposes.

Quoted: Quoted: Consider that he is comparing the fragmentation of the two bullets in an identical medium. Regardless of the medium type, if the two projectiles fragged similarly due to identical (or very similar) construction in one common medium, they should frag similarly in another common medium. I have two weights that are very similar in construction, each weighs 980 newtons on Earth. Regardless of the location, I can deduce that both weights will weigh the same given a common location be it Jupiter, the Moon, Pluto, ect. 100% false.  The ability and depth of yaw and fragmentation in newspaper has no link to how it will work in the tissue of a living creature.  One ammo can fragment in wood the other not and that has zero to do with the ability to fragment in tissue. If you guys want to do ballistic experiments the procedure for making calibrated 10% gelatin is readily available.  Brouhaha would probably even give you some pointers on releasing agents, tubs used for the mold, etc.  Wet newspaper tests have no place in proving anything and should never be used to pick ammunition for defensive purposes.

What is your choice for ammunition for defensive purposes?

Shok

I use Winchester Ranger T in my handgun and 5.56 pressure 75 grain TAP for carbine.

Quoted: Quoted: Consider that he is comparing the fragmentation of the two bullets in an identical medium. Regardless of the medium type, if the two projectiles fragged similarly due to identical (or very similar) construction in one common medium, they should frag similarly in another common medium. I have two weights that are very similar in construction, each weighs 980 newtons on Earth. Regardless of the location, I can deduce that both weights will weigh the same given a common location be it Jupiter, the Moon, Pluto, ect. 100% false.  The ability and depth of yaw and fragmentation in newspaper has no link to how it will work in the tissue of a living creature.  One ammo can fragment in wood the other not and that has zero to do with the ability to fragment in tissue. If you guys want to do ballistic experiments the procedure for making calibrated 10% gelatin is readily available.  Brouhaha would probably even give you some pointers on releasing agents, tubs used for the mold, etc.  Wet newspaper tests have no place in proving anything and should never be used to pick ammunition for defensive purposes.

Erg, perhaps my words were misunderstood. I did not mean newspaper and human flesh are similar. Given that XM193 and Q3131 performed similarly in newspaper, I can infer that Q3131 will perform similarly- like XM193- in people.

Semi-symbolically, given that P does A,B,C in medium S, given Q does A,B,C in medium S, we conclude P is Q. Corollary, given that P does D,E,F in medium T, we conclude Q does D,E,F in medium T as well.

I do believe that his point was that they both might act the same in newsprint, but one might act differently in a different medium.  They won't necessarily act the same in flesh, or gel, just because they acted the same in wet newsprint.

I have easy access to news print bundles and have found over the years that bullets behave in wet print nearly identical to their performance in gel. I also like to place different materials in front of the blocks to see how bullets perform after having to pass through these materials. Testing I've done in years past is confirmed by  more elaberate and exact tests performed by the FBI and ammo makers wich reached the same conclusions as I have.  I'm not recomending any ammo to any one here just sharing a little info.  Shockergd has a thread going using gel and says he might test Q3131 and post pics later on. It'll be interesting to me to see if he has similar results as I did using print,

Quoted: Consider that he is comparing the fragmentation of the two bullets in an identical medium. Regardless of the medium type, if the two projectiles fragged similarly due to identical (or very similar) construction in one common medium, they should frag similarly in another common medium. I have two weights that are very similar in construction, each weighs 980 newtons on Earth. Regardless of the location, I can deduce that both weights will weigh the same given a common location be it Jupiter, the Moon, Pluto, ect.

I did, and what you are saying, what he is saying about the conclusions you can draw, are false.

Its called a false analogy.

Here is the definition.

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

Newspaper is A, human tissue is B.  You are making the assumption that XM-193 will always perform better then Q3131A regardless of the medium fired into (property P).  Property P will be present in both A and B.

However wet newspaper and human tissue are to different to be compared as similar mediums.  They just arent similar.  The rounds striking and traveling through tissue could have a completely different affect.

How so? Winchester claims to use M193-spec projectiles in their Q3131. I'm a bit befuddled as how Q3131 can perform like XM193 in newspaper but differently from XM193 in gelatin or people.

Their bullet construction are not radically different: 55gr, FMJ, exposed lead base, boat tail,  canalure, and thin jacket. Q3131 is loaded hotter than SAAMI-spec .223 with a muzzle velocity approaching M193-spec as is XM193. To me, Q3131 performing like XM193 in newspaper would imply Q3131 performing like XM193 in gelatin, wood, auto glass, people, dry wall, ect. as it seems that Q3131 and XM193 behave similarly when exposed to identical circumstances (newspaper).

Newspaper and people and gelatin are not the same- you are right in that regard. However, I contend they all have common factors that play with the bullet such as elasticity, compressability, density, temperature, hardness, ect. Those factors differ in extent across each medium but they are all identical in kind allowing for a valid analogy. Elasticity is elasticity in newspaper or gelatin. If the elasticity in newspaper affects Q3131 like XM193, elasticity in gelatin should affect Q3131 like XM193.



For the sake of argument, let's pretend that any test meant to confirm performance in people allows us to fire projectiles through a medium in an identical and repeatable fashion- sort of like if we had multiple copies of the same generic human body, a luxury we don't have and the reason for ballistic gelatin.

Man I haven't used wet newsprint in years. I used it to give me an idea about my reloads.

Good test Brother.

Thanks for the report.

Shooting stuff and then examining the damage can be fun.  has
I have conducted some nice informal ballistic experiments there.  

Good fun.

4073

LOVE THE JUNK YARD!!

Q3131 is fine!

Jello or wet paper it still aint FLESH!  

Quoted: Quoted: Consider that he is comparing the fragmentation of the two bullets in an identical medium. Regardless of the medium type, if the two projectiles fragged similarly due to identical (or very similar) construction in one common medium, they should frag similarly in another common medium. I have two weights that are very similar in construction, each weighs 980 newtons on Earth. Regardless of the location, I can deduce that both weights will weigh the same given a common location be it Jupiter, the Moon, Pluto, ect. 100% false.  The ability and depth of yaw and fragmentation in newspaper has no link to how it will work in the tissue of a living creature.  One ammo can fragment in wood the other not and that has zero to do with the ability to fragment in tissue. If you guys want to do ballistic experiments the procedure for making calibrated 10% gelatin is readily available.  Brouhaha would probably even give you some pointers on releasing agents, tubs used for the mold, etc.  Wet newspaper tests have no place in proving anything and should never be used to pick ammunition for defensive purposes.

Of course I'm sure ballistic gel does an excellent job of replicating organs and bones that are also in flesh.  Or that an explosive wound at one angle might be an icepick at another.

Honestly I think the primary important factors are reliability and accuracy of the ammo, and shot placement.  A miss is a miss, fragment or not, and a headshot is a kill, fragment or not.

bp

I agree with CK1 on this.  If you show that a "genuine" M193 round produces a specific effect in a specific medium, and another round produces a substantially similar effect, you CAN logically conclude that the two rounds are substantially similar in performance.

While this does not substitute for testing of Q3131 with standardized gelatin, it indicates that performance should be similar or some other factor is at work, a factor that is not obvious from actual firing testing in an available medium.  Given that performance in wet newsprint is a function of bullet design and construction and loaded round internal ballistics, it follows that any factor that prevented the Q3131 from performing substantially similarly to M193 in gelatin would be something that should also prevent similar performance in newsprint.

Occam's Razor is a logical tool.  It states simply that, given two potential answers, the simpler one is the better one.  This means that, without evidence to the contrary, if the Q3131 "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" when compared to M193 in newsprint, then it most probably will perform like M193 in ballistic gelatin.  Actual gelatin testing of Q3131 may provide evidence that it fragments differently from M193, or that its fragmentation is effected at a different penetration depth.  But it will probably show (within reasonable parameters) that Q3131 does indeed perform very similarly to M193-most likely because the two rounds use very nearly identical bullets and are loaded to very nearly identical velocities.

Science is cool.

Quoted: I agree with CK1 on this.  If you show that a "genuine" M193 round produces a specific effect in a specific medium, and another round produces a substantially similar effect, you CAN logically conclude that the two rounds are substantially similar in performance.

Not that it matters, but I also agree with CK1.