325 grain Bloodline--80g Powder
 

Tom labeled this bullet--Sabotless 325 grain Bloodline. It was shot this morning, pushed by 80g Blackhorn. Bullet was shot into carpet, plywood, and water jugs backed by a phone book

Needs more powder.

Ron, Do you think it loses some oomph from leakage around the brass bullet. It doesn't seem to expand to create a tight seal in the barrel. I bet that would shoot well saboted in a 54.

I think that is the issue. I know when SL shoots those sabotless he uses that sub-bridge which gives a seal. More powder might do better, but I bet you still lose alot due to the bullet not expanding and sealing. That would be an amazing bullet in a .54 for sure :)

Not good at all. That bullet should perform with 50grns of BH209. That was gonna be my Elk bullet for Colorado ML season. Now I'm concerned that's for sure. I will be using a veggie wad under the bullet. I'll send Ron some veggie wads and hopefully he can re do the test.

I wouldn't be concerned. There's lot more juices/flesh in elk to make bullets expand.

More than 6 jugs of water?

thicker juices, muscle, tissue, bone. NOOOOO problem!

Jugs of water expands the other make bullets just fine.

I think the bullet fit was too loose.

I don't remember if Ron has a chronograph but I would think that would be a useful tool in seeing whether or not the bullet shot sabotless with that powder load has the needed velocity to shear those petals off.

Two Parameters Changed
 

This morning two parameters were changed. The felt wad was replaced by a black sabot with the petals cut off. The 0.027" flash hole was replaced by a 0.032" flash hole. Then the shooting through carpet, plywood, and water jugs was repeated. Range was 25 yard. Powder charge was 80g Blackhorn. Primer was the W209.

Way better.

Yep, definitely needs a sub base or a wad under it. It just lost too much gas, not enough obturation ( or any at all from the looks of the first bullet) to have velocity. 2nd test looks perfect.

Art, here is some more data collected this morning........ A chronograph was placed at the same distance as the jugs. One of the changed parameters was the 0.032" flash hole, which was in place for all clocked speeds .

One shot was made through the clock using a 300g XTP, 80g Blackhorn, short black Harvester sabot, W209 primer. Recorded speed at 25 yard was: 1550 fps.

One shot was made through the clock using the 325g Bloodline, 80g Blackhorn, short black Harvester sabot with no petals, W209 primer. Recorded speed was 1494 fps.

After the jugs were burst, and most everything loaded up, Another shot was taken through the clock placed at 25 yard. The load was 325g Bloodline, 80g Blackhorn, wool wad, W209 primer. Recorded speed was 1441 fps.

Interesting. Maybe the increased flash hole made some of the difference too.
Good work Ron, as usual.

Interesting to see how those changes made a difference... and apparently not alot of speed change. I wonder if the same setup that worked, will produce similar result with less powder?

I would think that those bullets should perform properly at even lower speeds than that. ??

We need the fps of the first test you did when the bullet didn't expand. So, we know at what speed the bullet doesn't perform as it should.

This morning a trip was made, to shoot some more. The chronograph was set in the shade 25 yard out, and a couple of bullets were clocked. The vent liner used had a flash hole of 0.027".

One shot was made through the clock using a 300g XTP, 80g Blackhorn, short black Harvester sabot, W209 primer. Recorded speed at 25 yard was: 1554 fps.

One shot was made through the clock using the 325g Bloodline, 80g Blackhorn, wool wad, W209 primer. Recorded speed was 1371 fps.

I usually get a little more velocity from a tight .060 thickness veggie wad vs a wool wad when using Blackhorn209. Roughly 50fps more depending on the bullet, amount of powder and sizing.

I'm interested in knowing the fps that the bullet won't expand . Like Ron's first test.

Then we'll know how far a load can be shot and still expand.

Would that be 1371 fps?

That was with a wool wad. Did you use that in the first test that didn't expand? You didn't mention a wad in that test?

Oops, it does appear the wool wad wasn't mentioned in the OP. The load that produced the 1371 fps with the wool wad, is the exact load, rifle, and flash hole, etc, that was used in the OP.

Ok, thanks Ron.