Handguns and Ammunition Forum banner

Books for wetpack testing?

1573 Views 4 Replies 4 Participants Last post by  jimhigginbotham
Thanks to a link posted in response to og's earlier discussion of his wetpack testing


I discovered that my previous attempt to do some penetration/deformation testing with dry phonebooks and newspaper was meaningless: the box o' truth testing demonstrated that bullets acted completely differently when shot into books.

Unfortunately, I used up all my newpaper, and it takes a while to accumulate (who needs to buy newspapers when you have "the Internets"?
). But I found a stack of old computer trade paperbacks for a nickel apiece, so I grabbed some.

I know that the paper used in books has different characteristics from newsprint and phonebooks. The question is whether it's different enough that soaking it won't make it kinda-sorta useful for ballistic testing. I don't care whether the results can be compared to "official" ones: I just want to do some comparative testing of different .38 loads that will give me some rough idea of how they'd perform in real-world conditions. The dry-paper test told me nothing: the jacketed hollow points, e.g., were almost "reloadable" after passing through a couple of layers of corrugated and a couple of inches of paper.

Has anyone tried using wet books and found that it does/doesn't give useful results?

I do have a good supply of 2-liter soda bottles. Would I be better off using those?



p.s. Any bibliophiles out there who are aghast at the notion of "book desecration" can forget about lying to try to dissuade me: those Internet Exploder and Windoze 95 books are going out to the desert to be shot up. The only question is whether they'll be "giving their lives for science" :)
See less See more
1 - 1 of 5 Posts
I have no idea how they would perform, but if you include some of the same loads OG and Steven have tried in their tests we'd have some idea how it compares.


1 - 1 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.