Maker 85 T-Rex

Discussion about rifles in 300 AAC BLACKOUT (7.62x35mm), hosted by the creator of the cartridge.

Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade

User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by dellet »

There have been some questions about this bullet, I started working with it a couple years ago and got sidetracked. Not sure what happened to the targets shot at the time, so may re-visit that. Memory says MOA capable like every super sonic Maker bullet I have shot.

Here’s the down and dirty information everyone wants.

Velocities below are impact on the gel. Here’s two important details. You can shoot these too fast and too slow, more on that later.

Image

These weigh in just over 85 grains, it’s a short bullet at .885”. When fully opened, the base was .185” and diameter is about 1.115” close to 4X expansion.

Image

Scale above shows 85.4, the lower has a bit of gel, so the weight loss of about a grain was all in the plastic tip.

Image

You can see above and below that once the tip of the bullet opened, the base of the bullet continued to expand, instead of having the petals shear off.

Image

Below you can see how much of the bullet is used in the expansion.
Image

Here is where some thought needs to go into bullet choice. If we compare this bullet to the Lehigh 78 CQB, we immediately find a problem with application. The Lehigh needs 2300fps to expand and work correctly. That velocity is tough to reach in a sub 8” barrel. The Maker expands within a velocity window that suits short barrels better.

The Maker bullet also has a limitation and that is at high velocities. Being a light bullet expands 4X diameter, the brakes come on real quick. The bullet traveling at 1750fps actually penetrated deeper than the 2800fps round. The 2800 round only penetrated 9” where the 1700 traveled 14”. The higher velocity round will have more trauma in less space.

By the numbers, the 2800 fps round dumped 1500 pounds of energy over 9”, where the 1700 fps dumped just under 600 pounds in 14”.

Many things to consider.

Presently I have no velocity readings from a sub 8” barrel, I had 2800+ from a 12”. I would expect 2200+ would be possible. Well within the working window of the bullet.

It’s a start and I may continue more testing but sadly I’m actually out.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by dellet »

Image

A reasonable image of the bullet track. Typical of a Maker bullet you can see how the bullet screwed through the gel once it opened. Penetration was about 4” before the bullet opened, nice to know that it does not open on impact. Even at extremely high velocities.

Image

You can see from the track that the bullet traveled upward, when it stopped it was about an inch from the surface. Note that it also turned sideways.

Image

This was the 1750fps round, note the difference in the depth of expansion and closer to “only” 3X expansion.

Image

A pretty impressive little bullet.

Image

Again retaining all but the plastic tip for weight. With a bullet this light, that is important.

Some barrier testing might be prudent, but the bullet will clearly work. Penetration in the field compared to what I have seen in the gel I use is that it is deeper in the field. Until people actually report back it will remain an unknown. Again impact velocity will be a determining factor. Energy dump vs depth of wound can make a difference how long between impact and incapacitation.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by dellet »

Place holder
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
ThreeHundredBlackout
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 3:52 pm

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by ThreeHundredBlackout »

dellet wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 11:19 pm There have been some questions about this bullet, I started working with it a couple years ago and got sidetracked. Not sure what happened to the targets shot at the time, so may re-visit that. Memory says MOA capable like every super sonic Maker bullet I have shot.

Here’s the down and dirty information everyone wants.

Velocities below are impact on the gel. Here’s two important details. You can shoot these too fast and too slow, more on that later.

Image

These weigh in just over 85 grains, it’s a short bullet at .885”. When fully opened, the base was .185” and diameter is about 1.115” close to 4X expansion.

Image

Scale above shows 85.4, the lower has a bit of gel, so the weight loss of about a grain was all in the plastic tip.

Image

You can see above and below that once the tip of the bullet opened, the base of the bullet continued to expand, instead of having the petals shear off.

Image

Below you can see how much of the bullet is used in the expansion.
Image

Here is where some thought needs to go into bullet choice. If we compare this bullet to the Lehigh 78 CQB, we immediately find a problem with application. The Lehigh needs 2300fps to expand and work correctly. That velocity is tough to reach in a sub 8” barrel. The Maker expands within a velocity window that suits short barrels better.

The Maker bullet also has a limitation and that is at high velocities. Being a light bullet expands 4X diameter, the brakes come on real quick. The bullet traveling at 1750fps actually penetrated deeper than the 2800fps round. The 2800 round only penetrated 9” where the 1700 traveled 14”. The higher velocity round will have more trauma in less space.

By the numbers, the 2800 fps round dumped 1500 pounds of energy over 9”, where the 1700 fps dumped just under 600 pounds in 14”.

Many things to consider.

Presently I have no velocity readings from a sub 8” barrel, I had 2800+ from a 12”. I would expect 2200+ would be possible. Well within the working window of the bullet.

It’s a start and I may continue more testing but sadly I’m actually out.

Nice !

Gonna have to try some !
Only Jesus Christ Saves ! ! !
BJK
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by BJK »

FWIW, penetration in gel doesn't mean that's the penetration that one will get in flesh. It's not a 1:1 relationship. Gel doesn't have connecting tissue, cartilage, bone and such. What I'm saying is expect less penetration in flesh.
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by dellet »

BJK wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:04 pm FWIW, penetration in gel doesn't mean that's the penetration that one will get in flesh. It's not a 1:1 relationship. Gel doesn't have connecting tissue, cartilage, bone and such. What I'm saying is expect less penetration in flesh.
I’m not sure I would agree with that. Most field tests that have come back against gel tests I have reported, have deeper penetration on live animals.

A couple reasons for that might be that gel in theory simulates muscle tissue which can be more dense than organ tissue. Bone is a completely different story, and defeats some of the best bullets.

The other wild card is target weight. With a 25 block of gel a lot of energy is lost in block movement on impact. I have blown a block of gel off the table. I have never blown even a 100 pound deer off it’s feet. More resistance allows more penetration.

Bottom line is that gel is not really designed or used as a penetration test, it is a medium standard to compare bullet performance, and give a reasonable way to test expansion. The standards even betray the thinking. If a bullet must travel at least 12” and no more than 18” means any FBI approved bullet should completely pass through the average naked human target.

Take the information for what it’s worth and form your own judgment as to if it is a bullet you want to try. Or better yet run tests you feel offers better information and post the results. People are always eager for more information.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
BJK
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by BJK »

What I wrote was NOT from personal experience but from the engineers at Federal who design their ammo and bullets.

I always though the FBI was insane to require up to 16" of penetration (I think it's 16") because people just aren't that thick. But once I got that info from Federal it all made sense. Gel is a simulant but not a perfect one. They needed that penetration depth because of potential tissue contained in the real thing that gel just doesn't have.
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by dellet »

BJK wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:14 pm What I wrote was NOT from personal experience but from the engineers at Federal who design their ammo and bullets.

I always though the FBI was insane to require up to 16" of penetration (I think it's 16") because people just aren't that thick. But once I got that info from Federal it all made sense. Gel is a simulant but not a perfect one. They needed that penetration depth because of potential tissue contained in the real thing that gel just doesn't have.
For what it’s worth, a good example what you are talking about is the newest version of military 556. It was redesigned because there were too many pass throughs on targets in the Middle East. Low body mass and lack of fat changed how the bullets performed.

Fat is more like water and causes faster expansion and more disruption to the bullet as a whole.

We really won’t know how this bullet performs for real until people use it for real.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
JimmyBee
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2021 4:39 pm

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by JimmyBee »

Is there any published load data for this bullet by Maker or anyone ?

Someone told me A#9 would be good, and I would think H110 also......

What's your take ?

What powder gave you the best velocity ?

Also, what velocity did you get from which barrel lengths, I got confused reading that part ?
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Maker 85 T-Rex

Post by dellet »

JimmyBee wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 11:35 am Is there any published load data for this bullet by Maker or anyone ?
There us data for some bullets on the Maker website, you can always ask them. They are pretty good with support

Someone told me A#9 would be good, and I would think H110 also......

What's your take ?
I get better velocity from H110/296 in longer barrels, under 10" I would try both and make the decision based on accuracy.

What powder gave you the best velocity ?
see above

Also, what velocity did you get from which barrel lengths, I got confused reading that part ?
18" 3000 fps
16" 2900 fps
12" 2700 fps
8" 2350 fps
These are max loads and extreme caution should be used.
The bullets and velocities above were all shot from a 12" barrel. I download the loads to whatever velocity I want and shoot the gel at 25 yards with the chronograph placed at the gel.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 137 guests