The meplat shootout continues with a 95% meplat.
I halfway expected the 95% meplat to be unstable, but it made round holes in the paper and turned in a 3.75" average. Go figure.
Then I tried a couple of hollow point versions of the 95% meplat. One version was drilled with a size "F" drill 0.060" deep, the other version used the same drill except 0.160" deep. The hollow point was intended to assist with stability, but since the 95% did not have a stability problem there doesn't seem to any advantage to hollow pointing it. In fact, accuracy was inferior with the hollow points, particularly the deeper hollow point.
I gave up after only 2 groups with each hollow point because it was obvious they were not going to be more accurate than the solid nose. For what it is worth the shallow HP 95% averaged 4.09" while the deeper HP 95% averaged 5.8".
FYI there was one squib round that only clocked 1051 fps, and it made an oval hole in the paper. All the other holes were round.
Summary of meplat results to date:
50% meplat -- 6.38" average at 100 yards
62% meplat -- 4.48" average
75% meplat -- 2.76" average
75% meplat with HP --3.61" average
85% meplat -- 3.92" average
85% with HP -- 3.43" average
95% meplat -- 3.75" average
95% with shallow HP -- 4.09" average (only 2 groups)
95% with deeper HP -- 5.8" average (only 2 groups)
That concludes my meplat shootout. The results were about the opposite of what I expected, particularly with the 50% meplat.
Results were mixed with my shallow hollow point experiments. Sometimes the HP version shot slightly better, other times it shot slightly worse. In some cases the differences are too small to be significant, but I do suspect the deeper 95% meplat was significantly worse than the 95% solid nose.
I suspect that Lee Martin "volcano" experiment showed a dramatic difference because its WFN bullet was marginally stable, and the shallow hollow point improved the stability somehow. My solid nose bullets were stable so the hollow points were a solution in search of a problem.