Gentlemen,
I have shot 4 elephants in the head with my 450 No2, 3 with Woodleigh 480 Solids and one with a 450 North Fork Flat point.
The NFFP penetrated much farther than the Woodleigh's.

Also the penetration of Garrett Hammerhead FP 45/70, and FP hard cast handgun bullets in the 44 Mag, 45 Colt, 454, and the 475 Linebaugh etc is legendary.

There is no doubt, something to the increased penetration of Flat Point bullets.
[I have my own theory] but none the less it seems to be a fact.

While I would like to know why...
The important thing is, that I know it is so.
And I am going to use it to my advantage.

Let it be written... let it be done...

I don't know enough about it to be able to hazard even a guess as to why it happens - but I've been using GS Custom FN MS in my 500 this year and the penetration is FAR more than in any other solid I've ever used. - They're just unbelievable....... As soon as I get time I'll be ordering some more for the 500 and for my new 404.

Maybe I should not point this out but here goes. From this thread alone:


"All that was left was a hollow copper cilinder as the front disintegrated and the core exited the front of the bullet jacket"

The high Sd of this bullet contributed to the disintegration. This means that, in this particular case, lower Sd would have produced a more acceptable bullet. Whether the result would have been more acceptable is a moot point.
-------------------------------

"I must tell you the performance of the 470 on elephants is far superior to that of the 458. There is no comparison. The 'knock down' power of the 458 does not come anywhere near that of the 470."

This is despite the 470 having less Sd than the 458.
-------------------------------

"The simple modification of cutting a small meplat on a Barnes Mono RN required an additional two foot extension on the original ten foot trap before I recovered a bullet."

Cutting a small meplat would have reduced the Sd of the bullet, yet it penetrates more.
-------------------------------

"I have shot 4 elephants in the head with my 450 No2, 3 with Woodleigh 480 Solids and one with a 450 North Fork Flat point. The NFFP penetrated much farther than the Woodleigh's."

The North Fork bullets had the lower Sd number.
-------------------------------

"I've been using GS Custom FN MS in my 500 this year and the penetration is FAR more than in any other solid I've ever used."

The GSC FNs mentioned are 500gr compared to the 535gr solids used previously. Again the lower Sd number went deeper.
-------------------------------

This is the same conclusion we came to the last time this was discussed. Sd is a poor measure of probable performance.

Now watch the blood pressure rise.

Boom Stick, you keep quiet now.

quote:

The question is not whether the old style RN jacketed solids work, but to which extent homogenous construction, meplats and sharp edges of new designs improve on them

Pierre,

The crux of the matter is indeed what you stated above, and that is what we need to clarify what the contribution of these changes are with regard to solid homogenous bullets. No definitive study seems to exist other than individuals that do their own thing. Being the editor of Big Bore Ass it may well be an excellent research project that could be done under the auspices of the Association. Solids are synonymous with big bore rifles intended for big dangerous game.

The dual-diameter design of the Barnes Solid with a sharp edge was an improvement over the original smooth FMJ bullet with a lead core. The sharp cutting edge of the Impala bullet also plays a role as to why it works, despite its sharp nose design. Norbert Hansen proved with his experiments how the size of the flat meplat can effect or vary the depth of penetration. One point that he highlighted was that his design was very effective as it has a sharp edge that does not deform (steel insert) as opposed to a rounder type edge that does deform. Barnes now also caught on to this and gave their new solid a flat meplat. A key question would be to answer the different effects when the percentage of the meplat to the diameter is varied, for example - a .458 bullet (11.63 mm) with a flat meplat that drops by 1 mm at a time from say 9 mm's down to 6 mm. It should be contrasted with a design that bears a roundish ogive (Rhino,Barnes) but also with a flat meplat rather than tapering down in a straight line to the meplat (GS, Bridger). This would give us the sensitivity of the various nose designs. It should also be done in say 3 or 4 different artificial mediums and then in Hippo/Buff/Ele so we can see some correlations. If the 250 hippo sample could be done again with these changes in mind it would be great. I am sure manufactures would be willing to participate or even sponsor such an event.

Alf could you request the PH's to publish their report on AR - more than 250 hippo's is no small sample and could point our noses in the right direction even though it is anecdotal. I have also heard from Mauritz Coetzee that a Superpenetrator lost its disk. Also, Katte have been doing some tests with various bullets including HV's, but I have not seen it published.

As I have said before, SD comparisons should be used wisely and not stupidly, thus it should only be done with the very same bullet type (form and drag profile) in different weights and in the same caliber. It cannot be done accross all bullet types (different expanding softs & non- expanding solids) nor accross all calibers, as SD is only a ratio of bullet weight to diameter. Being a ratio, it implies that it is not an absolute value. The silliness of treating SD as an absolute condition can clearly be seen when we compare two bullets with different weights in 2 different calibers - eg, a 175-grain 7 mm bullet (SD=.310) versus a 535-grain .510" bullet (SD=.294) and conclude the lighter bullet will out penetrate the heavier bullet, rather than consider the applied force (momentum) over the frontal area (Xsa) as a guide. Likewise, we also know that we will get differences in penetration when we vary the nose shape. That is why SD is only indicative in a particular caliber when the same bullet (material & geometrical shape) is being used at different weights, like in the experiment that I conducted with 7 mm Barnes-X bullets - 175 gr vs 142 gr vs 108 gr. Comparing thin-jacketed bullets, that are frangible, with strongly constructed homogenous solids with the same SD is plain silly, as bullet behaviour is very different.

Regards
Chris

quote:

Boom Stick, you keep quiet now.

hey i am on yer side

It appears the consensus is that the superior penetration of a flat nose is a direct result of superior in-target stability.

And perhaps Norbert's vaporous supercavity is key to this stability??

There remains the contentious issue of increased wounding effect however.

While thinking of ALF's assertion that permanent wound tracks can never be larger than the bullet itself, it occured to me that something similar to this assertion must happen in dry wood. All bullet holes in dry wood appear as puckerholes with no visible opening remaining. Maybe flesh and bone behaves like wood? I do get a bit confused when a bullet hole in mud, or clay, or wet news print, or ballistic gelatin, or many other things containing a bit of liquid, are so often larger than the bullet itself?

gerard...

why have you not made a cup point solid??

if you make cps in the exact weights as the f.n. i am sure they would be popular.

how bout a hybrid h.v.c.p.s.

/

/

Alf,

I really enjoy these kind of discussions. There's always something to learn from them.

I've never tried cup solids, so can't comment. But I would say that the (GSC) 500g FNMS I've used penetrated a whole lot better than the various 535g RNMS I used previously. (same load) Obviously I can't quantify how much better, as they all just whistle through everything. - I've never been able to recover one.

I go to the Selous for a couple on months next week and while I'm there will try both FN & RN MS on a few carcasses in such a way as (at least try) to be able to recover both types of bullet and also measure penetration..... of course, that will only be with one calibre - but it might be interesting anyway......

quote:

Obviously I can't quantify how much better, as they all just whistle through everything. - I've never been able to recover one.

Hi Steve,

Your above statement joins in with what I tried to convey previously. Most RN mono solids go straight through, but sometimes they don't. When they don't, they have a chance to turn. My previous statement was ... "what is the significance when a RN solid bullet, or any other bullet for that matter, turns during the last 10% of its journey when it has already passed through the vitals?

Improvement of FN over RN is not questioned, but significance in terms of failure for the hunter. The Wdl FMJ has a pointy RN and I have not heard of failures - Ganyana is still using them if I am not mistaken.

Regards
Chris

Once it's through the vitals it doesn't matter where it goes - but I feel that the extra penetration of the FNMS is esp useful for pachyderms or shots that need to go just that little bit further such as through saplings before it hits the (previously wounded) animal etc. - But bear in mind, I'm only referring to my 500 and from a PHs point of view.

I rate the Woodleigh as the best of the FMJs (and their SP and PSP are second to none). - But I still prefer a mono solid to any FMJ solid.

/

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

CUP solid vs FN Solid of equal diameter mass and velocity in samilar target?

1. Which penetrates the deepest?

As I have compared GS FNs and North Fork cup noses in game, I can tell you my experience. The GS FN goes about 20% deeper (which is about 1 foot more penetration typically). But the NF makes a bigger wound channel. As it is typically not necessary to get a full 6 feet of penetration on a buffalo, the cup nose would seem to be the best buffalo bullet in general. But for head shots I would always choose an FN.

quote:

3. and just to rag 500 gr..... If shot into water which gives the "best" cavitation regime Whilst on this subject what is the effect of meplat size on cavitation regimes in pure fluids?

I have found that .510 550 grain wide melplat solids at 2150 fps penetrate deeper than .474 500 grain FN solids at 2350 fps. Traditional bullet theory would have the .474 penetrate deeper based on (i) sectional density, (ii) ideal velocity, (iii) Art Alphin's penetration index. Yet just the opposite is seen.

quote:

4. as the CUP is nothing more than a simple controlled expansion hollow point what makes it better / worse than a conventional expanding bullet in terms of possible lethality all else equal ?

It expands so little that it behaves much the same as an FN solid, while a traditional expanding bullet loses 1/3 to 2/3 of its length (or more) in the animal, even it it retains 99% of its mass. Another way of saying this is that a regular soft performs a lot of work deforming itself, while a cup nose performs a little work deforming itself but reserves the remainder of its work for deforming the animal.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Boomstick and the followers of the GS doctrine:

I would like to pose a question or two

CUP solid vs FN Solid of equal diameter mass and velocity in samilar target?

1. Which penetrates the deepest? and why and just to make it interesting which is potentially more stable CUP or FN ?

2. Which gives the bigger "knock down power"
( if there is in fact such an entity )

3. and just to rag 500 gr..... If shot into water which gives the "best" cavitation regime Whilst on this subject what is the effect of meplat size on cavitation regimes in pure fluids?

4. as the CUP is nothing more than a simple controlled expansion hollow point what makes it better / worse than a conventional expanding bullet in terms of possible lethality all else equal ?

I would like to add another question to ALF's list.
I sometimes wonder if we make too much of penetration and that if we have more penetration than we need to reach the vitals if we do not give up some stopping power to gain that extra penetration. The experiences of Thompson and Lagrange in comparing the 458 Win and 470 Notro Exp. lead me to ask.

Which bullet, a CNS or FNS will have the greater stopping power on a charging elephant assuming that both have suffecient penetration to pass to the back of the head?

465H&H

465,

From my limited personal experience, I have noticed that on a missed brain shot on a cow ele, the Bridger FN solid in a .500 Nitro seems to stun the animal better than any other bullet I have tried. The Bridger .500 NE flat nose solid also has the biggest meplat of any bullet that I have tried. And it happens to have produced the data point of greatest penetration of any bullet that I have tried.

See the 3 brigder .500 NE bullets below on the far left.

Alf wrote:

quote:

2. Projectile data:

...............
d) Transverse moment of inertia of the projectile.

Ethan Skyler's comment on this 'moment of inertia':

quote:

On another issue, the term "moment of inertia" is misnamed. It is another example of attempting to grant reality to "inertia" where none exists. Moment refers to a theoretical concentration of the matter of a rotating object at an average distance at right angle to the axis of rotation. Think of moment as a lever with one end attached to the fixed axis and some distance away all the object's matter is concentrated at and fastened to the lever. Now to impose angular acceleration for the object's matter a force (torque) must be applied to the lever. Newton's formula is modified to take into account the length of the radius (lever) and then it fully applies to predicting the correct angular acceleration that will result.

Where in here do you see the presence of "inertia"? There is talk about how the object's matter "resists" the tangential acceleration/Action force but such is not the case. Yes an a/A force is required to cause angular acceleration (either speeding up or slowing down of its rate of rotation). But just as in linear acceleration events, with friction absent, there is no evidence of any such "inertial" resistance to acceleration. Once the a/A torque force is present, angular acceleration is immediate and without any
sort of internal inert "inertial" resistance. As in linear accelerational events, such predictions are based not upon experiment but upon poor reasoning. Clearly a complete lack of understanding of the supportive but always non-resistive acceleration/Reaction force is their problem.

Accordingly the false and misleading term "moment of inertia" needs to be replaced by a term that is based upon the quantity of the object's matter and the distance this matter is positioned, when averaged, from the axis of the actual object's rotation. Something like "moment of matter". As always, matter is real, "inertia" is unreal. Someday we will all laugh at how Physics got this sooo wrong.

That is just one little bit of the story, but if that is sooo wrong, what else is also equally sooo wrong?

It makes you think!

/

Alf,

quote:

Classic Newtonian derivations are still the norm and will likely remain the norm for many years to come,

Who disagreed with the above?
Neither me nor Ethan Skyler in any of his works or comments - you're fighting your shadow over this and in the process don't understand what you're reading!

As far as this question of yours:

quote:

To the proponents of mathematically derived formulae of one is better than the other I ask. How valid is this?

Follow this link to see a reply to almost the same question you asked me some time ago.

I agree with a lot of things you're saying, but I disagree with equally as much!

quote

Boomstick and the followers of the GS doctrine:

I would like to pose a question or two

CUP solid vs FN Solid of equal diameter mass and velocity in samilar target?

1. Which penetrates the deepest? and why and just to make it interesting which is potentially more stable CUP or FN ?

2. Which gives the bigger "knock down power"
( if there is in fact such an entity )

3. and just to rag 500 gr..... If shot into water which gives the "best" cavitation regime Whilst on this subject what is the effect of meplat size on cavitation regimes in pure fluids?

4. as the CUP is nothing more than a simple controlled expansion hollow point what makes it better / worse than a conventional expanding bullet in terms of possible lethality all else equal ?


end quote

alf...

i.m.h.o.

i think the cup point is the best middleground d.g. bullet. you get modest expansion for tissue/organ damage. the faster the better for the hammer of thor affect.

the cup point essentialy makes a bigger meplat but does not have the same s.d. as a f.n. cuzz of expansion. the s.d. changes as soon as it hits the game. the mass/frontal area ratio is important.

i think the cup points are a great way to hunt with smaller calibers and highter velocities. e.g. 375 whatever.

the 416, 458 and 470 are just gravy.

i just think the cups are the strongest expanding bullets thar be. it would make me feel more comfort to know the bullet will hold together under extreme conditions and still expand.
the knock down power award would go to the cup imho cuzz like grains pointed out you dont need 20 feet of penetration unless you are trying to kill to buffs with one flat nose stone.

the cavitation would be better with the cup point in the beginning but would give up the ghost later and the f.n. would cavitate better longer.

stability would tip to the f.n. cuzz of deformation of cup is not always perfect when it hits large bones but is a lot better than softs and r.n.

the cup is not just another "expanding bullet"

it is inbetween the softs and f.n. with a better design for penetration just behind the f.n.

the faster the cups are thrown the better they are!

imho

quote:

In reality the 470 should actually be a very poor performer and classic pictures of bent bullets are synonomous with this caliber. Just about every historical publication showing retrieved 470 ogived bullets show bent and deformed projectiles.

Just recently I had oppertunity to view a pair of factory loaded federal ammo bullets from Hanke Hudsons 470 that failed to penetrate an ele skull, both turned and came to a a stop before hitting vitals. They could have been taken right from the pages of John Taylors book.

The 470 is probably the best example of the vital link between bullet length and rate of twist for stability in the transition from flight to target.

English Alf, English. I thought I knew what calvarium is but had to look it up to be sure.

gerard...

i have a 1 in 10 twist and plan to throw bullets between 2300 and 2400 fps. what do you think of that twist???

quote:

The 470 is probably the best example of the vital link between bullet length and rate of twist for stability in the transition from flight to target.

The twist of the 470 NE appears to be too slow with a twist rate of 1 in 21", with regard to overly long mono matal bullets, although I have not done SF calculations on bullets in this caliber. Most other big bore calibers have faster twist rates (404 Jeff & 416 Rigby = 1 in 16.5", the 458 Win is 1 in 14" and the 375 H&H is 1 in 12")

There is still an issue that we have not explained properly here on AR - the transition of air stability to target (flesh & bone) stability. Ie the other factors that come into play when the bullet hits flesh to keep its journey as straight & stable as possible for at least a crital distance that the target (animal)calls for to deliver a kill. I now call on the expertise of Alf to give us a short summary of how he sees it.

Chris

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

"Which bullet, a CNS or FNS will have the greater stopping power on a charging elephant assuming that both have suffecient penetration to pass to the back of the head?"

465H&H

465,

The CP will probably penetrate as much as some RN solids, but with frontal area like this, it is bound to slow it down alot. Too much for me. I am sure Mike Brady would not recommend it for elephant.

This is what a CP looks like fired at 2550 fps into water.



At lower velocity it should penetrate more due to lower FA despite having less momentum, and at higher velocity probably penetrate more as it will blow off the front end.

As is, the CP had more penetration than any other expanding bullet in my test of all premium 458 caliber soft points.

The FN creates a pretty large hole in elephant head, so I am not sure you need a CP for increased lethality (wound diameter).



Thats the FN damage surrounded in pink and brain outlined in blue.

I would presonally stick with the FN for elephant and hippo and a bonded soft for everything else. But I like frontal area and high velocity.



Andy

Boom Stick,
What caliber is the 1:10" barrel?