The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting woodliegh 500 gr rn solidsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| woodliegh 500 gr rn solids | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
Alf, I am not preoccupied with SF, as I do not believe unnecessary high SF values will bring any benefits to straight-line penetration, as claimed. This claim is made by those who I think is actually preoccupied with the absolute need for high SF. So much so, that there are different cut-off points for a .366" and a .375" bullet. If this is so, there needs to be logical sytem with certain incremental rates of change as we go though the spread of cartridges. What is so magical about a .366" vs .375" bullet? What about the next jump to a .416 Rigby? I do concur with your view on the triad factors, being statically stable , dynamically stable and with an angle of attack as small as possible (yaw and tractability), but Gerard specifies specifically the SF value as a requirement on with emphasis is placed. By virtue of geometry and the flat meplat, a FN Solid, benefits from 'shoulder stabilization' and so it penetrates deeper than a RN Solid in flesh. In fact in-target drag in flesh is higher for the FN Solid than the RN Solid, but by virtue of design the RN tumbles and overturns sooner. Gerard now agrees that additional or excessive spin does not work in target, but switched lately to the explanation of transition from air to flesh, even though the comments still stands about "slow bullets" and "fast bullets" and a "velocity" and "meplat" thing. I cannot see how the above mentioned key variables all link up in this theory that is advanced. Alf perhaps you can explain it better, and I hope it is all in the explanation. Let us come back to the simple example I mentioned before about the claimed differential twist that is needed between a 9,3 FN bullet and a .375" FN bullet - the one being "slow" and the other being "fast". That is one element of difference, and then we are still left with the differential meplat area. So if we now shoot the 9,3 FN bullet faster than in a 9,3x62 mm ("slow" bullet), such as in a 9,3 x64 mm, to the equivalent of 375 H&H velocities (fast bullet), and the stability factor is just over 2.0 (by virtue of the standard CIP twist rate of 1 in 14"), then it does not satisfy the specification of being in excess of 2.5 as claimed for faster bullets. Why should in-target stability and straight-line penetration be any worse? Here is Gerard's precise words ... "Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth." The above claim should be based on universal principles and be explained as such for each cailber or the break-points at which a change in SF becomes needed, as claimed. How this is very noticable with the naked eye is a mystery to me. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus,
 You are stuck again because Google can't help you.
Confirmed - Zero comprehension. That is why the red question above remains unanswered. You are stuck again. Just like on the previous thread.Unless "now" means "for the last five years", that is another big fat lie. I explained this to you in 2004 and in 2005 and many times since then but you fail to comprehend. That is why you cannot give answers to the most basic questions I ask you. Unless "lately" means "for the last four years", that is a further big fat lie. 2005 and numerous times after that. There are many unexplained things in life. Some we can unravel and some will remain a mystery. I have often wondered where the left sock disappears to. Why is it always the left sock? For you it is obviously this s/f / meplat and speed thing. Watch it now Alf! There is a veiled threat here - you better get it right. Different weights? Different nose lengths? Different meplat sizes? Different cgs? Different speeds? Different tractibility values? All of these? None of these? Some of these? Now you are probably as confused as a cat in a tumble dryer. And supported by testing done by a member here, completely unrelated to my observation and by countless field reports. Why? You are incapable of the most basic comprehension of the principles as evidenced by the fact that you have failed to answer two very elementary questions. You are stuck. Exposed as a fraud. A troll with an agenda. Phishing for friends? I told you before - Go out and shoot a bunch of animals. Observe what happens. Every ten or twenty animals you hold up one hand so you can see the fingers and then start from the thumb side and count the various results (you can count, I hope) o-n-e, t-w-o, t-h-r-e-e .......... All very complicated. How did you think we do it - stand next to the animal and photograph the incoming bullet? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Warrior: "I cannot see how the above mentioned key variables all link up in this theory that is advanced." Gerard: "There are many unexplained things in life. Some we can unravel and some will remain a mystery." So, it is a mystery then, and mysteries cannot be explained, because once it is explained, it is no longer a mystery. Thanks for that !!! The fact is the GSC-FN bullet is such a precision lathe-turned solid (read statically stable) that this aspect is not even a factor to be brought up. The FN design has been proven as superior over other designs in terms of in-target penetration. So when we have evidence that other Solid designs that are longer, as they are made from Brass instead of Copper, and with smaller meplats, not truncated but ogived, and they penetrate straight with much lower SF values, I just cannot see why a superior bullet to start with, needs more SF. And I have quoted many a time, examples of these Solid bullets in .366" and .375" that provide straight-line penetration with lower SF values. And that is the empirical evidence that must be refuted. That is why I say these unnecessary high SF's is a mystery and it seems we have now agreed on this. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus,
You are stuck again because Google can't help you.I see the problem. You do not finish reading paragraphs to the end. You must learn to read from the top and to finish the paragraphs. Complete ideas are usually contained in paragraphs. Same in English as in Afrikaans. So, to your quote you must add: "I have often wondered where the left sock disappears to. Why is it always the left sock? For you it is obviously this s/f / meplat and speed thing." This means that the disappearing left sock is a mystery to me, but not the s/f meplat and speed thing. That is a mystery to you. If you know where the left sock goes, please let me know. It is so sad - this blindness with which you are smitten. We have also seen many pictures that prove that they have tumbled. You see, you must look at all the samples, not just those that you like. Done. See the sentence in red above. Refuted. Are you happy now? Another three step swindle from you successfully unmasked.  When will you learn? | |||
|
| One of Us |
It looks like the Warrior/Gerard war continues. I don't know who is right or wrong as this is all headache material to me but I have noticed that one of them keeps his comments to the facts or proported facts and the other seems more inclined to revert to personal attacks rather than responding with facts. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H, The "wars" are a pity and I apologise for the disruption but, given my situation, what would you do? Bekker started posting here in 2004/5, sending email to other members to post for him, before he could work out how to join as a member. Eventually he started posting as "Truvelloshooter"(sic), got banned because of racist remarks and came back as Warrior. Since 2002, three years before coming here, he has made it his business to criticise and find fault with GSC, my designs and a host of imaginary things, despite the proven success of the things he criticises. He did this on hunting websites and in print. His "solution" to the "problem" he finds with our product is usually a particular competitor with whom he has strong ties. Finally, in August 2005 I realised that he never answers any question I put to him and doggedly follows his misguided points of view, regardless of any evidence or proven theory I present. It was clear that he has an agenda of slander and damage against GSC and, the only way for me to counter that, is to point out his mistakes and show that his opinion is worthless. Ignoring him simply brings an escalation of the lies he tells about GSC products and the absurdity of the theories he presents. He has sworn at me, called me the worst of names and attacked me personally many times. The worst I have done is call him an idiot or stupid. I never instigate an acrimonious discussion, I only react. Check every altercation we have ever had. He always starts the scrap. In August 2005 in this post, I said to him: "From here on, your opinion on shooting and ballistics is irrelevant. You have proven yourself incompetent in these matters beyond any doubt and you are warned that any further mention of GSC, based on deliberate misconception, mistakes or misuse contrary to manufacturers recommendations, will be met with less than good humour." Since then, that is what I have done. Consider this example. We at GSC have proven over and over that there is a link between twist rate and terminal ballistics. We have done enough testing over the last 13 years in this regard, to bring it down to a set of specifications we use in design. Our FN solids, where we believe this is particularly important, have enjoyed an extraordinary rate of success when used as we recommend. Other manufacturers have followed our design and weight examples and, they too have had similar success. On 21 August 2006 Bekker/Truvelloshooter/Warrior posted: Since then, he has constantly attacked this design specification we dared to mention, despite the fact that others have done the same and enjoyed the same success. Two days ago he posted The same old gripe is repeated over and over and when he is given facts, he ignores them and just carries on repeating the same old moan. Consider another example: When he advances one of his crackpot theories or disagrees with (does not buy) what I put forward, I ask him a question that goes to prove that he is not considering all the variables or that goes to prove that he is wrong. He never answers these questions - simply ignores them. This has happened dozens of times. Two examples are evident in the last two pissing matches we have had. I can only conclude that he does not learn, has an agenda and knows very little. If I put you in the same situation where someone constantly attacks you and your product, from a basis of no knowledge, with an agenda of slander and damage, does not interact with you and just repeats the same old hoary theories and moans all the time, year after year after year, what would you do? I find much amusement in showing him up for the fool that he is.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
465 H&H, I though that someone who was impartial would notice Gerard's agenda of personal attacks and slander. Any debate with Gerard is an absolutely useless endeavour, as he would stifle any discussion with his wise cracks instead of explaining his theories. We have such an instance now again on these mysterious break-points in SF values for some calibers - the jury still seems to be out on the other calibers that Gerard refuses to answer. I do not want too spent to much time on commenting on his version, other than to reject it as one sided. This debate has nothing to do with GSC product, but purely on the theory and philosphy that is advanced. I have commented before on the GSC product as innovative and that it is precision made. Furthermore the accussation that I have close ties to another manufacturer is rejected, as there are no ties other than being a customer. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
I could not have wished for a more suitable reply from Chris if I wrote it myself.
Here are a few statements from you, directed at me. Would you class them as personal attacks and slander or reasoned debate? YOUR THEORY ABOUT THE 2.5 SF IS BULLSHIT !!! Please dish it up for the kids at your local kindergarten. You talk so much bullshit that you confuse yourself. the only bullshit is the GSC recommended 2,800 fps max "safe" velocity in the SA context and then of course all those that want to sing in the same choir. The tongue in cheeck tone is pure crap - just another spin on things, as always. I not going to start a personal fight or answer the one-sided crap or be side-tracked. The crap we hear from you is that ... "With FN bullets we recommend a stability factor in EXCESS of 2.5 Wow, what a crap answer. I said superceded as in function as in superiority - understand you dickhead !!! Square thoughts of a square head or perhaps dickhead !!!! Gerard, you are a real DICKHEAD to think you can wiggle yourself out with all the smoke you create. I have explained away pages upon pages to you on this forum but I have given that up as pearls before the swine. After I explain, you reject my explanation and ask the same question again. Then I explain and you reject the explanation, and ask the question again. When I ask a question - the answer of which will start to clarify the question you ask - you ignore the question I asked and ask the same question of which you twice rejected the answer previously. You argue in ever diminishing circles and eventually you disappear............ This is a very good example!! In order to start on an explanation, I ask: 1.Is there a difference in tractibility between a stable bullet with a stability factor of 1.3 at the muzzle and a stable bullet with a stability factor of 2.3 at the muzzle? 2.Under which circumstances is it ok to use a bullet with a s/f of less than 1.3 and when is it ok to use a bulet with a s/f of more than 1.5? This goes directly to the s/f question that troubles you so. Once we agree on the two answers above, we can proceed from there, but you refuse to do so. Change my mind about the pearls and swine - address the questions I ask. One sided indeed. You never answer any question I ask, yet you expect an answer to every question you put up. Let us see if this situation continues. I am putting money on it that it will remain one sided and you will fail to discuss that which you ask. More than a third of the posts you have made here on AR have been devoted to arguing with me. Subtract your posts in the PF and the number is closer to half. I am the designer of all the GSC bullets. How can you say, with a straight face, that your debates have nothing to do with GSC product? The product is the result of the theory and design philosophy. You have the gall to call it a debate when all you do is repeat your disbelief and refuse to debate. How do you reconcile these two posts - the one above and the one below?
Now, let us see you debate. Give us the answers to the questions I have asked. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, Q1. Yes, but not material at practical hunting ranges given that we start off with a precision made bullet like yours, no barrel inconsistencies, no skew entry from chamber into the bore, no flaws at the crown. Q2. Target shooting requires and SF of above 1.0 with some safety margin for colder climates and barrel twists that may be slightly off. Hunting needs a bit more and most gunwriters recommend 1.3 to 1.5, and software programs generally specify 1.5, and some are content with an average of 1.4. This is not a hard and fast rule cast in cement. Even if the above answers are correct, half-correct or just plain wrong to how you see things, then just lay it out to the benefit of all that read these posts. Regarding how I reconcile my testing of Rhino bullets, it is quite simple. There was a stage where I did test their bullets and I did mention them by caliber. I offered my help to test the bullets, had some fun, and like many other hunters provide the manufacturer with feedback. Just like hunters provide you with feedback and you publish it on your website. I did not earn one sent for that. I have told you before that I do not have shares in that company and Rhino Bullets said the same to you. The last 3 years I have not tested a single bullet as I have tested all those bullets prior to this 3 year period. I am still using Rhino bullets in the calibers that I am shooting and that is because they perform to my liking, but I also tested other brands and I am also using other brands on and off for experimentation. So now you can give me a civil answer on my questions that I have asked over various postings. And there is nothing sinister about it - just a plain simple explanation that deals with the scope and variability of the various "key drivers" that I have difficulty in understanding. Thanking you in advance for your answer. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
1. You say yes. I agree. So, can we agree that the bullet with the s/f 2.3 is less tractible than the one at s/f 1.3? 2. You say that for target shooting a lower s/f is acceptable while a hunting bullet (typical soft/expanding bullet) should have a higher s/f. I agree. The target bullet would be more tractible, especially at longer distances (1000yds) where it has to nose over the trajectory, while the hunting bullet, that is typically used at hunting distances (muzzle to 400yds), can be less tractible. The target bullet long axis must follow the trajectory path which, at 1000yds, requires more change of angle than the hunting bullet. The hunting bullet long axis will deviate from the flight path by very small, amounts compared to the long range target bullet. It does not need high tractibility. Agreed? Don't blame me for giving up trying to explain things to you. You consistently ignored the questions I asked. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Seeing that Gerard is not going to answer my questions, I think in closing it would be appropriate to quote Alf on this matter of SF ... "Yes, angular velocity decay is always less than linear velocity decay over distance purely from a point that though the bullet may be doing 200,000 rpm plus it is also going forward at say 2400 fps meaning that actual angular velocity should be around 220 fps only, therefore over the bullet's total shooting distance the rate of velocity attrition would always be greater for the linear portion vs the angular portion. It is actually the ratio of Linear velocity to Angular velocity that is at issue. As to to the effects of going to sleep, we have covered this before. The fast arm mode of epicyclic motion of the spin stabilized bullet is what gets damped out that happens between 50 to 100 m leaving only the slow arm mode of motion, this grows slowly over distance. This means that if we look at Angle of Attack it grows over distance Remembering that Angle of Attack is in fact the combination of Yaw and Pitch motion. In my prior post I posted in error that calculated SF deteriorates over distance. It does not, it actually goes up for rifle bullets as the trajectory for practical purposes is a flat fire trajectory, so that calculated SF values get bigger downrange. The limitation in effective accurate range then being transsonic velocity because once the bullet velocity drops below speed of sound it becomes unstable. So now we have two concepts in apparent opposition to each other. A SF value that get bigger downrange, significantly so; 4 to 5 times ( mortars and howitzer cannon shells may have SF values that increase 40 fold at height of trajectory ) but angle of attack that also gets bigger. Mortars and cannon shells show a variation in angle of attack over trajectory Because the slow mode of epicyclic motion grows angle of attack grows ( gets bigger) over distance. In terms of Gyro stability the point is made that a bullet can have a large angle of attack but still be gyroscopically stable This is very important imo to understand. Angle of attack does not equate to stability Having a large angle of attack does not imply instability, nor does it imply that the bullet is " wagging it's tail". Angle of attack simply implies that the long axis of the bullet is sitting at an angle to the direction of it's trajectory ( or direction of forward motion). It may sit at a large Angle of Attack value and still is perfectly stable. I terms of in-target stability it now comes down to bullet geometry and construction. If we assume two bullets of similar construction, geometry and ogived shape, both do not deform the bullet with the smallest angle of attack value will take the longest to tumble, the higher the angle of attack value the shorter the narrow channel phase. This is not SF at impact value dependent. Experimentation on in-target motion of bullets have shown that in target stability of ogived projectiles is dependent on: 1. Angle of attack value at impact 2. Geometry ( length to transverse moment of inertia ratio) So the error in reasoning is that because one bullet has a greater SF value at impact the better it's going to penetrate. This is not true! It is the Angle of Attack value that is of importance and in target motion then geometry dependent." Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
I see that Warrior is still floating the Baby Ruth candy bars in the kiddie pool. | |||
|
One of Us |
This looks like a case of SDS... You guys (Gerhard and Warrior) have too much time. Karl Stumpfe Ndumo Hunting Safaris www.huntingsafaris.net karl@huntingsafaris.net P.O. Box 1667, Katima Mulilo, Namibia Cell: +264 81 1285 416 Fax: +264 61 254 328 Sat. phone: +88 163 166 9264 | |||
|
| one of us |
Karl S, Read my first post of 20 May - My reply to 465H&H. Then tell me what you see as a solution for me. I can spend the time I spend dealing with Warrior much better than dealing with Warrior, but would be interested in a constructive opinion from you instead of a passing snide remark, seriously. Chris, Your reply proves my point beyond any doubt. You are not interested in discussion, only disruption. I start a civil discussion by agreeing with your answers because they are right. I give a reply and make further statements, asking if you agree with those statements and you come with: There are three posibilities here. 1. You did not read my reply from the top, all the way through, to the bottom. 2. You read it but did not understand it. 3. You read it and decided that you are out of your depth and, as usual, fell back on what others have said instead of venturing your own opinion. I want to explain to you why I specify different s/f values. To that end I asked two questions. You replied and it is clear that we agree on those two points. I then extended the explanation and asked if you agreed with the extended explanation. Here are the questions that followed on from the first two:
After the first sentence of your reply above, just about everything you quote from Alf is not relevant to the discussion I am trying to have with you. You profess to be wanting answers and debate the subject, so: You have one more chance to return to the discussion. If you do not, it is clear to all where you stand here. Thus far we agree on: 1. There is a difference in tractibility between bullets at s/f 1.3 and s/f 2.3 2. Different applications such as target shooting and hunting can require different s/f values. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerhard, ignore him. He has made some good points, and so have you, but the 2 of you obviously will never see eye to eye, and will always find fault in each other's "theories/ ideas". Agree to disagree. The same goes for Chris. Each of us have our own opinion, and mine is just that, so take it as such: not one of you two are absolute correct, or absolute wrong. Karl Stumpfe Ndumo Hunting Safaris www.huntingsafaris.net karl@huntingsafaris.net P.O. Box 1667, Katima Mulilo, Namibia Cell: +264 81 1285 416 Fax: +264 61 254 328 Sat. phone: +88 163 166 9264 | |||
|
| one of us |
Ignoring him has not worked in the past. I have tried it several times. He simply escalates the misinformation about GSC products to the level where I start getting emails, asking what is wrong with our products. If I say I have hunted with you and the food you serve is lousy and you swear like a sailor, what would you do? | |||
|
| One of Us |
It might be true!  (Joke, of course.)There is enough people out there that have actually used your products and have had good results to counter such misinformation. The same goes for my outfitting company. I believe, as we have discussed, that you like too light a bullet, but that is once again my opinion. Too light bullets may disform more easily due to higher velocities, therefor I do not generally like them. But all of this has once again nothing to do with the question: Will Woodleigh solids in 500gr work? And my answer is, of course they will. Karl Stumpfe Ndumo Hunting Safaris www.huntingsafaris.net karl@huntingsafaris.net P.O. Box 1667, Katima Mulilo, Namibia Cell: +264 81 1285 416 Fax: +264 61 254 328 Sat. phone: +88 163 166 9264 | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Karl, If I told those lies to people who know you, it would not matter. If I told them to an audience of several hundred, who do not know you or how you operate, why would they not believe me if I masquerade as an "expert" on the subject. What would the consequences be? | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, I will certainly have a long way to go to catch up to you! These Woodleigh RN FMJs need to be pointier, with an aluminum filling in the nose and a reinforced flat steel base, with lead filling in the base half of the bullet. The opening in the steel jacket, after filling and forming to shape, must be only a pinhole in the nose and this will be welded shut and covered over with copper plating or the gilding metal wash over the steel. This will produce a much more rapid flip of the bullet, before it veers off course. This new and improved "Woodleigh DumDum Solid" will then proceed onward base-first in a straight line to the point of aim. | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, Sorry to be slow answering, but I've been unable to spare the time until now. I numbered you questions above and question and answer numbers correspond. 1.) What shape bullet and what purpose? But assuming all hemisherical round nose and punching paper: It would depend, amoungst other things, primarily on change in length determined by change in calibre. For instance, a 450gr copper solid in a .458" bore will require less twist than a 450gr solid lead projectile in a, say, .308 barrel. Alternatively, a 450gr lead solid fired in, say, a .577" barrel will require less twist than a 450gr copper fired in a .458" barrel. Assuming the same bore, the denser material will require less twist, since it will be shorter - and see your question and my answer to number 2. Change the use to hunting and change one shape to flat nose, assuming same bore, and I think (or at least think I think) that the round nose needs more twist. 2.) If I read your question correctly, the denser material "is better mass consentrated close to the centre of gravity" axially and the less dense material has "mass further from the centre of gravity", also axially. But your question has more to it than that, and I'm not sure you intended it to. Certainly I hadn't given thought to the following before: "Our" (meaning all participants on these solid bullet discussions) discussions focus all but exclusively on steel jacketed solids vs. copper or brass alloy mono metal solids, and we - or at least I - end up thinking of the bullets as a whole, which is an error in regards to the steel jacketed solids. Your question 2 points this out, intentionally or not. A steel jackets solid is denser than a copper or brass solid in its entirety, but perhaps as important to the discussion is that the core of the bullet, which is closest to the center of gravity, is denser than the jacket and guilding material, which is furthest from the center of gravity. Moreover, the "front end" of the steel jacketed solid is where the lighter steel jacket is thickest. So really, the distribution of mass on the steel jacketed solid is even more significantly concentrated near the center of gravity than the mono bullet. (And more concentrated than one would believe thinking of the steel jacket bullet as a whole.) On the other hand, the center of gravity moves rearward in my "mental picture", with more distance from center of gravity to nose than I had "pictured." So the steel jacketed solid "is better mass consentrated close to the centre of gravity" both radially and axially, and differently concentrated from center of gravity to nose than to tail to a greater degree than I had previously considered. (Thinking aloud here, this must add to the round noses' tendency to tumble in target, add to the steel jacketed round noses' requirement for stabilization in flight vs., say, a thin copper clad lead or all lead RN "solid.") Something I'll have to think on... 3.) Better for what purpose and what bullet shape? Assuming an ogived bullet, round nose or other, for long range shooting, the accepted answer is that a sufficiently but minimally stabilized bullet is the better, primarily because of smaller yaw angles and "tractability", the tendency for nose to "follow" the trajectory. (Many have said "for the axis to follow the trajectory", but I do not favor that description simply because the axis is represented by a straight line while the trajectory a curve and the axis always intersects the trajectory.) I do not dispute that accepted answer, and find the issue immaterial to hunting at ranges of concern to me. I'll note that it is often repeated that the issue arises "when the bullet begins to fall" or something similar indicating that the issue arises only after the bullet has reached the zenith of its trajectory, but the issue of axis/trajectory or straight line/curve divergence actually arises the moment the bullet leaves the muzzle. With regard to cylidrical flat nose solids (and truncated cone flat nose solids ?), you have made the point that no twist is required for stable flight. As far as for solid bullets for hunting purposes, every indication is that, at least to some point, greater twist is better from more than one perspective. Without rereading, I recall that increasing twist results in reducing distance from muzzle rquired for the bullet "to go to sleep", in addition, given the ranges in question, tractability is no issue. Gerard's assertion that greater spin results in deeper, straighter penetration as a result of increased resistance to overturning or "yaw" induced by target impact and transition from flight in air to "flight" in tissue has much support, I think. While the discussion often centers around "angle of attack" at impact, defined as imperfect point or axis on flight condition, I think "angle of incidence", defined as imperfect point or axis on condition not incident to flight but incident to target aspect, is more important. Faster spin barrels produce somewhat deeper penetration in game, so the evidence shows. Faster spin barrels produce significantly deeper, straighter penetration is test medium of wet paper and catalog for round nose solids, so the evidence shows. The common element is faster twist barrels. Is spin induced stability in target, post transition, an equally moot point in the test medium and in game? Both mediums, the wet newsprint and catalog and tissue are far, far more dense than air. I think spin induced stability in either is equally moot. But increasing twist produces greater straight line penetration for round nose solids in both mediums while only producing some evidence of increasing straight line penetration for flat nose solids in game, and none observable in the test medium. Penetration is reduced in the test medium compared to game for both bullet types and for either faster or slower twist. I think this evidences the test medium's greater resistance to penetration from impact onward. To me this reinforces Gerard's theory since the bullet without shoulder stabilization penetrates further with faster twist - which does not affect in-media stability - while the bullet with shoulder stabilization does not penetrate further. The only options are that faster twist so improves RN in flight condition at impact that it leads to straighter, deeper penetration or that the increased twist contributes materially to the transisition from air to flesh, or both. Knowing the in air improvement on flight condition of faster twist, it seems improbable that changes in RN in-flight condition account for all of the remarkable improvement faster twist bring to straight line penetration in the test media, though it must be a contributing factor; even more improbable when you consider that FN solids also see the improved in air flight condition of faster twist but there is no observable improvement in staight, deep penetration for the FN's. So, the remaining conclusion is that faster twist must contribute significantly to the RN solid's successful transition from air to flesh. The test media is shot as straight on as "possible" to limit bullet exits. This is significant in that it explains to me the differential between gains in RN straight line penetration seen with increased twist and the absence of observable gain for FN bullets. Recall the significance I think "angle of incidence" plays in Gerard's theory as opposed to the typically relatively insignificant "angle of attack", and consider the greater tendency the round nose solid has to overturn or to incur "impact yaw". Successful transition is dependent on the target's type and amount of resistance to penetration. At some threshold, the greater the resistance, the greater the spin required, bullet type for bullets type. I believe the round nose will benefit more from increased spin. Contrary to this, I believe that steel jacketed Woodleigh round noses penetrate heavy bone encountered at or near enatrance better, but this is propably explained by relative lack of deformation. BTW, recall that I have never found any evidence of Woodleigh RN's tumbling on frontal brain shots. Also, I was re-reading Ron Thomson's "Mahahoboh" and ran across the passage where he relates that, with his FN 458wm shooting Winchester 500gr solid ammo, bullets fired inside of ~30yds failed to exit on side brain shots, but those fired beyond that range, out past 50yds, always exited. JPK Haven't the time to read this and wrote it in many short "instalments, so subject to revision as I have a chance to read it and correct or organize, which will be later. (Also, assuming perfect bullet/bore concentricity, blah, blah, blah, as much above or in others' posts does as well.)  Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, You have not explained how the above works, ie their inter-active roles - the key variables that you mentioned are: Speed : "Slow" bullets and "fast bullets" Meplat area : refering to different bore sizes that we can expect from their meplats Stagnation pressure : this was also mentioned in one of your replies. The fundemantal issue portrayed here is that SF value (the stability factor that relates to air) is the magic solution to solve differences in bullet velocity (slow vs fast), and differing bullet bore sizes (meplat areas - small vs large). It implies if we manage or manupilate the SF value we can solve the equation for reliable straight-line penetration. Inter alia it purports to work through a range of calibers. In this regard you have specified: A minimum SF value of 2.0 for the .366" bullet (9,3x62) being a "slow" bullet with a smaller meplat area. A minimum SF valueu of 2.5 for the .375 bullet (375 H&H) being a "fast bullet with a bigger meplat area. The differential velocity here is approximately 200 to 250 fps and the insignificant difference in meplat area (4.9%). According to the theory it necessitates an increase in SF of 25% to go from 2.0 to 2.5. (The .375/300 gr FN is not recommended on the basis that its SF runs between 2.39 and 2.44 and not 2.5) So definite break-point have been established here, not so? I have asked the question before, what is the position of the .416" bullet (416 Rigby) according to the system logic? If a change in SF is need from a .366" bullet to a .375" bullet, then surely the .416 bullet needs a higher minimum spec? And presumable this increasing curve in SF values must continue for the 470 NE and the 500 Jeff? Now let me come back to a simple example I mentioned before: ... If we now shoot the 9,3 FN bullet faster than in a 9,3x62 mm ("slow" bullet), such as in a 9,3 x64 mm, to the equivalent of 375 H&H velocities (fast bullet), and the stability factor is just over 2.0 (by virtue of the standard CIP twist rate of 1 in 14"), then it does not satisfy your specification of being in excess of 2.5, as claimed for faster bullets and thus not reliable. Why should in-target stability and straight-line penetration be any worse - where would 9,3 x64 mm ownwers be left with your .366 FN bullet, not reaching the required 2.5 SF value - with unreliable straight-line penetration? I honestly don't think so. I am really intrigued by these different break-points for different calibers, and if they valid, there needs to be logical sytem with certain incremental rates of change, as we go though the spread of cartridges. I am curious to see the interaction of the key variables as specified by you, and how it then changes the SF value of what a bullet needs to be reliable - perhaps in matrix form for ease of presentation or by formula. That means we have to look at a your equation/numbering system to derive the SF value. If there are no specific break-points per a devised sytem, then it boils down to just an opinion. The claim that reliable straight-line penetration increases up to a value of 4.0 before it reaches a point of diminishing returns, and is VERY NOTICEABLE with the naked eye is a mystery to me. I want your specific answer on these very basic points please. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
ALF One theory is that a bullet while penetrating, deppending on its stability, tendt to overturn, causing the sides and thus the rear of the bullet to impact against the medium it is penetrating. A bullet with a weak base will be deformed, squeezing lead out the back. The reinforced base section helps prevent this. Also as previously discussed the shape of the bullet and the nose does make a difference in how much the bullet wants to overturn. I have shot Zebra with a 475 Linebaugh and 400gr Hornady XTP factory ammo. One bullet penetrated "point on" and was found buldging out the skin on the opposite side. Another was found with the base sticking out of the off side skin, the mushroom keeping it from going comletely through. Both bullets had about the same amount of mushroom, indicating that one had "overturned" near the end of its travels. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
The 1 in 14 twist in the 223, with 55 gr Ball, was found to be unstable even in "air" at temps below freezing. A change to 1 in 12 corrected that problem. I feel it is better to overstabilize a little, than to be understabilized. Also there have been tests where a faster twist in a .458 bore rifle gave better penetration. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, Yes, lots to ponder. I began to reply, but have realized that, enjoying the break in my schedule, I have had far too much fun and good cheer, aka scotch, this evening to adequately respond. But before singing off for a better response this weekend, I just need to point out that, imo, momentum is not the end all, be all of penetration. Might be/is for same shape, diameter, twist round nose solids, but isn't for round nose solids vs. flat nose solids, and may not be for flat nose vs. flat nose. For example, my 500gr Woodleigh .458" solids at 2145fps penetrate only ~60% as much in ele or buff bodies as my 450gr NF FN solids at 2190-2220fps, though the RN's have the greater energy and momentum. You may respond "No tumbling!" but this remians the case for frontal brain shots where the full penetration may be tracked for RN's and often for FN's and no evidence of tumbling has been found for either. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
J/ | |||
|
| one of us |
I am trying to do so and, in order for the reasoning to be logically ordered, it is required that we agree on certain elements, but you will not allow me to do this. Stay with me without continually disrupting the progression and we will get there much faster.
This is where we left off before your non comprehension kicked in. Address these points please. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, There is nothing that I have to address or answer that will affect your views. So please do not look for excuses to explain how the SF-system works with all the various inputs into the system and then kicks out an answer which is the SF value, which then becomes the guiding light. You have to explain your own theories which have absolutely nothing to do with what I know or do not know. My questions are very clear, and you must explain your theory so we all can better understand how the system works as a design parameter around which you design your FN bullets across the range of calibers, with particular reference to just the few FN bullets I have mentioned above in the following calibers: .366 260 gr bullets in 9,3 x62 mm (slow bullet) and 9,3x 64 mm (fast bullet) .375 270 gr bullet and why the 300 grainer would be unreliable in a 12" twist) .416 380 gr bullet in a 16.5" twist as in a 416 Rigby [@ 2,600 fps] .474 500 gr bullet in a 21.0" twist as in 470 NE [@ 2,350 fps] .510 500 gr bullet is a 20.0" twist as in a 500 Jeff.[@ 2,500 fps] Then just to validate the uniformity of the logic, let us throw the .338 bullet in - the 250 gr FN bullet @ 3,000 fps shot in a 340 Wby Mag at a twist of 10". Then we can see what comes out of the woodwork. I want to see how the SF values of these flow through in a logical way, as per the system. Also define the cross over point of a "slow" and "fast" bullet. State the velocity of the .366/260 gr FN as which it is considered slow and fast please. Warrior PS: The matrix would be a very handy tool for a quick and consise overview incorporating: Type of Cartridge ---- 340 Wby Mag -- 9,3x62 -- 9,3x64 -- 375 H&H -- 416 Rigby -- 470 NE -- 500 Jeff Caliber Bullet weight Velocity Meplat area Stagnation pressure Twist rate Calculated SF value Minimum required SF (ito increased velocity, meplat area and stagnation pressure based on GSC formula) | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, Given your statement above, we hear the opposite from Gerard. He says, and I quote ... "The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth." Would you then say that Gerard is wrong, or is he just day-dreaming? Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, The bit about momentum struck me this morning as I drove to work. I know that you know that momentum isn't the end all be all. Must have been the scotch. Your comments about elephants reminds me that you and I strongly disagree on the composition of elephant skulls, and in particular about the amount of fluid in them. I ahve yet to encounter a dry one, or even close. BTW, if penetrating an elephant skull was in any way parrellel to pentrating stacked wooden boards, the differential between FN and RN penetration wouldn't exist. See your own response to Andy's post. More this weekend on your earlier post. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
Warrior, Read my entire post and if you choose to quote from it, do so in context. Taken in context, provided in my post but ignored by you, the quote you have selected from my post and the quote you seem so hung up on from Gerard are not in conflict. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, 1) So, can I then conclude that you agree with Gerard's statement that higher SF values provide increased "linearity and depth" with FN bullets? 2) When you say .... "At some threshold, the greater the resistance, the greater the spin required, bullet type for bullets type." ... would that be true for something like steel plates as in armour plates? Or are you saying it in terms of "soft-skinned" game and "tough-skinned" game as in a hunting scenario? Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, When I said ... "In fact in-target drag in flesh is higher for the FN Solid than the RN Solid, but by virtue of design the RN tumbles and overturns sooner." you replied:
Perhaps you should reconsider your answer. Is there a difference between the wetted surface of a FN and a RN bullet? Why does a FN bullet make a bigger temporary cavity in the wound channel than a RN? Perhaps this zero comprhension lies with you. Incidently, Alf happens to share the same view as me. Here is what Alf posted on 23 May 2007 06:33 23 May 2007 06:33: "The coefficient of drag: for a FN it is almost twice that of the RN all else equal and at similar velocity and similar angle of attack the drag force of the FN would be more than the RN." The answer lies in data geometry. Whilst you hold the above view, you also hold simultaneously the following view (Posted 23 August 2005 09:25):
To which I replied ... "We know full well that a FN solid is superior over a RN solid, but it cannot create the same wound channel of the large expanding Rhino Solid Shank bullet with its bond core front section - just observe or calculate the diffencial frontal area when the Rhino bullet has been expanded." Don't confuse yourself.  Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Warrior, I might then say the same thing. There is nothing that I have to answer that will affect your views. Why then should I answer your questions? You have already shown that your interest is to disrupt not discuss, and you have just confirmed it again. I notice that when Alf asks you questions you also do not answer him, unless he provides the answer. Then you are quick to agree. It is easy to pretend you knew when you did not. On the off chance that I am wrong, I will continue to explain the s/f spec of our GSC FN bullets but need to have clarity on these points first: I am not sure I understand this. On the one hand you demand continuously to know the exact intricacies of how I arrive at the s/f spec of the FN bullets. On the other hand you say I do not need to explain the inputs. Do you want to know how I arrive at the spec or not? If you only want to know what the spec is, look on our website under Technical Data. If you want to know what I use as inputs and why, this is what I am trying to tell you, but we must agree on the elements used, not so? What exactly do you mean by this incoherent sentence? You cannot be serious. How can I explain a theory if we are not in agreement of the underlying elements of that theory? I have stated my specification repeatedly and you have differed with the specification repeatedly. Obviously it is the underlying elements we differ on, so that is where we must start. How can we discuss English grammar without agreeing on the rules of punctuation and sentence structure? You want to learn German but you will not allow your teacher to explain der, die und das. It cannot be done. I am trying to do that but you will not sit still and listen. Also, your questions are sometimes very difficult. How does one answer "I demand to know why three follows seven when counting from one to ten."? No problem, I will walk through my thinking on this, step by step if you are willing to debate and not disrupt. Thus far we agree on: 1. There is a difference in tractibility between bullets at s/f 1.3 and s/f 2.3 2. Different applications such as target shooting and hunting can require different s/f values. Can we therefore agree that: 1a. The bullet with the s/f 2.3 is less tractible than the one at s/f 1.3? 2a. The target bullet should be more tractible, especially at longer distances (1000yds) where it has to nose over the trajectory, while the hunting bullet, that is typically used at hunting distances (muzzle to 400yds), can be less tractible. The target bullet long axis must follow the trajectory path which, at 1000yds, requires more change of angle than the hunting bullet. The hunting bullet long axis will deviate from the flight path by very small amounts, compared to the long range target bullet. It does not need high tractibility. What do you say to 1a and 2a above, are we still on track here? | |||
|
| one of us |
Just as an aside: 1. I am a little worried about your reply to JPK, where you compare what he said about s/f and RN and FN solids, to what I said about FN solids. I must point out that the two quotes cannot be in conflict because they should not be compared. They are about different concepts, as JPK correctly points out. That and your reasons for agreeing with my first question, where your reasons are all wrong, leads me to believe we have more work to do than what I thought initially. Don't get me wrong, I accept that you agree with question one, it is just that your reasons given are completely off track. 2. Your first post of the 22nd contains many incorrect assumptions. Some of these are:
These assumptions show that your approach to our s/f spec is wrong, three does not follow seven, unless you are counting backwards. I will explain why, as we establish the underlying elements correctly. 3. In the same post you make statements that are less than clear and that makes it difficult to give a concise answer. For example: This makes no sense to me and you need to rephrase that more clearly. Likewise you are combining elements here in relationships that are not correct and it needs restating in clearer terms. If this carries the meaning that I think it does.......... no, can't be. (Give enough monkeys enough typewriters and sooner or later one of them will type a coherent sentence.) This is on our website in the Technical Data pages but you are not satisfied with that. You ask for a more detailed explanation which includes the underlying elements - I think. 4. Then there are the instances where you simply do not comprehend, Such as where you say: and what I actually said was "Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth." If the implication is that I observe the s/f of individual bullets with the naked eye, you are being completely absurd. You have made this statement several times now. Why repeat such an absurdly fabricated statement when I did not say so or even imply it. You just dreamed that one up and it places a huge question mark over your motive for doing so. However, you say These points are not so basic and answers are a little complicated but, with a little patience we may get there. | |||
|
| one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus There you go off at a tangent again. Seeing that you have no interest in debating the matter of s/f specifications and choose to argue for the sake of argument, I have to revert to normal Pontifcus Erroneus baiting mode. It is much more fun than trying to drag you through a process that you do not understand in any case.
I am sorry. I retract my "Zero comprhension" statement and modify it to "Zero Understanding". No, why should I? Yes and the real question is - Do you know what it is? I have money on it that you do not know. Read on. I will prove that it does not but you will ignore it and carry on arguing about something else. You got that wrong. Alf has the view and you agree, even if you do not have a clue what he is talking about, which is most of the time. Allow me to illustrate: You quote Alf out of context as saying something on 23 May 2007 which sounds like it might be contrary to my opinion. You grab it and quote it and you make two mistakes. 1. His quote has nothing to do with the "data geometry" as you cluelessly imply. 2. The wetted surface is precisely why the FN has less drag than the RN. If you had the first foggiest clue about what was being discussed, you would have seen that four months later Alf said: It is so funny when you mount your mistaken horse and ride off in four directions at once. Invariably you crash and burn. So, now that you have once again, for the gazillionth time been proven wrong, it follows automatically that I am right about: "Wound channels from the FN bullets resembled those of soft nosed premium bullets that expand to double calibre and more." Let me prove that one quickly for you. You refer to the Rhino 380gr .375 bullet that you claim expands to something like 28mm. Given that it is almost three times the caliber, how do you manage to think that twice caliber and three times caliber are comparable? This is apart from the fact that the wound channel of an FN solid at high speed more closely resembles the wound channel of a soft than the wound channel of a RN solid. I am curious to see what direction you will go off into next. You are indeed a sick puppy! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, Excuses upon excuses, pre-conditions and rephrasing of sentences, so you can better understand. You got my drift very clearly, and I am not going to waste any further time in reprahsing. You can deal with any aspect in your reponse in a logical way, in any way you wish. Just state your theory, rather that the thousands of words you have wasted over time. Why this song and dance if you have a structured logical system where SF is the guiding light? Important though, you do not owe it me, you owe it to the gun fraternity at large in support of your beliefs. Sadly, your sole purpose so far has been to derail the discussion every time. If this trend continues, this debate is absolutely futile. So here is your last chance to lay it out in clear terms for the AR readers. The caption of the theory could be ... Critical SF values for FN bullets for various cartridges in terms of slow bullets, fast bullets, differing meplat areas, differing stagnation pressures in relation reliable staight-line penetration and depth. The quantified system should go much further than mere statements like this ... " The simple fact is that when 50 animals are shot with a bullet with a certain set of attributes and another 50 are shot with something else, the difference in fall down result is easy to observe by counting on the fingers of one hand." and "This results in a specification based on field results and which can be tied to known parameters of ballistics and manufacturing." This naked eye observation to evalutate faster than necessary twist rates I do not except as remotely scientific. It is so very simple. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
In my opinion using recovered old style Kynoch solids that had very than skirts to describe why Woodleigh turns in the steel jacket at the base of the bullet is highly misleading. Those bullets had very thin gilding metal or nickel jackets could and would deform. They are a far cry from the good quality steel jacketed bullets currently made (Woodleigh) that those relatively recently discontinued Hornady and Winchester. In the picture below you will see a pile of Winchester and Remington 500 grain solids recovered from elephant.  Notice that only one or two of these steel jacketed solids show any sign of deformation. Now look at some Woodleigh solids that I have recovered from elephants.  The following are all Woodleigh solids recovered from elephants. #1 is a unfired old style .468 dia.(no cannalure), #2 and #3 are the same recovered from head head shots, #4 is a new style .468 dia. unfired solid, #5 and #6 are the same recovered from head shots, #7 is a new style unfired new style solid, #8 and #9 are the same recovered from head shots, #10 and #11 are the same recovered from body shots, #12 is a new style .458 dia. 550 grain unfired solid, and #13 to #15 are the same recovered from head shots. Notice that only #11 shows ant sign of deformation. I shot it and the one before into a large bull elephant at a range of 90 yards. Both bullets entered the heart/lung area about 4" apart and were found on the muscle surface of the off side shoulder about 6" apart. Both bullets went through the top of the heart and into the off shoulder. Bullet #11 also hit the humerus and the elephant collapsed when that leg gave out and it was unable to rise again. Although it hit that heavy bone it still equaled the penetration of the pre seeding bullet. I believe the deformation of the bullet was caused by it impacting a heavy bone. I agree with DeWalt and Marsh that such bullet deformation in the skirt area is almost always caused by the bullets impacting bone and tumbling, it may or may not then go off course. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that this style of bullet is prone to tumble or go off course. The above recovered bullets tend to refute that hypothesis. It is almost a mantra here that RN steel jacketed bullets tumble and go off course and that FN mono-metal bullets never tumble and never veer off course. I can say that I have shot approximately 35 to 40 Hornady steel jacket solids and around 25 Woodleigh steel jacketed solids into cape buffalo. The Hornady'ss were the old style 300 grin solids from a 375 H&H. On heart/lung/shoulder shots all bullets exited the buff. When you have an entry and exit hole it and know the shot angle it is easy to see if there is any significant veering or of the exit hole indicates that the bullet tumbled. Never saw anything but straight line penetration and round exit holes. The Woodleighs were 480 grain solids from my 458 Nitro. They would usually exit if the buff was within 30 or 40 yards but stay in the animal out to 125 yards. Again no sign of tumbling or anything but straight line penetration. One going away buff received two Hornady 300 grain solids in the rear end. Both bullets made perfectly round holes in the heart where two entrance holes were evident. They emerged from the front of the heart through the same hole. One was found in the front of the chest under the hide and the other exited the front of the chest. I think that if RN steel jacketed solids were prone to veer or tumble I would have seen some indication of it in close to 100 bullets used on elephant and buffalo. If it does happen,I am either awful lucky or it is a very rare occurrence. Why do we assume that FN mono-metal solids don't veer of course and never tumble? Is there any evidence that they do or don't in game? Look at the next pic of recovered Nosler mono-metal solids from elephant.  Three of the four recovered bullets show bending in the cannalure area. Does any one here believe that those bullets will track straight or not tumble? Here are some recovered GS Custom bullets also recovered from elephant by 500 grains.  At least three of the five recovered bullets show bending near the flat nose. I fail to see how they could have not veered off course or got bent with out tumbling. I guess it is possible but would take quite a leap of faith. Bending near the rear of the bullet for lead core bullets is often given as evidence that the bullet tumbled. Maybe so but because of their construction it would be almost impossible to see bending or flattening in a mono-metal solid. So lack of flattening or bending is not positive evidence that the mono-metal bullet didn't tumble. In my opinion any solid bullet may tumble or veer off course depending on what it hits but it is a very rare occurrence and one that is too rare to be of worry. I need to mention that I had one other Woodleigh solid fail on me. I hit a large bull with a follow up shot in the shoulder blade as he was lying on his side. The bullet entered at a steep angle when it hit the scapula. All we found was the outside jacket bunched up on the shoulder blade. Where the steel/lead core ended up I don't know. I sent the bullet to Woodleigh for analysis and it came back as the bullet material was too brittle. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
By the way, I am not picking on GS Custom bullets but only use them as an example that all bullets can show some deformation. The same can proably be shown for North Fork or any other manufacturer. GS Custom bullets are used and recommended by some on here whose opinion I respect. 465H&H | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting woodliegh 500 gr rn solids
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
2.) which is better mass consentrated close to the centre of gravity or mass further from the centre of gravity given a set caliber? 