465H&H,

I took a look at those recovered solids I have found since I moved and including those from 2008 trips. (Excluding two recovered from tusk sockets the result of just plain dumb insurance shots.)

14 Woodleigh .458" 500gr solids.
10 were fine with no deformation or bending, splitting, etc.
4 were severly deformed. 1 flattened and split at the base and bent, 1 flattened at the cannelure and probably bent, 1 flattened at the nose and bent and 1 bent near the center.

That is a bending/severe deformation rate of 28.5%!

I also have 2 Woodleigh 500gr 470 bullets, one is bent, the other is fine.

1 300gr 375 Woodleigh and it is bent.

Overall that is a bending/deformation rate of 35.3%!!

I have 3 NF 450gr FN solids, one is perfect, one is slightly riveted with the riveting on only one side. These two traveled straight and deep. The other NF is riveted and has a deep divot one the deeper side of the riveting, that bullet veered, but maybe a matter of 6" at ~48" with the greater portion of penetration either straight or nearly so. Ie., the rate of deviation increased as distance penetrated increased and as velocity fell. No evidience of tumbling, the bullet was front on when found.

I believe that both GS and NF copper solids would display evidence of tumbling or traveling "not front on" with damage to the thin driving bands.

As I have related previously, I had the unussual opportunity to view through the skin of a buff the entire path of one 458 Woodleigh 500gr solid insurance shot made at shallow angle. The bullet traveled maybe four feet, with about two and a half prior to penetrating the backbone and another foot and a half afterward. Maybe eight inches or so after pnetrating the spine, the bullet began to tumble. Once tumbling began, penetration was about 8". The course and the tumbling were entirely revealed under the skin, with the course raised. You could see three dimensional tumbling. The Woodleigh was recovered side on and was perfect with no evidence of any dammage, deformation, bending.

Recall that Ron Thomson, in his book "Mahahoboh", relates that he considered the 470 as clearly the harder hitting of the 470 and the 458wm. The ballisics of the two as he likely shot them - 500grs @ ~2050fps, with the 458wm as likely as not on top velocity wise and only .016" diameter difference - do not warrant such a distiction, I think. How then to explain his observation? The "pointier" 470 bullets tumbled more often!

Recall that I do not believe that tumbling and going off course are necessarily related and that while I have seen the evidence of tumbling in incidents from the buff related above to alternating larger and smaller wound channels to recovering bullets sideways and backwards, I have never experienced ANY incidence of a Woodleigh RN going off course.

JPK

Like Thompson, Mike LaGrange also felt that the 470 was a more sure elephant stopper than the 458 Win, a definate conundrum. Possibly a deformed bullet goiJPK,

ng through the brain causes more damage than a pristine bullet. Also the deformed Kynochs may give a heavier blow than a non deforming bullet even though they penetrate less. But these are purely guesses. Your deform rate of Woodleigh solids is much higher than mine, Mine is more like 10% and I never have seen any sign of tumbling. Possibly a difference in twist rates between our rifles? I only recovered two of all the Hornady solids from buff. They were both not deformed. All the rest sailed on through, so I don't know about them other then they travelled straight and didn't tumble.

I can understand the Woodleigh that hit the spine tumbling, any bullet might do that. Did any of the other bullets that tumbled hit bone?

465H&H

465H&H,

Yes, deformation not associated with tumbling may cause the increased impact effect or knock down power , but I don't think so because while I have never seen an example of a tumbling bullet veer off course, I do think that a deformed RN, without any form of shoulder stabilization, is going to veer. Given Thomson's huge elephant experience, I would think that if he encountered a substantially higher rate of "failure to kill" incidences with the 470 than the 458wm, when he expected his shot to be true, he would have noted it. I think this limits the likelyhood of veering bullets, and so significantly deformed bullets that are not tumbling causing increased stopping power - but there are a whole lot of "ifs" in this assumption.

(But maybe Thomson's 470 bullets were veering - the only way to observe an increase in hitting, stopping or knock down power is to fail to brain the elephant. I don't think a deformed or even tumbling bullet going through the brain drops an ele any faster than a undeformed bullet traveling straight does. And Thomson used the 458wm for the lions share of his elephant hunting, so he might have missed an increase in "failure to kill" incidences when he believed his sht to be true.)

Recall that I believe that the bending, splitting , flattening of the RN's is caused by striking bone or other unussually dense material while tumbling, and that I believe that tumbling occurs near the end of penetration - this is self fufilling since the increased drag of a tumbling bullet brings peentration to an end quickly.

The tumbling bullet from the buff was undamaged, so tumbling itself doesn't seem to cause the deformation, at least didn't in that case. I have recovered undamaged Woodleighs, found point forward, against the far side arch. So it doesn't seem that striking bone causes the deformation either, so long as the bullet arrives front end on. (Contrary to this though, the two bullets from the two stupid insurance shots into tusk sockets - not counted in the sample of 14 or amoungst the 4 deformed bullets, one a Woodleigh, one a NF, as I recall, were both bent like bananas, and they struck front on - but that is an unfair and unreasonable trial of any bullet.)

As far as striking bone before tumbling, it would be inevitable that at least some bone was penetrated for most of the bullets I recovered, since most come from brain shots and insurance brain shots. Even before I moved, my kids got into my recovered bullets and mixed and matched them so that which shot was made with which bullet was lost. But I do know that most of the deformed bullets I've recovered, but not all, were pulled from the far side arch.

An interesting contrast is that while most of the deformed bullets, which I ascribe to having been deformed by striking bone or extra dense material while tunbling, have come from bullets used on side brain shots or side brain shot insurance shots, I have never found one of my Woodleighs deformed and have never found evidence of tumbling on frontal brain shots. I've used the side brain shot on only three eles, the rest have been frontal brain shots (or attemps!), but I've used side brain insurance shots quite a bit, having had eight eles land upright - though two fell over on insurance shots and one was pushed over by another ele - and one land on his side on a slope enabling a side brain insurance shot.

It would seem that that threshold of target penetration resistance that I've described where a RN needs more spin to make a successful transition from air to fully in target may be somewhere between that resistance to penetration encountered on frontal brain shots and that encountered on side brain shots.

I have not determined the twist rate of the barrels on my double rifle. I started to once, but since I don't know, and still have every confidence in the rifle, I chickened out, fearing that I might loose confidence in the rifle. That would cost me the price of a custom made set of barrels with X twist rate faster than mine, and the information isn't worth that price to me! Suffice to say that the rifle was made by Marcel Thys in Belgium in the early 1980's, so probably meets CIP specs. I don't know CIP specs and PLEASE do not tell me!

Best and good night,

JPK

Which brings us to the point that ALL bullets will deform and change directions SOMETIME.

/

BTW, I went back and calculated the bending/deformation rate of all of the Woodleighs, including the 470 and the 375, and it is 35.3%!

JPK

Alf,

Briefly because I need to hit the sack:

I concur, and always have, that RN solids have a strong tendency to tumble, I have seen much evidence of it on side brain shots and on bullets recovered from body shots. But I have never seen any evidence of it on frontal brain shots one eles. This is significant I believe because my RN solids, while fully penetration the skull, are found, point on without exception, maybe a foot behind the skull - about 39" of penetration, with narrow deviation between samples. Whatever is occurring, it is preventing the RN's from tumbling on frontal brain shots. As you mention, the hole through the skull is ussually small and roughly calibre size - I've never seen an exception in a fresh skull - so the bullet makes the journey through the skull point on and then travels but a foot more to come to rest point on, without tumbling. The target is not homogeous the length of penetration, perhaps this is why the RN's do not tumble on frontal brain shots, like they often - but not always - do on body shots or side brain shots.

Q: Is the lift pre tumble or only while tumbling? Would seem to be at all stages because the medium is denser at all stages of penetration.

On liquid in the skull, I fully appreciate your explanation, but my experience differs. There is more than merely a covering of mucus, and the material isn't viscous. While the explaination of the thin fat from the marrow at least describes the consistencey, the liquid is not slippery, greasy, odorous or have any objectionable flavor (I have tasted it but it is "unnoteworthy" enough that I cannot recall any flavor.) Posted below is a photo of an elephant where you can see the liquid seep from a side brain insurance shot made at an upward angle so that the exit hole is significantly above the entry hole on the opposite side of the skull. This seep began immediately following the shot and the liquid was evaporative, this is the liquid that I tasted, etc. Note that the seep extends above the exit hole.



Earlier I began a post regarding the issue of liquid in the skull but I could not finish it, the gist is that, imo, there must be some to account for the "instant" presence of liquid when the elephant is shot or the skull chopped, etc. On the other hand, I appreciate your argument, especially that portion regarding weight. Also, as I have noted, the substantial differential in penetration of the RN and FN in and through heads does not support the theory that the skull can be thought of as being represented by La Grange stop box type construction.

Then there is the apparent differentiation between side brain shots, where RN's seem to tumble more than occasionally - but not always, and frontal brain shots where they do not. One argues homogenous and viscous the other belies it. BTW, 465H&H reports far fewer exits on side brain shot than I do, and reports, above, far fewer incidences of deformed RN's than I do, which are also contrary results regarding tumbling and homogenous viscous medium on side brain shots. In addition one would think that the greater incidence of bending, etc, would lead to fewer exits, and the reduced incidence of bending, etc, would lead to more exits.

More will have to wait until tomorrow, I need to sleep.

Have a good evening,

JPK

Pontificus Erroneus,
You ask:

quote:

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.

I reply:

quote:

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."?

I have started out on an explanation six or seven times on this thread alone. You could not even begin to get to grips with the concepts and elected to sidestep, in a futile effort to mask your ignorance, instead of saying "Explain away, I will stay with you and let's see how you get there".

At your current level of understanding I am not going to waste more time explaining anything to you. You cannot even get question one right, and, what needs explaining is not difficult, but clearly way above what you are capable of, or want to be capable of. I have taught many people some very intricate skills and concepts and, in the time I spent teaching, I came across two people who were unteachable. To that number I now add you - In 35 years, that makes three people whom I could not teach to do what I set out to teach.

What will happen when I set out the parameters around which I base my spec? You will argue each and every parameter, from a base of zero knowledge and out of context quotes. What is sad is that you will do so, exposing your ignorance, as you have done in the recent past, and you will not realise that you do not know that you do not know.

Without fail, every time you have crossed mental swords with knowledgable people, they have given up on you and pronounced you a poseur, a troll and incompetent to discuss ballistics at the level you were attempting.

Goodness, you do not even have a grip on the very basics. You can barely count (in terms of discussing the flight of a bullet) but you want me to explain transition from air to tissue - a subject that no one can raise any research on and I seem to be the only one looking at it. (Before you quote Alf again, make sure the quotes are in the context of target contact to full immersion of the bullet in the target.)

If you do not know when to fold them, expect to keep losing.

Gerard,

I expected this side-step move not to lay out your theory, and it will remain a theory until proven and can stand the test of scrutiny. I now conclude that there is no such logical system in force, and that is why you cannot put it down in any manner that would stand simple leading questions.

This is indeed the essence, dabbling in the dark ... "but you want me to explain transition from air to tissue - a subject that no one can raise any research on and I seem to be the only one looking at it." And some more ... "But there is a huge gap in our knowledge about which I find little detail: The fraction of time it takes, from the point where the nose of the bullet contacts the impact medium, to the point where it is fully immersed in the impact medium."

There is no conclivive evidence as yet that increased spin, way beyond what is needed, will provide increased stability and depth in target as claimed. That is why it is important to see how you knocked this theory together with all it elements to arrive at those break-points.

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)

Cheers
Warrior

/

Alf, that was extraordinarily useful. Thank you very much.

josh

Alf,

The fluid was seeping uphill! That hole you see is the exit, at higher elevation than the entrance.

JPK

Pontificus Erroneus,

quote:

I expected this side-step move not to lay out your theory, and it will remain a theory until proven and can stand the test of scrutiny.

Theory has been laid out countless times. It has stood the test of scrutiny for the last 12 years with an extraordinary success rate. You lose this one because you cannot argue with sustained, reliable success.

quote:

I now conclude that there is no such logical system in force

You do not understand English? You lose this one too.

quote:

and that is why you cannot put it down in any manner that would stand simple leading questions.

The problem is that you do not ask simple leading questions. Demanding why three follows seven when counting from one to ten, is not simple and not a leading question. It demonstrates that your grasp of the concept is so poor that you are incapable of asking the right questions. You lose again.

quote:

This is indeed the essence, dabbling in the dark ...

Well, you are certainly dabbling in the dark. I have done enough work with the subject to have clear direction on it. Enough to write a spec and to have success with that spec. Losing argument from you once more.

quote:

There is no conclivive (sic) evidence as yet that increased spin, way beyond what is needed, will provide increased stability and depth in target as claimed.

Are you blind? There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the line of thinking. You just do not want to see it. What on earth is "conclivive" anyway.

quote:

That is why it is important to see how you knocked this theory together with all it elements to arrive at those break-points.

Which is what I have been trying to do, but you will not discuss the points I raise. Why?

quote:

The matrix would be a very handy tool for a quick and consise overview incorporating:

Three does not follow seven. However, the information that would be contained in your "matrix" is already partially available here. You lose once more.

Gerard and Warrior

Thank you both for your spirited input. However, in the interest of getting some relevant information out of the thread, perhaps you could continue the discussion in a private conversation. Knowing that you are both more interested in the facts than gaining public approval it would benefit us all far more. Once you have sorted it out then perhaps you could fill us in on the final verdict.

You see, there is a hell of a lot of good stuff coming out in this thread, but it is very quickly getting lost in the junk.

Good hunting
Ian

JPK,

Like you I think the majority of bullet deformation comes from bullets impacting bone. At least that has been the case with bullets that I have recovered. I would further define it, that dense rounded bones such as the humerus or femur are more likely to deform bullets. There are others but if a rounded bone is hit on the edge by the sloping surface of a bullet maybe it will be more likely to deform and tumble. Also I haven't seen any indication of tumbling when nothing heavier than a rib is hit. Your expience with tumbling on side brain shots is a puzzler. It doesn't seem likely that the zygomatic arch or ascending ramus would be heavy enough to cause tumbling. But what do I know. A couple more points, 1. I think the old Hornady and Winchester steel jacketed solids were stronger bullets than some runs of Woodleigh solids. 2. A few years ago Woodleigh changed their bullet design from a non-canalured to a canalured bullet. They used a steel in the core that was too brittle. My 550 grain .458 I mentioned above was one of these and I suspect at least some of your deformed bullets were also from this run. They have recently (Last three years, again changed the steel formula to a less brttle one). Most of my recovered bullets are either from the original design or the current design. The new ones actually make up the majority of recoveries. 3. I also think velocity makes a difference since I have put 35 to 40 old Style Hornady 300 grain bullets from a 375 H&H through buffalo. Most were hesrt/lung shots with a scattering of spine and texas heart shots. I only recovered one bullet. It was from a Texas heart shot that penetrated through the buff including the heart and was found under the hide on the front of the chest. Another entered just forward of that shot and exited the front of the chest. None of those 35 to 40 bullets showed any sign of tumbling or veering of course. It seems that if some level of minimum velocity is maintained tumbling doesn't occur. Which also means that a bullet would have to slow to a very low velocity before tumbling occurs. Perhaps velocity is more important for RN solids than we have thought.

BTW, It has been my experience that cows have more fluid in the honey combed bone above the brain than bulls. Even in cows the amount was relatively small but definately noticeable as you could see water fly when the choppers struck.

465H&H

Ian,
I would take it off to a separate thread in a heartbeat. I used to do so, but Warrior would not follow suit. It is his objective to launch and keep his attacks and opinion on open forum. As long as he does that, I have to defend, otherwise he confuses people with incorrect facts and lies. If he addresses me on PM, I will reply there. He is on my email blocked list because he forwards chain letters to "everyone in his address book".

I also wish there was a solution.

Ian,

You can just back track on this thread and see who is the one that is making personal attacks as a strategy, to derail the discussion with thousands of words, rather than to stay with the the theory under discussion, and to just simply state the logic of 'slow' bullets, 'fast' bullets, differing meplat areas, differing stagnation pressure and how FS values (relating to air) then become critical for different calibers in reliable linearity and depth in target, being a thousand fold denser. He has failed to do so to link these key variables in any logical sense.

When I challenged him on his 'view', he said it was not a view but just a 'specification'.

The only thing we were able to extract from him was ... "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." Just imagine this ... the logistics, the planning, the duration, etc to picth in the veld with different bullets at differing SF values and then the observation ... wait for it .... "the difference in fall down result" ... Rasputin stuff !!!

Warrior

Well, I have not (and will not) read 4 pages of this stuff. I will say that when I go to Africa after DG this is what I will have:
My 375H&H will have GS Custom 280 grain FNs.
My 416 Rigby will have 380 Grain GS Custom FNs.
My 500/416 will have 380 grain GS Custom FNs.
My 450 x 3 1/4 will have 500 grain Woodleigh FMJs.(All I can afford!
Peter.

Pontificus Erroneus,

quote:

Just imagine this ... the logistics, the planning, the duration, etc to picth (sic) in the veld with different bullets at differing SF values and then the observation

You have no idea. Have you ever seen what four Cruisers look like when they arrive at the abattoir each with about 30 buck hanging from the rails? I guess not. Have you ever seen what 68 buck look like when they hang on the rails at the abattoir after a one night of work? Or 17 kudu - 7 eland - the list is longer than you can imagine. Have you shot more than 200 animals in your entire lifetime? I shot more than that, every year, for almost a decade, and then there is the rest of it, outside of that pool of experience. I do not base a "postulate" on an amazing sample of three, like you do. I test thoroughly before drawing a conclusion.

But, you expect a logical explanation of a theory that I base largely on tractibility. You do not understand tractibility. Here is the proof:
I asked you a question that goes to tractibility. It was designed to achieve two things. You could not Google it and it would determine if you grasped the concept of tractibility. I also stuck my neck out and predicted that you would fail to give an answer.

quote:

You will fail to answer the following very basic question: 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?

I asked this question four times before you could not avoid it any further and answered:

quote:

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.

Your agreement was noted and so also were your reasons for agreeing - none of which has anything to do with tractibility. You do not understand tractibility. You will not grasp s/f until you grasp tractibility - they are firmly linked.

There is much else you also do not understand and, unless you have these concepts under the belt, you will wallow in your ignorance. You have proved your unwillingness to learn, choosing to argue for the sake of arguing. You blew your chance at learning from me because I asked you nine times in this thread alone, to consider my explanation, so I am done trying.

If you want to continue your infantile arguments, start a new thread and I will take you apart there. If you dont, I will, because I am done cluttering the threads of others with your rubbish.

Gerard,

As for your tirade to take apart, we still do not have an acceptable explanation. Remember way back in November 2008 (Posted 06 November 2008 21:41) when you replied ....

quote:
"Not a perception or a view - a specification we have set "

I then answered:

It is a specification, not a view ... what a profound statement !!! Colossal brilliance, it may appear, but how does one come up with a supposed intelligent specification without having a view or a perception. A view (an opinion) CANNOT be separated from formulating a specification standard, unless one is a zombie in my humble opinion. So, if a "view" and a "specification" is mutually exclusive then, my question is what does it make you Gerard? Playing with words to confuse and derail to create a position different from reality is what I call the art of bullshitting.

You are still bullshitting your way through instead of just giving it to us neatly and concisely.

And by the way the theory is not based on tractibility - it is punted as having to do with "slow" and "fast" bullets as indicated on your website, and I quote .... "A stability factor (s/f) greater than 2.0 is required. A s/f of 2.5 is desirable for faster calibers." ... and it was advanced that stagnation pressure seems to play a decisive role. Exactly what is slow and what is fast (forward velocity)? Not angular velocity (spin) that is the main driver. Yes, this is a mess.

Over and out.
Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
JPK:

Regarding the composition of living Elephant skull.

I know it is a popular notion here on AR that somehow the cells seen in the bone of the African Elephant skull is fluid filled ? This likely because of the variable, (sometimes quite a lot) amount of fluid seen when the skull is opened to remove the tusks.

I read somewhere(Thomson, Bell, Taylor???) that a cows "honeycomb" structure is fluid filled, while a bulls is more or less empty. Whomever wrote this also explained that this was the reason that cows are easier to knockout than bulls.

I have always taken for granted that this true. Is this theory in doubt?

/

ALF

I don't think I was clear. What I have always understood was that the cows have fluid in the honeycomb structure. This was said to make them easier to knockout with a missed brain shot.

What I read was that the bulls, because their head is so large, have nothing(gasses/air?) in the honeycomb structure.

quote:

Half full, completely full Hmmmmm so women are airheads, at least in elephant

ALF,

I do know you are a very knowledgeable person, but PLEASE, PLEASE, don't try to tell us that women are NOT airheads!

It won't be just me who will doubt your word, but 99% of human race! Only male opinions counts!

Well, it was not Thomson's who gave me the idea about bull's honeycomb being dry...

He seems to indicate that bulls and cows have fluid in the skull.

From Mahohboh pg. 106.

quote:

The greater part of an elephant's skull comprises a mass of honeycombed compartments which are filled with watery fluid (Fig. 38).