Alf:

You are completely ignoring what I said.

quote>>: The theory is that it works in water, please show me the results of Mr. Hansens bullets fired under controlled study, compared to a control of the non cavititaing kind, in water and or a standardised target medium.<<

I did these experiments. And again: The supercavitation itself is not primarily responsible for more or less penetration. It only keeps the rotational stabilisation going on, without supercavitation it would stop by friction. When the bubble collapses, the unstable bullet normally will veer off, in my terms penetration has stopped. By chance the bullet may go a bit further, it is not exactly predictable. There is no non cavitating bullet, but different bullet design shows different duration of the cavitation bubble. The Kynoch profil shows about 70 cm stable penetration, the SP, optimized for animal tissue, about 250 - 300 cm. (BTW: You don´t need this extreme penetration under normal hunting conditions. Pls. use the proven Woodleighs etc.). The research on stable penetration of hunting bullets was not done with the intention to introduce new bullets on the market. It was done just for a discussion with ballisticians, who claimed the impossibility of straight line penetration with RN bullets. And even the esteemed McPherson deals with cavitation, but with other words.

quote>>You say the bullets fly straight in the water, the hydro scientists say not that simple, lots of problems with these supercaviting bullets.<<

?? What problems do they have. Other speeds? Penetration lenght more than several meters? No gyroscopic stabilisation? The fin stabilized Ramics have nothng to do with the mechanics of hunting bullets. Pls. give a citation on non straght line path of hunting bullets.

It is already said, that our hunting bullets are far below supersonic speed and there is no shock wave, but of course pressure (wave).

And guys, open a new thread on military small arms research and beware us hunters of such irritating discussion.

quote:

I believe in the FN/SP/FP being a better solid. I take it on faith and by my anecdotal evidence.

The biting ability of the flat nose into slanted steel may also be a good straw to grasp at on elephant skulls too.

RIP, you have a very refreshing turn of phrase.

On the topic, I can honestly say the single greatest argument in favour of the GS FN bullets on this thread is Gerard himelf.

Or lack there of

I think his daughters wheel him out for the first thread as advertising, and wheel him back before he starts to damage sales.

Karl.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
500 grains:

Though Mike le Grange's work was crude it was in a way validated observation for penetration of varying projectiles in wood.

So we say it is supercaviation that drives the reported deeper penetration of these particular bullets then we have to adhere to the principles that govern the mechanics of this physical phenomenon.


All the studies done are done in water or saline water, pure water deemed as newtonian and salt water as non newtonian but as they refer to it in the literature as "almost newtonian".

I do not belive it is a s simple as we think. Futher we assume that the FN bullet penetrates deeper in tissue based on what evidence. I have not seen any.

Al the simulated tests done, are done on anisotropic materials. Unless you are shooting animals of similar specie weight etc in lab with the same trajectories all of this date means nothing.

While wood is a good "tough" medium, it is probably not a correlated animal simulation for either total penetration or this "supercavitation" mentioned. A mixture of wood and large bones may test the overall strength of the projectile to deformation however, and teach us something.
I am not sure this "supercavitation" exists at the velocities we are talking about. If it is initiated, I wonder if it would keep its "bubble" going through the ever-changing densities and moisture percentages that ALF has so nobly described if we would listen..... And as I have seen the cutting force of HIGHLY compressed air, high pressure steam,etc.; I ask why would pushing this high pressure "bubble" ahead of our projectile ease the penetration load in any way? It could very well slow our projectile by pushing a larger frontal area even if part is a highly compressed substance obtained from our recepient of said projectile?

Like ALF, I see NOTHING that pure water will tell us for comparable results in a living organizism.

I have much more experience with testing softs. I do know that flattening the round lead tip on a large soft to a quarter inch flat (5 grs.)can really change performance! Like performance to the RN can be had at around 300 fps LESS impact velocity all things else equal..... Penetration is usually lessened, but "trauma" area is increased. So "stagnation" exists and will set a soft sooner and probably more when the point is flat.

Personally, I much prefer a flat solid. But I don't have any "real" info that it penetrates deeper. I believe it stays "head on" better and goes straighter.... Is this what we see as "deeper"? Sure, a straight flat will go deeper than a sideways round everytime! I would much enjoy anything that would prove this in a side by side comparison of round vs. flat.

Possibly several "mediums" combined would be a fair comparison by simulation. Wet newspaper is not a bad "muscle" simulator. Maybe a length of this followed by a "slurry" mixture of more moisture content alternated with a viscous water based solution. Variable densities back and forth more like a real animal effects our projectile. I would be very interested in the inches penetrated....... While this may never compensate for the never ending variabilty that our game can give us by even by a simple quarter turn to face us, it might show a difference between a flat and round solid that we all want to know for sure it sounds like to me....... We would know if our projectile stayed point-on as well..........

BigRx

Norbert

Will your super penetrators be available in any other calibers than the current?

I would like to see the English section of your website expanded

Cheers
/JOHAN

Karl, thank you very much, buy a donkey.

I don't disagree with anyone here, and don't see anything to argue about.

All high speed bullets cavitate big time in ordnance gelatin and living flesh.

It may not be "supercavitation," however, not full of steam and overpressure. It may just be a big relative-vacuum trailing the bullet as its stagnation pressure and leading over-pressure pass.

The tissue is flung outward and elastically recoils after the bullet passes.

In other words, it sucks. And so does some of this quibbling.

Some kind of temporary cavitation is going on and it can only be helped by any tendency to super-cavitation.

BigRX made some good non-quibbling points. He is really not AC, is he?