quote:

Originally posted by Africa1:
May I bring this dead horse thread to an end by throwing more gasoline? Porsche has won more Lemans victories by a looooong margin than any other marque. Yes, including Ferrari!!!

Not in the prototype class where it counts. All the other categories are like bugs on a windshield..

Try a 30-06 180 grain armor piercing bullet it will out penetrate all of the great calibers easy.

quote:

Originally posted by gerryb:
Try a 30-06 180 grain armor piercing bullet it will out penetrate all of the great calibers easy.

That is hogwash!
The AP bullets whether .30 or .50 cal are spitzer designed to penetrate steel plate.
Get one inside live game or even just a tank of water and it will turn sideways, flip over backwards, open up its tail, shed its core, change course and go out the side of the animal or bullet trap, etc.
Worse than a Round Nose FMJ.

Gerard,

When I was doing Iron Water Board Buffalo Interrogation of bullets,
the GSC .375/300-grain FN bullet would penetrate farther than the GSC .375/270-grain FN, even when the 300-grainer went 2500 or 2700 fps and the 270-grainer went 2700 or 2900 fps.



I would like to know at what velocities the 270-grain FN penetrates better in game than the 300-grain FN.
How do you have to stack that deck?

Maybe something good could come from this dead horse if Saeed gets a good test medium set up in his tunnel.

If I had filled my buckets with ordnance gelatin (impractical because it has to be temperature controlled at 40 degress F) or bookbinder's glue/Sim-Test,
instead of water,
I might have been taken more seriously.



If working with blocks of solid "viscoelastic" (Alf lingo) material between boards,
the elaborate stainless steel tube trap is not necessary.

Just line up the blocks of Sim-Test with boards sandwiched between them,
stand them in a row along a plank on top of sawhorses or whatever.

It does not take much to stop the soft points, but twice as much, or more is needed for FN solids of copper or brass.

The boards, or even just sheets of cardboard between the blocks, serve as witness to straight penetration, keyholing, etc.

The boards also add a "first-order" (Alf lingo) element to the mix with second-order "tissue" simulator blocks.

IIRC, Mike Brady used this much of his bookbinder's glue blocks alone to stop the North Fork softs and solids:







Add boards between the glue blocks and a better animal simulator would be obtained.

Looks like Mike moulded his glue blocks in cake or bread loaf pans.
I'll bet Walter could be persuaded to man the kitchen as long as he had a female there
supervising him and baking a cake or meatloaf for him while he melted glue in some spare pans.

Hi Ron,

How much further did the 300 go compared to the 270? Remember that wood favors momentum while tissue favors speed when it comes to penetration. So, even if the two bullets go equal depth in game, which, in your opinion, would be more likely to penetrate straight and which would give higher damage in the wound track?

Gerard,

I used a 375/416 Rigby, with 300 grain Barnes X bullets, at 3140 fps.

They never penetrated as well as the same bullets at 2800 fps.

That is why I gave up on that one, and continued to use our 375/404.

Also, as we make our own bullets, we can tune them to the purpose they are going to be used for.

For instance, when I use a 2mm drill, and make the hole 10 mm deep, they bullet will penetrate the whole length of a buffalo.

We decided to reduce the penetration.

So we made the hole 12 mm, and the diameter 2.5 mm.

This has reduced the penetration so as it remain in the buffalo on a quartering shot, but goes through on broadside shots, most of teh times.

Hi Gerard,

There you go again, not answering a simple question,
except with a question in order to evade a simple question.
You answer first, then I will answer.
That is how these things are done.
BTW, there was a 9-inch thickness of water
in front of each inch thickness of plywood, roughly,
but that does not come into play until you answer,
your question was asked for the second time,
above.
Ignored once, deflected the second time ...

Saeed,
Penetration tends to reduce as speed goes up with same manufacture soft bullets. If one can get the job done at point blank range, it always gets better as distance increases. Tayloring the bullet to the application is a requirement and the reason why GSC is so fussy about bullet/caliber recommendations.

Ron,
You asked:

quote:

I would like to know at what velocities the 270-grain FN penetrates better in game than the 300-grain FN.

This was my answer but I have added a translation, for clarity.

quote:

The same speeds that you shot them in the Iron Buffalo. How much further did the 300 go compared to the 270? Remember that wood as you used in the Iron Buffalo, favors momentum while tissue favors speed when it comes to penetration. So, even if the two bullets go equal depth in game, (which we did see on occasion), which, in your opinion, would be more likely to penetrate straight and which would give higher damage in the wound track?

Almost six years ago I answered the same question.
http://forums.accuratereloadin...=456102043#456102043

A month later I touched on it again.
http://forums.accuratereloadin...=765103843#765103843

A year later............
http://forums.accuratereloadin...=654103135#654103135

Two years after that.................
http://forums.accuratereloadin...=363105898#363105898

The answer will not change.

Now how about the questions I posed?

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Saeed,
Penetration tends to reduce as speed goes up with same manufacture soft bullets. If one can get the job done at point blank range, it always gets better as distance increases. Tayloring the bullet to the application is a requirement and the reason why GSC is so fussy about bullet/caliber recommendations.

Ron,
You asked:

quote:

I would like to know at what velocities the 270-grain FN penetrates better in game than the 300-grain FN.

This was my answer but I have added a translation, for clarity.

quote:

The same speeds that you shot them in the Iron Buffalo. How much further did the 300 go compared to the 270? Remember that wood as you used in the Iron Buffalo, favors momentum while tissue favors speed when it comes to penetration. So, even if the two bullets go equal depth in game, (which we did see on occasion), which, in your opinion, would be more likely to penetrate straight and which would give higher damage in the wound track?

Almost six years ago I answered the same question.
http://forums.accuratereloadin...=456102043#456102043

A month later I touched on it again.
http://forums.accuratereloadin...=765103843#765103843

A year later............
http://forums.accuratereloadin...=654103135#654103135

Two years after that.................
http://forums.accuratereloadin...=363105898#363105898

The answer will not change.

Now how about the questions I posed?

Hi Gerard,
I have answered your questions before also.
Use the search function again and let me know
if you cannot find it.
I am posting from an iphone on the fly right now.
Will devote more time to you later if you still need help with it.

I was somewhat kidding but hogwash read my post. I never said what was being shot and as you said shoot a 1 Inch steel plate and the 30-06 AP will out penetrate a 577

Hey RIP

I made that stop tank long before I ever considered making solids. If I had considered them earlier, I would have made it more than twice as long. The higher velocity, larger caliber softs would require the whole gel chamber of the tank to be filled. Even full up, the tank would never stop an FPS. Every once in a while it would stop a CPS (and why I always advised against CPS for elephant). The FPS tests were purely to check straight line penetration which was pretty easy to tell by the straight appearance of the flattened bullet as it impacted the hardened steel back stop. BTW, no round nose ever made it through a full tank (36") of gel to strike the back stop in a straight on impact. Most never made it to the back stop as they had turned turtle and exited the gel at some point along the way. If I had taken that picture with a better camera, you could see some of the sideways impacts into the OSB back board (behind which is 20" of packed sand).

Yup, used bread pans for casting molds and melted the stuff in a double boiler made from a 60qt cabelas fryer pot inside a cabelas 80qt fryer pot. I never would have learned what I needed to learn without that thing or the gel/glue. In the last few years I did go to sim-test just because it smelled better when melting. The others stunk just like what they were made from (horse hooves???)

Hi Mike,

Thanks for posting,
including your comments on the round nose solid failures to stay on course.
I should have known that amount of gel/glue was for softs only.

Just trying to get some attention to a proper "simulant," something besides "construction materials" only.

The 100-inch-long wood and water contraption of mine could be set up to stop any sporting soft or solid ...
except the round nose solids which would go out the sides.

Hey Mike!

Good to see you are out there lurking to keep us amateurs on the straight-and-narrow! Between NFMike and Michael458 there is a wealth of bullet penetration knowledge right there.

Anyone remember those old time Barnes "Super Solids" for the 375, 350 gr round nose they were and they penetrated like hell !

The general complaint was that they gave shoot throughs and wounded stuff behind.

Something to the effect " that more penetration was the last thing a 375 needed."

They fell into disfavour because of this and Barnes dropped them from production.

RIP:

Because of the problems with logistics of setting up gel blocks large enough in volume and dimension for this type of projectile those who study bullets do scaling.... ie make a smaller bullet to scale and then by application of scaling laws and rules do testing using the scale versions.

The same applies to large bore load bearing shells, instead of shooting or using the real deal they build scale models and tests these in wind tunnels. As long as the rules of scaling are followed the results are valid.

Howdy Lane. I drop in once in a while make sure you guys keep your stories straight.

Many thanks need to go out to all those that helped me out, especially in the beginning, including Ron and Andy that did their own penetration tests to confirm my findings. If I never said it, again thinks to all that suppoprted my endeavors. The new guys (Franz and John) are carrying forward in an excellent fashion with better equipment than I ever had so improvements will evolve as they always should.

Mike, I found your comment on RN penetration interesting in that it was opposite mine in that WHEN the RN kept their course they out-penetrated the FN solids -- but 50% of the time they would veer. Still, they usually penetrated quite well and considering all the notables in Africa that used them for a century they must have penetrated well enough .

Phil, I would not be surprised if a RN penetrated very well IF they stayed on course. They ceratinly had no inclination to do so in my media. Walt (465) and I were just having that discussion off line. It is my opinion that RN solids come off poorly in test media due to the homogeneity of the test media, whether water, gel, or soaked paper. I also told Walt that we have to start with something, even if it isn't perfect. Hopefully when they get the universe figured out, all the scientists and mathematicians will switch to the study of chaos (and have time to hunt) and we will finally get an answer to why and how things should happen when no two bullet impacts are ever alike.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Mike, I found your comment on RN penetration interesting in that it was opposite mine in that WHEN the RN kept their course they out-penetrated the FN solids -- but 50% of the time they would veer. Still, they usually penetrated quite well and considering all the notables in Africa that used them for a century they must have penetrated well enough .

quote:

As long as the rules of scaling are followed the results are valid.

Has anyone ever wondered why GSC have FN bullets all the way down to 6mm?

Ron,

quote:

I have answered your questions before also.

Good, then supply the answer here like you asked that I do.

I with no prostate, use Little Blue Pills for full penetration strength...
outta here!

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

As long as the rules of scaling are followed the results are valid.

Has anyone ever wondered why GSC have FN bullets all the way down to 6mm?

Ron,

quote:

I have answered your questions before also.

Good, then supply the answer here like you asked that I do.

Gerard,
Read your links, it's there. You have already posted it. Thanks for finding it for me.
I am not traveling with my "research records" so those old posts will have to do.
It is refreshing to have goaded you into a response.
The .375/300-grain FN copper solid is the "blue pill" of penetration,
keep it down to about 2750 fps,
the lighter 270-grainer at same or higher, or lower, velocity will lose every time.

Tom In Tennessee,
Me too. Member in same club as you.
I am also continent of urine, but piss like a race horse when I want to.
Life is good.

Ron In Kentucky

it is no surprise that a RN that does not tumble will outpenetrate a FN of same frontal surface area simply because the Cd of the RN is way less than the Cd of the FN.

This is also evidenced by the volume of gelatine displaced in the narrow channel portion of the wound tract.

The RN displaces less materlal than the FN prior to the RN becoming unstable

The reality in ductile visco elastic targets however is that the Rn reacts to the unbalanced tip force by overturning because no mode of stabilization exists; with one exeption and that is when the projectile has a very large Length to diameter ratio, then the projectile is stabilized by virtue of "tail slap".

These projectiles typically exceed the L/d ratio limits for workable barrel twist angles so if one were to stabilize them it would have to be by other means example by adding fins.

Ron,

quote:

It is refreshing to have goaded you into a response.

Oh come on! When did I not respond to tech matters?

Before you fired a single test shot back in 2005 and before you built the wood stop box, I made this prediction:
With the amount of building material involved, the 270/2900 and the 300/2700 will be pretty close and both will be better than the 300/2500. On game the 270/2900 will be best. It will give the largest permanent wound channel and would be first choice. http://forums.accuratereloadin...=252101362#252101362

After you destroyed the wood stop box and started testing with the Iron Water Buffalo, my prediction turned out to be 100% correct. I made this summary:
What is significant is that, in both tests, the higher speed bullet created visibly more damage. This is consistent with what we see in game when a cylinder shape is used. Given similar momentum levels (plus or minus 5%), the bullet with the higher energy value creates a larger wound channel. http://forums.accuratereloadin...=125109192#125109192

Some months after that, in a discussion, I said:
Once we have progressed to more solid media, which includes a stop box (I have built more than what you can shake a stick at), the bullet is taken hunting. If you do this often enough, lessons are learned and conclusions can be made going from one medium to another. One conclusion is that shooting wood and water and a variety of building material, does not simulate shooting animals. This is why, despite RIPs results in the Iron Buffalo, I know that our 270gr FN is the better bullet for a 375H&H. <a href="http://forums.accuratereloadin...=765103843#765103843%5B/url%5D" target="_blank">http://forums.accuratereloadin...3843#765103843</a>

Is this not supported by your results in shooting game as well?

Gerard:

Please make me understand why you claim the 270 bullet is "better" for the 375 when compared to the 300 or a 350 for that matter?

I'm having difficulty in understanding this concept of "better"

do you mean it is more lethal ? or perhaps more accurate ? or perhaps that it destroys more tissue ?

And how is that conclusion derived, by what manner did you come to that conclusion ?

The reason I ask this is because it goes against everything we have come to know about our physical world ?

In terms of physics the body with the most mass has the greatest influence on it's surroundings.

The mere fact when you put your bullets on a scale and you come up with the weight of 270 , and 300 is testimony of this.

This is is what mass implies so by that alone if induced to a state of motion more mass has a number of important implications so I am trying to understand why this would be different when your bullets are fired from a 375 ?

Gerard,
I have zero game shooting experience with .375/270-grain FN solids.
I would not want to do that when the 300-grainer is superior at any velocity when compared to the 270-grainer.

In the FN solid bullet penetration balance:
Both bullets are limited by the same top velocity due to increased tissue resistance
and nose deformation with increased velocity of impact.
So the 300-grainer simply has 11.1% more momentum than the 270-grainer.
11.1% more mass at same velocity.

With the monometal expanding bullets:
That extra mass provides more reliable opening of the nose, and more residual mass to drive penetration and completion of expansion.

I guess you are marketing the 265 gr HV and 270 gr FN combo, rather than the 300 gr HV and 300 gr FN combo,
to the preponderance of .375 H&H shooters, who cannot make use of the extra velocity possible with the 300-grainer,
where a 300-grain FN is limited to 2500 fps at impact (suboptimal),
and the 270-grain FN is limited to 2700 fps at impact (optimal).
Whatever floats your boat.
The slower 300-grainer wins in penetration over the slightly faster 270-grainer, by any of my tests or calculations.

I am as incredulous as Alf:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Gerard:

Please make me understand why you claim the 270 bullet is "better" for the 375 when compared to the 300 or a 350 for that matter?

I'm having difficulty in understanding this concept of "better"

do you mean it is more lethal ? or perhaps more accurate ? or perhaps that it destroys more tissue ?

And how is that conclusion derived, by what manner did you come to that conclusion ?

The reason I ask this is because it goes against everything we have come to know about our physical world ?

In terms of physics the body with the most mass has the greatest influence on it's surroundings.

The mere fact when you put your bullets on a scale and you come up with the weight of 270 , and 300 is testimony of this.

This is is what mass implies so by that alone if induced to a state of motion more mass has a number of important implications so I am trying to understand why this would be different when your bullets are fired from a 375 ?

Alf,
You ask:

quote:

Please make me understand why you claim the 270 bullet is "better" for the 375

The answer is: GSC stands on two principles when it comes to hunting. Shot placement is Job #1. The bullet must finish the job that the hunter started. I have been living and breathing this philosophy for 30 years.

In a nutshell, this means that when you shoot for a spot inside the animal, you must do your best and our GSC bullet must finish the job. Sometimes the bullet must traverse a variety of media to get to that target inside the animal. Obstructing the target, the bullet will find skin, may find bone, tissue, stomach contents, muscle and a variety of organs. The bullet will not arrive at the animal square on and will probably have to penetrate the skin at some kind of angle of incidence.

Under those conditions, the higher the stability factor of the bullet is during transition from flight to tissue and the faster it assumes dart and shoulder stabilisation, once submerged, the better the likelihood is of hitting the original target inside the animal.

GSC will always recommend the bullet that has the highest likelihood of making your shooting event more successful. Therefore, all new bullets we bring to the consumer will always be measured against practical performance on game. Sometimes theory on paper and practice do not coincide. However, GSC has learned that there is one factor that is always present when success follows design. The bullet will have a certain threshold stability factor. To a point, the more it exceeds that stability factor, the more reliable it becomes.

There are other factors that I also consider. Apart from which bullet gives the most reliable, straight, deep penetration, I also consider which bullet gives the largest volume temporary and (as a result) the largest permanent cavity. I consider at which point, in the path through the target, the diameter of the cavity at that point may be and so on. If sheer penetration was what was required, testing would be simple, not so? GSC goes further than simplistic penetration requirements, it is just one of the requirements.

On that basis, the 270gr FN is a more reliable bullet and works better than the 300gr FN for a 375H&H.

Ron,
In this thread you have said:

quote:

the GSC .375/300-grain FN bullet would penetrate farther than the GSC .375/270-grain FN
I would like to know at what velocities the 270-grain FN penetrates better in game..........
In any case, the difference between the two FN solid bullets' penetration is small,
Saeed makes a good point about velocity and penetration.
..........and penetration drops from that too.
In the FN solid bullet penetration balance................
The slower 300-grainer wins in penetration over the slightly faster 270-grainer, by any of my tests or calculations.
I have zero game shooting experience with .375/270-grain FN solids.

You consider only penetration. Yet, you have said that the faster bullet puts more hurt on your test media every time. Why do you ignore it when I say:

quote:

On game the 270/2900 will be best. It will give the largest permanent wound channel and would be first choice.
What is significant is that, in both tests, the higher speed bullet created visibly more damage.
This is why, despite RIPs results in the Iron Buffalo, I know that our 270gr FN is the better bullet for a 375H&H.

I have found similar penetration with tests with the 270gr and 300gr FN bullets in media.
I have found better penetration in game with the 270gr FN compared to the 300gr FN.
I have seen straighter penetration from the 270gr FN than from the 300gr FN in game.
I have seen more reliable performance from the 270gr FN than from the 300gr FN in game.
Why would GSC recommend the inferior bullet? Surely we would have a vested interest in seeing the best possible performance from a product that we recommend to a customer.

More than ten years ago I said to you: "We are assembling our buffalo box for testing the 300 gr HV / FN, but if my 375H&H bends one of them, they are history. My feeling at this stage is that the HV might be ok but I am not sure about the FN. We will know after the weekend." Subsequent to that remark, I found that, for hunting, the 300gr bullets were adequate to my standards but the 265gr HV and 270gr FN are better.

Consider these two answers together and believe what you will.

I asked Walter to find suitable material we can use for bullet penetration.

Walter "why are we doing this test?"
"We are trying to see how far bullets penetrate"
"Do you want them to penetarte very far or not?"

"What sort of question is that?"
"Well, if you want the bullets to penetrate very far, I will bring very soft material. If you do not want the bullets to penetrate very far, I will bring steel plates"

"We want something that resembles animals, so at least we might have some idea how they will work on animals"

"You have plenty of animals in the back, we can go shoot one each day, and I will BBQ it"

"Just go and find something that will work, as long as it is not messy"

"A shame. I was going to bring a whole carcass of a camel. So now you want something soft, something not so soft, and something hard"

"Whatever, as long as it can be repeated, and not messy"

"The soft part is like blood. The not so soft part is like muscle, and the hard part is like bone"

"That sounds good. So off you go. Find something"

"We have a problem. Are we ytesting for small animals or big animals?"

"What difference does that make?"

"You have been hunting for a hundred years, and still cannot understand that buffalo muscle is stronger than impala muscle?"

"That is why we have made the box to take many layers. It even acts as anelephant!"

By now he is laughing "I can imagine what the man in the shop is going to think when I say to him I want something to shoot like an elephant!"

I have no idea what he is going to bring back.

Gerard:

Your answer baffles me to say the least !

Because your factor or job # 1 has nothing to do with bullet weight, it is not a function of bullet weight.

The second part of the answer is even more baffeling because for a number of reasons.

The first has to do with this insistance of a high stability factor being a influence in the target.?

It is not ! IN fact gyroscopic stability which is indicated by the SF cannot be achieved in the target Period.

So I fail to see how you can claim that your SF is still high in the target.... it is smaller than 1 a lot smaller than 1 in fact.

And if your claim is a high SF at transition then de facto you have a low tractability ! This is valid both empirically and by actual observation.

So how you can claim this I do not know. !

The second point is this claim to straight line penetration ?

How on earth did you observe that fact?

Unless you have extraoridinary vision that has the ability to record what happens inside the target or the ability to actually observe what happens in fractions of a second I doubt that you can claim this, unless off course you have ascces to one of the few I believe only a handful of facilities that actually have the ability to test for this.

What we all do is to observe what we believe to be straight line penetration when in fact it is not, nor for a body in flight at least. If your claim has anything to do with SF then in the same breath you actually concede that there are unbalanced forces on your projectile and hence staight line penetration is not possible.

( when Dr. Bo Janzon did his Doctoral thesis on high velocity missle injury in 1983 there were only two known facilties in the world that had the ability to directly record what you claim)

And last but not least you are laying claim to something that is totally against the very laws of physics, the fact that the body with the geatest mass would have the greatest ifluence on its surroundings as per Newtons original third law. This is undisputed !

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I asked Walter to find suitable material we can use for bullet penetration.

Walter "why are we doing this test?"
"We are trying to see how far bullets penetrate"
"Do you want them to penetarte very far or not?"

"What sort of question is that?"
"Well, if you want the bullets to penetrate very far, I will bring very soft material. If you do not want the bullets to penetrate very far, I will bring steel plates"

"We want something that resembles animals, so at least we might have some idea how they will work on animals"

"You have plenty of animals in the back, we can go shoot one each day, and I will BBQ it"

"Just go and find something that will work, as long as it is not messy"

"A shame. I was going to bring a whole carcass of a camel. So now you want something soft, something not so soft, and something hard"

"Whatever, as long as it can be repeated, and not messy"

"The soft part is like blood. The not so soft part is like muscle, and the hard part is like bone"

"That sounds good. So off you go. Find something"

"We have a problem. Are we ytesting for small animals or big animals?"

"What difference does that make?"

"You have been hunting for a hundred years, and still cannot understand that buffalo muscle is stronger than impala muscle?"

"That is why we have made the box to take many layers. It even acts as anelephant!"

By now he is laughing "I can imagine what the man in the shop is going to think when I say to him I want something to shoot like an elephant!"

I have no idea what he is going to bring back.

Alf,
Pay attention:

quote:

Alf: The first has to do with this insistance of a high stability factor being a influence in the target.?

quote:

Gerard: the higher the stability factor of the bullet is during transition from flight to tissue and the faster it assumes dart and shoulder stabilisation, once submerged, the better the likelihood is of hitting the original target inside the animal.

I have told you directly, at least 7 times in the last three years: "You are right. Rotational velocity cannot work in this context. Agreed. Yes. No argument on this. Yes. Yes. Yes."

In fact, I have insisted repeatedly that, once the bullet is submerged in the target, stability factor plays no role whatsoever. Stop misreading what I say and laying words in my mouth.

What is the matter with you? Do you only read what you want to read? Do you deny the effect of stability factor on the bullet in flight? Do you deny the effect of stability factor during the transition from flight to tissue?

quote:

Alf: And if your claim is a high SF at transition then de facto you have a low tractability !

At what distance does low tractability become a problem? I have asked this question many, many times and you have never answered. There will be no more talk until you have answered this question.

quote:

The second point is this claim to straight line penetration ? How on earth did you observe that fact?

An animal stands quarter on. It is hit just in front of the shoulder. The shooter expects the exit wound to be in front of the opposite back leg. Upon examination, it is found there. That is straight penetration.

An animal stands quarter on. It is hit just in front of the shoulder. The shooter expects the exit wound to be in front of the opposite back leg. Upon examination, it is not found there but in a radically different place. That is not straight penetration.

An animal stands side on. It is hit just behind the shoulder. The shooter expects the exit wound to be behind the opposite shoulder. Upon examination, it is found there. That is straight penetration.

An animal stands side on. It is hit just behind shoulder. The shooter expects the exit wound to be behind the opposite shoulder. Upon examination, it is not found there but in a radically different place. That is not straight penetration.

An animal stands head on. It is hit center at the base of the neck. The shooter expects the exit wound to be between the back legs. Upon examination, it is found there. That is straight penetration.

An animal stands head on. It is hit center at the base of the neck. The shooter expects the exit wound to be between the back legs. Upon examination, it is not found there but in a radically different place. That is not straight penetration.

Do this several hundred times and have it reported several hundred more and it allows a claim to be made based on the observations and the reports.

Sometimes the only way to prove a theory is to go where it can be practically tested.

quote:

And last but not least you are laying claim to something that is totally against the very laws of physics, the fact that the body with the geatest mass would have the greatest ifluence on its surroundings as per Newtons original third law. This is undisputed !

Of course it is undisputed. It is only a problem to you because you consider only that one aspect, without tempering bullet behaviour with the myriad of other factors that influence it.

I think that everyone knows more about this subject than I do. However the Elephant I shot was a quartering away shot at about 80 to 90 yards. I hit it behind the shoulder using a 375 loaded with a barns 350 grain solid in front of 70 grains of R15 that I choreographed at 2340 FPS. He showed instantaneous evidence of a heart shot got sick and went in 50 yards and dropped. The PH shot as it turned out a unnecessary back up going away shot with a 450 Ackley with no knock down effect well short of the vitals. The recovered 450 did not penetrate any where near the distance the 375 did While I did not recover my heart shot bullet I did recover my finishing shot through the chest that was lodged under the skin on the opposite side. Demonstrating to me anyway that a well placed good penetrating bullet poking holes in vital organs is the best stopping power .

Alf,

Based on Gerards definition of straight line penetration, I can then say that in over 150 RN steel jacketed solids shot into buffalo and elephant, I have never seen one not penetrate in a straight line. That must mean the all this talk about RN solids veering in game is pure BS.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

Only to the uninformed or inexperienced.

465H&H

465 H&H:

Based on the physics of flight no object, bullet or missile has straight line flight. Not in air, not in water and not in a ductile visco elastic target.

Now we may percieve based on the relative short trajectory of the missile ( ie a FN bullet )in the target that the flight path is dead straight, it is not !

The water tests conducted for the RAAMICS program clearly show that even supercavitating passive kinetic energy projectiles, ie FN bullets fired from conventional guns show deviation in the penetration path because of the lift force, the same is shown in Gelatine and it holds true even for round balls which generally are deemed stable.

Their path is straighter than RN's and other shapes but they are not dead on. They do deviate.

if this were not so we would not need bother with FN's we could just as well shoot RN's. Nor would we need to spin our bullets for flight in air.

Gerard:

Tractability is a problem right from barrel egression !

The reason lies in the physics that underlie the effects of mass in motion and specifically the effects of mass in a orbit around the centre of gravity as in spinning the bullet around its centre of gravity.

The relationship of the stability number which is basically the ratio of the gyrsocopic moment to the overtunring moment is inverse the the tractabiltiy number.

As this ratio becomes bigger downrange because of the degredation of linear velocity relative to rotational velocity the tractability decreases and it does so almost exponentially because after the projectile reaches the zenith the angle of descent curvature of the trajectory drops down steeply.

if we use the Molitz equation and derive tractability we see that the number designated as F = defined as the ratio of the change in angle of attack over time to the change in the trajectory angle over time.

This number is inversely proportional to the stability number as drived by the Molitz equation



For a 147 gr 30 cal the F number at muzzle is 34021 it becomes less tractable downrange so that at 300 yards the number is 14538.

In most studies the assumption was made that bullets "go to sleep" and thus tractablity would not be an issue in wounding. in fact the statement stands that overstabilization does not occur in a flat fire trajectory and thus tractability would not be an issue ?

Whist this is true when we look at drag and the practice of long range shooting tractability is an issue, whilst the bullet may not be "overstabilized" the tractability is suffiecient to have an effect on downrange drag. Hence the common practice of choosing barrel twists just enough to give enough angular momentum to keep the bullet stable given usually encountered atmospheric conditions.

In terms of wound ballistics then also the work done by Suneson who published their work showing that even non overstabilized projectiles shot at distances under 100m exhibit angle of attack deviations large enough to influence the wound.

And just for the record.



I asked the question, how did you observe this straight line penetration of the bullet? to which you answered:

An animal stands quarter on. It is hit just in front of the shoulder. The shooter expects the exit wound to be in front of the opposite back leg. Upon examination, it is found there. That is straight penetration.

An animal stands quarter on. It is hit just in front of the shoulder. The shooter expects the exit wound to be in front of the opposite back leg. Upon examination, it is not found there but in a radically different place. That is not straight penetration.

An animal stands side on. It is hit just behind the shoulder. The shooter expects the exit wound to be behind the opposite shoulder. Upon examination, it is found there. That is straight penetration.

An animal stands side on. It is hit just behind shoulder. The shooter expects the exit wound to be behind the opposite shoulder. Upon examination, it is not found there but in a radically different place. That is not straight penetration.

An animal stands head on. It is hit center at the base of the neck. The shooter expects the exit wound to be between the back legs. Upon examination, it is found there. That is straight penetration.

An animal stands head on. It is hit center at the base of the neck. The shooter expects the exit wound to be between the back legs. Upon examination, it is not found there but in a radically different place. That is not straight penetration.

Do this several hundred times and have it reported several hundred more and it allows a claim to be made based on the observations and the reports.


I put it to you, you still did not observe the bullet and it's path, what you observed were wounds in dead animals, from this you deduced that there was straight line penetration! Big difference ! Especially in events that occure at speed and magnitudes to great to directly observe.

They are deductions regarding an action and acitvity that you and I cannot without use of very special and very expensive equipment observe.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
465 H&H:

Based on the physics of flight no object, bullet or missile has straight line flight. Not in air, not in water and not in a ductile visco elastic target.

Now we may percieve based on the relative short trajectory of the missile ( ie a FN bullet )in the target that the flight path is dead straight, it is not !

The water tests conducted for the RAAMICS program clearly show that even supercavitating passive kinetic energy projectiles, ie FN bullets fired from conventional guns show deviation in the penetration path because of the lift force, the same is shown in Gelatine and it holds true even for round balls which generally are deemed stable.

Their path is straighter than RN's and other shapes but they are not dead on. They do deviate.

if this were not so we would not need bother with FN's we could just as well shoot RN's. Nor would we need to spin our bullets for flight in air.

Gerard:

Tractability is a problem right from barrel egression !

The reason lies in the physics that underlie the effects of mass in motion and specifically the effects of mass in a orbit around the centre of gravity as in spinning the bullet around its centre of gravity.

The relationship of the stability number which is basically the ratio of the gyrsocopic moment to the overtunring moment is inverse the the tractabiltiy number.

As this ratio becomes bigger downrange because of the degredation of linear velocity relative to rotational velocity the tractability decreases and it does so almost exponentially because after the projectile reaches the zenith the angle of descent curvature of the trajectory drops down steeply.

if we use the Molitz equation and derive tractability we see that the number designated as F = defined as the ratio of the change in angle of attack over time to the change in the trajectory angle over time.

This number is inversely proportional to the stability number as drived by the Molitz equation



For a 147 gr 30 cal the F number at muzzle is 34021 it becomes less tractable downrange so that at 300 yards the number is 14538.

In most studies the assumption was made that bullets "go to sleep" and thus tractablity would not be an issue in wounding. in fact the statement stands that overstabilization does not occur in a flat fire trajectory and thus tractability would not be an issue ?

Whist this is true when we look at drag and the practice of long range shooting tractability is an issue, whilst the bullet may not be "overstabilized" the tractability is suffiecient to have an effect on downrange drag. Hence the common practice of choosing barrel twists just enough to give enough angular momentum to keep the bullet stable given usually encountered atmospheric conditions.

In terms of wound ballistics then also the work done by Suneson who published their work showing that even non overstabilized projectiles shot at distances under 100m exhibit angle of attack deviations large enough to influence the wound.

Alf,

Your preaching to the choir. I understand that bullets never fly perfectly straight in or out of animal tissue. In every report that I have made on bullet behavior in animals I have said that I saw no observable veering in tissue. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. I understand the Scientific Method but not all here do, consequently, I am very careful what I say. To be able to say that there is no veering from straight line one would need to take very careful measurements. Simply saying that the exit hole is where I expected it to be, so there was straight line penetration in an article submitted to a scientific journal would be laughed off. They would probably have your PhD revoked.

I am not sure that straight line penetration can be measured in elephant or buffalo tissue in the wild in a scientifically acceptable manner but scientists always seem to surprise me with their ingenuity. What we can say with some authority is that if veering is not readily observable its import may not be significant. What many seem to not understand is that there is no more scientific proof from field studies that RN bullets veer at a different rate than FN bullets. Theoretically, there is reason to believe they should but it has not been proven in field studies. Theory doesn't always take into account all of the possible variables. That is why theorums are proofed in the field or the lab.

465H&H

Follow the wound channel.


The bullet might not always be exactly where it is expected, not because of non straight line performance but because the bullet can move when the animal falls over dead. Have seen it on a number of occasions as most of the animals I shoot are cut up.



shotgun
"Demonstrating to me anyway that a well placed good penetrating bullet poking holes in vital organs is the best stopping power ."

Putting holes with bullets in Vital organs will NOT necessarily stop an animal. Hitting them somewhere in the CNS (Brain, Spine) will stop an animal or will 99% of the time put them down enough to finish them off (ie Bullet that hits the spine but doesn't penetrate or clips the spine enough to provide a shock to the system).

The above (spine shot) is why IMHO you always put in an insurance shot into the brain or similar.


Vital organs ?
Liver - hurts like hell and often stops an animal from running
Heart - Lungs - can be a killer but can also run with these wounds and in some cases (lung shots) can even heal up.

.

So the only factor Gerard can hang his hat on to give an edge to the 270-gain FN over the 300-grain FN is ...
higher gyroscopic stability factor for transition from air to animal?

Sounds like air guitar to me.

Since when is the .375/300-grain FN lacking in enough stability for this?
Increase the velocity of the 300-grainer and the gyro-stability factor goes up.

Once inside the animal, no advantage to the lighter bullet?
Oh yeah, the splash from the first water bucket (superficial temporary wound channel) is bigger,
but move the 300-grainer fast as the 270-grainer and it does that too.

Saeed,
.375 first!
It is very exciting to think of you and Walter testing bullets for penetration.
If nothing else, show Gerard another medium where the 270-grainer is inferior to the 300 grainer.

Use your homemade Walterhog FN solids made of copper:

67-68% nose meplat and a radiused nose edge
(or consider copying the new North Fork copper FP solid shape,
or CEB "Bastard Bullet Works #13" FN nose profile,
or what the hey, try the GSC FN profile)

270-grainer and 300-grainer
2500, 2700, 2900 fps for both of them from a 1:12" twist.
Maybe a 45-degree slant for the entry side of the elephant body simulator ... after the baseline win by the 300-grainer on normal entry.

Save the .17-cal and the .700-cal solids for later.

Alf,

quote:

At what distance does low tractability become a problem? I have asked this question many, many times and you have never answered. There will be no more talk until you have answered this question.

I will make it easier for you. Is it 100m, 200m, 300m, 400m, 500m, what? To the nearest 100m will do. If you want to make it caliber bound, that is also ok.