It was Botswana, 2006.
Johan Calitz snuffed his cigar in time to not spook the 60-pounder bull.
Marc got into position for what should have been a perfect frontal brain shot at about 25 yards or less?
He was using a 470 NE with 500-grain Woodleigh FMJ "roundnose-solids."

He fired into the bull's head.
The bull dropped and was unconscious for about 5 seconds, then thrashed about a bit on the ground and arose.

Marc shot again, trying the frontal brain shot again. This time the elephant just turned and ran.

Johan never fired a backup. Special instructions?

Johan and Marc took off licketysplit after the running bull.

Eventually they came upon the bloody-headed bull lagging along across an open pan, 60 pounds of ivory on one side and 61 pounds on the other, IIRC, the rest of the herd gone ahead.

Marc shot the bull in the left shoulder as it was quartering away. The bull went down, but arose with both a bloody shoulder and head this time, and just stood his ground, looking sick and weak.

Marc got into position for a perfect side brain shot at close range.

Kaboom!
A geyser of blood sprung from the bull's left temple as he fell over onto his right side. Done.

My point?

If a flatnosed solid had been used for the first shot, the brain might have been hit with the first shot instead of the fourth.
And the video would not have been as entertaining.

I doubt that anythign would have been different. If you miss the brain elephants don't die, and Woodleighs have been killing elephants for ions...that said I do prefer the flat nose solids and that is all I have used for years on most game.

Ray,
You miss the discussion point.
The Woodleigh went close enough to the brain and dumped enough energy near the brain that the elephant got a concussion that knocked it out for 5 seconds.

That Woodleigh RN FMJ probably tumbled and veered.

If it had been a monometal FN, it would have gone straight into the brain and killed it instantly.

We all know Bwana Moja does not miss.
It had to be the fault of the bullet.

Is Marc L. Watts really the first African-American to collect the Big Five of Africa?

The Landcruiser that got highjacked from Kappie and burned to the ground in RSA is pictured above and got a lot of screen time in the latest video.

The infamous missed-the-brain-shot brain shot.

And that is Woodleigh's fault?

You'd be sniffy the formaldehyde again, ain't ja?

Will,
You are slurring. Put the cork back in the bottle, sober up, and think:

Think of how a veering RN "solid" might miss the brain when a real FN monometal solid started on the same initial course from the muzzle would drill a hole right through the center of the brain.

If this is too much for you, how about:

"Violent Crime in RSA, is it really any worse than Chicago, USA?"

Ingenious how that Landcruiser was torched with deisel fuel, eh?
It had double fuel tanks filled with what?

For your re-review, the crime story:

www.sabletrailproductions.com

How exactly do you know it would have hit the brain, had it gone straight, assuming that it didn't?

Do you have to be psychic to generate psycho-babble?

quote:

Do you have to be psychic is generate psycho-babble?

Still slurring Will.

I saw the puff of dust from that first shot.
Did you see it yet, or are you the psychic one?

quote:

Originally posted by Rip
That Woodleigh RN FMJ probably tumbled and veered.

Rip: Pure conjecture nothing else.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Do you have to be psychic is generate psycho-babble?

Still slurring Will.

I saw the puff of dust from that first shot.
Did you see it yet, or are you the psychic one?

Thanks for correcting my Englooooosh.

I truly am psychic. In that I bet there ain't one guy in a hundred that can make a frontal brain shot, on purpose.

Another question:

Why the heck leave a bull unconscious on the ground for five seconds immobile while doing nothing with your second shot?

A run up to it to plug it again would have been humane. Expeditious death, humane, just like using FN Solids instead of RN solids.

Maybe caution, through fear of the rest of the herd that had just vamoosed through the thick stuff?

I do not know all of the situational awareness details, but surely Will can reconstruct it and explain it through psychodrama techniques for which he is very gifted.

Bwana Moja means 1 shot, not two

Great post - now I have yet another excuse why my 1st shot didn't get to the brain. Here all this time I figured I missed I'll even bet that the double had a single trigger

quote:

Why the heck leave a bull unconscious on the ground for five seconds immobile while doing nothing with your second shot?

You got me there.

quote:

I'll even bet that the double had a single trigger

That was the start of the whole fiasco ... double ttrriiggggeerrss!

I don't believe that round nose solids veer much, even when they tumble. Every Woodleigh I've found in an elephant was where it ought to be given straight line penetration.

One flat nose solid did veer, and it had a big divot in the nose from striking hard bone when I recovered it, which I think was the cause of the curved trajectory in the elephant. But even that bullet traveled straight enough long enough to do the job before significant deviation from straight line penetration.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Vlam:
Bwana Moja means 1 shot, not two

"Moja" means "one" in whatever Zambian language. Swahili?

It was four shots to finally hit the brain. Not moja.

I'm telling you Bwana Moja needs to get some GSC FN's or North Fork FP's if he goes back for elephant again. I think the approximately 1:20" twist of his 470 NE double would do better with those than it does with the Woodleigh RN FMJ.

Bwana Moja needs to take an elephant with one shot to live up to his name.

Until then I shall call him "Moja Tembo" instead of "Bwana Moja."

The gauntlet has been thrown down.
Will says only one in one hundred Bwanas can make the frontal brainshot on purpose, with one shot.

So all the brain shots of the past +-150 years with RN solids have been lucky not to veer off and miss the brain? Or conversly have been lucky to hit the brain?

FN solids may penetrate better but not to that extent.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott450:
So all the brain shots of the past +-150 years with RN solids have been lucky not to veer off and miss the brain? Or conversly have been lucky to hit the brain?

Sad, but true. TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION SOMETIMES!

FN solids may penetrate better but not to that extent.

EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott450:
So all the brain shots of the past +-150 years with RN solids have been lucky not to veer off and miss the brain? Or conversly have been lucky to hit the brain?

FN solids may penetrate better but not to that extent.

FN solids are better than RN solids.

Bonded core expanding bullets are better than non-bonded core lead bullets.

Driving a car is better than riding a horse.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
FN solids are better than RN solids.
Bonded core expanding bullets are better than non-bonded core lead bullets.
Driving a car is better than riding a horse.

And killing an elephant instaneously with one shot to the brain is better than killing one with four shots from various temporal and spatial locations ...

I know we have the ability to put any "poster" on our "Ignore" list and I have quite happily used it several times.

But do we have the ability to put a specific subject on an "Ignore " list? Like any time Marc Watts name comes up, that whole thread would not even show up?

I know, I know, I could just not read it. But jeez, it's like a car wreck, or Nascar, or NHL hockey...you just have to look if it's right there in front of you.

RIP,

Your

We went through thia same discussion a couple of weeks ago. It is purely conjecture on your part that FN solids penetrate straighter and are less likely to tumble than RN steel jacketed solids in elephant heads. You have no, I repeat NO evidence that that is a true statement. The collective body of evidence presented here was that FN solids will occasionaly tumble and will go off course as will the RN solids. There is no evidence that one is prone to do it more than the other. Get a life!

465H&H

Luddites!
Bitterly clinging to their antique bullets and nostalgia!

Exactly what body of evidence says RN bullets will veer off course less than FN bullets? None and I repeat NONE of my work verifies this in any media including ballistic gelatin and animal tissue including elephant heads. Please present actual data in lets say a homogeneous media as a simple model for us heathens. I would be extremely interested in seeing this data. -Rob

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Luddites!
Bitterly clinging to their antique bullets and nostalgia!

speaking of antique bullets and nostalgia, take a close look at all the links, photos, etc. that you put up. i didn't realize flintlocks were making a comeback or that the rest of the crap on there was cutting edge technology.

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
Exactly what body of evidence says RN bullets will veer off course less than FN bullets? None and I repeat NONE of my work verifies this in any media including ballistic gelatin and animal tissue including elephant heads. Please present actual data in lets say a homogeneous media as a simple model for us heathens. I would be extremely interested in seeing this data. -Rob

No one said what you now want them to prove.

On the other hand, of all of the bullets I've shot into the ultimate homogenous material, or at least the only material that is relevent, elephant heads, the only one that veered was a flat nose. And it veered well after it was past critical penetration to do its job.

Veering in real game can't be as common in the real thing as some who test in irrelevant materials would have you believe. If it were, 465, me and many others would be citing repeated cases of round nosees veering off course, or flatnoses too for that matter. Real experience in the real medium does not support the theory of common veering off course.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Luddites!
Bitterly clinging to their antique bullets and nostalgia!

speaking of antique bullets and nostalgia, take a close look at all the links, photos, etc. that you put up. i didn't realize flintlocks were making a comeback or that the rest of the crap on there was cutting edge technology.

I like to joke too.
Is that all you got?
All in professional small boy good fun, eh? And that is what safari hunting is all about.
Don't take yourself too seriously.


On a more serious note, if you are worried about safety of vacationing hunters and their servants, and lessening the chances of animal suffering: USE AN FN SOLID

Any "scientific" comparison of RN to FN solid in any medium will show the superiority of the FN.

Ask Duncan MacPherson. Ask Gerard Shultz. Ask Mike Brady.
Ask the Iron WaterBoard Buffalo.

Moja Tembo needs some new bullets.

Of course, the next improvement over a monometal copper FN is a monometal brass FN: Not for antique doubles.

In 14 elephants and 4 buffalo I have not had trouble with either RN or FN not following a straight line path. However, that does not mean one is not better than the other for straight line penetration. I can confirm that FN solids create a wider wound channel and travel deeper than RN solids, generally. Further, Woodleigh FMJ lead core solids tend to penetrate deeper than Barnes RN brass solids (less total surface area?).

The longer length of the brass roundnose makes it less stable and even quicker to veer and flip with its absence of shoulder stabilization.
The overturning moments are greater with the longer bullet, so the first wobble or yaw with a roundnose will not correct like the FN will.

A brass FN will be, shoulder stabilized and more resistant to nose deformation, and can be driven to higher velocity and made shorter, lighter than the traditional/antique weights for the big bore solids, and still deliver adequate momentum. SD of 0.3. No more is needed.

The RN vs the FN is still creating a storm in a tea cup. When Danie Joubert designed his brass solid he opted for a trade-off between a RN and a FN by having an ogive for easy feeding under stressful situations, but providing a reasonable flat meplat for the nose. Works very well.

Here is a pic that was published on AR before:



Warrior

Interesting article from magnum



THE PERFECT BIG GAME SOLID

By Pierre van der Walt

Unlike elsewhere in the world, the solid bullet plays an important role in African hunting. Members of the Big Bore Association Southern Africa, home to those African hunters that pursue the big, the bad and the ugly, spend as much time on testing and evaluating solids, as plains game hunters spend on evaluating softs.

Modern solids are better than ever before in history and one can probably sit back and say: ‘Well, that is good enough for me.’ That may be so, but unfortunately the African game you hunt with solids just hate not being killed cleanly the first time round. They often exhibit very unsocial traits, an appalling sense of humour and extreme vindictiveness once you have made a hash of killing them cleanly. When it then suddenly becomes your skin on the line, instead of theirs, you tend to adopt considerably less complacent expectations from what you are going to throw at these creatures.

What constitutes failure in a solid? Failure to kill due to jacket and core separation, or breaking up, comes to mind. Deformation as well. Deformation normally constitutes base flattening, bending, or a combination of these two.

The breaking up of solids have largely been solved through bonded core technology for jacketed lead core solids, and the introduction of homogenous (monometallic) brass or copper solids such as the Barnes, Thunderbird and GSCustom designs.

That still leaves deformation; comprising of flattening of a large portion of the tail end of the bullet on the one hand, and bending on the other.

The general statement normally is that the bullet struck (nicked) a bone, deformed and subsequently tumbled, causing it to veer off course. This is an acceptable explanation when the bullet has bent. Virtually without exception the base is not flattened or deformed, while the nose shows the point of impact through grazing or deformation.

When it comes to base flattening the ‘nick-theory’, as described above, just does not make sense. Why? Because a bullet that has nicked a bone generally exhibits confirmatory markings on the ogive, and mostly also nose deformation. In the case of base flattening it is extremely rare to find any signs on the bullet nose indicating a high-speed crash with an animal's foundations.

The nick theory explains base deformation by holding that the bullet base gyrates or yaws around the line of flight and penetration – exposing the rear end of the shank to the terminal media. Such an exposed part of the shank then nicks a bone. The impact deforms it by flattening the base area – causing it to tumble and lose direction.

Let us take a look at the logic behind this by first looking at a couple of photos of typical base damaged solids.



Solidpvdw1[1]


Solidpvdw[1]


What immediately becomes obvious is the extent of the base deformation, measured both in bullet length and width. Now just imagine how skew the bullet must have been at the moment of impact with the bone, in terms of this theory, to suffer this kind of damage almost from the middle of the shank. Ask yourself whether the bullet would have reached the animal if its base had yawed so much during flight that it exposed that much of the shank during travel.
I am simplifying somewhat because a bullet stabilized for atmospheric travel is less stable in denser animal tissue and yaws a bit more terminally than in air, but definitely not the half caliber and more of deformation required for the nick theory to be valid.

In Sketch 1 we have two scenarios, Scenario A, where the bullet base yaws at an angle of 4° around the line of flight, and Scenario B, where the bullet base is about 20° off the line of flight. The base deformation we come across generally looks similar to Scenario B – if not more pronounced. If the nick theory offered the correct explanation and if the yaw was minute enough for the bullet to be reasonably accurate and reach the target where aimed, then surely the deformation should be similar to Scenario A with more or less straight line deformation between Ax an Ay.





What we find in practice is that the base deformation looks much more like in Scenario B, with the deformation not linear, but curved as represented by line Bx to By. If you think about it, the nick theory does not explain why the line curves to the left (in our sketch) of the direction of the allegedly applied force. Another phenomenon not explained by the nick theory is why we more often than not find the base also deformed along the Bq – Bz line, if the force was linear and applied in a straight line and only between Bx and By as explained by the nick-theory.

For the base to also collapse along Bq to Bz, it means that some kind of force transverse (direction Bq – Bx and Bz – By)to the line of flight must have been experienced. Think of a blob of dough falling to the floor. On the side that touches the floor, let’s call it line Bx – By, the dough flattens. Not only that though, it also flattens on the top (call it line Bq – Bz) where it had not touched anything. This phenomenon is not explained by the nick theory. All sketches were made to convey the concept with image assistance, not for the sketches to be a perfect rendition of reality.

You can go even further and fire solids from a big game rifle and check if the holes in the paper target exhibit the Sketch 1 Scenario B kind of yaw required for the nick explanation to hold water.

In terms of the nick theory, the bullet nose would already have passed the source of deflection (bone) before deformation commences. Apart from the bullet being gyroscopically disinclined to veer off course at right angles, the deflecting force is imparted to the rear end of the bullet in terms of this theory. Despite the impact on the base, the larger and heavier front section of the bullet will gyroscopically still tend to pull the base back into line after the impact, softening deviation at right angles to lower angles of deflection. The point I am trying to make is not that it can never happen the way it is explained in terms of the nick-theory, but that it would be the exception rather than the rule.

What actually happens most of the time is that a bullet is stabilized for atmospheric travel with a specific rate of twist in the barrel. Let us assume a 500 - grain .458 caliber jacketed solid measuring 1.388†in length. In terms of the Greenhill formula it requires a twist of 1: 23.5†to be stable in flight. It is not really important for purposes hereof, but the Greenhill formula normally provides a stability factor in excess of the theoretical 100%. This is to ensure that the bullet would be stable across a wide velocity spectrum, even if the atmospheric conditions are not ideal.

It is not that simple though. The most authoritative source for American readers surely remains Hatcher where he writes on p.557 of Hathcer’s Notebook: ‘… The Greenhill formula gives the spin necessary to stabilize the flight of the bullet in air; in denser materials more spin is required. For a bullet to have stable flight in any material other than air, the spin, as worked out for air, must be multiplied by the square root of a number found by dividing the density of the material in question by the density of air. Water has a specific gravity about 900 times that of air, so to be stable in penetrating water, the bullet would require a twist …… 30 times as great as that for flight in air.’

If we assume for convenience of calculation only that animal tissue roughly equals water’s specific gravity, then the rate of spin of the bullet should be tightened to 23.5 divided by 30 for a spin of one revolution in 0.783â€! The rate of spin of the solid bullet in our example cannot be changed upon impact and will remain roughly at the air stable 1,149 rps instead of the 34,468 rps required to be similarly stable in water/animal tissue. The instability dramatically increases the bullet’s tendency to tumble. Once the bullet tumbles it exposes its shank and base to the kind of impact deformation on bone and sudden change of direction commensurate with the structural damage normally exhibited by base deformed solids. In other words, – the bullet becomes unstable, tumbles (not merely yaws more) and if it then impacts on bone or something, it deforms and could veer of course at an acute angle.

Because the direction of the forces can point anywhere, rather than basically linear with the line of flight, as claimed by the nick-theory, this ‘tumble-theory’ explains the nature and extent of the base deformation eminently better than the nick theory. The tumble theory also better explains the degree and severity of bullet deviation from its original line of flight than the nick-theory.

Sketch 2


Sketch Two Scenario C shows the bullet in flight as it enters the terminal medium and becomes unstable. Scenario D show the bullet tumbling and impacting on a bone or obstruction.

How can a solid be designed to counter the unavoidable terminal instability and tendency to tumble? The first solution lies outside of the bullet design. Gyroscopic stability of the bullet must be increased by using a much tighter rate of twist for dangerous game rifle barrels, given bullet length, than is the norm.

Secondly – opt for the shortest possible solid of sufficiently good quality and design. A 500-grain brass wadcutter of .458 calibre is shorter than a round nose of the same weight, material and calibre and that in turn is shorter than such a spitzer. The late Elmer Keith introduced us to the improved wound channel and energy transmission properties of the wadcutter. This is confirmed by Duncan MacPherson in his work Bullet Penetration – Modelling the Dynamics and Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma, based on the research of the world’s leading wound ballistics expert, Dr Martin Fackler. By opting for this shape one would incorporate as much punch into your solid as possible.

Although reasonably compatible with single shot and double rifles, the wadcutter is not at all compatible with smooth and flawless feeding in bolt action rifles. One step down takes us to the semi-wadcutter that can very effectively be combined with bolt action rifles.

The semi-wadcutter with its large flat nose also has other advantageous properties apart from relative compactness and effective transferring of energy. These additional properties we will now move to, may or may not, contribute to increased effectivity in a given situation, but the existence of these properties at least have no detrimental terminal effect.

In terms of the explanation presented above, the inevitable conclusion is that a solid should always tumble due to it becoming unstable in terminal media such as animal tissue – yet they quite often do not. How can that be explained?

First is the issue of shoulder stabilization, and secondly there is supercavitation.

Shoulder stabilization occurs when a free stream of moving matter such as water or flesh hits a plane such as a bullet’s nose, the stream is only stopped at one single point in the middle of the plane (bullet nose). The point where this occurs is called the stagnation point (SP). All other stream particles deviate to the side of the plane. Logically the force from the stream develops pressure on the face of the plane. Graphically this is best explained by the enclosed diagram (Sketch 3) published in the 1920’s by Ludwig Prandtl.

Sketch 3


The red lines denote a stream of fluid (meat – animal tissue) impacting on a plane (wadcutter bullet nose). The red stream lines denote equivalent speeds of tissue displacement, while the blue eliptical lines denote equivalent pressure (isobars) that develop on the wadcutter bullet face during the process of straight line penetration. In the center one finds SP – the stagnation point, at which point the fluid stream is stopped and where pressure is at it’s highest.

Shoulder stabilization basically entails that, when an object such as a flat plane (wadcutter bullet face moving though air, or animal tissue) the medium through which the bullet moves is deflected equally in all directions. Pressure dissipates as distances increase from the stagnation point. The pressure naturally is highest at the center (stagnation) point and when a bullet moves in a straight line, the pressure, called jam pressure, is evenly distributed across the bullet nose but drops off towards the edges of the bullet face.

When the traveling bullet lacks or loses directional stability and tilts in any direction, the stagnation point (of highest pressure) shifts off center in the same direction in which the base deviates from straight flight. The point of highest pressure thus shifts towards the leading front edge, while it drops off towards the trailing edge – resulting in uneven pressure distribution. Because the highest pressure is closest to the leading edge, it then retards the leading edge more than it retards the trailing edge, as the pressure / resistance (retarding force) on the trailing edge is less. This redistribution of pressure combats tumbling to some degree as it continuously attempts to re-align the bullet center along line of travel. This phenomenon is illustrated in Sketch 4.

Sketch 4




Just as shoulder stabilization contributes towards atmospheric stability during flight, it similarly contributes towards terminal stability during penetration. The rough extent to which shoulder stabilization counters a semi wadcutter bullet’s tendency to tumble can be calculated by a good physicist such as the German hunter, Lutz Möller, who has been doing some research in this regard. How much we do not know, but it can be modeled by a physicist with the variables at hand.

One must of course accept that the contribution to stability that can be made by pressure on the relatively small face of a flat nosed bullet, can never compare to the forces involved in gyroscopic failure or the leverage that follows tumbling. At worst it possesses higher theoretical tumbling resistance potential than sharper tipped solids.

The second explanation is forwarded by Dr Norbert Hansen, designer of the SuperPenetrator solid. Many of us have seen supercavitation taking place when watching the propeller of a boat spinning through water and bubbles form along the leading edges of the propeller blades.

When a body moves through a fluid at high speed and the fluid has to move around it at a rapid pace, the pressure in the flow area drops in terms of Bernoulli’s law. In the case of a bullet traveling through a medium such as water (or animal tissue containing huge percentages of water), the water or tissue has to flow around the bullet. The faster the bullet travels through the water, the more the pressure in the flow decreases and a point can be reached where the flow pressure equals the vapour pressure of water (or any other medium it is traveling through). When that occurs, the water converts to gas and bubbles or cavities appear and that constitutes cavitation. The sharper the edge across which the flow occurs (such as a semi-wadcutter leading edge), the easier it happens. The more the cavitation due to faster flow (higher velocities) the more rapid the extent of cavitation, until a point is reached where all the small vapour bubbles fuse into a large, stable bubble around the bullet (Sketch 5). The single large bubble enveloping the bullet constitutes supercavitation. The effect of which is that only the meplat on the bullet nose remains in contact with the terminal medium. The rest of the bullet travels in a capsule of low-pressure tissue vapour, much more comparable to air than water or flesh.

Sketch 5





While encapsulated in this low pressure cavity, penetration reducing drag on the bullet as well as its tendency to tumble is reduced because it travels in a virtual atmospheric medium – not the 30-40 times denser water or body tissue. Unfortunately this supercavitation bubble is fragile and easily lost in the rough conditions prevailing when a bullet travels through an animal. When it is lost, tumbling follows.

Hansen’s experimentation (on test media and elephants) is very promising. On wet media and body shots, traditional round nose solids provided an average of 31.5†of straight line penetration before tumbling, whereas the flat nose, supercavitating bullets achieved an average of 95.0†of stable penetration. This is similar to the reported 78" to 144" penetration reported on elephant with GS Custom FN solids where supercavitation also occurs. Supercavitation is therefore another reason for the current African philosophy that a solid should have a large flat nose (meplat). Not only for maximum shock transfer, but also for increased terminal stability potential in terms of the supercavitation and shoulder stabilization concepts. In dry media (bone and elephant skull) where supercavitation does not play an important role, these flat nose bullets penetrate less than round nose bullets. However, in all instances homogenous 500-grain .458†semi wadcutter solids launched at muzzle velocities exceeding 2,200 fps provided satisfactory penetration in frontal brain shots on elephant.

Seeing that the design criteria derived from the above not only point to a semi-wadcutter shape with a sharp intersection between the meplat and ogive, but at homogenous construction, one can then just as well add a banded shank to the design to reduce barrel fouling and pressure.

The two bullet designs currently coming closest to meeting the above criteria, are the GS Custom Flat Nose Solid (extensive range of weights and calibers) manufactured in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, and the limited range of SuperPenetrators manufactured by Michael Reichenberg Spezialgeschosse in Germany.

Since NF is coming back to life...this all is a moot point....we can all now get the FP solids.
Marc does look very spiffy in his outfits though.....I just wear shorts and t-shirts or some sort of cotton safari shirt from Cabelas....but then I haven't done any videos.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

GarBy,
Wearing pantyhose wrapped around your neck is a good idea. Prevents redneck, even if you tan nicely, by implying the fashion statement: "I ain't no redneck."

I need to try that! If Namath can wear them to play football....I can wear them to hunt!

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

I think we need to rename the Iron Water-Board Buffalo to the Iron Water Board Whore. Because like any good whore she will tell you what you want to hear not what is true.



465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I think we need to rename the Iron Water-Board Buffalo to the Iron Water Board Whore. Because like any good whore she will tell you what you want to hear not what is true.



465H&H

We are winning when the Luddites can only resort to verbal abuse of inanimate objects, machinery, or technology.
That is what Luddites do.

That great post by Vlam reminded me of Herr Professor Norbert Hansen using plastic water containers sandwiched between ~1.5" thick particle-board slabs. That is a tough medium.
Would a Luddite also accuse Norbert of whoring?