Guys,

This thread is sort of a off shoot from the questions regarding penetration on Elephant.
i would like to start off as saying my question will only be regarding "like" solid bullets.
Regarding solid bullet penetration; Does it really matter what the caliber of a bullet is as long as the sectional density and velocity are the same?
lets look at the following at say 2600FPS; 175 gr 7mm; 300 gr 375 and a 250 gr 338. The first two have almost identical SD's the 338 as approx a 2% higher SD.
Should they all penetrate about the same distance though the same medium?

I read on here that 400 gr; 416 bullets (SD @.330) 2400 FPS will penetrate better than anything. I would suspect a 500 gr; 458 at SD .350 would penetrate better at 2400 FPS?
Sometimes higher velocity gets maligned on these threads and other times not.
I hear momentum discussed and I certainly would agree it is a factor on Knock out issues but not necessary penetration if the SD is a low figure.
It would appear any cartridge with a SD over .300 in a soild should provide good penetration @ over 2150 FPS (up close) and if you look at the past dialog it should extend up to 2600 FPS (375 H&H; 300 gr) regardless of caliber.
What does that say about the maligned 460 Weatherby? 45 caliber 500 gr soild bullet (SD .350) @ 2600 FPS should do a pretty good job?Same velocity as a 375 H&H 300 gr and a 15% higher SD.

EZ

The SD of 500gr .458" = .341, according Woodleigh.

The 550gr .458" = .375.

Assuming same poi, angle, etc, the impossible "same shot", I think that similar solids with similar sectional density at the same speed will penetrate more or less the same in most in game mediums like muscles, lung, guts... (and absolutely the same in a consistent medium like ballistic gel)

But I suspect that it is likely that as the difference between the lighter and heavier bullets grows, there will be differences that appear in different in animal media. For example, while a 220gr .308" solid, SD .331, might equal a .416" 400gr, SD .330, at the same speed in muscle, it seems that the greater mass of the 416 will make a real difference when it comes to, say, breaking bone and penetrating further, as opposed to, say, stopping dead at the face of the bone.

But, the general principal isn't wrong, or Bell would never have been able to brain elephants with his 6.5 or 7mm's. And lung shots with 318's and 330's in the distant past wouldn't have worked either.

As for the 460Wby or other very high relative velocity cartridges, there is only so much penetration needed. After that point is reached, it is better, imo, to go with more bullet weight and/or diameter. So instead of a 460Wby, a 500NE. The middle route would be 460 shooting 550's. I think the break point where more bullet weight and/or diameter is a better choice over more velocity is about 2250fps.

FWIW, while I think there is much to say about the momentum vs energy argument on the momentum side, I think the flat nose solids shift the advantage in the argument to the energy side and so the velocity side, given the same cartridge. In other words, a lighter faster flat nose solid, even if it has less energy (and a lot less momentum relative), but more velocity will penetrate deeper, all things the same. Still need to consider that only so much penetration is needed and that bullet weight and diameter is still a very material consideration.

JPK

JPK,

By all accounts from those with real world field experience such as yourself agree that at that recoil threshold a larger diameter projectile as a 500 is a better than a faster 45 caliber.
I have just read many times that a 458 Win will out penetrate a 460 Weatherby (I am not a 460 Wea fan). I think my Lott is enough!
It could be that they were comparing softs made for shooting at 2200 FPS or less and not good solids.
Thanks for your insight

EZ,

I gotta think that they were either comparing rather soft softs or solids that badly deformed.

Following the reasoning that a 458wm out penetrated a 460Wby, one could conclude that the Lott would also be out penetrated by the 458wm, and the 458wm by the 45/70 shooting those hot loaded favorites, which in turn would be out penetrated by a 45/70 shooting mileder loads.... No way!

I think the Lott is the epitome of the perfect 45 cal. I shoot the wm, because thats what I've got and it has served me well.

BTW, 465H&H, who has a ton of elephant experience, prefers the 550's at 2150fps in the Lott.

JPK

You also must take in consideration the twist of the rifle barrel.

Someone did some tests with a 460 WBY with a faster twist barrel and got a fair amount more penetration.

Also heavier bullets need a faster twist, so going to one of the new heavier bullets, than standard, might cause some problems in penetration, because the bullet is under spun.

When the 460 Weatherby came out all .458 caliber solids were designed for the velocity range of the 458 Win. The much higher velocity of the WB over stressed those solids and from African hunter reports the bullets broke up, bent or shed their cores. It was a case of too much of a good thing (velocity). Most PHs using the 460 Weatherby downloaded their ammo to around 2,400 fps according to Ganyana. Problem solved. It may be that with a more a strongly constructed bullet you could use the Weatherby at it's intended velocity and get even more penetration but I don't think that much penetration is ever needed. The smaller the caliber the more likely the bullet will bend assuming equal velocity and SD. Therefore the 338-375 caliber bullets of a sd of .300 + are more likely to bend under stress than an equal bullet of .458 dia.

Bullets of equal SD and velocity in theory should penetrate to similar depths. But of equal importance is that bullets of greater SD and somewhat less velocity will also penetrate to greater depths. Penetration and momentum increases more with increased SD than with increased velocity. As an example if you increase the weight of a .458 caliber bullet from 500 to 550 grains and drop the velocity by 100 fps, you will get observably more penetration and momentum (knock down power) than by increasing the velocity of the 500 grain bullet by 100-150 fps.

465H&H

465,

What maker of 45 caliber bullets do you use at 550 gr? Woodleigh?
Would you mind sharing loading data? I do not intend on shooting any elephant any time soon; It would be for buffalo.

Thanks,
EZ

I use the Woodleigh 550 grain in my Lott. I used it mostly on elephant with solids but did take one buff bull with it with a soft, a Texas heart shot (wounded and escaping bull). Got over 4 1/2 feet of penetration. I don't think you need it for buff though. The 500 grain will work just fine on them. As for a load, I used H-4895. Start at 76 grains and work up to around 2,150 fps or as near to it as you can get.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
But of equal importance is that bullets of greater SD and somewhat less velocity will also penetrate to greater depths. Penetration and momentum increases more with increased SD than with increased velocity. As an example if you increase the weight of a .458 caliber bullet from 500 to 550 grains and drop the velocity by 100 fps, you will get observably more penetration and momentum (knock down power) than by increasing the velocity of the 500 grain bullet by 100-150 fps.

465H&H

This may be true of similar shape bullets, but you can go to a lighter and faster flat nose, at higher velocity but lower energy and even lower momentum and get substanitally better penetration. No loss of "knock down" either (at least that I have been able to observe.)

JPK

FWIW, some have said that the 375 has a reputation for occational non straight-line penetration with solids. Kevin Robertson says that in his book entitled The Perfect Shot. He attributes it to velocity slightly higher than the other "classics" like 470NE and 416Rigby.

On buff he even goes so far as to recommend loading the 375 down to 2400ish for frontal chest shots. Says they are less likley to skirt around the sharp V shape of the ribe cage.

Brett

there is a lot of factors that play a role I have seen the following.

we had to elimanate a problem hippo a 458wm and a 375h&H was used

458 had a 500gr solid at 2200f/sec the 375 a 300gr solid of exactly the same brand at 2340f/sec nine shots were fired between the two rifles we recovered 4 458 bullets and not one 375 bullet 4 shots went through the heart lung area 2x 458 and 2x 375

the 375 out penetrated the 458 by far but the 458 ankered the bull.

i know everything is not equal but it was just my observation

quote:

FWIW, while I think there is much to say about the momentum vs energy argument on the momentum side, I think the flat nose solids shift the advantage in the argument to the energy side and so the velocity side, given the same cartridge.

I do not think so. If we agree that momentum is the better parameter, as many studies show, then the FN design is just a further factor for straight-line penetration to avoid tumbling, but it does not change the yardstick of Mo/Xsa. Momentum traps bullet weight & velocity and the XSA is the factor that applies the brakes. Using the same bullet, ie a non-expanding FN bullet, Mo/Xsa is the best indicator we have.

Warrior

All: For some real world experience read Mike LaGrange's book "Ballistics in Perspective". It illustrates that sometimes, even with solids, shooting at a lower velocity will give better penetration.

There are a great many factors to consider concerning straight line penetration of various solids. One I don't see mentioned with any authority in this thread is "Nose Profile". I have seen nose profile overtake and out perform sectional density. I have also seen slower velocity out penetrate hi velocity. I think there is a very optimum area between 2000--2250 fps depending on caliber. I favor 458-500 caliber and any velocity within this range seems to work perfect. Velocity going above 2400 fps seems to give less penetration. Slender minor caliber bullets, even solids, tend to be more prone to bending and reducing penetration when coming into contact with bone or other heavy materials. So I think that Nose Profile, sectional density, velocity, and caliber all play an extremely important role in penetration of solids. NE 450 mentions twist rate also, he is 100% correct and a faster twist is needed to to stabilize the heavier bullets, not for accuracy but for stabilization during penetration. Penetration can be increased substantially with a faster twist rate. On my 50s I had to go from a 1:18 to a 1:12 to accomplish what I needed. So this is a very important factor in addition to the others. My vote going to Nose Profile as being at the top of the list, once proper twist rates are determined.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Brett:
FWIW, some have said that the 375 has a reputation for occational non straight-line penetration with solids. Kevin Robertson says that in his book entitled The Perfect Shot. He attributes it to velocity slightly higher than the other "classics" like 470NE and 416Rigby.

On buff he even goes so far as to recommend loading the 375 down to 2400ish for frontal chest shots. Says they are less likley to skirt around the sharp V shape of the ribe cage.

Brett

Brett,

I tested .458" 450gr NF flat nose solids at 2220fps (458wm) and .458" 500gr Woodleigh round nose steel jacketed soids at 2145fps (also 458wm) vs. .375" Woodleigh round nose solids at ~2500fps (H&H) and the 375 got the shot end of the stick.

375 Woodleigh penetration was essentially equal to the 458wm Woodleigh pnetration, and both were significantly short of the 450 NF. The NF was lost in the elephant, but lost after its wound channel was more than a foot longer. 375 fired first, the 500 458 then 450 458. So, to the extent that target integrety was diminished, it would have favored first the 375, then the 500 458.

I was truly underwhelmed by the 375 performance.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

FWIW, while I think there is much to say about the momentum vs energy argument on the momentum side, I think the flat nose solids shift the advantage in the argument to the energy side and so the velocity side, given the same cartridge.

I do not think so. If we agree that momentum is the better parameter, as many studies show, then the FN design is just a further factor for straight-line penetration to avoid tumbling, but it does not change the yardstick of Mo/Xsa. Momentum traps bullet weight & velocity and the XSA is the factor that applies the brakes. Using the same bullet, ie a non-expanding FN bullet, Mo/Xsa is the best indicator we have.

Warrior

I believe that if two similar flat nose bullets were fired from a rifle, one weighing the cartridge's traditional bullet weight, and the other 10% less, but loaded to the same respective level, or pressure, and so driven faster, the lighter, but faster bullet will penetrate more. And the lighter bullet can have less momentum.

An example would be the 500gr 458 vs the 450gr 458.

But you know this already because you have rehashed this a thousand times with Gerard, whose data shows that the lighter but faster bullet does in fact penetrate further.

Some argue spin is the missing factor that explains the advantage of the lighter bullet. I don't know.

Go try it.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

FWIW, while I think there is much to say about the momentum vs energy argument on the momentum side, I think the flat nose solids shift the advantage in the argument to the energy side and so the velocity side, given the same cartridge.

I do not think so. If we agree that momentum is the better parameter, as many studies show, then the FN design is just a further factor for straight-line penetration to avoid tumbling, but it does not change the yardstick of Mo/Xsa. Momentum traps bullet weight & velocity and the XSA is the factor that applies the brakes. Using the same bullet, ie a non-expanding FN bullet, Mo/Xsa is the best indicator we have.

Warrior

I believe that if two similar flat nose bullets were fired from a rifle, one weighing the cartridge's traditional bullet weight, and the other 10% less, but loaded to the same respective level, or pressure, and so driven faster, the lighter, but faster bullet will penetrate more. And the lighter bullet can have less momentum.

An example would be the 500gr 458 vs the 450gr 458.

But you know this already because you have rehashed this a thousand times with Gerard, whose data shows that the lighter but faster bullet does in fact penetrate further.

Some argue spin is the missing factor that explains the advantage of the lighter bullet. I don't know.

Go try it.

JPK

JPK,

Your statement that the 450 grain FN would out penetrate the 500 grain FN from a 458 Win at equal pressure/velocity surprises me. I can assure everyone that this is not the case when you compare a 500 grain Woodleigh RN solid at 2,250 fps and a 550 grain Woodleigh RN solid at 2,150 fps out of the 458 Lott. The increase in penetration and kock down power is readily visible and obvious. Do you think that FN solids and RN solids behave differently?

465H&H

465H&H,

Yes, I believe the flat nose solids benefit from velocity to a greater degree than the round noses. So where energy and momentum lag, velocity more than makes up for it. There is something to the flat nose that favors velocity, imo.

Twist might also have something to do with - or even everything to do with it for all I know. Recall that the mono solids in the standard weights a damn long. while those 10% lighter are about steel jacketed standard weight in length.

JPK

quote:

But you know this already because you have rehashed this a thousand times with Gerard, whose data shows that the lighter but faster bullet does in fact penetrate further.

This has never been shown, in fact RIP proved the that the .375/300 gr GSC-FN bullet out penetrates the faster loaded .375/270 gr GSC-FN bullet depite Gerard's insistance that his 270 gr bullet is more stable by virtue of its higher SF value (stability factor by way of twist) as the bullet is lighter and shorter. SF value in target is irrelevant as Alf has explained a thousand times.

RIP will tell you, as he told all of us here on AR, that he prefers the 300 gr FN bullet over the 270 gr FN bullet. His tests in the water buffalo should settle this matter better than believing that a flat nose somehow favours velocity.

The other factor that we must bear in mind is what the experiments of the SuperPenetraor bullet with the steel disk (non deforming) revealed that when you make the bullet's "wetted surface" smaller or bigger you can increase/decrease the penetration depth. That is a tool that one can play with by making the FN diameter 5mm or 6 mm or 7 mm or 8 mm or 9 mm, etc. In comparisons of this sort, we need to keep all variables the same, except the weight of the bullet and its resultant velocity that the case will allow you, to make sure it is an equitable comparison.

I have found that in our current ballistic model you cannot make momentum up by dropping the weight and upping the velocity. I tried that with my 7x57 and the results proved it to me conclusively.

Warrior

Too many variables.

Change the nose shape and it may not fly as well or not well at all. There's a reason "accurate" FN solids have specific nose angles/geometry. If you never shoot past 50 yards than it only matters for stability in target.

Can't change the weight without changing the shape of the bullet or it's composition.

30 FPS increase in velociy even at identical weights doesn't equate to much. Maybe covers a full deviation in 20 rounds.

30 FPS increase in velocity at a lower weight equates to nothing or less than nothing.

The twist is the twist - both the 270 and the 300 will posses the same rotational speed unless you've invented the remote control dial-a-twist device. A 1:10 twist in a .375 with these bullet weights makes no difference in stability. Shoot a 400 grain or 200 grain .375 for comparison then we have something to measurre.

Great parallel for somewhat controlled penetration testing holdng all variables except velocity:

.505" x 558 Grain FN

2400 FPS = 48"

2600 FPS = 60"

and on and on ...we go ...

Mac,

We have to look at momentum. If the same bullet weight is driven faster, say 200 fps, then its momentum will be higher. Therefore its Mo/Xsa is higher and thus deeper penetration with a non-deforming FN bullet.

Momentum traps both weight and velocity. It is not just a velocity dependant thing.

Warrior

quote:

The twist is the twist - both the 270 and the 300 will posses the same rotational speed unless you've invented the remote control dial-a-twist device. A 1:10 twist in a .375 with these bullet weights makes no difference in stability.

Mac,

It does make a difference in the SF value, even though the rotational speed is the same. The SF statistic is a calculated factor/value for bullet stability in air and not in-target. The SF will differ for the very same bullet type, but for different weights/lengths - say a 235 grainer, a 250 grainer, a 270 grainer or a 300 grainer,etc.

As Flesh is about a 1,000 times denser than air, the SF value is negated in-target, and so geometry and nose shape takes over. Geometry includes things like weight, overturning moment, COG, ogive shape, nose shape, boatail shape, length, etc.

So, I agree with you that at these high SF values (far above 1.5 SF) that both bullets possess, its infuence is negligible and of no practical assistance.

Warrior

Mac,

Here is a excel file to play with to calculate the SF value of your particular bullet:


http://ssaamackay.org.au/Clip%...letstabilitycalc.xls

Warrior

Thanks for the file, I'll check it out & see if it reconciles with my abacus.

Mac,

Here is 500 Grains' elphant abacus in real life with regard to body shots at less than 10 yds, using the 9,3 x 62 mm. The full report can be seen at ... http://bigfivehq.com/softs.pdf

The effect of over-expansion , weight loss and lower bullet weight (ie lower momentum) in these results can be seen clearly. I re-summarized his results per group; Expanding Soft bullets at 286 grains, Heavy for caliber Expanding Softs and Expanding Monolithics:



Some comments/observations from the report:

1. That the NF Soft is the ultimate bullet in his opinion (open up over a wide range of velocities) - 30 inches
2. That the sharp petals of the Rhino bullet causes a lot of tearing in the wound channel - 28 inches
3. The 286 gr Woodleigh bullet tends to over expand outside its velocity window - 20 inches
4. A number of bullets today outshine the Nosler Partition - 23 inches
5. The Norma Orxy, also a bonded bullet, only penetrates 11 inches
6. The 300 gr Swift bullet performed well but tends to foul bores rapidly - 42 inches
7. The 320 gr Woodleigh bullet penetrated well at 40 inches
8. The HV bullet would not be his first choice for heavy game (better for medium game at long-range) - 22 inches
9. Barnes-X -30 inches
10. NF Cup Nose (expansion very slight) - 42 inches

Warrior

I'll stew on this tomorrow. Not seeing anything that looks like a pattern here.

Please check the functionality of your Excel program - it may have a bug as it's throwing nonsensical sums when I run it here.

Thanks

quote:

quote:
But you know this already because you have rehashed this a thousand times with Gerard, whose data shows that the lighter but faster bullet does in fact penetrate further.

This has never been shown, in fact RIP proved the that the .375/300 gr GSC-FN bullet out penetrates the faster loaded .375/270 gr GSC-FN bullet

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris Bek at his single minded best. RIP's first test pronounced a tie on penetration and declared a visibly higher amount of destruction caused by the faster bullet. It has been shown many times that a lighter FN mono is capable of similar or deeper penetration than a heavier one in animals and produces a larger volume wound channel.

RIP's second test was effectively a penetration tie as well, with the difference being a scant two or three centimetres. Again he mentioned that the faster (lighter) FN created higher levels of destruction.

I do not expect you to follow this because it contains more than one concept. We know by now that you like to keep things simple, dealing with only one idea at a time. You have to discard an idea in order to make room for the next one as you move along. That is why you never learn anything and cannot put two and two together.

You see only the results of shooting into test media and then form an opinion, excluding all else. At GSC we go beyond the test media to live game and see what is required to produce dead game. Ultimately, that is what is important and what we base our recommendation on.

You remind me of gunscribes who do comparative testing in wet sand, somehow thinking that it has a connection to what happens in game. They should take a further step and add cement to the wet sand and wait a week before testing. Then they could report on the relative performance of bullets on freeway overpass constructions. That would be real handy as a guide to which bullet works best in game.

quote:

depite Gerard's insistance that the 270 gr bullet is the more stable by virtue of its higher SF value (stability factor by way of twist as the bullet is lighter and shorter.

Are you saying that the 270gr FN in RIP's tests does not have a higher stability factor than the 300gr FN or are you just being wordy to make up volume? You are indeed murky on the subject of SF.

quote:

SF value in target is irrelevant as Alf has explained a thousand times.

This is true so why do you bring it up. You do like to troll out the red herrings.

quote:

better than believing that that a flat nose somehow favours velocity.

Yes, a flat nose is favoured by speed more so than a round nosed bullet. Explaining it involves more than one concept, you would not understand.

quote:

I have found that in our current ballistic model you cannot make momentum up by dropping the weight and upping the velocity. I tried that with my 7x57 and the results proved it to me conclusively.

The "test" you did with your 7x57 was such a laugh and proved only one thing: You become very confused when more than one idea comes at you simultaneously.

quote:

We have to look at momentum. If the same bullet weight is driven faster, say 200 fps, then its momentum will be higher. Therefore its Mo/Xsa is higher and thus deeper penetration with a non-deforming FN bullet.

Thus by the same logic, if a lighter bullet is driven faster, say 200fps than a heavier one, Mo/Xsa and penetration could be equal. When that happens, the lighter bullet will have more KE and therefore a larger wound channel volume.

If both go the same depth, which one will be most effective on game - the one with the larger wound channel volume or the one with the smaller wound channel volume?

quote:

As Flesh is about a 1,000 times denser than air, the SF value is negated in-target, and so geometry and nose shape takes over.

That red herring again that we all know about. Your repetition of this points to a misconception you have about it, I am sure.

quote:

So, I agree with you that at these high SF values (far above 1.5 SF) that both bullets possess, its infuence is negligible and of no practical assistance.

Given that, in your first paragraph, you say you do not agree with Mac, is this agreement with the voices in your head? Do you have an imaginary friend perhaps?

quote:

Here is a excel file to play with to calculate the SF value of your particular bullet:

I can see why you like this method for calculating stability factor. It does not take into acount all the neccesary variables, it is simple to use, and returns the wrong answer.

quote:

8. The HV bullet would not be his first choice for heavy game

Quite so and I mentioned this to Dan at the time, pointing out that the 230gr HV would be the better choice. He had already acquired the 260gr HVs and proceeded to use them. Of course your table contains the usual set of mistakes - amongst others that GSC has never produced a 265gr HV in 9.3mm and that the calculated weight retention is therefore incorrect. Not that it matters much - but it shows that attention to detail is not part of your make up. Typical.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Mac,

Here is 500 Grains' elphant abacus in real life with regard to body shots at less than 10 yds, using the 9,3 x 62 mm. The full report can be seen at ... http://bigfivehq.com/softs.pdf


The effect of over-expansion , weight loss and lower bullet weight (ie lower momentum) in these results can be seen clearly. I re-summarized his results per group; Expanding Soft bullets at 286 grains, Heavy for caliber Expanding Softs and Expanding Monolithics:



Some comments/observations from the report:

1. That the NF Soft is the ultimate bullet in his opinion (open up over a wide range of velocities) - 30 inches
2. That the sharp petals of the Rhino bullet causes a lot of tearing in the wound channel - 28 inches
3. The 286 gr Woodleigh bullet tends to over expand outside its velocity window - 20 inches
4. A number of bullets today outshine the Nosler Partition - 23 inches
5. The Norma Orxy, also a bonded bullet, only penetrates 11 inches
6. The 300 gr Swift bullet performed well but tends to foul bores rapidly - 42 inches
7. The 320 gr Woodleigh bullet penetrated well at 40 inches
8. The HV bullet would not be his first choice for heavy game (better for medium game at long-range) - 22 inches
9. Barnes-X -30 inches
10. NF Cup Nose (expansion very slight) - 42 inches

Warrior

We do Zebra culling at ranges from 50m to 300m my friend Pieter uses 9.3x62 and shoot gsc exclusively he uses 235gr hv's out of 10 zebra taken by him we have only recovered 2 bullets both shot at +- 300m and angling away one retained 100% and the other only 78% and only because my butcher cut the the bullet with the bandsaw while slautering it in the butchery.

I use the 265gr hv 375 at 2750feet/sec and i still have to recover a bullet

to sum it up out of 39 zebras taken last year only 2 bullets recovered and both was at +- 300m i think that is pretty impressive and shows that somethings is not the same on paper as in reality

Hopefully i will get to use the 265gr 375hv on a hippo this year and then i will post the photos

Thanks for a great product Gerard

quote:

Originally posted by 375 fanatic:

We do Zebra culling at ranges from 50m to 300m my friend Pieter uses 9.3x62 and shoot gsc exclusively...

Did you by any chance chrono the 9,3 230hv loads?

he touches 2800 with the 235gr hv's

quote:

GSC has never produced a 265gr HV in 9.3mm and that the calculated weight retention is therefore incorrect. Not that it matters much - but it shows that attention to detail is not part of your make up. Typical.

Gerard,

If you will look before you are getting yourself in a mad rage and swallow your own tonque from getting an epileptic fit, you would have noticed that I just copied Dan's work, not my work. So please accuse him. You make the 260 grain HV and not a 265 grainer, big deal. Look at the weight loss and look at the poor penetration. Then you make a lighter version, the 230 grainer. Here I quote 375 fanatic ... "my friend Pieter uses 9.3x62 and shoot gsc exclusively he uses 235gr hv's ..." Please lash out again Gerard. That should give you a lot of joy, focussing on inadvertant mistakes people are making that is actually inconsequential.

Let us just revisit Dan's table, and correct his mistake and compare the Barnes-X bullet with the GSC-HV:

Barnes-X .... 286 gr retained 100% = 286 gr @ MV of 2,395 fps yields 30" penetration
GSC-HV ...... 260 gr retained 76.9% = 200 gr @ MV of 2,575 fps yields 22" penetration
This is 26.7% less penetration !!!
Check the momentum diff, it may give you a clue.

As for the rest, your normal typical dribbble that does not deserve an answer.

Mac,

Please download Wingyro of the Net, it does in fact have a few more variables as I hinted in a previous post as Gerard reasoned that since it is simple I picked it. Of course his noramal way to belittle everyone that gets in his way by talking to them in a condecending way - I am sure you experienced it already. Anyway, point still is for all parctical purposes additional SF is hardly of any help if it exceeds the factor of 1.5 by 2 times or more. So your instinctive feeling or abacus is quite correct.

Warrior

quote:

We do Zebra culling at ranges from 50m to 300m my friend Pieter uses 9.3x62 and shoot gsc exclusively he uses 235gr hv's out of 10 zebra taken by him we have only recovered 2 bullets both shot at +- 300m and angling away one retained 100% and the other only 78% and only because my butcher cut the the bullet with the bandsaw while slautering it in the butchery

375 fanatic,

Clearly very good results.

It underlines my view that when a bullet's impact velocity has slowed down (either at range or by downloading for short-range), coming within its threshold strength (opreating window) it invariable retains a high percent of its weight and when it is a monolithic normally 100% as you stated - beautiful. That way terminal momentum is at its highest to do its best work.

Warrior

Since this discussion is about solids only, what is the use of bringing up softs?

By changing the charecteristics of how the soft points open, ANY results are possible. For example, the differences between any two 286gr bullets at essentially the same speed.

This is utterly irrelevant to a discussion regarding solids.

JPK

JPK,

The relevance lies in the yardstick of Mo/Xsa that also applies to Solids, and particularly the fact that when there is expansion both in Solids and Softs that penetration will be impaired. I think this is very relevant to consider this phenomena rather that thowing it off to a velocity thing that favours FN bullets.

In addition, consider that some FN bullets expand at higher velocities, whereas some others do not (or perhaps fractionally when measured by a micrometer) and that will give meaning to Mo/Xsa, as penetration will suffer as the meplat flattens out as can be seen here:



Remember we are talking here about depth of penetration only, and not that the bullet cannot do its intended task. Most soldis can kill and do kill, some are just better. Mo/Xsa is simply a simplistic yardstick for penetration depth and not perfect. Then there is of course another argument ... what penetration is needed or preferred by the hunter for the way he shoots.

Warrior

PS. "There is no need for solids on buffalo. Many PH's are stuck in the past, using solids because they have always used solids." ... Will

Its pure bull that comparing soft points to solids is or can be rellevant. One can take a very heavy for calibre soft point and a very light for calibre soft point and by merely changing the opening charecteristics of the bullet make the heavy penetrate less, or alternatively, the lighter penetrate less.

For that matter one can take the same weight, same velocity softs and make one penetrate deeper than the other by merely changing its opening charecterisics - which that useless table you provided emphasises.

Geez, though utterly irrelevant to the discussion regarding solids, only, the table you provided contradicts you own theory, don't you realize that?

I sure agree that your theory isn't perfect!!! Especially since it flys in the face of reality.

JPK

quote:

Its pure bull that comparing soft points to solids

JPK

You are missing the point totally. I am not comparing Softs to Solids, that is outrageous. We talk about a simplistic yardstick of Mo/Xsa. And yes different type bullet do have different characteristics, we all know that. That is why they differ in performance - some break up, some lose more weigght, some over-expand or expand to varying degrees and velocity windows differ as well, etc.

If you choose to ignore the relevance, then so be it.

Warrior

I am not ignoring relevance, their is none.

Soft points do not behave like either round nose or flat nose solids. Your recent post confirms your acknowledgement of the obvious.

Your "simplistic yardstick" is just that, and takes into account neither soft point characteristics or solid characteristics.

Moreover, your own most recent post confirms that their is no relevance to even you, "And yes different type bullet do have different characteristics, we all know that. That is why they differ in performance - some break up, some lose more weigght, some over-expand or expand to varying degrees..."

JPK

quote:

Your "simplistic yardstick" is just that, and takes into account neither soft point characteristics or solid characteristics.

Quite so, it is better used in equitable comparisons, as I have hinted previously, meaning that the very same bullet type should be used at different weights. Perhaps you missed this point that I made earlier. Let me quote ... "In comparisons of this sort, we need to keep all variables the same, except the weight of the bullet and its resultant velocity that the case will allow you, to make sure it is an equitable comparison."

Trying to use it across a range of say 20 different bullets made from different materials is not equitable at all. Using it (Mo/Xsa) wisely is still better than saying that velocity as a single entity should be favoured in FN's.

Warrior

JPK

Look at the picture posted above showing the GS Custom solids recovered from elephant. Do they perform like a solid or a soft point? If a solid expands does it act aas a solid or a soft point such as the NF cup point?

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
JPK

Look at the picture posted above showing the GS Custom solids recovered from elephant. Do they perform like a solid or a soft point? If a solid expands does it act aas a solid or a soft point such as the NF cup point?

465H&H

They are solids acting like solids! And they have deformed, just like all solids do at times.

JPK