The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting Penetration/ sectional density / VelocityGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Penetration/ sectional density / Velocity | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
...even mere "gunscribes" aren't safe from your wrath ...  | |||
|
| One of Us |
So then a soft point or solid is determined by what we want it to do rather than what it does do?  465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
Warrior, Congratulations, you have come full circle, from trying to draw inferences regarding momentum and solid bullet penetration from eight or nine different 9.3 soft point bullets of various constructions at a variety of velocities and or four weights to now saying that only like bullets can be compared. Which is it? Can't be both, and they are mutually exclusive. Either inferences on solid bullet penetration you draw from penetration data on widely disimilar soft point bullets in disimilar weight at disimilar velocities is relevant as you claimed when you posted the data, "The effect of over-expansion , weight loss and lower bullet weight (ie lower momentum) in these results can be seen clearly." , or it is irrelevant because "...we need to keep all variables the same, except the weight of the bullet and its resultant velocity... to make sure it is an equitable comparison." If you need help, and it seems you do, here is the answer I provided to you more than two days ago, in this thread: "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." JPK  Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
That's the way its been for a hundred years or so, isn't it? But, do be confused by the notion of what "we want". From a solid, we want penetration, how it gets that penetration is the bullet makers business! I know you abhor expansion in a solid bullet. But Gerrard doesn't and rather embraces it. We both know his bullets penetrate extremely well. eh? More than one way to skin a cat. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
I don't know that they do (or did) from personal experience but I respect your and 500 grains observations that they did. I do questions whether they still will given the deformation we are currently seeing. You are correct in that I want a solid not to deform. I don't trust those that do. Life is to short to take that chance when there are solids available that are less likely to deform. 465H&h | |||
|
| One of Us |
I respectfully disagree, but as you say .... "I BELIEVE ..... " This is not proven, it is what you believe, right? Now RIP did a test with the 300 gr FN and the 270 gr FN (ie 10% less in weight) and he proved the opposite. Perhaps you should do your own controlled testing and then publish the facts. In fact it can be done with 3 calibers, just to widen the experiment: 458 Win .... 500 gr vs 450 gr .375 H&H ... 300 gr vs 270 gr 9,3x62 mm .. 260 gr vs 230 gr Then the following might reveal itself .... especially if you load for maximum velocity when you use the copper GSC=FN bullet rather than a brass bullet ... the lighter bullet that is driven faster will expand more (increased XSA) than the heavier but slower bullet. And what will happen to penetration if this happens? If you want to optimise penetration, you need a non-expanding Solid (its XSA should not increase). You may think this is all theory, but go try it and report back. In Dan's test the .366/260 gr GSC-HV bullet retained 76.9% or 200 grains. If we KEEP the loss ratio the same with the 230 gr version the retained weight will only be 176.9 grains with resultant lower TERMINAL MOMENTUM. Relative speaking, the 286 gr Barnes -X performed much better than the GSC-HV bullet, as it retained 100% of its weight instead of 76.9% and a head start of 26 grains in weight despite a lower velocity. This should also tell you something. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Really? would not the 300gn require a tighter twist than 1:10 to achieve the same SF as 270gn with 1:10 twist? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Sure - would you like to quantify that so you can see why it's a pointless discussion like most of the content in these threads...??  | |||
|
| one of us |
I's been quantified at least once before. See RIP's testing. Dan's testing is merely reporting on the performance of different bullets. They are softs, and they are not relevant, they tell me nothing and moreover, they tell you nothing, whether you realize that or not. {BTW, another case of you comparing softs to solids and trying to extend (erroneous) conclusions regarding one to the other, eh?} For a long time I thought Gerard was being unduly hard on your ridiculous, contradictory babling because I thought that you didn't get it but were sincere and that with time you would learn. Maybe not agree, but learn, so that your arguments, theories, citations wouldn't be so tiresome, contradictory and confused. Now I understand his frustration. I now see you do not comprehend that you have contradicted yourself at all, that you have refuted your own argument. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H I am actually relying on Dan's experience regarding the GS Custom's, though as you know, not the all but the same North Forks. All copper, driving band, truncated cone, flat nose solids. A mouthful. I don't think the deformation you are seeing is new. I would bet a dollar to a donut (hmm, not the odds today that that bet once offered) that the Woodleigh offerings would be bent like bananas and riveted too, if they has hit the ele's leg bone, as the one GS Custom did. And it went on through and killed the ele to boot. I don't think a Woodleigh could do that. I have a box full of bent, split, flattened steel jacket solids. I've never had one that didn't penetrate straight, as you know, but I've had a bunch tumble, and they essentially cease penetrating when they tumble. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'll save you the time - the delta = 1/2" of twist or so. Like I said much to do about nothing as usual. | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, I feel sorry that you feel this way boet. Incessant efforts to ridicule one's opponent is not the way a confidant person tackles an issue. This is not the way to persuade. Stay with facts and logic, they are much more powerful, rather than heavy reliance on caricature to try to sustain one's position. Farewell and be good. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Don't bet on it! I have taken three elephants with Woodleighs that have penetrated leg bones. On one, the bullet continued on through the heart and the other two were effectively disabled and couldn't walk. The bullets continued on through the lungs and they probably would have died from the wound but quick follow up shots to the head actually killed them. I didn't want to wait and see. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
That is good news on the Woodleighs. The Woodleigh one I recovered from the tusk/tusk socket looked like something only Chakita Brands could love. Riveted and bent too. It hink there is a point where all solids will fail, and that that point is where the bone or ivory doesn't yeild. For example, you cite your Woodleighs, which broke leg bones and continued on into the heart or lungs. Gerrards bullet did the same thing, breaking a leg and then penetration through the heart. But I have a North Fork and a Woodleigh neither of which made it through the tusk and tusk sockets and both of which look like bananas with riveted ends. So the leg bones yielded, the tusk and socket did not. For the solid encountering the yielding, albeit tough and hard leg bone, you have success, both in breaking the leg bone and in penetrating into the vitals thereafter. For the solid encountering the unyeilding tusk and socket, the solid did the yeilding and took the damage. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
I am no longer trying to pursuade you. You have made it clear that fact and logic are lost on you. Your own arguments and the "facts" you claim to be relying on shift as quickly as you post. (I'm referring in particular to changing which set of facts it is that you rely on, not nessecarily that the facts change, though this occurs as well.) For instance in this thread you have gone from "only similar bullet..." to "look at this soft data" to "references to softs are absurd" to "but look at this soft data" to "only similar bullets" to "don't forget this soft data." I am not ridiculing you, you have done that on your own. I am merely pointing it out. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, And you rely on "facts" based on .... "I BELIEVE ..... " That is specualative and not proven fact. Velocity as a sole entity cannot favour FN's - it is not a force ! Go figure. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have never hit a tusk socket to my knowledge so I have no experience with them but from all I have heard there are a whole new world and the only answer is to avoid hitting them. I have passed a couple of times on shots that would have hit the tusk socket. I am glad I did. I only had to wait a moment for a better shot. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
Yes, this is so. I managed to hit them twice - on unessecary insurance shots at that. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
Are you now going to argue that a truncated cone flat nose solid will not out penetrate a same weight, same velocity round nose? (given that each is suitably stabilized.) Oh, please. You know the flat nose will outpenetrate the same weight, same velocity round nose. Ergo, velocity favors the flat nose. Momentum is equal. Stabilization favors the round nose. Flat nose penetration is greater. Your theory fails. The only remaining question is, "How much does velocity favor the flat nose?" Or, drafted for your understanding, "By how much does energy favors the flat nose more than momentum favors the round nose?" JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, You lost me on this one but that is easy to do. You say that given the same caliber, bullet weight and velocity the FN will penetrate further. No argument there. But how does this prove that velocity favors the FN if velocity is the same? 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, You are making your own arguments and twisting things again. Our debate has not been about RN vs FN. It was about light weight FN's vs heavier FN's. It was about momentum, and not about velocity alone, gee-whiz. It was about your statement that velocity favours the lighter lighter FN. Your latest response proves that you are slurring, please put the cork back on the bottle, and go to bed. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H, Two bullets, of equal weight and equal velocity: If momentum is equal, and it is, and stabilization is equal (it actually favors the shorter round nose - thinking Woodleigh), and velocity is equal, and it is, and yet the flat nose penetrates further, then the inescapable conclusion is that velocity favors the flat nose. So the question remains, "If like speed and weight flat noses penetrate further, at what reduced weight - at the same speed - would a flat nose penetrate equally? Since like weight and speed flat noses do penetrate further there is an answer to this question. So, take it a step farther and ask, "Given that, at the same velocity, a lighter weight flat nose solid will penetrate equally to a greater weight round nose solid (since an equal weight FN will penertate further) , how much ligher can the flat nose be and still penetrate the same as the heavier round nose?" The collary is that "Since a lighter flat nose will penetrate equally to a round nose that the same velocity, how much (or less) velocity will make a 10% lighter FN penetrate equally (or more) to a 10% heavier round nose?" JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
So now the debate is about only flat nose solids, eh? But you introduced softs earlier, right, to try to support your faulty theory? Which is it, softs or solids, or flat nose solids only, round nose softs only, round nose solids only? Clearly it is lost on you. To help you out: The debate was about solids. You have tried every which way to promote momentum, but it just doesn't add up. Try this again, and see if it doesn't sink home: Are you now going to argue that a truncated cone flat nose solid will not out penetrate a same weight, same velocity round nose? (given that each is suitably stabilized.) Oh, please. You know the flat nose will outpenetrate the same weight, same velocity round nose. Ergo, velocity favors the flat nose. Momentum is equal. Stabilization favors the round nose. Flat nose penetration is greater. Your theory fails. The only remaining question is, "How much does velocity favor the flat nose?" Or, drafted for your understanding, "By how much does energy favors the flat nose more than momentum favors the round nose?" Your pet theory on momentum is bunk. Mine is supported by RIP's tests, which you cite as refuting the principle, when, in fact, they support my theory that velocity favors the flat nose. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H,
How would you define a soft and a solid? I see the modern rendition of these bullets overlapping in terminal ballistics applications but distinctly separate in external ballistics applications. Fact is that deformation as seen here is uncommon. It is about as far as it will go.  It is however unchanged from the original of 1996/1997.  Fortunately the goalposts have moved or perhaps the goal scorer has become better. What may have been the norm with lead core solids - the less they deform the better the result - does not apply to FN monos made from copper. If you do not trust solids that deform, there are no solids that will fit that definition. There are solids that are harder than GSC FN solids and they will resist deformation at a higher stress level than GSC FN solids, but does that make them perform more reliably up to that level? We have found that they do not, so it is no advantage. One thing remains as fact: When brass solids fail, and there is no denying that they do, they fail catastrophically by breaking or bending and tumbling. At the level where this happens, GSC FNs keep on trucking, ugly appearance and all. Bear in mind that I am not insulated in a little bubble and surrounded only by GSC bullets. I have used, and still use, all types and makes of bullets. Our dealers order and pass on those bullets we are unable to source ourselves. We are very much aware of how we fit into the big picture and we are happy that GSC is in a good position. There was a long range hunting customer in my workshop a while back and he asked what I am doing with all these other brands on my loading bench. Other manufactureres do the same, I am sure. Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris Bek Our FN bullets expand. So, when driven faster, they should penetrate less? Where do you get this BS from? Oh my, that is funny coming from you.  Please stop! You are killing us here! Ah the "twisting it" card. I was wondering when that one will be played. Watch out JPK, the smoke and mirrors one is next. Then you will be accused of Rasputinesque behaviour - careful now! | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, I have given the above statement to you in bold, and can only conclude that you intentionally ignored it, to bolster your argument. That means that we cannot compare RN Solids with FN Solids, as it is not an equitable comparison. Various experiments have shown that FN Solids out-penetrate RN Solids. So that is not even an argument, but it is quite funny that you want to imply that I take issue with it – this is where the fabrication or twisting on your part comes in. I take issue with the statement that a lighter FN bullet is favoured by higher velocity over a heavier FN bullet at lower velocity. And this I have made clear, as I pointed out that is hardly possible in our current ballistic model. However if the same momentum value can be achieved by both bullets, then penetration could be equal provided in-target drag is the same, but this rarely happens, as higher velocity invariable creates higher stagnation pressure and causes more drag. That is why the higher momentum bullet at lower velocity will out-penetrate the lower momentum bullet. Thus, we cannot say that velocity as a sole factor favours penetration with a FN bullet – it is not correct. Velocity is not a force on its own. What we should say is that in-target penetration is favoured by the geometry of the bullet, and that is where the FN bullet will give deeper straight-line penetration than a RN Solid of the same weight in the same caliber. Let me make it even clearer ... at the very same velocity the FN Solid will out-penetrate the RN Solid. That has to do with geometry and not velocity. Lastly, with reference to Gerard’s condescending remarks, I just want to assure you that Gerard is the current bearer of the Rasputin soul and that only passes on death. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
1.) I agree that FN shape favors penetration over the RN. I agree that an equal weight equal velocity FN will outenetrate a RN. THERE GOES YOUR MOMENTUM THEORY! 2.) I agree that at the vaey same velocity a FN will out penetrate a RN. 3.) I agree that it has to do with "geometry", if "geometry = shape. And that is because velocity favors the FN shape. If an equal weight, equal speed FN will outpenetrate an equal weight eaqual speed round nose, then a lighter weight FN at the same speed will equal the RN penetration. This bullet will have less momentum and less energy, and yet it will out penetrate the bullet with more mass, more momentum and more energy. THERE GOES YOUR MOMENTUM THEORY! You can add velocity to the lighter FN and it then will outpnetrate the RN. Add velocity up until moentum equals the heavier RN, or until energy equal that of the heavier bullet. The lighter bullet will further out penetrate the heavier bullet with each fps gain, in defiance of your momentum model. THERE GOES YOUR MOEMNTUM THEORY! Momentum does not account for the improved performance of the FN. Energy does not account for the FN performance. Velocity does. Because the FN shape favors velocity. This is what RIP's test showed when they failed to produce greater penetration with the heavier bullet. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
one of us |
I'm not trying to start more debate - But want to get the issues straighten out for my thinking: So.....When discussing penetration of SOLIDS:
PS: Updated with JPK's & 465H&H's help. Anbody else? ________ Ray | |||
|
| one of us |
Assuming you are taliking about solid bullets: 1. Yes, generally. But as SD in a calibre goes up, so does weight. As weight goes up velocity comes down, if the cartridge was loaded anywhere near potential to begin with. With round noses, generally SD increases in a given calibre- which means weight increases, lead to penetration increases despite velocity loss. Not the case with flat nose solids. 2. Yes as to bending. Yes as to less bending improving avg penetration. Not sure on the angle issue. 3. Nose profile effects penetration, FN's penetrate better than RN's. 4. In all cirucumstances velocity is the driver of solid bullet penetration. Two RN's otherwise the same, the faster will penetrate more. Two FN's, othewise equal, the faster will penetrate further. Deformation or expansion on the order of what is typically seen with copper FN's does not inhibit penetration since it is minimal - nothing like some of the photos shown here. 5. I think the evidence supports this, and always, not just sometimes, so long as twist isn't absurd. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, For your elucidation, the above is one of my previous statements, and it explains/tells you that we can add a further factor to Mo/Xsa to increase penetration by playing with with meplat diameter. If you like, that is an additional button that we can activate, but it does not invalidate the highly positive correlation (not 100% perfect) of penetration to Mo/Xsa. I called it a simplistic technique, knowing full well it is not perfect, but it is the best simple guide available to give us a quick comparison. Again FN to RN Solid comparisons are inequitable, even though it may have the same momentum. That has already been established and and we know it. When Mo/Xsa is used wisely and in an equitable way, it has meaning - much more so than focussing on velocity as the magic key driver. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
RN vs FN comarrisons are valid to prove that your momentum theory is bunk. If your momentum theory held water than bullets of equal momentum would penetrate equally. They do not. Rather, the shape of the bullet has substantial impact on penetration, that is because the FN favors velocity and that is also why a lighter, faster FN can out penetrate both a heavier RN and a heavier FN. See RIP's tests. BTW, velocity typically reduces wetted surface. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Perhaps we need to redifine our definition of solid/soft point bullets or at least add another category. Solids - bullets designed to not have nose deformation in the majority of cases realizing that certain bones may cause any solid to deform to a greater or lesser degree and the lesser the better. i.E. RN steel jacket solids (Woodleigh, old Hornady), FN steel jacketed solids (New Hornady, Speer Tungsten. Sledgehammer), RN brass mono-metal solids (Barnes), and FN mono-metal solids (Barnes, North Fork, Nosler), etc. Soft points - bullets designed to have nose expansion at various rates depending on the size of animal and velocity range of the cartridge in use. I.E. Cup and core softs (Many brands), Partion softs Swift, Nosler, other prewmium softs (Many). Slow expanding solids, Solids designed to have nose expansion at very slow rates and high impact velocities, (GS Custom, NF Cup Point) and maybe Barnes X). Have at it! 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
I guess my problem is that the word "Favor" may not be the best word to describe your point. Within reason both FN and RN solids penetrate better as velocity goes up, therefore they both "Favor" velocity. One more so than the other. Perhaps we should say that FN solids optimize velocity when penentration is the measuring stick. I.E., at the same velocity and bullet mass, the FN solid will penetrate the furthest when compared to other nose shapes, always assuming that nose deformation doesn't occur and hamper penetration. 465H&H | |||
|
one of us |
EZRIDER, You have got alot of opinion here other than what you asked about. The heavier bullet at similar SD will penetrate more than a lighter bullet of similar SD and energy. PM to see my data which is extensive. Andy | |||
|
| One of Us |
Get the RN out of the equation - it is an apples and pears comparison.  The heavier FN , typically the bullet with more momentum will win every time, even though its velocity is lower. That proves that velocity is not favoured in the FN bullet. Velocity is not the ability to do any work (Velocity is merely distance over time). Velocity is a "single item" that you pull out of context, as it has to work with a few other key variables to have any meaning, like mass, form or SD and nose shape. Velocity on its own has no meaning. Go do the tests and come back to us, then we talk again. So my position is still as before ... and I quote ... "I take issue with the statement that a lighter FN bullet is favoured by higher velocity over a heavier FN bullet at lower velocity. And this I have made clear, as I pointed out that it is hardly possible in our current ballistic model. However if the same momentum value can be achieved by both bullets, then penetration could be equal provided in-target drag is the same, but this rarely happens, as higher velocity invariable creates higher stagnation pressure and causes more drag. That is why the higher momentum bullet at lower velocity will out-penetrate the lower momentum bullet. Thus, we cannot say that velocity as a sole factor favours penetration with a FN bullet – it is not correct. Velocity is not a force on its own."  Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
This is so because of more momentum.  Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, Here is a quotation for you ... "Momentum is bullet weight multiplied by bullet velocity. It is probably one of the most important factors to consider when comparing the potential terminal ballistics of different calibres and the different bullets available for a given calibre." Gerard Schultz from GS Custom. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Here is the rest of the paragraph and a link to the whole article, which places the opening sentence in it's correct perspective, not that which the quotation conveys in isolation.
I also came across this in the article:
Tis true that Warrior can only hold one idea in his head at a time. More than one and his eyes and ears disconnect and his system shuts down due to overload. VVarrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Looks like we have the real Warrior and someone who aspires to BE Warrior ...could these bullet threads get anymore asinine ..... | |||
|
| One of Us |
With the two of us here.... only the shadow knows.  VVarrior | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting Penetration/ sectional density / Velocity
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia