quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
... the GSC HV or Barnes TSX (copycat)

Inferior copy, if I may interject.

Almost every bullet out there will work just fine, if the shooter does his job and puts it where it counts.

All the rest of this is like calculating how many angels may dance on the head of a pin.

MR
What brand of pin????

Norbert wrote:

quote:

Insurance lung/heart shot on a dead ele always exited with my .458 Lott SuperPenetrator ( FN solid). The crew tried to recover the bullet in the ground, but with no success.

What are the % chance that your SuperPenetrator may lose it's added-on frontal disc when large game is shot with it?

If it does happen, will that affect the bullets ability to penetrate negatively in large game like ele or hippo, etc.?

.

Alf,

You still have your homework cut out for you! Please explain how a hole in an animal larger than the diameter of the bullet is NOT a permanent wound cavity. And please point out which, if any, of your cited references deal with the behavior of FLAT NOSED SOLIDS in FLESH at RIFLE VELOCITIES (2000 to 3000 fps).

The Barnes TSX is inferior to the GS Custom HV because the Barnes bullet is grooved rather than using thin driving bands. The Barnes bullet will develop more pressure with the same powder charge (due to more pressure required to engrave it) and will leave more fouling in the bore (more contact area). A fellow at Barnes told me they went with this design to keep production costs low (and profits high). Personally I would prefer to purchase the best bullet out there rather than the one which is most economical to produce.

A comparison of the Barnes TSX to the North Fork FN or the Norbert SuperPenetrator is not appropriate as they were designed for different applications.

.

.

Alf,

If observed results don't fit within the predicted results the theory needs revision. You are trying too hard to explain away results that really should have you doubting the theory as it applies to flat nose solid bullets at rifle velocities.

Muscle only retracts if it is cut across the grain. If muscle retraction was a significant cause of larger wound channels then every wound channel in muscle would be oblong.

JPK

By ALF

quote:

Before we proceed ! and this is very important, you and other seem to revert back to: "but the aritlce refres to hangun bullets or military bullets" or the velocity range was not what we are discussing here is not as it is in the article" That is why we have principles and modelling ! Physical events follow definite models that are applicable across the board!

As some one who has developed and published research based models in peer reviewed journals I believe the above statement is over simplifed and misleading, if not down right wrong.
Models have definite limitations. To use a model to predict untested variables is bad science. Even to use a model to predict variable behavior beyond the tested variable limits is done but it only gives you an estimate of how that variable may perform at untested levels. Commonly when you do this the CI of the estimates are so wide as to make any model predictions an exercise in futility.

465H&H

.

Here is something else to argue about. Wound channels rule!

http://www.thebullettesttube.com/index/index.html

You're on your own with that guy's fingernails.

Alf,

Your list omits cavitation. And none of the listed mechanisms fully explains the size and shape of the permanent wound channel. Assume that the wound channel is 6 inches wide at its maximum (I have actually seen torn lung tissue as much as 5 or 6 inches from the bullet path which would make the channel 10 or 12 inches wide). We know that bullet yaw did not reach out 3 inches to each side. And if the bullet is recovered and not expanded or fragmented then we rule out the other 2 wounding mechanisms from your list. And we are left with cavitation as the only viable theory.

I am disregarding secondary projectiles of bone because the same results as far as wound channel size are seen when bone is not hit.

Perhaps you do not like the term 'cavitation'. If not, we could call it something else, such as a bullet-induced fluid wave through the tissue.

After WWll all of the 06 ammo & rifles left behind were used to take every critter on the african continent,armor piercing ammo would work quite well and fmj also.

.

quote:

So if you shoot a hole in muscle there is retraction and the hole becomes bigger.

This answer was a lot simpler than I expected.

Your explanation about 'muscle' being quasi- elastic or pseudo-elastic and its behaviour was quite interesting.

Chris

The solution is therefore quite simple. We need a new word, or someone must tell us what the appropriate word is, to describe the phenomenon we all know exists (and currently call cavitation / cavity) when talking about larger than caliber holes in tissue. This will enable us to say correctly:

(New word) is the phenomenon where small and largely empty cavities are generated in a soft solid or in tissue, which expand to large size and then rapidly collapse, producing a sharp sound. (New word) occurs in soft solids and tissue, if a stress is applied to a solid ( penetrating trauma = compression loading ) , in this case a biovisco- elastic solid the solid will deform ( strain) untill the elastic limits are breeched, at that point the solid fails and fractures leaving behind broken up tissue or material, a (new word) if you may but not as you envisage.

The rule: As per Hollerman and others:

Only tissue directly impacted by the stressor breaks up: in the case of muscle and all tissue directly contacted by the frontal area of the projectile will be devitalized ! As shown by electron microscopy This is valid irrespective of projectile shape.

Tissue outside of the direct contact area will be pushed aside and stretched, forming a temporary (new word). If the elastic properties of the tissue outside the contact area is such that it can withstand the stress it will not fracture and will return to its former pre stress state. If it has poor cohesion as in brain it will fail and will ad to the permanent (new word). In some tissues with high fluid content the tissue barriers will be broken by the pressure wave propagated in the relatively incompressable fluid and usally are seen as radial tears or fracture lines in the tissue resulting in a permanent (new word) that is larger than the caliber used. The higher the speed, the larger the temporary (new word) and the more it ads to the volume of the permanent (new word).

In a pure elastic tissue the rate of deformation on loading = rate of deformation on unloading. Muscle does not do this, it is Quasi- elastic ( pseudo-elastic) in that rate of deformation on loading does not equal rate of deformation on unloading causing the temporary (new word) to ad to the permanent (new word).

There. Done and dusted, problem solved. All we need is new word so that we do not have to use the "c" word when referring to soft solids or tissue.

Now we can talk about the fact that round leading shapes are less efficient at creating large temporary (new word plural) than vertical faces on leading shapes.

.

Hey Guys!



All in good fun .. of course!

Yes but then the explanation at least fits observed results.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Nickudu:
Hey Guys!
...
All in good fun .. of course!

I don't think I've seen that one since I used to read HuntAmerica!

.

Alf,

quote:

We are talking of two fundmantally different events here. Cavitation in fluids differ fundamantally from cavitation when it comes the solid impact science.

No question about that and that is what we have been trying to tell you. Although both events differ in how they occur, both do exist. What I do not understand is why you acknowledge cavitation in soft solids on the one hand, as in the quote above, and then deny its existence elsewhere.

When it is said that bullets that are fired into water bear a remarkable resemblance to bullets recovered from game, what is meant is exactly that. No one is saying that water reacts as tissue would, we are saying the bullet acts in water as it would in tissue to a certain extent. When bullets are tested on fired clay bricks, we are saying the bullet acts in a similar manner as one fired on heavy bone would, and not that bricks and bone are similar in reaction when struck by a bullet.

A solid, non deforming bullet fired into tissue at speeds over 2400 fps, consistently leaves a permanent hole larger than caliber. The hole size can be made bigger and smaller by changing the nose shape. Small hole with pointy bullets, bigger hole as the shape approaches a cylinder shape. Push the speed up and the hole gets bigger. If the bullet fragments, the hole changes shape and gets bigger. Slow the bullet down to handgun speeds and use a round nose and the hole starts becoming smaller than caliber. Telling me this is not so, denies what I have seen since I started hunting in 1958.

I just returned from elephant hunting with Myles McCallum in Chewore South in Zimbabwe.I shot my bull (55#) and backed up on a wounded crop raider (40#) the next day.Both were shot with a .416 Rem using GS Custom 410 gr. flat nose solids. Both wre shot through the heart/lungs and both bullets penetrated completely and exited. Two finishing shots were measured at 60" penetration (frontal brain into body and high hip into spine). The load chronographed at 2415 fps on a 90 degree S. Texas day.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana dogo:
I just returned from elephant hunting with Myles McCallum in Chewore South in Zimbabwe.

Congratulations on your hunt -- I believe I saw your pictures on their web site.

quote:

Norbert wrote:

quote:
Insurance lung/heart shot on a dead ele always exited with my .458 Lott SuperPenetrator ( FN solid). The crew tried to recover the bullet in the ground, but with no success.

1. What are the % chance that your SuperPenetrator may lose it's added-on frontal disc when large game is shot with it?

2. If it does happen, will that affect the bullets ability to penetrate negatively in large game like ele or hippo, etc.?

Norbert's reply to the above two questions:

quote:

1. The SuperPenetrator is a design concept. If it is made from brass with an integrated disk, there is no deformation or loosing the disk. If it is made from soft copper with an additional iron disk, it can happen, that on bone etc. the bullet will compress a little, like other FN copper solids like GS custom FN. In this case the disk may loosen a little but only can separated when it comes to rest.
2. No.

Norbert.

quote:

In 2005 a very large culling operation was done in the lower Lupande area in Zambia on hippo. It was done under the supervision of PH Hanke Hudson. He reported as follows on SuperPenetrator solids:
Two .470 calibre bullets recovered may have lost their disks upon contact with the hippo. This can be indicative of the fact that the method used to attach the disk to the bullet was not really working and that another method should be used. Apart from this the bullets themselves showed no deformation. Given the manufacturer's claim that the disk actually promotes stability with the animal the question arises whether these bullets remained stable within the hippos they were fired into due to the bullets losing the disks.

After this report on hippo results with SuperPenetrators one gets the idea that the outright "No" answer above leaves a lot of unanswered questions on penetration ability by these bullets.

quote:

Jagter,

"Two .470 calibre bullets recovered may have lost their disks upon contact with the hippo."

Two of about 20, not at "contact", but during recovering. (Report doesn't say so, unless you have more information at hand - if so, please post full report here on AR.)

"...the question arises whether these bullets remained stable within the hippos they were fired into due to the bullets losing the disks."

Why? They lost the disk only at the end of it´s path. In the worst case they are acting like other soft copper FN bullets e.g. GS Custom FN, Bridger. (Again, refer note in blue above.)

"After this report on hippo results with SuperPenetrators one gets the idea that the outright "No" answer above leaves a lot of unanswered questions on penetration ability by these bullets."

The report claims excellent results on hippo. (Again, in the bit reported nothing to that effect is said - post full report.)
Pls give some of the "lot of questions".
Did you try any?

One question may be: Can we use this bullet with harder copper in doubles? That was the reason Hanke should use the soft copper ones.

Norbert.

What else was said in this report - why can't we see it all?

Kathi wrote:

quote:

Rock chip killed teen hunter
05/06/2006 22:23 - (SA)

Maike Currie , Die Burger


East London - A ricocheting rock fragment, not a bullet from a hunting rifle, killed 16-year-old Ryan Dankwerts during a hunting trip on Saturday.

Ryan's father, John, said on Monday a post-mortem had found that a rock fragment hit his son under the ear.

Ryan was one of a group of 13 relatives and friends who went hunting on his uncle's farm, Waterfall, to celebrate the start of the new hunting season last Saturday. He died instantly after being hit by the ricochet.

Dankwerts said: "No one can be blamed for my son's death. It was a freak accident."

The freak accident happened when the group of hunters spotted a bushbuck and all shot at the animal.

Jagter wrote:

quote:

Só, there will always be secondary projectiles when a bullet impacts on an animal and what myself, 500grains and others are seeing will always be a larger than calibre size permanent wound channel. FACT!

I think most of us do not realise how powerful the acceleration/Action forces brought about by the combustion process actually are. A small accellerated fragment of solid tissue, tendon or bone can be as damaging to flesh as the impacting bullet itself.

The first part quoted above is once again proof of how powerful secondary projectiles actually are, powerful enough to kill!
How sad it may be in this specific case, but let us never doubt that FACT ever again.

Originally posted by RIP:

"... the GSC HV or Barnes TSX (copycat)"

500 grains responded;

"Inferior copy, if I may interject."

I tihnk the Barnes is inferior to the GS and NF solids for 5-6 reasons.

No. 1. Is the material of the Barnes solids which appears to have a high zinc content. this makes it resist compression more than many other copper alloys.

No. 2 this alloy is less dense than the GS and NF solids which is apparent by the relative length of each bullet. (The longer the bullet the more rotational velocity it needs to stabilize).

No. 3 the meplat is a RN-FN configuraiton rather than a truncated cone FN. The truncated cone (TC-FN) leaves a larger permanant wound cavity in living animals than a RN-FN. (See my earlier post on shooting cattle).



Pictured: Perfect un-deformed 450 grain .458 NF-FN taken from elephant at 2550 fps.

No. 4 The TC-FN may be more effective creator of super cavitation than a RN-FN. Gerard and Norbert have covered this in past years discussions.

No.5 In the 4 rifles I have tried them, the GS and NF always have less metal fouling than a Barnes, whether it is banded or not. Usually much less metal fouling.

No. 6 The Barnes have always penetrated less for 500 grains in his head-on elephant tests, regardless of caliber.

No. 7 Reliabilty of feeding between the new banded FN Barnes and current NF and GS are similar in my rifles.

Taken together, why would anyone who can afford an African safari, and lives in a country where these bullets are available, not use a NF or GS?

Andy

No arguments there.
The Barnes TSX "soft" may be an inferior substitute for a GSC HV or North Fork SP, however:

The Barnes "Banded" Ogive-flatnose Brass solid is no substitute at all for a GSC FN or North Fork FP SOLID.

Just a little mixing of apples and oranges for the sake of stirring the pot, eh Andy?

.

Alf,

I would not say that taking a photo of a recovered bullet in the feild was "staged." I would just say it is a photograph!

Maybe you can show us some of your photographs of bullet wounds showing a SWC or TC-FN that created a less than diameter sized hole?

The bullets actual resting place can be seen in the lower right hand corner of the photograph. This was a post mortem "finishing" shot of over 60 inches shooting down through the head of the elephant.

Myles McCallum's well known, respected, and experienced tracker Criten placed the bullet next to where he found it in the sternum for me to take a picture.

Neither of us were suggesting that a skinned elephant was a wound channel!



All of us anxiously await photos of your own recovered FN, RN, and SWC bullets. Especially those which have a less than diameter sized wound channel.

Andy

Alf,

I got the idea that the picture of the bullet was merely taken as it lay on the carcass, put there after recovery. I didn't pick up any implication that it was a picture "as found" during the recovery of the bullet, at the termination of the wound chanel - or lying next to it.

But that was my read and I don't see see a wound chanel either.

JPK

OOPS, Andy beat me to it, and makes clear that how I read his post and saw the photo were right.

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Andy:

If you see larger than caliber holes in the animals you shoot then by implication it means that the projectile was not stable, did expand, did fragmeent or did generate secondary projectiles.

Alf, didn't you learn anything the last time we went through this? The larger than diameter wound channels are caused by supercavitation. Plain and simple.

.

Alf,
You just reported that human femurs disintegrate explosively when nondeforming projectile velocities exceed a certain point, and you admit that the marrow and blood fluids are involved in this. Lower velocity projectiles drill subcaliber holes due to temporary cavitation/elasticity of the "solid" bone, you say? Some fluid dymamics and secondary missile effects in this "solid," eh?

It would be hard to find any truly solid tissue in a live game animal, other than maybe the dead keratin of hoof, horn or claw, enamel of teeth or antler tips about to be shed (dry, dead bone). Live bone has nutrient vessels and blood flowing through it.

I have no problem believing that I cannot classify living tissue as either pure solid, or pure fluid, for that matter.

Some degree of explosive wounding "cavitation" is obviously going on here, whether "super" or not may just be semantics. And "temporary" versus "permanent" cavitation is also just a matter of "degree."

Everything is relative, there are no absolutes, and it depends: Old Viking Law applies to solid versus semisolid versus fluid in live game, when primary AND secondary missiles are involved.

I do find it strange that a mummy is still 60% water. That means that equal percentages of the nonaqueous and aqueous substances evaporated, drained, or were dissolved away by the mummification process. Does this mean that some solids were behaving like fluids.

.

Alf,
Your rigorous approach to this "stuff" is greatly appreciated by many here, I am sure, who have learned a lot from it, whether they will admit it or not .

.