THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM HUNTING FORUMS
Merry Christmas to our Accurate Reloading Members
Merry Christmas to our Accurate Reloading Members
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting Re: Interesting Article By Kevin Robertson In TARGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: Interesting Article By Kevin Robertson In TAR | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Andy and Norbert - I couldn�t agree more.. Dr.Robertson have many self-invented ideas about penetration and penetration physics. I also disagree in his opinion that "the best thing is if the bullet stops on the off side hide because it has then spended all of its energi inside the animal".. - you will spend as much energi inside the animal (or more) if the same bullet exits the off side. And the animal will die much faster in many instanses and will let out copious amounts of blood making tracking easier... | ||
|
one of us |
Tankertoad: Quote: That is what me upsets. I measured penetration many times and under varying conditions, but I tried to understand my findings and can give some explanations. In two cases I even had the opportunity to watch low velocity big bore shots on elephants. One party failed to get the ele, they always running away despite of good frontal shots, the second party came into deadly trouble and that shouldn�t be the result of such crazy statements. Quote: Will you make me a fool? I didn�t find any reference of the .458 500grs Hornady FMJ. And with softs we have a very different situation and too much variables. DB Bill: Quote: Sorry, but the conditions of K.R.s observations are not well defined and controlled, some only from hearing. And with softs it is more difficult to sort it out. And his calculations make the situation still worse. | |||
|
| one of us |
Interesting article in "The Accurate Rifle" magazine by Kevin Robertson where he examines the effects of rate-of-twist, S.D., bullet weight, and velocity on penetration in large (buff, hippo, and eles) animals using the 375 H&H and the 9.3x62. 1. He believes 375's with a rate of twist of 1:12 over-stabilize the typical 300gr bullets with MV of 2500 fps+ to the point that the yawn induced by this over stabilization limits penetration by causing bullets to deflect more readily on impact....especially close in. This is the reason, he believes, that the typical 9.2x62 with a 1:14 twist shooting a 286gr bullet at or around 2350 fps performs "better" than should be expected....a slower twist and less velocity means less yawl and more penetration. 2. His "remedies" for the 375's are (a) slow the bullet down to around 2300-2350 fps (with the 1:12 twist) or (2) increase bullet weight which increases SD, reduces velocity or (3) rebarrel to a slower twist...1:14 or even 1:16. He makes the statement that, in his experience, the 375 H&H when loaded with a 350gr bullet with a MV of 2300 fps will have a similar visible effect on buff as one of the various 416's using a 400gr bullet at 2400 fps. I thought the article was well thought-out and written and actually builds on some of his earlier statements and articles......as I recall, he said he had killed something like 650 buff with a variety of rifles .... most of them shot with his old 9.3x62. There is also a similar article about velocity vs penetration in the African Hunter magazine I received just today....author was Gayana. | |||
|
one of us |
The calculated penetration indices of the 9.3x62 286 gr. bullet at 2400 fps and the 300 gr. .375 H&H at 2550 fps are similar. I would suspect that bullet construction is also going to have an effect upon penetration, so I hope he was comparing apples to apples. More bullet YAW would tend to decrease penetration. Ganyana's report concluded from tests using the .375 that there is an upper limit to velocity, of 2400 fps, but should have a SD of at least 3 to gain maximum penetraion. Maybe they are the same guy! I also think it is just splitting hairs. But then I don't subscribe to the bullet placement hype either. | |||
|
| one of us |
I am quite sure he�s wrong. Several (incl. Mike LaGrange, The A-Square Company and several on this forum) have tested penetration compared to twistrate. ALL found that a faster twist will give better penetration (like a 1-10" is better than 1-16" in a 458" etc). I agree that increased SD will give better penetration, but regarding velocity , my experience with monolithic solids (not lead-cored solids) is that the higher velocity the better penetration.. | |||
|
| one of us |
Ulrik.....I think the point Robertson was making is that given a reasonable SD (above 0.33 etc) that if you are going to use a "fast" (and this is a relative term) rate of twist then you need to slow the bullet down as it is the faster rotational speed of the bullet that causes the yaw that reduces penetration....not the forward velocity. Kevin Robertson has many qualifications to write about penetration that many don't have so I tend to believe the things he writes. (1) He is a PH....an experienced PH. He has seen and been in on many more dangerous game hunts than most. (2) He is a PH who is also a gun-nut and this is something that isn't true of a lot of PHs. (3) He is a veternarian and understands anatonomy in a way that most do not. His medical training also leads him to be a "scientific" thinker and helps in drawing the correct inferences from occurrences....a diagnosis if you would. I tend to believe those who talk about their experiences with penetration based on observations in game animals rather than those who talk about penetration in wet phone books,dry phone books, wood, sand, ballistic jell-o, steers, hogs or chickens or some magic medium they cooked up. (4) He has written two of the most recent definitive books from Africa.....his small book "Inyati" and his much bigger one "The Perfect Shot" which everyone going to Africa should read. He is a thoughtful and serious man whose ideas should be given thoughtful and serious consideration. I find him extremely creditable but like some say.....that's just my opinion and your mileage may vary. Ganyana's article has some interesting graphs that speak to velocity and penetration. | |||
|
| new member |
I had read stories about PHs loading the .375 down somewhat to reduce bullet failure. I wondered about this and perhaps this article holds the answer. This may make my .376 Steyr a better idea than I originally thought. Anybody know the twist rate applied to this cartridge? I was concerned about a cartridge with less power than my .375 H&H, but I love the fast handling of the rifle. Perhaps I have less to worry about than I thought, particularly considering the good things I have been reading about the 9.3x62 cartridge. | |||
|
| one of us |
Go to www.African-Hunter.com and look for the icon that relates to cartridges...there is an article about the Steyr you might find interesting. | |||
|
one of us |
I have been following Norbert's work with twist and penetration of his SuperPenetrator solid, and his data shows faster twist in his .458s gives increased penetration. Kevin has been on his reduced velocity .375 H&H kick for some years now. I can at least add that KR and Ganyana are not the same person. My opinion is the bullet shape, form and weight distribution have a lot to do with yaw too. It would be an interesting experiment to look at how much yaw you actually get, and how fast it damps out. You might be able to see the effect by shooting through sheets of paper. Time to go get out Mann's The Bullets Flight and look at his methodology.  jim dodd | |||
|
| One of Us |
The 460 wby with a 1:18 twist did not penetrate well, proabably because the slow twist combined with high velocity introduced too much yaw. | |||
|
| one of us |
?????? | |||
|
| one of us |
I can not comment the statements of Robertson, because I have no access to his article and don�t know the experimental sources for his conclusions. But "overstabilisation" is not a physically correct term. Either a bullet is stable or it isn�t. Too little twist will not stabilize the bullet, while too much twist, with some rare exceptions, does little harm. Especially there is no yaw introduced by a faster than optimum twist. The only effect is that the bullet holds a little more its direction relative to the barrel and at the falling branch of the trajectory it shows a very small angle relative to the trajectory. This small angle on impact has no influence on penetration. The faster twist for penetration comes into play in the target (animal). The water vapour in the supercavitation bubble needs more rpm for stabilisation than the optimum twist for air. That is the reason that the hunter needs more twist than the near optimum twist for air, especially with modern heavy monometal bullets. Mostly the normal twist is a good compromise because its twist is more than optimum for air. The optimized twist used by benchrester will give no sufficient penetration for hunting. More on stabilisation for solids. . BTW, K.R. is a very competent veterinarian and PH, but his book shows some errors with respect to physics. | |||
|
| one of us |
I would like to expand a bit on Norbert�s post. Bullet shape is the primary importance to penetration. Where high velo solids get hurt is not from being overly stable, but differential pressure acting on the prolongation of the projectile while penetrating. I would not use the word "axis" as regardless of the projectiles position, its axis will stay the same. Imagine a projectile being pointed, penetrating a buffalo, if we freeze it in time, but not the forces acting on the projectile, we will see that the projectile is imparting pressure on various "sides" of itself(Now bear in mind this is a instantaneous measurement, but becomes summed in its total travel.) if one "side" sees less pressure, the projectile will turn towards that side, conversely the shank will see more pressure and begin to right the projectile again, though because your medium is not consistent it bumps side to side, loosing control. As you have a more obtuse nose, flat nose, or "super cavitation nose" less force will act against the projectile axis because less radial area exist along the length of the ogive. Super cavitations can offset differential pressure somewhat IF IT IS TRAVELING IN A LIQUID... in bone the same differential pressure can exist, but no super cavitation. "Over stablized" projectiles are fine, in fact, better IMO. Why you see less stability in high velo is because of poor design and the fact that as increase your velo the pressure the projectile "sees" exponentially goes up. | |||
|
one of us |
I respect Dr. Robertson, who is a veterinarian (I am married to one). So I am used to deferring to a DVM! Two great books. But he has re-invented physics. Also says that a 300 gr Nosler partition "bounced off" a cape bufalo like a "trampoline." And was dead serious about it. Ive seen dozens of bullets shot at close range with X ray photography at Aberdeen proving grounds and you can very precicely measure yaw at various rates of twist. Much less yaw, especially at close range, with a faster twist. Dr. R likes solids. And loads down the 375 so a solid wont exit a buffalo. Reducing twist will help as the bullet "tumbles" (yaws) faster that way and thereby reduces penetration even further. Many on this forumn have shot more game with premium soft points than Dr. R. I would defer to him on FMJ's, and his recipe while conservative probably works just fine. Even highly stabilized FMJ RN's eventually turn over 180 degrees and end up base forward. Andy | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote:This is true and I was useing what is known as a instantanous measurement as an example. Other then that we agree on the same points. | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, I do not see how that expose contradicts Norbert's explanations. And I do not think that Norbert ever said SD doesn't matter. I believe most agree that SD, bullet stability, bullet shape, and bullet construction all play a part in the ultimate penetration. At very high velocities any bullet material will disintegrate, but to make the claim that KR did that slower velocities result in greater penetration is pretty much irrelevant and to go further that increased yaw from unstablized bullets result in greater penetration is just not true. Even when one tries to use these parameters to maximize penetration, the bottom line in most hunting situations is that every shot is different; sometimes you have great penetration and other times not. I just hope(!) that when it is life or death, the bullet decides to have great penetration that particular day.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf quoted: Quote: My statement is: "In literature we find, following the results of Fackler e.a., the thesis, that all solids must tumble immediatly in an aqueous media (tissue), and would not penetrate sufficient, because the gyroscopic stabilisation in air, caused by the twist, should have no effect in the thousandfold denser tissue. But only solid spitzers in general are unstable in soft media, esp. aqueous tissue, and after travelling a few inches ("narrow channel") they start to tumble." What I meant is, authors following Fackler draw a wrong conclusion. ALF: Quote: I write: "It depends on the media and which of the two basic penetration mechanism is acting." In game bodies we have predominant aqueous tissue and the spitzer will soon become unstable, resulting in inferior penetration.(But may tumble in smaller game just in the vitals and show a deadly effect. see Impala bullets). The flat meplat or better, the Superpenetrating bullet with its cavitation disk will penetrate depending on its construction. The optimized SP has limited penetration with a trade off for more energy dissipation or wounding capability. I have SP types with small disks and adjusted ogives which penetrates extraordinary, but the trade off is a less wounding effect. Ulrik quoted: Quote: Thats very true. You have to take into account the energy dissipation as a function of the bullets path in the animal. If the bullet stops on the off side, most of the energy is applied near the on side and not in the middle where the vitals are located. If the bullet exits on the off side, there is a chance of more energy applied to the vitals. But there is no mathematical model, game tissue is too inhomogeneous and we know nothing about drag functions in different tissues. BTW: This thread is running out of the topic. The question was. Is a faster twist adding more yaw and decreasing penetration? Answer: No Can we increase penetration by lowering the twist? Answer: No. If we want to dicuss other aspects of terminal ballistics: Open a new topic! | |||
|
| one of us |
Can somebody scan this article of K.R. and e-mail it to me? | |||
|
| one of us |
Norbert, I will try to find a copy tomorrow and e-mail the "story" to you. Don't let the turkeys get you down! | |||
|
| one of us |
Norbert, Who would have thought you could get this free! It is in the March 2004 issue at http://www.theaccuraterifle.com/ Just download from there. Cheers. | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Okay... this is all very interesting, but what I REALLY want to know is this: If you hit a buffalo in the shoulder with a 300 gr partition, at about 2500FPS, will the buff die? | |||
|
| one of us |
Have you not learned anything from this post?  A 300 gr. Swift at 2550 fps, into a buff's chest, and it dies!  Try to keep up. | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
This sounds like a John Kerry speech....spin, spin, spin. Bringing soft point bullet behavior into this is like totally irelevant man! | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: This is an interesting discussion. I am wondering, though, how the statement "but to make the claim that KR did that slower velocities result in greater penetration is pretty much irrelevant..." could be true if the subject is penetration. KR's "claim" that slower velocities result in greater penetration, when some other factors are considered, is substantiated by results from another respected and interested party. With apologies to the author of a discussion on that subject, I have deleted and modified some apparently incendiary terms from his discussion to prevent explosive diatribes from some on this board. His abridged paragraph follows: "Very interestingly, if one takes the Hornady 500-grain .458 diameter solid bullet and compares the penetration that results from impact speeds varying from about 1500-fps to 2500-fps, one finds that the higher impact speeds produce the least penetration. When driven to about 1500-fps one finds that such solids produce nearly 6-feet of penetration in a wet medium (for the purpose of accurate comparisons). When the same bullet is driven to about 2100-fps (as is characteristic of the 458 Winchester Magnum) one finds that the penetration is reduced to about 4 to 4 and 1/2 feet. When one tests the same bullet at 2300-2400 fps (as is characteristic of the 458 Lott) one finds that the penetration comes up nearly 20% short of that produced by the 458 Winchester. And when one tests the same bullet at the blistering speeds characteristic of the mighty 460 Weatherby Magnum, one finds that the penetration achieved is the most shallow produced by the various 458s. What is apparent from testing is that penetration stops increasing at impact speeds above about 1250-1300 fps. When the impact speeds significantly surpass about 1600-fps, there is a very definite and measurable decrease in penetration depth. This raises some interesting issues regarding the relationship between kinetic energy generation and impact-effect. Although higher velocity projectiles always generate more kinetic energy they clearly do not produce deeper penetration, and when the velocities reach the levels common to today's magnums, the increases in velocity result in significantly reduced penetration. Simply stated, the faster they strike the faster they stop. If the builders of the various 458 Magnum calibers would simply advocate driving the heaviest bullets their calibers can push to about 1500-1600 fps, the super-powerful magnums would produce penetration depth unobtainable with 500-grain solid bullets at any speed. A 650-700 grain 458 solid at 1550-fps from the magnum 458s would produce penetration that would clearly redefine the 458 Magnums. However such an increase in bullet weight would require faster twist barrels and would certainly bring howls of protest from those who purchased 458 Magnums previously, since those guns would require rebarreling (to increase the twist rate for bullet stabilization) in order to accommodate the heavier (meaning longer, which requires more rapid rotation for stabilization) bullets." These results confirm the essence of some of the statements by KR. There is more to the PENETRATION question than faster and faster velocity, with the associated increase in muzzle energy as computed using KE=1/2MV2 (since I don't have super-script capability, to clarify, kinetic energy equals one-half the product of the mass times the square of the velocity, Newton's equation, rather than Einstein's, which was a very special, derived result of Newton's work). Muzzle energy as a determinant in penetration is skewed to favor velocity due to the need to square the velocity to arrive at the result. Now, as KR mentioned, muzzle energy DID knock that buffalo unconscious, but it did NOT produce the penetration necessary to reach a lethal site and kill. His wise decision to use another shot to the vitals saved experiencing a nasty reawakening. With all other variables constant, it is apparent that a somewhat reduced-velocity bullet would have reached the brain. Regards | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, read what I said and also look at my website. Quote: NO! I referred only to a situation quoted in the first post of altering in one direction. Starting with a normal twist, increasing it will increase penetration, decreasing will result in less penetration. Quoting "home.snafu....." Quote: LM was one of the authors saying RN bullets tumble as described in the Fackler reports. He was always promoting the theory of "shoulder stabilisation", which is a wrong one. | |||
|
| one of us |
Will....your comment about bringing "softs" into the discussion being irrevelant is mistaken. If you read the article he talks about several softs he has used that demonstrate the effects he is writing about. Alf has certainly high-lighted an area I was less than clear about....the term I used loosely was "over-stabilized" and by this I meant that a bullet was rotating faster than needed for stability while on the way from the barrel to the target. I find it entirely plausible that when a projectile hits something the rotational speed (if it's spinning) will have an effect on how the bullet reacts. There are many examples that come to mind....and none of them may be applicable but consider just two....(1) an electric drill operated at various speeds and (2) a simple child's toy like a spinning top...touch it when it's spinning quickly and see what happens compared to the effect after it has slowed a bit. I'm a little old-fashion and tend as I said before to have faith in field results if they are extensive and reported by a reliable source even if he doesn't have a complete grasp of the details of the variables...which are many as we know........personally I think what the animal is doing when struck has a great deal to it's reaction to the shot. Was he dozing, grazing, thinking about jumping a near-by cow, worried about lions, aware of the hunters, etc etc. | |||
|
| one of us |
When you get right down to it, penetration worries for buffalo are pretty much wasted time. Like smallfry said, you shoot 'em and they fall over dead, eventually. Usually, with solids, the bullets fly through a buff, at least on broadside shots, which is a good reason not to use them. I don't know what KR is shooting, or much care (sorry), but I have never seen a problem with penetration on buffalo. | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I'm not sure I buy this argument against the 600+ grain bullet. A 600 gr hard-cast lead bullet would be approximately 38.5mm in length, not far from the length you illustrate. Now, I'm no ballistician, but it certainly seems feasible to me, that this bullet could be driven to adequate velocity from a .458 case. Each 10 mm of hard-cast lead .458 bullet length adds about 150 grains in weight, some of which would doubtless be forward of the crimp groove, and some aft of it. By adequate velocity, I mean 1500 - 1600 fps. Cast bullets usually generate less pressure than an equal weight jacketed-monometal bullet. A 500 gr jacketed .458 magnum load of 58.5 gr of H4198 produces 1987 fps. A heavier cast bullet would use less charge weight, so the decreased case capacity might not be such a significant problem. A rifle designed to chamber such a round would doubtless "redefine" the .458 magnum, and its ability to penetrate. But the argument is not just about the .458 magnum. This same reasoning would apply to the 458 Lott, the performance of which would also be enhanced, as to penetration, with a 600 - 700 gr bullet at 1500 - 1600 fps. Regards | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
"Monometal brass bullet does not equate to a cast bullets." That's why I specified "cast". "For equal weight the cast bullet is shorter than the brass bullet, always." Correct. "Furthermore a hard cast bullet will not have the tensile strength needed to withstand stresses of velocities generated by full loads in any of the 3 common versions of the 458. Also no matter how hard you cast it it is classified as a "forgiving material bullet" thus engraving by the rifling does not raise pressure to the extent of the monometal brass bullets." As I mentioned, and some have proven, you don't need the velocities of current "full" loads to achieve the necessary penetration. Hard cast may be considered by some as a "forgiving material bullet", but is it really, at the velocities I am talking about? The reduced pressure is a positive attribute, and weight retention and resistance to deformation at the velocities I am referring to has proven to be exceptionally good. Some pretty amazing things are being done with "cast" bullets these days, even though the technology is what, 175 years old. I would be very interested to see a penetration test done with any .458 Win mag "monometal" of any weight at what is considered "current full loads" against a hard cast 600 - 700 gr .458 Win mag bullet propelled to the 1500 - 1600 fps range. Regards | |||
|
| one of us |
"Solids fly through them and thats a good reason not to use them?" I think not. I will take a flat nose solid over any of the new super duper softs or monolithics...I want two holes in my Buffalo as that lets blood shoot out both sides and if one is hunting the high grass, then one can follow a blood trail without looking for blood, therefore he can concentrate on what is in front of him..I have soaked my pants in blood following Buffalo in the high grass, fortunatly most of them expired after about a 50 to 100 yard run, if I did my part... If the bullet stops on the off side all you get is nose and mouth blood and that can be very little sometimes... I see very little difference in the time it takes a flat nose solid or a soft to kill a Buffalo, its about the same as far as I can tell...and anyone that has actually used both will tell you the same thing.. The smaller the caliber the more important it is to use a solid on Buffalo... As to the rest of the article and Robertsons comments, I have determined that his synopsis has merit, but I'm not sure that I totally agree with him...I suspect the truth like most things lies somewhere in between.... | |||
|
| one of us |
As this thread is now developing to unrealistic myths, I would like to press the ignore button. But after reading the article from K.R. I will make some comments: Quote K.R.: Quote: Any bullet leaving the muzzle yaws. A greater rotational velocity than needed for stabilization in air will not increase yaw. Why should it be and where are the sources for this statements? And there is no correlation to the behavior at impact and in the tissue. Bullets fired from rifles follow general rules of physics and behave like gyroscopes. The angular motion of these bullets can be understood as a superposition of two oscillations, precession and nutation. We call it yaw. Practically all bullets are statically stable, they behave like a gyroscope and do not tumble in air. A dynamic stability is also practically existing. Dynamic stability means, the yawing motion will be damped, and even after a transient disturbance and certain traveling distance, the yaw will practically be zero. Normally, stability increases with distance, because the loss in rotational velocity is far less than the loss of the directional velocity. However, dynamic stability is not automatically guaranteed. Some bullets may loose dynamic stability during flight after being decelerated and going subsonic. Quote K.R.: Quote: Here K.R. is right. But this holds for all big bore calibers and is not exclusively observed with the .375. Quote K.R.: Quote: The multiplying of energies and the calculations that follow make no sense and are physically incorrect as using Einstein�s formula. Anybody may interpret his observations in his own framework, but the gain in penetration of common big bore calibers with increasing twist is well documented, e.g. by Andy in this thread. But what me really upsets are cited in the post of Tankertoad: Quote: Who has measured this "new physics"? It must be very deviated conditions, not comparable to hunting needs? And why didn�t cartridge manufaturers discovered this before? BTW: The stability and related penetration is not as simple as discussed sometimes in this thread. As shown in my website the penetration in animals is determined by the stability of the supercavitation bubble in the tissue. At close quarters this bubble cann�t established reliable by conventional RN solids. Faster twist and flat noses help. The SuperPenetrator concept is not introducing additional forces to increase penetration at the end of its travel, but only to maintain the stability of the supercavitation bubble at longer distances, so increasing penetration ability. And especially under this conditions a faster twist is very useful. | |||
|
| one of us |
Norbert, You are correct in that it is sometimes better to just ignore this "stuff." Sometimes the pseudo-science reigns supreme, but it does not make it correct. Keep the faith.  | |||
|
one of us |
With all due respect to Doktari, my one experience with buff with a 375 loaded with 300gr bullets at 2400fps met with poor results. Kind of felt like I was taking on an Abrahms tank with an M16. The softs did not give adequate penetration. The 350's sound like they ought to be the ticket tho. | |||
|
| one of us |
"But what me really upsets are cited in the post of Tankertoad: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...if one takes the Hornady 500-grain .458 diameter solid bullet and compares the penetration that results from impact speeds varying from about 1500-fps to 2500-fps, one finds that the higher impact speeds produce the least penetration........What is apparent from testing is that penetration stops increasing at impact speeds above about 1250-1300 fps. When the impact speeds significantly surpass about 1600-fps, there is a very definite and measurable decrease in penetration depth. A 650-700 grain 458 solid at 1550-fps from the magnum 458s would produce penetration that would clearly redefine the 458 Magnums. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who has measured this "new physics"? It must be very deviated conditions, not comparable to hunting needs? And why didn�t cartridge manufaturers discovered this before?" I'm sorry this upsets you so, Norbert, but this is NOT "new physics". Even though I have a degree in Physics, I understand that, sometimes, experimental results force one to revise thinking, re-evaluate formulas, and arrive at new conclusions. You'll have to ask the manufacturers' marketing people why they market "bigger, faster, supposedly better", and why a gullible public always falls for it. The proof that reduced velocities, down to a lower limit, increase penetration has been empirically demonstrated. "Empirically", for those who don't know, means through actual experiment in controlled conditions for comparative purposes. No, wet paper does not behave exactly like flesh, sinew and bone, but it offers a consistent medium for COMPARISON. And before anyone says it, bone is NOT "solid". As I discovered while sifting through destroyed aircraft for parts and human remains, if you find a piece of charred material that you suspect is bone, you break it, and look inside. If it is "solid", it is definitely NOT bone. If it has a honeycomb structure, obviously not solid, it IS probably bone. With that said, go to the following web site and analyze the data for yourself: www.seahook.com/bestbullet.jpg . Also, see what that heretic Randy Garrett has proven about velocity and penetration. Once again, IF PENETRATION IS THE GOAL, THEN MORE AND MORE VELOCITY IS NOT THE ANSWER, at least not with the bullet materials currently at our disposal. Hopefully, those who continually mention using the "ignore" button will ACTUALLY USE IT, and those who are interested in discussing this interesting phenomenon can discuss it without having to listen to what amounts to "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up". One's eyes can be opened, but one cannot be made to see. Regards | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote: This toad guy is a poser who does not have a degree in physics (likely not anything else for that matter), and swallows the Garrett B.S. hook, line and sinker. Wet newspaper! How many times does that crap need to be debunked? Could this fellow be a friend or relative of the famous R.G.? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting Re: Interesting Article By Kevin Robertson In TAR
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
