quote:

I don't quite follow why SD cannot be used from on caliber to the next.

SD on its own does not tell us the mass and momentum invloved. It is a ratio only, for example:

.416 Rigby .416 Bore --- 370 gr bullet --- SD = .305
.375 H&H - .375 Bore --- 300 gr bullet --- SD = .305
9,3 x 62 --- .366 Bore --- 286 gr bullet --- SD = .305

So with the same SD ratio we have very differnt scenarios and the decision making process does not revolve around the concept of SD - mass is different and so is momentum. Let me quote you a more extreme example - the SD of a 160 grain bullet in a 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser is a 'fantastic' .328 but its mass and momentum is far far lower than the other calibers. That is the danger of using SD out of context. Thus the stable mates of SD are mass and momentum and only then can we relate it to the cross section area (Xsa) of the bullet to give us some meaning or appreciation of what might happen.

When material and contruction is varied or comparisons of this kind is done, then don't expect SD to do miracals for you, as it is used out of context. Example; shooting surgical cotton balls vs monolithic bullets, to pick the 2 extreme ends. Rubber bullets, cast lead bullets, lead-core bullets, Partition bullets, bonded bullets, bonded partition bullets, solid shank bullets all fit within these 2 extreme ends .... and .... their performance will vary widely as can be expected.

That is basically my reason why I hold this view. However, I still think your experiment would be interesting to say compare a 150 grain bullet of the very same construction (assuming a Branes-X) in 7-mm and .308 caliber and then decide which one you favour. Going wider to include the .338 or other much bigger or smaller calibers brings in many other considerations for picking a caliber in real life situations.

Thanks for the effort that you plan to invest.
Warrior

/

Alf,
As I said on the previous page: "I realise full well how Sd fits into the scheme of things. The problem I encounter several times a week (for the last 10 years) is the layman who has heard about Sd and comes up with one or more of those false statements. If we educate the beginner along the correct lines such as bullet quality, stability and the factors that will enable good shot placement, we will do more good than by telling them they need high Sd and then leaving them out to dry."

On the subject of monometallic expanding bullets, Jagter said: "I think it must be noted that the HV concept is far less dependant on this SD reality for it's ability to kill effectively, than the older lead/copper jacketed concept." You concurred and that is exactly what I have been saying all along. In the practical world of the reloader, not the ballistician, bullet designer or terminal ballistics researcher, monometal bullets has relegated Sd to a dusty top shelf. A once noted factor, now no longer to be considered, because monometal bullets do not turn to fragments on impact and even little 40gr .224 bullets shoot through a black wildebeest.

/

Game King,

Here is another example where we have 2 mono-metal bullets, but they behave differently in penetration mechanics. The one would shed petals on contact within the first 2 inches and lose about 15% of its mass, whereas the other one would not lose weight and maintain its double caliber expansion under normal conditions. Let us say that is the premise. So, let us say you use a 7mm 130 gr GSC-HV bullet (SD = .230) in comparison with a 150 gr Barnes-X bullet (SD = .266) in such a way that you make momentum values the same. So, SD values differ but they hit equally hard (same momentum).

130 gr @ 3,000 fps = 55.7 Mo Value
150 gr @ 2,600 fps = 55.7 Mo Value

Bullet behavior will be different by virtue of different design criteria:

A) The HV- bullet would lose some of its momentum up front, but its XSA after loss of petals are back to its original caliber size Xsa.

B) The X-bullet retains its original mass and expands slower than the HV, but its expanding Xsa (2x) encounters increased resistance.

In all probability the lighter HV will out-penetrate the heavier bullet because of construction differences, velocity differences which culminates in a different dynamic process of Mo/Xsa, as drag regimes will be very different. I have not done this test, but would suspect it would happen this way. HV bullets are seldom if ever retrieved, whereas X-bullets are retrieved in many cases.

The question is now, does this make the HV-bullet more lethal than the X-bullet? What role does the expansion of the bullet play then? If not important, then we can stay with bullets that progress most of their way as cylindrical bullets with a flat meplat. I would submit that most hunters do in fact value the behaviour of a hunting bullet that expands so as to make a bigger hole through the vitals. So penetration is just but one parameter in the killing equation, although important, but not the be-all and end-all. Whereas suficient penteration needs to be achieved as a minimum, excess penetration is a waste and that excess energy could have been better applied in a bullet that expands to bigger Xsa imho.

Warrior

Alf,
Did you read my previous post?

Chris,

quote:

Here is another example where we have 2 mono-metal bullets, but they behave differently in penetration mechanics. The one would shed petals on contact within the first 2 inches and lose about 15% of its mass, whereas the other one would not lose weight and maintain its double caliber expansion under normal conditions.

I have told you this several times but you continue to ignore it. At similar impact speeds, GSC bullets and Barnes bullets retain similar percentages in weight. Drive a Barnes X bullet beyond 2600/2700fps and the petals come off, just like ours. Why do you perpetuate this myth that GSC HV bullets shed their petals on contact?

quote:

B) The X-bullet retains its original mass and expands slower than the HV, but its expanding Xsa (2x) encounters increased resistance.

You posted this link showing a Barnes TSX doing exactly what you say a GSC HV does. Slower expansion? I do not think so.

This Warrior charade is showing true colours once more. The Chris Bekker agenda.

Gerard,

There is no agenda. Your HV bullet does not behave the same way as a Barnes-X bullet - the dynamics are very different !!!. I have stated repeatedly that a Barnes-X bullet would lose its petals above 2,700 fps impact velocity. In fact it is widely known by now.

In the comparison that I have used above with the HV-Bullet bullet at 3,000 fps impact velocity it would lose its petals, whereas the Barnes-X would not at 2,600 fps. That is the comparison ... not the SAME VELOCITY. The comprison was about where the MOMENTUM was the same. There can be no mis-understanding.

The difference is in the process how the expanded Xsa appears and then disappears. The TSX seems to open more easily than the previous X-version. If there is any doubt about petals being lost I suppose it could be done readily with both bullets and Game King could easily include it in his test for a read-out.

Do you have a problem with the notion that the lighter HV-bullet would out-penetrate the heavier X-bullet .... AT THE SAME MOMENTUM LEVEL ???

Warrior

quote:

I have told you this several times but you continue to ignore it. At similar impact speeds, GSC bullets and Barnes bullets retain similar percentages in weight.

Shoot them both 2,600 fps and you will see the Barnes-X bullet invariably retains 100%. Tell us what yours will retain into a wet-pack? I have done it with the Barnes-X, so I do not have to guess the result. There is a substantial visual difference in the size of the hole between the HV and X-bullet, and it stands to reason that there is a difference in strength.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

I have told you this several times but you continue to ignore it. At similar impact speeds, GSC bullets and Barnes bullets retain similar percentages in weight.

Shoot them both 2,600 fps and you will see the Barnes-X bullet invariably retains 100%. Tell us what yours will retain into a wet-pack? I have done it with the Barnes-X, so I do not have to guess the result. There is a substantial visual difference in the size of the hole between the HV and X-bullet, and it stands to reason that there is a difference in strength.

Warrior

Warrior,
You do indeed seem to be continuing the Chris Bekker/truvello shooter agenda against GSC by insinuation.

I shot plains game with the .375/300gr Barnes-X and frequently saw them lose their petals even though the MV was only 2529 fps to start, and impact ranges were 50 to 150 yards.

The ones that lost their petals at relatively low velocity had encountered heavy bone.

It makes no sense for any difference to exist between the two bullets as you claim.

You are talking nonsense due to your personal agenda.

Unrelated to this: If you decide you want to get banned again, will you put back on the swastika arm band?

quote:

You do indeed seem to be continuing the Chris Bekker/truvello shooter agenda against GSC by insinuation

Seem .... and the .... insinuation. Is that about the jist of it? Cluthing at straw, I would say. You sound like a real praise singer RIP in this choir that Gerard must be supported no matter what - Let us stay with the debate and forget the personal shit that you want to conjure up.


Shoot the damn bullets in the same medium and come to us with the facts.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

You do indeed seem to be continuing the Chris Bekker/truvello shooter agenda against GSC by insinuation

Seem .... and the .... insinuation. Is that about the jist of it? Cluthing at straw, I would say. You sound like a real praise singer RIP in this choir that Gerard must be supported no matter what - Let us stay with the debate and forget the personal shit that you want to conjure up.


Shoot the damn bullets in the same medium and come to us with the facts.

Warrior

The best medium is live game with all it's variability.

You'll find plenty of TSX's, XFB's, XLC's and HV's that retain and lose petals depending on both velocity and the resistance they encounter.

Funny how Barnes keeps having to obsolete one bullet and move on to the next: XBT, XFB, XFB-Cannelured, XLC, TSX, MRX, XYZ, ... etc.

Meanwhile the GSC HV has remained the HV.

quote:

The best medium is live game with all it's variability.

We have no disagreement on this.

Most retrieved Barnes-X bullets published retain 100% weight with intact petals - why? Because in most cases the striking velocity at practical hunting ranges with most calibers are under 2,600 fps. Let us ignore for the moment where serious bone is encountered.

Warrior

quote:

You cannot be "more or less" dependent on SD, you are dependent purely by virtue of its position in the penetration equation, period!

The best way to see the above is to shoot different bullets of the same make and construction in a particular rifle, like I have done by cutting the bullets shorter - from 175 grains to 142 grains to 108 grains. Then it is easy to see SD at work. In other cases (cross caliber comparisons) its role is obscured by virtue of differing mass, Xsa and velocity, but SD is always at work as you say.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

The best medium is live game with all it's variability.

We have no disagreement on this.

Most retrieved Barnes-X bullets published retain 100% weight with intact petals - why? Because in most cases the striking velocity at practical hunting ranges with most calibers are under 2,600 fps. Let us ignore for the moment where serious bone is encountered.

Warrior

Dodging the fairness issue again, eh, Chris?

Impact the GSC's at similar low velocities and miss bone and they too will retain their petals.

Sheesh!

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

You cannot be "more or less" dependent on SD, you are dependent purely by virtue of its position in the penetration equation, period!

The best way to see the above is to shoot different bullets of the same make and construction in a particular rifle, like I have done by cutting the bullets shorter - from 175 grains to 142 grains to 108 grains. Then it is easy to see SD at work. In other cases (cross caliber comparisons) its role is obscured by virtue of differing mass, Xsa and velocity, but SD is always at work as you say.

Warrior

And your results are obscured by the hack job you likely did in mutilating the bases of the bullets you cut off, eh, Chrissie? Of course the longer ones that you did not hack shorter would do better at most things terminal.

And you said nothing in this post about the velocities or Mo/XSA comparison to boot.

Nor anything about your sample size or p values?

Utter rubbish!

quote:

And your results are obscured by the hack job you likely did in mutilating the bases of the bullets you cut off

Utter rubbish !!!

I do not share the notion that ... "It has been proven that a high velocity flat fronted cylinder shape will leave a larger primary wound channel than a slower, double caliber mushroom." I do prefer bullets that keep their mushrooms just like all those other manufacturers such as TBBC, NF and Swift.

Warrior

Chris,
You set up the comparison quite clearly:

quote:

Here is another example where we have 2 mono-metal bullets, but they behave differently in penetration mechanics. The one would shed petals on contact within the first 2 inches and lose about 15% of its mass, whereas the other one would not lose weight and maintain its double caliber expansion under normal conditions. Let us say that is the premise.

And then you confirm:

quote:

Your HV bullet does not behave the same way as a Barnes-X bullet - the dynamics are very different !!!.

And then you ask:

quote:

Shoot them both 2,600 fps and you will see the Barnes-X bullet invariably retains 100%. Tell us what yours will retain into a wet-pack?

This is despite the fact that you are thumb sucking again because you have never compared the two under the same conditions. This is conjecture to fit in with your hacneyed agenda of slander. Below is the answer to what happens when an HV impacts at 2600fps and it proves that you are deliberately ignoring facts that you have been given several times.

quote:

There is a substantial visual difference in the size of the hole between the HV and X-bullet, and it stands to reason that there is a difference in strength.

How would you know this, other than thumbsucking from your agenda?

quote:

Shoot the damn bullets in the same medium and come to us with the facts.

It is ok for you to thumb suck but, when confronted with the facts from someone who has actually used both bullets, you demand a test. You are a piece of work.

quote:

Most retrieved Barnes-X bullets published retain 100% weight with intact petals - why?

Because the ones that lose their petals shoot through. I have been telling you that for years.

quote:

like I have done by cutting the bullets shorter - from 175 grains to 142 grains to 108 grains. Then it is easy to see SD at work.

That test bore no relationship to reality. It was designed to prove the value of Sd and it failed miserably at that. The speeds you used was a joke to start with. It is quite a laugh when someone like you sets out to research "the truth" and, when you find it, you become confused because it does not fit your preconceived ideas.

quote:

I do not share the notion that ... "It has been proven that a high velocity flat fronted cylinder shape will leave a larger primary wound channel than a slower, double caliber mushroom."

Typically when you are cornered, you switch subjects. This "notion" has been tested and reported. If you choose to ignore it, as you have ignored other facts, that puts you firmly in the category of "Please do not confuse me with facts."

I have said before and I will say it again: You are a Troll. You start scraps based on fiction and, after you were chucked off the Forum, you snuck back thinking no one would find out. You engaged in deliberate lies to mask your real identity. Now that you have been exposed, you revert to type.

I would happily ignore you but will not do so as long as you continue spreading your rubbish opinions about GSC products.

Gerard,

The HV bullet behave very differently from the Barnes-X as intended as bullet mass is typically lower and velocity much higher. That means that we must shoot the 130 gr HV bullet at 3,000 fps as per your recommendation, not so?

That said, the HV-bullet is a piece of artwork against the Barnes-X or TSX. Much better manufactured with leading innovative features. So there is no agenda on my part. As for the testing of your bullets I will buy a box of 130 gr HV bullets for the 7x57 mm and test them at the recommended velocity of 3,000 fps. Do you have them in stock and can I arrange to have them picked up at your shop?

When SD's are discussed the formation/creation of expanded diameters or the destruction thereof has everything to do with the subject under discussion.

Warrior

Chris,

quote:

That means that we must shoot the 130 gr HV bullet at 3,000 fps as per your recommendation, not so?

Our recommendation comprises more than just the maximum load. Read and follow the load data and procedure on our website. Do you always load maximum listed loads?

Maca Arms in Uitenhage have stock and they are closer to you. That way, you also get off the shelf regular production bullets, not specially selected "test bullets".