The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading The Chris Bekker SD wars Part IIGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The Chris Bekker SD wars Part II | Login/Join |
| one of us |
 Bullet retrieved from a kudu at 2,300 fps impact velocity Hunters, The Barnes X-Bullet was one of the leaders in bullet design and changed terminal effectiveness drastically at the time of its release. It gained the respect of many big-game hunters throughout the world. The bullet shows flawless expansion, excellent penetration, and almost perfect weight retention. It is certainly a winner. Whilst Winchester Failsafe shows somewhat more penetration than the Barnes-X bullet, it does not open up completely at the lower end of the velocity band at extended ranges. So, the Barnes-X still remains the mono-metal bullet of choice for most. The fact that the Barnes-X bullet exhibit impaired penetration characteristics at hyper velocities, as demonstrated by Dr Ashby, is not a concern when it is used between 2,000 fps and near 2,700 fps, as it cover a wide range and can be used in almost all practical hunting ranges. What Dr Ashby highlighted was the effectiveness when we have good petal standout at lower velocities as opposed to higher velocities in the above band. I consider an impact velocity of around 2,300 fps as most ideal, penetration is such that you hardly recover a bullet on most shots, and when you do on an angled shot the mushroom is picture perfect. What more do we expect from a bullet? Practically it means that if we load a 180 grainer in a 300 Win Mag at 2,900 fps we will hit animals at long-range (200 yds plus) far below its threshold strength of around 2,700 fps. The trajectory is certainly one that most of us can live with, unless you want to hunt in Montana without crossing the border north of Idaho. Going lighter on the bullet and upping the velocity further may not offer real advantages at mid-range in my opinion, unless ranges are mostly beyond 350 yards when it comes into its own with sleek bullets at hyper velocities - that is the niche. Hunters in need of a flat-shooting long-range rifle should start of with a caliber that offers high-SD bullets (twist rate should cater for that). Then we can add an efficient form-factor (i) to the bullet, which will make it sleek. Together these two aspects will create an aero-dynamic bullet for us - i.e. it will feature a high BC (BC = SD/i). So, SD features again, it just won't go away. One can use a lighter bullet as well, but then you have to create a much sleeker bullet to make up for the loss of SD so as to regain an overall good BC as is the case with the GS-HV bullet. Conservation of momentum is generally better with sleek bullets that are heavier. Here are 2 examples relating to the hunting of bigger antelope showing sufficiently flat trajectories: A 200 grainer in .308 caliber will be a good choice (SD = .301) Cartridges to consider - a 300 H&H or a 300 Win Mag @ 2,800 fps Hunting bullets to consider - Barnes-X with a BC = .540 - Nosler Partition with a BC of = .481 A 250 grainer in .338 caliber will be a good choice (SD = .313) Cartridges to consider - a 338 Win Mag @ 2,660 fps Hunting bullets to consider - Barnes-X with a BC = .512 - Nosler Partition with a BC of = .473 If these stats are doing you no good, consider changing to fly-fishing. Remember, the most critical thing in the field is your selected Zero-range and then accurate range estimation if you want to place that bullet were it ought to be! Frankly I see very limited use for Ultra and Super Magnums at practical hunting ranges, as that is very different to sniping the enemy at 1,000 to 1,500 yds. What remains to be seen is if a 'light-for-caliber' bullet, that loses its nose section to form a flat-faced cylinder, does in fact produce a more effective wound channel than a heavier Barnes-X bullet that expands to double caliber that cuts with those very sharp star-like petals. Hopefully I will be doing these tests with 7-mm bullets this winter season - both in wetpacks and game. I will also put the spotlight on the innovative one-of-a-kind bronze non-expanding Impala bullet that is beginning to make inroads both into the European and local market. Should be an interesting comparison. Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
 Over-stressed Barnes-X Bullets Most of these bullets lost all their petals. Some are bent. Why? Some may have encountered bone, but I put it down mainly as too high an impact velocity. Not ideal. Had these bullets been shot at lower velocities, they would have looked far better. I don't want my bullets to look like this. Posting for Chris Bekker. Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Bottom row second in from right looks like a classic example of under-stabilization. This long bent shape seems to disappear in an overly quick twist. Even if this was a glancing bone hit a fast twist would end up looking more like the second row third in from left IMHO. I used to think bone hits bent bullets like this example but I lean more towards a high velocity tumble now for which more twist is good. BigRx | |||
|
| one of us |
 Rip, Thanks very much for your offer re the book; really kind of you, but give it to Gerard in a trade for his bullets - that way you are not left empty handed. Whilst we sometimes get into heated debates (spur of the moment), the feeling does fade and in moments like these we as 'hard assed hunters' can be generous as well and so I really do appreciate your offer. As far as Gerard is concerned, give it to his friend (who I incidentally know very well) so I have no reason to " insult" the author and battle for a year to comprehend the Newtonian laws and I probably would not stomach the idea that Prof Gerard explains it to me on the blackboard. I think Gerard is feverish at the best of times. Putting Gerard in bed - 40 degrees C As far as the Crusader is concerned, I will tell you this, and I borrow from a dear old man (93 yrs) that I met in the USA way back in 1994 - he said: It is not my job to blow the whistle It is not my job to say how far the train is allowed to go But let this damn thing jump the track and You will see who raises hell ! Have a happy day! Chris Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: Gerard this is a free ad that I am doing for your bullets:- Gerard said in previous post he does not shoot water containers, but I found this on his website ... In extreme cases the temporary cavity created by a cylinder shape will exceed the volume of the organ it strikes, or even the animal it strikes, and the body literally explodes as the elastic limits are exceeded. A graphic illustration of this factor at work is in the picture below. The rifle has started recoiling and the plastic water container at the right of the picture has been hit by a 130 gr HV bullet at 3000 fps. The bullet loses the petals almost instantly, assumes a cylinder shape, and the resultant temporary cavity created by the cylinder shape, displaces water so violently inside the container, that the container bounces more than a meter straight up off the shelf." I am now inviting a response for readers to debate the following: - The incompressibility of water vs flat cylinder shape as the cause? - Relating the shooting of water cans/bottles to shooting animals? - Temporary cavity being over-rated as a killing mechanism? - Any idea what the medical profession (such as Prof Dr Caceci) say about it? I have put the bait out .... Chris Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: BigRx, One more time around the mulberry bush ... a pertinent question: The slow surface speed (237 fps) on a .284 bullet at 2,350 fps at a twist of 1-in-8.66", already curls the petals of a Barnes-X bullets about 25 degrees. Now going to a 375 H&H with a 1-in-12" twist, launching a 300 grain bullet at 2,550 fps, yields 250 fps on the surface, and changing the twist to 1-in-10" takes it up to a rotational velocity of 300 fps . Do you know or heard of the experiences of 35 Whelen hunters, using softs, that changed their barrels from a 16" twist to a 10" twist? Here is da question ... Can an overly fast twist sheer petals off on a conventional lead-core bullet like a Speer? The jacket material (gilding metal) is only about .5 mm thick. Some believe that it is essentially all a function of the forward velocity. Please give us your view and/or experience, without letting da matter hang in da air or throwing me with scary Newtonian laws that sounds like clouded and demented logic at a first read. I believe it is all in the explanation ... Chris Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
 Chris, This is too funny. Your post of 00:49 is such a riot of mistaken assumptions and fabrications, it is hillarious. It seems we can deduct the following though: 1. You consider a jacketed lead 110gr 6.5 mm bullet at 3000 + fps superior to a 130gr monometal bullet at 3000 fps for short distance on game the size of kudu. 2. Even though Lutz' penetration calculator is flawed in the area of terminal performance / bullet construction, you prefer such flawed tools over common sense. (I was paying for the kudu and there was no way I was going to take a chance on the ammo / calibre combo he brought for the job. We had other hunters to consider as well) 3. Your psychic abilities do not funtion well. (Lutz brought a laptop? He leaves a rifle at the airport of departure because he is over weight and brings a laptop?) 4. It is OK for a professional journalist to make mistakes. 5. Your reading/comprehension is at an all time low. (Several facts in plain view but you can't find them)  6. Concerning my last question being of no consequence: You know what the answer is and you have masterfully painted yourself into a corner on the Sd issue. I see you have not been able to wean yourself off the habit of making a deceitful statement, supplying a half truth and then building a case on the dishonest base that you laid. You state that I said in a previous post I do not shoot water containers. This is a lie. Your hired help (Pieter) said in a fit of temper: "I see you shoot plastic bottles of water that explode and are impressed by the result. The game I shoot never explode" To which I replied: "Plastic water bottles that explode and impress me!!!??? Where on earth did you get that from? I suppose Chris told you." So, to the text you so kindly supplied in red, we must ad the picture which you conveniently left out, so that the full context of the reason behind the shooting of a plastic container which does not explode can be seen. Your propensity for deception never ceases to amaze me. Your rejection and scorn of Duncan MacPherson's work reminds me of this: It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning.--Claude Bernard (1813-1878)
What were you smoking last night?  BigRx
You are right on the money. When we were developing our HP range back in 1993, we saw this result frequently. | |||
|
| One of Us |
"A" ... Are you giving me some apples and oranges here Chris? Or was the muzzle velocity 2350fps and the impact velocity 2300fps... i.e. VERY CLOSE? "B" ... I have talked of, and if I was to build another .35 Whelen (which I will) it would be a 10" (or 11") twist. I have only tested .35 caliber in 16" and 12" however. Want a bent bullet? Just try a long "X" in the 16" twist in a wet pack and get a classic tumble. The 16" twist is a Remington archaic from 1908 and the .35 Remington with a 200gr RN soft at 2000fps. Perhaps a friend's 9.3 x 62 is close enough to the .35 Whelen. (sorry guys!) He has used the original 14", then 12", and now a 10". He has killed the most game of all my friends which is considerable and ranks the twists as a hunter as: 14" good, 12" better, 10" best. Need a strong soft he says. Like Ray he likes Nosler partition which seems to take rotational force quite well..... More on that in a moment. "C" ... I will take it for granted you are talking about bigger caliber Speer bullets of "Hot Core" design. I find these bullets to stay tucked in more than most. BY this I mean the mushroom folds more tightly to the shank than most other softs. The bigger calibers are only as thin as you say up towards the nose with some (.416 -350gr) appearing to be almost a m/m (.040") thick towards the base. This is a fairly tough bullet by the way if speeds aren't pushed out of sight. Speer bullets fragment some for me (20% wgt ?) but don't tend to lose petals if you can call it that.... I think a little "extra" twist does them good with that stay "tucked in" tendency they have. I like all the frontal area I can get as long as penetration is ADEQUATE! This next statement will probably get me in a lot of trouble...... I believe the benefits of a faster twist warrant a re-designed mono. Your observation from experience as well as your line of questioning tells me you already know an "X" bullet is "wanting" at higher impact velocities and faster surface feet per second rotation will only agrivate this to the point of loosing petals sooner. My opinion is that the "petal launching" is a significant event for our animal and the persuing wound cavity, I don't believe the continuing "slug" is all that it is cracked up to be however. Again, in my opinion, most softs roll around into a mushroom shape with almost full circle integrity and the jacket curling under further reinforces the tear-away strength of the increased frontal area. Conversely, our "X" spreads into a multiple of separate segments; each independent of one another and each relying on only their own [B]separate tensile strength to stay attached! One more opinion before close: I believe monolithic construction should be re-designed. Maybe the cavity could be two-stage? Something that opens as easily as what we have now but also puts "the brakes on" as a partition or "A" Frame. This secondary "braking effect" should also be designed to fully encircle the increasing frontal area to strengthen stresses into the shank without separation. While fragmentation does have benefits I still am the most comfortable with 100% integrity. BigRx | |||
|
| One of Us |
So, who IS Chris Bekker, and why do any of us care what he thinks???? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Alf, it's your turn again. | |||
|
| one of us |
Big RX, Very interesting. Monometal hollow point should be a two diameter hollow, smaller toward the base, or even tapering to a point in the core of the shank? Surely Gerard can address this? Surely some bullet makers have experimented with this? Can it prevent petal loss? The .458 XFB's and TSX's by Barnes seem to have a cavity that is .555" deep, about 0.1" wide at the top, and tapers to a flat about 1/16" wide at the bottom of the hollow point. This hollow point is scored into quadrants near the opening at the tip. Maybe the solution is to have a bonded lead core in the hollow nose to prevent petal loss ... sort of like a North Fork SP, or a Trophy Bonded Bear Claw, or a Swift A-Frame ... but I digress.  Maybe the solution is to appreciate those secondary missiles that erupt from that flat nosed cylinder remnant that drives on deeper than anything else? | |||
|
| One of Us |
RIP, These were some of my initial thoughts as well. The monos are slit and designed to peel into petals to get the stronger (higher tensile copper alloy) to expand at gilding/lead velocities. Then we know the final problem of each petal on its own to remain intact. Maybe the initiation slits could stop sooner and a round tapered hole continue? The cup point solids expand some.... I would like to see petals get thicker and wider quicker towards the shank and a full circle ring rivet below them for reinforcement during expansion. Little claws protruding from a flared out hub rather than long claws.... A Northfork soft look with comparable frontal area still. Something that would take a 3000fps impact at 100%.... Claws that compressed inward under extreme load instead of tearing off... Maybe an annealing process? I think outloud here! You're right, Gerald should know or can figure it out. And he'll be "Top Dog" when he does! BigRx | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: I will answer in between in RED, remember you drew me into this story,so I just had a little fun: 1. You consider a jacketed lead 110gr 6.5 mm bullet at 3000 + fps superior to a 130gr monometal bullet at 3000 fps for short distance on game the size of kudu. Gerard you are the one that assumes things not me. Lutz was happy to do it not me. You were bossy and makes edicts to other people, that is what shines through here. You know my view I prefer high-SD bullets in my 7 x 57 as it was originally designed to shoot long for caliber bullets with a faster twist with a long freebore. It is not my job to tell you or instruct you what to shoot. Surely with the new facts on the table your load is considered better than his. You know my view on the performance bands of frangible conventional bullets at high velocity. 2. Even though Lutz' penetration calculator is flawed in the area of terminal performance / bullet construction, you prefer such flawed tools over common sense. (I was paying for the kudu and there was no way I was going to take a chance on the ammo / calibre combo he brought for the job. We had other hunters to consider as well. I hope you assisted Lutz to correct the flaws in his penetration calculator. That is what friends should do for each other. Gerard I do not use Lutz's tools at all and so I cannot prefer it. It was indeed very nice of you to pay Lutz's way, but you never gave us the detailed facts. You can't expect me to contact Lutz to get the other half of the story. You were a good ambassador for SA and I tip my hat to you for being such a nice host. 3. Your psychic abilities do not function well. (Lutz brought a laptop? He leaves a rifle at the airport of departure because he is over weight and brings a laptop?) Well he logged on to his website, bla bla bla ... with his cell or satellite system or your PC .... bla bla bla ... fishpaste! 4. It is OK for a professional journalist to make mistakes. I do not know where you get this that I am a professional journalist (your assumption again) - I write as a hobby, but must admit that I am not much of a writer, so I just limp along. I am more of a nimrod. 5. Your reading/comprehension is at an all time low. (Several facts in plain view but you can't find them) Whap whap whap .... whap whap whap! 6. Concerning my last question being of no consequence: You know what the answer is and you have masterfully painted yourself into a corner on the Sd issue. Now here we see your psychic abilities .... you are guessing .... you are hoping .... no corners, just holes! (Work out the retained bullet mass, retained velocity, and abragedaba, you will get the TERMINAL MOMENTUM !). Also better bullet construction .... huh? Comparing a 1-mm with a 2-mm jacketed is tantamount to comparing a lead bullet with a bronze bullet, not so? I am sure it would be in order if I think your comprehension dropped to an all time low. I see you have not been able to wean yourself off the habit of making a deceitful statement, supplying a half truth and then building a case on the dishonest base that you laid. You state that I said in a previous post I do not shoot water containers. This is a lie. Your hired help (Pieter) said in a fit of temper: "I see you shoot plastic bottles of water that explode and are impressed by the result. The game I shoot never explode" To which I replied: "Plastic water bottles that explode and impress me!!!??? Where on earth did you get that from? I suppose Chris told you." So, to the text you so kindly supplied in red, we must ad the picture which you conveniently left out, so that the full context of the reason behind the shooting of a plastic container which does not explode can be seen. Why do you display the shooting of water containers on your site ???????? Will give you later my detailed view of the irrelevance of this activity !!!!!!!!!!!!!! You may as well pull a sock over your eyes. Gerard it seem you are not talking to Lutz anymore, but I cannot be a go in between, and get myself embroiled in yet another never ending saga. Lutz seem to have gone the same route of making his own mono-metals with low-SD and that should make you happy Gerard, just like we have so many different dairies all over the country making yoghurt. Tell you one thing, those Lutz bullets are a work of art. One thing about Rip, he has a far better sense of humour than you Gerard, and must admit that I like his wacky humour. In closing we do not have to agree with each other, it makes the world more interesting and whilst SD is a useful FOM, we should make it work for us where appropriate. Cheers Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: Bob this was a nice post .... you like your high-Sd bullets, hey? "Here's something that I noticed that I thought I would share. Using Federal factory ammo velocities as a basis of comparison: .30-06 220 gr bullet Muzzle Velocity: 2410 Sectional Density: .331 .416 Rigby 400 gr bullet Muzzle Velocity: 2370 Sectional Density: .330 Very similar sectional densities at very similar muzzle velocities. That's why I think of my '06 loaded with 220's as my "big, little rifle". No, I'm not trying to say that the .30-06 matches the .416 Rigby for use on dangerous game. I'm just pointing out that the .30-06 with 220gr bullets has the same velocity and sectional density properties that work so well in the .416 Rigby. As N E 450 No2 said above, "Heavy weight, high SD and moderate velocity just plain works." .... BFaucett Chris Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Chris, The world does not revolve around you. I did not draw you into anything, you assumed that the Lutz anecdote was aimed at you, when it was a reply to 500grains' post. I suppose you missed that. There are no new facts on the table, the anecdote contained the info that Lutz' load was a jacketed 110gr. But you missed that too and made an ass of yourself. Despite stating that I invited Lutz and made him a present of the hunt, you missed that too! You are certainly a versatile crusader, nimrod and simplifier. Maybe wearing all these hats is what causes the lack of attention span. "Gerard I do not use Lutz's tools at all" "I do not know where you get this that I am a professional journalist" More lies/half truths. You have such a short memory. The bottom line remains: Bullet - MV - Retained Weight -- % 270gr - 2307 --- 266.2 gr ----- 98.6 286gr - 2252 --- 119.2 gr ----- 41.7 Which of the two bullets resulted in the deepest penetration and which bullet produced the largest wound cavity volume? No need for a thousand words or vast calculations. I don't need to know how deep or what volume. I am just curious to know "this one" or "that one" and you do not have to explain why. By the way, I came across this in a Magnum Magazine from June 1996: "I find that a 168gr monolithic bullet will penetrate as well or better than a 220gr conventional design; wetpack tests I conducted at 100m showed a 168gr GS MHP at 2780fps penetrating 5cm deeper than a 220gr **** at 2380fps, while retaining 93% of its original weight."  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Who is the author of that statement? | |||
|
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
| one of us |
500grains, Koos Barnard and the article is titled "Updating the 30-06" The point I am making is that there are many facts and parameters one would consider if a wound channel of adequate volume and depth is required, before grasping at the straw of Sd. Although another poster cannot bring himself to say it, his own test has shown a beautiful example of this fact at work. A well constructed, lighter and faster bullet (with less Sd  ) outperformed the not so well constructed bullet in a calibre that is not supposed to break bullets (9.3x62). Just look at those speeds in the table, positively 19th century!  | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: Gerard the Great, The world does not revolve around you. CB: The world must be turning around you Gerard, after all PE is the centre of the universe from where the 'new set of rules' emanated. I did not draw you into anything, you assumed that the Lutz anecdote was aimed at you, when it was a reply to 500grains' post. CB: Gerard you must be going dilly ... what is my name doing in your post ... another Chris from outer space? Maybe wearing all these hats is what causes the lack of attention span. CB: Gerard you are a real prick. You are a wearing a few hats too ... Bullet maker (bar none), professor in physics (with a speciality in Newtonian laws) & Cheater (when it comes to BC's). As professor you could have fixed all the flaws in Lutz's program, but you let him go - or was he also lacking concentration? "Gerard I do not use Lutz's tools at all" "I do not know where you get this that I am a professional journalist" More lies/half truths. You have such a short memory. CB: A professional makes a living off what he does - he gets paid, you dickhead! (Don't let me repeat it for you) "I find that a 168gr monolithic bullet will penetrate as well or better than a 220gr conventional design; wetpack tests I conducted at 100m showed a 168gr GS MHP at 2780fps penetrating 5cm deeper than a 220gr **** at 2380fps, while retaining 93% of its original weight." CB: Gerard you must be you losing your head ... comparing penetration of a soft with a monolithic? You are truly amazing to quote such a revelation to me. Next time, you should shoot an Impala bronze bullet, that does not lose its front section and being much harder than your HP bullet, and then when it out-penetrates yours, then you can blame the atmospheric conditions or the incorrect velocity or the wrong twist. So much for your demented logic. Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
 BigRx, Thanks for your reply and views. Is this what you have in mind - the Lapua Naturalis: "These combine in a bullet that symmetrically expands into the shape of a mushroom immediately upon impact, works perfectly within terminal velocities of 600 m/s - 950 m/s and nearly always retains 100% of its weight. At the moment Naturalis bullet is available in calibres 6.5x55, .308 Win, .30-06 and 9.3x62" There is someone in Germany making a similar bullet - will get you the picture. Take care Chris Bekker Posting for Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
 BigRx, I got this picture somewhere some time ago - cannot exactly remember anymore. Anyway - just look at the principle of designing the cavity and the resultant mushroom. Cheers Chris Posting for Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes! I like the look of both examples! I think as long as the metal remained thick enough to prevent the remaining shank shooting through the frontal mushroom they should stay intact in game it would seem. I like Lapua and would think their product well thought out.... The thing that is of the very most interest to me is that both bullets appear to have an initiator or "wedge" in the tip to get things going..... V e r r r y interesting! BigRx | |||
|
| One of Us |
So what about those Impala bullets? 1. They are so light that on heavy game (buff, ele), I would worry about deflection on bone. 2. Conventional wisdom is that pointed bullets tumble and therefore do not maintain a straight path and also have relatively shallow penetration. 3. Impala bullets' website says, "Multiple shockwave inducing grooves to enhance wounding capability". Is this B.S.? | |||
|
| one of us |
Chris, Squirming again? Who is helping you? You cannot be making so many mistakes all on your own. It is interesting to see your double standards surfacing again. (You are allowed to compare standards and monos but no one else is allowed to.) The bottom line remains: Bullet - MV - Retained Weight -- % 270gr - 2307 --- 266.2 gr ----- 98.6 286gr - 2252 --- 119.2 gr ----- 41.7 Which of the two bullets resulted in the deepest penetration and which bullet produced the largest wound cavity volume? No need for a thousand words or vast calculations. I don't need to know how deep or what volume. I am just curious to know "this one" or "that one" and you do not have to explain why. PS. Thanks for the offer of all the hats but I will leave the wearing of multiple hats to you. Have you decided whether you want to be a scientist yet or are you stil schizophrenic about that?  BigRx, Any object introduced into the cavity of a mono will retard expansion not promote it. Hollw point bullets expand through mechanical deformation as well as stagnation pressure in the hole. Remove the hole by plugging and it will make the bullet a lot more difficult to expand because stagnation pressure is removed from the hole. Alf has first hand experience of this with several bullets that failed to expand, some with plugs of some description in the cavity. We experimented with polymer tips and eventually discarded the idea because it introduced an element of unpredictability into the terminal performance of the bullets that was unacceptable. An object carried in the nose of the bullet has its own momentum and energy component as part of the bullet and tends to keep going or yield just as the bullet material does. This is easily tested by digging the plug out of a bullet with a plug and comparing expansion with one that is left intact with plug. Of course if bullet is too frangible in hollow point configuration, introducing a plug will make it more robust. | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: BigRx, Naturalis vs GS-FN "Yes! I like the look of both examples! I think as long as the metal remained thick enough to prevent the remaining shank shooting through the frontal mushroom they should stay intact in game it would seem. I like Lapua and would think their product well thought out.... The thing that is of the very most interest to me is that both bullets appear to have an initiator or "wedge" in the tip to get things going..... V e r r r y interesting! - BigRx Gerard does not seem to like the Lapua Naturalis due to the initiator. However, it makes a nice big and sturdy mushroom-like expansion. Question: a) Do you consider it superior over the Flat Nose of GS for the hunting of game? b) Which bullet do you believe will make a bigger permanent wound channel? Just your personal preference Thanks Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Hunters, Readers are invited to give a critical appraisal of the following: From Gerard's website ... "In extreme cases the temporary cavity created by a cylinder shape will exceed the volume of the organ it strikes, or even the animal it strikes, and the body literally explodes as the elastic limits are exceeded. A graphic illustration of this factor at work is in the picture below. The rifle has started recoiling and the plastic water container at the right of the picture has been hit by a 130 gr HV bullet at 3000 fps. The bullet loses the petals almost instantly, assumes a cylinder shape, and the resultant temporary cavity created by the cylinder shape, displaces water so violently inside the container, that the container bounces more than a meter straight up off the shelf." Clearly its purpose is to convince us that bullet behaviour is the same as in an animal:  Bojaan Boje now asks the following questions: - Discuss the incompressibility of water vs flat cylinder shape as the cause. - How does the incompressibility of water relates to hydrostatic shock? - Relate hydrostatic shock (shooting water containers) to the shooting of animals? - The medical opinion of the temporary cavity as a killing mechanism. Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker:  Hello 500 Grains, In the mean time you can read more about the Impala bullet it on Impala's website. Should you wish to obtain further information regarding the bullet, you can e-mail the owner of Impala Bullets (Kobus du Plessis) at impalabullets@icon.co.za who would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. The following sketch depicts some of its key features. I will be testing the Impala bullet shortly against the Lutz Moller bullet and publish my findings. It is my plan to check it out both on a wetpack and game. Some of my friends are using it with good results. Untill then, I cannot make any statements about their bullets. Best regards Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker:  Gerard, SD is irrelevant ... SD is useful ! SD is not everything ... SD is something ! Whap-whap-whap, Whap-whap-whap! SD aids expansion but not penetration .... bullshit SD cannot aid expansion ... bullet construction is the one SD aids penetration in cases where momentum is more SD aids penetration with Softs at moderate velocity to avoid losing mass Whap-whap-whap, Whap-whap-whap! Low-SD at high velocity for big game .... no, no, no Low-SD ... going back to shooting balls .... no, no, no Whap-whap-whap, Whap-whap-whap! Is SD useful ... yes, yes. yes ... Does high velocity impair penetration ... yes, yes, yes More weight behind Xsa .... yes, yes, yes High-SD at moderate velocity .... yes, yes, yes Whap-whap-whap, Whap-whap-whap! I hope you get my drift, and stop being psychotic. Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
I am taking a firm stance on the middle ground right between Chris and Gerard. Let's call it a draw. Now where was the picture of the dog ...  | |||
|
| one of us |
Chris, What is this? The Simplifying, crusading Nimrod has aquired a rapper hat as well. I see now why you said in a previous post "without letting da matter hang in da air". You were preparing us for the rap scene. More entertaining by the day. On this thread you have mentioned hydrostatic shock several times as a factor to consider. You endorse the fact that slower twist increases penetration. You state that you are unsure if there is indeed a difference between a deforming (expanding) bullet and a non-deforming solid bullet. A 375 at 2700fps is a monster of a cartridge (you should really get out more Chris). You make comparisons between conventional bullets and monometal bullets, but no one else is allowed to. You have the strange opinion that some amount of petal torsioning is preferable over another . And then you state with great conviction:"SD has nothing to do to indicate expansion capabilities. How the hell can SD cause expansion? SD is not the cause of deformation. I am sorry, but I do not buy into this chaotic 'academic' gibberish." Duncan MacPherson states that hydrostatic shock is a myth and that Sd is the driving force behind expansion, complete with explanation. My turn to ask the readers: How can anyone take Chris seriously when he ventures a technical opinion? As you are having difficulty with the water container thing: The container was selected for it's toughness to prevent it from exploding. The excercise was to demonstrate the forces involved when a temporary cavity is formed by the passage of the bullet. As the temporary cavity expands away from the bullet path, the walls of the container (elastic) move outwards. The only constraint is the shelf the container stands on and the floor of the container cannot expand downwards. The resulting displacement of water upwards represents probably less than half of the total force exerted in all directions. This is enough to lift a 25 litre container weighing around 50lbs almost three feet into the air. You ask: Relate hydrostatic shock (shooting water containers) to the shooting of animals? Firstly, hydrostatic shock should not even be in your vocabulary. Secondly, consider these references: "Liquids cannot properly simulate penetration, but water is a dynamically satisfactory tissue simulant in evaluation of bullet expansion. (Bullet Penetration p77)" "The near identical expansion of bullets in water, tissue or realistic soft solid tissue simulants is known to be true from experiment.(Bullet Penetration p123)" So I make use of water in certain phases of bullet development to see how the bullet yields and to establish parameters for fine tuning. Fine tuning is a tough job because it involves lots of hunting under a variety of conditions but someone has to do it The bottom line remains: Bullet - MV - Retained Weight -- % 270gr - 2307 --- 266.2 gr ----- 98.6 286gr - 2252 --- 119.2 gr ----- 41.7 Which of the two bullets resulted in the deepest penetration and which bullet produced the largest wound cavity volume? Come on, you can say it. I know it will hurt initially, but the hurt will pass.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: Gerard,  Memorable opening salvo: Back to the beginning of the SD discussion Gerard said ... "The fact that he does not want to exceed 2700 fps for fear of breaking off the petals, proves that he has no grasp on the concept of how monometal expanding bullets work, or it is merely an excuse to justify his massaging". Gerard's deductions: This implies that the Barnes company want their petals to fly off. This implies that I know nothing and Gerard knows everything. This implies that I am making an excuse for my massaging. When the truth is :- That Dr Ashby proved to us that penetration is impaired progressively above 2,700 fps. That Dr Ashby emphasized that a good petal 'standout' cuts a deeper wound path. That Dr Ashby placed great importance on intact petals cutting a bigger hole through the vitals. There was no massaging, as Mo/Xsa ratio provided a constant factor in the velocity band of testing. Conclusion or closing shots: I find it amazing how Gerard will adjust the sails according to the wind. Gerard will making any statement to suit him, even cheat when necessary. Gerard will accuse you of having no grasp of the subject, but he is the know-all. Farewell Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: Gerard,  Your rantings remind of a screaming Chimp running around with a stick attacking his fellow Chimps. Just so you don't get the wrong impression, which is invariably the case with you, I do not deem it necessary to respond to each and every allegation ad seriatem, but reserve the right to do so at a later stage, should it be necessary. Needless to state, that any omission to deal with each and every allegation under cover of your letters is not to be construed as an admission or denial at this stage. However the following cannot stand: Gerard: "On this thread you have mentioned hydrostatic shock several times as a factor to consider." CB: Not so! Dr Ashby made reference to it not me. Like you, I do not see it as a factor in the killing mechanism, and as such, I place absolutely no value on it to shoot water containers. We should not confuse the incompressibility of water with the way flesh reacts at the micro level, and nor should we attribute a flying water can with the induced effect of a flat faced cylinder. Hydrostatic shock may well feature when an animal is shot in his water filled stomach or when the hart happens to be full of blood at that point in time when the bullet hits it smack in the middle of the ventricles. Gerard: "You endorse the fact that slower twist increases penetration." CB: Wrong again! If you paid attention you would have picked up that a slow twist is less destructive on Softs, whereas with an indestructible solid various people have demonstrated deeper penetration with a fast twist, such as Art Alphin and Dr Norbert Hansen, et al. This was a quantum leap of delusion grandeur. Gerard: "You state that you are unsure if there is indeed a difference between a deforming (expanding) bullet and a non-deforming solid bullet." CB: What a crock! Don't confuse a situation where I ask leading questions and what I really believe. You are really clutching at straw. This is hopeless. Later on I will be publishing the findings of PH Pieter Olivier and my tests with your FN bullet (270 gr in 9,3 caliber) compared to a 300 gr expanding Rhino bullet. Gerard: You make comparisons between conventional bullets and monometal bullets, but no one else is allowed to. CB: You must be out of your skull to do it in terms of a discussion on sectional density (SD). That is the essence of the argument, so don't confuse the readers to create chaos out of order. Gerard please understand that we cannot compare SD's when bullet construction is not the same - so your insistence that I answer the question where we have a 1-mm vs a 2-mm thick jacket is ludicrous. I rest my case as your rebuttal, whilst it may have had some benefit for readers, has gone on for too long now. I don't think your original objective/paranoia to ridicule me succeeded very well, and as such, I view it as your tendency to act like a delinquent Chimpanzee that wasn't fed the right amount of bananas. Cheers Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker:  BigRx, Here is the Lutz Moller bullet, which behaves terminally in similar fashion as the GS-HV bullet. It sheds its front portion well before a Barnes-X would do it, and then go as a flat-faced cylinder. I am going to stack it up against the Impala bullet. Both are lathe turned bullets and I suspect excellent accuracy from both. The Lutz Moller bullet is extremely well finished. From a design perspective they represent completely different principles and theories. I am curious to better understand their terminal behaviour and will be reporting my findings in SA Hunter and I am sure Gerard will be on that article like an eagle diving on its prey. Luckily I have no vested interest in any of these bullets so I will write what I see. I won't be testing these bullets on dangerous game (buffalo & elephant), as 500 Grains would have liked to see, as they are bullets primarily designed for game. One of the concerns that 500 Grains raised with the sharp pointed Impala was ... "Conventional wisdom is that pointed bullets tumble and therefore do not maintain a straight path and also have relatively shallow penetration." So far I have not heard any reports about deflection on game as both designs seems to fly almost always straight through and the recovery of a bullet is a rare event. Hitting a bone at an angle cannot be ruled out to deflect or tumble a bullet, be it a sharp pointed solid or the petal of an expanding bullet. Flat noses are theoretically less inclined to deflect. Regarding the theories of how these bullets behave terminally I will reserve comment for now, but hope to experience it first hand. (shock waves, induced vacuums, wadcutter effect, temporary cavities, flat-faced cylinder effect and what not will be evaluated as far as it could be observed and that may still leave some questions unanswered in a relatively small sample) If you send me your e-mail address I will send you a courtesy copy of my article when it is done. Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| one of us |
Jerry Springer strikes again.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Kick the dog andshoot the "coffin"! BigRx | |||
|
| one of us |
Chris, Your logic circuits are shorting out: Gerard's deductions: This implies that the Barnes company want their petals to fly off. I do not know how you arrived at this, the petals will "fly off" whether they want them to or not. No need for me to deduce this, we both know it happens. In your article you said "at an impact velocity of 3,000 fps, the Barnes-X bullet would have shed all its petals" This implies that I know nothing and Gerard knows everything. Well, you do believe in hydrostatic shock and square cylinders and you describe MacPherson's research as voodoo, mumbo jumbo, incoherent, nonsensical and chaotic 'academic' gibberish. I must also add that you are a lousy astronomer (PE is the centre of the universe), a lousy magician (abragadaba) and no good as a rapper. This implies that I am making an excuse for my massaging. You are right on that one. When the truth is :- That Dr Ashby proved to us that penetration is impaired progressively above 2,700 fps. And causes hydrostatic shock? That Dr Ashby emphasized that a good petal 'standout' cuts a deeper wound path. But your tests say that a bigger mushroom reduces depth of penetration. Who to believe? That Dr Ashby placed great importance on intact petals cutting a bigger hole through the vitals. At less than 2700 fps MV, this is true. There was no massaging, as Mo/Xsa ratio provided a constant factor in the velocity band of testing. But Sd did not and that was the intent of your article. Conclusion or closing shots: I find it amazing how Gerard will adjust the sails according to the wind. This is required if one wishes to make way. (Sailing terminology - look it up) Gerard will making any statement to suit him, even cheat when necessary. You are grasping at straws to make three points here, but you should not talk about cheating. I might just make a list of yours. Gerard will accuse you of having no grasp of the subject, but he is the know-all. The only person I have acused of this, is you. I do get frustrated when you are so wrong about something and then argue with half truths. I have often said that I regret not having more knowledge or ability in some areas but if you want to make another dishonest/incorrect statement, go for it. Farewell? You should lay off the soapies, it clouds the mind. Your post of 22:14 raises the following points: Screaming chimp. Do you blame me? I am terrified of the Crusader, Nimrod, Simplifier, Astronomer, Magician and Rapper. Is this what the whap whap is all about? You denounce hydrosatatic shock and in the same breath embrace it again. What is your explanation of the flying water container? We know it is not hydrostatic shock. Magic perhaps? You endorse the fact that slower twist increases penetration in endorsing Dr. Ashby's tests. He used monometal bullets not lead core bullets. Your denial is a quantum leap in deception again. Suddenly we cannot compare Sd when bullet construction is not the same. Yet you have been doing it all along. Strike two for another quantum leap in deception. Quantum leap in deception three is the statement that the KJG bullet delivers similar terminal performance to the GS HV. Below are pictures of recovered KJG bullets from a variety of media as published on their website.     Any further statements from you that these bullets are representative of the terminal performance of GS HV bullets will be viewed as damaging and will be dealt with accordingly. Your personal little corner surrounded by wet paint remains: Bullet - MV - Retained Weight -- % 270gr - 2307 --- 266.2 gr ----- 98.6 286gr - 2252 --- 119.2 gr ----- 41.7 Which of the two bullets resulted in the deepest penetration and which bullet produced the largest wound cavity volume? "Don't be afraid to take a big step if one is indicated; you can't cross a chasm in two small jumps." –- David Lloyd George | |||
|
| One of Us |
That comment applies to non-expanding pointed bullets only. The dynamics of an expanding pointed bullet are quite different. As for the Impala bullets, they are not available in the US, or I would test them to see what they do. | |||
|
| one of us |
Posting for Chris Bekker: Gerard, All your answers were completely off the wall and it has become senselessly stupid to debate these points with you any further - a moot exercise indeed! As a general rule you create more chaos than guiding people. Yes, I am a simplifier and you are acomplicator - wear your badge with honour and I am prepared to rap it for you as well. Two people, two titles, two worlds, and never the twain shall meet. Your inability to comprehend what I have already explained to you is only surpassed by your inordinate stubbornness. I said Lutz's bullet "behaves terminally in similar fashion as the GS-HV bullet", meaning it sheds its front core and takes the form of a flat-faced cylinder. Similar does not mean exactly the same. Bullets do not behave all the time exactly the same - including yours. If one bullet picks up a few more scratches than another one, or gets knocked by a bone and makes a dent, or loses anywhere between 15% and 20%, does it become a basis for saying that not even the same type/brand of bullets are not the same. We all know that velocity differentials on impact make bullets look different - I have explained this a 1000 times. (In this regard the pictures that you have posted of the Lutz Moller bullet prove nothing - we don't know the medium nor the velocity nor the angle, etc .... this is what a Judge in a Court of Law will tell you.) Essentially both bullets are of similar design, behave similarly, not the same. If not so, being very dissimilar, it makes a mockery of your published statements against Lutz Moller. Both manufacturers claim the benefits of the flat-face cylinder -essentially allowing them to have terminally a similar effect. With similar driving bands they behave similarly in the barrel. Being similarly sleek in appearance (HV design) both behave/fly similarly efficient in the air. Both are made from copper, but the copper grade might differ in a minute way. In the English language the words 'similar' and 'same' were created to make a distinction between the two. (I can't believe I said this) Your daughter Gina, even accused Lutz of 'stealing' your concept right here on AR. Let me quote ..."Please note that there is no connection between GS Custom Bullets and Mr. Lutz Moeller of KJG. No partnership, no agreement or anything else. My father invited Mr. Moeller to hunt with us during the winter of 2003 as he expressed an interest in distributing our product in Europe and he visited with us for a week. Upon his return to Germany, he lodged a patent application for our exact drive band design and started producing bullets that are close copies of our HV bullets. Fortunately there are some design elements that escaped his attention and are not included in the bullets he produces. The information regarding GS Custom (Gerard Schultz) on Mr. Moeller's website contains errors and is therefore not reliable information." On the one hand your bullets are 'not similar'on the other hand the Lutz bullet features the 'exact drive band design'and it is regarded as a close copy. Really? Does close copy mean reasonably the same or very dissimilar? My understanding is that close copy inter alia also infers being essentially the same shape, essentially the same material, essentially the same cavity, etc (essentially the same = similar, not exactly). My analogy still stands - only Glover in Johannesburg should make yoghurt in the world - no other firm in the world, huh? Speer should not make conventional bullets like Sierra? Hirtenberg should not make bullets (their ABC bullets) like Barnes-X? Ken Stewart should not make bullets like the Bitteroot that Steigers pioneered? But Gerard the Great is different. I take it that when you say that some design elements escaped Lutz's attention, that it actually refers to his inability to fully comprehend the intricate concept rather than allowing him to deviate? Most people you encounter in life is in error, or does not understand and it seems to be no different with Lutz ... "Mr. Moeller's website contains errors and is therefore not reliable information." (Can't we fix these inadvertent errors that are evidently so misleading and unreliable or are they willfully and blatantly focused to mislead) Let me make it even clearer to you - a baboon looks similar to chimp, but on closer inspection we will find that they are not the same. What do you think a judge will say when I tell him that I hold the view that one bullet makes a bigger hole than another or that the two holes were similar in size? So, if you want to go to court with your threats, be my quest. You can only make a bigger asshole of yourself. Pledge your investments to a lawyer in securitatem debiti for a long and protracted litigation. Notwithstanding too much deliberation between ourselves regarding the finer nuances of our widely divergent held opinions and views, my school of thought is incidentally not ad idem with yours. I say the above, together with all my previous posts, without prejudice to my rights. With this posting then, I oblige the call of RIP and BigRX to quit the argument and lower the coffin. Chris Bekker Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading The Chris Bekker SD wars Part II
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia