The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading The use of Sectional DensityGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The use of Sectional Density | Login/Join |
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
.. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, the dictionary definition of static is "standing still, characterized by stability and lack of change". For dynamic it is "having to do with energy or force in motion". Mass and bullet length change over the penetration incident, therefore, they are dynamic. To believe otherwise is junk science. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Statics - An engineering course dealing with objects that are not accelerating. Either they are motionless or they do not accelerate if in motion. Dynamics - The same thing for objects that undergo acceleration. | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, The last time you came up with this point of view, I asked you a couple of questions. You never gave any answers so, can I ask them now? Will you reply? | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Lets try again. Alf, may I please ask some questions about your post that starts with 'Just a thought?'. Previously I asked questions about certain aspects of the points you mention but I accept that you suffer from fits of rage and delete your posts. I know and accept that this makes it difficult to continue a discussion but the opportunity seems right now. Please, pretty please. Thank you.  | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
It's ok Alf, I understand. You are not going to answer the questions I have, you can stop avoidance tactic now.  | |||
|
One of Us |
It's kinda like wind chill. Yes it is meaningless as an absolute. But can be used as a generality. There is no universal variable that works with internal ballistics, external ballistics and terminal ballistics. Construction matters. There are two types of people in the world: those that get things done and those who make excuses. There are no others. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard; Is that sort of like you avoiding providing the stopping power data information that you claimed to have and were asked for on the 350 grain thread? 465H&H | |||
|
one of us |
Sectional density is simply another factor in the the performance of bullets. Just a couple other factors which can be more important are bullet construction and velocity. There are no absolutes in hunting. There is nothing I would shoot with a 220 30-06 load that I would not shoot with a Barnes TTSX 130 grain from a 308 win on up (although the bigger the critter the faster I would want my bullet to go). Simply looking at sectional density would be pointless in this comparison. Even then it would have a lot to do with the critter too. Just cause its big doesnt mean as much as if its big and mean.  -------------------- THANOS WAS RIGHT! | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H, Unless you provide a quote where I claimed to have stopping power data in the 350gr thread, I must conclude that you have stooped to bald faced lying now. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard: Since you made the statement that stopping power doesn't exist, I naturally assumed that you had some data to support that position. Is it like you to make statements with out having any data to supprt it? It seems your only "data" is what some PHs have told you if that is even the case. In a court of law that is called "Second hand information" and it is not admissible. You made this dogmatic statement now back it up with some hard data, not your opinion. If it is just your opinion then say it and I can respect that. I can't believe that many if any PHs with elephant hunting experience would believe that stopping power doesn't exist. I have never run into a DG PH that was looking for a smaller caliber throwing a lighter bullet. In fact the majority have been looking for bigger guns. If you know of some let me know and I would like to hear their reasoning for thinking that stopping power doesn't exist. . I'm always willing to learn. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Avoiding answering the question again. Typical Gerard behavior. If you can't produce the data, attack! I am done with you. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
You are asking for data which I have stated several times does not exist. Now you say that I have said that I have this data. I am asking you to show me where I said this. You cannot. Where is the logic in repeatedly asking for data that does not exist and me repeatedly saying it does not exist. We could be here for months. So show me where I have said that I have the data. Simple. Any perception of an attack is in your mind. Just show me my quote and we are done. If you cannot show me my quote............ | |||
|
| One of Us |
let me restate the question. You have said that stopping power doesn't exist. Show me your evidence that proves it. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
However, let us approach this logically and structured: What is your definition of 'Stopping Power'? | |||
|
| One of Us |
 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, Please add the following to the list I sent you: 8. If you dont want to or can't answer a question, then you counter by asking one yourself. I would define stopping power as "the ability to stop or turn a charging animal". 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, What definition of stopping power did you use when you came up with the "fact" that it doesn't exist? 465h&H | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H Why must I repeat everything?
Alf, give us your definition of 'stopping power'. | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| One of Us |
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” ― Albert Einstein  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, No you didn't answer the question! You changed the question by answerering an unasked question about stopping power indices, that was not the question. How many times do I have to repeat it? Now Alf answered your question to define stopping power directly. Now I wonder how you will fail to answer the question again! 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H, Are you reading some other post and then answering here? My answer was: "All indices that list stopping power from 'good' to 'bad' are just so much nonsense." How could you miss that unless you did not read it or, read it but did not understand it? I know that was not the answer to your question, I qualified my answer with the explanation of indices. I do not know. You keep asking me for my data on 'stopping power' and I keep telling you that I have none because 'stopping power' is a myth. I guess that, if you have not figured it out by now, you are going to keep on asking and I will just have to keep on saying that 'stopping power' is a myth. Alf said: ""Stopping power" is not my term nor would I use it." That is a good definition and I am glad that you agree with it. Does that mean that you are changing your definition of 'stopping power'? This is quite the detailed answer I think. The question is, in PM I asked you some questions and you failed to answer. I have answered every question you asked me. That is a basic courtesy. How about you? As a matter of interest. Earlier in another thread you directed this at me: "You have made statements saying that you have measured stopping power." Where did I make such statements? Alf, Agreed on everything, except: "or someone says my bullet has a flat nose and therefore it is more incapcitating than a RN, or velocity is the key to incapacitation." But that is a discussion for another day, I need to get some stuff done here. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well now we know how you will fail to answer the question again! Gerard, I have never gotten personal with someone on this forum but for you I am going to make an exception and suffer Saeed's rath. "Your an idiot." 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
This is something that I have encountered before. When logic and facts run out, your kind turns to insult. "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it." -– Aristotle | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, Why would this be? | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf, If an FN is more likely to reach the brain than a RN, because the RN stopped short of the brain, why would an RN do that? Remember that all things are equal.
How do you explain this?  | |||
|
| one of us |
. | |||
|
| one of us |
How about explaining this one.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
These two springbok were shot in the Kendrew area in the Karoo. The shooter was sitting down with the rifle on a bipod, both animals were at rifle level and the ground was virtually flat. The first one was shot quarter from behind and the second one was very close to side-on. The rifle was a 270Win with factory 150gr ammo with jacketed lead core bullets. Shooting distance was about 120m for both and the rifle was zeroed at 200m. The pictures show the only holes found on both animals and fragments of jacket material was found in the carcasses and some, but no significant core material fragments could be found. In the first photo the incoming bullet direction is shown with the bottom left arrow. The exit direction is conjecture on my part but the hole is not. It is very real. The second picture shows the entrance wound in the yellow square and, again, the direction of the bullet exit is guessed at but the exit hole is real enough to make the direction a moot point. A lot of meat was lost on the first animal but the second one fared much better. Are these not excellent examples of what theoretically should not happen, does not happen in testing and can be put down to a curve ball thrown by a practical set of circumstances? IIRC these two animals were part of a bag of about 150 animals shot by 14 of us over a four day ambush hunt (voorsitskiet). | |||
|
| One of Us |
Having shot several hundred animals ranging in size from moose to javelina over the past 50+ years with a 270 with mostly 150 grain bullets I have only once seen one turn in an animal. That was a bull moose walking at around 125 yards. It was walking above me on a medium size hill. The bullet took it behind the shoulder on an upward angle behind the shoulder. It traveled up and hit the spine glanced off the spine and deflected downward exiting at about the same height as the entrance wound. If all happened as you detailed then this is a very rare occurrence without hitting a large bone. Still think it was a piss poor bullet. I doubt that a Nosler Partition or Woodleigh soft would do that. Almost all deflections are caused either by glancing off of rounded bone surface of hitting a flat bone such as a shoulder bone at a steep angle, in my opinion. Imagine a steel plate being hit by a metal piercing bullet. If hit straight on, it penetrates. If it is hit at a steep angle it will glance off. 465H&H | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading The use of Sectional Density
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia