Hey guys have you not realised yet that Gerard knows what he is talking about and aint going to back down. I have shot his bullets, hunted with him, talked with him etc etc and if he's wrong he will be the first to admit it, but hell if he is right you might as well try and blow smoke up your own arse so quit now while you still only appear to be mildly retarded. By the way I see that Lutz Moeller was mentioned earlier in the thread and all I can say is never trust a man who tucks his shirt into his underpants,I saw it with my own eyes and it just dont look normal (Bekker that aint an invitation for you to start a new thread) By the way Gerard whats with the photo's?

quote:

Originally posted by SA Hunter:
Hey guys have you not realised yet that Gerard knows what he is talking about and aint going to back down. I have shot his bullets, hunted with him, talked with him etc etc and if he's wrong he will be the first to admit it, but hell if he is right you might as well try and blow smoke up your own arse so quit now while you still only appear to be mildly retarded. By the way I see that Lutz Moeller was mentioned earlier in the thread and all I can say is never trust a man who tucks his shirt into his underpants,I saw it with my own eyes and it just dont look normal (Bekker that aint an invitation for you to start a new thread) By the way Gerard whats with the photo's?

Pieter and Chris,

As I have said before, the two of you introduce tangents and new slants but no one else is allowed to. Strange logic. Pieter I am amazed to find you agitating over my mention of hydrostatic shock. I was sniping at you guys and I apologise if it was too subtle for you. I will refrain from such things in future.

Pieter, you presume much when you say to me "you lack experience in particular bullets that I use extensively." I have to ask, have you fired even one shot with a GS bullet of any kind. Or a Northfork, Reichenberger, Superpenetrator, Barnes TSX or Bridger. What do you think I hunted with before I started making bullets? Do you think we do not keep tabs on what other manufacturers are doing, as they also do?

Let us revisit those questions that have been asked several times but you both then cleverly avoid, in a devious and deceitful manner, by going off at a tangent, changing the subject and thereby proving that you are psychological deviants :

To Pieter:

1. As a PH, is it then your firm opinion that a 300 win mag with a 165gr X bullet at 3100fps will kill less effectively than a 30-06 with a 200gr X bullet at 2480fps?

2. Again as a PH, are you saying that when two X bullets of equal momentum, but one having more energy, strikes, they will kill equally well? They will penetrate to similar depths and the higher energy bullet will cause a larger temporary cavity which will undoubtably add to the permanent cavity, but it will be less effective because it is lighter and faster?

3. For the sake of clarity on your position, I would really like to know If you believe that the link between twist rate and bullet length is voodoo?

4. At the front end of this discussion I made the statement that Mo/XSA is a better indicator of the likely penetration of a bullet than Sd. Do you and Chris disagree with this?

5. Further to the discussion, if you have any good pictures of recovered 175gr bullets, I would be most interested to see them.

6. You said: "Chris proved to us that high-SD bullets will out penetrate low-SD bullets in any given cartridge." And I stated: "Please share this proof with us as we have not seen it." We are waiting.

To Chris:

1. I get this feeling that there is smokescreen here. Post me a picture of you and a kudu you shot with a 175gr X bullet. (OK leave you out of the picture )

2. How many 175gr X bullets have you recovered from kudu? One, two, ten? (By implication these bullets, and your photo, should be from your rifle with the 8.66 twist.)

3. You state: "XSA is related to SD, not so? That's why momentum/XSA attempt to bring in both parameters by describing the force applied over the area." Is this fuzzy logic or not? (and do you still stand by the statement?)

4.......... what kind of rifle are you going to shoot those square cylinders from?

5. And no, SD x V does not equal Mo/XSA. How many times does this have to be explained?

All the above have been asked, some more than once but I see no replies.

Thanks for offering to second, RIP. BobF, as I am first to accept, I think that entitles me to choose the weapons. They can bring what they like but the bullet must have a Sd of more than 0.35. I will bring the 22x64 and the shoot will be at 400 paces. I hope the wind blows.

SA Hunter,
Welcome to the forum. I see it is possible to register and post stuff in the first person. I was beginning to think it can't be done any more.

The pics I posted were not relevant to the discussion. I posted them on someones behalf and they were posted late. I thought that would fit right in.

Posting for Pieter de Klerk:

Gerard,

I just got word that you in fact did mention the name of the program and the bullet - Ballistic Explorer and Speer's Mag Tip. Speer's Reloading manual No 12, page 229 gives us the 175-gr Mag-Tip's BC as 0.385 (Std Metro), which is essentially the same as 0.378 (Std ICAO) used by Quickload - 1.85% difference for different weather condition standards. The Oehler Research company just confirmed that 0.385 is correct. Your statement ... "We are using two different ballistic programs and you expect identical results? Get real." Do you really expect me believe that 2 programs that both base projections on G1 tables will yield such vastly different results in wind drift at just 200 yards? You calculated the wind drift to be 12.45" as opposed to my 6.8" - that is 83% worse than what it should be. And you now blame this on the software and ask me to get real? Chris was quick to pick up on this as it sounded as phony as a 3 Dollar bill.

How the hell did you manage to downscale the BC from 0.378 to 0.228 or there abouts? You must have fudged it with a 'custom value' and you have the audacity to say we are nitpicking and whining. Your self-complacency is quite evident when you say ... "I thought if I let you dig a bit you would keep going into a nice deep hole." You essentially fabricated a MAGIC bullet to deceive us. You asshole, you thought your dishonesty could win an argument for you and that most readers won't have the time to go check.
Being deceitfully wrong, perpetuating the lie repeatedly when probed, you still showed no remorse when caught out, but instead goes on the attack and accused us of all sorts of things. Your attack on Chris is quite indicative and should perhaps be made in person ..."You dishonest, cheating, two faced manipulator of half truths and slanted arguments." as your mates are suggesting a dual, which I am sure you will bitterly regret. Who is really the cheating bastard? Chris also proved to you numerous times that you cannot make up the lost momentum in a particular cartridge by going to light and fast bullets, but you come back and say he is purposely picking low values - well, I proved it to you once again with the velocity that you advised for the light and fast bullet.

Then from your apparent high and mighty thrown you say ... "I see you also degenerate into the irrelevant with aluminum balls just like Chris did as well." Just to remind you, Alf came up with the idea of aluminum bullets and not Chris. This is what Alf had to say ... "With this I bow out of this discussion and will at the advice of those more adept at the arts of shooting take to the use of ultra light aluminum bullets at very high velocities". Chris just polished his idea to a shining marble (ball) so you could get the idea into your thick scull. If SD is irrelevant as you claim, then shooting balls would not be a problem. Chris has already explained that a ball with the same mass and momentum would not penetrate as deep as a bullet with a better SD. Amongst other things, SD has also to do with shape. It is obvious to me that the SD concept stands in your way of promoting your low-SD bullets; hence your
paranoia. Let your bullet find its own rightful place, but do not criticize high-SD bullets and break down other people that prefer to use them.

Pieter de Klerk
400 grains behind .416 for an SD = 0.330

.

Alf,
Ah'm yo huckleberry:



I gladly accept the sectional density as a Figure of Merit (FOM) to easily describe a bullet's weight per sectional area, as a unitless proportionality, of a square bullet parallel universe in other words, as through a glass darkly. It is handy for loose talk, but never with a forked tongue, unless one is plugging it into equations and pretending that its units are real, and I have NEVER done that, which Mr. Bekker has done glibbly.

All the answers to your questions are contained in my tag line below.

Who will be your second? Gerard will be mine, and we will be loaded with HV's.

Pieter,
A couple of things are clear from your post above.

You have not read the thread off the top. So you replies are based on that which Chris is feeding you selectively. This makes you look stupid although you probably are not. It also makes you appear humourless and then I cannot prevent myself from baiting you. You know, like when I imitate Chris talk "You dishonest, cheating, two faced manipulator of half truths and slanted arguments." Did he not show you where I used more of the same by saying: "Let us revisit those questions that have been asked several times but you both then cleverly avoid, in a devious and deceitful manner, by going off at a tangent, changing the subject and thereby proving that you are psychological deviants." ?

Your entire rant is irrelevant because in the context of the particular example, even if you use the best possible 7mm bullet, a Berger 180gr, Chris' argument still leaks like a sieve. (I have said this before but Chris probably did not show you.)

Regarding my error, wind drift increases as the square and does not double with distance. So a small error at the front end results a big error at distance, which is immaterial in this particular case because, even if it is corrected, the example still proves my point and Chris remains proven wrong. (You have my formal apology for the error made at 1:30 in the morning. Now move on to the real issues and stop harping on something that will not change anything. It makes your motives suspect.)

You are spiraling down into the same tactic that Chris uses and that is repeating your incorrect premises hoping that somehow they will become true. It is not going to happen. In fact your rant sound so much like Chris, I am thinking maybe he wrote it.

There is an idea. Does Pieter actually exist? Maybe it is just Chris drumming up support for himself. Pieter/Chris, sweating the details is good, if you sweat the right details. You say I criticise high Sd bullets. You are dead wrong again. I criticise the incorrect use of Sd as a parameter by which likely performance is judged.

We make high Sd bullets but our thinking and technology has advanced beyond the point where we worship at the altar of a false Sd. We actually make a number of bullets in excess of 0.3 and all the way up to 0.486 but we do not tout that as a feature, because we know it is not. We also have a bullet with a Sd of 0.069 and it is more fun than a bag of dried mopanie worms in Port Elizabeth.

Alf,
The 300gr 375 has a far higher Mo/XSA and hence penetrates better. Simplify things by taking the 458 out of the equation and speeding up or slowing down the 375 bullet. Its Sd does not change but it will penetrate less or more because the Mo/XSA has changed.

Sd is part of the description of the bullet just like "flat base" or "round nose" or "300gr". Just like saying that a bullet is fired at 3000fps gives no indication of it's ability to penetrate, or saying that it is a 300gr bullet tells us nothing about it's performance. Similarly, stating the Sd cannot be related to performance. It remains just a descriptive term.

Remember what we did earlier in this thread:

Any bullet can be made to penetrate more or less even though Sd does not change.

Two bullets can penetrate to the same depth even though they have differing Sd values.

Change the Sd of a particular bullet and penetration changes, as it will change if you change the speed, the shape of the bullet, the distance to impact, the barometric pressure, the impact medium, the humidity, the gyroscopic stability, and even the angle of attack. (Calm down Pieter/Chris, angle of attack does not refer to you.)

The same applies to your bow. You have improved the Mo/XSA. Take the heavier shaft and increase the distance, or use a different bow, so that the impact speed comes down. Sd remains the same but Mo/XSA reduces and penetration reduces. Change the type of tip on the shaft to a blunt round one and, even if Sd remains the same, penetration will change because Mo/XSA has changed.

"If SD is a non entity why do each and every large scale bullet maker still quote this as a numerical entity." Same reason why motor car manufacturers quote the Kw or Hp and torque output of their engines. They leave it to the more astute to calculate the power to weight ratio which is the better indicator of acceleration and top speed (tempered with things like gear ratios, Cd and other smaller factors). Dare I say the uninformed masses require to know the horsepower rating and that is why it is given? The uninformed masses have more economic clout and that is why they are pandered to?

This brings us back to:

Pieter:

1. As a PH, is it then your firm opinion that a 300 win mag with a 165gr X bullet at 3100fps will kill less effectively than a 30-06 with a 200gr X bullet at 2480fps?

2. Again as a PH, are you saying that when two X bullets of equal momentum, but one having more energy, strikes, they will kill equally well? They will penetrate to similar depths and the higher energy bullet will cause a larger temporary cavity which will undoubtably add to the permanent cavity, but it will be less effective because it is lighter and faster?

3. For the sake of clarity on your position, I would really like to know If you believe that the link between twist rate and bullet length is voodoo?

4. At the front end of this discussion I made the statement that Mo/XSA is a better indicator of the likely penetration of a bullet than Sd. Do you and Chris disagree with this?

5. Further to the discussion, if you have any good pictures of recovered 175gr bullets, I would be most interested to see them.

6. You said: "Chris proved to us that high-SD bullets will out penetrate low-SD bullets in any given cartridge." And I stated: "Please share this proof with us as we have not seen it." We are waiting.

7. I have to ask, have you fired even one shot with a GS bullet of any kind. Or a Northfork, Reichenberger, Superpenetrator, Barnes TSX or Bridger?

Chris:

1. I get this feeling that there is smokescreen here. Post me a picture of you and a kudu you shot with a 175gr X bullet. (OK leave you out of the picture Big Grin)

2. How many 175gr X bullets have you recovered from kudu? One, two, ten? (By implication these bullets, and your photo, should be from your rifle with the 8.66 twist.)

3. You state: "XSA is related to SD, not so? That's why momentum/XSA attempt to bring in both parameters by describing the force applied over the area." Is this fuzzy logic or not? (and do you still stand by the statement?)

4.......... what kind of rifle are you going to shoot those square cylinders from?

5. And no, SD x V does not equal Mo/XSA. How many times does this have to be explained?

Gerard I think the time has come to admit that it is like throwing pearls before swine, you are going to achieve nothing with these two (one?) gentlemen. If they took the effort of reading the whole thread it may enlighten them, it may also give them the opportunity to develop a sense of humour.

.

Crap, I would write the mathematical formula on the side of all my bullets if it made them penetrate further. If it were only that easy...

This thread is like a conversation between a pilot and an aeronautical engineer. If you asked both how does an aircraft perform, you will get two decidedly different answers. The pilot has practical experience were the engineer has theoretical experience. Engineers get lost in the details.

You can have the greatest bullet in the world, however, if you cannot manufacture and distribute them or the shooter cannot shoot accurately, you have nothing and all the theoretical discussions are for naught.

From a hunting perspective, I do not lose any sleep over a slight difference in bullet SD hereafter forever known as Mo/XSA. I know that my Woodliegh Weldcore/Solids are going to perform flawlessly out of my .416s and .458s. That’s about all the advanced terminal ballistics I really need to carry into the field.

But I am all for education, so please carry on. This thread is one of the more informative yet useless in recent AR history.

Posting for Pieter de Klerk:

Gerard,

This is my last post to you as I have already wasted enough time on you. Chris has terminated his discussion with you a while back. If you did not understand our previous replies, you won't understand them now and we are not going to repeat them. If you seek future dicussions, we insist that it will take place in person. However, I am of the opinion that any further discussion can only be as futile as in the past. I am sure you don't really want to talk to us just as much as you don't have the balls to meet with us. Depite your dishonesty, I am sure you think you smell like roses. No longer will I waste my good time on an asshole like you. If degeneration is supposed to describe misguided souls that prefer a 'decent' SD, then include people like Dr Kevin Robertson and Prof Dr Mauritz Coetzee to name but 2 highly experienced buffalo hunters.

Let me answer just one question, perhaps the most intriguing of your questions, namely Q 1. Based on my answer you will be able to judge that I will make a mockery of all your other questions. You seem to live in either a 'black' or 'white' world. Expecting either a yes or no. You see Gerard, live is not that simple in the hunting field as apposed to you sitting behind your computer. Shooting a 300 Win Mag (165 gr @ 3100 fps) with conventional lead-core bullets in bushveld conditions is an absolute disaster. 95% of game is shot below 200 yds and then your impact velocity of the above load is still doing almost 2,700 fps, which is way too high for Speer's SPBT (#2034) integrity and at 300 yds it is still doing 2,505 fps - clearly not ideal. Will I use this load on an eland at 100 yds - certainly not. Will the 200 gr bullet at 2,480 fps be a better choice - much better. In non-deforming solids we will perhaps experience no visible difference. If we hunt at 300 yrs, will we pick a load with a MV of 2,480 fps - no! So it is not all in the figures when we talk about killing 'more' or 'less' effectively. Bullets that shatter differ from controlled expansion bullets and differ from solids. Loss of bullet mass on impact gets worse as we push velocity up. In all your posts you have shyed away from the killing mechanism - the way living flesh reacts to bullets. I see you shoot plastic bottles of water that explode and are impressed by the result. The game I shoot never explode ... do you get my drift? With Sd being so irrelevant, you should actually cut all your bullets in half and push the velocity further up - aim to double the velocity if possible (redesign the case), because then you can quadruple the energy, which you claim will cause a larger temporary cavity which will undoubtedly add to the permanent cavity. If the velocity does not please you, cut your bullets to quarter length, because "SD only takes up floor space".

Good Bye
Pieter de Klerk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RIP,

I take it that when you say SD is a figure of merit (FOM) that it means SD has merit and not irrelevant as Gerard claims. Gerard has a phobia about the word SD. Chris explained that the ratio of mass to cross sectional area is inherently part of the way a bullet was constructed (ball or bullet), the material it is made from (lead-core or solid bullet) and the chosen weight for a given bore diameter. Nothing of this is coincidence, but everything was a deliberate decision when the bullet was made and that is why he says that SD is inherently there - describing the property of the bullet. Nobody ever claimed that SD is the sole parameter that determines bullet performance as Gerard tries to make out - Gerard even commically wrote that SD is not a force as if we will see it as a force. SD is only but one item that gives one a clue, it is not an absolute thing, but its roots go back to the mass and the frontal area of the bullet - no more and no less. No single parameter on its own can describe the performance of the bullet or the killing effect. Key parameters need to be combined and on top there is biology to consider as well.

Ratio's can be important and is perhaps based on one's astute observations. One women may feature 38-26--38 and another one 36-42-48 and we are acutely aware of these differences. Like calibers and SD we notice the difference in women that feature 34A, 36D or 44DDD knockers. Are these differences meaningful? Is one better than the other ... I guess that is in the eye of the beholder.
The question about the appropriate SD is the same.

I am for ballistic balance. Cartridges are based on certain design criteria, i.e. length of free-bore, twist rate that impacts on bullet length, length of magazine, etc. Once the application has been decided on, long-range or short-range, on develops a bullet that is considered 'ideal' - Sptizer or RN, Weight, expanding or non-expanding, weight by way of choice of material - lead, lead-core, copper, brass,or bronze. Would I combine a short bullet with a long free-bore or a long bullet with a short freebore so the bullet can erode case capacity? Bullet application for hunting will differ to target shooting, etc. Are expanding bullets more lethal that do not shed their petals? What role does velocity play in designing of a bullet. Personally I do not like bullets that loose their petals and when they are light and they loose their petals then it certainly does not attract my attention. Why do hunters not like short stubby bullets? This is ballistic balance that I am talking about. Once you have designed your bullet then the SD pops as a ratio - a useful FOM not a crock! If you prefer not to notice the SD that is also fine, then just focus on the weight for the caliber (which is a disguised SD) say a 380 grainer in .375 caliber. This way we do not have to upset anyone and they can shoot low-SD or high-SD bullets without noticing it.

Good Bye
Pieter de klerk

Alf,

My parting shot:

The very first article that I did for SA Hunter in fact punts Mo/Xsa as the real measure and the superior measure over measures such as momentum or energy for that matter. That is why I pointed Gerard away from looking at momentum alone and to start looking at Mo/Xsa. Momentum alone does not address expanding frontal areas. I stated clearly that SD could not be used on its own (static ratio), just as mass or velocity cannot be used on its own. However, within practical velocity bands of a given cartridge high-SD bullets will out-penetrate low-SD bullets, and more so, if it is a Soft that is sensitive for high velocity (shed weight on impact). That is why we say SD has practical value, because of the higher momentum that is brought to bear. Theoretically, by increasing the velocity to the point where the momentum value is the same as the high-SD bullet, we can have the same penetration. In wetpack tests Mo/Xsa has proven to give near perfect correlation with penetration depth. It is a very simple measure that has up to now (before my article), never been addressed by any hunting journal in SA.


1) The real penetration indicator is Mo/Xsa

Momentum the driving force = M x V
XSA is the area providing the resistance = D x D
The driver/indicator of penetration is = Mo/Xsa

Sd is related to Mo, as it shares mass as a common item, and Sd is related to XSA by way of frontal area. Whilst SD is involved by way of its links, it is not a direct driver as its components has already been taken up by Mo and Xsa. Xsa is dependant on construction strength and design (soft vs solid) as to how wide it will expand if at all, and its weight retention ratio at various impact velocities (high or low).

2) Size of the wound channel

Penetration is not everything, but the size of the wound channel must also be considered. Different bullets, but of equal SD, may expand differently at the same velocity, so construction becomes important:

- Soft bullets that over-expand will result in shallow penetration
- Frangible Soft bullets shatter and lose weight and result in shallow penetration
- Solid bullets that do not expand maximize penetration
- Controlled expansion bullets attempt to balance penetration and wound size

Where does this all lead to ... The size of the hole through the heart - the thing that kills ultimately.

3) Capability of a particular cartridge:

One cannot make up the lost momentum by increased velocity in a given cartridge - see values for a 7 x 57 mm:

Bullet Mass / Velocity / Momentum
175 gr ------- 2,525 fps ---- 63.1 ---- (Hot load in my rifle - S365)
175 gr ------- 2,390 fps ---- 59.8 ---- (Preferred load in my rifle - S365)
140 gr ------- 2,660 fps ---- 53.2 ---- (Federal ammo)
130 gr ------- 2,884 fps ---- 53.5 ---- (Max Somchem load - S335)
130 gr ------- 2,950 fps ---- 54.8 ---- (GS-HV load)
110 gr ------- 2,870 fps ---- 45.1 ---- (Per Impala Bullet Site - S341)

Could any lighter bullet in the 416 Rigby perform better than a 400 grainer at 2,350 fps? Pieter says "I am glad I have got 400 grainers with me, constructed in such a way that I put all that mass behind a .416 for an SD of .330". The long and the short of this is momentum maximization for extreme penetration in non deforming solids (Barnes) to anchor buffalo on running away shots when clients wound a buffalo. For other shots a controlled expanding bullet (Rhino) puts buffalo down quicker due to a bigger wound track. Even though both bullets have the same SD, they behave differently. So construction and design becomes another important parameter in the killing equation, but we should recognize that each bullet has different objectives and both have a place and a role. With expanding bullets we need more momentum to overcome the resistance caused by the expanding diameter of the bullet to reach the same depth of penetration and thus a particular bullet must prove itself on game to ensure that there is enough penetration on angling shots if need be as broadside shots are not always guaranteed.

Best regards
Chris Bekker

Pieter,
Ouch! This is almost embarrassing. It is almost like you are posting a reply to a thread from another forum over here.

My question was: 1. As a PH, is it then your firm opinion that a 300 win mag with a 165gr X bullet at 3100fps will kill less effectively than a 30-06 with a 200gr X bullet at 2480fps?

Anyone who shoots a 165gr lead core bullet to an impact speed of 2700 fps is surely looking for trouble if the game is the size of an Eland. That is why I asked specifically about the X bullets in 165gr and 200grs. So your mockery is indeed just that, but applies to the way you answered and the question remains standing unanswered. Unless you are thinking we will not notice you switched bullet types from question to answer. That is DISHONEST and CHEATING of the worst kind. Shame on you! However, if you just made a mistake, it is not serious, just another in a long line and I retract the DISHONEST and CHEATING.

This killing mechanism you talk of must surely be the hole in the animal caused by the passage of the bullet. I may be mistaken but can anyone recall us discussing this here? There was some dancing around temporary cavities, which you guys do not believe in, but not much else. I am ready to discuss it any day you want, right here where it is in the open.

Plastic water bottles that explode and impress me!!!??? Where on earth did you get that from? I suppose Chris told you. You need to be careful about what you believe because you really look like fool making that statement. I do see your point about animals though. Grief, can you imagine an elephant exploding at the shot and covering the place with even more dung than what you and Chris have produced here! When you suggest that I cut my bullets in half, would that be lengthwise or radially? Are you trying to sucker me into making square cylinders for Chris to use in his next test?

Which brings us around to:

Read the list of questions in my previous post and try to compose coherent answers.

Chris,
Good to see you back again.

"That is why I pointed Gerard away from looking at momentum alone and to start looking at M/Xsa." The correct term for this is Delusion of Grandeur. Are you from another planet or something?

I have a request preceded by the reason for it. There are those who prefer to stalk as close to the quarry as possible and there are those who like to shoot longer distances. Right or wrong in one's own point of view, both types involve very different skills. I have the utmost respect for someone who can stalk to within spitting distance of an animal and then shoot. Based on that, I admire your skills as surely the ultimate I have come across in recent memory. My request is: Would you please add columns to your table above, reflecting the momentum values at 100 200 and 300 metres for those of us who are incapable of stalking to muzzle poking range. (The momentum values in your table are at the muzzle, are they not?) Please use G5 BC .55 for my HV bullet as well as my preferred speed which is an even 3000 fps. You may leave out the other loads, I know it is a bit of work to do them all. I assume you will use your preferred speed as well. While you are at it, you may want to ad energy, wind drift and time of flight columns and then we can discuss the killing mechanism. Let us see who shies away from this.

Did you think we will not notice you used Mv in your table? That is DISHONEST and CHEATING of the worst kind. Shame on you! However, if you just made a mistake, it is not serious, just another in a long line and I retract the DISHONEST and CHEATING.

Which brings us around to:

Read the list of questions in my previous post and try to compose coherent answers.

You are giving them hell, you are still finding the humor in the situation, they are on the run, you have one hand tied behind your back just to be fair, and you are still whoopin' two asses with one hand.

Yes, I say again, Gerard has the big dog in this fight. Those pesky puppies have their tails tucked now.

Kill ME ALREADY!

friar

Hey guys what is this challenge of "talk to us face to face" Chris and Pieter you guys sound like a bunch of hairy eyeballs. Stop talking like playground bullies just because you are getting your ass whipped, because every bully meets someone bigger and meaner than them one day. Grow up and get a life you are an embarrasment to the SA Hunting fraternity.

The table below is an extension of Chris' one above and properly sets the stage for a discussion of the killing mechanism should he care to enlighten us on the subject. Chris, if you decline because of time constraints or illness I will understand.

Weight/Speed/Mo at Muzzle/at 100/at 200/at 300/Energy300/path300/drift300
(Hot load - S365)
175gr - 2,525 - 63.1 ---- 58.6 - 54.3 - 50.2 -----1568 - -11.85 -- 12.50
(Chris' Preferred load)
175gr - 2,390 - 59.8 ---- 55.4 - 51.2 - 47.3 ---- 1389 - - 13.41- 13.57
(GS-HV load)
130gr - 3000 -- 54.8 ---- 53.5 - 51.3 - 49.2 ---- 2027 - - 7.20 - 5.54

Chris/Pieter,

I confess to getting some help here. It was pointed out to me that you have indeed touched on the killing mechanism and I apologise for the oversight. You made these statements in your second post:

4) Chris highlighted that the apparent bigger volume cavity created by higher energy is useless as a killing mechanism, as living flesh reacts differently than homogenous target media. Target behaviour is a key factor and cannot be ignored.

5) Chris highlighted the importance of the size of the 'hole' in the killing mechanism. His contention is that it is far more important than the shallow temporary cavity created by higher energy bullets,

Pieter, if I accept your statements as fact and a guideline for the future, it raises these questions.



The more than one and a quarter inch diameter hole clear through this springbuck was caused by a 40gr .224 calibre HV bullet. It went between two ribs on the entrance and exited behind the last rib on a diagonal path. Taking into account your comments above, the only way to explain the size of that hole is that the bullet must have expanded to more than 3 centimetres, retained all it's weight and shortened to a length of less than 2.5 mm (0.1") Although such behaviour would result in extreme shoulder stabilisation and explain the perfectly linear penetration, it is unlikely that a 6 calibre expansion ocurred. Something else caused that size of a hole. With your amount of experience you can surely shed light on this.

1. What do you presume it to be?

2. Do you think a diagonal 12 inch deep by one and a half inch wide hole, all the way through a carcass, from a .224" bullet could be accurately described as shallow?

SA Hunter,
Two hairy eyeball dudes?

Gerard,
Your restraint and good manners are commendable.

.

Posted by Alf 03 March 2005 11:23

quote:

But seriously can anyone here please explain to me why a 300 gr 375 shot at 2000 fps will outpenetrate a 300 gr 458 shot at the same velocity ?

I posted on the same day:

quote:

The 300gr 375 has a far higher Mo/XSA and hence penetrates better.

Which part of the reply did you not understand?

Further you state:
"The math for penetration has 3 variables.

Mass and velocity ie momentum and the retardation force R that acts on the projectile."

And then you qualify that with:
The force R is a function of the bullet's frontal area, the velocity of the bullet in the target ( dv / dt) and the mass of the bullet. also very important bullet type by construction.

And your qualification says in short that retardation is determined by Mo/XSA. So the higher the retardation, the less penetration there is. Therefore Mo/XSA determines depth of penetration.

Nothing in the quote from the Schoen article says anything about Sd and in fact it entirely supports Mo/XSA, proving that it was known in 1969 and not invented by Chris Bekker.

quote:

So by this the penetration of two projectiles of equal momentum and construction but with differing frontal area are not the same !

That is absolutely correct, the one with the larger frontal area will penetrate less because the Mo/XSA is at a lesser value.

quote:

Further as much as Gerard has mocked two bullets sitting on a table and each having differing SD values they do nothing for penetration, the same can be said of the two bullets also not having any momentum cause they are stationary . So in this momentum too cannot give us penetration as it is a fat zero !

You prove the point with great clarity (albeit unwittingly}. Despite both bullets having an Sd value, there is no penetration of the table. And when they have no momentum there is no penetration either. Only when you add velocity do you have momentum and, guess what - you get penetration.

Alf, I am confused. Are you mocking us?

.

You should not do things like this. There are people who will take you seriously.

Well I MUST SAY... although there was just a tad of mudslinging, I am smarter after reading rant after rant... Thank you everybody for the amusement and knowledge gained... There was no sarcasm in that, I was serious.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
The article is a response to one I wrote for the Big Bore Journal wherein I made the point that SD is not a good indicator of the penetration ability of a bullet. My opinion is that bullet construction, energy and mainly momentum are the real indicators.

Chris believes that SD is most important and sets out to prove this in his article.

Taking the test results from his article and checking everything for calculation errors first, it is interesting to note that his "indexed" penetration calculation is:

BTW, the testing actualy doesn't "prove" his point..

the only valid way to do this would "prove" that modern materials change the reliance on SD is to have some barnes X, some solids, and some conventional bullets, and shoot them all at the same weight and speed. I happen to have field proof that a barnes X 130 in a 300 winmag will out penetrate a 180 hornady in the same type of environments... i have NEVER recovered a 130...

I would suggest that some 170/175, some 140/139/138s and some 100's be lined up and tested... say barnesx, barnes solids, and woodliegh....

this would be a real test.

I happen to believe that the barnes x will penetrate as well as AT LEAST a .02 higher SD convential bullet.

Gerard,
that's actually standard engineering, though not a blatant. One puts 3 different, unrelated results for an evaulation, assigns them a matrix value, and weights them. Rather than using a weight index, he could chart (but didn't) the results.

Funny enough, as you seem to be taking a poke at arbitrary 0 to 100.... ever hear of this temperture measuring system... Metric/Cel/ Centigrade?

0 c it "when water freezes at STP" and 100c is when it boils, at stp. The NAME tells you what it means... a gradiant of 100

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
I do not think SD is any kind of indication of bullet performance.

Gerard,

well, let's see... if SD aint a factory, then let me shoot a 577 nitro, with some RC 61 4140 CM bullets, weighing 100 grains.. why, i'll just run those right at 2900 from my 577, and well, ole gerard says SD dont matter a'tal...

Then again, I wouldn't take your bullets if your shop was in the WAY of getting to my reloading room and you gave them to me, due to you tremendously poor Customer servive.

jeffe

Hi Jeffe,
It is always good to see your well thought out, logical and coherent comments. Whatever the point may be.

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
This lack of penetration due to a bigger Retardation factor over a shorter period of time.

The most profound sentence over the entire four pages!!!!!!

BigRx

Alf,
I actually started on a reply to you! Conditioned responses can be a terrible thing Seriously, you should not write such nonsense. Someone will read it and quote you on it when you least expect to be bitten by that kind of humour. You have to look at thisthough.

BigRx,
Pity we could not go down the road of multiple concepts up till now, but if we are having so much trouble with the single concept of Sd .....

.

Jeffe's outburst was a bit queer, hence responded to well by Gerard.

Alf is arguing Gerard's points for him. Is that feigned confusion on Alf's part a form of stealth support of Gerard's stance?

.

Alf,

quote:

What will this bullet now do ? will it be a shallow wound or a deep wound Smiler and what if it were a solid monometal?

As shallow and deep have become subjective terms, one should probably stick to descriptive explanations. So what will a driveband bullet do despite being Sdcally challenged? Hit a downed 5 ton bull ele adjacent to the right hip and recover the bullet from the left tusk nerve. (500gr FN from a 500 Jeffery at 20 paces)

Hit a blesbuck centre in the chest and find an exit hole in the first vertebra of the tail. (40gr HV @4400fps Mv and at 200yds)

What if it were a solid monometal? I do not know, possibly one could drill holes radially to reduce the Sd and thereby further enhance the performance. It could then be called a vented monometal bullet. Would adding talcum powder to the charge qualify it as a powder puff load?

Disclaimer: All but Alf please disregard the last paragraph above.

The above is because I am having difficulty distingiushing between when you are discussing and when you are feigning stupidity and this is added as we posted simultaneously.

There are two factors that play a big role in how a bullet performs in tissue and goes a long way towards explaining many apparent anomalies. 1.: The shape of the deformed bullet (MacPherson assigns a numerical form factor to various shapes) and
2.: The way the bullet arrives at the stable, finally deformed shape if it is an expanding bullet.

I touch on it in the last section of the 22x64 article, concerning the reduced penetration I have seen on game with that rifle, compared to when it was a 220 Swift.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Hi Jeffe,
It is always good to see your well thought out, logical and coherent comments. Whatever the point may be.

More of the great customer service... I see you've decide to switch to wearing a kilt (thought I doubt you have the lineage to back it up0

just so you can tell people where to kiss, without having to "drop trow" when they come with a problem.


Then again, gerard, as I discussed 3 variables at once, I have little doubt that you failed to follow... let me restate it...

1: SD to SD, the higher SD in the same vel. bullet will out penetrate, IF the bullets are the same material

2: SD is THE acid test for estimation of a bullets penetration, if nothing else is provided (much like your shipping of orders 20 months past charging the credits cads)

3: if you change to a mono metal, the higher SD of EXACTLY the same alloy at the same speed will penetrate futher.


These are three simple things that a "respected" international businessman like yourseld should know, considering your field.

jeffe

Jeffe,
You are no customer of mine. In fact, if you shook money at me every morning on my way to my workshop, I would not sell you a single bullet. The fact that you claim customer service from me makes you a two faced liar.

About the bum with the kilt, my but you are dense. Have you not noticed that he only appears after you have posted? I know little about Scottish tradition and earlier a compatriot of yours enlightened me as to the real reason why you wear a kilt. Apparently sheep can hear a zipper a mile away.

Your points in order:

1. Your are wrong. Proven several times over earlier in this thread. You are making an ass of yourself. Kinda proves that is you in the picture.
2. You are wrong again about Sd but your statement proves you a mean, simple minded individual who thinks he has an axe to grind where there is no longer an issue.
3. About as logical as your first post here earlier. I see you have not quite sobered up yet. Think about it and read the thread off the top. All will become clear. Find someone to help you with the longer words.

There are many whose opinions I respect and many whose advice I would heed, you are not amongst them. Take a hike.

My sincere apologies to those of Scottish lineage among my friends and aquaintences as well as others, I know you will understand.

Wow, Gerard..
.. my feeligns are hurt

I've only been saying for a YEAR that i wouldn't buy a bullet from you...

now, when confronted, you run up and say "yeah yeah, i wouldn't sell you a bullet that i KNOW you wouldn't buy"

then run out again screaming

you are wrong

Nice that you revert to personal insults when confronted with another viewpoint.. well, at least your are consistant.


PROVEN?!?! Like hell.. opinons posted... proof? yeah, right...

Are you really that dense, sunshine?

I wouldn't know about the sheep, though sounds like you have first hands experience in the matter... after all, you are an expert in everything

jeffe

3: if you change to a mono metal, the higher SD of EXACTLY the same alloy at the same speed will penetrate futher.


jeffe[/QUOTE]


Ah, gerard? perhaps you, in your infinite knowledge of BULL--ets... should be able to comprended this...

take 2 barnes x triple shocks...

oh, say two different WEIGHTS of, oh, .458...

run them both at 2100...

which one will penetrate further?


Simple question.. simple answer,...

i think it's even simple enough for you to answer.

jeffe

You want to dance? Lets go.

The heavier bullet penetrates deeper. Tell me why.