Alf,
No offense meant in my bent out of shape comment. I just detected a note of exasperation there. You must let us know in advance when you will be here in SA. We travel a bit during hunting season with presentations and field testing but the schedule is usually quite flexible.

Jeffe,
You do have some strange ideas. Customer service is for customers and that you are not. Thank goodness. Trying to educate you in a couple of simple new ideas would be much too tedious. With all the blunders you have made here, we have had our share. You can go and spread some on another thread now. Or maybe you should go hunting and remember to take your shovel. I am curious to know: How do you carry this shovel for a quick draw? Do you have like this giant holster on your back and draw it over the top of your head or what?

By the way, check out Chris' table above and then tell us again how Sd relates to penetration

500,
We are actually busy moving our machines from one section of the building to another. I am told that we will not have any production for another two weeks with cabling and building to get done. When we start up again, the planning with the expansion is to get rid of the backlog by the end of April and to meet demand at least to the end of the year.

I will also have a dedicated machine for development of new product

RIP,
(Short semi wadcutter .416) = how many inches of straight line penetration of thorn tree at 100 paces? These are the principles of bullet shape and twist at work not so?

BigRx,
The inverted cone has one serious flaw in the DG application. When it encounters serious bone it is less reliable than a cylinder. With inverted cones we see much more curvature in the wound channel after bones are encountered than with cylinders even in plainsgame and smaller animals.

Although inverted cones do result in wider wound channels, the difference is not worth the reduction in linear penetration and additional depth. We had a spectacular result on a kudu with a 110gr HV this past season. At Mv 3600 fps and impact at just under 100 metres, the bullet completely shattered both shoulders and exited. From recovered bullets at raking angles on kudu and eland, we know it would have looked like this 130gr .284:


With the wide range of possible impact speeds a given bullet could be used at, getting bullet to deform to an inverted cone reliably is also a daunting task.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
RIP,
(Short semi wadcutter .416) = how many inches of straight line penetration of thorn tree at 100 paces? These are the principles of bullet shape and twist at work not so?

Gerard, not Gerald,
Oh, you mean my single sighter shot off the hood of the bakkie, at the envelope with the one inch dot inked upon it, pinned to the trunk of an umbrella thorn acacia at 100 yards?

That 380 grain .416 caliber FN (2509 fps MV) passed through the 16" thick tree trunk, dead center, then continued on and passed through another similar tree trunk 25 yards beyond (12" thick and off center there) then kept on its laser straight path across the Tuli Block, traversed Botswana in a northwesterly direction and ended up in the swamps of the Okavango, where it was recovered from the gut of a red lechwe I shot the next week.

Up there in the Okavango, I used one shot of same ammo to down a cape buffalo, then one more shot as insurance after he was dead.

Ronnie McFarlane of Micheletti Bates Safaris was so impressed by my ammo (your bullet) that I let him beg the rest of them off of me to feed his original John Rigby .416 Rigby Mauser with.

I haven't heard that he has been stomped by an elephant. I assume he thus found a bullet (GSC) that was easy on his bore, and a real killer.

I don't want you making any other bullets until you have got those .404 Jeffery African Sheep Bullets ready. .423 caliber/320 grain HV.

Gerard,

Thanks for the remodeling and production update.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Hunters,

1. The Barnes-X perspective:

The reason the Barnes company decided to make an expanding mono-metal bullet was because they knew it was more effective on game. The whole hunting fraternity came to know this as well over a number of years - now it is tried and tested. The idea is to keep the petals on the bullet during the terminal phase, otherwise you may as well shoot solids from the beginning without the negative of losing bullet weight, as there are no petals to shear off on impact. When the velocity is too high (above 2,700 fps impact velocity) the petals sheer off before reaching the vitals, which is not desirable. (Impact velocity is seldom above 2,700 fps; hence its good record).

That is why a 200-gr Barnes-X at 2,480 fps will perform better on game than a 165-gr Barnes-X at 3,100 fps, provided the impact velocity does not drop to such an extent, at long-range, that the bullet does not open up. (Naturally for longer shots one will load/use the heavier bullet with a 300 Win Mag instead of the 30-06 Spr). The slower dissipation of energy over a longer time period (at lower velocity) makes for a better wounding effect as the setup time of the bullet is slower and ensures longer and more effective wound tracks. Dr Asby, a medical docter, is of the same opinion and wrote in this regard to Man Magnum (Maximizing Monolithic Bullet Performance - June 2000). Loosing all petals account for 23% weight loss on Barnes-X bullets and can in no way benefit us, as that puts the lighter bullet at only 127 grains (loss of momentum).

The GS-HV bullet, which is generally lighter than the Barnes-X bullets we shoot, looses its petals even sooner (being softer) than the Barnes-X. Whilst the flat-faced cylinder (projectile) is far more effective than a RN Solid of equal weight, experience on buffalo tells us that the large expanding Rhino Soft creates larger wound channels than flat-faced solids like the Sledgehammer and Rhino's Solid and puts them down much quicker.

2. Wounding effect on Springbok:

The wounds on the springbok Gerard showed is hardly proof of how bullets behave in flesh. It is actually proof of bad shot placement more than anything else. That was a stomach-shot on a frail and tiny buck (25 kg live weight on ave.), and such wounds are typical when a bullet encounters a water-filled gut. I have seen similar shots on springbok with more powerful rounds, such as the 270 Winchester , making a much bigger hole - it proves nothing. Light weight mono-metal bullets (40 gr) do not make holes like that when placed through the shoulders of game (i.e. flesh) - not even the Barnes-X that maintains its petals, as I have experienced with a 45-gr Barnes-X bullet at 3,100 fps in a 223 Rem on bushpig.

That was the point that Dr Mauritz Coetzee laboured about the small exit wounds made by GS-HV bullets in the 7 mm STW when he said, "This ewe refused to go down initially ... eventually she laid down ... then she would get up time after time when we approached her. She finally succumbed after 15 minutes and on closer inspection we found that the entrance and exit wounds were exactly the same size - in other words, there was no expansion of the bullet. on closer inspection we found that the entrance and exit wounds were exactly the same size". His observation was based on numerous shots that were made over two hunting trips. The essence of this comment seems to be that the bullet behaved like a solid, despite the resultant flat-faced profile when the petals came off, yielding an ineffective wound.

I guess we can kill in many ways (with different bulltes) and the effectiveness will remain a matter of ... in the eye of the beholder!

Chris Bekker

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Jeffe,
You do have some strange ideas. Customer service is for customers and that you are not. Thank goodness. Trying to educate you in a couple of simple new ideas would be much too tedious. With all the blunders you have made here, we have had our share. You can go and spread some on another thread now. Or maybe you should go hunting and remember to take your shovel. I am curious to know: How do you carry this shovel for a quick draw? Do you have like this giant holster on your back and draw it over the top of your head or what?

By the way, check out Chris' table above and then tell us again how Sd relates to penetration

Gerard,
when you run out of facts, do you always result in name calling/juvenille behavoir, or is this just your internet personality?

Are you serious that you don't see how SD relates to penetration?

here it is, in extract, condensed for your consumption

sd .310 pen. 63 cm
sd .252 pen 52 cm
sd .191 pen 42.5 cm

Do you have any other BASIC questions? Gee, G, i would think a bullet maker should have this stuff down...

So, Gerard, before you run off at the mouth AGAIN, what's the momentum of your little bullets with the sd engraved on them, at zero velocity?

hint.. multiplication by zero results in a null set, or, in common speach... ZERO

Then again, your mind is obviously made up, and facts won't ever change it

jeffe

.

.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Randy Garrett on the 45-70 Government :

"It is extremely common for shooters to prefer relatively small calibers that produce high velocity and flat, long-range trajectory. This is evidenced by the overwhelming popularity of calibers such as the 30-06 Springfield, 7mm Magnum, and 300 Winchester Magnum. These calibers work with fairly small diameter bullets that require expansion in order to produce reasonably quick kills. Simply stated, the price paid for flat trajectory with modest recoil is bullet diameter insufficient to produce quick kills with non-expanding bullets. By contrast, the 45-70 is not a long-range cartridge, but within its 200-yard range it offers some extremely significant advantages over all smaller diameter calibers. Primary among these is the 45-70’s ability to utilize extremely blunt non-expanding hard-cast bullets. This is the case for a couple of reasons.

First, unlike the great majority of bolt-action rifles, the 45-70 lever-action rifle is configured so as to allow the reliable transit of blunt nose cartridges from the magazine to the chamber. By their nature, most bolt-action rifles will not reliably feed blunt bullets from the magazine to the chamber, and, consequently, require roundnose bullets, usually solids, whenever great penetration is required. This is a grave shortcoming, as roundnose solids are notorious for their lack of quick incapacitation.

Second, owing to the substantial diameter of the 45-70, blunt non-expanding bullets produce wound channels entirely adequate to produce quick kills on big game. No expansion is required. This subject of adequate wound channel diameter is also influenced by the diameter of the frontal flat on the bullet (meplat). In fact, meplat diameter is more significant than bullet diameter with regards to the actual diameter of the penetration channel produced. In other words, the blunter the bullet the wider the wound channel. Due to the large diameter of the caliber and the lever-action rifle’s ability to reliably chamber very blunt nose cartridges, the 45-70 is capable of delivering nearly unparalleled impact effect against heavy game, with super deep bone-crushing penetration and quick incapacitation effect."
Regards
Chris Bekker

With apologies to Digital Dan and RIP and others who are no longer amused.

Chris,
1. Your insight into the design objectives of Barnes is commendable and I would be out of place if I commented on that part of your reply. I must point out though, that it is common courtesy to get the spelling of names correct, especially if you profess to be a technical journalist. It is Ashby, not Asby.

It is noted that you are of the opinion that a 165gr monometal bullet from a 300Win Mag will kill less effectively than a 200gr mono from a 30-06. Do I recall correctly: Did Dr Ashby not put forward the theory that a 22 Hornet is more effective than a 22-250? Also noted is the fact that you are of the opinion that energy transfer takes place between bullet and target.

The last paragraph of your item one is good example of the way you prove a point with an irrelevant example. Somehow a cylinder shape is better than a round nose solid, but an expanded bullet, which is better than a truncated cone of sorts, proves that an expanded bullet is better than a cylinder. How do you put these things together?

2. Have a look at this picture of a 40gr HV through the shoulders of a springbuck.



It left a nice 2cm exit hole because it shed the petals on the way through. We also find that when velocity is low and the bullet maintains a mushroom, the holes look like this.



You should broaden you mind and shoot your monos fast enough to experience the difference. The second point also contains the contradictory statements when discussing the same bullet and shot: " in other words, there was no expansion of the bullet" and " the bullet behaved like a solid, despite the resultant flat-faced profile when the petals came off". When you made this point some two or three years ago I commented that you guys should make up your minds whether the bullet expanded or not. Either way you seem confused as an HV bullet will obviously have to expand in the process of losing the petals.

In your last post above, you publish Mauritz' letter to Sporting rifles of the same time frame of two or three years ago. I summarise the relevant parts of my reply of that time below, as it still holds true.

1 All through his letter, Dr. Coetzee admits to bad shot placement by some of the group involved, such as: “I must add that the first shot was too low on the front leg to really had an effect.†“A previously wounded Blesbuck was next ... “ â€luckily the 130 gr 7 mm GS-HV bullet hit the spine - the range was 120 meters.â€

2. My opinion is that the two blesbuck shot in the middle of the body behind the shoulder were shot too high. As with a gemsbuck, only a shot below the centerline of the body will center the lungs well. See the explanation and diagram here. Mr. Bekker himself states in another article: “It should be born in mind that the killing of animals is essentially a matter of biology - if you shoot too high and miss the lungs and lower than where the spine is, the animal will run away.â€

3. Of the two blesbuck that had to be shot twice, Dr. Coetzee says: â€Gray shot a number of the total of 26 and also had to shoot two Blesbuck at least twice.†This is the Gray of whom is said in another article: “On the same hunt Gray took two shots at a springbuck and missed. The springbuck took off and, after running a distance, it stopped at 420 metres and looked back.†Readers may draw their conclusions as they wish about this, but the article continues: “And then Colin stepped in with the STW (with 130gr HV bullets). The ram was facing them, presenting only a frontal shot. At the shot it fell instantly with a perfect neck shot!†The photo of the result is below.


4. Note that in the entire description of events by Dr. Coetzee, Colin Angelo had no difficulty dropping whatever animal he shot at, regardless of distance or bullet used. The only difficulties that were experienced were by other shooters. Clearly Colin is a good marksman and others find their excuses elsewhere.

5. Finally Dr. Coetzee states: “As to my vested interest in the distribution of Rhino bullets, I offer no apology.â€

We also know now that he (Mauritz) has a hand in the design of Rhino bullets and his opinion of a competitive product should be seen in that light. In fact, his blatant slating of a competitive product lays his product open to the same treatment by others, does it not?

Jeffe, (Shovelman!)

It is difficult to reply to your posts because there is not much by way of facts, which is why I poke fun at you with disparaging remarks as you do with others. Lets stick to facts then but I doubt that you will be able to do that.

Regarding your three line Sd table:
You must have missed this in my reply above, just a small oversight I am sure. " By the way, check out Chris' table above and then tell us again how Sd relates to penetration" As Chris's table (last one on the previous page) shows no relation between Sd and penetration, you do not answer but reply with a red herring. The table you quoted so selectively actually proves that Sd is of no relevance and that Mo/XSA is the indicator. Here is the table completed with the rest of the facts you conveniently ignore.

Bullet 175gr sd .310 pen. 63 cm Momentum 59.57
Bullet 142gr sd .252 pen 52 cm Momentum 50.51
Bullet 108gr sd .191 pen 42.5 cm Momentum 40.27

Now tell us, which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or Sd?

If we adapt the above table to reflect a zero velocity example as you so cleverly ask, we get:

Bullet 175gr sd .310 pen. 0 cm Momentum 0
Bullet 142gr sd .252 pen 0 cm Momentum 0
Bullet 108gr sd .191 pen 0 cm Momentum 0

And I ask again: Which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or Sd?

I do not expect to get an answer to the above as you have demonstrated a pattern of not answering a question when you are cornered.

Mandatory rude parting shot as dictated by Shovelman's attitude.

Jeffe, there are many whose opinions I respect and many whose advice I would heed, you are not amongst them.

Chris,

You make a strong case for cylinder shapes. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
With apologies to Digital Dan and RIP and others who are no longer amused.
....

Jeffe, there are many whose opinions I respect and many whose advice I would heed, you are not amongst them.

Gerard,

Once again, you have made it rather clear whos' opinions you value. Those that agree with you "count" them that aren't savant's for you.. you don't.

Fact of the matter is that you are plaing semantics games, and then when backed into a DIRECT binary question, you resort to name calling.

So, there it is...

Which part of chris' article, that CLEARLY shows relative SD= relative penetration did you miss ?

semantics, gerard...

I do find it amusing that you would first be confused by too much data in a post, and then, when a post is SPOT on to a single direct point, you would revert to "well, there's not a lot of facts"

This is gamesman ship, gerard.. simple, plain, childish gamesmanship...

right up there with mental masterbation and the inability to say "damn, i am was not correct"

Now, please feel free to tell me that "oh, you'll never be a customer" and your other lines of tripe... and that in garard's world, that SD has nothing to do with penetration.

I just LOVED the way you mixed an equation with alternate variables... aint that cute? like assclown's "well, just divide it by 2" line.


Don't you have a customer to go lie to about when his CC was billed and when his order was shipped?

No, already did that today?

rant away gerard, no point in stopping now... show us your valid view points...



jeffe

Shovelman,

I knew you would be incapable of an answer. You are so predictable.

Gerard,
are you so hung up on name calling that you can't read?

what are you TALKING about this time?

awww, are him wittle feelings hurt and has to call names, just like in kindergarten?


While it's probably peaerls before swine, here's a quick snapshot for you read.. and think about



Notice, that.. WOW, it's fairly consistent!!!

lower weight, lower SD, lower momentum, lower penetration...



jeffe

Jeffe,

How do you explain the match between momentum and penetration here?

Bullet/SD/Index/Pen/Index/Momentum/Index
175--.310--100--63---100--59.75----100
142--.252--81---53----84--50.51-----85
108--.191--62---42.5--67--40.27-----67

In this example from Chris, I used his factor of 11.8 as used above, to predict penetration. How do you explain this?

Cartridge -- Mass -- Velocity - Momentum - Energy --- SD -- Mo/XSA-- Penetration
.223 Super - 55 gr - 9,500 fps - 74.64 ----11,025 -- .158 --- 474 ------ 40.2
30-06 Spr. - 220 gr- 2,375 fps - 74.64 ---- 2,756 -- .331 --- 251 ------ 21.2

In this example Chris stated:

-- Cartridge --/ Mass / Velocity / Momentum / Energy /-- SD --
7 x 57 mm -- 175 gr -- 2,350 fps -- 58.75 -- 2,146.5 -- .310
7 mm STW - 120 gr -- 3,427 fps -- 58.75 -- 3,130.2 -- .213
With the comment that penetration of the two bullets would be identical
Care to offer an explanation for that?

I then added real life speeds to his table and used his factor of 11.8 for penetration and the result is:

-- Cartridge --/ Mass / Velocity / Momentum / Energy / Sd / Penetration
7 x 57 mm -- 175 gr -- 2,350 fps -- 58.75 --- 2,146 - .310 / 39.32
7 mm STW --- 120 gr -- 3,850 fps -- 66.00 --- 3,951 - .213 / 44.17

Comment?


Chris also posted:

Bullet / Speed / Momentum / Mo/XSA / Penetration / Energy/ E-Index
175 --- 2,200 ---- 55.00 ----- 682 ------ 57.76 ---- 1,881 --- 100
142 --- 2,712 ---- 55.00 ----- 682 ------ 57.76 ---- 2,320 --- 123
108 --- 3,565 ---- 55.00 ----- 682 ------ 57.76 ---- 3,049 --- 162

Is it not amazing how penetration follows Mo/XSA exactly despite the widely differing Sd values?

Then Chris gives this comparison and comments as follows:

One just cannot compare two bullets with the same SD, one weighing 150 grains and the other 300 grains, as Sd is only a ratio.

When we look at the table below, we will see that smaller calibers can penetrate deeper than bigger calibers, when we accept Mo/Xsa as the yardstick.


And of course you still fail to explain my questions above:

Bullet 175gr sd .310 pen. 63 cm Momentum 59.57
Bullet 142gr sd .252 pen 52 cm Momentum 50.51
Bullet 108gr sd .191 pen 42.5 cm Momentum 40.27

Now tell us, which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or Sd?

If we adapt the above table to reflect a zero velocity example as you so cleverly ask, we get:

Bullet 175gr sd .310 pen. 0 cm Momentum 0
Bullet 142gr sd .252 pen 0 cm Momentum 0
Bullet 108gr sd .191 pen 0 cm Momentum 0

And I ask again: Which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or Sd?

.

quote:

Originally posted by DigitalDan:

Gerard,
This pic compliments of DigitalDan represents Bekker-style mental masturbation over sectional density.

You woke me up with the lightning bolt correlation of Mo/XSA to penetration: BAM!

Zero BAM = Zero penetration. Perfect correlation.

High sectional density just sitting there, with zero penetration: bad correlation

Why don't the mental masturbators get it? I knew it caused hairy palms, but hairy brows too?

Example after example clearly points out the absolute, one to one, and zero to zero correlation of BAM to penetration!

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I honestly after 6 pages understand how you can draw any conclusion from any experiment when you are constantly changing two or more variables?

Especially if you are firing them into wet packed paper that has been shown to be the least effective to measure penetration in as it compacts in front of the projectile and the rate and magnitude of compaction is velocity related.

Why take a 175 gr bullet and compare it to a 120 gr bullet when the 175 gr bullet is doing 100 fps or worse 200 fps less than the 120 gr bullet? It say nothing at all cause you were not comparing apples to apples.

Why not take both, the 120 and the 175 and run them at exactly the same velocity, then compare ?

Alf,
That is a silly question, unless you want to decrease the caliber of the 120 grainer to make the BAM values equal. Yes it will also improve the SD of the lighter bullet, but all the foregoing has clearly shown that BAM is better than SD for correlation to penetration.

Let's not use wetpack, let's use flesh and blood and bone.

The heavier bullet of same caliber and same velocity will also have more BAM and more SD.

Lower the mass, and you gotta raise the velocity to play fair with BAM.

There are always three variables at play here, M, V, and bullet caliber. It is meaningless to change M and not V. Without V, M means nothing. Without V, SD means less than nothing, and that is as real as the units of SD.

Don't like "BAM"?: Bullet-Area-Momentum (inverse) quotient

"MBA" sound better?: Momentum-Bullet-Area-qoutient

How about "Mo'BAD"?: Momentum-Bullet-Area Datum

I like BAM as shorthand for M0/XSA.

There is no argument left here. Put SD to bed with the cat.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Jeffe,

How do you explain the match between momentum and penetration here?

*** lots of derailers ***

And I ask again: Which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or Sd?

Gerard,
this is rather easy

ANY artifact that is based off velocity changes with velocity... or are you saying BAM, TKO, ME, BSI, or any other (known faulty) artifact equation ALSO has something to do with penetration?

The 458 lott, throwing the 500 gr .341 SD bullet at 2300 is the KNOWN "most penetrating SOB in africa" (to quote a PH friend of mine) is frequently compared to a 30 caliber 220 at .331, as being a close second... but that's at 2650 or so....

So, gerard, as momentum is an artifact of velocity, you are actually stating that (in your article) SD has NOTHING to do with bullet weight, and a light fast bullet, with a super high momentum, will out penetrate a lower momentum, regardless of sd?

that's too damn funny...

why?

gerard, explain the penetration of an ARROW... SUPER high Sd, low vel, LOW momentum....

and as we ALL know, an arrow penetrates FAR FAR FAR outside it's "momentum"

Have a nice day now
jeffe

This is way past ridiculous.
Sort of like the MatchKing thread that wouldn't die.

Jeffe,
You are just slinging mud.
BAM is a physical reality, Mo/XSA.

All the others are the contrived "artifacts," including Sectional Density, SD.

Momentum is not an artifact of velocity! Momentum is real. It is a result of velocity given to mass. That is real.

Jeffe, I don't know what kind of perversion you are puruing here. Mental what???

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
This is way past ridiculous.
Sort of like the MatchKing thread that wouldn't die.

Jeffe,
You are just slinging mud.
BAM is a physical reality, Mo/XSA.

All the others are the contrived "artifacts," including Sectional Density, SD.

Momentum is not an artifact of velocity! Momentum is real. It is a result of velocity given to mass. That is real.

Jeffe, I don't know what kind of perversion you are puruing here. Mental what???

RIP,
Momentum is an artifact of velocity. This is SILLY... at zero velocity, with a given bullet and SD, what's the MOEMENTUM ??

This is a simple question, for my simple mind. If the results are ZERO as a factor (artifact) of zero velocity, then mo, as well ass ME, are zero. So, without velocity, there's NO OTHER WAY TO COMPARE.

Mental issue? I detest false information and spin placed on physical facts.

Rip,
let's look at this ANOHER way...

say a bullet (sd .341)goes from 0 to 2300 fps to 0 (and lands in water 4 miles away,)....

What's the intial Momentum? right at zero fps?
What's the intial SD? right at zero fps?

What's the highest Momentum? right at 2300 fps?
What's the highest SD? right at 2300 fps?


What's the final Momentum? right at zero fps?
What's the final SD? right at zero fps?

Why lookey here... SD is a CONSTANT and momentum is an artifact of velocity...

WOW

jeffe

Momentum/XSA, or BAM, combines mass and velocity and is much more meaningful than SD, which is an "artifact" of "weight."

Semantics, Jeffie, semantics.

Get your finger out of your nose and stop tickling your brain. You'll go blind!!!

Rip,
which part of a "constant" is so hard to grasp on SD?

Why does an arrow penetrate so amazingly, despite it's Momentum, energy, and velocity?

S D

Sorry pal, repeating that Momentum is the key, and it's variable in the equation, doesn't make it truth

jeffe

Jeffe,
You are mixing apples and oranges, mixing bullets and arrows. Take the razor edged point off the low velocity arrow and see how deeply it penetrates, even if it does have high SD.

You can drive a blunt arrow through an elephant if the arrow is strong enough to not deform on impact, and if the arrow has enough momentum, to hell with whatever its SD is.

Now get your finger out of your nose and stop tickling your brain or you will go blind!!!

When you calculate the sectional density of an arrow, you use the imaginary square arrow shaft cross section don't you?

Rip...

funny, you want to claim "sharp edges" as why it penetrates... and totally ignore surface area of drag.. that a bullet (solid) is moving 8 TIMES as fast..

but the SD of a 450gr .300" arrow is .635!!!!!

moving at a MAX MAX MAX of 300 fps (this is usually a 280gr arrow for max fps)..

thats 90 ft-lbs of enery (oh wow)

or AMAZINGLING little momentum...

or, about a 22 LR..


You really should review data, sir, and put your opinion on a shelf.

A fieldpoint arrow (that's the no blades one) goes CLEAN THROW A DEER...

blades are for tissue trauma.. period...

I would ask now, is that your armpit you are talking/typing from?

jeffe

Posting for Chris Bekker:

RIP,

Don't be a wanker (I mean a mental masturbator) - write something smart and make a contribution instead of publishing silly pictures (masturbating with pictures) on the side line. I see you are busy to get another name (masturbating) for Mo/Xsa. Originally BAM, ... "MBA sound better?" ... and then "How about Mo'BAD?" Indecision? First the 'product' then the 'quotient and then the 'datum' - masturbating! Let me help you out of your misery ... the word BAM is not descriptive - it sounds like a shot going off that was totally under-loaded (secondary explosion effect). We are talking about 'Momentum Density' - the 1 st term is 'Momentum' and the second term is 'Density' - that is how the Germans refer to it. Read 'density' for 'area' (Xsa). So if you are trying to find an acronym, then go with MD (to remember the MD word, just think of Mighty Dick) - very simple, no need to break your head. By the way, we all accept the mathematically correct calculation of area.

MD = [MV]/[(Pi)(Radius2)] = Mo/Xsa

From the beginning (my first article in SA Hunter) I said that SD must not be used stupidly - it must be used in the context of the same caliber and the same bullet (same material & construction), and we should be cautious when it comes to cross-caliber comparisons, as the ultimate measure is Mo/Xsa (we have reasonable agreement on this by now). When 'Mass' changes, it affects 'Momentum' and that flows through to Mo/Xsa, and in addition, different calibers (bore diameters) have different areas (Xsa's), and when the bullet from the bigger bore expands, it inhibits penetration further.

I really think we can now put this matter to bed, so RIP can go sleep with his cat. (after all the masturbating many people probably learned something of value, save for those that had it worked out long before - I mean even before birth! )
Chris Bekker

PS : Just when RIP is settling for the 375 Wby Mag ("BAM of the .375 Wby with 300 grainer at 2740 fps, a modest load: 835 lbs.ft./sq.in. - the .375 Weatherby is the most versatile, practical, and deadly cartridge in the world"), the 338 Rum Mag rears its head, and then in hot pursuit the 338 Ultra Mag Improved - it pushes the envelope from "250 gr @ 2,860 fps" to 250 gr @ 3,000 fps, bumping the BAM (sorry MD) up to 938 lbs.ft./sq.in. - calculated the old style (Xsa= D x D) just for comparison. RIP, please start a campaign to convert all the elephant and buffalo hunters in the world to the 338 Ultra Mag Improved. Whilst you call BAM = The 'FUNDAMENTAL' truth, it is not the 'ULTIMATE' truth, as penetration is not the 'be all and end all', as most of know full well

Tee hee!
Right Jeffe, forget the blades, though they are attached to a sharp point. Any sharp point will do, like a field point, for a low momentum, high SD arrow. Still, a nondeforming blunt will do too, with enough momentum. That high SD blunt arrow will bounce off the elephant hide, unless you give it enough momentum to plow on through, and it will if it doesn't go to splinters. This Jeffeoso apples to oranges comparison could be construed to represent a recommendation for tough bullets, if we warp our minds around that.

Bekker,
The .338 Lapua would be my pick for any game on the planet if it were legal. But no, outdated laws won't allow it.

It certainly is easy to wank around with this topic, just like you do in all your "publications."

I have been holding back on the MD acronym because I am one myself, but since you suggest it, I'll change change my tag line. Yes, I am a Mighty Dick, or whatever other MD you want to call me.

Fellas,

May I humbly suggest you all let this one die?

Get over it already!

friar

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Tee hee!
..... This Jeffeoso apples to oranges comparison could be construed to represent a recommendation for tough bullets, if we warp our minds around that.
It certainly is easy to wank around with this topic, just like you do in all your "publications."

No, Rip, You said these things, that is a "strawman" technique for those that are backed into a corner on FACTS.

I believe this will be my last post in the thread.... as gerard and rip, much like nixon, will declare victory, even though the facts (like hanoi being overrun) don't support the "statements"

Whatever gents, I, myself, will continue to use big slow high Sd bullets in the standard jacket/lead, and slightly lower in mono's

let's talk about something more fun.. like low SD, high velocity match kings in a 45/70 lever gun

jefe

Aw Jeffe, don't go away mad. And don't go away twisting the truth.

Momentum and XSA are the truth, the facts, what makes things happen.

SD = Simply Dumb ... wank, wank, wank ...

Ha!

I thought I was the only one guilty of getting RIP worked up into a tizzy, but now I find that there are others as well.

_____

Jeffe,

Would an FN arrow produce a supercavitation bubble at 280 fps?

500groans,
This ain't a tizzy. Just good fun. Wankin'. Doin' good ain't got no end ... a double negative which means you ought to understand "real good."

Dealing with more than one variable at a time seems to be a problem. Despite the fact that, in real life, the situation we are discussing involves an almost infinite permutation of variables, we cannot agree on a scenario where just one parameter is changed.

It is noted that our experiments thus far were too complicated. To overcome that problem we shall do one experiment at a time and change only one variable in each.

Experiment 1. Fire one 175gr .284 brass cylinder into gelatine at 2000 fps. Penetration = x inches. This is Result A.
Experiment 2. Fire one 175gr .284 brass cylinder into gelatine at 2500 fps. Penetration = x+y inches. This is Result B.
Experiment 3. Fire one 175gr .284 brass cylinder into gelatine at 1500 fps. Penetration = x-z inches. This is Result C.

We observe the differing values of results A, B and C. Now we have to appoint a panel of experts to analyse and interpret the results and give us the answer to:

Q 1. Why are results A, B and C different?

As the problem is complicated and requires much calculation and debate, we are told we have to wait some time for the answer.

To kill time, we do a further three experiments along the same lines as the first three, using a 120gr cylinder in place of the 175gr cylinder.

Experiment 4. Fire one 120gr .284 brass cylinder into gelatine at 2000 fps. Penetration = a inches. This is Result D.
Experiment 5. Fire one 120gr .284 brass cylinder into gelatine at 2500 fps. Penetration = a+b inches. This is Result E.
Experiment 6. Fire one 120gr .284 brass cylinder into gelatine at 1500 fps. Penetration = a-c inches. This is Result F.

We observe the differing values of results D, E and F. As this is a new and completely different set of experiments and way too much work for one panel of experts, we appoint a second panel of experts to analyse and interpret the results and give us the answer to:

Q 2. Why are results D, E and F different?

As the problem is complicated and requires much calculation and debate, we are told we have to wait some time for the answer.

While we are waiting, we bunch of laymen are intrigued by the complexity of the problems and start speculating about comparing the results of Experiments 1, 2 and 3 respectively with the results of 4, 5 and 6. After all, only the weight of the cylinder has changed from the first set to the second. We ask both panels to consider the following questions in addition to their respective main questions and make the results of both sets of experiments available to all.

Q 3 Why is Result A greater than Result D?
Q 4 Why is Result B greater than Result E?
Q 5 Why is Result C greater than Result F?

We also notice that there exists an unexplained anomaly we have not yet considered and, as we are completely at a loss for an explanation to this, we also ask:

Q 6 Why is Result E greater than Result C?

After 6 pages of field notes and calculations, Panel 1 returns the following report:

Answers to:
Q1. We are unable to determine the answer to this question. The problem does not conform to our field of experience as it contains only one variable that we cannot explain. The beads have fallen off our calculators and we do not have enough fingers and toes to continue the work.
Q3. A contains a higher Sd value compared to D.
Q4. B contains a higher Sd value compared to E.
Q5. C contains a higher Sd value compared to F.
Q6. We are unable to determine the answer to this question. The problem does not conform to our field of experience as it contains more than one variable that we cannot explain. The beads have fallen off our calculators etc.
Additional note: These are stupid questions you should ask questions that fit the predetrmined answers we already have.

Panel 2 returns the following answers:

Q2. D, E and F are different because the momentum values differ.
Q3. Result A is greater than Result D because it contains a higher momentum value than D.
Q4. Result B is greater than Result E because it contains a higher momentum value than E.
Q5. Result C is greater than Result F because it contains a higher momentum value than F.
Q6. Result E is greater than Result C because it contains a higher momentum value than C.
Additional note: In comparing penetration depths of similar construction bullets, it is customary to use Mo/XSA but when comparing bullets of the same caliber, momentum is sufficient as XSA becomes a constant.

BigRx,
That was actually Chris' table. I forget why it was posted, as did Jeffe

Jeffe,
Alf asked the same question about arrows previously on this thread. The answer has not changed, look it up.

You state: "So, without velocity, there's NO OTHER WAY TO COMPARE." It begs the question: If there is no velocity what is there to compare? Surface texture, level of shininess, weight, length, caliber, type of construction, price and consistency of manufacture come to mind but, in the context of this discussion, which is penetration, comparison without velocity is pointless.

You mention surface area/drag. Are you talking about the front or the shaft of the projectile or both?

Chris,
Tell me more about this 338 Remington Ultra Magnum Magnum. It is a new one for me.

Friar,
Lighten up dude, it is only a game.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

Quote: "Tell me more about this 338 Remington Ultra Magnum Magnum. It is a new one for me."


I noticed the double 'Magnum' in your reference - surely just an inadvertent typo. The 338 Ultra Mag Improved is basically a 338 RUM with an 'improved' chamber (re-cut) to create more powder capacity by virtue of having straighter walls and a steeper shoulder angle. With an 'improved' chamber you simply fire-form your cases to blow out the new shoulder shape and it increases the case capacity by about 10 grains. The 'improved' chamber concept, that keeps the same head-spacing distance, allows one to shoot standard factory ammo the first time. The concept was the brainchild of one P.O. Ackley and he did it with a host of 'standard' calibers by changing the shoulder angle to 40 degrees. As a by-product it was found that case-life was also extended. Today, factories don't worry about it, they simply redesign the case by using a bigger case and neck down to bore diameter they require (eg, Dakota, Lazzeroni, Lapua, RUM & Win Short Magnums) as today's steels are superior to those used before the 60's and can thus handle increased pressures better. The 338 Ultra Mag Imp is simply a continuation of the velocity race that Roy Weatherby started - much to the delight of those that seek more velocity (no pun).

If one cannot shoot a particular cartridge consistently without flinching, it is a moot exercise and wounding animals become a real possibility. Shootability then becomes more important than power. Furthermore, in these fast cartridges the quality of the bullet is more important than the caliber itself. Ackley coined the phrase ... "no caliber is any better than its bullets". This was especially true during the period before premium-grade bullets came onto the market. These monsters (338 RUM, 340 Wby Mag, 338 Lapua & 338 Ultra Mag Imp) should only be used with mono-metals in a hunting scenario or match bullets for sniping up to 1,500 yards where precision shooting becomes the prime concern. Due to superior case design and precision actions, the 338 Lapua is still the preferred choice for sniping by the military and I am sure RIP concurs with this. The Mo/Xsa is so high that I think one can shoot trough 2 elephant heads, using a 250-gr solid @ 3,000 fps (and saving one bullet). Personally, I will never use these unnecessarily powerful cartridges, as I do not have a need for them - my 300 H&H gives me sterling performance on game at longer ranges, because I focus on bullet performance and not on high energy values.

Regards
Chris Bekker

Chris,
My reference is not a typo. I am curious about the one you mention in a reply to RIP. You said: "the 338 Rum Mag rears its head"

quote:

Originally posted by Mauser96:
the answer is at Enjoy your Friday.

Please remove this link to PORNOGRAPHY

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mauser96:
the answer is at Enjoy your Friday.

Please remove this link to PORNOGRAPHY

jeffe

It's been removed.

Don

Posting for Chris Bekker:

.338 Remington Ultra Mag =.338 RUM (forget Magnum, my typo)