The assertion in AA book is flat wrong ! Do the math and apply the physics and you will see why.

Yes the bullet retains angular momentum more than linear momentum but once the bullet enters the body it only completes a few turns before coming to a complete stop.

The answer lies in the fact that it is going forward as well as spinning.

A simple way of looking at it is that the bullet completes a full turn every 12 or less inches and comes to a stop within only say 24 inches of penetration.

Should we calculate the energy, forces and effect of the spinning motion vs the linear motion the percentage due to spin is negligible and its subsequent effect on the target is actually minuscule.

Angular velocity and angular momentum is but fraction of that off linear velocity and linear momentum.

quote:

Originally posted by Brice:
In other words, the more a bullet expands, the less it is likely to go in a straight line through a critter.

I was under the impression that say a FN that deforms[expanded meplat] will have tendency to maintain a more linear path than say a RN.

Trax:

You are correct!

As the meplat deforms ( flattens) the point of pressure is moved closer to the centre of gravity ( or centre of mass) of the projectile and it becomes more "stable" i.e. the lever arm of the overturning moment gets shorter i.e. more difficult to overturn.

so I seen a bunch of comments about wanting to see cup and core bullets used in the test.

I counted 4-6 just glancing at the pictures quickly.

a cup and core is just that, a jacket [cup] with a lead core inserted under pressure, then point formed.
bonding doesn't change that.
it just makes the lead adhere to the copper jacket.
bonding can be done just like soldering a copper pipe together or through chemical bonding.
it doesn't change the cup and core designation in any way.

Just an observation:

The proponents of the so called "non con" bullets have put forth a lengthy argument as to the benefits of their bullets over "conventional" bullets based on their observations of bullet performance in wet stacked paper.

Now we have this test albeit in Gelatine and we see conventional bullets performing in terms of expansion and depth of penetration in some instances as well as the non cons.

In the opening pages of the Non Con Debate we see what is deemed dismal performance by conventionals in wet paper yet when the same are shot in gelatine they perform very well, in fact most give more than adequate penetration to reach vitals?

So it begs the question:

Who is wrong and who is right ?

Which testing method is valid and further how "non con" are the non cons really or are they simply just an extension of the evolutionary development of a very old design namely the first pointed solid bullet ever made in the form of the French Balle D ?

Alf,

the difference in medium is a valid question but the (lack of) definition of 'non-con' is problematic.

For Michael and the Terminals thread a 'non-con' is a bullet that throws its petals outward to increase the wound channel's diameter while maintaining extreme depth for expanded bullets through the central flat-nosed, resulting core.

The TSX and TTSX bullets are considered 'traditional'. When the petals are retained they form a mushroom. When they rip off they tend to stay in the wound channel of the main projectile.

The magazine bullet test didn't really address non-cons at all.

I've tested my bullets on over 200 head of dead big game....I'm not really concerned with wet paper or gelatin.

416 TANZAN

So here is the rub, you fire a TSX or in my case a GSC fast enough and their "petals"come off as well, so what does that make them, conventional? not so conventional, conventional?

What about one of those really old 303's that they used in the Boer and Indian conflicts, what were they? they also came apart and had pieces doing the missile thing.

As to the apparent effect of those pieces that come off, considerable research was done prior to, during and after WW2 by your very capable US Defence Medical establishment regarding the effects of fragments and their wounding capacity. For very obvious physical reason their apparent effects are not that great.

Their sectional density and hence their ability to transfer mechanical energy to the target is severely reduced when compared to a intact projectile that deforms.

Mass is the key ! above all else, the mass = energy equivalence is the key to the projectiles ability to penetrate and do damage. This is a physical fact.

I don't disagree with most of this conversation, and I feel its valid up to a point, and I might add that the twist of the bore is a determining factor in all this, so when you put it all together, its doubtful that anyone would make a definative outright statement as to actual fact..I would say its a probability.

I do know that North fork cup points are as good a buffalo bullet as one can find, and I have recovered only those on body length shots (the rest exited in every case)..I shot a number of buffalo and a few Bison and elk for Mike eary on prior to manufacturing them. IMO they penetrate as well as a solid from what I can tell, and they expand enough to kill quite satisfactorly..I would be happy to use them on all game for the remainder of my life, but not on elephant where the solid rules..

What is important is that elephants are the medium that upset the apple cart..Most of that IMO stems from shooting solids and tough softs in a barrel with the wrong twist, and at short range, and velocity may be too high in some cases.. All to often solids impact the elephant in a "Yaw" mode and that causes problems..Any solid shot at the correct velocity, with the right bore twist to let the bullet settle quickly (5 feet) will work wonders 99.9% of the time, otherwise you may and probably will have less than acceptable results, and be mislead as to what caused it, too many times the bullet gets the blame. I don't see how the manufacturers could make better bullets than those they produce today.

1. Rate of twist has no direct effect on projectile performance other than it sets up impact condition in terms of angle of attack in error commonly referred to as yaw ( Yaw is not strictly the correct term because in a 3 dimensional cartesian system yaw is the motion described in the horizontal plane, pitch is the motion described in the vertical plane)
The combinations of yaw and pitch gives the angle of attack value.

2. Angle of attack (yaw) is entirely stochastic at barrel egress. The same projectile fired form the same bore exists the barrel at a different angle of attack with every shot. This was not known until 1994 when a pair of ballistics experts set up a test that recorded the actual angle of attack at barrel egress.

3. " going to sleep" only occurs around 50m to 75m from the bore. i.e. it becomes "more" dynamically stable.

This is the lay term used to describe the window where the bullet becomes dynamically stable as well as being statically stable. As the distance from the bore increases the bullet gets more statically stable. But then gradually becomes dynamically more unstable.
This dynamic instability is a obligatory effect of spinning of the bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
So here is the rub, you fire a TSX or in my case a GSC fast enough and their "petals"come off as well...
so what does that make them, conventional? not so conventional?

Yep, copper monos simply shed their petals at substantially higher impact velocities.
There is nothing revolutionary new about the brass CEB.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
So here is the rub, you fire a TSX or in my case a GSC fast enough and their "petals"come off as well...
so what does that make them, conventional? not so conventional?

Yep, copper monos simply shed their petals at substantially higher impact velocities.
There is nothing revolutionary new about the brass CEB.

The difference is in the way that the petals are shed between the CEB brass and the TSX copper. The brass appear to pop off and spread out from the main wound cannel. Copper appear to be ripped off and dragged along the main wound channel.

CEB is working on a 'copper raptor' that designs the petals to pop off like the brass petals.

The difference is in the way that the petals are shed between the CEB brass and the TSX copper. The brass appear to pop off and spread out from the main wound cannel. Copper appear to be ripped off and dragged along the main wound channel.

CEB is working on a 'copper raptor' that designs the petals to pop off like the brass petals.


No they do not! Nothing simply "pops off"

The separation of the projectile is quite a violent affair.

High speed radiography shows that all projectiles that show break up behaviour, whether its the nose section only or the whole projectile does so in exactly the same way and to the same model.

The physical forces that cause break up behaviour are basically constant.

It is a fallacy to believe that there is a different set of rules for each projectile type, shape or design. The rules of physical engagement between missile and target remain constant. The behaviour of each however different because of design.


The behaviour of the parts of the projectile follow the same basic mechanical behaviour commensurate with their physical properties i.e., velocity, mass, form and shape. This applies to each and very part of the projectile before, during and after break up.

The physical derivatives of these such as energy, momentum, and sectional density all still apply.

There is nothing new or revolutionary here, just more of the same but perhaps a paradigm shift in what some now deem to be important in hunting of animals.

What we can and should do however is to debate whether this shift in belief is of benefit or not.

As meat hunters we believed that bullets should not break up in the target, for obvious reason and historically all efforts were in essence to design bullets that deformed in a predictable manner without actually breaking apart.

That was the holy grail in bullet design. Many a bullet maker made their name in the quest of this design property.

Now there is a challenge to this model.

There is a segment of shooters or bullet designers who intentionally seek whether by accident or design to shoot at game with bullets that show partial break up behaviour, believing that this is of benefit?

I personally believe that this, in the past unwanted behaviour now became manifest, albeit by accident and in a effort to mitigate it's effect designers put it forth a being of benefit arguing that this is actually what we should strive for in design? What was "bad" in the past now suddenly is deemed good.

As I have said nothing is ever new. The good Folks at RWS have for years worked and designed by intent projectiles that did exactly this. ( not for hunting though but for use in defensive and offensive public policing) There is literally a whole collection of designs , many just experimental that seek to do just this.

One thing is certain though, there is no free meal, everything has a consequence.

When GS custom first launched their HV design bullet I personally became acutely aware of the devastating damage that resulted from this break up behaviour of their bullets and remarked on this on a piece I wrote on the then newly launched 7mm STW.

At short ranges and high velocity on smaller plains game this bullet design was very very effective at putting down the animal, but at the price of massive wounding and meat damage.

quote:

It is a fallacy to believe that there is a different set of rules for each projectile type, shape or design. The rules of physical engagement between missile and target remain constant. The behaviour of each however different because of design.

You're avoiding the issue of whether or not there is an observed difference between the petals of the CEB and the TSX.

This has nothing to do with a different set of rules but with a different design. A different metal and a different scoring on the inside of the petals may produce different effects. That's the same physics.

So do the CEB brass petals move away from the center line of the wound channel or do they stay in the channel? Do the TSX and GSC petals move away from the wound channel or stay in the channel? The designs are different and the materials are different. The first answers will come from observation, then from explanations about why the observations are as they are. We haven't reached the 'explanation' stage yet, because people are still denying or ignoring the first observations that CEB petals move away from the central wound channel.

I avoid nothing at all ! I take no sides at all, simply observe.

The ability of the parts that come off the bullet at breakup to penetrate and "move away" as you put it is dependent on the SD of each and every part that came off. If the SD of the fragment is low it penetrates poorly, if the SD is high it penetrates better.

The SD, velocity and energy of each and every fragment can only be a portion of that of the original projectile.

The contribution of each of these parts in terms of wounding capacity is commensurate with the SD and the velocity of each and every part.

A projectile that sheds 3 or 4 parts only as per design will obviously do better than one where the frontal zone fragments in a multiple of many small pieces. As an example: Lutz Moeller's bullets ( SAX) come in two designs each with differing fragmentation behaviour.

quote:

The ability of the parts that come off the bullet at breakup to penetrate and "move away" as you put it is dependent on the SD of each and every part that came off. If the SD of the fragment is low it penetrates poorly, if the SD is high it penetrates better.

we're still talking apples and oranges.
I'm talking about observed differences in how far away from the center wound channel a fragment moves. The brass CEB fragments have been OBSERVED to move several inches away while the copper TSX stay close to the wound channel. We can ask two questions about this. 1) Is that true? and 2) Why?

Sectional density does not control this difference. I'm a believer in SD, so I don't need a long aside about the relationship of SD to penetration depth, among many factors. Or perhaps you are referring to the tendency of the CEB blades to cut through their medium/flesh rather than to push through? In that case, yes, the knife edges would have a high sectional density, but this still does not explain the difference between the CEB and TSX. So back to the questions above, 1 & 2.

The fragment that comes off the nose of the bullet has mass, it has velocity thus momentum. But it also is not a point mass object, it has shape and mass is distributed asymmetrically within that shape. The fragment now moves through the target and interacts with the target through a representative surface area...... thus SD as per Mr Newtons original laws.... or rather the logical extension of Mr Newtons laws as modified by Mr Eular..... Its not a case of being a SD guy or not, SD is a obligatory derivative of Newtons laws.

My comment of being an 'SD' person was to prevent a trivial aside. It failed. Yes, Newton's laws work fine.

Meanwhile, we have the unexpected behavior of certain CEB brass bullets. We need to explain why their petals break off and start radiating outwards from the central wound channel while copper monometals (at least the TSX) tend to be dragged along the wound channel and break off later without radiating outwards? It is this observation that is at the heart of the designation 'non-conventional'.

That is at least interesting and raises the two questions that still have not been addressed directly in these exchanges:
Are the observations valid?
How do we explain them?

Then more practically, how do we use them?

Damn Skippy, it's a wonder we ignorant bastards using standard C&C bullets ever killed anything. I don't know too much physics nor the different responses that cooper and brass give when impacting a large hunk of living meat. But I do recognize a dead animal when I see one. Over the years, I've stuck a C&C into a goodly number of animals. After which, I would walk up to the animal and say, Damn Skippy, there's a dead animal.
Over the years, bullet technology has made considerable advances. But, it seems, that for every viable advance, some snake oil salesman has crawled out of the woodworks with the latest, greatest.
Regardless of whether you're using the latest, greatest or using a old stand-by that has performed flawlessly over the last 40 or 50 years, they've yet to invent a bullet that compensates for lousy marksmanship.
Read these post long enough and you'll get a belly full of posts about a "perfect heart shot" that ran away never to be recovered. In the same post, will be an indictment of the bullet but never the shooter. That's what keeps the snake oil salesmen in business.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The assertion in AA book is flat wrong ! Do the math and apply the physics and you will see why.

Yes the bullet retains angular momentum more than linear momentum but once the bullet enters the body it only completes a few turns before coming to a complete stop.

The answer lies in the fact that it is going forward as well as spinning.

A simple way of looking at it is that the bullet completes a full turn every 12 or less inches and comes to a stop within only say 24 inches of penetration.

Should we calculate the energy, forces and effect of the spinning motion vs the linear motion the percentage due to spin is negligible and its subsequent effect on the target is actually minuscule.

Angular velocity and angular momentum is but fraction of that off linear velocity and linear momentum.

OK Alf - I'll give the math a try!!!
Here's 2 examples:

1) 30-06 with 180 gr bullet with 1:10 twist and MV of 2,700 FPS.

2) 200Lb linebacker going 10 MPH.

Linear Momentum: 1) 70 2) 2,933 Ft-Lbm/s
Linear Energy: 1) 2,918 2) 670 Ft-Lbf

RPM 1) at MZ: 194,400
Angular Energy 1) at MZ: 13.4 Ft-Lbf
Percent Angular Energy 1) at MZ: 13.4/2918 = 0.46%

C&C worked fine for many years. Premiums gained popularity as magnums gained popularity. Heck the Partition was created because John Nosler hammered a moose at close range with his new magnum and it almost killed him.

Launch light for caliber bullets at 2900-3000 fps and hit things up close and you may have problems with bullet perfromance...

Shoot at game at 400 plus yards, you may have problems with bullet perfromance...

Launch medium to heavy for caliber bullets at 2500 to 2800 fps, keep your shots under 300 yards, no problems.

gee I figured that out without discussing physics, imagine that

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:


The difference is in the way that the petals are shed between the CEB brass and the TSX copper. The brass appear to pop off and spread out from the main wound cannel. Copper appear to be ripped off and dragged along the main wound channel.

At say 2700fps impact,copper petals would detach[shear?] from the main body of the bullet rather rapidly, or as Alf stated rather violently.
Brass being more brittle, means the petals will violently detach from the main body at lower forces/impact velocities.
Copper bullets do not expand on impact, they expand over a time distance relationship.
They expand faster[ i.e.; over a shorter distance] at the higher impact velocities.
Hence a high vel. impact expanding copper mono shedding its petals , will be more explosive in the animal,
than the same bullet at a slower impact.

quote:

I'm a believer in SD, so I don't need a long aside about the relationship of SD to penetration depth,

thats interesting, since one of the strongest exponents of CEB bullets is of the belief that SD means little in regards
to penetration.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

The difference is in the way that the petals are shed between the CEB brass and the TSX copper. The brass appear to pop off and spread out from the main wound cannel. Copper appear to be ripped off and dragged along the main wound channel.

At say 2700fps impact,copper petals would detach[shear?] from the main body of the bullet rather rapidly, or as Alf stated rather violently.
Brass being more brittle, means the petals will violently detach from the main body at lower forces/impact velocities.
Copper bullets do not expand on impact, they expand over a time distance relationship.
They expand faster[ i.e.; over a shorter distance] at the higher impact velocities.

that statement applies to all expanding projectiles, lead, brass, aluminum, copper, silver. It's like taking the time to point out that we breathe air, and we do more of it the faster we move.

quote:

Hence a high vel. impact expanding copper mono shedding its petals , will be more explosive in the animal,
than the same bullet at a slower impact.

So, should I interpret that as a denial of the validity of the observation that the CEB brass bullets were radiating to a larger diameter?

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Hence a high vel. impact expanding copper mono shedding its petals , will be more explosive in the animal,
than the same bullet at a slower impact.

So, should I interpret that as a denial of the validity of the observation that the CEB brass bullets were radiating to a larger diameter?

Not at all since I made no mention of CEB in that statement.
,but logic would deduce that the same rule would apply to CEB brass bullets.
i.e;.. that a higher [petal shearing] impact velocity would cause CEB to be more explosive in the animal,
than the same bullet at a slower [petal shearing] impact velocity.

quote:

I'm a believer in SD, so I don't need a long aside about the relationship of SD to penetration depth,

Would it be fair and logical to say that you still have something to learn regarding CEB bullets and SD,
since one of the strongest exponents of brass CEB, suggests that SD has little relevance in regards to their penetrative ability.

Of course such discovery regarding the relevance of SD in monometal bullet performance, is nothing new,
as it was something revealed and discussed by other monometal bullet manufacturers, numerous yrs before CEB ever arrived on the scene.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

CEB is working on a 'copper raptor' that designs the petals to pop off like the brass petals.

That will be interesting.

Not that the copper petals on Barnes X and GSC dont already pop off/shear off,.. at the appropriate high velocity impact.

quote:

That will be interesting.

Not that the copper petals on Barnes X and GSC dont already pop off/shear off,.. at the appropriate high velocity impact.

Trax, the last comment doesn't seem to get the point. It's not about whether monometals shear, on not, but the kind of shear. What do you say about observations of differences in shearing characteristics?

The copper bullets were NOT radiating to a large diameter like the brass bullets unless they had additional design features of internal scoring or shorter length petals.

This is not about penetration and SD, where all things equal the higher SD penetrates farther.

Do you want to address the observed differences? If not, we can be done and leave them a mystery.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
That will be interesting.

Not that the copper petals on Barnes X and GSC dont already pop off/shear off,.. at the appropriate high velocity impact.

Trax, the last comment doesn't seem to get the point. It's not about whether monometals shear, on not, but the kind of shear.

What do you mean by 'the kind of shear'?

...how many kinds of -shear force- do you believe there to be in the realm of mechanics-physics?
..please do tell, since I am only aware of one.

Be it a Nosler Parition,CEB, BarnesX or GSC, people also commonly use the term that the front section[or petals] get 'blown' off.
albeit due to rapid-violent consequences of shear force.

Bullets react on impact according to their individual construction,materials and design,..and the reactive nature/level of resistance met in the target,
... not according to the idea of 'different kinds of shear'.

Shear force( def. mechanics)
- Two forces that are equal in magnitude, opposite in direction, and act along two distinct parallel.
- the form of stress in a body that tends to produce cutting rather than stretching or bending.
- A force that attempts to cause the internal structure of a material to slide against itself.
- A force tending to cause deformation of a material by slippage along a plane or planes parallel to the imposed stress.
- Shearing forces are unaligned forces pushing one part of a body in one direction, and another part the body in the opposite direction.
[when the forces are aligned into each other, they are called compression forces.]


Clearly the front section of bullets like the NP and CEB, don't stand up to compressive & shear forces as well as the Barnes X or GSC.

the NP and CEB front sections tend to disintegrate/fragment easier than the BarnesX and GSC.

quote:

What do you mean by 'the kind of shear'?

...how many kinds of shear force are there in the realm of mechanics-physics?...please do tell.

It was explained that what was meant was different degrees of angular trajectories for the petals.

Again, what I perceive in this thread is a continual skirting of the issue pointed out several times: the petals of CEB bullets behaved differently than the TSX bullets. NO ONE IS QUESTIONING ANY NEWTONIAN PHYSICS, which will do quite well to describe both phenomena and both trajectories. But something different is going on that can be harnessed for good use if we are open to following up on the observations. Yes, please do tell.

This kind of going in circles in this thread would have everyone geocentric--"what, the heavenly orbs move?--well that's just motion mechanics!--what, move around the sun?--it's all motion mechanics, just forget the observations and theories about the sun!" Well, just like there were differences from predicted circular orbits (thank you Kepler and Brache) and geocentric models (thank you Copernicus and Occam), there appear to be some irregularies in petal shearing that may be manipulated by design and material if we learn to understand them properly.

And on to new ground--
At some point it would be good to have a comparison about total damage between a 'conventional' mushroomed bullet going through a medium and a 'non-conventional' bullet that has radiating projectiles that seem to have found an "escape velocity" from the main wound channel. (Please excuse my undefined metaphor relating to centripetal forces). Rathcoombe, in Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories, had some nice diagrams where he could calculate the volume of destruction. The 'non-cons' present a challenge for direct comparison with traditional wound channels because the projectile wounds are relatively thin/small, although the overall volume encompassed is huge. Which is more effective for hunting? It appears that the larger overall volume, even though there remain undisturbed areas inside that voume, is making a claim to more effectiveness. The contiguous/non-gapping wound volumes of conventional mushrooms and mono-metals with petals remaining in the main wound channel appear to have less overall wounding volume and killing effectivness.

That is worth following up. Naturally, it assumes that the observation about greater angular trajectories in the CEB brass 'non-cons' is real. Is this something that we might want to emulate in copper bullets through the design of the petals in order to account for the different reactions by the different materials? I don't know yet. As I said, I'd like to see some of the Rathcoombe-type of analysis. Michael458's work has certainly been suggestive and it awaits a quantitative comparison of the total wound volumes of mushroomed bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
the petals of CEB bullets behaved differently than the TSX bullets.

Bullet fragments behave according to their relative mass,shape,surface area and momentum.

Even copper GSC petals will perform differently to TSX, because the petals do not form identical to a TSX.

quote:

NO ONE IS QUESTIONING ANY NEWTONIAN PHYSICS,

But you did absurdly introduce the idea that there are different kinds of shear force.
and how the hell can you confuse -shear force- with the radial path/trajectory of petals,
or use one to describe/explain the other as you did?

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
The contiguous/non-gapping wound volumes of conventional mushrooms and mono-metals with petals remaining in the main wound channel
appear to have less overall wounding volume and killing effectivness.

Interesting enough, even FN solids have show greater wound channels than softs with mushroom still intact.

Traditional wound channels, now non traditional wound channels ?

Methinks no, definitely no ! A wound channel is a wound channel ! its shape size and biology the result of missile velocity and sectional density ! no more no less.

A irregular missile generated by a high order explosive typically may have a very small sectional density but may impact a target at hyper velocity, say 10,000 fps. The wound channels caused by these are massive ! Just completed a combat surgical course with the US military, the results of those types of missile injury pervasive of the current conflict in Afghanistan.

or then a baseball player accidentally hit by a baseball, causing no penetration but just bruising. The mechanism of injury follows the same physical rules, the results of injury commensurate with the velocity and sectional density of the ball.

The recoil of the gun and the effect of the stock, or pad covering the stock against the shooters shoulder, again the same rules, now the gun is the missile, it has sectional density and velocity ! In some instances sufficient to bruise skin.

quote:

But you did absurdly introduce the idea that there are different kinds of shear force.

Dude--ever hear of metonymy? That is a literary use of the part for the whole and of one item for a whole complex grouping. Quite obviously, in a context already repeated several times, I was not referring to the definition of "shear force" but to the whole result of the shearing phenomenon in CEB brass and TSX copper. Those results were different. Thank you very much.

You seem to delight in majoring on the non-issue. But enough of communication theory and thread-etiquette.

The real issues could use some further work and development. The discussions can be simplified if a consensus is agreed that a phenomenon exists that is worthy of followup. Thank you very much.

quote:

Interesting enough, even FN solids have show greater wound channels than softs with mushroom still intact.

Nice question.

Yes, though we should ask that question before assuming its universal applicability.

If it were 100% true, then there would be no need for softpoints except for preventing the wounding of a secondary animal. Do solids more effectively drop an animal near the place of impact and with less tracking? To be honest, I've done so much hunting with 'expanding' bullets and so little with 'solid-only' that I can only present my prejudice: I use expanding bullets as a first choice on buffalo and other edible game.

Bullet behaviour and target behaviour to missile injury holds no mystery to me.

What I'm trying to figure out is why it now suddenly the quest to hunt with fragmenting or partially fragmenting bullets.

If the reason for hunting is meat procurement, why would one use a missile that destroys meat?

if the reason were trophy hunting, why use a missile that possibly could destroy the cape or skin of the trophy?

If one were to hunt DG then obviously the aim of the exercise would be to fully incapacitate the animal with a single shot.

So where choice of a certain missile may be quite obvious. in others I fail to understand the choice? Why use a varmint bullet when hunting a deer?

quote:

If one were to hunt DG then obviously the aim of the exercise would be to fully incapacitate the animal with a single shot.

Bingo. Exactly my interest.

As for meat damage, it appears that the CEB petals tend to stay within the rib cage of the larger animals. This would mean relatively small amounts of edible meat loss with possibly higher percentages of animal recovery.

I suppose I'm not so interested in meat around the shoulder muscle and ribs. The entry hole usually needs triming in any case and we tend to give the ribs and neck away for 'soup/sauce'.



Above was taken with a 'conventional monometal' TTSX.
Everyone was happy, because we gave a lot of the main meat out, too.



Above is 2013.
Tonight 20 April 2014 we will be enjoying some roasted fish. (See Luke 24, especially 36-43.)

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
I'm a believer in SD, so I don't need a long aside about the relationship of SD to penetration depth,

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
This is not about penetration and SD....

Why are you an apparent believer in SD, yet then go on to say the radial penetration path of CEB petals is not about SD and penetration?
...How can it now not be?

Has SD suddenly become less relevant regarding the performance-penetrative ability of the detached petals [vs] the primary projectile?

Detached petals are independent mobile projectiles in their own right, and the laws of physics do not changed.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Traditional wound channels, now non traditional wound channels ?

Methinks no, definitely no ! A wound channel is a wound channel !

Maybe the 'non-con' believers can define-describe a traditional wound channel as opposed to a 'non-con' wound channel.

Due to the variation in hunting bullet designs,materials and construction - and varied results each achieve in various test media,
I doubt there is such a definition.

Wound channels from non-con bullets are just another of many variations of wound channels
resulting from a whole plentitude of hunting bullets designs on the market.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Do solids more effectively drop an animal near the place of impact and with less tracking?

In many circumstances they certainly do....as such, a lot of people select the use of solids just for that reason.

Even in the case of the Nosler Partition, innovative Mr.Nosler was driven by a need for more penetration not more radial expansion,
in order to effect a good kill on large game with his 300mag.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
The brass appear to pop off ....Copper appear to be ripped off..

Don't be fooled by appearances, Brass just like Copper, exhibits the property of elasticity.
in physics/mechanics its referred to as:

Shear Modulus or Modulus of Rigidity,- which is the coefficient of elasticity for a shearing[or torsion] force.

Rest assured that CEB brass petals rip/tear away from the projectiles main body.

The extra brittleness of brass makes it less prone to deform and remain intact, to the extent that copper does.

Thats why we see the main body of brass solids bend & then snap in half, rather than just deform like copper solids.

Why did you bother with the above three posts?

None of them addressed the issue of observed differences in the terminal effects of the CEB vs TSX. They were basically an excercise in purposefully mis-understanding others' writings. So communication has been declined. So why did you write at all?

There is basically two fundamental problems with coming to meaningful conclusion as to "what works best" or perhaps what is a just formula in bullet design that would ensure a swift kill.

1. We have no real objective test available to compare projectiles to, and if we have they are for the most difficult and costly to set up and they have a very narrow window of valid simulation.

2. Secondly and this is likely the most problematic to overcome. All projectile parameters as well as target physical reaction to insult are on the actio side of the equation.

The patho-physiological reaction of the target in the form of injury illness, incapacitation and finally death is on the reaction side;

There is no meaningful, valid, predictable, repeatable relationship between action and reaction. In ICU's we have complex computer derived injury severity scales and models to predict outcome but they are still imprecise.

All we can do is describe the action, the reaction is varied and impossible to model.

This is and always will be the rub in all of this discussion, whether simply as campfire talk or in true academic debate.

I can but add, in the current ( most recent) 1980 version of the Geneva Convention an attempt was made to at least define to some extent what bullets are deemed humane and which not for use in warfare and in this the very dilemma of coming to some valid conclusion regarding design and biologic effect.

The recommendations and rules regarding design are criticized in that their biologic effect cannot be validated. As it stands right now no valid correlation exists.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
So why did you write at all?

416T,


You ask question and I quoted it and answered it,... now you don't like it?,.. that your problem not mine.

and If you choose not to explain your contradiction in statements regarding the importance of SD , that fine.
we will just leave it a 'mystery' as to why you have contradictory views on SD.

Just remember that ultimately, this thread and the posts from AR members there in, are not all about pleasing you,
nor do they require approval or justification from you.

..nor does everyone fall head over heals for the 'non-con' marketing hype.
Mr.Nosler could have used that same type marketing hype to describe the improved penetrative performance of his newly developed Partitions [vs] the under-performing softs of the day.

Whats makes the Nosler wound channel in game any more or less 'non con' than that of a CEB, when either are compared to the wound channel of
an - old weak construction regular non premium soft?

NOthinG! ...hence both NP and CEB can claim to be 'non-con'.

non conventional [def.]

- not conforming or adhering to accepted standards,or conduct/behaviour.

At the time of their creation, NP could easily and justifiably claim to be 'non-con' in design and performance.