Before my head actually explodes, can one of ya'll explain why a guy would want to know about bullet stability in meat?

Is this just some kind of egghead Physics Gymnastics or is it relevant and applicable to the real world?

Why is it necessary to know how well the 140 grain Accubond out of my .264 Win Mag will stabilize in meat and relate to sectional density?

I hope I don't regret asking this on the further risk of cranial swelling to the point of possible explosion

quote:

can one of ya'll explain why a guy would want to know about bullet stability in meat? hilbily

Where I went to school it was called "mental masturbation"

quote:

A particular virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than that of onlookers.

I'm stealing that.

After going back and re-reading the second page, I'm understanding better.

I'm also frightened by the fact that I'm understanding better.

Don't forget to steal the BOLD part Mick! It's the most important!

The really scary part is that I'm actually starting to understand this:

quote:

One must not fail to conclude that the thermoplastic residue of the reaction of the projectile as a ratio to the directed velocitimeter cannot be realistic when the nodes of the vibration are elastic.

It must be observed that whatever the approach angle of the terminal path, the vectors must align with the incidental and proposed trauma channel.

There have been many thesis written to conclude that both the ballistic coefficient and the sectional density can be obfuscated to the point of inelasticity and that can cause repercussions in the terminal path at impact.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
After going back and re-reading the second page, I'm understanding better.

I'm also frightened by the fact that I'm understanding better.

Don't forget to steal the BOLD part Mick! It's the most important!

When i steal something I usually get it all.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
The really scary part is that I'm actually starting to understand this:

quote:

One must not fail to conclude that the thermoplastic residue of the reaction of the projectile as a ratio to the directed velocitimeter cannot be realistic when the nodes of the vibration are elastic.

It must be observed that whatever the approach angle of the terminal path, the vectors must align with the incidental and proposed trauma channel.

There have been many thesis written to conclude that both the ballistic coefficient and the sectional density can be obfuscated to the point of inelasticity and that can cause repercussions in the terminal path at impact.

You mean you're just now getting it?

Heck, it made more sense to me the first time I read it than anything else on the thread!

As in the past couple months here on AR, 3 or more pages of worthless wasted time.

My Dad and Grandpa would roll their eyes at it all, load a rifle and just go kill something.....so will I.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
As in the past couple months here on AR, 3 or more pages of worthless wasted time.

My Dad and Grandpa would roll their eyes at it all, load a rifle and just go kill something.....so will I.

Ha!

Rasputin does not get it - my time of conversing with him is long over. Just not interested.

Warrior

I have done some fieldtesting, and so far the TSX and Accubond seem to have an agreeable angle of impact and elastc tissue stability. From what I read the Partition along with some others also have these benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
One must not fail to conclude that the thermoplastic residue of the reaction of the projectile as a ratio to the directed velocitimeter cannot be realistic when the nodes of the vibration are elastic.

It must be observed that whatever the approach angle of the terminal path, the vectors must align with the incidental and proposed trauma channel.

There have been many thesis written to conclude that both the ballistic coefficient and the sectional density can be obfuscated to the point of inelasticity and that can cause repercussions in the terminal path at impact.

Welllllllll..., you KILLED the Thread. alf and warrior are researching all that post to give us their "astute wisdom" and having difficulty locating Reference Books on it.

vapodog,
Be honest now. You copied and pasted that from a post by Warrior.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
vapodog,
Be honest now. You copied and pasted that from a post by Warrior.

Nope....not at all....It's a totally fabricated bit of language I put together here in my humble little home. It is just as meaningless as the drivel posted by a few others on this thread....

And no one commented.....like it was supposed to mean something.....in all sincerity....I have no clue at all what it means or what it says....It's simply a collection of multiple syllable words from physics and math!.....meaningless drivel!

3 pages of meaningless drivel!!! Not to mention some others

tipped bullet
non-tipped bullet
sectional density
.243 for elk
7-08 for elk......hell, the list goes on and on

It's funny, some guys here have thousands/ten thousand + post and I (just for the hell of it)
looked for pictures and stories of DEAD!!! animals.......

WOW!!!! HARD TO FIND MANY!!!!!

Guys, go kill something with the knowledge you share.

Here in Missouri we still have 9 days of doe season, 9 days of M/L season and 49 archery days.

I have only killed 6 deer this year....lets go hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
I have only killed 6 deer this year....lets go hunting.

Just keep it up - keep it up - and in a few years you will hear a knock at the door!

HC, you need to explain....If it's the game warden knocking at my door, that’s a funny one.
If you’re finally coming over to hunt....hell I can't wait!!!

Doe in Missouri are $7 each for residents....$225 for your non-resident buck tag then $25 for each doe tag....all you want to shoot, bow, rifle, M/L or any combo of the 3

Some of the ladies from the last week

Yes indeed TaDaaa "me" not the Game Warden.

Probably have a whole herd of folks along, Vapo, R, Woods, Bartsche, Armchair Bawana, alf, warrior, teenscum, seafire, the entire AR bunch. If we can get Gerard to fly in, I'll let him have some REAL Bullets(with Lead in them).

I should have my new up to speed by the time I get there. And I'll bring my Side-Grinder to knock the RUST off those rifles of yours.

My only real concern is if you are going to "leave" anything running around to Hunt??? (I do love a BIG pile of Does. )

Continued good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

HC,
Thanks but no thanks. We tried some "real bullets" 6 weeks back. Shot 4 kudu and lost one. Nothing has changed. Gina had to use some "real bullets" year before last because SAA lost her luggage. Was she ever sorry. Any time something new comes out, we give it a try on the off chance........ But nothing changes. Some people call them missed shots and I have never been able to understand why one would take the blame, pleading bad judgement (missed), when the cause lies elsewhere.

Hey Gerard, I have it on good authority(all the folks who use Inadequate Cartridges(and Bullet) on this Board), that it is "All about Placement". The kind of Cartridge, Bullet a person uses, nor the actual Weight, Mass, and Sectional Density, doesn't amount to a bucket of spit.

So are you all that poor at shooting, or are the Inadequate Cartridge(and Bullet) users Full-of-Beans?

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey Gerard, I have it on good authority(all the folks who use Inadequate Cartridges(and Bullet) on this Board), that it is "All about Placement". The kind of Cartridge, Bullet a person uses, nor the actual Weight, Mass, and Sectional Density, doesn't amount to a bucket of spit.

So are you all that poor at shooting, or are the Inadequate Cartridge(and Bullet) users Full-of-Beans?

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
... doesn't amount to a bucket of spit.

What is the sectional density of a bucket of spit? What rate of spitting is required to stabilize the bucket?

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
HC,
Thanks but no thanks. We tried some "real bullets" 6 weeks back. Shot 4 kudu and lost one. Nothing has changed. Gina had to use some "real bullets" year before last because SAA lost her luggage. Was she ever sorry. Any time something new comes out, we give it a try on the off chance........ But nothing changes. Some people call them missed shots and I have never been able to understand why one would take the blame, pleading bad judgement (missed), when the cause lies elsewhere.

If the missed kudu was shot at with an adequate caliber and a decent bullet, real or unreal, I really cant say that you missed it.

You didnt hit the best spot either.

quote:

Originally posted by deadkenny:

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
... doesn't amount to a bucket of spit.

What is the sectional density of a bucket of spit? What rate of spitting is required to stabilize the bucket?

I'll defer to alf and warrior's vast knowledge and wisdom on S.D.

quote:

What is the sectional density of a bucket of spit? What rate of spitting is required to stabilize the bucket?

It's the tangential equivalent of the ratio of the cosine of the vertical incline of the bucket to the tilt of the gravitational slope of the sine of the spit.

One must remember that rotational forces are so acute that gyroscopic stabilization is required by enormous gyration and reduces the value of the fluid's attempt to enter the trauma cavity.

Several doctoral papers have concluded that they believe it is caused by excessive necking up the .308 casing to .338 caliber and such disgust creates the spit!

Want to hear more?

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey Gerard, I have it on good authority(all the folks who use Inadequate Cartridges(and Bullet) on this Board), that it is "All about Placement". The kind of Cartridge, Bullet a person uses, nor the actual Weight, Mass, and Sectional Density, doesn't amount to a bucket of spit.

So are you all that poor at shooting, or are the Inadequate Cartridge(and Bullet) users Full-of-Beans?

Hilarious coming from someone who shoots deer smaller than Saskatchewan Jack Rabbits.

Hot Core & 900 SS,
We did not miss and, when you have an F Class shooter doing the shooting from a rest at less than 100m, bad shot placement is not even in the vocabulary. We do our testing in such a manner that terminal performance remains the only variable. We find that C&C bullets are often not able to finish what the shooter started.

There is also little point in shooting itty bitty animals with big bore rifles. We test to find failure because then we know where it is. On that basis, no matter which C&C you use and no matter how good the shot placement is, sooner or later lead parts with copper jacket to the extent that penetration does not happen. You just need to shoot enough animals.

You should stop doing stupid tests on live animals, its probably illegal and morally very wrong. Your caliber and/or bullet choice is obviously very bad and doesnt need testing just to be proven inadequate.

You dont need bad shot placement when you have bad judgement.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
We did not miss ...

I didn't think so. Just taking a swipe at the Inadequate Cartridge folks.
-----

Hey 900SS, I'll admit that I've "Tested" a whole lot of Bullets on Deer, Hogs, Bear and various other things. Never had a "Failure" due to a Bullet yet.

Gerard actually manufactures Bullets and is quite knowledgeable about them. Of course, anyone who reads where he took alf and warrior to task should already realize that.
-----

quote:

By Vapo
Want to hear more?

Is the next part where it gets into the Flablungent Regurgal Bloxtole created by the Hyper-gromuledynamic Discolompule? If so, I do believe that is one of alf's specialties. I'm pretty sure it also explains "Why?" warrior thinks all "Lead Core" 0.458" Bullets will Break-Up on Elk.

900 SS,
If you call using a 300 Win Mag with a 168gr C&C on a kudu at 80 meters a stupid test, then I suggest you stop hunting and actively work towards stopping all hunting with C&C bullets.

Gina also did not do a "stupid test", she had to use C&C ammunition in a 22-250 on an impala, had way more wind drift than expected and had to shoot the animal twice. The meat damage was so much more than what we see with GSC bullets, it was quite disgusting. Both of us have taken the same shot with GSC HV bullets and in a faster 224 than a 22-250. The difference is remarkable.

I'll admit that I imagined a worse caliber/bullet combination but it doesnt sound like a wise choice either. To me it would be 3-400 fps to fast and the SD (actual topic) to low for such a bullet. A 308 win with any decent 180 grainer would do the job every time.

It doesnt help your case that you should know better. And like Hot Core says, they dont fail a lot if used correctly.

If you guys don't cut it out I'm going to start a thread on "Is a SD of .253 adequate for Kudu?". Don't push me, 'cause I'll do it!

We should go to South Africa and get to the bottom of this. Hunt, eat kudusteak, a few beers at a campfire. That would be more fun.

quote:

Originally posted by deadkenny:
If you guys don't cut it out I'm going to start a thread on "Is a SD of .253 adequate for Kudu?". Don't push me, 'cause I'll do it!

I double dog dare ya.

900 SS,

quote:

To me it would be 3-400 fps to fast

That seems to be the problem. One must observe a strict window of application with C&C bullets lest one over or under stress them. There are bullets that do not suffer these limitations and allow a caliber to be more versatile.

quote:

and the SD (actual topic) to low for such a bullet.

With C&C bullets one must always be mindful of the speed and SD (actual topic) and this narrows down the application.

quote:

A 308 win with any decent 180 grainer would do the job every time.

If you limit your shooting to closer distances. But who needs limitations like that, when there more versatile choices?

quote:

It doesnt help your case that you should know better.

Ah, but I do know better. That is why I go out and learn the lessons so that I can know better. Lots of factory 300 WM ammo comes in 150 and 165gr and people buy it and use it. The factory says it is good for the job. Problem is, when a new bullet is launched in factory ammo, how do you know what to avoid and what to use?

quote:

And like Hot Core says, they dont fail a lot if used correctly.

Agreed. It seems that, when used correctly, the failure rate of good C&C bullet is a mere two or three in a hundred. When not used correctly, I have seen C&C bullets fail at much higher rates.

deadkenny,
It would be a waste of time to start such a thread. Of course you can use bullets of SD .253 on kudu. It must just not be a C&C bullet, according to 900 SS. In fact, if you use the right bullet, a SD of .226 is more than adequate.

Ok I tried to avoid posting but here it is
Lets start with solids. solids should have the center of pressure as far back as possible so it is as close to the center of gravity as possible. When they penetrate the will start to supercavitate decreasing shank resistant by 1000 fold. the better the supercavitor the nose of the bullet is the longer the bullet will supercavitate maintaining supercavitation at lower velocities. There needs to be slighly more gyroscopic stability in flesh than air with a solid to keep it stable and prevent tumbling as occurs with military fmj solids which tumble quickly apon entering the target due to the center of pressure being so far forward leading to destiblization. As far as velocity is concerned with solids if you double the velocity and shoot into a aqueous material such as flesh you will only see about 10% more penetration but a larger wound channel with the same bullet but you will see much more profound penetration with a bullet shape that has an efficient supercavitating nose. If you double the velocity and shoot a solid material then the supercaviation effect dosnt exist and you will see a 4 fold increase in penetration. If you shoot steel or hardend metal impulse energy is imprortant in developing heat and penetration.
Now with expanding bullets. When they expand they create a great supercavitor with the mushrooming effect. the center of pressure is moved rearward and the adverse effects we see with pointed solids is negated by this. they will acutally need less rotational velocity to maintain stablility. Lead core bullets work well in their velocity range but if you use excessive velocity the expansion will be to great and create too much drag on the front of the projectile leading to less penetration and not more but you will have a very large wound channel. In the past they would use heavy bullets because they thought that the sectional density increased the penetration but it was the behavior of the bullet with less mushrooming due to slower velocity. With expanding monometal bullets the will actually penetrate further with the higher velocity as apposed to the lead core bullets. This is due to fact that the monometal bullets will not overexpand but if pushed to hard they can and will loose the petals creating a whole further discussion which I will not go into.
So now what does all this mean. It means that different bullets behave differently and you need to choose your bullet for the intended job you want it to do. If you are only shooting broadside at deer to elk size game bergers will cause tremendous damage and you will often see the animal die a little quicker. If you are shooting larger animals or shoot them from stern to stem you would be better served wtih a monometal of partition style bullet
effective use of the bullet depends on shot placement and adequate penetration with as much tissue damage as possible. In the US we usually have better opportunity for good shot placement and if we have to leave the animal in the woods for a while when looking for it we ususally wont find it has been eatten by predators. In africa you want a good blood trail since If you have been there you will see it is tougher to track animals there and also that there are a lot of things willing to eat you trophy if you do not get to it quickly.

As far as anyone doubting bullet rotation in tissue there has been lots of research along these lines at the armys allegheny testing facility. At the barnes website you can watch bullets rotate in slow motion as they are shot into balistics gelatin. Supercavitition reseach has been going on with the military and also at the univerity of minn.

If there are any errors in my post Gerard can clear them up. Gerard has done more testing and work on bullet design than about anyone else alive so I will graciously agree with any corrections to my comments above

The differences between Human Wounds/Kills and Game are simply not the same, never has been, never will be.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
The differences between Human Wounds/Kills and Game are simply not the same, never has been, never will be.

That is true but bullet performance would be the same and that is what is in debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Finlander:
..bullet performance would be the same ...

I'll disagree.