The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles Sectional Density?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Sectional Density? | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
The forum is a place where we exchange views and quite often we disagree with each other. More so, we also find that we agree partially with a person on certain aspects, but not on all aspects. This is normal, as we do not have the same experience or knowledge of a particular subject. Sometimes a person know what is correct, or the better way, but he does not explain the workings scientifically correct. This is also common, and particularly so here on AR. We may actually be all guilty of this some of the time. Now, I quoted Norbert on SD, and I happen to agree fully with him on his stance iro SD, like there is a meeting of minds. However, I do not share his view that supercavitation happens inside an animal. I believe that the flesh is simply being pushed aside, as the bullet crushes its way forward, and yes, the flesh does not make contact with the shank of the bullet, save for the 'wetted' surface, being the tip of the bullet. The "Vapor Bubbel Theory" in flesh is a myth, flesh does not behave like water, as flesh is a "soft solid" and not a fluid, despite its high water content. Water is non compressible, it does not support shear, solids are compressible and they support shear. The reason why I put Doctari's letter up was simply to portray HIS opinion about penetration in terms of importance, and not mine. In fact, I do not agree with him on how he ranked his 4 points, my sequence is different, but I am sure it does not bother Doctari one bit. However, I also do not agree with him on his technical explanations, but that is HIS view. Again, all his points may work 100% for him, and he certainly has the record to prove it, but that does not make his explanations scientifically correct. Our task here is to find the best explanation in terms of how a bullet behaves, and if SD is a factor or not. Warrior PS: I may just meet up with Doctari next week in Pretoria if he is back in time from Botswana at Mauritz Coetzee's house where we have a barbeque arranged for the occasion, as Doctari is busy with testing FN solids and I am sure he is likely to report on it. | |||
|
One of Us |
I say it will depend on how much each bullet will expand and how much mass is lost on impact and during penetration. But IMO penetration will favor the higher sectional density if everything else is equal. One of my short-version penetration estimators uses kinetic energy, instead of momentum. This is easy to see if you consider that kinetic energy breaks down into a unit of force times a unit of distance. (For instance, foot-pounds.) The force involved in penetration will be a resisting force. According to my formula, distance = kinetic energy / force. So since the force is inversely proportional to the penetration distance, it is a factor which retards penetration. In other words, resisting force. My theory is that this force itself breaks down into the amount of force created by the resistance of the target's density, plus the amount of force created by the resistance of target's strength. Calculating this force is a bit complicated, but it basically involves the principle that force = mass x acceleration. (In this case, negative acceleration.) _________________________ Glenn | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
465H&H, When you mentioned the straight-line penetration of your 550 gr Wdl it made me think, and by pure accident I came across an old posting of ALF, and decided to share it again as we seem to over simplify, whereas Alf is accused of over complicating matters. You see, it is that finite explanation that we seek ... Here is an well reasoned explanation by ALF, in a reply to Lutz Moller, contrasting the behavior of a RN bullet vs a FN bullet, and conditions that will vary its penetration ability, culminating in the highlighted sentence when a RN can or will out penetrate a FN. This is a reminder to all of us to consider this once more, as we may not have as yet the final explanation buttoned up: "Posted 23 May 2007 06:33 23 May 2007 06:33 Hide Post Lutz: Yes RN;s fail, absolutely but the question is why do they fail and if one addresses that important point as to why they fail one can actually get a ogived bullet to do better than a FN ? So the critical issue as to why Solid RN's fail lie with the data geometry of the RN or ogived projectile. 1. A CG that lies aft of the geometrical midpoint. 2. When spun in motion the Ja > Jq the ratio of Bullet length ( Lg) : Jq is small 3. An inherent inability to control changes in angle of attack. So if we take the solid RN and ream out the base thereby shifting the CG far forward of the geometrical midpoint so that the Ja < Jq and the ratio Lg:Jq gets big the projectile becomes "dart stabilized" and we know that this does not need spin to keep it stable. Further any attempt to increase angle of attack will be damped. This is exactly how a expanding Soft stabilizes. As the soft expands the Ja becomes less and the Jq increases, Lg:Jq ratio inceases, the CG shifts forward. It is also the reason why a RN only tumbles once, after tumbling the data geometry is such that the CG lies forward, the Ja < Jq and the bullet remains on a stable course untill almost the end of it's course. Flechettes are expamples of ogived projectiles and they penetrate the best of all, even better than RN's the reaon lies with their particular mode of stabilization afforded by the addition of fins to the tail end of the projectile. So now under these circumstances what else is left in the equation? The coefficient of drag: for a FN it is almost twice that of the RN all else equal and at similar velocity and similar angle of attack the drag force of the FN would be more than the RN. Thus unless the RN becomes unstable (increasing its angle of attack) it's going to out penetrate the FN all else equal. Exactly why during the narrow channel phase of penetration a RN actually has a smaller temporary cavity than a FN and only once the RN becomes unstable does the Temporary cavity diameter go up and energy dump exceed that of the FN." | |||
|
| one of us |
So, what are you saying? RN solids penetrate better than FN solids?
| |||
|
| One of Us |
So if we take the solid RN and ream out the base thereby shifting the CG far forward of the geometrical midpoint so that the Ja < Jq and the ratio Lg:Jq gets big the projectile becomes "dart stabilized" and we know that this does not need spin to keep it stable. Further any attempt to increase angle of attack will be damped. Go look at page 93 of the terminals and you will see where I hollow based a Woodleigh .510 570 grain bullet to see if we could dart stablize it. You will see that it didn't help this bullet at all. Sam | |||
|
| One of Us |
Sam, Thanks for the info Sam, so it did not work in wet newsprint. Now would it be the same in flesh? I am not sure, the elephant hunters must come in here. I will go look there. Alf made a conditional statement .... IF .... "Thus unless the RN becomes unstable (increasing its angle of attack) it's going to out penetrate the FN all else equal." The RN veers and then the angle increases and that seems to be the problem. Whereas the FN has the benefit of shoulder stabilization over the RN. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Warrior, I have said before that I had good luck with RN solids in the past and never had any real issues with them. After comparing all the bullets that Michael has shot and the ones he and I tested in wet print I do not plan on ever shooting a RN solid at game myself. Sure animal tissue is different than wet print but when you see how consistant the results are it is hard to not see the light. I have shot game with flat nose solids also and perfer them to any RN solid. The enty holes are much bigger than RN and I have seen the shock effect being more also with flat nose. Sam | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote from Gerard, "Please explain the logic of comparing the penetration of a 458cal 550gr bullet to the penetration of a 458cal 450gr bullet, if both are launched at 2150fps. I would much rather launch a 450gr FN at 2350 fps and out penetrate a 550gr RN every time." Exactly how do you come to this conclusion or is it just your opinion? How many elephants have you taken with each of these bullets and how far did each penetrate? I don't need all the penetration that the 550 grain gives so I am not impressed even if you are correct and the 450 does give more, which I would need to see some evidence of to believe. Also what would happen if we launch the 550 grain Woodleigh from a 450 Dakota or 460 Weatherby at 2,350fps? Which would penetrate more? 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
465H&H, I noticed in your opening sentence that the bullets tested on elephant included the 500 gr CEB #13 FN Solid that did so well in Sam/Michael's test, and yet this bullet is bested with the 550 gr Wdl FMJ RN. Could you please elaborate on this for me. The Hollow Base a .510 caliber, 570 Woodleigh FMJ bullet did not do so well on page 93 as Sam pointed us to. This is quite at odds with you experience 'live' experience. Any explanation perhaps for this: Your bullet is a WDL .458 cal FMJ RN, 550 gr, SD = .375, The Hollow Base is a Wdl .510 cal FMJ RN, 570 gr, SD = .313 Is there a difference in the nose shape and meplat size that could contribute to discrepancy in performance? The RN bullet that you retrieved in elephant, did they: - veer off - tumble with signs of bending - found with the back-end forward or turned 90 degrees It would help us to better understand your experience. Thanks Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
465H&H, I went back in the Terminals to page 22 and found where Michael had tested your 550 gr Woodleigh bullet in his rhino board test and it did very well I think. I also found where this bullet didn't do to well in the straight wet print test, only 28 inches of straght penetration. I also noticed that this bullet has a very blunt round nose like a ball nose. This may make this bullet perform better than most of the other RN bullets with a more tapered RN. I saw an old photo of an elephant skull that clearly shows how with just a slight change in POI can make a huge difference in how much bone needs to be penetrated. A frontal shot with head down a little and the bullet hitting above the eyes in that hole there isn't much bone at all to penetrate. An angled shot that misses that cheek bone or eye socket bone has very little bone to penetrate. Head way down you have 2 to 3 times the bone to go through. Every shot is different and depending on what the bullet hits can make a big difference in penetration. I still want a flat nose bullet that is less likely to veer off. Sam | |||
|
| One of Us |
Warrior, I am not sure what you want me to elaborate on concerning the differences observed among the different bullet types as related to penetration. I believe the above post spells out the differences I observed. If your asking why the observed differences, I have to say I was quite surprised at the failure of any of the FN designs to exit on angling head shots and shots down through the top of the head. Obviously a small change in shot angle through the head can make a tremendous difference in the amount of resistance encountered by bullets. That top of the head shot down into the neck would only require 27" of penetration on an adult cow elephant. Yet none of the bullets, whether RN or FN exited on this angle. Except again for the 550 grain Woodleigh RN solid. The same for behind the eye angle head shots. The nose shape of the 550 grain Woodleigh actually has a somewhat smaller flat or should I say not so round meplat as does the 500 grain .474 Woodleigh. I don't think that is the reason. I really believe it is due to the increased momentum of a bullet such as the 550 or 600 grain .458 over the .475 500 grain bullet of the 470. Look at the 550 grain Woodleigh. 320 grain 9.3, 350 grain .375 and 450 grain .416. All of those have SDs of around .375 and are well known for their tremendous amount of penetration. As I have stated here before, I have put over 100 RN solids into elephant and buffalo. I have never seen one veer off course. Not to say it didn't happen but if it did, it had to be so small of a distance that it wasn't noticeable. I have looked at many holes in rib cages as well as entrance and exit holes in the skin, and all have been of around caliber size with no signs of tumbling. Will a RN tumble or FN for that matter? I really don't know but if they did it would have had to be at the very end of the of bullet travel after they had slowed down to a crawl and the vitals had already been penetrated. Most of the recovered bullets have been found by the trackers and skinners so I don't know which direction they were pointed only their location. As far as bending I have only recovered two RN steel solids that showed flattening in the skirt area. Both of those hit a humerus bone a glancing blow. Neither showed any significant amount of going off course. In fact, it visually appeared that they tracked straight after the bone impact. While I have a great respect for Michael's testing, I think it is obvious or at least should be that no artificial media can replicate animal tissue and bones. The use of the media should be used to compare bullets but the final judge will always be, "How do they perform in game?". srose, As I stated above a little different angle on an elephant head shot can have a major difference in amount of resistance that a bullet encounters. Actually, from my experience a full frontal brain shot from above the eyes to 12" below the eye line will give maximum head penetration. That assumes the bullet is right on the center line. Get a few inches off to the side and penetration will be significantly reduced. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
465H&H, Many thanks for the reply, more or less what I was looking for. Just surprised that the BBW #13 did not out perform the rest, as it did do well in the wet newsprint. As you say ... the final test is a live test. Over time I am sure more results would come in as the FN Solid has created a storm. Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
 | |||
|
| One of Us |
465 H&H, When and in what target did you use the BBW #13? SSR | |||
|
| one of us |
It is the opinion of the three PHs who assisted in the development of the 450gr 458 cal FN in '97. Since then, it has become the opinion of more customers and PHs than what you can shake a stick at, who have compared the 450gr FN to more than one or two RN bullets. None. How many elephant have you taken with the 450gr GSC FN? How many elephant has Geoff McDonald taken with the 450gr GSC FN? Have you ever seen the results of comparisons between the 458450FN and RN solids of a variety of weights and makes? I have been seeing such results for 13 years. If you are reasoning that I must have first hand experience of elephant hunting in order to have comparative results, your thinking is a little strange.
A lead core solid becomes less reliable the faster it is driven. An FN mono becomes more reliable the faster it is driven. So, in a 458 caliber where you get a 550gr RN up to 2350fps, the 450gr FN could comfortably go 2600fps. At those speeds, what would happen is that I would put my money on the FN, for greater reliability and an even larger volume wound channel. Warrior, The truth hurts, right? That is why you try to ignore it.
465H&H, Until you learn how to take advantage of the qualities of FN Mono designs, by running a lighter bullet faster, you will remain surprised. How many times must you be told, and how many times will your own results have to prove to you, that you are doing your "testing" wrong? Grandpa's gut feeling again, instead of known fact. Two out of 100. Two percent. A statistic like that will send me right back to the drawing board with FN solids. Being on the ragged edge of failure is not a good place to be, and I do not want to be there. Think about it, the only way the base of a bullet can flatten, is if it hits something with the base while going sideways. Article by someone with much experience. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, Posted 04 March 2011 10:35 Hide Post quote: Exactly how do you come to this conclusion or is it just your opinion? "It is the opinion of the three PHs who assisted in the development of the 450gr 458 cal FN in '97. Since then, it has become the opinion of more customers and PHs than what you can shake a stick at, who have compared the 450gr FN to more than one or two RN bullets." Since the comparison was between the 550 grain Woodleigh and 450 grain FN, exactly how many of these customers have shot how many elephant with these two bullets and what was the result of each? Other RN bullets do not come into this discussion. "None. How many elephant have you taken with the 450gr GSC FN? How many elephant has Geoff McDonald taken with the 450gr GSC FN? Have you ever seen the results of comparisons between the 458450FN and RN solids of a variety of weights and makes? I have been seeing such results for 13 years. If you are reasoning that I must have first hand experience of elephant hunting in order to have comparative results, your thinking is a little strange." I not only have seen the results of FN and RN solids on elephants, but have used them my self although I haven't used the 450 grain FN. In the weights and calibers that I have listed above the FN solids have penetrated deeper than the RN solids in all cases except for the 550 grain Woodleigh. It out penetrated all of them. You may not like it but it is FACT! What Geoff thinks is immaterial to this discussion and he shouldn't be brought up in it. Quoting your own reference Mr, van Der Walt. "In dry media (bone and elephant skull) where super cavitation does not play an important role, these flat nose bullets penetrate less than round nose bullets." I think that is exactly what I have said and what you disagree with. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
Two that I know of and fairly recently. There are probably more but I am not asking. That would be two more than you, I guess. You have a very strong opinion for one who has not used the bullet. There is no trick to "proving" your point. I will "prove" to you that a Mazda 3 is faster than a Corvette ZR1. Just disconnect the left bank of cylinders on the Vette and have a drag race. Run a drive band FN bullet of the right weight at the right speed, and it will outperform any RN lead core you care to compare. You started it by asking if I have shot ele with a 550gr Woodleigh. Why the sudden double standard? You should have continued reading because the very next sentence is: "However, in all instances homogenous 500-grain .458” semi wadcutter solids launched at muzzle velocities exceeding 2,200 fps provided satisfactory penetration in frontal brain shots on elephant." So, as proven on African DG, head shots, body shots from any angle and shots where all the variety of media contained in one animal are encountered, FNs go straighter, as deep or deeper and leave greater wound channel volumes than RN lead cores. I am surprised that we are discussing this fact. That is not what you said, unless you have found a specie of ele that has no brain or sinus cavities, only solid boneheads. Warrior, Still no answers. Cornered again on your crackpot theories, just like before.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
465 H&H Third time is a charm--- When , where ,and in/on what did you test the BBW #13 FN 500gr?? SSR | |||
|
| One of Us |
Croos L, My appologies but I have gotten off track with the discussion with Gerard and forgot your question. I need to be more responsive. I used the 500 grain CEB #13 last November in Chete Safari Area from a 470 Searcy Double. I took two elephant with that bullet. One was a large tusked cow and the other was a big old but small tusked bull. 465H&H  The cow.  The bull. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I agree that we have to consider one bullet type otherwise were just arguing over apples, oranges, grapes and bananas.  I will add that the monolithic bullets are the exception to the rule that higher SD improves terminal performance due to their unique construction and performance characteristics. African big game caliber's almost need to be in a class by themselves because to many variable are different even though the concept is the same. Because they kill based almost entirely on penetration it is only natural that SD would rate high in this class. The problem with the current math is that it doesn't calculate for bullet construction and unique terminal performance associeated with it. The 270 A Frame would out perform the other because of the larger expansion window resulting in greater tissue damage which relates back more to the higher SD than its diameter. Expansion is a factor that is overlooked in this debate and the higher SD will typically offer a longer expansion window resulting in a larger wound, also dependent upon bullet type and construction. We can't just view the penetration numbers associated with higher vs lower sectional density bullets without comparing the terminal performance associated with each. Expansion is a key component to terminal wounding and has to be a factor in order to ground this debate. Because African big game bullets rely mostly upon penetration over expansion they fall into thier own performance catagory. The 6.5x55 is not the most powerful or flat shooting caliber but it seems to strike like lightning using 160 grain soft point bullets. It would seem to me that expansion has more to it than just greater penetration. Captain Finlander | |||
|
| One of Us |
I am always interested in the results that other hunters find in the use of bullets in elephants. Please give us the following info on these to reports. When, where, what species sex, age, bullet make, weight and caliber, velocity, entry point and where the bullet was found. quote: 465H&H&H; I not only have seen the results of FN and RN solids on elephants, but have used them my self although I haven't used the 450 grain FN. Gerard: "You have a very strong opinion for one who has not used the bullet." I might say the same for you as someone that has never shot an elephant with either bullet. Maybe this is the double standard of which you speak?  There is no trick to "proving" your point. I will "prove" to you that a Mazda 3 is faster than a Corvette ZR1. Just disconnect the left bank of cylinders on the Vette and have a drag race. Run a drive band FN bullet of the right weight at the right speed, and it will outperform any RN lead core you care to compare. That is an open ended statement; Penetration is dependent on bullet weight, speed, construction, nose shape along with several other factors. By varying any or all you can prove anything you want. It is a non-sensacal point. 465H&H: Quoting your own reference Mr, van Der Walt. You should have continued reading because the very next sentence is: "However, in all instances homogenous 500-grain .458” semi wadcutter solids launched at muzzle velocities exceeding 2,200 fps provided satisfactory penetration in frontal brain shots on elephant." So, as proven on African DG, head shots, body shots from any angle and shots where all the variety of media contained in one animal are encountered, FNs go straighter, as deep or deeper and leave greater wound channel volumes than RN lead cores. I am surprised that we are discussing this fact. 465H&H: I agree with Mr. van der Walt's statement all of these bullets have more than enough penetration to kill an elephant with a brain shot from any reasonable angle. quote: 465H&H: I think that is exactly what I have said and what you disagree with. Gerard: That is not what you said, unless you have found a specie of ele that has no brain or sinus cavities, only solid boneheads. 465H&H: I believe Mr. van der Walt said RN bullets penetrate better than FN in elephant heads. Although, I limited my comment to the 550 grain Woodleigh .458 RN solid. I also assume that he knows that elephant heads contain brains and sinus cavities. I don't think he was restricting his statement to only elephants whose heads were made up only of bones and neither was I. Where did you come up with that comment? Gerard: So, as proven on African DG, head shots, body shots from any angle and shots where all the variety of media contained in one animal are encountered, FNs go straighter, as deep or deeper and leave greater wound channel volumes than RN lead cores. I am surprised that we are discussing this fact. 465H&H: Except for the part of your above statement concerning penetration, I too am surprised that we are discussing these other points. It makes me wonder why youbrought them up! 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
465 H&H Thank you sir, the BBW #13 being so new you may understand why I asked. Excellent hunt and congratulations on 2 pretty, clean kills. SSR | |||
|
| One of Us |
Cross L, It is always interesting to see some results of actual use of bullets on animals to confirm what we see in test media. Although I am basing this on only two elephants taken, I believe the CEB#13 is an excellent solid for elephants. It performed as well as the NF FN solid or the Woodleigh Hydro as far as penetration is concerned. A much larger sample size than mine would be needed to detect any differences in penetration depth among these three bullets. I can recommend any or all three of these bullets for elephant with the caveat that the next elephant taken may change my opinion. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
It is a real shame alf can't "dumb-it-down" for everyone.  So warrior is now doing like alf and simply transcribing stuff from a book which he apparently does not understand. I'll always remember his post about 45cal rifle Bullets "Breaking-Up" on Elk as my favorite of his. Some things never change.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hot Core, IMO it's not a matter of dumbing down. It's a matter of having practical knowledge vs. book knowledge. I'm suspect of anyone who can't come down from their (imaginary) pedestals and give us some worked examples of the knowledge they're trying to impress us unwashed masses with. _________________________ Glenn | |||
|
One of Us |
7 pages later and I still don't give a rats ass about SD ________________________________________________ Maker of The Frankenstud Sling Keeper Proudly made in the USA Acepting all forms of payment | |||
|
| one of us |
Your gonna miss out on all the fun! ----- Hey SOG, The "Dumbing Down" came from a very old post of alfs, where he got challenged on some of the "transcriptions" he had posted. And since then it has become a favorite of mine when I notice some of the posters  to places beyond their actual comprehension. It should be quite obvious in this thread.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yep. Oh, I do know what you mean! _________________________ Glenn | |||
|
One of Us |
I reread most of this thread. The question was "what does sectional density mean to you?" As I read thru this thread most of the responces don't seem to deal with SD but nose shape. Or if a monolithic is better than a lead core solid. Thats why I used a simplistic example of a few 150 gr bullets. In most any testing of a bullet SD you need to elimanate as many of the varibles as possible. This leaves just the SD as a factor. How does comparing a 550 gr 458 RN to a 550gr 458 FN have anything to do with SD? I think many of you arguing about how one bullets construction VS anothers is wasting the time of those who want to know if, of two bullets of the same construction, does a higher SD contibute to better performance. As far as killing elephants didn't Karamojo Bell kill over 2000 elephants with a 7 mm Mauser using a 173 gr FMJ bullet at about 2300 fps? If this is so do you suppose a SD of around .305 for that bullet have any effect on penetration? I'm not about to use a 7mm Mauser to hunt elephant's, much better options, but this does illustrate how SD can and does effect a bullets killing ability. The only way to know if you can do a thing is to do it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I believe that's why some hunters in the early part of the 20th century tried to use small calibers against elephant, like 6.5 & 7mm. Because they were sold on the idea that SD mattered more than proper bullet size and construction. I understand that some hunters of the day unfortunately paid for this mistake with their lives. _________________________ Glenn | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H This is the tactic I follow when sidestepping speed fines. I ask the issuer for all the relevant paperwork and keep them tied up with correspondence until they decide that the bit of money is not worth all that trouble. So, to you I say: Continue to believe that RN lead core solids are better than FN monos. Continue to "test" and "prove" your opinion using antiquated and incorrect methodology. Continue to use bullets contrary to recommendation, after all, what do the manufacturers know? They have no clue what an ele looks like and thumbsuck their bullet designs and just hope they work. You are not worth the trouble of continuing the discussion because you do not pay attention. Allow me to illustrate by using your statements below: 1. By this reasoning, Breitling technicians should go crash a plane and maroon themselves for five days to see if their emergency beacon system works. By this reasoning, the head of Renault engine design must win a Formula 1 race or two before handing the engines to Red Bull for Vettel and Webber to win the F1 Championship. By this reasoning, I may not give Anzio Ironworks a 3000m 50BMG bullet for testing, before I have personally built and shot the rifles at 3000m, to prove the bullets. 2. That is precisely the point I am making. You find it non sensical because you prefer it so. By having varied all the parameters you mention and more, I proved what constitutes a good solid 14/15 years back. I spent my time doing intense analysis and find no need to repetiitvely confirm that which has been tested and proved. Research time is spent on new developments, not repeating what is already known. 3. Pay attention. Here is the sentence again: Skull would be the bony parts, as he qualified with the preceding words "dry media" and "bone". If "skull" and "head" is the same thing to you, you have not yet started down the road of comprehension of the principles involved. Therefore your samples are not only small but also anecdotal, no more. 4. I see your short term is not so hot or you did not think that one through before writing it. A sure sign that you are now arguing to save face and not logically. Hold whatever opinion you want, you have been told the facts now. Use them - don't use them - your choice. 5. There we go. Confirmation that you have not explored all the variables and you know it. Warrior, Still no answers. Cornered again on your crackpot theories, just like before. I have just read some of the "Comments on leading scope manufacturers". I am amazed at how many members you duped with that one. You should tell them your 'experience' with most of the scopes consist of 'copy and paste' and that most of your 'comparative testing' consists of asking to look at the scopes in the gunshop. I see you repeat much of the opinions of the counter assistants who are, of course, the experts with all the tech answers. You get a kick out of pretending, don't you? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Glenn, You nailed it with"bullet construction" - in the abcense of modern testing (and over 100yrs experience) yes SD was something you could hang your hat on. A long paralell sided bullet was better than any THEN EXISTING alternative. It wasnt a mistake to use best existing tech- SPADs and Fokker Triplanes didnt have ejection seats. SSR | |||
|
| One of Us |
    | |||
|
| One of Us |
 You're a funny guy, WhatThe.
Out of sheer curiosity, I'd like to see some wetpack testing of Bell's elephant killing 7mm. And wasn't it Elmer Keith that liked the 6.5 Mannlicher Schoenauer? I'd like to see testing of that too. All in the name of science, of course. I'd never hunt deer with them.  _________________________ Glenn | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, I am down in Mexico bass fishing and don't have time to answer your post but I will on my return to Idaho. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hi Glen, I am still busy on a hunt, but got to a friend's PC just to see the latest postings. With regard to the above, that is exactly what I did and posted that some posts back, by only varing the SD of a Barnes-X bullet (108 grains, 142 grains & 175 grains) and that proved to me the value of SD in a particular caliber with the same bullet, same construction and material and the same nose profile. Also re-read Norbert Hansen comment, it provides a very concise summary as well. Anyone denying the value of SD is perpetuating a crack-pot theory like Gerard Schultz for the sake of promoting his own light-for-caliber bullets and at high impact velocity they shed their petals within a few inches, and go on as an even lighter solid through the vitals. A good example of this is to be seen in Dan McCarthy's testing og bullets in elephant flesh where the 260 grain GS-HV bullet penetrate far less than the Barnes-X bullet - 22" vs 30" despite it smaller XSA after shedding it petals. So the lower SD of the HV bullet at higher velocity did not impress. The fact is simple, the performance of the HV bullet is not superior over the Barnes-X bullet. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Good hunting, Warrior! Oh, Gerard isn't a crackpot and neither are his theories. He makes bullets for a living and is clearly very good at what he does. And obviously they've proven themselves in the field. So I'm sure he knows more about it than I do. I've probably mentioned this elsewhere, but about the only time when I think the published SD figures are of any meaning is if the bullet is a wadcutter. After that, it's the bullet's penetrating surface area that's what I'm interested in. I think we can agree that when you have a larger surface area, you have less penetration. This no doubt explains why flatnosed bullets work so well in the testing (and apparently in the field, according to many of you.) About the testing in elephant flesh, I would guess that's some pretty tough flesh. I would hope the testing was done after the elephant had expired! It sounds like the test involved a NonCon, since it involved petals. That would be a pretty rigorous test for a NonCon, from what I understand, because they're likely not suitable for hide as thick as an elephants. Sorry I overlooked your testing of the 7mm bullets. I'll go back and have a look. _________________________ Glenn | |||
|
| one of us |
Why do you continue this blatant lie? You have been called on this lie by more members than just me. You varied the weight and the speed to artificially prove what you set out to prove. Here is your own post showing the table below: Weight .... S365 Load .... AOL ...... Velocity ........ SD .... Penetration 175 gr ....... 38.0 gr ........ 77 mm ... 2,390 fps ... .310 ... 63.0 cm 142 gr ....... 40.5 gr ........ 75 mm ... 2,490 fps ... .252 ... 53.0 cm 108 gr ....... 43.0 gr ........ 73 mm ... 2,610 fps ... .191 ... 42.5 cm Another lie. You like telling untruths when you are cornered and default to your agenda. Fact is, you have no clue how our design works and what the advantages of the design are. It is in your interest to perpetuate the lie and the myth. Let me illustrate how little you know, because you continue and say: You badly describe what happens on a straight going away shot, where a bullet that does not lose the petals, keeps slowing down and stops before it reaches the chest cavity. This leaves you with a gut shot animal. This is the myth of full weight retention. On a broadside shot, the HV bullet will lose the petals towards the middle of the chest cavity, if impact speed is high enough, and the shaft and petals continue to the far side, where the shaft will exit and the petals may or may not exit. On a straight going away shot, the HV will lose the petals in the gut, if impact speed is high enough, and the shaft continues on much deeper than a bullet that retains a full mushroom. It does not get any better than that. Do you think the petals just stop when they come off the shaft? That is the same limited thinking that says that a polymer tip aids expansion. Wow, you demonstrate your ignorance so vividly. Perpetuating another falsehood. You repeat this continuously and every time you repeat it, you make me counter with the truth. This is getting boring but it has to be done for the benefit of those who just skim through the thread. Give it up man, you are looking more and more stupid. Have you not noticed that the HV bullet tumbled, reducing the penetration depth? Have I not told you that I mentioned to Dan that the application of the 260gr bullet was wrong and that he should have used the 230gr HV? No answer to that one yet? Thought we would not notice? In the application as Dan used it, you are right. When you do not recognise why this is so, it is laughable. Of course, if you want to row through the surf off the beach, you would use a board or a kayak of some description. Complaining, like you do, that your 4x4 is not good for rowing through the breakers is kind of stupid, not so? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia