Lutz states that his bullets fragment from 2,300 fps to form a flat cylinder. It is thus designed to have a brittle nose to give effect to a flat meplat. Here is a 9,3 KJG bullet shot into a water container with a 9,3x64 at 3,609 fps (middle) and into steel (far right). He did not indicate the percentage weight retained. The bullet looks short and stubby (30.1 mm in length), whilst the 9,3x62 and 90.3x64 mm have been designed with very long throats.



Bullets retrieved from game look very similar to the one shot into water.
Weight loss is very similar at range as the nose disintegrates at 2,300 fps.
The weight loss appears to be substantial - unfortunately it is not stated anywhere.
Penetration is essentially driven with high velocity and essentially a caliber Xsa to reduce
drag vis-a-vis a Soft that expands to double caliber making up for the bullet weight loss.

I quote from his website to highlight his design criteria:-

"Long ago French Poncelet made clear Penetration increases linear with sectional Density. Desirable flat Trajectories for Hunt ammunition require fast Bullets. Lighter Bullets are usually faster, but to deeply penetrate the targeted Animal to securely kill it, needs high sectional Density. To combine these to controversial Requirements into one dependably working Solution, my KJG are by Build and Material designed NOT to expand, mainly to keep sectional Density in the Target up.

The streamlined Bow with the black plastic Tip is designed for aerodynamic Purpose, mainly to keep the Drag resistance down. A Solid Bullet of this Shape would tumble in the Target and not penetrate. Again, to overcome these two controversial Requirements, the Bullets Bow is designed to splinter in the Target away, to create a flat Nose, hence shoulder stabilize the Bullet in Meat."

The Masai kill with big spears.
The Bushmen kill with tiny arrows with poison on the tip.
Bow hunters today kill more effectively with their arrows.
Then we rifle hunters kill in various ways with what we believe to be the best.

Warrior

How come the 45-70 Government is so effective with the heavy-for-caliber Garrett hardcast bullets?

I wish to quote Mr. Garrett ... "The diameter of the wound channel produced by a proper hard-cast bullet is far more a product of the diameter of the meplat than the diameter of the bullet. This is of critical importance. As a consequence of this, wound channel diameter and the resulting speed of incapacitation can be substantially increased through the use of hard-cast bullets with broad meplats. This is readily observable through wet newspaper penetration testing, or by the careful post-mortem examination of big game animals.

Interestingly, our 540-grain Hammerhead for the 45-70 produces penetration channels or wound channels that appear to be fully twice the diameter of our 420-grain Hammerhead for the 45-70, yet the difference between the bullets' meplat diameters is only .030 inch. Our 420-grainer sports a meplat diameter of .330 inch and our 540-grainer sports a meplat diameter of .360 inch. What is also clear is that our 420-grainer with its .330 inch meplat produces wound channels substantially larger than those produced by the .300-inch meplat that is all to common to the calibre, and characterized our early efforts in 45-70.

When impact occurs at short range into heavy game, when the velocity is higher, even the toughest hard-cast bullet will deform at the meplat. This is one of the primary reasons we offer our very heavy 540-grain Hammerhead, as its extra weight mandates a lower velocity, which tends to protect against significant meplat deformation when engaging the heaviest game. However, when the game achieves the size of buffalo, it is our observation that only our 540-grainer can reliably penetrate both shoulders and exit."


Vince Lupo and white rhino taken with a 540-grainer.

The 420-grainer sports a meplat diameter of .330 inch. [.330/.458 = 72.0% meplat]
The 540-grainer sports a meplat diameter of .360 inch. [.360/.458 = 78.6% meplat]

To put this in perspective, imagine putting 540 grains behind a diameter of only .360", just a fraction smaller than a 9,3 bullet (.366), and it stands to reason that we should get awesome penetration, and that is exactly what we get. Complete penetration on animals the size of Rhino and Hippo. Reason being .... the effective SD of the bullet goes up from .245 to .435 or 77.6%. The large meplat assists shoulder stabilization for straight-line penetration and at the same time the COG point is positioned near the geometric centre making it more stable, all of which counters the overturning moment for as long as possible.

Now the velocity that drives the 540 grain bullet is a mere 1,550 fps that most people would scoff at. So we see then that velocity is not the real driver, but in fact momentum which happens to be fairly high at 119.6 Lbs/Ft-sec. For a comparative a 300 grain .375 bullet at 2,500 fps gives us a momentum value of 107.1 Lbs/Ft-sec. So, SD drives the momentum value despite a velocity that we all consider too low for big-game hunting, and that is so because we actually need to look at effective SD instead, by way of a smaller diameter of .360", the meplat or the wetted surface, that makes it possible, or seen another way, Mo/Xsa at work.

We know the penetration of a 286 gr 9,3 FN bullet and now with the 540 gr bullet and only a .360 meplat we gear the penetration up, and little wonder then that Randy Garrett is getting such good results.

Scaling the meplat down to 66%, as Michael has shown us in his tests, will increase penetration even further.

Y'all might agree ... SD is alive and kicking.

Warrior

There's more BS in this thread than the South end of a north bound herd!

You might then wish to step up and tell us the way you see it. I would love to hear how you explain the super performance of the Garrett 540 grainer.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:
There's more BS in this thread than the South end of a north bound herd!

You catch on quick Kemo Sabe.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
You might then wish to step up and tell us the way you see it. I would love to hear how you explain the super performance of the Garrett 540 grainer.

Warrior

My post was not "post" specific nor does it single out anyone in particular. May it serve as a "general" analysis of information exchanged herein. I do not wish to engage in unnecessary banter as it may be deemed in terms other than the intended purpose. So with that said and with hopes understood at that, may I inquire as to how your approach as you have applied above has anything to do with density. Let's keep it simple so we need not analyze or calculate balance points or bearing surface and just say for this example that the end to end point value is Xv(.5). So with that behind us, how do your figures propagate density?

Yes, let us keep it simple. How do you explain the countless good results on the website of Randy Garrett. And it is Ok not to go to any calculations of any sort, just give me the logic as to the performance of this caliber/load combo. There has to be a reason for Randy to have beaten many in penetration tests - read his website for background.

Warrior

If you're looking for a demonstration of sectional density, head to the Political Forum!

"Randy Garrett, who has devoted 30 years to building special ammo for only two rounds, the 44 Magnum and 45-70, loads his elephant slaying 540-gr Hammerhead to only 1,550-fps on purpose so that upset does not alter the meplat until the bullet is well into the game. His goal is to "not overwhelm the strength of the bullet." "My bullet box is a wooden affair with compartments: a half inch plywood entry panel followed by a water-filled balloon, then clay, ending with phone books or wet newspaper. In one demonstration, a 540-gr Garrett Hammerhead drove through 56-inches of wet newspaper. I had just fired a 458 Winchester 500-gr roundnose solid bullet into the same media. It made an impressive penetration channel. But the 458 bullet did not compromise the integrity of the test box. Meanwhile, a 540-gr Garrett Hammerhead exited the box, blowing out the sides."

- Sam Fadala, Guns & Ammo January 2008

"We followed fresh sign for a couple hours and finally spotted four large bulls bedded in the heavy timber. These Bison spend much of the time bedded on the edge of the timber and emerge to feed throughout the day. We positioned ourselves down-wind and got within 50 yards. We had to wait nearly 30 minutes for the animals to turn broadside before I could take a shot. I aimed for the lower left shoulder and, when I felt the offside was clear of any other animals; I sent one of your 540 grainers through his shoulder. The terminal performance of the 540 Hammerhead is unbelievable. The animal was quartering towards from me at about 45 degrees. The bullet shattered his shoulder, took out both lungs and exited. Upon further review, seven large pieces of his shoulder bone took out the top of his heart, while the bullet took out the rear portion of his lungs and two ribs on the way out.

Seeing such a large animal get slammed to the ground is something to behold!"

- Jim Audette

See Jim Audette's 2000 pound bison on our Trophies Page

"I shot the bison in Ford, Kansas. My bison was 17 years old and weighed 2157 pounds. The distance was 137 yards, and I took him at the standard broadside position. The bullet went thru the near shoulder and exited thru the off shoulder. My guide told me that bison stop all bullets and do not have an exit hole. He also said that bison run about 150-200 yards even when hit with a well-placed shot. Naturally, he was quite surprised to see him drop so quickly, but just couldn't believe that the Hammerhead went completely thru both shoulders and destroyed everything in between. I was told that my bison was only the third one out of 29 that required only one shot. My outfitter was Lee Hawes of Hawes Ranch Outfitters. None of this would have been possible without your Hammerhead bullets. Thank you for helping me to choose the correct bullet for the size game that I hunted. Your concern for the success and safety of my hunt is greatly appreciated."

- Larry Crain

> See Larry Crain's Bison on our Trophies page

"Your 540gr Hammerhead Cartridge hit my American Bison quartering towards me at about 115 yards. The cartridge entered his left front shoulder and exited his right rear ham and sped off into the sunset as my super trophy 2500lb American (Texas) Bison hit the ground dead where he stood!"

- Vince Lupo

> See Vince Lupos's Bison on our Trophies page

I just got back from Africa where I took a great Cape buffalo with my Marlin 45-70 and Garrett's 540-grain Hammerheads. Man, what a combination! The big buffalo was broadside at 80-yards when I placed a 540-grainer through both shoulders, destroying everything in between and exiting. The buffalo dropped at the shot, but managed to struggle back to his feet and face me as the second shot hit him between the front legs and just below the neck. The frontal shot penetrated lengthwise through the buffalo and exited out the rear, turning everything from front to rear into jello and dropping the Buffalo on his ass and then his side, DEAD! Both exit wounds were big enough to insert one's fist into. You just can't get better performance than that on a killing machine like a Cape buffalo! I can't wait to get back to Africa to use up some more of those fantastic 540-grain Garrett Hammerheads!

- Vince Lupo

See Vince's Cape buffalo on our Trophies Page

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Yes, let us keep it simple. How do you explain the countless good results on the website of Randy Garrett. And it is Ok not to go to any calculations of any sort, just give me the logic as to the performance of this caliber/load combo. There has to be a reason for Randy to have been many in penetration tests - read his website for background.

Warrior

Dear Sir,

I have no knowledge of this cartridge nor do I wish to. I'm a simple Physicist holding a Masters therein that just holds to the basic principles of "the laws of motion" as a stolen definition to calculus. I have no ax to grind (perhaps a hoe and some scrub cutters) with you or your friend Randy who seems to be a dedicated advocate to a specific round. Remember, the development of any round .17 to 18" has an intended purpose as defined by its developer or its father as often used within the industry. Let's just say that SD is a micro measurement used to determine stabilization properties. It has a few other fun but negative properties used to determine additional ballistic failures and abnormalities generally exterior. Perhaps what you were driving for in "penetration" is a tangent surface equal to mass which is generally achieved by reduce the bearing surface and increasing the the non-bearing (conalure).

While we are on the subject, what I don't understand is:

If someone devotes 20, 30+ years of their life developing a cartridge he/she wishes to be the ultimate African big game stopper, I would ask:

Why don't you take a year with your Mac running ImPg software to develop a lightweight .50 Cal BMG rifle.

The fact is: No other large caliber compares in accuracy fly's as fast as flat or hits as hard. Plan and simple nothing out there even comes close and at 100 yards or less (where most big game is taken) even a bad shot equals game over!

725 Grn. FMJ @ 2,750 FPS with 12,800 Ft.Lbs. equals broken $hit down range. Simple fact!

A mil machined stainless #480 receiver with a 24" #440 stainless bbl. 3 round drop in mag. Synthetic polymer stock with recoil spring lugs and titanium hydro damper in the stock butt. A good 50 degree clam shell recoil brake and whaaa.laaaa. 12, 13, 14 and at most a 15Lb. rifle

The ultimate!

Hum, this is giving me some ideas...

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Yes, let us keep it simple. How do you explain the countless good results on the website of Randy Garrett. And it is Ok not to go to any calculations of any sort, just give me the logic as to the performance of this caliber/load combo. There has to be a reason for Randy to have been many in penetration tests - read his website for background.

Warrior

Dear Sir,

I have no knowledge of this cartridge nor do I wish to. I'm a simple Physicist holding a Masters therein that just holds to the basic principles of "the laws of motion" as a stolen definition to calculus. I have no ax to grind (perhaps a hoe and some scrub cutters) with you or your friend Randy who seems to be a dedicated advocate to a specific round. Remember, the development of any round .17 to 18" has an intended purpose as defined by its developer or its father as often used within the industry. Let's just say that SD is a micro measurement used to determine stabilization properties. It has a few other fun but negative properties used to determine additional ballistic failures and abnormalities generally exterior. Perhaps what you were driving for in "penetration" is a tangent surface equal to mass which is generally achieved by reduce the bearing surface and increasing the the non-bearing (conalure).

Dear Mr Physicist,

Your opening statement of "I have no knowledge of this cartridge nor do I wish to." does not indicate that you are applying yourself here, but seems to portray a deliberate position which stands in contrast with you theoretical propensity to study physical events around you, and more particularly here in this thread about SD and its workings. The laws of motion and of Newton is of particular importance as well as other physical rules.

Regarding stability of projectiles we have the Gyro theorem that explains this physical event that guides us. In target behaviour is not widely or fully understood by laymen, and hence various theories that abound, and as such calls for physicists to guide the pack in explaining the physical event. Your first post mentioned a stink that you picked up, and that needs clarification, sir. Since you have not touched on it, it begs the question what this impurity is, so it can be rectified.

Furthermore, I am not in on it with Mr. Garrett on his dedicated round, although I respect him for his effort to make the 45-70 a better cartridge for all by BULLET DESIGN and apply certain principles. As ballistic students, I am keen to learn about these principles that make things work better, and I guess that is the quest that we all have for knowledge, as to how things work. If it was not for Mr. Garret, this phenomenon might not have caught our attention so vividly in the hunting arena, as we are not privy to military research and nor do we have the luxury of their vast budget.

Also, I do not understand the relevance of your last post as to: "If someone devotes 20, 30+ years of their life developing a cartridge he/she wishes to be the ultimate African big game stopper, I would ask: Why don't you take a year with your Mac running ImPg software to develop a lightweight .50 Cal BMG rifle." Frankly sir, you are going off here at a tangent - Mr. Garrett was trying to make the 45-70 a better cartridge, or tool if you like, and not about developing some other caliber, reason being that there are so many of these 45-70 still out there and in use, not just a mental exercise to please his own curiosity and for his own use. Mr. Garrett took the practical way out to improve an existing cartridge, that is what he did, and that is what we explore here on AR now in an attempt to understand.

These are the issues:

1. We are sitting here with a physical event and it has a physical explanation and that is what needs explaining, as I have asked.

2. There is a fundamental physical principle involved here, and as such the cartridge is incidental, the underlying principle can be applied to any cartridge that we wish to design or to be manipulated as is being done by wildcatting, and by bullet design more particularly, and once this is understood the cartridge becomes irrelevant.

SD is misunderstood and has been under attack for a long time here on AR - for about 10 years I might add, and here we are today still taking about it, and sharing information with each other as we see events unfold around us, and also we cannot miss the effort and dedication of Mr. Garrett. So all contributions to explain his results or similar results are welcome - that would be constructive.

Thank you sir.
Warrior

Here is another one - a photo of Kevin Dooley with his elephant taken with Garrett 45-70 Exiter Ammo. Brain-shot with complete penetration and exit. It can be seen in the gallery section of Mr Garrett's website. We do have to admit that Mr Garrett has given the 45-70 Government a new lease on life, to the surprise of many, but truth be told, it is not black magic, it is simply physical principles that he applied even though the science may not have even featured strongly in Mr Garrett's brain at that point in time, but rather sheer trial and error with a quest to improve.

And the best explanation I have for it is the manipulation of "classical" SD to "effective" SD.



Let us tip our hats to Mr Garrett.

Warrior

quote:

There's more BS in this thread than the South end of a north bound herd!

I hate it when someone pays attention like that.


What The makes you think so, WhatThe?

As I mentioned before Randy Garrett has not applied scientific principles in his tests, and has come under criticism for his penetration tests, and I believe rightly so, as his methodology was an apples to pear comparison in the sense that different bullets were being used in the various cartridges that were stacked against each other.

For example he tested his .458 45-70 FN bullet against a .458 Hornady 500 grain Full Metal Jacket Round Nose bullet, and declared his bullet the winner. From a practical point of view he has a point as his lead bullet cannot be shot at higher than about 1800 fps before breaking up, and so it cannot be shot at 2000 to 2200 fps like a copper clad FMJ bullet can be shot. Like wise the 458 Win and 458 Lott shoot at higher velocities, but the inequity was the comparison to a RN FMJ bullet that we know will veer off course in the wet newspaper pack. Geometrical dimensions of the bullets were different as well as the distribution of mass around the COG point and differing nose profiles.

If this very same test would be conducted with the BBW #13 non-expanding brass bullet in both the 45-70 versus all the other .458 calibers, using the same bullet weight, then it would be a whole different story as then the increased velocity would bring with them increased momentum, which would drive penetration as the frontal area (wetted surface) would be the same. Comparing a FN with RN is inequitable to label one cartridge superior over the other. We need to use the same bullet with the same design, same construction, same bullet material and same geometrical nose profile. If this is done then the 458 Lott would be far superior over the 45-70 Government.

So it is not about caliber, but rather about bullet design that skewed Randy's results in his favour.

Hornady's DGS (Dangeous Game Solid) with a flat meplat only came out much later, and long after Randy's tests.

Most manufacturers have seen the light by now as to the benefits of the FN design.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
As I mentioned before Randy Garrett has not applied sceintific principles in his tests and come under criticism for his penetration tests, and I believe rightly so, as his methodology was an apples to pear comparison in the sense that different bullets were being used in the various cartridges that were stacked against each other.

For example he tested his .458 45-70 FN bullet against a .458 Hornady 500 grain Full Metal Jacket Round Nose bullet, and declared his bullet the winner. From a practical point of view he has a point as his lead bullet cannot be shot at higher than about 1800 fps before breaking up, and so it cannot be shot at 2000 to 2200 fps like a copper clad FMJ bullet can be shot. Like wise the 458 Win and 458 Lott shoot at higher velocities, but the inequity was the comparison to a RN FMJ bullet that we know will veer off course in the wet newspaper pack. Geometrical dimensions of the bullets were different as well as the distribution of mass around the COG point and differing nose profiles.

If this very same test would be conducted with the BBW #13 non-expanding brass bullet in both the 45-70 versus all the other .458 calibers, using the same bullet weight, then it would be a whole different story as then the increased velocity would bring with them increased momentum would drive penetration as the frontal area (wetted surface) would be the same. Comparing a FN with RN is inequitable to label one cartridge superior over the other. We need to use the same bullet with the same design, same construction, same bullet material and same geometrical nose profile. If this is done then the 458 Lott would be far superior over the 45-70 Government.

So it is not about caliber, but rather about bullet design that skewed Randy's results.

Warrior

Warrior,

I must be allowed to be candid in my response as well as non-specific in posted terms as well as anonymous to the counter participant should I wish to be fair in promoting a dialog of any coherency. Let's reverse tags on focus on answers I have given that have not been understood or otherwise ignored.

Targeting a single person:; "My post was not "post" specific nor does it single out anyone in particular. May it serve as a "general" analysis of information exchanged herein. I do not wish to engage in unnecessary banter as it may be deemed in terms other than the intended purpose."

Would perhaps signal the counter that the author is non specific in one particular person/event and further outlines the authors wish of no ill will.

For engaging questions, theory and/or results specific to this discussion:; "I have no knowledge of this cartridge nor do I wish to."

Would indicate the author has no interest in "taking up' the subject, providing information to or against the contrary. So why would one ask the author to answer any questions?


I could probably go on with this but I would prefer a good game of "Go Fish" and I'm sure I would prevail in saying that you would choose to be involved with your favorite game rifle in one way or another. Your friend "Randy" does not need anything from me nor anyone else for this matter to be successful in his quest and further needs no scientific information in proving what he has all ready done. Remember that words are only words and actions speak volumes (kind of the prove your theory type of thing) and apparently he has done so in a mechanical sense that requires only eyes to grasp the answer. This I understand. What has gotten lost in translation is that upon analysis in reverse order, I made a generalized comment that the thread was smelling bad. This was posted by me because SD was being misused, miscalculated and further distorted in many posts. As shown this didn't necessarily apply to you but as a return to your first response I challenged your formulation and this is where things went south along the bumpy road of interpretation. You seem to enjoy this round, the father of the round and all it can do. To that I say "great" I hope you guys not only take all your game with a single blow, but get the round in the hands of others that wish to do the same. I simply would say that using any SD in calculating the performance in the way that you did, is not valid for the answer sought. SD is a functional measurement not a solution. And "Gyro therom" does not apply but rather "centrifugal momentum" based on RPM's/Ft. Remember a gyro moves in all directions. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes we may think we have the answer but later find out that we just found the start to another problem..

WhatThe,

I am not sure if you have clarified your stance, but I do see it as and attempt on your side with some goodwill.

Just briefly, a few observations:

I have never proposed SD as a solution, and nor did I use it out of context. I do understand its limitations by the very relevant Gyro theorem in calculating the SF value for air stabilized projectiles. SD cannot be increased at will and indefinitely. So, we cannot talk about SD without recognizing that the twist rate becomes a limiting factor. Forever I am warning that SD not to be used out of context and you will see it in this very thread, some postings back.

I say again, if you are sitting with info that we aught to have, then you should share it buddy, as that way you are welcome to play with us here in the sandpit, but if you throw sand in our eyes and then leave without making a comment, we are going to get cross with you. So bring nice toys with you and let us also play with your toys and not be selfish to tell us that it is your toys. Point I am making is, we can all learn from each other.

By the way, I am a fan of the 9,3x62 and would not trade it for a 45-70 Government. I do not like the rifles in which they come for one, and for another, I have no need for a 540 gr projectile, but it is not actually about that, it is about the universal principles involved to gain a better understanding of why bullets penetrate better, and that goes for all calibers.

Michael for example has spent thousands of Dollars to wrestle the very same thing out in getting to the best bullet design, just like old Randy. Now we have to put an eloquent explanation to it. And again my question to you is .... can you help?

Be good
Warrior

SD is why I would use a 180 grain .308 hornady bullet at 2600fps over a 180 grain.358 hornady bullet at 2700fps for moose.No BS

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
WhatThe,

I am not sure if you clarified, but I do see it as and attempt on your side with goodwill.

Just briefly:

I have never proposed SD as a solution, and nor did I use it out of context. I do understand its limitations by the very relevant Gyro theorem in calculating the SF value for air stabilized projectiles. SD cannot be increased at will and indefinitely. So, we cannot talk about SD without recognizing that the twist rate becomes a limitation. Forever I am waring that SD not to be used out of context and you will see in this very thread some postings back.

I say again, if you are sitting with info that we aught to have then you should share it buddy, as that way you are welcome to play with us here in the sandpit, but if you throw sand in our eyes and then leave without making a comment, we are going to get cross with you. So bring nice toys with you and let us also play with your toys and not be selfish to tell us that it is your toys. Point I am making is, we can all learn from each other.

By the way, I am a fan of the 9,3x62 and would not trade it for a 45-70. I do not like the rifles in which they come for one, and for another have no need for a 540 gr projectile, but it is not about that, it is about the universal principles involved to gain a better understanding. Michael for example has spent thousands of Dollars to wrestle the very same thing out in getting the best bullet, just like old Randy. Now we have to put an eloquent explanation to it.

Be good
Warrior

I'm a devil's advocate when it comes to information and live by the values handed down in that; "should you catch the fish for those that can't, you only provide the fish, but if you teach them to fish, you have given them the means". So I would suggest in a round-about way that; should one be interested in "sectional density" thou shall seek the knowledge that is available at their fingertips. Should one decide to really indulge, they will be introduced to a vast array of information on the subject. Perhaps "fixed density", "angular density", bi-sectional density" etc., and the roles they play and don't play when applied in a specific environment/task when applied in the laws they are bound to. One important fact that often gets overlooked in this forum that I will share with you and all that may have an interest is that; internal ballistics is in fact an exact science that is not bound by external influences. This however, is NOT why Int, Ext and Ter exist but rather remains a simple law of a "fixed" event. The latter may be changed to illustrate what ever solution is being sought. Ext. & Term. ballistics remain debatable based on the fact that many "fixed" laws end during the transfer from one stage to the other. However, the laws of motion based on fixed principles must be applied to any influence introduced during any given stage of transfer. Hence, and forward, any specific singular or set of solutions being sought outside a fixed stage of travel must apply boundaries +/- to the equation in the form of "effect of influence". So in short, field experience/tests may provide influenced results that one may not debate providing that the result is bound by the basic laws that apply to that result. So I won't provide, debate or challenge those areas based on the above facts. I will challenge and continue to challenge in one way or another, claims that violate basic principles. I'm not the end all nor do I claim to be a wizard and can take a lesson as well as give one. My years working with & testing small/medium arms, projectiles, propellants, delivery systems and solution specific weapons has perhaps given me an edge over the average Joe. However, that average Joe has a set of eyes and a solution all of his/her own that beg the question; "who am I to argue, I wasn't there" and that shuts the door on any book. So I tend to stray and enjoy the show..

Here is the result of tests that were done at the John Linebaugh seminar, that I alluded to before, coming off Mr Garrett's website, and alos note that another bullet of Hornady was introduced in the Garrett ammo as an option over and above the hard-cast lead bullets - a 500 gr FN steel Jacketed bullet:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Does the 540-grain Hammerhead Ammo actually out-penetrate the 458 Winchester Magnum and 500 Nitro Express when using solids?

Yes, as was demonstrated for all to see at a recent John Linebaugh seminar. The penetration results, which parallel ours, demonstrated that the 458 Winchester Magnum produces 47-inches of penetration in wet newspaper with 500-grain roundnose solids and that the 500 Nitro Express produces 48-inches of penetration in wet newspaper with 570-grain roundnose solids. By comparison, our 540-grainer with its super blunt front end produces an impressive 55-inches of penetration in the same material. Nearly 20% deeper penetration than the 458 or 500 Nitro Express with roundnose solids!

Although our 540-gr Hammerhead Ammo out-penetrates these heavy magnum calibers in wet newspapers and ballistic gelatin, we strong recommend our 500-gr Exiter Ammo for those in pursuit of Africa's heaviest game: elephant, rhino, hippo, and Cape buffalo. The outstanding Hornady copper-clad heavy steel jacketed flatnose solid used in our Exiter Ammo is the strongest solid available to 45-70 shooters, and is thus the best choice for the heavy bone-busting required for these extra-heavy species."

Warrior

Here is a 488 gr JDJ 13 - 66% meplat bullet that Michael tested and here we see that it beats the 540 gr Garret bullet handsomely:



.458/540 gr Garrett - meplat 78.6% or .360"- penetration 55 inches

.500/488 gr JDJ 13 - meplat 66% or .330" - penetration 63 inches

This proves the point I made earlier bearing in mind wetpack densities might differ slightly.
For equity, bullet weights should actually be the same, but there are no common bullet weights.

Warrior

Here is some more proof of another bullet design, and this time an even better example of the same caliber, but ligther (450 grains vs 540 grains)penetrating deeper than the Garrett bullet - being the The .458 450 CEB BBW #13 that Michael tested and passed with flying colors:



Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
WhatThe,

I am not sure if you have clarified your stance, but I do see it as and attempt on your side with some goodwill.

Just briefly, a few observations:

I have never proposed SD as a solution, and nor did I use it out of context. I do understand its limitations by the very relevant Gyro theorem in calculating the SF value for air stabilized projectiles. SD cannot be increased at will and indefinitely. So, we cannot talk about SD without recognizing that the twist rate becomes a limiting factor. Forever I am warning that SD not to be used out of context and you will see it in this very thread, some postings back.

I say again, if you are sitting with info that we aught to have, then you should share it buddy, as that way you are welcome to play with us here in the sandpit, but if you throw sand in our eyes and then leave without making a comment, we are going to get cross with you. So bring nice toys with you and let us also play with your toys and not be selfish to tell us that it is your toys. Point I am making is, we can all learn from each other.

By the way, I am a fan of the 9,3x62 and would not trade it for a 45-70 Government. I do not like the rifles in which they come for one, and for another, I have no need for a 540 gr projectile, but it is not actually about that, it is about the universal principles involved to gain a better understanding of why bullets penetrate better, and that goes for all calibers.

Michael for example has spent thousands of Dollars to wrestle the very same thing out in getting to the best bullet design, just like old Randy. Now we have to put an eloquent explanation to it. And again my question to you is .... can you help?

Be good
Warrior

WhatThe,

I am still curious as to how you see the role of SD in our ballistic system in all 3 spheres of internal, external and terminal ballistics, but more specifically in the penetration event in flesh; i.e. in a hunting scenario which is the subject of discussion here.

Some say SD is just an incidental arithmetic ratio and no more, and of no consequence. I am not sure if you belong to this school of thought, but either way, would like to ask you to give us a treatise on this.

Thank you

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
SD is why I would use a 180 grain .308 hornady bullet at 2600fps over a 180 grain.358 hornady bullet at 2700fps for moose.No BS

+1 I agree totally.

In your statement about the 180 grain bullet from a 308 vs a 358 is exactly the comparison that others find hard to swallow. The reality is that the 308 does out perform the 358 on every page and is the forerunning reason why we have so many caliber choices below .308 to choose from.

The issue that keeps clouding this debate is that Sectional density by itself is just a length to width tabulation and we are attempting to relate this number to bullet performance. The bottom line is that there is significance improvement to be had with a higher sectional density in conjunction with other valuable factors such as bullet construction, caliber, velocity, etc... So this entire sectional density debate is centered around inferred performance values. This is why not everone gets it.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
WhatThe,

I am not sure if you have clarified your stance, but I do see it as and attempt on your side with some goodwill.

Just briefly, a few observations:

I have never proposed SD as a solution, and nor did I use it out of context. I do understand its limitations by the very relevant Gyro theorem in calculating the SF value for air stabilized projectiles. SD cannot be increased at will and indefinitely. So, we cannot talk about SD without recognizing that the twist rate becomes a limiting factor. Forever I am warning that SD not to be used out of context and you will see it in this very thread, some postings back.

I say again, if you are sitting with info that we aught to have, then you should share it buddy, as that way you are welcome to play with us here in the sandpit, but if you throw sand in our eyes and then leave without making a comment, we are going to get cross with you. So bring nice toys with you and let us also play with your toys and not be selfish to tell us that it is your toys. Point I am making is, we can all learn from each other.

By the way, I am a fan of the 9,3x62 and would not trade it for a 45-70 Government. I do not like the rifles in which they come for one, and for another, I have no need for a 540 gr projectile, but it is not actually about that, it is about the universal principles involved to gain a better understanding of why bullets penetrate better, and that goes for all calibers.

Michael for example has spent thousands of Dollars to wrestle the very same thing out in getting to the best bullet design, just like old Randy. Now we have to put an eloquent explanation to it. And again my question to you is .... can you help?

Be good
Warrior

WhatThe,

I am still curious as to how you see the role of SD in our ballistic system in all 3 spheres of internal, external and terminal ballistics, but more specifically in the penetration event in flesh; i.e. in a hunting scenario which is the subject of discussion here.

Some say SD is just an incidental arithmetic ratio and no more, and of no consequence. I am not sure if you belong to this school of thought, but either way, would like to ask you to give us a treatise on this.

Thank you

Warrior

Section density as used in ballistics is more of a dynamic and to simplify matters we can borrow "aerodynamics" for a moment. Section density is several measurements along the entry, bearing and exit surfaces of a projectile. Hence the term "sectional" as we don't use the term "density section". Imagine cutting a projectile in perfect round pieces from tip to end (exit). Based on what we are trying to solve would determine the amount of slices we would make but for projectiles we are trying to locate the neutral center of the bullet or "balance point" so an odd number of slices need to be made and the size, weight, thickness is going to determine the sensitivity of the solution. In other words a finer scale that provides a more precise measurement. An easy explanation would to tell you that; all we are doing is locating the center balance point of the bullet. While this is true all the fore and aft sections work as Forward and rearward dynamic sections after stabilization has been achieved by means of centrifugal force working along the bearing surface". Notice I didn't say fore (ogive) and aft (exit) section (s) that's because after stabilization these surfaces become dynamic. If this were an airplane we would say those surfaces provide the lift necessary to pass the bearing surfaces of the aircraft. There is more to go along with this and I have used some (i.e.s) that may not be found in your college physics book but the point and principle are all the same as well as the conclusion. So I invite you to do additional research as it applies to a projectile (not a propelled or powered craft as all principles change) and learn why perhaps it may not really be all that important as some may believe and how dingy some posts here sound due to the way they perceive sectional density. Just a friendly challenge an again, never any will intended.

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:
While we are on the subject, what I don't understand is:

If someone devotes 20, 30+ years of their life developing a cartridge he/she wishes to be the ultimate African big game stopper, I would ask:

Why don't you take a year with your Mac running ImPg software to develop a lightweight .50 Cal BMG rifle.

The fact is: No other large caliber compares in accuracy fly's as fast as flat or hits as hard. Plan and simple nothing out there even comes close and at 100 yards or less (where most big game is taken) even a bad shot equals game over!

725 Grn. FMJ @ 2,750 FPS with 12,800 Ft.Lbs. equals broken $hit down range. Simple fact!

A mil machined stainless #480 receiver with a 24" #440 stainless bbl. 3 round drop in mag. Synthetic polymer stock with recoil spring lugs and titanium hydro damper in the stock butt. A good 50 degree clam shell recoil brake and whaaa.laaaa. 12, 13, 14 and at most a 15Lb. rifle

The ultimate!

Hum, this is giving me some ideas...

Now you are talking something fun We can get Boomie to critique and Michael to test bullets.......course Michael will want a 8# one

SSR

quote:

WhatThe,

I am still curious as to how you see the role of SD in our ballistic system in all 3 spheres of internal, external and terminal ballistics, but more specifically in the penetration event in flesh; i.e. in a hunting scenario which is the subject of discussion here.

WhatThe,

Sir you have answered none of the questions above, and you would not be getting any marks for you essay that you handed in. You have given a prelude to abstract theories and you have not addressed the practical and mechanical workings of SD as to how we experience it in guns - you must have misread the question.

As an instructor you have to confine yourself to the subject at hand, which is the workings of SD .... in the gun ... in the air ... in the target (flesh in this case) - so you have to start with combustion, forward motion and then penetration dynamics, given the properties of the bullet.

Try again for 10 marks, sir. This time as a student, and not as a seasoned lecturer that wants to impress his students that just arrived at university the first day. If I may suggest a hint (that is to gain marks), confine yourself to the correct branch of science, which is mechanical forward motion and impact and not ideas of relativity of time and space as propagated by Einstein. As a second hint (this being a bonus), address the state of matter and its resultant drag on the bullet, presenting a body with shape, form and structure. When physics is applied correctly it will describe the event to guide and instruct and I suggest that lean more heavily on the work of (branch of mechanics) Leonhard Euler, but in context of rifle ballistics (Continuum mechanics) as we know it today at rifle velocities in a hunting scenario. Continuum mechanics is a branch of mechanics that deals with the analysis of the kinematics and the mechanical behavior of materials modeled as a continuous mass rather than as discrete particles.

Background on Leonhard Euler ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

Thank you.
Warrior

PS: Euler insisted that knowledge is founded in part on the basis of precise quantitative laws, something that monadism and Wolffian science were unable to provide.

The San people have not studied physics nor die they go to school.
They only know survival and how to hunt.
The term "vegetarian" would imply "bad hunter".
But they know something about SD and how it works.
Take a look - SD in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo

Most modern man living in cities with all the comforts and technological aides to make our lives easier has a bad side to it - we rush to work, rush back, have to go to class and study, order fast food, and so we become completely disconnected from the food, and from the earth that provides food in the brutal ecological chain that modern man knows little about. We hunters long to go to the bush ... like our forebears, to reconnect and appreciate what is was like way back in the dim past when we had to hunt rather buying cured steak vacuum rapped in an air-conditioned chain-store with bottled milk, Sodapop and Stawberry Pops for breakfast.

Warrior

Warrior,

I do not chastise nor do I condemn anyone. however, I may imply in some instances that perhaps someone is missing something that is right in front of them. Sometimes people need to see the movie twice to get the point, then some people may never get the joke. You can not teach smell, hearing, touch etc,. However, once those have acquired those skills you can teach them how to enhance their ability. To aid in the process as addressed in our conversation I will try without the aid of illustration to humor you with a very basic solution:

The basic formula to find sectional density is:

SD = M/A Where M = weight & A = Max cross point or area

Or better yet: Object (or projectile) = M/D Sq.

I'll assume you can do the math to solve the above?

Now we have the knowledge to find the sectional density of a projectile. Yea! Whoppi!

Not so fast! It does not apply a cross the boards to ballistics and at best you can use it to be equal to, less than or greater than a solution sought!

Now, the reason for this is in the above posts!

Take your time, it's there.

WhatThe,

Frankly sir, you have not put anything new on the table, nor have you explained anything, save to put a basic statement on the table, which does not guide nor instruct. So unfortunately I cannot give you any marks for your essay, as you have not answered the question in the 3 arenas of application. It seems you have totally side stepped the questions as before.

The way I judge a lecturer is how he takes his students or audience with him in a convincing manner, but sadly you have not achieved that, despite my guiding hints or clues that were very specific. Your answer need to be very specific on these matters, and it may well be a lengthy one that needs the dedication of your time, and present it as a treatise that could be published. That is the kind of response I am seeking ... and the reason being .... because nobody other than scientists seem to fully understand SD.

So, can we try again. Make the assumption that we know nothing. In your treatise you must focus specifically on rifle ballistics as in a hunting application (that should eliminate some complexities), and then give us a concluding paragraph of where SD would be applicable or offer any benefit to a hunter, if at all, or failing that, why it should be rejected. Also, refer to available literature on the subject of SD, and to what extent you agree or disagree with them. You should know some of the key references on the subject matter.

I am really curious to learn more, and please do not see my response as a sarcastic one, but well as a serious one, that with your help, we can put all hunters here on AR on the right track to avoid that we discuss the concept of SD for another 10 years and just touching in the dark, as is the case at present. We need to be enlightened.

Thank you
Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
WhatThe,

Frankly sir, you have not put anything new on the table, nor have you explained anything, save to put a basic statement on the table, which does not guide nor instruct. So unfortunately I cannot give you any marks for your essay, as you have not answered the question in the 3 arenas of application. It seems you have totally side stepped the questions as before.

The way I judge a lecturer is how he takes his students or audience with him in a convincing manner, but sadly you have not achieved that, despite my guiding hints or clues that were very specific. Your answer need to be very specific on these matters, and it may well be a lengthy one that needs the dedication of your time, and present it as a treatise that could be published. That is the kind of response I am seeking ... and the reason being .... because nobody other than scientists seem to fully understand SD.

So, can we try again. Make the assumption that we know nothing. In your treatise you must focus specifically on rifle ballistics as in a hunting application (that should eliminate some complexities), and then give us a concluding paragraph of where SD would be applicable or offer any benefit to a hunter, if at all, or failing that, why it should be rejected. Also, refer to available literature on the subject of SD, and to what extent you agree or disagree with them. You should know some of the key references on the subject matter.

I am really curious to learn more, and please do not see my response as a sarcastic one, but well as a serious one, that with your help, we can put all hunters here on AR on the right track to avoid that we discuss the concept of SD for another 10 years and just touching in the dark, as is the case at present. We need to be enlightened.

Thank you
Warrior

My God..!

Take a roll of quarters and give me the SD.

When you get it, respond back and I'll take you for a little ride.

Drear Sir,

Please don't leave being upset, sir.
You have avoided the questions again, why?
It should not be difficult for you say what you mean.
But you seem to enjoy talking in circles and giving analogies.
The time is up for that, now you need to get to specifics.

The ball is in your lap to explain yourself, since you are the one that is questioning the correct meaning and use of SD that we seem to miss. So you need to step up, or step back, and this has nothing to do with me, as you hinted above by saying .... "When you get it, respond back and I'll take you for a little ride."

Let's forget ... if I get it or not ...
Let's forget my response - let us assume my view is irrelevant ...
Just go ahead, get on the rollercoaster and start the ride ...
But remember sir ... it is not my ride ...
It is your ride ... you saddled the horse ... and you owe it to yourself ...
To explain the whole significance of SD or otherwise.
Do it for all the members on AR and also for the greater good of mankind, forget "me".
This duty has fallen on you now, and let me say this .... we can all learn ...
We are not too old for that ... but that depends on you to change our minds about SD ...
I know it is going to be a big task to write a treatise ... but you have brought it onto yourself ...

The only remaining question is ... are you going to redeem yourself?

Thank you sir.
Warrior

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Drear Sir,

Please don't leave being upset, sir.
You have avoided the questions again, why?
It should not be difficult for you say what you mean.
But you seem to enjoy talking in circles and giving analogies.
The time is up for that, now you need to get to specifics.

The ball is in your lap to explain yourself, since you are the one that is questioning the correct meaning and use of SD that we seem to miss. So you need to step up, or step back, and this has nothing to do with me, as you hinted above by saying .... "When you get it, respond back and I'll take you for a little ride."

Let's forget ... if I get it or not ...
Let's forget my response - let us assume my view is irrelevant ...
Just go ahead, get on the rollercoaster and start the ride ...
But remember sir ... it is not my ride ...
It is your ride ... you saddled the horse ... and you owe it to yourself ...
To explain the whole significance of SD or otherwise.
Do it for all the members on AR and also for the greater good of mankind, forget "me".
This duty has fallen on you now, and let me say this .... we can all learn ...
We are not too old for that ... but that depends on you to change our minds about SD ...
I know it is going to be a big task to write a treatise ... but you have brought it onto yourself ...

The only remaining question is ... are you going to redeem yourself?

Thank you sir.
Warrior

I really hate to say this, but I'm pretty sure, no strike that, I'm confident I have never held a discussion with someone as yourself. The answer has been all but given to you, if it were a snake, you would be at the hospital. I am also confident you haven't bothered to read, absorb or seek this information herein nor abroad as your reply's clearly show that. What is clear, is that you are vigorously defending something you have no knowledge of and that defense has numbed what ever intellect (if any) you may have. Why have you ignored all of my challenges? Had you have even attempted a solution, I would not be here and now chastising you like a rented mule. I have a feeling that you may be one of those with IDD or (Intelligence Deficit Disorder) that lashes out in class to avoid being put on the spot to answer whatever is at question. I saddled nothing but a whahoo that again, knows nothing about the subject and has and continues to avoid visible solutions. I brought nothing on to myself and make it a point to avoid doing so by leaving enough to be pondered. Unfortunately this eludes you as well. I'm going to leave you with this in hopes you may understand it. If you don't, I would recommend enlisting the services of a local 3rd or 4th grade student to tutor you through your handicap.

1. Now pay attention here! When all is the same. In other words: air density, humidity, projectile surfaces (all projectile surfaces), propulsion, angle of flight, angle of entry, projectile rotation rpm's, projectile heat, (Oh my, the bullet will expand when it get's hot, will that change the SD?) there are probably a dozen more variables that apply and with those variables you will be required to recalculate each and every section. (Oh my again, sectional) of non-fixed (when all is NOT the same) Oh noooo... This could take weeks! But when all is the same as mentioned above, than yes indeed oh boy, SD applies like soft frosting on a frozen cake.

Do you like "probability"? or statistical science? I don't!

2. Would you agree that a projectile with a larger SD provides better or rather deeper penetration? I'll answer that for you and the answer is: yes! You have said so more than once. Well pull up your chair Jr. and listen up (again you may want to consult with that 4th grade tutor). Would you agree that a roll of quarters has a larger SD signature than that of a 500 Gr. 458Win mag round. Lets shoot them both at 2400 fps. at a pine tree and see which one penetrates deeper. Uhhh...errr....ummm I think the 458Win mag bullet would bubba, don't you? It's not just the obvious that can conclude such a ridicules example but all the calculations required to prove it as a solution without even shooting the poor tree! But Bubba, what if we were to put a conical point on the roll of quarters. Oh now Jr. the .458Win mag will still penetrate deeper. But oh my, we introduced another "non-fixed" variable that needs calculation. Damn-it Bubba break out the calculator. Right when you start to ask yourself "who the hell is Bubba"? Jr. jumps out again and says "but Bubba, what if we were shooting at jello"? Now you just introduced another "non-fixed" variable. Damn Jr. knock it off, my calculator is taking a beating

How many laws and rules do you think are required to solve this (I saw it with my own eyes) example? Hint 9+7+2+5. You should be capable of solving that without the aid of your tutor.

I will leave you to ponder, scratch yourself and pick your nose. You took a lesson that proves you cannot depend on SD as a factor unless 23 calculations (opps, gave you the answer) are always the same. This my friend is called "probability" or equal to, less than or greater than (sound familiar) equating which hopefully by now you understand can not be applied across the board (gee sound familiar again)?

It's not a matter of redeeming myself at this conclusion as you have suggested above but rather a waste of my time defining something you will still disagree with and surely search for another topic regardless of how bogus to challenge what's right in front of you. This can be your gain or your downfall. When walking into a classroom full of kids that were tossing objects, wrestling each other on the ground, drawing on furniture a man made his way to the front of the classroom and wrote on the board "Those who wish to learn, may stay. Those that don't, may leave". "Albert Einstein" By-the-way, all the kids stayed.

Dear Sir,

I am sorry to tell you what you have written here has no practical benefit, and cannot be considered a proper treatise on the subject, nor have you answered the question as to the role of SD in a hunting scenario in the 3 stages. You are dribbling the ball and nobody can gain any practical benefit whatsoever. So yes, your effort has been a wasted one. The whole way you wrote is one of being a smart-ass and we all are dumb idiots.

To ponder the thought about a bullet gaining a rise in temperature, however minute, during flight and expand (however infinitesimal), and as such, the width of the bullet is now bigger (probably immeasurable), and as such, the SD is reduced is absolute testimony of the irrelevance for the hunter's practical benefit. The incoherent and unstructured way in which you have put it does not help it either, and lacks clarity of thought, showing that you should not be considered a lecturer.

Being a smart-ass, you forgot to mention to me that the bullet weight (the numerator in the SD calculation) is not the same on earth as on the moon, as on the moon it is only 1/6th, and so the SD is different ... like we are hunting on the moon where there is no oxygen and no game, heh? Yes and mass is the same but the weight is less on the moon due to gravitational field. And so we can carry on taking the concept of SD to other planets or the 2 moons of Mars, namely Phobos and Deimos.

Equally unrealistic, one can argue that if we use the bullet (having a SD) in an ambient temperature that the copper bullet would melt, rather than expand, we would also have difficulty is calculating the SD or not being able to keep it the same, heh? Copper melts at slightly over 1,900 degrees F - a wee bit more than a hot day in Texas.

Ponder in your own world, while I will enjoy my hunting and be content with what is practical for me and what works for me in the very same way that Randy Garrett found out what works better for him, even if he stumbled upon the solution. Many things in life has to be determined through trial and error - just like Michael has been doing for the last year with an unbelievable effort even if it is scientifically flawed in some ways.

So, that ends our conversation on this topic, as it is becoming a futile endeavour - we are just not hitting it off, and so be it. Truth be told, it might just be your pompous and condescending way of talk, while you might be a most wonderful and talented person.

Be good.
Warrior