quote:

Warrior: You are out of context completely....if you disagree with it it shows your ignorance ...again you twist what I said by stating ...... to suit your sly tactics.....This must be a pain for you to talk to us poor mortals.

quote:

Posted 09 July 2009 23:42 Hide Post
Andrea, I would suggest that the down-loaded 9.3 which groups well is probably the best choice, since it is loaded with solids underneath that. I am not sure what dangerous game you have around, but would think buff, and rhino maybe? It sounds like the bush is quite thick where you hunt and normal shot distances are short. If the magnification of the scope is low, say around 2X, then great. If I was walking around thick bushveld with dangerous game around with a .308, I would prefer it to be a R1/FAL! I do not think that you are going to get around bullet deflection by grass, twigs, etc if you step down in calibre anyway. If you have a fair amount of .308 bullets already, use them in your rifle as long as they can keep some sort of group

Hi Nzou and all

I'v been doing the most of my hunting in this area with a scoped 9,3x62 using 270 grains Speer bullets at 2.000 f/s. The load is very accurate on my rifle and I never had a bullet failure.

When I was in the Cape I've been shooting elands for the butcher using an old 9,5x57 with the same balistic and I like the performance of heavy conventional bullets at low velocities.

Obviously I live in South Africa, my hunting is cheap and I can afford to get close.

My first bullet is always a soft but in the magazine I carry solids for the coup the grace and for a possible Portuguese hart shot to a wounded animal.

I hate to have a gun in the safe that is not accurate, or that in not regularly used.

In this area the hunting is done at close distance and I'm looking for more excuses to get closer, so I decided that this year I will hunt mostly open sights.

I can take the scope off the 9,3 or make the 308 more "a bush gun". I found the second option more attractive.

In the past I walked a lot in this area carying my 458 Lott but I never had to shoot an animal in self defence so I do not consider this event a real risk but more as a remote possibility. Still I want to be prepared and carry the most effective possible load.

I've been following the debate, that unfortunately is getting a little bit too techincal for me.

I never shot an animal in self defence, but in the past I had to use a pistol a few times against armed assailants and I never shot any one that was more than 2 metres away for me. Therefore my first consideration is that, if I will ever use a rifle in self defence, it will be at less than 5 metres.

At that distance a 308 will reliably stop an elephant and a buffalo only with a brain shot. As a consequence I need a bullet that can reach the brain of an elephant with a frontal shot. If it will work on the elephant it will work also on the buffalo.

A solid bullet is therefore required. On the other side cats are softer but not easy targets if charging. Far better to use an expanding bullet.

The best compromise at this moment for me is represented by an HV bullet, provided that is capable to reach the elephant brain with a frontal shot.

If the bullet is keyholing it may not travel straight to the elephant brain and I will be killed. So my first priority is short distance stabilization.

My second priority is short distance penetration. I accepted Gerard reasons and I'm convinced that at less than 5 metres distance an HV bullet will penetrate deeper and streighter than of a conventional expanding bullet.

I know that a 458 W M solid will penetrate an elphant skull with a frontal shot. If a 308 HV can penetrate the same it will also do it.

So, when stalking game in big five area, most likely my hunting bullet will be an HV bullet. The other cartriges in the magazine will be solids, as always.

To move around in the bush with a light calibre will make me more careful, and the hunting more exciting.

I owned a big caliber rifle since I moved in this area more than 10 years ago but I'm convinced that in emergency, with the right bullet / load / twist combination, a medium caliber gun will still do the job.

Once in Cape Town I've been attacked by five gangster with knives in their hands. I shot the one that was closer with a .22 short. He covered the face with his arm and got the bullet in his elbow.

He dropped the knife and they all runned away. He was later arrested. The police told me that two people had been killed in the same spot were I was attacked, probably by the same gang. The one arrested was wanted for armed robbery, rape and murder.

This episode do not advertise a .22 short as the ideal sidearm for engaging street gangs but prove that, in a real emergency, even an underpowered gun can manage the job.

I will not feel far more unsafe with a 308 in the bush than driving a FIAT 500 on the Italian Highways.

quote:

We must remember that Mo/XSA is just a yardstick and not perfect, as momentum cannot just be made up any way we like, as at extreme ends of the velocity spectrum the increased velocity will experience increased drag by the tune of the 'square of velocity', which is not easily trapped by such a simple statistic, and like wise if the velocity is so low that it becomes a bump instead of actually penetrating skin.

I thought that this titbit might be of interest to VVarrior, as it shows clearly the role of increased velocity in flesh ...

Dr Ed Ashby says in ... 'Maximizing Monolithic Bullet Performance' ... that appeared in Man Magnum of June 2000 ... "The penetration disparity between high impact velocity and low impact velocity persists with the 30.06 Spr. At 2,792 fps, the 165-gr Barnes-X bullet penetrates far less deeply than it does at a velocity of 2,484 fps. At the higher velocity it frequently failed to penetrate even big chest shot warthogs completely. Thus far, there have been no failures to exit any animal shot at the lower velocity. Again, these tests involved a significant number of shots at each velocity level."

Please note that the above mentioned velocity of 2,484 fps is the measured muzzle velocity and it impacts at lower velocities down range namely at 2,304 fps and 2,214 fps at 100 and 200 yds respectively, which is just perfect. If this does not make the penny drop, than nothing will.

You cannot beat a high-SD controlled expanding bullet, with sufficient mass, at moderate velocity for the hunting of game!!! OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY.


286 GR RHINO BULLET RETRIEVED FROM HIPPO


THE HIPPO

Warrior

VVarrior,

quote:

1. The bullets arrive on target: One is light and flying, the other is heavy and trundling along sedately.
2. The light bullet mushrooms to double caliber and dumps a load of energy because of the speed. This gives a large volume wound at that point.
3. The heavy bullet mushrooms to double caliber and dumps less energy because of its slowness. This gives a smaller diameter wound cavity at that point.
4. The light bullet loses the mushroom to become one caliber in diameter and slows down.
5. The heavy bullet remains double caliber because it lazy pace will not allow shedding of the mushroom and the large mushroom puts four times larger brakes on it and it does not have four times the momentum so it stops.
4. The light bullet, now at a quarter of the frontal area of the heavy bullet, continues deeper before it stops.

Which talk did you attend?

Warrior,

quote:

OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY

It does not. The only reason why you are able to perpetuate that myth is because it is easier to pontificate over a picture of a retrieved bullet than over an exit hole.

This is much more impressive.
And this.
Here is a good one too.
A rare one.
When a PH goes hunting for himself...
Three exits, no bullets to talk about, just biltong and a nice skin.

Any bullet/caliber combination that is incapable of an exit on a broadside shot, is unreliable as a quarter or straight going away combination. It is marginal and is of little interest to us. We avoid combinations that put limits on ones ability and introduces an element of uncertainty.

Gerard,

Well here is Dan McCarthy's 9.3 bullet test, and if we just look at the 2 mono-metal rival products, we see that your 260 gr HV bullet penetrated only 22 inches, whereas the 286 gr Barnes-X pentrated 30 inches.

Going to a CEB like the 300 gr Swift A-Frame, we see that it penetrated 42 inches.
That tells me that mass is favoured over velocity.

For the complete report look here ..... http://bigfivehq.com/softs.pdf

Warrior

quote:

Which talk did you attend?

Balfour.

Hey Warrior,

quote:

For the complete report look here .....

Interesting report. I see that the 260gr GS HV penetrated 22 inches. The 286gr Nosler Partition did 23 inches, the Woodleigh 286gr did 20 inches, the 286gr Norma Oryx did 11 inches.

The author also says "The GS Custom HV did extremely well even though it started off 26 grains lighter than the other bullets tested. Weight retention was excellent, and penetration was very good. This bullet would be a fine choice for long range shots at medium game" "The number of bullets that I tested for each brand and bullet type is not sufficient to create a statistically reliable sample space, so it is possible that if this test is repeated, somewhat different results may be observed."

If you think this report proves that "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY" you sure are mixed up in the way you reason. What else you got? You will need to do better than this.

quote:

"OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY".

Here is another reference to what I have been saying all along:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...=206102295#206102295



Warrior

?

quote:

If you think this report proves that "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY" you sure are mixed up in the way you reason. What else you got? You will need to do better than this.

VVarrior - the first V stands for Vendetta,

I think you are confused, and and your drivel shows your lack of hunting experience.
Secondly, you have not got the foggiest idea of the penetration event and how different bullets perform.
Least of which having tested anything yourself - give us your body of work or ant test that you conducted.
Lastly, you can now tell Alf again that he did not express himself clearly.

To summerize:

- Mass is favoured over velocity.
- Velocity windows are for real with regard to bullet construction.
- Excess velocity becomes self-destructive.

Also tell RIP he has to come up with something better .... and I quote him ... "I found that velocity was no substitute for mass when it came to penetration of the Iron Water Buffalo (IWB), which is mostly water with some plywood partitions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:

The only reason why you are able to perpetuate that myth is because it is easier to pontificate over a picture of a retrieved bullet than over an exit hole.

Gerard,

All the links that you listed are irrelevant.
You perpetuate a myth, if you put more importance on velocity over mass.

In my books, 'velocity' is just the tool to get the bullet over there, so that the bullet can perform.



Warrior

Hey Warrior,
Your another reference contains

quote:

For their tests the velocity limit was 2800 m/s for steel projectiles, at this velocity the projectiles deformed and fragmented. That is roughly 9186 fps. Charters and Charters in Journal of trauma 1976 found exactly the same results with their testing. At 2850 m/s (9350 fps) velocity the charters's steel projectiles also deformed and fragmented

How does this relate to our hunting situations? When I need to shoot ball bearings at hyper speed I will look up that reference again and note the findings. Until then........You need to do better than that. What else you got?


Alf,
Thank you for explaining. Your comparisons lack similitude to practise

quote:

take a spoon and spoon it through a jar of honey, do it fast and do it slow and see what happens

The spoon stays the same size, soft point expanding bullets do not. As the spoon slows down, drag reduces. As the bullet slows down, drag must also reduce. Gerard's example (from his talk at Balfour) is surely nice and clear. You also explained it well. When drag is high (fast spoon through honey), the HV mushrooms, opens an impressive wound over some distance, then loses the mushroom and, slow spoons with a reduced diameter, much deeper than a bullet dragging a parachute.

quote:

Dive from a diving board into water in a pool you're ok, dive from the golden gate bridge and you could just as well be diving on to pavement......

This is a good example too. The volume of the cavity I cause in the pool will be a certain size and depth before I stop and float to the surface. The volume of the cavity I cause in the San Francisco Bay will be considerably bigger. After impact, which may even tear off limbs, my remaining torso will sink much deeper before all of me floats to the surface. If the object of the exercise is to cause damage to the water in the San Francisco Bay, jumping off the Golden Gate is a better idea than jumping off the ferry.

Hey Warrior,
I am astounded at how you follow a pattern

quote:

VVarrior - the first V stands for Vendetta,

I think you are confused, and and your drivel shows your lack of hunting experience.
Secondly, you have not got the foggiest idea of the penetration event and how different bullets perform.
Least of which having tested anything yourself - give us your body of work or ant test that you conducted.
Lastly, you can now tell Alf again that he did not express himself clearly.

To summerize:

- Mass is favoured over velocity.
- Velocity windows are for real with regard to bullet construction.
- Excess velocity becomes self-destructive.

When you run out of bad examples you revert to insult and repetition of former statement.

I have not done any research. Research that is valid requires a far bigger budget than that which I am willing to allocate. Budget is usually in proportion to the importance of the matter at hand. I am using the research that you and Alf present to clarify matters for me. It is difficult because I do not find much that applies to what we are talking about.

VVarrior,

I am astounded to see how you reason and your pattern of thinking !!!

You must be using Snake Oil on your rifle, as Alf alluded to.
It is no good to use our reasearch, or whoever's research, as you are still failing,
because still you cannot see that mass is favoured over velocity.

With reference to your statement that I revert to insult; think about this ....
your earlier and repetitive out of context reference about crows ...
then I can certainly say you don't have the foggiest idea as to how bullets behave.
You latest confession is actually an admission to what I inferred.
Your skewed reasoning, pettiness and sarcasm with Alf is also noted.

In your post above about the ball bearings, please ask Alf and not me, as it is
not me, but let me give you a hint, just follow the logic, Alf's logic, and you might
be able to see the wood from the trees.



Warrior

Hey Warrior,

quote:

I am astounded to see how you reason and your pattern of thinking !!!

This is called mimicking.

quote:

You must be using Snake Oil on your rifle, as Alf alluded to.

This is called an insulting remark.

quote:

It is no good to use our reasearch, or whoever's research,

This is bad logic. If I am not allowed to use the research that you and Alf present, you may not use it either.

quote:

as you are still failing,because still you cannot see that mass is favoured over velocity.

More bad logic. I cannot see it because it is not there. I have shown you that this is so, carefully pointing out where your (Alf/Warrior) research actually shows the opposite to that which you say it shows. You cannot say otherwise. Read the thread above.

quote:

your earlier and repetitive out of context reference about crows ...

Thank you for reminding me about that, this is called curiosity. It was not out of context, what about the crows? You have not said a single word about the subject. I might as well have asked the Sphinx about the crows. You must have fair knowledge on the subject of crows, you are eating enough of them.

quote:

then I can certainly say you don't have the foggiest idea as to how bullets behave.

More insulting remark? That is a surprising statement as it implies that you do. Do you? Evidence on this thread shows the contrary.

quote:

You latest confession is actually an admission to what I inferred.

I confessed to not doing research. Research is not shooting three pumpkins with three different bullets. Valid research will be carefully structured, contain sufficient sample sizes and conform to many criteria that I do not see in the work you present as your own. You must review your definition of research. What was it that you inferred?

quote:

Your skewed reasoning, pettiness and sarcasm with Alf is also noted.

If you mean that I do not bow and scrape when you and Alf appear, you are right but I give no disrespect. I have noticed that you equate differing in opinion with disrespect. You must review your definition of disrespect.

quote:

In your post above about the ball bearings, please ask Alf and not me, as it is not me, but let me give you a hint, just follow the logic Alf's logic and you might be able to see the wood from the trees.

You have this amusing love/hate relationship with Alf. In the first half of this sentence Alf is not your buddy and in the second half he is. You quoted him and you must be prepared to explain why. Unless you do not have the knowledge to do so........

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Hot Core,

I would like to hear about your experience on 2 statements below that were made by Gerard at the beginning of this thread. If you do not have personal experience with regard to these 2 issues then an engineering opinion would suffice. Only by sharing experiences and the parting of acquired knowledge can we learn from each other. So in this spirit I would like to hear you out on the following issues:

1. "The 130gr HV outperforms jacketed lead bullets up to 220gr at short range, with better straight line penetration, deeper penetration and larger wound channel volumes."

2. "Slow and heavy deflects easier and is more prone to tumbling."

Just to lay the foundation before you answer, it is clear that the above refers to an expanding mono-metal bullet versus an expanding lead-core bullet. This is an apples to oranges comparison, but a decision that hunters have to make. Since the mono-metal bullet is of stronger construction it would only be fair to pick a strongly constructed controlled expansion bullet (CEB) such as say a Swift A-Frame bullet or a NF Soft as all of them are premium custom bullets. Let us pick a 200 gr Swift or NF bullet as that is the heaviest they make. Do you agree or disagree with the notion that the 130 gr HV bullet makes a larger wound track?

I would like your engineering motivation as to why you agree or disagree with statement number 2. Bear in mind that a CEB that is heavy-for-caliber (such as a 200 grainer) is shot at a lower velocity, still has a higher momentum value at practical range, mushrooms so that it COG point shifts forward, bound to keep its petals and not to be ripped off in the first 2 to 4 inches of penetration largely because of the much lower velocity ensuring to keep the bullet within its threshold strength. Why then would the CEB "deflect easier" and be "more prone to tumbling". Do these CEB have such a dismal reputation iro deflection and tumbling vis-a-vis the HV bullet that loses its petals due to a high striking velocity (ie light and fast)?

Alf is on about measuring these events, and that changes the subject then away from an opinion to controlled experimentation to get a handle on this nebulous issue that gets seemingly interpreted in different ways. We do have 2 schools of though here - "fast & light" and "slow & heavy" that will linger on for as long hunters persist not to switch over. To make this more practical, let us assume we use a 30-06 Spr that is perhaps still the most widely used cartridge, and let us say we are after Elk/Eland sized game. Which bullet would you choose? Another issue that would naturally surface is the bone smashing ability of the bullet in question and its terminal momentum; accounting for weight loss at impact during the first few inches before vital organs are reached.

Your honest answer is appreciated.

Thanks
Warrior

Hot Core,

I am still waiting to get your answer to these fundemantal issues.
And I am very curious to hear an engineering perspective.
I would not have come back to it, if you had not declared a disagreement.
VVarrior warned you about that the above is a trap, NO it is not - all the cards are on the table.
You just have to put your cards on the table now.



Warrior

Vvarrior,

You still claim that Alf's response does not present any evidence, hey? All I can say is, nobody is as blind as those who does not want to see and your lastest reponse shows the futility to engage with you in talks.

What is so difficult to follow Alf when he says ... "If we look at the temporary cavitation phenomenon in Wounds we see the greater the velocity the greater the temporary cavity diameter but the shallower the penetration. If we increase a theoretical non deforming stable projectile in target we see that the TC increases in size but penetration decreases. Eventually we would have a very shallow wound with very large TC." ... Alf ( Posted 04 March 2008 )

Also, what is wrong with this experiment that Alf referred to, and I quote again ...

"As a "SD freak" I just need to clarify something for the speed over mass freaks

In 1982 Karl Sellier published in his book Shusswaffen und Shusswerkungen, Second edition: his tests on the effect of increasing velocity in lieu of mass in non deforming stable projectiles specifically with regards to the issue of SD and penetration.

They also validated this by means of experimentation and a valid mathematical derivation that would explain at the hand of energy transfer to target what happens when you speed the projectile up by trimming weight as Gerard suggests with his FN bullets.

The results of the tests show the following:

1. An increase in SD leads to less energy transfer to target per unit distance pnetrated and thus deeper penetration. The lower the SD the shallower the penetration, the bigger the energy dump to target and the bigger the TC

2. As temporary cavitation is energy transfer dependent it means that the more energy is dumped the bigger the TC, the less energy is dumped the smaller the TC.

3. Velocity Limits are reached where drag becomes so high that the drag force exceeds the yield strength of the projectile material and the projectile deforms and or fragments. This leads to even larger energy transfer and shallower penetration, but large TC's. The relationship to drag and velocity being that the drag value is equated to the velocity squared."

You are the one that must eat humble pie (British expression) or eating crow (American expression) for challenging Alf's superior knowledge. It would not be out of place to appologise to Alf if you have any self-respect.

Good-bye.



Warrior

Hot Core,
You have a question to answer. You have two hours. Write neatly, do not consult anyone else, you may use a scientific calculator and the question is marked out of 100 points. Do bear in mind that he who asked the question, but does not answer questions himself, will be marking your answer. He will use a crib sheet as he does not have the answers himself. You may start now.


Hey Warrior,
There is nothing difficult to follow in Alf's statement of "If we look at the temporary cavitation phenomenon in Wounds we see the greater the velocity the greater the temporary cavity diameter but the shallower the penetration." It is very clear and very logical. It makes complete sense.
I would explain it with a question, in this manner. We consider two bullets, a 150gr expanding copper bullet and a 200gr jacketed lead cored bullet. We shoot an elk broadside with a 30-06. We know from previous experience, anecdotal evidence given by friends and members of the forum, that both bullets will exit the far side of the elk. Under these conditions, which bullet will produce the largest volume wound cavity?

Very little difficulty in that, not so?

quote:

You are the one that must eat humble pie (British expression) or eating crow (American expression)

You Googled that!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by VVarrior:
Hot Core,
You have a question to answer. ...You may start now. ...

Hey VV, I'd love to help him out, but there is a prob are two problems:
1. warrior will never understand anything to do with Ballistics(same as alf).
2. When I put warrior's questions in the Priority List, they fall in as a "tie" on begging for a TAX Increase.

You and Gerard can have all the "fun".

Gentlemen

you are drifting so far away from the initial discussion that I'm forced to re-present my problem in a new topic, as the best rifling twist question have been properly answered.

Hey Warrior,
I am still waiting to get your answer to these fundemantal issues.
And I am very curious to hear an engineering perspective.
I would not have come back to it, if you had not declared a disagreement.

1. Interesting report from Dan McCarthy. I see that the 260gr GS HV penetrated 22 inches. The 286gr Nosler Partition did 23 inches, the Woodleigh 286gr did 20 inches, the 286gr Norma Oryx did 11 inches. How does this prove that "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY"?
2. How does shooting ball bearings at hyper speed relate to our hunting situations?
3. Do you have the foggiest idea how bullets behave?
4. Under these conditions, which bullet will produce the largest volume wound cavity?

All of these were asked on this thread but answers are still not forthcoming. You will get no points until these questions are properly explained by yourself. You may not get help from Alf, no cribbing, we are interested in your authentic work.

Each question is worth three points and the answers will be marked by myself. I will apply common sense and the collective experience of participants on this forum in assessing your answers. You have one hour week to complete the paper.

Warrior

See above, and don't forget mass is favoured over velocity in our ballistic system - many ballisticians hold this view, not just me and Alf.

So dit is die einde, Boeta.

Warrior

VVarrior,
You are wasting your time he does not know. I have asked basic questions, that should be a breeze for someone of his professed knowledge and, after many requests, when he could no longer avoid answering, he got it so wrong, it was really funny.

Pontificus Erroneus

The biggest waste of time in the world is to have any dicourse with our SA Rasputin, absolutely a futile endeavour !!!



Warrior

quote:

And VVARIOR our ballistics model favours mass over velocity for penetration of visco-elastic materials !

Warrior

quote:

don't forget mass is favoured over velocity in our ballistic system - many ballisticians hold this view, not just me and Alf

Ah...Now you fancy yourself a ballistician. If that is so, the ballistic science is in dire trouble. What about Alf? I thought he is a doctor.

These ballisticians, who hold the view that mass is favoured in the ballistic sciences that are important to us as sport shooters and hunters, who are they?

quote:

1. Interesting report from Dan McCarthy. I see that the 260gr GS HV penetrated 22 inches. The 286gr Nosler Partition did 23 inches, the Woodleigh 286gr did 20 inches, the 286gr Norma Oryx did 11 inches. How does this prove that "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY"?
2. How does shooting ball bearings at hyper speed relate to our hunting situations?
3. Do you have the foggiest idea how bullets behave?
4. Under these conditions, which bullet will produce the largest volume wound cavity?

As Gerard says. These should be "a breeze" for someone as well versed in ballistics as Warrior says he is. Especially 4.

Hey Warrior,
How are you this fine day? ????

One day and counting.
1. Interesting report from Dan McCarthy. I see that the 260gr GS HV penetrated 22 inches. The 286gr Nosler Partition did 23 inches, the Woodleigh 286gr did 20 inches, the 286gr Norma Oryx did 11 inches. How does this prove that "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY"?
2. How does shooting ball bearings at hyper speed relate to our hunting situations?
3. Do you have the foggiest idea how bullets behave?
4. Under these conditions, which bullet will produce the largest volume wound cavity?
5. These ballisticians, who hold the view that mass is favoured in the ballistic sciences that are important to us as sport shooters and hunters, who are they?

Hey Warrior,
Top of the morning to you. Are you still feeling ????

Surely you should have found the answers by now. Tell you what. I will suggest some answers and you can just correct me if I am wrong.

1. No it does not show that "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY". I have been Googling around for another example but I have not found one yet. Maybe I will make up another one from irrelevant facts and try to fool you all with that.
2. No relationship at all. Alf said there is but I don't see it. But Alf said there is.
3. No.
4. I am taking the fifth on this one.
5. I read their names somewhere but I forget now. It was a long time ago and the details are no longer clear in my mind. I will ask Alf.

How is that? More or less correct?

quote:

Originally posted by VVarrior:
... Maybe I will make up another one from irrelevant facts and try to fool you all with that.

I took a few nanoseconds and ran the odds of you being able to fool warrior and alf - 100%.

quote:

...Alf said...

alf rarely says anything, but he copies out of Manuals fairly well. The big problem is he really dosen't understand what he is copying and then gets in over his head when he attempts to draw a conclusion. Pitiful! Plenty of Example savailable, even in this thread.

quote:

I am taking the fifth ...

I'll recommend good old, never improved on - Rebel Yell - from Kentucky.

?

Hey VV, Being that I am the most "amiable" person on the Board, it appears that "my hero" has managed to work himself into a lather. Apparently he seems to think it is not OK for me to have an opinion - of his .

So VV, would you like the honor of calculating how much it bothers me that "my hero" is upset?

quote:

So VV, would you like the honor of calculating how much it bothers me that "my hero" is upset?

That would be a very large number containing many zeroes. Working to three decimals, at least nine before the point and three thereafter. Is a number with no value a number?

Hey Warrior,
How do you do today? Are you still feeling ????

Surely you should have looked over the answers I suggested for you by now. How do they look to you? They ring quite true, not so. I see you decided to recant on number 4 and figured out which one it is. Good on you for seeing the real facts.

1. No it does not show that "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL FAVOURS MASS OVER VELOCITY". I have been Googling around for another example but I have not found one yet. Maybe I will make up another one from irrelevant facts and try to fool you all with that.
2. No relationship at all. Alf said there is but I don't see it. But Alf said there is.
3. No.
4. It is the 150gr expanding copper bullet. I knew it all along but did not know why I knew it.
5. I read their names somewhere but I forget now. It was a long time ago and the details are no longer clear in my mind. I will ask Alf.

Another day for you to give a final decision and then they can stand as they are. It will be a major achievement, finally getting FIVE answers from you.

By the way, I found more pictures that you can use to support your newfound opinion that "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL DOES NOT FAVOUR MASS OVER VELOCITY".

/

quote:

Originally posted by VVarrior:

quote:

So VV, would you like the honor of calculating how much it bothers me that "my hero" is upset?

That would be a very large number containing many zeroes. Working to three decimals, at least nine before the point and three thereafter. Is a number with no value a number?

Welllll, by golly, we both arrived at the same number!
-----

Expansion Testing? Now you are really talking WAAAAAAY over alf's (confused) head.

Long, l-o-n-g ago, alf(my hero) was trying to denegrate the excellent Bullet Test that Mr. Gary Sciuchetti performed on all the 180gr 30cal bullets available at that time. Mr. Sciuchetti had used good old, repeatable, easily attainable - Water - to do the Test in. And as luck would have it, the distance he chose to use above the water caused the Bullets to Expand to levels "similar" to what many of us had noticed when shooting Game. And it sure provided the Best Comparison Test of all those Bullets I'd(we had) ever seen.

So, "my hero" begins blathering on about how useless the info was, showing he knew nothing about Bullet Expansion in either Water or Game. And of course, "my hero" was called-out over his absurd assumptions.

The interesting thing that caught alf, was he refused to tell any of us how "a 180gr Nosler Partition" would have looked any different than what was shown in Mr. Sciuchetti's excellent Bullet Test. Lots of dancing and crying, but when it came to explaining his claims of the Test being worthless, "my hero" was dumbfounded.

So, I saw through him waaaaay back then. And I've seen nothing but "my hero copying mostly irrelevant data out of books", while drawing incorrect conclusions ever since. But, he is still "my hero"!!!!

?

.

Hey Warrior,
The lack of a reply or comment on my suggested answers means that you accept them as they are. We will accept your position that

1. "OUR BALLISTIC MODEL DOES NOT FAVOUR MASS OVER VELOCITY". There are no examples to be found that prove this, I was mistaken.
2. Shooting steel ball bearings into media at hyper velocity has no bearing on reality as we know it in hunting. I quoted the tests mistakenly.
3. No. I have no clue how bullets work and have a lot to learn still and make many mistakes.
4. It is the 150gr expanding copper bullet. I knew it all along but did not know why I knew it and argued for the sake of arguing.
5. I can not find any ballisticians who hold the view that mass is favoured in the ballistic sciences that are important to us as sport shooters and hunters. That was hearsay and I was mistaken.

Jolly good!! We accept your apology and admission.

Alf,
You asked me to look at my example with great care as I am drawing the wrong conclusion. I am willing to learn but I see that you have done a vloermoer (thrown a tantrum) and left.

I looked, nevertheless, and I am stumped. I see

Bullet - Impact fps - Ret wgt - Penetration
130gr -- 2063 ----------- 88 ------ 20
120gr -- 2044 ----------- 118 ----- 20
150gr -- 2172 ----------- 109 ----- 18

140gr -- 2290 ----------- 116 ----- 20
120gr -- 2365 ----------- 118 ----- 20
140gr -- 2294 ----------- 115 ----- 19

I cannot see any relationship between the penetration of these bullets and

The starting weight.
The retained weight.
The impact speed.

How do these examples support your view that mass is favoured over velocity? I cannot see it, I am sorry.

RIP,

Some time ago you published results based on your experimnets with FN bullets. Perhaps you want to come in and elaborate or answer some questions on this issue that keep coming up, but I believe you have been very clear about it, and you have gone to great lengths to convince yourself which way the penny is falling. Still there are people who dispute the fact that mass is preferrred over velocity in our current ballistice system, despite my efforts and Alf's efforts to explain this.

So, briefly, I just want to copy your conclusions for the record that you came up with:

"I found that velocity was no substitute for mass when it came to penetration of the Iron Water Buffalo (IWB), which is mostly water with some plywood partitions.

With .375 caliber FN bullets, the 300 grainer was reliably/repeatably a better penetrator at 2500 fps and 2700 fps than the 270 grainer at 2900 fps."

Even your experiment was essentially water based and not flesh, it gives us a very good idea/guide as to what can be expected.

Warrior

The Big bores have 1in10 At least my 458 Lott has 1in10. It would seem that the median bores would have 1in12.

Remarkable contrast:

quote:

Warrior posted: I shot a Blesbuck with a .308 Win (1-in-12" twist) recently, loaded to a MV of 2,900 fps, a heart-shot at 250 yds, impact velocity 2,300 fps with a 130 gr GS-HV bullet, and it performed well; the way I like a bullet to perform ... well expanded with intact petals, thanks to a modest striking velocity at range, keeping the bullet inside its threshold strength - slightly over-expanded and not quite symetrical as we see with the Barnes-X, but it performed well and held together. I will publish the bullet later when I have chance to photograph it. The buck dropped in its tracks, and the bullet was retrieved on the opposite side, just under the skin. I cut the bullet out with my knife right there in the field, as I saw the buldge under the skin.

Here is a remarkably similar experience. The eland was shot broadside at slightly more than 200m. The bullet was also recovered from the far side under the skin. This customer follows our recommendation and loads to a mv of 3100fps.

200 Fps makes a difference in more ways than just muzzle velocity.

For clients who hunt plains game and do not bring their own rifle, Franco supplies his 25" custom 308 Sako loaded with 130gr HV bullets exclusively.