/

/

Still waiting for ALL the believers to say they are getting rid of their Firearms for Knives and Spears!!!


Must be a real kick in the nose to alf that he and two others are the only ones to believe all the stupidity. From the bilge water I've waded through from alf, it does seem fitting.

Alf wrote:

quote:

Hotcore:

You obviously do not get it ?

The comparison had to do with WOUNDS and not a comparison of the manner in which the projectile is delivered to produce the wound.

Obviously a firearm capable of delivering single or multiple projectiles over a long distance from the intended target and at considerable accuracy and repeatability is the way to go. Nobody disputed that. Nor are we or anyone for that matter claiming that spears arrows and knives are better "killers" than bullets.

We look at wounds and wounds alone.

Hot Core, you do not even have a passably good reading education, otherwise you would have realised that you are going to wait till booms day for any of the many believers to react on your silly 'kick in the nose' question!
Sorry, but you asked for it.

/

I do find this topic interesting and don't necessarily believe every point is proven fact. There has been a lot of time, money, and research spent by forensics labs to catalog the differences in wounds in order to identify what it was done with. I don't think people are the equal of animals when it comes to the will to survive. In most cases people give up life quite readily. Comparing cadavers to carcasses isn't a fair comparison either as animals are generally more heavily muscled in the area of impact than are humans.

These are all known differences. The PRINCIPLES are the same though. The observation that depth of penetration has a greater effect than wound cavity is interesting. I've seen deer "drop" by using more frangible, rapid expanding, bullets and shooting the lungs. This didn't result in an exit either. (some did) This does get back to the statement that each case is different. I have a video of an Archer dropping an elk with a single shot, that did exit. It's the only time I've seen this, so the wound channel of an arrow being equal to a bullet is pretty questionable. One cuts, the other tears. If you cut youself with a razor blade or get a deep scratch, which one stops bleeding easier?

I know nothing of these gentlemens credentials, I have no degree in forensics, ballistics, or anything remotely related. But it is interesting to hear the case made in this manner. It certainly isn't the normal argueing.

I like heavier for caliber bullets because they seem to work so well. I haven't done the math to determine what the "kinetic energy" difference is between a faster light bullet and the slower heavier one, but a modest round like say the 7x57 launching a 160 or 175gr bullet is quite effective. So I guess I agree with the velocity isn't everything, I question the shock theory, the temporary wound cavity theory, and believe in cold air in & warm blood out.

The one part of this that I believe isn't understood very well, is the hydraulic effect that takes place as the bullet displaces tissue. The bodies are greatly made up of water, physics states that for every action is a equal and opposite reaction, so as the bullet expands and the frontal diameter increases it also will increasingly apply force to the tissues but does this at a loss of velocity. This force is seen as a wave in front of the bullet on high speed film. I don't think we have really determined how much this portion of the event affects the living creature. This is what I believe is being called shock, but I don't think it's effects are understood well.
Personally, I like to read about the experts disagreeing, and each trying to prove the other wrong. That's generally when we get our best research. They each feel they have a personal stake in it. Nate

The funny thing about the Wakeman article is that I've heard him say the complete opposite on other boards.

I've even heard him say that 250 grain MLer bullets kill much more effectively on deer size animals vs. 300 grainers, which is the opposite of his little article.

Any of you remember when the non expansive solid copper Mler bullets came out several years ago that had an X shape made into the front? They fizzled out quickly because too many people lost well hit game. The game that was recovered had what appeared to be a FMJ wound cavity (Caliber in and caliber out) and very little bleeding occured.


Reloader

These arguments seem to always develop into a Hard bullet vs Soft Bullet , Big Bullet vs Little Bullet, or High Velocity vs Low Velocity debates.

I personally rely on what I've seen literally hundreds of times upon killing game, witnessing game being killed, and examining the bodies & organs of game animals after kills.

The major trend I've seen is that a bullets effects on tissue is greatly increased as the velocity increases provided the bullet is of the expanding variety. The less expansive the bullet, the less internal damage.

From experience I can honestly say that on a deer sized animals a soft bullet at high velocity will give the maximum internal damage. I’ve shot deer w/ bullets from 22 cal up to 50 cal and I’ve examined the wounds of more animals than I care to count. The most horrific wound channels are produced from very high velocity bullets that have expansive characteristics.

The problem is matching the right bullet to the right animal. You have to have a bullet that will hold together just enough to make it through the animal. A varmint bullet is not going to be suitable for deer sized game (too soft) nor is a solid or expanding solid (too hard). Will they kill? Absolutely but, they will not impart the maximum trama to the internal components of the game animal at hand. The varmint bullet will vaporize upon impact and create a shallow wound and the solid will blaze through w/ hardly any resistance and impart very little trama to the internal components.

If you use a bullet that will expend the majority of it’s energy (Not just speaking momentum) inside of the animal and still penetrate fully through the internal components, you will achieve the maximum amount of internal damage which inevitably stops the function of the internal organs. The more damage imparted, the faster the body shuts down. This very reason is why “Plain Jane†cup and core bullets launched at very high velocities are so dramatically effective on deer sized animals. Is that saying that other bullets that are small or slow etc will not kill? No, not in any way, they will kill but, the internal damage will differ.

Once we all start shooting game w/ 9mms or 380s then we can start placing merit in all of these ballistic studies which use human beings to gather data.

Ya’ll Have a Good One.

Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by BigNate:
... I've seen deer "drop" by using ...

Well, there you go, entering the Thread with actual experience. No wonder you are confused with the ignorance of the article when it conflicts with "your" actual first-hand experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:
... I personally rely on what I've seen literally hundreds of times upon killing game, witnessing game being killed, and examining the bodies & organs of game animals after kills.
...

More experience coming in to be critical of the article's loonacy.

I do believe a Trend is developing against the stupidity.

Obviously two more "stabs" to the guts for alf, jagter and jwp475.
---

Just shocked(Dynamic Energy) by not seeing anyone willing to give up their Firearms for Spears! Surely SOMEONE besides these three "believes"!!!

Well boys I have to tell you. All that stuff written by forty pound heads is well enough, but in my limited hunting experience and given all things equal, velocity IS a contributing factor in quicker kills.

My best testing protocol is whitetail deer. Haven't shot many, but probably on the order of 80 plus or so taken with calibers ranging from the 444 Marlin, 3006, 270, etc., but most with a 257 Weatherby and 100gr Hornady SPs. I try to shoot for the same spot, what is commonly referred to as the shoulder, but in reality it's right there about 1/3 up from where the leg starts from the body. Nothing, but nothing equates the killing power of that 100gr pill@3500 fps plus. Nothing.

In africa, I've shot impala, warthog and bushbuck with a 375 H&H and a 300 Weatherby. The 300 is hands down the more efficient killer in that sized animal. Having said all of that, I believe that as you go up in weight, velocity has less effect. While it was at one time true that bullets pushed at extreme velocities tended to penetrate less, that practically went out the window with the advent of the Super Premiums. So I firmly believe (although I haven't tried it) that given all things equal as far as bullet caliber, SD & weight, the one traveling faster tends to have a greater effect, say a 300gr 375@ 2550 fps and the same bullet traveling at 2800 fps, the latter will normally kill quicker. This is by no means scientific and absolute, but purely anecdotal based on just my experience. jorge

/

In the mid-1970s we saw the first large-scale application of the Laboratory Model. In what is now recognized as a classic example of junk science, the National Institute of Justice spent seven figures on a study to determine RII, or Relative Incapacitation Index, of handgun ammunition.

The expensively funded study had the prestige of the U.S. Government behind it, and departments flocked to buy ammunition that rated well in the RII studies. Unfortunately, they were doomed to disappointment.

The RII results flew in the face of three quarters of a century of observed reality. The first test of junk science versus real science is, “Do the results from the laboratory correlate with known factors from the field?†If they do not, we know something went wrong in the lab. Many of the hypothetical conclusions that the RII study put forth as written in stone were in fact 180 degrees off from a large body of observed reality. That early warning signal was ignored, and the results were tragic.

This resulted in the FBI Wound Ballistics Workshop of 1988 in Quantico, Virginia. Among those present were Dr. Martin Fackler, head of wound ballistics research for the US Army’s medical training center, Letterman Institute. Fackler had developed an improved ballistic gelatin model that he had scientifically correlated to swine muscle tissue, which in turn is comparable to human muscle tissue. He hypothesized that wound depth was much more important than previously thought, and recommended ammunition that could send a bullet at least twelve inches into his ballistic gelatin.

AS A RESULT ...the FBI adopted a heavy, slow moving 9mm bullet that weighed 147 grains and traveled at a subsonic velocity of less than 1000 feet per second.

Even this did not work terribly well. The bullet often went deep, but also frequently failed to expand reliably, and penetrated too far. Most departments that adopted it were so disappointed in the street results that they either changed ammunition or went to more powerful pistols.

Meanwhile, in a classic example of the Experiential Model, Detroit homicide detective Evan Marshall had begun a collection of thousands of police gunfight reports, and attempted to rate the stopping power of the ammunition used based on what actually happened in gunfights. He was soon joined by ballistic researcher Ed Sanow. In a separate study commissioned by the Police Marksman Association, Richard Fairburn analyzed gunfights submitted to his data base by various agencies, and his results were almost identical to those of Marshall and Sanow in identifying the best performing police handgun rounds.

Experience has taught police that what actually happens on the street is more important than what happens in the artificial environment of the laboratory.

AS A RESULT ...Created to duplicate the best ballistics of the .357 Magnum revolver in a semiautomatic pistol, the .357 SIG spits a 125-grain jacketed hollow point at 1300 to 1400 feet per second, delivering 500-plus foot-pounds of energy. Departments which have adopted it are delighted with the performance, reporting a high frequency of one-shot stops. The Virginia State Police, who issue the .357 SIG Model P229 pistol, told me that they were particularly pleased with the number of felons who dropped and stopped fighting after receiving non-fatal wounds in non-vital parts of the body.

In the end, the smart hunters have done exactly what the cops did. They went with the reality of what worked in the field, in a way that was quantified and given credibility in the laboratory. This approach mirrored the collective, institutionalized learning experience of law enforcement in ammunition selection.

Some call it a combination of the Experiential Model and the Laboratory Model. Some might call it Reality Based Selection Protocol.

And some just call it common sense.

G

/

This is really turning into the academic argument!

All I know, Is I put faith in proper bullet placement with a bullet I know will do the job...

Beyond that, it all becomes academic...

But you boys have fun arguing it out... Me I am going to go watch a great old classic on the VCR... Little Big Man...

cheers
seafire

quote:

Originally posted by akrange:
CoBrad
What happen to your Jarrett..Did you sell it or did you find the right bullet/powder Combo..You weren't shooting B.Tips with it were Ya.
AK

My friend, what happened to that Jarrett is that I shot it until I shot the barrel out of it. I will unabashedly admit that there is something seductive about a wicked accurate, sub-moa, magnum rifle that has the capacity to reach waaay out there and strike with authority. Hell ya! I quit using the Sierra Gamekings and started using Accubonds. They worked. The rifle is currently being rebored to .358, and Presto Chango, becomes a .358 Shooting Times Alaskan, slinging 250 grain bullets out at around the same 3K fps it did shooting 200 grain bullets as a Jarrett. Lets see... lots of KE, momentum, wound channel diameter, penetration, hmm, can you say "kick ass".

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Gary VA:

Has Marshall and Sanow not been discredited ?

No, not at all. I didn't read about it, I lived it for the past 19 years in one of the top 10 most dangerous places in North America. We bought Fackler hook, line and sinker and replaced all our service weapons and ammo as did the FBI after the workshop but since found his lab predictions did not match reality and were just as bad as RII.

Marshall and Sanow data showed that the .357 revolver shooting a light 125gr bullet at magnum velocities had a good track record in actual law enforcement shootings. We teamed up w/ SIG who developed the .357sig which duplicates this in a semi-auto pistol.

Our shootings w/ the 357sig has mirrored the data collected and we could not be any more pleased w/ the results. Most major law enforcement agencies that I'm aware of that bought into the Fackler doctrine after the Quantico workshop have since changed weapons and/or ammo that mirrors the Marshall and Sanow data.

In addition, The Army, Navy, USSOCOM, WARCOM, FBI and Homeland Security recieved funding in 2003 for a Joint Servicewound Ballistics IPT to improve lethality in combat bullets. The first thing they worked on was to address the best way to test and evaluate rifle projectiles. They are now developing a new wound ballistics method because they have found that Fackler's 10%@4C model does not accurately assess living tissue destruction and does not accurately predict live tissue performance.

This is why I take Fackler w/ a grain of salt and have difficulty taking his lab models as the gospel when the actual field results show something else.

G

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
.. hunting experience and given all things equal, velocity IS a contributing factor in quicker kills.

... Nothing, but nothing equates the killing power of that 100gr pill@3500 fps plus. Nothing.

...given all things equal as far as bullet caliber, SD & weight, the one traveling faster tends to have a greater effect, ... based on just my experience.

Excellent post Jorge.

Just more "experience" showing the fackler believers - WRONG AGAIN!

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
.. the smart hunters ... went with the reality of what worked in the field, in a way that was quantified and given credibility in the laboratory. ...Some call it a combination of the Experiential Model and the Laboratory Model. Some might call it Reality Based Selection Protocol.

And some just call it common sense.
.

Of which there is "none at all" on the alf side.

quote:

Originally posted by Seafire:
.. I put faith in proper bullet placement with a bullet I know will do the job....

There you go - more Experience.
---

Once upon a time I tried to discuss the results of the "very best Bullet Test" ever provided to the civilian market with alf. This was "before" I understood his aganda.

All alf had to offer was nonsensical, nonrelevant, ramblings. It caught me off-guard because I never expected anyone to know so little about actual Bullet Performance "attempt" to argue the issue.

I kept simplifying the questions and kept getting alf's normal bizarre irrational responses.

Finally I asked him to tell me how he saw a difference in Performance with ""ANY"" Nosler partition and what was shown in Mr. Sciuchetti's Bullet Test?!?!?!

Surely anyone with even a modicum of actual field "experience" would have no problem at all realizing Mr. Sciuchetti's Results and those seen on-game were near duplicates.

Still got nothing but nonrelevant ramblings from alf, except for one thing he must have accidentally let slip out. alf has never used a Nosler Partition on Game.

Now think about that. Here alf posts as if he is some kind of great expert concerning Bullet Performance and (accidentally) admits he has never shot a head of Game with the bullet Hunters use as the "Standard" by which all other Bullets are compared.

So, it finally dawned on me that what alf "thinks he knows" and what he actually knows - based on Experience - are as different as clinton(either one) and President Reagan.

No need for me to "try" and discuss anything with alf, I already understand he has nothing even remotely rational to offer in a discussion concerning "On-Game Bullet Performance".

[Quote] By ALF,

I would not go as far as claim that energy can be discounted.

Energy transfer does play a role but the contribution to wounding is dependent on the target biomechanical properties.

For purposes of discussion I will use the much simplified classification of tissues based on biomechanical behaviour as proposed by Robert Rinker.

( Rinker RA: Understanding firearms ballistics 5th edition 2004 Mulberry house publishing.)

Rinker defines tissues as having biomechanical properties which are:

1. Primary water like ( brain liver and kidney)
2. Primary visco-elastic ( Muscle lung )
3. Primary cohesive. ( Bone tendon and cartilage)

This rough classification fits in well with ballitics findings in practise.

If a high velocity projectile is shot through each of these tissue types the energy transfer effect would result in widely varying degree of damage. Actually temporary cavitation phenomena.

In brain, liver and kidney we would see a velocity dependent effect. The higher the impact velocity the bigger the damage ! just like Roy Weatherby's milk jug full of water advertisement. So for brain shots the fastest projectile wins hands down !

In muscle, tendon and cartilage however we would see little apparent effect ( this is exactly what Fackler and others claim when they say there is a misinterpretation of "energy dump" and velocity dependence in the literature) and in the case of bone we would see effects of momentum transfer where the bone will fragment and the fragments will be propelled just like a cue ball hitting a cluster of balls on a billiard table.

If muzzle energy or retained energy at a specified range were a determinant in wounding capacity for general hunting body shots we would all be shooting the biggest game with the smallest and fastest bullets available as the mathematical equation for energy favours the velocity component of the equation. This off course does not happen in practise, a fast light bullet is practically worthless in elephant or buffalo hunting but may turn varmints into blood mists.
_________________________________________________

[Quote] By Jorge

My best testing protocol is whitetail deer. Haven't shot many, but probably on the order of 80 plus or so taken with calibers ranging from the 444 Marlin, 3006, 270, etc., but most with a 257 Weatherby and 100gr Hornady SPs. I try to shoot for the same spot, what is commonly referred to as the shoulder, but in reality it's right there about 1/3 up from where the leg starts from the body. Nothing, but nothing equates the killing power of that 100gr pill@3500 fps plus. Nothing.
_________________________________________________

[Quote] By Hot Core
Excellent post Jorge.

Just more "experience" showing the fackler believers - WRONG AGAIN!
_________________________________________________

Seems to me that Jorge's post and Alf's post support each other.On certain size game and certain body parts of game speed works extremely well,but I don't think that Jorge would choose the 257 Roy for Cape Buffalo.When shooting ground squirels energy transfer of energy obivously contribtes since or are able to blow them up,yet this is not the case when shooting large game such as Moose or Buffalo no matter how much energy one has with his rifle combo.This shows that energy transfer is not constant across the board in it's contributn to the terminal effect on animals.No one would suggest that a 300 RUM wih 180 grain bullets is better tan a 375 H&H With 300 gran bullets even though the 300 has more energy.(4354 fpe for the 300 RUM at 3300fps,and 4265 fpe for 375 at 2530 fps fps

Hey Gary, I respect Massad Ayoob's writing and practicle experience too, but give him some recognition for the content of your post.

Or were you working side by side with him on this one?

et all,

The princibles involved in this are a constant! It is physics that determine how a bullet will react to the forces it is exposed to. The differences here in the subject target.

George pointed it out indirectly but effectively. The deer is a lot closer to human size and the effects are similar. But move up in weight and mass and the reactions won't be the same.

This comes back to the bullet. It has to be matched to the velocity it will be launched at, the depth of penetration that will be required, and get it to arrive at it's desired location. Any one of these not being considered can have a negative result. The hardest part of this was finding projectiles that would give good results over such a broad range of conditions.

This is why the Nosler partitions were the first widely acknowledged "premium" bullet. The front works like a standard bullet for high velocity, major trauma, and the back section is heavy enough to carry penetration as the velocity drops off.

It's interesting to see the penetration vs wound cavity vs velocity thing argued though. Nate

/

Still NO takers in the Firearms swapped for Spears program!

Imagine that! No one following the herd of three.

quote:

Still NO takers in the Firearms swapped for Spears program!

Imagine that! No one following the herd of three

Sure Hot Core....
I'll trade you my Daisy Firearm for a Nice new Winchester Model 70 with a box of Speers/Spears with it....

What "diameter" of speers do you have available???

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:
Sure Hot Core....
I'll trade you my Daisy Firearm for a Nice new Winchester Model 70 with a box of Speers/Spears with it....

What "diameter" of speers do you have available???

Hey Seafire, By golly, you have hit on something there! That actually makes some sense with only "1-letter" being changed.

Come to think of it, I've got Speers from 22cal <-> 45cal and enjoy all of them.

Can't help you with the M70 though.

Jwp: You are correct sir in that I would not use a 257 on Buffalo. However, I would prefer to push that 400gr 416 pill as fast as I could. In other words, I push them as fast as I can within safe pressures and cartridge extraction reliability in hot WX. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
To those who think that penetration is everything and ftlbs is a non issue I say this, try doing all of your hunting with a 22/250 loaded with a fmj bullet and then give us your findings.

This doesnt have to be the rocket science wonder that articles like that make it out to be, and Ive observed that those who print such mental masturbation usually have an agenda.

A little research into the development of sporting arms/chamberings for big game hunting can go a long way here.

Another thing you can research that debunks this bunk is why the US military likes the 223.

One thing I can promise is that there have been more bang flop kills from the 375 h&h than from a bow.

Take a 300 RUM with a 180 grain at 3300 FPS the foot ponds of energy is 4354 foot pounds,now compare a 375 H&H with a 300 grain at 2530 FPS agian energy is 4265 foot pounds.The 300 RUM has 89 foot pounds more energy.Would the 300 RUM be equall to the 375 on large game?? I think not.. I would certanly choose the 375 not becase of energy,but becase it will leave a larger wound chanel. This example shows why useing foot pounds as away of rating effectveness of dfferent cartridges is flawed

I agree on that point. In fact as I see it, it was about the same time that the Weatherby/exploding water container commercials came out that the "old school formula" of matching ft lbs to a given animal began to loose its validity. It still works quite well if one applies the cartridges available when it was developed. But lots of energy as a result of hyper-velocity opened up a whole new can of worms, which i guess is the reason for this whole disgussion.

Having said that, I agree with Jorge as well. Ive seen some very impressive kills that I credit to hyper-velocity, but it is no substitute for big bores when huge tough critters are at the business end of the bbl. I suppose if one places a fmj bullet in that 300 RUM then my point will have come full circle, energy applied to simply punching an exit wound is one thing, energy expended on the target is quite another. And the same flawed energy placement applies in the reverse order as well as Alf pointed out. Splattering a bullet works great on varmints, but beyond that there needs to be some measure of proper proportioning.

Maybe... the reason that a 375 H&H is more effective on DG and such than a 300 RUM with the same amount of energy, is that the larger slug will retain more ENERGY "while passing through matter" as opposed to simply while flying through the air. Because the H&H gets its energy the old school way, mostly from its mass.

Any studies done along those lines??

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Maybe... the reason that a 375 H&H is more effective on DG and such than a 300 RUM with the same amount of energy, is that the larger slug will retain more ENERGY "while passing through matter" as opposed to simply while flying through the air. Because the H&H gets its energy the old school way, mostly from its mass.

Any studies done along those lines??

Momentum.

.

There are people here that understand the subject matter and I find the disscusion interesting,with the possibility of learning to understand what we observe in the field

quote:

Originally posted by Customstox:
I am glad to see that others have seen beyond Randy Wakeman's "expertise". He spreads more BS than the best equipment that John Deere ever made.

I could not have said it better. His article is not a scientific study, but ramblings from an active imagination. Yes, the "human wounds" stuff may be correct, but I see no correlation between humans wounds from bullets designed to incapacitate humans and bullets designed for hunting animals, except that kinetic energy is pure physics and always present.

/

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Ray:

Sadly the very arguement that somehow bullets designed to kill humans are different to bullets designed for hunting is one of the myths propagated by the anti gun idiots in California to get "Assault type weapons banned" The biggest proponents of this myth was the medical anti gun estblishment.

Fakler and the IWBA took them on and exposed their dishonesty and fraud ! Some medical journals actually published apologies for propagating untested and unproven doctrine whilst some remain silent. Some textbooks in their latest editions still hang on to the old school junk science.

Fact is that whether we hit someone with a fist or a baseball bat, poke them with a pointy stick, or shoot them with a 300 Weatherby all these examples are in fact one and the same event, although a continuum of the same principles. It all boils down to a collision between projectile and target and all that changes at each level are the parameters that describe what we refer to as projectile behaviour and then the resultant reaction of the target to the forces applied.

Are you going to tell me that a .338-caliber 250-grain A-Frame's design is similar to that of a 9mm bullet to be fired from policeman's pistol? On the same token, why aren't "controlled expanding" bullets used on our M-16's to kill the enemy?

.

Alf, could you please explain what you mean exactly in each of the following two quotes by 'moments of inertia'.
Bear in mind what the definition of 'inertia' is, namely:
"Inertia is generally professed to be a non-variable, forceless, ever-present, property of matter that serves to maintain an object's inactive state of motion (rest or uniform motion in a straight line) by resisting any attempt by an action force to change the object to its active state of motion (acceleration)."

1.

quote:

The Swift will expand as per the rules of the model, it will likely be vary stable after expansion due to a favourable alteration of moments of inertia.

2.

quote:

The 9mm harball will not exapnd, and it will tumble, the NC length pre determined by its moments of inertia and CG and will likely then only stabilize.

Godamighty Cobrad no wonder you had less than optimal results with your 300 Jarrett. Using Sierra Gamekings at those velocities! NO WONDER! I have a Kenny Jarret 300 Jarrett as does a friend of mine that owns a 15,000 acre plantation. We use both rifles, among others, to cull does legally each year. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the 300 Jarrett will push a bullet like the gameking way too fast. Everyone on this board has their own theories about penetration, expansion, kinetic energy and their own personal experiences and I have mine as well. My real world experience, outside of my usual hunting pursuits, deals with the legal culling of does. I have used every caliber and bullet combination known to man pretty much and if the bullet is placed correctly and is, generally, not pushed beyond it's design limits, the deer goes down. In my pursuits of bigger game, elk, etc...I believe in the best bullet for the $ naturally. I just don't get many chances to drop an elk so I go with old style Trophy Bonded Bearclaws and Partitions. I took an nice 6x6 this past year with a 200 grain Accubond, but was not as impressed with its terminal performance as the TBB's and Partiitons. Granted, it was only one experience with the Accubond on elk so it would be hard to draw conclusions.

On deer, you would be surprised what works and doesn't. Plain old Core Lokts were/are impressive, Accubonds, Newer Ballistic Tips (not the older style that were thin walled), Partitions of course. The Sierras tended to disentigrate easily, as did most Hornadys at point blank ranges but behaved better at longer ranges where velocity had obviously dropped.

Put a decent bullet in the vitals and game will drop...there, your arguments have been solved. Now go solve the high fence debate.

/

No Alf, you are wrong, I'm not trying to lure you into the 'theory of relativity' or 'inertia' and I'm not obsessed with these imaginary 'things' as you claim, since they simply don't exist!

What I'm trying to tell you is that you can not say "moments of inertia" simply because moments indicate action forces have already accelerate the object into motion and per definition 'inertia' is that forceless 'thing' resisting any attempt by an action force to change the object to its active state of motion (acceleration). (Refer definition of the imaginary 'inertia' again in my previous post on this thread.)

Your new description repeated in this quote makes sense:

quote:

In terms of the description of rotational motion of a projectile around its centre of gravity we still accept that there are moments ( forces) that act out along its long axis and axis perpendicular to the long axis through the CG.

It is perfectly in line with Ethan Skyler's explanation as to why does a bullet mushroom -

quote:

The lead behind the nose not only experiences high linear acceleration as it is slowed to a relative stop, it also experiences a brief centripetal acceleration as it is turned aside from a straight-line motion by the already stopped central nose lead resulting in the familiar mushroom shape. Even the lead behind the mushroomed head will show signs of acceleration forging as the bullet's caliber size is noticeably swollen or increased in diameter.

It would be worth your while to read Ethan Skyler's articles, they spell things out very clearly and perfectly correct.

/

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Ray:

Now you ask: Are you going to tell me that a .338-caliber 250-grain A-Frame's design is similar to that of a 9mm bullet to be fired from policeman's pistol? On the same token, why aren't "controlled expanding" bullets used on our M-16's to kill the enemy?

[quote]The bullet design is not the same? off course not and it was never implied ! But if you will ask to explain how each does what it does in terms of wound profiles and behaviour we explain how they operate on tissue level.... at the hand of a universal physical model. They both behave to a set model.

In fact the same model applies when You or I be hit by a fist. The fist is a projectile, it does not have enough velocity to penetrate skin thus minimum threshhold velocity for skin for a projectile of that shape and size ( surface area) is not met..... if we could speed the fist up well then we have ourselves one helluva bullet.

Actually, the human fist does not penetrate human flesh not because there is not enough speed, but because the flesh's resistance is greater than that of the fist moving forward into the flesh (the fist displaces flesh, even if it does not penetrate it). The flesh's elasticity slows down the forward movement of the fist as it molds around it.

quote:

Assuming that there is no fragmentation:

1. Both will produce permanent channels based on their maximum presenting ( expanded) or maximum yaw diameters or both ! it holds true for all projectiles. The Swift will expand as per the rules of the model, it will likely be vary stable after expansion due to a favourable alteration of moments of inertia.

The 9mm harball will not exapnd, and it will tumble, the NC length pre determined by its moments of inertia and CG and will likely then only stabilize.

2. If both are fired into the same uniform target both will have temporary cavity profiles strictly in keeping with their respective drag profiles that they evoke in the path in the tissue. This will determine how deep they will go as well.

3. Total tissue damage volume will be dependent on the total amount of tissue directly crushed + possibly tissue damage due to temporary cavitation effect based on tissue behaviour type.

Why do the military not use expanding bullets, good question imo. Actualy they are bound to international conventions and treaties. The problem is that the rules by which they have to play are flawed Who would have thought that a supposedly non expanding hardball projectile could do so much damage. You can just as well be firing Nosler partitions from your M16's

The bottom line is that pistol bullets for police work or defense are designed not to ever-penetrate a human body, while hunting bullets such as the A-Frame I mentioned before is designed not only to expand, but to offer maximum penetration on big game. Can you imagine a police officer shooting a .338WM rifle with a 250-grain A-Frame to kill a human in a crowded place? This bullet coming out the barrel at nearly 2,700 fps will not only expand sooner and leave a huge hole though the human, but may even take out whoever is in the background. That's why the .338 Lapua is not used by city Swat Teams. Yes, one can create a hard cast bullet to shoot from a pistol, but hard cast bullets can't be used by the police because of over-penetration.

All bullets are capable of causing extensive damage, but they are designed for a specific purpose, and can very well minimize damage if used as such. The idea of using a military FMJ such as the ones in M-16's is to incapacitate an enemy and minimize casualties. However, it does not mean that the same bullet won't kill an enemy just the same. Hunting bullets are designed to produce the largest wound channel possible for fast kills, and maximum penetration (except as noted below). Some other hunting bullets are designed so maximum expansion is attained on contact with the target (almost exploding when contacting the target).

What shall I say?

This is Ethan Skyler's view of 'infintiy':

quote:

"infinity"

"Infinity", a term often used in the mathematics of Physics, means simply "without end or limit". While the predictions of calculations may lead one to consider that it is possible for something to become "infinite", logic tells us otherwise. To begin with, recognize that it is not possible to count one's way to "infinity". Equally impossible is the application of any mathematical operation to a supposedly "infinite" quantity. Divide an "infinite" quantity in half and what do you have? Will each half not continue to be "infinite"? Of course, a division of any true quantity in half will yield two ends at the point of division and since an "infinite" quantity is without end, then for this reason alone, it must not be possible to divide an "infinite" quantity. Also the term "infinite quantity" implies the presence of something to which units of measure apply. What then if you subtract one of these units of measure from the "infinite" quantity? Are you left with a quantity that is "infinite" - 1? Will such a reduced "infinite" quantity of something no longer be "infinite"? If so then by adding back the quantity removed will the something's "infinite" nature be restored? If not, then maybe the "infinite" something remains "infinite" no matter how large the quantity removed. Perhaps even the quantity removed, however small, is itself "infinite". These consideration predict that an "infinite" something not only cannot be divided but also cannot contain measurable units of quantity.
Thus it becomes logical to conclude that if something can be divided into measurable units then it is not possible for this something to ever be large enough to be "infinite". Thus we are left with only nothing to be "infinite" since only nothing will refuse to succumb to being divided into measurable units. Conclusion? "Infinity" = nothing. Since only nothing can be infinite, then mathematical operations that go so far as to predict that given the right conditions, something that contains measurable units can become "infinite", are mathematical operations that cross the line separating the logical from the illogical, the possible from the impossible, and the real from the unreal. To follow such predictions and those who make them is to become lost from the age-old quest to understand the physical reality of this Universe.

Alf, just think how much trouble you would have saved yourself if Ethan Skyler was your Physics Prof.!