Please take the time to read what this guy has written! I am a beliver!! What are your comments on this magnificent work?
Do you disagree with any thing in particular?

Have a good read
Softlead

GC

I do love these guys that spend years of their life "analyzing� how to kill something and then inventing a scientific principle that support their views. Working under lab settings, in highly controlled conditions, shooting static targets time and time again and getting the same results does not translate well to the field. I am not disagreeing with any of his observations. He knows far more about basic ballistics than I. His basic points and formulas are actually interesting. However, I don�t need a slide rule to add 2 plus 2.

Anyone who is mildly observant and has spent a few years in the field hunting can substantiate his all of these points. However, where much of the science behind these principles fails is taking into account the variables of bullet performance, angles of entry, construction of animal, and a myriad of other "field" variable over which there is no control.

Granted, all this makes for interesting conversation, but that is about as far as it goes for me.

[This message has been edited by Zero Drift (edited 02-17-2002).]

The author is Harald from this forum, and he has the firld experience to go along with his analytical skills, which are considerable.

I pointed out his site to a PhD friend who is a hunter; that gentleman was impressed with the information on the site.

By the way, you don't add with a sliderule, it is a device for multiplying and dividing and other higher order operations.

jim dodd

------------------
"if you are to busy to
hunt, you are too busy."

------------------
Gerard Schultz
GS Custom Bullets

------------------
Andr�

I find both Harold and Zero Drift to have good solid points, I can see both sides of that story...

Zero is basing his knowledge on experience and that is hard to argue with, its time proven and accurate when the experience is abundant and based on a large number of instances it is usually the bottom line.

Harold is basing his knowledge on scientific fact or suggested or accepted theory which may or may not be valid, but may, in fact,hold some important clues to improving what we may allready know...and to a larger extent to what we may not yet know....When his theory is put fourth, then someone must go into the field and it must pass the final test....that is where the final judgment will take place.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

some of my penetration tests.(big grin)
George

Cool stuff though and I can appreciate the amount of work that goes into the science behind external ballistics.

>>By the way, you don't add with a sliderule, it is a device for multiplying and dividing and other higher order operations.<<

Slide rules add and subtract logarithms in order to multiply and divide.

Tom

I have to constantly balance this dynamic at work across the spectrum of pure theory to physics based numerical modeling to controlled testing, finally to field performance. Its essential for the models to be benchmarked against the tests, but it is even more essential that the tests be realistic recreations of actual armor targets. When assessing true lethality (which is analogous to "killing power" or "stopping power") suddenly the whole discussion becomes vague and tenuous again. We know hole depths and diameters, but is the tank really dead? It all comes down, believe it or not, to shot placement. Hit her in the ammo carousel and the turret goes sky high. Hit her badly and she'll run for cover and be a nasty customer to finish, like a gut shot buffalo.

I still have two of my sliderules, a metal Pickett and a K&E bamboo. I did most of my formal education in physics and engineering in the days before pocket calculators. For some of it we even used mechanical calculators. In one of my book boxes I even have various engineering table books, steam tables, all sorts of things.

On my computer I have a software package that does all this at the entry of a command, and then draws the graph! I would have killed for that capability going to school. I don't need this software, but I keep it anyway.

jim dodd

------------------
"if you are to busy to
hunt, you are too busy."

ROFL

gs

------------------
I love 45
santilli@singleaction45.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Socrates:
Harald, and Gerard:
You guys ever shot any game?

ROFL

gs

---

Er actualy if you took the time to read their sites you would see photos showing that they had which is more than can be said for you who as far as I can see has yet to introduce original thought on this forum.

I think Haralds site is pre eminent but would just point out that he used a 340Wetherby on Caribou which seems to show an element of doubt in his empirical findings .

Gerard seems a nice guy and whilst I doubt I will ever shoot even one of his bullets (unless our laws change)he is doing something to improve the tools we use.

There may be people who do a lot of talking and not a lot of shooting but before you look at their speck of sawdust take a look in the mirror.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HunterJim:
I still have two of my sliderules, a metal Pickett and a K&E bamboo. I did most of my formal education in physics and engineering in the days before pocket calculators. For some of it we even used mechanical calculators.

---

Jim

You must be older than dirt! I remember slide rules, and finally took them out of the curriculum of one of the Navy's fleet schools for PH's in 1978, if I remember correctly. However, I'm getting senile, so it may have been 1985. Can ou believe TWO tours in Key West?

Weren't those mechanical calculators for performing operations on logs you looked up in log tables? I was never an engineer, so I don't know about how that stuff went in the old days.

Dave B.

1894, I have heard some real hair-raisers about charging caribou being hard to put down, so I wimped out and took the .340 Wby.