Terminal ballistics, finaly the thruth witout BS?

16 February 2002, 04:08

Good day all!
There has been o lot of discussion on the subject of terminal ballistics on this site.
It seems to be a subject witch causes a lot of debate.
While browsing the net i found this site:
http://ulfhere.freeyellow.com/ballistics/wounding.html

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

16 February 2002, 08:16

Rob1SG

This article has been brought up before and IMHO is right on the mark.

16 February 2002, 08:45

<Gold Cup>

Does anyone know how to get the article to print black on white rather than the way it appears on my screen?

16 February 2002, 09:49

Alstro

hold your left mouse button down, and drag the cursor across the text. This will highlight the text, and after you have highlighted what you want, click your right mouse button,on top of the highlighted text, and select copy. Open up word, right click again on the blank document, and select paste.

16 February 2002, 09:56

Zero Drift

I agree with Rob1SG - This article has been around for a while. However, as far as its contents, I am less than excited or impressed.

I do love these guys that spend years of their life "analyzingï¿½ 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 donï¿½t 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).]

16 February 2002, 10:09

Wachtel

And your point is?

16 February 2002, 10:51

Zero Drift

Point is - I don't find much value in paper tigers.

16 February 2002, 13:55

HunterJim

Zero,

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."

16 February 2002, 16:57

Wstrnhuntr

Most of it seems sensible enough but "trauma via geometrical Acoustics from a missle generated pressure wave.." Hmmmm!! This is gettin deep! I wonder if this is the same type of trauma one experiences when a person is said to "have the wind knocked out of them"? Most of us have felt that before but perhaps not to the same degree. Interseting read though.

16 February 2002, 20:47

Gerard

The value of ballistic research and theory development such as those of Harald and a number of others, is that one discovers factors that are reliable and repeatable. This, in turn, aids in improvement of existing products and the development of new products. Without theory and lab research, there would be no starting point for field testing of any kind. Hats off to Harald and his kind.

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

17 February 2002, 09:01

<Frank>

I could not have said it better, DITTO Gerard. I have got some real good information from Harold this guy knows his stuff. I hope he keeps it up.

17 February 2002, 09:19

Andre Mertens

I'm not through reading the article yet but already found some fine points that endorse an experiment I'm presently running. I'm referring to the aorta/high heart shot vs. the classical heart shot. I recently read an article extolling bullet placement in the upper, aorta part of the heart so as to abruptly cut off blood supply to the brain, as opposed to the classic lower heart shot that still allows a few blood pumps and permits the animal to run for a short distance. The latter is true and is also the reason I always preferred shoulder shots, with the accompanying damage to the venison. Last week-end, I shot 2 does in the recommended way ; they dropped on the spot and spoiled meat was minimal. I know 2 shots do not make a law but make the theory worth investigating further. Of course, one is supposed to possess a decent anatomy knowledge of his quarry. Also, I've always been convinced that the practical "crush zone" (= size of bullet hole) is the deciding factor as opposed to the (much) more theoretical "stretch zone" (= cavitation). Having come only so far, I'm convinced the article is worth reading further...

------------------
Andrï¿½

17 February 2002, 06:54

Atkinson

I don't do this often but I'll take the middle ground on this one,

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

17 February 2002, 12:31

<George Hoffman>

Hey Guys,
I have got to like his approach, he even uses

some of my penetration tests.(big grin)
George

17 February 2002, 14:01

Zero Drift

I reread my post and I really did not mean to sound like such a hard ass or to impune this research. Everything that was addressed within the article seemed quite reasonable. For Gerard and others who are in the business of building bullets, this stuff is absolutely necessary and beneficial. However, I just donï¿½t get all excited attempting to use scientific principle in order to validate what I already know in the field. Give me a good bullet, at adequate velocity, delivered within the vitals - that is about all the science that I require.

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

17 February 2002, 18:37

TomP

Hello

>>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

18 February 2002, 08:14

<Harald>

I don't disagree with Zero Drift's basic premise. In fact, I regard field experience as the "acid test" of whatever science attempts to explain. The difficulty, as he rightly pointed out, lies in controlling all the variables well enough to see the differences between designs that you want to study. From the standpoint of practical performance for the hunter, that is generally irrelevant (as long as the bullet is "adequate" and well placed. From the designer's or analyst's standpoint it is necessary. But, as has often been asserted and correctly, we have few bullets that simply do not perform.

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.

18 February 2002, 09:20

HunterJim

Tom,

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."

20 February 2002, 09:04

Socrates

Harald, and Gerard:
You guys ever shot any game?

ROFL

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

20 February 2002, 04:13

1894

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.

20 February 2002, 07:27

Recono

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.

20 February 2002, 16:50

<Harald>

The best mechanical computer sci-fi movie is the 1950s "Worlds in Collision", which features a scene early in the film where a collection of astronomical figures is calculated for several hours using a big machine with shafts and cams. Its great!

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.