The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Other Topics Miscellaneous Topics Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris Bekker - Aka Pontificus ErroneusGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| one of us |
This thread contains replies to Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris Bekker. If this does not interest you, please close the thread and move on. You are right, it is junk and not worth wasting time on. I do not want to clutter the threads of others with his rubbish and my replies so:- Warrior is invited here, to say to me what he wants to say, instead of messing up other worthwhile threads If it were not for the fact that he chooses to target myself and GSC products directly, I would not reply to his posts. This is evidenced by the fact that I only engage him on the forum when he addresses me or GSC directly. Warrior perpetuates several lies: 1. He says that the GSC stability factor specification has no advantage during penetration in target. This is entirely correct. The lie that he perpetuates is that he implies that GSC maintains that the s/f specification is an important factor during penetration through the target and, this is a lie. The advantage of the GSC s/f spec lies in the transition from air to target. No more and no less. The fact that the transition from air to target influences in target behaviour directly, escapes him entirely. This has been pointed out to Warrior numerous times but he continues to repeat his lie. 2. Warrior says that I have stated that I am able to observe yaw angles, stability factors, bullet cant and tractibility "with the naked eye under hunting conditions". This is a lie and a figment of his imagination. He has repeated this absurd statement several times despite being told he is lying. 3. Above all, Warrior masquerades as an "expert" on ballistics and shooting in general. The truth is that his grasp of ballistics is poor. He has made numerous mistakes showing that his "knowledge" extends only as far as he is able to Google it. He shamelessly plagiarises other writers and presents the material as his own. Many respected members here have written him off as unqualified to discuss technical aspects of ballistics and shooting. ------------------- He has a strange idea of what discussion and debate is. I understand it to be the stating of viewpoints and the questioning of those viewpoints, in an interaction of questions, answers and discussion. In the past I have answered many questions asked by Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris Bekker (all the same person). He does not to answer questions asked of him, mostly replies to my answers with phrases like "don't buy it - your theory is bullshit - you are talking crap" and by restating his question over and over, demanding further answers which he does not understand. His grasp is often so poor that he asks the wrong questions. Recently I attempted to elaborate on a question he asked numerous times. When I eventually dragged a partial response from him, it was once more clear that he did not know what he was talking about. He fails to answer, because he does not even know enough to ask the right questions. Many of the questions he has failed to answer would shed light on the questions he asks of me. He obviously does not realise this and, in any case, I doubt that he can indeed answer. A person of his implied (by himself) level of expertise, should easily be able to breeze through these, in one sentence or a word each, yet he fails to answer. --------------------------------- Questions that remain unanswered. 1. Bekker Googled this link to pretend he knows about tractibility in an argument with Hot Core. http://www.fulton-armory.com/fly/tractf.htm To show that he does not comprehend what is discussed, I asked: "Chris, see the capital H in the circle in the formula. What do you think it means?" Simple question - no answer. Why? Because he does not know and cannot figure it out. 2. Question: Which bullet resists the impact generated overturning moment better? One with a stability factor of 1.1 or one with a stability factor of 1.5? Simple question - simple answer - none given. 3. Would you then say that a SF of 1.29 is too low and therefore not usable? Likewise, is a SF of 1.51 too high, or can we still use bullets at that level of SF? 4. Is stagnation pressure primarily a function of bullet speed or bullet diameter? 5. Does stagnation pressure have an influence on overturning moment? 6. Does SF have an influence on overturning moment? | ||
|
| one of us |
This thread refers.
| |||
|
| one of us |
The acceptable explanation you refer to is obviously something I have failed to mention thus far. It is therefore irrelevant to the subject but, if your grasp of a subject is so poor that you do not recognise an answer when it is given, there is little I am further prepared to do. You are right. A specification must be preceded by a view. In fact, a view is preceded by observation and testing. So, logically, observation and testing makes up perception, this forms the view or opinion. From there a specification can be derived. That is what I said. Our s/f specification is not a perception or a view, it is now a specification. What part of this process do you not understand? That is what I said and I would imagine what most people would understand. Logically one would definitely precede the other. You must be confused again? Are you confessing to be a zombie now? Is this a defense for stupidity in your mind? You are very strange indeed. Correct, I suppose. Unless you are:- that is indeed:- Playing with words - you do it so badly to try and build an argument. This one certaily fails. If my explanation thus far is not understood by you, and you refuse to be led to an understanding of the concepts, as I have tried to do numerous times, if you are so rabidly caught up in your Agenda that you do not care how stupid you appear, what can I do but oblige? I will show up your stupidity and stubborn refusal to learn until you do or give it up. Here comes the good part. The bit where you lay out your ignorance for all to see. Which means that the stagnation pressure values differ. This influences the generated overturning moment and that has a direct effect on t-r-a-c-t-i-b-i-l-i-t-y. You keep getting right up to the answer to your question without recognising it - must be more than 15 times now. Unbelievable. You tell me. Let us see what strange concept comes from this one. It certainly is. But you refuse to learn from others so that the murk can clear for you so, continue to wallow in your own mess. I doubt it. You have proved that you are too stupid to know when to fold them many times before. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Chatting with yourself again Gerard ...??   | |||
|
| one of us |
Morning Jay, Two mistakes: 1. "again" 2. Siding with Warrior - He will adopt you as an ally. You may not realise it now, but you do not want that. He will quote you out of context and put you in a difficult position.  In any case, it will not be long before he shows up. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Morning Gerard - The mistakes are yours ... "Again" - you're transmitting on several channels but your audience doesn't have a reciever for your frequencies. "Siding" - with no one just passing by and noticed the Circus has moved to a new venue. People are like dogs Gerard. You like dogs don't you? The Beagle barks at the Chihuahua. The Chihuahua barks back. Occassionally a Schnauzer joins in the fray. A Dobermann never responds to such foolishness. How are things in your tropical paradise ...?? Do you have Palm Trees Gerard? We have Palm Trees. I hear you have a new Zulu leader. We have one of those too ... | |||
|
| one of us |
OK - I see. You are just into simple insults. Nothing serious or important.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
You must have scared them off ... maybe they're out testing some new interplanetary ballistics theory channeled to them by ET via their Boerboel ... ??? | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, I stated that, with bullets of equal construction and speed, the heavier bullet will expand more. You replied previously, as now, with an example in which both speed and Sd differ. Do you think that it makes no difference? You said that my statement cannot be true and proposed a test that would prove you are right and I am wrong. Now you say I mentioned the test. I quoted you and in doing so, you dug your own personal hole deeper. The test you proposed would be to fire bullets of the same construction, but differing weights, at the same speeds and observe how much expansion results. Regarding this test you proposed, you say: In this you were proved wrong by the tests I quoted for you as well as by MacPherson's opinion. You said that you would confess to be a moron should the test prove you wrong. The tests were done by Northfork and the pictures are on their website. Not limited to one caliber but done in .270, 7mm, .30, .358, .375 and ,458. Every example proved you wrong. Now we wait for you to confess to being a moron. Your post referred to above is a laugh. You repeat a bunch of irrelevant stuff as though it proves something. The matter is simple: You made a statement. You were proven wrong. By your own admission - You are a moron. From Bullet Penetration page 142: "An increase in bullet sectional density will cause equivalent expansion at lower velocity. Greater expansion occurs at the same velocity because the decelerating forces must act for a larger time interval to reduce the bullet velocity. The decelerating force and the stagnation pressure causing deformation are highly correlated." This is all in one paragraph. What is there to interpret? It is as clear as daylight. I have not quoted MacPherson out of context, that is a figment of your imagination. The lies you tell are increasing almost every time you post. | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, You repeated the same incorrect facts over and over. That is not qualification. So, do you think that, as long as the hollow points are of equal volume and the nose shapes are identical, that expansion will be the same, regardless of bullet speed and weight? I suppose that is what happens when you base an opinion on a single test with a sample of three. Are you referring to the test where you varied both the weight and the speed, rendering your results useless as a test of either weight or speed? Now you agree with the fact that more weight with same construction bullets at the same speed, increases expansion. You flip flop so easily one wonders if you hold an opinion of your own on anything. That is like denying that a pot is painted red when someone says "This pot is painted red" just because it is possible to paint it blue. Driving force of what? You flip flop so fast it is difficult to follow what you think you mean. You certainly repeated the same stuff often enough and that is not "explain". Your single test with a sample of three, compared to the Northfork data of more than 130 samples, plus MacPhersons research? You lose that one hands down. No chance. You have threatened this too many times for anyone to believe it - it is just another lie. | |||
|
| one of us |
This post from Warrior, plus his following 5 posts, refer. Pontificus Erroneus, As I said, not a chance. You just keep on running off at the mouth with lies and slanted facts. The stupid comment and halucination is yours. You said it not me. I said regardless of speed and weight. Your sleight of tongue is not working. Compared to the Northfork results that spanned more than twelve times your nine and MacPherson's research, you still lose. Your "test" is irrelevant, in any case, because it does not address the effect of Sd on expansion. The fact that you hold it up as "proof" in this discussion shows how confused you are. I would be interested to know what you think this logic is. It depends on whether you vary the weight and speed as well, so that you can make whatever deduction you want to suck from your thumb, I suppose. To get back from all the sidetracks you have tried to create: You were adamant that keeping construction and speed the same and varying only the bullet length, will not influence expansion. Do you still hold that opinion and thereby wear the self imposed title of "moron", or have you changed your mind? By that logic, Sierra, Hornady and a host of other unbonded lead core bullets also have holes that are filled with lead. Driven fast enough, they all expand down to the bottom of the hole. Only you could confuse the hole of a hollow point bullet with the hole created during construction and prior to filling it with lead. Your ignorance is compounded with inept "saves" such as this. Why would we then take anything you say at face value. You have lied so many times, everything you say is suspect. Your efforts to cast suspicion on the methods and statements of reputable manufacturers with some of the most stringent quality control systems in the world is despicable. Just who do you think you are? You are a pissant amateur and you demand to see this. The statements were made, based on the findings of a world class manufacturer and it proved you are wrong. I did no such thing. You are confused to the point of being incoherent. Show the quote where I said that and, if you do not, you will be proved a liar once again. | |||
|
| one of us |
This post from Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, Your confusion takes on a new dimension in this post. You quote Doug Turnbull and address the post to him, then you go off in four directions at once and do not answer his question. He had to ask you again.  You quote the section from Bullet Penetration which is very clear in what it says but you highlight the "decelerating force".
Then you say: This must rank as one of your all time great sentences that makes no sense. It proves one thing very clearly: Your grasp of the subject is woefully inadequate. It is another attempt at a "save" that does more damage than good. Where in that quote from MacPherson do you see Sd as a decelerating force? The really funny part is that you have the audacity to pretend that you understand and then "explain" what MacPherson "really meant". The rest of your post is repetition, irrelevant (because your "test" varies speed and weight) a smokescreen and another sidestep to avoid answering these questions: 1. You were adamant that keeping construction and speed the same and varying only the bullet length, will not influence expansion. Do you still hold that opinion and thereby wear the self imposed title of "moron", or have you changed your mind? 2. Warrior posted: "Gerard quoted me a velocity in all cases of 2500 fps." I did no such thing. Show the quote where I said that and, if you do not, you will be proved a liar once again. | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, You say: Using the language "notion" and "supposed" confirms that you do not agree with that fact. You may have mentioned this before. In this thread Andrea, who is a professional of considerably more experience than you, has said:
What does Andrea know that you do not? Posted a while back in the Big Bore Forum: Proof that increasing twist improved linear penetration but you do not believe it. In this post, we read something very interesting: Of course this is in agreement with the Iron Buffalo testing RIP did as well. In this thread JPK says, in answer to a question whether increased twist increases linear penetration:
And so we can continue. Tighter twist (or a shorter bullet, same thing) will improve linear penetration and hence depth as well. But you continue with your head stuck in the sand, making statements like: It only highlights your lack of a grasp on the subject. Confirmation comes when you say: You are incapable of recognising that there is a difference between the requirement of a soft and a solid - you are forever confusing the facts around them and making us laugh. Noted that you still ignore and thereby acknowledge the self iposed title of lying moron (heavy): 1. You were adamant that keeping construction and speed the same and varying only the bullet length, will not influence expansion. Do you still hold that opinion and thereby wear the self imposed title of "moron", or have you changed your mind? 2. Warrior posted: "Gerard quoted me a velocity in all cases of 2500 fps." I did no such thing. Show the quote where I said that and, if you do not, you will be proved a liar once again. | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. This is not addressed to Warrior (Pontificus Erroneus), but for the benefit of AR readers: Warrior states: With respect to Alf and with no respect to Pontificus E, both of them miss something vital here. There is a vast difference between that which one observes and reports, and the explanations one would come up with, to explain what has been observed. When someone states that he has observed something and reports what he has seen, and this fact is observed by five other people, one could say that the observation has merit. Of course one could easily have six different explanations for the same phenomenon observed by six different people. Alf's response to Art Alphin's observations dealt with the explanations given for the observations. Two different things they are and that is why I did not include Alf in the quote. I also do not differ with Alf on much of his response. Pontificus E is confused again. Alf has a problem with Art Alphin's explanations but one cannot question many of the observations because they are supported by numerous others that confirm these observations. Pontificus E says: Regardless of how many times Pontificus E repeats this incorrect opinion of his, it will not make the observations of many experienced people go away. In effect Pontificus E is saying that the observations of the people I quoted in the post above and those of El Deguello are fiction? Are they lying? Are they delusional? Pontificus E implies that they are. Pontificus E says: No, it is not. Pontificus E is sucking his thumb again and I would ask him to show us where he sees this written up, if this post were directed at him. No doubt that statement will join the rest of the string of lies he has told thus far. Pontificus E says: Even though he does not understand what he is saying and generally quotes Alf out of context. I remember his confusion when he "quoted Alf" with great conviction as proof of some or the other crackpot theory and it turned out that Alf was quoting another poster, with whom he differed on the matter. Watching him trying to squirm his way out of that was soooo funny. I have to ask: Would you trust the technical opinion of someone who cannot figure out how to focus a digital camera?  Would you trust the technical opinion of someone who fails to answer the most basic questions because he does not know or has painted himself into a corner? Examples below: 1. You were adamant that keeping construction and speed the same and varying only the bullet length, will not influence expansion. Do you still hold that opinion and thereby wear the self imposed title of "moron", or have you changed your mind? 2. Warrior posted: "Gerard quoted me a velocity in all cases of 2500 fps." I did no such thing. Show the quote where I said that and, if you do not, you will be proved a liar once again. | |||
|
| One of Us |
[quote]quote: And this is supported by good evidence in the scientific publications dealing with aeroballistics.quote] Rasputin, You are slurring again, Alf mentioned the above not me. So tell Alf, he is a liar.  Thanks Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
You remain the liar until you prove otherwise and it will be a cold day before that happens. No need to talk to Alf at all. He did not quote any study or paper relevant to stability factor and bullet behaviour in target. As usual you did not understand what is being discussed. This is very clear from your quote that somehow confuses "publications dealing with aeroballistics" with in target behaviour of bullets. Show me the quote where Alf said what you claim, or it will be chalked up as another figment of your imagination - another lie. Just like these questions that you avoid at all costs, because you are proved wrong by the answers. 1. You were adamant that keeping construction and speed the same and varying only the bullet length, will not influence expansion. Do you still hold that opinion and thereby wear the self imposed title of "moron", or have you changed your mind? 2. Warrior posted: "Gerard quoted me a velocity in all cases of 2500 fps." I did no such thing. Show the quote where I said that and, if you do not, you will be proved a liar once again. | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, Your quote from Razos(sic) Jack proves what? It proves that you put up a smokescreen that you do not understand because he actually says: "But a barrel with a reasonable conservative SF will shoot well longer and in more varied conditions than one with a marginal SF." Thank you for agreeing with us on this, finally. You say: You are quite correct, many DG were shot with older design bullets and yes, bullets have become much better with time. Better in the sense that they have become more reliable as a result of better construction and better design. Modern designs are more likely to bring good results than designs of 20, 50 or 100 years ago. Thank you for pointing out this obvious fact. Modern design and construction would include such elements as new thinking in materials, design specifications and much practical testing to verify theory. Samples of one, three and nine are worthless of course. I am happy for you that you are coming around to the modern way of thinking about twist rates and such. You may not understand it yet but acceptance is the first step. Only you could come up with such a worthless "test". It shows you are not even close to understanding the subject. By the time you can see keyholing on a paper target, you are way past what would be usable as a game bullet in monometal copper construction, let alone a DG bullet. You would learn nothing for two reasons. The holes will appear identical and you are incapable of learning in any case. To get a 145gr FN in .30 cal to start keyholing due to insufficient stability factor, stability factor needs to be dropped to less than 1.1. This may only be possible with a twist of 1:19" or slower. Why don't you build a couple of rifles with such twist rates and prove yourself right/wrong? | |||
|
| One of Us |
RASPUTIN, What a FOOL you are to jump to conclusions like this. This is done with regular monotony to make assumptions like this and then give it out as gospel. I did not take the pictures and nor was my camera used. I am very busy at the moment and someone else did it for me with the most basic camera he had with him to expedite getting the photo on the thread. More so, his camera does not have a macro mode. So put this stinking comment of yours in your pipe and smoke it !!!! Go look here where Alf replies to NE 450 No 2, under the heading of "Big Bore - A loaded question" and then you will see that you are the devious liar and twister of words ... http://forums.accuratereloadin...201038801#2201038801 For the rest, not worth a comment ... futile idiotic masterbation. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus fabricates tales, tells lies and will thumbsuck whatever he feels will "prove" the crackpot theory he is wanting to get across at a given moment. Here is one example: He reports on his blesbuck hunt with a GS Custom 130gr HV bullet used in a 308 rifle. He publishes a picture of a Barnes X bullet under this caption: "I will contrast with a .284/130 gr Barnes-X bullet also impacting at 2,300 fps and retrieved from a kudu. THE BARNES-X Bullet."  In this post from last year, he said:
 How can one believe anything he says or publishes? Did he shoot the blesbuck himself? Does he in fact hunt? What other pictures has he lied about? What other "tests" and "research" has he lied about. He has been caught out in at least four that I know of.  | |||
|
| one of us |
As I said: You remain the liar until you prove otherwise and it will be a cold day before that happens. The question asked was So you "answer" a question that was not asked, probably hoping no one would notice. Some of us pay attention, you know. You are such an idiot and a liar to boot. What about: ------------------ 1. You were adamant that keeping construction and speed the same and varying only the bullet length, will not influence expansion. Do you still hold that opinion and thereby wear the self imposed title of "moron", or have you changed your mind? 2. Warrior posted: "Gerard quoted me a velocity in all cases of 2500 fps." I did no such thing. Show the quote where I said that and, if you do not, you will be proved a liar once again. ------------------- | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, Shame you are confused again. The quote is 100% correct in what it has found. A longer FMJ bullet will take longer to tumble in-target than a shorter FMJ. This is due to the form. Read my reply to Alf - This quote pertains to m-i-l-i-t-a-r-y style f-u-l-l m-e-t-a-l j-a-c-k-e-t bullets. They behave differently in-target compared to typical softs and FN solids. We do not use FMJ bullets for hunting. Maybe you do, we don't. It is obvious you have forgotten your post where you said, regarding the same information that Alf posted: Talk about contradicting yourself. When you blunder, you blunder big time. "Flesh shooting humans"  Gregor was referring to j-a-c-k-e-t-e-d s-o-f-t-s which react differently in-target to m-o-n-o softs. If Gregor's opinion held true for mono softs, why did you not find this with your "test" below.  Ok so the "test" above was also a pack of lies? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Rasputin, You silly ass, the 130 gr Barnes-X bullet refered to is one and the same that I have sited - I just made a typo by typing .284 instead of .277 (270 Win). So there is no lie; you are clutching at straw again. Sure Gregor Woods has referred to jacketed Softs and not monos, due to uneven expansion and whilst having a short shank increasing the likelihood to tumble. So your sighting of my Barnes-X bullet test still stand as originally published, as they expand evenly and symetrically, unlike your HV bullet, which I have also proven. Look again, petals are not the same size, and its 4th petal if we can call it that, is a tiny little thingy sticking out showing the uneven expansion:  Had the striking velocity of the HV bullet been higher with the Blesbuck, it would sure have lost its petals whilst no bone was encountered. Bullets do tumble earlier when expansion is erratic or uneven or when they lose one petal, and it then stands to reason that it would tilt and it could go off course. Nothing new what you said, just dribble and foam at your mouth, and I don't get your point. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus, Yeah, right. Very convenient, until you were called on it and had to make a hasty excuse. Your attention to detail is abysmally poor but it is excpected by now. Example: You compare two samples-of-one for result and, between the two samples there are differences in: Caliber Muzzle Velocity Sectional Density Ballistic Coefficient Stability factor Mo/Xsa Distance to impact Impact medium Probably more that are too tedious to list. The similarities are: The two samples were fired in the same country. They were fired from rifles. You say both were fired by men, but we are not sure of that. (There is a picture of only one of the men.) Somehow you then draw conclusions from these results. How you do this is unknown but could probably include either left or right thumb, a broken crystal ball and a black book and candles. Alf would call this a completely broken level 5 example. You do value Alf's opinion, yes? If you think that all mono copper bullets always expand perfectly symmetrically, I suggest you shoot some more. Get out of that lazyboy/recliner and get some first hand experience instead of reading the ads and the opinions of others. This is the problem when you rely on a sample of one. When more samples are examined, a truer picture emerges, like these that were reported here on AR.    And this is a disadvantage in your mind? This is exactly what it was designed to do and introduces a level of reliability that is very good to have. You still subscribe to the myth of full weight retention, do you? I have noticed this often with new customers and, once they experience how HV bullets work, they see the value of a different system. This begs the question: Which would you prefer, a bullet that assures expansion under all conditions, and does not need to hit bone to do what it was designed to do, or one that may or may not expand, but is said to always retain 100% weight, but does not? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. You value Alf's opinion, right? Here are some pretty pictures of HV mushrooms and cylinders for you. Proof that expansion with HV bullets is assured from even the lowest impact speeds and under all conditions. Use them as we recommend and the result is assured - like the blesbuck you say you shot.  If that were true, only ten percent of the 72 bullets in the first picture set above would have worked as they should and that is far from what happened. This is what you think will happen but of course you do not really know, because you have not experienced what actually happens. As usual, you are wrong. You are racking up the lies and the mistakes almost faster than what one can keep track of them. This is true, it happens frequently. Shall I list the lies and unanswered questions thus far, the ones where you have painted yourself into a variety of corners, or just the new ones? Lie:
----------- Mistakes:
Was this also just another typo? More likely you were just confused and did not notice that Alf was talking mil ball, Gregor was talking JSP and the discussion was mono. ----------- .277 instead of .284 - What a laugh. ----------- | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, Let's see now. You lie, make "typos" to suit your argument of the day, fail to answer simple questions, quote irrelevant examples, present arguments from others that you do not understand, have a woefully inadequate knowledge of the subjects you pontificate about, become confused about who has posted what and the best you can do is retort with insults, devoid of fact. That about sums it up, I think. Very enlightening and a good example of the opinions you hold. You obviously have information that is more complete than that of CZ, who have been building rifles from before you were born. You should write to them and explain to them why they are doing such stupid things. You shoud keep it simple so that they can follow and understand what you are saying. "pulling the dam underneath the duck" | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, You give an excellent example of how you start a scrap with derogatory remarks about GSC, contradicting yourself and with the sole aim of evoking a response. Then you maintain the innocent face and state that you are never the aggressor. You do not take me on here in this thread, but posture in several threads on the forum instead. This is what a Troll does. Your aim is exposure, an agenda of slander against GSC, conflict and argument for the sake of argument. It is not discussion and dissemination of information. There are hordes of one man bullet making operations. All believe and make the claim that their bullet is best, otherwise they would not be making them. Why should I not like what is being said? GSC takes note of what happens in the world of bullet manufacturing and note many incorrect facts and blatant untruths, but it is not our business to interfere. It is up to the parties mentioned and involved to be responsible for what they do. For example, if someone is acredited with a grossly incorrect qualification, one would expect that person to see to it that such a matter is corrected. Failure to do so is dishonest. As is usual, you have read something somewhere but the comprehension is lacking. Do you read the rubbish you write? Reliability comes from the properties of a product, not from the observation of how the product performs. Somewhere a village....... The number of 100 is an under estimate of course but, by your own admission, 99 more than that on which you base an opinion. How does that make your observation and deduction more valid than mine? You have proven yourself incapable of attention to detail, short on theory and experience, prone to "typos", incapable of learning and a liar. Your opinion carries no value with those who have been exposed to your drivel, I only take you on because of those who are new here and the fact that your agenda includes imaginary problems with and slander of GSC. New members are sometimes taken in by your occasional bouts of apparent lucidity. There are numerous manufacturers in the shooting world with some very real problems, but you remain silent about them and even condone what some of them do. You are like a sheet of glass. | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, Let us assume that you go out and shoot at 50 animals with reloaded ammunition loaded with spit ball bullets. Unless you poke the muzzle up their noses and use the muzzle blast to kill them, I am going to put money on it that they will all run away. Now let us assume that you grow some brains (strange concept, I know) and load another 50 rounds with real bullets. When you shoot at another 50 animals, most will bleed and some will fall over. Your comment leads me to believe you would then not be able to conclude that the use of spit ball bullets is inferior to using real bullets. I knew that your attention to detail and deductive reasoning circuits were not connected when you were issued but I did not realise that the situation is that bad. Another lie. Show me where I have done this before. Truly you are racking up lies with every post.  Says Mr. Sampleofone. | |||
|
| one of us |
This post by Warrior refers. Pontificus Erroneus, I could spend a lot of time to answer your questions but what would be the point? Recently I tried nine times in succession to discuss something with you but you only replied with insults and sidesteps. Why would I believe it would be different now? In any case, all the questions you ask have been addressed. I am not going to repeat the answers as repetition is your domain and style of "debate". There are a string of questions you have failed to answer so why should I give you the time of day? You have told blatant lies, never correct mistakes, unless they are so crass you have no option, and you are a pissant amateur who does not know that he does not know. You are a poseur and a troll. Take a hike and go harrass someone else, Mr. Wannabe Professional Hunter. Regarding Alf's question: I answered it directly in the post below his. I guess you did not understand that either. However, I will use it as an example of how you operate, always pretending to understand what is being discussed. Alf talks way over the heads of most members of this forum. (No offense meant, Alf. But you must admit this is so.) So, if you put Alf's questions in laymans English, so that the majority of members here can understand the questions, that will serve two purposes: More members will benefit from the exchange and you will show that you understand the questions and not pretend..... I will not hold my breath waiting. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Rasputin, I have nothing to do with this website and I am surprised that my name got mentioned, let alone that it refers to me being a PH. I have written to them in this regard to remove my name and the assumption made that I am a PH, as I am not !!! I do not understand German, except for a few words, so I do not even know what they say here. I assume this is your good friend Lutz in Germany that visited you and copied your idea, right? 2 of my friends that I am hunting with are in fact professional hunters. So their is no dishonesty on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Rasputin, Wow, you can talk such utter rubbish, and then you twist your own garbage so it looks like I talk rubbish by throwing it over a language barrel. It just does not work. Now let us just explore this rubbish a bit further, this is what you said ... On 3/11/2008 you wrote: "Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth." Then later in a reply to defend your position you said: "The simple fact is that when 50 animals are shot with a bullet with a certain set of attributes and another 50 are shot with something else, the difference in fall down result is easy to observe by counting on the fingers of one hand." All along we see this thing about "is very noticeable", "observed difference", "difference in fall down result" and " easy to observe". and what then naturally follows is that you observe the reliability of your product, based on its propertties. Yes?... No? Should be yes, otherwise it is moot and no difference appreciable. I still find it astonishing that you believe there could be a difference between a 9,3 FN bullet and a 9.5 mm FN bullet (.375") for reliable straight-line penetration - having an absolute minimum of SF = 2 and SF = 2.5 respectively for these two bullets. But is does not end here - if there is a fundamental logic to it, then it should flow through to the next caliber up, say the 10.56 mm bullet (.416"), the logic cannot just abruptly end by the 375 H&H in terms of a minimum required SF. Again how were these break-points discovered .... by observation, by calculation, by inference or by guestimate? Was it all by shooting game and then observe the fall down result? Was this fall down result purely attributable due to different levels of SF? As SF values increase down range did you do a back-calculation to bring the SF values back to the muzzle position? This needs clarification ..... does the .375 bullet need a higher SF than the 9,3 bullet because it has a bigger MEPLAT AREA and a higher VELOCITY? What happens when only the meplat area differs, and we down load the 375 H&H to 9,3 velocites (say to 2,350 fps)? We do know that velocity play such a minute role in the SF caculation in the middle band of standard operating velocities, not so? Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
Why don't you two take it off line. Honestly, nobody gives a shit. ______________________ Age and Treachery Will Always Overcome Youth and Skill | |||
|
| one of us |
+1 !!! That's the truest thing that's been posted in this whole thread. xxxxxxxxxx When considering US based operations of guides/outfitters, check and see if they are NRA members. If not, why support someone who doesn't support us? Consider spending your money elsewhere. NEVER, EVER book a hunt with BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING or JEFF BLAIR. I have come to understand that in hunting, the goal is not the goal but the process. | |||
|
| one of us |
At the head of my first post I gave the warning: --------------------- This thread contains replies to Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris Bekker. If this does not interest you, please close the thread and move on. You are right, it is junk and not worth wasting time on. I do not want to clutter the threads of others with his rubbish and my replies so:- Warrior is invited here, to say to me what he wants to say, instead of messing up other worthwhile threads. If it were not for the fact that he chooses to target myself and GSC products directly, I would not reply to his posts. This is evidenced by the fact that I only engage him on the forum when he addresses me or GSC directly. ---------------------- To that I now ad and ask Tembo and Gatogordo: If communicating by email is not an option and Warrior refuses to take this to PM (he likes basking in the public light) how would you react to his ongoing slander, attacks, lies and bad information about our products? Give me a solution that works and I will take it up in a heartbeat. Ignoring him does not work because he escalates his misinformation to a level where showing him up for the buffoon that he is, is the lesser of two evils. When pushed, he has confessed to strong ties to another manufacturer. So, tell me what the solution is because I have tried ignoring him (he just continues lying and presenting bad information about GSC), reasonable discussion (he refuses to take part), taking it offline (he refuses because his agenda is public slander) and ridicule (but he does not follow and comprehend it). So what do you see as a solution? I repeat the point: The Political Forum does not interest me, so I do not go there and leave comment. I have no interest in where the best BBQ joint in Texas is, so I do not comment or read the thread. However, it does not bother me in the least if you have those interests and like the discussion. I know that my replies to Warrior are seen in a bad light by many and, in that respect, Warrior is succeeding in his agenda of damage to GSC and our products. Regrettably, it is the lesser of two evils because leaving him unchecked does more damage. Besides, I am not a wuss and will not be insulted by anyone, least of all by Warrior. | |||
|
| one of us |
Gerard: Apparently you make a good product, but you're doing yourself and your bullets no good on this thread. As a matter of fact, you're acting like a nut, whether you are or you're not. If you think you're helping yourself or GS bullets, you need to think again. xxxxxxxxxx When considering US based operations of guides/outfitters, check and see if they are NRA members. If not, why support someone who doesn't support us? Consider spending your money elsewhere. NEVER, EVER book a hunt with BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING or JEFF BLAIR. I have come to understand that in hunting, the goal is not the goal but the process. | |||
|
| one of us |
Gatogordo, I hear you and it is regrettable that I have to spend time on rubbish like replies to Warrior but, what do you propose as a solution? If someone persists in slandering you and your product, how do you solve the problem. | |||
|
| one of us |
Gerard: You state your case once, and let the quality of your product and your customers make the case for you, not going back and forth like two teen agers in a shoving match in the school yard. He will get less attention if you ignore him than by your giving him "airspace" and you will appear more business like IMO. Wishing you the best. xxxxxxxxxx When considering US based operations of guides/outfitters, check and see if they are NRA members. If not, why support someone who doesn't support us? Consider spending your money elsewhere. NEVER, EVER book a hunt with BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING or JEFF BLAIR. I have come to understand that in hunting, the goal is not the goal but the process. | |||
|
| one of us |
Gatogordo, Thank you but ignore is not an option. Been there done that several times. He will follow me around AR posting his "problems" until I start getting email asking why I allow such lies to continue. Until someone comes up with a better solution, pointing out his lies, mistakes, "typos" and poor knowledge of the subject seems the lesser of two evils. Users of our products are reluctant to oppose his point of view because, as with Hot Core now, Warrior goes into full attack mode when he senses opposition. I cannot expect customers to expose themselves to such boorishness and, where they have become involved, I asked them to back off. Thank you for your concern. | |||
|
| one of us |
Warrior's two posts of 6 July above refers. Pontificus Erroneus,
These are the identical questions you have been asking since 2005. I have given the answers numerous times and in the most recent attempt at educating you, you declined to take part and discuss the issues you ask about, despite the fact that I asked 9 or 10 times. You elected not to reply, slung insults and avoided discussion. You blew it again despite the chance you had and now I will continue to show you up for the poseur that you are. Get used to it or get lost. Now it is summary time. You continually ignore my questions and sidestep the points I raise by raising smokescreens with "new" old issues and questions. It is time to close off some old matters. The first one is: You have stated on several occasions that it is my position that stability factor is important for stable penetration once the bullet is in-target. Where did I say that? | |||
|
| one of us |
Pity that I have to open up this thread again, I apologise to the forum but Warrior is going on about the same old stuff that he ranted about 6 months ago. In fact, if you scroll up a little, you will see that he is asking the same questions now that he asked in the first half of 2009. Same old same old rubbish. Same old agenda and it happens just ahead of the SA hunting season every year. Don't forget, he has ties with competitors in our market. His ramblings start about halfway down this page. Pontificus E, A dishonest answer or statement requires no reply, other than to point out the dishonesty. You "quote" from our HV bullets page when the discussion is about FN solids. The fact that you are dishonest and add to the quote thereby changing it from the original, and then make false claims on our behalf, is what we have come to expect from you. You remain a lying, dishonest troll with an agenda. But, just in case you have not noticed, quoting from the HV page in the context of FN bullets makes you look doubly stupid. HV bullets are h-i-g-h v-e-l-o-c-i-t-y, e-x-p-a-n-d-i-n-g bullets. FN Bullets are l-o-w-e-r s-p-e-e-d, s-o-l-i-d bullets. You first asked these questions I think about seven years ago and, despite the zero failure rate of our FN range and the excellent reliability rate of the HV range (arguably the best in the industry), you are still asking them today. You should be asking what it is that we know that you have missed all these years, but you are clearly too stupid. These two posts from Pontificus E applies, they are repeated below because he has been known to change posts when he paints himself into a corner. Posted 06 February 2010 by Warrior: 28 May 2009 I opened this thread with a couple of statements. Here is the second one: "2. Warrior says that I have stated that I am able to observe yaw angles, stability factors, bullet cant and tractibility "with the naked eye under hunting conditions". This is a lie and a figment of his imagination. He has repeated this absurd statement several times despite being told he is lying." Posted 06 February by Warrior: Yes, those "bend solids from another manufacturer" tumbled and that caused them to bend 45 degrees and break. Phil's two 375H&H FN bullets did not tumble. The deformation was from normal penetrative stresses and penetration was linear. The stability factor was high enough to set the bullets up for linear penetration. There is a big difference between a slight bend during penetration and a 45 degree bend from tumbling. I would not expect you to follow this logic, you are too stupid. You have stated on several occasions that it is my position that stability factor is important for stable penetration once the bullet is in-target. Where did I say that? Or was that another lie? Show the quote, liar. | |||
|
| one of us |
This thread is relevant. Warrior's posts are repeated below with replies in red inserted appropriately. Warrior Posted 06 February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: That weird school you went to that taught you to write but not read has come back to bite you, big time. Here is the page for the 375270FN. Now let me teach you how to read it. 375H&H rifles were made in two twist rates: One in 14" and one in 12". See the little chart above the bullet illustration? Look at the line of the graph that runs from 14 to 12 on the horisontal axis. At 14 it is a fraction over 2.5 on the vertical axis (left) and at 12 it is almost at 3.5. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rasputin, You are still not making any sense with your double talk, no matter how you want to obscure the real issues of this debate. What are the real issues? You say I said something and then that I said something different regarding the same issue. I prove that you are lieing and you repeat your allegation. Do you want me to repeat that you are lieing? OK, you are lieing again. 1. Please note, just above the graph of the .375" 270gr FN you say ... "S/F greater than 2.0 is required. A S/F of 2.5 is desirable for faster calibers. There is no upper limit to the S/F here." It says that on all the FN Tech Data pages. Those are the instructions you are supposed to follow when selecting a bullet according to the chart below it. You need to read to the bottom of the page but you have this reading problem, I know. 2. Now this is what you said before ... "With FN bullets we recommend a stability factor in EXCESS of 2.5 for reliable linear penetration. The 300gr FN has a stability factor of 2.39 to 2.44 from 2000fps to 3000fps. Again not ideal." Can you actually see the double talk? No I can not. This is in the context of FN bullets for the 375H&H and it is exactly what I have said all along. SF more than 2.5 for the 375H&H. Where is the double talk? The little voices in your head maybe? 3. When shown that your 9,3 mm bullet penetrated straight at SF = 2.04, you quickly back-peddled by saying hat that was only for the 9,3 and not for the .375 H&H due to velocity differentials and increased stagnation pressure. The back pedalling is in your mind because you do not read and comprehend. You asked because you missed the bit about slower calibers being OK down to SF 2.0. Since then you have been gargling on about the reduced stagnation pressure as though you understand what it means. Reality says you have not the foggiest clue. Now you say that a SF of 2.0 is also OK for the 375 H&H. Where did I say that? Show the quote, liar. What has changed in the meantime, incorrect interpretation of the first obesrvations or new observations since then? Nothing has changed, least of all your agenda, your stupidity and your lack of comprehension 4. I am bewilderd at your logic that when a 378 Wby Mag is engaged (with higher velovity) over a .375 H&H, the SF must go up, Where did I say that? Show the quote, liar. but when we bing the .375 H&H down to the same SF value of 2.0 for the 9,3 x 62 mmm the velocity differential is of no significance, eh? Where did I say that? Show the quote, liar. Your incoherent and non-sensical attempt to explain velocity jumps from a 9,3x62 to a .375 H&H and then to a .378 Wby Mag as to how different SF values are needed does not make your theory anymore plausible or does it? The only incoherent one here is you. You built this statement on the preceding pack of presumptive lies. Show the quote where I attempted to explain "velocity jumps", liar. Perhaps you are right Gerard, but it is just that you cannot find the words to explain it - it seems we are opposites, eh? You can's write and I can't read. Oh I "can's" write but you can't read. Opposites we are indeed, liar. But to bamboozle, a virtue of yours, is not finding the spot. Alf has offered Munks's formula as the best possible explanation that we have, but throwing Munk at you is like throwing electrons at a negatively charged plate - it will never connect. When did you first become aware of Munk? What does Munk have to do with this discussion? Warrior Posted 06 February 2010 Back to this statement that is being propagated .... "It has been proven that a high velocity flat fronted cylinder (FN bullet) shape will leave a larger primary wound channel than a slower, double caliber mushroom." I did not make that statement. You lifted it off our HV bullets page, added to it dishonestly and now you quote it out of context. You are dishonest and a liar. It is important that we get to the bottom of this, my opinion is that it is a lie .... promtional hype. The only liar here is you, proven without doubt. Here are some pictures to illustrate ... 1. A .510/540 gr GS FN Solid going through the heart: "The bullet went in behind the ribs on the right hand side, through the rumen, spleen, liver and right through the centre of the heart, before exiting the far shoulder." This is the caption to the photo. It is proof that the 540gr .510 caliber FN bullet, with a stability factor way above 2.5, penetrated straight and deep.  2. A.375/380 gr Rhino Soft expanding going through the heart of a buffalo shot by Doctari: This photo raises several questions. Doctari has said that he has never seen this bullet exit on a broadside shot. It then raises the question: Can one take a straight going away shot with it or must one remain limited to broadside or frontal short penetration depth shots? The large wound channel could be caused by a couple of things. The bullet could have expanded to a diameter of about 3 inches or it could have tumbled. Only the recovered bullet will tell the tale. I would not be surprised if it were "lost in the skinning" process.  Solids by their very design is to penetrate deeper by virtue of a smaller wetted surface, as opposed to a CEB's to open up and have a bigger frontal wetted surface. Thereby inhibiting penetration? Ganyana said that an FN solves a dilemma for him. The dilemma of whether to use a soft or a solid. His reason was that the FN penetrates more like a solid while leaving a wound channel more like a soft. Go argue with Ganyana now. | |||
|
| one of us |
Warrior Posted 06 February 2010
Debate? If you mean the process whereby you state a position, I state a position and then we ask each other questions, which are then answered respectively, you fail miserably because you never answer questions. Just scroll up to see the string of questions I asked that you cannot answer. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Other Topics Miscellaneous Topics Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris Bekker - Aka Pontificus Erroneus
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia