Rasputin,

It is all pure drivel.

Warrior

[Never mind. Not my fight.]

Hey Warrior,
You are right for once. It is drivel when you lift something from a website, change it to suit your twisted reasoning and then present it as a quote from the website. You did this twice without blinking an eye. Are you this dishonest in your daily work as well? Take note everybody: Chris Bekker, the accountant, is a dishonest individual who will cook the books to suit the requirement of the moment.

This page applies.

Pontificus Erroneus,
On 7 February Warrior posted:

quote:

Would the results at say 25 yds be same (in congruence) relatively speaking to 100 yds. Reason being to assess the possiblity of differing yaw angles after the bullet has gone to 'sleep'. Then further more and on the same basis, this could be done by shooting through different twist rate barrels to see relative correlations or diverging results. Say we use the .458 caliber as an example and we use a 14", 12" and a 10" twist barrel with the same load and bullet.

quote:

The air pocket or cavitation is what I assume allows a bullet to go straight in a 'denser-than-air' medium. In a denser than air medium a bullet does not have gyro-stability and mathematically it should tumble, but it doesn't tumble in most cases.

quote:

Is the bullet tumbling in flesh not because of the the force of the bullet being greater than the drag force of the flesh (bullet still going straight) and when the bullet is being slowed over distance (losing momentum) by the target drag, and the drag of the target gets bigger than the force of the bullet and that then activates tumbling? At some point then the geometry of the bullet takes over (CG point, geometric measurements, mass distribution around CG) and veering takes place and ultimately tumbling. The other thing that we need to consider is that how many spins does the bullet do in the target distance during this nano second time duration? 3 times ... 4 times ... even a bit more? Perhaps a bullet from a faster twist rate barrel could manage 1 more spin in the animal? Any opinion on this?

All the techno gibberish you sprout above proves one fact beyond doubt: You have no clue what Munk's Formula is.That is why you sat like a raped owl and had no answer when I asked: " When did you first become aware of Munk? What does Munk have to do with this discussion?" Now we know. What is priceless here is that, after the above posts,you say:

quote:

I get the drift of what you are saying, but the words you use are not fundementally correct.

quote:

When did you first become aware of Munk?

Rasputin,

I am sure you encountered Munk before you birth or it may even be that you lectured to him Mathematics in your prior live. What I do know is that your theory has not been explained properly and you duck and dive at every turn with evermore smoke. Then revert to character assasination rather than to just lay it out clearly. The onus is on you.

Some of the stuff you quote here does not even come from me, you are slurring, put the cork back in bottle, and don't foget to take your pills. The paranoia is getting the better of you.

We need to know the role of how faster velocity demands a higher SF value for straighter and deeper penetration and the process how you logged this ground-breaking discovery. And also the FN Solid bullet that you used to establish this break-point of not less than SF=2.0. How short was this bullet? If you cannot lay it out for us then I have to conclude that it is all just fiction .... mumbo jumbo.

You must be the owl that raped me, because only an owl will rape another owl.


Warrior

quote:

Some of the stuff you quote here does not even come from me

Simple question: Who does it come from, liar?

You can call me and GSC bullets what you like, our mumbo jumbo works superbly well and has done so since 1997. Don't blame me if you are too stupid to understand the principles when I have tried to explain them to you.

You demand answers all the time. How about answering just one yourself? Start with: Who does it come from, liar?

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

Some of the stuff you quote here does not even come from me

Simple question: Who does it come from, liar?

You can call me and GSC bullets what you like, our mumbo jumbo works superbly well and has done so since 1997. Don't blame me if you are too stupid to understand the principles when I have tried to explain them to you.

You demand answers all the time. How about answering just one yourself? Start with: Who does it come from, liar?

Rasputin the second one, your liar.
I never spoke or attempted to explain air pockets.
Now go back and see who wrote it.
So, you cannot read either, hey?
Is that that because you are raping owls?

Warrior

Thanks - fixed it and it does not change anything regarding: "All the techno gibberish you sprout above proves one fact beyond doubt: You have no clue what Munk's Formula is.That is why you sat like a raped owl and had no answer when I asked: " When did you first become aware of Munk? What does Munk have to do with this discussion?" Now we know."

Now that you have been suckered into one answer, lets try another one:

VVarrior mentioned it. Did you or did you not present a "quote" from our website, that you modified to read differently, before posting it?

Try and rape another owl.
We are getting not getting anyware.


Warrior

For sure we are not getting anywhere. You have not answered a single significant question.

Take the one above: Did you or did you not present a "quote" from our website, that you modified to read differently, before posting it?

It should be easy to deal with, there are only two possibilities:

1. Yes I was dishonest and changed the wording to what I thought it meant, before presenting it as a quote from the GSC website.

2. No, I did not change the wording, prove it.

Which is it?

This page applies.

quote:

"With FN bullets we recommend a stability factor in EXCESS of 2.5 yadda yadda rhubarb rhubarb asked for the umpteenth time and answered as many times.

quote:

Gerard claimed that he shot several thousand head of game over the last 18 years, and that obviously is in support of his above observations, by the naked eye if you will, since no actual measurements seems to do exit. If we put the claim of shot animals at say a mere 3,000, being the several thousand referred to, over a period of 18 years we get to 167 animals per year.

More lies and little voices in your head I see. Here is what I said:

In July 2007
I have not kept exact records but I reckon I must have shot considerably more than a thousand head of game and witnessed the shooting of double or three times that.

In June 2008
you obviously have shot more African plains game than the thousand or so that I have. My observation of several thousand head of game shot by friends and customers also does not match your extensive experience observing how game animals react and behave here.

February 2010
You have seen this in many examples quoted on this thread and others and I have observed this for the last 18 years in the shooting of several thousand head of African game.

So I have shot more than a thousand or so myself and I have observed the shooting of several thousand more. (That is a mere 55 average per year that I shot myself. On some culls I shot that in a night.)

That is what I read in the quotes above. You read three thousand shot by myself and build a false argument from there. What happened? You used to do the three step swindle in just a couple of sentences and here you take a whole bunch of paragraphs to do one. Hiding it in verbosity does not work. It remains a lie and a dishonest argument.

However, by your own admission, I have personally shot probably 10 times more animals than what you have. If one can believe what you are saying. With your proven record of dishonesty, lieing and exaggerating who knows?

quote:

Now could this be a lie?
You bet it is and it is all yours, as usual.
Or, could this be a damn lie?
More likely, yes. It is the kind that comes naturally to you.
Or, could this actually be the truth?
No chance. When your lips move, you lie.
You mull it over.
No need to, you have been found wanting, once again.

One little detail that escaped you.

quote:

Since Gerard is not a buffalo hunter, I take it that his so-called tests were done mostly on soft-skinned game in the Eastern Cape,
"You don't want to use solids on buff. They will zing right through on broadside shots and wound any others in the background."
"If you are only planning on shooting your buffalo 'up the rear' then you may well need a solid."
It then follows logically that FN Solids on soft game with straight pass-throughs cannot be assessed in this study, not so?

Have you never wondered about the fact that GSC seems to be the only bullet maker that offers FN solids all the way down to .257" calibers? (We even have a 6mm one but it is not in the price list, no one has ever asked for it.) Have you ever heard of a 6x45 or a 250 Savage or a 260 Remington? A 270 Sabi perhaps? Think about it and then consider that your logic circuits have crashed and burned once again. You are such an idiot.

So, after some more gross dishonesty and lies from you, I have to ask about the quote again:

1. Yes I was dishonest and changed the wording to what I thought it meant, before presenting it as a quote from the GSC website.

2. No, I did not change the wording, prove it.

Which is it?

Pontificus Erroneus,
You latest pack of lies and misconceptions are below. I have pointed them out with my responses in red.

Warrior posted 11 February:

quote:

1. Yes Michael I agree that the GSC-FN is one of the top Solids available. So GSC makes one of the top solids and you pick incessant fights over nothing? What did VVarior say about a broken spin docter? However bulletsmiths may compete with each other and claim that theirs is actually the best or is better in this or that respect. Luckily, I do not have to make that call and motivate why. However you could see almost instantly when I posted the Rhino Solid Shank bullet how jealous Gerard got when he saw the competitions bullet and accused me of having ties with them ... that was a cardinal sin on my part. There are numerous examples on two South African forums and elsewhere where I gave load data for Rhino bullets when no one else responded to a reloader's question. I have recommended the use of a number of other brands where such bullets would be more suitable than what we have to offer. I have given load procedure advice for other brands. Is this the attitude of an insanely jealous man, as you imply? Once again you lie like a sack and allow your agenda to show.

2. My Custom Solid (SF = 1.75) have been tested first in a wetpack and then on kudu, and I could not fault it. Whoopee, a test with more than one example! This leads to some questions: You agree that solids should not be used on cape buffalo. Why would you use a 9.3 solid on a kudu? Did you recover the bullet from the kudu? However, I do not claim that it is the best, but simply that it worked well in my application. Interestingly enough, since we have professional jealousy, we can ask the question ... do I prefer it over the Rhino Solid in the 9,3? The answer is yes !!! Why would you prefer it to a Rhino solid? How did the performance differ? And this may come as a shock to Gerard. Your false preening and posturing is noted and it is a source of amusement.

3. Back to penetration with Solids .... here is yet another example of real results on game. Kobus du Plessis designed his own version of a Solid - with a roundish ogive, but with a reasonable meplat. Done so for trouble-free feeding in most rifles without the hassle of tinkering. I have actually published the photo before relating to the .308 Impala FN Solid bullet. It is a 170 gr bullet, made from free cutting brass, shot in his 30-06 Spr @ 2,690 fps with a barrel twist of 10 inches.

4. Unfortunately, the next question would be, and an interesting one at that ... what is the SF value? The answer is 1.26 !!! Yes, that is right. The 30-06 Spr is a "faster' caliber than the "slower" 9,3x62 for one, and in addition, the critical SF specification of greater than 2.0 or 2.5 for faster calibers is not met here as punted by Gerard to achieve reliable straight-line penetration. The point here is that we need to get to grips with slower and faster calibers, and there might just be a mere 200 fps difference between them 2 categories of so-called slow and fast. You are too funny. At some point, the difference between a slow and a fast caliber is 1 fps. It is called the cross over point. You know, x fps is slow and x fps plus one is fast. You need to find your village, they miss you.

5. Kobus tested the bullet on a number of Impala to satisfy himself and found that the bullet has not veered off track or tumbled. In fact no single bullet has been retrieved so far. You set yourself up for a fall so well. If no single bullet has been retrieved so far, how can anybody say that it has not tumbled? The results can be seen here:

Oh good! We have pictoral evidence that proves what the bullet did.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...621052911#2621052911



This is a good clear picture. That is a lot of damage for a 30 caliber, round nosed, non expanding bullet. In fact, the only way it could do that amount of damage is if it were tumbling, not so? You and Alf are both adamant that solids cannot make holes larger than the diameter of the bullet. So what happened here?

Could we say that the bullet is working well despite a SF of 1.26? On a small and soft animal like an impala, it would be surprising if a 30 caliber solid did not punch through on a quartering shot, regardless of whether it stayed nose forward, snapped in half or tumbled. But of course the bullet tumbled and this is confirmed by the damage and the shape of the exit hole.
Well Kobus asures me that he is happy and will report when or if one tumbles.
I am sure Koos Barnard of Man Magnum may just report on it shortly ... watch the press. Notably, you have no opinion of your own here. Care to state one?

While you are at it, could you confirm or deny that you are a moron (see unanswered questions on the previous page).

I also take it that you have no proof that goes halfway towards explaining why you lied and employed dishonest method twice recently. (See the post above).

BTW, now you can phone Kobus at Impala and Koos Barnard and point them here. That is why you dragged them into your losers argument, not so?

I am done with you, a complete and utter waste of time. I am not talking to a lieing and cheating owl that rapes other owls.

Warrior

quote:

I am done with you, a complete and utter waste of time. I am not talking to a lieing and cheating owl that rapes other owls.

Warrior

You lack of fact is noted. The post above contains nothing but insults and indicates that you have, once again, painted yourself into a corner.

However, let us deal with it:

1. Where did I lie?
2. Where did I cheat?
3. "I am done with you" - You have lied about this so many times before that I will not place a bet on it again. No way that we on this forum should be so blessed.

You are reminded of the following questions, from this page alone, that you have failed to answer:

1. While you are at it, could you confirm or deny that you are a moron (see unanswered questions on the previous page).
2. You and Alf are both adamant that solids cannot make holes larger than the diameter of the bullet. So what happened here?
3. If no single bullet has been retrieved so far, how can anybody say that it has not tumbled?
4. Why would you prefer it to a Rhino solid? How did the performance differ?
5. Why would you use a 9.3 solid on a kudu? Did you recover the bullet from the kudu?
6. I have shot more than a thousand or so myself. You read three thousand shot by myself and build a false argument from there. What happened? You used to do the three step swindle in just a couple of sentences and here you take a whole bunch of paragraphs to do one.
7. When did you first become aware of Munk? What does Munk have to do with this discussion?


So, after some more gross dishonesty and lies from you, I have to ask about the quote again:
1. Yes I was dishonest and changed the wording to what I thought it meant, before presenting it as a quote from the GSC website.
2. No, I did not change the wording, prove it.
Which is it?

Well, that takes care of lie #3 above "I am done with you"

Pontificus Erroneus
This thread applies.

Warrior Posted on 12 Feb 2010:

quote:

Some misconceptions exist by most hunters, as we know far less than medical doctors that studied wounding mechanisms.
That must be why the medical journals are always right when they publish their theoretical data and, when we publish test data that corresponds with what we see in reality, we are wrong. Pontificus E, you should write an article about open heart surgery and get it published in a gun magazine. It will immediately be hailed as gospel for heart surgeons worldwide.

Ignorance is understandable when we were not taught or shown (no shame), but being pigheaded and argumentative against our better knowledge is not getting us anywhere. I am speechless! You are finally admitting that you have been pigheaded and argumentative. Is this an admission of sorts that you knew better? I find this difficult to believe and think that you are just trying another dishonest method to feign lucidity. That's it! We watch with bated breath to see what comes next. You are like a sheet of glass.

Seeing that Gerard is on about the damage caused by an Impala Solid FN, as if it tumbled, and refuting the straight-line penetration, One would expect the liver to show more damage than just a bullet diameter hole but the liver in the picture was hit by a tumbling bullet. The exit hole in the ribcage at the shoulder confirms it. If you think otherwise, you ignore the evidence that you posted yourself.

it is perhaps appropriate to repeat the point that Alf has made so many times. You are so fond of repeating things, you must be in hog heaven now.

If a bullet hits tissue of predominantly water-like viscosity, the tissue literally explodes (for example, a high velocity bullet hitting the liver or brain, as it causes a massive disruption due to the inability of the tissue to withstand the sudden stretch as the bullet forces the incompressable tissue aside. Both the liver and the brain tissue have little cohesion, so it shears and blows apart. Liver tissue is not like muscle tissue and behaves differently when hit. All tissue will behave like this. To show the same measure of disruption, muscle just needs more speed than aqueous organs and bone needs more speed than muscle.

The question is: What are the speed thresholds at which disruption takes place? Can you define this for us? We would need complete data matrix charts, dates and quantification, complete certified records of all the tests conducted and the full names and addresses of all the test personnel involved in the project.

Even if Alf has to be ignored on this issue, let us see what Rinker has to say.
Here is an extract from a posting from Alf - Posted 05 June 2006 09:04 It is no use quoting Alf. He has admitted that much of what he has posted is not relevant to the respective discussions and has removed it.

To check that you are not lieing about the quote from Alf, and to show that the quote existed originally, could you give a link to the (empty) post?

Don't forget that we still need answers/explanations for the pack of lies, unanswered questions and dishonest arguments above.

PS.

quote:

Go play with yourself or write to Alf and satisfy yourself. You are not contributing here one iota.

Your advice to VVarior applies directly to yourself, you must have noticed. You must get help for your Compulsive Agenda Disorder. It clouds your judgement to the extent that you now have Chronic Clouded Judgement Disorder.

Rasputin,

You show the symptoms of having a psychotic disorder as you are seeing imaginary things through hallucinations that are not there (that I have ties with Rhino Bullets and if that is something that has a negative influence on you) and delusions through false beliefs that you refuse to give up, even in the face of contradictory facts, not to mentions your lies and deceit.

Warrior

Having observed the back and forth and the bad blood between the two of you, I can only comment as an outsider. Keep in mind that I don't have a dog in this fight, but Warrior, you follow Gerard around like an angry chihuahua, nipping at his heals every time he attempts to enter into a discussion in any given thread. I understand why it is that he is lashing out at you. You don't need to agree with him, you don't need to use his products, and you don't need to play the role of contrarian every single time he posts........ Just an observation.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Having observed the back and forth and the bad blood between the two of you, I can only comment as an outsider. Keep in mind that I don't have a dog in this fight, but Warrior, you follow Gerard around like an angry chihuahua, nipping at his heals every time he attempts to enter into a discussion in any given thread. I understand why it is that he is lashing out at you. You don't need to agree with him, you don't need to use his products, and you don't need to play the role of contrarian every single time he posts........ Just an observation.

Warrior. For me, you are doing your case no good by your failure to speak with courtesy. If you disagree with the ideas being presented, by all means present your case. However, I would like to see you cease your attacks on the person presenting those ideas. Accept that each of us presents reality as we have experienced it. To argue that we did not have that experience is a waste of time.

Pontificus Erroneus,
Your post of 14 Feb applies.

quote:

The permanent wound cavity is formed by the bullet crushing tissue during penetration. The bullet also pushes the surrounding tissue outwards from the bullet path and muscle tissue exhibits an oscillating wave before it comes to a stop, and this stretch is called the temporary cavity. This behavior of muscle tissue is due to its much stronger cohesion than the liver or brain tissue, which is incompressible. Muscle tissue that is being pushed outwards will get bruised but will fully recover whereas as the liver won't. When a bullet strikes the liver at high velocity it will shred or blow the liver apart and it won't contact like muscle.

I suspect that only the South African Rasputin is in disagreement with this.

Do a search on "red mist" on this forum and you will get 15 pages of people who disagree with you.

It leads to the questions:

1. Can a permanent cavity, that is larger than the expanded bullet diameter, only exist in brain and liver tissue?
2. Can the temporary cavity add to the size of the permanent cavity?

I do not expect answers to these two questions because, as before, you will be proved wrong by the answers so you simply ignore the questions.

quote:

You show the symptoms of having a psychotic disorder as you are seeing imaginary things through hallucinations that are not there (that I have ties with Rhino Bullets and if that is something that has a negative influence on you) and delusions through false beliefs that you refuse to give up, even in the face of contradictory facts, not to mentions your lies and deceit.

This will join the list of sentences that make no sense. Only the last bit "not to mentions (sic) your lies and deceit" is understandable.

Regarding the last bit, it is not enough to just make the allegation. You need to substantiate such a statement with proof. If you do not, it is simply an insult with it's origin in desperation.

When I say you lie, I give proof. When I say you are being dishonest, I give proof. When you get your facts and your knickers in a knot, I give proof. You simply ignore that proof and move on to greater mistakes, lies and dishonesty and the cycle repeats.

Example 1: VVarior has made a good point. What do you regard as high velocity? A truthful answer will put you in a difficult position because you have made a mistake that will be highlighted. So, you ignore it and find something else to distract focus from your mistake.

Example 2: There are strings of unanswered questions above that you simply ignore because they will show you up for the liar, cheat and ignoranus (sic) that you are. You simply ignore them. Guess what, ignoring them will not make them go away and others read them too.

You should get back to your village.

Rasputin,

The only one worth answering is the velocity issue ... slow velocity and fast velocity. You define that for us in terms of what is on your website and then relate it to SF values of 2.0 and 2.5. That would be interesting. You need to define that for us to support you bogus claim. Use as an example the 9,3 bullet with an SF of 2.0 in a 9,3 x62 mm and then motivate why it is no good in a 9,3 x64 mm at faster velocities because the criteria of 2.5 is not met.

And do not forget to define that critical cross-over point from "slow" to "fast". That would give us a basis then to better understand this whole velocity issue that is so fascinating.

Once we better understand riflle velocities, we can then move to revolver/pistol velcoties and see how liver reacts to a shot. So we should actually experiment with shots from the following where we drive both the velocity and the energy up progressively:-

A .22 LR
A .22 Hornet
A .222 Rem
A 30-06 Spr like the one Kobus du Plessis used (170 gr @ 2690 fps)
A 416 Rigby, etc

That should also give us some interesting clues, hey?

Warrior

quote:

The only one worth answering is the velocity issue ... slow velocity and fast velocity.

So answer it. Don't throw up a smoke screen and sprout gibberish, you raised the subject, you were asked, so answer it.

Rasputin,

The only one worth answering is the velocity issue ... slow velocity and fast velocity. You define that for us in terms of what is on your website and then relate it to SF values of 2.0 and 2.5. That would be interesting. You need to define that for us to support you bogus claim. Use as an example the 9,3 bullet with an SF of 2.0 in a 9,3 x62 mm and then motivate why it is no good in a 9,3 x64 mm at faster velocities because the criteria of 2.5 is not met.

And do not forget to define that critical cross-over point from "slow" to "fast". That would give us a basis then to better understand this whole velocity issue that is so fascinating.

Once we better understand riflle velocities, we can then move to revolver/pistol velcoties and see how liver reacts to a shot. So we should actually experiment with shots from the following where we drive both the velocity and the energy up progressively:-

A .22 LR
A .22 Hornet
A .222 Rem
A 30-06 Spr like the one Kobus du Plessis used (170 gr @ 2690 fps)
A 416 Rigby, etc

That should also give us some interesting clues, hey?

Warrior

Owl Raping ??

Is that anything like a "Spinner"?

This piece was posted way back on 23 August 2005 02:05 23 August 2005 02:05

"Let us take a look at a statement Gerard made on his web-site:

"Wound channels from the FN bullets resembled those of soft nosed premium bullets that expand to double calibre and more."

Let us now look at Gerard's posting recently on AR:

1) In answer to Pieter Olivier's experience with the GS-FN bullet's small wound channel through the heart of a Blue Wildebeest and he concluded that he much rather seeks a bigger wound channel from a controlled expansion bullet, Gerard then replies ... "I would sincerely hope so."

2) Doctari made the following statement ... "The 380 grain Rhino has the ability to expand to a larger diameter than other premium quality expanding bullets in .375 caliber. This is why they create larger permanent wound channels. Given similar shot placement (through the heart/lung area), the larger the permanent wound channel, the more rapid the onset of the inevitable - it's as simple as that. In my opinion, 380 grain Rhinos are without a doubt the best .375 caliber bullets to use for buffalo." Now Gerard comes and states the obvious ... "Do you think that there is a handloader somewhere that does not know that?"

Gerard have you accepted now that the wound channel created by a controlled expansion bullet is larger than a FN Solid design?
If so, you should amend the statement on your web-site."

This has hopefully been resolved now ... CEB's by their very design will create bigger holes through the vitals, otherwise their is no valid reason why they exist, and likewise the HV bullet that loses its petals in the first 2 inches at impact velocities of around 2,500 fps, and reaches the heart basically as a lighter FN solid at high velocity and again it cannot do the work of a CEB going through the heart with petals expanding to 2.0 to 2.4 times of original diameter. And this is supposedly a mis-quote on my side, and thereby dishonest and who knows what, but this is the essence of this whole matter. My point in this is simply that the most effective bullet is one that will go through the heart with intact petals, expanded to its widest diameter. This ought to be crystal clear.

Warrior

Pontificus Erroneus,
VVarrior asked you:

quote:

When a bullet strikes the liver at high velocity it will shred or blow the liver apart and it won't contact like muscle.

I posted:

quote:

VVarior has made a good point. What do you regard as high velocity? A truthful answer will put you in a difficult position because you have made a mistake that will be highlighted. So, you ignore it and find something else to distract focus from your mistake.

You posted:

quote:

The only one worth answering is the velocity issue ... slow velocity and fast velocity.

True to form, you are ducking and diving on that one and move on to another smokescreen question that has been answered many times. Do you think that, if you ask the same question often enough, that the answer will change - if you ignore a question, it has not been asked?? Allow me to show you up for the idiot that you are:

quote:

This piece was posted way back on 23 August 2005 02:05 23 August 2005 02:05

"Let us take a look at a statement Gerard made on his web-site:

"Wound channels from the FN bullets resembled those of soft nosed premium bullets that expand to double calibre and more."
You are quoting from this page on our website. A little higher up from that which you quote (one would expect that you would have seen that before the part you quote) I also say: "It has been proven that a high velocity flat fronted cylinder shape will leave a larger primary wound channel than a slower, double caliber mushroom." Below the sentence you quote, there are references and an explanation of why this is so. Therefore, your idiot argument is not with me, it is with MacPherson and anyone who has ever used an FN or HV and has seen the result of a high speed impact with one of them.

Allow me to highlight why you are wrong again.

Let us now look at Gerard's posting recently on AR:

1) In answer to Pieter Olivier's experience with the GS-FN bullet's small wound channel through the heart of a Blue Wildebeest and he concluded that he much rather seeks a bigger wound channel from a controlled expansion bullet, Gerard then replies ... "I would sincerely hope so." I told you this at the time but I will tell you again and I quote from the thread of December 2005 (recent you say?):
------------------------------------
"It is also well known that, the faster you drive a bullet, the bigger the difference in efficiency of the various forms becomes. So if you take Pieter's shot on the Blue Kudu Gnu (the one with the stripes like a zebra) which impacted at 1700fps or less, the difference in holes created by RN, FN and expanding bullets will be marginal. (You look a real idiot when you confess to not knowing this.)

Take the speed up to where it should be, and a cylinder will easily equal the wound cavity volume of an expanding bullet of the same caliber that expands to 1.5 times of caliber. Of course one would have to experience this first hand in order to report on it correctly."
-----------------------------------
The fact that you ignore, in order to make an argument out of thin air is: Pieter's FN impacted at 1700fps or less. It made a caliber sized hole all the way through the animal. If your fave "CEB" impacted at 1700fps, would it even start expanding or will it remain ogive shaped and tumble its merry curved path into the animal and probably miss the heart? Did you think that asking the same question repeatedly will change anything. The village Town Clerk is sending out a search party......

2) Doctari made the following statement ... "The 380 grain Rhino has the ability to expand to a larger diameter than other premium quality expanding bullets in .375 caliber. This is why they create larger permanent wound channels. Given similar shot placement (through the heart/lung area), the larger the permanent wound channel, the more rapid the onset of the inevitable - it's as simple as that. In my opinion, 380 grain Rhinos are without a doubt the best .375 caliber bullets to use for buffalo." Now Gerard comes and states the obvious ... "Do you think that there is a handloader somewhere that does not know that?"

Gerard have you accepted now that the wound channel created by a controlled expansion bullet is larger than a FN Solid design?

What diameter would the expansion of a 380gr Rhino be?
You will not answer the question so I will provide the answer: 25mm to 27mm (1.06").

What is the caliber of a Rhino 380gr bullet? Answer: .375" or 9.55mm.

What is the the caliber expansion of a Rhino 380gr bullet? Answer: 2.8 times the caliber.

What did I say in the thread that you quote? Answer: "1.5 times"

What do I say in on our website that you conveniently did not see? Answer: "double caliber mushroom"

You are an accountant and you are confused by numbers smaller than 3???

We saw the same lie from you when my "1000 animals shot personally" became 3000 in your twisted, dishonest reasoning. You fabricate lies faster than what anyone can keep track.

If so, you should amend the statement on your web-site."

Once again your dishonest argument (the triple hornswoggle) is shown to be just that: Dishonest, cheating and lieing.

This has hopefully been resolved now ... CEB's by their very design will create bigger holes through the vitals, otherwise their is no valid reason why they exist, and FNs will go deeper as will HVs, while HVs will give the same wound channel diameter as CEBs. You lost this one before you started.

and likewise the HV bullet that loses its petals in the first 2 inches at impact velocities of around 2,500 fps, Another lie.

and reaches the heart basically as a lighter FN solid at high velocity and again it cannot do the work of a CEB going through the heart with petals expanding to 2.0 to 2.4 times of original diameter.
Another dishonest argument. (Clue: Do the petals evaporate?)

And this is supposedly a mis-quote on my side, and thereby dishonest and who knows what, You know you are lieing and dishonest. If you are not, give us the links to where I made the statements.

but this is the essence of this whole matter. My point in this is simply that the most effective bullet is one that will go through the heart with intact petals, expanded to its widest diameter. This ought to be crystal clear. Same old arguments that you have been repeating for years and I give the same replies which you cannot disprove. You remain, after all these years, a pissant amateur, incapable of learning anything and with allegiance to your agenda only.

quote:

What do I say in on our website that you conveniently did not see? Answer: "1.5 times"

THIS IS A NEW ONE, A NEW ADDITION ... A TACTICAL REVERSE.

WARRIOR

Pontificus Erroneus,
When you put your feet in your mouth, you do it as if they are giving medals for foot putting. I made a mistake, the 1.5 was not from our website, it was from the thread that goes back to 2005. It has been there for 4 years and you missed it. I will fix it, just got two quotes switched around.

So, what is your answer to:
"It has been proven that a high velocity flat fronted cylinder shape will leave a larger primary wound channel than a slower, double caliber mushroom."
and:
"The fact that you ignore, in order to make an argument out of thin air is: Pieter's FN impacted at 1700fps or less. It made a caliber sized hole all the way through the animal. If your fave "CEB" impacted at 1700fps, would it even start expanding or will it remain ogive shaped and tumble its merry curved path into the animal and probably miss the heart?"

Has the village posse found you yet?

PS. Don't forget the string of other unanswered questions. You could make an even bigger fool of yourself with those.

Rasputin,

Again you are speculating ....

that the CEB will tumble, we have not seen them tumble. Let us look at some examples:


1. Pieter Olivier load his 9,3mm/300 gr Rhino Soft to 2,250 fps. He shot a Blesbok at a slight angle at 180 m in the thorax and out by the last rib on the opposite side. Pieter noticed straight-line penetration the exit wound showed clearly expansion of the bullet. Good performance. The 300 gr Rhino bullet opens up to 2.4 times diameter at around 100 meters, that much we do know. Out to around 200 meters we do not know for sure as Peter has not retrieved a 300 grainer at that distance as they went through, but even if they just open up to 1.5 times it still makes the XSA (9,3 mm x 1.5) 14 mm which cuts an effective wound path, and as the COG moves forward in the expansion process it becomes dart stabilized.

2. Pieter shot a Red Hartebeest with a 9,3mm/286 gr Claw bullet standing side-on at 300 m right through the heart and straight through, no tumbling. His verdict ... small wound channel ... bullet did not open fully ... only partially, but cannot say how much for sure. Fact of the matter ... straight-line penetration with no tumbling.

The slow and fast bullet is clearly haunting you. You need to define that for us ... the cross over point, and I am waiting. Once we have that we can move back and relate them SF values, hey? Then the fun will start.

Warrior

Pontificus Erroneus,
This refers.

quote:

Gerard,

Since I have not shot as many as you did, and a correction to to the actual number shot.

OK then, let us cut out the observed ones (several thousand of them), and just consider the 1,000 that you actually killed yourself, then the story goes as follows:

The claimed 1000 head of game you shot over the last 18 years Your math is up the creek again. Who said I shot 1000 animals in the last 18 years? Your ongoing blundering, absence of reading comprehension, lies and spin are so funny. You just keep digging from one to the other.

gives us 56 animals on average per year. I make it slightly under 20 average per year. It may have something to do with the fact that I am calculating from 1958 to the 2009 season. Averages are dangerous though. I only got involved in culling when we started making bullets in '92. In the first 18 or so years from '58 to '76, I was dependent on family for hunting opportunities. '76 to '79 I spent educating myself about the subject and '79 to '92 I concentrated on gunsmithing, hunting and organising hunts for customers. I helped many newcomers to find their feet in hunting. Very few put foot in mouth like you, though. You are an amusing oddity in that respect.

If shot for the pot, the Schultz family of 4 consumes an antelope every 6.5 days - this is in line with the killing of a pride of 4 hungry adult lions (see quote below). Bear in mind that a lion eats much more than a human being. If half was sold though, and only one half was destined for the pot, then it only makes your family half as hungry as the lions - it is still a hard act to follow to consume an antelope every 13 days. Could it be that you either sold or gave 500 animals away? If not, then you are truly a carnivore. Ain't life grand when you make such a compleat (sic) fool of yourself. And you continue day after day without stopping. You are without doubt the most accomplished ignoranus I know.

"An adult lion will kill in the region of 15 animals per year. The norm is for African Lions to kill only enough to sustain themselves, but they have been known to kill excessively in the case of prey animals that are weak or young lions that go beserk." ... [African Lion Hunting Habits in South Africa and Southern Africa:] Maybe if you train these lion to use tools and cull animals for resale, or take a couple of dozen orders when they go ambush hunting, they will get their numbers up.

Something of interest.
More of interest.

quote:

Your math is up the creek again. Who said I shot 1000 animals in the last 18 years? Your ongoing blundering, absence of reading comprehension, lies and spin are so funny.

I make it slightly under 20 average per year. It may have something to do with the fact that I am calculating from 1958 to the 2009 season.

Your double talk is noted:

Posted 27 July 2007 17:14

"I have not kept exact records but I reckon I must have shot considerably more than a thousand head of game and witnessed the shooting of double or three times that."

(Yes you have not shot a 1,000 ... you shot considerably more than a thousand. The witness part is then 2 or three times more than that. A tall order by no means.)

Posted 10 February 2010 11:28

" ... I have observed this for the last 18 years in the shooting of several thousand head of African game." Then you go on and say specifically .... "So I have shot more than a thousand or so myself and I have observed the shooting of several thousand more. (That is a mere 55 average per year that I shot myself."

Double talk like I have not witnessed before, talk about a spin docter, I have always said you will spin another story, create confusion in a cloud of smoke and then accuse the other party and revert to name-calling ...

Here we have it as a monument that stands proud ... "slightly under 20 average per year" and then ""55 average per year"

Is it not perhaps your math that is up to creek or are you perhaps lieing trough your teeth?

And here comes the curve ball ... "I am calculating from 1958 to the 2009 season." This is a clean 51 years of hunting !!! 18 years are now getting extended to 51 years. Sê jy oompie !!!



Warrior

Pontificus Erroneus,

Ain't life grand. I have not had this much fun in a long time and it is so easy.

quote:

Your double talk is noted:

Posted 27 July 2007 17:14

"I have not kept exact records but I reckon I must have shot considerably more than a thousand head of game and witnessed the shooting of double or three times that." You should have read the sentences directly before your selective quote starts. You like quoting selectively and then building a dishonest argument from there, don't you? It says: "I have been hunting since 1958." Here is the link.

(Yes you have not shot a 1,000 ... you shot considerably more than a thousand. The witness part is then 2 or three times more than that. A tall order by no means.) For you, perhaps. You should not measure others by your own low standards though. By the way, what part of "I have not kept exact records.." do you not understand?

In June 2008 I posted: "I have only been hunting Africa since 1958 and you obviously have shot more African plains game than the thousand or so that I have. My observation of several thousand head of game shot by friends and customers also does not match your extensive experience observing how game animals react and behave here." You obviously missed that. Here is the link.

Posted 10 February 2010 11:28

" ... I have observed this for the last 18 years in the shooting of several thousand head of African game." Then you go on and say specifically .... "So I have shot more than a thousand or so myself and I have observed the shooting of several thousand more. (That is a mere 55 average per year that I shot myself." More dishonest selective quotes. The rest of that post goes: "On some culls I shot that in a night.)" See, there is the closing bracket that is missing from your selective quote. The salient point is that I shot considerably more than a mere 55 a year since '92 but hey, who is counting? Only you are fretting over this because you are so sadly lacking in experience yourself. BTW - Which part of " Averages are dangerous though." do you not understand?

Double talk like I have not witnessed before, talk about a spin docter, I have always said you will spin another story, create confusion in a cloud of smoke and then accuse the other party and revert to name-calling ...
The only confusion is in your head because you don't read complete sentences and you quote selectively. The more you run off at the mouth, the more stupid you look. Directly translated from Afrikaans one would say "you are beating your name with a plank."

Here we have it as a monument that stands proud ... "slightly under 20 average per year" and then ""55 average per year"55 average per year" Getting desperate, are you?

Is it not perhaps your math that is up to creek or are you perhaps lieing trough your teeth? Speaking about math. How is your confusion with numbers under three coming on? You do recall your dishonest argument about comparing bullets that expand to 2.8 times caliber at point blank range, to solids that are loaded down and impact at 200m?

And here comes the curve ball ... "I am calculating from 1958 to the 2009 season." This is a clean 51 years of hunting !!! 18 years are now getting extended to 51 years. Sê jy oompie !!! Here is the sad attempt at the Triple Hornswoggle. The only curve ball is because you only notice "1958" now. It has always been 51 years but you did not notice. 51 years of hunting experience - that is longer than what you have been around not so? I think I will change your name to Pontificus Ignoranus. It is more becoming of you.

How about answering some of the questions you were asked above. The ones about fabricating "quotes" from our website or one of the other proven lies you have told?

Here is an easy one for you: What do you call high velocity?

How about: How did the performance of your custom 9.3 solid differ from the Rhino 9.3 solid?

Rasputin,

Before we can talk about velocity, "fast" and "slow", you first need to ....

define that for us in terms of what is on your website and then relate it to SF values of 2.0 and 2.5. That would be interesting. You need to define that for us to support you bogus claim. Use as an example the 9,3 bullet with an SF of 2.0 in a 9,3 x62 mm and then motivate why it is no good in a 9,3 x64 mm at faster velocities because the criteria of 2.5 is not met. And do not forget to define that critical cross-over point from "slow" to "fast". That would give us a basis then to better understand this whole velocity issue that is so fascinating.

And whilst you are at this please mention how many of the game shot (sample size) was subjected to the study of different twsit rates and how the variation was related to the curve of how increased SF values improved reliable straight-line penetration. Which calibers, twist rates and bullet weights were involved?

And the simple answer to question of my Custom Solid vs the Rhino Solid has nothing to do with performance, I just prefer it for my own reasons ... like preferring a brunette over a blond. Cute hey? Like my bullet has more sex appeal.

Warrior

Pontificus Ignoranus,

quote:

Before we can talk about velocity you first need to .... Always the side step to avoid answering, because you have no clue. You are pathetic.

define that for us in terms of what is on your website and then relate it to SF values of 2.0 and 2.5. That would be interesting. You need to define that for us to support you bogus claim. Use as an example the 9,3 bullet with an SF of 2.0 in a 9,3 x62 mm Did it many times already but you are too stupid to recognise an explanation if it walks up and bites you in the leg. There are a slew of tests here that agree perfectly with what I have been saying for ten years and you have been having issues with these facts for the same ten years. You are as dumb as a bag of nails. Why are you not arguing your theory on this thread ? Because you have the AGENDA to take care of is why.

and then motivate why it is no good in a 9,3 x64 mm at faster velocities because the criteria of 2.5 is not met. More lies. Do you ever stop telling lies and fabricating nonsense? Give a link. Saving it to your drafts folder makes things disappear so we don't believe you anymore.

And do not forget to define that critical cross-over point from "slow" to "fast". Very similar to the question put to you about "high velocity" and "low velocity" that you so are scared to answer. Your smokescreen is not working Dumbo and the difference between us is that you are scratching around in the dark and I do not need to do that.

That would give us a basis then to better understand this whole velocity issue that is so fascinating. Two reasons why it is futile to reply to this: 1. It has been explained to you many times over. 2. You are incapable of learning.

And whilst you are at this please mention how many of the game shot (sample size) was subjected to the study of different twsit rates and how the variation was related to the curve of how increased SF values improved reliable straight-line penetration. Which calibers, twist rates and bullet weights were involved? Please stop. That must be the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.


And the simple answer to question of my Custom Solid vs the Rhino Solid has nothing to do with performance, I just prefer it for my own reasons ... like preferring a brunette over a blond. Cute hey? Like my bullet has more sex appeal. Perfectly in line with all the other "rational" and "logical" reasons you have given thus far.

Summary time:

1. Since 2005 you agree that the GSC FN solid bullet range is amongst the best there is. You disagree about the reason why I say it is so good. You have been flogging the same dead horse for five years without coming up with a reason why you disagree.

2. You agree that I have vastly more hunting experience than what you have. You disagree with the number of animals I say I have killed but you cannot say why or why it is an issue. How does it change anything If I shot 1000, 2000, 3000 or more animals. You remain a pissant amateur compared to many professionals, not just me.

3. You have designed one solid bullet in one caliber and test fired it 9 times. I have designed 40 solids and test fired and had them test fired more than 1200 times. GSC solids have been in use for 13 years with not a single reported failure. But you question the rationale behind the GSC design without being able to say why.

4. You have been called on numerous blatant lies, none of which you have any answers for. They therefore prove that you are a dishonest, lieing individual. You raise the same dishonest argument today that you came up with in 2005 and avoid answering the same question I have asked numerous times since then. The obvious reason for not answering is that you wil prove your your dishonesty. See the last quote of this post.

5. When you are called on mistakes you make, you pretend they do not exist and carry on as if nothing has happened. Without fail, every question asked of you to highlight your mistakes, remains unanswered.

6. I have been researching the issues you moan and groan about and giving explanations since 2001. You have been flogging the same issues on AR since 2005 and fail to present alterative "theory" of your own. You just disagree throughout all the discussion and accept nothing and learn nothing. Given your ties to a competitor and your agenda, this tactic wore thin years ago. You need to come up with something new because your credibility is shot.

No proper explanation has been offered in the last 10 years - that is the fact of the matter.



Warrior

Hey Warrior,

quote:

No proper explanation has been offered in the last 10 years - that is the fact of the matter.

Translation:- I have not understood any of the detailed explanations given in the last ten years. I am a slow learner have the dumb and cannot brain - that is the fact of the matter.

Pontificus Ignoranus,
Posts of 18 Feb applies.

quote:

We come back to a question asked earlier ... And nobody replied because only you imagine that there is relevance here.

how many spins (revolutions) would a bullet do inside an animal - say 30 inches and 60 inches, when we compare the following twist rates:

1-in-10" -- (eg 458 Lott = 2,250 fps x 720/10 = 162,000 rpm) - 3 spins and 6 spins respectively
1-in-12" -- (eg 458 Lott = 2,250 fps x 720/12 = 135,000 rpm) - 2.5 spins and 5 spins respectively
1-in-14" -- (eg 458 Lott = 2,250 fps x 720/14 = 115,714 rpm) - 2.1 spins and 4.2 spins respectively

Who cares? In any case, your math is up the creek again because you do not consider the relative velocity decay. We do however watch, as you lay down the first part of a Triple Hornswoggle. (Warped hypothetical situation based on bad reasoning and calculation)

What is under the spotlight now, is if the increased spin in target (from 2.1 to 2.5 to 3.0) enhances straight-line penetration. There it is!! The second step of the Triple Hornswoggle! (Incorrect statement based on step one) Why is this an incorrect statement? Because you are ignoring/forgot/lieing/ about the previous seven times you were told: "This is not what we are saying. You are right. Rotational velocity cannot work in this context. Agreed. Yes. No argument on this. Yes. Yes. Yes."

And if increased velocity needs more SF, as advocated, where do we stand with the 460 Wby Mag?
Should they be all rebarrelled in line with the new GSC discovery? And here it is: Step three of the Triple Hornswoggle. (The Conclusion - which is a perfect example of the GIGO principle)

If we were to compare the Lott with the Wby Mag, we ge this for this for the Weatherby:

1-in-10" -- (eg 458 Lott = 2,700 fps x 720/10 = 194,400 rpm)
1-in-12" -- (eg 458 Lott = 2,700 fps x 720/12 = 162,000 rpm)
1-in-14" -- (eg 458 Lott = 2,700 fps x 720/14 = 189,000 rpm) This actually comes to 138,857 rpm. Seems that The Accountant has difficulty with large numbers also. (Are you using aluminium bullets in this 458 Lott to get it up to 2700fps?)

All this talk about rpm proves one thing. Your concept of twist, how it works and what it does is completely messed up. It reminds me of a remark you made 4 years back that proves that you have learned nothing about twist rate in the past 50 months. Your ignorance puts a whole new slant on "a month of Sundays". You have had more than a month and a half of Sundays go by without learning anything.

The conundrum that sticks its head out here is that IF the additional velocity and spin IS TO aid penetration in flesh, not paper, Ninth time: "This is not what we are saying. You are right. Rotational velocity cannot work in this context. Agreed. Yes. No argument on this. Yes. Yes. Yes."

the increased drag in the target (drag goes up to the square of velocity in flesh) This square of velocity that you talk about - Is this a place like Market Square or something? If Drag can go up to it, it must be a place to go to, no? You hint that The Square of Velocity is in Flesh. This hint must mean that Drag is somewhere else when it starts out on the journey to Flesh where the Square of Velocity is in an elevated position. Is it on a hill or a mountain in Flesh? You are not very clear on this.

will activate the the overturning moment quicker, given enough distance. When we talk about "given enough distance", we have to decide what is enough for the application (say buffalo or elephant), anything more becomes moot. Sometimes you get so close to answering your own questions it is frightening. Of course you do not see it and stumble on as if nothing happened. Give enough monkeys enough keyboards and, sooner or later, one of them will type a word.

Why has the 460 Wby Mag not taken the PH's or DG hunters by storm? Lead core bullets break up due to the increased speed? We have seen from michael458s testing that extra speed is only worth it if the bullet is designed and built correctly to take advantage of extra speed. Then extra speed is all good. Please don't come with that nonsense of a perfect velocity window. In case you have not noticed, velocity windows do not apply to GSC FNs. Drive them faster and they go deeper and do more damage. Deliberately slowing a bullet down is a concession to a design with a window that can't open wide enough.

The 9,3mm/320 gr Wdl FMJ gives sterling performance on DG, and with a standard twist of 1-in-14", we get:

1-in-14" -- (2,180 fps x 720/14 = 112,114 rpm) .... revs per minute possibly the lowest of all DG calibers !!! Given your current fixation on rpm, which is irrelevant to static stability, you may not have noticed but, the 320gr 9.3 is a good example. The tighter the twist, the better it works.

Using a FN Solid in the 9,3 or all other calibers can only improve reliability and weighs more for me than to go and rebarrel my rifle. What a stupid thing to say. Don't you know that FN solids are devoid of actual testing and practical merit? The originator of the FN concept for DG solids, the ones with the drive bands like GSC has made since '97, the ones that everyone has started to copy, has no experience. He has all these bogus theories that do not work. He does not listen to the real experts like Warrior, Truvelloshooter and that Bekker fellow. What is wrong with you, Pontificus Ignoranus? How can you give advice like that?

Here is a quotation from Norbert that was made some time back on AR: Supply the link. You add things when you copy and paste. We don't believe you any more.

"The faster twist for penetration comes into play in the target (animal). The water vapour in the supercavitation bubble needs more rpm for stabilisation than the optimum twist for air. ... Norbert" What is your opinion on this? Come on, stick your neck out and say something stupid again. Go on, be adventurous.

This is now in the spotlight again in this thread.
Does the bullet spin in the bubble? If a tree falls in the forest.....

Where is the bubble if there is a wetted surface? Wetted surfaces are in the low lying areas. Maybe the Bubble has gone up to the Square to join Drag?

quote:

I am a slow learner have the dumb and cannot brain

quote:

I make it slightly under 20 average per year. It may have something to do with the fact that I am calculating from 1958 to the 2009 season. Averages are dangerous though. I only got involved in culling when we started making bullets in '92. In the first 18 or so years from '58 to '76, I was dependent on family for hunting opportunities. '76 to '79 I spent educating myself about the subject and '79 to '92 I concentrated on gunsmithing, hunting and organising hunts for customers.

Rasputin,

What a tap dance !!! ........ It may have something to do .... bla bla bla ....
I do not believe a word you say.
Average of 20 over a period of 51 years ... always another spin. not a 1,000 animals over 18 years.
Anyway even at 20 animals a year or about 2 animals a month puts you onto a lion's diet !!!
Even just to munch one animal a month (ave of kudu, blue wildebeest, blesbok,etc) faithfully for 51 years or 612 months is something that ought to put you in the Guiness Book of Records.

If we just take 1,000 animals (and it is considerably more as per your own claim) at an average cost of R500 each, day fees and on-cost excluded, we get a sum of R500,000 spent on hunting, and this is conservative.

Game like kudus and blue wildebeest run near R2000 and more.
If Eland is include in the 1000 you claim, we need to go up to R6000 plus
The on-cost of related expenses, the time involved, time away from home and work, working the meat etc.
Where do we end, perhaps closer to R1,000,000 and more .... or much much more?

Then we still have to figure if you hunt every single month of the year as if there is no hunting season, and if not, what it does to the consumption pattern of meat in your household.

No pal you can tell this crap to someone else.

Warrior

Pontificus Ignoranus,

quote:

I do not believe a word you say.

Who cares what you believe, I don't, but aint' life grand when you put foot.

You do another hog heaven repeat, Triple Hornswoggle, which proves you do not read, highlights your stupidity and mistakes, and post a "save" that just digs the hole you are in, deeper.

quote:

Average of 20 over a period of 51 years ... always another spin. not a 1,000 animals over 18 years. You assumed that I have been hunting for 18 years because you never read from the top. Now you are all bitter and twisted because you made a fool of yourself - priceless!

Anyway even at 20 animals a year or about 2 animals a month puts you onto a lion's diet !!! Even just to munch one animal a month (ave of kudu, blue wildebeest, blesbok,etc) faithfully for 51 years or 612 months is something that ought to put you in the Guiness Book of Records. Which part of "cull" and "take orders" do you not understand Dumbo?

If we just take 1,000 animals (and it is considerably more as per your own claim) at an average cost of R500 each, day fees and on-cost excluded, we get a sum of R500,000 spent on hunting, and this is conservative. The Triple Hornswoggle!! Part one, the false statement!

Game like kudus and blue wildebeest run near R2000 and more. If Eland is include in the 1000 you claim, we need to go up to R6000 plus. The on-cost of related expenses, the time involved, time away from home and work, working the meat etc. Part two: The incorrect assumption!

Where do we end, perhaps closer to R1,000,000 and more .... or much much more? Part three: The wrong conclusion, the lie. Triple Hornswoggle completed!!

The fact is that on cull hunts a profit is made because the mechanism is to buy bulk and sell at a profit. That is how shooting for the market works. With ambush hunts, orders are taken and normally I make a small profit or come close to breaking even. Of course the early years of hunting, while we stayed in the Karoo, hunting cost nothing. Who in South Africa paid for game and hunting prior to the mid '70s? I did not.

Then we still have to figure if you hunt every single month of the year as if there is no hunting season, and if not, what it does to the consumption pattern of meat in your household. That is a very compact, one sentence Triple Hornswoggle. I broke it down to the three elements to illustrate. You do look a fool when you repeat the same mistakes ad infinitum.

No pal you can tell this crap to someone else. "who has the dumb and cannot brain" I must thank VV for that one. Very fitting, thank you.

quote:

Of course the early years of hunting, while we stayed in the Karoo, hunting cost nothing. Who in South Africa paid for game and hunting prior to the mid '70s? I did not.

The land was wide open and belonged to nobody.
The game wondered all over and belocged to no one.
Kinda like a free for all as nobody cared - even better than in the days of John Taylor, hey?
And we all know that Taylor was a poacher, not so? Way back then ...
That is the the Karoo you say .... Sê jy Oompie !!!

I remember way back in 1973 game was already paid for in the Transvaal. (Came to RSA that year)
But you lived in the Karoo ... where it is all different.
So the Karoo only got inhabited after the mid-seveties?

Tell some other fool this.

Warrior

Pontificus Ignoranus,

quote:

The land was wide open and belonged to nobody.
The game wondered all over and belocged to no one.
Kinda like a free for all as nobody cared - even better than in the days of John Taylor, hey?
And we all know that Taylor was a poacher, not so? Way back then ...
That is the the Karoo you say .... Sê jy Oompie !!!

I remember way back in 1973 game was already paid for in the Transvaal. (Came to RSA that year)
But you lived in the Karoo ... where it is all different.
So the Karoo only got inhabited after the mid-seveties?

Ain't life grand when Bekker makes a fool of himself.

On our website are many examples of game that did not cost us anything. Right now, this moment, I can call any one of several places where I could shoot anything up to a kudu, no charge. Unlike you, I have family and friends. Many of them do not charge for meat for the table. However, it does not surprise me that you have to pay wherever you go. I too would charge you the maximum I can get away with.

quote:

Tell some other fool this.

No need to - only fool Bekker is bitching about the fact that he has made a fool of himself.

It is interesting that you are moaning and groaning about the amount of hunting I have done. As if it would change anything whether I have shot 500 or 5000 head of game.

You are reminded of:
-------------------------
Your lack of fact is noted. The post above contains nothing but insults and indicates that you have, once again, painted yourself into a corner.

However, let us deal with it:

1. Where did I lie?
2. Where did I cheat?
3. "I am done with you" - You have lied about this so many times before that I will not place a bet on it again. No way that we on this forum should be so blessed.

You are reminded of the following questions, from this page alone, that you have failed to answer:

1. While you are at it, could you confirm or deny that you are a moron (see unanswered questions on the previous page).
2. You and Alf are both adamant that solids cannot make holes larger than the diameter of the bullet. So what happened here?
3. If no single bullet has been retrieved so far, how can anybody say that it has not tumbled?
4. Why would you prefer it to a Rhino solid? How did the performance differ?
5. Why would you use a 9.3 solid on a kudu? Did you recover the bullet from the kudu?
6. I have shot more than a thousand or so myself. You read three thousand shot by myself and build a false argument from there. What happened? You used to do the three step swindle in just a couple of sentences and here you take a whole bunch of paragraphs to do one.
7. When did you first become aware of Munk? What does Munk have to do with this discussion?


So, after some more gross dishonesty and lies from you, I have to ask about the quote again:
1. Yes I was dishonest and changed the wording to what I thought it meant, before presenting it as a quote from the GSC website.
2. No, I did not change the wording, prove it.
Which is it?
------------------------------------