Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
One of Us |
Rasputin, It is all pure drivel. Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
[Never mind. Not my fight.] _________________________ Glenn | |||
|
One of Us |
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. VVarrior | |||
|
one of us |
This page applies. Pontificus Erroneus, On 7 February Warrior posted:
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:
| |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
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? | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
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? | |||
|
One of Us |
Try and rape another owl. We are getting not getting anyware. Warrior | |||
|
one of us |
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? | |||
|
one of us |
This page applies.
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?
One little detail that escaped you.
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? | |||
|
one of us |
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:
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? | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
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? | |||
|
one of us |
Well, that takes care of lie #3 above "I am done with you" Pontificus Erroneus This thread applies. Warrior Posted on 12 Feb 2010:
PS. 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. | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
Moderator |
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. "Ignorance you can correct, you can't fix stupid." JWP If stupidity hurt, a lot of people would be walking around screaming. Semper Fidelis "Building Carpal Tunnel one round at a time" | |||
|
One of Us |
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. | |||
|
one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus, Your post of 14 Feb applies.
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. 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. | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
So answer it. Don't throw up a smoke screen and sprout gibberish, you raised the subject, you were asked, so answer it. | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
One of Us |
Owl Raping ?? Is that anything like a "Spinner"? "Isn't it pretty to think so." | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus, VVarrior asked you:
I posted:
You posted:
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:
| |||
|
One of Us |
THIS IS A NEW ONE, A NEW ADDITION ... A TACTICAL REVERSE. WARRIOR | |||
|
one of us |
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. | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus, This refers.
Something of interest. More of interest. | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
Pontificus Erroneus, Ain't life grand. I have not had this much fun in a long time and it is so easy.
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? | |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
Pontificus Ignoranus,
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. | |||
|
One of Us |
No proper explanation has been offered in the last 10 years - that is the fact of the matter. Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
Hey Warrior, Translation:- I have not understood any of the detailed explanations given in the last ten years. I VVarrior | |||
|
one of us |
Pontificus Ignoranus, Posts of 18 Feb applies.
| |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
Pontificus Ignoranus,
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.
| |||
|
One of Us |
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 | |||
|
one of us |
Pontificus Ignoranus,
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.
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? ------------------------------------ | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia