Dan,
Yes, that was a familiar piece, having been read long ago, thanks. Now, to tiptoe off this thread ... until later ... on another thread ...

quote:

Originally posted by Hog Killer:

RIP,

I couldn't agree more with Hog Killer's comments!

I encourage you to continue as well. You will learn and we will as well with your reports. Know you are on a journey seeing what really takes place. Until ALL the variables are included when we sit and theorize as some prefer to shooting a test it seems; we can only hope to get close to reality! Experience is a reliable teacher if the results are repeatable.
If we study "sugar" under a microscope of theory we still don't know if we have an apple pie or Kool Aid in the big picture of things!

I believe you are already seeing that there is not a reliable formula available to do anything but guesswork as to outcome on penetration. Pick any one item, SD, Mo/Xsa, weight, material, shape, velocity, bubbles, or even a "special" pick, and parameters can be set to prove it wrong during an actual test!

In the end it might be something as simple as a flat-nosed solid staying straighter on its path that makes for going deeper.........

Supercavitation may or may not exist during our hunting conditions using our equipment....... But lets see demonstrated proof of it instead of all the repeated hypnotic BS on the subject!

BigRx

Perhaps if you shot the 375 at the same velocity then the 375 would emirge the winner..the faster the velocity the more resistance the bullet meets, and that slows bullets down...but again this may be much too simplistic for this crew!

HI Ron,
Nice to see your having some good fun with your project. Have you thought about shooting some of those 500 grain flat nosed bullets at 2500 fps from your Mbogo?

Mrlexma
Unless they have changed something with your Trophy Bonded Sledgehammers in the last while they are a flat nosed solid.
Take good care
Dave

I just can't resist ... I see now we have some constructive posts from Three Wise Men:

Big Rx,
Thanks for the morale lifter. Even shooting live critters, it is impossible to get consistency of the impact medium from shot to shot, due to differences in the individual animals and their state of arousal, etc. At least the Mistress is consistent from shot to shot, and though it is not a live critter, it is better than wood alone or water alone. It will do.

Ray,
We agree. The water gets harder, the faster you smack it. Possibly I shall try the .375/300gr FN or FPS at 2100 fps as you say.

Having tried the .475/500gr FPS at 2100 fps (.470 NE), it is now time for the same bullet at 2300 fps (.470 Capstick) and 2500 fps (.470 Mbogo).

Dave,
Your .470 Mbogo has a date with the Steel Mistress. And you caught MR in a boo boo.

Of the various things people do at a range (sighting in, working on getting tight groups, etc), terminal performace seems to me the most interesting thing you can do with big bores. I think you have a great project.

What struck me about the "elephant sandwich" article was the section where they tried the old US commercial "solids." These bullets, with their thin jackets, would plow through the bones very well, but would then disintegrate when they got into the soft stuff (wet phone books). This was very consistent with the failures they'd been seeing in the field, where the bullets would go through a shoulder just fine, but would fall apart in the muscle and never make it into the boiler room. So the behavior in water has really caught my eye.

Comment on hardness of water: I don't think the water gets "harder." Water has inertia, which is more noticable as you hit it faster. There's an old physics experiment where you tie a weight to a doorknob with a string, then tie another string to the weight that hangs below. If you pull slowly on the string, the top string will break first because it has the force of your tension + the weight pulling on it. If you jerk on the bottom string, the bottom string breaks, because the tension is not transmitted through the weight (it takes a while for the weight to accellerate even the little bit that the string stretches before breaking). Its the difference between wading gently into the water and suffering a belly smacker in a poor dive.

There is a show called "mythbusters" where they try various experiments on TV to try to validate or disprove common (or uncommon) folklore. They did a number of experiments to see whether diving into the water could protect you from rifle shots. To their surprise, FMJ's fired from .223's and .30-06's blew up in water within a couple of feet (they went into the water and picked up the fragments; they were using ballistic jelly to catch the bullets, but frequently the bullets did not even make it to the jelly). I was surprised at that. But then, if the back-of-the-envelope scratchings are accurate, the amount of energy dissipated per unit distance is proportional to v^2, which is proportional to the energy (with factors of ballistic coefficient and mass floating around in there). For the same projectile, the amount of energy dissipated per unit distance penetration increases like the square of the speed; if the bullet can only absorb so much energy before falling apart, then the distance penetrated will go down proportional to the energy! Looks like slow and heavy wins?

But then, that's why people want to play with premium bullet construction.

Dan

Hi Ron,
It woould really be interesting if you had a chance to video the different impacts as well as measure the difference between shots. I think you might find that the extra velocity, although not showing a huge difference in distance travelled might show a big difference in visual impact. Your doing a great job and that's a nice test unit you've built.
Take good care,
Dave

quote:

I did not claim the work you refer to as my own. Check the opening line of the page. The tables were sent to me by a customer and is assumed to be in the public domain.

Gerard,

I won't go so far as to accuse you of plagiarism, since you don't claim the work as your own, BUT, you really should give credit to the source.

You can find the source of all that data here....470 Mbogo.com

You were right in saying that the data took a lot of effort to obtain, which is all the more reason to give credit where credit is due.

Cheers,
Canuck

Thank you for the info, Canuck. The link and acknowledgement will be up within the day.

Chris,
thanks for working out the credit for the author of that matterial

jeffe

Dave,

Not to be picky, but the TB Sledgehammer is a truncated round nosed solid with a small, flat meplat. Technically, I guess, a flat nose, but not the same as a Bridger, Northfork or GS Custom flat nose.

These latter bullets, as far as I can tell, have no ogives at all, but have noses that are true truncated cones with wide, flat meplats.

The Sledgehammer is a bit of a hybrid, but it works (as do standard, round nosed Woodleighs) and I do like them.

Rip and others!

I know very little about super cavitattion, bubbles, etc. But it is my understanding that one of the advantages of a flat nosed solid over a round nose is that the flat nose cuts tissue, blood vessels etc. better then a RN bullet. It has been reported here that the FN leaves a better blood trail. If a bubble is formed in front of the flat point bullet that causes the FN to penetrate further how does the flat nose come in contact with the tissue to cut it? It seems that some thing is contradictory here?
Also on the Myth Buster TV show last night the showed test with various rifles and pistols on baistic gelation under water. The 9mm pistol penetrated the geletin at a greater depth then a 223 military solid, 3006 militery solid, and 50 BMG soild. All the solids blew to pieces in less then a foot of water. Does that indicate that water in tissue may be a more serious destructive medium then bone?

As I said I don't know anything about this subject but sure have some questions that you more experienced people might be able to explain.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Rip and others!

I know very little about super cavitattion, bubbles, etc. But it is my understanding that one of the advantages of a flat nosed solid over a round nose is that the flat nose cuts tissue, blood vessels etc. better then a RN bullet. It has been reported here that the FN leaves a better blood trail. If a bubble is formed in front of the flat point bullet that causes the FN to penetrate further how does the flat nose come in contact with the tissue to cut it?

1. An FN bullet cuts flesh at entrance and at exit, allowing the blood to drain better (in my observation).

2. The supercavitation bubble tends to tear flesh by stretching the flesh beyond the limit of its elasticity. I have seen tears in lung tissue as far as 6 inches from the actual path of the bullet.

3. Some say that a FN does a better job of straight line penetration because it will bite into a hard mass, like bone, rather than tending to roll or glance off of it. So far I have not observed this difference, but it may be legitimate.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
.... a FN does a better job of straight line penetration because it will bite into a hard mass, like bone, rather than tending to roll or glance off of it. ...

A FN does a better job of straight line penetration, because the cavitation bubble, generated at the sharp edge of the flat nose or disk, is more stable as a bubble at the round nose, which collapses very early.
In this cavitation bubble the gyroscopic stabilisation is maintained longer and the penetration deeper.
For the same reason a slightly shorter twist than needed for stabilisation in air helps for better penetration in a target. (1:10 or 1:12 instead 1:14 for .458 cal.)

quote:

If a bubble is formed in front of the flat point bullet that causes the FN to penetrate further how does the flat nose come in contact with the tissue to cut it?

No bubble forms ahead of the bullet. Whichever way cavitation works, it happens after the tissue has been displaced by the vertical face of an FN bullet or a monometal bullet that has sheared off all the petals. Observing the shank surface of a turned mono under a microscope, shows no evidence of hard contact with tissue. Any contact with tissue that occurs on the shank, happens when the bullet has slowed to a level where the forces involved leave no abrasion or deformation of the fine turning marks on the surface of the shank. Round nose, conical and spitser shapes show abrasion on the bullet shaft more frequently, indicating yawing of the bullet at high speed or drag of tissue on the shaft.

I'm no engineer, but did some research a few years ago on the way hydroelectric dams kill small trout migrating downstream to the ocean.

Cavitation in this case is the drop in air (or water) pressure - after the turbine - which kills by causing embolism in the fish.

Same thing happens behind a boat propeller - the "air bubble" that forms immediately behind the prop.

Wouldn't cavitation in bullets be the same - the drop in pressure BEHIND the bullet? Does this somehow reduce drag, allowing for greater penetration, while also sucking along tissue, causing further trauma? How this is different from a FN to a RN bullet, I don't know.

Buddy shot a doe with a .50 cal lead mini-ball a few years ago. The shot was right at the diaphram. No expansion due to the low speed but it sucked some of the gut right out of the exit wound. Sucked out, not pushed out.

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~jb3/bullet/gsw.html contains a review with refrences for energy transfer, cavitation, etc.

465H&H -- I was also impressed by the mythbuster show (see my earlier post just above). Looks like water has some interesting features.

Asking the question again...

The elephant sandwich article pointed out that some of the older "solids" would drill bone, and then fall apart in the meat, not making it to the vitals. The elephant sandwich version of the Steel Mistress duplicated the effect with elephant bones followed by wet magazines/phone books. The mythbuster show also showed an immense amount of energy dissipation by water that was not demonstrated by structurally stiffer stuff (a prior show by mythbusters showed deeper penetration through wood by the fmj rounds than they showed in water!). I figure there's a relationship between the elephant sandwich experiment and the mythbuster result...

Question is: how does tissue structure affect bullet performance for different bullets?

More generally, there are lots of variables to tie down in comparing different CALIBERS...
Do some calibers/premium-projectiles respond to different tissue structures better than others?

Dan

Hi mrlexma,
I think old Jack Carter started making the Sledgehammers based on the qualities they found in handgun bullets with the wadcutters and he may just be the initiator of this whole idea with rifle bullets. I know I sure liked them but they just got very hard to get hold of once Jack passed on.
Take good care,
Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Fischer:

Wouldn't cavitation in bullets be the same - the drop in pressure BEHIND the bullet? Does this somehow reduce drag, allowing for greater penetration, while also sucking along tissue, causing further trauma? How this is different from a FN to a RN bullet, I don't know.

The FN creates a bubble that prevents animal flesh from contacting the bullet shank. That reduces drag, increases penetration depth, and tends to preserve straight line penetration. In contrast, a RN bullet does not create as large a bubble and the bullet shank will contact flesh as it moves through. Tumbling occurs as a result as evidenced by the squashed bases on traditional round nose solids.

.

Alf,

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
In contrast, a RN bullet does not create as large a bubble...

quote:

I haven't decided what to do about the .45/70 yet, but I will ...

Hog Killer's offer is interesting, but I would like to narrow it down to one .45/70 hard cast super-penetrator load versus the .458 Lott with 500 grain NF FPS at 2200 fps.

What might that be? The best .45/70 hard cast lead penetrator?

rip...ready for the 45-70 garrett hamerheads?

boom stick,
I have decided:
There is just not enough punch in a .45-70 to interest me. It might penetrate well, but it just does not splash water high enough nor splinter and break boards very well. Anemic.

I just completed my Alaska Peninsula moose season and had a hunter who borrowed my my .375 H&H loaded with 270 gr GS flat nosed solids at a chronoed 2600fps. Both bulles remained in the moose from broadside shots thru both shoulders. One was slightly bent and the other only shows a bit of widening at the nose. It was good but not spectacular performance.

Hey Phil,
The 300grain GSC FN worked better than the 270 grainer in the Iron Buffalo.

Moose shoulder bone is pretty tough. I notice that the moose died anyway.

.

Above is a 300 grain .375 GSC FN that was fired ifrom a .375 H&H at about 2528 fps MV and hit the Iron Buffalo 25 yards down range. 12" twist barrel. This was an early phase test when I was using one solid entry board (15/32") followed by a 7.5" bag of water then 2 boards and 7" thick bags of water repeated for every 8" compartment of the Iron Buffalo.

It was beginning to keyhole but poked through the eighth double board and was captured there.

A 270 grain .375 GSC FN at 2919 fps MV from a 12" twist .375 RUM hit the eighth "double-board" sideways and did not penetrate it at all.

Subsequent tests with a 4-layer truck innertube rubber entry port followed by 7.5" bags of water and single boards for each compartment showed that the 300 grainer scored a 10 board hit whether it started at 2500 fps or 2700 fps, just more splash with the faster one. The 270 grainer at 2900 fps only dented the 9th board sideways keyholed.

Below is the way the bags look when filled with water, early on. I have since replaced the yellow insulated wire with black parachute cord to keep the bags of water from bulging out the sides.



I use 4 saw horses and a bubble level whenever I can. Only tried it on the ground one time. Shooting the .470 Mbogo prone with 500 grainers at 2500 fps was not fun. Better to sit.

My conclusion is: I'll be hornswaggled!!

RIP .... "The 300grain GSC FN worked better than the 270 grainer in the Iron Buffalo."

Why would this be .... higher SD or any other reason?

How does the higher stability factor (SF) of the 270 gr bullet benefit it over the 300 gr bullet?

Could you please give us your best explanation.

Also, is the MO/Xsa inconsitency with the same bullet that achieved similar pentration despite bumping the velocity up, countered by higher jam pressure or increased drag in the target?

Thanks
Chris Bekker

"270 gr GS flat nosed solids at a chronoed 2600fps"

This is a nice, low pressure, soft shooting load. It should not be expected to work any differently from any other low pressure, soft shooting load, especially with that large flat meplat.

Note that the advantage of using GSC FN and HV bullets in the 375H&H, is that an extra 100fps or so is available for any given pressure level due to the low engraving force of these bullets. Given that factory 270gr loads for the 375 H&H all exceed 2670fps and powder manufacturers mostly quote around 2700 as a maximum (conservative) load, 2800fps is what we recommend for the 270gr FN if enhanced results are to be expected. I run the 270gr FN at 2900pfs in my Steyr 375H&H.

The advantage is that, if you require "normal" or "standard" performance from GS HV and FN bullets, it can be had with reduced stress on the shooting platform and shooter.

Ray uses GSC HV and FN bullets at their intended speeds and has reported outstanding results as has Alf, RIP, 500grains and a host of others. All is normal in the world of ballistics here.

Chris,
Read this thread off the top and if you want to argue, start a thread in Miscellaneous Items. You will get no further response from me in any other Forum other than there.

quote:

My conclusion is: I'll be hornswaggled!!

have not heard this from anyone but my dad and he got it from my grandpa...

kudo points to anyone who knows what it means, anyone?


rip...i know the 45-70 with 525 or 550 grains wont be a spectacular splash but it would settle a lot of arguments here and you will have extra game in your happy hunting ground (you already have a lot and no disrespect meant by me)

boom stick,
Slang term "hornswoggle" means to swindle, cheat, or hoax. Please don't encourage any stunt shooters with their .45-70's. If a person is handicapped physically and a .45-70 is all they can handle, well O.K., as long has they have good backup on DG.

Chris,
I am not smart enough to get involved in any technical discussions. I do agree that sectional density is a Figure Of Highest Merit when it comes to penetration.

I will no longer call SD a FOM, it is now a FOHM, IMHO.

The whole reason for the Iron Buffalo was to prove to myself whether a .375/300gr GSC FN would penetrate better than a .375/270gr GSC FN in a reproducible test medium that was as consistent as possible from shot to shot.

This can never be done with live game. The Iron Buffalo is as good as it gets for this.

Another issue was showing that a flat nosed solid will go straight while a round nose solid will tumble and veer off willy-nilly far too soon, whether monometal or FMJ.

I have accomplished both to my satisfaction.

Gerard's bullets are the best that is possible for the proper application.

I do not understand his pushing of the 270 grain FN as better than the 300 grain FN in .375 caliber. It ain't so in the Iron Buffalo.

quote:

Slang term "hornswoggle" means to swindle, cheat, or hoax. Please don't encourage any stunt shooters with their .45-70's. If a person is handicapped physically and a .45-70 is all they can handle, well O.K., as long has they have good backup on DG.

i know what the term means but what actualy is "hornswagling" i know what the definition is as told to me by my dad by my grandpa... he got it from watching old black and white cowboy t.v.

I believe Ray was using the alternate meaning for the term as in "Well I'll be flummoxed," as in "flabbergasted," as in "bewildered." Sort of like being gill flurted and string haltered in a mental sense.

Hornswoggled.

It seems the only agreement on this is that it originated in RIP's backyard.

1. hornswoggled: deceived. The term comes from the traditional image of cuckolded husbands wearing horns. óEditor

2. We do not know the origin of hornswoggle. It belongs to a group of “fancified†words that were particularly popular in the American West in the 19th century, words exhibiting the frontier skepticism toward educated speech. "Hornswoggle" first appeared in print in Kentucky in 1929. Other words of this ilk are "stick-to-it-iveness," first appearing in 1867, "skedaddle," which appeared in 1861 somewhere in Missouri, and "discombobulate," in 1916. "Bamboozle" first appeared in England around 1700, indicating an earlier tradition of such concocted words. (Many thanks to Susan Ash for reminding us that English also contains lexical concoctions.)

3. HONEYFOGLE, HONEYFUG(G)LE - "to cheat, deceive, 1829; then to flatter, cajole, especially in order to gain a woman's favors; 1858. Honeyfogle and hornswoggle were both first recorded in 1829 as Kentucky words and could be forms of the same fanciful coinage. From"Listening to America" by Stuart Berg Flexner (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1982).

4. Peter Watts argues in A Dictionary of the Old West that it comes from cowpunching. A steer that has been lassoed around the neck will “hornswoggleâ€, wag and twist its head around frantically to try to slip free of the rope. A cowboy who lets the animal get away with this is said to have been “hornswoggledâ€. A nice idea, but nobody seems to have heard of hornswoggle in the cattle sense, and it may be a guess based on horn. Nobody else has much idea either, though it’s often assumed to be one of those highfalutin words like absquatulate and rambunctious that frontier Americans were so fond of creating. It’s sad to have to tag a word as “origin unknown†yet again, but that’s the long and the short of it.

RIP,
Your question: "I do not understand his pushing of the 270 grain FN as better than the 300 grain FN in .375 caliber. It ain't so in the Iron Buffalo." Can be answered as follows:

In a 375H&H, I recommend the 270gr FN over the 300gr FN, based on my own observation and the feedback of field experience from 3 pro-hunters over an 11 month development period in 1996/1997 . The reasons for this are self evident from your tests with the Iron Buffalo (extracts below with comment from BigRX). The practical recommended speed for a 270gr FN in a 375H&H is around 2800fps and you have seen the results. With your 375 Weatherby Mag, you can reach and exceed 2800fps with the 300gr FN and that is why I built the bullet. The 300gr HVs and FNs are also configured correctly for the bore and groove diameters of the 378/375 Weatherby line of barrels (which differ from that of the 375H&H) and should not be used at maximum loads in a 375H&H unless it has been rebarreled with a Weatherby spec barrel.

quote:

Rip Posted
20 June 2005 09:09
Only two shots were fired today in the shakedown run:

1) .375 H&H: 300 grain FN solid at 2526 fps
2) .375 RUM: 300 grain FN solid at 2730 fps

Result: It's a tie!!!

Both shots #1 and #2 traversed 7 bags of water and bounced off the seventh 3-board sandwich. Both bullets finally tumbled in the seventh bag of water and left a sideways impression in the surface of the first board in the seventh wood sandwich.

Conclusion: The extra 200 fps of velocity made no difference in this test medium regarding penetration.
There was more violence and hurt put on the first (target) board by the faster bullet. The target dot was blown off the board by the 2700 fps bullet, not so the 2500 fps bullet. There was a visibly bigger splash of water and the entry board was cracked and splintered a bit more with the 200 fps faster bullet.

2700 gets more total trauma to the target and the shooter's shoulder, and longer range potential, than 2500 fps.

RIP Posted
27 June 2005 06:46

The 300 grainer at 2500 fps was captured in the 8th wood wall, with about 3/4 of its length sticking out of the down range side of the boards.

The 270 grainer at 2900 fps bounced off the 8th wood wall sideways, leaving only a shallow dent in the wood, on which you could make out the marks of the driving bands from the side of the bullet.

However, the entry (target dot) board (1 thickness of plywood) was broken completely in half and the top half somehow squeezed /flexed out of the Steel Mistress and landed 16 feet uprange toward the shooter. More violent initially. The slower bullet just cracked the entry board slightly, but penetrated farther.

BigRX Posted
04 July 2005 20:15

BUT, - - - - as Gerald states in so many words the initial performance is extremely important to look at. Here hydro-dynamic differences can be observed as well as non-game like materials messing you up!

Regardless of what others may think, GSC will always base a reccommendation on practical and field experience first and theory second. Samples of one or three or even 20 are not reliable until proven so with much bigger samples. When we find ourselves on unfamiliar ground, such as with the new (only been working on it for two years now) long range SP bullet series, we actively enlist the help of people who are experts at what we are trying to learn ourselves. It is great fun and the people involved are incredibly interesting to meet.

quote:

A 270 grain .375 GSC FN at 2919 fps MV from a 12" twist

Gerard,

I do not know why you refer to the 270 grainer at 2600 fps and nor do I buy it that this load is a nice soft load (Mo = 100.3). It is only "soft" because one can load it higher, but it is not soft on game.

RIP actually shot the 270 gr FN bullet at 2900 fps and it failed to beat the heavier bullet (300 gr) at lower velocity (2528 fps). That is what Rip did his comparison with.

Where is the stability issue now? (SF theory in excess of 2.5)

Many buffalo bit the dust with a 286 gr Solid at a modest 2250 fps in the 9.3 x 62 mm. If this medicine ain't up to scratch we better sell our rifle s and take up flyfishing. Any mild load, but with adequate Mo and a bullet with good SD will do the job, such as in the trusty old 9,3


Chris Bekker

.

quote:

The greater splash effect RIP observes and gets so happy about, sadly is the same effect that made Mr Weatherby sell so many of his hot magnums.

The apparent explosive milk jugs filled with water or a watermelon shot with a high velocity bullet has been used as sales gimmics, they are the result of high impact velocities on water and do not in any way represent the wounding effect of the projectile in live tissue.

Alf,

I would attempt to get this into Kantonese as well for for the benefit of Asians as well.

My guess is that in another 20 or so years we will read in SA gun journals that ONCE UPON A TIME there were rifles such as Weatherbies and RUM's and I would not be surprised if the WSM'a are lumped into the same bracket. (It may well be different for the USA, but in Africa it is a non starter)

Why do I say all of this ... simple ... the strong return to sanity of more and more Americans buying 9,3 x 62's. The splash effect in water based media means nothing in terms of a hunting application and is of no practical benefit whatsoever - just more meat bruising for the meat hunter.

Cheers
Chris