quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Alf's post raises a question in my mind that I have asked before but never really gotten an answer to. It seems that the most often stated benefits of flat nose solids are less deflection and greater penetration. Taking the first element as a given, and focusing on the second element for a minute, if more penetration is good, how much penetration is ideal? Round nose solids are criticized for lacking the penetration of the flat nose solids. But if a round nose solid (assume for an elephant hunt) has sufficient penetration to reach the brain, is that not enough? Does a bullet need to be able to penetrate an animal from stem to stern to be deemed adequate? And if it does penetrate stem to stern, is that necessarily desirable? Do not get me wrong, I understand that penetration, particularly straight line penetration is a good thing, but how much of a good thing is needed and can there be too much of a good thing? If bullet refinements result in new bullets that out penetrate the current flat nose bullets, is that even better or do the current flat nose solids represent the "ideal" in terms of penetration?

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Alf's post raises a question in my mind that I have asked before but never really gotten an answer to. It seems that the most often stated benefits of flat nose solids are less deflection and greater penetration. Taking the first element as a given, and focusing on the second element for a minute, if more penetration is good, how much penetration is ideal? Round nose solids are criticized for lacking the penetration of the flat nose solids. But if a round nose solid (assume for an elephant hunt) has sufficient penetration to reach the brain, is that not enough? Does a bullet need to be able to penetrate an animal from stem to stern to be deemed adequate? And if it does penetrate stem to stern, is that necessarily desirable? Do not get me wrong, I understand that penetration, particularly straight line penetration is a good thing, but how much of a good thing is needed and can there be too much of a good thing? If bullet refinements result in new bullets that out penetrate the current flat nose bullets, is that even better or do the current flat nose solids represent the "ideal" in terms of penetration?

Mike:
Excellent question and one that John Taylor replies to. The .577, he states, will out penetrate the .600 but the .600 penetrates enough.
As long as the bullet penetrates into a vital area is it really better to go farther? That's my argument with all these new and fancy bullets with cool names--yes they work and work well, but are they better? If (let's say) 40" of penetration is sufficient, is 60" better?
Cheers,
Cal

quote:

So have we arrived at solid bullet nirvana? Is there nothing left to achieve with solid bullets? Still just trying to appreciate what the ultimate objective is so I will know when we get there . . . or perhaps the ultimate objective has been achieved.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
... Taking the first element as a given, and focusing on the second element for a minute, if more penetration is good, how much penetration is ideal? Round nose solids are criticized for lacking the penetration of the flat nose solids. But if a round nose solid (assume for an elephant hunt) has sufficient penetration to reach the brain, is that not enough? Does a bullet need to be able to penetrate an animal from stem to stern to be deemed adequate? And if it does penetrate stem to stern, is that necessarily desirable? Do not get me wrong, I understand that penetration, particularly straight line penetration is a good thing, but how much of a good thing is needed and can there be too much of a good thing? If bullet refinements result in new bullets that out penetrate the current flat nose bullets, is that even better or do the current flat nose solids represent the "ideal" in terms of penetration?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So have we arrived at solid bullet nirvana? Is there nothing left to achieve with solid bullets? Still just trying to appreciate what the ultimate objective is so I will know when we get there . . . or perhaps the ultimate objective has been achieved.

quote:

I am sure, among others, that feeding is also a consideration, as well as metallurgy to prevent deformation and reduce pressure. As the bullet makers strive to balance all these considerations, it will be interesting to see just where things shake out and how close to .

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Tsquare2:
By the way, Mike indicated that Barnes dropped their FN solid due to its inferior design, or at least that is how I interpreted his comments. That is not the reason I got from Barnes for dropping the FN. What I was told was that they were getting too many complaints from customers having troubles getting the FN to feed properly.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Amazing, there are actually people that believe that round nose solids are preferable to flat nose solids in certain applications. Who would have thought . . . but again what do the folks at Barnes, Duane Wiebe, Keith Wood and others of "that ilk" really know? Luddites, yes, that is what they are Luddites!

Pass me another cup of Kool-Aid and a graham cracker.

Just so the record is clear Tom. The quote above is from another thread on this same issue. I even included the article from Barnes and the Barnes press release. The issue has debated ad naseum.

quote:

How does GSC actually go about doing water trapping of bullets.

Especially their FN solids ?

quote:

Most high velocity bullets come part in water so so specialized bullet traps that consist of layered foam and composite synthetic batten is used.

To trap a 50 cal machine gun bullet for instance composite trap box typically is almost 30 foot long.

quote:

Many here bandy the word scientific around as if it's some magic pass to the truth.

The reality is valid science demands rigours way beyond the scope of the simple observations we make and inferences derived from them.

quote:

For one whoever considers such a study is going to have to come up with some serious testing facility and off course funding.

quote:

Unless of course it is done by use of scaling. ie scaling the projectiles appropriately ( ie to a valid scaling model) and then performing the tests using lesser calibers requiring smaller volumes of testing media.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I am dead serious Gerard:

How much ( in length) ballistic gelatine / ballistic soap or even one of these new green bullet tube "thingies" do you need to stop a well thought out FN bullet ? Or how large a body of water to trap such a bullet ?

If these bullets do what we think they do and i'm not stating this lightly, the operative word is think they do then whatever you are firing the bullet into is in for a whole lot of hurt.

Not to speak of a true super penetrator which incidentally looks nothing like any of our current crop of commercially available FN hunting bullets.

The hydro ballistics labs used to tests these bullets in use tanks that contain millions of gallons of water, they have to because of the distances these projectiles travel in water, many are tested in open water and their behaviour measured indirectly using doppler radar.


Many here bandy the word scientific around as if it's some magic pass to the truth.

The reality is valid science demands rigours way beyond the scope of the simple observations we make and inferences derived from them.

I have seen no and but this I seriously mean no study done where the true nature of the penetration event of our current crop of RN bullets are compared to our current crop of FN bullets.

For one whoever considers such a study is going to have to come up with some serious testing facility and off course funding.

Unless of course it is done by use of scaling. ie scaling the projectiles appropriately ( ie to a valid scaling model) and then performing the tests using lesser calibers requiring smaller volumes of testing media.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
...Now as to RN's.

All RN's are not created equal.

Assuming equal construction The form and nose shape of a RN can lie anywhere on a wide spectrum of shape.

Which means that mass distribution within that form will vary.

Based on the rules of flight it then implies that the point of pressure and the moment created between point of pressure and the centre of mass ( gravity) will be different for each RN shape, caliber and weight of bullet within this range.

This the implies a wide spectrum of relative stability in motion. Thus a widely differing behaviour spectrum .

quote:

Originally posted by phil ossifer:
kruger park game rangers who rave about the deep straight line penetration of the dzombo brass solid, which is a flat nosed, but has a much smaller meplat than the north fork or the CEB , and therefore, according to the wetpack tests, should be inferior, but it isnt in the field.

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by phil ossifer:
kruger park game rangers who rave about the deep straight line penetration of the dzombo brass solid, which is a flat nosed, but has a much smaller meplat than the north fork or the CEB , and therefore, according to the wetpack tests, should be inferior, but it isnt in the field.

This is indeed the case . These rangers are more than impressed with the straight line penetration they are getting from the Dzombo solid bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by phil ossifer:
kruger park game rangers who rave about the deep straight line penetration of the dzombo brass solid, which is a flat nosed, but has a much smaller meplat than the north fork or the CEB , and therefore, according to the wetpack tests, should be inferior, but it isnt in the field.

This is indeed the case . These rangers are more than impressed with the straight line penetration they are getting from the Dzombo solid bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by phil ossifer:
kruger park game rangers who rave about the deep straight line penetration of the dzombo brass solid, which is a flat nosed, but has a much smaller meplat than the north fork or the CEB , and therefore, according to the wetpack tests, should be inferior, but it isnt in the field.

This is indeed the case . These rangers are more than impressed with the straight line penetration they are getting from the Dzombo solid bullets.

I think after some point the difference between adequate and superior blurs for all practical purposes.

If one gets 60" of penetration with wetpack tests and the other gets 66". Does it really matter in the field?

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by phil ossifer:
kruger park game rangers who rave about the deep straight line penetration of the dzombo brass solid, which is a flat nosed, but has a much smaller meplat than the north fork or the CEB , and therefore, according to the wetpack tests, should be inferior, but it isnt in the field.

This is indeed the case . These rangers are more than impressed with the straight line penetration they are getting from the Dzombo solid bullets.

I think after some point the difference between adequate and superior blurs for all practical purposes.

If one gets 60" of penetration with wetpack tests and the other gets 66". Does it really matter in the field?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
As I thought, similar to a Rhino.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
I think the point was to maximize straight line penetration and depth of penetration with the simple driving force that one would would prefer to have a bullet that drives straight and deep reliably under testable conditions. So if you can demonstrate a bullet veers off course during its penetration, obviating that veer is a goal. If in the process of obviating the veer, you also increase penetration, great, you get 2 for 1. I think the goal was straight line and deep penetration. Keep in mind the depth of penetration will somewhat depend on the the fps/fpe at impact, no? If that is the case, maximizing straight penetration at any speed (as demonstrated by straight penetration from impact velocity to 0 fps) shows that one type of bullet profile works *better* than another for that purpose. I think they key you are missing is that the straight penetration (in testable media [no need to once again state that media is not an animal; we know that, but since we also agree no two shots on game are the same, there is no need to beat that to death]) with as deeo a oenetration is preferred over *unreliable* penetration/direction of travel etc. You don't have to agree with it, you clearly have a problem with it (Why I don't know) but I think that's the overal goal of the testing.

Free 500grains

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Then do not accept their "ranting" and move on. From what I have seen the field experience matches (as nearly is possible) the tests in the lab. And consider this, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasn't for the sharing of an enormous amount of information. Whether that confirmed or changed your opinion is but a thing, the fact remains that the information provided has moved the conversation forward. Remember, the wet pack test also (if memory serves correct) the 320 grain Woodleigh 9.3 penetrated straight and deep as well. Maybe send some PMP's for testing? That would be worthwhile, no?

Free 500grains

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Gerard:

Ok, lets see now. I asked the question:

How much water does it take to stop a FN bullet as you state you test them in water?

You then posts a picture of one of a HV and claim 2m of water.

I did not ask about expanding bullets, our discussions pertain to FN solids vs RN solids !

Well now i'm confused:

We have had , what some 20 or more years claim of how wonderful FN bullets are ?

They supercavitate in water , they will shoot the shit out of a football team of elephants lined up in a row , do it in a straight line and not veere off etc etc and now you say 2m of water is all it takes to stop one of these bullets.

Only 2 meters ? Well im damned ?

If this is in fact so then all that is claimed about these bullets are in fact a load of hot air !

Because I can tell you right now now Im not going to sit in the deep end my back yard swimming pool just beyond 2 m and have you fire a FN solid at me through water !

And just on a point of order, if you think I make up the rules of science or own them in any way you are sadly mistaken.

The difficulty of testing for a question asked and burdon of proof to validate the answer lies not with a person per se .

The very nature of the scientific method determines the rules ! It is the levelling of the playing thats the rub. How much effort and how robust the testing methodology will be the determining factor of the validity of the answer.

We are asking a simple question: How do RN's stack up against FN's. Simple question, yes ?
Coming to a validated answer, not so simple.



Now as to RN's.

All RN's are not created equal.

Assuming equal construction The form and nose shape of a RN can lie anywhere on a wide spectrum of shape.

Which means that mass distribution within that form will vary.

Based on the rules of flight it then implies that the point of pressure and the moment created between point of pressure and the centre of mass ( gravity) will be different for each RN shape, caliber and weight of bullet within this range.

This the implies a wide spectrum of relative stability in motion. Thus a widely differing behaviour spectrum .

That then would explain for instance why say a original 470 by Kynoch did relatively poorly as observed by Taylor wen compared to say another lesser or larger caliber. Taylor did not perhaps consider this fact.

Free 500grains

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by phil ossifer:
kruger park game rangers who rave about the deep straight line penetration of the dzombo brass solid, which is a flat nosed, but has a much smaller meplat than the north fork or the CEB , and therefore, according to the wetpack tests, should be inferior, but it isnt in the field.

This is indeed the case . These rangers are more than impressed with the straight line penetration they are getting from the Dzombo solid bullets.

I think after some point the difference between adequate and superior blurs for all practical purposes.

If one gets 60" of penetration with wetpack tests and the other gets 66". Does it really matter in the field?

I have to laugh. In part that has been the discussion about RN and FN solids since the beginning . . . how much is enough. Starting to feel a little like the oozlum bird that flew in ever decreasing concentric circles until it finally flew right up it's own bum.

Free 500grains

quote:

RN solids simply do not veer in real world game on real world hunts, and especially in elephant heads with anything approaching the rate wet paper trophies would suggest.

quote:

1.) I agree that FN shape favors penetration over the RN.

I agree that an equal weight equal velocity FN will outenetrate a RN.

THERE GOES YOUR MOMENTUM THEORY!

2.) I agree that at the vaey same velocity a FN will out penetrate a RN.

3.) I agree that it has to do with "geometry", if "geometry = shape. And that is because velocity favors the FN shape.

If an equal weight, equal speed FN will outpenetrate an equal weight eaqual speed round nose, then a lighter weight FN at the same speed will equal the RN penetration. This bullet will have less momentum and less energy, and yet it will out penetrate the bullet with more mass, more momentum and more energy.

THERE GOES YOUR MOMENTUM THEORY!

You can add velocity to the lighter FN and it then will outpnetrate the RN. Add velocity up until moentum equals the heavier RN, or until energy equal that of the heavier bullet. The lighter bullet will further out penetrate the heavier bullet with each fps gain, in defiance of your momentum model.

THERE GOES YOUR MOEMNTUM THEORY!

Momentum does not account for the improved performance of the FN. Energy does not account for the FN performance. Velocity does. Because the FN shape favors velocity.

This is what RIP's test showed when they failed to produce greater penetration with the heavier bullet.

JPK

quote:

Alf asks: How much water does it take to stop a FN bullet as you state you test them in water?

quote:

GSC has always done preliminary testing in water. We have learned that a particular result in water will give a particular result in tissue. We do not test in water to see what the water looks like. We use water to stop the bullet so that we can examine the bullet.