Spend your time as you wish, but do not proselytize and do not pretend that wet paper trophy hunting provides any relevant data on comparative bullet performance in real game on real hunts in the real world.

There is no vitriol, merely an accurate response from one tired of both the proselytizing and name calling by the apostles.

I am an advocate of FN solids for some purposes and RN solids for others. I am not a wet paper trophy shooter or an advocate of wet paper trophy hunting and I do not disparage either RN solids or their users, therefore I cannot be an apostle of the flat meplat society.

I know what I posted is fact - the top portion regarding FN vs RN penetration same weight, same velocity - because my friend, 500 Grains, repeatedly tested it on elephants and on cape buffalo he had killed. I did too, though to a lesser extent.

Since weight and velocity are equal, and so energy and momentum, then shape is the only variable remaining which can effect penetration.

Regarding increasing velocity - and so penetration - of a lighter flat nose from that at which it equals the penetration of a heavier RN, that is merely a reloading exercise. You must substantially reduce the velocity of a lighter FN to equal the penetration of a heavier RN since the penetration differential between the two at full load velocity is so great. FWIW, a RN at higher velocity out penetrated the same RN at lower velocity. I tested that on elephants. A heavier RN at similar velocity to a lighter RN will also penetrate deeper, 465H&H has tested that on elephants among others, iirc 500 Grains.

Within bullet type adding velocity adds penetration [at least up to the point where deformation retards penetration - a point I have not approached because it exceeds safe loading levels in my rifles.] Again, I know this from shooting elephant I have killed.

I ran the numbers for momentum and for energy of the bullets and loads I shot into dead animals and, iirc which 500grs shot into elephants and buffalo, only within bullet type is penetration energy/momentum dependent. The energy or momentum of a RN and it's penetration had no direct relationship to the energy/momentum level of a FN and it's penetration - which is the point of my post in contention with Alf (I think) which you quoted.

RIP built and shot into the Water Buffalo bullet trap trophy. You can do a search and come up with some posts on it I am sure. They would probably be from seven or eight years ago, maybe more.

I do not accept RIP's results, I merely cited them in my dismantling of Alf's theory. I suspect they were raised by Alf, but I don't recall.

FWIW, I think water tests are useful for "pre-testing" potential real world penetration differential within a bullet type, i.e. Woodleigh .458" 480gr solid at X MV vs. 500gr .458" Woodleigh solid at Y MV OR 450NF FN against, say a 500gr version, but NOT in comparing different bullet shapes.

RN solids just don't veer in animals and certainly not in elephant heads as some claim, especially hemispherical RN's, and more than a century of successful use attests to it. I have had a greater instance of veering for FN solids.

The ridiculous pursuit of wet paper trophies is an entirely useless proceeding that is even more pointless than re-inventing the wheel. Take a look at the very beginning of the wet paper trophy shooting, the founding of the flat meplat society and the recruitment of the apostles. What is the sum total of what was learned? Nothing was learned.

This thread merely proves that point. First there are plenty of us that have used FN solids with success in real DG on real hunts in the real world and we used them LONG before the founding of the flat meplat society or the beginning of wet paper trophy hunting.

Second, it was known from actual use and from testing on dead animals that FN solids enjoyed greater penetration and greatly reduced incidence of tumbling. Many, many, many more elephants and buff where shot with FN solids before the wet paper trophy hunting began, before the flat meplat society was founded, than have been cited by it's apostles or it's High Priest.

Third, we have an example of a FN solid cited here, which fails the wet paper trophy hunting, flat meplat society criteria for good, deep straightline penetration and yet based on actual field experience exceeds the performance of bullet shapes endorsed by the flat meplat society, or at least once endorsed.

And of course we have the continued excellent performance turned in by RN solids, and the Barnes return to the design...

We can all get along when the proselytizing ends, when, even while spouting disclaimers, apostles of the flat meplat society stop attempting to predict real world bullet performance and especially comparative bullet performance based on wet paper trophy hunting.

JPK

And what of the flat meplat society's results on game? Apparently they are quite happy. I think what you call proselytizing is enthusiasm to show what is perceived to be an advancement in bullet design. After all, we all joined this forum with the idea that our combined experience would further our knowledge about the things we are interested in. Regardless of whether you choose woodleigh or CEB you cannot doubt that the intentions of the so-called flat meplat society was to further knowledge and share experience. That is more than commendable.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
And what of the flat meplat society's results on game? Apparently they are quite happy. I think what you call proselytizing is enthusiasm to show what is perceived to be an advancement in bullet design. After all, we all joined this forum with the idea that our combined experience would further our knowledge about the things we are interested in. Regardless of whether you choose woodleigh or CEB you cannot doubt that the intentions of the so-called flat meplat society was to further knowledge and share experience. That is more than commendable.

Nothing there to disagree with in my mind. I think though if you go back and look you will find plenty of instances where flat nose solid proponents lapse into denigrating others that are not prepared to stand up and bear witness to the virtues of flat nose solids as the greatest advancement in ballistics since smokeless powder. They resort to referring to those that do not sign on chapter and verse to the flat nose doctrine as being the horse and buggy crowd, Luddites, Model A proponents, stuck in the dark ages, etc. Not sure if it is insecurity in having their mantra challenged or what, but they certainly seem to struggle with accepting that there could be alternative views to flat nose theology.

Fair enough Mike. And vice versa as this conversation progresses. One mans Luddite is another man's flat meplat/wet pack trophy hunter. Frankly, Im glad all this info is on the table vitriol aside, there's no place else I have seen more interest in what works best.

Perhaps we can all agree that . . . never in the history of ballistics have we been blessed with such a wide assortment of outstanding solid and soft nose bullets. When you think back to not that long ago, folks had one flavor of big bore softs for example, Kynoch, and then think about us today with A-Frames, Partitions, Woodleighs, TSX's, North Forks, CEBs, and the like, we really are extremely fortunate.

Exactly. It is precisely because we have such a variety of options and ability to test them that we have such a diversity of (passionate) opinions. It is a luxury that has existed at no other time that I can see. As my mom used to say, "To each their own, said the old lady as she kissed the cow." Regardless of our positions, we all know more now than we did before. That's progress in my opinion. Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
And what of the flat meplat society's results on game? Apparently they are quite happy. I think what you call proselytizing is enthusiasm to show what is perceived to be an advancement in bullet design. After all, we all joined this forum with the idea that our combined experience would further our knowledge about the things we are interested in. Regardless of whether you choose woodleigh or CEB you cannot doubt that the intentions of the so-called flat meplat society was to further knowledge and share experience. That is more than commendable.

This post is again bunkum.

The enthusiasm of some is born out of inexperience, of some a failure to learn or research on their own even by reading, others a desire to hawk bullets and/or rifles, others apparently some weird desire to become sycophantic apostles... Through the whole course of the wet paper trophy hunting exactly zero was learned. Even the apostles and High Priest have came damn near full circle. What a silly joke.

As far as flat nose performance on game, a read of just the threads and posts on this forum on the topic predating the wet paper trophy hunting, predating the founding of the flat meplat society, predating self anointment of it's high priest would have provided, based on past performance on real DG shot on real hunts in the real world, extremely accurate predictions of the performance of FN solids on real DG on real hunts in the real world.

Moreover, reading post here and the more than a century's worth of additional literature on the performance of RN solids would have provided anyone with an accurate prediction of their performance as well.

However, despite the century plus succussful history of RN solids, the flat meplat apostles and high priest even now continue to ignore real results on real game on real hunts in the real world to declare RN solids likely to veer - a hopeless case of amending reality to fit a fantasy generated by the ridiculous wet paper trophy shooting.

The combined experience was present prior to the initiation of wet paper trophy hunting for anyone to read and to learn from, without the hysteria, the sycophantic behavior, the apostolic demeanor, the proselytizing or the animosity shown to those open minded enough to realize that other suitable options exist, often better options.

The flat meplat society's sole contribution to the pool of shared knowledge emanating from experience shared here comes only from the shooting of a relatively few elephants, hippos and water or cape buffalo shot by the apostles or high priest. And it is remarkable as hell to me that very little bullets digging or would channel exploration was undertaken in the majority of those cases by the tiny minority who actually hunted.

Little to commend in all of that, eh?

BTW, a mere three hunters, in modern times, killed roughly 20,000 elephants with 500gr .458" RN steel jacket solid bullets shot from 458wm rifles. All three survived there intensive elephant hunting and two wrote books. Both who wrote books praised the ammunition and the bullets. Puts a kink in the RN veering/failure myth, eh?

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Exactly. It is precisely because we have such a variety of options and ability to test them that we have such a diversity of (passionate) opinions. It is a luxury that has existed at no other time that I can see. As my mom used to say, "To each their own, said the old lady as she kissed the cow." Regardless of our positions, we all know more now than we did before. That's progress in my opinion. Cheers.

Again bunkum.

We know nothing more on solid bullet performance now than was known prior to the initiation of wet paper trophy hunting, the formation of the flat meplat society or the self anointing of the high priest.

Again this thread provides ample evidence of that, along with the flat meplat society coming near full circle on endorsed bullet shapes...

Nothing there to commend.

I guess bunkum is as bunkum does and nothing outside of your experience and expectations will please you, so be it. Please continue to adhere to your opinions as you see fit with all best wishes. However I will state that your characterizations and implied intentions of the "flat meplaters" is about as incorrect as could possibly be. But since you have already made up your mind there is no point in going on.

Read again, you could not be more wrong. I seek everything about solid bullet performance on real DG on real hunts in the real world, most especially bullet performance that is outside of my expectation for the type. Occasionally I am rewarded with a report outside of my expectations the result of a real hunt and the bullet digging required to confirm the writer's suspicions regarding the bullet's performance, but rarely.

I appreciate the contribution of anyone who uses a solid on a DG animal and then does both the digging and the reporting. A very few flat meplat society members have done that, a few more have shot DG and done the reporting, but not the digging, which doesn't add much.

I'll stand by my description of the motives, the intentions and/or the inexperience of the flat meplat society members. I'm sure I have missed the mark on some few, but not the most "vocal."


JPK

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Just put me on ignore and you can avoid the rants.

I don't want to put you on ignore, because besides the trashy parts you have good points. I just wish that you stuck to the issue, and let go of whatever winds you up with other people (Michael, Sam and maybe others). The conversation would be more interesting for outsiders...

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Rule 303:

A 50 cal hardball is not a RN bullet, nor is it a FN bullet ! In its standard mil issue form It is highly unstable in water !

Take that very same 50 cal load it up with a FN or a supercavitator and you have yourself a very different animal , the boys at mythbusters omitted to tell you this.

You are going to need way more than 12 feet of water to stop these bullets !

Thanks Alf. I have no idea what the design of a supercavatator looks like or what it is constructed of but you have sown the seed. I will now have to go and try some flat nose solids and Hydros in water. Just have to find myself a large enough trough.

shrill
[shril] Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective, shriller, shrillest.
1.
high-pitched and piercing in sound quality:
a shrill cry.
2.
producing such a sound.
3.
full of or characterized by such a sound:
shrill music.
4.
betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.
5.shrill
[shril] Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective, shriller, shrillest.
1.
high-pitched and piercing in sound quality:
a shrill cry.
2.
producing such a sound.
3.
full of or characterized by such a sound:
shrill music.
4.
betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.
5.
marked by great intensity; keen:
the shrill, incandescent light of the exploding bomb.
marked by great intensity; keen:
the shrill, incandescent light of the exploding bomb.

Notice definition number 4 fits the the rounds nose solid crowd as well. Wonder why they ignor all DG taken with flat point solids as irrelevant and only referr to the testing media?
Interesting.

JWP, I think the original meaning was "shill"...

shill\ˈshil\
intransitive verb
1 : to act as a shill
2 : to act as a spokesperson or promoter <the eminent Shakespearean producer…is now shilling for a brokerage house — Andy Rooney>
Origin: 2shill.
First use: circa 1914
2
shill
noun
1 a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)
b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter
2 : pitch 8a
Origin: perhaps short for shillaber, of unknown origin.
First use: circa 1916

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
JWP, I think the original meaning was "shill"...

shill\ˈshil\
intransitive verb
1 : to act as a shill
2 : to act as a spokesperson or promoter <the eminent Shakespearean producer…is now shilling for a brokerage house — Andy Rooney>
Origin: 2shill.
First use: circa 1914
2
shill
noun
1 a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)
b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter
2 : pitch 8a
Origin: perhaps short for shillaber, of unknown origin.
First use: circa 1916

True, but "shrill" fits

There comes a time when you grind off too much axe. Put the axes down and hug your kin. Today I will give thanks to God for all he has allowed me to enjoy and endure. (Try to be in the enjoy side even if you have to endure it.).

I feel like playing / throwing the cat in the chicken coop so to speak:

Here goes:

1. The Hemispherical RN as nose shape is more
efficient shape for penetration than the FN
cylinder ( RN = 0.5 cal nose length FN = O
cal nose length ) The most efficient shape
is the cone with nose = 3 caliber lengths)

2. The FN cylinder has the most drag ( i.e.
highest Cd of all the nose shapes, more than
the round ball or hemispherical RN.

3. Increasing the meplat size on a FN
penetrator increases drag / it does not
decrease drag so the most efficient shape
in this case would be a small flat meplat
slim body projectile with a L/D ratio not
exceeding the limit that is imposed by
angle of twist of the rifling of the bore.
4. Sectional density as a projectile parameter
is likely the most important factor in penetration
5. Momentum per se on its own is a meaningless
predictor of penetration.

Oh my gosh. Just read a good portion of this. You know who really gives a shit what anybody else thinks about any of this. if you like what you have use it and STF up. If you want to try something else then try something else. This shit is worse than anything on a playground in grade school. Plenty of dead critters from both style of bullets.

While I have limited big game experience and zero experience in the scientific facets of this topic I do shoot a lot into snow as it is my backstop in the winter. It has been interesting to see the penetration in snow between several bullets--some mushroomed and some not. Not fantasy media or any hype, just my only backstop in the winter. In the spring when the snow melts I pick up and reuse the non deformed bullets. Deformity occurs when I shoot through wood or if the bullet hits ice. Just snow and no deformity at all, and about 20 feet of penetration.

I'm sure all of the bullets mentioned above work well. But, damn, some are ugly. That's one of the reasons I like Woodleighs--they work well, retain their weight, and are damn attractive. Someone once said life is too short to hunt with an ugly rifle. Well, it's also too short to hunt with an ugly bullet. (Unless you're shooting a Baikal, Blazer, or Sabatti. Then it's fine).
Cal
PS. Has any one tested the density comparisons between snow and elephant?

quote:

Originally posted by brent ebeling:
Oh my gosh. Just read a good portion of this. You know who really gives a shit what anybody else thinks about any of this. if you like what you have use it and STF up. If you want to try something else then try something else. This shit is worse than anything on a playground in grade school. Plenty of dead critters from both style of bullets.

I agree. If I was an anti and stumbled on this thread and found out all this arguing was about whether the end of a bullet was round or flat I would piss myself laughing and tell all my friends...

quote:

If I was an anti and stumbled on this thread and found out all this arguing was about whether the end of a bullet was round or flat I would piss myself laughing and tell all my friends...

Badboymelvin:

Best be advised, these antis have on their side of the most published and foremost of ballistics experts in the world and they are coming for your (our) guns !

Yes be forewarned and your government is signing and ratifying their agreements that curtail your and my free access to guns and ammo.

The very factories that build your guns on home soil are being squeezed by lack of access to free markets by these rules. Without sales the factories fold, without the factories we will end up having no guns and no ammo.

What is sad is that we collectively have no idea of how guns really work! and all the while they use their knowledge based in science to make up the rules that we will have to abide by. And believe me they are.


Whilst we wallow in a quagmire of pseudoscience and half truths these guys and the international organizations they serve ( like the Red Cross are putting forth arguments based on science to ban certain types of arms and ammunition) it impacts us directly and indirectly. Unless we have clear understanding of how things really work we will lose the argument ! Period !

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I feel like playing / throwing the cat in the chicken coop so to speak:

Here goes:

1. The Hemispherical RN as nose shape is more
efficient shape for penetration than the FN
cylinder ( RN = 0.5 cal nose length FN = O
cal nose length ) The most efficient shape
is the cone with nose = 3 caliber lengths)

2. The FN cylinder has the most drag ( i.e.
highest Cd of all the nose shapes, more than
the round ball or hemispherical RN.

3. Increasing the meplat size on a FN
penetrator increases drag / it does not
decrease drag so the most efficient shape
in this case would be a small flat meplat
slim body projectile with a L/D ratio not
exceeding the limit that is imposed by
angle of twist of the rifling of the bore.
4. Sectional density as a projectile parameter
is likely the most important factor in penetration
5. Momentum per se on its own is a meaningless
predictor of penetration.

Alf I have found where you went off track. It is " Throw the fox in the hen house". LOL.

One thing I do know from my own experience- not with Ele, Buff or similar, flat nose seem to kill more quicker than pointed in certain circumstances. I am talking about heart lung shots on tgame from goats to Red Deer in size. The huble ole 30-30 with flat nose in most cases, for me, have droped animals quicker than spitzers from a 308. I figure the flat nose cuts a hole in the heart where as the spitzer tears the tissue. Clean sharp cuts offer less hinderance to blood flow than ragged torn tissue.

Makes me wonder how hard cast with a good sized flat metplat from a 45-70 would perform on Elephant and Buff when used from front or side on heart shots.

I ask again: Is the worth of a solid measured only by the ability to penetrate? Or, are there other qualities that a solid must have?

This is a spider's web with many outcomes based on individual differences between bullets - both Soft and Solid. None are exactly the same, but the good thing is we all have preferences and choices as to what we believe is better or just plain simple adequate.

Santa Claus

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Has any one tested the density comparisons between snow and elephant?

Gerard:

It is all about penetration !

This after all is what we want bullets to do. Unless off course we have some designs which by design do not penetrate. Example : non lethal munitions used in crowd control typically these munitions have a common design theme , extremely low sectional density and then the ability to transfer momentum without significant damage to the target.

Where design comes to play is how and where momentum and thus energy is transferred on it's way through the target or not.

Design affects how the target will push back i.e drag and drag is the key to how the wound will look.

Where I differ on how FN's and how RN's work is on the physics of the process and the " why " of how they do what they do.

Why do we not do long range shooting with FN's , why do nose shapes of living water mammals and fish not flat meplat noses , why do they not build aircraft with flat meplat nose shapes ..... because the FN is not a low drag shape, it is a high drag shape.

So why then the claim that suddenly a FN is a low drag projectile in target when compared to a RN ?

Nothing changes the FN still has higher drag in water than the RN but the reason the RN actually induces more drag is because they are unstable in target.

It is not a function of the nose shape per se but it has to do about where mass is located within form. If we were to distribute mass in the RN so that the point of pressure comes to lie behind the centre of mass the RN will out penetrate the FN !

Alf,

I am not asking about drag in air, with solids and dangerous game this is insignificant. Is the worth of a solid measured only by the ability to penetrate? Or, are there other qualities that a solid must have?

To put it simply, which is the better solid: One that penetrates an elephant (or cape buffalo, hippo, rhino whatever) from stem to stern plus four trees or one that penetrates an elephant (or cape buffalo, hippo, rhino whatever) from stem to stern plus one tree? One that is recovered 70 inches into an animal or one that is recovered 60 inches into the animal, given the same shot?

Are there other qualities like linearity, wound channel volume, looks of the recovered bullet, ease of loading and so on?

Come now! It takes more than two meters of water to stop a .395/340-grain GSC FN at +2700 fps.
The bullet may be moving pretty slowly at 2 meters depth, but it will coast way beyond 2 meters.
I had to add a 1-inch thickness of plywood (two half-inch boards) for every 9 inches of water (in plastic buckets) to get the bullet to stop anywhere near 2 meters of travel.

The first few inches of water is very hard. The next three meters of water gets very soft as the bullet slows down.
The plywood has very little resistance for high speed bullets, and gets to be more resistance than water for the slower velocity bullets.
And the boards are "witness" to the orientation of the bullet in each compartment.

My trap has 100 inches of test length, near three meters of water possible, in plastic buckets, or plastic trash bags, or what have you ...

I need more than two meters of water to catch my GSC FN bullets.

I gave up on all round nose solid testing after the first three I tried went out the side of the Iron Water Board Buffalo within one meter of travel.

The FN always stayed straight, no squirreling off the straight line as aimed.

The round nose solid is a certain tumbler in aqueous media or soft tissue.
It might stay straight in a solid stack of wood, or while passing through bone if it got started straight on the way in ...
Always dicey with a round nose if there is any angle of incidence involved other than normal or perpendicular to a flat surface.
The FN can shoulder-stabilise on the entry of bone,
a round nose cannot.
The round nose is much more likely to go squirrely in a game animal than an FN.

But Luddites still cling bitterly to their round nose solids.




Here is a three-board per compartment setup (1-1/2" of plywood thickness), which lowers the compartments penetrated to 5 instead of 7.
Using one board or no boards gets the FN bullets past two meters of water buckets:



Tail end of the Iron water Board Buffalo with extra wood added at the + 100" distance as a backstop:











Entrance and exit wounds on the fragments of a first-in-line bucket that got exploded by that hard water:

Amen! (Someone will read a mysterious hidden meaning into that one word )

quote:

Come now! It takes more than two meters of water to stop a .395/340-grain GSC FN at +2700 fps.

I found that out pretty quickly with a 270gr FN fired at full tilt from a 375H&H. After the 375H&H, I scaled things down by using a 22 Hornet or 6 mm Musgrave at reduced speed. I preferred to use the 6 mm Musgrave (1:10") as it was closer to the .375"/.458"/.510" in twist, but still much slower when measured in caliber. Only a .470 was so close that it made little difference. It made the whole affair very interesting and the learning curve was close to vertical at that time.

Hey Gerard,
Who is making my .408 bullets in Michigan, you or Gina?
The Game Field Domination Bullet: .408/335-gr HV
The .408 GFDB

An example of how an FN can strike the heaviest bone in a cape buffalo, the curved surface of the side of the left humerus, and continue on in a straight line through the heart and out the right side of the buffalo:



"Postmortem on the heart shot cape buffalo. See the hole in the left atrium? The exit wound out the right atrium was larger. GS Custom 380 grain .416 caliber FN at 2509 fps muzzle velocity from a .416 Rigby. Range 75 yards. The bullet shattered the heaviest part of the shoulder, the humerus, before sailing on through in a straight line out the other side."

I will arrive in Michigan on coming Monday so it may be either of us two. Calling on Tuesday will give a positive answer, if they have not been made yet. I look forward to visiting the USA again, longer this time.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
The flat meplat society's sole contribution to the pool of shared knowledge emanating from experience shared here comes only from the shooting of a relatively few elephants, hippos and water or cape buffalo shot by the apostles or high priest.

Another member has a list of things he has learned on AR over the years in his signature block. This one in particular seems to fit when comparing the respective track records of RN and FN solids:

"One in a row is a trend, two in a row is statistically significant, and three similar occurrences in a row is an irrefutable fact."

Gerard: now we are getting to the point of all of this to a fro.
What is "better" to put a large animal down.
A bullet that penetrates deep or one that does not penetrate deep?

So lets assume both are of same caliber, same construction, fired under same
conditions and the only difference is a FN nose shape and the other RN
(0.5 cal nose Nose shape.

Which is better?

We have to define what we mean by "better".

This is no easy task because defining biologic effect and correlating it
to death and incapacitation becomes a exercise in statistical possibilities
and probabilities at best.

And I bring this up because in the history of defining "better" in the world
of terminal ballistics has been the holy grail.... still yet to be discovered.


The lethality potential or index of unstable solids are enormous, in many instances
more so than stable solids.

This has not been lost on those tasked with designing
lethal munitions for warfare. In the history of the design of bullets many examples
exist where this potential for in target instability has been exploited. Nowhere more
so than the old British 303.

I would not be surprised if in the next few years or so we see the Red Cross come up with
a ruling that would ban RN and Ogived solids from warfare and opt for FN's. Simply because
of the effects of ogived RN's and their capacity to become unstable in target.
There is already a challenge to this effect in place and work is being presented by ballistics
experts to bring about change. Under the provisions of international law this has become an issue.

The drag effect i.e temporary cavitation effect of in target yaw by a unstable
projectile cannot be discounted and for that reason I am unwilling to accept that RN's
are simply no good and FN's are the only way to go.

If you had to ask me to stand and be shot, would I rather take my chances on a FN solid
vs a RN solid I will take my chances on the FN.
The effects of a RN or any ogived solid can be devastating especially if it turns at the wrong place

Having said that if the object of the exercise is to try a hit something buried way deep in the target
then obviously the stable projectile is the way to go.

But here is a point to ponder, how deep do you need to penetrate from any angle the skull of a elephant to hit the brain.
Not that deep at all.

The elephant skull is not a infinite sized target, nor does it present the shooter with significant
physical barriers.

The most difficult problem with the elephant skull is choosing the line of fire that would intersect with the brain cavity.
It's not the resistance of the barrier thats the problem! Professor van der Merwe and his team at Onderstepoort showed this
with their studies. A shot through pure muscle mass presents a greater barrier to penetration than the skull of the elephant.


Pneumatized membranous bone can easily be breached by small calibre projectiles as we see from experience in the KNP culling programs of the past
or the exploits of our famous elephant killers of the past.

As Rule303 mentioned about a SWC.

Out of curiosity, Has there ever been a Heavy homogenous solid (Bonze/Brass/Alloy) made in the Keith SWC design
for rifle solids and tested?

Wow, same group of people have been arguing RN vs FN since at least 2006, except JPK was on the FN side of the argument back then.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...=507103085&f=4711043

Wonder, what Alf had said in that thread, too bad he had deleted all his posts.

Guess no real point in discussing this any further as it seems like it has been discussed ad nauseam without anyone really changing their minds.

Same argument for RN though at that time: "RN bullets worked for XYZ back since the turn of the century, so no need to change".

At least one difference since then . . . despite all the hype and noise about flat nose solids one major manufacturer has gone back to round nose solids.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
At least one difference since then . . . despite all the hype and noise about flat nose solids one major manufacturer has gone back to round nose solids.

Because of feeding issues, correct?

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
At least one difference since then . . . despite all the hype and noise about flat nose solids one major manufacturer has gone back to round nose solids.

Because of feeding issues, correct?

Correct.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
At least one difference since then . . . despite all the hype and noise about flat nose solids one major manufacturer has gone back to round nose solids.

Because of feeding issues, correct?

Correct.

I would suspect the inability to sell their product due to the ATF decision is more than responsible for them making a change.

Barnes Statement

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Exactly. It is precisely because we have such a variety of options and ability to test them that we have such a diversity of (passionate) opinions. It is a luxury that has existed at no other time that I can see. As my mom used to say, "To each their own, said the old lady as she kissed the cow." Regardless of our positions, we all know more now than we did before. That's progress in my opinion. Cheers.

Again bunkum.

We know nothing more on solid bullet performance now than was known prior to the initiation of wet paper trophy hunting, the formation of the flat meplat society or the self anointing of the high priest.

Again this thread provides ample evidence of that, along with the flat meplat society coming near full circle on endorsed bullet shapes...

Nothing there to commend.

JPK

If there is nothing there to commend-then STFU and go away-

You refuse to listen to anyone but your self--and I have not seen any great deal of expertise out of you, mostly just nasty name calling.

No Bona fides, no pictures of wound tracks,I did hear a rumor you shot some little tuskless cows-but you haven't even proved that.

So where does your scorn for people that actual work at things come from?

You never provide evidence, just Ad Hominum attacks and insults.

Key board commandoes are a dime a dozen---