The SWC has been mentioned in this thread.

The efficacy and performance of this design has been the topic of popular discussion as well as a subject of lots of valid testing in calibrated ballistic gelatine.

The results are interesting especially when compared to popular ogived RN shapes typical of military hardball design.

Of particular interest is the testing results as published by Duncan McPherson in his often touted book on handgun bullet penetration.

The gist of it all is that the SWC exhibits serious penetration, way outside the norm for typically found bullets. Within certain velocity windows this penetration becomes quite pronounced.

McPherson correctly deducts that this can only be achieved if the drag induced by this type of design is low.

Rn's as he points out induce a lot of drag that is related to in target yaw, even small amounts of yaw induce significant drag that shows in the penetration profiles of those projectiles.

But here is the caveat !

The object of the exercise is to kill and incapacitate.

The intended target for the typical handgun is the human torso and a bullet that shows low drag behaviour is potentially less lethal than a high drag projectile.

We have to consider that the optimal depth of penetration in this genre of target is only 15 inches.

So a bullet that does a lot of work on the target in this window is preferable to a bullet that does little work by punching through . Only expended energy and transfer of momentum to the target is useful.

quote:

So a bullet that does a lot of work on the target in this window is preferable to a bullet that does little work by punching through . Only expended energy and transfer of momentum to the target is useful.

By this logic then a hollow-point bullet, say in 9 mm caliber, is more lethal than a military hardball (FMJ) or a lead SWC, and is more preferable for self defence. The SWC with its greater penetration but smaller wound tract (due to less drag) may wound another person in the crowd.

Santa Claus

Ha Ha Ha...,

Try the search function.

I don't think I've ever posted on the wet paper trophy thread, or if I did it was LONG ago. Go there if you have nothing to learn and/or are a mindless, experience less apostle.

Shooting wet paper trophies isn't working on anything except a foolish fantasy. I wouldn't entitle what I have as scorn - that would imply I really give a damn, more like disdain. And it is for willfully ignoring a century more of experience from the real world and for utterly failing to grasp the very simple fact that penetration for penetrations sake is not the end all be all goal.

BTW, the name calling is an original and inherent trait of the flat meplat society, which for fun I adopted to see what the reaction would be... Poor buggers, you don't like it much. You can give, but you can't take... Kinda like Democraps.

Here, elephants:
1st:
2nd:

3rd:

4th:

5th:

6th:

7th:

8th:

9th:

10th:

11th:

12th:

13th:

14th:

15th:

16th:

17th:

18th:


Cape Buffalo:
1st:

2nd:

3rd, a cow shot for lion bait:

4th:


I have some photos of bullet recovery and some of using the dead elephants to test solids and softs for tracking and tumbling and for penetration as well, if you insist.

JPK

Perhaps Sean will now post a photo gallery of his "bona fides" . . . or perhaps not.

[It is a blessing that Buzz stopped hunting in the blue shirt with the bandana. ]

quote:

Originally posted by Rule 303:

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.

At the request of a forum member I tried shooting large meplat hard cast bullets at traditional 45-70 velocities, iirc, about 1550fps or so into elephant heads to answer the debate regarding whether a 45-70 could be an adequate elephant round. The bullets were sent to me by the member and I loaded them to his desired velocity.

The elephants skull was a bit compromised prior to the test, but I think it showed that a 45-70 with hard cast is an inadequate set up for elephants. The bullets did reach the brain from the front - a path which is devoid of any heavy bone, but everyone of them broke up to one degree or another.

The skin on an elephant's head is not abnormally thick or hard, but the skin almost everywhere else is an inch or more thick and very, very tough. I don't think that hard cast bullets are up to a heart lung shot because of bullet integrity issues and the very thick tough skin, and even if they held together I think they would loose too much energy and velocity penetrating the skin to penetrate both of an elephants lungs, or it's heart and lungs. But I didn't try them on a heart shot.

I posted the bullet make up, weights, velocity and the measurements of penetration along with photos of the bullets in a previous hunt report, or perhaps a thread hear reporting the results.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
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?

The answer to the question: "Which is the better solid, one which will penetrate maybe 60" or more in a straight line (most of the time) or one which will penetrate about 36" in a straight line (most of the time) and then more likely than not tumbles?" is that it depends on the circumstances.

For a client hunter any first shot the one that penetrated 36" and then tumbles - like RN's - is more than adequate for any use, and preferable for brain shots on elephants for reasons I have previously discussed.

For second shots, the one which provides the greater penetration is preferable, again, for reasons I have already discussed.

For a PH, since his shot is always going to follow the client hunters (unless in a charge,) if he shoots at all, the greater penetration is always preferred, for reasons already discussed.

JPK

Alf,

Every elephant skull I have chopped open or had chopped open for me by the trackers has had a fairly viscous fluid within the honeycomb. About as viscous as warm 30wt motor oil and a bit gooey on the hands. [Taste like crap when it slashes into your mouth too!]

Look at the photo below. See the fluid seeping from the exit wound on what was an insurance shot on a dead elephant. The Entrance wound is lower than the exit - into the ear hole on the other side, but the exit still seeps.:


JPK

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps Sean will now post a photo gallery of his "bona fides" . . . or perhaps not.

[It is a blessing that Buzz stopped hunting in the blue shirt with the bandana. ]

Mike

one trip to Africa--check the B&M website under 416 B&M

But then I am not one of the ones pontificating----

quote:

I don't think I've ever posted on the wet paper trophy thread, or if I did it was LONG ago. Go there if you have nothing to learn and/or are a mindless, experience less apostle.

JPK

thats strange--I just counted 16 posts on just 3 pages--61-63 if you want to count them yourself

Seems like you are one with a grudge--dont know why-just because something is a hundred years old doesn't make it the end-all and be-all

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps Sean will now post a photo gallery of his "bona fides" . . . or perhaps not.

[It is a blessing that Buzz stopped hunting in the blue shirt with the bandana. ]

Mike

one trip to Africa--check the B&M website under 416 B&M

But then I am not one of the ones pontificating----

Ha Ha Ha...

A hoot!

Mike, yes, good thing. Too many photos of the leather hat too. Has he changed that out?

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps Sean will now post a photo gallery of his "bona fides" . . . or perhaps not.

[It is a blessing that Buzz stopped hunting in the blue shirt with the bandana. ]

Mike

one trip to Africa--check the B&M website under 416 B&M

But then I am not one of the ones pontificating----

Ha Ha Ha...

A hoot!

Mike, yes, good thing. Too many photos of the leather hat too. Has he changed that out?

JPK

He is several hats removed from the leather hat thankfully. That hat smelled worse than the gut bucket when it was finally retired.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:

quote:

I don't think I've ever posted on the wet paper trophy thread, or if I did it was LONG ago. Go there if you have nothing to learn and/or are a mindless, experience less apostle.

JPK

thats strange--I just counted 16 posts on just 3 pages--61-63 if you want to count them yourself

Seems like you are one with a grudge--dont know why-just because something is a hundred years old doesn't make it the end-all and be-all

Another hoot.

Talk about key board commando, jeez...

I usually post responses one by one rather than group them in a single post since I have yet to figure out how to do a multiple copy and since each response typically deserves it's own space.

The response to your foolish allegation regarding my experience for example...

For instance the response to Alf's comment regarding air in an elephant's skull. He has made that argument before, but every skull I've cut or had cut is full of viscous fluid.

Or, another example, in response to 303, he wondered if anyone had tried hard cast bullets in elephants, I have...

RN solids have a century plus track record of success. That doesn't make them the end all be all and the short but successful track record of most FN solids doesn't make them the end all be all.

Each type has it's advantages and it's disadvantages and each type is best suited for different circumstances.

Here is a list of elephant and buff and bullet used (all .458" solids)
Elephants
1 - 500gr Woodleigh RN
2 - "
3 - 450gr NF FN
4 - "
5 - "
6 - "
7 - "
8 - "
9 - 500gr Woodleigh RN - Buzz didn't want me use a FN on a bull, FN's were pretty new at the time and he didn't have any experience with them.
10 - "
11 - 450gr NF FN
12 - 500gr Woodleigh RN
13 - 450gr NF FN
14 - 500gr Woodleigh RN
15 - "
16 - "
17 - "
18 - "

I found the RN's provided better and more reliable tracking in elephant heads while FN's provided deeper penetration in the body, which is irrelevant for the first shot for me since I will only take a brain shot for the first shot. In addition, in the event that my brain shot is not perfect the RN's knock an elephant down or out better than a FN.

I always load a FN for the second shot since it will either be an insurance shot or a shot at unknown angle on a fleeing or perhaps charging elephant... But penetration is very likely to be at a premium.

Buff
1 - 500gr Woodleigh RN
2 - "
3 - "
4 - " followed by a 450gr NF FN which made the entrance hole in the spine and exited the boss, on the right side as you view the photo, the small back hole is the exit.

If you had bothered to read the debate you would see that I am an advocate of both types of bullets, recognize the strengths and the weaknesses of both and further recognize that each has some uses for which it is a better choice than the other....

BTW, I hunted ducks and geese Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and hunted MD sika deer Saturday and today. I was home and able to post only Wednesday evening and today. How was your week Commando?

JPK

JPK:

The oily fluid you are seeing is marrow fat which drains from the cancellous bone of the skull when cut.

The bone of the skull is formed from a process called membranous ossification and the marrow spaces are filled with marrow fat.

The same fluid is found in adult human bone.
For instance when we open the shaft of the femur or tibia in a adult we see this fluid in the marrow cavities. In the child this marrow contains the precursors to blood formation but as we age this is replaced with marrow fat.

The elephant skull is pneumatized ! ie it is aerated. This is peculiar to the species.

This aeration starts at age 3 to 4 years and continues to expand into adulthood. The trigger and stimulus that leads to this process is not quite clear.

The air cavities are lined with respiratory epithelium and there is air movement though the exact nature or path of air movement is not fully understood. There is some conjecture as to the function of this air as it pertains to smell and communication.

In the human we have knowledge of how these sinuses drain the thin layer of mucous that gets produced. By placing fluorescein into the sinus we can track the path of mucous clearance by the ciliated cells in the mucous membrane. In the case of the elephant skull the sinuses extend way beyond simply the paranasal skull but to the whole calvarium

The purpose of aeration is a evolutionary adaptation making the large skull relatively light. This is mandatory because of the weight and size of the trunk. If the skull were solid it would require a massive suspensory system of ligament, spinous processes and muscle to support the head.

Elephants like humans can get sinusitis and then abnormal fluid may collect in the air sinuses.
This is abnormal !

Unlike humans the elephant does not have a tear duct that links the eye to the nasal passage. they do have Eustachian tubes that link the middle ear with the oropharynx

There is enough fluid, what ever the source, that when you chop open the skull with an axe it splashes and sprays.

And, as in the elephant in the photo I posted, it is sufficient in quantity that it seeps, at least once released by a bullet wound.

Whatever it's source, I suspect that it is more than sufficient in quantity to void any comparison to a dry honeycomb of any type in so far as bullet performance is concerned.

[The fluid's presence, whatever it's source, plus the very different structures encountered in an elephant skull, from a mere few inches of honey comb to feet of tough trunk muscles to shell bone to the hard bone of the arches to the extremely dense tusk sockets, is perhaps why there is as yet no suitable test medium for solid bullet performance in elephant skulls, except elephant skulls.]

On the issue of toughness of the honey comb, it is sufficiently tough to break up hard cast bullets. when nothing but honeycomb is encountered. I have little experience with hard cast bullets, so the significance of this fact is a mystery to me, but on the other hand, I don't read much from guys who use hard cast bullets hunting other game and making body shots comment on recovering broken bullets. I don't recall the materials and the ratios of the bullets I was sent and shot into elephant heads, but it is somewhere in a report here...

BTW, on RN performance in elephant heads, whether shot front or side on my digging seems to indicate that all or almost all of them (.458" 500gr hemispherical nose Woodleigh solids at MV from 2050 to 2135 - most at 2135fps, impact range from 7yds to about 35yds) that can penetrate deep enough without exiting or coming to a stop against hard bone tumble near the conclusion of their penetration - and of course penetration is very limited once they begin to tumble. But it appears they tumble when they have slowed to some perhaps consistent speed significantly lower than impact velocity.

Along the line of what you wrote regarding the damage done by tumbling bullets, I have found RN solids deliver significantly more "punch" to elephants when the brain is missed. I attribute that to the bullet dumping all of it's approximately 5,000lbs' of energy within the limited distance RN's travel before they stop, including a significant dump when they tumble. My Woodleighs at 2135fps, when shot front on, stop an average of 36" beyond POI. That is in the neck, beyond the skull but near it or the joint. FWIW, side on they either exit or stop against the off side arch.

Edit to add: Also FWIW, using a 36" cleaning rod and examining wound channels I have yet to encounter an example of a RN veering during penetration. I have found one example of a FN veering. It veered at an increasing rate over, iirc, 54" of penetration, ending about 12" off course. The bullet was shot front on and brained the elephant. Somewhere along it's penetration it earned a divot in the nose. Deviation from initial course was not discernible until the bullet was in the neck, about 30" in. The details are posted here, somewhere.

JPK

The honey combed bone structure in the top of an elephants head is thought to be a shock absorber mechanism. Elephant bulls commonly bump heads in dominance fights. The combined shock of two bulls travelling at 10 mph and weighing 4 to 6 tons each is enormous. We see a similar bone structure in big horn sheep that also use extremely hard head butting rituals during dominance fights. Without that ability to absorb shock, we would see animals completely knocked out in this type of fight.

I have also seen the viscous fluids in the honey combed portion of the skull but it was not seen in all of the elephants that I have looked at.

465H&H

465H&H,

I have watched bulls fight. They come together hard at times, and you can feel the thump. Gave me a headache just watching.

There was no "crack" just a dull, almost muted thump. Sort of like an artillery round fired in the distance, but it was deep and when close you can feel it.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by Rule 303:

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.

At the request of a forum member I tried shooting large meplat hard cast bullets at traditional 45-70 velocities, iirc, about 1550fps or so into elephant heads to answer the debate regarding whether a 45-70 could be an adequate elephant round. The bullets were sent to me by the member and I loaded them to his desired velocity.

The elephants skull was a bit compromised prior to the test, but I think it showed that a 45-70 with hard cast is an inadequate set up for elephants. The bullets did reach the brain from the front - a path which is devoid of any heavy bone, but everyone of them broke up to one degree or another.

The skin on an elephant's head is not abnormally thick or hard, but the skin almost everywhere else is an inch or more thick and very, very tough. I don't think that hard cast bullets are up to a heart lung shot because of bullet integrity issues and the very thick tough skin, and even if they held together I think they would loose too much energy and velocity penetrating the skin to penetrate both of an elephants lungs, or it's heart and lungs. But I didn't try them on a heart shot.

I posted the bullet make up, weights, velocity and the measurements of penetration along with photos of the bullets in a previous hunt report, or perhaps a thread hear reporting the results.

JPK

Thanks for the info JPK

You are welcome 303.

Doing a search for the report I made, I came on these posts of mine referring to it:

"I'vr shot 45/70 level hard and softer castloads from my 458wm at a dead elep's head to est penetration. The soft casts were useless, but the hard casts, which broke, penetrated less than half of a 458wm's, but not all that far behind what is repurted to be a great penetrator, the 375H&H 300gr round nose Woodleigh solids.

My take is that a 45/70 with hard cast bullets that will stay together would be weak, but fine medicine for a buff. But no damn good at all for eles. Just can't have the bullet coming apart for eles."


"...
I'll be trying Brian Pearce's bullet and load - so long as the promised bullets arrive (not promised by Pearce, fyi) - as well as others.

I'm not sure how many buff will be on my ticket, if any, but several elephants will be and it seems to me a couple of elephant rumps will create a fair comparisson between a 450gr North Fork flat nose solid at 2200fps, 500gr Woodleigh solid 458wm load at 2145fps, a 480gr Woodleigh solid, 450NE equivelent load at 2100fps, a 45/70 "hard cast" load at the bullet provider's spec - can't recall offhand, and Pearce's bullet and load at his velocity.
..."

Posted by another member referring to my "test":
posted 30 July 2008 17:50 Hide Post

"JPK--I appreciate your willingness to test the penetration of the cast bullets on the elephant carcass. A good valid test, to be sure.

However, this test does not tell me that PROPER cast bullets are not suitable in this application. What it confirms for me is that cast bullets , quenched or not, containing antimonal alloys in the form of wheel weights DO NOT posses the structural integrity of a proper lead/tin alloy. The quenched wheel weights may be hard, but like glass, they are also brittle. This is because the antimony in the wheel weights reduces the shear strength of the alloy. Consequently, they also fragment and break up as you demonstrated and noted in your test. This is why I quit using any form of wheel weight alloy in my bullets years ago.

I am in the planning stages of a Cape Buffalo/elephant hunt for 2010. If I can pull it off, I will use a 520 grain bullet at 20-1 lead/tin for the buffalo, and the same bullet at 16-1 for the elephant in my 45-110. These bullets will stay together well beyond where your wheel weight test bullets came apart, and will give much better penetration. "

Here is the meat of the report:
posted 30 July 2008 17:04 Hide Post

"During my last trip to Africa, at the request of a 45/70 and hard cast bullet afficianado, I shot four flat nose 525gr cast bullets into a dead elephants head from the front, simulating a frontal brain shot.

Two were hard cast but not quench hardened and two were hard cast and quench hardened. I'm no cast bullet expert but the fellow who provided the bullets told me the two hard cast but unhardened were pretty hard compared to most so called "hard cast" bullets and the quench hardened amoungst the hardest cast bullets possible. Velocity was right at 1500fps, as requested by the bullet provider.

I also tested a 375H&H with a 300gr Woodleigh solid and used a 450gr North Fork flat nose solid at 2220fps, which is my go-to elephant load as a bench mark.

The North Fork penetrated too far to be found, well into the neck, and because of time constratins we stopped digging for it.

The 300gr solid from the 375H&H was found beyond the skull at the head neck juncture. IIRC, penetration was ~34". I have the tape and measurements on video, but I haven't received it yet.

The two hard but unquenched bullets failed to penetrate the ele's skull.

The two quench hardened bullets made it through the skull and were about 4" and 6" short of the 300gr 375 bullet. The bullets were damaged, with the fronts broken off, one more than the other, and pieces were recovered. I have the bullet remains but haven't weighed them. I'd guess one went 55% and the other 70% of original weight.

The space to shoot an elephant head dead on might seem large but in reality it isn't all that large given the desire to penetrate the brain. This bull had two through the brain to begin with, both from the side.

The test bullets were fired in the order described with the two side brain shots the "hunting shots" and the rest the "test shots". I can't isolate the results for successive bullets from the greater damage each encountered due to the prior bullets but the skull's integrity was reduced with each successive shot. Entry whole were kept a couple of inches apart on the frontal test shots.

My take on the experiment (with the caveat that extremely, extremely small sample sizes can lead to odd results):

1. The 375H&H with 300gr steel jacketed solids probably doesn't have the great penetration people credit it with.

2. The 458wm, loaded properly, penetrates far better and performs far better than people give it credit for. - here my sample size is maybe 50 bullets since I've tested quite a few 450wm loadings one many dead elephants and dug for the bullets used to kill the ele's in the first place.

3. Cast bullets of any description do not have the integrity required for reliable use in lieu of either steel jacketed solids or solid copper or other alloy mon metal bullets.

4. A 45/70 loaded to the specs used in this test is not a safe rifle to use for elephants, providing neither the penetration desired (insufficient energy?, bullet failure?...) nor the reliable results required (because the bullets fractured) but probably makes the grade for buff - but I would hate to risk an expensive safari trying to find out. More testing needed.

Also, over the span of all of my tests, flat nose bullets consistently out penetrate round nose bullets loaded to even slightly lower ME. Here my test have been between 500gr and 450gr .458" bullets out of my 458wm. I think the flat nose design of the cast bullets contributed to their penetration in this test, but because the fractured, I'm not sure.

JPK"

FWIW, Pearce never sent the bullets, despite a bunch of "gung ho" phony enthusiasm directed to the 45-70 aficionados who contacted him. The bullets I used were provided by a member here, and as mentioned, loaded to his velocity spec.


Hope this helps,

JPK

Alf,

The shot will never be the same and, no matter how much planning goes into predicting what may happen, one can never be sure. The goal is therefore to have a bullet (solid) that will be most reliable for the widest variety of shots. On an elephant it could be a frontal brain shot or a straight going away. On a cape buffalo, who knows how the animal will be standing and how one needs to take the shot. Fiddling with different types of ammo is a recipe for disaster. It is an invitation for the PH to take the shot as the client may be fiddling when there is a dire need to shoot.

Should we be measuring a solid only by the ability to penetrate or are there other parameters that may be important?

When a bullet is prone to tumbling, things become unpredictable. It may or may not hit the target that was aimed for within the animal. It may or may not follow a straight line and penetration depth will vary, depending on whether it tumbles or stays nose forwards.

So what is best - A bullet that may or may not tumble, or a bullet that will resist tumbling? And again, do we measure the worth of a solid purely by the ability to penetrate?

Colt Commander,

The situation is that the Keith type SWC was mainly used in large caliber revolvers and at subsonic speeds. With rifles, speeds are usually supersonic and a lot of things change. There has been a lot of work in this regard but precious little has been published as formal papers and samples are mostly small and anecdotal.

JPK,

It is a pity that FN solids are lumped into one category and that differences in design are not really taken into account.

Gerard:

On a point of order. Mc Pherson did test SWC's at supersonic velocity, it is the only type of bullet he tested in this manner, he used 5.56mm steel SWC's and tested these at velocities higher than you would find in handguns.

As to other tests using FN cilinders, there are literally volumes of documented tests where the FN cilinder is tested at high, ultra and even hyper velocities ( ie velocities only attainable in space)

Alf, could you please give me the reference where McPherson tested SWC at supersonic speeds? In what medium were the cylinders tested at various speeds? I have not been able to find anything of use in print on that.

Read his book it's there tested in Gelatine same as all the others.

My copy is in South Africa and I am in the USA. A used copy is $388.00 from Amazon but I will make a plan. I cannot believe I missed that.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Alf,

The shot will never be the same and, no matter how much planning goes into predicting what may happen, one can never be sure. The goal is therefore to have a bullet (solid) that will be most reliable for the widest variety of shots. On an elephant it could be a frontal brain shot or a straight going away. On a cape buffalo, who knows how the animal will be standing and how one needs to take the shot. Fiddling with different types of ammo is a recipe for disaster. It is an invitation for the PH to take the shot as the client may be fiddling when there is a dire need to shoot.

Should we be measuring a solid only by the ability to penetrate or are there other parameters that may be important?

When a bullet is prone to tumbling, things become unpredictable. It may or may not hit the target that was aimed for within the animal. It may or may not follow a straight line and penetration depth will vary, depending on whether it tumbles or stays nose forwards.

So what is best - A bullet that may or may not tumble, or a bullet that will resist tumbling? And again, do we measure the worth of a solid purely by the ability to penetrate?

Colt Commander,

The situation is that the Keith type SWC was mainly used in large caliber revolvers and at subsonic speeds. With rifles, speeds are usually supersonic and a lot of things change. There has been a lot of work in this regard but precious little has been published as formal papers and samples are mostly small and anecdotal.

JPK,

It is a pity that FN solids are lumped into one category and that differences in design are not really taken into account.

Gerard,

Yes FN solids are often, usually, lumped together, as are RN solids. Most of each type produce similar results and the primary advantages or disadvantages of each type are common across all of the type. FN penetration and RN tumbling for examples.

The rest of your post regarding solids is bunkum.

There need be no fumbling for ammo.

For a client hunter he need only load a RN in the chamber and FN's in the magazine of a bolt rifle or a RN in the right barrel and a FN in the left for a double rifle - with only FN's remaining in the belt. The first shot for a client will NEVER be a shot for which a RN is unsuitable. If a second or subsequent shot(s) are required, a FN is preferred.

For a PH, his first shot may be on a charging or escaping elephant, and he should be loaded with FN's since they will work on frontals, though not so well as a RN if the brain is missed, and are preferred on all other shots.

RN's are not likely to veer as you protest and tumbling can be, often is, a benefit.

The worth of different solids must be measured by their intended primary use, and delivering a bullet on a shot requiring maximum penetration is only one use.

JPK

quote:

RN's are not likely to veer as you protest and tumbling can be, often is, a benefit.

That, to paraphrase you, is bunkum.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

RN's are not likely to veer as you protest and tumbling can be, often is, a benefit.

That, to paraphrase you, is bunkum.

Considering that a solid is designed for penetration I also can't see ANY benefit in a solid that tumbles???!!!

Yes solids are designed for penetration, but how much penetration is needed? For an elephant head or a buff or even elephant broadside shot not that much. For a shot at a departing elephant a whole lot, departing buff, not so much.

RN's tumble after they have lost much of their initial velocity and have penetrated beyond an elephant skull on a frontal brains shot. They don't appear to tumble on side brain shots, and either come to rest on offside bone or exit.

When they tumble they dump all remaining energy quickly and the wound channel is very large compared to that of any solid traveling nose first.

They will almost always exit buff on side on to quartering shot when shot from any rifle legal to hunt them with using the Zim regs. That is according to the PH I have spoken with about it, and mine exit, always. Woodleigh .458", 500grs at 2135fps MV.

Mine exit on broadside or quartering shots on elephant cows unless they strike substantial bone on the offside. The infrequently exit on bulls, but the penetrate the near side lung, the heart and the offside lung.

That is more than adequate penetration, and since RN's often or always tumble if they don't exit you have the advantage of the energy transfer and the massive wound channel toward the conclusion of penetration. What's not to like, for the first shot?

And despite Gerards pleadings, they are not prone to veering.

They are great for the first shot at an elephant or a buff.

JPK

Notice what happens to energy in an Inelastic collision.

". . . by firing it into a suspended wooden block."

Are you suggesting that a 2000 pound cape buffalo with four feet planted on the ground or an 8000 pound elephant with four feet planted on the ground is similar for testing purposes to a suspended wooden block?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
". . . by firing it into a suspended wooden block."

Are you suggesting that a 2000 pound cape buffalo with four feet planted on the ground or an 8000 pound elephant with four feet planted on the ground is similar for testing purposes to a suspended wooden block?

You obviously donot understand what I posted. The ballistics pendulum has nothing to do with "bullet testing" if you bother to understand the pendulum you will see what part energy plays in an inelastic collision.

2000 pound Cape buffalo? Really?

Mike,

You must be pretty oblivious not to notice how the elephants and the cape buffalo you shoot bounce on impact, displaying a perfect elastic collision in which there is no friction, sound or heat!!!

In addition, you cite cape buffalo weighing 2,000lbs, however Ultimate Ungulate gives the weight range of an adult cape buffalo as topping out at 1984lbs. You are way off! http://www.ultimateungulate.co...Syncerus_caffer.html

JPK

Perhaps I do not understand the pendulum. It seems to suggest that energy is conserved after the collision, as opposed to being dumped, because the combined masses move after the collision. If I am interpreting that incorrectly, please correct me. If I am interpreting that correct, then I will reurge my question, how can the physics of shooting a suspended wooden block be compared to the physics of shooting an anchored thousand pound object?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps I do not understand the pendulum. It seems to suggest that energy is conserved after the collision, as opposed to being dumped, because the combined masses move after the collision. If I am interpreting that incorrectly, please correct me. If I am interpreting that correct, then I will reurge my question, how can the physics of shooting a suspended wooden block be compared to the physics of shooting an anchored thousand pound object?

Correct. The pendulum illustrates the fact that energy is not dumped and only a small amount acctualy transfer, it also shows that energy is calculated, not measures. Momentum is transferred and is measured in the collision.

The pendulum has nothing to do with how the bullet reacts when shooting an animal, not does it have anything to do with how the bullet reacts. The pendulum should help in the understanding of kinetic energy's roll in the collision.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

You obviously donot understand what I posted. The ballistics pendulum has nothing to do with "bullet testing" if you bother to understand the pendulum you will see what part energy plays in an inelastic collision.

OK, help us out. Your much loved diagram displays a nearly elastic collision and discusses an elastic collision, but you now refer to the inelastic collision in which energy is dissipated.

HMMM, could it be that a bullet striking an animal is neither purely elastic nor purely inelastic....?

Surely you recognize that a bullet striking and penetrating game involves sound, heat and friction, right?

JPK

Certainly energy is not dumped if a bullet strikes a suspended wooden block that can move with the impact of the bullet. But if you shoot something that cannot move or will move very little, are you suggesting that there is no energy dumped as part of the collision? I am not a rocket scientist, but the physics of shooting a suspended wooden block that is free to move with the impact and shooting say, a large boulder sitting on the ground, that is rigid and anchored seem to me to me materially different in terms of kinetic energy, momentum, etc. Bottom line, you are saying that if the picture was of a boulder anchored in the ground, the mathematical presentation of what is depicted would be the same? Hard to believe.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Certainly energy is not dumped if a bullet strikes a suspended wooden block that can move with the impact of the bullet. But if you shoot something that cannot move or will move very little, are you suggesting that there is no energy dumped as part of the collision? I am not a rocket scientist, but the physics of shooting a suspended wooden block that is free to move with the impact and shooting say, a large boulder sitting on the ground, that is rigid and anchored seem to me to me materially different in terms of kinetic energy, momentum, etc. Bottom line, you are saying that if the picture was of a boulder anchored in the ground, the mathematical presentation of what is depicted would be the same? Hard to believe.

No sir, an inelastic collision is defined as, when one or both of the colliding both change shape. In an elastic collision the colliding bodies dot change shape and one or both remain in motion. Energy is transferred and conserved in an elastic collision.

N. The ballistics pendulum's purpose was to measure the momentum in order to determine velocit before the advent of electric chronographs. The pendulum provides conclusive proof, that energy is not measurable and that only a small amount of KE is transferred, mostly the KE is transformed into other forms of energy, mostly thermal.

Inelastic Collision Examples

Most ordinary collisions are classified as inelastic collisions because some of their kinetic energy is converted to other forms such as internal energy. Links to some examples are provided.

Car crash

Seatbelts

Airliner and duck

Ballistic pendulum

One dimensional

Two dimensional

Franck-Hertz experiment

Two-truck collision

Index

Collision concepts

Inelastic collisions

HyperPhysics***** Mechanics R Nave



http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...du/hbase/inecol.html

Inelastic collisions may not conserve kinetic energy, but they do obey conservation of momentum. Simple ballistic pendulum problems obey the conservation of kinetic energy only when the block swings to its largest angle.

https://www.princeton.edu/~ach...astic_collision.html

Your diagram reflects a nearly elastic collision.

"partially elastic, nearly elastic nearly conserved [-] billiard balls, bowling balls, steel bearings and other objects made from resilient materials" Source: http://physics.info/momentum-energy/

Moreover one of your own sources describes the diagram as [nearly] elastic: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...u/hbase/elacol2.html

And: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...hbase/colsta.html#c1

From your source, hyperphysics: A perfectly elastic collision is defined as one in which there is no loss of kinetic energy in the collision. An inelastic collision is one in which part of the kinetic energy is changed to some other form of energy in the collision. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...du/hbase/elacol.html

From Wikapedia: An elastic collision is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter.

And: An inelastic collision, in contrast to an elastic collision, is a collision in which kinetic energy is not conserved.

Your diagram displays an elastic collision - see the note at bottom right:
http://i33.photobucket.com/alb...llisticsPendulum.gif

[Which reads: Energy (potential plus kinetic energy) IS conserved as the combined masses swing up AFTER the collisions. [Capital letters by me, in lieu of underlining, since I don't know how to underline.]]

Also recall that in regards to shooting things, without velocity there is no momentum. Energy may be calculated but it is real nevertheless. I always enjoy this example:

Suppose that you were captured by an evil physicist who gave you the following choice:

Truck and Meatball DiagramYou must either:
•Stand in front of a 1000 kg truck moving at 1 m/s, or
•Stand in front of a 1 kg meatball moving at 1000 m/s.

What's your choice?

Hopefully, you picked the truck! It's a big truck, but it is moving rather slowly (about walking speed), so assuming you don't fall down when it hits you (That would be bad...) the truck is just going to bump into you and move you out of the way.

On the other hand, you probably suspect intuitively that the meatball is a very dangerous object. It isn't that massive, but it is moving very fast (about 10 football fields per second) - and when it hits you it would do considerable damage to you, and keep going!

Consider the momentum and kinetic energy of the truck and the meatball:

Truck:

Truck's momentum = mv = (1000 kg)(1 m/s) = 1000 kg m/s
Truck's kinetic energy = 0.5 mv2 = (0.5)(1000 kg)(1 m/s)2 = 500 Joules

Meatball:

Meatball's momentum = mv = (1 kg)(1000 m/s) = 1000 kg m/s
Meatball's kinetic energy = 0.5 mv2 = (0.5)(1 kg)(1000 m/s)2 = 500 000 Joules

We know intuitively that the meatball is more dangerous than the truck, yet the momenta of the truck and the meatball are the same. On the other hand, the meatball has 1 000 times the kinetic energy of the truck! Clearly, momentum and kinetic energy tell different things about an object!

JPK


JPK