quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Hog Killer:
This thread has gotten



Keith

Which seems to happen every time .375 is mentioned on this thread ... which is listed under BIG BORES!

Todd, that is not reason. The thread is about bullet performance, not a certain bore size.

As for .375, being the starting point for this "Big Bore Forum". I suggest that you try bringing this topic up with Saaed, as it is HIS web-site. And he has killed more buff than any other poster here, with his 375 wildcat.

There are bore sizes that "I" have no interest in, but I do not harp on it.

Keith

quote:

Originally posted by Hog Killer:
This thread has gotten



Keith

some of us enjoy some light hearted banter during slow times--whats it hurting?

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:


So if we love our wives, sons, and daughters, should we let them hunt a buffalo with less than .40" calibre?

Good question Tanz. Good question.

I have long held the opinion that there really is NOTHING "magic" about the .375 caliber as some would have us believe. Simply stated, I think whatever the "minimum" DG caliber is at any given time, it will always be tagged with the "magic" moniker. Think back to when many African countries listed .40 as their "minimum" DG caliber. Many folks assigned the same "magic" attributes of optimized range, stopping power, and shootability (recoil) to the 404J and various 416s at that time. I suggest that a drop in "minimums" to the .338 would soon find the .375 out of favor to a certain extent as it's undeniable that a certain percentage of hunters will gravitate to the "minimum", whatever it be, due to a lack of interest / time necessary on the trigger at the range to master larger weapons (think of the guy who shows up in buffalo or elephant camp with a new 375 that has maybe a box or two of rounds fired through it, possibly only bore sighted, and expecting the PH to "pull his ass out of any situation where the butter gets thin")!

So I suppose if we really love our wives and kids, upon their stated desires to hunt DG, we should insist they learn a proper DG rifle! Say, something of .416 or larger? Yep, you can put me in that camp!

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:

quote:

Originally posted by Hog Killer:
This thread has gotten



Keith

some of us enjoy some light hearted banter during slow times--whats it hurting?

Well said!

Well, here is a consideration that will get this side topic back on thread:

Since we don't have any cute, modestly priced, control-feed left handed rifles over 375 in Ruger Alaskan, my wife can borrow my 500 ARNyati and shoot the 350+tip (361 grains) "lever-raptor" bullets.

We can load them down to around 2400fps (even though that is around the power level of a 375H&H, we won't mention it). That would provide more reliable diameter and huntability out to 200 yards. For me, point-blank is defined by a 2.1" trajectory tunnel, which is dead on out to 200 yards thought at 300 the drop would be -17".

As for terminals, at 200 yards the 2400fps-launched raptor would still be going 1850fps, and it would only drop below 1600fps at 300fps. "Houston, that's a roger."

And if Patrick Neely's daughters enjoyed shooting a 458 B&M, I can't see why the ladies in our family won't enjoy a 500 ARNyati loaded down to levels mentioned above. Maybe I could build up a bit of a cheek-piece on the other side of the stock with one of those stick-on comfort pads.

For even more comfort, we might load the 361 grain bullets down to 2200fps. That would still provide 1600fps impact out at 235 yards. Sighted in for 2" at 100yards the drop at 200 yards would only be -4". My wife could handle that. So could I.

Tanz,

Here's a possibility for you:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...1078981/m/8851082691

And with the new lightweight CEB raptors, the 458 becomes a subtle, deft, hunting tool.

Consider the .295 CEB (approximately 305 grains with the tip) in .458 at a relaxed 2500fps.
The energy level is 4235 ftlbs., down between a 338WM and 375H&H.
But with a 2" high trajectory, it is only -1.6" down at 200 yards and still traveling at 1915fps!

A person can do a lot of hunting with that load and hammer most anything. It drops -7" at 250 yards, which gives quite a bit of range for a 458 calibre rifle. If one gets an accurate range estimate the bullet can go even farther staying above 1600fps all the way to 300 yards, where it crosses the line at a -15" drop. Both the 458 WM and 458 B&M can produce this at less than max loads. Yes, we've learned a lot on terminals.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
Tanz,

Here's a possibility for you:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...1078981/m/8851082691

That is a hell of a deal on that gun...... Starting from scratch it would cost around $2200 to build it. I have two left hand actions here that I was glad to pay $800 for as they are not so easy to come by, and there is always a left hand guy wanting one so I try to find them when I can.

Tanz, I like the 250 Socom bullet at 2900 fps in this gun. This is what I ran this past July in my 18 inch 458 B&M and it was a hammer on all plains game, dropping them at the shot, and exiting zebra, wildebeest and such as that. Also, POI was great with the 450 #13 Solids and a few other bullets, no changes, just pick and choose the bullet for the job. I also shot elephant, hippo, crocodile and buffalo with this rifle in July. 458 B&M is a good thing, and rather handy........

Michael

Now boys, as for the "375" issue, let's lighten up a bit on each other....... No one on the planet despises 375 caliber more than me, this is a promise. I won't even allow one in the door here on the compound, and while there is a 375 B&M, my own creation, I won't even own one or have one myself. There is a B&M fan, wanted one badly, so designed it and had a reamer done for him, but I told him he was on his own for load development and what have you, as I had no use for it........

Seems to me, every common greenhorn going on his first trip to anywhere is told to take a "375" something or other. Yep, it will get the job done, I do not deny it, but in my opinion, not very well.

Keith mentions that this is about "Terminals" and not caliber. To a point, this is correct, but on the other hand, caliber and bullets do coincide to make for performance..... Example......

In 2012 I think, I took my only 9.3 B&M out on the road. Yes, I would not own a 375, so I built a 9.3 B&M, thinking this was my medium caliber B&M.... HEH..... First I took it out to South Africa for a few days of shooting zebra, wildebeest and such, always a good test I think. Using a 210 ESP Raptor at 2900 fps it did a good job on most everything. I was pleased with it, I found if far more effective on those size critters than any 338 or 358 I had ever used in the past, and most all this attributed to the 210 Raptor I believe. Lesser critters, it blew to the ground on the spot. I think I shot 3 wildebeast on that trip, two dropped to the shot, one ran about 40 yards. I shot 3 zebra, and every one of those took off on a dead out run, going anything from 50 yds to 100 yds and literally died on their feet taking incredible nose dives and flips.....

Now, this past year, same sort of test run, only with a 458 B&M and 250 Socom bullet, at again 2900 fps. Now these same animals dropped to the shot, or could only go 5-10 yards and fall over. Incredible performance, by stepping up in caliber only.

Both 9.3 and 458 bullets did an incredible amount of damage, destroying completely lungs, hearts, tissues, and there was no way that any animal shot could survive for any amount of time taking either bullet, but the 9.3 zebras ran like hell, the 458 zebras dropped to the shot? Difference? Caliber........... I have known for years, caliber makes one hell of an impact on animals. This is but one example I have seen, there are many more I could cite. Caliber and bullets do make a big difference.

I later took that same 9.3 B&M to Australia to use on a herd reduction. I was not impressed, and neither were the buffalo. Even with the very best of bullets, I could not impress buffalo with the 9.3. Yes, one could kill them, as penetration, and exits were common, but buffalo just did not pay that rat gun much attention, even with great bullets, I could not turn a 9.3 into a 458................. After the first afternoon outing with the 9.3 I put it to the side, and used the new 475 B&M, to far greater effect. I have decided now that I really don't need a medium caliber for anything I do, with the invent of the 225 gr CEB Raptor in .416 and the 250 Socom in .458, I have zero need or use for a medium caliber anything. The least I will go to the field with, for any animal impala size and up will be 416 caliber using that 225, or 458 using that 250 Socom, FAR MORE EFFECTIVE, and I don't care much about chasing critters all over the place looking for them. I'd rather put one in the dirt, so I can move on to the next one...........

Should see what that 225 .416 did to pigs in Australia.... Whew, pigs don't run after that..... HEH........

Michael

Radically Invasive Projectile: RIP


"The Radically Invasive Projectile trajectories can be seen through ballistics gel. Shot here from both sides, the gel shows the way the new round will expand once it impacts a target. (YouTube screenshot)."






Terry Weeweeland is really going to wet his pants over this one:

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...bedded&v=mJGH7cDFw7c

Home site:

http://g2rip.com/

There are plans for 380ACP, 357Sig, 40S&W, 45ACP, and shotgun slug.
So far only 9mm bullet available ...

The last round you'll ever needG2 Research R.I.P. 9mm
* 16" Penetration
* Up to 6" diameter spread
* 96 gr projectile
* 2" grouping at 25 yrds
* 1265 FPS / 490 Muzzle Energy
* 9 Separate Wound Channels
* Precision Machined
* Solid Copper / Lead Free
* Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing

"It started with an un-compromised idea of creating the ultimate personal protection round. The geometry at the tip of the projectile has much to do with the way the projectile travels through tissue. It has been long known in the medical industry that a trocar point penetrates the dermis layer more efficiently... the G2R RIP Round:"











The R.I.P. bullet expands after impacting a paint-filled balloon. G2R President Cliff Brown said they specifically designed the new round without lead to get ahead of Environmental Protection Agency concerns. (YouTube screenshot).
"This bullet is designed to take out all your vital organs…inferior bullets won’t be a problem anymore,” Brown said. The company president stressed prevention of law enforcement injuries was a primary focus for the round designers.
“The R.I.P. will not defeat level 3A body armor, that was one of our main goals when designing this bullet,” Brown said.
The company’s site adds that G2R has tested the new round with numerous fully automatic and semi automatic firearms, as well as rifles. They claim to have zero failures when testing most well known firearms on the market including Sig, Glock, Beretta, Springfield, FN, Taurus, Walther, Khar, S&W and many others.
Expanding bullets are illegal in some areas, such as New Jersey, unless they are driven directly from the place of purchase to the home or to the range. However, most states allow expanding bullets for use in self defense.

Holy Smokes your going to need Kevlar gloves to load your magazines

I think the brass Raptors would do more damage with the sharp edges. The point thing is a gimmick I think because they may look tacticool but not too functional IMHO.

The Genie in the bottle has been released......... There will be no way to put it back now.....

The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List!
Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom"


This all looks very familiar eh?

"Terry Weeweeland is really going to wet his pants over this one:"
HEH HEH............. Obviously it is just trick photography.... Bullets really can't do that....
Yeah, keep telling yourself that Wee Wee.....


Michael

RIP,
You may want to consider speaking to Gabe Suarez of Suarez international in Prescott, AZ. He runs a defense training program and has quite a large following across the country, maybe a good outlet for you.

You know RIP, I was just on Suarez' forum, been years since I been there, and now I remember why. Already a thread running about this ammo and already guys screaming about no expansion and lack of penetration. small minded people are the ruination of this world! Well them and liberals.

These RIP bullets made the Drudge report.
I knew there would be a two year window before copycats. The natural progression. I wonder how much inspiration came from here.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/n...one-shot-manstopper/

quote:

Originally posted by brent ebeling:
RIP,
You may want to consider speaking to Gabe Suarez of Suarez international in Prescott, AZ. He runs a defense training program and has quite a large following across the country, maybe a good outlet for you.

Brent,

Just a coincidence of the name of the bullet and my handle. RIP: Ron In Person, Riflecrank Internationale Permanente, Requiescat In Pacem, take your pick, but not "Radically Invasive Projectile."

In the words of Doc M, michael458:

"I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else."

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by brent ebeling:
RIP,
You may want to consider speaking to Gabe Suarez of Suarez international in Prescott, AZ. He runs a defense training program and has quite a large following across the country, maybe a good outlet for you.

Brent,

Just a coincidence of the name of the bullet and my handle. RIP: Ron In Person, Riflecrank Internationale Permanente, Requiescat In Pacem, take your pick, but not "Radically Invasive Projectile."

In the words of Doc M, michael458:

"I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else."

RIP...... Yeah Right.... I would not count on not being accused of having your own ammo company or bullet company and promoted said products, regardless of what you say.............. HEH HEH..... You can believe ME when I say so......... LOL......

R-I-P........ Incredible coincident...... ?????????

Mike,
was wondering if you got around to testing that
100gns 60%-40% R15/R7 load in the MDM ?

Have you tested V-N550 any further ?

Have you considered blending V-N550 and V-N130
as a parallel blended load to R15/R7 ?

Cheers,

Paul.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Truccolo:
Mike,
was wondering if you got around to testing that
100gns 60%-40% R15/R7 load in the MDM ?

Have you tested V-N550 any further ? V-N530......... Not 550

Have you considered blending V-N550 and V-N130
as a parallel blended load to R15/R7 ?

Cheers,

Paul.

I ran a 60% RL15 + 40% RL 7 blend today in 500MDM, 100/Blend excellent results, running 450#13 NonCon 2518 fps 60097 PSI....Excellent curves and traces 1029 ES over 5 rounds. Big difference in formed brass, and fire formed brass in pressure curves and ES however. Formed brass gave 4562 ES same velocity 2521 fps....unstable pressures forming brass into the chamber is all....

Benchmark is good as well, same bullet 2492 fps at 62000 PSI..... V-N530 same story 2543 fps at 62007 PSI... All good.... Except now I used the entire lot of V-N530 testing with the 500 B&M....

I can easy take the RL15/RL7 blend to match the V-N530 load however..... 60%/40% is great. At 100 it is nice and compressed as well, damn near perfect. I ran one round at the bottom of the magazine, no crimp, for 4 rounds fired on top of it, never moved at all......... Probably leave that blend alone just as is actually.........

As for other blends, I am trying to work through one base at a time..... I will be looking at some other bases..... Also a lot depends on what I have, and what I can get........

Wes has been looking for you, via email, something about a stock......???

M

Quote; "I ran a 60% RL15 + 40% RL 7 blend today in 500MDM, 100/Blend excellent results, running 450#13 NonCon 2518 fps 60097 PSI....Excellent curves and traces 1029 ES over 5 rounds." Stone the crows, 2500+ fps at just on 60k is AWESOME !

QUOTE; "Formed brass gave 4562 ES same velocity 2521 fps....unstable pressures forming brass into the chamber is all....", could it be a slight case capacity difference between the formed cases and the fireformed cases ?

QUOTE;"V-N530 same story 2543 fps at 62007 PSI...", another excellent load !

Great stuff !, have you posted the actual loads on the B&M website ?

QOTE; "Wes has been looking for you, via email, something about a stock......???",
Cheers, i'll drop him a line and find out what's going on.

Muchos gracias on the above !

Paul.

Paul & Jim.....

Quite pleased with this 60/40 RL15/RL7 mix of mine. Both of you know, my goal with blending was to attempt to duplicate that one 5# can of RL 10X I had back a few years ago that I developed some of the first 500 MDM data with, that was extraordinary to say the least. This 1# can of V-N530 looks extremely good and I think V-N530 would come close to this goal on its own. Problem is, I can't find anymore right now, I search the web every few days at all the main outlets and none is available currently. But I have a decent supply of RL15/RL7 right now, more than enough to mix up a pound or two should I decide. I think I could go to 102 of this blend, reach 62000 or so, and equal the V-N530... But I am also wondering what a 55/45 mix would do, might do that today and see where I get with that.........

We have a couple of new bullets coming in .500, a 475 #13 Solid and 525#13 Solid, I would like to finalize RL15/RL7 and try it with these bullets in both 500MDM and 500 B&M....

As for formed or fired, exactly correct, slightly different capacity, and formed brass forming to the chamber, almost always causes larger ES and most of the time higher pressures as well... But, testing and shooting the formed brass does make it nice to just work up to a point, like yesterday I reached the point with the formed brass that I needed to take it to fired brass to get final results and check for ES, consistency, and so forth......

No, have not put on the BM Site yet, in fact, I have not had time to even record the data yet, doing so this morning........

Michael

Michael

Thank you for taking the time to pressure test my 416 B&M loads using BL-C(2).

It is greatly appreciated

Michael,
It looks like the powder blending is going quit well, will be interesting to see some of the new solids you have coming in for testing, look forward to the reports!

Things on the pistol side have slowed with this onslaught of snow and and ice over the past month but testing will continue shortly with the 150's in the ACP as well as in a 45 Super, going to be a great year!

As of right now we are two months away from hammering some pigs, so we will get some metal to meat here shortly.


Since this thread gets the most traffic I thought it be a great place to post up that our very own Whitworth's new book has been released and it truly is a work of art, it balances history with fantastic photography, highly recommend it!

[URL= ][/QUOTE]

Michael,

I definitely remember that can of 10X! I tuned QL to match that can and ran many 'what ifs' with your .500 caliber B&M cartridges.

I definitely agree, if you can blend match that can then there's zero reason to change it!

Seasons,

Thanks for your work with the 45 ACP with the CEB bullets. And the heads up on Whit's new book.

Mike,
got your e-mail this morning containing all the data, thank-you much appreciated

Very interested where all of this blending will lead to !

G'day to everyone down there at the compound.

Paul.

quote:

Originally posted by Head Trauma:
Michael

Thank you for taking the time to pressure test my 416 B&M loads using BL-C(2).

It is greatly appreciated

Piece of cake.... No problem... I just received my batch of 350#13s yesterday, and will be back on a mission this morning testing some powders I had not done in 416 B&M... One powder that is SHINING right now with the 350 is RL 15.... If RL 15 looks good, then IMR 4320 should as well..... Much test work to be done on this, along with a few more powders. I had been a little lazy with 416 B&M the last couple of years........ I was not happy the other day with some of the IMR 8208 traces, too much inconsistency, in this cartridge, so on a mission to have more loads than just AA2520, which has been a mainstay from the beginning with 416 B&M...... Expect to see new results on the B&M Site within a short time.....

Blending is interesting, very time consuming..... While I don't think I have duplicated that 5# can of RL10X yet, I think this Blend of RL15/RL7 is very good, very much a top end powder for 500MDM........ I am busy with 50/50, 55/45, and have moved the 60/40 to a few other bullets for testing....

Seasons, Thanks for the heads up on the book.... I will be sure to get one..... First one is on my desk right now...... Also, Yes, someone please get busy with that wicked ass 150 gr 45 bullet on deer pig or something.......... I am counting on you to get this done!!!! HEH..... I am still struggling with the load for this, between rifle/handgun, best all around single load, or load for two????

Paul expect updates........ I have 7 new tests to enter in the books this morning........

my .500 475s/525s have been delayed, WEATHER...... Yep, we got an inch of snow/ice Tuesday night, and still have it, roads are still covered even this morning. HEH..... Stopped UPS and Fed Ex completely on Wednesday. Temps have not been above freezing until this morning. You see, we have no road clearing equipment. If we get a little snow or ice in the winter (rare) then by the afternoon it is normally gone. Worry not however, as it will be up to mid 50s today, so it will disappear quickly, and for the next week in the mid 60s +....... I expect next week will be a terminal test week. I will be working through .500 caliber solids, from 450, 475, 500, 525, 550........ 3 different nose projections. Not really a nose projection test, and I plan no major changes to the bullets as they are (right now anyway) I am testing for bullets to go to the field with in the future, near future..... I am thinking 475 gr in the new 500 B&M... 525 in the 500 MDM...... I would like to see velocity around 2350 with both..........

M

Michael

great to see some more work coming on the 416 B&M. You know how much i love it.



Did you get around to trying the CEB 225 SR in the 416 Rem Mag? Checked the website and didn't see anything under 300grs on the RM. Just seems that 225 gr bullet would be a hoot for light stuff.

Thanks again for everything Pard

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:
Michael

great to see some more work coming on the 416 B&M. You know how much i love it.



Did you get around to trying the CEB 225 SR in the 416 Rem Mag? Checked the website and didn't see anything under 300grs on the RM. Just seems that 225 gr bullet would be a hoot for light stuff.

Thanks again for everything Pard

Sean... Got it done, at least in part.... Its now posted on the B&M site 416 B&M Page... New Data. 350#13 Solid only, pay attention to RL 15, and even WW 748... Others that did well, H-4895, TAC, IMR 4320. Next week I already have planned to move this information to the 325#13 HP..


416 Remington..... Yeah, well, I ended up getting one generation of tests done with the 225s, successful, reaching 3000 with 3 different powders, but got sidetracked on several priority projects in between, and kinda lost interest a bit..... Got a little bored with 416 Rem..... I will get back on that soon...........

Michael

Something I think belongs here on our Terminal Performance Thread.........

I want Shooters and Hunters to Think about Something, but first, I am going to post a little bit of "Bullet History" for you to consider...........

quote:
John Nosler

In the fall of 1946, a stubborn, mud-caked Canadian moose failed to go down, despite a well placed shot from John Nosler’s 300 H&H. On the way home from that trip, John started thinking about a way to make a bullet that would perform well every time, no matter what the size of the game or the shot angle.

Over the next year, he experimented with bullet design, finally settling on a unique, dual core bullet that was really the first Partition®. The following fall, John and his friend, Clarence Purdie, both killed moose with one shot using John’s new bullet. In 1948 the Nosler Partition Bullet Company was formed.



quote:
Joyce Hornady

"Ten bullets through one hole" was the philosophy of Joyce Hornady, the company's founder. This great idea of accuracy and perfection has continued from the first bullet made more than sixty years ago, right through today.

Like so many successful companies, Hornady Manufacturing was born out of one man's vision of a better product for his own use. Joyce Hornady was an avid shooter and needed a steady supply of good, accurate bullets. While commercially available bullets were usable, Joyce felt that better bullets could be made.

Hornady, the son of a pastor, was named for a prominent Methodist bishop, Bishop Joyce, who oversaw church affairs in Colorado and western Nebraska. Joyce grew up learning to shoot and hunt – a lifelong passion that would forever change the shooting industry.

During World War II, Joyce had taken a job as a marksmanship instructor in a guard training unit at the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant. He and his family moved to Grand Island from Lincoln, Nebraska. Following the War, Joyce and his family stayed in Grand Island, and opened a small sporting goods retail store that sold everything from basketballs to hunting and shooting products. There was no doubt however, that his true love was shooting and hunting.

In the first years following the war, shooters and hunters used some of the vast surplus of military ammunition for their sport shooting. This surplus ammunition however, did not offer the accuracy or performance needed for target shooting, big game or varmint hunting. Joyce realized the need for better bullets and he responded to it.



quote:
Jack Carter

On his first African safari, Texan Jack Carter fired seven 300-grain bullets from his .375 H&H Magnum into a Cape buffalo bull, seemingly with very little effect. Only after receiving another half-dozen bullets from a .458 Winchester Magnum did the great beast call it quits. Moments later a somewhat shaken Carter decided the hunting world needed a better bullet for use on large and tenacious game, and in 1988 he headed back to Africa with one of his own design. Called the Bear Claw, its copper jacket combined a long, solid shank at the rear with a lead-filled cavity up front.



quote:
Randy Brooks Barnes Bullets

Barnes is the oldest bullet component manufacturer in the United States. Back in the early 1970′s, Coni and I were living in Grand Junction, Colorado milking cows full-time at a dairy while running a little gun trading business on the side. While there, I got to know Fred Barnes who was the originator of Barnes Bullets and had since sold the company. I hung around him a little bit and got to know more about the bullet business. Coni and I moved to New Mexico where I built saddles and got into team roping quite a bit. We eventually moved back to Colorado and found that the Barnes Bullet Company was for sale. In 1974, Coni and I bought the company which was then located in Montrose, Colorado and relocated it to American Fork, Utah.

I got a two week crash course from the people we bought the company from. I really felt that I had this thing dumped in my lap and boy, it was a mess. At the time, Barnes made pretty good bullets. They were heavily jacketed and were well known for their penetrating value. I did, however, see that there were many improvements that needed to be made. I immediately designed a solid that would not bend or come apart. In 1979, I came up with a solid bullet that didn’t have any lead in it. In 1984, I started thinking of an expanding bullet that didn’t contain any lead, and that is how I came up with our X-bullet. In 1986, I came up with the prototype which is well-patented. The X-bullet we make today far exceeds the performance level of the bullet we made in the 80′s.



quote:
Vernon Speer

Vernon Speer(1901-1978) was a man driven by his inventive nature.

A native of Iowa, Vernon served in the US Navy during World War I, stimulating his interest in aviation. At age 21, he designed and built an aircraft engine. To prove its worth, he installed it in a biplane and took it aloft. Following the war, he worked as a tool foreman for the John Deere Company. When World War II broke out, he became chief ground instructor at a Lincoln, Nebraska flying school. It was during this time he became interested in bullet making. He was briefly in the bullet business with Joyce Hornady, founder of Hornady Bullets.

In 1944, Vernon looked for a new location, one that offered good transportation, mild weather and, of course, access to great hunting. He selected Lewiston, Idaho, on the Washington-Idaho border. He rented space in the basement of a small corner grocery store and built equipment to convert fired 22 rimfire cases into .224" bullet jackets. The war effort meant that gilding metal, the preferred material for bullet jackets, was all going into government ammo plants. Reprocessing rimfire cases was Vernon's clever solution to a knotty problem. That solution put him in the bullet business for good.



Do you guys see a trend here? These are some few of the guys that are literally bullet legends, these are the guys that brought bullet tech to the front lines, these are the guys that have become the largest bullet companies in the world today....... What COMMON TREND do we see with each of these guys?

Well, one thing I see right off, many of them got involved with developing a better bullet because of a particular NEED for a better bullet. One needed and desired more accuracy! Several saw a need for a better bullet that would hold together on larger animals, in the case of John Nosler a failed moose shot, in the case of Jack Carter it was a 375 HH and cape buffalo and so on. A Particular Need for something better for the mission at hand....................

The next thing that stands out to me is the fact that NONE of these innovators are "Lab Technicians" at "White Laboratory" or some sort of "Bullet Tech Laboratory", none of them had to use B+T*M to get to A.......... They did not have to resort to pure scientific requirements to get what they needed for the field or the range.
Hell, one of them milked cows for christ sakes! According to some people none of these men would meet the requirements, or have the knowledge to be able to give us the bullets that they in fact did give us, that we have used for some 60+ years............ These men did not adhere to pure scientific requirements to get what was needed in the field, where we as shooters, hunters, need these bullets, and others like them to accomplish our missions. Our mission is not to be worried about shooting a 3 foot long 500 grain DART because science tells us this is required. It is not practical, it is not needed, it is not required. It is irrelevant at best, as we cannot put such to practical use. So we as hunters/shooters, we have to have something that can be put to actual use in the field, in real rifles, with real ammunition.

Bullets are designed by hunters/shooters for a reason..................... Something to keep in mind............

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Something I think belongs here on our Terminal Performance Thread.........

I want Shooters and Hunters to Think about Something, but first, I am going to post a little bit of "Bullet History" for you to consider...........

quote:
John Nosler

In the fall of 1946, a stubborn, mud-caked Canadian moose failed to go down, despite a well placed shot from John Nosler’s 300 H&H. On the way home from that trip, John started thinking about a way to make a bullet that would perform well every time, no matter what the size of the game or the shot angle.

Over the next year, he experimented with bullet design, finally settling on a unique, dual core bullet that was really the first Partition®. The following fall, John and his friend, Clarence Purdie, both killed moose with one shot using John’s new bullet. In 1948 the Nosler Partition Bullet Company was formed.



quote:
Joyce Hornady

"Ten bullets through one hole" was the philosophy of Joyce Hornady, the company's founder. This great idea of accuracy and perfection has continued from the first bullet made more than sixty years ago, right through today.

Like so many successful companies, Hornady Manufacturing was born out of one man's vision of a better product for his own use. Joyce Hornady was an avid shooter and needed a steady supply of good, accurate bullets. While commercially available bullets were usable, Joyce felt that better bullets could be made.

Hornady, the son of a pastor, was named for a prominent Methodist bishop, Bishop Joyce, who oversaw church affairs in Colorado and western Nebraska. Joyce grew up learning to shoot and hunt – a lifelong passion that would forever change the shooting industry.

During World War II, Joyce had taken a job as a marksmanship instructor in a guard training unit at the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant. He and his family moved to Grand Island from Lincoln, Nebraska. Following the War, Joyce and his family stayed in Grand Island, and opened a small sporting goods retail store that sold everything from basketballs to hunting and shooting products. There was no doubt however, that his true love was shooting and hunting.

In the first years following the war, shooters and hunters used some of the vast surplus of military ammunition for their sport shooting. This surplus ammunition however, did not offer the accuracy or performance needed for target shooting, big game or varmint hunting. Joyce realized the need for better bullets and he responded to it.



quote:
Jack Carter

On his first African safari, Texan Jack Carter fired seven 300-grain bullets from his .375 H&H Magnum into a Cape buffalo bull, seemingly with very little effect. Only after receiving another half-dozen bullets from a .458 Winchester Magnum did the great beast call it quits. Moments later a somewhat shaken Carter decided the hunting world needed a better bullet for use on large and tenacious game, and in 1988 he headed back to Africa with one of his own design. Called the Bear Claw, its copper jacket combined a long, solid shank at the rear with a lead-filled cavity up front.



quote:
Randy Brooks Barnes Bullets

Barnes is the oldest bullet component manufacturer in the United States. Back in the early 1970′s, Coni and I were living in Grand Junction, Colorado milking cows full-time at a dairy while running a little gun trading business on the side. While there, I got to know Fred Barnes who was the originator of Barnes Bullets and had since sold the company. I hung around him a little bit and got to know more about the bullet business. Coni and I moved to New Mexico where I built saddles and got into team roping quite a bit. We eventually moved back to Colorado and found that the Barnes Bullet Company was for sale. In 1974, Coni and I bought the company which was then located in Montrose, Colorado and relocated it to American Fork, Utah.

I got a two week crash course from the people we bought the company from. I really felt that I had this thing dumped in my lap and boy, it was a mess. At the time, Barnes made pretty good bullets. They were heavily jacketed and were well known for their penetrating value. I did, however, see that there were many improvements that needed to be made. I immediately designed a solid that would not bend or come apart. In 1979, I came up with a solid bullet that didn’t have any lead in it. In 1984, I started thinking of an expanding bullet that didn’t contain any lead, and that is how I came up with our X-bullet. In 1986, I came up with the prototype which is well-patented. The X-bullet we make today far exceeds the performance level of the bullet we made in the 80′s.



quote:
Vernon Speer

Vernon Speer(1901-1978) was a man driven by his inventive nature.

A native of Iowa, Vernon served in the US Navy during World War I, stimulating his interest in aviation. At age 21, he designed and built an aircraft engine. To prove its worth, he installed it in a biplane and took it aloft. Following the war, he worked as a tool foreman for the John Deere Company. When World War II broke out, he became chief ground instructor at a Lincoln, Nebraska flying school. It was during this time he became interested in bullet making. He was briefly in the bullet business with Joyce Hornady, founder of Hornady Bullets.

In 1944, Vernon looked for a new location, one that offered good transportation, mild weather and, of course, access to great hunting. He selected Lewiston, Idaho, on the Washington-Idaho border. He rented space in the basement of a small corner grocery store and built equipment to convert fired 22 rimfire cases into .224" bullet jackets. The war effort meant that gilding metal, the preferred material for bullet jackets, was all going into government ammo plants. Reprocessing rimfire cases was Vernon's clever solution to a knotty problem. That solution put him in the bullet business for good.



Do you guys see a trend here? These are some few of the guys that are literally bullet legends, these are the guys that brought bullet tech to the front lines, these are the guys that have become the largest bullet companies in the world today....... What COMMON TREND do we see with each of these guys?

Well, one thing I see right off, many of them got involved with developing a better bullet because of a particular NEED for a better bullet. One needed and desired more accuracy! Several saw a need for a better bullet that would hold together on larger animals, in the case of John Nosler a failed moose shot, in the case of Jack Carter it was a 375 HH and cape buffalo and so on. A Particular Need for something better for the mission at hand....................

The next thing that stands out to me is the fact that NONE of these innovators are "Lab Technicians" at "White Laboratory" or some sort of "Bullet Tech Laboratory", none of them had to use B+T*M to get to A.......... They did not have to resort to pure scientific requirements to get what they needed for the field or the range.
Hell, one of them milked cows for christ sakes! According to some people none of these men would meet the requirements, or have the knowledge to be able to give us the bullets that they in fact did give us, that we have used for some 60+ years............ These men did not adhere to pure scientific requirements to get what was needed in the field, where we as shooters, hunters, need these bullets, and others like them to accomplish our missions. Our mission is not to be worried about shooting a 3 foot long 500 grain DART because science tells us this is required. It is not practical, it is not needed, it is not required. It is irrelevant at best, as we cannot put such to practical use. So we as hunters/shooters, we have to have something that can be put to actual use in the field, in real rifles, with real ammunition.

Bullets are designed by hunters/shooters for a reason..................... Something to keep in mind............

I noticed another trend, none of them talked about "energy" it was all about the bullet. As it should be!

quote:

I noticed another trend, none of them talked about "energy" it was all about the bullet. As it should be!

Oh, the energy was there. It had to do with bullet upset, minimum expansion velocities, and maximum velocities with bullet integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Something I think belongs here on our Terminal Performance Thread.........

I want Shooters and Hunters to Think about Something, but first, I am going to post a little bit of "Bullet History" for you to consider...........

quote:
John Nosler

In the fall of 1946, a stubborn, mud-caked Canadian moose failed to go down, despite a well placed shot from John Nosler’s 300 H&H. On the way home from that trip, John started thinking about a way to make a bullet that would perform well every time, no matter what the size of the game or the shot angle.

Over the next year, he experimented with bullet design, finally settling on a unique, dual core bullet that was really the first Partition®. The following fall, John and his friend, Clarence Purdie, both killed moose with one shot using John’s new bullet. In 1948 the Nosler Partition Bullet Company was formed.



quote:
Joyce Hornady

"Ten bullets through one hole" was the philosophy of Joyce Hornady, the company's founder. This great idea of accuracy and perfection has continued from the first bullet made more than sixty years ago, right through today.

Like so many successful companies, Hornady Manufacturing was born out of one man's vision of a better product for his own use. Joyce Hornady was an avid shooter and needed a steady supply of good, accurate bullets. While commercially available bullets were usable, Joyce felt that better bullets could be made.

Hornady, the son of a pastor, was named for a prominent Methodist bishop, Bishop Joyce, who oversaw church affairs in Colorado and western Nebraska. Joyce grew up learning to shoot and hunt – a lifelong passion that would forever change the shooting industry.

During World War II, Joyce had taken a job as a marksmanship instructor in a guard training unit at the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant. He and his family moved to Grand Island from Lincoln, Nebraska. Following the War, Joyce and his family stayed in Grand Island, and opened a small sporting goods retail store that sold everything from basketballs to hunting and shooting products. There was no doubt however, that his true love was shooting and hunting.

In the first years following the war, shooters and hunters used some of the vast surplus of military ammunition for their sport shooting. This surplus ammunition however, did not offer the accuracy or performance needed for target shooting, big game or varmint hunting. Joyce realized the need for better bullets and he responded to it.



quote:
Jack Carter

On his first African safari, Texan Jack Carter fired seven 300-grain bullets from his .375 H&H Magnum into a Cape buffalo bull, seemingly with very little effect. Only after receiving another half-dozen bullets from a .458 Winchester Magnum did the great beast call it quits. Moments later a somewhat shaken Carter decided the hunting world needed a better bullet for use on large and tenacious game, and in 1988 he headed back to Africa with one of his own design. Called the Bear Claw, its copper jacket combined a long, solid shank at the rear with a lead-filled cavity up front.



quote:
Randy Brooks Barnes Bullets

Barnes is the oldest bullet component manufacturer in the United States. Back in the early 1970′s, Coni and I were living in Grand Junction, Colorado milking cows full-time at a dairy while running a little gun trading business on the side. While there, I got to know Fred Barnes who was the originator of Barnes Bullets and had since sold the company. I hung around him a little bit and got to know more about the bullet business. Coni and I moved to New Mexico where I built saddles and got into team roping quite a bit. We eventually moved back to Colorado and found that the Barnes Bullet Company was for sale. In 1974, Coni and I bought the company which was then located in Montrose, Colorado and relocated it to American Fork, Utah.

I got a two week crash course from the people we bought the company from. I really felt that I had this thing dumped in my lap and boy, it was a mess. At the time, Barnes made pretty good bullets. They were heavily jacketed and were well known for their penetrating value. I did, however, see that there were many improvements that needed to be made. I immediately designed a solid that would not bend or come apart. In 1979, I came up with a solid bullet that didn’t have any lead in it. In 1984, I started thinking of an expanding bullet that didn’t contain any lead, and that is how I came up with our X-bullet. In 1986, I came up with the prototype which is well-patented. The X-bullet we make today far exceeds the performance level of the bullet we made in the 80′s.



quote:
Vernon Speer

Vernon Speer(1901-1978) was a man driven by his inventive nature.

A native of Iowa, Vernon served in the US Navy during World War I, stimulating his interest in aviation. At age 21, he designed and built an aircraft engine. To prove its worth, he installed it in a biplane and took it aloft. Following the war, he worked as a tool foreman for the John Deere Company. When World War II broke out, he became chief ground instructor at a Lincoln, Nebraska flying school. It was during this time he became interested in bullet making. He was briefly in the bullet business with Joyce Hornady, founder of Hornady Bullets.

In 1944, Vernon looked for a new location, one that offered good transportation, mild weather and, of course, access to great hunting. He selected Lewiston, Idaho, on the Washington-Idaho border. He rented space in the basement of a small corner grocery store and built equipment to convert fired 22 rimfire cases into .224" bullet jackets. The war effort meant that gilding metal, the preferred material for bullet jackets, was all going into government ammo plants. Reprocessing rimfire cases was Vernon's clever solution to a knotty problem. That solution put him in the bullet business for good.



Do you guys see a trend here? These are some few of the guys that are literally bullet legends, these are the guys that brought bullet tech to the front lines, these are the guys that have become the largest bullet companies in the world today....... What COMMON TREND do we see with each of these guys?

Well, one thing I see right off, many of them got involved with developing a better bullet because of a particular NEED for a better bullet. One needed and desired more accuracy! Several saw a need for a better bullet that would hold together on larger animals, in the case of John Nosler a failed moose shot, in the case of Jack Carter it was a 375 HH and cape buffalo and so on. A Particular Need for something better for the mission at hand....................

The next thing that stands out to me is the fact that NONE of these innovators are "Lab Technicians" at "White Laboratory" or some sort of "Bullet Tech Laboratory", none of them had to use B+T*M to get to A.......... They did not have to resort to pure scientific requirements to get what they needed for the field or the range.
Hell, one of them milked cows for christ sakes! According to some people none of these men would meet the requirements, or have the knowledge to be able to give us the bullets that they in fact did give us, that we have used for some 60+ years............ These men did not adhere to pure scientific requirements to get what was needed in the field, where we as shooters, hunters, need these bullets, and others like them to accomplish our missions. Our mission is not to be worried about shooting a 3 foot long 500 grain DART because science tells us this is required. It is not practical, it is not needed, it is not required. It is irrelevant at best, as we cannot put such to practical use. So we as hunters/shooters, we have to have something that can be put to actual use in the field, in real rifles, with real ammunition.

Bullets are designed by hunters/shooters for a reason..................... Something to keep in mind............

Fantastic quotes Michael,

Neccecity drives innovation, its just a shame there are individuals who can't get out of there own way to see the performance of these bullets.


BTW Michael, did you get the new fangdagled energy reader in the lab? Its all the rage on the internet, the only way to make sure you have enough "energy" to stop your game

quote:

BTW Michael, did you get the new fangdagled energy reader in the lab? Its all the rage on the internet, the only way to make sure you have enough "energy" to stop your game

I am in search mode now, I have no idea how we have accomplished anything at all without this device.... We beg forgiveness for our neglect in such matters......... HEH..... I know as soon as I can locate and setup the device, that all our bullets will start working better....

Michael and all,

just finished the complete reading of this thread.

wow with all the knowledge, experience and feedback posted here ...

ill have certainly a lot of questions but ill try to digest before going farther.

all the best.

Phil

Doc M, Again, you have plainly demonstrated that life is real and NOT necessarily scientific and certainly not theoretical. 'Some 'people think / believe that science is always required and/ or the answer.
Ask a honest (non global warming whore) scientist to 'Scientifically ' or in 'scientific terms '
to explain how a bumble bee can fly. There will NOT be a 'Scientific ' answer or any answer for that matter, but I swear AND will testify under oath that I have seen a bumble bee fly --- more than once.
We have unfortunately never met. I want to let you know how much I appreciate, respect and enjoy all the work you do and have done. Thank you .

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
Michael and all,

just finished the complete reading of this thread.

wow with all the knowledge, experience and feedback posted here ...

ill have certainly a lot of questions but ill try to digest before going farther.

all the best.

Phil

Being that this thread is literally longer than the Bible and on par with "War and Peace" that is quite an accomplishment. Some of the best info and entertainment in terminal ballistics out there.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
Michael and all,

just finished the complete reading of this thread.

wow with all the knowledge, experience and feedback posted here ...

ill have certainly a lot of questions but ill try to digest before going farther.

all the best.

Phil

Phil.....

Quite a task you have completed....... It has been a great team effort and I believe much has been accomplished, regardless of a few naysayers. I think we have learned much about many if not most of the bullets we use in the field, and we have all been part of developing features we need in the field into some of the finest bullets that have ever been to the field. And these same bullets keep proving themselves over and over again, IN THE FIELD, despite what some might say..... Hard to argue with results........

Not sure if I can help, but if so, more than happy to......

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Texas Killartist:
Doc M, Again, you have plainly demonstrated that life is real and NOT necessarily scientific and certainly not theoretical. 'Some 'people think / believe that science is always required and/ or the answer.
Ask a honest (non global warming whore) scientist to 'Scientifically ' or in 'scientific terms '
to explain how a bumble bee can fly. There will NOT be a 'Scientific ' answer or any answer for that matter, but I swear AND will testify under oath that I have seen a bumble bee fly --- more than once.
We have unfortunately never met. I want to let you know how much I appreciate, respect and enjoy all the work you do and have done. Thank you .

TX...........

I have seen your support..... Thanks so much, very appreciated. As many know we have been in some of the same old "Discussions" as we were involved in over 5 plus years ago. Same, nothing changes from the "Other" side. One can go back and see the same Bull Shit from years ago, right up until the last week or even the last few days. We did not falter in our course of action, but remained resolute in our goals. We did not listen nor pay any attention to the BS, and stayed our course. We took what was required and factual from those same people, what little there was, and used that in addition to far more to get to this point.

The test medium has been attacked over and over again, yet, the results we see in the field, behavior of all the bullets tested here, are the same in the field, as the test work done. What works in the test medium, what is successful in the test medium, is also successful in the field, on real animal tissue. I have said this a 1000 times that no test medium duplicates exactly animal tissue, and one cannot test in animal tissue as there is no consistency, and one cannot compare exact results. The test medium I use, no big secret, wet print. This test medium is boosted a bit by my insertion of layers of magazines/catalogs, I get stacks of these things in the mail every week. Instead of tossing 100s of #s of this per year, decided some years ago to put it to use. I try to be as consistent as possible with it, 1.5-2 inches of mag/cat inserted, and 6 inches or so of news print. By accident, I found that this mix was far more dense, and tougher on bullets than just wet newsprint alone. Very simply by depth of penetration, and more stress put on the bullet.......

When I built my indoor range, I had a drain installed at the rear of the range. Any test medium absolutely has to be aqueous to get proper comparisons. Animal tissue is not made of "dry material", so what would be the point of testing in any dry material? Animals are not made of "Steel", so what would be the purpose of testing steel plate penetration, since most animals I have hunted seem to have no "armor" plating, I see where that has no value. It was always my intention to put stress on the bullets, but "reasonable" stress. I never believed that ballistic gel put enough stress on the bullets, and still believe that today. If I can detect a failure of something, I want as much reasonable stress on the bullet as possible, I rather discover that failure here, than in the field. Failures in the field are not good! Failures in the field, very best scenario, cost $$..... Failures in the field can cost lost and suffering animals! Worst case, failures in the field when hunting dangerous game can cost lives. Should it not be our goal to discover problems or issues on the test range before we go to the field? If we find a bullet that consistently performs as we desire it to, and it consistently out performs other similar bullets designed for the task at hand, regardless of what that task is, does it not make sense that we would choose the best bullet tested for our related task? Would we choose the poorest performance because of nostalgia, or other reasons? I have been involved in many areas of shooting since I was a kid, more than 30 years ago.... I learned a long time ago that one does not learn from the individual that comes in dead last, but one learns from the front runners. This same analogy can be applied to many areas of life as well, business for instance, one does not try and pattern your business from the competition that is dead last, or the poorest, but from the very best in that particular business. And once again we refer to literally 100s of bullets dug out of animal flesh, compared to our bullets tested in our test medium, and what we find is that we actually get deeper penetration in all cases in animal tissue, we find that the behavior of a particular bullet, soft, nonconventional, flat nose solid is damn near exactly the same behavior in animal tissue and test medium, taking into account the many variables encountered in the field, such as bones, hitting sticks or trees, or other 100s if not 1000s of variables that can be introduced in the field, that we cannot possibly test for each and every one. Round Nose solids, not created equal, however, we contend that what has 100% consistently failed in the test work, has the potential to fail in the field. One may indeed the vast majority of the time, get enough performance out of a bullet that it can be successful the vast majority of the time. However, I for one, WILL NOT ACCEPT anything that cannot prove itself in the test work. I am just not going to do it period. Now, many of you are free to do as you please, whether for nostalgic reasons, or reasons of your own, and that is fine, it has no effect on what I will do. I wish you the best in your endeavors regardless. My goals may be far different than others.

Scientific? Never claimed any science here, nor is that my goal. I am not looking to be published in any "peer publication"...... This is not my goal. I am a forester by profession, as a forester, then I am very familiar with "Peer Reviewed Publications ", as in many professions there are related publications, medical, wildlife biology, and so forth and so on. What is a shooters "Peer Publication"... Guns and Ammo? Shooting Times? Rifle Magazine, or perhaps Handloader Magazine....... Or some other rag tag magazine? I know, African Hunting Gazette, or maybe SCI Magazine? I don't think so to be honest, and not putting down those particular rag magazines by any stretch, while I have never written an article about anything, nor have any desire to, there have been several articles done on various things concerning some of the things I have done here in many of those same magazines, and even more, but I don't consider those anymore than entertainment value at best, most of the time............. In fact, I have a friend that has written several articles and been published in some of those same magazines, and he knows far less about most things than "Joe Dick" on the sidewalk..... I keep telling him it will not make him famous to write about himself.... LOL....................... I continue to tease him all in good nature of course........ And without any doubt whatsoever in my mind, the work done here would never pass any sort of government review or test validations. But, I have nothing to sell the government, nor any Peer Reviewed Publication, nor a book, nor even a damned bullet. Not my goal. Very simply, my goal in ALL OF THIS was to find a better mousetrap, so that I would be more successful in the field, so that I could perhaps avoid failures in the field, avoid costs in $$, costs of lost animals, sleep better at night knowing I was using the best that could possibly be had, and perhaps save the cost of failure in the field from becoming a more serious problem that could cost injury, or worse. In any endeavor in which I embark upon, it is my wish to be successful regardless of what that endeavor is. Silly me, I would think that would be the wish of all hunters or shooters as well..........

Of course I made observations concerning performance. How stupid. What is the point if you do not make observations of what you are doing? Where these observations always understood, and were they always 100% correct? Of course they were not. Many times, I would see performance in the test work here, but not fully understand exactly what I was seeing until I saw what happened in the field in animal tissue. Point of fact, our Non-Conventional bullets. While I saw and observed the behavior of the blades, when I first took them to the field on animal tissue, I began to understand what was actually going on and how those blades worked from the point of shear, to the end of their penetration. Then, coming back to the test work afterwards, it was plain as day to me, and then further tests in the clear ballistic gel from CEB told the story in a visual way that I could never do here............. What I did learn, was that the behavior of the Non-Conventionals was EXACTLY the same in my test medium, ballistic gel, and in animal tissue! Behavior mind you, they worked the same way. Depth of penetration is different in all three mediums, but behavior is EXACTLY the same, the way they work..........

The things we learned about flat nose solids could not be learned any other way.... Some of the factors are large, some not so large. For instance, sharp edge of the meplat as opposed to a radius or smoother edge on the meplat making a difference is a small factor in the end, but none the less, a factor. Nose Projection above the bands actually became a large factor in the depth of penetration, and was the very last factor discovered. Meplat size in my opinion the most important factor really could not be studied any other way with precision. And we did get a fairly precise study on that, from round nose to 50% meplat, and I believe ending in 80%, and seeing behavior of the bullet all the way through the process. Nose profiles, to me the second most important factor, could not have been understood any other way. Twist rate, velocity, construction/materials, could not have been studied any other way, at least not as efficiently.
If there was another way, that was more efficient I did not know of it. But what we did got us to where we are, and this has brought nothing but success in the field.

Has everything been absolutely perfect? Of course not, there have been many variables that had to be addressed. At any time, if something did not appear to be correct, it was retested to find out what the issue was, and that goes beyond terminals to other areas as well. And event today, doing much of the pressure testing I do here, if something does not appear logical, then it gets retested........

Once again, it is only my wish to share what I have done, what I have found works for me, if it works for you, well and good. If not, then sorry, doing the best I can do. In the end, the goal is, and has remained, and will be forever more so that I personally can be more successful in my endeavors in the field. It is my belief that if I am more successful, then the "Potential" for you to be more successful is there and exists as well. Maybe I am wrong, and if so, my apologies, but I will continue to do what I do, and the rest can go their own way if they wish, and that is just dandy with me..... I have nothing to sell you, I have nothing to profit from................ What I have gained from all these endeavors that I put the most value on is the wonderful friendships that have been made during the last several years with a hell of a lot of great guys, good shooters, good hunters, and so many of us of like mind, and that has more value to me than anything we have done................

Michael