quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
But it would not be polite to pry.

Mea culpa.

/

Alf,

You left out one other kind of tissue damage - tearing. This is damage that I have observed with FN solids but not with RN solids.

And I highly doubt that I am imagining the difference in wound channels....

Hmmm. Something's old are wiser then new.

For the longest time, Elmer Keith, etc. have been advocates of the straight line penetration
of flat nosed solids. Most used CAST bullets, since the major industry couldn't make a bullet, or wouldn't make, a reliable feeding flat nose bullet.

Now, with the new mono lathes, and new materials, the superior design of the flat nose is becoming popular with dangerous game hunters.

The wheel turns around again...

g

/

ALF: are forgetting you Facklers work with light bullets, and high energy? IIRC he diagramed the initial explosive effect of the wound channel created by the 223, on first impact.
However, due to it's light weight, the wound channel quickly diminished in size, due to loss of velocity. I would suggest, and I think a few others might as well, that if you have enough velocity on impact to create hydrodynamic shock, on initial impact, yet the projectile is heavy enough to continue through the target with speed similar to impact velocity, then wouldn't the wound channel be much larger, then let's say a 223, which looses all it's velocity, becuase of it's lack of weight? In other words that 500 grain 2150 FPS 458 bullet whacks very hard not because of it's initial velocity, but because it maintains that velocity further into the animal, creating a larger, longer, initial wound channel, followed by long penetration.

Second: Many forget to factor in the bullets ability to transfer energy after it slows a bit. The larger the surface area of the bullet, the more disruption, in energy transfer occurs, and the more dead tissue occurs.

So, you have a nice balancing act here. For large game, a heavy bullet, at high speed, that maintains it's velocity through target is probably the best answer. Hence the observations that people see a noticeable difference between 458 500 grain and 400 grain, lighter bullets.

To support your multiple, fragmented, type bullets: Barnes X accomplish the best of both worlds, with a solid going through, and the petals breaking off, or staying on...

G

Alf,
No one is saying that shooting water is like shooting living tissue. But throw in some plywood witness boards along the way and you can tell a lot about penetration potential on game. You can get consistency too. Any live game shot is unique unto itself like a snowflake.

You can also tell how easily round nose solids tumble versus the flat noses going at least twice as far before tumbling in the iron buffalo.

You can't give credit to Ray's observations unless you admit the flat noses just go straighter and deeper, and hence wound better, losing velocity less abruptly than the side-winding, wallowing round noses.

/

/

quote:

I have no problem accepting and underwriting that a FN gives better straight line penetration but to claim it "kills better" because of the FN in itself is myth.

Alf,

I don't know about big game but I can tell you that in the late 1970s I tried on kangaroos and pigs the 300 grain Hornady FMJ from 375 and the 500 grain FMJ in both 458 and 460 and the inpact, destruction etc and etc was way below the 300 grain Hornady round nose and 500 grain Hornady round nose loaded backwards.

In the 1970s I also had copper cylinders machined for 375 and 458 and when fired in to phone books the results were completely different to Hornady FMJs. The wadcutters built are an ever increasing diamter of paper in front of them. The "wound" was far bigger.

Apart from 500 grain Hornady round noses loaded backwards I also used in the 460 the copper cylinders on roos and pigs. I would take a lot of convincing that the FMJ Hornadys were doing the same

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
RIP:

I will quote RAY:

"I do know the Flat nose solid is the better killer of game, both plainsgame and dangerous game of any kind..."

Can you / we accept that the wallowing round nose 458 will not kill say an impala or a kudu as dead as a FN in 458 ?????? or then for that matter the thousands of animals killed before we came along with our new science of FN bullets, how did they die then? or were they just lucky????

I will venture a bet that over years more animals fell the the very bullets we are trashing now in favour of this new found technology.

I have no problem accepting and underwriting that a FN gives better straight line penetration but to claim it "kills better" because of the FN in itself is myth.

It kills better cause the likelyhood of getting to the vitals in a straight line is better not because the tip is flat per se.

As I have said there is no evidence that the wound tract is bigger, better, bleeds more, destroys more tissue because the nose if flat or rounded.

O.K. Alf, you are starting to come around there. BTW, a kudu or impala is not much of a test for a .458 bullet. It could be completely keyholed and kill either of those critters.

I do not put much stock in the better wounding by any special cutting, punching, whiz-bang, or kablooey of an FN, nor even buzz saw effect of a Trophy Bonded Bear Claw.

The FN just keeps going straight much farther so hits the kill zone much better and bleeds out both sides more likely.

And yes, you are correct about those old round nose solid users, sometimes they got lucky.

I've got to say, most of this is
.
Handgun hunters, and bullet casters have LONG known(like over 100 years) Keith style bullets,, truncated cones, etc. penetrate, long, deep and straight, as long as the velocity didn't result in the cast bullets breaking up, or deforming on entry. The industry didn't have the tools to easily make a bullet that would feed in modern production rifles, or make them enough money, is really the bottom line. Why bother making a bullet with groves, and a flat nose, and perfecting the bullets, for such a small market? Let em eat cake, and use round nose bullets...

With the advent of the new monos, and the new milling machines, we have bullets that will not deform at modern velocities. Don't make up a bunch of rationalizations explaining bullet preformance, for a fact that's been known since Elmer Keith started shooting, or before.

IIRC, Paco Kelly took an elephant with a .300 caliber cast bullet, flat nose, at 2300 fps in the 30's.

Just because for the last 5 years you guys have been arguing against truncated cone bullets, or Keith style bullets, on the basis that they couldn't work, since they were cast, and all of a sudden are doing an about face, because now they are milled, don't insult us old folk that have long known from pistol work, the efficency, and devastating effect of a decent sectional density, truncated cone, or Keith style bullet, at moderate to high velocity, for a hand gun, or rifle for that matter.

Finally, the real key to all this is competition. With all the new alternative bullet producers, despite our government trying to shut them down, we finally have actual competition in the dangerous game bullet market. This is the real key. Without Gerard, and the others, we would be stuck with a few, expensive, bullet producers, and, since they have had a mini-monopoly on the market, they could tell us what worked, and not give us any choices.Now, we have choices, and better prices. All of a sudden I can get a quality bullet for 1/4 what a tungsten solid costs, and, it will work better, since it's a flat nose, modern, mono bullet.

Ain't progress wonderful?

GS
PS: Bullet design is NOT rocket science. The basics of ballistics have been the same since the turn of the century, actually before that.
Don't try and pull some reinvent the wheel crap, and think you are the first to do it...
Lee Jurras forgot more then most of the new bullet guys have ever known...

This is all very interesting, yet I am not 100% convinced. Maybe to qualify Flat nose penetrates deeper at a few feet off the muzzle.Also most keyholing is bad but not all post impact keyholing is as bad as it might seem as far as extra tissue or even bone damage.I enjoy this search for excellence and I think it is the only Rocket science (elmer) was right 100 years ago but using 100yr old technology.Keep testing ,John Thompson used a slaughterhouse to test his tommy submachine gun in 45acp. Used spoiled hams. Rip please expand your testing any way possible we need more results ,Thanks

I'll use Bridger solids next time I go after Cape buffalo.

George

Alf,

Tissue tearing several inches off from the path of the bullet, which I observe with FN solids fired from rifles into game but which I do not observe with RN solids, is a PERMANENT WOUND to the animal.

The tearing appears to be caused by a larger temporary wound cavity as a result of the larger supercavitation bubble created by a FN solid.

The bottom line of all this is that a FN solid causes more tissue disruption, both temporary and permanent. So the animal bleeds out more quickly.

And since a FN solid leaves nice cookie cutter holes at entrance and exit, the blood drains out on the ground making it easy to follow the animal.

you can drag a horse to water......

If I am already shooting through on a broad sided buff with a Woodleigh solid, will a flat nose bullet make the buff fall down harder? Maybe a back flip with a half twist?

quote:

Originally posted by Zero Drift:
If I am already shooting through on a broad sided buff with a Woodleigh solid, will a flat nose bullet make the buff fall down harder? Maybe a back flip with a half twist?

No.

But it will cause the buff to bleed out quicker so you will not need to follow him as far.

Or if the buff gives you a Texas heart shot, a FN solid will make it all the way to the front of the heart (in the right caliber), while a RN solid stops short of that by about a foot. Good enough? Probably. But if you want the best...

quote:

I'll use Bridger solids next I go after Cape buffalo.

Me too

500Grains, I know the reality of FNs and they do wound more and thus kill better than RNs but I think it's a waste of keyboard time to try to convince some people.

Will a RN kill Absolutely
Will a FN do everything the RN will and more Absolutely.

I guess there are some that still think it was better to get around with horse drawn wagon. The anti-progress faction will NEVER want to admit that anything new is better than what came before.

I know that FNs were used way back when but the material was the weak part of that equation. With better materials now available the FN can really show what’s it's capable of doing.

500 - extra penetration is an especially good thing for many calibers like the .458 WinMag or .416 Taylor. I believe you would have one hell of a time proving that a buff died quicker due to a flat nose VS round nose all things being equal. While it may make logical sense to make this statement, the variables of field conditions and terminal performance are too varied to make any determination either way.

I have dropped 4 buff and all fortunately died rapidly with no running, screaming and follow up shots needed. From my observations, a flat nosed bullet would have mattered not. With the calibers I hunt with, I am more concerned about over penetration than I am about achieving a pass through. In short, it becomes a splitting-hairs discussion.

I am not adverse to experimenting with a flat nose, but I have not found that my trusty Woodleighs are in need of replacement...

ZD,

I have had very fine performance from Woodleighs also (can't quite say the same for Barnes, but maybe the new ones are better). But I have had better performance from FN solids. To scientifically prove FN solids kill faster would be difficult. But if you go on a hunt and shoot everal animals with RN solids and several with FN solids, the difference in performance is apparent. However, I recognize that is not a practical endeavor for most of us, so we just pick one or the other and go hunting.

quote:

Or if the buff gives you a Texas heart shot, a FN solid will make it all the way to the front of the heart (in the right caliber), while a RN solid stops short of that by about a foot. Good enough? Probably. But if you want the best...

by 500grains

I've never used FN solids so I can't say from my own experience that they penetrate deeper or cause more damage then RN solids. I hope to try some FN solids next year. But the above quote that the RN solid won't reach the heart of a buff from a Texas heart shot is not borne out by my experience. In 1990 I shot a bull buff with a 300 gr. Hornady RN solid from a 375 H&H at 2,540 fps. One bullet entered the side of the ham at about bone level and traveled through the ham, paunch and misc othe organs then went trough the heart and exited the front of the chest. The second entered the rear of the same ham, paunch etc. Then went through the heart and was found under the skin on the front of the chest. Ther were two entrance holes in the heart and one exit hole at the front of the heart. I have a picture of that heart. I don't think they would have penetrated that far if they had deformed or tumbled and they certainly didn't veer off course. I have never and I repeat never seen any indication of RN solids tumbling in game. That is why I am skeptical of the claim that RN solids tumble in game.

465H&H

I am a fan of Woodleigh bullets, and never had a problem with them but I alos have used the FN solids on a lot of game, mostly buffalo and I will suggest imphatically the the FN bullets kill faster and do more tissue damage...I think Geoff will produce a FN solid at some point, as he and I have discussed this in the past.......

I also believe, contrary to some, that the FN such as the Bridger that has a hard cutting shoulder the this shoulder does in fact cut more vessels and arterys than one without this shoulder..The Bridger particularly as its harder and sharper...I just see more blood in the body cavity with the Bridger than any other bullet...also the nose is less rounded and very sharp on the Bridger...but the ultimate Buffalo and Lion bullet is the Northfork cup point by a mile...I also suspect it would be an excellent Elephant bullet for broadside heart/lung shots..

Ray!

As you well know I rspect your experience and ability to observe. When hunting elephant one must always use bullets capable of handling a frontal brain shot. Would the NF cup point be suitable for that shot?

465H&H

/

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
500 gr:

What proof do you have that the buffalo will "bleed out quicker" with a FN than with a RN ?

Again it is intuitive and not based on science.[/b]

No, it is based on field observation.

When a scientific theory does not explain the data, you need to modify the theory (rather than asking me to disbelieve what I have observed in the field).


[quote]

This fact is also shown by Duncan McPherson who showed increased penetration with wadcutters and cilinders over other RN or pointed bullets in handguns in ballistic simulants.

Did McPherson or Fackler compare penetration and wounding effect of FN solids versus RN solids in massive game animals (1500 pounds and up)? Handgun data may not necessarily be applicable to rifle bullets travelling 1000 fps faster and striking a mammal 10-80 times as heavy as a man.

------------

465H&H

In .470 and .500 caliber, at lower velocities than a .375, I saw a foot deeper penetration on average with FN solids than RN solids, putting the FN solid just beyond the buff heart for the FN. My penetration maxed out at 72 inches. Interestingly, I only got 48 inches out of the .375.

A lot of the data inconsistency can be explained by inconsistency of the game animals themselves. Some have a belly full of hay and some have an empty stomach.

Also,

I have no comment on straight line penetration because I have not observed a difference in the field. Yet.

Alf I'm not blindly accepting anything. Especially writen works that do not compare what is being talked about. You need to get out of the liabry and shoot a numbe of critters with different bullets. Your premis (or the author's) is simply not observed in the field hense it is flawed.

Greater stability yes but that is not the only advantage to FN bullets.

I have shot tens of thousands of these things into numerous media including animals. Your statements simply are incorrect.

I'm finished trying to explain this to you. I doubt you will ever have enough evidence to believe even if it does make it to print someday.

Happy shooting.

ALF,

I thought individually and collectively the research you are citing proved that not only did a flat nose exhibit greater stability through media that is 800 times denser than air, resulting in greater penetration, but also had a tendency to crush more tissue or test media and create not only a greater permanent but temporary cavity as well. I'm pretty sure this is in the later Falckler and Malinowski work and I believe they even stated this is influenced by the shape of the nose and composition of the bullet. I though this was fairly consistent w/ Keith, MacPherson and Hansen. I'm pretty sure there was additional research published showing that the shape of the nose can be designed to create a crushing of tissue beyond the diameter of the bullet body greater than that of a round nose design. I'll google the web, but I think there is a site w/ photos of tests done w/ various shaped bullet noses coated w/ die and shot through 10%@4C media. The RN bullets show 100% media contact whereas the FN only showed contact at the meplat and showed a greater corresponding permanent and temp cavity.

Interesting how we hash around something that is probably moot anyway for all practical purposes.

Gary

Gary:

The only reason not to use flat noses that I knew of, was
one, you couldn't get them in anything but cast bullets.
Two, if the bullet was hard enough, and your lube good enough, not to lead your barrel at over 2000 fps, your chances of the bullet being too brittle were real good. In other words, casting a bullet that would work at rifle velocities, in dangerous game, was VERY difficult, and the percentage unlikely to end up with a good result. If you look at Garrett's bullets, he's using cast bullets at cast velocities, or pistol velocities.

Also round noses feed better, and, 100% proper feeding was/is vital in dangerous game hunting.
As for using flat nose bullets production, you have the feeding issue, and this thread is proof of the conservative nature of dangerous game hunters. If a solid 300 grain 375 round nose goes end to end on a cape buffalo, what more do you need? So, I think flat nose solids, which could have been produced using tungsten, or something like it,have been put on hold by the big bullet makers due to the target buyers, and, why produce something when you already have something that works?
Tooling costs hurt.

These new mono lathes changed all that.

Also you have the issue of barrel wear. Don't super hard materials tear up barrels faster then the softer copper, etc. used in round nose bullets? Isn't that the reason, and reduced pressure, for the rings on the bottom of the bullets?

Look at all the work that goes into producing a Bridger, then look at how easy it is for Hornady to punch out a solid, rn with a copper jacket...


Do the FN feed consistently?

G

/

Of all the errors of your logic the most stagering one it that you are applying what happens in a very lightly boned and muscled human and DG. Apples to rocks !!!!

Experts are never wrong either right, (how long was the earth believed to be flat) especially when what is said is not revelent to the issue at hand. Penetration is NOT a problem with most bullets solids or frangables. To penetrate an 8" human chest is no test for a solid FN or RN. As far as antipersonal devices, the goal is to wound not necessarly to kill.

I have no reason to question your knowledge on that specific topic however what you are shoveling simply does not match actual effect. By defination the premis is flawed since it can not be duplicated in practice.

I am certainly not about to question my experence and you seem to me that you're not about to question your reading so lets agree to disagree on this one.

John

/

I haven't read anything but the first post by 500, and I voted a YES vote, but with some reservation, because of what was not included in the vote choices! I believe the FP does far more tissue damage, and penetrates in a streighter line, but not necessarily deeper!

Alf,

With all due respect, I disagree.

Fackler's model that has been adopted by most everyone is an approximation for living muscle of a leg from a freshly killed swine. It is a rough approximation and even then is only accurate w/ in 8% in temp cavities and 3% in penetration of the swine. Dr. Fackler himself has noted that it can give the impression of being a more exact technique than it is.

The Army, Navy, USSOCOM, WARCOM, FBI and Homeland Security recieved funding in 2003 for a Joint Servicewound Ballistics IPT to improve lethality in combat bullets. The first thing they worked on was to address the best way to test and evaluate rifle projectiles. They are now developing a new wound ballistics method because they have found that Fackler's 10%@4C model does not accurately assess living tissue destruction and does not accurately predict live tissue performance.

These models and predictions greatly effected me in my profession and have since been proven wrong as the actual field results were different than the Lab model predictions. This is best described in an article published by Ayoob:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob93.html

As far as the space shuttle goes, you lost me there. I don't see how that has anything to do w/ Newtonian and viscous forces on a bullet traveling through live tissue.

As far as anti-personnel weapons go. By military definition, they are designed to primarily injure or kill people. They need not muster great force, but spread smaller and slower projectiles over a large area. I don't know what this debate is over.

As far as peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject is concerned, It would not be difficult to find an expert in the field who would review the same material and have a different conclusion than what you have expressed.

I'm of the opinion that lab models are not worth crap unless the results are validated by actual field results. This is an interesting topic, but I'll now take fritz454's advice and agree to disagree.

this is just my opinion,
Gary

/

It does not sound like Fackler has been experimenting with flat nose bullets. Since most of his work is military, doesn't he just see spitzer FMJ bullets? The issue in this thread is RN vs FN, so how does spitzer bullet data clarify anything?

/

A question for all you wound experts and FN solid users. On an elephant shoulder bone will a FN cut a clean hole and thus penetrate further compard to a RN? Will the RN cause more damage to the bone as it pushes through the dense bone and create secondary missles? I don't know, just trying to learn.

465H&H