Posting for Chris Bekker:

Taylor couldn't count???

[Quote]

"So that there (sic), instead of some 120-odd cartridges we can manage perfectly satisfactorily with a dozen--a "baker's dozen" if the .318 is to be included.

Large-Bores.
.577
.505
.465

Large-Medium Bores.
.416
.404
.400

Medium-Bores.
.375 magnum
.318 (?)

Small-Bores.
.375/.300
.240

[END QUOTE]

Taylor thought a dozen was 10 (ten), and therefore a baker's dozen would be 11 (eleven)???

Bad reference, Chris. Very confusing.

O.K. I'll tell all: A dozen is 12 (twelve) and a baker's dozen is 13 (thirteen).

Reply to Bekker.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

RIP,

OK it seems ol' Taylor was wrong. Accepted - it is 13. Many thanks for that.
I had to find this out but Gerard knew it before his birth. This was not nearly as
bad as Gerard changing a bullet's BC to 'prove' how bad it is and to make his
bullet look good.

Gerard is mustering a heck of an explanation to cover up his skewed comparison.
May be in Gerard's defense we can say he never knew about Nosler Partitions,
or may be Gerard is just an out and out cheat, offering his million excuses
and pumping smoke to obscure, confuse and cause chaos so he can reign. This
is remarkable stuff ! I will leave that to the readers to decide.

Have just obtained some 260 gr HV 9.3 bullets begging to be shot. (Just a pity
the SD is a little bit too high - could have been a lot lower) Is an HV a high velocity
bullet if it cannot do at leat 3,000 fps? Or do we apply the slow world rules now?

Chris

Posting for Chris Bekker:



Here we have two Rhino bullets.
The one on the left is a sectioned 300 grainer in RN configuration.
The one on the Right a 286 gr Semi-Spitzer retrieved from a wetpack.
The 300 grainer is drilled out much deeper and hence it expands to a bigger mushroom.
The 286 grainer is drilled out shallower and its expansion is arrested quicker.
The difference is immediately noticeable as well as the thick sturdy walls.
This particular 286 gr bullet was not guided at the tip (old stock) and hence it
blossomed into 3 petals - those strong and wide petals cause the effective
wound channel by severing everything in its path. Bullet that lose petals within the
first few inches, before reaching the vitals, can never be as effective as these Rhino
bullets.

Chris

Chris,
My offer of the paper bag still stands........

The rest is here.

RIP,
It just occurred to me that a Bekka's dozen (10) is the number of players to a side in the game of Moksa. This stems from the time when Bekkas had just learned to use their fingers for counting and they got stuck once all the fingers were used. Only later did they realise that a further ten digits were available on the feet and thus were introduced the reserve players. They were referred to as 'toes guys over there.'

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
RIP,
It just occurred to me that a Bekka's dozen (10) is the number of players to a side in the game of Moksa. This stems from the time when Bekkas had just learned to use their fingers for counting and they got stuck once all the fingers were used. Only later did they realise that a further ten digits were available on the feet and thus were introduced the reserve players. They were referred to as 'toes guys over there.'

That is hilarious.

I suppose ol' Pondoro played Moksa too, and that is what led to his nomenclature problem.

BTW,
I have proven (to my own Missouri Mule satisfaction, "show me") that your GSC FN is easier on double rifle barrels than any other bullet: see the ".470 NE: George Hoffman Memorial Load" target pics.

All double rifle users, antique and new-made alike, should be loading the GSC FN if they can get them.

North Fork may be the best alternative, for .470 NE, especially if Mike Brady makes them 0.474" and adds a couple of those skinny driving bands to the current design, which seems to be 0.475".

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

Should you be close to me with your offer of the paper bag, the chances are very good that I will put your head in that bag. I do not have to repeat for you, just go back on the threads right here on AR when you used the excuse that it was late at night and hence you used the wrong BC on a non existent bullet in the database and somehow you modeled the trajectory. I see that as dishonesty, because you do not make mistakes - you are way above that. With that as the premise, of you not being sloppy, then there remains one alternative - it must have been done deliberately.

On your website you did the same - deliberately not including a spitzer bullet (175 grainer) to compare with your HV bullet ... this is not an honest comaprison to me - but I am sure you will deny it in an attempt to save face.

I did not buy your 260 grainers - it was given to me. Why the hell do you make 260 grainers if I must use 230 grainers. And somehow I must obtain advice to use the lighter bullet and not the heavier one. Then you conclude that I do not take advice - this is brilliant. If this is not crap than I do not know what is. By this skewed logic I guess if we go another 30 grains lower, a 200 grainer will be even better. Do we draw the line at a certain weight or at a certain velocity?

And so you will carry on and on ... so now I am compelled to offer you this sick pumpkin (visualise yourself)!



Yours truly
Chris

In the midst of all this bad temper, does anyone have a recommended load for the 380 gr. Rhinos using American powders? I've got a couple of boxes that my outfitter in Mozambique gave me and would like to try them out. And, yes, I will settle for less than 2400 fps, if need be.
Thanx,

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

I am going to explain this one last time you. Please pay attention this time. Your whole story is a one-sided motivation as to why a HV bullet should be used over any other bullet. In such a motivation, if you want to be fair and equitable, you have to at least include a Spitzer version of the 175 grainer and not a Round Nose. This speaks for itself, as it is not as aerodynamic. You know that, BUT you deliberately do not include it - that is dishonest and a skews the comparison. The reason for this is quite clear, you want to widen the gap in wind drift. I did not ask you to replace the RN with a Spitzer or a Semi-Spitzer (please do not confuse the readers), you could have simply added it - that means it is in addition. Clear? A heavy for caliber round nose bullet has a low BC and for this reason you picked the worst possible scenario to compare your HV bullet with. This is as clear as daylight what you have done. Once we pick the 175 gr Nosler Partition bullet (quite a popular bullet in South Africa) then this huge difference in wind drift shrinks to a negligible and insignificant practical difference.

Then your pathetic answer on the 260 gr HV 9.3 mm bullet:

1) Why do you make something that should not be used?
2) This bullet yields only 2,500 fps and is not considered 'high velocity'.
3) How does 2,500 fps gel with the concept of a high velocity bullet?
4) I suggest you quit making this bullet so people cannot use it, and
5) then use this principle throughout all your other affected calibers.
6) The 9.3 has a slow twist (1 in 14"), so don't give me this bullshit
7) Make the bullets lighter 180 to 200 gr - 230 grains is still too heavy.
8) The Impala bullet is 180 grains and is in line with the high velocity objective.

You verbal diarrhea is quite amusing when you say ... "It is actually a bullet length and barrel twist thing, you would not understand." You think you sit on a throne like a king (guru) and can talk down to other people all the time. Your psychic abilities as to what other people know or don't know is quite amazing - a real Rasputin to mesmerize simple people.

Gerard please don't dish such bullshit up for me, you should know better.

Chris

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

Just a few years ago we considered the 270 Win fast with 130 an 150 grainers. Today it is viewed as almost too slow for the speed-freaks. With the advent of faster powders, bigger cases and sleek bullets with high BC's velocities have been upped further and any thing under 3,000 fps can hardly be called high velocity.

Whilst the Impala site state 2750 fps with their 180 grainer, it is a safe/conservative load that serves as a starting load in all rifles. My friend Pieter Olivier uses the impala bullet and he gets 3,000 fps with no apparent pressure problems and he has been doing extensively now for 2 years. His load qualifies as a high velocity load. (Meeting the minimum criteria) Velocities of 2,500 to 2,650 can hardly be described as high velocity. The 260 grain HV bullet is used in a rifle with a standard twist of 1 in 14" and the owner is happy with his hunting results and it seems he will not move from the 2,500 fps that he prefers with your HV bullet. He gave me 3 loaded rounds to test. I have no reason to differ or argue with him as he hunts out to 200 yds and then the impact velocity is in line with my thinking. (Funny that it actually works) I shot with him at the range and there are no stabilization problems.

I use 250 gr Barnes-X bullets as well in my 9,3 x 62 mm with sterling results at 2,300 fps. The length of these long and sleek 250 grainers is 34.16 mm per Quickload, but I measured my batch and they are actually 34.29 mm, nose length is 17.3 mm, meplat is 2.9 mm, the specific gravity is 8.93 and with a twist of 1 in 14" WinGyro tells me that the stability factor is 1.76 at 2,300 fps. So there is no problem. (For an SF of 1.5 the needed twist is 15.2") Many buffalos have been taken with this particular bullet.

Even the longer 286 gr Barnes-X at 38.1 mm pans out at an SF of 1.35 which should be fine. See the man magnum article where this bullet was used to kill a buffalo. We do not need absolutely an SF of 1.5 plus, as I have the prove of that with my 7 x 57 mm where I also use long 175 gr Barnes-X bullets. The actual prove on your 260 gr HV bullet is that the guy who gave me your bullets obtained good results with them as I stated above, group well and perform well at the stated velocity - so I see no problem whatsoever.

I have custom turned solids in 9.3 caliber, 286 grain, 34.4 mm long - they stabilize perfectly in my barrel (1 in 14") - I have not tried the 286 gr Barnes Solid (35.05 mm) as yet, but other people have and they have not complained. (in case you doubt it, please contact Gregor Woods and he can provide you with more names) Here is a picture of my custom turned 9.3 mm 286 gr Solid bullet - bullet on the far right and a beaut by any standard. This solid shoot clover leave groups and cuts the paper beautifully and go straight through my wetpacks never to be found.

Then the damn question of spelling mistakes - please do not concern yourself with petty issues - be larger than life. But since you have mentioned it the following:

1. Truvelo spelled with 2 l's was done by our friend Alf and not me (please shit him out)
2. If I misspelled VLT, I beg for forgiveness, please don't let the Caesar burn me at the stake.
3. Then you have also made some typo's on AR and also some inconsistencies on you website, but I do not want to criticize you for that, but here are a few to look at:

"Three 150gr 308 caliber bullets taken from three different ... "

"Starting with a box of 180gr .30 calibre bullets ..."

"Both are 180 gr .30 calibre bullets but one is a... "

" ... compared to a 150 grain GS Custom HV bullet ..."

One time you refer to 308 caliber with out a decimal point in front of the number
Then you refer to a .30 caliber with a decimal in front, describing the same thing
One time you state 150gr, then 180 gr with a space between the number and the gr
And lastly, you write it as 150 grain with a space and not using the abbreviation.
Now what do we have to say about this .... is this also sloppy writing?
No, I am not so petty to make an issue of this, but you need to consider that when you
point a finger so quickly at others, that there are actually 3 fingers pointing back at you.

Then lastly, regarding your comment that I should stay out of bullet design ... my comments about improving some of Rhino's bullets have been well received by Kobus - if you want to write again to Kobus, please just ask me, and I will provide you with the proves that should make the verification process much easier.

So, you may wish to put this in your pipe and smoke it.
Chris

Chris,

When the 286 gr. monos stabilize in your 1-14" barrel, do they stabilize in animal tissue as well as in air? Some bullets which are a bit long for the twist will stabilize in air but will lose stability on entering animal flesh. This is why 400 grain .416 Barnes X and 500 grain .458 Barnes X sometimes inexplicably veer off course and come out of an animal on the same side that they went in.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

500 Grains,

Quote : "When the 286 gr. monos stabilize in your 1-14" barrel, do they stabilize in animal tissue as well as in air? Some bullets which are a bit long for the twist will stabilize in air but will lose stability on entering animal flesh. This is why 400 grain .416 Barnes X and 500 grain .458 Barnes X sometimes inexplicably veer off course and come out of an animal on the same side that they went in."

Well, I will answer you this way:

1) I am of the opinion that both the Barnes-X and the GS-HV bullet expand on impact, and thus shortens within a few inches, and aids the stabilization whilst in the animal. That immediately changes the scenario of the bullet that is apparently too long and does not hit the desired SF value of between 1.3 and 1.5 whilst in flight, you see. But this value gets geared up when the bullet becomes shorter through expansion in the animal. In air we only need an SF value of 1. Gerard does not take this into account in his theoretical calculations. The prove is there that his 260 gr bullet does stabilize in animals at an MV of only 2,500 fps.



2) The non-expanding solid needs to be shorter, as the expanding bullet for the same stabilization in the animal. However, if you get an SF of 1.5 it aught to be as fine as one can wish for. That is why I have no problems with my custom non-expanding solid that achieves a SF = 1.76 in the standard twist of 1 in 14" in the 9.3 x 62 mm. Can you see a problem in what I am telling you or where I go dilly, or as Gerard say, I do not understand these things.

3) Non-expanding solids should go to sleep after 20 yards or so and it is on record that due to a yaw they penetrate less at 5 yards ,and when not stable, they are likely to tumble, especially when a bone is hit at an angle. Most of the time I guess we try to shoot dangerous game further than 20 paces, so we can get another shot in if the shot placement was not as effective as hoped for. I must admit, I have never seen a bullet that does an about-turn, That damn thing may then end up in one's own eye! Veering off, I think, is mostly a problem when a hard object such as major bone is struck at an angle and that even goes for the bullet that we believe is "adequately stabilized". That is why I do not believe too shoot through grass, reeds or twigs with any kind of stabilization.

Please assist me in my reasoning if I am off the wall. My field results actually confirm straight-line penetration and I am naturally also guided by that, confirming the theoretical position.

Best regards
Chris

.

Oldsarge,
It seems that you are being ignored. Send me an e-mail and I will rustle up some start loads for you. What powder do you have on hand and are you shooting a 375 H&H?

500grains,
Chris says: "The prove (sic) is there that his 260 gr bullet does stabilize in animals at an MV of only 2,500 fps." but I know he is wrong. I will confirm this if I can exammine a recovered bullet.

Alf,
Thank you! It is clear that you have a grip on what mono bullets are about. Will you still be getting to the Eastern Cape this year?

Chris, Go here.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Hello Alf,

You made a good point Alf.

Keeping the petals intact on expanding Softs is therefore something that we should strive for and that comes with lower velocity so the bullet can stay within its threshold strength. As velocity goes up, "construction" becomes increasingly important. That is another reason why premium bond core bullets work so well when shot at the lower end of the velocity scale - they do expand evenly or reasonably evenly. None of my long-for-caliber bullets (Barnes-X and Rhino) have veered off thus far, I guess for the very reason you highlighted.

Barnes-X and Failsafe bullets are probably the most evenly expanding bullets on the market that will keep their petals up to and around 2,700 fps. And that ensures straight-line penetration most of the time, but as I said, anything is possible when a bullet hits bone at an angle. As these two bullets mushroom much smaller than say Woodleighs or Rhinos, the also penetrate deeper (a 175 gr Barnes-X in a 7x 57 mm out penetrates a 286 gr Rhino in 9.3 x 62 mm)

Your reasoning also supports why non- expanding bullets with a flat meplat is the best for deep straight-line penetration as the non-symmetrical expansion can never be an issue. In addition, the blunt nose solid has its COG more forward, and as such is more stable and brings the twist requirement down and that is why when I calculate the SF value for my custom turned solid (34 mm long) bullet it still yields a high stability of 1.76 ! Your reasoning also implicitly supports why the GS-HV bullet can be made longer as it breaks off to a shorter cylinder at a certain velocity very early during its progression (a few inches) from a purely stability point of view, if we cast a flatter trajectory aside for the moment. I hope Gerard will buy into your thinking - I do.

We have a new Solid on the SA market - check this new bullet out that Danie Joubert and Jeense Visser machines now - bullet on the left is called a 'Dzombo'. The bullet on the right is Rhino Solid. PH's have tested the Dzombo bullet on elephant and buffalo and they are particularly impressed with its straight-line penetration characteristics. Its 'feed' reliability is excellent, as the meplat is not too wide, the flat meplat has sharp corners and tests have shown it excellence.

Best regards
Chris

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

You are horribly wrong in your assessment when you say ... " I hope no one has blown up something as a result of your advice on Impala bullet loads."

Pieter Olivier an I have shots may Impala bullets (180 gr @ 3,000 fps) when doing the 9,3 project. He has been using it extensively for the last 2 years. He has 4 other friends with 9,3's and they all use the same loads. Some have CZ's, Musgraves and Saharas and I shot it with my old Husky - no problem what so ever. All signs are positive, no flat primers, no extraction problems. Incidentally we will shortly have all our loads tested by SABS and will be back and publish it for all to see - My guess it is less than the CIP level of +- 56,000 psi. Far below what K98 actions and CZ actions can take, not so ? Very very far from the blow-up situation that you hinted.

Just for perspective and your elucidation:
You get 2,650 fps with a 260 grainer
You get 2,800 fps with a 230 grainer
For 30 grains less you gain 150 fps, right?

What velocity do expect a 180 grainer should yield?
It is another 50 grains lighter.
That should extrapolate to a velocity differential of 250 fps.
So 2,850 + 250 = 3,100 fps
Pieter's load yields 3,000 fps - so there is no problem.

If you do not believe it, I will put you in touch with the owner of Impala, he witnessed me and Pieter shot more than 300 rounds in his underground shooting range. By the way when Pieter contacted you with our 9.3 project you were enthusiastic about it, but when he mentioned my name you developed a mood change and said that you would withdraw. We finally managed to get 270 gr FN solids from a so called contact, battling our way through 5 different excuses and some 3 months later we received them - what a mission to get your bullets.

Please provide the input fields for the 260 gr HV bullet.
I cannot see that it pops out at a SF = 1.0

Is it that much worse than a 250 gr Barnes-X (SF = 1.76) ?

Clearly a huge difference and cannot imagine off the cuff that only 10 grains can cause so much deterioration !

I would really like to input the values myself into WinGyro that you provide us with.

Hope there is not another slip-up on your part.


This is it in a nutshell !
Chris

Chris,

THere are numerous examples of Barnes X bullets mysteriously coming out of an animal the same side they went in, or otherwise veering off course. How about a cape buff shot square in the center of the brisket on a frontal shot, and the bullet skids around the side of the shoulder and down between the skin and ribs to the paunch area where it stops. It never entered the chest cavity. Another example is a broadside shot ona buff, the bullet hit about halfway up (perhaps too high, and skidded under the skin up to spine level. Instability is the only explanation I can come up with for these events. Perhaps the bullets hit something in flight. But I think that the very long X bullets are just too long in normal weights, and the shooter should probably go down about 10% in weight to get a bullet of normal length for better stability.

Concerning a trend toward heavier bullets, are you referrig to the Woodleigh 350 gr. .375" or the Woodleigh 550 grain .458?

500grains,
I have seen a premium bonded core bullet turn on the leg bone of a Kudu on impact on a broadside shot and failing to penetrate the chest cavity as well. On another occasion a customer took a quarter going away shot on a springbuck with bonded core bullets (130gr 270). The bullet impacted on the last rib on the left hand side and blew the left front leg to pieces. That animal went several hundred paces before it was stopped. There was no penetration of the body cavity.

Bekker's Hole.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

500 Grains,

Yes, various makers have been offering of late heavier bullets in some calibers - (9,3; .375; .416; .458 and .510)

Claw in SA
Rhino in SA
Woodleigh in Australia
Regarding the incidents that you referred to, all I can say it is amazing. Did this happen with you or a friend? Do we know if the velocity was under what it should have been due to a powder problem perhaps? If not, then we have to model these bullets and get them into the stability program to get a read-out.

Please measure them for me and I will calculate the SF or if you have the program (it is free on the net), you could calculate it and publish it for us. It is mind boggling ... are you joking when you say ... "Perhaps the bullets hit something in flight" ... was the shot directed through brush, etc?

This puzzling occurrence need some investigation as I suggested, as it may send shivers down the spine of all future buyers of .416 (400 gr) and .458 Barnes-X bullets (500 gr). Hopefully more readers can come into to explain this phenomenon who use any of these two bullets.

Thanks
Chris

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

From Bekker's hole to Gerard's hole. To converse with you reminds me of a jibbing donkey. It is simply amazing to see what utter crap you can talk. Always 110 excuses, spinning your wheels, trying to cast doubt, avoiding the real issues, putting another spin on things to sidetrack, not to mention your petty attitude ... ad infinitum!

I will be brief as we have reached an impasse with your idiotic deductions:

1) Please do not tell/advise us (me, Pieter Olivier and his friends) from your armchair, about Impala bullets that you do not even use. We have loaded them and shot them in different rifles with no problems whatsoever over an extended period of time. Even the owner of Impala Bullets loaded with us and he shot with us - 3,000 fps with his 180 gr bullet. Please concentrate now carefully you wise crack ... The Impala load published on the net has an overall length (AOL) of only 80.5 mm whereas with the long leade of a 9.3 x 62 mm, one can easily seat the bullet out much further, especially if it is a sleek spitzer - we take it out to an AOL of 85 mm and use 64 grains of S321.

Bear in mind that all Impala bullets are 1-thou under spec and do not give the same pressure as a Barnes-X for example. We will soon test them at the Proofhouse of the SABS. This is the kind of effort we are putting in. Never mind the blow up that you conjured up in your own mind. I have no doubt that you will have to swallow the crap that you are spewing out - we should give it to you with a dose of bitter Aloe juice.

2) It stands to reason that an even expansion of petals is far more desirable than uneven expansion, so as not to cause the possibility a deviation in the bullet's path. This goes for Softs as well as for Monolithics. Also for monolithics that break off to a flat-faced cylinder. The safest way to ensure a straight bullet-path is with a non-expanding bullet with a flat meplat that stays concentric no matter what. With bonded Softs this situation is achieved by keeping the velocity on the lower end within the strength limits of the bullet, and with your monolithic bullets at the higher velocity end so the nose section can break off to form a cylinder. That is the common denominator that Alf referred to. There is no misreading or misinterpretation of this whatsoever.

3) Please do not hide behind the excuse that I work for a competitor, and as such, you use this lie as an excuse not to give me the measurements of your bullet now that I have put you on the spot. This is the position:

a) I do not work for any bullet manufacturer - I have told you this umpteen times, and finally Kobus told you so in writing (Are you blind or deaf?) Please write to the president and request a forensic audit to see if I ever got paid a cent.

b) I suspect you lie again, as in the past, about the SF value of the 260 gr HV being equal to 1 ! (I can pull a bullet if need be from the 3 loaded ones if I have to). STEP UP OR STEP BACK !!!!!!!! I cannot trust you, you have cheated me before with incorrect BC's. My gut feeling tells me you are hiding the info because I am about to expose your dishonesty with the real value of the SF.

b) I repeat what I said before ... "I cannot see that it pops out at a SF = 1.0. Is it that much worse than a 250 gr Barnes-X (SF = 1.76) ? Clearly a huge difference and cannot imagine off the cuff that only 10 grains can cause so much deterioration ! " Just give us the damn info - we will understand if you have made an 'inadvertent mistake with the input values even tough you just confirmed yet again that the bullet will only stabilize in air but not in animals (no pun intended).

c) When you say the ... "stability factor for the 230gr 9.3 HV is 1.64 at 2800fps from a 1:14" twist" how the hell is it possible that when we add 30 grains of mass, the SF value falls from 1.64 to 1.0, and as I have said before, even the long 286 gr Barnes-X pans out to 1.35. Somewhere there is a big flippen mistake or is it a flippen cover-up with all the smoke that you create?

d) I did not buy or load the three 260 gr HV bullets - it was done by someone else and given to me (Please take note). Please shoot one of your own 260 gr HV bullets into a wetpack and tell us what you find - that way you do not have to rely on what other people tell you. Also examine it under a microscope (preferably a Zeiss), take pictures and tell us about the stabilization - if you find the bullet point on then devise a clever Rasputin explanation that it was actually totally unstable. (Just wonder why the retrieved bullet I saw traveled straight in the buck - needless to say the owner was very happy.) And he has a standard factory rifle with a standard twist rate as specified by CIP. (Hope I do not have to repeat this for you yet again)

e) All other bullet manufacturers distributors donated bullets to our cause, except the all-knowing Guru of PE. If you do not wish me to test your bullets I can approach Gregor Woods or Mauritz Coetzee to do the testing for you under the auspices of Lutz Moller.

f) Excuses as to late deliveries from GS is an unreal situation - please phone Pieter Olivier so he can give you chapter and verse. His infectious laughter is a site to behold when your name comes up. Everything with GS is either a pain or a mission.

I have copied Rhino Bullets, Impala Bullets and Pieter Olivier with this e-mail.

And by the way, I have found Alf's comments a refreshing contribution to the subject matter, clarifying another variable (non symmetrical expansion) that plays a role, to which I have added that the shorter bullet, by virtue of losing its nose section, requires even less twist for the same level of stabilization, and in this regard, I have expressed my hope that you would buy into Alf's thinking. I hope it is clearer to you this time.

I will not publish that sick pumpkin again to avoid that vivid memory of you vomiting on my screen.

Chris Bekker
"NILS ILLEGITIMAE CARBORUNDUM"

Chris,

Yes those are real events and it is unlikely that the bullets hit anything in flight. Regarding Barnes X coming out the same side they went in, this is not exactly a rare occurrence as I have heard at least 6 separate such incidents since the X bullet was introduced.

Barnes X either work wonderfully or fail miserably, and it is difficult to predict which will occur.

.

Alf,
This is why I post replies to Bekker elsewhere. It is regrettable that he is too thick to catch on to this. But then he has not yet figured out that posting pictures wider than the screen screws up the thread either.

I will also not cease to point out his numerous errors and inaccuracies when he attacks me or my products. Take note that every series of back and forth bickering was initiated by Bekker and, throughout, all the name calling, swearing and personal insults were done by Bekker and friends. I have confined my remarks to Bekker's errors and inaccuracies concerning our products. Possibly I have drawn some conclusions about his abilities that are somewhat less than flattering but, given the facts, I do not feel they were unjustified.

Chris, if you cannot figure out why the stability factor of the 260gr HV is what I say it is, maybe you are missing something in your calculations. Must be something big for you to be that far out. Maybe you are not the bullet designer you fancy yourself to be.
Chris, take a blood pressure pill and click here.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

My reaction to the consistent flow of compliments that you have been paying me of late was ostensibly in self-defense for one, but also to return the same favour to you. You threw a dagger at me by going to the forum with ... "another amazing article by Chris Bekker" and your dedicated effort to discredit me. It was not quite so easy as you expected as you received much more than you bargained for.

I am observing a slide on your part into a repetitive pattern of prevarication and antagonistic confrontation as a strategy to avoid the debate continuing on a more informational and educational basis.Your dreadfully paranoid animosity is not helping the ballistic debate at all. You seem more interested to create smokescreens by drifting off the real issues as evidenced by your comments about spelling mistakes, writing people letters, making personal insults, jumping to incorrect conclusion with your perceived psychic abilities etc.

Your last answer can be no better evidence of avoiding the issue under discussion, but sadly that has been the trend ever since. One particular quantum leap into the dark was your comment about me having to sneak into the internet when the boss is not watching. Palm readers normally need one's physical presence to make certain predictions, but you simply do this by remote control. Gerard I am the boss - I work for myself. If you carry on like this you will be making a bigger asshole of yourself. Also, I do not post the pictures on AR myself, Mehul does it for me - please throw all your toys out of your cot, and when you don't have any left, then behave like a crybaby to gain yet another round of attention.

Gerard, all we need to get a handle on is the real value of the 260 gr HV bullet and for that we need the measurements. Nothing complicated, no opinions or guessing - just the physical dimensions. We have some interesting issues on the table now with stabilization - 2 Barnes-X bullets (400 gr in .416 & 500 gr in .458) and your .366 bullet in 260 gr. One the one hand we have the SF value, and on the other hand as Alf pointed out, the interaction between bullet and target that is not always the same. This topic is worthy of further debate and sharing with our friends on AR.

I repeat, I cannot see that the 260 Gr HV bullet carries a SF = 1.0. The longer 250 gr Barnes-X carries a value of 1.76 and the even longer 286 gr Barnes-X carries a value of 1.35; so please just check your calculations one more time for us, and confirm that it is in fact only 1.0 to lay may fears to rest of a cover up. I will enquire about the dimensions of the two suspect Barnes-X bullets in the mean time to better understand their erratic behaviour as pointed out by 500 Grains. Should their SF values be adequate, we may have to consider the mysterious intervention of a third force, if we cannot come up with another plausible explanation.

Chris Bekker
"NILS ILLEGITIMAE CARBORUNDUM"

Posting for Dr Mauritz Coetzee:

The Editor
Accurate reloading.com

Dear Sir

Herewith my answer on Koos Geldenhuys’s latest accusations.

I am not surprised at all with Koos Geldenhuys and the answers he supplies.

In his e-mail dated 24 May 2005 he says that I misinterpreted the bullet’s success with my theory of high sectional density.

He also states that due to the large expanded diameter of the 380/375 and the loss of velocity to the target, the momentum of the bullet must be lower.

This latest data from Koos Geldenhuys forced me to go back to his first e-mail and the main assumptions he had about the 380/375 (directly translated): “According to my humble opinion, and also as a novice on this subject, I am of the opinion that a bullet which changes so drastically, (which has) a diameter of 24-25mm, and logically because this change should take place on impact, will have a totally weakened momentum with resultant bad penetration and wound channel forming.â€

Total weakening in my mind means 100% weakening and therefore in practical terms zero or very little penetration. Yet in his latest e-mail on this issue he says the momentum must be lower(only).

Koos Geldenhuys must have taken note of the field results because firstly he refers to the bullet’s success and secondly he states that the momentum will be lower as to his assumption of being totally weakened.

This is again the context from within I asked him whether he has a model/theory which can predict as to what constitutes too much momentum reduction and also as to what constitutes acceptable momentum reduction. This is the question he never answered and I now believe that Koos and company do not have an answer on this question. This is a basic blunder from his side.

As to his remarks on the two buffalo hunts in Game & Hunt: his version of the stories is simply incredible. The following questions come to mind:

Since Hennie’s first shot (on the first hunt) hit the buffalo behind the shoulder and through the lungs, I have to ask Koos how many buffalo actually go straight down with a lung shot? Hanke’s first frontal shot on the charging buffalo went through the heart (Swift-A-frame bullet) and the buffalo then took another shot on the left shoulder. In spite of this the buffalo ran another 100 metres before collapsing.

Is Koos now suggesting that all three bullets failed or is it a question of Koos not understanding how tough buffalo really are?

With regard to the second hunt it is clearly stated that we encountered the bull in very thick bush and a distance of 15 meters. Because of this Hennie could only manage to get one shot in which proved marginal since it went in between the right leg and body.

As to Hanke using his 470 double on the now charging buffalo we had no other option. Is Koos really suggesting that we adopt a wait-and-see approach in such circumstances?

As to how many buffalo I have shot, the following remarks. I have hunted with Ronnie Roland, past president of the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa, for a period of ten years. I have done enough back-up work on buffalo, hippo and rhino to make up my own mind on big-game hunting.I have therfore tracked, shot , processed, including recovering bullets to know how a bullet should work on these animals This in sharp contrast to Koos Geldenhuys’ acknowledgement that most (if not all) of his hunting has taken place on a geographically isolated family farm in the Ellisras area. Does his experience go beyond kudu, gemsbuck, blue wildebeest and eland?

Koos Geldenhuys seems to be confused about the Rhinos that did not exit yet, according to me, still supplied enough penetration and impressive wound channels. This statement is actually so stupid and calls for somebody to explain to Koos Geldenhuys where the vital organs are situated within animals.

At this point I need to ask Koos Geldenhuys how he selects bullets for hunting. This question is relevant because he mentions that he simply knows the difference between a good, bad and utterly good bullet. He also gets very emotional when an impala is shot with a .375 Swift-A-frame bullet. He the invites everybody to join him on a magical carpet ride as he shoots impala with lightweight GS bullets. It is exactly these type of statements from him that only strengthens my suspicion on his hunting experiences and also that he has done too much travelling between his front porch and the entrance of the family game farm. At this stage I wonder whether Koos will be willing to share his hunting experiences and the results of his favorite bullet with this forum.

As to who will believe me or Chris Bekker in future, I am glad to inform him that many people will in fact believe in us. Especially those South-Africans who have been following the debate on this forum and are quite eager to meet Koos Geldenhuys in person. I therefore invite him again to a debate, before an audience, on his ever-changing viewpoints on bullet performance. He lives only 120km from me and therefore such a meeting is not only feasible but rather mandatory. Above all we can stick to the facts in a clinical sense. Otherwise I am quite amused with his heavy-handed style of casting suspicion on matters that obviously fall outside his field of experience.

Yours sincerely

DR MAURITZ COETZEE

Pardon, but this thread is complex enough that I am having difficulty following it.

Are Dr. Coetzee and Gerard in agreement with each other about bullet design?

Or is it only Mr Bekker and Mr. Geldenhuys who are in agreement with each other about bullet design?

Sorry for the question, but it was not immediately apparent to me. Thanks.

500grains,
I am told that Mauritz Coetzee was instrumental in the design of the 380gr 375 Rhino. It would be safe to say that he and Chris are dinosaurs while I am a speed freak (to borrow from Chris's vernacular.) I think that Koos Geldenhuys used to be a dinosaur but now probably leans towards being a speed freak.


Is it just me or do other readers also see a striking similarity in styles between Chris and Mauritz?

Notice how Mauritz picks at Koos's terminology, which may be less than precise but conveys the idea..... and then makes several terminology mistakes himself.

He makes a statement containing a half truth and then proves himself right with it. He pretends to answer a question/address an issue, but then actually does not.

I wonder who mentored who.


Knocking over a Cape Buff comes down to shot placement. A Cape Buff is no different from a Bushbuck or a Gemsbuck once wounded. They turn mean and vindictive and any one of the three is capable of killing you. Similarly, if the shot is placed correctly and the bullet is up to what is demanded from it, all three will fall over.

In an anthrax infected area, a culling operation some two or three years ago required the eradication of an entire herd. A customer told me he observed 52 consecutive one shot kills by the person contracted to do the work. He used a 338 Win Mag with 200gr HV bullets at 3100fps.

Speed kills, ask Saeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

In an anthrax infected area, a culling operation some two or three years ago required the eradication of an entire herd. A customer told me he observed 52 consecutive one shot kills by the person contracted to do the work. He used a 338 Win Mag with 200gr HV bullets at 3100fps.

Speed kills, ask Saeed.

Sssshhh! You might inadvertently get the Weatherby owners excited.

Oh, I forgot.
Chris,
Here it is.

With reference to Mauritz's post dated 14 June 2005 20:17 the following:-

Mauritz, on your first 8 paragraphs I will simply answer you as follows:

quote:

Is it just me or do other readers also see a striking similarity in styles between Chris and Mauritz?

Notice how Mauritz picks at Koos's terminology, which may be less than precise but conveys the idea..... and then makes several terminology mistakes himself.

He makes a statement containing a half truth and then proves himself right with it. He pretends to answer a question/address an issue, but then actually does not.

I wonder who mentored who.

What you have said in these 8 paragraphs is best taken together as Gerard did above! Thanks Gerard.

Then this next comment is so ridiculous that one could really laugh out loud (lol):

quote:

...his version of the stories is simply incredible.

It's your own stories Mauritz, printed in black on white in publications circulated in South Africa for everyone on the street to read!!!
I didn't make these up or added anything to it, you wrote it. Or don't you remember doing it?

As to what you said in your paragraphs 10 - 13 is also your own stories and again your own twisted version of what you think I'm suggesting with my simple comment based on your own field results as reported in the mentioned publications. That even after I have said ".......no ballistic jargon or any hidden meanings attached to it."

Looks to me as if Jaco Marais' post on this forum has more in it than I originally thought you should take note of:

quote:

Posted 02 June 2005 13:07
Jagter

It seem to me that you have a problem with Rhino bullets in general,as you mention in your last post about the 500JEFF bullets that Hennie Boshoff used.

I have hunted 7 Buffalo bulls over the last 5 years in Botswana, Zim, Tanzania and Rsa.All of them were hunted with my 500JEFF using Rhino Bullets,only the first one was shot with a Woodleigh FMJ,i lost this buff wounded not to bullet failure,but to bad shot placement,as was the case white hennie's buffalo.

All the other Buff were one shot kills,with pictire pefect mushroom Rhino bullets found on the oposite side under the skin.

So please do not Confuse BAD SHOT PLACMENT Whith Bullet Failure.

Regards Jaco Marais

Especially the three words printed in bold capitals!
My comment on it would probably be an eye-opener for you - don't miss it.

Now before we come to your classic paragraph 14, let's deal with your paragraph's 15 - 17 first.

Par. 15: "....... where the vital organs are situated within animals."
I can only refer you to the three words printed in bold capitals above - do you know the answer to this? I very much doubt it and so is Jaco Marais also pointing this lack of knowledge out clearly. Specifically pay attention to his 6 out of 7 one shot kills on buffaloes and strangely enough with the same type of bullett! Seems as if you're just a self-appointed, kite-flying buffalo expert!

Par. 16: I use a very simple method when I select bullets for hunting, namely based purely on field results from my own hunting experiences over quite a number of different areas in the RSA as well as proven information provided by a reliable hunting friend and other persons having done many research and development work in this field.

Par. 17: Let the people decide whether they believe you and Chris - I know what I will do. Even if I lived 10x closer to you I would still not accept your invitation to meet you before an audience simply because I think people already know from these posts what they need to know to come to a conclusion for themselves on what is right and what is wrong. Secondly, I don't want to be associated with you in public.

Now for your classic paragraph 14.
Again you are so totally wrong in jumping to your following conclusion

quote:

..... most (if not all) of his hunting has taken place on a geographically isolated family farm in the Ellisras area.

This year for instance, I will be hunting in Kwa-Zulu Natal.
How much more pathetic can one person be than what you already are?

As I have said before, one doesn't need to be a buffalo hunter to have enough hunting experience and knowledge to know what a bullet is supposed to do during a hunt.

Then the laughable part. Why don't you simply answer my questions outright as one expects you to do? Is it so complicated?
I'll repeat it: How many buffaloes have you shot?

Is it one, none or perhaps 140?

quote:

He pretends to answer a question/address an issue, but then actually does not.

I can't help saying the following -
Simply because I have seen ± 1500 Boeings passing over my house from the East, banking left towards the South-West and preparing to land on Jhb. Int. Airport over the past year so far, according to your observation framework, I must be a highly experienced Boeing pilot!?!?

Do you get this one? I mean it's a lot more than 140!

I, and this forum's readers, are awaiting your answer on the number of buffaloes you have shot and what follows on my original question in the specific post that you have referred to above.

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:
Posting for Chris Bekker:

1) I am of the opinion that both the Barnes-X and the GS-HV bullet expand on impact, and thus shortens within a few inches, and aids the stabilization whilst in the animal. That immediately changes the scenario of the bullet that is apparently too long and does not hit the desired SF value of between 1.3 and 1.5 whilst in flight, you see. But this value gets geared up when the bullet becomes shorter through expansion in the animal. In air we only need an SF value of 1. Gerard does not take this into account in his theoretical calculations. The prove is there that his 260 gr bullet does stabilize in animals at an MV of only 2,500 fps.




Chris

@mehulkamdar


Bear in mind that this picture shows a Blaser CDP bullet (Controlled Deformation Process)

Here the link to the Webpage:
Blaser CDP (Controlled Deformation Process)


Please don’t mix bullets-companies….

Good shooting and good hunting
Collani

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

Thanks for your latest contribution. The info on your link is not complete to do the calculation as required by WinGyro. I have asked this information several times but I am sure it was just an oversight on your part.

I need to know in addition, the following:

Meplat Diameter
Boat Tail - Length
Boat Tail - Diameter

Regarding the twist rate of that particular 9.3 x 62 mm. I will phone the owner and ask him to measure it for me to confirm the situation or otherwise. As I understood it was a standard factory rifle with a standard twist rate as prescribed by CIP and not a custom barrel with a faster twist. So there is no sucking of any thumbs. When I have the answer I will publish it. Again I am repeating my earlier statement to you, when the bullet expands to a shorter length in the animal or when it breaks off to a shorter cylinder it reduces the twist requirement. Is this badly researched as you would like to put it?

Furthermore, please state the MINIMUM SF value that we need for stabilization in flesh? Then an adjusted for the shortening effect? Then to what extent does shoulder stabilization assist a marginal twist rate situation, if at all? If shoulder stabilization is indeed a serious factor that we cannot lose sight off what weight does it carry to assist a deficient twist rate? These are serious ballistic questions that we need to understand. Please answer in detail without wonder off the point. I am sure AR readers would welcome a well researched dissertation on let us call it these misunderstood items.

Thanks
Chris Bekker

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Hello Collani,

Just a quick note to say that I did not refer to the illustration picture as either a Barnes-X or a HV bullet. It should thus not be seen as a bullet mix up. It is indeed a CDP bullet that was used to simply illustrate the gradual process of expansion while the bullet is en route. The message of the picture is so that Gerard does not have to visualize the process as to why bullets that shorten like this needs less twist. No more and no less. The principle is of importance and not the actual bullet.

Regards
Chris Bekker

Style and emotionality remind me of the "Impala" discussions in German web fora...
:-)

Carcano

Collani,
You should get used to the fact that Bekker will switch topic, reasoning, brands and most anything else in mid sentence. Using irrelevant illustrations is a particular style he has developed and it takes some getting used to. Thank you for drawing attention to this inaccuracy on Bekker's part. It helps those readers who do not understand Bekker's style of "technical" writing yet.


Chris Go Here

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Hunters,

Let us take a look at what Gerard writes on his website. He may express opinions, but not me. I wish to quote one particular paragraph ...

"Expanding monometallic bullets have been found to be unreliable. Up to now, in many cases, hollow point monometallic bullets would act like solids on soft game with bad results. To eliminate this problem entirely, HV bullets are designed to expand reliably from as low as 1600 fps. We have driven HV bullets as high as 4700 fps and weight retention remains at a high 80%. This makes GS Custom HV bullets the most versatile premium expanding bullet on the market today."

The above is a typical example of how Gerard will knock other bullet manufacturers, such as ABC, Goodnel and Barnes-X bullets (expanding monolithics). He says the opposition's bullets are unreliable, but his bullets are reliable - in fact the most versatile on the market.

In 7 mm and .308 caliber (the ones I have used) I have never experienced or heard of anyone that complained about a Barnes-X bullet that did not expand. My friend Pieter de Klerk (PH) has extensive experience with the Barnes-X bullet and he swears by them. Never a failure to expand on my part or his part. Anyone that doubt the effectiveness of a Barnes-X bullet should contact the Barnes company to ask them about the tests that they have conducted and the minimum velocities at which their bullet will expand

Having seen Canuck's latest report, I do not think he would agree any longer with GS Custom media hype, and hence his decision to go back to premium grade expanding bullets such as a Swift A-Frame.

Chris Bekker