Is it really só difficult to understand the Marula pip analogy? Or is it only certain participants (not being members) who find it hard to understand?

Follow this link
and try to get it now!

As for the 130/180gr (too much bullet again and what goes with that!) story, one would think seeing and hearing is believing. Not with Chris, even if you let him put his fingers in the holes, he would still not believe. A completely lost soul!

I don't see how anyone can discredit Gerard when it comes to bullet making knowledge... I have used his bullets on game,( not boxes of parafin, silt, wood or whatever,) for about 5 years now and I have never used a better performing bullet, a few others are as good, most are not as good...I would think to have a dog in this fight someone would/should have used them in the field, or be in the bullet making business..

Take note that many bullet making companies are following his design as time goes on...Just my opinnion, not taking sides...

JonA,
On the protracted Sd discussion in February this year you said

quote:

Yeah, how about a GS 260 or 230 vs. a Rhino 380. Maybe that would shut those two up. Nevermind, I'd hate for any actual test results to get in the way of their
bickering of semantics.....

Two things come to mind:

If you want to discuss a sucject with a view to further knowledge of it (could be
yours or mine), it is a good idea to be accurate in your approach to the small
details. As an aircraft engineer you should know this. In your comment above, why
would you want to compare a 9.3mm bullet with a .375 bullet? Not that it cannot be done, I am just curious.

Secondly, it seems that bickering about semantics is now OK as you have joined it wholeheartedly. You should use original material though. The point you make about Sd x V = Mo/XSA was discussed very thoroughly in late Feb and early March on AR. The bottom line is that your bickering over semantics is flawed, unless you are just trying to "score points". Your post and calculations could be a copy of several that we hashed through months ago.

The point that you miss entirely is the position that Sd on its own means nothing. Ad speed to Sd and you have approximately Mo/XSA. (Approximately, because the Sd formula is not correct and to be precise, Mo/XSA is precise.) As Sd is the imprecise product of weight in relation to area, so is momentum the precise product of speed and mass. Momentum (on its own) is a usable number when simplistic, same calibre same construction comparisons are made between bullets. It is a start, and a precise one. Mo/XSA is a good number when same construction bullets are compared across calibres especially under 2500fps.

Using Sd with it's fudge factor instead of the correct calculation for frontal area, prevents one from correctly calculating ratios comparing expanded frontal area to original meplat area and frontal area of the calibre.

When Mo/XSA is used in conjunction with a constant to calibrate the medium used to test penetration depth, it works remarkably well. Ad in a factor to adjust penetration for the increasing stagnation pressure as speed increases, and Mo/XSA remains a good number to work with. When doing comparative testing of same construction bullets, what are the factors that we vary in order to compare? We vary the basics of speed, bullet weight and calibre. Why ad the intermediate step of Sd with it's flawed formula, when what we are interested in are the ratios of expanded frontal area to original calibre.

Below I have extracted the discussion around Sd between Jeffe and myself from that thread. BE WARNED: It is a tedious and boring back and forth but nevertheless highlights several interesting facts. Those not interested in Jeffe's evasive (and abrasive) manner would do well to just skip over it.

Jeffe says:
take 2 barnes x triple shocks...
oh, say two different WEIGHTS of, oh, .458...
run them both at 2100...
which one will penetrate further?
Simple question.. simple answer,...
i think it's even simple enough for you to answer.

Gerard:
The heavier bullet penetrates deeper. Tell me why.
While we are waiting, I want to know from you:
Take two bullets of the same caliber and the same weight, say 450gr FN bullets, and
shoot one at 2100fps and the other at 2400fps. Which one penetrates deeper and why?

Jeffe:
and you have anything else to say?
interesting that you now abandon your position that SD means nothing.

Gerard:
Two possibilities here:
You really are stupid and have trouble reading and comprehending or you are a coward
and you cut and run with that inane reply.

Jeffe:
You said initially, in this thread, that SD had NOTHING to do with penetration. Then
said in answer to my question, that the heavier bullet would penetrate further than
the lighter one.
A heavier (same caliber) bullet has a higher SD.
You loose....

Gerard:
A heavier (same calibre) bullet has a higher Sd, more energy and more momentum. So
which makes it penetrate better?

You have not answered my question above. For clarity here it is again: "Take two
bullets of the same caliber and the same weight, say 450gr FN bullets, and shoot one
at 2100fps and the other at 2400fps. Which one penetrates deeper and why?

Jeffe:
1: To answer your question, gerard... Energy and Momentum are factors of weight and
vel. If you change the VEL, the energy and momentum change, but the SD is a CONSTANT
over all of the potential questions in that environment. Energy and Momentum AINT. In
fact, gerard, speed, mass, and diameter (of a known construction) are the ONLY
primary facts. Everything else is a function of those three.
2: Assuming that you have a known and constant material (the bullet) velocity
(Speed), and SD (mass and diameter)and that the material doesn't ablate, the faster
bullet, will penetrate deeper. Why? which units are you prepared to argue against?
it's a generic "WORK area under a curve" with the axis being depth and any
non-primary units you with to arbitrarily use to define "work"

Gerard:
You made the statement: "A heavier (same caliber) bullet has a higher SD." to which I
added "and also more momentum and more energy."

You cannot deny that it has more momentum as well as energy. My question is therefore
very simple and does not require an answer of a thousand words and the dragging in of
"all of the potential questions in that environment".

In your opinion, which of the three factors, higher Sd or more energy or more
momentum makes the bullet penetrate deeper?

So as to steer clear of the problem of mixing issues we will deal with question 2
only once we have settled question one.

Jeffe:
you astound me with your "explainations".. a bullet at zero relative speed has zero
momentum... and still has an SD...
wild example?
Nope.. just a fact... SD exists without velocity. momentum is an product, not a
primary.
I give up trying to talk with you, as you obviously can't admit that you mixed
elements and want switch to explantion rather than penetration.. penetration was
chris's point.

Gerard:
"You made the statement: "A heavier (same caliber) bullet has a higher SD." to which
I added "and also more momentum and more energy."

You cannot deny that it has more momentum as well as energy. My question is therefore
very simple and does not require an answer of a thousand words and the dragging in of
"all of the potential questions in that environment".

In your opinion, which of the three factors, higher Sd or more energy or more
momentum makes the bullet penetrate deeper?"

Simple question. Why can you not answer?

Jeffe:
Again, sigh, take two bullets, no difference but length to change SD, and either load
them at the same velocity or alter the velocity to the same momentum...
guess what?
the higher SD STILL goes deeper.
So, your original post, blasting chris (and his FACTS of penetration depths) is
erroneous....
You could be a man about it, fess up, and end this with some grace...
or continue howling at the moon

Gerard:
The way you troll through various threads spreading irrelevant bull is easy to
ignore. It is quite funny sometimes like your shovel comment on the fastest snake
thread.

Jeffe:
As usual, stipulation with out facts.. and, as normal, you expect persons to buy what
you say, without facts..
SD is the baseline

Gerard:
Why don't you repeat it a couple more times to see if it may become true?

Jeffe:
Why Gerard, thank you once again for your amazing customer service advice

Gerard:
You do have some strange ideas. Customer service is for customers and that you are
not.

Jeffe:
when you run out of facts, do you always result in name calling/juvenille behavoir,
or is this just your internet personality?
So, Gerard, before you run off at the mouth AGAIN, what's the momentum of your little
bullets with the sd engraved on them, at zero velocity?

Gerard
It is difficult to reply to your posts because there is not much by way of facts,
which is why I poke fun at you with disparaging remarks as you do with others. Lets
stick to facts then but I doubt that you will be able to do that.

Bullet 175gr sd .310 pen. 63 cm Momentum 59.57
Bullet 142gr sd .252 pen 52 cm Momentum 50.51
Bullet 108gr sd .191 pen 42.5 cm Momentum 40.27

Now tell us, which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or Sd?

If we adapt the above table to reflect a zero velocity example as you so cleverly
ask, we get:

Bullet 175gr sd .310 pen. 0 cm Momentum 0
Bullet 142gr sd .252 pen 0 cm Momentum 0
Bullet 108gr sd .191 pen 0 cm Momentum 0

And I ask again: Which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or
Sd?

I do not expect to get an answer to the above as you have demonstrated a pattern of
not answering a question when you are cornered.

Jeffe:
Once again, you have made it rather clear whos' opinions you value. Those that agree
with you "count" them that aren't savant's for you.. you don't.
Fact of the matter is that you are plaing semantics games, and then when backed into
a DIRECT binary question, you resort to name calling.
So, there it is...
Which part of chris' article, that CLEARLY shows relative SD= relative penetration
did you miss ?
semantics, gerard...
I do find it amusing that you would first be confused by too much data in a post, and
then, when a post is SPOT on to a single direct point, you would revert to "well,
there's not a lot of facts"
This is gamesman ship, gerard.. simple, plain, childish gamesmanship...
right up there with mental masterbation and the inability to say "damn, i am was not
correct"
Now, please feel free to tell me that "oh, you'll never be a customer" and your other
lines of tripe... and that in garard's world, that SD has nothing to do with
penetration.
I just LOVED the way you mixed an equation with alternate variables... aint that
cute?

Gerard:
I knew you would be incapable of an answer. You are so predictable.


Jeffe:
are you so hung up on name calling that you can't read?
what are you TALKING about this time?
awww, are him wittle feelings hurt and has to call names, just like in kindergarten?
While it's probably peaerls before swine, here's a quick snapshot for you read.. and
think about



Notice, that.. WOW, it's fairly consistent!!!
lower weight, lower SD, lower momentum, lower penetration...

Gerard:
Chris also posted:

Bullet / Speed / Momentum / Mo/XSA / Penetration / Energy/ E-Index
175 --- 2,200 ---- 55.00 ----- 682 ------ 57.76 ---- 1,881 --- 100
142 --- 2,712 ---- 55.00 ----- 682 ------ 57.76 ---- 2,320 --- 123
108 --- 3,565 ---- 55.00 ----- 682 ------ 57.76 ---- 3,049 --- 162

Is it not amazing how penetration follows Mo/XSA exactly despite the widely differing
Sd values?

And of course you still fail to explain my questions above:

Bullet 175gr sd .310 pen. 63 cm Momentum 59.57
Bullet 142gr sd .252 pen 52 cm Momentum 50.51
Bullet 108gr sd .191 pen 42.5 cm Momentum 40.27

Now tell us, which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or Sd?

If we adapt the above table to reflect a zero velocity example as you so cleverly
ask, we get:

Bullet 175gr sd .310 pen. 0 cm Momentum 0
Bullet 142gr sd .252 pen 0 cm Momentum 0
Bullet 108gr sd .191 pen 0 cm Momentum 0

And I ask again: Which correlates more closely to the penetration depth, momentum or
Sd?

Jeffe:
this is rather easy
ANY artifact that is based off velocity changes with velocity... or are you saying
BAM, TKO, ME, BSI, or any other (known faulty) artifact equation ALSO has something
to do with penetration?
The 458 lott, throwing the 500 gr .341 SD bullet at 2300 is the KNOWN "most
penetrating SOB in africa" (to quote a PH friend of mine) is frequently compared to a
30 caliber 220 at .331, as being a close second... but that's at 2650 or so....
So, gerard, as momentum is an artifact of velocity, you are actually stating that (in
your article) SD has NOTHING to do with bullet weight, and a light fast bullet, with
a super high momentum, will out penetrate a lower momentum, regardless of sd?
that's too damn funny...
why?
gerard, explain the penetration of an ARROW... SUPER high Sd, low vel, LOW
momentum....
and as we ALL know, an arrow penetrates FAR FAR FAR outside it's "momentum"

Gerard:
All this leaves us with one question that the Sd fans do not want to answer: Why do
we get more penetration with the same bullet, as speed increases?

Jeffe:
You are the only person with this question. If one has a bullet, it MUST have
velocity to WORK... and there's an envelope that velocity is effective in doing that
work... if one takes vel. and mass, you get momentum... and any IDIOT knows that zero
vel = zero momentum...

Gerard:
Your post is interesting as it is sort of on the right track. You say:
"You are the only person with this question." And this is the question you cannot
bring yourself to answer although you know what the answer is.

Jeffe:
I give up agruing that SD changes things.. Gerard makes that point perfectly and
clearly and I now realize why you are so dead set against SD being the starting point for penetration.
Since you make monmetal bullets, with a specific gravity lower than conventional
bullets and monometal bullets are longer for weight (too long for "high" sd) then it
is incumbant upon you to support ANYTHING other than SD for that measurement.
Of COURSE you would support momentum (it's easier to drive a shorter/ligher bullet
faster) over SD, because of the construction of your product.

Gerard:
You are slow on the uptake. Chris tried this angle two years ago as well as Pieter
earlier in this thread. It is a sad excuse when you are backed into a corner and have
been proven wrong.

If you had followed the thread from the top you would have seen on page four that I
answered this silly argument with:
"We make high Sd bullets but our thinking and technology has advanced beyond the
point where we worship at the altar of a false Sd. We actually make a number of
bullets in excess of 0.3 and all the way up to 0.486 but we do not tout that as a
feature, because we know it is not.

Jeffe:
i guess keeping it layed on, thicker and deeper was thought in your customer service
classes

Gerard:
You are so predictable.
I guess you never noticed our high Sd bullets, hence the embarrasment and effort at
diverting from a technical discussion to name calling again.

Jeffe:
You don't have to get your back up.. we all understand that a man has to eat. In
fact, G, i would say you've been taken to task and failed every techincal point
brought up.
So, just to let us all know where YOU are coming from, i have ONE question.
1;what's the LENGTH of you 500 gr 458 bullet?
Just answer this one little question..

Gerard:
Which one?

Jeffe:
any.. it's immaterial which one you choose...
customer service king!!

Gerard:
37.7mm

Having painted himself into a corner and after never answering a simple
question once, he proceededs to name calling and cuts and runs like the troll he has
proven himself to be.

G,
Might reread your post, where you begin your little name calling routine, and mine, where I bring a little light to the subject. and then repeat it again in this thread.. and repeat and repeat and repeat..

Funny how you repeat this behavoir with EVERYONE that doesn't agree with you.


And an inane response to your "facts" having backed you into a corner, that the math won't let you out, so you lash out and behave badly.

that I choose to stop reading a thread after you refused to answer a simple PHYSICAL properties question is actually a reflection upon your engagement in a discussion. Or, G.. you acted so badly that I ignored the thread from there forward.

Thanks for making this "timeline" by your own hand you can certainly see where you begin name calling, while I intend to have a discussion

quote:

Gerard:
Two possibilities here:
You really are stupid and have trouble reading and comprehending or you are a coward
and you cut and run with that inane reply.

However, your little game of creative editing, and taking from several posts is not in the least clever.

Yo, g, you are incorrect, you know it, and the "mo" concept only holds water for a bullet salesman.



Gerard
I see you are making a public display of further clouding the issue. Interesting tactic. I am certain you will escalate this bad behavor. Prove me wrong.

I added numbers to "items" to be certain we might stay on track.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Jeffe,
1 Every reply on this thread from you to me has contained several personal insults.
...
2 I ask a pair of straightforward questions:
...
3 And you answer with insults and nonsense.
...

1: G, you are confusing me not holding you in high respect with insults. your frequent statement in regards to respect might bring focus to this. Insults? of, perhaps the braying bit could be confused with one, but you didn't have to go off and do it.

However, for the sake of public peace, I appologise if you feelings are hurt.

2: You ask two simple questions, I answered them with factual examples. In fact,

3:You said this, a couple pages back

quote:

Thank you Jeffe, my point exactly. We agree that this bullet penetrates less than lighter bullets of similar construction or monometal expanding bullets despite your pretending that we do not.

you have an issue, and need to pick a point and stay to it


That I asked you to recognize an author of original work, and you made an asinine statement that "all information on the internet is free" and it took calling you a plagarist to get your attention is FACT. In FACT g, everything on then internet is OWN, and NO intellectual rights are abandoned merely by posting.

EXACTLY like a newspaper... the publishing person/company OWN THE RIGHTS TO THE CONTENT.

You might, just might, read a little on copyright and intellectual properties.

That you then added notice actually is admission of condition. Thanks for fixing that.


You do remind me of my eldest son, at 12 or 13, when caught behaving poorly, would flail about with name calling and even worse bahavoir, turning a minor issue into a major one. Good thing about my son... he grew out of that childish behavoir and takes ownership his actions.

at the end of the "momentum" is just another energy calculation, and should be disregarded in exactly the same fashion that "muzzle energy" should be.

Gerard,
You are in correct in your "mo is everything" presentation.

If you actually choose to behave like an adult, I'll be happy to continue a discussion with you.

If you feel the need to rant and rave like a rapid adolesent, well, I've lost interest in your communications before, I am certain if they in that same vein, I will again.


Why don't you just make a two word posting, and end this thread... you can make your little post that says "last word" and everyone will understand.

jeffe

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Jagter,

Quote:

As for the 130/180gr (too much bullet again and what goes with that!) story, one would think seeing and hearing is believing. Not with Chris, even if you let him put his fingers in the holes, he would still not believe. A completely lost soul!

Answer:

Cut your bullets in half pal and we will see who are lost - do it for all calibers you own with the best bullets in the world (including) GS-HV and let the results speak - a very simple test. Cut those 130 gr HV bullets down to 65 grains if you want to prove the point.

I base my views on field results and prefer any day a heavy bullet that opens up wide, rather than a light-for-caliber bullet that lose another 20% of its weight by shedding its petals especially on bigger game. I will never trade a 160 to 175 gr Barnes-X bullet for a 120 to 130 Gr GS-HV bullet in my 7mm Mauser. The Barnes-X will retain 100% of its weight at sensible impact velocities in the 7 mm Mauser and its double caliber mushroom ensures a proper wound channel whilst penetration is adequate for most game species - and this I can prove to anyone. My 7 mm Mauser is much much more gun with heavy-for-caliber Barnes-X bullets and that comes down choosing the higher SD bullet as well as a bullet that will retain its petals (bullet construction).

Chris Bekker

Here are 2 new Solids in the SA market. Danie Joubert and Jeense Visser's bullet on the left (called the 'Dzombo' Solid) and on the right we have a Rhino Solid. Do these bullets feature "pressure grooves" or "driving bands"? Pressure grooves and driving bands utilize different design principles, even though both attempt to lower peak pressure. In fact, they are very far from the same. In this regard I have a few questions then:

Questions:

1) Do these two bullets infringe on anyone's patent or even if we stretch it, can they infringe on a patent for driving bands such as those found on GS Custom bullets?

2) Is the new banded Barnes Solid bullets also infringing on someone's patent?

3) Is the Brigadier Solid, with its driving bands, also infringing on someone's patent?

4) Is Lutz Moller's HV design also infringing on Gerard's patent?

5) Was Gerard really the first person to use the driving band principle in bullet design?

6) If one bullet features more or less pressure grooves than another, could it be construed as a copy?

7) If one bullet features more or less driving bands than another, could it be construed as a copy?

7) Can a patent be registered if someone used a particular design in bullets before and you decided to patent it years later - will it stand up in court if challenged? Perhaps some lawyers can answer this for us.

I merely ask these questions to clarify these questions, as there seems to be a situation that some people claim to be the first with a particular design which they have patented and as such it cannot be used by any other bullet maker. What is the validity term of a valid patent right?



Chris Bekker

quote:

Chris:
Cut your bullets in half pal and we will see who are lost - do it for all calibers you own with the best bullets in the world (including) GS-HV and let the results speak - a very simple test. Cut those 130 gr HV bullets down to 65 grains if you want to prove the point.

Wow! Now you're deep in the woods and completely lost. So much so that nobody knows what you are talking about. Half bullets!?!?!?
Where are you from?

I base my views also on field results as I have already reported before and will repeat here again in the following quote:

quote:

Jagter:
At about 9:15am my guide and I spotted two young Kudu bulls simultaneously, walking at an angle away from us. Due to the fact that it was on the edge of a mountain and quite rocky, the vegetation was not as thick as usual and I had a moment or so in which I could wait for the Kudus to cross a reasonably open passage through which I would be able to see them clearly.
They were both the same size and I decided to take the first one on entering the opening in the bush.
I shot him about in the middle of the left shoulder from this awkward, almost rear angle and he dropped in the opening. The second Kudu immediately disappeard over the edge of the mountain without me having any chance to take a shot at him too.
When we reached the young bull, distance roughly 97 paces, we found that the bullet exited neatly on the right hand side of his neck. Later the day when we slaugthered him we could see that the bullet penetrated in a straight line through the left shoulder, into the neck where two cervical vertebra were crushed before the exit.

This 130gr GS Custom HV bullet penetrated perfectly on a going away shot and travelled 20 inches through this young Kudu bull, crushing two (2) cervical vertebra before it exited through a little hole on the right hand side of the neck, slightly bigger than the entrance wound on the left shoulder.
Yes, I measured the distance the bullet travelled personally and I have the Kudu hide in my possession to prove to any one who is interested that these are facts and true field results.

quote:

Chris:
I will never trade a 160 to 175 gr Barnes-X bullet for a 120 to 130 Gr GS-HV bullet in my 7mm Mauser.

What type of game do you hunt with this 7mm Mauser?

I intend using 130gr GS Custom HV bullets in my Sako 7mm Rem Mag one of these days and I am confident that it will yield excellent results on the game I normally hunt with this rifle i.e. Kudu, Blue Wildebeest, Gemsbuck and Eland.

I also used

quote:

heavy bullet(s) that opens up wide,

but due to the fact that I'm a biltong hunter, the excessive meat damage caused by these heavy-for-calibre bullets made me look for better bullets yielding the same and better results and on top of it minimal meat damage. I found that in GS Customs HV's and have proved it once again in my last hunt.

I don't even know what the SD on these 130gr HV's are and why should I after the above excellent field reults? Know it's their and that's it!

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who had excellent results with GS Custom HV's - refer Atkinson's post above for even more of the good results over a much longer period of time.

Jeffe,
You are consistent, if nothing else. Your smokescreens are getting thin though. It seems you now resort to blatant lies to try and escape. You start with a lie because your very first post to me contained: "Simple question.. simple answer,...i think it's even simple enough for you to answer." Do not complain if you start the string of insults and get it right back and do not lie about who started it.

And then you add another lie: You say that "I choose to stop reading a thread after you refused to answer a simple PHYSICAL properties question is actually a reflection upon your engagement in a discussion." You asked for the length of a particular bullet and when I provided it, you realised that you had made a mistake and like the troll you are, you simply disappeared. It is right there in the original thread.

You are a bad loser but resorting to openly lying to save face will get you nowhere.

Fact remains you have not answered the last four questions I put to you other than sprouting your pseudo disjointed math and theory trying to avoid a direct answer. You are pathetic, but consistent.

Chris,
Why are you acting so confused? A South African Patent is valid in SA and nowhere else. I could also care less about grooved bullets as they do not offer the advantages of drive bands and the two bullets above are obviously grooved bullets. The picture that Kobus posted is different. The left hand bullet may just be an infringement but we will see.

Gerard,
you have crossed the line into believing your own bs. One needs merely to read this thread to see facts.

You are behaving childishly. Either choose to live up to that, or stop that behavoir. The choice, as always, is yours.

quote:

You start with a lie because your very first post to me contained: "Simple question.. simple answer,...i think it's even simple enough for you to answer." Do not complain if you start the string of insults and get it right back and do not lie about who started

No, Gerry, my first post to you was in another thread. After you insulted my race and intelligence. "bollucks..." begins my first post in REFERENCE to you in this thread...and you agreed with me!!

quote:

Thank you Jeffe, my point exactly

whatever, dude...your critical reading is laughable, and your credibility, along with cohesiveness of thought are failing like al gore's political stock.

You certainly feel free to amend facts after discusion.



let's see, you've called me stupid, cowardly, a liar, a troll, and various other things that, frankly, you don't rank high enough to recall. Then, only after YOUR bad behavoir, do you pick a fight and run crying to the gallery. Gerard, you are a bully that picks a fight, and when the target wont roll over, goes running, reporting 1/2 the story... that you had your arse kicked, failing to mention not only do you start these events, but that you like to throw the first punch.


Hmm, let's go back to RATIONALE... only a bullet salesman of an unconventional bullet would demand that conventional, proven NOWLEDGE is flawed. Now, of course, you'll retort 'oh, back to this" or other idiotic words to that effect....

Funny thing about truth G... it keeps coming back to haunt you, and it's pretty easy to remember...


Yo, G just type "last word" and drive it home. Prove to the world that g's point, no matter what facts point otherwise, are the rules of the earth...

you win... and you are an ungraious "winner"...

letting you win is like allowing a 6 year old to win at chess...

the entire world knows you allowed the win, and the 6 year old goes off with a puffed up chess...


At this point G, i believe attempting to give you knowledge, rather than your rather biased opinion, should be written off as a bad job.

Liar? that one is a tad funny... but from the source, you've just named me a reference book in comparision.

have a nice day now g... go make your bullets, and try to sell them... only this time, try to get them to customers within a year AFTER CHARGING THEIR CREDIT CARDS.

Gerard, plain and simple, you are incorrect and hooking your wagon to a one trick pony that needs velocity to even get a value +/0 ZERO,,,

and zero is about the patience I have left with ranking your coals around in public...

<yawn>

oh well... i am certain there's a couple workmen in your shop you can go harrange tomorrow and since they take your coin will agree with you... and you can puff up your chest and blow hard about more of your misdirection.

You know, I wrote a monograph on troll behavoir when a person around here was running 1/2 a dozen ID's at once. You might read that, as you haven't quite perfected your new persona.

I am damn certain you'll sell a LOT more bullets from these types of discussions...

jeffe

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Ray,

The GS Custom bullets are certainly very neat bullets and very precisely machined. This is evident the moment when you pick them up, very consistent and accurate as one would expect from a lathe turned bullet made from a homogenous metal. I don't think anyone is trying to discredit Gerard when it comes to bullet making.

Differences of opinion do exist as far as the killing mechanism is concerned. We may differ about how we interpret sectional density and certain preferences of certain features of one bullet over another, but never about the quality of the GS product. Supply problems and long waiting periods aside, Gerard's site list a lot of satisfied customers. I guess it is like the old rivalry that we had between Ford and Chev followers when I was a kid. The same preferences exist when it comes to bullets - many people will prefer one bullet over another and back it up somehow. Some bullets may be more appropriate for one situation than another and vice versa.

The unfortunate thing about this debate was that personalities would clash, but as with most things in life people will always find a way of what suits them best.

Regards
Chris Bekker

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

Quote:

Why are you acting so confused? A South African Patent is valid in SA and nowhere else. I could also care less about grooved bullets as they do not offer the advantages of drive bands and the two bullets above are obviously grooved bullets. The picture that Kobus posted is different. The left hand bullet may just be an infringement but we will see.

Response:

I am not confused Gerard, I am merely asking some guiding questions. Of course you had to use the word "confused". Why don't you answer the questions Gerard? They are straight forward and should be no sweat for you. We all know that a SA patent is only valid in South Africa - that is why we register a SA patent in South Africa. Gee-whiz Gerard that is a self-evident truth, not so? You veered off again Gerard to make a non-event an issue right in your first sentence.

If you feel you want to comment constructively on the issue, then it would be helpful if you simply answer the questions that matter. Just as a further guide ... to have a valid patent, the design should be "a unique idea" and not a "logical deduction" from something else (existing design) - it must be a first. Gerard please do not create smoke to obscure the real situation, the picture that Kobus from Rhino placed displayed the very same bullet that I placed, and since it is a grooved bullet (which should not worry you) why accuse Rhino bullets of copying your design, but now in your latest post you hint that the Dzombo bullet might be a an infringement and you have gone silent on the Rhino (was this an about-turn?). Gerard I think you are the one that is mistaken and confused. You need to clarify this as such a statement cannot just hang in the air like a dark cloud over other bullet makers.

Your drive band design is probably nothing but a logical deduction from the pre-existing pressure groove design and would yield lower pressure as you have simply shortened the bearing surface even more; resulting in less resistance when the bullet passes through the barrel. Alf pointed out before that your design was not in fact the first, unless Alf is completely mistaken. Please clarify this so we do not have to speculate about the true facts.

Herewith page 32 of Man Magnum (November 1983) - Reloading for double rifles by Oliver Coltman

Quote:

Bell Bullets:

As mentioned earlier, these are produced in three calibers, being .470, .465 and .416 these slugs are turned on an automatic lathe using a specially altered thread cutter. They are without doubt the best bullets ever produced, as the steel jacket is .435 inches thick at the nose. That is nearly a half an inch , and .170 inches at the skirt(heel) The bands which ride the rifling are copper coated to protect the barrel. While the rest of the slug has nickel covering which is just cosmetic and not really necessary. End of quote.

The author of the article refers to bands and these are the only part that touch the rifling. So was Bell the first to start using bands on bullets or even someone before him? One can only patent an idea that has never been used before anywhere in the world. You cannot patent an idea that is a logical conclusion from an existing idea. Is there really then a difference between bands and grooves since they both do the same job?



For the record I am not an associate of Rhino, I am simply a user of his bullets and I test various makes of bullets - let me say it again, I am an independent person that receives no money from anyone. My opinions are entirely my own.

Chris Bekker

Chris,
You say you are not confused but clearly you are. Allow me to explain.

quote:

Gerard please do not create smoke to obscure the real situation, the picture that Kobus from Rhino placed displayed the very same bullet that I placed

Your picture contains two bullets. Kobus' picture contains four bullets, all with different shank configurations and one of which may be the same as the bullet in your picture.

quote:

now in your latest post you hint that the Dzombo bullet might be a an infringement and you have gone silent on the Rhino (was this an about-turn?). Gerard I think you are the one that is mistaken and confused

I referred to your two bullet picture with: "I could also care less about grooved bullets as they do not offer the advantages of drive bands and the two bullets above are obviously grooved bullets." I referred to Kobus' picture with: "The picture that Kobus posted is different. The left hand bullet may just be an infringement but we will see."

I trust this will clear up your confusion now.

quote:

One can only patent an idea that has never been used before anywhere in the world.

The term that is used is "novelty". This what we proved and it is also the reason why Mr.Moeller's patent will be anulled when challenged. Anyone is free to request a copy of our patent and it will be clear that our patent attorneys (Adams & Adams) have done their search and registration well. It will also be clear that there is more to our HV and FN bullet than what meets the eye. Especially your eye.

quote:

Is there really then a difference between bands and grooves since they both do the same job?

After all the discussions you still ask such a question? You truly have no clue.

quote:

For the record I am not an associate of Rhino

Whatever you say.......

18 April 2005 19:06 Chris Bekker says:
I continually test a wide range of Rhino bullets and provide Kobus with feedback.

19 April 2005 20:17 Statement from the owner of Rhino Bullets:
5. In the past Mr. Bekker have done a number of tests for me on a number of calibers. The facts are ... He tested:

.243 in 100 gr 7mm in 160 and 170 gr .308 in 200 gr .270 in 150 gr .303 in 215 gr with Pieter Olivier 9.3 in 286 gr and 300 gr .375 in 300 and 350 gr 404 Jeff in 400 gr with Hubert Saayman

This feedback is combined with tests done by other hunters to develop or improve my bullets. Mr. Bekker worked out a chart to determine the maximum length my bullets can be at a given weight. This chart has been very useful to me when designing new heavy weight bullets.

10 June 2005 21:10 Chris says:
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.

The illustration below is from an article written by Bekker. Note the accompanying text.....


Jeffe,
More lies, mistakes and smoke.

We all know why - you are cornered, so squirm all you like, it won't change anything.

What say you to:

You asked for the length of a particular bullet and when I provided it, you realised that you had made a mistake and like the troll you are, you simply disappeared.

Fact remains you have not answered the last four questions I put to you other than sprouting your pseudo disjointed math and theory, trying to avoid a direct answer. You are pathetic, but consistent.

Gerard,
Smoke and lies? Nah, G,,, that, and customer service, are your areas of mastery.

You have shown the world your level of intelligence, and I am bored with the broadsides.

That I haven't answered your last "4" questions, G, is the fact that you continue to change the questions and don't acknowledge when they are answered. However, every other one of them, including your "challenge" have been met. In short, your attitude makes your questions no longer deserve a reply.

you should realize that no one agrees with your marketing campaign.

I reserve the right to answer in kind to your personal attacks.

In short, until you are willing to have an adult conversation, I am no longer interested in what you have to bray.

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:

Herewith page 32 of Man Magnum (November 1983) - Reloading for double rifles by Oliver Coltman

Quote:

Bell Bullets:

As mentioned earlier, these are produced in three calibers, being .470, .465 and .416 these slugs are turned on an automatic lathe using a specially altered thread cutter. They are without doubt the best bullets ever produced, as the steel jacket is .435 inches thick at the nose. That is nearly a half an inch , and .170 inches at the skirt(heel) The bands which ride the rifling are copper coated to protect the barrel. While the rest of the slug has nickel covering which is just cosmetic and not really necessary. End of quote.

Chris Bekker

Holy Cow! I have a box of those Bell Bullets in .475/500gr, acquired at an estate sale, a couple of years ago.

I didn't know that I had such an historic artifact. Too bad they are round nose solids not Flat Nose. Must be why you don't see them anymore.

Jeffe,
You asked for the length of a particular bullet and when I provided it, you realised that you had made a mistake and like the troll you are, you simply disappeared.

Fact remains you have not answered the last four questions I put to you other than sprouting your pseudo disjointed math and theory, trying to avoid a direct answer. You are pathetic, but consistent.

quote:

you should realize that no one agrees with your marketing campaign.

These guys do.
And so do they.

quote:

I am no longer interested in what you have to bray.

Positively cornered. Just like a little child running home with "I am not playing any more. "

Posting for Chris Bekker:





Gerard,

You still have not answered the questions, but created some more smoke ...

I have told you before a number of times that I am not part of Rhino Bullets. Kobus told you so at least on 2 or 3 occasions. When I referred to "our Rhino bullet" it was used in the context to contrast the overseas Trophy Bonded bullet versus our local product. You memory must be failing you or you are willfully flocking a dead horse - only you will know. (drog redenasie)

Then as far as the pressure grooves and driving bands are concerned - I know they the differ from each other, but they both attempt to lower pressure and that does not mean that they are the same or yield the same pressure - obviously the driving bands provide lower resitance. (A littel boy of 8 will tell you so.)

Compare the Rhino bullets that Kobus placed, with the new banded Barnes Solid and then yours - do they look the same ... do they constitute a copy ... do they infringe your patent? If you believe so, why don't you start legal proceedings and test your belief in court. By the way Gerard, all four bullets in the picture that Kobus placed are made the same way - may be you should phone him as you have done in the past - if he gives you an answer that does not fit your pre-conceived opinion then you tell him that he is a liar. (Search and registration mean nothing - get your research right.)

Just another leading question ... when you examine the width of the bands versus the driving bands (under your microscope) does it constitute a fundamental difference in manufacturing or is it a close copy as the Lutz Moller bullet? When the number of 'rings' differ would it make a material difference in design parameters? (Lekker dink ouboet)

Chris Bekker

Chris,

quote:

When I referred to "our Rhino bullet" it was used in the context to contrast the overseas Trophy Bonded bullet versus our local product.

I think I have read most of the articles you have written and not once have I seen you refer to South African made Goodnell, Claw, GS, Stewart, Frontier or PMP as "our" bullets. Nice try. What are you guys hiding anyway?

quote:

Yesterday Chris said:
Is there really then a difference between bands and grooves since they both do the same job?

Today Chris says:
Then as far as the pressure grooves and driving bands are concerned - I know they the differ from each other, but they both attempt to lower pressure and that does not mean that they are the same or yield the same pressure - obviously the driving bands provide lower resitance.

You are not making any sense. Take two asprin and lie down for a while.

quote:

By the way Gerard, all four bullets in the picture that Kobus placed are made the same way

If you are saying you see no difference between the shanks of these four bullets, I know a guy who sells white canes real cheap.

quote:

when you examine the width of the bands versus the driving bands(under your microscope)

Two things are apparent from this comment. You are becoming more confused by the minute. This drive band and groove thing is really getting to you, it seems. Secondly, why do you find it strange that we have and use a microscope? Don't all bullet manufacturers have such equipment? Ask Kobus if he uses one, I am sure he does.

quote:

(Lekker dink ouboet)

Loosely translates to: "Figure that one out" or "Put that in your pipe and smoke it" or "I got you now'

Chris you should get your brain in gear before flapping your keyboard around. Your confusion gets funnier by the day.

quote:

You are pathetic, but consistent

lol!

this thread gives me more laughs and drama than the movies, and its free

pride and agenda makes for great fodder.

there is more than one way to skin a cat(buffalo) gerards stuff is great the rhinos are great. i will use both with confidence. man i love this thread

Posting for Dr Mauritz Coetzee:

The Editor
AccurateReloading.Com

KOOS AND GERARD.

Firstly Gerard, between the you ask and you say reply to Kobus (Rhino) I am convinced that you have created a situation with dire consequences for yourself.
However at this time and moment we should summarize what these two have said on the performance of the 380/375.
Koos.
The expansion of the 380/375 is so drastic and the frontal diameter so large that momentum will be weakened totally with resultant bad wound channel-forming and penetration.
Gerard Quote
*All the reports posted by Chris states that the 380g 375Rhino rarely exit a buffalo
*This indicates that it penetrates less deeply than lighter .375 bullets which tend to exit more frequently .
*I asked the question whether one can take a raking or complete going away shot with this bullet, with the same confidence as a bullet is likely to penetrate deeper.
*Ray has often said that a bullet/ caliber combination is adequate for a particular specie if full penetration can be assured from any angle….

From my side I insisted that the bullet provided more than enough penetration and impressive wound channels.
Gerard also states the following: Quote It would be interesting to hear from these who have used this bullet on smaller game and experienced no expansion at all. Mauritz praises the great versatility of his product while all reports indicate a limited application. Frontal and quartering shots an very heavy game only.
From my side I asked whether this bullet was designed for impala- sized game.
Yet DOCTARI (Kevin Robertson) has also used this bullet on waterbuck, zebra and leopard with great success and he also cites the impressive wound channels.
Robbie Guthrie used this bullet from all angles on buffalo. Lo and behold Gerard expected this type of scenario.
He actually then makes the following statement: Quote ….successful going away shots…would still not explain the shallow penetration (relative) already reported,
Given what DOCTARI already said shallow penetration according to Gerard is a bullet that goes through both shoulders of a buffalo, and lodges under the skin.
Gerard amazingly stated that I tried to be evasive about the performance of this bullet and answer with ridicule and profanity. Furthermore he says the following Quote “He is the designer and purveyor of these bullets, has been asked some tough questions and is now dancing around the subject of reduced penetration at the expense of other products
Now we have to ask the question. Who is actually dancing around the subject of penetration.
Why has Gerard and Koos not answered my question on what really constitutes sufficient penetration.
Fact is the 380/375 Rhino kills with certainty from any angle, field results prove that. Is there deliberate deception on Gerards part as far as this is concerned. DOCTARI says that this is the best .375 bullet for buffalo.
Surely Gerard agrees with this since, he, by admission respect the work he(Kevin) has done.
Where should we go from here, should we all ask. The answer to this is simple. Judge Gerard (even more) on his own beliefs.
For example .500 grains mentions the 570 and 500 grain GS solids that stayed in buffalo and giraffe. Yet he (Gerard) insisted that he wants complete (full) penetration from any angle.
How is it possible that his HV bullets do not expand and yet gives full penetration whilst his solids gives less than full penetration.
Has something gone wrong with the GS bullet design paradigm or was it doomed from the start? Like Koos Gerard is now caught in his own trap so he chose to distort by showing Rhino bullets which are no longer produced, for example.
Having dealt with the typical Jerry Schultz on this forum and after being exposed to his habit of distorting facts, I can fully understand his friend Koos’s remarks on this forum.(his comparison between Jaco’s and Hennie’s experiences with the .510 Rhino fully illustrates this fact)
I sited Gerard’s noted habit of drawing up straw-man arguments and his consequent preference to indulge in the preposterous. Again I ask, what is the connection between the 380/375 Rhino soft, and dangerous game animals shot with solids with a 7x57 and a 303, and buffalo shot with338/200 grain GS bullets? (from a chopper) Above all what is the connection with present-day hunting conditions.
If Bell shot animals from a ladder with an inadequate caliber and solid bullets does Jerry propose to take this folly to new unknown heights by mentioning buffalo shot by an inadequate caliber from a chopper.
Yours truly,
Dr. Mauritz Coetzee

Before all of the name calling and insults began, can someone please briefly recap this thread? What are they arguing about and why and who is on each side?

That way I don't have to go back to the beginning of time when physics was recognized and I won't have to read the excrutiating minutia that has desolved into personal attacks in the future.

No charts, graphs, or obscure articles please!

Thank you.

RCG

Just saw this in a 45/70 thread, and thought it was appropo!!!!



no meaningful comment on this discussion, of course

jeffe

RCG,
I have endured five years of sniping at GS Custom bullets from Chris Bekker and his buddies. These attacks have always been at the expense of GS Custom and to the advantage of another manufacturer in SA. I have proven the links between the people involved and the manufacturer. Clearly the manufacturer approves of this as they are not averse to mentioning competitors on their website. I have decided that enough is enough. Whenever they mention GS Custom and get their facts wrong, I will take them to task. You will notice that I only respond when they address me or mention incorrect facts pertaining to GS Custom bullets. I have not once instigated any of these acrimonious discussions. I have never used foul language or done anything other than point out their mistakes.

There is a difference between deliberately reporting incorrectly on an issue to gain an advantage and merely having a difference of opinion. I will no longer tolerate deliberate misrepresentation from these so called experts. It is a simple matter for the manufacturer to instruct his associates to cease these tactics. Why has he not done so, one might ask? Does he continue to approve of this? Note that he bacame personally involved when I resorted to the methods he allowed his associates to employ for years. Suddenly he finds it uncomfortable.

Hi Morrie,
Your mistake riddled post is a repeat of previous posts by you. Nothing new. The questions you ask have all been answered.

The following is amusing though:

Morrie says: "For example .500 grains mentions the 570 and 500 grain GS solids that stayed in buffalo and giraffe. Yet he (Gerard) insisted that he wants complete (full) penetration from any angle." You do have trouble with reading / comprehension. I never insisted on perforation at any angle and in every case. Making such a statement is a lie and precisely why I take you and Chris to task when you do this. As I have said before, I wonder who mentored who in this technique you both use so glibly.

Here is another example of such an unfounded statement: "How is it possible that his HV bullets do not expand and yet gives full penetration whilst his solids gives less than full penetration." Morrie, you are not making any sense but you do follow it with the obligatory slanderous statement about GS Custom "Has something gone wrong with the GS bullet design paradigm or was it doomed from the start?" and then the accusation that I am not playing fair "by showing Rhino bullets which are no longer produced."

I did not know that you have discontinued the .224, 7mm, .375 and .458 bullets in the pictures I posted. Have you? Fact is, bullets as badly flawed as those, have never escaped from the GS Custom factory and GS have not yet discontinued a single bullet that was placed into the market. GS Custom does the R&D so that the customer does not have to find out the product does not work.

Morrie says "buffalo shot with338/200 grain GS bullets? (from a chopper)"
Where did you get that from? Someone must be helping you, you can hardly be this wrong on your own.

Get your facts right when you address GS Custom or myself Morrie, or get used to being ridiculed when you do not. Enough is enough.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Gerard,

You stubbornness to understand that I am not an associate of Rhino, and that I do not take instructions from them seems to be only surpassed by the thickness of your skull. In the elephant community I suspect a very thick skull bone would be considered an advantage. You live in a dream world and you believe your own wrong deductions.

Gerard you still have not answered my questions. You just create more smoke and confusion as you go. Please prove how you have come to the conclusion that Rhino infringed your patent. Avoiding to answer these questions is not furthering this debate. You have painted yourself into a corner now.

If you have a patent then state your patent number. I am not sure if you need reading glasses or another microscope to detect the differences between a GS-FN bullet and the new Rhino Solid. It would be real funny or shall I say a miracle to see how you would prove that your driving bands was copied in a Rhino - surely a quantum leap in your imagination.

Gerard you should get more sleep before you over tax your brain. Your replies have become so predictable that it is no longer funny. Take two myprodols and lie down for a while in a dark and quiet room. Also put a wet cloth on your forehead to bring the fever down. This might help you to improve your focus on the questions asked.

I really think your time will be more profitably spent if you get your factory up and running again rather than to perpetuate your silly answers that is only a testimony of your stubbornness and skewed logic.

Chris Bekker

Posting for Chris Bekker:



500 Grains,

1) The bullet on the left is an original Barnes Soft - it lost most of its weight and it could not go through a kudu on a broadside shot.

2) The other two bullets are Rhino bullets retrieved from buffalo.

Bullets come courtesy of Katte Katzke.

Best regards
Chris Bekker

Posting for Chris Bekker:



Top view of 430gr Rhino's @ 2,250fps in 416 Rigby

Posting for Chris Bekker:

500 Grains,

Quote:

a) The 375 H&H has been shown to penetrate best when shooting a 300 grain bullet at 2300 to 2450 fps. It seems that when the velocity goes above 2450 fps, the bullets begin to yaw and penetration is compromised.

b) Now let's look at the 45-70 shooting 500 grain bullets. I do not wish to consider 400 grain 45 caliber bullets because the sectional density is too low to be taken seriously. Unquote.

Interesting quotations chom ... at one stage I thought that Gerard brainwashed you also about the irrelevance of sectional density, but then I saw your refreshing remarks as quoted above. I am sure Gerard won't like it because firstly you limit the velocity in a 375 H&H with a fast twist to a modest level, and secondly, the SD of the 400 grainer in the .45-70 pops at .272. Touting the use of 500 grainers (SD=.341) at an even lower velocity in a .45-70 seems to give the edge to SD over velocity. Well there we have it in a nutshell.

With the datum line pegged at .272 iro SD, I am just wondering how many light for caliber bullets fall prey to a SD of lower than .272? Just think about the likes of HV bullets such as 130 grainers in .308 caliber (SD=.196), 230 grainers in .366 caliber (SD=.245), 265 grainers in .375 caliber (SD=.269) and 320 grainers in .423 caliber (SD=.255) !!!

The .416/430 gr Rhino bullet (SD=.355) that Katte Katzke is using on buffalo at modest velocity (2,220 - 2,250 fps) provides sterling performance as the pictures show. The construction of the Rhino bullet is such that it retains its well expanded petals at modest velocities to yield a bigger and more effective wound channel - an opinion shared by Doctari. This combination is as ideal as one can get and proven over and over - caliber, type of bullet, bullet mass, bullet expansion at modest velocities.

Lastly if we peg your .375/300 gr bullet at 2,300 fps as ideal, then we can understand why other calibers perform so well at the same velocity level - the 9.3 x 62 as well as Katte's .416 Rigby load. Push a .375 Soft bullet, albeit a premium grade bullet, to a higher level (2,600 - 2,700 fps) and you will be going in the wrong direction.

500 grains - you are my man !!!

Take care.
Chris Bekker

Chris,

Due to the total lack of detailed information supplied in your post dated 5 August 2005 18:55, other than the make of the bullets, nothing is said about the specific bullets' weight and bore size. I am therefor assuming the following:

1. According to the picture it looks like a much bigger calibre than a .308 you are referring to in this post.
2. My assumption made in 1 above is based on the fact that you are comparing the Barnes Soft with a Rhino bullet (something better than a soft as you are implying) used on buffalo and certainly Katte Katzke won't hunt buffalo with a .308!
3. I also assume that the original Barnes Soft's SD was much higher than .196.
If the above assumptions are wrong, please inform us what the above are supposed to be.

Now you say:

quote:

1) The bullet on the left is an original Barnes Soft - it lost most of its weight and it could not go through a kudu on a broadside shot.

2) The other two bullets are Rhino bullets retrieved from buffalo.

Bullets come courtesy of Katte Katzke.

You also conclude in your post dated 5 August 2005 19:01:

quote:

I am just wondering how many light for caliber bullets fall prey to a SD of lower than .272? Just think about the likes of HV bullets such as 130 grainers in .308 caliber (SD=.196).

I know it's not fair to compare softs with solids, but according to you in previous posts GS HV's also lose their petals - hence much lower retained weight as you have it - therefor this comparison is not too way out to be of considerable value.

Finally, the bullet with a SD ratio of .196 (much lower than the Barnes Soft's SD ratio) fly through a young Kudu bull, crushing 2 cervical vertebra and still exit through a neat little hole after a penetration depth of 20 inches of solid Kudu. (Not light density material like a journey through a rib cage and intestines would be for a bullet on a broad side shot through the vitals.)

Chris, now that we've seen in the above that SD ratio is not that important at all, could you please explain what force made the .308 130 gr HV outperform the larger calibre and higher SD ratio Barnes Soft bullet?

Chris,

quote:

I am not an associate of Rhino

quote:

Please prove how you have come to the conclusion that Rhino infringed your patent. You have painted yourself into a corner now.

You are still confused, I see. The corner exists in your imagination only. When did I come to the conclusion that my patent has been infringed? You have worked your three step twisted logic again. You know how it goes: You make a statement based on an incorrect assumption, justify it with some twisted logic and then state your desired wrong conclusion. Just like Morrie.

quote:

If you have a patent then state your patent number.

Why? It is on every box of bullets as required by law.

quote:

This might help you to improve your focus on the questions asked.

Now that you mention unanswered questions, here are some you have ignored. You probably thought they would go away if you ignored them but here they are. You are fond of making the accusation that I leave your questions unanswered. Let's see you list the questions I have not answered.

"Could someone please explain this to me? Isn't the cube root much smaller than the number ie.: If a bullet expanded to 27mm (1.06"), the cube root is 3mm (0.12")? Or is the meaning that the final expanded diameter is the cube root of the permanent wound channel? (27mm x 27mm x 27mm = 19683mm = 775" = 64.5 ft = exploded buffalo) I respect Kevin's opinion, what am I missing here?" (You posted Kevin's article so I presume you understand this and can provide the answer.)

"What are you guys hiding anyway?"

"Secondly, why do you find it strange that we have and use a microscope? Don't all bullet manufacturers have such equipment?"

By the way, Jagter wanted to know: "Once again, how on earth can anybody believe anything you say or write in future?"

Especially after baiting your own trap and then stepping on it with your Barnes/Kudu comparison to a .308 130gr HV as he points out.

quote:

Just think about the likes of HV bullets such as 130 grainers in .308 caliber (SD=.196), 230 grainers in .366 caliber (SD=.245), 265 grainers in .375 caliber (SD=.269) and 320 grainers in .423 caliber (SD=.255) !!!

Thanks for mentioning these bullets. Here is what can be done with them and some others that also "suffer" from a lack of Sd. Proof that Sd belongs to the past.

Elk with a 130gr 7mm


Kudu with a 130gr 7mm


Blesbuck with 40gr 220 Swift complete penetration 200m and 120m


Blesbuck with 40gr 220Swift at 435m (entrance and exit).


540gr 500NE - "The bullet went in behind the ribs on the right hand side, through the rumen, spleen, liver and right through the centre of the heart, before exiting the far shoulder. The penetration was awesome!"


380gr 416 Rigby - "The bullet shattered the heaviest part of the shoulder, the humerus, before sailing on through in a straight line out the other side."


"Utah Bull Elk taken Sept 25, 2002. It was shot at 440 meters with a .340 Weatherby loaded with GS Custom 200 grain hv bullets. The distance was measured with a Leica geovid laser range finder after the fact."


"I was very impressed and satisfied with the combination of 375H&H and the GS 200gr bullet."


GS Custom 400 grain HV in 458 Lott, and 200 grain HVs in 338-06. - "The crocodile was taken with the 338-06 as was the hippo with the side head shot going between the eye and the ear. The first buffalo below was taken with the 400 grain HV at 70 yards. He was grazing with his head down and dropped like a rock at the shot. The third and fourth buffalo were also taken with the 400 grain HV. "





22-250 with 40gr HV on Black Wildebeest - "The opportunity for a shot came at 345 metres and presented a slightly quartering, almost broadside shot. The 40gr HV bullet entered forward on the left leg, punched through the second rib and the top of the heart and exited between the fourth and fifth ribs on the right."




"375H&H loaded with 265gr GS HV bullets at 2930fps. The shot was taken at 120 paces and the Eland went down at the shot. The bullet exit is visible on the shoulder."


"He used a 375H&H and a 250gr GS Custom HP bullet. The shot broke the nearside shoulder and lodged in a rib on the far side for a shade under 2m of penetration."


Sd? Who needs it?

I read these threads with the intent to learn something. While it is laborious to say the least to wade through all the childish banter, it is still educational.

I would like to make one comment relative to the last three posts. My previous comments regarding the performance of GSC HV's has been rattled about a little in this thread, but one important observation has been left out. While I was not impressed by the expansion on a few shots, and there was at least two instances of the bullet tumbling on impact, IN EVERY CASE the actual penetration of the HV's was very impressive to me. I only managed to recover the one tumbled bullet. Every other shot was a complete pass through, and many were at quite sharp angles. The PH was even quite impressed at the penetration on a few shots. The first shot I took on the trip was a quartering away shot at a trotting RHB. I caught it at the diaphram on the entry side and it exited the shoulder on the far side. We figured that was over 26" of RHB. The kudu was a pretty sharp angle as well, and the frontal shot on the impala was very impressive (the shot entered the near shoulder, exited the paunch, re-entered the far hind leg, smashed the femur and then exited the leg).

While there may be other issues that need to be worked out in specific cases (reliablility of expansion, tumbling on impact), one thing I can say for certain is that the GSC HV's penetrate extremely well. This is a case where SD can be very misleading.

FWIW,
Canuck

Chris,

I would add something to my remarks. When a monolithic solid (copper or brass) is used rather than a lead core solid, I consider dropping up to 10% of the bullet weight. Brass particularly is not very dense, and I do not want an excessively long bullet which may become unstable.

For example, in a .375 H&H, I would prefer to use a 270 grain bullet if the bullet is made of brass. Perhaps I would take the same view with copper as well.

These are my opinions only.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Jagter,

I will answer you shortly ....

Gerard,

Regarding the association with Rhino, which you still do not believe, I suggest that you bring the matter in front of the truth commission. Your snoring picture does not help to cast doubt, it shows your intent to mislead the world.

You hinted the infringement by Rhino bullets to bring a dark cloud over them - very simple.

Ask Doctari to answer what he has written - that is the courteous thing to do. Do not make assumptions that I should do it on his behalf. Call him up as you have the habit of doing. I will answer my postings ... understand!

I am hiding nothing and nor do I need to hide anything. You do not have to refer to the plural of "you guys" Just answer the questions ... are you perhaps hiding anything? (Your sly technique of projection)

The microscope reference you still do not understand - I am not surprised as you seldom understand before a subject is debated to death ... your pride. The microscope is meant for you to see the difference between the Rhino bullet and yours.

How can I ever believe you after you cheated me with the BC - I needed to beat you over the head before you confessed.

Chris Bekker

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Canuck,

Quote:

While there may be other issues that need to be worked out in specific cases (reliablility of expansion, tumbling on impact), one thing I can say for certain is that the GSC HV's penetrate extremely well, possibly well out of proportion to their SD.

Question:

How do you reason the lack of expansion and tumbling on impact? Wrong twist rate? The angle of attack? Annealing of the nose? Any other? Have you sent the bullets to Gerard for examination ... under his microscope? Have you had a reply from him ... curious to know what the worked out answer is going to be by Gerard. I don't want to speculate on the answer as I was not there, hence my question to you.

I assume that penetration will be deeper when a bullet does not expand or when it behaves like a solid. With tumbling the path is erratic and it could go shallow or deep or right through depending on the drag.

The important point is the bullet did not perform according to expectation and that has little to do with SD.

The twist of a 375 H&H (1 in 12") is sufficient to stabilize the bullet in theory.

I think the answer might just remain a mystery if we can't come to terms with it readily.

I take it you still prefer the Swift A-Frame bullet over the HV bullet?

Take care
Chris Bekker

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Koos,

You are missing the what the discussion of SD was all about. Ask 500 Grains to explain to you why he prefers to use a 500 grainer instead of a 400 grainer in .458 caliber. We cannot compare monolithics with softs - if we could we would be able to shoot cotton balls - light weight and low SD. You could replace cotton with rubber for your further elucidation, etc.

The question is whether or not in any given bullet the higher SD bullet will outperform the lower SD Bullet. Since you picked the 130 gr .308 bullet (Sd=.196) let me say I have 220 grain (SD=.331) A-Square Solids that have been used on buffalo culling many a time (in 30-06 and 300 H&H configuration) by Parks Board rangers ... tell me which bullet will yield the best penetration supposing we cut the same bullet down to a shorter length? Do it with any bullet as long as the material and construction is the same.

When construction differ, performance as well as depth of penetration will vary. We also now know the inter-active role of Mo/Xsa on penetration ability. All these things have been explained before - just back-track the thread. Penetration is seldom if ever a problem with bullets with a small frontal area - that goes back to the force (Mo) applied to the frontal area (Xsa) that must spearhead its journey through the animal.

Your conclusion that SD is not important is not correct - I have explained that also with numerous examples - cut your bullets in half or go a step further and minimize the SD till you reach a round ball. My test with the Barnes-X bullet shows clearly the result what happens we cut a 175 grainer down to 142 grains and then again to 108 grains in a 7 mm Mauser. We cannot wish SD away as it traps mass and diameter in ratio form. SD is not absolute as I have explained many a time, just like momentum is not absolute, but when we combine mass, diameter, velocity and construction it adds up to a more comprehensive and holistic picture.

Enough said.
Chris Bekker

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:


The important point is the bullet did not perform according to expectation and that has little to do with SD.

Who knows for sure? HV bullets are very long. If you use them in a lighter weight as Gerard recommends, then the length is comparable to a heavier bullet of traditional style and should stabilize fine. But if you use a very long one, perhaps a faster twist will be needed to maintain stability within a game animal.

Even Barnes X bullets, which are not as long as the HV, often show instability. In particular, the .458 500 grain X bullet has a very spotty record, and the .416 400 grain X bullet is questionable as well.

Chris Bekker:

quote:

You are missing the what the discussion of SD was all about. Ask 500 Grains to explain to you why he prefers to use a 500 grainer instead of a 400 grainer in .458 caliber.

(The firts part of this sentence doesn't make much sense, though!)

500grains:

quote:

Even Barnes X bullets, which are not as long as the HV, often show instability. In particular, the .458 500 grain X bullet has a very spotty record, and the .416 400 grain X bullet is questionable as well.

What next, Mr Elucidator?

quote:

You could replace cotton with rubber ..........

Chris Bekker:

quote:

The question is whether or not in any given bullet the higher SD bullet will outperform the lower SD Bullet.

The answer is: NO - refer my previous post. The lower SD (.196) 130gr GS HV outperformed the much higher one namely 430gr. in a .416 calibre by far!

Chris Bekker:

quote:

We cannot wish SD away as it traps mass and diameter in ratio form.

Jagter:

quote:

Many, many members are bugged by the term SD, the higher the better they say. Very few, however realise that it is just ONE of the many other building blocks in the terminal ballistic technology tower. We all know it must and always will be there, arguably at certain desirable values, but once you have taken note of that fact, it is not important any longer simply because there are many other more flexible and controllable building blocks that should receive more attention. That also explains why most participants on the forums struggle to get hold of the Marula pip analogy (analogy = partial similarity between the eye and a camera, the heart and a pump for instance and also a bullet with SD and a Marula fruit with a pip.) A bullet can't be without a SD ratio and similarly a freshly picked Marula fruit can't be without a pip.

Chris, I think you are wasting my time as well as everybody else's time with your answers on this forum. You're beating around the bush simply because you are too narrow-minded to admit that you have been knocked out several times in this thread with your stubborn and outdated SD ideas - irrespective of proof to the contrary.

I would suggest that you break down that fictitious Berlin wall in your mind and crossover to the new world of ballistics.

Now before you go dilly-dally when trying to answer this post, remember this:

Jagter:

quote:

Só, some more sense in future from yourself will also be appreciated by everyone on this forum.

Chris,
You say "Just answer the questions.." What questions, all you have asked have been answered. Why do you falsely create the impression that I leave questions hanging. Feeling guilty about the way you continually do it yourself? I asked you in my previous post: "Let's see you list the questions I have not answered."

That aside, it seems we are getting somewhere at last. In your last post you said:
"when we combine mass, diameter, velocity and construction it adds up to a more comprehensive and holistic picture."

I agree with that view.

With the above in mind, can we agree that, when considering bullets of differing calibre, when each is viewed on their own, velocity, mass, calibre and construction carry little meaning when considering terminal ballistics?

You have also said that niether Sd nor momentum are absolute and I agree. To that I want to add that niether is energy. Can we therefore also agree that any combination of only two of velocity or mass or calibre or construction carry little meaning when considering the terminal ballistics of bullets that differ in calibre?

If we can agree on the above two points, it seems we then agree that we need to consider the combination of velocity and mass and calibre to give any kind of meaning to what may happen when a bullet of any one type of construction is assessed for terminal ballistics. This would also start us down the path of using these same parameters for cross calibre comparisons of the same type and construction bullet.

Comparison across calibre as well as construction and type, remains an area that I believe cannot be addressed other than with actual field testing. Possibly we can agree on this as well?

quote:

That aside, it seems we are getting somewhere at last. In your last post you said:
"when we combine mass, diameter, velocity and construction it adds up to a more comprehensive and holistic picture."

I agree with that view.

Sure took you guys one heckuva long time to come around to what I said on the "ultimate compromise thread"!

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

How do you reason the lack of expansion and tumbling on impact? Wrong twist rate? The angle of attack? Annealing of the nose? Any other? Have you sent the bullets to Gerard for examination ... under his microscope? Have you had a reply from him ... curious to know what the worked out answer is going to be by Gerard. I don't want to speculate on the answer as I was not there, hence my question to you.

I assume that penetration will be deeper when a bullet does not expand or when it behaves like a solid. With tumbling the path is erratic and it could go shallow or deep or right through depending on the drag.

The important point is the bullet did not perform according to expectation and that has little to do with SD.

The twist of a 375 H&H (1 in 12") is sufficient to stabilize the bullet in theory.

I think the answer might just remain a mystery if we can't come to terms with it readily.

I take it you still prefer the Swift A-Frame bullet over the HV bullet?

I should be more clear on the bullet performance I observed. The only problems I had were with the 375 H&H, 265gr HV. I did shoot a few animals with my 300 Win Mag and 165gr HV's with no issues at all. The RHB mentioned above was one of them. The others were nyala and warthog. My buddy shot an impala with that combo as well. Near as I can tell from the entry and exit wounds, they seem to have performed as designed and there was obviously no issues with penetration.

Gerard did contact me immediately to try and work out what happened. Unfortunately I have not been of much assistance to him yet, as I am in the middle of relocating and changing jobs. All my stuff is in boxes and I have been living in a hotel for 5 weeks now. It'll be a while before we can try and resolve what happened.

As far as my .300 goes, I have no issues with the HV's and will likely keep using them locally (deer, elk, etc). I only mention locally because I doubt this rifle will see Africa again.

I won't use the remainder of the .375 HV's I have, as I don't trust them in my rifle after the experience in Africa. I will go back to my tried and true A-frames. I have every confidence that the issue with the HV's will be resolved, but I just don't see a reason to switch away from the A-frames I have used for years.

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

Sure took you guys one heckuva long time to come around to what I said on the "ultimate compromise thread"!

Canuck,
Do not speak too quickly, Chris has not replied yet.

Canuck,

I'll buy whatever .375 HVs you have if you are in a mood to sell. How much do you want including shipping?