quote:

Originally posted by truvelloshooter:
GS,

This table is published for those that are recoil-sensitive and purely for entertainment purposes: (375 H&H = 100%)

----Caliber --- Mass ------- MV --------- Recoil Energy ---- Index
9,3 x 62 ----- 286 gr ---- 2,264 fps ---- 31.9 Ft/lb ------- 72%
375 H&H ----- 300 gr ---- 2,526 fps ---- 44.1 Ft/lb -------100%
375 H&H ----- 380 gr ---- 2,220 fps ---- 48.9 Ft/lb -------111%
404 Jeff ------ 400 gr ---- 2,250 fps ---- 52.8 Ft/lb -------120%
416 Rigby ---- 410 gr ---- 2,350 fps ---- 65.9 Ft/lb -------150%
450 Watts ---- 500 gr ---- 2,250 fps ---- 74.9 Ft/lb -------170%

The recoil table reflects relative values for doing a recoil comparison. The above table shows that even if a 380 gr bullet is in a 375 H&H, the recoil is only about 11% more than usual, but still trails far behind the other popular Big Bore cartridges. If we reject the recoil level at 48.89 Ft/Lbs, as being too high, I stand by my earlier contention that one is better off to say farewell to dangerous game hunting … take up fly-fishing … the recoil/pull from the fish is much lower and the drag of the water assists greatly to take that sharp punch out of it.

Take another look at one of the all time greats - the 9,3 x 62 Mauser. Fair bullet mass with good SD, modest velocity that does not over-stress soft bullets and modest recoil and adequate enough should the dinousaurs return to earth. Also around 6,000 to 8,000 psi lower peak pressure than a 375 H&H. No wonder so many hunters just love it !!!

Best regards
Chris Bekker

Mr. Bekker:

I don't much trust recoil tables. First rifle that comes to mind is the 378 WBY. EVERYBODY knows it kicks like a mule. Why?
Having reloaded for awhile, couple things come to mind. Powder type. Most factory ammo seems to use the dirtist, cheapest, hardest kicking crap they can find, loaded to max pressure..

Now, reloading, you can tailor a powder bullet combination to reduce recoil, without sacrificing much in preformance. Slower burning powder, with a bigger bullet, out of a slightly longer barrel can give you terminal ballistics without terrifying recoil.
I tend to think when you reload for the 380 grain bullet, you can use a slower burning powder, which is probably why you don't get recoil complaints, that result in high pressure, but more of a shove, rather then a snappy, fast, recoil.

Also, on second thought, I noticed you lower the grains of powder considerably, even with your max loads. What sort of speed powder is S365, S41, and S3335/365? If you are getting very high pressure, with a relatively light charge of powder, it could be two things. One the powder you are using is relatively fast burning, compared to other standard 375 H&H powders, or, two, because of the increase in bullet weight, more pressure develops prior to the bullet leaving the barrel, because more pressure is necessary to get the heavier bullet moving, and the heavier bullet has more surface area to create drag in the barrel. Are you using a fast powder, with a heavy bullet? Inadequate case room for slower burning powder?

Are you using a combination powder for the last load on your table? I've heard that's not a very safe reloading practice...

Ahh, I don't want to go into all that. Simply put, high pressure creates a snappy, high velocity recoil, if a medium to fast powder is used. Low pressure creates more of a slower push. Your recoil table doesn't take that into account.

Most of the factory ammo I use, and a bunch of it is 300 grain Wby soft points, kicks like a mule, in a 375 H&H. Again, I suspect it's pushing high pressure, knowing wby. You could get the basic package in the 45k-50k range, where it was designed to operate.

Chris, I see ballistics suffering from a couple problems, currently. First is taking cartridges like the 45-70, 458 win, 375 H&H, 458 Lott, and trying to jack the pressures up out of their design range, to get the absolute last bit of preformance out of the cartridge. In these cases, we should follow Saeed's lead: If you want more velocity, or more bullet weight, either move up in caliber, or case size, so you don't have to play the high pressure game. 45-70 should have been a 458 Lott, if you want a high velocity or heavy bullet in the 375 H&H, move up to the 404, or rigby based cartridges, WBY 378, Remmington Ultra 375, etc.

Likewise the Lott should either be loaded in the 2200 fps range, or, if you want more, move up to the 450 Rigby, or 460 Wby.

I have little doubt that you can get your 380 grain bullet to work in a 375 H&H.
That really isn't the issue. It's just back to the Mona Lisa with a moustache:
Why do it?

It still isn't a stopping rifle. Is there something wrong with the 300 grain bullet and the 375 I don't know about?

As for the 375 H&H being a low pressure cartridge, I believe it's original design was for about 45-50K pressure

Ganyana on the 375 H&H

I don't see much of a reason to move much outside those ballistics. You argue that the 9,3X 62 is pretty much adequate for anything, hunting wise. I tend to agree.

So, I'm beggining to think we are crossing purposes, here. First, if I come to
Africa, I have a guy behind me with at least a 458 Lott, so I don't really have to worry, too much, about needing a stopping rifle/bullet combination. I gather you live, and hunt, in SA, Mr. Bekker, and, I suspect on certain days, you are either with one friend, or none. In other words, stopping the animal with your shot is more important then it would be for me, if I was using my CZ 375 H&H. Also, I wouldn't really be too worried about getting bushwhacked by elephant, and having to stop the elephant with my 375 H&H, since I have someone behind me.

I guess if I was hunting in your situation, my rifle would probably be a 450 Rigby, or 458 Lott,loaded with solids, probably FN. Why? I want something that is a stopping round, with a solid, and is still capable of enough penetration to brain an elephant, or buffalo. I'm curious if any of the 458 rhino bullets maintain adequate penetration to brain elephants?

Also, I wouldn't really have to worry about the bullet expanding, since it's already sort of prexpanded.

Just occured to me one of the features not discussed here is the added surface area of the rhino bullet, and how that may transfer energy better then a smaller surface area, 300 grain bullet.

Ray, and a few others have stated that 500 grain bullets have a very noticeable affect on cats, more then the bullet diameter would indicate, vs lighter 458 projectiles. I suspect the weight of the bullet, combined with it's increased surface area, results in the bullet going through the cat, at a higher velocity, without loosing as much speed, as lighter, smaller bullets, but transfering energy to the cat, as it goes through, at a higher rate, then a lighter smaller, bullet.

In other words, the 380 grain bullet doesn't slow down as quickly as a similar expanding bullet, and the superior velocity through the target transfers energy, and results in faster killing power.

Fackler used to diagram bullet wound channels. The intital impact often caused a large channel, that quickly tapered down to about a caliber sized hole. With a heavier bullet, the intitial wound may not be as large, but the wound channel will be larger, due to the expanding bullet, and, that it maintains it's velocity for a longer distance through the target then a lighter bullet.

Now, having brought that up, Impala bullets are intresting. They are full size bullets, that only weigh 200 grains, in 375. So, they have the surface area to transfer energy of a 300 grain bullet, but, they only weigh 200 grains, and this puts them, velocity wise, in the 2900+ fps category.

Once you get through the BS, which seems quite common when discussing any SA bullet makers product at this point, , you end up with a super hard, full size bullet, with a spire point on it. Now I think what may happen is the full size, wadcutter edge, at the base of the spire point, may cut a full caliber size hole in the target. Also, given the very high velocity these bullets are capable of, the bullets may retain their energy deeper into the target then would be normally expected, and cut wider wound channel because the velocity is maintained through the target.

Impala bullets are unusual because they are full size bullets, which gives you heavy for caliber bullet size,SD, surface area, so you have energy transfer, but, you get the velocity of a much smaller bullet. In other words, I think they may well stay on line through target because even though they are light, they have full size for the caliber SD and design.

They remind me a LOT of a super hard, cast bullet design, but with a spire point for feeding. The edge on the Impala bullets, where the bullet goes to full caliber, is VERY sharp, and, at high velocity, it might work like a wadcutter, or FN solid, cutting a large for caliber hole through the target, and creating a lot of cutting, creating bleeding.



I don't think he's tried them on dangerous game, which for me, is NOT comforting.

G

.

Alf:

quote:

You cannot really compare Solids to Softs as they differ fundamentally in function and ballsitic effect.

I know that, but simply because I used to hunt with softs it was important for me to find how the then 'unknown' solid would perfrorm compared to the softs that I'm familiar with.

quote:

What you should do is to compare a GS custom FN to the Impala and you will see how inefficient the Impala really is. The fact that it tumbled at 15 cm is the que that it is not going to perform well on large targets.

I have no need to use FN's for game from Impala up to Eland size that I normally hunt, but the Impala bullet's performance in my test comparison convinced me rather not to use them for biltong hunting purposes.

From what I've seen in this simple little test, I tend to agree with you on the Impala bullet's inefficiency.

Also compared to the field results I had with GS Custom HV's (again an expanding bullet, hence more like a soft), the Impala bullet is certainly not on that level of quality and desired performance, I would say.

quote:

Originally posted by Jagter:
I tested Impala bullets in my search for better quality and high velocity bullets.

130 grain bullets out of my .308, loaded according to the manufacturers specifications i.e. allowing for a 1mm jump to the lands, etc., and fired them over 100 meters.
The target material was gloss paper magazines bundled tightly together - extremely hard and tough.

The Impalas penetrated 15cm in this material, opposed to 8cm penetration by core bonded bullets, but started tumbling the last 1.5cm of this distance travelled. Thus causing a huge 'keyhole' so to say. Recovered bullets were just slightly bend over the whole length of the bullet.

They group perfectly and the holes on the target looks like paper punch holes - perfectly round bore size.

I finally decided on GS Custom HV's and has never regretted it since.

Alf: I think Jagter hoists you on your own pitard. If the Impala bullet penetrates nearly twice as far, as you said, the bullet that penetrates the furthest is responsible for the most damage. In this case the Impala penetrates nearly twice the depth of the core bonded bullet, and, tumbling at the end, would leave a huge exit hole.

Also, you can't really complain that the bullet is inefficent, since it did penetrate twice the distance of a soft, then tumbled.

The Impala bullets provide a flat shooting, high velocity, full sized projectile, with light weight, and consequent low recoil. Also there is a noticeable difference in effect when a bullet hits, and penetrates a target, over 3000 fps, in a full sized 375 projectile.

As for Fackler: He wasn't dealing with the new technology in bullets, monometals, lathe turned, with all their new bands etc. The designs closest to what he was using are the industry standard bullets, either solids or expanding.

However, CAST bullets are the ones that closest resemble
the new bullets produced, at least in initial form. The advantage to monometals is they hold together, and hold form, at extreme velocities.

The monometals are teaching old dogs new tricks, as well.

From observation on game, Ray Atkinson is saying Saeed's monometals, going in the 2700-2900 fps range move the 375 from a medium bore, up into the big bore category, judging by the way they thump buffalo, comparing them to the 458 Lott. Now that's a REALLY old dog learning new tricks.

One serious advantage of high velocity flat nose bullets is the straight line penetration. I have yet to see someone complain that the bullet veered off course, and did not reach the vitals, using monometal FN solids.

ALF: the overall surface area of the bullet is what I am using, not just the frontal area, combined with high velocity, for penetration.

As for Fackler, they are in the last century with thier research, not using monometal bullets for their testing.

What I'm getting out of this thread is there is more then one way to skin a cape buffalo. For about 100 years, the standards have been
the old NE 450 standards. The Rhino 380 grain looks like an attempt to turn a 375 into a 450 NE, but, it falls short in bullet weight.

I'm sure they work, but, the issue is 100% reliability, and, adequate penetration. Again, no one has answered the question of if you have an elephant come out, and try and stomp you, is this bullet adequate for brain penetration, and, on lion, who seem to respond well to high velocity, is this bullet, at low velocity, going to stop a lion charge with one shot?

The 300 grain loadings do penetrate, with solids, adequate to kill elephant. They are marginal for lion, I gather. Though I have heard, not witnessed, that the softs in 375 H&H do make a splash, due to their velocity.

So we now have better bullets for higher velocities, that expand.

We also have monometal solids that can take extreme velocities, and not deform. This appears to create a whole new type of killing power, prior associated with Weatherby, but, because of inadequate bullets, not consistent enough in the past. We also have the Impala bullets, superhard, full size for caliber, but light, for higher velocity. I look at the Impala bullets and wonder why they don't just chop off the nose, and have one heck of a fast moving FN solid?

It seems to be a very exciting time. It's been a long time since any real progress was made in this area, and, we are in the middle of it.

Growing pains are a good thing...

So: thoughts that come to mind. Perhaps the beauty of the Impala bullets is it allows you to use a bigger caliber, while keeping lower recoil levels? In other words, normally a 200 grain bullet would go out of a .30 caliber gun. Now I can use a bigger case, get more velocity, and a much bigger hole, .375, but with 30-06 recoil. In 458, I can use a 300 grain bullet, at MUCH higher velocity, and still have a full size, 458 hole, with 375 recoil. It's possible to get 2600 fps out of a 458 Win with a 300 grain bullet. Out of the Lott, or
Weatherby, velocities in the 3000+ fps range, with a 300 grain 458 bullet are possible. Would we have complaints about killing power with that combination?

So rather then comparing the same caliber Impala bullets with Rhino, or Gerard's, shouldn't we be comparing the Impala's at the same weight bullet? In other words, compare .30 cal with .375, .375 with 458, and, we get a very different equation.

Using a 458 Lott with a 300 grain Impala I now have a stopping rifle, but with .375 recoil, and a very flat trajectory. I suspect 2700-2900 fps, with a 458 solid is going to get the attention of pretty much anything that is likely to come at me, at close range, and, it will penetrate adequately for all situations. I can now sell the 375...
or, really, sell the 30-06 and use the 375 for what I used to use the 30-06 for.

GS

.

Alf
Did you read my prior post?

Please link to Fackler's using monometals BULLETS, NOT BALLS, since I have gone through a considerable amount of his work, and don't remember that part of it.

quote:

GS:

"As for Fackler, they are in the last century with their research, not using monometal bullets for their testing.

Sorry, you are wrong on that count, they actually did testing on monometal bullets milled specifically for the setting up of basal parameters to do their tests.

Most of the models done for penetration and wounding studies also include the use of monometal non deforming spheres fired from smooth bore barrels ( to negate any possibility of spin induced factors as well a negating effects of tumbling ) as the starting point of premises.

I have just concluded a massive literature search on Wound ballistics including historically signifant publications and papers that were widely quoted in the past.

There is a wealth of information as well as disinformation in the literature.

There are some pretty compelling studies that were done on dogs and goats in the past but if you look at the methodology of the tests and then the results and conclusions they have since been disproved.

The one myth is the correlation between projectile energy and apparent wounding capacity.

The numerical expression of energy and momentum are numerical expressions only and not expressions of wounding capacity per se.

There is no physical law that requires us to correlate these entities to each other. Ie energy or momentum to wounding capacity.

( Actually here is an editorial forwarning Trauma physicians against this commonly done practice in testimony in courts as it will be thrown out by any sharp ballistician or defence lawyer )

When modelling wounding capacity to a numerical expression based on our current knowledge of projectile and tissue behaviour we see that the energy equation needed to express any correlation looks way different to our commonly accepted formula of E= M (V X V)/ 2

As to the apparent efficiency of projectiles:

In terms of large volume targets we have to accept that killing and incpacitating the animal we need to deliver adequate trauma to vital tissues. To do so the projectile needs to get to thoase tissues to deliver the fatal wound.

A projectile that does not adequately penetrate has failed, whether the reason is a projectile that fragmented early, tumbled and stopped short, or deviated off course the effect or lack thereoff is the same.

We agree on this point. Solutions could be Impala bullets, in a larger caliber, or, FN solids monometal. Also standard solids still work, last time I looked.

quote:

Monometal HP's such as Saeed uses are not entirely without blame in failure. Old style Barnes X's did not always perform as advertised and ballsiticians have pointed this out. When the cavity of a HP becomes plugged it becomes a pointed solid and we all know what they can do or not do.

As long as the core of the bullet proceeds in a straight line, the petals and such, are just fluff. It does appear Saeed's Barnes X bullets were failing, and resulting in a FN solid, that went straight through. So, with the new solids, why not just start with a 300 grain solid, at high velocity, and create a large, straight, wound channel?

I've noticed in other areas, wound channel calculators, that seem to be based on velocity.
As the velocity increases, so does the size of the wound channel. Norbert has shown something similar to this, but, the wound channel has a LOT to do with the front of the bullet design. He's shown that FN bullets DO create a larger wound channel the RN bullets at the same velocity. It also appears that the more velocity, the more the FN bullet creates a larger wound channel. This would explain Ray's observation of the effect of the FN Walterhog bullets, at high velocity. It also leaves room to wonder if Impala flattened the nose on his bullets, and, at the much higher velocity for caliber they tend to go at, would the Impala's create an adequate, straight, wound channel?

By the way, has anyone used Impala bullets enough on game to find out how they work?
Has anyone used them on dangerous game?

Thanks
GS

quote:

Permanent cavitation can only be enlarged by 3 mechanisms:

1. Increasing projectile yaw: ( instability)
2. Increasing projectile diameter ( by deformation)
3. Projectile Fragmentation

Alf, based on the picture below, there has to be more than just the three mechanisms you mention above.


A hole that size from a .224 calibre bullet has to be caused by something and it is not fragmentation as the bullet in question is a 40gr HV. Might it be:

"Other rifle cartridges with velocities in the 2500-3000fps range also have a large diameter temporary cavity, but with proper bullet design expansion can be limited to achieve adequate penetration and to locate the cavity well inside the body. These temporary cavities have diameters large enough to cause strain beyond the elastic limit of most tissue in animals of moderate size and so have a significant contribution to wound trauma incapacitation." -P62 Bullet Penetration.

If the elastic limit of the tissue encountered is exceeded by a substantial margin, surely the tissue will tear and this destruction will add to the size of the permanent wound channel?

MacPherson also discusses the effect of diiferent shapes that are presented to the direction of travel through the tissue. The larger the surface area of the leading form is, the more effectively the bullet is slowed. This makes the cylinder superior in two ways. The leading surface has the smallest possible area compared to any other shape for any given calibre. The cyinder displaces tissue from the bullet path with more force imparted to the displaced tissue than any other shape. Would this account for the larger temporary cavity ascribed to cylinder shapes over other shapes at similar speeds?

Bear in mind that I am not a trained scientist or mathematician and, when I observe phenomena such as the picture above, I attempt to understand the reasons as much as anyone else interested in the subject.

.

Alf:
Fackler does explain some of the issues brought up by Gerard:

quote:

Bullets fired from a properly designed rifle yaw no more than a few degrees in flight, regardless of velocity.
In their path through tissue, all nondeforming pointed bullets, and some round-nosed ones, yaw to 180 degrees, ending their path traveling base forward (Figs 3 and 5).
Thus bullet yaw in tissue, an important consideration, has been confused with bullet yaw in flight, which is, in most cases, of negligible consequence.

Fackler on What's wrong...





After going over the following quote, Alf, I must revise my opinion about wounding, with fragmenting bullets, like Gerard's, and the Barnes X. So a cojmbination of fragmentation, and cavitation, can greatly increse the damage done by a given amount of knetic energy...

quote:

A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16 (Fig 2), stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.

Fackler also trashes the use of a sphere as a model for a
milatary bullet design.

quote:

This misconception ignores the important variable of projectile shape. Comparing the wound profile produced by a sphere (Fig 4) with that produced by a military bullet (Fig 3) shows a basic difference in tissue disruption morphology. The maximum disruption produced by the sphere is always near the entrance hole, since projectile velocity is highest there. A pointed nondeforming bullet causes its maximum disruption not at the point of highest velocity, but where yaw increases the bullet's surface area striking the tissue (bullet shape becomes nonaerodynamic), causing increased tissue disruption. Although spheres may be useful in studying the effects of blunt fragments (like those from explosive devices), conclusions drawn from these studies are not valid when applied to bullet wounds.

So, what do we have?

First yaw in pointed bullets, can be a good thing. It causes tissue damage, usually after 15 cm of penetration. That would explain Gerard's picture of a large hole, inside the animal. The bullet entered, maybe didn't open up, yawed inside, creating a large wound channel, straightened, and then exited, or stopped.

If Fackler is right, the expanding bullets tend to create a large temporary cavity in the area where they expand, this, we see, is inside the first 15 cm of penetration. Now we are getting a better picture. Depending upon the shot taken on the animal, will depend on what sort of bullet you use, and how effective it's going to be. If the target is within the expansion area of an expanding bullet,
it is going to be effective.

Also, one needs to figure out if the target area is susceptible to the kind of damage the bullet will do. Certain tissues are less elastic then others, and certain organs respond to high velocity better then others. The higher the non-compressibility of the organ, the more likely disruption will occur. In other words, hit the liver with a high velocity bullet, and you have hydrodynamic shock waves.
Hit the lungs, and the effect is far less.

Finally, those "failing bullets" are working as designed.
If the petals break off a Barnes X, or GS HV, it is doing part of it's function.

QUOTE] Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy. [/QUOTE]

So bullets with fragmentation, like the Barnes X, or GS HV,
if the petals come off, create more damage because they increase damage done, by a given amount of kinetic energy.

On top of that, you have the shank, now a flat nosed wadcutter, that is HIGHLY likely to proceed in a straight path, through the intended target.

Where does that leave us? Impala bullets, with a pointed nose, are going to yaw. Not good if you want the bullet to go straight, and into the brain of a buffalo, or elephant, or, hit a vital organ, from a difficult angle. Still, at high velocity, on non-dangerous game, yaw well inside the target would produce a devastating wound cavity, inside the animal, explaining why it would appear the bullet is far more effective then it should be.

HV's and Barnes X aren't failing. They are giving you the best of both worlds, using their kinetic energy to maximum effectiveness, when they fragment, and, becoming flat nose solids, at the same time.

FN solids are the most reliable of the bullets, and most likely to go straight through a difficult target, with excellent wounding characteristics.

The Rhino heavy for caliber bullets are also an excellent design, since they can combine the initial opening cavity in the first 15 cm, with a heavy shank, to continue to drive a much larger wound channel through the target then a non-expanding bullet.
How far, and how straight these bullets go in game is another matter. An opened expanding bullet is susceptible to breaking petals, bone,
etc. that will cause it to go off path. FN solids are much less so, but, they don't offer the large wound channel.

So, again, perhaps the better solution is to use a 458, or 510, with the bullet already expanded, and heavy enough to drive through straight, and a FN solid.

Each to their own.

GS

.

Will someone please call Dr. Fackler and ask him to post here?

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Will someone please call Dr. Fackler and ask him to post here?

How bout Dr. Kevorkian... to put this thread down once and for all?

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

Permanent cavitation can only be enlarged by 3 mechanisms:

1. Increasing projectile yaw: ( instability)
2. Increasing projectile diameter ( by deformation)
3. Projectile Fragmentation

Alf, based on the picture below, there has to be more than just the three mechanisms you mention above.


A hole that size from a .224 calibre bullet has to be caused by something and it is not fragmentation as the bullet in question is a 40gr HV. Might it be:

"Other rifle cartridges with velocities in the 2500-3000fps range also have a large diameter temporary cavity, but with proper bullet design expansion can be limited to achieve adequate penetration and to locate the cavity well inside the body. These temporary cavities have diameters large enough to cause strain beyond the elastic limit of most tissue in animals of moderate size and so have a significant contribution to wound trauma incapacitation." -P62 Bullet Penetration.

If the elastic limit of the tissue encountered is exceeded by a substantial margin, surely the tissue will tear and this destruction will add to the size of the permanent wound channel?

MacPherson also discusses the effect of diiferent shapes that are presented to the direction of travel through the tissue. The larger the surface area of the leading form is, the more effectively the bullet is slowed. This makes the cylinder superior in two ways. The leading surface has the smallest possible area compared to any other shape for any given calibre. The cyinder displaces tissue from the bullet path with more force imparted to the displaced tissue than any other shape. Would this account for the larger temporary cavity ascribed to cylinder shapes over other shapes at similar speeds?

Bear in mind that I am not a trained scientist or mathematician and, when I observe phenomena such as the picture above, I attempt to understand the reasons as much as anyone else interested in the subject.

Good points. is this entrance, or,exit side?
g

Well, I might as well agree with Alf. This appears to be an entry wound that was caused by bullet fragmentation, provided this is the entry side. This would be consistent with Fackler's observation about fragmentation increasing the effect of

quote:

The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.

It's also possible the bullet shattered a bone, adding to the fragmentation in the area. It's also possible this is a hole from a 458 Lott...

You never know the amount of bull a SA bullet maker is going to come up with to sell their bullets...



G

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Will someone please call Dr. Fackler and ask him to post here?

I would, if he was still at the Presidio...


G

Alf,
Fitting the theory to the fact is difficult, as usual.

Is it possible that fragmentation could have such a huge effect? Given that the bullet from the springbuck in the picture was not recovered, (more pictures here including the one above) I can only assume that the bullet would have been similar in shape to the one below. The impact speed was lower and only a rib was clipped going in, same as with the blesbuck. The bullet below was recovered from the blesbuck pictured and weighed 38gr (from 40gr). Even if the springbuck bullet lost all the petals, three petals at 2gr each could surely not account for a 4cm hole?




In practise we also observe as commented by a hunter "Wound channel is weird...lots of clotted blood and organ damage but meat damage has been minimal." In one instance, we saw almost complete destruction of a gemsbuck liver, where the bullet path indicated that it came close but could not have been directly struck. Lungs also suffer massive damage with HVs, out of proportion to the meat damage, if one compares similar shots taken with monos and jacketed softs. This is a very complex subject and my observation is that post impact bullet shape plays a role but it is a subject we still know too little about.

.

quote:

Is it possible that fragmentation could have such a huge effect?

Yes. Combined with hitting bone, it could. Shots like this are what, I'm pretty sure, got Roy Weatherby on the high velocity kick.

Gerard:

High velocity affect different sorts of tissues, in very different ways. Hydrodynamic shock occurs best in organs that are near 100% fluid, liver, brain, etc.

On that note, I'm going to go read Ganyana's article.

G

PS Alf: you requested information on Norbert's bullets:
Norbert update

Norbert's website, with pictures

2005 Webpage For superpenatrator

I don't think it's he's patented the bullet, so I'm sure some SA bullet company could punch in the numbers on their lathe, add some
bands around the bottom, and we could have a discussion about a bullet that might really provide what the 380/375 bullet is TRYING to do.

.

Alf: LOOK AT THE BULLET!!!! IT'S NOTHING MORE THEN A GLORIFIED FLAT NOSED SOLID. That design has been around, in cast bullets, for over 100 years, and, yes, it works like crazy. Norbert just made it better by using better quality materials.

I'm sure it works, and, I think it's probably the most consistent straight penetrating bullet made, at least up till Bridger, etc. started producing flat nosed solids.

EVERYONE of the bullet companies are trying to sell bullets, and, they have to find hype that gets attention, so they can get their product out.

Enjoy the bull, and use something that works..



G

Gerard,

In the .375 H&H, what twist would be needed to stabilize the 300 grain HV and 300 grain FN bullets?

______


Chris or others in the know,

What twist would be needed to stabilize the Rhino 380 grain bullet.

500grains,
Standard 375 twist is 1:12".

GSC recommends choosing an HV that will result in a stability factor of at least 1.4 for hunting inside 500m. The 375300HV needs 1:13" twist for stable flight. In a 1:12" it needs 3300fps to achieve a stability factor of 1.5 and the SF will drop to 1.38 at 2000fps which is not ideal. From a 1:12" twist, the 265gr HV will deliver more reliable terminal ballistics.

With FN bullets we recommend a stability factor in excess of 2.5 for reliable linear penetration. The 300gr FN has a stability factor of 2.39 to 2.44 from 2000fps to 3000fps. Again not ideal. Stable flight requires a twist of 1:18" but will result in a bullet that tumbles on impact as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. The 375270FN is best for linear penetration in a 1:12" twist.

Gerard,

If a customer were contemplating building a 375 H&H and wanted to shoot 300 grain HV bullets at 2550 fps (short shots and long shots out to 600 yards) and 300 grain FN bullets at 2400 fps, would 1:10 twist be suitable? 1:8? Pac-Nor Barreling has all kinds of .375 twists available, including:

3 groove - 1:12, 1:15
5 groove - 1:8, 1:12
6 groove - 1:10, 1:14, 1:15, 1:18

So I was thinking of 1:10 for a .375 H&H, but could drop down to 1:8 if it would be more appropriate.

Thanks for your input.

GS,

Back to the operating pressure of the 375 H&H. You quoted Ganyana's article on the cartridge, which reads as follows:

Quote:

"Sticking to the .375 bore size, H&H increased the bullet weight to 300 grains to bring the sectional density to .305, and stretched the case to the maximum that could possible be accommodated in the Mauser action (a special extra long magazine box had to be used). Velocity was a genuine 2500 fps, and was achieved at a pressure of only 47,000 PSI, an important consideration for a cartridge designed for tropical use."

S365 is similar to IMR4350, yielding the lowest pressure in the 375 H&H. It yields 57k psi @ 2,428 fps using a 300 grain Rhino bullet. Bear in mind that factory velocities are typically higher at around 2,530 fps.

I suspect the above mentioned figure of 47,000 could be a CUP measurement and was perhaps achieved with Cordite when it was still in use.

The current Speer Reloading manual states the CUP level at 53,000, which is equal to SAAMI'S 62,000 PSI. What makes the 375 H&H different over the 375 RUM/378 Wby Mag, is the long sloping case that makes for easy extraction in hot climates and goes to negate the effect of higher pressures. Secure extraction is vitally important for that second shot especially if the buffalo or elephant makes a charge.

I merely state this for the record and it might be appropriate to list a few comparatives; here are some more Saami pressure values in PSI.

7mm Mauser 51,000

270 Winchester 65,000

308 Winchester 62,000

338 Win Mag 64,000

375 H&H 62,000


Chris Bekker

500 Grains,

quote:

What twist would be needed to stabilize the Rhino 380 grain bullet.

This bullet has been tested extensively with standard twist rates of 1 in 12" with good results. Whilst it is a long for caliber bullet, it is still terminally stable due to the shortening of the bullet by virtue of the mushrooming. I have not heard so far of any reports of this bullet tumbling in buffalo.

The best testimonial you could possibly get is Doctari's recommendation that this bullet gives sterling performnace on large and tough animals like buffalo.

Regards
Chris Bekker

Gerard,

Quote: ... "The 375270FN is best for linear penetration in a 1:12" twist."

How come you make a 270gr FN for the 9,3 x 62 mm with a slower twist of only 1 in 14" that typically shoots another 250 fps slower?

What is the SF value in the 9,3 then? I have a box of 50 and I am worried now that the SF might be too low and could tumble as per your above explanation ... please advise.

Chris Bekker

500grains,
A 1:10" will be just the ticket for 300gr HVs and FNs. You could shoot the 300gr HV right out to the transonic range with a 1:10".


Chris,
Read my reply to 500grains again and when you find full comprehension, you may decide to rephrase your question or decide that it is in fact redundant. You have McCoy's program, and a box of 48 (not 50) bullets to measure, you should not be asking such questions.


How about answering 500grains with fact rather than anecdote? What is the SF of a 380gr solid shank in a 1:12" twist?

PS. How come you are answering these technical questions? One would expect the manufacturer or a representative to reply, unless..........

Alf,

Many thanks for your informative postings regarding wounding mechanisms. The following comes to mind:

1. "I have addressed my misgivings regarding the validity of the phenomenon of SUPERCAVITATION in soft solids or primary viscous like materials and tissue before on this site."

2. "Current accepted ballistics theory clearly points out that projectile behaviour in pure water does not simulate the non elastic nature of the cavitation seen in Soft solids or then tissue with primary viscous like visco- elastic properties."

3. "In fact their findings conclude that heavier projectiles at slower velocites have better wounding capacity than higher velocity lighter projectiles in the hunting field ( J of Trauma March 1986)"

4. "This theory (energy-school) has been disputed as you can have two like diameter projectiles with the same energy but differing in mass and velocity and both cause equally sized and shaped wound cavities."

5. "De Muth (Journal of trauma Vol 6 no 2 1966 ) shows that non deforming projectiles give small wound tracts as long as the projectile remains stable. This finding is also reiterated by Fackler and Hollerman."

With all the myths and incorrect interpretations floating around, I think it is high time that a medical practitioner, such as yourself, write an article for us and publish it in all the major hunting journals of the world.

Experience has shown that the large expanding Rhino bullets from 9,3 mm and up, yielding Xsa's of 21.5 to 25 mm's, put game down very quickly, as the hole through the heart is large and the animal bleeds to death rapidly. Thus the onset of death is quick. There is no magic in this; its purely mechanics or biology if you like. And when we turn to biology/physiology I think we could only gain from your medical insight.

Take care
Chris Bekker

Gerard,

You have again avoided the question. The question is simple and straight forward. I need to hear it from you. Is the SF value of the 9,3/270gr FN bullet really in EXCESS of 2.5 ???

If you insist to get an answer from Rhino Bullets, I have no problem with that. You can phone Kobus if you so wish. I have just given 500 Grains my opinion. If you feel compelled to get more answers on the same question you can phone Doctari or Edward Katzke.

Chris Bekker

Gerard,

You still persist in your stubborn way to create the false impression that I am an associate of Rhino and that I am a representative. I am neither and have told you umpteen times !!! I am independent and do not take instructions from Rhino Bullets or GS Custom.

Just for the record, this is what 500 Grains asked me ... "Chris or others in the know, What twist would be needed to stabilize the Rhino 380 grain bullet." I have answered 500 Grains and in fact I have addressed my reply to him out of courtesy. I was factual, albeit anecdotal, in my reply and the empirical evidence abound (speak louder than words) and can be verified by phoning the gentlemen mentioned. You will notice that I WAS ASKED to answer or anybody else that might know. Now you seem to have a problem with the fact that I replied on an open forum. Gerard you should steer clear from such pettiness as this does not further our discussion, except if you have a hidden second agenda.

Let me remind you that the SF value is not the alpha and the omega when we evaluate the terminal stability of a bullet inside an animal. It is certainly an important one that we start off with, but I have explained to you before that the shortening of the bullet, due to the formation of a mushroom, reduces the rate of twist that it would have otherwise needed, had it been a non-deforming solid. The vast empirical evidence of stabilization would support any scientific scrutiny or calculation that you may wish to do or to sub contract to the best mathematician living. Bear in mind that whoever attempts this calculation will now have to go beyond the WinGyro program, based on the principles of McCoy.

Unfortunately I do not have a .375/380 gr Rhino bullet with me, otherwise I would have calculated the SF value for you with pleasure. If I get to see Mauritz again, I will measure the bullet in his shop, do a calculation and post it for one and all to see on the AR forum.

The SF value of the .375/350 gr Rhino bullet is 1.66 at 2,200 fps. The 380 grainer has more lead (specific gravity will be higher) and its COG is more in the middle as it is a RN design and not a Spitzer and it is 1 mm shorter ... can you guess the outcome? The answer is way beyond than your stated 1.4 pre-impact stability value.

For now, will you please state the SF value for your 9,3/270 FN bullet, as I want it from you as I do not want any arguments about it.

Chris Bekker

.

Hunters,

Let us take a look at a statement Gerard made on his web-site:

"Wound channels from the FN bullets resembled those of soft nosed premium bullets that expand to double calibre and more."

Let us now look at Gerard's posting recently on AR:

1) In answer to Pieter Olivier's experience with the GS-FN bullet's small wound channel through the heart of a Blue Wildebeest and he concluded that he much rather seeks a bigger wound channel from a controlled expansion bullet, Gerard then replies ... " I would sincerely hope so."

2) Doctari made the following statement ... "The 380 grain Rhino has the ability to expand to a larger diameter than other premium quality expanding bullets in .375 caliber. This is why they create larger permanent wound channels. Given similar shot placement (through the heart/lung area), the larger the permanent wound channel, the more rapid the onset of the inevitable - it's as simple as that. In my opinion, 380 grain Rhinos are without a doubt the best .375 caliber bullets to use for buffalo."

Now Gerard comes and states the obvious ... " Do you think that there is a handloader somewhere that does not know that?"

Gerard have you accepted now that the wound channel created by a controlled expansion bullet is larger than a FN Solid design? If so, you should amend the statement on your web-site.

Different views on terminal behaviour:

Gerard's HV design philosophy was to create a lighter bullet (low-SD), but with a sleek aerodynamic shape intended to be shot at high velocity for increased ranges. It was designed to expand completely in the first 1 to 2 inches, throwing off its three petals at speeds over 2,600 fps, and then carry on as a flat-faced cylinder that gives a wad-cutter type wounding effect. The worst that can happen, according to Gerard, is that the bullet will form a mushroom at lower velocities when it has slowed down at extended distances. Clearly we have a "best" case and a "worst" case perception here - this then represents the new set of rules.

Rhino's philosophy, on the contrary, is based on the principle of heavier bullets (higher SD) for bigger game with adequate expansion of frontal diameter (Xsa), that creates a huge wound track, which is known to drop game quickly. Typically Rhino bullets yield good petal stand-out at modest impact velocities between 2,000 and 2,400 fps. Typical weight retention is around 98% when petals are not lost at higher impact velocities or when bone is encountered. Terminal momentum (retained mass x impact velocity) must always be adequate in relation to the bullet's frontal area to ensure good penetration. Clearly a very different view to the HV concept.

We have 2 schools of thought here and it is up to the reader to decide which is more appropriate for a specific application. Personally I much rather prefer a bullet that keeps its petals that go through the heart with its petals at its widest point, rather than shedding them way (1 to 2 inches) before the bullet reaches the heart, which means the bullet punctures the heart as a solid making a much smaller permanent hole (caliber size) than the controlled expansion bullet with at least double caliber expansion size. Rhino bullets typically feature lower BC's than the GS-HV bullets and that also hints at application differences.

Soon we will be doing an evaluation of the lighter range of bullets available in 9,3 caliber - the 230 gr HV bullet against the 235 gr Rhino and the 250 gr Barnes-X bullet. We are also awaiting Katte Katzke's report on his evaluation of HV bullets during his recent trip to Zimbabwe on dangerous game (Elephant, Rhino and Buffalo). It will be interesting to see how these bullets live up to their stated design goals. The super bullet for all conditions and applications does not really exist just like it is so difficult to have an all-purpose gun.

Chris Bekker

Chris,

quote:

Is the SF value of the 9,3/270gr FN bullet really in EXCESS of 2.5 ???

No it is not. It is a hair over 2 at 2.04 at 1200fps to 2.09 at 2600fps.

Alf,

quote:

Does Pre Impact stability factor have the same implication or value in the target medium as it does in free flight?

My observation is that pre impact stability plays a role in how the bullet behaves when it impacts. After impact, matters become more difficult and I have given up trying to predict with theory why things happen the way they do. It is easier to follow a design direction, interspersed with the dreadfully tedious task of hunting field testing. One soon sees whether the chosen direction is producing an improving situation or a worsening situation. It is then much easier to find reasons to try and explain what was observed. Without doubt, the wrong explanations are sometimes dragged out but it does not change the observed result.

quote:

Mc Pherson is indeed correct when he states that we would be naive to think we could model projectile behaviour in living tissue to projectile behaviour in water.

Though simulants like ballistic gelatine they and simulate projectile bahaviour by approximation to that of certain tissues they are still simulants.

I am not sure that this is correct. On page 67 he places great value in testing in tissue simulants. He also states that water is a good comparator of projectile behaviour as far as penetration depth and projectile deformation is concerned, providing the results are used in conjunction with a mutiplier to bring them in line with tissue or other soft solids. I find it useful to separate testing of projectile behaviour from wound ballistics(for want of a better term).

Chris,

quote:

Chris says:
Let us take a look at a statement Gerard made on his web-site:

"Wound channels from the FN bullets resembled those of soft nosed premium bullets that expand to double calibre and more."

quote:

Others say:
"The bigger wound channel, better blood spoor and significantly greater tissue damage compared to a conventional solid leaves them far ahead. For dealing with a charge they remove the dilemma of soft or solid. A flat nosed solid is best - end of subject! - Dr. Don Heath in African Hunter Magazine Vol. 7 No.2"

"I have found the GS Solid to leave a longer bigger hole than a soft that makes the one big early terminal cavity then peters out to the off side hide.
Total destruction is more with the FN solid or cup point according to the bullet makers such as Northfork, GS Custom and Speer and I tend to agree on this where the big ungulates are concerned.

The GS solid ... does penitrate deeply and stright and will kill Buffalo very well indeed, and internal damage is more than other solids... 500 grs used it on an elephant and got complete penitration of an elephants head with a larger than normal exit hole....

------------------
Ray Atkinson"

The difference in perception here is that Chris and his buddies refuse to apply GSC bullets as recommended. They are therefore solely responsible for the bad results they experience and then report. The other reports are from men who use the FNs as intended and recommended. They have good results that are in line with the claims made. Go figure.

quote:

In answer to Pieter Olivier's experience with the GS-FN bullet's small wound channel through the heart of a Blue Wildebeest and he concluded that he much rather seeks a bigger wound channel from a controlled expansion bullet, Gerard then replies ... " I would sincerely hope so."

You cannot resist that three step swindle, can you? I said I sincerely hope so, after pointing out that the impact speed was 1700fps (or less). You could not get further away from the design objective of the bullet if you tried. If you buy a Toyota Land Cruiser and then try to row it through the surf off Durban beach, you should not complain when it sinks.

quote:

380 grain Rhinos are without a doubt the best .375 caliber bullets to use for buffalo.

And the question I have asked several times remains unanswered: Is it recommended for full going away shots on Cape Buff, Hippo, Rhino or Elephant?

quote:

Typically Rhino bullets yield good petal stand-out at modest impact velocities between 2,000 and 2,400 fps. Typical weight retention is around 98% when petals are not lost at higher impact velocities or when bone is encountered. Terminal momentum (retained mass x impact velocity) must always be adequate in relation to the bullet's frontal area to ensure good penetration. Clearly a very different view to the HV concept.

You are completely wrong with that statement. Under the conditions you describe, a GS HV will do as well, here is the proof and a picture.


The fundamental difference is that HV bullets are capable of higher speeds than other bullets of similar weight. This allows the hunter to have a bullet that will get the job done at close to medium range as efficiently as anything else, but with the added capability of also getting the job done at ranges that are impossible with the bullets you have been using.

Chris, you have admitted to having never pulled the trigger on an HV or FN bullet. You speak with great authority about something with which you have no experience. You consistently refuse to use GSC products as directed. You are a fraud and your opinion is based on nothing but conjecture. At least I can say that I base my wildly biased opinion (according to you), on having hunted and experimented with just about every conceivable brand and type of bullet available.

quote:

We are also awaiting Katte Katzke's report on his evaluation of HV bullets during his recent trip to Zimbabwe on dangerous game

You will be waiting a long time. He did not take any with him.

Chris,

quote:

I am independent and do not take instructions from Rhino Bullets or GS Custom.

I have noticed. You do not even follow the load data and recommendations for best results we publish on our site.


Chris,
Predictably you are going claim I contradict myself because I said the .375 bullet should be in excess of 2.5. It has to do with stagnation pressure that rises as the square of velocity and the fact that a 375H&H will get up to 2900fps with HV and FN bullets and a 378 Weatherby, and some others, will get a 300gr HV or FN bullet on the high side of 3000fps with ease. Now I am done educating you about bullet design.

Actually, I would be concerned carrying this around for two reasons: penetration on elephant, and, more worried, after reading JudgeG, will it get through a lions wall of chest muscle with enough velocity to shock em, like a 458 Lott does? Plus, the bullet is 120 grains under the standard 500 grain stopping load for lion. ;

Do they make doubles with one barrel 375 and the other 458 Lott, or 450 Rigby???


S

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Chris,

quote:

I am independent and do not take instructions from Rhino Bullets or GS Custom.

I have noticed. You do not even follow the load data and recommendations for best results we publish on our site.


Chris,
Predictably you are going claim I contradict myself because I said the .375 bullet should be in excess of 2.5. It has to do with stagnation pressure that rises as the square of velocity and the fact that a 375H&H will get up to 2900fps with HV and FN bullets and a 378 Weatherby, and some others, will get a 300gr HV or FN bullet on the high side of 3000fps with ease. Now I am done educating you about bullet design.

Can't pass this up:

quote:

Chris, you have admitted to having never pulled the trigger on an HV or FN bullet.

NO SHIT. Another guy that gave up on your two year waiting list...

NOT a good argument, Gerard...

G

.

Gerard,

quote:

I have noticed. You do not even follow the load data and recommendations for best results we publish on our site.

The first short sentence of your reply relates to me not being an associate of Rhino Bullets - thanks for that and congratulations that we can put this now finally behind our backs.

Then the second part of your reply ... I have not loaded any of your bullets yet. A friend loaded them and gave me 3 rounds. I have asked you before the load data on the 260 HV, but you you elected not to answer and nor is it visible on your load data sheet, unless I could not spot it. Here is the question, which I now repeat ... "I have 3 loaded rounds of 260 gr HV's, loaded with 59 grains of S335 that will accompany me on my trip tomorrow morning at 5:00 am and I might just use them - are you happy that they are loaded hot enough?" What load do you recommend Gerard? These 3 rounds will now be used in a wetpack tests and I will report on them later. Incidentally, this specific load worked well on game as reported before. The 260 gr HV bullet is not light for caliber, and is thus driven slower than most of your other very light bullets. Could that be the reason why it kept its petals?

Gerard I am glad that you throw your hands up in the air in desparation about the tricky calculation of stability after impact, and now join hands with me about the usefullness of anecdotal evidence, which can be accepted as the university of life.

Gerard thanks for divulging the SF value of the 270 gr FN bullet to me finally - it was like pulling teeth. 2.09 does not meet your design objective of 2.5, but I personnally never thought it would be a problem - only you class it as a problem by your very own writings. If it is a problem, then the bullet should be withdrawn from the market place if you want to be ethical about it. Or you may wish to simply drop your guestimate of 2.5 down to 2.0 and everything is then hunky-dory again and you could still sell the bullet

Gerard your light-for-caliber HV bullet loses petals at high velocity at shorter ranges ranges, where the heavy-for-caliber Rhinos at lower velocities keep teir petals at modest hunting ranges. This is where the difference comes in and that is why I said that the application of these two bullet differ. When your bullet loses its petals at close range when the velocity is still high, it cannot perform like a Rhino bullet with wide intact petals. That is the point I am making, as the small flat-faced cylinder CANNOT make the same size wound channel. Do you still dispute this?

I have no doubt that we will see excellent accuracy from your precision lathe-turned HV bullet at long ranges in comparison with most other bullets that are not lathe turned. Furthermore your sleek HV design has the edge on a higher BC that works in its favour as far as bullet drop and wind deflection is concerned. Again an application difference and that stands to your credit. There are diffences and yes we must pick bullets according to the observed need.

Chris Bekker

Chris,
In my previous post, the one where I say you do not even follow the load data and with the smiley face. Left click on GS Custom at the bottom, hold the button down and drag up to the smiley.

Gerard,

quote:

"Wound channels from the FN bullets resembled those of soft nosed premium bullets that expand to double calibre and more."

We know full well that a FN solid is superior over a RN solid, but it cannot create the same wound channel of the large expanding Rhino Solid Shank bullet with its bond core front section - just observe or calculate the diffencial frontal area when the Rhino bullet has been expanded.

Chris Bekker