Alf,
I agree wholeheartedly but how do you expect me to deal with the stuff that Chris dishes up? Look at my reply below and then tell me in all seriousness that I should have let it pass without comment.

Chris,
Your general accusations of deception and lies from me contain no facts to back them up and no specifics to present as proof. Contrary to that, I have backed up every mistake and lie from you with fact. You have soared to new heights with your post above. Comparing the wound channel diameter of a frontal heart shot taken with a soft, to a raking going away heart shot taken with a solid, surely ranks as one of the greatest demonstrations of ballistic buffoonery you have yet come up with. How about comparing the penetration depth as well? Below are the descriptions of the two shots given by those who witnessed them.

"As the bull stood facing us with his nose uplifted, my client shot him squarely in the centre of the chest with a 380 grain Rhino. He staggered backwards, turned and ran off." The penetration depth here equates to 80/90cm.

"The bullet (540gr GS FN 500NE) 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!" Here we are talking of penetration in excess of 120cm through tissue that is substantially more difficult to penetrate.

But wait! There is more! You report on a GS FN solid from a 9.3 rifle used to shoot a Gemsbuck at 220m. I found your story difficult to believe and, not trusting you to be factual, I called Pieter. He confirmed that the calibre was 9.3x62, the distance was indeed 220m, the animal did run after the shot but a follow up shot to the neck brought it down. The bullet was a 270gr GS FN at a muzzle velocity of 2300fps. He also confirmed that the animal was a blue wildebeest, not a gemsbuck. How do you mistake a blue wildebeest for a gemsbuck? Two of my customers called Pieter and he confirmed the above facts to them also. In addition, he said that he expected the FN to smack the BW down on impact but, in retrospect, that it performed as a good solid should. I am at a loss to comment on his expectation of an instant knockdown, with a solid, at an impact speed of 1700fps with a heart shot, but that is besides the point.

So let us examine the lies you told:
1. "the Gemsbok Pieter shot through the heart" Was in fact a blue wildebeest. Unless you have discovered a new specie which you will announce as a blue wildegemsbuck.
2. "the Gemsbok Pieter shot...in the Keetmanshoop area ran back to Upington" According to Pieter (as told to Jaques Greeff) the BW ran a short enough distance to allow Pieter to drop it with a neck shot.
3. "Pieter is not impressed" - Pieter stated to both my customers that, in retrospect, the bullet performed as it should. Penetration was linear and both bullets exited. Considering that the impact speed was barely above handgun speeds at around 1700fps, this is testimony to a well sorted out bullet.

Based on the above, I would venture the opinion that you tried to create the impresssion that you were present at this incident, but were in fact not. (You said: " in consultation I pointed out to Pieter that the heart was clipped and not in the centre") You mention: "again a small hole". What do you expect from a solid at 1700fps. You confirm that you are a ballistic buffoon with that statement alone.

As a side note to Pieter: Our local powder manufacturer lists a 286gr jacketed 9.3 load as minimum from 2200fps to a maximum of 2400fps. All throughout our website we recommend that our bullets be used at at least conventional maximum speeds and to work up from there. Why use a bullet that is 16grains lighter, at 2300fps? That FN is intended for use in a 9.3 at a mv of 2400fps to 2600fps. Why use a solid on a soft skinned animal in the first place?

"Finally the Gemsbok perspired" - Shows you what you know about animals. It must have been a huge effort on the part of this blue wildebeest to so successfully impersonate a gemsbuck that it fooled you completely. No wonder he was sweating. (I am anticipating that you will blame someone else for all this, so it might as well be the animal that was shot.)

From here on, your opinion on shooting and ballistics is irrelevant. You have proven yourself incompetent in these matters beyond any doubt and you are warned that any further mention of GSC, based on deliberate misconception, mistakes or misuse contrary to manufacturers recommendations, will be met with less than good humour.

"Let us not forget that Gerard started with the initiative to discredit me" - Another lie. I started that thread as a response to your article in SA Hunter where you made several mistakes regarding GSC products. I only respond, never instigate. Get your facts right regarding GSC products and use them as we recommend and I will remain quiet.

Gerard,

Your compulsive obsessive behaviour never ceases to amaze me, as evidenced by the fact that 3 people had to phone Pieter Olivier. Even more interesting was that you did not believe the 2 people that you instigated to phone and you still had to phone yourself … good show !!!!

Despite your discussion with Pieter you still reported incorrectly and selective:

• The Blue Wildebeest ran across horizontally from Pieter staying at the 220 paces mark

• It was shot whilst running within another 20 paces and not close by as you said

• Pieter told you that your solid performed like any other solid

• That means your bullet is no better or no worse than any other solid.

• Pieter will not use the FN bullet again on soft game again (why not report this)

• That means Pieter seeks a bigger wound channel from a controlled expansion bullet.

Yes, the buck was indeed a Blue Wildebeest and not a Gemsbok, but is irrelevant to the performance of the bullet. Your statement that I implied that I was present shows how you always jump to conclusions or twist the facts. We spoke afterwards when he returned from his hunt. I agree with 500 Grains that we meet face to face and you have not replied to the invitation that Mauritz and I will give you a hero’s welcome at the Big Bore Assoc.

Gerard, I also hope you confirmed the EXCUSES that were made as to why we had to wait so long for the bullets. Please phone Pieter again as it may be good for you to hear it once again. These excuses are indeed the classic ones.

• The wrong stuff was sent to him (famous one)
• Then it got lost in the post (famous one)
• Then it was sent to the wrong address due to a mix-up (famous one)

I also view your opinion on shooting and ballistics as irrelevant.
Further more I regard you as a twister of facts and a cheater par excellance.

Please put the above in your pipe and smoke it.
Chris Bekker

Chris,

quote:

Even more interesting was that you did not believe the 2 people that you instigated to phone and you still had to phone yourself

The previous time I verified something with an associate of yours, he lied to me. This time I made sure that, if he lies, I can prove it. I called first and then my customers. So your (Pieters) version of this simple event is again a lie.

quote:

It was shot whilst running within another 20 paces and not close by as you said

You said it ran from Keetmanshoop to Upington. As this was probably an attempt at humour as it implies a distance of several hundred kilometres, it is a far cry from 20 paces. Your deliberate intention to discredit GSC product is once again noted.

quote:

• Pieter told you that your solid performed like any other solid
• That means your bullet is no better or no worse than any other solid.

More thorough Bekker/Olivier research. A sample of one. It is noted.

quote:

Pieter will not use the FN bullet again on soft game again (why not report this)

I actually pre-empted reporting it but you missed it as usual. I said: "Why use a solid on a soft skinned animal in the first place?" and "I am at a loss to comment on his expectation of an instant knockdown, with a solid, at an impact speed of 1700fps with a heart shot."

quote:

That means Pieter seeks a bigger wound channel from a controlled expansion bullet.

I would sincerely hope so. If Pieter has a PH license (I am starting to doubt this) he should not even have taken the shot. It was irregular to say the least.

quote:

Yes, the buck was indeed a Blue Wildebeest and not a Gemsbok, but is irrelevant to the performance of the bullet.

And relevant to your ability to lie / be inaccurate and objective in your reporting. As you said, the bullet performed as expected and the only purpose of the post was to mislead and discredit deliberately.

quote:

Your statement that I implied that I was present shows how you always jump to conclusions or twist the facts. We spoke afterwards when he returned from his hunt.

Yep, your comprehension remains defective. I said "Based on the above, I would venture the opinion that you tried to create the impresssion that you were present at this incident, but were in fact not." So I was right and I suppose he brought the blue wildegemsbuck heart with him and you poked around at it on your desk?

quote:

you have not replied to the invitation that Mauritz and I will give you a hero’s welcome at the Big Bore Assoc.

I have already spoken to Eduard Katzke (Chairman) and we will be making the arrangements. Did he not tell you? I suppose not, as you are not on the Executive Committee. I figured that I would rather make the arrangements with someone who has the authority to do so. He was unaware that an invitation had been extended but welcomes the opportunity, so it was just as well I checked with him.

quote:

Gerard, I also hope you confirmed the EXCUSES that were made as to why we had to wait so long for the bullets.

The excuses were conveyed to you by Pieter. The same Pieter who lied about the email correspondence between us and who shot a BW with a solid at 1700fps to set the basis for your attack on GSC. He says the excuses were forthcoming from Attie who ordered the bullets on your behalf. Attie placed the order with us on the 12th of Feb and we delivered the bullets to him by hand at the Aim Show in the last week of March. This would have given us 6 weeks within which to produce the bullets and send him three parcels of something before delivering the order at the show??!! See my previous reply below and then tell me which part you did not understand.

"Let me get this straight. You placed an order for our products with someone who said he can jump the que and get it quicker. (I have this bridge that is for sale......) When that did not happen and he started making excuses, you now say we made those excuses. (We could have told you it would not happen as we handle all orders on a first come first served basis.) So you lied. Now that we know who placed the order I could look it up. The order was for three different calibres and was sent out as soon as it was ready."

Regarding the classic excuses: You list three excuses and the implication is that GSC uses these excuses on a regular basis and that these excuses are lies. You need to prove this now as I have said to you before: "Sooner or later you will make a costly mistake." You may have just made it.

Unfinished business:
1. Why is it ok for Berger, Bitterroot, Groove, Bridger and others to have a waiting list but not GSC?
2. "You got me here. What on earth is a Brigadier solid?" So please enlighten me, I am willing to hear about new stuff.
3. Nothing to do with infringement, just curious why you claim to see no difference between the four bullets.
4. quote:
Please state your prices for HV bullets

Why HV bullets? Rhino makes nothing that is comparable, you said so yourself. If you want to compare prices, you should compare prices for roughly similar products. The most comparable product we have to them is our HP range. The full HP Bullets price list is here. It is a retail price list and includes VAT and shipping within SA. Make sure the prices you publish in comparison are inclusive of these items and that you quote the retail prices a customer would normally pay. Try to be honest this time.
5. What happened to that 9.3 test? Did it ever get off the ground?
6. On a different topic (changing the subject here), I believe the 100 year celebration of the 9.3 in Pretoria recently was a great success. As you were also there, tell us a bit about what happened, especially the bits involving shooting the grand old 9.3

.

Alf,

The lack of consistency that your targets show could certainly be frustrating. I like the 9.3 group, but wonder if it is repeatable with the next lot of bullets. My results were not as bad as yours, nor were they as good.

.

Hi Elf,

I happen to have a 7x64 rifle. I use it a lot in the Eastern Cape for long distance shooting. I have also tried Norma MRP and did not get very good groups. I have been using S365 for the last 6 years. My rifle has a 22†barrel. I use PMP cases and Standard primers. I load 53,5gr. The equivalent American powder is IMR 4350 I would start at 50gr. and work up a load from there. I am sure you will find that these bullets will group just as good in the 7x64 as they are grouping in your 7x57. Please note it is important to give my bullets 1 to 2mm jump to your rifle lands.

Regards,

Kobus

Gerard,

Gerard when you say .... "I would venture the opinion that you tried to .... " Gerard this means that you are jumping to conclusions. Hope I do not have to explain this to you one more time.

Please understand what Pieter is trying to tell you ... that the FN bullet makes a smaller wound channel on soft game than an expanding bullet. That is Pieter's opinion as a PH ... understand. I suggest you phone him again and argue with him - tell him the velocity of 2,300 fps was not appropriate, the angle was wrong or the phase of the moon was not ideal. I am really not interest in your excuses. I will form my own opinion when I use your FN bullet.

Regarding your threat about the costly mistake ... please read again:

"The excuses listed by Pieter can be translated as follows:

• The wrong stuff was sent to him (famous one)
• Then it got lost in the post (famous one)
• Then it was sent to the wrong address due to a mix-up (famous one")

These excuses were conveyed to me by Pieter through his contact (Attie) with GSC who ordered the bullets from you. At first you tried to prove that these bullets were not ordered from you through anyone in Vereniging - clever tactic to create smoke !!!

Pieter actually ordered the bullets and not me. (You were wrong again, can you read?) Unless Pieter can be proven as a liar, which I strongly doubt, I will believe his story. These excuses were offered by Attie to Pieter. Funny that the Americans say the same things? - are they all liars as well?

Perhaps you can prove Attie to be a liar, hey? Everybody lies it seems, except you !!!!! Fact remains that is what was said to Pieter. You tactic of continual denial will not succeed, Gerard.

I hope you can read Gerard, and if you want to start litigation against me, you may find that you are barking up against the wrong tree.

At this stage, I see no further point to give you answers on your so called "unfinished business" - it is utter crap !!!!!! There is no pleasure to be derived from intellectual masturbation with you. Your twisted logic no longer interest me, except to meet you at the Big Bore Association. Let see if you have the balls to pitch.

We will extend an invitation to Dr Kevin Robertson as well to state the case for the .375/380gr Rhino bullet. In case you don't know, Mauritz is on the executive committee and I am sure you will be delighted to hear this news.

Chris Bekker

.

Chris

quote:

Hope I do not have to explain this to you one more time.

Now we are getting lessons in English from the one who "flocks dead horses", believes that blue wildegemsbuck "perspire" when they are shot and produces sentences like "Pieter Olivier an I have shots may Impala bullets."

quote:

the FN bullet makes a smaller wound channel on soft game than an expanding bullet.

Do you think that there is a handloader somewhere that does not know that?

quote:

The excuses listed by Pieter..
These excuses were conveyed to me by Pieter through his contact....
These excuses were offered by Attie to Pieter...
Fact remains that is what was said to Pieter..

You post Pieter's email in Afrikaans and fail to translate it. Did you not notice how he covered for himself? Here it is in English: "Afterwards I spoke to Attie in Vereniging. He might recall more clearly but I imagine he said something about them sending him a wrong order the first time. The second time the mail did not arrive and the third time something got mixed up with their orders and his bullets went to someone else or something like that."
Supposedly we managed all this in six weeks, including delivering the order at the show and you still maintain that we offered the excuses. Do you read the stuff you write or does this logorhea flow naturally and unchecked?

quote:

Funny that the Americans say the same things?

Keep digging. your burden of proof is increasing.

quote:

At this stage, I see no further point to give you answers on your so called "unfinished business"

So I will list the unfinished business and supply my idea of why you are not answering.

Unfinished business:
1. I asked: Why is it ok for Berger, Bitterroot, Groove, Bridger and others to have a waiting list but not GSC?

It is the only straw you could get hold of to criticise GSC. You grab at anything, however illogical to try and make a point.

2. I Asked: "You got me here. What on earth is a Brigadier solid?" So please enlighten me, I am willing to hear about new stuff.

You made another mistake and now you are dancing around the subject, hoping it will go away. Your "journalism" is imprecise, frought with error and badly researched. This is mistake number 37 or something. I think. I have lost count recently, they are piling up so fast.

3. Nothing to do with infringement, just curious why you claim to see no difference between the four bullets.

Another one of your technical blunders. You cannot see a way out of the corner you have painted yourself into and naturally you revert to bluster and swearing.

4. You said: "Please state your prices for HV bullets."
I answered: "Why HV bullets? Rhino makes nothing that is comparable, you said so yourself. If you want to compare prices, you should compare prices for roughly similar products. The most comparable product we have to them is our HP range. The full HP Bullets price list is here. It is a retail price list and includes VAT and shipping within SA. Make sure the prices you publish in comparison are inclusive of these items and that you quote the retail prices a customer would normally pay. Try to be honest this time."

Don't know how you are going to save face on this one. You really shot yourself in the foot here. I must say that watching you squirm on this one will be a pleasure.


5. What happened to that 9.3 test? Did it ever get off the ground?

If it did, you could supply a link to it......

I will let up on the 9.3 100 Year Celebration Day. The prospect of all the lies and excuses you will sprout is best left alone. (It must have been embarrassing though....)

Alf,

I get excellent groups (sub-MOA) with Rhino 160 gr bullets in my 7 x57 mm custom made rifle and like wise with 286 grainers in my 9,3 x 62 mm. Both rifles feature std twist rates of 1 turn in 8.66 inches and 1 turn in 14 inches respectively. Groups are 10 and 15 mm's respectively. With Standard Lapua Mega ammo my 9.3 prints holes that touch each other when I don't bugger it up.

Some 7 x 64 mm were built with slower twist rates than the 7 x 57 mm; meaning that by design they were intended for lighter (shorter) bullets that can be driven faster for long-range shooting. I am not sure what twist you have in your 7 x 64 mm. If it is a 1 in 10 twist it may contribute to the erratic group you obtained with the longish 160 gr Rhino bullet featuring a lower specific gravity than a conventional lead-core bullet. The bullet lengths for 7 mm Rhino's are as follows:

170 grainer - 33.45 mm
160 grainer - 31.80 mm
150 grainer - 30.3 mm
140 grainer - 28.3 mm

Quite apart from twist rates, we still have other idiosyncrasies such as barrel vibration that is different for each make of bullets, printing at different places on the target when we shoot different bullets through the same barrel. However I did not detect any key-holing on your targets and we expect that the same bullet will more or less print at the same place. Some barrels again print different bullets closer to each other than others. No 2 barrels are alike and as strange as it sounds, some barrels just don't like certain bullets.

If your twist rate is not the problem, I recommend that you use the equivalent of S365 (IMR 4350) with your 160 grainers. If you have a slower twist in your rifle I suggest you drop down to a 150 grainer also with IMR 4350. Strange as it is, and contrary to what many ballisticians say, powder can have a an effect on accuracy due to differing propellant burn levels.

If the situation persists, please cut a few bullets to get a sectional view and examine the consistency of wall thickness. Kobus drill the same copper rod thickness (for a given caliber) with the same diameter drill and wall thicknesses should be even within a certain spec.

Work bullet-jump up from 1.5 mm to 2 mm (it will be far more in the 9.3 due to its long slender throat) Interesting enough accuracy in my 9.3 is good despite a long bullet jump ... probably due to good concentricity and the perfect lineup between chamber and bore. (perhaps the single most important item in any rifle, then the uniformity of the barrel and then the bullet)

Best regards
Chris Bekker

Hunters,

With this e-mail I wish to close this senseless debate" of dancing around the real stuff that matters.

Pieter Olivier concluded that the FN bullet makes a smaller wound channel on soft game than an expanding bullet. I have stated before that it remains to be seen if A GS-FN bullet can create a bigger wound channel than an expanding bullet like a Rhino. Remember the dribble of a so-called cylinder-shaped bullet that creates a bigger wound channel as punted by Gerard which in turn he borrows from McPherson's book even though more related to handguns than rifle. (Alf also pointed this out before)

The design characteristic of controlled expansion has been punted by many other hunters, including myself on this forum as a desirable feature and specifically that it drops buffalo quicker. Can so many hunters and PH's be so wrong?

Doctaris says ... "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 Rhino’s 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?


Well, perhaps we have some sort of agreement then. I eagerly await Gerard's twisting maneuvers under a cloud of smoke.

However Solids must be compared with Solids as they have the same objectives which is deeper penetration. And that does not mean that I do not agree that a FN solids is not better than a RN solid - it obviously is. Expanding bullets have a very different objective to solids and the very existence of expanding bullets is because we want them to expand for a specific reason ....

Chris Bekker

Gerard,

All your other crap, you can keep to yourself, but the following statement compels me to make a remark ...


"I will let up on the 9.3 100 Year Celebration Day. The prospect of all the lies and excuses you will sprout is best left alone. (It must have been embarrassing though....)"


I am not sure what this is supposed to mean ... This underlines my opinion about you .... your verbal diarrhea has no end. Jumping, ducking, creation of doubt, causing confusing, bring in red herrings, fumigate with smoke ... psychic abilities ... a posture that exceeds ol' Rasputin ...

Nobody lies and cheats better than you !!!!

Chris Bekker

.

Chris,

I don't understand why you are comparing the GS Custom FN solid to a Rhino expanding bullet. Shouldn't the GS FN solid be compared to other solids, while the GS HV bullet should be compared to other expanding bullets?

Chris,

quote:

Pieter Olivier concluded that the FN bullet makes a smaller wound channel on soft game than an expanding bullet.

Groundbreaking stuff. What will you guys discover next. Pointy bullets have better BC values than FNs of the same calibre and weight? Perhaps you should discover that putting more powder behind a given bullet will increase the muzzle velocity. That has been done before as well but you must not allow this to deter you from your goals. Stick to samples of one, it is good for a laugh.

quote:

I have stated before that it remains to be seen if A GS-FN bullet can create a bigger wound channel than an expanding bullet like a Rhino.

Darn, I missed that. Where did you make that statement?

quote:

Remember the dribble of a so-called cylinder-shaped bullet that creates a bigger wound channel as punted by Gerard

"I can confidently state that, for buffalo, a flat nosed solid is definitely the best. 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"
"The efficiency of the cylinder has long been known (except to Chris Bekker); Hatcher gave this configuration the largest form factor in his rating system, and this has been the conventional wisdom ever since." - Bullet Penetration P277 with comment in brackets by myself.

quote:

even though more related to handguns than rifle

"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 "The bullet velocity required to create large diameter temporary cavities can be attained relatively easily in rifles." - P63 Bullet Penetration.

quote:

All your other crap, you can keep to yourself

I take it that you concede to making the technical blunders and that, contrary to your previous statements, your price list actually reflects higher prices than GSC for similar bullets. That is OK by me and the subject is closed.

500grains,

quote:

I don't understand why you are comparing the GS Custom FN solid to a Rhino expanding bullet.

You are expecting rational thought processes where very little exists.

Posting for Chris Bekker:

Damage of 375-380 grain Rhino:



Damage of 510-540 grain GS FN:




Which bullet makes the bigger wound channel :

a) The .510/540 gr GS FN or

b) The .375/380 gr Rhino Soft?

See the pictures and decide for yourself.

Chris Bekker

500 grain,

The myth is exposed... terminal ballistics do count.

.

quote:

Chris says:
Shooting a runaway buffalo from behind, through its huge grass-filled guts, and still expect to reach the heart with a large expanding Soft must surely be one of the dumbest things one can do.

quote:

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

quote:

"The GS Custom .416 caliber FN expanding solid, 380 grains at 2509 fps, did not fail. It smashed through the bones of the left shoulder of the Buffalo, the ribs and lungs, through the heart, and out the offside shoulder."

quote:

I used my 500 nitro and GS custom FN bullets. The PAC bull was running, I hit it in the shoulder and broke the bone, anchoring it, shot a second round about 4" further back into the heart, and as it fell I shot it under the chin and through the brain. The bullets all exited, the one I shot through the chin I recovered in the earth behind the elephants head.

.

POSTING FOR DR MAURITZ COETZEE

To Gerard,

You imply that you have (already) answered the questions that I have asked.

Fact of the matter is that you have not answered a single question or offered a clarification on fundamental issues.

What is actually above all comprehension is your denial of what you have stated/implied, as a yardstick for bullet penetration.

Let me give it to you again, Gerard, dear old friend:

Quote:

Ray has insisted that a bullet/caliber combination is adequate for a particular species if full penetration can be assured from any angle.

This belief from Ray was placed on this forum and explicitly endorsed by yourself. This was the level of performance penetration wise that you expected from the 380gr/.375 Rhino bullet.

When asked about the penetration capabilities of your own solids, you simply denied the performance parameter you had set for another bullet manufacturer’s soft nose bullet.

Quote:

I never insisted on perforation (sic) at any angle and in every case.

What is full penetration then, according to Jerry? Does this also imply that you have two sets of rules, one for other manufacturers’ and one for your own bullets? Or is it possible that you are not really in agreement with Ray’s viewpoint on this full penetration requirement?

Is this the reason why neither you nor Koos have ever bothered to answer my question on what sufficient penentration really is?

Gerard you complain to RCG that Chris Bekker and myself have attacked you for several years. Yet you deliberately and with bad intent labelled the 380gr/.375 Rhino as only suitable for the hunting of very big game on frontal and quartering shots. You have implied that this bullet will most probably not expand on small game. All of these perceptions, made with bad intent, have been proven wrong. You, Jerry, have misrepresented the performance of this bullet and now you complain. Can you, by the way, give any examples of hunters complaining about the performance of the 380gr/.375 Rhino?

Furthermore, you label certain bullets in your possession from Rhino as badly flawed. Given your guarantee and specifications can you now state the flaws with Rhino bullets in your possession and how these flaws, according to you, influence these bullets for proper functioning and effectiveness?

I must inform you that I disagree with your statement that you produce the most reliable dangerous game solid bullet in the world. You are surely entitled to your own opinion. The Dzombo and Rhino solids, also with flat meplats, have earned an unsurpassed track record on heavy game. Unless there is a controlled experiment, you cannot make such a claim.

Above all, given the influence of velocity and your underlying principle of more expansion with higher velocity, how can you predict penetration within the variability of tissue and bone of animals such as elephant, buffalo and hippo, for example (and from different angles)? This question ties up with your statement on your bullets.

Quote:

The examples in the two pictures were fired under controlled conditions into wet sand, but closely represent bullets recovered from very, very large animals.

Which animals are you referring to – elephant, rhino, hippo or what? You also say:

Quote:

Thus far we know of very few bullets recovered from game.

Again, game as in big game, and in more specific terms buffalo or giraffe or? You will remember that 500 grains recovered your solid bullets from elephant, buffalo and giraffe.

Elephant obviously are very, very large animals should we also accept that buffalo and giraffe are very, very large animals. How should your policy statement be interpreted? You say that you have never insisted on perforation (sic) at any angle and in every case yet you endorse the principle of full penetration from any angle.

You will remember that I have stated that the 380gr/.375 Rhino gives adequate penetration, especially on buffalo.

Does the penetration on average of your bullets as used by .500 grains on buffalo, giraffe and elephant also imply adequate penetration?

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Mauritz Coetzee

500 Grains,

Regarding your question ... I think we actually agree that they are very different and have different wounding mechanisms and I hinted at that in one of my postings above. For ease of reference this is what I said ...

quote:

However Solids must be compared with Solids as they have the same objectives which is deeper penetration. And that does not mean that I do not agree that a FN solid is not better than a RN solid - it obviously is. Expanding bullets have a very different objective to solids and the very existence of expanding bullets is because we want them to expand for a specific reason ....

If available I agree that a 265gr HV in .375 caliber could be better compared with a 380 gr Rhino bullet. At high velocity the HV bullet is likely to lose its petals on contact with a hardy animal like a buffalo. Then drop 20% of its weight and proceed as a solid cylinder much like the FN Solid. I am not sure how much of a difference there will be, perhaps you can enlighten me?

Take care
Chris Bekker

Posting for Chris Bekker:

quote:

Pressure tests with 380 gr Rhino bullet

I hope SA Reloaders will find the following info helpful - Results of pressure tests done at the SABS lab - Rhino bullets in 375 H&H:

Bullet ---- Powder ---- Load ----- Velocity --- Pressure
300 gr ---- S365 --------- 63 gr ------ 2,428 fps --- 57, 217 psi

Bullet ---- Powder ---- Load ----- Velocity --- Pressure
380 gr ---- S341 --------- 64 gr ------ 2,223 fps --- 63, 017 psi
380 gr ---- S335/365 --- 32/32 gr - 2,223 fps --- 61, 103 psi

For a lower pressure level one can drop down by 2 grains to achieve 2,153 fps:

Bullet ---- Powder ---- Load ----- Velocity --- Pressure
380 gr ---- S341 --------- 62 gr ------ 2,153 fps --- 61, 048 psi
380 gr ---- S335/365 --- 31/31 gr - 2,153 fps --- 59, 193 psi

Are you really out of your mind?

The 375 H&H was designed for heat, African heat, and used low pressure, 40-50k.
You say a low pressure load is 59K. Again, are you out of your mind?

Aren't you guys doing a bit of a press job, here? While I understand the 450 NE is the industry standard, it too was a LOW PRESSURE cartridge, at 40k or lower, sending a 458 caliber bullet at 2150 fps, 480 grains. Now, you are trying to design a bullet that sort of gives you that same ballistics, minus 100 grains of bullet weight, minus plenty of diameter, and only 20k more pressure, which means one snappy, hard kicking rifle.

The only possible function I could see for this bulet comes to the 404/416/378 WBY line of rifles, where the case is big enough to lower pressure. Still we have our resident Buffalo King, Saeed, who has nailed a whole bunch, around 100 IIRC, with a 300 grain barnes X or his current Walterhogs, in 300 grains, at 2700-2900 fps, and, according to our resident Curmuggeon, Ray, who has actually watched buffalo get hammered by this combination, now puts the 404/375 in the 458 Lott category?

Finally, after reading JudgeG's account of buffalo/lions around him, what do you do with that wimpy velocity when faced with cats, lions, that are susceptible to high velocity, and, what about getting nailed by elephant? Will the 380 grain penetrate enough for a stopping shot on an elephant?

While I love the 375, I find it's greatest failing is the predominance of everyone to use cheap powders, fill the case, and end up with high pressure loads with reasonable, but not great, ballistics, and, a hell of a lot of recoil. Make no mistake, a Weatherby loaded 300 grain 375 H&H round will rip you into thinking you are firing a 416, since it's sharp, snappy and hard. You guys are going to compound this
recoil problem, by going for 63k loads to get just 2200 fps, and, adding 23% bullet weight, to really increase recoil?

Don't break what isn't broken. Some hotrod projects don't work, and this sure looks like one of them..

G

I can't see these pictures. Can anyone help?

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:
Posting for Chris Bekker:

Damage of 375-380 grain Rhino:



Damage of 510-540 grain GS FN:




Which bullet makes the bigger wound channel :

a) The .510/540 gr GS FN or

b) The .375/380 gr Rhino Soft?

See the pictures and decide for yourself.

Chris Bekker

Hello GS,

You may have missed my post earlier on the thread where I mentioned that the lower pressures of a 404 Jeff & 416 Rigby is more desirable as a DGR than a 375 H&H, especially with the heavier bullet sending the pressures to 63k. Yes, the recoil from a 375 H&H and up is not for sissies. I know of a person that sold his 416 Rigby right after his first hunt. I would suggest that if someone cannot handle the recoil of a 380 gr bullet at 2,200 fps that he must rather say farewell to the hunting of dangerous game.

I have also mentioned that I prefer a 'ballistic balanced' cartridge over one that is not. However, all the hunters that I have had contact with that used the combo of the 380gr/.375 is not complaining about the recoil - if anything they are happy with its terminal effect. The good thing about it is that we all have a choice as to what calibers and combos we prefer. As an overall comment I have sympathy with your comment not to design a Mona Lisa with a moustache.

Take care
Chris Bekker

Alf,

Thanks for your contribution. I accept that the pictures are anecdotal but used it as it was available. We should see these pictures in line with your comment that I agree with .... "At rifle velocities an expanding soft nose will give a bigger temporary and permanent wound channel than a non expanding FN projectile all else equal." This is in fact the general case that is being made for opting for a controlled expansion bullet over a solid for the hunting of game and extreme penetration is not required.

I read with interest your comments about Mc Pherson (as I do not have his book) and how he is often misquoted by some people to support their pet theories. And just as interesting that he does not relegate SD as irrelevant as some of our pundits, but does see a useful role for it and that was actually the essence of the discussion of this thread.

Take care
Chris Bekker

500 grains,

If available I agree that a 265gr HV in .375 caliber could be better compared with a 380 gr Rhino bullet. At high velocity the HV bullet is likely to lose its petals on contact with a hardy animal like a buffalo. Then drop 20% of its weight and proceed as a solid cylinder much like the FN Solid. I am not sure how much of a difference there will be, perhaps you can enlighten me?

I would be grateful if you could elaborate on the difference for me.

Take care
Chris Bekker

Hi Morrie,
Firstly let us get the terminology sorted out. It is my understanding that, in terms of penetrative wounds, perforation is taken to mean all the way through while penetration means into, but not all the way through. Can RIP and/or Alf help out with this please. If I am correct, you will have to rephrase some of your questions and I will reply to them when we have clarity. If I am wrong, I will address the questions directly.

You must ask Chris to print the entire thread for you so that we do not have to keep on repeating stuff but if you insist:

quote:

Ray has insisted that a bullet/caliber combination is adequate for a particular species if full penetration can be assured from any angle.

I do not think that anyone could have a problem with a bullet that stops forwards of the heart/lungs of an animal shot directly from behind. In the context of what Ray was talking about, this is taken to be adequate and what I would concur with unreservedly.

quote:

What is full penetration then, according to Jerry?

I think it is perforation but I may be wrong. We shall see.

quote:

Does this also imply that you have two sets of rules, one for other manufacturers’ and one for your own bullets?

No, but one would expect differing performance parameters for different types of bullet construction and thus one would choose an appropriate bullet for a given task.

quote:

Is this the reason why neither you nor Koos have ever bothered to answer my question on what sufficient penentration really is?

Asked and answered several times, see Ray's opinion above and two or three other places as well.

quote:

Gerard you complain to RCG that Chris Bekker and myself have attacked you for several years.

Yep, about five years. Every so often the pair of you surface with some nonsense reason why your fave bullet is better than GS Bullets and when I expose your inadequate methodology you slink away again.

quote:

Yet you deliberately and with bad intent labelled the 380gr/.375 Rhino as only suitable for the hunting of very big game on frontal and quartering shots.

I asked a couple of questions based on information posted by Chris. I am glad you find them uncomfortable now that I follow your tactics and note that you have yet failed to deal with them. Specifically the question is: Do you recommend your 380gr soft for direct going away shots on Cape Buffalo, Hippo, Rhino or Elephant?

quote:

You have implied that this bullet will most probably not expand on small game. All of these perceptions, made with bad intent, have been proven wrong.

There is no bad intent on my part. I am asking these valid questions to show that two can play the game. You have made some pretty absurd statements about GSC products that were proven wrong when challenged. Now prove me wrong when I say that there are a number of members of this forum alone that have had multiple failures to expand on soft game with your 380gr soft as well as others of your product.

quote:

You, Jerry, have misrepresented the performance of this bullet and now you complain.

Morrie, slow down and think. You are the one complaining here, not me.

quote:

Furthermore, you label certain bullets in your possession from Rhino as badly flawed. Given your guarantee and specifications can you now state the flaws with Rhino bullets in your possession

What does our specs have to do with your product other than that it does not meet our QA requirement? The pictures below speak for themselves. The bullets came from sealed boxes and were mail ordered or purchased over the counter from dealers.

quote:

I must inform you that I disagree with your statement that you produce the most reliable dangerous game solid bullet in the world.

I will take the opinion below over yours any day.

"Perfection comes from South Africa, where GS Custom is turning out true wide flatnoses. These bullets are favored by really experienced and knowledgeable professional hunters. The one you see in the picture went the full length of a six-ton bull elephant. - Ross Seyfried in Handloader Magazine, Feb 2004."

quote:

The Dzombo and Rhino solids, also with flat meplats, have earned an unsurpassed track record on heavy game.

You mean flat meplats like we have been producing since 1997. It is easy to copy but it is more difficult to gain the background experience that fine tunes a design. That comes with the years and, fortunately, GSC has that head start. Take a look at the consensus on this forum. The three designs that are acknowledged as those that work best consistently, are quite similar in appearance. Cutting a flat meplat on a round nose solid is not enough Morrie.

quote:

Unless there is a controlled experiment, you cannot make such a claim.

I see, here is the double standard again. Your 380gr soft is pronounced "best" on the basis of anecdotal evidence but GS Custom must "prove with a controlled experiment."

quote:

Above all, given the influence of velocity.........

From here your post degrades into a pretence of not comprehending what is on the opening page of the FN bullets section of our site. Read it again and then rephrase please. (Hint: GS FN Bullets are intended for thick skinned DG) We have found they also work well on the small five and large birds but that is besides the point.

Chris,

quote:

Then drop 20% of its weight and proceed as a solid cylinder much like the FN Solid.

Where do you suck these numbers from? What is this, mistake number 38 I think?

quote:

I would suggest that if someone cannot handle the recoil of a 380 gr bullet at 2,200 fps that he must rather say farewell to the hunting of dangerous game.

Or he can use any one of a bushell full of 250 to 300gr bullets that also get the job done without all that recoil.

quote:

This is in fact the general case that is being made for opting for a controlled expansion bullet over a solid for the hunting of game and extreme penetration is not required.

Would such a bullet would then have limited application compared to a bullet that delivers an adequate wound channel diameter and also gives extreme penetration? Just asking....

POSTING ON BEHALF OF PIETER OLIVIER

Gerard,

Truth be told, I expected too much of you solid (given the hype). I have shot many Blue Wildebeest with 300 grain Rhinos (9,3 caliber) through the heart that dropped on the spot. I have concluded that your solid works just like any other solid, and as such will not hunt with it again. Not that it is bad, life is about alternative choices and some is just better than others or more appropriate. I also have Rhino Solids, and the same comment applies to them, I'll pick the expanding soft as the visible effect in the field is quite evident.

Furthermore, I am also of the opinion that I am better off with a 300 gr Rhino controlled expansion bullet over a GS-FN bullet when we change the quarry to a more dangerous African Buffalo that is 3 to 4 times bigger and many times tougher. I have tested 300 gr Rhinos on buffalo and they drop them with deadly effect and will not change regardless of your advertising hype.

When you quoted me .... "Pieter Olivier concluded that the FN bullet makes a smaller wound channel on soft game than an expanding bullet." and remarked .... "Groundbreaking stuff. What will you guys discover next", I take it that we have settled this issue now, at least in your mind. Chris has argued the point for 5 years with you that controlled expansion bullet increase the lethality of a bullet as is severs and cuts a bigger wound channel and that excess penetration is
moot once a big hole is ripped through the heart.

Your ability to cast doubt about the excuses we got is remarkable and that is the end of me ever ordering your bullets again. You also do not have to phone me again as it seems that you are forever in a doubting paranoia mode. You are a real comic to question whether or not I have a PH license - do some more phoning and find out from others.

Pieter Olivier
Professional Hunter

.

Hello GS,

quote:

The 375 H&H was designed for heat, African heat, and used low pressure, 40-50k.
You say a low pressure load is 59K. Again, are you out of your mind?

I think you were a bit off the wall with your above statement. I see things differently:

1) The 375 is in fact a high-pressure cartridge, as evidenced with a CIP P-Max of 62,366 psi !!!

2) Please publish the pressure of standard factory ammo for us (Winchester, Remington or Federal). I am willing to bet you it is far above the 40 - 50 k as you hinted. Call all 3 factories and publish for us, please (anyone can make a mistake).

3) Check the reloading manuals (E. Mutanas and others)

4) I tested a 300 gr Rhino bullet with S365 (equivalent of IMR4350) at our SABS lab with 63 grains of powder behind it as a mild load for 2,428 fps and it yielded 57,217 psi - a far cry from your top figure of 50k. Load it to factory spec of 2,530 fps and it will be higher.

The 380gr/.375 load has been tested in Tanzania and in Zimbabwe (Dande in the very north) in extreme heat conditions by various hunters since the bullets inception without any reported pressure problems at velocities between 2,150 and 2,220 fps. So it works. Please check the P-Max figures for all the other American .375 Magnum calibers and you will notice that they also run from 59 k to 63 k - should they too be pruned as being superfluous branches of the .375 family?

The pressure equation is greatly affected by the size of bore in relation of the bullet mass that needs to be pushed through the barrel and that is why we see a sharp fall off when the bore size is increased to .416, .423 and .458 and when the case is also made bigger such as the .416 and .423 we see that it beats the .458 family of calibers as the combustion volume is further increased. The 500 Jeffery will beat all ito lowest pressure largely due to its .510 bore size. Unfortunately the 375 H&H case has never lent itself to be a low-pressure cartridge. However the case of the 375 H&H was designed with a long sloping neck for smooth feeding and easy extraction.

Take care
Chris Bekker

Gerard,

The following passage comes from your web-site (3. GS Custom HV Bullets)

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

When I hinted that an HV would loose 20% of its weight at high velocity on a hardy animal and then proceed as a solid cylinder much like the FN Solid, you are asking me ... "Where do you suck these numbers from?"

Well, I guess it must be from your own writings. If you made an error and it should be some other percentage, no sweat. Simply adjust to what it should be then ... perhaps somewhat less for different calibers and different bullet weights?

Fact is when all petals are lost the bullet continues its journey at lower mass, as a flat cylinder very much like your FN Solid .... yes? ... no? That was my real question that I put to 500 grains to ascertain if is not just becoming a lighter FN solid by implication? No more and no less.

Gerard, perhaps you should assist AR readers that are not in the know with a first-hand explanation. Which wound channel would be bigger?

a) the .375/265 gr HV that loses some of its weight or

b) the .375/270 FN that does not lose weight?

Should final meplats differ marginally, please address the effect, if not, you could confine your answer simply to mass differentials that impacts on terminal momentum, which naturally traps differential velocities as well. Needless to say there is also a Mo/Xsa differential. Whatever the explanation, I think we need it so we can better understand it.

Thanks
Chris Bekker

Pieter,

quote:

Pieter says:
I take it that we have settled this issue now, at least in your mind. Chris has argued the point for 5 years with you that controlled expansion bullet increase the lethality of a bullet as is severs and cuts a bigger wound channel

quote:

Chris asks:
Gerard, perhaps you should assist AR readers that are not in the know with a first-hand explanation. Which wound channel would be bigger?

a) the .375/265 gr HV that loses some of its weight or

b) the .375/270 FN that does not lose weight?

Now I understand. But I must say the concept leaves me almost speechless. For five years you guys have been thinking that GS FN and HV bullets make similar shape wound channels. That is so absurd I almost cannot believe it. When an HV bullet mushrooms and (if the impact speed is high enough) it sheds the petals, are you seriously telling me you thought that this has no effect in the shaping of and action in the wound channel? This is why you cannot get your heads around the concept. That is what you get when you listen to Chris instead of doing your own research. He has been grossly wrong before but this takes the cake.

quote:

Your ability to cast doubt about the excuses we got is remarkable and that is the end of me ever ordering your bullets again.

You asked Attie to get the bullets for you in November. He placed the order with us on the 12th of February. We delivered them six weeks later. Those are the facts. If you want to blame GSC for not producing an order they did not know about, you are not thinking straight and there is little GSC can do about it.

Chris,
Your quote from our website on the FAQ page dealing with expansion and weight retention, is factually correct and a sterling example of the three step swindle you are so fond of using. The quote you use is: "We have driven HV bullets as high as 4700 fps and weight retention remains at a high 80%." If you understand this as meaning anything other than "even at 4700fps, an HV retains 80% weight on game" you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. How do you figure to get a 265gr .375 calibre bullet to 4700fps? You should have finished the page because you would have seen these as well (maybe you did but it did not fit the three step swindle):
"The pictures below are of a .458" 450gr HV bullet fired into the water tank at the Ballistics/Forensic Laboratory in Port Elizabeth. Velocity was 2500fps."


(Obviously weight retention is close to 100%)

"HV bullets are therefore designed to start mushrooming reliably from much lower speeds than most other premium bullets, typically from around 1000fps."

" At higher speeds, HV bullets will lose the petals entirely, shedding 12% to 15% of weight and presenting a flat cylinder shape to the direction of movement. The HV concept thus offers, at worst, a good double caliber mushroom, with extremely high retention and, at best, a high speed cylinder shape for dramatic primary wound trauma."

"Below are photographs of a 95gr .264" HV bullet, fired into foam saturated with water. Muzzle velocity was 1900fps and resulted in complete expansion and 60cm (24") of penetration."


Right at the bottom of the page you would have seen that, at lower impact speeds, weight retention is very high, 100% and close to it.

A 130 gr 7mm HV bullet recovered from a kudu. Impact speed, fired from a 7x57, was 2580 to 2630 fps. The bullet entered in front of the shoulder on the quarter frontal shot and was recovered from the ribs on the opposite side.

You would also have seen that, at very high speeds, the bullet mushrooms and then sheds the petals. This results in a wound channel that is large in diameter initially, as the bullet expands, and then gradually diminishing in size down to calibre diameter as it slows, but with substantially more penetration than what can be achieved with a bullet that does not assume the cylinder shape. The petals, each at around 4% to 5% of bullet weight, go their own damaging way. It is rough when I have to spell it out like that for you, but it seems you cannot visualise these things (deliberately?).


A 200 gr .338 HV bullet fired from a 340 Weatherby at 3350 fps. It penetrated the full length of a kudu, from the entrance wound on the back leg to the lower edge of the jawbone, where it was recovered. Impact speed was over 3000 fps.

So to answer your question regarding which of a 265gr HV or a 270gr FN in .375 will cause the largest wound channel: The 265gr HV will give a wider diameter but shallower depth wound channel than the FN because it is an EX-PAN-DING bullet and the FN is a SO-LID bullet.

Gerard,

Thanks for your detailed explanation - good reply.

quote:

"So to answer your question regarding which of a 265gr HV or a 270gr FN in .375 will cause the largest wound channel: The 265gr HV will give a wider diameter but shallower depth wound channel than the FN because it is an EX-PAN-DING bullet and the FN is a SO-LID bullet."

Response:

Based on the principle of EX-PAN-SION of frontal diameter (Xsa), I like the terminal effect of the 286 gr Rhino bullet as it creates huge wound track and is known to drop game quickly. Typically it expands to 21.5 mm with sharp petal stand-out. Typical weight retention is 98%. So terminal momentum (retained mass x impact velocity) is adequate in relation to the bullet's frontal area to ensure good penetration. This combo makes the 9,3 x 62 mm more deadly on game in MHO, as opposed to a bullet that sheds weight and expands to a smaller diameter or does not expand (solid). Naturally the bullet with higher SD has the edge and that is why I do not use Rhino's 235 grainer in my 9,3 as my application does not stretch beyond 150 paces.

However, if your 230 gr HV bullet in 9,3 caliber does not lose petals at 2,500 fps impact velocity, I am willing to take it on a hunt and test them. I am sure it will work well on longer shots. If you have a box for me, let me know and I will send you the money. 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?

We have already seen good results with the 250 gr Barnes-X bullet - why? It retains all its weight and it does not shed its strong petals.

Gerard your bullets are excellent, I only differ on the velocity and SD aspect with you and they are inter-related, as I do not like the high velocity to rip the petals off a bullet that is already light for caliber. Just my opinion - we differ in philosophy. For long-range accurate hunting I have no doubt that your HV bullet comes into its own as one and all gets good groupings with your bullets.

Chris Bekker

Mr. Bekker:

You haven't mentioned the Impala Bullets.

I sort of like the idea of a wide metplat, high velocity, super hard solid. Gives you low recoil, yet, with the extra velocity, it should, much like the 378 WBY, cut a big, straight hole through whatever it hits, with great penetration, caused by velocity, and, lower recoil then your 380 grain bullets.
Anybody used these on dangerous game, out of either a 375 H&H, or greater, yet?
G

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

.

The radial shock waves thing clued me in to the fact that they are pushing B.S. It's hard to believe the rest of it after reading the radial shock wave part.

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.