John,
simplify!

I'm thinking that maybe two calibers are sufficient. One that is very fast, one that is not. The bullets I make and velocities that I shoot them are irrelevant here so I don't have a lot to contribute from direct experience, but maybe a .458 win mag loaded moderately vs. a .458 lott loaded hot (substitute the .45-70 for .458 WM if you have the cojones ).

I'd do only one distance from the muzzle (close).


Personally, think the media will have more to do with the outcome than anything. If there is an interaction between nose type and media, your results may not relevant to the real world. I would look for a lot of extra cattle - maybe you could capitalize on a mad cow outbreak or something like that On the other hand, there are a heck of a lot of dead horses available on the .45-70 threads.

Anyway, start simple and if the results look interesting, go from there to more complex stuff. Don't attempt to do it all in one pass.

Brent

quote:

its going to take a total of 6000 shots and if 3 people do the shooting there will be a total of 18,000 rounds fired.

Yeeehaaaaw!

I bet that'll affect your spelling. Can you say "punch-drunk"?

On a serious note, you (we, all of us) are going to have to find a cheap medium to shoot into. 6000 (or 18000) shots is pretty damn expensive to shoot, not counting replacing the media every few shots!

I have never seen a Bridger FN solid, Woodleigh RN solid, GS Custom FN solid or hollow point or one of Northforks flat nose solids or cup points veer off course or tumble on any animal...

Some of the older out of date bullets did that, but today is certainly is the exception rather than the rule, and then only on elephant would be my prediction...

After years of hunting and shooting game I have come to the conclusion that most shooter/hunters/addicts live in a world of theory and balistic nonsence, and like to play games and bloviate on paper balistics, SD, BC and BS etc., etc....I take most of that with a grain of salt..that is why I hang elephants on my clothesline by their trunk and shoot through them, then I know I have a good or bad bullet! but today their are damn few bad bullets, says kudos for the bullet makers.

bloviate?

What are you? An english major?

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
bloviate?

What are you? An english major?

Brent

More likely an O'Reilly Factor fan...

I was thinking more along the line of Bowery Boys

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
I was thinking more along the line of Bowery Boys

O'Reilly always tells people who want their emails read on the program to "be pithy" and "no bloviating" as he reserves that for himself.

Hi John
As Chris mentioned I would be very interested in coming down and helping with the shooting. I'm ready for a road trip anyhow. I don't think the shots need to be taken at different distances due to stabilization, yaw or what every one would like to call it. I did testing on that part and all the information is up on my website. From off the muzzle to 50 yards with the same impact velocity all the bullets penetrated the same distance.
I think you will be able to fire 6 to 8 shots into one 12 by 12 square as long as you level the box over it's entire length and make sure the rifle barrel is kept the same. Some sort of rest to make sure the rifle barrel is kept on the same level should be worked out. If the rest is shot from a level table top then you should be able to shift it as required. You will have to decide on the test medium and make it so it's easy to change and keep consistent. Did you plan on making the medium so it would consist of different materials and fluids?
Take care
Dave

So Ray I see that your hanging your Elephants in the correct manner now so not to compress the organs and receive eroneous results. But my dear man with all the bullets mentioned and the length ot time they have been available exactly how many of these straight penetrations have you really seen? I think that your making up more of the fun ballistic stuff you mentioned later in your post.
Take care
Dave

Mbogo,
It was per your request that I started hanging the elephants by their trunks and that is twice as much work as hanging them by the tail as most of them are running away when I catch them, and dragging two fully growed elephants to a clothes line is not for the weak hearted...
Just to oblige and keep you content and happy I have decided to hang them by their tails and trunks and shoot'em up the keyster...Hopefully this will be more accurate and keep you and Rip in a more receptive mood......

Its time for RIP to junk that tin lizzie and get with the real program, real flesh and blood, screaming elephants in terror, just doesn't get any better than that.....

Fritz454

I think your seeing the problem with trying to do too much to start. Remember your goal (Hypothesis): FN solids penetrate deeper then RN solids. Stick with that and don't get blown off course on twist rates, velocities etc. Prove one point at a time pick one caliber, one velocity, one distance and 2 or at the most three bullet types. Most experiments provide more questions then answers and you will probably find that true in this case.

Brent is giving you good advice in designing an experiment to test a hypothesis. What you need to determine is what difference in penetration is meaningful. One board on the Iron Buffalo may not mean a hill of beans on a real animal. Once you decide that and we compute the variance from say 10 shots, we can then determine the sample size you will need to get the estimates you want. Most medical, zoogical and other sciences use a 95% confidence interval to determine significant differences.

465H&H

Any dweeb can pontificate about statistical significance. I have done all the math and statistics of both a chemical engineering BS and an accounting BS (it was truly a lot of BS) and I do have a doctoral degree that included a smattering of biostatistics and some science.

It is another matter entirely to get off your keesters and produce some data, any data ... even if you gotta shoot elephants like Ray does, and I will do that too, soon as I can find the proper size baobab with the right branches for the block and tackle.

Well, RIP, nothing is stopping YOU from gathering data. Apparently, data analysis did not rub off on you and I suspect experimental design similarly failed, but have at it. Just show us the damn numbers.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
... the damn numbers.

Brent

Damn numbers, eh, Brentster?
Do you care if a solid bullet tumbles or not, hmmmmm?

I suspect I was doing statistics on a slide rule before you were potty trained, Brentster.

You would be of no help to me. Get your own damn numbers!

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
... the damn numbers.

Brent

Damn numbers, eh, Brentster?
Do you care if a solid bullet tumbles or not, hmmmmm?

Not really RIPster. if it tumbles and still penetrates straight and further than a bullet that does not tumble, more power to it. Of course, not likely either but then that will show in the NUMBERS - like penetration distance and angle of deviation.

quote:

I suspect I was doing statistics on a slide rule before you were potty trained, Brentster.[

That may be because you are as dumb as you sound. I too grew up using a slide rule. I didn't stop there though. Apparently you weren't listening even then.

quote:

You would be of no help to me. Get your own damn numbers!

I don't care to help you RIP. You unhelpable. John is who I offered to help.

Grow up if you can.

Brent

quote:

Q.
Brentster?
Do you care if a solid bullet tumbles or not, hmmmmm?
A.
Not really RIPster. if it tumbles and still penetrates straight and further than a bullet that does not tumble, more power to it. Of course, not likely either but then that will show in the NUMBERS - like penetration distance and angle of deviation.
Brent

I see you still don't get it Punky Brentster.

Do you not understand how a tumbling, keyholing bullet is likely to penetrate less and deflect from true?

It matters greatly.

Punks demanding "numbers" to analyze are a dime a dozen.

It is getting the "numbers" that is difficult, expensive and time consuming, but a rewarding thing for those who do.

I bid your arrogant ignorance good riddance.

Adios RIPpie. Come back when you learn to read and then maybe we can talk about numbers.
Brent