The discussion on the 380 gr. Rhino bullets is fun from the standpoint that it shows that not only Americans can argue forever about trivia.

From past AR discussions, it seems that some bullet manufacturers (and posters) are not necessarily scientists and go on with more sales pitch than valid information.

Let the arguments proceed there continue, and wish the protagonists well.

Bill,
Ya know that there is never a "Dead Horse" icon available when you really, really need a
"Dead Horse" icon. Perhaps the "useless as tits on a boar hog" icon would do better?
Or the ever popular "Just another piss'n contest" icon?
Just my opine.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Are you referring to the pointless and apparently endless arguments and counter-arguments, the reams of hopelessly boring and irrelevant minutia, the hashing and rehashing of questionable theories and semi-pseudo-scientific data, the vicious insults and personal attacks, etc. -- that kind of thing -- or is it the mistaken impression of the participants that anyone besides them gives a shit?

mrlexma!

"YES"!

465H&H

Do you mean the "That's not what I said, so let me twist what you said to make me look better" pissing contests?

When I'm really bored, I'll click on one of the strings that have 50+ posts on it because I know it will be a "he said, she said" whinefests.

mrlexma, if I ever need a lawyer in MA, you're my man!!

You can always tell when Will hasn't had his coffee yet...

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Bill,
Ya know that there is never a "Dead Horse" icon available when you really, really need a
"Dead Horse" icon. Perhaps the "useless as tits on a boar hog" icon would do better?
Or the ever popular "Just another piss'n contest" icon?
Just my opine.

Rusty...this is just for you...use it sparingly.

Most of the technological advances in bullet design have been made by the small, upstart bullet makers, not by the big names.

quote:

Most of the technological advances in bullet design have been made by the small, upstart bullet makers, not by the big names.

Quite so - here is a sample list:

Nosler
Bitteroot
TBBC
Swift
Stewart
GSC
Rhino
Etc

Chris Bekker

Bless you vapodog!

lol Will and mrlexma

It's just too bad that we all don't think and act just like you Will. I'm sure your life would be so much better. My appologies for the rest of us for gettign in the way.

Just trying to make light of some of these "serious," and endless, discussions.

You have gotten more good press here on AR than anyone, so don't start pouting!

Anyone who finds himself convinced that he's an original thinker, and who starts thinking he's come up with anything new under the African or American sun, should just spend a little time researching Uncle John Buhmiller's wildcatting, bullet making and African dangerous game hunting experiences of the mid-1950's.

He'll either be humbled, and made a bit more reticent--or better yet, he'll be silenced entirely.

"...isn't it True, then, Counselor, that the EXACT result of a projectile striking a live target is totally unpredictable in the extreme, and therefore needs NO justification as to the design or expected outcome...?

Talk about dishing it out but not being able to take it.

I'm sorry I thought your post was in fun.. guess not.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz454:
Talk about dishing it out but not being able to take it.

I'm sorry I thought your post was in fun.. guess not.

Don't be sorry. It was intended to be 'fun'.
What makes projectile invention interesting is the quest for the perfect bullet. It's the perfect target that is insurmountable --- unless you're shooting paper...
Which in turn leads to another insurmountable quest --- the perfect launcher!

It's ALL FUN!
Or, at least, it's supposed to be.

Too many people are too serious about guns & ammo...they become jaded and forget the 'fun factor'.
ME? I'll stay in the 'ignorance is bliss' catagory. WAY more fun that way!
"Know-It-All's" are forever lost.

John--nothing personal and no offense intended.

It's just that fifty years ago John Buhmiller was lathe-turning monometal, flat and cup pointed bullets and loading them into cartridges that he created--which are now known as the .458 Lott, .460 Wby., the .470 Capstick and the .500 A-Square and a few others that are less well known.

And he also tested them--in rifles of his own making based on the big Enfield action--on extended, one-man, dangerous game safaris in East Africa in which he killed hundreds of elephant, buffalo and rhinoceros.

And just think--he managed to do that without an Internet and with no hunting websites on which to argue ad nauseam about what worked and what didn't and why.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
It's just that fifty years ago John Buhmiller was lathe-turning monomental, flat and cup pointed bullets and loading them into cartridges that he created--which are now known as the .458 Lott, .460 Wby., the .470 Capstick and the .500 A-Sqare and a few others that are less well known.

There are very few mountains that don't have foot prints at the top.

Some think that the .204 Ruger is new.....Douglas made barrels for the .204 in the 60s

I think it's very interesting that the best cartridges we have today are almost 100 years old.....some even beyond that.

A wise man [ my father ] once said " Boy - if you were half as smart as you think are - you would be twice as smart as Einstien - Frank Einstien "

Reasons to wannabe? If the bullet fails, we may find ourselves in pretty bad straights. We want to have some sense of what people are selling us, and whether they're the right kind of thing might just save our lives -- or at least our hunt (which can have $'s as well as memories at stake). Our successes or failures are likely to have had some impact in forming some pretty strong opinions.

Yeah, this is all supposed to be fun -- and I think it is. From the standpoint of a physicist, I know the analytical problem of bullet impact doesn't reduce very easily to simple forms. Some dimensional analysis can go a long way (one guy figured out the yield of one of the earliest nuclear bombs by applying simple dimensional arguments to a sequence of photos of a nuclear explosion -- published in a major magazine!). Deeper analysis requires the analysis of shock waves, thermal effects, mechanical failure, etc... real mess when the shapes and structures (bones, etc) that respond differently and absorb energy differently -- particularly in what it does to the structure of the bullet... Much of what I've seen published about terminal ballistics in terms of wound channels, medical treatment and descriptions, etc, look very qualitative. But then, I'm not sure the math would help me when I faced a cape buffalo. Besides, if you could "solve" it -- would it be "fun?"

Oh well.. it has made me quite accepting of almost any game (such as the various racks of water, wet phone books, bones, etc, that people stack up and shoot at). If you can reproduce failures that you'd experienced in the field, I suspect it is telling you something at least a little useful. Even exterior ballistics is messy, but much more tractable than this question.

In the end, people put these projectiles together, try to make something that works better, and then sell 'em to us. Then we try them out, and see if we're happy -- and sometimes we're not very happy...

Dan

I have been a wannabe bullet digger for all my long life, I can crawl up in the middle of a buff or elephant in search of the holy grail, a perfect bullet...but I have never shot a head of game with the Rhino bullets...I have some 380 gr. 375s, but they are just too long IMO and don't leave any powder space and velocity suffers to much for me...sooooo sad, toooo bad, but not to worry I came upon the great Northfork Cup Point, the holy grail of all bullets...The wonder full 350 gr. woodliegh in .375 cal,, the great 400 gr. Nosler in .416 cal,, the awesome 450 gr. Woodleigh in .416, the grand GS Customs and Northfork flat nose solids....I see no need for any other bullets, unless someone comes out with something that catches my eye!!

Horrors of horrors, I left out the finest flat nose solid ever made, the wonderful Bridger with its sharp cutting shoulder, and sharp frontal flat section that literally shave hair for a inch around each entrance hole, that amazes me for some reason and it serves to let the blood flow and not cake up me thinks.

quote:

I have never shot a head of game with the Rhino bullets...I have some 380 gr. 375s, but they are just too long IMO and don't leave any powder space and velocity suffers to much for me...sooooo sad, toooo bad

Ray,

I also use various bullets amongst which the Rhino bullets also feature prominently. You do not have to shoot a 380 gr Rhino - they are also available in the classical 300 gr version. My son uses the .375/300 grainer exclusively with sterling results. On the other end of the scale Rhino Bullets make a light-weght 235 gr bullet for the .375 caliber. I suppose it is there for those that want it - I don't.

I use Rhino's 7mm and 9.3 mm bullets in 160 and 286 gr respectively with excellent field results. You may have seen some of the pictures I have posted on AR.

If I lived in the USA I would probably have used what is more convenient for me to obtain, such as Swift A-Frames or North Forks rather than to battle with a far away bullet maker with eratic supplies. Wanting bullets for a hunt is like buying chocolates - if you want it now, next week is no good.

Take care
Chris bekker

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
The discussion on the 380 gr. Rhino bullets is fun from the standpoint that it shows that not only Americans can argue forever about trivia.

From past AR discussions, it seems that some bullet manufacturers (and posters) are not necessarily scientists and go on with more sales pitch than valid information.

Let the arguments proceed there continue, and wish the protagonists well.

Well, will wonders never cease? I agree 100% with will, and Mrlexma on this one. Though I haven't read even one post on the Rhino bullet string,any string with 428 posts, has to have a couple bumping their heads against a rock wall, and not stoping to see if it is makeing a crack in that wall. Right next to him is a guy bumping the same wall with his butt, but not makeing any more headway the the head basher. I passed on this string because, #1 I have no experience with Rhino bullets, and #2 because the rappid building of posts, tells me there is a donni-brook going on there, and I will learn nothing by visiting, kind of like this one!

BYE!

quote:

From past AR discussions, it seems that some bullet manufacturers (and posters) are not necessarily scientists and go on with more sales pitch than valid information.

A used-car saleman told me once that a 4.0 Lt Ford Ranger is not that heavy on fuel (gas). I did not argue with him, but enjoyed his sales pitch.

If we swicth from bullets to rifles, I am also wondering just how many riflemakers were mechanical design engineers rather than artisans or tradesmen.

Intriguing as it is, these 'less educated' craftsman gave us better bullets and guns than the world famous or highly educated engineers/scientists. Not that they were not capable, perhaps just that the passion lacked in that direction. Even today, how do the Remingtons of this world, with all their might, compare to custom rifle builders?

Just a thought.
Chris Bekker