quote:

In contrast with the above, the .375/300 gr Rhino Solid is a longer bullet, as it is made from brass and not copper, PH's get straight-line penetration in buffalo and elephant, even at reduced velocity - ie PH's that down load to 9,3 velocities !!! So the SF value of the Rhino bullet is even lower than the specification of "in EXCESS of 2.5" and it works. The SF value of the .375/300 gr Rhino Solid is 2.10 at 2,000 fps going up almost by an insignificant fraction to 2.13 at 3,000 fps. At 2300/2400 fps the value is 2.11, which does not fit your criteria of the magical in "EXCESS of 2.5". Principles must be universal, like in science, so we can stand by them.

Gerard,

Has this been done only once by all the PH's that hunt dangerous game?
So, please stop regurgitating the example of one - you are making a fool of yourself.

Warrior

Gerard,

I left this card for last … you were continually making the statement that Pieter’s 9,3 bullet was a sample of one and that it is therefore not statistically significant nor representative. Great show Gerard !!!

Your explanation given before was, and apparently it was based on your very careful observation in the field, that your specification is different for the 9,3 as opposed to .375 H&H (Speed, meplat area and stagnation pressure are apparently the logic for it). Can you remember you wrote this:

" 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 .… “Therefore some bullets are good with less SF than 2.5 (like the 9.3x62) and some actually need more."

and …. “The (.375) 300gr FN has a stability factor of 2.39 to 2.44 from 2000fps to 3000fps. Again not ideal."

So, is your own spec for the 9,3 bullet at a SF of 2 (more precisely 2.09) no longer correct?
Should it also be upgraded to 2.5 or in excess of 2.5 for the .375 H&H bullet?

Why argue with me if it is indeed your own spec?
Are you turning senile, Gerard?
Or are you having convenient memory loss?
Or are you just arguing in circles to confuse and muddle up the point of discussion to bamboozle your way through it so readers can give up on this never ending saga. It should be clear to everyone what you are trying to do.

As you say, wanting to have some fun with me.
You are funny Gerard.

Warrior

Warrior/Truveloshooter/Chris Bek,

quote:

Has this been done only once by all the PH's that hunt dangerous game?
So, please stop regurgitating the example of one - you are making a fool of yourself.

Now you add to your sample of one and we consider the wider base of experience provided by those who hunt and report what they have done.

This forum contains dozens upon dozens of photos and reports that talk about bullet failures and successes. The failures include bent bullets, bullets that veered off course, missed brain shots (many were good shots but bad bullet choices), bullets that tumbled and bullets that broke because they tumbled. Fantastic grounds for making conclusions.

The failures of monometal solids are dominated by solids such as 300gr .375, 400/410gr .416, 500gr and heavier .458 and so forth. All with adequate, by your standard, stability factors. Notably absent from these failure reports are solids with stability factors that measure up to or exceed the GSC spec, not only our bullets but those from other manufacturers as well.

You are still a loser with only an agenda.

quote:

I left this card for last … yadda yadda

So, is your own spec for the 9,3 bullet at a SF of 2 (more precisely 2.09) no longer correct?
Should it also be upgraded to 2.5 or in excess of 2.5 for the .375 H&H bullet?

I will type this slowly so that you can read it and absorb some of it.

Read the yadda part again. It is a good extract of what I have said. It shows that the higher speed, of which the .375 is capable, compared to a 9.3, requires a higher stability factor. Therefore the 9.3 can give good results with a lower stability factor, especially at lower impact speeds that resulted from Pieter's shot at greater distance.

So there is no need to revise anything (the 270gr 9.3 FN has been a 265gr 9.3 FN for several years) as all is within the spec that we require.

What remains abundantly clear is the fact that, despite all my attempts at explaining this to you, despite the fact that you actually summarised the explanation in logical order, you still do not grasp the logic of what happens and why.

quote:

Why argue with me if it is indeed your own spec?

I am arguing with you about the GSC specifications????????



I do not think I have come across anyone as abominably stupid as you. I am sure you are chained to the porch at night. Otherwise you will stupid away in the dark and get lost.

quote:

I left this card for last …

No you did not. We have seen this lie before - You will be back with more hilarity.

quote:

It shows that the higher speed, of which the .375 is capable, compared to a 9.3, requires a higher stability factor. Therefore the 9.3 can give good results with a lower stability factor, especially at lower impact speeds that resulted from Pieter's shot at greater distance.

Gerard,

You culminate your explanation to stagnation pressure (refering to speed and meplat area). You stated ... " It has to do with stagnation pressure that rises as the square of velocity ..." In fluid dynamics, stagnation pressure is the pressure at a stagnation point in a fluid flow, where the kinetic energy is converted into pressure energy. It is the sum of the dynamic pressure and static pressure at the stagnation point.

According to your theory, that means the 378 Wby needs an even higher SF value to reach similar stability from a bullet fired from a 375 H&H, right? But this stagnation pressure that you punt, is not all about velocity, it is about energy levels incorporating the weight of the bullet as well. You need to explain how this increased stagnation pressure ((half the density times the velocity squared), of a .375 bullet over a 9,3 bullet requires a higher SF value. SF as a numeric value refers to stability in air. How is it linked? Stagnation pressure has no effect on the stability of the bullet - that has been discussed before.

This is what Alf wrote in reply to this whole question in relation to the so-called influence of stagnation pressure: ... "There is one area where "stagnation" occurs in bullet flight, however. It is the area at the base of the bullet where the moving air rushes in around the bullet base, creating a tiny pocket of extreme turbulence, the stagnation zone. But the stagnation zone has no effect on stability that is of any significance whatsoever. Thus 'stagnation pressure' is a non-existing 'force' in ballistic science " Then Alf proceeded with ... "In the numeric derivation of SF we see that the equation relies amongst other on the expression of the relationship between the longitudinal ( polar ) moment of inertia and the transverse moment of intertia of the projectile as well as the relationship between the CG and the point where the "jam pressure" is applied. What this means is that if we make the projectile shorter by blunting the point we alter the magnitude of the numerator part of the equation in contrast to the devider part of the equation that stays constant. Thus stability increases."

Stagnation pressure cannot be linked to SF values. You have not validated your claim of how SF as a numeric value, based on the density of air, affects straight-line penetration in flesh.

Warrior

This is what Jagter had to say with regard to stagnation pressure:

"Só, because of the above Alf wrote now, I maintained many months ago that the Bernoulli principle of "stagnation pressure" can never, ever be applicable in terminal ballistics. Secondly, also because all the above in terminal ballistics doesn't take place in an enclosed pipe-environment as required by Bernoulli's whole theory."

Warrior

And if Warrior, the greatest of all idiots, take the trouble to read this next article, hopefully have some form of understanding of what is said in it, he would quit talking BS on issues he hasn't got the slightest bit of knowledge or practical experience about.

Don't confuse yourself as usual!

The article seems to be about how mushrooms are formed and not about stable projectile progression.

So how does this link stagnation pressure to SF values? Where is the detail as to the break-points identified by GSC as the jump goes from 2.0 to 2.5 to 3 to 3.5,etc? Where is the evidence?

In no penetration formula do we see the rate of spin in a bullet to describe stable progression in a target.
Nor can a projectile be stabilized by spin in dense media due to the high density of the medium.
Spin stabilization is negated by the density of the target medium - flesh is about 1000 times more dense than air.

How is SF, as a numeric value refering to stability in air, linked to stagnation pressure and again linked to stable in-target progression?



Warrior

Just to mention a classic example:

The 45-70, with its 1-in-20" twist, has survived for one and a third centuries. Today, the traditional 405 grain load is considered adequate for any North American big game within its range limitations. With hard-cast non-deforming lead FN Garrett bullets it provides absolute straight-line penetration.

Go figure and look at Garrett's website to see what animals have been shot with regular monotony with 420/540 gr FN bullets with even lower SF values. By virtue of much lower SF's, but due to the FN geometry of the bullet it achieved deep straight-line penetration.

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/44mag.asp
http://www.garrettcartridges.com/reviews2.asp

Here is just one report of many with lengthwise penetration with an exit: "Your 540gr Hammerhead Cartridge hit my American Bison quartering towards me at about 115 yards. The cartridge entered his left front shoulder and exited his right rear ham and sped off into the sunset as my super trophy 2500lb American (Texas) Bison hit the ground dead where he stood!" - Vince Lupo

Here is the picture http://www.garrettcartridges.com/lupo-bison.asp

Warrior

Warrior,
I think I can help you with that "sample of one" hangup.
Think in terms of a sample of one Baby Ruth candy bar which you have set on the surface of the kiddie pool.

Now give that baby Ruth a push and watch it coast toward an oncoming wave.

It takes the wave head on and crests it perfectly and continues drifting onward in a straight line. Conditions were just right and the Baby Ruth remained stable.

Sample "number two": you float another Baby Ruth forward into the next wave. However this time a butterfly swoops by and a gentle breeze from the wing beat wafts toward the impact of wave and Baby Ruth. A micro-lateral-ripple is set up in the surface of the wave, just before baby Ruth hits. Conditions were not perfectly uniform. Baby Ruth hits the wave just so and half of the Baby ruth meplat is in the crest of the butterfly ripple, and the other half is in the trough.

Baby Ruth veers off course as the wave passes under it.

Get it? Shot to shot, millisecond to millisecond, the impact medium changes when dealing with live game animals, or even dead ones, because no impact is ever exactly the same on sample number two as it was on sample number one.

Baby Ruth, number two ...

RIP,

Thanks RIP. I fully understand your explanation. The point I was making was that the 9,3 GS-FN bullet @ SF value of 2 is the GSC spec and as such it is suppossed to work most of the time (ie the norm), not as a fluke, just like my 9,3 custom-turned solid (SF=1.76) has always worked for me. There is always that odd chance that something could go wrong regardless of SF due to obligue angles when bone is encountered.

The other point I was making was the superiority of the FN solid over the RN solid ito of deeper & more reliable straight-line penetration, as it resist the overturning moment much better. You have proven this many a time with your water buffalo tests.

The explanation of increased stagnation pressure is not a plausible one for me nor these defined break-points that differ from caliber to caliber (eg 9,3 vs .375 H&H). Reason being that where will we end then per this logic for the 540 gr FN bullet in the 45-70 Government with its 20-inch twist for example.

Also observing these break-points with the naked eye in the field is an amazing one to me, going from SF=2 to SF=2.5 !!! Even more precise that the 300 ge GS-FN bullet is not ideal in a 375 H&H, as its SF is equal to 2.44 and not 2.5 !!! That is when things break down for me to Rasputin-like stories. 'Stagnation pressure' is a non-existing 'force' in ballistic science.

Here is my custom-turned 286 gr 9,3 bullet 3rd from left.



Warrior

Warrior,

When you say: "Here is my custom-turned 286 gr 9,3 bullet 3rd from left."
Have you now switched from Rhino to Dzombo?
Anyway, that 9.3 x 286gr Dzombo couldn't kill an already wounded (180gr Winchester Silvertip out of a 30-06) Bluewildebeest in my presence with one well placed shot out of a PH's rifle - it took two Dzombo's to finish the BW off - neither of the two exited the poor BW either.

The next day, on the same hunting trip, I killed a BW with a one shot kill using a 130gr GSCHV out of my 7mm Rem Mag, bullet exited - heart shot just like the PH did with his 9.3 x 286gr Dzombo - no wonder PH switched to GSCHV 230gr in his 9.3 after this horrible Dzombo failure - both were bent.

Back to the original argument -

Eureka! For once you understood something you've read fairly correct when you concluded:

quote:

The article seems to be about how mushrooms are formed and not about stable projectile progression.

However, you still don't realize that to obtain the most beneficial mushrooming event, you need the bullet to have stable projectile progression which then result in a 'high pressure acceleration zone' on impact (refer Centripetal Acceleration drawing in the above article) which brings the mushrooming about.

Try to understand this next bit -

quote:

As the spin rate decreases more slowly than the velocity v, the gyroscopic stability factor, at least close to the muzzle, continuously increases. Thus, if a bullet is gyroscopically stable at the muzzle, it will be gyroscopically stable for the rest of its flight.

Hope this will answer your previously asked question -

quote:

How is SF, as a numeric value refering to stability in air, linked to stagnation pressure 'high pressure acceleration zone' and again linked to stable in-target progression?

A whole series of events are working together here, namely:
correct designed and perfectly manufactured bullet;
launched out of a barrel with suitable twist rate for the bullet length used;
at the desirable, high muzzle velocity;
resulting in the correct SF;
creating the biggest opportunity for linear penetration in the animal; and
in the end the predicted, desired result.

quote:

resulting in the "correct" SF;

Jagter,

This is the million dollar (elusive) question - from an SF of 1.0 (air) to 4.0 and anything in between. That is the debate. Questions like is 1.5 adequate or should they be a minimum of 2.0 or can we say 2.44 is not recammended for a .375/300 gr bullet in a 375H&H, but it is good in a 378 Wby, etc, etc?

The custom solid FN bullet above by the way is not a Dzombo bullet. It has no name, it is turned by a machinist in Zebenza. He makes bullets for Sabi Arms in Nelspruit for export. Zebenza could be a good name I guess. Zebenza is the Zulu word for "work" I am told. I experimented with this bullet to evaluate meat damage and found it to be minimal - it just zips through in a straight-line every time. It really works well (terminally). It is made from Phosphor Bronze. Phosphor bronze is an alloy of copper with 3.5 to 10% of tin and a significant phosphorus content of up to 1%. The phosphorus is added as deoxidizing agent during melting. These alloys are notable for their toughness, strength, low coefficient of friction, and fine grain. The phosphorus also improves the fluidity of the molten metal and thereby improves the castability, and improves mechanical properties by cleaning up the grain boundaries.


Warrior

Jagter,

Here is the Dzombo bullet (left) next to the Rhino Solid.



In contrast, the Zebenza Solid FN bullet has no pressure grooves. However it is a dual diameter bullet to shorten the engraving distance. Its machining is as smooth and precise as can be imagined.

Warrior

Warrior/Truveloshooter/Chris Bek,

quote:

Stagnation pressure cannot be linked to SF values. You have not validated your claim of how SF as a numeric value, based on the density of air, affects straight-line penetration in flesh.

I do not have to validate anything. You have done it for me.

quote:

Warrior Posted 09 November 2008
Just to mention a classic example:

The 45-70, with its 1-in-20" twist, has survived for one and a third centuries. Today, the traditional 405 grain load is considered adequate for any North American big game within its range limitations. With hard-cast non-deforming lead FN Garrett bullets it provides absolute straight-line penetration.

Go figure and look at Garrett's website to see what animals have been shot with regular monotony with 420/540 gr FN bullets with even lower SF values. By virtue of much lower SF's, but due to the FN geometry of the bullet it achieved deep straight-line penetration.

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/44mag.asp
http://www.garrettcartridges.com/reviews2.asp

Here is just one report of many with lengthwise penetration with an exit: "Your 540gr Hammerhead Cartridge hit my American Bison quartering towards me at about 115 yards. The cartridge entered his left front shoulder and exited his right rear ham and sped off into the sunset as my super trophy 2500lb American (Texas) Bison hit the ground dead where he stood!" - Vince Lupo

Here is the picture http://www.garrettcartridges.com/lupo-bison.asp

Warrior

Excellent performance indeed. No doubt this can be ascribed to the FN design of the bullet and the very high stability factors. (Not low as you seem to think they are.) The combination is unbeatable. The beauty of it is that, as you add speed and make the bullet more robust, to prevent disintegration at the higher speed impacts, performance gets even better.

Here are the charts for the stability factors of the bullets you mention. I made some approximations on the conservative side to be safe, but the numbers are close enough.

The 540gr Super Hard cast 45-70 at 1550fps from a 1:20" twist has a stability factor greater than 3.0.


The 420gr 45-70 from a 1:20" twist and at 1850fps comes in at a S/F of well over 5.0



The softer 405gr lead bullet from a 1:20" twist and at 1800fps, has a S/F off the scale at more than 6.0


What was that I said about stability factors higher than three?

Let's see the village idiot get out of this one.

As a result of this colossal blunder on your part, showing your pitiful lack of understanding of even the basic principles, I have some comment.

1. You think that slow twist always results in low stability factors. After 6 years of harassment of GSC products and a staged front of research and technical talk on your part, you still fail to make the connection between twist rate, bore diameter and bullet length. You are a fraud and everything you say has to be examined for truth/lie.

2. You continually ask me questions and demand explanations. I must validate and prove everything. When I do, you ignore everything I say, calling it BS, smoke and mirrors and worse. You never answer my questions. But when RIP gives you an explanation based on a turd floating in water, you understand perfectly.


3. Your quasi knowledge is entirely a sham. Let me illustrate:
You posted yesterday:

quote:

In fluid dynamics, stagnation pressure is the pressure at a stagnation point in a fluid flow, where the kinetic energy is converted into pressure energy. It is the sum of the dynamic pressure and static pressure at the stagnation point.

You Googled this here.

The really funny part is that you copied and pasted the first bit and did not read and understand the rest of it. Lower down on the page you Googled, the last sentence in the "Definition" section says: "This definition is not valid for transonic or supersonic flow." Translation: Do not apply to supersonic conditions.


This is what happens when you quickly Google something and then try to sound intelligent while the truth is that you really are clueless. More hilarity.


Four years ago you gave this reply to an explanation I gave:

quote:

nor do I need your Rasputin explanations or fiction on SF values and mis-interpretations about stagnation pressure. You can entertain yourself with your so called discoveries.

My reply was:

quote:

"Other manufacturers agree with GSC on these matters but you don't. What makes you think that you know better than the tech people at Barnes, Bitterroot, Northfork, Garret, GSC and a slew of others? Until a couple of weeks ago you did not know what stagnation pressure is (probably still do not have a grip on it), you are murky on how stability of the bullet affects flight and transition from one state to another and you think I discovered these things because you have never given them any thought. You are unwilling to learn and as long as you fail to be open to other points of view, you will remain ignorant. You will not live long enough to learn it all on your own."

So nothing has changed for you. You have learned nothing, there has been no advance in your knowledge base, style or reasoning. You are as clueless today as you was then.

GSC, on the other hand, has continued to build solid, reliable and accurate products. We have steadily improved in all aspects of making bullets. We have an enviable reputation of excellent ballistic performance, internal, intermediate, external, transitional and terminal.

I have come to accept that you are a fool we have to suffer and I will have fun whilst doing so.

My opinion - Free to anyone who asks.
Internet Broadband Access - R145.00 per month.
Watching Warrior make a colossal fool of himself - PRICELESS

Gerard,

In-target penetration is governed by the geometry of the bullet not the SF. Flesh is 1000 more dense than air. SF number relates to air. SF number gets negated in solid media (soft solid = flesh)

I do not have these Garret bullets, so I cannot model them in Wingyro. Would not trust any of your calculations - you have cheated me before with the Barnes Solid bullet. Give me the dimentions you used for the 540 Garrett so I can check it out.

Where is the detail as to the break-points identified by GSC as the jump goes from 2.0 to 2.5 to 3 to 3.5,etc? Where is the evidence? This is a classic ... “The (.375) 300gr FN has a stability factor of 2.39 to 2.44 from 2000fps to 3000fps. Again not ideal." Amazing !!!

Also observing these break-points with the naked eye in the field is an absolute amazing one to me, going from SF=2 to SF=2.5 !!!


Warrior

So you have been saying for six years. You have learned nothing. You do not listen to those who have opinions different to yours, you have zero reading comprehension and, in short, you are a buffoon. A fully grown TROLL.



Even you must be feeling pretty stupid now that the scale of your blunder starts to sink in.



I am now done with this thread, feel free to have the last word. Make as many mistakes as you like, someone else can ridicule you further.

Gerard,

Based on your 'carefully' structured system of upping the SF value as the stagnation pressure gets bigger, give us the SF value for your 470 NE bullets:

1) 560 gr GS-FN bullet for the 470 NE (1.554" long, Dia = .474")
2) 600 gr GS-FN bullet for the 470 NE (1.650" long, Dia = .474")

Specific gravity is 8.93.
The standard twist rate is 21 inches

Bear in mind that your min spec for the 9,3 is SF=2, and for the 375 H&H the SF is 2.5
Now we go to an even bigger caliber with more apparent stagnation pressure.
Apparent logic is the higher the stagnation pressure the more SF that is needed.
Let us see the result. (I have done a mock run with estimated dimentions, but prefer you to use the exact dimensions)

If it is goes the wrong way, ie lower than 2, instead of greater than 3, then please motivate the reversal of the logic that is supposed to be universal. This will be very interesting to see.



Warrior

Another Google-job - this link will tell you exactly, to the last letter, where Warrior got this bit from -

quote:

Phosphor bronze is an alloy of copper with 3.5 to 10% of tin and a significant phosphorus content of up to 1%. The phosphorus is added as deoxidizing agent during melting. These alloys are notable for their toughness, strength, low coefficient of friction, and fine grain. The phosphorus also improves the fluidity of the molten metal and thereby improves the castability, and improves mechanical properties by cleaning up the grain boundaries.

You don't even have the decency to put all other sources' work/knowledge/words in quotation marks - repeating it as if it is your own making, is plain theft!!!

Lastly, whether the bullet name is Dzombo or Zebenza, the design is basically the same, namely a half-round flat nose type and we all know how poor that type of design performs in game

Farewell in your own created doldrums.

Jagter,

It is rather strange how all rival products fail when you are in then vicinity. My Solid with less SF still has to fail me. Since you sell and punt GSC bullets, I will read your comments in the light of promotion.

Strange that PH's keep on buying Dzombo and Rhino Solids. The Dzombo is doing fairly well - you can contact Mauritz how deals with many PH's on a daily basis. Odd exceptions we will always have, but making exceptions the rule is not being honest.

Technical descriptions in Wikipedia are there to be used, it is convienient, so don't break your head about it. It has nothing to do with own work, simply an accurate description.

Since my previous post re the 470 NE GS-FN bullets deals with with the product that you sell, and you pointed me to the term 'high pressure acceleration zone', you are welcome to reply to the question so we can see how it fits the explanation.

Warrior

Warrior wrote:

quote:

Technical descriptions in Wikipedia are there to be used

and it is just decent to quote the source of reference if you do use others' content. But you simply don't do that, do you?

If I look at my GSCFN ordering pages on my website , I don't see the 470 bullets you're referring to above - why do you ask such silly questions?

Once again, you don't understand what this bit means 'high pressure acceleration zone' - just to help you a little bit, it is the point right there where the tyre hits the tarmac!

Só, go play with your marbles in a busy city street so that you can be at the same point mentioned above - bye now

Jagter,

Quickload list these bullets for the 470 NE that I mentioned. Your site list the heaviest as a 500 grainer. Do the calc on the 500 grainer that is also fine, ouboet.

This is true brilliance ... 'high pressure acceleration zone' - just to help you a little bit, it is the point right there where the tyre hits the tarmac! I guess when a fire a bullet it has to hit somewhere. Where does this term fit into penetration formula or ballistic science with regard to stable straigh-line progression in-target?

Gerard says it depends on SPEED and MEPLAT AREA as per the various caliber bullets. Could you show the calculations for these break-points, so we could see how the logic pans out in a consistent manner and how the bullets are then designed around these parameters as a matter of specification?

Warrior

Just as a primer how the .474 bullets are performing. Here is a pic published by 500 Grains, showing some NF Cup bullets. Bear this in mind when we look at the SF's.



1. North Fork 500 grain Cup Nosed Solid .474" - new

2. same, fired into buffalo - 56" penetration

3. same, fired into giraffe - 55" penetration

4. same, fired into giraffe (100 yards follow up shot) - 58" (penetration increased when expansion was less due to reduced velocity at range?)

velocity - 2300 fps from 470 capstick

Warrior

quote:

This is true brilliance ... 'high pressure acceleration zone' - just to help you a little bit, it is the point right there where the tyre hits the tarmac!

Warrior, if you had one little drop of 'white stuff' between your ears, you would've realized that Jagter is hoping a car will run you over when playing with your marbles in that busy city street - 'high pressure acceleration zone' in a slightly different sense, you know, or would you?

The guys are sick of your nonsensical BS you're spreading around of this forum. Quit it, man.

It is commendable to see how the clan is holding hands.

The following takes some experimentation and a hell of a lot of fine observation:

"Momentum and energy comparisons between the 375 270gr and 300gr FNs are trivial. Even the recoil is not that much different, although it is noticable. However, a difference of .7 in stability factor is by no means trivial. Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth." - GSC

No proper explanation as yet, just smoke bombs !!!



Warrior