Between GSC 270 gn FN or 300 gn FN in the .375 H&H,
which is better or preferred for Buff and Elephant?

Will the 300 gn FN fit in a .375 H&H without taking up to much powder space or have to long of a COL since it is a mono metal bullet?

I posted this in the Africa forum and it was suggested it might get more input here.

Allen

I must say the 300-grainers perform better in WaterBoarding. They will not fink out! No weakness.

Gerard may recommend his 270-grainer over the 300-grainer for some reason not understood by me, unless it is a twist issue.

I shot my plainsgame in Botswana with 300-grain Barnes X. Worked great. Easy to get 2530 fps with 72 grains of RL-15 in the .375 H&H.

I have tested the 300-grain and 265-grain GSC HV and the 300-grain and 270-grain GSC FN extensively in the Iron WaterBoard Buffalo, and on paper, and over the chronograph, both in .375 H&H and .375 Wby.

It is no problem to load the 300-grain GSC HV and FN to about 2550 fps in the .375 H&H or 2750 fps in the .375 Wby. No bullet length issues.

The heavier (300-grain) bullets penetrate better than the lighter HV and FN (265 and 270-grain) at their respective equal-pressure velocities.

You cannot make up for the lighter weight with velocity according to my IWBB tests, and that is close enough to buffalo and elephant for me.

Saeed's Walterhog is a 300-grain copper monometal .375 that is even longer than the GSC HV and he works wonders with it.

It is the best choice for any 1:12" twist .375 from .375 H&H velocity on up, IMHO.

I would choose the 265 & 270-grain GSC combo only if I got stuck with a 1:14" twist.

In the 375H&H GSC recommends the 270gr FN rather than the 300gr FN.

A comparison of the two bullets with the 300gr FN at 2600fps and the 270gr FN at 2750fps, yields the following:

The 300gr FN has 5lb-f/s more momentum. Insignificant.
The 270gr FN has 34 ft/lb more energy. Trivial.
Both will expand to similar diameters because the 300gr FN has more Sd but the 270gr FN has more speed.
Therefore, the equal momentum applied to the equal frontal area results in equal penetration depth.
The equal energy numbers result in equal wound channel volumes.

Nothing to choose between the two there.

So what are the differences and why do GSC recommend one over the other?

In a rifle with a 1:12" twist rate, the stability factors of the two FNs differ by a wide margin. The 270gr FN is close to 3.5 and the 300gr FN is around 2.8. The result is more stable transition from flight to tissue and thus more reliable linear penetration and a higher probability of hitting what you aimed at inside the animal. The bigger the angle of impact becomes, the higher the odds become against the longer bullet.




The 270gr FN, loaded with the correct powder, has less recoil and follow up shots are quicker and the rifle is easier to manage.

There are two important aspects to any hunt: Job number one is to hit the right spot. Job number two is for the bullet to finish what the hunter started. Although the 300gr FN is good, when fired from a 1:12" twist, the 270 will do both jobs better than the 300.

So, the next time you take a brain/heart shot on an Ele/Buff and miss the brain/heart, think about it. Did you miss or did the bullet miss.

Im not sure if this has any valuable relationship to the subject, but I will mention it and see if im correct, worst case I'll learn something if im not, So dont bash me, just educate or correct me if need be ....
IIRC,there is the Poncelet equation,
In experiments its showed that if you drop a lead ball say from 12" height into plasticine you came up with a certain amount of penetration, however,if you increased the speed of the lead ball, by doubling the drop height to 24", penetration of the lead ball into the plasticine quadrupled....thats an exponential increase, correct?
So I reasonably gather that the 10%lighter 5.75%faster 270FN should have no problems matching the penetration of the roughly 5.5% slower 11% heavier 300FN,.. cause the 5.75% faster speed of 270FN will give an exponential increase in momentum/penetration,thus compensating for its 10% lower projectile weight, but with added advantage of lower recoil and better likelyhood of a more precise,more true, linear path through the animal.
I suppose thats why carpenters hammers are typically within a sensible reasonable weight range,cause there is no great advantage to have something that becomes overly heavy,slower, tiresome, more difficult to handle,operate and recover from,.. and at the end of the days work you would probably achieve no greater amount of work done, or less, than if one had used a good efficiently balanced&weighted,faster swinging hammer (lighter faster bullet).

Gerard,
There you go again.
All these calculated mathematical differences are trivial, every single one of them that you have mentioned.
Even the godawful higher recoil of the 300-grain FN at 2600 fps versus the 270-grain FN at 2750 fps is trivial.

Whichever shoots best in your rifle is the right answer.

For making the .375 H&H a long range plainsgame rifle, a 265-grain HV is the cats meow. Then, of course, the 270-grain FN would complement it well.

I still prefer the 300-grain FN and HV pair are the best dedicated buffalo medicine, anywhere in the 2500 to 2800 fps bracket of MV, in a 1:12" twist, and that does include the .375 H&H.

SF of 2.8 at 2600 fps for 300-grainer is not good enough?
And it is so much worse than SF of 3.5 at 2750 fps for 270-grainer, though SF of 1.0 in air is "stable?"

I think even Gerard agrees that the 300-grainer is the better bullet in chamberings capable of higher velocity than the .375 H&H, especially when paired with the 300-grain HV for long range work.

RIP
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.

Examples:
Your Ruger 416 Rigby with its 1:14" twist was, by your own observation, laser straight through most obstructions on your Cape Buff hunt. See where it falls on the chart.



We have all seen reports of failures with 400gr monos in 1:16" twist rates. They perform far better in the 1:14" twist of the 416 Rem Mag and Weatherby Mags. Buffalo reports outstanding linear penetration with the GSC 410gr FN in his 1:10" twist rifle. See the chart for the reasons.



Your 510 JAB with its 1:10" twist nailed a Bison (big one if I am not mistaken) "tushie to tonsils" and exited, with a 570gr .510 FN. Here is why it gave remarkable depth and straightness.



Going from 270gr to 300gr with an FN in a 375H&H is like dropping an inch slower in twist rate. By observing our recommendation, based on our experience with S/F numbers at 2, 2.5 and higher, it ensures a margin of safety that is nice to have. Why try to get away with something that works ok, when you can have the insurance?

I have only used the 270 gr. FN and HV in my .375 and they worked so well on Buffalo and plainsgame that I havn't gotten around to trying the 300's...Probably won't since I have a large amount of the 270 gr. stuff..I'm pretty sure both work pretty good.

Gerard,
Wow! A .510/570-grain FN is off the scale with a 1:10" twist! That was at about 2400 fps too.
What about velocity effects on SF, in addition to the twist rate?
Do your graphs assume a constant velocity for the specified bullets?
Higher velocities in a given twist rate do make for higher rps and increased gyrostability, for higher SF, do they not?

In a 12" twist, .375/270-grain-FN SF is less than 3.5, and .375/300-grain-FN SF is greater than 2.8.
A mere 1:10" twist would put the .375/300-grain-FN SF clearly over 4.00, and the .375/270-grain-FN SF a bit under 5.00 ... TWIST! Again!

Let's see the SF values to 3 significant figures!

I love the way Ray waffles between .375/350-grain Woodies and the .375/270-grain HV ...
Ray is a regular Obama, whichever way the wind blows that day, carpe diem.

I think Comodor RIP , hit the nail on the head with his , WHICH EVER OF THE 2 SHOOT BEST IN YOUR RIFLE .......

Gerard, would the 270 gn FN still work as well if the velocity
was down around 2600 fps?

Not meaning better than a 300 gn but still work well with the velocity down around 2600 fps or does it really need to be up around 2750 fps to get the desired results?

Allen

Yes, I assume you mean in comparison to the 300 and the proviso is that both be loaded down. At similar momentum/energy and at 1:12" twist rates, the 270 is better than the 300. If the twist is tightened to where both give stability factors of higher than 3.5, lines become very blurred. The bottom line is that a truncated cone FN will out penetrate any solid with any form of curve on the ogive.

quote:

Whichever shoots best in your rifle is the right answer.

To which I ask: What is "best"? Is good grouping "best" in this case or is good terminal performance "best"?

Good grouping is easy to see with your own testing but, if the 270gr FN delivers 2" at 100 and the 300gr FN gives 1", I still choose the 270gr FN for its terminal performance qualities (and less recoil).

/

Thank you Alf!
The Iron WaterBoard Buffalo proves your point, as do live game and ordnance gelatin!
I did mention the IWBB above, but you have reminded us of the fundamental science behind it: Exponentially increased drag with increased velocity.

Gerard seems to be avoiding any comments about velocity effects on
1) drag and
2) SF numbers
for a given bullet in a given twist.

2) may be minor but not inconsequential.
1) is majorly consequential.

RIP

quote:

What about velocity effects on SF, in addition to the twist rate?
Do your graphs assume a constant velocity for the specified bullets?

Using an average bullet (150gr .308 HV) the S/F looks like this:

From a 1:10" twist at 2500fps = 1.74
From a 1:10" twist at 3000fps = 1.79
From a 1:12" twist at 2500fps = 1.21
From a 1:12" twist at 3000fps = 1.24

You cannot fix a twist mismatch with speed.

Alf,

quote:

Fatally flawed reasoning!!!!!!!!!!!

Fatally flawed indeed when you do not take into account all the variables.

Drag increases as the square of the speed difference between a 270 and a 300. This is not a big number (the difference being 150fps) but, nevertheless, the 270gr FN will be subjected to slightly more speed induced drag.

You fail to consider that all bullets yaw after impact, to a lesser or greater degree. Increased yaw increases drag. If the S/F is higher, the transition from flight to penetrated medium is achieved with less yaw. Therefore the 270gr FN will be less likely to yaw during initial penetration and thereafter (for a further number of other reasons you have not considered), than the 300gr FN. It is therefore subject to less yaw induced drag.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other and the result, in practise, is still that the 270gr FN will equal the penetration depth and wound channel volume of the 300gr FN, but it will do so with more linear reliability. That is its worth and why we recommend its use in a 1:12" twist rate.

This is not a paper excercise GSC has done. It is the observed result of shooting a barnload of animals over a fifteen year period.

GSC makes recommendations based on valid reasons and not because we think it might be a good idea.

RIP

quote:

The Iron WaterBoard Buffalo proves your point, as do live game and ordnance gelatin!

The IWBB is not designed to induce yaw on impact and neither is ordnance gelatin. I have pointed this out before. Animals are a different matter and that is what we base our opinion and recommendation on. The proof of this lies in the examples I mentioned in the charts above.

416 380gr FN

416 410gr FN

510 570gr FN

quote:

Gerard seems to be avoiding any comments about velocity effects on
1) drag and
2) SF numbers

Come on! Alf brought up drag (half of it) a couple of hours back. There has not been time for me to avoid it.

However, we (GSC) have done our homework and we have a set of parameters within which we work. The result is an almost non existent failure rate with the FN range, arguably the lowest in the industry. I see no need to get involved rehashing stuff that we have discussed to distraction in the past. The same old single issue points are raised that bear no relationship to the multiple issues of reality (proof above).

Gerard,s point of straight penetrating in a varied media is true ..... Perhaps we need to do an angled penetration test .. With Bones ...

quote:

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.

Just a few observations:

1. Before GSC stated that a minimum SF value of 2.5 is needed for his Solids for straigh-tline penetration. I disproved this with the .366/270 gr bullet impacting a Blue Wildebeest at roughly 1,700 fps. The response was that it was good for the 9,3 bullet but not for the .375 caliber in 375 H&H rifle. Now GSC states that that there is an "entry level" spec of 2 for some bullets.

2. Then the reasoning follows ... Depending on SPEED and MEPLAT AREA some bullets have to be pegged at an SF of 2.5, which I guess starts at .375 caliber. The difference between a .366 and .375 bullet lies in the 3 rd decimal as being .009 representing a difference of 2.4% in diameter or 4.74% in area. How significant can that be? GSC stated that an SF value of the .375/300 gr FN bullet at 2.44 was not ideal, and hence they recommend the use of the lighter 270 grainer. Stated differently ... 2.44 is adrift from the 2.5 spec by an insignificant 2.4%.

3. Then comes the clinch to support the perception and view that an SF of 3.0 is actually the ticket and I quote .... "from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable" and even up to 3.5 we could argue, as it it is said that .... "Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth" How was this all observed in the field with such precision? I refer to to these defined brackets that jump from one level to the next.

4. GSC has just stated that SPEED is not a factor in fixing an in appropriate twist rate. But then the contradictory remark of SPEED and MEPLAT AREA. If the MEPLAT AREA gets bigger I would suppose the SF could be lowered acccording to the logic, but it seems to be the other way??? (The .375 seems to need a higher SF than the 9,3 bullet as its MEPLAT AREA is bigger and its VELOCITY is higher)

Then of course we should not forget the other curve ball of stagnation pressure that we have to link with stability and straight-line penetration ... yes, that was put forward. Where is the evidence?

Warrior

Warrior:
So you have floated another Baby Ruth candy bar in the shallow end of the swimming pool? Everyone will surely clear out of the kiddie pool now!

Warrior/Truveloshooter/Chris Bek,

Your last question answered first.

quote:

Where is the evidence?

Answer: "However, we (GSC) have done our homework and we have a set of parameters and specifications within which we work. The result is an almost non existent failure rate with the FN range, arguably the lowest in the industry."

Your second question:

quote:

How was this all observed in the field with such precision? I refer to to these defined brackets that jump from one level to the next

Answer: "It is the observed result of shooting a barnload of animals over a fifteen year period." To which I must ad Dr. Oehler's signature line: "I feel sorry for those who think ballistics is an exact science. They just don't understand the problems." So apt - It seems to be made for you.

Now to your usual bunch of lies:

quote:

Lie #1. Before GSC stated that a minimum SF value of 2.5 is needed for his Solids for straigh-tline penetration.

I stated that, for the 375H&H I specify a minimum S/F of 2.5. Here is the post from 22 August 2005 where I first dealt with HV bullets in a 375 H&H and then with FN bullets in a 375H&H.

quote:

Lie #2. The response was that it (S/F 2) was good for the 9,3 bullet but not for the .375 caliber in 375 H&H rifle.

That was on 23 August 2005 and I added an explanation to it that was very clear but you conveniently ignored it because it did not suit THE AGENDA. I was having some fun with you at that point. Follow this link and, when my post comes up, highlight the entire post so that the hidden script appears, down to our website link, and you will see that I actually predicted your response.

quote:

Lie #3. Now GSC states that that there is an "entry level" spec of 2 for some bullets.

I have been saying that on this forum, on our website and by way of our recommended use, since 2002. It is old hat and you know about it - see lie #2 above. THE AGENDA makes you incoherent, yes?

quote:

Lie #4. GSC has just stated that SPEED is not a factor in fixing an in appropriate twist rate.

I am not sure what that sentence means but I did not say any one of the several meanings it might have. There seem to be lies, dammned lies and what Warrior says.

quote:

Lie #5. But then the contradictory remark of SPEED and MEPLAT AREA.

Where did you get that one from? Did I say that or are you smoking your socks or sucking your thumb? Or are you getting your calibers/numbers/posts mixed up again? Won't be the first time.

The rest of your post is a riot of mistaken presumptions, demonstrations of ignorance, a complete lack of a grasp of certain principles and attempts at THE AGENDA. Quite frankly, not worth taking notice of anything there, except this:

The Mistakes

quote:

1. "I disproved this with the .366/270 gr bullet impacting a Blue Wildebeest at roughly 1,700 fps."

Your misapplied sample of one loses against my sample of many hundreds. However, only you would attempt to 'disprove'a specification anyway.

quote:

2. "which I guess starts at .375 caliber"

Wrong again, it is more complex than that and it has been explained to you many times. You are a slow study, are you not?

quote:

3. "Then comes the clinch to support the perception and view that an SF of 3.0 is actually the ticket"

Not a perception or a view - a specification we have set, to which we adhere and I do not care one whit what you think of it. The spec ensures outstanding terminal performance for our products and, if that makes you all bitter and twisted, it proves once again your commitment to THE AGENDA. (Just because your fave products do not measure up to our specification of uniformity, size, weight, S/F, BC and so forth, your griping about it will not make GSC lower those specs.)

quote:

4. "Then of course we should not forget the other curve ball of stagnation pressure that we have to link with stability and straight-line penetration ... yes, that was put forward."

By whom? Or are you just rambling on. It seems that, once your confused state gains momentum, you have difficulty slowing it down again.


Apology
I apologise to forum members who do not know the background to Warrior/Truveloshooter/Chris Bek and why I react so...... ummmm.... sharply to him. In short, he has made it his business to attack GSC and me for the last six years or so. He has taught me that a polite and reasoned response to him does not work, only ridicule and rudeness. It is easy to do so, he makes so many mistakes. So I might as well have some fun with responses to him. The world is glum enough and we must all have some lighter distractions. Anyone who feels as I do is welcome to tell him so as well.

Thank you RIP for your contribution.
Opinions previously noted by members

And so we go in a never ending circle of smoke and delusion.

Warrior

I see you have no answers so you play the old smoke and mirrors card. So predictable. It is an old ploy to get out of a corner you painted yourself into but it does not work anymore.

Here is something for you to think on.

"It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning." --Claude Bernard (1813-1878)

"He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today." -- Tyron Edwards

"We are all pilgrims on the same journey… but some pilgrims have better road maps." -– Nelson De Mille

"People try to rain on your parade, because they have no parade of their own." -– Jeffrey Gitomer

"It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it." -– Aristotle

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened." -– Sir Winston Churchill

"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." -– Johann Wolfang Von Goethe

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
I see you have no answers so you play the old smoke and mirrors card. So predictable. It is an old ploy to get out of a corner you painted yourself into but it does not work anymore.

Here is something for you to think on.

"It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning." --Claude Bernard (1813-1878)

"He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today." -- Tyron Edwards

"We are all pilgrims on the same journey… but some pilgrims have better road maps." -– Nelson De Mille

"People try to rain on your parade, because they have no parade of their own." -– Jeffrey Gitomer

"It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it." -– Aristotle

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened." -– Sir Winston Churchill

"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." -– Johann Wolfang Von Goethe

New book of quotations Gerard..??

Appears you're enjoying your retirement...

uh... will the 270 gn FP still work well at around 2600 fps or does it need to be ran at 2750 fps?

Allen

quote:

1. Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2.

2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with).

3. The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable.

4. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth.

Rasputin stuff. Without proof, I regard this as just a figment of your imagination.
A 4-tier system has been defined for us based on GSC observations.
Now we need to see the evidence - math or the graphs.

Warrior

Alf's comment:

quote:

So if you compare the 270 gr to the 300 gr if you equalize the momentum by shooting the 270 at bigger velocity it means the 270 gr will be subjected to greater drag than the 300 and would penetrate less than the 300 when shot into targets with visco -elastic or water like mechanical properties.

RIP's comment:

quote:

Thank you Alf! The Iron WaterBoard Buffalo proves your point, as do live game and ordnance gelatin!

Warrior

quote:

Not a perception or a view - a specification we have set

It is a specification, not a view ... what a profound statement !!!

Colossal brilliance, it may appear, but how does one come up with a supposed intelligent specification without having a view or a perception. A view (an opinion) CANNOT be separated from formulating a specification standard, unless one is a zombie in my humble opinion. So, if a "view" and a "specification" is mutually exclusive then, my question is what does it make you Gerard? Playing with words to confuse and derail to create a position different from reality is what I call the art of bullshitting.

Warrior

Gerard's Comment

quote:

Drag increases as the square of the speed difference between a 270 and a 300. This is not a big number (the difference being 150fps) but, nevertheless, the 270gr FN will be subjected to slightly more speed induced drag.

You fail to consider that all bullets yaw after impact, to a lesser or greater degree. Increased yaw increases drag.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other and the result, in practise, is still that the 270gr FN will equal the penetration depth and wound channel volume of the 300gr FN, but it will do so with more linear reliability. That is its worth and why we recommend its use in a 1:12" twist rate.

Allen,

quote:

uh... will the 270 gn FP still work well at around 2600 fps or does it need to be ran at 2750 fps?

Allen

That is the problem when the "Mouth" starts posting his excrement. The facts get lost in the BS he floats around.

I gave this reply directly after you asked the first time:

quote:

Yes, I assume you mean in comparison to the 300 and the proviso is that both be loaded down. At similar momentum/energy and at 1:12" twist rates, the 270 is better than the 300. If the twist is tightened to where both give stability factors of higher than 3.5, lines become very blurred. The bottom line is that a truncated cone FN will out penetrate any solid with any form of curve on the ogive.

Macifej,

quote:

New book of quotations Gerard..??

No, this page has been on our website since inception in 2000. We ad to it as we find appropriate material.

quote:

Appears you're enjoying your retirement...

Whatever gave you the idea that I am retired? Unless you are rumour mongering again.

Two statements, two wrong assumptions, par for the course.

I see you are still churning out the one liners to run up the post counter as fast as possible. How's the target looking for the month? Looks like you will make it for top poster of the month. What a goal to aspire to!

Warrior/Truveloshooter/Chris Bek,

quote:

Rasputin stuff. Without proof, I regard this as just a figment of your imagination.

I truly do not care what you think. We make cutting edge bullets with a big reputation for getting the job done. What bullets do you make? Ah, you don't make bullets. You only have the AGENDA.

quote:

A 4-tier system has been defined for us based on GSC observations.

Defined for you? More lies again, I see. It is a guideline that GSC uses and we really do not care whether you like it or not. As they say, use it, don't use it, whatever. What is clear is that you do not have the first clue what we are discussing here.

quote:

Now we need to see the evidence - math or the graphs.

Are you blind? The graphs have been posted. More are available on our website and, eventually, every bullet will have a page like this:

HV Bullet
SP Bullet
This will be extended to the FN and HP ranges as well.

For the rest I have to show you nothing that I do not want to show you. 90% of what you see is beyond you anyway so what would be the point?

quote:

It is a specification, not a view ... what a profound statement !!!

Yes, a specification is a set of parameters that a manufacturer arrives at and to which it builds it's product. Do you have a problem with the fact that GSC maintains a manufactured diameter spec of plus or minus 0.005mm or that GSC holds weight tolerances to less than one quarter of a percent?

quote:

A view (an opinion) CANNOT be separated from formulating a specification standard

Oh yes it can. For example, it will be a cold day in hell before GSC manufactures bullets according to your views rather than to our specifications.

quote:

Playing with words to confuse and derail to create a position different from reality is what I call the art of bullshitting.

And you do it so well. Sometimes you appear almost lucid. I am sure you can join a support group somewhere that can help you with this. Take some time and find out.

quote:

Macifej,

quote:
New book of quotations Gerard..??


No, this page has been on our website since inception in 2000. We ad to it as we find appropriate material.


quote:
Appears you're enjoying your retirement...


Whatever gave you the idea that I am retired? Unless you are rumour mongering again.

Two statements, two wrong assumptions, par for the course.

I see you are still churning out the one liners to run up the post counter as fast as possible. How's the target looking for the month? Looks like you will make it for top poster of the month. What a goal to aspire to!

Warrior/Truveloshooter/Chris Bek,

I don't troll your website so wouldn't know what you do or don't have posted there.

Your retirement has been acknowledged here many times without any rebuke by you so am I to assume it was you who facilitated the mongering..??

Glad you're amused by the simple things in life (post counts) doubt anyone is paying attention but you.

Welcome back from your retirement - did you develop any new product during your winter nap..??

It is summer here...

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
It is summer here...

Summer comes after winter in the southern hemisphere no..??

Enjoy your summer Gerard...

quote:

did you develop any new product during your winter nap

Although I have been doing bullets for a long time, I have not yet progressed to the point where I can do product development in my sleep.

quote:

Summer comes after winter in the southern hemisphere no..??

No. Summer precedes winter in the Southern Hemisphere. It depends on your point of view.

I am in awe - Rasputin has spoken ... the guiding light in modern ballistics. Reading his answers is like coming from a non related thread, but putting forward as if the answer is specific - the art of bullshitting refined to a higher level where you talk in circles as only Rasputin can do where some magic is part of the equation, but no one should know the secrets - mesmerizing.



Warrior

"With FN bullets we recommend a stability factor in EXCESS of 2.5 for reliable linear penetration. The 300gr FN has a stability factor of 2.39 to 2.44 from 2000fps to 3000fps. Again not ideal." .... Gerard Schultz. Strange that RIP did not pick up any instability with the 300 gr FN bullet in is water buffalo test - all he got was reliable linear penetration.

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.

With the 270 gr FN bullet in 9,3 caliber Pieter Olivier got straight line penetration both in wetpack tests and the Blue wildebeest that he shot. His 270 gr FN bullet, with a low SF of 2.09, impacted around 1,700 fps at 220 yards and it still provided straight-line penetration.

Then comes the Rasputin revelation on 25 Aug 2005 12h29: ....

"Predictably you are going claim I contradict myself because I said the .375 bullet should be in excess of 2.5. It has to do with stagnation pressure that rises as the square of velocity and the fact that a 375H&H will get up to 2900fps with HV and FN bullets and a 378 Weatherby, and some others, will get a 300gr HV or FN bullet on the high side of 3000fps with ease. Now I am done educating you about bullet design. To this I will add, as all has to be spelled out for you: Therefore some bullets are good with less SF than 2.5 (like the 9.3x62) and some actually need more."

Then we hear ... "Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with)."



Warrior

quote:

quote:
4. "Then of course we should not forget the other curve ball of stagnation pressure that we have to link with stability and straight-line penetration ... yes, that was put forward."

Gerard's reply:

By whom? Or are you just rambling on.
It seems that, once your confused state gains momentum, you have difficulty slowing it down again.

Gerard,

You talk so much bullshit that you confuse yourself.

Warrior

Warrior/Truveloshooter/Chris Bek,

quote:

I am in awe - Rasputin has spoken ... yadda yadda..... the art of bullshitting refined.....yadda yadda...... talk in circles as only Rasputin can.... yadda... magic is part of the equation, but no one should know the secrets - mesmerizing.

I see you wore your irrational petticoat this morning. Shame, is it chafing you?

quote:

even at reduced velocity...... impacted around 1,700 fps at 220 yards and it still provided straight-line penetration........

All show very clearly that you are clueless on the subject.

quote:

You talk so much bullshit that you confuse yourself.

From day one, some time in 2002 I think, I have posted the same facts and observations, without contradictions. To see who is really the confused one here, we only need to read your last three posts above.

Do you have a problem with the fact that GSC maintains a manufactured diameter specification of plus or minus 0.005mm or that GSC specifies weight tolerances less than one quarter of a percent? GSC specifies an ogive profile uniformity within 0.005mm. Does that bother you? GSC also have some dimensional ratio specifications they adhere to. You will really do your nut if you find out what those are. (Sorry, I forgot, you have already done your nut.) Then there are the GSC BC specifications, the minimum speed expansion specification and the weight retention specification. Do your fave bullets measure up to these GSC specifications as well?

Given that you have been asked this several times and gave no reply, I will answer on your behalf. No, they do not, so why do you toss your toys over the GSC S/F spec?

Answer: THE AGENDA

You are so stupid transparent it is scary.

You should try this sometime.

I have stumbled onto a brand new, revolutionary, mind-boggling, secret, ballistic phenomenon. I have applied for international patent and copy rights and I should not reveal it to you guys as it can jeopardize the success of my applications and the millions I am gonna make when I sell it on main street. But you are my friends and I know you will keep it secret to ensure my financial future.
It is so new and so radical and so out of the box that I understand why nobody has ever thought of it before.
I call it - bullet placement! It is amazing. It defies every engineering, legal, artistic, principle I have ever come across. I tried it with every argument I ever heard and it just kills the conversation almost as well as it does animals. I have lost friends because of it. Almost to the point of boredom it works almost every time regardless. It has taken all the fun out of hunting and squabling. Can you guys help me to model a formula for it in exchange for royalties? (2.384x#%)

quote:

Then we hear ... "Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with)."

Gerard,

Velocity plays a minute role and cannot make up for an inappropriate twist even if the velocity is increased. Twist rate is the primary factor in stabilizing a bullet in air - ie the SF factor. Hence the result and my comment ... "With the 270 gr FN bullet in 9,3 caliber Pieter Olivier got straight line penetration both in wetpack tests and the Blue wildebeest that he shot. His 270 gr FN bullet, with a low SF of 2.09, impacted around 1,700 fps at 220 yards and it still provided straight-line penetration."

Stability in flesh is more dependant on the geometry of the bullet. That is why a FN bullet stays longer on course than a RN FMJ. The example of Pieter's bullet proves once again that velocity is not a factor, as the SF is more than adequate to do the job, down range at low velocity.

The crap we hear from you is that ... "With FN bullets we recommend a stability factor in EXCESS of 2.5 for reliable linear penetration. The 300gr FN has a stability factor of 2.39 to 2.44 from 2000fps to 3000fps. Again not ideal." And this is apperently so that the .375 caliber in 375 H&H needs a bullet based on its speed and meplat area, and as such, it needs a different spec than a 9,3 bullet in terms of is SF (SF of 2 versus in EXCESS of 2.5)

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Warrior:
So you have floated another Baby Ruth candy bar in the shallow end of the swimming pool? Everyone will surely clear out of the kiddie pool now!

Warrior/Truveloshooter/Chris Bek,
You are so transparent stupid it is scary.

quote:

Velocity plays a minute role and cannot make up for an inappropriate twist even if the velocity is increased.

Why are you telling me this? It is what I answered RIP 4 days ago. Scroll up and you will find:
-------------------------
From a 1:10" twist at 2500fps = 1.74
From a 1:10" twist at 3000fps = 1.79
From a 1:12" twist at 2500fps = 1.21
From a 1:12" twist at 3000fps = 1.24

You cannot fix a twist mismatch with speed.
--------------------------
Either you did not read the thread from the top or you are too stupid to figure out that I said you cannot gain enough speed in a 1:12"twist to reach the S/F of a 1:10" twist, no matter how fast you go in the 12, or how slow you go in the 10. Even though you agree with me, you default to agenda argue mode.

quote:

Twist rate is the primary factor in stabilizing a bullet in air - ie the SF factor.

What a revelation but thank you for agreeing with me. Your terminology is not quite right though. It is just "stability factor" not "stability factor factor". (Reminds me of when you used to say: "The pressure goes up to the square of the speed...." like the square is a place to go to for coffee or something.)

quote:

With the 270 gr FN bullet in 9,3 caliber Pieter Olivier got straight line penetration both in wetpack

Wetpack It is also the third time you are told that wetpack is not designed to induce yawing of the bullet as animals are inclined to do. You did not read this thread did you? You are reading some other thread and posting your replies here, right?

quote:

His 270 gr FN bullet, with a low SF of 2.09, impacted around 1,700 fps at 220 yards and it still provided straight-line penetration.

Also the third time you have given the sample of one wildebeest (or was it a bushy tailed spotted gnu) in this thread. Twice I replied that it shows you do not grasp the concept. Now I will spell it out for stupid you so that you can stop making a fool of yourself, it is becoming embarassing. Lower impact speed reduces the stagnation pressure / deceleration force / overturning force (and generated moment) thereby reducing the S/F requirement for linear transition from flight to the denser medium. Linear transition results in a better shot at linear penetration.

quote:

Stability in flesh is more dependant on the geometry of the bullet.

Once again you agree with me but put up the smokescreen of the agenda an argument. I have lost count of how many times you have been told that S/F is important for TRANSITIONAL stability but, once the bullet has transitioned to a denser medium, S/F is redundant and other forces take over. Now you come and make out as if you have discovered something we do not know. (Maybe you have forgotten again or you are following the agenda/arguing for argument's sake, who knows.)

quote:

The example of Pieter's bullet proves once again that velocity is not a factor, as the SF is more than adequate to do the job, down range at low velocity.

There is that sample of one for the fourth time. Repeating the same sample does not make it a multiple sample. I would have thought you knew that. Or are you repeating it ad infinitum hoping it would give it more credibility? It stays a sample of one dimwit and only continues to prove that you have no grasp of: Lower impact speed reduces the stagnation pressure / deceleration force / overturning force (and generated moment) thereby reducing the S/F requirement for linear transition from flight to tissue. Linear transition results in a better shot at linear penetration. Go on, highlight from here up to the colon so that you can read it.

quote:

The crap we hear from you is that ... "With FN bullets we recommend.....yadda yadda

Has it ever ocurred to you that GSC has developed, introduced and made successfull some new concepts that have been accepted and followed by other manufacturers who, in their own right are very successfull with the new ideas. Has it ocurred to you that maybe, just maybe, over the last 20 or so years, we have been researching and testing concepts that few others have considered, and still do not consider?

You know, if someone questioned these concepts in honesty and with reasoned argument, it would make for an interesting discussion. For several years your only counter has been to call it BS and to quote your sample of one. All you are capable of is vulgar disagreement and foul mouthed name calling.

You are a pitiful individual.