/

quote:

I have seen PMP monometal solids

Haven't seen the PMP projectile. Extraordinary number of variables but in the context of relatively low velocity (big hunting calibers) into relatively soft medium (animals) fracture is highly unlikely with brass or copper. Of course if the material condition is wrong for the application (overly or incorrectly heat treated cast alloy) it's certainly possible.





- 2400FPS - 2600FPS

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

I have seen PMP monometal solids

Haven't seen the PMP projectile. Extraordinary number of variables but in the context of relatively low velocity (big hunting calibers) into relatively soft medium (animals) fracture is highly unlikely with brass or copper. Of course if the material condition is wrong for the application (overly or incorrectly heat treated cast alloy) it's certainly possible.





- 2400FPS - 2600FPS

I'll take some of these in .620 and .585, please!

No problem Doc...

Gonna do the .700 Rifle too?

M/

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
No problem Doc...

Gonna do the .700 Rifle too?

You never know ... I think Wayne and Ed of AHR have some sort of VooDoo doll of me and use it to force me to order ever more rifles from them. At least that is the excuse I tell my wife!

What IM driving at is with FN copper bullets fired at relatively high velocities into dense visco-elastic soft solids we see the nose deforming into a "mushroom cap".

The GSFN and now extinct NF FN as example, It would appear at face value that brass FN's do not do this at the same velocities and one would need higher velocities to see this, the question begs is whether we are going to see plastic deformation or are we going to see fragmentation? ( I propose it to be moot as far as brass FN's go as an issue as large bores all have a limit in velocity and thus we would never know because we have not enough FPS to drive a brass FN to to get to that point of failure)

Agreed - typical brass alloys in an partially hardened state are ductile as is copper (they are usually 60 to 65% copper by weight)

But what about HP bullets? brass vs copper?

Here we clearly see and it hails from examples posted right here that the petals literally break off, the surfaces showing fracturing whereas copper bullets first show typical deformation ie peeling back of the petals and finally shearing of the petals as velocity is increased.

Yep - delta of tensile -vs- yield and a few other little things are a good indicator of deformation vs fracture. Very little deformation happening with the brass HP before it fragments - shatters - explodes - etc.

So in my own mind I would like to see a head to head test between a copper HP and a brass HP at varying velocities to see at what velocity threshold the petals deform and at what velocity threshold they finally fracture.

Easily manipulated by choosing varying alloys of brass. Not all brass behaves in the same manner - same story for copper.

Intuitively I believe we are not going to see the brass HP deforning at all, just fracturing whilst copper HPs will deform up to a certain vel threshold and then will shear petals..... the implication of this huge depending on what youre view on projectile wounding potential is.

quote:

view on projectile wounding

This is really the important factor in any bullet design. Does it matter if Bullet "X" is or is not fashionable if it is as or more lethal? Someone else who posts here made some copper bullets which, by design, totaly fragmented in testing. This may be beneficial in certain applications.

As to the PMP bullet it looks just like your FN bullet sance the grooves but with a round nose where you have the meplat.

Thus a long tapered straight sided cone for a nose.

These tumble because of the rounded nose and as the bullet turns through 90 deg the forces on the side on profile that normally would bend a cup and core FMJ causes fracturing at the junction of the nose taper and the body of the bullet due to stress rising.

This is seen in brass bullets and not pure copper bullets.

This stress rising effect was described by Bo Janzon of the Swedish wound ballisitcs group when investigating the fracture patterns in military hardball ammo when subjected to in target instability.

Lots of variables all rolled into the stress riser question - very curious and I'd like to see the paper. A stress riser induced by change of attitude and NOT resulting from an impact or change in the composition of the medium would be the result of wrong construction/shape/material if I had to make an opinion without seeing some VERY controlled tests. Ball ammo - copper jacket/lead core not comparable. See above comparison photo.

just as a sideline: the pictures you have posted of the two bullets fired were retrieved from sand or some granular solid material such as soil, unfortunately very little can be deduced from these because sand or granular soil penetration follows a very different mechanical model than water or on the other hand visco -elastic soft solids.

Regarding sand vs water etc. - different mediums impart varied effects on various projectiles. The point, as you know, with any comparison is controlling the test. RIP's test here or Rich's sand box test only supply information about the particular bullets fired into that particular medium. If there is some other medium you believe is also worth visiting I'm sure many of us here would like to see the results of that test as well. We like to see big photos of things shot up don't we?

Alf - with all due respect for your noted expertise on these topics - all the "interest" in the fragmenting - shattering - exploding HP seems somehow suspect does in not?? It was not represented in the context of RIP's constructed test. No tests or claims were made about that little instigator. Don't recall much interest when RIP had posted comments about them in the past....

Well, after reading this entire thread I can only say that I will be adding Macifej's solids to my array of .620s and .585s. Here is what I have so far. The lone .585 was a gift from BMG while the .620s are Rob's 730, AHR's X-Bullet, Kodiak soft, Barnes Banded and Bridger. It's all about choices and I hope those of us in the USA took a moment to remember and thank those who gave of themselves so that we have these choices and can debate them openly.

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

quote:

Alf - with all due respect for your noted expertise on these topics - all the "interest" in the fragmenting - shattering - exploding HP seems somehow suspect does in not?? It was not represented in the context of RIP's constructed test. No tests or claims were made about that little instigator. Don't recall much interest when RIP had posted comments about them in the past....

Macifej:

If you look back on the history of the topic of wound ballisitics you will see that I am no agent for any of the persons or products you are at war with and have myself in the past made a vigorous stand against what I thought of as being unsound ballistics science. And that would include the use of water for purposes other than trapping a bullet or looking at one narrow aspect of bullet behaviour in the form of plastic deformation.

As to the "instigator" I pay little mind because up to now has had little input based on own experience other than opinion gleaned from a source designed to sell a specific product. I too have used the GSC bullets, likely before anyone on AR and before anyone in the USA even knew of their existance. I will give praise where it's due and will with equal measure question if I think something is not sound.

My only concern at this time being the wisdom of choosing brass as a material for expanding bullets, because of the issue of frangibility, no more no less.

Further this the effects or not of brass as a material on mecahnical wear in the bore based on historical claim that brass handgun bullets were reputed to wear handgun bores prematurely? Whether this was / is substantiated I cannot say.

Fair enough....

(it's a blog not a war...if it were a war it would have been over before I got to AR)

Hey Mac

quote:

I'd love to know how many PM's you boys are sending back and forth trying to Rally the Troops.

I have not sent or received any. Is that what you guys are doing?

quote:

Alf - with all due respect for your noted expertise on these topics - all the "interest" in the fragmenting - shattering - exploding HP seems somehow suspect does in not??

You are paranoid about the whole thing hey. Make sure you lock up at night and keep a check on that rear view mirror when you go out. We might send spies to follow you around just for laughs.

.

quote:

lock up at night and keep a check on that rear view mirror when you go out

You can be entertaining Rat!!

Sure send some spies over and see how that works out for ya.

Why don't you come yourself - you can do some valve jobs while you're here - they have a work release program at the "resort".

Originally posted by ALF:
I have many more questions regarding brass and copper other than frangibility:

What about radial stiffness and the phenomenon of the bullet "upsetting" in the bore and "filling the bore and thus contributing to increased bore contact? Brownell in his tests for Dupont calls this "jacket factor"

This after Will or was it Andy? posting some excellent pictures of GSC's where the shank of the bullet is clearly engraved and if compared to say a Barnes TSX only the areas between the grooves are engraved ?

Gerard tried to wiggle out of that one with some explanation but I personally do not buy the explanation. Both are off course copper bullets.

When we look at the pics posted on Brass bullets we see the same as with the TSX engraving of the high spots only, the grooves are not engraved........ so does that de facto imply that the brass bullets has less bore contact than the copper banded bullet of GSC?

Not necessarily...as I was saying previously, there are hundreds if not thousands of copper derivative alloys in all conditions. If the GSC FN is made from say C110 in M30 state or something equivelent it may "upset" or deform in the bore under load sure. The material has a yield strength in the range of 11,000 psi...marshmellow. I've never done materials testing on GS or Barnes product but I'm assuming the Barnes material is work hardened to a degree in the swaging process.

The form makes a lot of assumptions as far as the efficacy of the design. Bore vs Groove vs shank vs band diameters. If any of the relationships are out of range then performance will degrade. Even if GS is able to hold very tight and consistant tolerance is production they have no control over the variability of all the different platforms. I'd be most concerned with an over bore spec barrel and degraded coaxial alignment of the bullet. IE - if the driving bands are very light in profile and very soft in material they don't provide the the degree of geometric stability of other designs.

Now as to actual testing I believe there has been only one published study in the ballistics enginering world that deals with the direct testing of engraving force and small arms bullets and that was done in 2003 by the designers of PRODAS ?

Prodas is still around and have an update I believe.

There are many papers on engraving forces in large bore munitions ( cannons etc) but up to 2003 nothing on shoulder fired firearms!

The testing involves the use of a mechanical ram that forces the bullet down the bore of a 5.56mm and 30 cal barrel, the resistive forces are measured by transducers on the ram. The results then compared to chamber presssure testing when the same bullets are fired from those guns.

The results of these tests are surprising on one hand but predicatable on the other:

Contact area, radial stiffness and Barrel leed forcing cone angle are major contributors. Less important is coating materials such as Moly.

The resistive force is not linear, a surprise and the test using the ram cannot be done for the whole barrel length because the ram itself undergoes strain when to long.

What is apparent is that all of the variables mentioned have only a small impact on ultimate chamber pressure and confirms the age old rule of thumb that barrel and jacket factors only contribute about 4% to the ultimate pressure equation.

My original point waaaay back in this thread but few were paying attention.

So what I would like to see is a head to head test using a direct method where all of these designs are compared.

Design the test(s) and I'll supply the parts.

Maybe it should be an invitational event.

I was cleaning out one of my file cabinets the other day and found a copy of US patent 3,345,949 from October 10, 1957 for a solid base bullet with groove diameter driving bands and bore diameter base.

Applicants name was someone called John Nosler.

Andy

/

Check out items 3,9,& 11 in the last photo. That was fired into wood...??

RIP had a whole collection of these types of photos he posted a while back - maybe they are some of the same, but lots of experimentation for a loooong time and now nada. Guess it's all about ROI and market share.

/

quote:

conformity, repeatability and above all lots and lots of the same to prove validity.

This is easy....you just need same of time and $$$.

Alf:
Brass and copper hollowpoints of slightly different weight (330-grain brass, 340-grain copper) and differing hollowpoint dimensions, but both bullets in .395 caliber and three of each at about 1600, 2500, and 2700 fps approximate impact velocity with water, and both bullets having the same max penetration depth at max velocity: denting the bottom of the the third 5-gallon bucket in an end-to-end train

GSC copper HV:


S&H VeloHEX (Hexagonal Explosive): They produce a "Death Star of David" on impact, and flip immediately and proceed base first on a straight-ahead path to a stop. Shades of tumbling "Velopex" but self righting, and indestructible by any animal tissue after the nose blows off. Any meat taken with one of these should be Kosher, uncontaminated by lead.



And here is the reason I did not shoot the next test during the past 2 weekends: A pilgramage to The King of TWIST, Chubby Checker in concert at Busch Gardens Africa in Tampa, and a ride on the Sheikra free-falling roller coaster:


Click on this and let me know if anyone else can see this video besides me. First time I have posted a video, a warmup for IWBB action splash&splinter videos:

Chubby Checker and Sheikra

Chubby (Ernest Evans) Checker was sweatin' to the oldies, not bad for 66 years old. Also his band, playing here, is called "The Wildcats" another reason to enjoy the performance. TWIST and Wildcats. What's not to like?

Next up, a mix of two solids and a soft calibration of the IWBB with two boards per rumen:

.395/340-grain GSC FN at 2800 fps (copper solid)
.395/330-grain S&H VeloHEX at 2800 fps (brass hollowpoint)
.458/450-grain North Fork FP at 2550 fps (copper solid)

Don't hold your breath, but I will get it done ... soon as I squish some blackberries with my bare feet and make a bottle of wine to send to Macifej.

Alf,
Here is the post that you refer to about the shaft engraving. Look at the photograph and the dimensions I supplied, then tell me what there is that is not logical or clear about it.

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=532102918#532102918

What is there that you do not "buy" in that post and how can a logical explanation from me be construed as "wiggling out of"? You do not hear me calling you a bone quack, do you? Why design your post to raise ire?

As far as radial expansion under pressure goes, our choice of material does not allow it to any degree that matters. The simple test of making a series of bullets that increase in diameter in 2.5 micron (0.0025mm) steps, and then firing them in the same barrel at around 60,000psi peak pressure, proves that. When inspected afterwards, it is clear what part of the barrel was in contact with the bullet and which areas are unmarked. Bullets with drive bands as close as 2.5 micron under the measured barrel size, showed no contact with the bottoms of the rifling.

Here is a picture of an HV that is under size for the barrel. Note that the tops of the drive bands did not reach the bottom of the grooves in the barrel. They are unmarked. Also, the lands did not reach the surface of the shaft. The displaced drive band material does not fully bridge the surface from one drive band to the next.



This one is an excellent match. The taper is clearly visible and the seal was good.



As a matter of interest, RIP's barrel is over size and, as soon as Prof242 can let us have some pictures of recovered bullets, I will decide whether to change one or both the diameters of the 395 bullet range we make.

I didn't know there were so many variations of the English language.

Here is a elephant recovered NF 500 gr. 470 solid from my Krieghoff. FWIW, and they may not be much, it is how I envision a banded solid should look like. There is some slippage at the front of the bullet but I see that as irrelevant as they are quite stabke in flight (no key-holing on paper) and gave excellent staright-line penetration.




The bands are only slightly deformed in the barrel groove portion so as to just barely seal in the grooves and there is no engraving of the shank of the bullet by the lands.

Now if someone can tell me why that is not the ideal design of a banded solid for my particular barrel, I want to hear about it in plain American English.

/

Alf,
In the picture below, imagine that the drive bands and the displaced drive band material were not there. Would you say that the shaft of the bullet is engraved?

I'm sold on the flat nose monometal solids. For softs, I'll stick with A-Frames. My question is what are the barrel wear characteristics of the brass vs the GSC copper solids?

Chuck

Video works but the camera man was twisting! Good music never goes out style!!!!!

A scan of the GSC and S&H bullets after firing, above. The horizontal line on the S&H is a mar from my seater plug in the die. This indicates that the bullets took some force to seat and that the brass may not be as hard on barrels as feared, since it is soft enough to mark in this way.





Before and after firing, length measurements:
Both bullets do compress some, but the GSC 340-grainer was longer before firing, and shorter after firing than the S&H 330-grainer:

GSC
pre: 1.396"
post: 1.343"
axial compression = 0.053"

S&H
pre: 1.377"
post: 1.365"
axial compression = 0.012"

quote:

Originally posted by laredo kid:
Video works but the camera man was twisting! Good music never goes out style!!!!!

Thanks, laredo kid. Yes we were doing The Twist.
That is Chubby Checker doing a Chuck Berry song, but I may have the grand finale with Chubby doing his 1959-1960 hit, "The Twist" and the 4th of July fireworks ... have some more files to sift through ...

Check here for a listen to "The TWIST"

www.chubbychecker.com

A diploma for those who understand TWIST:



Where is that "TWIST" emoticon when you need it!!!

Alf,
Use your noggin!!!
The GSC versus S&H hollowpoint comparison was done purely to assess whether the hollowpoint design would be starting to open at 1600 fps and still retaining satisfactory weight at 2700 fps.

I think both bullets succeeded at that, but by very different mechanisms.

Now back to the noggin work:
The resistance to the S&H after the flip is less than that of the expanded GSC.

To get at depth of penetration in a game animal, we need to use a different medium than plain water. You know that!!!

The water test is just to check for expansion at various impact velocities!!!
Minimal resistance at low velocity in water.
Greater resistance than any game animal entry is given by water at 2700 fps.

Gerard,
It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets, as precisely as you want.

At some point if accuracy is there with a slightly loose or slightly tight bullet in one or both dimensions, what is the purpose? Better gas seal and better barrel life?

Do you propose to do custom fitting of your bullets to any barrel?

+/- 2.5 microns?

Jay,

quote:

Actually, most of us do know Somchen. Thanks for supplying the tangible references but quoting some material about military gun systems is just another of your now classic diversionary tactics.

I gave you links to Somchem to illustrate that they are not the "half assed who knows who" company you referred to. The speeds and pressures they found with the variety of bullets submitted for testing are on record with them. It was done with a .458 and you can argue with them about the validity of their methods. I do not control what they do. Fact remains that drive band bullets gave the best pressure / velocity return of the bullets listed.

------------------------------
Bullet Type -------- Powder Charge - Velocity - Pressure PSI
GS Custom drive band- S335 78gr ---- 2201 fps - 59 755
Bronze Grooved Solid- S335 75gr ---- 2191 fps - 60 480
Copper Solid Shank--- S335 77gr ---- 2190 fps - 60 963
Copper Plated Lead--- S335 74.5gr -- 2134 fps - 60 755
------------------------------

quote:

The reality here Gerard is that as far as most of us can see, you haven't done any real comprehensive testing – the kind that costs real money.

You have no idea what resources we have had at our disposal over the past 25 years. That is how long I have been making bullets. As far as showing all and sundry the exact nature of research that was done in product development, what company will do that? You should get a grip on reality. I will share much of what I have learned and experienced to a point, but I will also protect that which is proprietory.

quote:

What about all those claimed B.C.'s Gerard? Was your abacus on the fritz when you banged those out?

What about them? I stated several times that I was not responsible for the entire body of work. We are a small organisation of several people and we have employees that do some of the work here. The moment I realised that there is a screw loose, I removed the data and made a statement to that effect. The work is being redone and when it is correct, it will go back up on our site. What do you want me to do? Must I apologise for the (partially) incorrect numbers in perpetuity? Lets see the BC numbers for the 19 bullets you have designed thus far.

quote:

The difference between us is that I don't do lab testing

This we know. That is why you can do a drawing yesterday, machine it today and mail the bullets tomorrow. You also said: "I just make em' I don't shoot em!!"

quote:

I wouldn't copy anything you're doing cause it isn't that good. I don't and won't make driving band designs. You think it's slick and people wanna buy it – carry on, but I won't touch them.

Why did you then approach us late last year with the idea of manufacturing our range in the USA?

quote:

Want a list of the shortcomings of your brilliant design – ask your customers there are plenty.

Why did you say on this forum, less than six months ago: "I don't understand why all you guys from SA would look outside SA for bullets. Gerard's product is absolutely top notch and relatively inexpensive for you."

quote:

The primary design features that I'm using are patented Gerard by ME!! I own the patents.

Every box of drive band bullets we sell has the SA Patent Number on the label. It is required by law in SA. It is also a requirement of US Patent Law. Where are yours?

quote:

I can and have made projectiles from all sorts of material.

Given that you do no testing and do not shoot them, how does making them qualify you to tell which is best in the terminal application?

quote:

Unlike you, I'm not making parts on a Kudu powered lathe at the ends of the Earth.

I must put this down to simply flapping your mouth, because previously you said: "There is only one type of machinery which can make these little beasties with great precision. That is the same type that Gerard uses as well. Not just the machine that's pertinent but what you program it to do!"

quote:

As far as your business acumen goes – you are probably the worst business operator the bullet business has ever seen.

I have said so myself on a number of occasions. It is also the reason why I have not been running the business since 2002. You, on the other hand, are a good business person. Let's face it, you get an extra US$100.00 per hundred for your customer designed, untried, untested product over what we get for our tested, proven for ten years, made on a Kudulathe product. My hat is off to you in this regard.

quote:

You don't want me to list those examples Gerard do you??

Please do and try to use examples from the last four or five years. We need to know where to sharpen up.

quote:

Let's see the research big guy! You keep saying you've been doing it for years but I haven't seen any yet!! (Clue – shooting a baboon in your neighbors yard isn't research)

See my remark about proprietary knowledge above. But as an aside, baboon is one specie I have actually not shot yet. What hunting and field testing have you done, by the way? Let us see some of that.

quote:

Mike at Northfork could have saved himself a lot of trouble by choosing a better alloy for his application.

What can I say?

quote:

Alf asks: So in my own mind I would like to see a head to head test between a copper HP and a brass HP at varying velocities to see at what velocity threshold the petals deform and at what velocity threshold they finally fracture.

Jay answers: Easily manipulated by choosing varying alloys of brass. Not all brass behaves in the same manner - same story for copper.

It comes to mind to ask why your easily manipulated choce failed so badly in RIP's test.

quote:

The primary disadvantages of a "driving band" design are that you have no place to crimp the case and neck tension is very low.

Crimping often reduces neck tension even further. With drive bands, neck tension is better than that of a smooth sided bullet. The brass springs back in between the drive bands when the bullet is seated, creating a small crimp behind each drive band. If neck tension is low with a drive band bullet, in fact with any bullet, spin the sizer button down, it is too large. There are applications where a crimping groove is supplied on FN bullets. All it takes is to talk to us about what you want.

quote:

He was very nearly flattened by a Bull Elephant cause the case sheared the front "Driving Band" off on a follow up shot.

If this were true, my comment is: A failure of this magnitude certainly warrants feedback to the manufacturer. We have heard nothing of the sort. If a customer buys a Leupold scope and it fails, why would he discuss it with Burris? They cannot help, but Leupold can and will, no doubt. If this customer is reading this (if it is true) please contact us so that we can help with a remedy. We take failure reports very seriously and will drop what we are doing to ensure that the problem is addressed.

Below is a picture of a 270gr .375" FN that was seated in a case and crimped behind the second drive band. It was then forced back into the case in a bench vice. Unless the case is harder than the bullet, the drive band cannot shear off. Shearing a drive band must be preceded by some very unusual circumstances and I would very much like to hear from the customer mentioned above.

quote:

How good is the gas sealing? Can't tell ya cause I didn't test em.

Thank you for reminding us that you do no testing after casting that aspertion.

quote:

Barrel wear?? Unless your barrel was made by Mattel I don't think so. I have personally launched thousands of the old Barnes Aluminum Bronze non grooved solids with no barrel degradation. If someone has a couple hundred grand to quantify any minute differences in testing let me know and I'll send you some bullets.

No need for such vast sums of money. When one culls venison for the market and you take around two thousand animals a season, you soon see what wears a barrel and what does not.

quote:

If someone has another couple hundred grand and wants to do some proper pressure/velocity testing of various bullet types and loads, let me know same offer stands.

Always the "businessman". Somchem does it for R13.00 (under US2.00) a shot.

quote:

Hey if you follow Gerard's logic, his copper bullets should cause more barrel wear since copper is harder on tooling.

So, you are not the engineer you give yourself out to be. Barrel wear goes to forging properties of a material. That is different from cutting or abrading. It is possible to have one good and the other bad and vice versa. Ouch, that was a bad slip Jay.

quote:

He'll be along shortly I suppose to explain how the earth is flat and we should do the world a favor by selling bullets for half what it costs to make them.

No, just charging a fair price is ok.

quote:

I'm sure he can use the help getting those orders out in a timely fashion since you're in Alaska and he's in S.A.

It is the one thing we have always had trouble with. Delivery in timely fashion. Now is much better than at the beginning and it is improving all the time. we encourage customers to order from a local dealer where it is possible. The network increases slowly but steadily. We are working to improve. The other option is to pack it in, expand one of the other industries we serve, and have some peace. It will be a cold day in hell before the likes of Jay and some others see that, though. We love this too much and we have great support elsewhere.

Robgunbuilder,

quote:

Its interesting that every time someone on this board starts making Boolits that they get attacked by the Gerrardites and others who have since gone out of buisness. This happened to Fritz 454 and stopped him and Bridger Bullets cold.

With respect, I do not know of a single instance where a customer of GSC attacked John. I certainly did not. If you take a look at this particular train smash, the origin lies with Jay. Here it is. He kicked off with a load of aggressive and unfounded statements and progressed to insults and the rest. I have always tried to be civil but will not brook direct insult and the implication that I am not stating fact. Would you?

There is a difference between having a civil discussion and deliberately spoiling for a fight. Show me one instance where I started the acrimony, I have only ever defended.

Gerard the disinformation specialist as usual.

The origin of the hostility in this thread is you Gerard like any other thread where your work is compared or analysed. You have a reputation (preceding my arrival here) as someone who's very territorial. The observations are coming from everywhere but you aren't "getting it".

Regarding my aggressiveness, I've watched you trash people here for a year now with your pontifications of greatness. Fortunately for me, I don't find myself in a position which requires me to yield to your BS.

If I wanna get into the bullet "business" I'll bring the full weight of some CONSIDERABLE resources to bear and your organization will be of little concern. If I wanna make 1000 round metal parts a year and sell them for $100 each I can do that and if I wanna make 10,000,000 round metal parts and sell them for $.10 each I can do that too. After all Gerard you're really just in the round part making business aren't you. All of this technical stuff is secondary.

Go back to your machines Gerard and make more parts. This kind of discourse isn't helping you and it's a huge waste of time for me.

quote:

What IM driving at is with FN copper bullets fired at relatively high velocities into dense visco-elastic soft solids we see the nose deforming into a "mushroom cap".

Alf and RIP, my North Fork solid at 2550 fps at nine paces did not mushroom on elephant skull.

Hard to imagine a harder target than that.

Mike Brady got the alloy and tempering just right on both his bonded soft point and Flat Nose solid.

In defense to GS, he did not start out making an elephant bullet but a general purpose non deforming solid for culling plains game. His copper alloy is just fine for that since it barely deforms in the very high velocity small bores used for culling.

Andy

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Amidst thunder and lightning from the sky and from the .395 Tatanka, a clear winner emerged, from the dueling ground.

Contestants after the duel:


On the left, the .395/340-grain GSC copper FN lanched at 2726 fps.
On the right, the .395/330-grain S&H brass FN, launched at 2812 fps.
Both used the same charge of 96.0 grains of H4350 with a GM215M primer and Hornady .416 Rigby brass necked down to .395 and previously fireformed to 20-degree shoulder. I'll get a picture of the loaded cartridges too ...

Total penetration of two boards per rumen of the Iron Water Board Buffalo as shown.

GSC:


S&H:



GSC penetrated 6 rumens completely, went through the 7th waterbucket and put a ding in the first board at the back of 7th rumen. GSC Score: 6.5

S&H penetrated 8 rumens completely, put a hole completely through the the two boards and a barely discernable mark on the ninth waterbucket, did not enter it. S&H Score: 8.0

Both bullets performed excellently.

A great contest, an excellent effort on the part of each contender as well as that of the referee. As in all great battles, the reasons that one won and the other didn't, which was really best and how the contest was stacked to favor one or the other will be debated for years to come. A clear winner did emerge: one (Macifej's) penetrated water-filled buckets separated by plywood better than the other (GSC).
What's left to debate?
Accuracy? - No mention of differences here, but certainly a worthwhile topic for discussion.
Barrel wear? C'mon a new barrel costs far less than the cost of the number of either projectile needed to wear one out.
Cost of the projectiles? Valid for many people.
Time to availability? Sure - can't shoot 'em if you don't have 'em.
Validity of this type of test as a measure of performance on game? Well, that seems to be a great topic discussed many times over so, yes, a valid topic for debate.

Still, the fight is over, a winner emerged, the belt has been awarded, a rematch (especially in different calibers) would be enthusiastically anticipated ... and speculation will continue

Thanks, Doc.
More to come.
I just got back from a week-long CME (board review course) with a few days of R&R tacked on. I am sure you understand that.
I have to go relieve some suffering of humans before I can waterboard-torture more bullets.
I'll be back ...

Andy,

quote:

In defense to GS, he did not start out making an elephant bullet but a general purpose non deforming solid for culling plains game.

No defense needed as that is not quite the way it happened. The HP range was the first of the turned bullets, from 1993 to 1996. In 1996 I started development of the drive band FN and the first bullets into the field for testing were two .375s in 270gr and 300gr, two 9.3s in 270gr and 300gr (300gr - what was I thinking?), two .416s in 380gr and 410gr and two .458s in 450gr and 500gr. Once the evaluation of those were under way, I did a 145gr RN which failed miserably and proved a point. Then came the 145gr and 180gr FNs in 7.62/.308. The 145gr FN was used for culling ele from a chopper. Development and evaluation took almost a year, with the first FN bullets available for sale in November 1997. Development of the HV range started about 6 months after the FNs.

These bullets were recovered from elephant. Comparison with the unfired bullet on the right shows the set back of the nose. 500grains also posted pictures of his testing. As we experienced, he also found that nicks and dents on the nose did not affect performance in any way.



FNs frequently shoot through on ele, buff rhino and so on. From the recovered bullets, and the effect of those that were not recovered, on the shot game, we drew several conclusions.
A. A solid that deforms to a cylinder is better than one which does not. It is more likely to track straight and wound channel volume increases. It is less likely to break unacceptably on an ele molar for example.
B. Shorter than "traditional" lengths work better. The slight increase in speed more than offsets the reduction in weight. penetration depth was unaffected by the slight reduction in weight.
C. Tracking straight in the animal and the larger wound channel volume was found to be of more value than an extra 5" of penetration depth.

To have arrived at these conclusions, it follows that several alloys and different configurations were tried. Today, ten years and a very large pile of bullets later, we see nothing that makes us want to change the basic geometric configuration of the FN design or the material we chose then. We have been making small improvements that go to accuracy, gas handling, regulation in doubles and such. We have never made changes that will make load developments up to that point obsolete.

Our biggest obstacle in the market has been that of distance and delivery and that is being solved on an ongoing basis. The latest addition to our network of outlets is in South America (The Mercosur)

So, if it is extreme penetration you want, more than what is required for shooting clear through an ele, use the hardest projectile you can find that is designed to do just that. If the object is to kill loads of sand, building material and lumber, use anything you want because the result is a subject for discussion and pretty pictures only. If it is performance on game you want, use a bullet designed for the application.

Jay,

quote:

The origin of the hostility in this thread is you

Are you saying you did not start the insulting and unfounded rhetoric? That is a laugh. Disinformation specialist, indeed.

quote:

Regarding my aggressiveness, I've watched you trash people here for a year now with your pontifications of greatness.

Apart from you and Warrior, name me one member here to whom I have addressed one word of hostility, disrespect or ridicule. I challenge you to prove that statement you made. It will prove who the true disinformation specialist is.

quote:

After all Gerard you're really just in the round part making business aren't you. All of this technical stuff is secondary.

Keep up that line of thinking. As long as you believe that, you will have results like this. (I notice in the bottom picture that the bullet on the right actually set back some. What happened? A failure of some sort?)




Actually GSC is not in the "round part making business". We are in the business of simplifying and improving our customer's shooting activities.

I will sign off from you now so that you can stop wasting time with replies to me and get on with running up the post counter. How did you do last month? Did you make the grade to top poster? If you did, congratulations!!

You are persistent aren't you...

Ok...have it your way.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Gerard,

It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets, as precisely as you want. At some point if accuracy is there with a slightly loose or slightly tight bullet in one or both dimensions, what is the purpose? Better gas seal and better barrel life?

Do you propose to do custom fitting of your bullets to any barrel? +/- 2.5 microns?

Gerard,

Just a question to clarify:

If the bullet is made to spec and the barrel is made to spec, how is it possible to be that much adrift, given the tolerances that CIP allow? It seams that RIP has opened up a hornest nest here with his reference of ... "It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets ..."

The GSC bullet is precision lathe-turned, so I would appreciate an explanation of the causes and implications (difficulty or ease of engraving, gas seal, throat erosion, accuracy, etc)

Warrior

Mac's response was:

"The form makes a lot of assumptions as far as the efficacy of the design. Bore vs Groove vs shank vs band diameters. If any of the relationships are out of range then performance will degrade. Even if GS is able to hold very tight and consistant tolerance is production they have no control over the variability of all the different platforms. I'd be most concerned with an over bore spec barrel and degraded coaxial alignment of the bullet. IE - if the driving bands are very light in profile and very soft in material they don't provide the the degree of geometric stability of other designs."

Sharing info from different sources are what this forum is all about.

Warrior