The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Double Rifles 470 NE Penetration TestsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| 470 NE Penetration Tests | Login/Join |
Moderator |
We're talking about solids in this case, and not expanding bullets in which case the flat-nose will produce a larger wound channel. "Ignorance you can correct, you can't fix stupid." JWP If stupidity hurt, a lot of people would be walking around screaming. Semper Fidelis "Building Carpal Tunnel one round at a time" | |||
|
One of Us |
North Fork Excellent, thank you very much for clearing that for us. Pure Copper, but Hardened by whatever process. I suspect that is the same material David is using for my .500 caliber (not .510) for my solids and other copper bullets, as it is hard and not brittle at all. I too believe in penetration above all else! That is the point of the bullets, solids in particular, is it not? Wonderful analogy, Model-t and Corvette, Thanks for your input on that. Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
One of Us |
It seems to be difficult for some to stay on track _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
You left out an improtant component of my quote: "THE ONLY BULLET THE WOUND CHANNEL OF WHICH I HAVE TRACKED WHICH VEERED WAS A NF FLAT NOSE SOLID!!!" Obviuosly, flat nose solids will veer in game too. 465H&H, a member here, posted a thread in the African Hunting forum asking for examples of round nose solids veering and not tracking straight in game. The post stayed current for weeks with many responses. No one responded with any first hane reports of a steel jacketed round nose veering. The ONLY example of any bullet veering was mine, and the bullet was the NF discussed in this thread. There is little evidence that hemishperical round nose steel jacketed solids have any tendency to veer IN GAME. There is a first hand report on this thread of an ogived, parabolis steel jacketed solid veering from Jack D. Bold. But that isn't a hemisherical solid veering, and it is another example of a known known trait of that bullet shape. BTW, was the bullet you cite that veered a hemishperical round nose steel jacketed solid? Who made it? Truncated cone mono-metal flat nose solids, flattened ogive solids mono or steel jacketed, hemisherical RN solids, none are perfect. All perform reliably. Two have traits which are important and complimentary, and those are the truncated cone flat nose and the hemispherical steel jacketed solid. The other, flattenned ogive solids, mono or steel jacketted are a compromise aimed at fewer feeding issues. I take you comment about larger wound channels produced by flat noses to be a comparison between flat nose solids and round nose solids, and not a comparison with any soft point. I agree 100% with you comment, flat nose solids do produce larger wound channels than round nose solids. How much this matters is a variable, dependent on the situation - for instance, it is immaterial when discussing a brain shot on an elephant, material when discussing a raking shot on an escaping elephant. Certainly a factor worthy of consideration when selecting your loading. JPK  Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have taken as many if not more elephants with head shots than other posters on this site. Most have been taken with Woodleigh solids in 465 or 470 calibers. I have also taken a few with NF and Trophy Bonded solids. I have never seen any sign of veering with any of them. I think we are making much ado about nothing when we talk of veering with solids. It is an extremely rare occurrence and if it does happen it is just as likely to happen to a FN as RN solid. JPK quote: "Any bone you encounter or shoot for only needs to be broken, not penetrated, ball joint, hip, shoulder leg bones, so deformation won't hurt you. But you NEED penetration for a successful lethal raking shot. So use a North Fork." My experience tells me something different. I have found that elephants are extremely susceptible to hits to the long leg bones or joints. Just crease the bone and it seems to make that leg inoperable. Since an elephant on three legs is rendered unable to move, they can be easily finished off. I have done this on several occasions. Other than that My experince closely mirrors JPKs report. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H, I don't think what I posted and your response are at odds. Perhaps a fuller explanation of what I meant will be helpful. I intended what I wrote to mean that if a bullet hit a joint or the shoulder blade, or a leg bone and the bullet deformed on impact, including divoting at the nose, or riveting, or whatever, the deformation is immaterial, so long as the the joint struck is damaged and inoperable, or the bone damaged so it breaks. So far as an elephant being disabled with just a creased leg bone, that doesn't then break when the ele tried to walk or run, I have not experienced that (that I have known anyway - there was one ele that pulled up with what I assumed was a broken leg. I didn't actually disect to confirm that the leg was broken and not just creased or otherwise damged but not broken.) As far as the rest of your post, I definitely agree, though history tells us that the 470 bullet's original shape is not so reliable as the hemishperical shape, such as the 450NE's, 458wm's and others'. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, My appologies if I misread your meaning. I have had at least three occasions where this happened. It may be coincidence, but those were the only three instances wher I found deformed Woodleighs with flattened bases. I don't think that a FN solid such as a North Fork will do the same as they are much stonger in resisting side pressure to the base of the bullet. But it really didn't matter since the damage had already occured. The original Woodleigh RN solids for the 465 had the more rounded shape while the newer ones have the same more ogived shape as seen in the 470 solids. Here is a pic depicting the differences.  From left to right: Woodleigh 465 old style RN solid, 465 New style solid, 470 new style solid. I have used quite a few of both style solids on elephants on both head shots and body shots and have not noticed any difference in penetration or veering tendencies in either style. 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
FN solids tumble and veer off course frequently. By this I mean proper FN solids, not RN solids with a flat on the nose. I have seen this in testing on media, water, building material stop boxes and also in game. It always happens when the bullet is too long for a given rate of twist. No rocket science needed to figure that one out. When the length of an FN is properly matched to the twist rate of the rifle, an FN can always be relied upon to give straight line penetration in any animal medium, more frequently than any other nose shape. As a result of the reduced probability of an FN yawing in target, penetration depth is usually also greater. If a RN solid does not yaw in target, it may go straight and deeper than an equivalent FN. I will take "relied upon" over "if" and "may" any day. | |||
|
| One of Us |
_____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
This was proven back in the 1800's by the British Engineer Whitworht The Flat Earther's, have been denying it ever since _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't think anyone is disputing whether flat nose solids veer less frequently than non-hemisherical solids like the 470 Woodleigh that Jack D. Bold had veer and posted photos of. Or even that flat nose solids veer less frequently than hemisherical round nose solids, which are known to veer less frequently than the ogived 470 shaped solids. What has been noted is that none of the three types veer frequently IN GAME. Also noted is that steel jacketed solids hold their nose shape better, deforming less, or not at all at the nose, while flat nose solids frequently rivet or deform at the nose. And further that steel jacketed solids are more likely to be deformed in the body or the tail than mono bullets. As I have stated, and 465H&H has implied, each type has its plusses and minuses. The myopic view is yours, you willfully ignore the flat nose's minuses and willfully ignore the round nose's plusses. Or perhaps you have insufficient real world, in game experience with the different types to observe their plusses and minuses. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
You mean that in your narrow view a round nose solid has a neaningful plus? May be you are too closed minded to see the advantages of the flat point solid. The flat points tracks consistently straighter and creates more tissue damage . The Chathlic Church had Galaleo imprisoned, because he said the world was round. I've been killing game with flat points since the 80's and imediatelt realized there promiinance in the game fields. Observance is the key  _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
No, not my narrow view, but my broad experience, with both types of solids, in real dangerous game with real DG rifles shooting at real DG velocities. It seems much of your experience is with revolver bullets. Your observations of bullet performance at reduced velocities are not really relevant wrt RN or FN performance at DG rifle velocities, since most of the negatives of the RN emerge at lower velocities, after a RN fired from a DG cartridge has already done its job and most of the FN's shortcomings emerge at the relatively high velocities after firing from a DG rifle. Examples are, for the RN, tumbling and subsequent bending, flattening or splitting, which almost always occur late in the RN's journey through the game after it has slowed considerably, and for the FN, riveting, divoting, bending, which almost always occur early in the FN's journey while it still has relatively substantial velocity. So, experience with RN or FN bullets at revolver speeds is irrelevant. I am no fan of Michael 458's so called tests, and believe that so called tests in wet newsprint are completely irrelevant and largely a waste of time, but even in Michael 458's so called tests, in that totally irrelevant medium, the hemisherical RN's show there negatives at low velocities. A common refrain is, "The RN traveled XX" in a straight line and then veered ..." It veered in that totally irrelevant medium at reduced velocity!! I was a relatively early convert to FN mono solids for DG, and a search here on AR will confirm that fact. For awhile I was even an advocate of FN only for DG. But, contrary to your allegations, I kept an open mind and continued to experiment and test IN REAL DG with both types, confirming the FN's strengths, and discovering the FN's shortcomings, "re-discovering" the RN's strengths and defining its limitations. On the other hand, it seems you tried the FN's, albeit at reduced revolver or 45/70 range velocities and thought that you had found a panacea. So according to your post, you have been spouting off about the FN as a panacea for 20 some years, without understanding its limitations, or the RN's strengths. Now, informed by several experienced DG hunters - me, 465H&H, 500NE, undoubtably some others - of the consistent and reliable, albeit imperfect performance of the RN steel jacketed solids, and of their particular strengths, informed of the FN's weaknesses and certainly their imperfection, you continue to clutch at your circumscribed and constrained observations, limited experience, at an ephemeral panacea. The closed minded myopia is yours, not mine. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
One of Us |
JPK, If I adequately understand you’re positioning with this statement, then in the world of bullet straight-line penetration performance the following bullet composition and nose shape would rank as follows: Least within mass straight-line penetration deviation to most within mass straight-line penetration deviation: 1st: FN monometal solids (full-hard composition) 2nd: FN monometal solids (half-hard composition) 3nd: FN FMJ solids (steel jacketed) 4rd: Hemispherical RN FMJ solids (steel jacketed) 5th: Ogived RN FMJ solids (steel jacketed) I can totally agree with you regarding the above ranking of straight-line penetration performance based upon bullet composition and nose shape; it has been well demonstrated by Michael458’ and Mike70560’ numerous bullets box tests. I guess the only question would be where in the linage below number three would you place the FN, Hemispherical RN, and Ogive RN without steel jacketed FMJ bullet? Would this bullet composition regardless of nose shape all below #5 or would they sort somewhere between #4 and #8? I can also agree with you that even the best nose shaped FN full-hard composition monometal solid will likely slightly deviate from straight-line within-mass penetration as its velocity/forward momentum approaches its maximum penetration. But, from my little bit of real world practical experience I have to disagree with you that the best bullet shape for 1st shot frontal penetration of an elephant head would be a Hemispherical RN FMJ solid, or Ogived RN FMJ solid rather than an appropriately designed FN full-hard composition monometal solid. My experience, if I want a non-slipping mark punched in hard metal especially round wall metal tubing I use a flat-nose shaped punch not a round-nose punch…the RN punch will always slip one or more times out of ten punches while the FN punch will always leave a clean punch mark or hole without slippage. While certainly round wall metal tubing is not the same material as an elephant bone I cannot understand how dense hard rounded bone would deflect a Hemispherical RN bullet less than an correctly designed meplat FN bullet…even when all other bullet composition factors are the same. Jim  "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
Jim, Bullets don't slip on animal hide, FN or RN! 465H&h | |||
|
| One of Us |
Jim, I hope you don't mind if I try to answer your questions from my perspective and field experience using the above mentioned bullets. First, I think you may have reversed the order in your first sentence as they go from more penetration to less penetration not the opposite. I am unconvinced on the issue RN steel jacketed solids veering more than FN solids. I have shot over 100 RN steel jacketed solids into buff and elephants as well as a dozen or so FN solids and have never seen any sign of veering with any of them. I believe veering is an extremely rare occurrence and I don't worry at all about it. Over penetration is much more of a field problem to me. I would keep the table as you have listed pertaining to penetration but I would give the last two as a tie as I have used both extensively and haven't seen any difference in penetration between them. Of course that opinion could change on my next elephant. In fact if there is a difference in penetration between the tapered RN SJ and Hemispherical SJ solids I would give the + for penetration to the tapered solid. That is why Kynoch changed the shape for the 470 and why I believe Woodleigh changed the shape for the 470 and 465. Whether it worked or not is still being questioned. The other bullets you asked about are seldom used today other than by some European makers (German such as RWS). I really don't see any gain in including them. As a side note to that, in 1987 I stayed for a week with Clem Coetsee at Main Camp in Zimbabwe. He was the head of the culling and game capture units for Zim NP. I have never heard of the A2 hemi RN mono bullets until he showed me some that A2 loaded for Parks. He was not a fan of those 465 grain 458 bullets as he said that occasionally for some unknown reason they veered badly off course in elephants. He preferred his WR 465 double to any of the other rifles Parks had available for taking out charging elephants during culls. And this was using the old Kynock factory reinforced steel nose but thin skirt bullets. Clam, Ron Thompson and the author of "Bullets in Perspective", sorry can't remember his name, all agreed that the 465 and 470 nitro calibers were better stoppers than any of the 375, 404, 416 or 458 rifles available to them. Even though some used the excellent Hornady or Winchester RN steel jacketed solids. There are innumerable instances of the A2 or original Barnes RN mono metal bullets veering of course. I believe A2 is still making their bullet but Barnes has discontinued theirs and in my mind for a very good reason. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
jwp475, Just so you know, my opinion is factual based and not meaningless. I spoke of this a few posts ago, and that still remains; the tests I did in 2002 differ, but we have discovered why, and it can be layed to rest. I trust what Mike and M458 have testified to, and Mike even made a video to prove it, so I cannot argue the point. My findings differed and that still remains. If you are interested, I tested a large number of .458 FN's back in early 2002, to include NF, GS, TBSS and Spear GS Tungsten solids. You all know the results of my tests, and I have stuck by that ever since, and I have not been let down. Now comes to light what M458 has been discovering for the last few years regarding stability factor. Though I knew certain bullets worked, I didn't really understand why. Gerard of GSC bullets has even provided charts on his website to show stability factor against twist. We can look at this simply: a 500 grain NF through a 18 and 20 twist gun does not nearly have the stability (SF) of Mike's 470 with the same weight bullet at 18.9. In fact, it ranged from just under a SF of 2 to nearly 3: http://www.gsgroup.co.za/458500FN089.html http://www.gsgroup.co.za/470500FN075.html A world of difference. In my lower SF senario I found the GS bullets with a little expansion and increased meplat and hence stability worked much better; flawlessly in fact. I also found out that NF changed their hardness twice, and tested alloys. Since then they have made their bullets stronger and harder. Mike has proven this, and I enjoy his work for it. I did research this upon being questioned above, and I stand corrected in so doing. Had it not been for Mike, I would have held onto my prenotions. This shows we can all stand to learn from the testing Mike and Michael are doing, so thank you guys. P.S. I have a few bullets on the way for round two of testing. Wasn't going to say anything until I had results, as that is the way it should be. Up for show are the NF's FN's, BMPB (though can only be had in 405 grain), GS's FN's and the 620 grain super solid. Just know it will take a little while, and I will be posting the results on TBP. -Extremist "Pain is weakness leaving the body" -Instructor Victory in life is dying for what you were born to do. "I hope you live forever" -300 "Never judge an enemy by his words, he might turn out to be a better shot then a writer" http://www.gscustomusa.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well my goodness, look who has been learning some new words of late "ephemeral panacea". Meaning fleeting, temporary, short-lived--cure all wonder drug, or fleeting magic bullet! I bet ones momma is just so proud of you to increase your vocabulary in such a manner! Obviously ones great experiences must have increased also, since it is now "BROAD EXPERIENCE" "Both TYPES OF SOLIDS" in "REAL DANGEROUS GAME" with "REAL DANGEROUS GAME RIFLES" at "REAL DANGEROUS GAME VELOCITIES"! Ohhhhhh, just makes me shiver at the thought of such a "Dangerous Experience"! I think maybe one with such "Dangerous Game Experience" simply must write an article, maybe for SCI, or one of the "African Dangerous Game" magazines, no I know what one must do, write a book with all this experience documented, yes, I think that is the answer for one with so much "BROAD EXPERIENCE" with "REAL DANGEROUS GAME RIFLES at REAL DANGEROUS GAME VELOCITIES". Wow, we are so impressed with your "BROAD EXPERIENCE" great white bwana! Why I have the perfect solution for all my woes, my wretchedness, my despair! Once the book is written, I can put the book into my test medium, my "IRRELEVANT" test medium, and by putting this book in my test medium, with all it's "BROAD EXPERIENCE WITH REAL DANGEROUS GAME RIFLES AND BULLETS AT REAL DANGEROUS GAME VELOCITIES" that it will add plausibility to my "irrelevant" test medium and By God and All that is HOLY IT WILL MAKE MY IRRELEVANT TEST MEDIUM---RELEVANT AT LAST--RELEVANT AT LAST--RELEVANT AT LAST! Maybe with all that "BROAD EXPERIENCE WITH REAL DANGEROUS GAME RIFLES AND REAL DANGEROUS GAME BULLETS AT REAL DANGEROUS GAME VELOCITIES" my test work will no longer be "SO CALLED"? All I have to do is buy the book from the "GREAT WHITE BWANA" and put it into my test medium and blow great big wide gapping holes in it with great big wide meplat flat nose solids! Oh yeah, that sounds like a plan to me! Good God Almighty, such a pompous ass! Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, I just wanted to address a few things here. Firstly, current FN's do not deform and or rivit, as you say, but may expand slightly, as they are designed to. This effect has it purpose, and it works very well. They will out penetrate a RN, and do so in a straight line more consistantly. I have made mention to the 416 380 grain GS bullet vs the ele femur before, and it did just what it was supposed to: expand slightly, controled, smashed through the bone and went an additional 3 feet. It's simple man, FN's will always peform better then a RN and that has a lot to do with friction and stability (here it gets complicated. A RN does not create sufficient cavitation to allow the bullet to contine to penetrate, in a straight line, as well as a FN. This is because aquious tissue has 900 times the friction of air, and that friction is dragging along the tail of the bullet. This is due to the velocity in which tissue is parted off the nose of the bullet. And when it comes to stability, it's the weight forward that starts off on the right track (pun). Before you even get shoulder stabalization, the FN's have a more forward CG, and that already gives a better SF. Especially if they expand slightly. This effect creates greater cavatation and shock, therefor more reliably dropping the animal. Even in the case of the harder FN's that do not expand, they are more sufficiently stabalized then a RN, regarless of it's ogive. The only real practical difference between the two FN's is wether you want slightly more shock and trauma vs penetration...not I have my opinions here, but it's besides the point. So, instead of yapping, I'll include photo's for you:  oops, wrong photo, here  Oh, sorry, here  Man, my bad, here  Sorry about that. I'll give you a cutaway of one of the bullets shown in that test...oooh, it's steel jacketed?  Ah, here's the photo's I was looking for:      Hope that helps. -Extremist "Pain is weakness leaving the body" -Instructor Victory in life is dying for what you were born to do. "I hope you live forever" -300 "Never judge an enemy by his words, he might turn out to be a better shot then a writer" http://www.gscustomusa.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Shooting a RN is like this  It's fun to take chances, but is it really worth it? -Extremist "Pain is weakness leaving the body" -Instructor Victory in life is dying for what you were born to do. "I hope you live forever" -300 "Never judge an enemy by his words, he might turn out to be a better shot then a writer" http://www.gscustomusa.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
H, I totally agree that there is no bullet slippage on animal hide and I will definately agree that I should have been more clear with my comment. Edit: Oops, I'm going to blame it on the meds as I'm still having word structure issues. If I recollect correctly JPK stated that in his experience a RN FMJ solid will demonstrate more straight-line penetration than will a FN momometal solid when striking the rounded edge of elephant frontal bone structure because it will penetrate the bone while the FN will glance from it. I was relating that from my experience when attempting to imprint a flat round circle impression on hard round metal tubing surface that a FN punch would stay true while a RN punch had a great tendency to slip. Basically JPK’s statement made no sense to me…nothing more nothing less. And regarding I agree that it should have been more clearly stated but the key word is deviation so the order should remain the same. Just basically a poor choice of words and word order. Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
Just adding a little more substatiation and explanation to the pictures above. From: THE PERFECT BIG GAME SOLID By Pierre van der Walt "...Sketch Two Scenario C shows the bullet in flight as it enters the terminal medium and becomes unstable. Scenario D show the bullet tumbling and impacting on a bone or obstruction. How can a solid be designed to counter the unavoidable terminal instability and tendency to tumble? The first solution lies outside of the bullet design. Gyroscopic stability of the bullet must be increased by using a much tighter rate of twist for dangerous game rifle barrels, given bullet length, than is the norm. Secondly – opt for the shortest possible solid of sufficiently good quality and design. A 500-grain copper wadcutter of .458 calibre is shorter than a round nose of the same weight, material and calibre and that in turn is shorter than such a spitzer. The late Elmer Keith introduced us to the improved wound channel and energy transmission properties of the wadcutter. This is confirmed by Duncan MacPherson in his work Bullet Penetration – Modelling the Dynamics and Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma, based on the research of the world’s leading wound ballistics expert, Dr Martin Fackler. By opting for this shape one would incorporate as much punch into your solid as possible... ...The semi-wadcutter with its large flat nose also has other advantageous properties apart from relative compactness and effective transferring of energy. These additional properties we will now move to, may or may not, contribute to increased effectivity in a given situation, but the existence of these properties at least have no detrimental terminal effect. In terms of the explanation presented above, the inevitable conclusion is that a solid should always tumble due to it becoming unstable in terminal media such as animal tissue – yet they quite often do not. How can that be explained? First is the issue of shoulder stabilization, and secondly there is supercavitation. Shoulder stabilization occurs when a free stream of moving matter such as water or flesh hits a plane such as a bullet’s nose, the stream is only stopped at one single point in the middle of the plane (bullet nose). The point where this occurs is called the stagnation point (SP). All other stream particles deviate to the side of the plane. Logically the force from the stream develops pressure on the face of the plane. Graphically this is best explained by the enclosed diagram (Sketch 3) published in the 1920’s by Ludwig Prandtl." The red lines denote a stream of fluid (meat – animal tissue) impacting on a plane (wadcutter bullet nose). The red stream lines denote equivalent speeds of tissue displacement, while the blue eliptical lines denote equivalent pressure (isobars) that develop on the wadcutter bullet face during the process of straight line penetration. In the center one finds SP – the stagnation point, at which point the fluid stream is stopped and where pressure is at it’s highest. Shoulder stabilization basically entails that, when an object such as a flat plane (wadcutter bullet face moving though air, or animal tissue) the medium through which the bullet moves is deflected equally in all directions. Pressure dissipates as distances increase from the stagnation point. The pressure naturally is highest at the center (stagnation) point and when a bullet moves in a straight line, the pressure, called jam pressure, is evenly distributed across the bullet nose but drops off towards the edges of the bullet face. When the traveling bullet lacks or loses directional stability and tilts in any direction, the stagnation point (of highest pressure) shifts off center in the same direction in which the base deviates from straight flight. The point of highest pressure thus shifts towards the leading front edge, while it drops off towards the trailing edge – resulting in uneven pressure distribution. Because the highest pressure is closest to the leading edge, it then retards the leading edge more than it retards the trailing edge, as the pressure / resistance (retarding force) on the trailing edge is less. This redistribution of pressure combats tumbling to some degree as it continuously attempts to re-align the bullet center along line of travel. This phenomenon is illustrated in Sketch 4. Just as shoulder stabilization contributes towards atmospheric stability during flight, it similarly contributes towards terminal stability during penetration..." "The second explanation is forwarded by Dr Norbert Hansen, designer of the SuperPenetrator solid. Many of us have seen supercavitation taking place when watching the propeller of a boat spinning through water and bubbles form along the leading edges of the propeller blades. When a body moves through a fluid at high speed and the fluid has to move around it at a rapid pace, the pressure in the flow area drops in terms of Bernoulli’s law. In the case of a bullet traveling through a medium such as water (or animal tissue containing huge percentages of water), the water or tissue has to flow around the bullet. The faster the bullet travels through the water, the more the pressure in the flow decreases and a point can be reached where the flow pressure equals the vapour pressure of water (or any other medium it is traveling through). When that occurs, the water converts to gas and bubbles or cavities appear and that constitutes cavitation. The sharper the edge or larger diameter of meplat across which the flow occurs (such as a semi-wadcutter leading edge), the easier it happens. The more the cavitation due to faster flow (higher velocities) the more rapid the extent of cavitation, until a point is reached where all the small vapour bubbles fuse into a large, stable bubble around the bullet (Sketch 5). The single large bubble enveloping the bullet constitutes supercavitation. The effect of which is that only the meplat on the bullet nose remains in contact with the terminal medium. The rest of the bullet travels in a capsule of low-pressure tissue vapour, much more comparable to air than water or flesh. While encapsulated in this low pressure cavity, penetration reducing drag on the bullet as well as its tendency to tumble is reduced because it travels in a virtual atmospheric medium – not the 30-40 times denser water or body tissue. Unfortunately this supercavitation bubble is fragile and easily lost in the rough conditions prevailing when a bullet travels through an animal. When it is lost, tumbling follows. Hansen’s experimentation (on test media and elephants) is very promising. On wet media and body shots, traditional round nose solids provided an average of 31.5” of straight line penetration before tumbling, whereas the flat nose, supercavitating bullets achieved an average of 95.0” of stable penetration. This is similar to the reported 78" to 144" penetration reported on elephant with GS Custom FN solids where supercavitation also occurs. Supercavitation is therefore another reason for the current African philosophy that a solid should have a large flat nose (meplat). Not only for maximum shock transfer, but also for increased terminal stability potential in terms of the supercavitation and shoulder stabilization concepts..." -Extremist "Pain is weakness leaving the body" -Instructor Victory in life is dying for what you were born to do. "I hope you live forever" -300 "Never judge an enemy by his words, he might turn out to be a better shot then a writer" http://www.gscustomusa.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
H, That's some very good and interesting information. I have deduced that I need to stay away from commenting on the threads for a few days while I wean myself from the pain meds then perhaps I’ll not have as many issues with word choice and sentence structure… Thanks for sharing the information and your experiences. Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| one of us |
Capoward, On body shots not involving heavy bone, I agree with your table, however I would add that while its ranking in your table is probably on the mark, the FN steel jacketed solid is but a few years ols and, while reports - on game - are promising, the jusy is still out. Michael 458's so called tests have proven nothing about bullet performance in real game. The media used is known to produce results which differ substantially to real world, in game performance, so it fails as a medium for predicting a bullet's performance in the real world, in game. Just look at the real world performance of the RN steel jacketed solids and then at Michael 458's predicted performance and the divide between predicted performance and actual performance reveals the so called tests irrelevance. Truncated cone mono copper FN solids are the second best choice for frontal brain shots because the frontal brain shot nessecarily involves the penetration of bone, more likely not dense bone, but possibly. The bullets are prone to rivetting, which I do not feel harmful to performance if limited, but also to divoting and bending, which are precorsors to veering. In addition, the generally greater penetration of the FN solid is very unlikely to provide any benefit, since the penetration required to reach the brain is known, and, in all but the most unsusual of circumstances, well within the expected penetration of the RN solid. As an aside, a charging elephant will typically carry its head much lower than one caught unawares, reducing penetration requirements to reach the brain. Because a killing shot rquires penetration of the brain, the enhanced wound channel of the FN does not add to quicker death either. The steel jacketed Woodleigh hemishperical RN solid is the better choice because of its greater resistance to nose deformation. Probably the best choice would be the Hornaday FN steel jacketed solid, but, as I wrote, the jury is still out. The only bullet that I have used which "skidded" on bone was a NF FN solid, which skid on, grooved but failed to penetrate the zygomatic arch of an elephant bull. That bullet turned on the bone, and failed to penetrate any deeper than the depth of the skin and thin muscle over the arch. God knows where that bullets ricocheted, it exited when it turned 90* and it was not recovered. I suspect that I would have found a bent bullet and an angled nose, but that is conjecture. As 465H&H writes, RN, FN don't skip or slip on the hide. Regarding 465H&H's comments on the hemisherical RN brass solids from Barnes and A2, and one or two other makers which slip my mind at the moment, what he writes is true. And when they did penetrate straigth, they had less significantly less penetration than Woodleigh or Hornaday hemisherical RN solids. There is just something that doesn't work about the brass bullets in that configuration. While rspecting 465H&H's great experience with the ogived RN steel jacketed solids, I must disagree with him regarding their frequency of veering. I have little first hand experience, limited to my PH shooting a handful into fresh dead elephants so we could measure penetration. Everyone of those Woodleighs tracked true, as have 465H&H's ogived solids. However, history isn't on the shape's side, with reported greater tendency to veer. Both Taylor and Ron Thomson, a Rhodesian Park's ranger and culler who killed thousands of elephants (primarily with the 458wm using Winchester factory ammunition with their excellent steel jacketed, hemishperical, RN solids, and reported no issues at all with the 458wm, its ammo or its bullets on elephants and buff,) report more veering compared to hemisherical steel jacketed solids. Lastly, I believe that the FN is most likely to rivet or divot or bend nearer its highest velocity, not at lower velocity toward the end of its in game journey. The one NF that veered on me exhibited an increasing rate of departure from straight line penetration the deeper it went. A tightening arch away from the straight line. For example, it may have only deviated 2" or so during its first 30" of in game travel, but deviated another 4" or 5" during it last 18" of travel, and of those 4-5", three were during the last 12" of penetration. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Spot on...... _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
The only reason for the lesser reporting of hemispherical steel jacketed solids is because they are less common (barely a fraction of other RN's). It has little to nothing to do with the slight difference in the shape of the RN. Fact is, any angular presentation of pressure will cause a tendancy to veer...the entire nose of a RN is an angle! All pressures to this nose will create a less-stable bullet, and only in perfectly consistant media will a RN show little to no veering or loss of stability. Add to this the greater surface area this pressure is acting upon and you have exponentially greater chance of instability and veer. Let's break it down simply: Center of pressure is a point...so now lets try to ballance a RN on that point...not going to happen. With a FN this point continiously and without hesitation flows to the side which leads; this creates stability that trys to force the bullet back straight. Since this happens so quickly and with so little varience, the bullet penetrates in a virtually perfect straight line. Only when this COP rolls off the meplat can a FN tumble...a RN is ALWAYS off the meplat (acting upon the side of the bullet). The larger the meplat, the less likely this is to happen. And if you would like to add in the deformation of some FN's, then you are working against yourself. In this case, when the FN strikes an animal it begins to expand and flatten, actually increasing the meplat and shortening the bullet. This effectivly, and substantially, increases stability. Yes, this creates greater cavitation, which can reduce penetration depth, so this must be controled, and modern FN's are just that. If you would like, I can add more pictures here. Now, cavitation! I have something important to add here against your RN theory. First off, the brain does not have to actually come in contact with the bullet. Rather, the effect of the bullet has to reach the brain. FN's, as described above, have a larger "footprint" so to speak. We call this the temporary wound cavity. If this footprint reached the brain, it shocks it and the animal will be stunned...if the permenent wound channel reached the brain, it is permenently dead. FN's have a larger Temporary and Perminent wound cavity. Think about this. The 50BMG has an 18 kill radius within 100 yards of the muzzle. Even if you miss an enemy's head by anything less then 18", he will die. There is more documentation on this then you care to dispute, and yes, friendly fire has been part of this...amazing what silly tricks people will try for entertainment. I guess it's like using a RN, flirting with danger. As for the validity of Michael's testing...that's really a silly thing for you to question. If a bullet succeeds in a test, it is more likely to succeed in the field; and if it fails there, it will be more likely to fail in game. All the testing does is demenstraight likelyhood, and it can simulate the worst case senarios. And the funny part is, he shoots live game too! Likely more then any of us ever have. It also shows if a bullet will rivit, divot or bend, as you say. The bullets we shoot do not. Need I link some ele again? This part I like: "In addition, the generally greater penetration of the FN solid is very unlikely to provide any benefit..." So don't shoot the better bullet, you MIGHT not need it! "...since the penetration required to reach the brain is known, and, in all but the most unsusual of circumstances, well within the expected penetration of the RN solid" So take the chance? Sorry, rather not, and unusual circumstances are bond to show up, when you least expect it. You use words like "typically" and "Usually", and I simply do not agree. And quicker death isn't being addressed, but death itself. A better wound will have a higher probibility, and that's good enough for me. Just to note, the steel jacketed nose is not less likely to deform. It still has lead, and it can still happen. Michael, Mike and My testing has shown this. We are the jury, for ourselves, and we are ajurned. Skidding is a product of angle vs force vs momentum. Say force and momentum are equal, as they really are, angle is the variable factory. RN's present this force at a greater angle, so are more likely to skid. Regardless of wether it has happened to you, it's still a fact. If one particular bullet failed for you, then don't use it anymore. Just like we have seen failure of RN's and choose not to shoot them. Try shooting a RN at water vs a FN, see which ones skids first! Just be sure you are testing in the middle of BFE. P.S. Just noting something...all the pictures of deformed and tumbled RN's have a nose that is just fine! ... wonder what this could mean? See you don't need deformation for a RN to tumble or veer, it's already deformed! -Extremist "Pain is weakness leaving the body" -Instructor Victory in life is dying for what you were born to do. "I hope you live forever" -300 "Never judge an enemy by his words, he might turn out to be a better shot then a writer" http://www.gscustomusa.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Do you have any empherical proofs or any thing better than Micheal458's test????????? I didn't think so.... What proof can you prived that a proper monometal flat point solid does not penetrate adequately through the skull of an Elephant? They will certainly track straighter more often and leave more wound trauma than any round nose solid. You certainly can not show other wise. The Earth is still flat, I know because a world traveler wide BROAD TRAVEL EXPERIENCE gtold me so _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thanks jwp475, and I owe you a bit of graditude for your work and your help in my understanding the effect meplats have. Still have the pic of that guy shooting the BFR in full recoil, pointed back at him  -Extremist "Pain is weakness leaving the body" -Instructor Victory in life is dying for what you were born to do. "I hope you live forever" -300 "Never judge an enemy by his words, he might turn out to be a better shot then a writer" http://www.gscustomusa.com | |||
|
| one of us |
Extremeist 458, I understand the reasons for the truncated cone FN's greater penetration compared to RN's, and why the FN's veer less frequently. My own experience reveals penetration advantage, in the body absent substantial bone, of 40% or so. I do not believe that supercavitation is involved, just cavitation and wetter surface area, as well as shoulder stabilization or the lack of it for the RN's. I believe that the greater wetted surface area, and so friction, of the RN's and their tendency to tumble late in their journey, which all but ends their penetration, is what gives the FN's their substantial penetration advantage. Your depiction in your second post shows well how RN steel jacketed solids deform. Fortunately it is when they are beginning to or already tumbling, which is after they have lost substantial velocity, penetrated deeply and already done their job! Your three photos of bullets do not depict any deformed steel jacketed solids. The depict six defromed cupro-nickel jacketted solids, one bent brass solid and one tail flattened lead cored naval bronze jacketed solid. The one steel jacketed solid depicted, the second from the left in the bottom photo, appears undamged. I used to have a collection of recovered solids, all indexed to the animals they were used on. That collection included many riveted, divoted and/or bent FN solids. Plenty of deformed Woodleighs too. Roughly equal examples of deformation for the two types. But not one of those Woodleigh steel jacketed solids was deformed at the nose, while all of the FN's which were deformed were deformed at the nose. Recall that FN's deform early, while still at relatively high velocity, RN's deform late, after they have used most of their velocity in penetration. See also in that third photo the difference in the traditional 470 nose shape - to the right of the steel jacketed solid, and the hemisherical nose shape -to the left. The one depicted steel jacketed solid appears to me to be a Woodleigh with its modified original shape, nearer hemishperical than the original shape. You are incorrect regarding the rarety of hemisherical solids. All .458" Kynoch and Woodleigh solids are and always have been hemishperical. More .458" solids have been used to kill elephants than all other calibres combined, I'd venture (with maybe the exception of the .308.) With so much of the Rhodesian culling taking place with 458wm rifles, and the 450NE's being the most common DG cartridges in Africa for generations, it is more than likely. Most steel jacketed solids are either hemishperical or near it. Take the 375 and 9.3 Woodleighs for example, slinghtly flattened hemishpereical shape. I would continue my response, but I need to be up early tomorrow... There are purposes where a truncated cone FN is the best choice, and there are purposes where a steel jacketted RN is the best choice. Choose with consideration to get the strengths you favor for the purpose and to avoid the shortcoming you need to for the purpose. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
One of Us |
JPK, I tend to keep things on a simple level. Personally I could care less what you shoot. If you want to hunt elephant with a single shot 45-70 shooting a Match King at 1200 FPS go for it, it will give us something to talk about. It does not bother me that we do not agree on what is the best bullet. What bothers me is the back hand insult of "so called" test. A lot of time and effort goes in to making these test consistent. My test are consistent enough I can setup one and know where the bullet will stop. Check out the video. As far as Woody's being tougher than North Forks I call BS on that. Just about every Woody I have shot has the lead core starting to push out the back. The NF's look so good Extremist did not even think they were fired in the test. I have shot through water, newspaper, hardy board, plywood, treated pine, and all sort of combinations of the before mentioned items and at all sorts of wierd angles and different velocities and the North Fork always performed perfect. The Woody's were consistent in their failures. So your "so called" test on dead elephants are different. I am still shooting North Forks this trip until something changes my mind. In case you missed this in the BB forum.  | |||
|
| one of us |
I have had a NF turn on and fail to penetrate the zygomatic arch of a bull elephant. The bullet left a crease in the arch under the ear hole and exited when it turned. Yes, I have something better than shooting wet newspapers. I shoot elephants and cape buffalo alive and then dead to confirm rellevant bullet performance in the real world. Yes, truncated cone FN's will veer less frequently. Yes, they leave a larger diameter wound channel, yes they penetrate deeper in game so long as substantial bone is avoided. But neither the steel jacketed RN's nor the FN's discussed veer with any material frequency. Truncated cone copper solids do not penetrate bone as reliably as Woodleigh steel jacketed RN's and without deformation, divoting or bending, all of which are precursors to veering. Uniform riveting is not what I am talking about as far a deformation either. Wound channel diameter is of no consequence on a brain shot or if the bullet can't penetrate the bone it must to get to its target. So, use a Woodleigh for the first shot at an elephant, which will be a brain shot, use a NF or GSC for subsequent shots where penetration may be at a premium. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
Michael, Nice Ad Hominem attack. You cannot refute my post because it is a fact that your so called tests cannot predict results in the real world on real game, and so test nothing. So attack the messenger, eh. You know, or ought to, that real in game results at revolver or 45/70 velocities are not relevant to results at DG rifle velocities. Ever read the story about The King Who Wore No Clothes? His charade crumbles as well. Read the book or see the play to se how your story turns out. JPK
Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, Take your time, I'm sure this will go on for a long time. I was correct in what I said, the steel jacketed hemisphearical RN's, not just hemisphearical solids, are much less common and so have less reported failure. Regardless of bone or tissue, FN's always penetrate better, and not just due to cavitation, wether super or not, or if that word is even relivent. A FN punches a hole in bone, and a RN wedges it apart. It takes more force to wedge the bone apart and does not do as much damage. This is important on narrow hits, and the fact that the wedging effect applies side forces against the RN, which cause veering. This is not the case with FN's. Yes, we are talking fractions and degrees of possible failure, but pertinent none the less. Just trying to keep it short and simple. What is relivent in the photo of the steel jacket is that is did tumble and showed ovality from it. No, the nose did not deform, but that isn't necessary to cause tumbling and veering. And a point comes to light here: Yes, a hemisphereical RN is better then an ogived one, just like and in the same way a FN is better then a hemispherical RN. My point in the photo's is to show the superiority of the homogenious solids, being FN's. I would very much like to see photo's of riveted and divoted and bent FN's. We all know it happens, but the point is that it is less often or likely then RN's. And that the FN's, even if deformed still work better then a RN. The steel jacketed RN I show cut in half isn't hemispherical. But regardless of what caliber is most common, it doesn't mean it's the best, nor does it have anything to do with the bullet. More people drive Honda Civics, so does that mean it's the best car? Point is that RN's veer, wether earlier or later, and FN's do the job better. You say RN's only fail after they have done their job...usually. I don't like taking chances, and I don't like failure. I like using the best possible tool for the job. So lets go to the next level here. How about you point out only what advantages a RN has over a FN, and I will do the same for the FN's. Disregarding wether lesser will still work, what is better? -Extremist "Pain is weakness leaving the body" -Instructor Victory in life is dying for what you were born to do. "I hope you live forever" -300 "Never judge an enemy by his words, he might turn out to be a better shot then a writer" http://www.gscustomusa.com | |||
|
| one of us |
I am still up, so a short response. I obviously do not agree that a truncated cone mono FN is the best solid for all purposes. IUt has negatives which make it second best in a couple of situations, and positives which make it first coice in others. Steel jacketed solids punch holes through the bones of the skull. They do not wedge open the skull bones, the hole is larger than calibre not smaller than calibre. Same too for rib bones on eles and buff, ele and buff shoulder blades. I don't know one way or the other for either type for mose massive ele leg bones. As far as "narrow hits", which I take to mean glancing hits, FN's will veer! I have not had a Woodleigh RN veer. Yes, hemishperical steel jacketed solids are the preferred "generally RN" shape compared to the more ogived shape, because they have less tendency to both tumble and to veer. History reflect this, as I noted. But so does physics, the hemishperical nose is closer to COG, COM and so the shape is less likely to tumble or veer compared to the more ogived shape. Some of the smaller diameter steel jackets Woodleigh RN's have an even better shape, with an almost flat nose, but they are medium bores, and outside of this discussion, at least in my opinion. See the 375H&H shape for an example, but again it is the smaller calibres. I am aware that the sectioned bullet isn't hemisherical, but the 577, maybe 500, bullet above is. And I have several hundred 480gr and 500gr .458"'s downstairs which are as well. And some .474" and .375" that are not. Every .458" Woodleigh and all of the previous Hornaday steel jacketed solids and the Winchester steel jacketed solids were hemishperical, other cartridges' solids are also hemishperical, like the .416" Woodleighs. There has been no shortage of hemishperical steel jacketed solids having been used on DG. As I mentioned, especially given the 458wm's extensive use by Rhodesian, Zim and other Parks dept's for buff and ele tsetse corridor culling and PAC work,I suspect that more hemishperical steel jacketed solids have been used on DG than all other types combined. But even if not, no shortage. There are fewer reports of veering because there is less frequent veering than the relatively few more ogived shapes. I cannot see the flattening of the bullet I called undamaged with the reading glasses I'm wearing at the moment, but I don't doubt it. But it is of no concern to me because RN tumbling occurs "only" after the bullet has lost the great proportion of its velocity, already penetrated well, and straight (since veering is just uncommon under any circumstances,) and the bullet has done its job. As far as strengths and weaknesses of each type, I have listed them in my previous post, and again in my post immeadiately preceding this one. Which is better? Depends on the application. First shot on an elephant - Woodleigh for puching through what may be substantial bone! Second and susequent - NF or GSC because you may need all of the penetration your rifle can muster, and any bone need only to be broken and not penetrated, and the riveting or even mushrooming the copper FN will under go is the evidence of transfer of energy! For first or subsequent shot on buff - if your rifle runs velocity of ~2125fps with the RN then the RN will do for all shots, but a RN first and FN second and subsequent is as good or better. If your rifle makes less than ~2100fps or so, then RN first and FN for second and subsequent. (At 2220fps, a 450gr .458" NF has too much penetration for buff for any shot near broadside, but its perfect for going away shots; at, say, 2050fps the .458" Woodleigh has too little for going away shots but is perfect for anything near broadside; at 2145fps a Woodleigh has sufficient penetration for going away shots but care nust be taken on broadside shots because the bullet will exit.) For small game like grysbok or klipspringer, where you are trying to preserve the skin, makes no difference. I have used both and the results are indistinguishable. Eland, kudu... whatever you have in the rifle. There is no best, there are only better choices amoungst the two for different purposes. I have had no difficulty getting 500gr Woodleighs and 450gr NF's to shoot to the same POI, and I shoot a double rifle, so I load a Woodleigh in the right barrel and a NF in the left. Best of both choices available. BTW, I am waiting to see if the Hornaday FN steel jacketed solid might not be the best choice of all, with enough of the FN's advantages without its weaknesses and with enough of the steel jacketed RN's advantages without is weaknesses. Goodnight, JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
Mike 70560, The lead tit which protrudes from the Woodleighs, or for that matter any lead core solid, is the result of the bullet swaging as it exits the leade, or freebore, and engraves. The ability to swage, and for the lead tit to be extruded from the vent to allow for the jacket swaging, is what makes Woodleighs acceptible to shoot in double rifles and easier on the barrel of any rifle than some alternatives. It is not a sign of a lack of toughness or of imminent failure or anything along those lines. Like the NF's grooves, a design feature allowing for gas sealing of different rifles' bores while keeping the bullet safe to shoot. A few of the NF's that I have recovered from cape buffalo or elephants are undeformed. Almost all of them exhibit some riveting, a substantial proportion exhibit divoting, fewer are bent. I would venture to say that more of the Woodleighs that I have recovered are undeformed. If I remember, I will look and get a count of those my son hasn't scattered tomorrow, and take a photo also. As far as your "tests", they test only a bullet's performance in wet paper or whatever other media you use. Their results are only repeatable in that media. They cannot predict a bullet's performance in real game. They cannot repeat a bullet's performance in real game. They especially lead to erroneous conclusins regarding the performance of RN solids, but also erroneos conclusions regarding FN solids and soft point as well. As an example of the erroneous results with RN's you have consistent veering, failure in your words, in your "tests", but not in game; you have consistent straight line penetration for FN's, while they do veer or tumble from time to time, and as Gerard has confirmed - he mentions weight vs. twist rate as a factor, but your "tests" do not reveal this trait. I could go on... So, in the end, it is a lot of work for "data" leading to erroneous conclusions and a lot of work for irrelevant results which are not repeatable in game, cannot predict performance in game. I would call that a waste of time. Maybe you don't. The difference between tests in live and dead game, as I have done and as 465H&H and others have done, is that when a sufficient number of trails has been conducted a range of expectations which match reality are the result. In game, RN's very rarely veer; in game RN's penetrate well; in the game RN's penetrate substantial bone better; in game copper FN's deform almost all of the time; in game copper FN's divot frequently; in game FN's will rarely veer, but they will veer. All of these results have occured in game, but none have occured in your "tests." Rellevant prediction, that is the significant difference, and the difference between what I think is a waste of time and energy and learning. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK I know right now anything with you is a total waste of time. Why even bother? Your so called test shooting dead animal tissue is totally meaningless and has no bearing on anything. The medium has zero consistency from shot to shot, and the only possible conclusion that can be drawn of it is that "this bullet did this this time and this time only" 1 inch to the right, left, bottom or top is a different test medium. Dead tissue is slack, life has left it. No reactions or conclusions can be made from that. Any test medium, regardless of what is far more consistent and can give consistent results as it is controlled by the tester, or operator. Wet newsprint mixes are wonderful indicators of bullet performance, as are many other mediums used. By the way, I am not directly addressing you for your sake, but for others that are new to this. You are a waste of time, because one cannot get through your ego and arrogance. Also most of everything you know is on the back of others that have gone the exact same path you have chosen because of your hero worship of them, that cannot be broken through either. Your own so called tests reflect exactly the same thing they have done, and nothing more. Trying to dig bullets out of dead elephants is truly an act of futility. Don't forget for a minute "Great White Bwana" I personally have been there and done that, and more than once on elephant and buffalo! So I have plenty MORE experience than you will ever hope to have in your entire lifetime of doing proper and true test work before hand, and then taking that test work to the field to shoot "REAL DANGEROUS GAME WITH REAL DANGEROUS GAME RIFLES WITH REAL DANGEROUS GAME BULLETS AT REAL DANGEROUS GAME VELOCITIES" as you would say! As your only shooting and testing experience is with a few elephants and a few buffalo, with no test work before hand, and little shooting experience to back it up! Please tell us all exactly how many different big bore rifle calibers, cartridges, rifles, and how many different bullets you have actually used and tested? How many elephants have you shot with these various different calibers, rifles, bullets and cartridges? From your statement of such "BROAD EXPERIENCES" please qualify those for all of us? I would like specifics on use of different calibers and your bullet choices and loads, I would like to know these things and I am sure everyone out here would too! Oh, and by the way, I KNOW HOW MY STORY TURNS OUT WITH NO DOUBTS! WHY? Because I put forth the effort in the right direction before hand, before going to the field so that I can make all the right choices long before setting foot on dirt! How do I know this is a fact? I have been there, I have done it! Unlike you, I don't need to "proclaim" my exploits to earn respect, my ego is not near as huge as yours, and I need only be arrogant with a pompous ass like you! I also continue to have a yearning to learn, and continue to do so, while you are stuck in the muck and cannot move! Yes, I know how my story turns out very well! In fact, my story is finished and is hugely successful, only because of the time and effort put forth "BEFORE HAND". As I have stated many times in the past, what may fail in the test work, may fail in the field, or it might pass from time to time, but it is a matter of time, What is successful in the test work WILL BE successful in the field and rarely will it fail. Odds are most definitely in favor of test work before hand! Only a fool blinded by arrogance and ego could not understand that. I am not blind! Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
One of Us |
michael please stop with the personal attacks, as they only make you look foolish, and to be quite honest not that eager to learn. JPK has quite an extensive expirence with elephant which is well documented. it is one thing to disagree with people, another to act as a teenager that thinks he will be right if he only yell's louder, your writing strikes me as teenager screaming right now.
since this is the double rifle forum, who many of these many guns that you have tested were Double rifles ?, how many do you have now ?, would you care to show us the pictures ? No insult intended, i am just trying to establish the debth of your knowlegde base and expirence. best peter | |||
|
| One of Us |
peterdk Absolutely correct, I have ZERO experience with double rifles, and you never ever see me post on double rifles nor do you see me claim any such experience with double rifles. This thread concerns bullets, and last time I checked the bullet really does not care which sort of rifle it is shot out of. You obviously are not aware of many things, including past history with said individual. If this fails to enlighten you, the writing is certainly not screaming, it's exposing said ones own words in a more bold fashion. I beg to differ with that opinion. Double rifles owned or tested? ZERO. How many do I have now? ZERO As I do not own, nor desire to own, I certainly do not have any photos of double rifles! You do not see me anywhere else, ever on this forum for anything. This thread is again about Bullets and bullet performance. I did not start this thread and this thread has to deal with Terminal Bullet Performance posted first over on Terminal Bullet Performance on the Big Bore thread, brought over here by Capoward and concerning Mikes test work, which works in conjunction with myself on that thread. His test work on this happened to be out of a double rifle, other than that there is no connection between the two. Since it is obvious you are a double rifle guy (and that is fine) then being such it is very imperative that you pay close attention to the test work done by Mike, that is if you would like to optimize your shooting experience with bullets that truly work. There is much more involved than just a choice of bullet, there is nose profile, meplat size and meplat percentage of caliber, twist rate is very important, velocity, construction, SD and several factors that come into play. Of course, if it was myself, I would be paying attention to these things. Since this pertains to said ones great experiences with bullets, rifles and other said matters, then since said one has no issue with making such claims then show the bonafides as you have asked me to do! I know very well of said individuals great conquests, and quite frankly in a world of bullet terminal performance they are not up to par in a shooting world. If so desired I would gladly leave your Double Rifle forum, since I have no double rifle experience and don't want any. I don't have any issues at all with double rifles, they are fine pieces of work, they are just not my cup of tea is all, anymore than a bow and arrow is my thing, I am a bolt/lever trash sorta guy, and you are correct I have no business here, other than terminal bullet performance! I am so sorry for being here, I did not understand the rules that one must have a double rifle to be able to qualify for a discussion of Terminal Bullet Performance. Thank you Peter for confirming my thoughts about the Double Rifle forum and many, but not all, of the good folks that attend it. I will now depart from this forum as you so desire. I apologize for my intrusion. Have at it and Good luck with your endeavors! Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Peter, have you read any of JPK's responses?? By refering to Michael's testing as "so called" and rendering them irrelevant, he is actually making it personal. That he is not testing double rifles is irrelevant to the testing as he tests a wide range of velocities that mimic those of doubles and the higher velocity bolt-action rifles. "Ignorance you can correct, you can't fix stupid." JWP If stupidity hurt, a lot of people would be walking around screaming. Semper Fidelis "Building Carpal Tunnel one round at a time" | |||
|
| One of Us |
michael I am a gunmaker, making and reparing these fun tools, we call double rifles. you say it is about the bullet, and i do agree completly with that, problem is that some of those mono metal bullets that you reccomend so highly, might damage those double rifles. so to quote you: Of course, if it was myself, I would be paying attention to these things. i would actually like you to hang around, as it is oblivius that you are spending a lot of thought on these matters, you just need a few more parameters to make sure it works for us arrogant double rifle snobs  as well.i am doing some testing on a few old double rifles myself at the moment to see if i can get an answer about a few questions that have been floating around here. so please stay and learn, but remember that things are never that clear cut for our guns as it is for the bolt rifles. best peter | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Double Rifles 470 NE Penetration Tests
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
