quote:

On our website are many examples of game that did not cost us anything. Right now, this moment, I can call any one of several places where I could shoot anything up to a kudu, no charge. Unlike you, I have family and friends. Many of them do not charge for meat for the table. However, it does not surprise me that you have to pay wherever you go. I too would charge you the maximum I can get away with.

This is funny ... real funny.
Clutching at straw.

This one takes the cake ... "Of course the early years of hunting, while we stayed in the Karoo, hunting cost nothing."



Warrior

Honor and respect are not funny matters. I guess when you have no respect, nor have earned it, understanding it is moot. And just to give you an idea of the respect Gerard has earned, his own nemesis and copycat wrote this:

Gerard,

I just noticed you are posting.

It is good to see you here... and clear up some of the nonsense which occasionally gets spread. You will find a wide range of character, and competency, among the participants. Unfortunately, a small minority of responders are severely lacking in one, or both, categories. You acquitted yourself well.

Your sacrificial drive band design is getting traction in the States as a consequence of proficiency in manufacture of exponential gain-twist rifling geometry for the 6+ caliber long banded solids. Other improvements in case design, anti heat-erosion technology, and projectile aerodynamics are being built upon your fundamental innovation.

I would like to take this opening to make people aware of how much you have contributed to the development of small arms. I am indebted to you.

Best,
Noel Carlson

Hey Warrior,

quote:

This one takes the cake ... "Of course the early years of hunting, while we stayed in the Karoo, hunting cost nothing."

Do you seriously mean that you do not have places where you can visit and not pay for hunting? That you really do not understand that hunting can be on the house.......?? No one can be that thick in the head!!

Not often one sees a person whose lift does not go to the top floor again and again and again and again........

It's like looking for floor 13 in a lift, some buildings have and some don't.
If you don't know and understand Friday the 13th, you'll always get confused in lifts!!

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Pontificus Ignoranus,
On 8 and 9 March you said:
Your post of 8 March:
My notes are in red.

The plot thickens ... that one FN bullet can perform, but not another one !!! Something you still don't get. The plot thickens only for you. You have your own personal thick plot that you carry with you, wherever you go.

This bullet performed badly ... and this in an acceptable twist rate. It is not an acceptable twist rate. If it were, the bullet would not have turned. A CZ550 9.3x62 with a twist of 9/9.5 is acceptable for this bullet.

Perhaps this bullet should be shot through another barrel with the same twist rate. Another barrel with the same twist?

If it yields much better penetration, then we can't blame the twist. It will perform the same so we can blame the twist. This is not black magic, we are dealing with engineered solutions here.

Then barrel behaviour needs to be considered as giving different yaw angles, which is currently being ignored. Where do you get this from? It is being ignored because it is a non-event. You are murky on the concepts in the extreme.

Obviously if some bullets are "dud" bullets (not being uniform/identical) in the pack, then we will see variation, even failure. A bullet like this with a FN profile should perform better. What is it you always say: "You are grasping at straw(sic)." You advance every crackpot reason you have brought up a hundred times before. Nebulous theory for which the answers are never forthcoming. "Dud bullets" - get a life and a brain.

The theory says: A high SF is not synonymous with small yaw angles for a start. In fact it is. High SF reduces yaw (both cycles) more quickly. You are wrong because you do not understand the theory. Fact is: High SF is not synonomous with good tractibility and acceptable angles of attack at extreme range. This does not concern us here as we are discussing normal hunting distances and solids in particular.

A high spin rate will unmask any flaw in asymmetry in the mass of a spinning bullet, the faster the spin the greater the effect of asymmetry. Another non-event. It concerns the extreme accuracy shooters who use thin jacketed lead core bullets and who are wanting to squeeze the last 1/32" from a group. There is no practical application for this in hunting, unless the hunting takes place on the far side of 500.

Unfortunately over-spin is a problem in that it influences the ability of the bullet to dynamically stabilize, Seeing that you are just repeating what Alf said without understanding what is going on, let me ask the question I asked Alf about this: At what distance does this dynamic instability happen?

it also has an effect on downrange tractability, At what distance?

i.e. yaw angle. Not yaw angle, angle of attack. Clearly you do not know the difference.

In terms of Gyro stability (SF value) a bullet can have a large angle of attack, but still be gyroscopically stable.You repeat the words but with no comprehension. By coincidence, this statement is correct.

The angle of attack at impact implies that the long axis of the bullet is sitting at an angle to the direction of it's forward motion, however small we think it might be, but it is there, and it may just play a greater role than we might think in respect of in-target stability. Lets hear your take on this, if there is an own opinion. It should be good for more laughs.

There are four possible causes for dispersion as related to twist. This should be good.

They are, static or bullet imbalance, Bad terminology, but we get the drift. Of course this is applicable to target and extreme distance shooters.

yaw in the barrel, Which has nothing to do with twist.

dynamic imbalance (which occurs when the bullet's axis of inertia is not in line with its angle of form), and insufficient stability (SF). This phrase is the essence of confuded discombobulation. But wait, there is more!

The effects of the first three factors can be lessened by decreasing the twist rate. The fourth one, insufficient stability, is reduced by increasing the twist. Thank you for providing, in writing, irrefutable proof that you do not have a cooking clue.

Dynamic stability, depends on geometric properties of the bullet and flow field properties and cannot be influenced by barrel parameters. Twist is a barrel parameter. Did you not say a little higher up that: "Unfortunately over-spin is a problem in that it influences the ability of the bullet to dynamically stabilize,"? Now it is something else again. Confusion reigns!

So the SF value on its own is therefore not the only and absolute value that governs stability. For the purpose of this thread it pretty much is. The village posse draws near.

Back to the poor performance of the 286gr Barnes Banded FN

The question that arises is one of uniformity of this batch of Barnes Banded FN's, and then secondly as I have mentioned, to shoot these bullets through another barrel as a check to see if there is a marriage between this bullet and your barrel versus another barrel. Some barrels just do not like certain bullets as funny as this may sound. Not just an imbalance that is created inside the barrel, but also how it brakes away from the muzzle. The flow field around this bullet (perhaps uneven pressure grooves) may in fact cause a dynamic instability. Goodness, this is funny. Witchcraft, black magic, voodoo all rolled into one. Concocted, bogus, Bekker gut feeling all together in one paragraph.

"The flow field around this bullet (perhaps uneven pressure grooves) may in fact cause a dynamic instability."


Your first post of 9 March:

Are you saying the 12" twist is fine for the Wdl RN FMJ giving deep penetration, but not fine for for the FN Barnes Banded Solid? Before it was the oppsosite that RN's needed more twist? Well, I have been telling you for years that the Woodleigh SF of 2.2 is good to go at the lower impact speed while the Barnes, barely SF2 at the higher speed is not.

Just something to think about.
And that makes me think there is still something else. Problem is you don't think. You Google, read half of it and ride off in four directions at once.
The pendulum cannot swing this way. This is true. Your pendulum swings one way only, you tick but your tock is missing.

Pontificus Ignoranus' post of 10 April and subsequent posts on the thread are relevant.

Given that ignoring Warrior (aka Pontificus Ignoranus) does not work and he continues to sprout nonsense, there is regrettably no option but to slap him down again.

Posted by Warrior on 10 April:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawndart quote:

The GS solids will either work like death lasers, or hit the target sideways.
Gerard's driving bands are fairly shallow.
The only way to know is to buy a box or borrow some and give them a whirl.

Lawndart,

Could you please share your experience with us when the bullet hit the target sideways. Would love to see a photo of this bullet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't you just love to see such a picture? It would fit right in with your agenda, wouldn't it? Pity for you that it is not going to happen because the bullet does not exist. So, despite asking several times, you are getting all short of breath for nothing, idiot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we come to twist in the third instance; it stands to reason that a faster twist is more likely to strip, especially if it is overly fast - meaning that the pitch angle is increased drastically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have pointed out before, your understanding of bullet length, twist and stability is a joke, but now you have added spin up torque to the list of your murky concepts as well.

Posted by Warrior on 11 April:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
original bullets used in the 404 were Kynoch and RWS and were only 33 mm long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No they were not. You need to Google some more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a short-throated big-bore caliber( only 7.62 mm), it means that bullet are typically seated deep into the case, and the ogived bullet needs to get closed to the lands,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As clear as mud, as usual.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it creates the situation that the that FN bullets need to be seated even deeper to be able to chamber,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What brand of flat nosed bullets are you referring to? Not GSC FNs I take it? Because if you include GSC FNs, you are even more stupid than what I thought you are and that is a scary thought.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and fall far short of the specified AOL of 89 mm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another sentence that makes no sense. What does America On Line have to do with this? Or does AOL stand for something we should recognise/guess/assume.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many present day bullet manufacturers do not recognize this shortcoming of the 404 Jeffery,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They do and the perceived problem is not with the bullets but mostly in your head. The extra COL that results from the use of modern bullets is easily accomodated in the actions that chamber longer cartridges such as 375H&H and 416 Magnums.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in addition the specific gravity of Brass and Copper Solids are lower and should be in the order of 340 to 350 grains in my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a good thing that you are not designing bullets. You are wrong so frequently they would be a disaster. Fortunately your opinion means nothing and has entertainment value only.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also the standard CIP twist rate is 16.5" and was not designed at the time to stabilize the longer mono-metal Solids that did not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the 387gr FN that GSC makes for the 404 has a stability factor of more than 2. This is ample, given the other factors considered and you need to generalise less when you talk about mono solids. It makes you look even more stupid, if that were possible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 387 gr GSC-FN Copper Solid is 35..3 mm long and since the nose length is available is pans out like this:

Bullet length ------- 35.3 mm (100%)
Nose length -------- 17.0 mm (48%) (too long ito design criteria)
Length in case ----- 18.3 mm (52%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet it chambers just fine, despite your worthless opinion. I wonder if you will be able to figure out why. I doubt it.

Pontificus Ignoranus, this post is relevant.

So many mistakes, so little time. However, life is good while Pontificus Ignoranus continues to make an ass of himself.

-----------------------------------------------------
but Gerard claims his FN bullet will chamber
-----------------------------------------------------
Not a claim but fact. All FNs are designed to work and chamber in the calibers for which we recommend them.

-----------------------------------------------------
- well let us then compare his FN bullet with the HV bullet
-----------------------------------------------------
This comparison is based on a flawed premise but, read on and see how the egg accumulates on your face.

-----------------------------------------------------
and follow his advice to load the bullet to touch the lands and see how feasible this is,
-----------------------------------------------------
There are two conditions that take preference over whether the bullet touches the lands. Did you notice what they are or did you read only the first part of the sentence, as usual.

-----------------------------------------------------
and remember the FN is a wide FN and the HV is a Spitzer ....
-----------------------------------------------------
This comment shows that you have learned nothing about drive band bullets over the last ten years during which you have been dreaming up imaginary problems with GSC product. You are truly ignorant about the design.

-----------------------------------------------------
Bullet type --------- 387gr FN ----- 320 gr HV
Bullet length ------- 35.3 mm ------ 35.0 mm
Nose length -------- 17.0 mm ------ 17.2 mm
-----------------------------------------------------
This means that the first contact either of these two will make with the lands will be at 17 and 17.2 mm from the nose of the bullet.

-----------------------------------------------------
If we assume the HV has the ideal length, and it is touching the lands somewhere in the middle on its ogive
-----------------------------------------------------
This is funny. What bullet ogive are you describing? It certainly cannot be an HV. Are you sure you are posting the right answer. You have lost your way so comprehensively it seems as though you should be on another forum with this.

-----------------------------------------------------
(as Gerard suggests his bullets should be loaded),
-----------------------------------------------------
Providing the two preconditions are met, which take preference over touching the lands. Come on, admit that you have missed these preconditions and now the egg on your face is getting thicker by the second.

-----------------------------------------------------
how do we get it right to chamber the FN with essentially no ogive, but a wide FN nose configuration?
-----------------------------------------------------
Because both bullets terminate at the end of their respective ogives at the same diameter and are under bore diameter up to that point. You are such an idiot. We even have pictures and full tech data describing this all over our site and, 13 years after the introduction of this, you still have not figured it out. The egg is getting thicker and thicker.

-----------------------------------------------------
Interesting to note that the FN was designed to be longer than the HV Spitzer.
-----------------------------------------------------
How is this relevant? I am sorry, I forget, something does not have to have relevance to confuse you, you wake up confused.

-----------------------------------------------------
The design logic of the longer FN over the HV bullet needs some clarification for the 404 Jeffery,
-----------------------------------------------------
Only in your mind does it need clarification and that is a daunting task. If you have not grasped the basics of drive band bullets in the last 13 years..........

-----------------------------------------------------
as it is in stark contrast with how the bullets other big-bore GSC FN bullets were designed .... here we go:
-----------------------------------------------------
Embarking on more mirth for us, are you?

-----------------------------------------------------
. 416 bullets (FN bullet designed shorter)

Bullet type --------- 380gr FN ----- 330 gr HV
Bullet length ------- 35.3 mm ------ 37.9 mm
Nose length -------- 17.0 mm ------ 17.0 mm
-----------------------------------------------------
To this you must add our recently added 245gr HV for the 416. It is way shorter than the FN at 31.2mm. Let us see what significance you attach to that. It should be quite funny.

-----------------------------------------------------
. 458 bullets (FN bullet designed shorter)

Bullet type --------- 450gr FN ----- 450 gr HV ---- 400 gr HV
Bullet length ------- 34.2 mm ------ 39.0 mm ---- 36.4 mm
Nose length -------- 15.8 mm ------ 16.8 mm ---- 16.8 mm
-----------------------------------------------------
But wait, there is more: The 315gr HV is shorter than the 450gr FN. Then there is the 270gr 458 which is a mere 28.7mm long. Almost SIX millimetres shorter than the FN!! Goodness me, can your brain handle all this??

-----------------------------------------------------
Now consider that the .458 Win and Lott has a long leade of 28.15 mm whereas the 404 Jeffery has a much shorter leade of only 7.62 mm, and yet we see this incongruence with the .423 FN bullet being slightly longer than its HV cousin.
-----------------------------------------------------
Well if the freebore is of no importance because the magazine box limits the col, this consideration is so much hot air. Something you are very familiar with - hot air. Of course, no statement from you would be complete without you getting your terminology wrong. You are referring to the freebore at 28.15 and 7.62 respectively, not the leade.

-----------------------------------------------------
Surely its logical to expect the FN to be shorter, especially in the 404 Jeff with its very short leade - not much room to play with.
-----------------------------------------------------
Freebore, not leade. Logical? How do you get to that? Your logic circuits are not present. I am convinced you were not issued with any. I would not have believed anyone could be so stupid. 13 Years and you still have no clue what the dimensional parameters of a drive band bullet and a conventional bullet are. Amazing.

This is totally proven by the fact that you present a drawing of a conventional bullet as proof of your point of view in a discussion of drive band bullets.


In my previous post I said that I knew you would not figure this out - I was right again.

Pontificus Ignoranus, these posts apply.

Posted 12 April 2010
------------------------------------------------------
(various ways some writers define certain areas, but it does not change the logic)
------------------------------------------------------
Some things are not debatable. One remains one and ten is always nine more. The leade cannot be the freebore and Pontificus Ignoranus never had the ability to think logically. The second drawing is a lot closer to being correct but I seriously doubt that the first one is from Hornady. Give us the link or the source - I suspect you are lying again.

------------------------------------------------------
Here is another one, just termed somewhat differently but all tell the same story ...
------------------------------------------------------
If you think that the two drawings contain identical data, it explains why you miss so much in your half baked attempts at technical matters.

Posted 13 April 2010
------------------------------------------------------
What does "too" mean ??
------------------------------------------------------
What does "yes" mean?

------------------------------------------------------
Gerard did not like the idea of a 340 to 350 grain FN Solid. I like it for the reasons stated and it will work and it is not "too" small, is it?
------------------------------------------------------
If a 387gr FN cannot be loaded to touch the lands, a shorter 350gr FN will be even further away. So you feed your own paranoia of getting in touch with the lands. "ET phone home" comes to mind.

------------------------------------------------------
In any event these variables of a smaller bullet (weight and length) is intertwined with twist.
------------------------------------------------------
A shorter 350gr FN in a 404 will of course have a higher stability factor than a 387gr FN and less sectional density. What happened to your postion of "more sectional density penetrates better" and "higher stability factor is not neccesary"? You were adamant that you do not buy these "theories". Have you changed your mind?

------------------------------------------------------
but I would have personally opted for a Solid being 15% or so less than the traditional weight of Soft Nosed bullets being 400 grains for the 404
------------------------------------------------------
You assume that the traditional weight is the correct one dimensionally. You are wrong again. And inconsistent. You have no independent thought, just monkey see monkey do.

------------------------------------------------------
This rule should actually apply for all calibers where a mono-metal Solid is used with a lower specific gravity that in turn is interlinked with the stability factor.
------------------------------------------------------
Suddenly stability factor is of significance. What have you now decided that it should be? Please enlighten us with more of your crackpot ideas. They do have amusement value.

------------------------------------------------------
When the pitch angle is in increased it is bound to increase the propensity for stripping.
------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you personally determined this with an experiment of two examples or some such nonsense.

------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry, but I cannot see the logic of this.
------------------------------------------------------
As long as you read half sentences, Google and don't read, refuse to accept that someone may have a better moustrap and so on, failing to see logically will remain your cross to bear

------------------------------------------------------
If a Spitzer and a FN bullet is essentially the same length they cannot be seated the same way - not when the Spitzer is supposed to touch the lands
------------------------------------------------------
They can if they are GSC drive band bullets and the noses are the same length. Why you would want load to the lands escapes me but then, logic is not your forte. I still cannot believe that you have missed that one for more than a decade. That is funny.

Posted 14 April 2010
------------------------------------------------------
you cannot load the 270gr FN bullet to touch the lands - it is an impossibility, as the bullet jump is still 5.5 mm.

The max COAL one can get is 85.6 mm

So loaded, it gives a bullet jump of 5.5 mm before the bullet will touch the lands. So in the 9,3 x 62 mm, the 270 gr FN can never come near the lands.

With the 286 gr Rhino Bullet (Spitzer shape) at a COAL of 86 mm, the bullet jump is .75mm to the lands.
------------------------------------------------------
You know all this and miss the clues that are right in front of your face. COAL? What an idiot.

------------------------------------------------------
May be one day I will get to see how a 387 gr FN bullet in the 404 is load flush to the lands, crimped at the last driving band.
------------------------------------------------------
As long as you ignore our recommendations you will just have to wallow in ignorance. Wallowing in ignorance comes naturally to you so I see no difficulty with that.

-------------------------------------------------------
The info I provided on the 9,3 is as precise as you can get.
-------------------------------------------------------
Just the conclusions you come to are completely wrong. It is an amazing case of the opposite of GIGO. With you it is GIIGO (Good Info In, Garbage Out).

-------------------------------------------------------
Let us get the same for the 404. I am demonstrating the contrast here and that is not misleading. Let us get the facts - nobody so far has come out with such precise details.
-------------------------------------------------------
And nobody here has used such precise details to make such incredibly wrong conclusions for so long.

-------------------------------------------------------
That's why we are here, to debate and to get the facts.
-------------------------------------------------------
Problem is you do not debate and, after you are given the facts, you have no clue what to do with them.

-------------------------------------------------------
The use of FN Solids is primarily destined for use on DG, and you make the statement that ... "and you do not crimp them". Why would this be?
-------------------------------------------------------
Because the 387 is a drive band bullet not a grooved bullet or a smooth bullet.

-------------------------------------------------------
It seems you are taking an opposite view here to most DG hunters that do crimp their ammo.
-------------------------------------------------------
When they use smooth bullets or grooved bullets.

-------------------------------------------------------
Crimping is important for the rigors and personal safety when it comes DG hunting.
-------------------------------------------------------
When smooth or grooved bullets are used.

-------------------------------------------------------
You have learned absolutely nothing about drive band bullets all this time.

Pontificus Ignoranus - This thread is relevant.

-------------------------------------------------------
We still do not have your drawing - the perfect one with no errors, nor the dimensions of the 404 chamber indicating how your FN bullet fits, and what the bullet jump is, if any.
-------------------------------------------------------
Why should I give you the time of day? You just ignore what I post in any case, like the questions I asked above in this thread.

-------------------------------------------------------
Just clarify it the way I showed for the 9,3. It should be simple, it should not take up pages and pages.
-------------------------------------------------------
It should not but you will find some other imaginary problem, ignore the mistakes you made and go off on another tangent. It is more entertaining to just show you up for the fool that you are, than explaining things to you.

-------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your drawing on the crimping aspect explaining why it is not needed with your bullets - well llustrated! In the same vain, your 404 drawing can clarify the situation very quickly, this is all I am asking.
-------------------------------------------------------
I doubt that you understand anything I gave in the drawing about crimping. If you have failed to grasp the fact that no GSC drive band bullet ogive could touch the lands at any point on the ogive, and that failure spans TEN years, the drawing must be waaaay beyond your understanding. You should have some tests done. I don't think that you have three dimensional ability. You should not drive a car.

quote:

You should not drive a car.

Final summary:

quote:

Bullet type --------- 387gr FN ----- 320 gr HV
Bullet length ------- 35.3 mm ------ 35.0 mm
Nose length -------- 17.0 mm ------ 17.2 mm
-----------------------------------------------------
This means that the first contact either of these two will make with the lands will be at 17 and 17.2 mm from the nose of the bullet.

"Start load development with the bullet touching the rifling if throat, magazine box and case dimensions will allow it. HV and FN bullets do not raise pressure levels like jacketed lead and standard and grooved monometal bullets do, when seated against the rifling."

Warrior

Pontificus Ignoranus - This post applies

Ignoranus,
Thank you for proving with your final summary how stupid you are and how you fail to read whole sentences.

Presumably you offer these two quotes from myself and the GSC website as proof that we recommend to load GSC bullets touching the rifling.

quote:

Final summary:
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
Bullet type --------- 387gr FN ----- 320 gr HV
Bullet length ------- 35.3 mm ------ 35.0 mm
Nose length -------- 17.0 mm ------ 17.2 mm

This means that the first contact either of these two will make with the lands will be at 17 and 17.2 mm from the nose of the bullet.

------------------------------------------------------
"Start load development with the bullet touching the rifling if throat, magazine box and case dimensions will allow it. HV and FN bullets do not raise pressure levels like jacketed lead and standard and grooved monometal bullets do, when seated against the rifling."

The first quote is of course in the context of the discussion that shows that the first contact any GSC drive band bullet can have with the rifling is at the start of the shaft. The fact that you thought otherwise is hillarious. The quote has nothing to do with loading procedure or recommendation but that does not prevent you from quoting it out of context.

The second quote amply demonstrates your lack of comprehension. It is found in two places on the GSC site, for example, the one titled Seating Depth. This page deals with seating depth and pressure, not seating depth recommendation for loading. We lead up to seating depth in the context of reloading with the quote above but the full sentence is: "It is therefore preferable to start loading tests with HV and FN bullets touching the rifling, if the magazine and action length will allow this."

Immediately after that we say: "See the Load Guidelines for HV bullets for more detailed information." The link provided there leads to this page.

On that page you will find: "Develop the speed of your load first. Once the desired speed is achieved, then tune the accuracy of the grouping by experimenting with overall cartridge length."

The main Load Data Page which is linked at the top of every page on the site and which deals with load procedure, repeats this advice under "Procedure". It is therefore very clear that one would start load development with the col as long as what the rifle will allow and then tune accuracy by reducing col from there. If one always starts with the maximum col the rifle allows, there is only one direction to go and that is away from the leade and deeper into the case.

I can understand how you missed all this. It is after all more than one concept and more than one line to read. You only deal with half sentences and single concepts grasped badly or not at all.

No sweat, as long as you do not realise that you do not know that you do not know, I will find humour and recreation in exposing the fool in you.

Any opinion you express and any "testing" you profess to have done, must be seen against this background of complete ignorance and zero grasp of ballistics.

There is no misinterpretation in my final summary, and it is inline with what you explained above, and it is understood that way.

I may be a fool in terms of drive band bullets, but I think you are a greater fool in other respects.

Warrior

If you are a self-confessed fool of drive band bullets, then why do yo proceed to tell us how they work and what to do?

There is plenty misinterpretation in your last post...not a final summary, but rather a regurgitation of singled-out parts of sentances and concepts. It is not in line with what Gerard explained above; again only pointing out how little of this you understand. Gerard is talking about tweeking best accuracy for group size, and no where does it say this is necessary...that is your implication. You read that starting against the leade, to make things easy for tuning, as an easy way to attack GS custom bullets. That has been your goal from the beginning and continues to be your goal. That is the ONLY way it is understood! Why do you think no one agrees with you?

What really bothers me, and the reason I could not let your slander go, is that you try so hard to make GS look bad that you fail to stop when proven wrong. You continue to go out of your way to pull up any garbage you can find, and for what? You don't even have a reason! You are so determined to make GS look bad that you don't even realize how bad you look. And what is worse, is it appears you don't care! How can you represent Rhino bullets when so many think of you as a joke? When is this going to stop? Is GS Custom Bullets that big of a threat to you? That you have to make a dunce out of yourself in some failing attempt to degrade the GS reputation? Go find something better to do with you time. Really.

P.S. Look at all the details in Gerards counter-point post above! You ask for details, you ask questions, and he provides answers and you do not even acknowledge or regard them, but rather throw some silly response out in some rediculous attempt to seem worthy enough to even compete intellectually with Gerard; since that is a difficult sentance for you, I'll show you what I mean "...but I think you are a greater fool in other respects" This whole time we have been talking about drive bands...so why do you continue?

I agree 100%. This is the most bullshit thread I have seen since I've been in AR. It has made me decide to never buy GS bullets for the sole reason that the owner/operater seems so petty as to originate and maintain this exchange of ignorance and ego.
I think Saeed should ban both of you.

wasbeeman,

quote:

the owner/operater seems so petty as to originate and maintain this exchange of ignorance and ego.

You make a very large mistake. I have not originated a single exchange in this string of unpleasantness. Every altercation was started by Warrior. If you would read Warrior's statements and my replies, you will see that he always initiates with fabrications and lies and I counter with fact. Where is the ignorance on my part?

As for ego, I ask you, if I go on to the forum and attack you and your business with lies and fabricated theory, are you going to be a wuss and let it slide, or are you going to defend yourself? Is it a mistake on my part to try and confine this junk to this single thread or should I defend myself in the various threads where Warrior sprouts his lies?

But I hear you and it is regrettable that I have to spend time on rubbish like replies to Warrior.

What do you propose as a solution? If someone persists in slandering you and your product and does so continuously for ten years, how do you solve the problem? Ignoring him does not help, he just carries on and escalates his attacks when I ignore him. If I defend, he succeeds in causing damage as you have just proved. When I ignore him he ultimately does more damage that way. Either way is damage control on my part and I have to pick the lesser of two evils.

Customers have taken him on and he becomes abusive towards them. I have asked them to back off because they should not be exposed to such tactics.

You have a strong opinion here. What course of action do you propose I take? Do you see a solution?

Having said that, the start of this thread contains this warning:
This thread contains replies to Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris Bekker. If this does not interest you, please close the thread and move on. You are right, it is junk and not worth wasting time on. I do not want to clutter the threads of others with his rubbish and my replies so:- Warrior is invited here, to say to me what he wants to say, instead of messing up other worthwhile threads.

At the start of the previous exchange I stated again:

Pity that I have to open up this thread again, I apologise to the forum but Warrior is going on about the same old stuff that he ranted about 6 months ago. In fact, if you scroll up a little, you will see that he is asking the same questions now that he asked in the first half of 2009. Same old same old rubbish. Same old agenda and it happens just ahead of the SA hunting season every year. Don't forget, he has ties with competitors in our market.

A plain one sided view and a lie that I have ties with a competitor, I lie that gets perpetuated for years now, despite various postings and a statement of the very company that is being accused. Some of Gerard's supporters right here on AR have ties with GSC.

I shoot a variety of bullets and have no shares in any bullet company, do not get paid by any bullet company, do not get any favours by any bullet company, I have to buy the bullets I want. I also bought 1 packet of 9,3 bullets from GSC to test purley out of curiosity, and I have reported on that. Other than that Pieter Olivier bought some 230gr HV, which we used pressure testing and working up some loads. Jagter is selling his bullets under the banner of Techfund and Extremist458 may also have a finger in the pie by the way he reacts.

If the definition of ties boils down to buying bullets and having them tested, yes then I do have ties with all bullet companies and that includes GSC too !!!

Warrior

Hey Warrior,

quote:

Some of Gerard's supporters right here on AR have ties with GSC.

You make a valid point. I support GSC. Techfund supports GS Custom and he sells GSC bullets. Extremist458 supports GSC bullets and that is to be expected. It is reasonable that a man would support a product that he is going to manufacture. The big difference is that we do not deny that we have ties to GSC. Be it use of the product, distribution of the product or manufacturing the product.

Buying a box of product and slating the manufacture in every way you can find? That does not qualify as "ties", who are you trying to kid? Your spin doctor is broken, get it fixed.

quote:

A plain one sided view and a lie that I have ties with a competitor, I lie that gets perpetuated for years now, despite various postings and a statement of the very company that is being accused.

What statement?

Ignoranus,

quote:

A plain one sided view and a lie that I have ties with a competitor

It seems that the absence of a statement puts the lie to you, once again. Until you supply a link or quote the statement, your credibility remains shot.

At least one of the posters in this scrum did not serve in the military or have any meaningful ties there.

Radio etiquette requires that you end each transmission with the following:

1. Over. That means I am turning the transmission OVER to the person on the other end for a reply.

2. Out. That means I am terminating the transmission on my end. OUT = goodbye.

Of course, I could be wrong in this particular instance. Someone is saying "Over and Out.". That would be "I'm done talking, and I don't plan to give you response time. Seems logical.

Rich
DRSS

Did anyone ever get to the bottom of the owl raping thing?

Warrior has shed the illusion of lucidity and is back to his agenda of slander GSC at all cost. If this does not interest you, please do not tell me you read through all of it and it is rubbish, I know it is. It is regrettable but it is the only way of dealing with his ignorance, badly Googled information and his agenda.

Pontificus Ignoranus,
Your first post of 24 November applies.

quote:

However if not annealed correctly and not softened up enough, it will not open up or just partially.

As usual, you jump to conclusions from a position of ignorance. Incorrect annealing with GSC bullets is impossible.

quote:

Sometimes we are just dumstruck when a bullet behaves like that.

I understand how easy it is for you to be dumbstruck. It seems to be your natural state. Especially so, when you fail to understand what is happening.

quote:

When it is designed to behave in a certain way, and then it does not.

It matters not that you have no clue what the behavior is supposed to be.

quote:

Both out of the same lot and box, and yet one works as intended.

And what you intended is always right, regardless of what the designer/manufacturer intended.

quote:

Different dynamics causing one bullet to fail and not the other.

Where do you see the failed bullet?

quote:

Also as you hinted, stability is less at 10 yds vs 90 yds.

Yup, not a clue what has happened.

quote:

This may be just bad luck, as the next 10 or 100 bullets may just expand reliably. What do we make of it then? Perhaps the balance of the 450 gr HV should be tested.

Do tell, on what should they be tested?

quote:

I agree with you that that a 450 gr HV should be and could be used on Buffalo.

Always ignoring the manufacturers opinion because you know better.

quote:

In the .416 Rigby, I know Gerard has recommended the use of 330 gr HV bullets. This is at odds with the new assertion that 450 gr HV bullet is not the right tool for DG.

If you think this is "at odds", you are not thinking. Nothing new about that though.

quote:

The easiest is just to accept it as bullet failure, just as other bullets have failed on occasion.

That is by far the easiest for you, given The Agenda. Thinking and comprehension is tough work for you, we know that.

quote:

Not long ago we have seen some spectacular TSX failures right here on AR that did not open up as well.
We have also seen a Swift A-Frame that flattened on the shoulder of a buffalo at high velocity.
We have had some negative accouts on Rhino bullets on occassion as well.

Oops! That must have slipped out. I thought "we" are not connected to Rhino Bullets.

Pontifucus Ignoranus
This post applies

quote:

The figure work presented here is rather intriguing and seems to break new ground.

It is as old as the hills. Nothing new at all, except to you. But then, you think that Bernoulli and Bob McCoy are alive and well and living in Cape Town.

quote:

I am writing this to you and not to Gerard, I am not interested in any discourse with him.

Is that like the old saw about having no connection to Rhino and that they have made a statement to that effect, which you cannot produce?

quote:

The website says ... NEW RULES ... and we have them indeed.

New rules that you have not been able to master in many years. Goodness, you still use the antiquated method of determining SD. Even funnier, you think that SD drives penetration.

quote:

As has been mentioned by another AR member, no stern warning was given by GSC that the (.510 cal) 450 gr HV is not intended for use on DG, such as buffalo. And we take it that Gerard knew this all along

Just like I would not use a 135gr Sierra matchking to hunt giraffe or eland with a 300WM, or use a 40gr HV in a 220 Swift on hippo. Some things are self evident but we know by now you must be spoon fed on all fronts. Do you believe that all big bores and all big bore bullets are good for cape buffalo and elephant? No doubt you look forward to Christmas Day. Kris Kringle comes visiting then. I can see the anticipation in your entire being.......

quote:

(all knowing),

By no means but, coming from you, I can see how you could think so, given your pace of learning, level of comprehension and knowledge.

quote:

as he harped back whilst almost pulling all his hair out and shaking his head in disbelieve that you could have been so stupid to have used the HV and not the FN .... he put is like this ... "It beats me why a plains game bullet is used on DG when the right tools are at hand." and referenced it with examples where FN's were used and not HV's.

You read all that into a simple statement? What have you been smoking?

quote:

It beats him because we are all morons. (Shocker No.1)

Only one moron here and he is wearing your shoes. If I recall correctly, you have admitted to being a ballistic buffoon.

quote:

Then Gerard comes back with a new revelation where he now published (belatedly that is) a list of HV bullets that are not to be used (not fit for), and for ease of reference I will state them underneath.

It is that comprehension problem of yours again. You should read whole sentences, you missed the bit about the list being examples. You are such an idiot and your Agenda makes you seem more so.

quote:

His assessment is based on bullet length, but more precisely bullet length in relation to diameter.

One assumes of course that, from there, the steps to cartridge/speed/momentum/cross section/penetration would be seamless. Except when dealing with you, who has to be spoon fed.

quote:

The cut-off multiple of caliber length sited by him here is 3.08 times

Do you realise how much of a fool you look when you take a list of examples and try to cast it in concrete to make a point. Especially when that point does not work. No matter how you try to disguise a Triple Hornswoggle, it will stick out like a sore thumb every time.

quote:

(I can only guess it was determined experimantally on buffalo by himself) , and so the 450 gr HV bullet misses the qualification of use on DG.

I did not experiment on buffalo but 50 years of hunting may have something to do with the assessment. Thank you for the admission that you are guessing. We realise it is part of your default condition.

quote:

Take note, Gerard does not base his view on SD, as sectional density is just a "practical joke" to him; he much rather prefer to replace weight with diameter,

It is called a ratio. Caliber length is a ratio. Replace weight with diameter.... Do you have little voices in your head telling you things that you think are real? You are such an idiot.

quote:

and come up with a better or more appropriate ratio. And it is supposedly because caliber length works better than the old SD formula.

Now you are going to tell us that SD drives penetration. Same old discussion you tried to have 5 years back and you were laughed out of the house. What happened to Mo/Xsa as the driver of penetration? Remember Mo/Xsa? You claimed to have invented it and now you have forgotten about it.

quote:

Let me site one example:
We should not use the .510 bullet weighing 450 grains, but we can safely use the .366 bullet weighing 230 grains - near enough half the weight and momentum.
Let us look at he SD's of these 2 bullets:

.510/450 gr ....... SD = .247 (this one is no good for buffalo)
.366/230 gr ....... SD = .245 (this one is good for buffalo)

This is the way it is RIP. (Shocker No. 2)

This is what happens when you use incorrectly calculated fudge factors. Your Sd is based on square bullets. So, tell us, Einstein, what is the Mo/Xsa of the two examples you try to use here? More precisely, which will penetrate best and does construction play a role in penetration? Correctly calculated Sd shows the 366230HV higher than the 510450HV. After impact Mo/Xsa of the 366230HV is higher still, compared to the 510450HV, but that goes to bullet construction and confuses you even further.

quote:

Let me site one more example, bearing in mind the cut-off is 3.08 caliber lengths:

The .458/450 grains can be used on buffalo ........ .458" x 3.40 cal lengths = 1.557" of 39.5 mm
The .510/450 grains cannot be used on buffalo ..... .510" x 2.72 cal lengths = 1.387" of 35.2 mm

Put these two bullets on your desk if you will, and observe the difference in length of 4.3 mm.
This difference is critical, according to the new assertion, and the one bullet should be rejected.
Don't let the weight of the bullet fool you, focus on caliber length.

So, Einstein, what are you saying? As long as two bullets are the same weight, they will penetrate equally? Do you realise that you are spiralling down into sprouting gibberish again?

quote:

Well, this is as eloquent as it gets.

Says Pontificus Ignoranus with his foot in his mouth.

Pontificus Ignoranus,
This post applies.

quote:

Typos corrected, was in a hurry ... inadvertent ... yes/no?

Just wrong and sloppy as usual. No attention to detail.

quote:

Just a last thought ... Since these caliber length statistics are not available on the website of GSC, nor on the box, nor a guiding comment as to the sensitivities of caliber length of various HV bullets, you are required to do the calculations yourself. That is also based on the premise that you should have known that, or anybody else for that matter. No longer will bullet weight alone suffice any more, you need to know the caliber length of the bullet.

People like you should not be reloading. Even the very basics escape you. Who feeds you in the morning? Using the tools for breakfast must be terribly complicated to you. I can just picture you sitting there trying to figure it out. "Knife, fork, spoon??? What to use. Is this cereal or egg? No matter, I will spread it on my face any way."

quote:

Who knows, this statistic may just feature on the boxes in future - so there is hope for us poor mortals to use the right tools in future.

No chance. You will forever be stuck with the wrong tools. You know why? You do not read instructions. You do not believe instructions. You know better than the designer of a product what it can do. You do not know that you do not know.

quote:

.510/450 gr ... SD = .247 (this one is no good for buffalo)... bullet = 2.72 cal. long
.366/230 gr ... SD = .245 (this one is good for buffalo)........ bullet = 3.80 cal. long

Those wrong Sd numbers again. Funny.

quote:

In this scenario where bullet weight does not count anymore, Gerard kicks Momentum out the door despite him advocating the importance of momentum on his website.

The fundamental problem here is that you are incapable of grasping multiple concepts. Any supplemental information always replaces previous information. I wonder if there is help for this condition? You are like the crow which picks up a shiny object in it's claw. As soon as you see another shiny object, you drop the one you have and forget about it, to pick up the new shiny object.

quote:

Since bullet weight is no longer a base unit, why bother to multiply it out with velocity to get momentum. Just go for bullet length of X-calibers long - a new entity!!!

See what I mean, birdbrain?

No offense Gerard, but it's IgnoraMus.

regards to all,

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
No offense Gerard, but it's IgnoraMus.

regards to all,

Rich

I feel very confident that the N instead of M was not an error. It may be a new word, but it's a good one.

Rich,
Thank you, you are a better man than I.

However, Gatogordo is correct and it has been around for a while.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...e.php?term=Ignoranus

that's just nasty!!

Rich

This post applies.

quote:

I would like to thank all participants discussing SD, and it may just be fitting to close off with words from ALF:

The con artist at his best. If anyone takes issue with any of this, he is arguing with Alf, not with PI (Pontificus Ignoranus). This not his view, nooooooo... Alf said.

quote:

"SD is SD, it is what it is, it is integral to the concept simple Newtonian mechanics, no more no less, you cannot deminish or expand it's value.

This is very true and PI should take note. You cannot diminish or expand it's value. As WhatThe said: "I will leave you to ponder, scratch yourself and pick your nose. You took a lesson that proves you cannot depend on SD as a factor unless 23 calculations (oops, gave you the answer) are always the same." "Let's just say that SD is a micro measurement used to determine stabilization properties. It has a few other fun but negative properties used to determine additional ballistic failures and abnormalities generally exterior."

quote:

Without it there will be no penetration, in fact no physical act of motion of a body through a medium.

What nonsense. SD is the product of two properties. If the shorthand of SD is not used in a calculation, there are several ways to arrive at the same end result. The folly is in ignoring "you cannot deminish or expand it's value."

quote:

A body that moves in certain direction has mass, it has velocity and based on the spatial distribution of that mass has shape and form and that shape interacts through a certain reference surface area with the medium through wich the body moves.

All these will, in some way, contribute to how the projectile behaves. Sd determines nothing. It is simply a ratio, used as shorthand and easily replaced by other terminology which is more accurate in any case.

quote:

The ratio of the body's mass to that surface area interacting with the medium through which motion occurs is termed Sectional Density. The ratio of sectional density to the factor of form is called Ballistic coefficient.

What do we know about this? We know that BC does not follow SD. SD can go up while BC goes down or up. SD can go down while BC goes down or up. There are no ties. Form factor changes with speed but, if form factor gets better, BC gets better. And vice versa. Always. Once again SD is just a set of parameters that determines nothing.

So, saying the following is simply not true because the shorthand of SD is simply replaced by the elements that are the drivers within any ballistic calculation:

quote:

"It is intergral and central to all 3 fields of ballistics, internal, intermediary and terminal."

"Without it you cannot describe the physics of motion. To try and do so would be fallacy."

"The motion of what you guys see as modern generation bullets is goverened just as much by SD as any other bullet projectile or body in fight, as much as it always was as much as it always will be !"

Shure, SD is used in formulae and calculation, but it determines nothing on it's own. It is a term/ratio/shorthand/fudge factor and no more.

quote:

Yes, without SD we do not have bullets ... just a shapeless blob of metal !!!

PI, I am glad you added your own words here. It shows again that you have no grasp of the things you discuss. To the members here I would say "go figure". To you I say "go Google."

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Gatogordo,
I hear you and it is regrettable that I have to spend time on rubbish like replies to Warrior but, what do you propose as a solution? If someone persists in slandering you and your product, how do you solve the problem.

Gerard,

Let it go or hire an attorney. All movement physical, ephemeral or chemical will run out of propellant. Quit feeding.

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
I agree 100%. This is the most bullshit thread I have seen since I've been in AR. It has made me decide to never buy GS bullets for the sole reason that the owner/operater seems so petty as to originate and maintain this exchange of ignorance and ego.
I think Saeed should ban both of you.

I whole heartedly agree. What childish drivel on too many levels. The 2 major participants need courses in civility. Any idea how bad behavior is altered? Are you both reading? Ignore the bad behavior and reward the desired behavior. Simple.

Geez, had I known Gerard manufactures and sells bullets I may have read more intently. Now I do know, there is one manufacturer off my list. Very bad press.

All verbiage on both sides is, in my estimation, worthless unless presented civilly. Neither of you present yourselves so.

Stephen

P.S. Where was the moderator during this waste of good AR space?

Stephen,

See my response to your post.

Just saw this float to the top again. I have used GS Custom bullets for many years now. They are superb bullets and were probably the first of the banded FNs that the other manufacturers followed. The HVs are also incredible bullets. Having said that Gerard would be (and would have been) better served by just ignoring the BS and just concentrating on manufacturing bullets. He does not seen to understand that his adversary just feeds off his (Gerard's) frustration and THAT is his satisfaction. Why do what your opponent wants you to do? Gerard, stop responding to every perceived affront!
Just my 2 cents, Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Just saw this float to the top again. I have used GS Custom bullets for many years now. They are superb bullets and were probably the first of the banded FNs that the other manufacturers followed. The HVs are also incredible bullets. Having said that Gerard would be (and would have been) better served by just ignoring the BS and just concentrating on manufacturing bullets. He does not seen to understand that his adversary just feeds off his (Gerard's) frustration and THAT is his satisfaction. Why do what your opponent wants you to do? Gerard, stop responding to every perceived affront!
Just my 2 cents, Peter.

Peter,

Two cents well spent.

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Stephen,

See my response to your post.

Gerard,

I did and responded in kind.

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Just saw this float to the top again. I have used GS Custom bullets for many years now. They are superb bullets and were probably the first of the banded FNs that the other manufacturers followed. The HVs are also incredible bullets. Having said that Gerard would be (and would have been) better served by just ignoring the BS and just concentrating on manufacturing bullets. He does not seen to understand that his adversary just feeds off his (Gerard's) frustration and THAT is his satisfaction. Why do what your opponent wants you to do? Gerard, stop responding to every perceived affront!
Just my 2 cents, Peter.

GSC= good bullets

(Disclaimer- Consumer interest only, No commercial involvement)

I kinda like the spunk Gerard has, no matter who's right!

I love to see folks stand and defend, even attack, based on what they think is right!

I applaud everyone involved, for it has resulted in information being distributed to those of us who care.

It has helped me form informed opinions.