Homogenous copper bullets can be inhumane

[Aussie Hunter Steve]

I remember in the early days of mono bullets, certain manufacturers were advertising that their particular bullet was the answer to every situation, and never failed. People fell for the hype and quickly became disappointed. I think Nathan is trying to point out that choosing a mono is not always the best choice, and care with bullet selection is important whether it be mono or cup & core. And Nathan has an almost unlimited supply of game in NZ for testing, a bit like us here in Aus. Of course mono bullets have improved a lot over the years, and we now have a greater selection, more knowledge, and the likelihood of choosing poorly is less than 20 years ago.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

See #177.

I do understand the difficulty in reading an actual scientific study. Being able to sum it up in a few sentences is not doable. You did say that you would read it after work yesterday. If it is too heavy, you should just say so. I only put up the link so that you and others could take the information and make your own decisions. This has been your moto. Maybe you are not willing to look at the information? I know you want others to be open to new or unknown information because knowledge and choices are good. I kind of expected you to take your own advise. I guess I was wrong.

 

[Petey308]

Mr. Foster's info reminds me of the folks who used to believe our bodies are filled with vestigial organs. It would do him good to check the newest monos.

I do believe he's continually testing. Perhaps he just hasn't gotten to the point of publishing his findings, but I do not know. This isn't an end all he all article. This is simply one man's view and based on what he determined up to the point he published it. I don't think he's so naive to think there won't ever be new advancements in copper bullets. He discusses that, actually, and offers some other options he's tested up to the point of writing that article.

I completely agree, I'd LOVE to hear his views based on his own thorough testing of Bullets like Hammers, Badland, Makers, PVA, GSC, etc, etc.

 

[Petey308]

At the end of Foster's article he promotes not only the lead free dust particle bullets but also mono's that shed petals. So that favors Hammers and other mono's that do that. Beside Foster's and that other body of work are very old. Lot's has happened since they were published.

Exactly!

 

[dougduey]

Interesting article and a bit contradictory of his cartridge research. Not sure why Foster published this. In every cartridge article I have read of his, he has nothing to say but praise for Barnes bullets. The only negative is if the velocity has dropped to below the velocities that even Barnes has indicated, then expansion is reduced, or non-existant.
Never read his reviews of any monolithics other than Barnes.

Which articles are you referring to?? In his books, he really doesn't like Barnes. He kinda says they are ok, but velocity better not drop below a certain threshold (which is not 1800 fps, and if I remember correctly, it may be around 2200 fps). His articles may be more up to date than his books, that's why I ask.................not looking for a fight, just want to read what is different from what I remember reading.

 

[ButterBean]

I'll go on the record and say since IMO there was nothing to get all that mad about. Emotions got two members were kicked off. And I'll say for the record Len had just cause to do so. I'll also say for the record I find it a shame that because emotions got the best of people they are no longer are here. The boundaries of behavior have been set. The ramifications have been displayed. And for the record I'll advocate for re-instating both parties if they agree to follow the rules. If this is a problem Len I understand and support you either way. If posting this is a problem contact me and I'll delete and won't do it again in the future.

I concur

 

[RockyMtnMT]

My guess is Dr. Rath Coombe report is supposed to offset Nathan Foster's article. Just trying to clarfiy so this doesn't veer off too far from a constructive point.

It is not an offset to Foster's article. It is physics research paper on how bullets create a wound channel for terminal results. It was written long before Foster's article and has been regularly updated since. The point to read it is not to change your mind about your choice of projectile. It is to give you knowledge about what actually happens when a bullet hits live tissue. You can ignore it or expand your knowledge beyond what we all learned around the campfire.

 

[FEENIX]

I do understand the difficulty in reading an actual scientific study. Being able to sum it up in a few sentences is not doable. You did say that you would read it after work yesterday. If it is too heavy, you should just say so. I only put up the link so that you and others could take the information and make your own decisions. This has been your moto. Maybe you are not willing to look at the information? I know you want others to be open to new or unknown information because knowledge and choices are good. I kind of expected you to take your own advise. I guess I was wrong.

I have read it, and so as Dr. Fackler's JAMA work. The idea for both seminal work, as well as my post is for readers to keep an open-mind and synthesize themselves and formulate their own decision.

I do not know what you expect me say but I want to keep this forum as LRH forum/site as Mr. Len Backus intended and not about Hammer Bullets. I do not think it is an unreasonable goal or hard to comprehend for all of us to agree upon.

 

[xsn10s]

It is not an offset to Foster's article. It is physics research paper on how bullets create a wound channel for terminal results. It was written long before Foster's article and has been regularly updated since. The point to read it is not to change your mind about your choice of projectile. It is to give you knowledge about what actually happens when a bullet hits live tissue. You can ignore it or expand your knowledge beyond what we all learned around the campfire.

I've already studied the sources he list including Dr Martin Fackler. So the point is you listed it for a reason. If all it was for was to increase knowledge base then I've seen this work before. All of those sources are old and I look at them back prior to the late 90's.

 

[436]

I went back after "reading between the lines" on the second paragraph of his statement to see who this gentleman is; he seems to have a strong option, with much of his other writing on the subject matter based on regurgitation of information that already exists out there, which I'm sure we all have also based our experience in; hunting, shooting and reloading on, so yeah, I think he's well-read and I'm sure he has field/hunting experiences. What makes me a little, and maybe I missed it, suspicious is that he talking as an expert and final authority on the subject matter of ballistic and killing power and all of the minutiae involved in it, that's a pretty bold persona to take in the ballistics game, that's just my option, and I can't find his formal training or doctorate/masters in the field as a ballistics expert, or ballistics analyst like... forensic science, biology, molecular biology, chemistry, or physics which might help convince me he knows something about what he's saying. When he makes a statement that LEO's, Military, Hunters, Federal, State, and Local inanities are doing things wrong, making a mistake by not coming to him, well that's a pretty bold statement by anyone. As I said; we can all have options based on our experiences, but when any claims finial authority they better bring the receipts.

Personally, from his writing, I think he's just trying to push his books, company, and himself. Don't get me wrong, he is an interesting writer and he does it well, but... ballistics research and ballistic studies, don't make a person an expert, it makes them just well-read. He must have quite a bit of time on his hands in New Zealand it appears he and his wife Stephanie co-write most of this information.
OK, if I'm wrong I apologize for it ahead of time... but I don't think I am.
Cheers.

 

[JMW67]

Well sir I for one will ignore it, I just tend to shoot a bullet I believe to be a good one for the job at hand and here lately it has been a Sierra, or Hammer and if the shot is placed correctly my knife better be sharp. I do appreciate your commitment to doing the research and testing and providing a product I dont have to worry about , If I wanted to do all that stuff I would be making bullets

and so nobody calls me a supporter or such I shot Bergers for years and still do in certain rifles I shoot more Sierras than anything mostly for practice these days but still hunt with them in certain rifles and I did order some of the Maker bullets to try,gotta support some Texas boys too

 

[ButterBean]

I have read it, and so as Dr. Fackler's JAMA work. The idea for both seminal work, as well as my post is for readers to keep an open-mind and synthesize themselves and formulate their own decision.

I do not know what you expect me say but I want to keep this forum as LRH forum/site as Mr. Len Backus intended and not about Hammer Bullets. I do not think it is an unreasonable goal or hard to comprehend for all of us to agree upon.

You just said it,

 

[FEENIX]

You just said it,

I just said what?

 

[ButterBean]

I just said what?

I want to keep this forum as LRH forum/site as Mr. Len Backus intended and not about Hammer Bullets