Yes, I shared the same information with him. As previously noted the member that conducted the test knows it is shared and is free to engage if he wants to. I have his permission to share the data but not his name.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
My thoughts on solid copper bullets and in comparison to other bullet types.
- Thread starter Petey308
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Copy, another third party no name test official, any idea of what equipment he used to conduct these test ?
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,683
I have to agree everything has a range of tolerances. Pretty well understood and accepted in manufacturing. It's funny how something that seems pretty scientific really can look, feel, or be more of a "dark art". Or a blend of dark art and science.
Yep, tolerance is simply a permissible limit (+/- or variations) of attributes of "X" being tested/analyzed.
I don't claim to know as much about bullets as anyone here. But, I do know about testing, and without knowing the details of the above testing, it is hard to know what this chart means.
E.g., how many bullets of each type were in each sample? How many lots? What is the standard deviation in 10 runs on the same bullet? Between 10 bullets in the same lot? SD between lots?
I'm guessing that what we are seeing is the limitations of accuracy in testing, either in the equipment, procedure, or operator. It makes no sense, for example, that some GMX bullets vary so greatly in purity. Are they buying copper a pound at a time?
The other thing that is suspect is reporting accuracy to 5 decimals. Unless you know the variation between the same sample is within +/- 0.00001 you can't report that degree of accuracy. Just because the machine reads it doesn't mean it's so. Significant figures, and stuff like that.
That's why Steve's suppliers only report to 2 decimals.
ShoNuff
With all of your interest in solid bullets of late and all the information you have posted it's made me curious so I used the search tab and found nothing so I'll ask, have you ever had jacket material and lead pureness tested in Berger Bullets compared to Hornady or Nosler?
Top left corner says Bruker Nano GmbH, Germany (M4 Tornado).
Nowhere did I claim an expert either. @RidgeTop asked a question and I provided a test that a member shared to me. The result was based on the samples provided. There was no information on how each bullet manufacturer sourced its material.
It's because the tester did not asked me for lead bullets. I would be more than happy to provide him if he has the time to do it. I know it is time consuming and he is doing us all a favor for free. I for one appreciate his time and effort.
med358-boise
Well-Known Member
I am having trouble with content of the original post
1) Monolithic bullets were not invented because of the lead ban. The Barnes X was introduced in 1989 (initial concept ocurred in 1985) approximately 20 years before any lead ban occured for rifle ammunition.
2) Hydrostatic Shock is an oxymoron. The word hydrostatic refers to the pressure caused by a fluid when that fluid is at rest in a confined space; e.g. fluid at rest inside the walls of a cell. Once fluid is moving (caused by a bullet in this case) it is no longer static; therefore, in essence all damaged not caused by the impact of the bullet itself against tissue would be hydraulic in nature based on the common use of the words as opposed to labels created by the hunting/bullet industry.
3) "The reason why animals drop instantly with chest shots that do not directly strike the CNS, is due to hydrostatic shock transfer to the spine which passes through to the brain. Any high velocity cartridge along with a good bullet properly selected for the particular animal size imparts over half its energy within the first few inches of penetration, creating a shock wave. This electrical shock wave travels outwards via the rib cage until it reaches the spine and then continues through to the central nervous system in the brain (CNS). The result is an immediate loss of consciousness as the body shuts down for diagnostics (temporary coma)."
What research supports the above statement? I am aware of no research of any scale using scientific methods such as video-taping of animals shot and their reaction followed by necropsy. Obvioulsy, if a shot destroys the spine or neck vertebrae and the animal drops in its tracks we can draw a conlusion. But if there is research out there that shows animal 1 was being video taped, shot in the chest cavity, immediately dropped, and a necropsy showing bruising to the tissue around the spine and animal 2 was shot in relatively the same spot and ran-off and died 50 yards later and the necropsy showed no brusing to the tissue around the spine I am completely unaware of it. Absent such research, your statement is likely conjecture and not fact.
Animals may drop immediately from non-CNS shots for various reasons - such as 1) the sudden experience of pain (much like when a human touches a hot stove - they jerk their hand back even though no kinetic energy is at play, 2) the structural breakdown of both shoulders, 3) disruption of the nerve complex in the front shoulder(s).
So in essence, I am asking for the scientific information that supports the original post. By the way, I love monolithic bullets.
1) Monolithic bullets were not invented because of the lead ban. The Barnes X was introduced in 1989 (initial concept ocurred in 1985) approximately 20 years before any lead ban occured for rifle ammunition.
2) Hydrostatic Shock is an oxymoron. The word hydrostatic refers to the pressure caused by a fluid when that fluid is at rest in a confined space; e.g. fluid at rest inside the walls of a cell. Once fluid is moving (caused by a bullet in this case) it is no longer static; therefore, in essence all damaged not caused by the impact of the bullet itself against tissue would be hydraulic in nature based on the common use of the words as opposed to labels created by the hunting/bullet industry.
3) "The reason why animals drop instantly with chest shots that do not directly strike the CNS, is due to hydrostatic shock transfer to the spine which passes through to the brain. Any high velocity cartridge along with a good bullet properly selected for the particular animal size imparts over half its energy within the first few inches of penetration, creating a shock wave. This electrical shock wave travels outwards via the rib cage until it reaches the spine and then continues through to the central nervous system in the brain (CNS). The result is an immediate loss of consciousness as the body shuts down for diagnostics (temporary coma)."
What research supports the above statement? I am aware of no research of any scale using scientific methods such as video-taping of animals shot and their reaction followed by necropsy. Obvioulsy, if a shot destroys the spine or neck vertebrae and the animal drops in its tracks we can draw a conlusion. But if there is research out there that shows animal 1 was being video taped, shot in the chest cavity, immediately dropped, and a necropsy showing bruising to the tissue around the spine and animal 2 was shot in relatively the same spot and ran-off and died 50 yards later and the necropsy showed no brusing to the tissue around the spine I am completely unaware of it. Absent such research, your statement is likely conjecture and not fact.
Animals may drop immediately from non-CNS shots for various reasons - such as 1) the sudden experience of pain (much like when a human touches a hot stove - they jerk their hand back even though no kinetic energy is at play, 2) the structural breakdown of both shoulders, 3) disruption of the nerve complex in the front shoulder(s).
So in essence, I am asking for the scientific information that supports the original post. By the way, I love monolithic bullets.
Last edited:
I have no axe to grind here (heck I killed 90% of everything with Nosler Partitions), but if you show numbers without methodology and a more sophisticated analysis of results it does more to confuse than clarify.
Same here, I am simply sharing information that was made available to me. The spreadsheet was extracted and filtered many fields to just show the copper percentage composition because that is what was asked and so that it would fit on the screen. There are at least 10 MB of data and pictures.
BTW, based on the tester's email, he works for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Last edited:
Maybe see how they did testing, how many lots, how many tests on each bullet, SD on tests on each bullet, etc.
