My thoughts on solid copper bullets and in comparison to other bullet types.

[Northkill]

He lost me with the Liberal Arts degree.

It's actually not that disconnected.

"Liberal arts is a field of study based on rational thinking, and it includes the areas of humanities, social and physical sciences, and mathematics. A liberal arts education emphasizes the development of critical thinking and analytical skills, the ability to solve complex problems, and an understanding of ethics and morality, as well as a desire to continue to learn."

Here's more interesting reading:

Energy dump?

Although I am certain there have been departments or agencies who have chosen their preferred duty round with due regards to the ED theory, I am equally certain that there have been departments or agencies who have chosen ammunition because the chief liked the picture on the ammo box. Watching...

bushcraftusa.com

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Never met Rathcoombe and have no idea who it is. I can say that we designed our bullet around his physics paper. It was more difficult than we expected to get a bullet to do what is described as optimal in the writings. When we got the performance to match his findings, it changed everything. Hammer Bullets consistently work better than anything else I have ever seen. Same opinion comes from professional hunters all over the world. We did take the Rathcoombe theory a bit farther than just the shed nose, flat frontal, retained shank. We then started paying attention to how the shed petals acted in relation to the retained shank. Radiating outward too much is not good. Having the petals track along with the retained shank greatly increases the permanent wound channel.

So regardless of what is thought of who the brain is behind the Shooting Holes in the Wounding Theory study, I can say the theory is correct and works better than everything else. This comes from first hand experience killing animals. No theory.

 

[fordy]

.

Gday feenix
So is this of a pattern of yours & or others to try & wind people up ( different methods no doubt exist ) & then they come back @ you in a potentially more abrupt manner that potentially will get them banned from the forum or the thread shut down ?
Just silence the opposition is a great way to get a one sided view
Yes I can see motives on that side & id love the statistics as that will show a picture of a few things

Now as I'm also a person who likes to think people are good & not trouble makers I can also see how a mistake may have happened & pressed post reply by mistake

Ultimately this is only my view on the above but starting to see patterns & individuals will make there own mind up

Nothing wrong with eating humble pie in my world & will gladly eat it if another reason exists ?

Cheers

 

[FEENIX]

Gday feenix
So is this of a pattern of yours & or others to try & wind people up ( different methods no doubt exist ) & then they come back @ you in a potentially more abrupt manner that potentially will get them banned from the forum or the thread shut down ?
Just silence the opposition is a great way to get a one sided view
Yes I can see motives on that side & id love the statistics as that will show a picture of a few things

Now as I'm also a person who likes to think people are good & not trouble makers I can also see how a mistake may have happened & pressed post reply by mistake

Ultimately this is only my view on the above but starting to see patterns & individuals will make there own mind up

Nothing wrong with eating humble pie in my world & will gladly eat it if another reason exists ?

Cheers

 

[memtb]

Never met Rathcoombe and have no idea who it is. I can say that we designed our bullet around his physics paper. It was more difficult than we expected to get a bullet to do what is described as optimal in the writings. When we got the performance to match his findings, it changed everything. Hammer Bullets consistently work better than anything else I have ever seen. Same opinion comes from professional hunters all over the world. We did take the Rathcoombe theory a bit farther than just the shed nose, flat frontal, retained shank. We then started paying attention to how the shed petals acted in relation to the retained shank. Radiating outward too much is not good. Having the petals track along with the retained shank greatly increases the permanent wound channel.

So regardless of what is thought of who the brain is behind the Shooting Holes in the Wounding Theory study, I can say the theory is correct and works better than everything else. This comes from first hand experience killing animals. No theory.

I have tried numerous times to mention the Shooting Holes in the Wounding Theory website…..it's always fallen on deaf ears. People want to believe in the ft/lbs. energy fallacy and hydrostatic shock school of thought……and their minds are closed to anything else!

Many of us grew up in the era where all of the ammunition manufactures, and all of the hunting magazines praised the virtues of energy in game killing effectiveness. Most of us "bought into" this as fact…..and our thoughts and decisions ruled by it today! memtb

 

[fordy]

View attachment 384791

cheers for your reply & one could give plenty of responses
Na the high road is the one I choose to take

Cheers

 

[jasent]

I've never put much attention to energy of ft/lbs on a bullet. I want it to have enough velocity to do it's intended job. Other than that holes in vitals just kill things. Bigger holes just make em more deader

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I have tried numerous times to mention the Shooting Holes in the Wounding Theory website…..it's always fallen on deaf ears. People want to believe in the ft/lbs. energy fallacy and hydrostatic shock school of thought……and their minds are closed to anything else!

Many of us grew up in the era where all of the ammunition manufactures, and all of the hunting praised the virtues of energy in game killing effectiveness. Most of us "bought into" this as fact…..and our thoughts and decisions ruled by it today! memtb

You are correct. Terminal performance is everything. Shooting Holes in the Wounding Theory defies conventional wisdom. It doesn't just defy it, it breaks it. Correctly so.

 

[fordy]

I have tried numerous times to mention the Shooting Holes in the Wounding Theory website…..it's always fallen on deaf ears. People want to believe in the ft/lbs. energy fallacy and hydrostatic shock school of thought……and their minds are closed to anything else!

Many of us grew up in the era where all of the ammunition manufactures, and all of the hunting praised the virtues of energy in game killing effectiveness. Most of us "bought into" this as fact…..and our thoughts and decisions ruled by it today! memtb

Gday memtb
So true
All pills will kill it's just some do a better job than others
the results of impact to tipping on animals have proven that hammers are in a world of their own no gel no theories just plain old animal results plain & simple
grab a box work a load up in never before seen ease
Verify drop & go smack a animal box after box it's that simple
Than previously on some pills theneed to open tips up , check weights , chase the lands etc then when we get to actually putting them in critters it's oh stay off the shoulder worry about the angle better if you hit bone etc
Guess everyone better dismiss my results & others because im obviously bias like them
Yes I'm bias because they work so well over the biggest range of circumstances I've every seen & I've put them up against some pretty large tasks

I think this is so fitting
A wise man once told me
"When the majority work out what the minority is on about the minority has already moved on "

Now I'm lucky to know what Steve's doing now on the planning / development stage
Yep he's moved on but wait till the majority get hold of this
Mmmm yep a game changer once again & so glad Steve cleared his head & took the time to study rathcoombe as it's definitely worked

Cheers

 

[Northkill]

Gday memtb
So true
All pills will kill it's just some do a better job than others
the results of impact to tipping on animals have proven that hammers are in a world of their own no gel no theories just plain old animal results plain & simple
grab a box work a load up in never before seen ease
Verify drop & go smack a animal box after box it's that simple
Than previously on some pills theneed to open tips up , check weights , chase the lands etc then when we get to actually putting them in critters it's oh stay off the shoulder worry about the angle better if you hit bone etc
Guess everyone better dismiss my results & others because im obviously bias like them
Yes I'm bias because they work so well over the biggest range of circumstances I've every seen & I've put them up against some pretty large tasks

I think this is so fitting
A wise man once told me
"When the majority work out what the minority is on about the minority has already moved on "

Now I'm lucky to know what Steve's doing now on the planning / development stage
Yep he's moved on but wait till the majority get hold of this
Mmmm yep a game changer once again & so glad Steve cleared his head & took the time to study rathcoombe as it's definitely worked

Cheers

You're an interesting man, @fordy
It sounds like you have a life of experiences I could only dream of.

 

[Northkill]

Never met Rathcoombe and have no idea who it is. I can say that we designed our bullet around his physics paper. It was more difficult than we expected to get a bullet to do what is described as optimal in the writings. When we got the performance to match his findings, it changed everything. Hammer Bullets consistently work better than anything else I have ever seen. Same opinion comes from professional hunters all over the world. We did take the Rathcoombe theory a bit farther than just the shed nose, flat frontal, retained shank. We then started paying attention to how the shed petals acted in relation to the retained shank. Radiating outward too much is not good. Having the petals track along with the retained shank greatly increases the permanent wound channel.

So regardless of what is thought of who the brain is behind the Shooting Holes in the Wounding Theory study, I can say the theory is correct and works better than everything else. This comes from first hand experience killing animals. No theory.

You have done well. What you describe has been my experience and observation in real life.

 

[RidgeTop]

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.

I believe the test data was classified for years but the testing in the '60's of the 5.56 before acceptance was done in part on hogs plus i believe on cadavers. . Various combinations of shot placement with observed results.

 

[med358-boise]

I believe the test data was classified for years but the testing in the '60's of the 5.56 before acceptance was done in part on hogs plus i believe on cadavers. . Various combinations of shot placement with observed results.

By observed results do you mean "how the animal reacted" or observed results in the tissue "based on tissue samples of damaged nerves and damaged tissue near the spinal column from shot placement not actually in or immediately adjacent to the spinal column" because that is my concern with content of the post. Th OP is stating his beliefs as fact and I have simply never heard of any scientific testing in this area.

 

[fordy]

You're an interesting man, @fordy
It sounds like you have a life of experiences I could only dream of.

Gday northkill

Interesting to some , muppet to others
Ultimately I like to know why things happen & this is not only terminally as many parts of my life have contained this ( still do ) & if I can increase preformance &or lower the chances of failure I'm happy but failure is also part of life & I've done that plenty of times & seen the problems it causes , it's why I've learnt so much (yes in my eyes ) as I'm not scared to fail just do some stupid stuff to find lines in the sand & I'm a sucker for the truth

Really I'm only a Jack of all trades a master of none & the guys who know me understand this the best of what I'm really good @ picking up quickly other things I'm so slow on the uptake it's ridiculous

I'll give help where I can & ask a lot of questions to further my / others understanding ( not so much here as I don't like trying to enter a game of Tug a war when only one side is holding the rope but openly debate / learn when it can be civilised & not gutter related or agenda based like so many do here ( I'm trying to be respectful just putting forward how I see this place ) ) I really don't go much on conflict but can give as good as I get

I've been blessed to have been able to do wHat I've done & to a way lesser extent still do these days ( my body just can't handle it anymore but mind is still willing)
It's what I've got @ my fingertips that I'm trying to share with as many people as possible to help them with their dreams ( heaven forbid I've even got bow hunters joining in now long story but if information can be gained by them why not as I'm not a bow hunter & never will but the critters have to be taken out anyway so why not allow others to have fun / learn & teach me another side of killing efficiently in more detail with field data yep helping ea other I like )


Anyway how's that for being a bit weird / interesting but that's me & I treat everyone the same way when I meet them with a firm handshake

Always a spot around my campfire for nice people especially if they are willing to learn / teach & have fun

Never stop dreaming as dreams are meant to come true right or wishes same dog different leg action lol

Cheers