Michael,
Are you adding fool to presumptuous? And I'm the one arguing? You've claimed to possess open mindedness as a virtue, but display the opposite. Perhaps you meant you're open minded to like minded posts/statements. Read your own posts in search of open mindedness to my statement that "conductive heat transfer from heat applied to the base of a plastic tip will not heat the leading surface of the plastic tip over the short duration of bullet flight". If that statement means I'm arguing, and if that statement is a source of heat and flame, then I suggest a more open mind.
Say we forget about the science of conductive heat transfer. After all Hornady has done to research plastic tips, and then present their research, findings, and explanation of the cause and solution to the problem, would they not state that heat conducted from the core of the bullet to the bullet tip during time of flight was a contributing factor to plastic tip BC decay? Not a single statement. The thermal image of a bullet provides no statement of opinion or fact. Compare that to their effort stressing the heat from friction between bullet and air.
You've stated it makes no difference one way or the other. Then why the uncomplimentary adjectives and the pursuit of argument in response to my statement. You disagree with me. I get that. And I disagree with you. Yet I never alleged you were presumptuous to think you had a better understanding than Hornady expressed. I never alleged you were foolish for your thoughts and statements. And I never alleged you were closed minded, until you demonstrated it in these posts.
