Recovered Barnes bullet

[toddc]

Because as soon as it strikes the target the shape of the nose is going to deform.

What the BC of a bullet is before it strikes the target makes no difference whatsoever.

You can have a solid (ball ammunition or traditional military ball) that doesn't expand at all and an expanding bullet of the exact same BC and their effect on the target is going to be completely different.

The surface area of the expanding bullet increases dramatically and the shape changes as well and as a result the shockwaves of the two bullets will be completely different.

There's a reason the great powers of the world got together and decided that the use of expanding bullets by their militaries should be outlawed. Expanding bullets do far more damage than a non deforming bullet by design.

You really need to quit before doing your own reputation even more damage here.

In a previous post, you said the shape of the bullet had NO BEARING on its performance in tissue.....NOW IT DOES??????

 

[WildRose]

You actually don't get it. I thought you were a pretty knowledgeable guy. I always knew that you were here out of a vested interest in Perigrine bullets. That you were faking as though you were just a consumer that happened to find this bullet and for the sake of humanity just had to get the word out.

You are officially a fake and a troll.

Steve

You have buried yourself in your own BS. I have no vested interest in Peregrine period which is why I'm able to be completely honest about my experience with them. The only thing I have ever been promised or received from them is four boxes of bullets which I have offered to share with anyone else who is serious about reloading, shooting, and hunting with them and that's all I ever expect to receive from them.

Nothing I've said here is untrue nor is it unknown to anyone who has spent any time studying and/or observing the terminal effects of bullets.

I share with others what works for me and let them do with it what they will.

Fill a tub with water, let the water settle and slap it with one finger. Observe the wave action.

Now repeat with two, then three, then four fingers.

The effect is easily observable, the greater the surface area the bigger the waves.

As you increase the surface area striking the water the waves get bigger and become more energetic.

I get that you have a product to sell and I'll give you a little advice, your attitude and manner are the biggest limiting factors you have in selling them. You aren't going to gain any ground by attacking other people or the bullets they use and/or recommend.

I've never once said anything negative about your bullets nor would I as I haven't shot them but I do understand terminal performance as well as the flight characteristics of bullets and the physics which affect both.

I also know a lot about salesmanship so I'll give you some advice, present your product honestly with a smile and if it's a good product it will sell itself. Going on the attack as you have here just makes you appear desperate and as though you really don't understand much at all about terminal performance.

Do yourself a favor and quit.

 

[WildRose]

In a previous post, you said the shape of the bullet had NO BEARING on its performance in tissue.....NOW IT DOES??????

What I said is round, square, or any other shape it is the amount of surface area that makes the difference. What I also said was that the BC has no effect on how a bullet travels through the tissue because as soon as an expanding bullet contacts the target it's surface area ie diameter increases.

A bigger diameter makes a bigger hole. A bigger diameter generates bigger and more powerful shockwaves.

That's very basic physics and has been well understood for more than a century now.

Observe the gel testing in these two videos.

First is a non expanding bullet.

[ame]https://youtu.be/3G-txVKnVjY[/ame]

Now an expanding bullet


[ame]https://youtu.be/8DJ-wIZRyR0[/ame]

Same caliber, same weight.

 

[toddc]

What I said is round, square, or any other shape it is the amount of surface area that makes the difference. What I also said was that the BC has no effect on how a bullet travels through the tissue because as soon as an expanding bullet contacts the target it's surface area ie diameter increases.

A bigger diameter makes a bigger hole. A bigger diameter generates bigger and more powerful shockwaves.

That's very basic physics and has been well understood for more than a century now.

Observe the gel testing in these two videos.

First is a non expanding bullet.

https://youtu.be/3G-txVKnVjY

Now an expanding bullet


https://youtu.be/8DJ-wIZRyR0

Same caliber, same weight.

I'll buy that for a dollar. The expansion is what makes this very difficult to figure. What if we use solids? A flatnose solid will definitely damage a lot more medium than a bore rider needle point per about every ballistic guru of the last 120 yrs. How does that figure? Elmer Keith and Taylor all figured nose shape into knockdown values. Their research is a few years back but is still well regarded. The only way to test shape in a medium is with a solid. Otherwise we are testing EXPANSION not SHAPE. Whats our take on that?

 

[toddc]

And there were many studies in gel over the years showing that RN generated much less shock and disruption than wadcutter style bullets. This would also SEEM to indicate that shape does in fact come into account. And RN isn't that much removed from a wadcutter. Compare a spire to a wadcutter and its very different in medium.

 

[WildRose]

I'll buy that for a dollar. The expansion is what makes this very difficult to figure. What if we use solids? A flatnose solid will definitely damage a lot more medium than a bore rider needle point per about every ballistic guru of the last 120 yrs. How does that figure? Elmer Keith and Taylor all figured nose shape into knockdown values. Their research is a few years back but is still well regarded. The only way to test shape in a medium is with a solid. Otherwise we are testing EXPANSION not SHAPE. Whats our take on that?

A solid of the same diameter as an already expanding bullet striking the target at the same velocity with the same energy will have essentially the same effect.

If anything the rounded shape gives you a more even distribution and directionality of the shockwaves.

The same is true with respect to direct tissue damage at subsonic speeds, a .45 caliber hole is a .45 caliber hole whether it's round, square pear shaped oblong yada, yada, yada.

You can make an argument that jagged edges of separated petals or torn jackets do more cutting but they don't cut beyond the total circumference of the projectile.

Now when bullets fragment you get multiple smaller individual wound channels in the path of each individual fragment but those are much smaller wound channels and due to the rapid loss of velocity of the smaller fragments it's more limited.

There's certainly an argument to be made that with highly frangible bullets you can directly lacerate more tissue than with non frangibles but that's a completely different discussion altogether. Those bullets tend to perform very well as long as they aren't having to penetrate deeply or pass through heavy bone before getting to the vitals.

On deer for example the Nosler BT's work great for heart lung shots but can also result in horrible shallow wounds if you try to punch them through the shoulders of an elk sized animal or when trying to shoot them through the shield of a big boar.

Solids and controlled expansion bullets on the other hand punching through a deer's ribs and chest cavity without striking the spine or heavy bones can result in a deer running a quarter mile or more before expiring.

Two years ago we tracked a deer shot with if I remember right a partition that had punched the ribs missing everything else for over a half mile before finally losing the trail completely and we were using six experienced hunters and two very good blood tracking dogs. He may have only gone another hundred yards or so but he had left the property. He was shot on the neighboring property to the west, made it a half mile all the way across my property, and we lost the trail right where he crossed the country road on the east side of our property.

Bullet selection and placement are both key to quick, humane kills.

If you punch the same exact non expanding or limited/controlled expansion bullet through the shoulders and spine instead of the ribs that buck wouldn't have taken a single step and would have been dead within a couple of minutes at most, and more likely a few seconds of hitting the ground.

A ballistic tip in the same situation punched through the ribs and heart without hitting big bones and he doesn't run more than a few yards.

Match the bullet to the game, and your intended shot placement and about the only way you fail is if for some reason the bullet fails to open or you fail to put it in the right spot.

Unfortunately for most of us we are ingrained from an early age by whomever introduces us to hunting to shoot for the same spot every time without consideration to the species or the bullet we're using which results in a lot of "bullet failures" which are nothing more in reality than us failing the bullet.

 

[WildRose]

And there were many studies in gel over the years showing that RN generated much less shock and disruption than wadcutter style bullets. This would also SEEM to indicate that shape does in fact come into account. And RN isn't that much removed from a wadcutter. Compare a spire to a wadcutter and its very different in medium.

That is completely incorrect. A wad cutter by design punches a caliber sized hole straight through the target.

They get the name "wad cutter" because they are designed to punch very clean holes through paper targets. The "killing power of a wadcutter" is completely mythical and without foundation in reality.

It goes back to a quote used occasionally in movies/tv where someone that knew nothing about the subject was writing the script using a cute term to try and make the ammunition used sound more deadly.

MultiBrief: Pros and cons of the wadcutter bullet

It's the same kind of Hollywood Legend that got "cop killer bullets" banned.

The best handgun bullets I've ever seen for big hogs and other dangerous game were just a JHP that had a pointed tungsten penetrator in the center. They were fantastic but because they came under the legal definition of "cop killer bullets" they and many other really great hunting bullets of similar design got outlawed due to Hollywood and Media Hype generated by the anti gunners back in the 90's.

 

[WildRose]

And there were many studies in gel over the years showing that RN generated much less shock and disruption than wadcutter style bullets. This would also SEEM to indicate that shape does in fact come into account. And RN isn't that much removed from a wadcutter. Compare a spire to a wadcutter and its very different in medium.

Let me make a finer point here.

You are correct in that a non expanding RN is going to be similar in effect to a wadcutter. Neither expands and will generate less damage from shockwaves than an expanding bullet.

Round nosed and flat nosed bullets are generally designed for maximum penetration on large, heavy bodied/boned, and dangerous game

Use an expanding bullet that gives you 1.5-2.5 times diameter controlled expansion and you get much more of an effect from the shockwaves due to the increased surface area.

 

[WildRose]

I'll buy that for a dollar. The expansion is what makes this very difficult to figure. What if we use solids? A flatnose solid will definitely damage a lot more medium than a bore rider needle point per about every ballistic guru of the last 120 yrs. How does that figure? Elmer Keith and Taylor all figured nose shape into knockdown values. Their research is a few years back but is still well regarded. The only way to test shape in a medium is with a solid. Otherwise we are testing EXPANSION not SHAPE. Whats our take on that?

"Knock Down Value" by the way is a totally outdated concept. Their various theories generally were comparing non expanding bullets to non or very limited expanding bullets such as hard cast lead bullets.

If you look for example at Taylor's KO factor equations his only considerations were mass, velocity and bullet diameter.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Rose you were not attacked. It was pointed out when you said that the shape of a bullet in terminal performance makes no difference that you are wrong. This was after I gave you the chance to correct yourself. Yet you doubled down on wrong. I have been on this site for a long time and seen lots of guys like you show up. Guys like you seem to know everything. Have owned two of every gun ever made. Shot every animal in the world. Everything you have or have done is better or bigger than the next guy. Your ability to recite strings of crap from reading on the internet is astonishing. It is know it alls like you that are the reason that there are fewer and fewer guys that really do have great knowledge here. Having to filter through the giant piles of crap that guys like you continually leave makes it not worth the effort to be on the board. You are the cancer that will turn this site into 24hr campfire.

I stand by my statement that you continue to prove. You inject yourself in every thread on here in order to make yourself look good. You are the reason they say "just because you saw it on the internet doesn't make it true". The more you go on about how much you know the more it shows you have no practical experience of your own.

You are a fake and a troll.

Steve

 

[Deleted member 46119]

You have buried yourself in your own BS. ...

Since you don't allow private messages..

Please don't use that kind of language. It is a personal attack. You are a "site sponsor", please set a better example.

Physics is physics. Arguing physics is not going to change how simulate materials react vs how flesh and bone reacts.

 

[Edd]

The shape of an object passing thru a fluid not only makes a difference but it makes a huge difference.

A 30 caliber bullet that mushrooms to 1.5 times the original diameter has slightly more than twice the frontal area. The debate should be about a flat object vs a rounded object with twice the surface area.

 

[Deleted member 46119]

The shape of an object passing thru a fluid not only makes a difference but it makes a huge difference.

A 30 caliber bullet that mushrooms to 1.5 times the original diameter has slightly more than twice the frontal area. The debate should be about a flat object vs a rounded object with twice the surface area.

Physics is physics. Arguing physics is IMO arguing for the sake of arguing.

I agree with you that SHAPE and DIAMETER have a huge impact on the cavitation effect in water. We don't hunt water.

Cavitation effect in flesh and bone is not something I know enough about to comment on other than it exists and flesh and bone is not monolithic a monolithic material like water or ballistics gelatin.

These two guys shouldn't be arguing in public over physics. IMO, it looks more like purveyors of projectiles arguing over who's approach is better.

I have my preference and I voted with my check book. I'm not sayin' who.

 

[Edd]

I agree with you that SHAPE and DIAMETER have a huge impact on the cavitation effect in water. We don't hunt water.

Size and shape makes a difference in stuff other than water. Air and dirt are two basic examples. I see no reason to exclude flesh and bone or a mixture of stuff.