Gerard Schultz is also responsible for inventing the sacrificial forward band concept. This was a critical element in ELR advancement, even though he specializes in short to medium range hunt bullets. As you point out, he is very knowledgeable in terminal ballistics, and some of our expansion technology overlaps. In sharing e-mail notes, it was revealed that we independently arrived at similiar solutions to the problem.
I appreciate the feed-back on standard twist compatability. Eric can tell you that this is counter productive for copper solids. It is an issue of material density. Copper does not begin to shine as a projectile medium until six caliber lengths are reached. The only reason that I took on the hunt bullet project in .338, is that unusually tight twist rates (9-9.5") are becoming common. This is why I believe ZA hunt bullet will always find relatively limited application in the field.
I'm hopeful and optimistic that you have the solutions to the challenges involved in solid bullet construction. My observations are those of an 'outsider' to the world of solid bullets (for now), and you're obviously much better acquainted with that technology. As always I'm looking forward to learning and specifically on this project and your ZA solids.
If it turns out that your projectiles are far superior to conventional bullets in precision and ballistic performance, then I'll be thrilled to report it. Like Eric said, genuine advancements in the shooting sports are a good thing no matter who's doing it. We're behind your efforts toward improving solid bullet technology.
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Re: The Solid Bullet Debate
Please accept my appology if anything here offends you. Understand that this is simply cunstructive critisizm here. Nothing more nothing less.
I have to be honest. Sometimes your posts seem very knowledgable and that you COULD have something good to conrtibute to this community.
On the flip side of this, sometimes you can be very dissrespectfull to memebers here. Some who deserve alot more respect than you give them. You cannot say things to Eric like 19 years of swedging bullet hardley makes you qualified to speak on the subject. This type of talk here is not well recieved espescially when ALOT of guys here use Berger bullets and Eric actually has alot of experience in the bullet field AND for all we know you are full of hot air. I am not saying you are. What I am saying is put your product where you mouth is. In other words, put out or get out.
When you release your products, then you will have more of a leg to stand on. Untill then, this is all just theory. As such, there are alot of proven products out there right now that you simply cannot bash without making yourself look bad.
I and many more here can and will take you more seriously if you would respect others a bit more and give us something more real.
What you claim sounds good. I hope youre right. I am always looking for something new and better. If your products are really better, I will be one of the first to congradulate you AND thank you. I would also be a customer. Just please, dont be so argumentetive and dissrespectfull.
You can take this post 2 ways. 1: Constructive or 2: demeaning. I hope you take it as #1, because that is what I meen to accomplish. I and other here have high hopes, please dont dissapoint us.
Long range shooting is a process that ends with a result. Once you start to focus on the result (how bad your last shot was, how big the group is going to be, what your buck will score, what your match score is, what place you are in...) then you loose the capacity to focus on the process.
I basically agree with you, but I think Noel has already said that his comment to Eric was "over the top"
Hopefully this discussion will continue with mutual respect. I find it very intersting and informative. It's not often you get bullet designers/makers and ballisticians of the caliber we have in this discussion. Now all we need is for Grerard to join in...
Last edited by MontanaRifleman; 06-20-2009 at 12:16 PM.
I do not offend easily, and neither do I have much patience for foolishness. I accept your comments in the spirit which they are presented, but I control my agenda, and none other.
One of the "time sensitive" issues alluded to in my post to Grit is what both Bryan, and I, have already made oblique reference to. To avoid the circus atmosphere surrounding reporting of field "data", which has appeared at this site very recently, I have contracted with Bryan to model, and test, the ZA338/6.0-Cu. This will be made publicly available in concert with general release of the bullet. I believe this to be the best option for the sake of the product, and the consumer.
In the interim, you will be forced to take my comments with whatever degree of credibility you choose to assign to them.
I accept your apology, and agree that my communication style can be overly curt, even offensive. Rest assured that is not my objective. Regarding offense given to specific individuals, I am hampered in having no preconceived idea of what assertions should be given undue quarter, I do not know the reputation of individuals here. Sometimes that is technically beneficial, but it is rarely a public relations advantage.
I am going to have lunch, and then continue.
Once again, I look forward to having meaningful exchange with you.
One of the immediate realizations made upon hearing Hay's dismissal of the feasability of high explosive propellants for small arms use, was the default 4150, or 416, alloy justification. Their primary reccomendation has little to do with the application. Other than ease of machining, there is nothing to reccomend them for a high temperature environment.
Is there any barrel-maker in this forum that would care to take issue with this statement?