Re: 416 Opinions Required
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="purple"> In an article in the November, 1947 issue of the American Rifleman magazine,
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ] </font> </font> </font>
1947 pretty much sums it up. Just as I stated before, no modern bonded bullets. The physics, while still high school level, is slightly more complicated. If the bullet doesnít exit the animal Ė you take the KE of the bullet when it hits the target and subtract the KE left from momentum transfer. Conservation of momentum guarantees the bullet touching the animal has the same momentum when it stops inside the animal. You need to subtract out the KE from the momentum left (the algebra is left as an exercise for the student).
Taylorís Index is a joke with modern ballistics & bullets. Itís not consistent with experimental data on soft tissue and wound channels from hi velocity bullets. [ QUOTE ]
<font color="purple"> If there is a discrepancy, it is in comparing bullets with a high tendency to tumble with those that do not.
[/ QUOTE ] </font> </font>
Who shoots bullets that tumble? The best quote I have ever heard on TI is from the guy on LRH who wrote the ballistics software. He said something like; it at least tells you not to hunt Griz with a .243
Compare the TI of the Abrams Tank vs. the T-72 and the T-72 looks better while the Sabot DU Abrams round has penetrated two T-72 side by side. Most T-72 projectiles bounced off the Abrams. (OK, so thatís because of superior amour, but I can get to brag about our superior tanks, rounds, amour ad optics)
Get a 375 RUM and don't look back. Cheaper, more/better components, far superior long range killing power.