Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
6.5 smk recovered
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Buffalobob" data-source="post: 333044" data-attributes="member: 8"><p>I read his stuff several years ago and I read it again. It is interesting and he makes some good points and has some good data.</p><p></p><p>Couple of peculiar points that seem strange to me. He spends time discrediting other peoples work because they are not scientific enough and then he follows right down the same path. I do not know if he thinks people are not smart enough to understand his own deviations from science or he just doesn't have the personal integrity to deal with things honestly.</p><p></p><p>The 10 second to death time he selects is artificial and allows him to make his second assumption which is that the bullet is placed in the chest cavity behind the shoulder. Thus he gets around the mechanical issue of having to break the shoulder bone and actually work with momentum and energy. It also allows him to make the assumption that a deers chest is uniform and close to the density of water and a fluid.. This allows him to go into fluid dynamics because now the deer is a uniform fluid mass instead of a heterogeneous assemblage of hide, bones, lung, air, blood and muscle.</p><p></p><p>The point I wonder about is that he is in the profession of designing body armor so he clearly knows the mechanical side of bullets and hard objects yet he studiously avoids it in his work. In the end, I concluded that what he really wanted was not a theory to explain bullets in animals but a theory to explain bullets in wet phone books. Thus we go back to the initial thought of why did he spend time running down other peoples work. None of the other people cared anything about wet phone books.</p><p></p><p>He spends a lot of time collecting a lot of good data on bullets and I learned some things from it but in my experience you just cannot ignore the bone structure of an animal (except for antelope).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buffalobob, post: 333044, member: 8"] I read his stuff several years ago and I read it again. It is interesting and he makes some good points and has some good data. Couple of peculiar points that seem strange to me. He spends time discrediting other peoples work because they are not scientific enough and then he follows right down the same path. I do not know if he thinks people are not smart enough to understand his own deviations from science or he just doesn't have the personal integrity to deal with things honestly. The 10 second to death time he selects is artificial and allows him to make his second assumption which is that the bullet is placed in the chest cavity behind the shoulder. Thus he gets around the mechanical issue of having to break the shoulder bone and actually work with momentum and energy. It also allows him to make the assumption that a deers chest is uniform and close to the density of water and a fluid.. This allows him to go into fluid dynamics because now the deer is a uniform fluid mass instead of a heterogeneous assemblage of hide, bones, lung, air, blood and muscle. The point I wonder about is that he is in the profession of designing body armor so he clearly knows the mechanical side of bullets and hard objects yet he studiously avoids it in his work. In the end, I concluded that what he really wanted was not a theory to explain bullets in animals but a theory to explain bullets in wet phone books. Thus we go back to the initial thought of why did he spend time running down other peoples work. None of the other people cared anything about wet phone books. He spends a lot of time collecting a lot of good data on bullets and I learned some things from it but in my experience you just cannot ignore the bone structure of an animal (except for antelope). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
6.5 smk recovered
Top