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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Terminal Ballistics
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="rscott5028" data-source="post: 546537" data-attributes="member: 24624"><p>Having read a bit more on that website (which appears to be still under construction), I think it's an <strong>excellent and necessary</strong> resource/methodology. But, I don't think it's scientific enough to my satisfaction. </p><p> </p><p>I don't beleive that multipe parties could necessarily go out and conduct the same studies and draw the same conclusions. </p><p> </p><p>There are lots of references to topics like hydrostatic shock for which I don't see quantitative measurements. Terminal ballistics is a huge subject. So, the research may be there and I just don't yet see it. </p><p> </p><p>To be fair, the proprietor of that website admits to being a small business with limitted resources relying on donations. </p><p> </p><p>Nonetheless, I'm not satisfied reviews like the following...</p><p><a href="http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledge+Base/.25-06+Remington.html" target="_blank">.25-06 Remington</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p>I would characterize the above quote as an expert opinion. But, it's still very subjective. If we take a poll, as is often the case here on LRH, we're going to get all kinds of opinions. </p><p> </p><p>Caliber, Weight, MV, ES, SD, and BC are all quantitative and you can argue the relative importance of each one for your application. But, they form the basis for intelligent discussions. </p><p> </p><p>I see people use terms like highly frangible, hydrostatic shock and primary and secondary wound channels. But, I'd still like to see someone publish a study where they came up with a meaningful methodology for measuring these in a way that others could (a) reproduce the same results under the same conditions, and (b) provide consistent testing with new projectiles at varying range, velocity, spin rate, etc. </p><p> </p><p>Has this been done yet? </p><p> </p><p>Or, am I alone in believing that it's necessary/attainable? </p><p> </p><p>Thanks for your input!</p><p>Richard</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rscott5028, post: 546537, member: 24624"] Having read a bit more on that website (which appears to be still under construction), I think it's an [B]excellent and necessary[/B] resource/methodology. But, I don't think it's scientific enough to my satisfaction. I don't beleive that multipe parties could necessarily go out and conduct the same studies and draw the same conclusions. There are lots of references to topics like hydrostatic shock for which I don't see quantitative measurements. Terminal ballistics is a huge subject. So, the research may be there and I just don't yet see it. To be fair, the proprietor of that website admits to being a small business with limitted resources relying on donations. Nonetheless, I'm not satisfied reviews like the following... [url=http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledge+Base/.25-06+Remington.html].25-06 Remington[/url] I would characterize the above quote as an expert opinion. But, it's still very subjective. If we take a poll, as is often the case here on LRH, we're going to get all kinds of opinions. Caliber, Weight, MV, ES, SD, and BC are all quantitative and you can argue the relative importance of each one for your application. But, they form the basis for intelligent discussions. I see people use terms like highly frangible, hydrostatic shock and primary and secondary wound channels. But, I'd still like to see someone publish a study where they came up with a meaningful methodology for measuring these in a way that others could (a) reproduce the same results under the same conditions, and (b) provide consistent testing with new projectiles at varying range, velocity, spin rate, etc. Has this been done yet? Or, am I alone in believing that it's necessary/attainable? Thanks for your input! Richard [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Terminal Ballistics
Top