RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
There is an article posted here on the LRH about terminal performance of bullets.
I read the article and thought it was good. Went to the authors website and liked what I saw, so I sent him a message hoping to engage in some good conversation regarding terminal performance relative to the stability factor of a bullet. Here is the email conversation that happened. My note to him that got this response is at the bottom. The more I read his reply to my query the more it irritates me. This guy knows nothing about me or our business. The testing that we do or the principles that guide our product development. Basically everything that he seems to accuse me of are absolutely false. My final impression is that he probably has little knowledge of bullet stability and how it effects terminal performance and he compensated for his lack of knowledge with arrogance.
Hi Steve, stability is certainly an issue. Stability in flight will effect the BC and therefore drop, drift and impact velocities. Stability after impact and or expansion will effect penetration, both length and direction. Generally speaking, penetration issues can be rectified via an increase in sectional density- a key factor when for example using the Nosler Partition on larger animals. A low SD Partition can tumble and shed its rear core if it meets too much resistance. Your opinion should not come into this, only observations and experience. This is very important if you wish to move from being a general hunter to a bullet maker. In the field of technology, we can never make true progress if we decide to make a product and then try to justify its usage, rather than putting vast amounts of time into research and observation first, then creating designs accordingly. Whenever I see the word opinion in this line of research, it tells me that the person needs more time in the field.
These matters aside and in answer to your question, yes, this is something I am mindful of at all times. Your email address shows that you are a bullet maker. Unfortunately, I do not believe monolithic bullets to be the sole answer to all bullet ills as these lack the ability to transfer high energy at low impact velocities. This is a doubly important issue now that hunters are using weak low recoiling cartridges and also shooting at longer ranges. Reliable expansion is only a partial factor. Copper bullets can be immensely useful but they have their limitations. The closer we get to and below 2000fps, the more a bullet needs to shed weight in order to produce clean and fast kills with some room for (the reality of) human and rifle errors. And by weight loss, I do not mean just a few petals. The argument of less meat damage is also poor. Many factory rifles only produce 3 MOA accuracy. With additional human error, such rifles often group around 4 to 5 MOA. By the time the bullet travels 200 yards the group may be as wide as 8 to 10" when used under field conditions. If a bullet cannot shed weight and produces ' low meat damage', it has no chance of destroying nearby vitals in lieu of these errors. What I am talking about here is the reality of game hunting, not some ideal fantasy. Having worked as a guide for many years prior to becoming a teacher, it became abundantly clear that many hunters simply cannot achieve a high level of accuracy in the field at ordinary hunting ranges, whether as a result of their own limitations or the rifle. Bullet makers such as Hornady and Sierra understand this very well. These people make their bullets according to what the market needs rather than what it wants. However, they then set about marketing products so that they appear to be what hunters want. This is a very complex subject which I cannot cover in one email. I will state however that both companies (along with myself) have come full circle with their research, becoming fully self educated as they discovered errors in their own beliefs.
I also do not like the way copper bullet makers pull the environment card and use scare tactics to try and drum up business. If copper bullet makers truly believed that their bullets were the best, they would not need to do this. But instead, copper bullet makers tend to align themselves with anti groups. This has and will continue to prove disastrous both for hunters and game. It is also highly disrespectful to black powder shooters who do not want to blast plastic wadded sabots into the hills.
The nature of my reply may sound negative but perhaps it will give you some food for thought. Please do not feel the need to justify yourself.
Nathan Foster
Terminal Ballistics Research
Taranaki
New Zealand
Ph: Country 64, area 6, local 75 23552
From USA / Canada: 011 64 6 7523552
From UK: 00 64 6 7523552
From Australia: 0011 64 6 7523552
Please observe our time zone and business hours!
I read the article and thought it was good. Went to the authors website and liked what I saw, so I sent him a message hoping to engage in some good conversation regarding terminal performance relative to the stability factor of a bullet. Here is the email conversation that happened. My note to him that got this response is at the bottom. The more I read his reply to my query the more it irritates me. This guy knows nothing about me or our business. The testing that we do or the principles that guide our product development. Basically everything that he seems to accuse me of are absolutely false. My final impression is that he probably has little knowledge of bullet stability and how it effects terminal performance and he compensated for his lack of knowledge with arrogance.
Hi Steve, stability is certainly an issue. Stability in flight will effect the BC and therefore drop, drift and impact velocities. Stability after impact and or expansion will effect penetration, both length and direction. Generally speaking, penetration issues can be rectified via an increase in sectional density- a key factor when for example using the Nosler Partition on larger animals. A low SD Partition can tumble and shed its rear core if it meets too much resistance. Your opinion should not come into this, only observations and experience. This is very important if you wish to move from being a general hunter to a bullet maker. In the field of technology, we can never make true progress if we decide to make a product and then try to justify its usage, rather than putting vast amounts of time into research and observation first, then creating designs accordingly. Whenever I see the word opinion in this line of research, it tells me that the person needs more time in the field.
These matters aside and in answer to your question, yes, this is something I am mindful of at all times. Your email address shows that you are a bullet maker. Unfortunately, I do not believe monolithic bullets to be the sole answer to all bullet ills as these lack the ability to transfer high energy at low impact velocities. This is a doubly important issue now that hunters are using weak low recoiling cartridges and also shooting at longer ranges. Reliable expansion is only a partial factor. Copper bullets can be immensely useful but they have their limitations. The closer we get to and below 2000fps, the more a bullet needs to shed weight in order to produce clean and fast kills with some room for (the reality of) human and rifle errors. And by weight loss, I do not mean just a few petals. The argument of less meat damage is also poor. Many factory rifles only produce 3 MOA accuracy. With additional human error, such rifles often group around 4 to 5 MOA. By the time the bullet travels 200 yards the group may be as wide as 8 to 10" when used under field conditions. If a bullet cannot shed weight and produces ' low meat damage', it has no chance of destroying nearby vitals in lieu of these errors. What I am talking about here is the reality of game hunting, not some ideal fantasy. Having worked as a guide for many years prior to becoming a teacher, it became abundantly clear that many hunters simply cannot achieve a high level of accuracy in the field at ordinary hunting ranges, whether as a result of their own limitations or the rifle. Bullet makers such as Hornady and Sierra understand this very well. These people make their bullets according to what the market needs rather than what it wants. However, they then set about marketing products so that they appear to be what hunters want. This is a very complex subject which I cannot cover in one email. I will state however that both companies (along with myself) have come full circle with their research, becoming fully self educated as they discovered errors in their own beliefs.
I also do not like the way copper bullet makers pull the environment card and use scare tactics to try and drum up business. If copper bullet makers truly believed that their bullets were the best, they would not need to do this. But instead, copper bullet makers tend to align themselves with anti groups. This has and will continue to prove disastrous both for hunters and game. It is also highly disrespectful to black powder shooters who do not want to blast plastic wadded sabots into the hills.
The nature of my reply may sound negative but perhaps it will give you some food for thought. Please do not feel the need to justify yourself.
Nathan Foster
Terminal Ballistics Research
Taranaki
New Zealand
Ph: Country 64, area 6, local 75 23552
From USA / Canada: 011 64 6 7523552
From UK: 00 64 6 7523552
From Australia: 0011 64 6 7523552
Please observe our time zone and business hours!
