Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Technical Articles - Discussion' started by ADMIN, Jul 30, 2017.
ADMIN submitted a new Article:
Effective Game Killing - Part 2
Read more about this article here...
Ruark not O'Rourke!
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.
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.
Terminal Ballistics Research
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!
Home page: http://www.ballisticstudies.com/index.html
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Ballisticstudies
On 8/2/2017 12:38 AM, email@example.com wrote:
You have received a new enquiry from your website. The details are as follows:
Subject: bullet stability/terminal performance
From: steve davis <http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/effective-game-killing-part-2.1159/?mp=83
In my bullet testing I have noticed that stability factor of bullets is directly relative to how well a bullets terminal performance is. It is my opinion that the stability of hunting bullets is over looked to the detriment of hunters and the game that they pursue. If you have tested this I would like to know your findings.
We strongly suggest you click here to log into your website and process this enquiry. This will ensure that your response is recorded against the enquiry in a centralised area inside your website administration.
Thanks for this excellent article. It was a great education for me based on science, rather than the old rules of thumb I had relied on. My son and I were able to put this knowledge to use very recently on an ibex hunt and gazelle hunt. The first ibex stood still at 170 yards in a front-left quartering position, exposing the autonomic plexus to me. Historically, I would probably have waited for a "better" broadside shot, but decided to put this new information to the test. One shot to this center dropped the animal in his tracks. It appeared to be dead before it hit the ground, which was very valuable in the steep, rocky terrain we were hunting. Another ibex on the trip ran 200 yards after being hit with a broadside shot in the lower rear lung position at 115 yard range. A gazelle with a high forward lung shot ran 100 yards after being hit at 300 yards before it collapsed, and upon inspection, it's heart had been damaged by the shock of the bullet. The last gazelle though collapsed instantly in its tracks with a shot placed just forward of front leg from 110 yards, positioned exactly as the picture of the deer in the article. All were taken with 7mm rem mags using Hornady ELD-X ammunition. With a strong shooting position you can have the confidence to place the shot in the autonomic plexus and will have exactly the result Mr. Foster describes. Thank you for the education.