Actually it has been proven that residual velocity (starting from a higher one) and a reduced load do about the same damage.
Specifically mentioned here on actual animals and wet newsprint.
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/XG3gVHQh.jpg)
Fotis,
The humor of you postings articles referencing "buzz saw effect" and using it as cover for being a lying sack of $hit with your "test data" is over the top. I'm gonna confine my research to ballisticians that don't think rpm contibuting to bullets terminal effects is related to a buzz saw and have some basic understanding onf the concept of centrifugal force. This [bleep] has been argued and tested repeatedly - you're wrong, end of story.
If you're so comfortable with your stupidity why don't you go ahead and answer the questions asked to begin with?
How fast were the bullets in your "test" launched initially?
What measure were you using to state that this was equivalent to a "300yd Expansion Test"?
Why do your tested bullets launched at low velocity for a simulated 300yd expansion test look so much different than TTSX's actually fired at normal velocities into test media at 400yds?
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/ballistics-test-best-300-win-mag-loads-market/Why didn't your test bullets with substandard expansion achieve the superior penetration that Barnes bullets are known for?
It's OK - everybody knows you faked your test data now, your silence on the same questions over and over is deafening. Nobody thinks your actually gonna answer.
David
