Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles TTSX and E-tip.

I personally would rather not be hit with either one.

If you've seen videos of high-pressured streams of water cutting through steel, then you'd probably agree with me.

I thought the same thing water at 2000 FPS that got to leave a mark.....

I have seen the effects a water blaster can have on steel, yep it can cut completely through it.

Arrows are great when hitting big bones, not.....

You guys are obtuse. So you believe a speeding water ballon will go through kevlar?

P.S. The Barnes X will leave a HELL OF A LOT MORE than a mark.

Argg...you are taking this discussion from one aspect to another seamlessly...

The arrow being stopped by big bones is an example of inadequate energy to penetrate the bone, not a lack of density of the metal in the broadhead.

Who said anything about kevlar? And yes, it probably could (the water, that is).

how about inadequate force to penetrate the bone...

As I rather suspected...



...and therefore I would also easily assume you would not confuse external ballistics (non-powered projectiles) with something else (powered airplanes.)



And that must be why waterfowl hunters were "so eager" to switch from lead to steel...NOT!

And, why not use aluminum for bullets? It's cheaper. It's plentiful.

I believe Weatherby has used aluminum alloys for bullets in doing research for military applications....Thats how they broke the 6000fps barrier with a .30-378 iirc.

Inorder for a steel ball to be the same wieght as a lead ball (Shot) the steel must be larger in diameter therefore less arodymamic and less penetration related to wieght diameter, and impact velocity..
Not the same concept as what was being discussed, although it is difficult to keep up as the disscussion keeps changing course...

Quite right. A lot closer than some of the examples given though and, I figured, not really too far off track when you consider the superior shape of the harder steel sphere over the variously mis-shapen spherical lumps of lead. Certainly trading for fewer, more massive spheres instead of small, less efficient ones is the thing to do. Actually, I think there is an aerodynamic gain made in spheres by going larger. I could be wrong both in theory and in reality. It just seems to be so in my experience.

Energy and force go hand in hand, so yeah, you're right

Gents,
Your example of shot is actually spot on with the rest of the discussion. The real issue here is that steel shot would have to be larger in order to be the same mass as the lead shot. Since they are round balls, not missile shaped bullets, this decreases penetration as well as the number of pellets per load, just as jwp said. Bullets are different, because the bullet can increase in weight, momentum, etc without increasing the surface area (which would increase drag). This is why 6.5mm bullets are known for their penetration characteristics. They are heavy, slender, and long.

Increasing the size of a round ball doesn't affect aerodynamics. The surface area-to-weight ratio is what affects drag. If the larger ball is catching more wind, it is also proportionately heavier, with more momentum.

While I agree with jwp that the lead shot/ steel shot example is not exactly the same deal, it is related to what I hold forth with. That you see it as �spot on� as you go on to detail the theoretical lack of merit that varying sphere sizes have in terms of aerodynamics. Reality must behave according to every variable which has an effect; it, in fact, defines those variables. Theory only attempts to identify and then quantify those variables. While I will admit to being weak when it comes to the theories of ballistics and a lot of other things - and the idea that any sphere of the same density should behave alike aerodynamically, that is not what it seems to be in reality. And reality is the proof of any theory.

Perhaps we need to ask why ammunition companies have sometimes shown not only effective ranges of their shotgun shell loads, but also maximum distances of travel for various shot sizes. I don�t know if they still do this, but I clearly remember it from the little promotional flyers they distributed when I was a youngster. #8 shot does not carry near as far as #4 shot. I would imagine comparing iron cannon balls to today�s steel shot would show the same thing.

So, if round ball theory is indeed �spot on� to this debate, then I think we need to move away from the textbook and get just a bit closer to empirical results (reality).

In order for experiments to mean anything in "reality" you must isolate only one variable while maintaining all the others constant. Larger shot has a greater effective range and penetrates deeper because of greater momentum, not greater aerodynamic properties....

Bigger shot, according to Lyman and others, carries farther, the effective range and penetration notwithstanding (so as not to confuse terminal effectiveness with aerodynamics.) Iron cannon shot seems to go quite a bit farther, according to reports I've read, than does steel shotgun shot. The "whys" beg the theoretical explanations. That in itself seems to challenge identification of variables, not to mention ways to measure and describe them mathematically. It seems to me -and remember my grasp of the theoretical is minimal- but it seems that often with some of these theories, certain conditions are controlled for in order to create equations which work across a spectrum. In reality certain assumed conditions sometimes don't actually exist. All I can go on is what I've experienced.

Getting back to the XFB bullet I pictured earlier, either that bullet was losing speed more quickly than Barnes predicted it would, or that bullet need more speed to work than what is commonly thought. Both bullets stayed inside the animal. Neither was challenged by heavy bone or other excpetionally diffcult material. I think Barnes may have been trying to correct for that with the dense cored, polymer tipped MRX. Obviously, that "correction" if it is, is not something they boldly advertise.


BTW, JS, I appreciate the civility with which you have addressed the differences we approach this topic from. While the "horse" may have long been "fly food" to some, I enjoy the opportunity to examine things such as this a bit more closely. You have provided some fuel for encouraging that.

I totally agree with this. I feel I should clarify one thing, however. If you have 2 balls of EQUAL SIZE (that's the key here), one steel and the other lead, the lead ball will carry further because it has greater mass for its size, and therefore has greater momentum. You have to compare apples to apples, which is why I said that they must be the same size. I think you would agree that it wouldn't be a fair comparison of lead and steel to shoot a load of BBB steel shot and a load of #9 lead shot and try to deduce which carries better, lead or steel, from that experiment.


Yeah, again, I agree. For whatever reason, those bullets didn't open up properly. Perhaps they lost speed quicker than expected, or perhaps they were just a little harder than they had hoped.


I've always respected your opinion, and moreso, the fact that you respect others, even when opinions and mileage vary

Then why does the target manufacturer say that the biggest problem a steel target has to deal with is the heat generated by the bullet. Readthis and find out. http://www.cascity.com/store/The_Truth_About_Steel_Targets.pdf
Truth � The basic destructive force generated by bullets striking steel targets is heat
Excessive concentrated heat alters the steel�s hardness properties and results in damage to the target�s face. The
amount of heat generated is proportional to the speed of the bullet, which is why rifles cause more damage to steel
targets than handguns.
This is the quote taken from the above website. really.

Sorta, but not exactly. Take a 55 grain bullet at 3650 FPS and that is 1626 FE and 3.92N (Newtons Force). Now let's take a 300 grain bullet atr 1200 FPS and that is 959 FPE and 7N (Newtons Force). One can have more FPE and Less force..