Gamebore super steel

[sabel25]

22 hours ago, Continental Shooter said:

I'm saying that unlike steel, is not necessary for lead to penetrate in order to kill. Kinetic energy transferred from lead pellets will cause sufficient trauma on impact causing internal organs failures, providing they carry sufficient downrange energy. 

YOU just said it here That lead does NOT need to penetrate to kill

More often than not one dresses a bird out to find a hole in the breast but no pellet in the meat as it has penetrated the gut and organs

Please answer my question on breaking clays with your scientific theories on kinetic energy?

In the past i have seen people shot by some idiots shooting through the line of flankers They had pellets lodged under the skin and lived to tell the tale kinetic energy did not kill them Thank God

You'll find on here that there are some very intelligent people with years of experiece in all walks of life That you do'nt know but are quite happy to insult their intelligece

[Diss4111]

8 minutes ago, motty said:

This is pure fantasy! In what world do pellets not have enough energy to penetrate further than skin, yet cause massive internal trauma?

Anyway, you have basically contradicted yourself. Surely, by your logic, steel shot will equally kill by penetrating just skin, and imparting its energy through the body.

I have tried to stay off this one, but this statement sums it up perfectly. Game set and match to Motty.

It is irrelevant what research says. This is basic physics

 

[sabel25]

8 minutes ago, Diss4111 said:

I have tried to stay off this one, but this statement sums it up perfectly. Game set and match to Motty.

It is irrelevant what research says. This is basic physics

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Continental Shooter said:

I did not say anywhere that lead doesn't penetrate. I said it is not necessary for it to penetrate in order to generate a kill.... Which is relatively different to your statement above. It's a matter of physics you can't just argue with conjectures. There are also hundreds of researxhes and publication in  forensic medicine and ballistic which  supports that. Without going into technicalities: have you ever happened to clean a bird and find pellets under the skin but massive hemorrhages where the pellets stroke the bird? Well, that's it, kinetic energy in crude terms. If you open the quarry you'll find also internal hemorrhages and guess what happens when you get internal hemorrhages?

Even I human bodies, a through and through bullet is not considered as damaging as one that stuck inside... You can confirm that watching CSI/NCIS of you can't be bothered reading the relevant journals or publications

Hope this clarifies

Doesn’t clarify anything really; I find your claims rather bizarre. 

[Continental Shooter]

47 minutes ago, sabel25 said:

YOU just said it here That lead does NOT need to penetrate to kill

More often than not one dresses a bird out to find a hole in the breast but no pellet in the meat as it has penetrated the gut and organs

Please answer my question on breaking clays with your scientific theories on kinetic energy?

In the past i have seen people shot by some idiots shooting through the line of flankers They had pellets lodged under the skin and lived to tell the tale kinetic energy did not kill them Thank God

You'll find on here that there are some very intelligent people with years of experiece in all walks of life That you do'nt know but are quite happy to insult their intelligece

I said is not NECESSARY

[andrewluke]

1 hour ago, Continental Shooter said:

I did not say anywhere that lead doesn't penetrate. I said it is not necessary for it to penetrate in order to generate a kill.... Which is relatively different to your statement above. It's a matter of physics you can't just argue with conjectures. There are also hundreds of researxhes and publication in  forensic medicine and ballistic which  supports that. Without going into technicalities: have you ever happened to clean a bird and find pellets under the skin but massive hemorrhages where the pellets stroke the bird? Well, that's it, kinetic energy in crude terms. If you open the quarry you'll find also internal hemorrhages and guess what happens when you get internal hemorrhages?

Even I human bodies, a through and through bullet is not considered as damaging as one that stuck inside... You can confirm that watching CSI/NCIS of you can't be bothered reading the relevant journals or publications

Hope this clarifies

i think you are confusing penetration and shot entering and exiting,penetrating does not mean shot travelling right through your quarry!

Edited February 5, 2019 by andrewluke

[Continental Shooter]

Sorry, I can't teach 5 years of university grade physics -and numerous placements in reputable cartridges manufacturers- in a forum. You believe what you believe, I believe what years of research and centuries of physics have demonstrated. 

[Diss4111]

1 hour ago, Continental Shooter said:

I did not say anywhere that lead doesn't penetrate. I said it is not necessary for it to penetrate in order to generate a kill.... Which is relatively different to your statement above. It's a matter of physics you can't just argue with conjectures. There are also hundreds of researxhes and publication in  forensic medicine and ballistic which  supports that. Without going into technicalities: have you ever happened to clean a bird and find pellets under the skin but massive hemorrhages where the pellets stroke the bird? Well, that's it, kinetic energy in crude terms. If you open the quarry you'll find also internal hemorrhages and guess what happens when you get internal hemorrhages?

Even I human bodies, a through and through bullet is not considered as damaging as one that stuck inside... You can confirm that watching CSI/NCIS of you can't be bothered reading the relevant journals or publications

Hope this clarifies

Really??????????? Why is that? an exit wound is always much larger than the entry. So not only has the bullet expanded but has done huge damage on its way out. I think you are believing far too much NCIS/CSI

Just now, Continental Shooter said:

Sorry, I can't teach 5 years of university grade physics -and numerous placements in reputable cartridges manufacturers- in a forum. You believe what you believe, I believe what years of research and centuries of physics have demonstrated. 

You may believe it, but you don't understand it. 

[dougall]

13 hours ago, Continental Shooter said:

Lead deforms on impact steel doesnt

Yeah, I know, anything scientifically proven tends to be rubbish for a lot of you...intend to stick to what I studied rather than what I guess. I know it's probably not your kind of reading but any forensic book or medical test on bullet impact would explain it in more details

Lead deforms on impact with a wall...not with  a pigeon....I am thinking have you ever shot and plucked a pigeon...I really do not want a keyboard war,and if pushed I would agree with you Lead hits a bit harder;however in most other regards I do not agree with you; a killed bird has holes in it,there is little to no deformation in a lead pellet retrieved from a pigeons body. I am not a scientist,but I am a pigeon shooter and have shot rather of lot of them mainly with Lead but in the last 5 years quite a few with Steel..on balance I slightly prefer Lead but not because they cause more concussion I find them slightly more effective at the limits. Yes Lead is more dense,but steel for the same load has more pellets and within 40 yards ipso facto more potentially in the pattern/more chance of hitting a vital into which a hole is made.

Atb.

 

[Continental Shooter]

Scottish inland goose: None of these were found inside the carcass, 2 were trapped in the skin. Goose died instantly and the hemorrhages were visible outside and inside the Brest once cleaned.

[Scully]

It’s not really definitive is it? I in the past have dressed duck and pheasant which haven’t ANY marks on them at all, but I think it’s safe to assume the shot must be in the head...don’t you? Unless they died of a near miss of course. 

[motty]

1 hour ago, Continental Shooter said:

Scottish inland goose: None of these were found inside the carcass, 2 were trapped in the skin. Goose died instantly and the hemorrhages were visible outside and inside the Brest once cleaned.

So you believe the goose in your picture died from nothing more than lead slapping against the breasts? Don't be silly.

[Diss4111]

14 minutes ago, motty said:

So you believe the goose in your picture died from nothing more than lead slapping against the breasts? Don't be silly.

I stubbed my toe on the door frame this morning, I hope I don't go the same way😂

[Farmboy91]

2 minutes ago, Diss4111 said:

I stubbed my toe on the door frame this morning, I hope I don't go the same way😂

With all the blood blisters I've survived I must be a miracle of modern science..... 😂 

[wymberley]

On 04/02/2019 at 14:29, motty said:

Rubbish.

Quite.

This has been debated for ever and among the ballisticians the jury is still out. Other than the penetration, what is being talked about is transmitted effect. This takes two forms; hydraulic and hydrostatic shock. The effect of both is ultimately the same but the method of the transmission is entirely different. They come into their own - that is, if you're in the 'for' camp -  with an expanding rifle bullet but as has been said the expansion of a shotgun pellet is minimal. Consequently, in the interests of humane kills, not to mention sportsmanship and the unwanted attention of the antis bleating 'cruelty' - they'd have a valid point - we'd be better off ensuring that we have sufficient penetration to get the job done. After all, it's not as though we don't have a comprehensive range of cartridges to choose from.

As an aside, when penetration had failed and the resultant bullet wound was not deemed fatal what caused the death of the many so wounded soldiers in the American Civil War?

Edited February 5, 2019 by wymberley

[Continental Shooter]

47 minutes ago, wymberley said:

 

As an aside, when penetration had failed and the resultant bullet wound was not deemed fatal what caused the death of the many so wounded soldiers in the American Civil War?

All well explained, thank you.

As for your question, judging by previous comments I'd say ... Black magic or perhaps they were shot by people who were in the field more than others and knew better. It can't be internal bleeding from trauma caused by the bullets that is just rubbish LOL

[motty]

23 minutes ago, Continental Shooter said:

All well explained, thank you.

As for your question, judging by previous comments I'd say ... Black magic or perhaps they were shot by people who were in the field more than others and knew better. It can't be internal bleeding from trauma caused by the bullets that is just rubbish LOL

Yes, bullets that penetrated into their bodies!

[wymberley]

37 minutes ago, Continental Shooter said:

All well explained, thank you.

As for your question, judging by previous comments I'd say ... Black magic or perhaps they were shot by people who were in the field more than others and knew better. It can't be internal bleeding from trauma caused by the bullets that is just rubbish LOL

I only asked because there has been some comments on another thread regarding things not performing as expected based on previous experience.

The answer is infection/sepsis, call it what you will, caused by dirty clothing being dragged into the body/wound by the bullet - this was the last real punch-up using proper round ball shot where a degree of medical knowledge was available. This clothing formed a "boundary layer" as does fur, feather and water on a shotgun pellet and this time of year when our quarry is very often wet the pellet has to work harder to punch its way through. Not only that, this 'layer' increases the diameter of the pellet with very little increase in weight and it is recognised that this has a detrimental effect on the penetration properties of any pellet.

[Continental Shooter]

13 hours ago, wymberley said:

I only asked because there has been some comments on another thread regarding things not performing as expected based on previous experience.

The answer is infection/sepsis, call it what you will, caused by dirty clothing being dragged into the body/wound by the bullet - this was the last real punch-up using proper round ball shot where a degree of medical knowledge was available. This clothing formed a "boundary layer" as does fur, feather and water on a shotgun pellet and this time of year when our quarry is very often wet the pellet has to work harder to punch its way through. Not only that, this 'layer' increases the diameter of the pellet with very little increase in weight and it is recognised that this has a detrimental effect on the penetration properties of any pellet.

Evidences still show that it's not only infections or sepsis

I remember when studying for an essay I researched a couple of studies from Russian Police and Buenos Aires police both came to the conclusion that even whit the use of bulletproof vest (old expansion version, not Kevlar or ceramic) , in the event of multiple hits officers, all officers reported bruises or superficial injuries with 20% reporting visceral damages and up to 19% showing signs of broken ribs

oh, and while I was double checking i came across a study from the Office of Justice that confirms Officers are also affected by blunt force trauma and lacerations when shot while wearing a bullet proof vest.

 

[motty]

1 hour ago, Continental Shooter said:

Evidences still show that it's not only infections or sepsis

I remember when studying for an essay I researched a couple of studies from Russian Police and Buenos Aires police both came to the conclusion that even whit the use of bulletproof vest (old expansion version, not Kevlar or ceramic) , in the event of multiple hits officers, all officers reported bruises or superficial injuries with 20% reporting visceral damages and up to 19% showing signs of broken ribs

oh, and while I was double checking i came across a study from the Office of Justice that confirms Officers are also affected by blunt force trauma and lacerations when shot while wearing a bullet proof vest.

 

Your point is?

[Diss4111]

2 hours ago, Continental Shooter said:

Evidences still show that it's not only infections or sepsis

I remember when studying for an essay I researched a couple of studies from Russian Police and Buenos Aires police both came to the conclusion that even whit the use of bulletproof vest (old expansion version, not Kevlar or ceramic) , in the event of multiple hits officers, all officers reported bruises or superficial injuries with 20% reporting visceral damages and up to 19% showing signs of broken ribs

oh, and while I was double checking i came across a study from the Office of Justice that confirms Officers are also affected by blunt force trauma and lacerations when shot while wearing a bullet proof vest.

 

No **** Sherlock,

However we were discussing shot killing a bird, and if the shot arrives without enough energy to penetrate the skin it sure as hell doesn't have the energy to cause enough internal damage to kill by shock

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, Diss4111 said:

No **** Sherlock,

However we were discussing shot killing a bird, and if the shot arrives without enough energy to penetrate the skin it sure as hell doesn't have the energy to cause enough internal damage to kill by shock

Amen to that, unless it scares the bird to death!

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, Diss4111 said:

No **** Sherlock,

However we were discussing shot killing a bird, and if the shot arrives without enough energy to penetrate the skin it sure as hell doesn't have the energy to cause enough internal damage to kill by shock

Yep, have to agree. If you're discussing cheese, it doesn't help if you bring chalk intro the equation

[Continental Shooter]

3 hours ago, wymberley said:

Yep, have to agree. If you're discussing cheese, it doesn't help if you bring chalk intro the equation

I don't think is any different; physics is not racist

there is absolutely no difference between a bullet transferring energy through a bulletproof vest to a body causing damages or a pellet transferring energy through feathers layers  causing damages to a bird

Again, this is textbook physics, not some theory made out of thin air; you can argue on the amount of energy required, not if there is any energy transfers...

 

However, since this is causing so much anger, i'd not bother you anymore with facts and science and live you in peace

Edited February 6, 2019 by Continental Shooter

[Diss4111]

Just now, Continental Shooter said:

I don't think is any different; physics is not racist

there is absolutely no difference between a bullet transferring energy through a bulletproof vest to a body causing damages or a pellet transferring energy through feathers layers  causing damages to a bird

Again, this is textbook physics, not some theory made out of thin air; you can argue on the amount of energy required, not if there is any energy transfers...

Except for a bullet to transfer its energy through a bullet proof vest it has to have the energy there in the first place, and of course a bullet proof vest is designed to stop a bullet penetrated so the energy has to go somewhere. However as I have said before, if a shot pellet hits a bird with enough energy to cause internal injuries chances are its going in. If it doesn't have the energy to penetrate it doesn't have the energy to cause internal trauma.

You are trying to flog a dead horse