Luckyshot Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 105 AMAX rocks. http://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/scrapbook/idaho-bear-kelly-s http://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/scrapbook/my-best-ever-buck-ernie-parsons Even hornady have added pics of how affective the good old 6mm 105 AMAX is on deer, and many other calibres. True but not in England USA dont have same rules as us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 105 AMAX rocks. http://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/scrapbook/idaho-bear-kelly-s http://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/scrapbook/my-best-ever-buck-ernie-parsons Even hornady have added pics of how affective the good old 6mm 105 AMAX is on deer, and many other calibres. rolling around wetting my self uncontrolably here Comments Home office lovers please? U Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 rolling around wetting my self uncontrolably here Comments Home office lovers please? U as its been already said we dont live in the USA,no one has ever said a match bullet wont kill so what have to gone and wet yourself for or have you got a medical condition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Hmmm... Interesting links. Maybe I might have to try one of those when I get my 243 back shortly... Perfectly legal, just a question of meat damage, but on such a long bullet might be OK. Worth a go, anyway - I have no doubt it'll kill nice and clean, but might be another almighty exit hole. Either way, no suffering for the animal, no breaking of any law, just potentially a loss of a shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) Hmmm... Interesting links. Maybe I might have to try one of those when I get my 243 back shortly... Perfectly legal, just a question of meat damage, but on such a long bullet might be OK. Worth a go, anyway - I have no doubt it'll kill nice and clean, but might be another almighty exit hole. Either way, no suffering for the animal, no breaking of any law, just potentially a loss of a shoulder. whats the length of the bullet got to do with meat damage,thats if your rifle has the correct twist of course to stabalize that length of bullet,if it hasnt it wont shoot them so you wont be shooting them at a deer to see if theres any damage now will you,well no responsable FAC holder would,but you never know about these young whipper snappers the biggest cause of meat damge is speed which cause the bullet to break up,but you must have known that anyway Edited December 30, 2011 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzzz.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 rolling around wetting my self uncontrolably here Comments Home office lovers please? U The many target shooters who use A Max won't be rolling around laughing if the Home Office decide to re classify A Max as section 5. Do you actually realise that much time and effort has been spent to ensure that A Max continues to be classed as target. Quite why you are wetting yourself is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 The many target shooters who use A Max won't be rolling around laughing if the Home Office decide to re classify A Max as section 5. Do you actually realise that much time and effort has been spent to ensure that A Max continues to be classed as target. Quite why you are wetting yourself is beyond me. didnt you read about it only a few weeks ago,BASC got it sorted as the target men were up in arms I think i posted a link somewhere on this thread,go take a read Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzzz.... you carry on sleeping mate this teccy ballistic stuff is way beyond you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Rich coming from someone who struggles with basic grammar! In your own words - there was no need to result to insults you total ****... The "zzzzz" was pointed at the fact the op's post has been ruined by an argument which as usual you are involved in... But as usual you seem to think it's directed at you alone...you really need to deal with your inferiority issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Rich coming from someone who struggles with basic grammar! In your own words - there was no need to result to insults you total ****... The "zzzzz" was pointed at the fact the op's post has been ruined by an argument which as usual you are involved in... far from an insult,you dont understand ballistics so it way beyond you,the truth hurts does it I could have lowered myself to your standard and called you childish names out of pure flustration,but I am an adult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) far from an insult,you dont understand ballistics so it way beyond you,the truth hurts does it I firmly believe your the stereotypical "all the gear, no idea" type of person....you say the same things over and over as you have no ability to debate other than your usual - "cause you can't do it mate" "if that's what you're happy with mate" "I've had hundreds of PM's that say they agree with me" "you can't educate pork" "bet you wouldn't say that in person" ""how long have you been shooting" "I've shot hundreds of them" So copy the above as I have corrected the spelling and grammar for you and then you can keep using them... Exactly who do you think you are? Do you even realise most people who read these comments have no option other than to see you as an arrogant cock? get over yourself and get over the issues you seem to have! "son" And oh yeah...I feel the "flustration" :blink: Edited December 30, 2011 by gixer1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) I firmly believe your the stereotypical "all the gear, no idea" type of person....you say the same things over and over as you have no ability to debate other than your usual - "cause you can't do it mate" "if that's what you're happy with mate" "I've had hundreds of PM's that say they agree with me" "you can't educate pork" "bet you wouldn't say that in person" ""how long have you been shooting" "I've shot hundreds of them" So copy the above as I have corrected the spelling and grammar for you and then you can keep using them... Exactly who do you think you are? Do you even realise most people who read these comments have no option other than to see you as an arrogant cock? get over yourself and get over the issues you seem to have! "son" And oh yeah...I feel the "flustration" :blink: what ever you say,if it makes you happy,you can get pills for your condition if you go to the doctors,I can nsee your flustration so will the mods which will close this thread due to your childish rants,which is the usual form from you on a subject you just dont understand ,yea you got me,I dont have a clue,all the gear and no idea,armchair shooters,live with my mum bla bla bla Edited December 30, 2011 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 The many target shooters who use A Max won't be rolling around laughing if the Home Office decide to re classify A Max as section 5. Do you actually realise that much time and effort has been spent to ensure that A Max continues to be classed as target. Quite why you are wetting yourself is beyond me. That has to be one of the most important subjects of this whole topic and I must admit, one I hadn't thought of. There must be loads of custom guns which have been made to shoot their best with the A-Max. What a ball ache it would be if they were changed to S5! As for the comment about me using a few bullets that didn't work - that's what happens when you try new things. Funny isn't it that a couple of those bullets were marketed by their manufacturer to do a pretty specific job in a specific calibre yet they were hopeless. Who would think that a Hornet specific Sierra Varminter woldn't expand well at Hornet velocity? Yeah... I really should have read between the lines and seen that one coming! How silly am I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 The many target shooters who use A Max won't be rolling around laughing if the Home Office decide to re classify A Max as section 5. Do you actually realise that much time and effort has been spent to ensure that A Max continues to be classed as target. Quite why you are wetting yourself is beyond me. It was a dumb knee jerk reaction of the Home office in the first place that created this stupid section 5 ******** in the first place. Just the same with restricted mags on shotguns. All done in the interest of public safty or so they make out but totaly useless but looks good in front of numptie voter If it was made sec5 bullets, a target shooter only has to provide good reason to use them and thats sorted, just red tape ********. Has public safty been enhanced since this sec5 rubbish? Not from where I am standing! It is the fact that for years all shooters have cowered before the false god the Home office that we are all picked on when ever any **** goes down. I personally find it sick that I am taxed as much as I am and then considered an anti social misfit by the anti gun laws that are pushed on me. Why can't a muzzleloader rifle be used to hunt with? The rest of the world does! Why can't we hunt with archery equipment? The rest of the world does! As a mature adult why do I have to wait for a blessing from the false god the Home Office? Why can't I make my own informed choices? 3000 deaths a year on the roads, why are car drivers not oppressed as bad as shooters? ****** up Britain, land of the free range idiot! Where idiot roam free and others have to pay! U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 It was a dumb knee jerk reaction of the Home office in the first place that created this stupid section 5 ******** in the first place. Just the same with restricted mags on shotguns. All done in the interest of public safty or so they make out but totaly useless but looks good in front of numptie voter If it was made sec5 bullets, a target shooter only has to provide good reason to use them and thats sorted, just red tape ********. Has public safty been enhanced since this sec5 rubbish? Not from where I am standing! It is the fact that for years all shooters have cowered before the false god the Home office that we are all picked on when ever any **** goes down. I personally find it sick that I am taxed as much as I am and then considered an anti social misfit by the anti gun laws that are pushed on me. Why can't a muzzleloader rifle be used to hunt with? The rest of the world does! Why can't we hunt with archery equipment? The rest of the world does! As a mature adult why do I have to wait for a blessing from the false god the Home Office? Why can't I make my own informed choices? 3000 deaths a year on the roads, why are car drivers not oppressed as bad as shooters? ****** up Britain, land of the free range idiot! Where idiot roam free and others have to pay! U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Actually I'm glad we can't hunt with bows, too much potential to go wrong. Charlie, take your point on A-max and its potential to be re-classified. I think they would fail though because plenty of HPBT match expands well. Ackley - long bullet = heavy but smaller calibre = high sectional density, which helps penetration and thus makes it less likely to expand too quickly. Obviously jacket design has a big input also, but it can only help. But clearly you knew that....! Rifle is 8 twist, otherwise I'd not be talking about a 105gr bullet, now would I... Also, you saying You weren't insulting gixer by saying he doesn"t understamd ballistics, yet you said I was insulting you by saying you don't understand English. Make your mind up. i suspect though, in your words, the truth hurts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Actually I'm glad we can't hunt with bows, too much potential to go wrong. Charlie, take your point on A-max and its potential to be re-classified. I think they would fail though because plenty of HPBT match expands well. Ackley - long bullet = heavy but smaller calibre = high sectional density, which helps penetration and thus makes it less likely to expand too quickly. Obviously jacket design has a big input also, but it can only help. But clearly you knew that....! Rifle is 8 twist, otherwise I'd not be talking about a 105gr bullet, now would I... Also, you saying You weren't insulting gixer by saying he doesn"t understamd ballistics, yet you said I was insulting you by saying you don't understand English. Make your mind up. i suspect though, in your words, the truth hurts... your theory is total rubbish on a long bullet I suggest you do your homework again,its all to do with the bullet being too long for the twist of the barrel as it will tip on inpact hence causing massive meat damage,hence why one has to match the twist with the bullet being used,and obvioulsy the correct bullet for the job,simples the length of the bullet has little bearing on the penetration its the jacket design.obviouly the samller 224 calibers may have trouble with penetration hence use the correct bullet to aid the penetraion and not something that isnt desigend to penetrate like the A max you champion so much http://www.gsgroup.co.za/meat.html by the way I wasnt insulted about the English comment it was some other stupid childish insult you came out with. may I ask what calibers you actualy use which makes you an expert on penertion and bullet design and what you have actually shot with them Edited December 31, 2011 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Anyone can post a link to a web page with sales patter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Anyone can post a link to a web page with sales patter.... no matter what i post its never good enougfh is it,you have a serious problem mate when adults are trying to have a conversation,didnt you know children should be seen and not heard anyway if you can read these may keep you off this thread of a while,you never know you may learn something http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/terminal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics again prooving that "you" need to use the correct bullet for the job your doing match bullets are not suitable for hunting Edited December 31, 2011 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) I have a couple of - I think they're now called - "issues". On December 18th at 1:30pm I PM'd a request which has been neither acknowledged nor actioned and is the first of the two (I'm only here to see if the request was actioned when I saw this thread). The second is you, Ackley. However, the following should, hopefully, resolve them both. Ackley, you probably aren't aware that you suffer severely from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder and you desperatly need treatment. Denial is one of the recognised symptoms. Should you continue posting in the same vein, join the LACS and post on their site where you will do less damage to the nature of our sport than you do here. PS: The PM was to Teal asking that all reference to me was deleted. Edit: this post has been edited by someone other than myself: See Post #174 "quote". Teal has declined to delete all reference to myself. Obviously, I'm somewhat naive and slow on the uptake - more "members", more advertising revenue! Edited December 31, 2011 by wymberley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) I have a couple of - I think they're now called - "issues". On December 18th at 1:30pm I PM'd a request which has been neither acknowledged nor actioned and is the first of the two (I'm only here to see if the request was actioned when I saw this thread). The second is you, Ackley. However, the following should, hopefully, resolve them both. Ackley, you probably aren't aware that you suffer severely from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder and you desperatly need treatment. Denial is one of the recognised symptoms. Should you continue posting in the same vein, join the LACS and post on their site where you will do less damage to the nature of our sport than you do here. Additionally, by the way, you are also a fornicating female sexual organ. PS: The PM was to Teal asking that all reference to me was deleted. you certainly do have an issue "you cant see the wood for the trees" the only peopole damaging our sport my freind is the people who go around the houses for theres own graficication and do not follow the most basic of ethics regarding bullet choice for the job in hand please grow up with the stupid childish insult,you are showing yourself to be lower than a snakes belly Edited December 31, 2011 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Ackley, your post confirms to me that you really don't actually know much. Go away and look up sectional density. Have we read up now? Hope so. Never have I said that sectional density alone will govern penetration; it won't. However, higher sectional density, while bullet construction remains identical, should lead to increased penetration. Since under-penetration is the issue, the increased sectional density may help, and therefore it's worth a try. This is really not my theory, it's useful info from the web with the addition of practical testing to confirm or deny. I have shot deer with 223, 243, 308 and a variety of bullets. My comments about meat damage are limited to these calibres so I speak from experience, unlike you. Regarding insults, I think you may have your wires crossed if you now allege you did not take offence at my exposing your very limited grasp of literacy. You did. Further posts of yours appear to back up my original assertion. I did also offer you the option of being incredibly stupid; I think the jury's still out on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Ackley, your post confirms to me that you really don't actually know much. Go away and look up sectional density. Have we read up now? Hope so. Never have I said that sectional density alone will govern penetration; it won't. However, higher sectional density, while bullet construction remains identical, should lead to increased penetration. Since under-penetration is the issue, the increased sectional density may help, and therefore it's worth a try. This is really not my theory, it's useful info from the web with the addition of practical testing to confirm or deny. I have shot deer with 223, 243, 308 and a variety of bullets. My comments about meat damage are limited to these calibres so I speak from experience, unlike you. Regarding insults, I think you may have your wires crossed if you now allege you did not take offence at my exposing your very limited grasp of literacy. You did. Further posts of yours appear to back up my original assertion. I did also offer you the option of being incredibly stupid; I think the jury's still out on that. no mate my posts confirm what is needed for penetration the facts are there for all to see,you are just in your own little world,all factors come into play regarding penetration and meat damage hence why as responsable shooters the correct bullet which has been designed by experts to do the job in hand should be used and not a recomendation from an internet arm chair expert whos got very little experience of only 3 calibers, now you are getting very very boring and with your posts and your insults,before this gets out of hand I suggest you wind your neck in a little or take your insults to PM or better still to my face which then we can have a real chat and chew the fat so to speak as to your comment of me having no experience,I have shot all over the world matey several times I have used and reloaded all manner of calibers and bullet types I have seen what poor bullet choice can do, the only thing being exposed is your *** and your very limited experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 The only useful piece of evidence you have actually posted throughout this 12-page (so far!) thread is the BCs for Berger 52 grain bullets. You have said that my pointing out your very poor grasp of English is not offending you. Now you say I am insulting you. Which is it please? If you don't acknowledge the part sectional density plays in penetration, that's up to you. Plenty of normal, knowledgeable people do, however, so I won't worry too much. We've been round this in circles, with you shooting down everything I say. You allege that you used to use match bullets on deer and don't any more, but we haven't heard anything of the effects of those bullets. I have used match bullets on deer and I have told of their effects. I base my recommendations and my practice on verified fact, preferably verified by me. If a manufacturer says a given bullet doesn't work on something then fine. Originally I used the 52 A-max because it DOES say it expands well and the quarry was fox and rabbit. In those tests both quarry died very fast and humanely but the expansion was consistently not as severe as other varmint bullets, which is why I tried them with success on muntjac. I carried this through with the 30 cal but that one didn't work. Which leads me to my original assertion that they are OK on munties in a 52-grain form, but not on the bigger deer in a bigger form. Thus far you have bleated on about FAC conditions, which is utter hogwash and simply because you can't read a simple sentence in English. The rest of your posts (berger BC excepted) have simply been bleating about how I'm (and NJC presumably, since he uses these bullets too) unethical. Not a single test or piece of info to back this up. So I'm bored. Provide evidence, or shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Provide evidence, or shut up. That just about sums up what most of us are thinking! Edited December 31, 2011 by njc110381 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts