Hushpower
Nigel Rudgewick-Brown
her land!) so was wondering how effective the Hushpower guns are?
If she cant hear me then she will stay in her garden with a bit of luck.
Are sub-sonics absolutely necessary?
Cheers
Nigel
JJ
Nigel Rudgewick-Brown <Ni...@whac.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3BE27DA8...@whac.org.uk...
Personally, I'd wait till she crossed the border then have her done for
trespass.... Jackson Rifles (www.jacksonrifles.com) sell centrefire sound
moderators that really work. I had a go of his 6mm BR and didn't need ear
defenders. Mind you, you need to have it on your FAC. Not sure about
moderated shotguns, though I remember ads for single barrel folding guns
with moderators back in the 80s.
JJ
aph
(If .22) I personally would use subsonic if shooting near any type of
habitation then no one will know you there for starters but you should
really use them for day to day vermin control as if you miss they can some
times allow a second shot and the lower velocity has a greater stopping
power.
(If shotgun) not only is there the expense of buying it but also getting
used to shooting a different shape of gun. I wouldn't think it would be
worth it.
It sounds to me what ever type of gun you use some people would probably not
be happy and if they saw you there would complain about something. For an
easier life just avoid shooting near her property or avoid being seen. At
the end of the day so long as the landowner has not got a problem and your
not blasting clays all day there is not a lot she can do.
--
Andy
www.gamekeepeonline.co.uk
"Nigel Rudgewick-Brown" <Ni...@whac.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3BE27DA8...@whac.org.uk...
invisable
ammo and have a go with that
subsonic is not as powerfull as normal ammo due to the reduced powder charge
so it is not as loud plus the shot will be a tadge slower so aim a bit more
ahead
subsonic ammo is not a necessity in a silenced weapon it is a 50/50 split
between
the silencer and the ammo that results in a quiter report when the weapon is
fired
Pete
>
>At
> the end of the day so long as the landowner has not got a problem and your
> not blasting clays all day there is not a lot she can do.
I'd add my penn'orth to that just in case she threatens "complaining to
the council", speaking as I do with the less than joyful experience of
having a neighbour with too much time on her hands and the fervent
belief that no-one else (ie my bitch and pup) is going to get away with
making any noise which might disturb her afternoon's viewing of daytime
television. (Me angry? Me make a fuss about her ever-so-noisy lawn
mower?)
Anyone can make a complaint to the District Council for the area, and
generally their Environmental Health Department, about a nuisance of
noise.
The council is obliged to investigate such complaints and their opening
gambit seems to be two-fold:
1. A letter to the source of the alleged noise, making them aware that a
complaint has been made and drawing attention to the complainant's right
to take the matter to a magistrate's court.
2. Asking the complainant to complete a log sheet recording the time and
duration of any further such occurrences.
As far as they're concerned, for a noise to constitute a nuisance it has
to both continuous and frequently occurring. In connection with an
occasionally yapping puppy, my local authority have admitted to me that
if I say "so what?", there isn't a lot that they can do. Unless, as
someone else has commented, you're blasting clays all day every weekend,
Id suggest you're not causing a nuisance, no matter how much it may
irritate your neighbour.
FWIW, I have always found the best approach when dealing with the local
authority staff to be proactive, polite and concerned that we should all
rub along with our neighbours with a sense of fair play and tolerance.
HTH
Pete
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pete....@virgin.net
www.the-proof-reader.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No Homer, very few cartoons are broadcast live - it's a terrible strain
on the animator's wrist."
Joe
subsonic ammo is designed to have a velocity (projectile) less than
the speed of sound thereby eliminating the sonic 'bang', a silencer is
used to cool the hot gas from the burnt powder therby reducing the gas
'bang' so the statement above about the 50/50 split is a load of
bollox....
Pete
>
> subsonic ammo is designed to have a velocity (projectile) less than
> the speed of sound thereby eliminating the sonic 'bang', a silencer is
> used to cool the hot gas from the burnt powder therby reducing the gas
> 'bang' so the statement above about the 50/50 split is a load of
> bollox....
I'm losing it - is this thread about moderated shotguns & subsonic
loads or rimfires or centrefires?
I always understood that a moderator worked by allowing a partial
expansion of the column of hot gas which pushes the projectile up the
barrel, rather than it's first opportunity to really expand being the
moment when it exits the muzzle? I grant you that the reduction in
pressure also causes a temperature reduction but this is the lesser
effect of the two.
As for subsonic rounds being less powerful (>subsonic is not as powerful
as normal ammo due to the reduced powder charge),
I know squat about subsonic shotgun loads though the hushpower modified
barrel will take normal s/g loads,
subsonic rimfire ammo tends to have larger projectiles (40 grains plus
as opposed to 34 or 37.5 typically) and shoots a load which, if we go by
it being more crosswind resistant couldn't be described as less
powerful.
As for centrefires, I have no practical experience of loads which are
subsonic at the muzzle, but know that all c/f rounds become subsonic at
some point downrange and the sooner they do so, the sooner they start to
fall to earth and become unstable. Calibres which are successful long
range are those which maintain a supersonic trajectory for longer.
I also read of military snipers using subsonic loads against "human
resources" - clearly a hit in the head with a 180 grain projectile is
going to hurt, whether it's going at mach 1+ or slightly below.
What I do learn in researching c/f moderators is that whilst they allow
the gas expansion and associated reduction of noise at the muzzle (and
I've heard one - they work), they don't affect the shockwave formed by
the projectile travelling at supersonic speed as it travels downrange -
we hear this as a "crack".
For more informed comment, you could have a look here
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/general.html
Joe
wrote:
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> subsonic ammo is designed to have a velocity (projectile) less than
>> the speed of sound thereby eliminating the sonic 'bang', a silencer is
>> used to cool the hot gas from the burnt powder therby reducing the gas
>> 'bang' so the statement above about the 50/50 split is a load of
>> bollox....
>
>
>I'm losing it - is this thread about moderated shotguns & subsonic
>loads or rimfires or centrefires?
don't matter..
>
>I always understood that a moderator worked by allowing a partial
>expansion of the column of hot gas which pushes the projectile up the
>barrel, rather than it's first opportunity to really expand being the
>moment when it exits the muzzle? I grant you that the reduction in
>pressure also causes a temperature reduction but this is the lesser
>effect of the two.
high velocity hot gas=bang! low velocity cool gas = phut!
the expansion chamber is where the gas expands and _cools_ no 'lesser'
effect...in fact most important!
>
>As for subsonic rounds being less powerful (>subsonic is not as powerful
>as normal ammo due to the reduced powder charge),
>
>I know squat about subsonic shotgun loads though the hushpower modified
>barrel will take normal s/g loads,
>
>subsonic rimfire ammo tends to have larger projectiles (40 grains plus
>as opposed to 34 or 37.5 typically) and shoots a load which, if we go by
>it being more crosswind resistant couldn't be described as less
>powerful.
subsonic means subsonic ie velocity less than speed of sound ie. no
sonic bang..(remember concorde supersonic and the 'bang' it makes?)
>As for centrefires, I have no practical experience of loads which are
>subsonic at the muzzle, but know that all c/f rounds become subsonic at
>some point downrange and the sooner they do so, the sooner they start to
>fall to earth and become unstable. Calibres which are successful long
>range are those which maintain a supersonic trajectory for longer.
you will probably find that the transition from supersonic flight to
subsonic flight is the point at which the bullet is most affected
during its trajectory, (the reason that you see boat tail designs for
bullet are to minimise drag in the subsonic part of flight, the boat
tail has no effect on supersonic flight)as for the other bit of bollox
about your assumtion that gravity does not affect the bullet untill it
becomes subsonic well we will just put you up for a nobel prize in
physics, as you have just invented an anti-gravity bullet!
please excuse my sarcasm...basically gravity acts on the projectile
all the time same as it does to anything on this planet, just because
it has a high horizontal velocity doen't mean that it is immune to the
laws of nature!!
>I also read of military snipers using subsonic loads against "human
>resources" - clearly a hit in the head with a 180 grain projectile is
>going to hurt, whether it's going at mach 1+ or slightly below.
>What I do learn in researching c/f moderators is that whilst they allow
>the gas expansion and associated reduction of noise at the muzzle (and
>I've heard one - they work), they don't affect the shockwave formed by
>the projectile travelling at supersonic speed as it travels downrange -
>we hear this as a "crack".
>
oh well maybe a little more 'research' is called for.
btw for your benefit i have made and experimented with different types
and style of moderators including for shotguns, i would say that if
you were in a position to attemt to make one and test it your
knowledge would be a little better. I mean "a 180 grain projectile is
going to hurt, whether it's going at mach 1+ or slightly below." stop
reading soldiers of fortune fer christs sake...........
Pete
>
> >I'm losing it - is this thread about moderated shotguns & subsonic
> >loads or rimfires or centrefires?
>
> don't matter..
Not in terms of the content and the science, but in terms of whoever
started this thread, what they were shooting and what they were asking
for - that's the question I was asking.
> high velocity hot gas=bang! low velocity cool gas = phut!
> the expansion chamber is where the gas expands and _cools_ no 'lesser'
> effect...in fact most important!
I'm afraid we're going to differ here, but then I'm not the science
graduate. Isn't the logical
extension to your argument that the muzzle report reduction will be
greatest when the gas escaping from the barrel cools the fastest?. That
being
so, the reduction in noise should be greatest when the gas column
reaches a large volume of air in which to dissipate its heat, like the
atmosphere?
Why is the muzzle report from a rifle no less on a cold and frosty night
than it is on a hot and sunny day? Is a rifle louder at the equator than
at the pole?
> subsonic means subsonic ie velocity less than speed of sound ie. no
> sonic bang..
Agreed, I think. I was simply stating that I have no personal experience
of either shotgun or centrefire rounds which are subsonic at the muzzle,
not even as squib loads.
> you will probably find that the transition from supersonic flight to
> subsonic flight is the point at which the bullet is most affected
> during its trajectory,
Agreed - isn't that why rimfire target shooters stick with subsonics -
to avoid that transition, and why the more accurate centrefire long
range target rounds are the ones which travel longer in a supersonic
state?
> as for the other bit of bollox
> about your assumtion that gravity does not affect the bullet untill it
> becomes subsonic
Hmm, let me read my posting again:
"all c/f rounds become subsonic at
some point downrange and the sooner they do so, the sooner they start to
fall to earth and become unstable"
Though a wise man such as yourself would have recognised this to be a
problem of grammar, I can see that you might have jumped to the
conclusion that I thought that only subsonic items were affected by
gravity. However isn't it
true that, all other things being equal, the higher the velocity, the
flatter the trajectory?
>well we will just put you up for a nobel prize in
> physics, as you have just invented an anti-gravity bullet!
> please excuse my sarcasm...
Why? What was the need for it?
> btw for your benefit i have made and experimented with different types
> and style of moderators including for shotguns, i would say that if
> you were in a position to attemt to make one and test it your
> knowledge would be a little better.
That's assumption number 1 about me.
>I mean "a 180 grain projectile is
> going to hurt, whether it's going at mach 1+ or slightly below."
Isn't that likely to be true? (I don't know anyone with actual
experience whom I could ask.)
>stop
> reading soldiers of fortune fer christs sake...........
Assumption number 2.
Why the sanctimonious attitude Joe?
Pete
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pete....@virgin.net
www.the-proof-reader.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it." Attributed to Voltaire.
John
"Joe" <j0e_b...@hotmail.co*(obvious really)> wrote in message
news:1c3aut0glbgs91ch6...@4ax.com...
> high velocity hot gas=bang! low velocity cool gas = phut!
> the expansion chamber is where the gas expands and _cools_ no 'lesser'
> effect...in fact most important!
Joe as much as I respect your point of view, there was no need to 'let fly'
at Pete in such terms or mannerisms.
There are a few more things going on at the muzzle end of the rifle than
just 'mack-crack' and in fact sub-sonic rounds do not just go "phut", when
use without a sound moderator make quite a loud crack, not due to the air
vortex closing because of the sound barrier breaking but due to the effect
of low density air, hitting high density air coursing a vortex effect at
muzzle, which in turn courses the same effect as breaking the sound barrier.
The sole purpose and the only purpose for the sound moderator is to reduce
this effect, to give a cushioning effect to the hot gases escape in to the
great outdoors. The level of effectiveness depends upon the design of the
moderator.
Just my PP worth.
John
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.286 / Virus Database: 152 - Release Date: 09/10/2001
Roger Dewhurst
"Pete" <pete....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3BE4E046...@virgin.net...
> Joe wrote:
> >
>
> As for centrefires, I have no practical experience of loads which are
> subsonic at the muzzle, but know that all c/f rounds become subsonic at
> some point downrange and the sooner they do so, the sooner they start to
> fall to earth and become unstable. Calibres which are successful long
> range are those which maintain a supersonic trajectory for longer.
Recalling the days when I marked targets at the butts, .303 bullets were
still supersonic at 200 yards and made a noise like a hammer hitting
corrugated iron. At 500 yards the bullets were subsonic and passed through
the targets almost soundlessly. At that range the targets had to be
observed to see the bullet holes appearing. At 200 yards one simply waited
for the supersonic bang. Remember that the .303 was used for targets at
1000 yards or more.
R
Nigel Rudgewick-Brown
skulking in the undergrowth... seems to work for now.
The Hushpower range are shotguns.
Thanks P for you direct reply very usefull.
I managed to get the 12G at the weekend. (however broke the stock trying to
cleanout the crud in the moderator!) when it comes back from the smiths I will
try a box of subs.
P's message for the benifit of others (anonomised):
yes subsonics are much better without i would say you only get 30-40%
reduction with subs 80-90%, have used winchester 3 inch .410 in a gunsport
hushpower to great effect on rabbits to 30-35 yds no bullshit. then made a
moderated .410 3shot bolt from a norica bolt action, moderated part was
fine the gun was crap.
looked for ages for a single 20 bore found a bakiel moved the breach hinge
(am engineer by trade and had access to a full machine shop) forward and
moderated it just like the.410 . the only factory load quiet enough was
wincheser ranger but far to expensive so i stared to load my own ( bought
dies for the .410 as well)
found a 32 gram load very effective and quiet(hares at 40 yds one night
clean as a whistle).
they all take some practice to get used to but are all very effective pieces
of kit, most of the velocity issue is just in your mind and once you have
done a few good shots you dont even think about it,
get one and youl wonder why you need to make all that
noise
John
> the only factory load quiet enough was
> wincheser ranger but far to expensive so i stared to load my own ( bought
> dies for the .410 as well)
Then please ask "p" where he got his .410 dies
Joe
wrote:
>
>I'm afraid we're going to differ here, but then I'm not the science
>graduate. Isn't the logical
>extension to your argument that the muzzle report reduction will be
>greatest when the gas escaping from the barrel cools the fastest?. That
>being
>so, the reduction in noise should be greatest when the gas column
>reaches a large volume of air in which to dissipate its heat, like the
>atmosphere?
>
>Why is the muzzle report from a rifle no less on a cold and frosty night
>than it is on a hot and sunny day? Is a rifle louder at the equator than
>at the pole?
>
no the logical assumtion is that the hot gases are cooled in the
expantion chamer and therefore have less _energy_ when they exit said
chamber therefore reducing the bang
well you read your post again, you make the assumtion that gravity
only affects the bullet _after_ it becomes subsonic. unfortunately i
am not a mind reader and never professed to be a 'wise man'
but i do know that gravity is a constant as far as trajectory of a
bullet is concerned.
>>well we will just put you up for a nobel prize in
>> physics, as you have just invented an anti-gravity bullet!
>> please excuse my sarcasm...
>
>Why? What was the need for it?
just to lighten your day up.
>
>> btw for your benefit i have made and experimented with different types
>> and style of moderators including for shotguns, i would say that if
>> you were in a position to attemt to make one and test it your
>> knowledge would be a little better.
>
>That's assumption number 1 about me.
>
how so, you don't really understand the mechanics/physics behind the
operating principle do you? or your "grammar" needs some serious work.
>>I mean "a 180 grain projectile is
>> going to hurt, whether it's going at mach 1+ or slightly below."
>
>Isn't that likely to be true? (I don't know anyone with actual
>experience whom I could ask.)
dont you think that that comment was a rather purile one, i mean it
could have come straight out of sof couldnt it?
>
>>stop
>> reading soldiers of fortune fer christs sake...........
>
>Assumption number 2.
>
obviously a failed attempt at humour never mind.
>Why the sanctimonious attitude Joe?
>
>
nothing sanctimonious pete just trying to open your eyes....
Joe
******hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Joe" <j0e_b...@hotmail.co*(obvious really)> wrote in message
>news:1c3aut0glbgs91ch6...@4ax.com...
>
>> high velocity hot gas=bang! low velocity cool gas = phut!
>> the expansion chamber is where the gas expands and _cools_ no 'lesser'
>> effect...in fact most important!
>
>Joe as much as I respect your point of view, there was no need to 'let fly'
>at Pete in such terms or mannerisms.
>There are a few more things going on at the muzzle end of the rifle than
>just 'mack-crack' and in fact sub-sonic rounds do not just go "phut", when
>use without a sound moderator make quite a loud crack, not due to the air
>vortex closing because of the sound barrier breaking but due to the effect
>of low density air, hitting high density air coursing a vortex effect at
>muzzle, which in turn courses the same effect as breaking the sound barrier.
>The sole purpose and the only purpose for the sound moderator is to reduce
>this effect, to give a cushioning effect to the hot gases escape in to the
>great outdoors. The level of effectiveness depends upon the design of the
>moderator.
>
>
>Just my PP worth.
>
>John
>
sh*t let fly far from it, just trying to educate a misguided theory
about how sound mods work.
btw i never said sub sonic rounds go phut
i said high velocity hot gas=bang! low velocity cool gas = phut!
the expansion chamber is where the gas expands and _cools_ no
'lesser' effect...in fact most important!
if you re-read i am talking about gas not ammo once the gas is cooled
(in the moderator) it has lost a large amount of its energy therfore
if it has lost a lot of energy it has also lost a lot of its velocity
which if you extrapolate further means that it goes PHUT!!!!!
im sorry jon but no banana for the vortex bit (cant figure out if you
are talking supersonic or subsonic here or are you saying that sub
sonic ammo should still crack when leaving the moderator???) the only
time when a moderator equates to a cushion is when some badas* uses
one in the pictures
have fun :)
JJ
> btw i never said sub sonic rounds go phut
> i said high velocity hot gas=bang! low velocity cool gas = phut!
> the expansion chamber is where the gas expands and _cools_ no
> 'lesser' effect...in fact most important!
At the risk of incurring Star Trek II (The Wrath of Joe), the cooling effect
which you mention is called the adiabatic effect.
JJ
John
> sh*t let fly far from it, just trying to educate a misguided theory
> about how sound mods work.
Agreed, I've seen you argue ;0)
>
> btw i never said sub sonic rounds go phut
> i said high velocity hot gas=bang! low velocity cool gas = phut!
> the expansion chamber is where the gas expands and _cools_ no
> 'lesser' effect...in fact most important!
Joe, there is not difference in temp. between the gases contained in HV
rounds or LV rounds, both gases are of the same temp. just less of.
>
> if you re-read i am talking about gas not ammo once the gas is cooled
> (in the moderator) it has lost a large amount of its energy therfore
> if it has lost a lot of energy it has also lost a lot of its velocity
> which if you extrapolate further means that it goes PHUT!!!!!
Agreed, in both cases (HV rounds and LV rounds) when used and observed with
a sound moderator.
>
> im sorry jon but no banana for the vortex bit (cant figure out if you
> are talking supersonic or subsonic here or are you saying that sub
> sonic ammo should still crack when leaving the moderator???)
I was trying to point out that if low velocity rounds (LV rounds) are used
with no sound moderator then they make a very loud crack, exactly the same
as high velocity rounds do, this is basic gun-smithing but if install a
sound mod. on the end of a barrel it will stop this gase expansion and bring
the level down to one atmosphere, thus reducing the muzzle crack. However
this will not stop the sonic boom, that happens when an object breaks the
sound barrier and leaves an envelope behind.
> the only
> time when a moderator equates to a cushion is when some badas* uses
> one in the pictures
Don't bother watching much TV, so I'll have to take your word. ;0)
invisable
you admit that subsonic loads are slower so there is no sonic "boom"
as the projectile leaves the muzzle
and you admit that the moderator is to cool the hot escaping gasses so there
is no
"gas bang "
so if reduced loads and a moderator work together then there is a 50/50
split isnt there
so do us all a favour and stick your head back up your arse
you admit that i am right and then say i am talking bollox
John
"invisable" <unk...@unknown.address> wrote in message
news:100499412...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
> so if reduced loads and a moderator work together then there is a 50/50
> split isnt there
>
> so do us all a favour and stick your head back up your arse
>
Hold on there tiger! is there really a need for such provocative language or
such conflict?
We all have different points of view and different experiences.
If you are using a moderator & sub-sonic loads, the reduction in sound only
comes from the cooling and de-pressurising of the hot gasses at the muzzle,
the same effect happens with high velocity rounds and moderators but as the
HV rounds are breaking the sound barrier they them selves make a sonic-boom.
In a matter of speaking yes you could describe the efficiency of the
moderator & sub-sonic rounds being a 50/50 split but IMHO it would be best
described as 100% moderator as bullet tips travelling below the speed of
sound make 'no sound', this taking in to account the both HV & LV rounds
both make a muzzle crack due to hot gasses when not used with a moderator.
Would you agree?
Joe
wrote:
waste of time using big words here see 'invisables' post! :)
Joe
<unk...@unknown.address> wrote:
>joe are you talking out of your ring piece or what
>you admit that subsonic loads are slower so there is no sonic "boom"
>as the projectile leaves the muzzle
>and you admit that the moderator is to cool the hot escaping gasses so there
>is no
>"gas bang "
>so if reduced loads and a moderator work together then there is a 50/50
>split isnt there
>
>so do us all a favour and stick your head back up your arse
>
>you admit that i am right and then say i am talking bollox
>
bite me little boy
>
>subsonic ammo is not a necessity in a silenced weapon it is a 50/50 split
>between
>the silencer and the ammo that results in a quiter report when the weapon is
>fired
>
quoted from your earlier post or are you suffering from being
gramatically challenged?
JJ
> >At the risk of incurring Star Trek II (The Wrath of Joe), the cooling
effect
> >which you mention is called the adiabatic effect.
> >
> >JJ
> >
> waste of time using big words here see 'invisables' post! :)
Ah, but "adiabatic" is worth 10 points on Countdown...
JJ
Jonathan Spencer
>have used winchester 3 inch .410 in a gunsport
>hushpower to great effect on rabbits to 30-35 yds no bullshit.
How many do you wound and lose? Be honest.
Have you patterned that gun and ammunition at your 30-35 yards? If not,
why not? What sort of patterns do they throw? What choke (if any) does
the gun have? (Have you measured it?)
Please do test your patterns and then be good enough to report back to
the newsgroup as to the number of pellets that strike a rabbit sized
target at that distance. It won't be many, but I would be interested to
hear (and if possible, see images of your targets). I would also like
to hear from you what is the mean, mode and standard deviation, of the
distance between each pellet and its nearest neighbour. Since - for
lethality purposes - we are only interested in the pellets that strike a
rabbit-sized area, rather than the extreme spread, you could use A3
paper sheets for that aspect, but large sheets of card are necessary for
the extreme spread. Ten shots should suffice to demonstrate how the gun
and ammunition perform.
--Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner
=================================================================
"You come highly recommended, but there is one thing you must
remember. This brigade is my train set. You can play with it,
but it remains mine." Brigadier Jeremy Phipps (Commander, 11th
Armoured Brigade) welcoming his new Chief-of-Staff.
==================================================================
Keith Borer Consultants, Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, DH1 3UR, UK
tel: +44 191 386 6107, fax: +44 191 383 0686, http://www.borer.demon.co.uk
==================================================================
Jonathan Spencer
>> you will probably find that the transition from supersonic flight to
>> subsonic flight is the point at which the bullet is most affected
>> during its trajectory,
>
>Agreed - isn't that why rimfire target shooters stick with subsonics -
>to avoid that transition,
Yes.
>and why the more accurate centrefire long
>range target rounds are the ones which travel longer in a supersonic
>state?
No. If that were the case then most serious target shooters would use
the cartridges such as the 300 Win Mag rather than 308. Agreed, that at
most target shooting distances the 308 Win-launched bullet remains
supersonic.
>Hmm, let me read my posting again:
>"all c/f rounds become subsonic at
>some point downrange and the sooner they do so, the sooner they start to
>fall to earth and become unstable"
I think I know what you mean, and that you don't mean what you have
said. Consider any bullet fired horizontally from a given height. No
matter the initial velocity of the bullets, they will all fall to the
ground at the same rate and they will all strike the ground after the
same period of time. Where they will differ is in how far they travel
perpendicular to gravity (i.e. across the ground) before they strike the
ground. The faster bullet will travel further. I think this is what
you meant.
>However isn't it
>true that, all other things being equal, the higher the velocity, the
>flatter the trajectory?
Yes.
--
Jonathan Spencer
<paintbo...@btinternet.com> made me sit up when he said:
>(If .22)
>the lower velocity has a greater stopping
>power.
Please explain how a lower velocity bullet has greater 'stopping power'
than a higher velocity bullet? What mechanism is involved?
JJ
Jonathan Spencer <j...@salvage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ia4rwxBd...@salvage.demon.co.uk...
> In article <9s12po$f4k$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, aph
> <paintbo...@btinternet.com> made me sit up when he said:
>
> >(If .22)
> >the lower velocity has a greater stopping
> >power.
>
> Please explain how a lower velocity bullet has greater 'stopping power'
> than a higher velocity bullet? What mechanism is involved?
I assume what is meant is that a bullet which stays within the target rather
than penetrating and exiting will transfer ALL of its energy to the target,
whereas the one that completely penetrates and exits retains a portion of
its energy. The former equates to greater "stopping power" in terms of
effect on the target, though a well desinged bullet (that expands enough to
remain within thetarget) of greater velocity will obviously have greater
kinetic energy.
JJ
Pete
>
<much snipped about>
> >and why the more accurate centrefire long
> >range target rounds are the ones which travel longer in a supersonic
> >state?
>
> No. If that were the case then most serious target shooters would use
> the cartridges such as the 300 Win Mag rather than 308. Agreed, that at
> most target shooting distances the 308 Win-launched bullet remains
> supersonic.
I was thinking about the 338 Lapua which I'm given to understand is a
good 1000 metre plus calibre and which happens to be supersonic for
further downrange distance than other calibres. (I accept that a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing which is why you'll never see me railing
against posts which offer constructive criticism of my own.)
>
> >Hmm, let me read my posting again:
> >"all c/f rounds become subsonic at
> >some point downrange and the sooner they do so, the sooner they start to
> >fall to earth and become unstable"
>
> I think I know what you mean,
phew!
> and that you don't mean what you have
> said.
Hmm. Don't let my wife hear you saying that! Any slip 'twixt brain and
lip is always entirely unintentional.
> Consider any bullet fired horizontally from a given height. No
> matter the initial velocity of the bullets, they will all fall to the
> ground at the same rate
That'd be gravity I expect?
> and they will all strike the ground after the
> same period of time. Where they will differ is in how far they travel
> perpendicular to gravity (i.e. across the ground) before they strike the
> ground.
Yes, yes, yes!
> The faster bullet will travel further. I think this is what
> you meant.
Absolutely. What a pity I didn't spend long enough thinking about how to
say it.
Pete
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pete....@virgin.net
www.the-proof-reader.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan Spencer
<dewh...@wave.co.nz> made me sit up when he said:
[snip]
>Recalling the days when I marked targets at the butts, .303 bullets were
>still supersonic at 200 yards and made a noise like a hammer hitting
>corrugated iron. At 500 yards the bullets were subsonic
Really? Try this:
Hornady 174 grain round nosed bullet #3130 with ballistic coefficient of
.262 (i.e. worse case than military Mk VII ammo): initial velocity
2200-2300fps. At 500 yards, 1077-1114fps. In other words, supersonic.
The Mk VII would be faster still (being lighter and having better BC.)
--
Jonathan Spencer
>I assume what is meant is that a bullet which stays within the target rather
>than penetrating and exiting will transfer ALL of its energy to the target,
>whereas the one that completely penetrates and exits retains a portion of
>its energy.
This is a common belief amongst those who have not studied wound
ballistics to any depth. I recommend anyone who is serious about the
subject to study the literature, for example:
1. Wound Ballistics And The Scientific Background, 1994, ISBN
0-444-81511-1 (about £125)
2. Bullet Penetration: Modelling The Dynamics and Incapacitation
Resulting From Wound Trauma, 1994, ISBN 0-9643577-0-4 (about US$40)
3. anything by Martin Fackler.
But let me pose this question? Which has greater stopping power on,
say, a roe deer given identical bullet placement: 100ft-lbs from a 40
grain .22LR hollow point that remains inside the beast, or 10% of the
2200ft-lbs possessed by a 150 grain .308 bullet (FMJ if you like) that
passes right through the beast? Which of these is going to be more
reliable on roe? Foxes?
My point being? It isn't as simple as some people think. Bullets kill
by destroying tissue, and they do that by passing through tissue. If I
shot, say, a stag with a fragile .224 bullet from a 222 Rem and it did
not penetrate the shoulder blade then all of the bullet's energy has
gone into the animal, in line with the theory of complete energy
transfer, but instead of causing an immediately fatal injury, the energy
causes a superficial wound and the excess energy is merely converted to
heat. In contrast, the bullet that penetrates right through the beast
will destroy vital tissue as it passes through. This bullet, obviously,
has more "stopping power".
Ah, you might complain, I'm comparing apples and oranges. OK, how about
the .22LR subsonic hollow point on a fox (remains in the fox) versus the
.22LR HV hollow point (or solid) that drives right through the fox, also
creating a permanent wound channel through more tissue?
Even the above comparisons are simplistic.
>The former equates to greater "stopping power" in terms of
>effect on the target, though a well desinged bullet (that expands enough to
>remain within thetarget) of greater velocity will obviously have greater
>kinetic energy.
I take the view that we require a bullet with an excess of energy such
that it creates sufficient tissue damage to result in a swift death. One
way of ensuring this is by using an expanding bullet and enough power to
drive it fast enough to create a through-and-through wound of the
maximum dimensions. I do not subscribe, for an instant, to the keep it
in the body school. Hence, I do not shoot foxes with a .22LR. At a
minimum I use a .22 centrefire and often a 243.
JJ
> This is a common belief amongst those who have not studied wound
> ballistics to any depth. I recommend anyone who is serious about the
> subject to study the literature, for example:
<snippety snip snip>
Really Jonathon, you really must stop treating us like naughty/stupid
schoolboys.... I was summarising a point that had been made by someone else,
and doing so in simple and general terms, on the grounds that this is not an
academic forum.
> But let me pose this question? Which has greater stopping power on,
> say, a roe deer given identical bullet placement: 100ft-lbs from a 40
> grain .22LR hollow point that remains inside the beast, or 10% of the
> 2200ft-lbs possessed by a 150 grain .308 bullet (FMJ if you like) that
> passes right through the beast? Which of these is going to be more
> reliable on roe? Foxes?
I was also, in the interests of brevity, assuming identical or similar
calibres. Of course there is no meaningful comparison between a .22RF and a
.30 calibre CF round. There is, however, a useful comparison to be made
between a subsonic .22 hollow point and a HV .22 round nose, as both may be
fired from the same rifle at the same target. Likewise, one can usefuly
compare 80 grain .243 and 105 grain .243 rounds. Assuming both are loaded
with a maximum safe powder load, the 80 grain bullet will be significantly
faster. It is unlikely to be the better deer stopper, having a lower
sectional density and ballistic coefficient.
> My point being? It isn't as simple as some people think. Bullets kill
> by destroying tissue, and they do that by passing through tissue. If I
> shot, say, a stag with a fragile .224 bullet from a 222 Rem and it did
> not penetrate the shoulder blade then all of the bullet's energy has
> gone into the animal, in line with the theory of complete energy
> transfer, but instead of causing an immediately fatal injury, the energy
> causes a superficial wound and the excess energy is merely converted to
> heat. In contrast, the bullet that penetrates right through the beast
> will destroy vital tissue as it passes through. This bullet, obviously,
> has more "stopping power".
Which is precisely why I mentioned well-designed bullets.
> Ah, you might complain, I'm comparing apples and oranges. OK, how about
> the .22LR subsonic hollow point on a fox (remains in the fox) versus the
> .22LR HV hollow point (or solid) that drives right through the fox, also
> creating a permanent wound channel through more tissue?
See above, but allow for the simple fact that neither you nor I would wish
to use a .22 on foxes. In the spirit of friendship, may I just say that you
have a wee habit of taking things in an over-literal sense, and applying the
comments and beliefs of others beyond their context. The original line about
moderated .22s implied, as far as I can tell, to the use of such rifles on
suitable (i.e. rabbit sized) targets, and the merits of slow and heavy
versus fast and light where both are capable of doing the job.
> I take the view that we require a bullet with an excess of energy such
> that it creates sufficient tissue damage to result in a swift death. One
> way of ensuring this is by using an expanding bullet and enough power to
> drive it fast enough to create a through-and-through wound of the
> maximum dimensions.
The danger is that some people will use the availability of over-penetration
as an excuse to shoot at poorly positioned targets, such as a deer standing
at a 45 degree angle. That very topic is discussed in "American Hunting
Rifles" which I bought on your recommendation.
Remember, Pax Britannica....
JJ
Pete
>
>
> <snippety snip snip>
>
> Really Jonathon, you really must stop treating us like naughty/stupid
> schoolboys....
Aw, come on JJ....
I'm sure that JS can stick up for himself in response but I for one
would be sorry if these newsgroups were deprived of his postings which
are matter-of-fact and spot on in terms of technicalities and the law.
The very nature of newsgroup postings is that we write down our thoughts
and sometimes perhaps don't always pay enough attention to the way
someone else might interpret them. Replies get all out of sync at times
and often, one well-meaning comment spawns a whole host of other issues.
If we were all down the pub, the discussion would be both quicker and
better able to respond to the kind of "Hey, when you say that.... what
do you actually mean?" issues.
I too have been put back on the right road more than once and at least
this guy does it civilly and without resorting to personal abuse.
By the same token, I'm not saying you don't have the right to reply, I'm
simply adding a "come on lads, it's my round" type comment just to
ensure the temperature doesn't get too high in here.
Pete
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pete....@virgin.net
www.the-proof-reader.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it." Attributed to Voltaire.
JJ
> JJ wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snippety snip snip>
> >
> > Really Jonathon, you really must stop treating us like naughty/stupid
> > schoolboys....
>
> Aw, come on JJ....
Now come on, Pete... My tongue was slightly in my cheek, and Jonathon will
realise, from my many previous posts, that I respect his knowledge and often
agree with him, indeed I take his advice at times (I mentioned a book that I
bought on his advice) so don't assume that I intended to attack him in any
way; merely to point out that he does appear as the NG schoolmarm from time
to time....
JJ
Gyppo
<j...@jgjSPAM.flyer.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Now come on, Pete... My tongue was slightly in my cheek
Ah, that's what's missing in newsgroup
etiquette... A 'Tongue In Cheek' (TIC) symbol to
prevent possible misunderstandings. Anyone care to
design one? It could be our contribution to World
Peace and Universal Understanding, and probably the
ruination of many an interesting thread. (TIC)
I have to say that this newsgroup is - generally -
far more civilised than many others. Maybe 'An armed
society *is* a polite society', although my visits to
rec.knives often support the exact opposite. ;-)
Gyppo (Who admits to sometimes snapping at the
most unlikely - and probably unintentional - bait, like
an undiscriminating trout.)
--
John Craggs - Writer, Adult Tutor, Storyteller
and All-round Rogue
Need a laugh? Visit www.mondaysillydigest.com
j0e
An assumption on your part, 'bullets kill by destroying tissue'
not quite correct, if you have studied wound ballistics you would
realise that expanding bullets do two things when entering a 'body'
first is the tissue and organ damage (a good shot to the heart being
ideal) the second and important part is the wound channel that it
creates, it should be large enough to have an immediate effect on
blood pressure so that if you 'miss' a vital organ the subsequent
damage to the surrounding area and tissue is great enough to allow a
rapid drop in blood pressure.(this being one reason why FMJ is not
allowed on deer, ever noticed the ability of yor quarry to run because
of a poorly placed shot?) imho and experience a shot that passes
straight through is not required and can be generally concidered
dangerous. I use a 22mag,17,223 and 243 for foxes i have yet to have a
bullet pass clean through, the bullets that i use are designed to
expand violently and cause a large wound channel internally.For deer i
generally use a 'harder' bullet to minimise meat damage.
You also might want to explore the reasons why expanding bullets are
outlawed by the Geneva convention and why so many servicemen survived
being shot by FMJ ammo.
A good guide is
1, a quality bullet that keeps a reasonable amount of its weight when
entering a body and expands well (not too 'explosive')
2, most important ACCURATE shot placement.
then you can forget about the book technicalities Stopping power, SD,
BC etc :-)
Pete
>
<snippety snip snip>
> > >
> > > Really Jonathon, you really must stop treating us like naughty/stupid
> > > schoolboys....
> >
> > Aw, come on JJ....
>
> Now come on, Pete...
Is your tongue in your cheek now? Mine is!:-)
> merely to point out that he does appear as the NG schoolmarm from time
> to time....
Headmaster? Physics teacher?
I'd like to see the gym mistress making an appearance;-}
Jonathan Spencer
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 18:15:55 +0000, Jonathan Spencer
><j...@salvage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I recommend anyone who is serious about the
>>subject to study the literature, for example:
>>
>>1. Wound Ballistics And The Scientific Background, 1994, ISBN
>>0-444-81511-1 (about £125)
>>
>>2. Bullet Penetration: Modelling The Dynamics and Incapacitation
>>Resulting From Wound Trauma, 1994, ISBN 0-9643577-0-4 (about US$40)
>>
>>3. anything by Martin Fackler.
>An assumption on your part, 'bullets kill by destroying tissue'
>not quite correct, if you have studied wound ballistics you would
>realise that expanding bullets do two things when entering a 'body'
>first is the tissue and organ damage (a good shot to the heart being
>ideal) the second and important part is the wound channel that it
>creates,
I'll bite. You say an [expanding] bullet does two things:
1. it causes "tissue and organ damage"
2. it creates "the wound channel".
What are these things if not the same? Are you thinking about the
temporary cavity? You're going to have to clarify because I don't
understand the distinction that I think you're trying to make.
>it should be large enough to have an immediate effect on
>blood pressure
What is that effect? What does it do to the blood pressure?
>so that if you 'miss' a vital organ the subsequent
>damage to the surrounding area and tissue is great enough
What do you say is the mechanism that causes damage to tissue *not*
struck by the bullet? Are you suggesting that there is some 'hydraulic'
effect from the vascular system?
>(this being one reason why FMJ is not
>allowed on deer,
No, the reason expanding ammunition is required is because it increases
the effective calibre on impact with consequential increase in tissue
damage, hence increased effectiveness.
>ever noticed the ability of yor quarry to run because
>of a poorly placed shot?)
I've seen them run many a time with a perfectly placed shot. It's what
deer do. And for that matter, foxes too, on occasion. Therefore, as
the shot was perfectly placed, they are not running "because of a poorly
placed shot": there must be another reason.
>imho and experience a shot that passes
>straight through is not required and can be generally concidered
>dangerous.
Why is it dangerous, and to whom?
>I use a 22mag,17,223 and 243 for foxes i have yet to have a
>bullet pass clean through, the bullets that i use are designed to
>expand violently and cause a large wound channel internally.
The bullets to which you refer are designed to remain within a coyote
sized animal (e.g. Hornady SPSX, see the manual). The purpose is *not*
simply to ensure larger internal wounds, but to prevent damage to a fur
pelt that has commercial value by *preventing* an exit wound.
Additionally, they are intended to be violently explosive on small
varmints such as prairie dogs. I've used a variety of these on crows
and foxes. Certainly they kill, and can do so immediately. But if one
does not require the pelt, I can see no reason to seek to keep the
bullet inside the animal, and reasons why the bullet should exit.
>You also might want to explore the reasons why expanding bullets are
>outlawed by the Geneva convention and why so many servicemen survived
>being shot by FMJ ammo.
A minor nitpick: it is the Hague Convention, not the Geneva Convention
(that deals with treatment of prisoners of war). Both texts are
available on the web.
If you want to debate this point, I'll wait until you've studied
reference 1 (Wound Ballistics And The Scientific Background) above, and
studied the performance of the early US 5.56mm bullets versus the
development of the Swiss 5.56mm bullet. (Get the book through your
library, it is not worth £125 of your money.)
But we are straying from our charter. So to bring us back on topic,
here's some uk.rec.shooting.game content:
Does anyone know where I can obtain either an original butt stock, or
get one made, for a Valmet 412 style o/u 12 ga shotgun? I have the
action, barrels, and fore stock but no butt stock. The barrels of this
shotgun do not mate to the action of my existing Valmet 412 o/u
combination gun, so I need a butt stock for the new gun.
Jonathan Spencer
>Jonathan Spencer <j...@salvage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9dpWhhFb...@salvage.demon.co.uk...
>> This is a common belief amongst those who have not studied wound
>> ballistics to any depth. I recommend anyone who is serious about the
>> subject to study the literature, for example:
><snippety snip snip>
>Really Jonathon, you really must stop treating us like naughty/stupid
>schoolboys....
Certainly not my intention, quite the contrary. What I'm tackling it
the unchallenged repetition of a myth: that's how rumours become fact
isn't it? I'm not saying *you* are thoughtlessly repeating it, but I
hear this "you want a bullet that stays in the body so that it transfers
all its energy" line from time to time and I feel sufficiently strongly
about it to strangle it immediately it surfaces for air. If only people
gave it a few moment's thought, or better still studied the subject,
they'd realise what a lot of twaddle it is. And of course, if no one
challenges this oft repeated myth, then some of the lurkers on this
newsgroup will see it and think it an accepted fact (and repeat it
themselves). That's why I leap on these things when I do and in the
manner I do.
>I was summarising a point that had been made by someone else,
Fair enough. If you read my words you'll see that I'm not intending any
personal criticism, but general criticism of those who "have a little
knowledge" and don't THINK about what they're saying.
>and doing so in simple and general terms, on the grounds that this is not an
>academic forum.
No reason why is should not be a forum for dissemination of fact (as
oppose to fancy), and to point people to where they can verify matters
for themselves.
>In the spirit of friendship, may I just say that you
>have a wee habit of taking things in an over-literal sense, and applying the
>comments and beliefs of others beyond their context.
Not intentional at all. I do try to extend the discussion, and point
people towards authoritative sources so that I'm not asking folks to
merely take my word for what I say. Inter-library loan is a wonderful
thing! :-) But I have low tolerance for the propagation of invalid
shooting legends and shooting myths. If I know something to be
incorrect, I will correct it. If I merely *believe* something to be in
error, I will challenge it - and am open to being corrected if I've got
it wrong. I'm the first to recognise that there are many people who
know a great deal more about firearms than I do. Those who also
subscribe to Cybershooters will know that.
>The danger is that some people will use the availability of over-penetration
Exactly what is "over penetration"?
>as an excuse to shoot at poorly positioned targets, such as a deer standing
>at a 45 degree angle. That very topic is discussed in "American Hunting
>Rifles" which I bought on your recommendation.
To many people, an angling shot through the shoulder is perfectly
acceptable, especially as it might be the only chance they will get. I
have no problem with that, provide they have a sufficiently stout
bullet. I personally wouldn't take a Texas Heart Shot although, again,
some people see no reason not to. Depending on the species, roe for
example, it would be a swiftly fatal shot. Of course, I prefer not to
rupture the stomach and gut but that's only because I don't like
handling goop and it soils the meat.
I personally *tend* to go only for broadside on shots on deer, but I do
not get upset if the only opportunity I have walks away. (Exactly this
happened recently: I stalked morning and night (and daytime too) every
day the week before last and did not shoot a deer, although I had
several opportunities.) But I'm not averse to taking neck shots, or
frontal shots (a much smaller target area than any other), or angled
heart shots from one side *if* the circumstances are right and I have
the correct tool (i.e. bullet) for the job.
I do like my bullet to completely pass through the deer and, unless it
is a neck or head shot, I also prefer the exit wound to leave a good
blood trail. By definition, that means a heart shot when the beast's
head it up. This is partly why I shoot them only broadside on: I can
rip the heart open and leave an open exit wound for the blood to spill.
The last deer I shot, a buck in August, left a three inch wide blood
trail that even a blind man on a galloping horse would have seen. The
buck went perhaps 20 feet, yet under similar circumstances, a doe I shot
(no heart left and a FIVE INCH diameter exit wound) ran over 100 yards.
A good blood trail helps us (me and my dog) find the beast.
(As for 'over penetration' and 'danger', I don't fire unless there is a
good earth backstop to catch the bullet. I only take shots that I am
confident are safe. Given this, there is no such thing in my book as
over penetration nor does the bullet represent a danger to anyone nor
anything.)
I've also found that a larger, heavier, more stoutly constructed bullet
cause far less bloodshot meat. For example, comparing a .308 calibre
150 gn Lapua MEGA bullet to a .224 calibre 55 gn Sierra bullet. The
MEGA is stoutly constructed whereas the Sierra is lightly jacketed (as
it appropriate to its task of killing varmints). I've recently been
using Sierra .308 150 gn Pro-Hunters and they seem to expand much more
enthusiastically than the MEGA. (But having only shot relatively few
deer with either bullet, and never in exactly the same place twice nor
under the same conditions twice, this evidence is purely anecdotal and
not statistically valid.)
JJ
> In article <tve0t3g...@corp.supernews.com>, JJ
> <j...@jgjSPAM.flyer.co.uk> made me sit up when he said:
I made you sit up? Really, no slouching allowed here.... Anyhoo, advice
noted on target position. I certainly don't intend taking shots other than
broadside until I've seen someone else try and succeed! Incidentally, what
breed of dog do you have? I saw a large (as in small horse) chocolate lab in
action. By the time we'd caught up with him, he'd broken the doe's neck and
was sitting patiently by the beast. He got a piece of graloch for his
trouble.
JJ
JJ
> Does anyone know where I can obtain either an original butt stock, or
> get one made, for a Valmet 412 style o/u 12 ga shotgun? I have the
> action, barrels, and fore stock but no butt stock. The barrels of this
> shotgun do not mate to the action of my existing Valmet 412 o/u
> combination gun, so I need a butt stock for the new gun.
Umm, err, Finland???
Pete
>
re's some uk.rec.shooting.game content:
>
> Does anyone know where I can obtain either an original butt stock, or
> get one made, for a Valmet 412 style o/u 12 ga shotgun?
Didn't Tikka manufacture Valmet? Have you tried the longtime former
Tikka importer John Scoltock of JLS & Co?
Pete
>
> I made you sit up? Really, no slouching allowed here.... Anyhoo, advice
> noted on target position. I certainly don't intend taking shots other than
> broadside until I've seen someone else try and succeed!
Is this an absolute for you? I shoot more foxes through the shirt front
than any other angle. Deer through the neck if standing steady,
broadside on and closer than 150 metres.
>Incidentally, <snip> I saw a large (as in small horse) chocolate lab in
> action.
Aren't all chocolate labs er, a bit beefy?
> By the time we'd caught up with him, he'd broken the doe's neck and
> was sitting patiently by the beast. He got a piece of graloch for his
> trouble.
A keeper friend of mine has black labs which perform the same trick.
JJ
> JJ wrote:
> >
>
> > I made you sit up? Really, no slouching allowed here.... Anyhoo, advice
> > noted on target position. I certainly don't intend taking shots other
than
> > broadside until I've seen someone else try and succeed!
>
> Is this an absolute for you? I shoot more foxes through the shirt front
> than any other angle. Deer through the neck if standing steady,
> broadside on and closer than 150 metres.
I'll make an exception for foxes, assuming the lovely people at Firearms
Licencing allow me a .243, but I won't take neck shots at deer until my
knowledge of their physiology is spot on. Having said that, I can see that
for the experienced stalker (and I include you, Pete) it is ideal to take a
shot that causes minimal meat damage and ensures that the beast drops on the
spot. I've been warned off headshots on deer, on account of the large
possibility of the deer lifting its head as you squeeze the trigger, and
maybe causing a hit on the jaw.
> Aren't all chocolate labs er, a bit beefy?
Well, yes, but this one was boxy as well. Good, square jaw.
JJ
Pete
>
>>
> I'll make an exception for foxes, assuming the lovely people at Firearms
> Licencing allow me a .243,
Sounds like they may be partway to inviting you to have a .243 for deer,
a .308 for big deer and a .22 centrefire for vermin! What a happy
situation to be in:-)
> I've been warned off headshots on deer, on account of the large
> possibility of the deer lifting its head as you squeeze the trigger, and
> maybe causing a hit on the jaw.
Sound advice in principle, though it's a long time since I told myself I
missed a shot "because it moved as I squeezed the trigger"; the fact
that my .22/250 fox loads travel 200 metres in 0.188 seconds (according
to the ballistics program) has reinforced the near impossibility of such
a coincidence.
Well founded confidence in your ability, your equipment and your range
estimation "sometimes" permit a head shot, though they are very rarely
needed IMHO.
JJ
> Sounds like they may be partway to inviting you to have a .243 for deer,
> a .308 for big deer and a .22 centrefire for vermin! What a happy
> situation to be in:-)
Hmm, including the rimfire, that'd be 4 rifles, 4 scopes, one shotgun, a
larger cabinet and possibly a bugler alarm... Nope, ain't got the money!
> Sound advice in principle, though it's a long time since I told myself I
> missed a shot "because it moved as I squeezed the trigger"; the fact
> that my .22/250 fox loads travel 200 metres in 0.188 seconds (according
> to the ballistics program) has reinforced the near impossibility of such
> a coincidence.
Add reaction time of 0.2sec plus locktime of (guessing here) perhaps 0.1sec,
so it all adds up to about half a second....
> Well founded confidence in your ability, your equipment and your range
> estimation "sometimes" permit a head shot, though they are very rarely
> needed IMHO.
Fair enough, but I will leave it till I have such confidence! Besides, I'm
on my BDS branch committee so I suppose I should follow best practice, "pour
encourager les autres"....
JJ
Gyppo
<j...@jgjSPAM.flyer.co.uk> wrote:
larger cabinet and possibly a bugler alarm...
Sorry, just can't resist the image of an intruder
setting off your alarm, and cacking himself with
terror/shock as a fully uniformed *bugler* leaps from
his hiding place and plays him the 'Last Post'.
This visual imagination is one of the reasons I
could never work as a pallbearer ;-)
JJ
Gyppo <gy...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3bfc12ab...@news.cwcom.net...
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 19:53:39 -0000, "JJ"
> <j...@jgjSPAM.flyer.co.uk> wrote:
>
> larger cabinet and possibly a bugler alarm...
>
> Sorry, just can't resist the image of an intruder
> setting off your alarm, and cacking himself with
> terror/shock as a fully uniformed *bugler* leaps from
> his hiding place and plays him the 'Last Post'.
Bloody spellcheck.... Actually, it's an alarm that warns me of the approach
of any buglers, as reveille can be a pain when you want to sleep in. I also
have no wish to have someone sounding the charge when I'm about to shoot
something. As Lord Ripon may have said, "guns to the left of me, guns to the
right of me, I've drawn a good peg again", or something like that.
JJ
Jonathan Spencer
>Incidentally, what
>breed of dog do you have?
I've had German Wirehaired Pointers since 1984. The odd German
Shorthaired Pointer has appeared from time to time, but the Wirehair is
without doubt a superior breed. (Now watch those brickbats fly.)
-- Jonathan
"I don't know what effect these men will have on the enemy, but, by God,
they terrify me."
letter sent to Duke of Wellington, then in Spain, 1809
Jonathan Spencer
>Pete <pete....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:3BFABE49...@virgin.net...
>> Is this an absolute for you? I shoot more foxes through the shirt front
>> than any other angle. Deer through the neck if standing steady,
>> broadside on and closer than 150 metres.
How far!? I wouldn't go for a neck shot on a roe farther than about 50
yards, and then only with a good rest (i.e. a high seat or a pair of
sticks). How well does your rifle shoot at 150 yards: what distribution
would you get from 25 rounds fired at a single target? Now, compare
that to the dimensions of the roe/red spine. How does it compare?
>I'll make an exception for foxes,
Doesn't the fox deserve the same care & attention as a roe? And it's a
smaller animal with a smaller target area. I gut shot one two weeks
ago, and it is not less a mistake merely because the animal is 'vermin'.
>but I won't take neck shots at deer until my
>knowledge of their physiology is spot on.
I'm with you there.
>I've been warned off headshots on deer, on account of the large
>possibility of the deer lifting its head as you squeeze the trigger, and
>maybe causing a hit on the jaw.
Not to mention that the brain is tiny. I have head shot only one deer,
a roe bedded and not moving only ten yards from me.
Jonathan Spencer
>> Does anyone know where I can obtain either an original butt stock, or
>> get one made, for a Valmet 412 style o/u 12 ga shotgun?
>Didn't Tikka manufacture Valmet? Have you tried the longtime former
>Tikka importer John Scoltock of JLS & Co?
It is made in Italy *for* Tikka and is now called the model 512. At
face value, the barrels from a Tikka 512 *should* fit my genuine Valmet
412 - but they don't.
JLS arms did offer to source a pair of genuine 412 shotgun barrels (to
compliment my existing 12ga/243 barrels). But they wanted the cost of a
complete gun - around £600 just for a set of barrels.
I do have contacts in Norway and Finland, but I'd like to see if anyone
can recommend a stock maker in this country first.
Jonathan Spencer
>> Does anyone know where I can obtain either an original butt stock, or
>> get one made, for a Valmet 412 style o/u 12 ga shotgun?
>Umm, err, Finland???
Possibly. But the gun is circa 30 years old and no longer in
production. Valmet are now part of the SAKO company, which in turn is
owned by Beretta. Plus, if I can get one made locally (i.e. in this
country) I can get it made to my specification so that it fitted, that
is, made to measure - for me.
JJ
> <j...@jgjSPAM.flyer.co.uk> wrote:
>
> larger cabinet and possibly a bugler alarm...
>
> Sorry, just can't resist the image of an intruder
> setting off your alarm, and cacking himself with
> terror/shock as a fully uniformed *bugler* leaps from
> his hiding place and plays him the 'Last Post'.
Bloody spellcheck.... Actually, it's an alarm that warns me of the approach
JJ
> >I'll make an exception for foxes,
>
> Doesn't the fox deserve the same care & attention as a roe? And it's a
> smaller animal with a smaller target area. I gut shot one two weeks
> ago, and it is not less a mistake merely because the animal is 'vermin'.
More a case of a suitable bullet having such an instantly devastating effect
on the fox.
> >I've been warned off headshots on deer, on account of the large
> >possibility of the deer lifting its head as you squeeze the trigger, and
> >maybe causing a hit on the jaw.
>
> Not to mention that the brain is tiny. I have head shot only one deer,
> a roe bedded and not moving only ten yards from me.
I'm pretty sure that the experts and DSC tutors would not be advising
against headshots with tales of jaws being shot off if it hadn't happened
enough to be of concern, in any case.
JJ
JJ
> JLS arms did offer to source a pair of genuine 412 shotgun barrels (to
> compliment my existing 12ga/243 barrels). But they wanted the cost of a
> complete gun - around £600 just for a set of barrels.
A drilling? How quaint! Sorry, I don't mean to be facecious... How does it
shoot with the rifled barrel? I assume the breech lockup is less secure than
a bolt action, and presumably a few shots from the shotgun barrel might
cause t'other barrel to bend???
JJ
Jonathan Spencer
<j...@jgjSPAM.flyer.co.uk> made me sit up when he said:
>A drilling?
It isn't a drilling (more correctly: a Dreilling, *three* barrels). Mine
has two barrels, superposed, so it is a Bockbuchsflinte or, in English,
and over-under rifle-shotgun. A drilling has a a pair of s/s shotgun
barrels and one rifle barrel underneath.
There I go, Mr Pedantic again. Forgive me: I spent six years in
Germany.
>How quaint! Sorry, I don't mean to be facecious... How does it
>shoot with the rifled barrel?
With iron sights (which fold down into the shotgun rib), about 6 inches
at 100 yards, half that at 50 yards. The limiting factor being my
eyesight. With a 1.5-5x20 scope, to about 3/4 inch at 50 yards.
>I assume the breech lockup is less secure than
>a bolt action,
Perhaps not so strong as a turn-bolt rifle, but no less secure.
>and presumably a few shots from the shotgun barrel might
>cause t'other barrel to bend???
No, not at all. The two barrels are independent, not joined by a rib.
That's one of the beauties of the [true] Valmet design. The barrels are
joined at the breech and muzzle, with a sliding wedge at the midpoint to
adjust POI by bending the barrel so they can move independently. Of
course, with a scope fitted, I adjust the scope not the barrel. When
the rifle barrel is fired, after the shot, the barrel hums like a tuning
fork (but it can only be heard when the earmuff touches the butt stock).
It's a cracking gun as it can take anything from a snipe up to a roe
deer.
-- Jonathan
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Pete
>
> It is made in Italy *for* Tikka and is now called the model 512.
Was it ever thus? ISTR former advertising copy talking about made to
withstand Finland's harsh blah blah.
> But they wanted the cost of a
> complete gun - around £600 just for a set of barrels.
Karamba!
> I do have contacts in Norway and Finland, but I'd like to see if anyone
> can recommend a stock maker in this country first.
Sorry, no contacts.
Pete
>
><snippety-snip>
> >> Deer through the neck if standing steady,
> >> broadside on and closer than 150 metres.
>
> How far!? I wouldn't go for a neck shot on a roe farther than about 50
> yards, and then only with a good rest (i.e. a high seat or a pair of
> sticks).
I should have added - off a bipod off a solid and steady surface like a
truck bonnet (engine off) or the high seat, or off a long pair of
sticks. Standing with a sling? yes, I take your point, Sitting with
sling? somewhere in the middle. In the middle of a howling gale? most
unlikely. So, 150 metres sounds like a working maximum under optimum
conditions.
> How well does your rifle shoot at 150 yards:
Well enough for me to be confident.
> what distribution
> would you get from 25 rounds fired at a single target?
To answer that question literally, do you mean over a sufficiently long
period for the groups not to expand as the barrel warms up? 'Fraid I do
all my zeroing/load chronographing in
groups of 3 into any one target so I don't have an answer to hand.
To address the point I guess you're making, and I've given this some
thought whilst doing the washing up, my response is that if I don't
believe I can confidently achieve the shot with the first round, I won't
be taking it. (Unlike today on the range and having to work hard in
gusty conditions to nail an etr target at 400 yards with my iron-sighted
Lee Enfield!)
> Doesn't the fox deserve the same care & attention as a roe?
IMHO, it deserves to die by the first shot, accurately placed, as does
any other quarry species. I'm not one for shooting their back legs off.
> And it's a
> smaller animal with a smaller target area.
Now you're stating the obvious:-) Nonetheless a clear front-on shot at a
sitting fox, well-illuminated, at up to 200 metres, but typically
100-130 metres, has
accounted for about a dozen this year. A fox sitting on its haunches
presents a good target area. (I don't know why for sure, but I'd choose
a target in "portrait" format rather than "landscape" time after time.)
I will not shoot at a pair of eyes hiding
in the long set aside, and especially not in the field beans, just
because every instinct tells me it's a fox; I need to see positive i.d.
> I gut shot one two weeks
> ago, and it is not less a mistake merely because the animal is 'vermin'.
Agreed. ISTR we've had similar conversations here in the past about
rabbits, .22rf and the merits of the head shot.
> Not to mention that the brain is tiny.
I don't recall examining a deer brain but I take your point. I'm not
interested in the muzzle/face of any species as a target.
Jonathan Spencer
>>
>
>> It is made in Italy *for* Tikka and is now called the model 512.
>
>Was it ever thus? ISTR former advertising copy talking about made to
>withstand Finland's harsh blah blah.
The Valmet 412 was made in Finland - and is marked "MADE IN FINLAND".
The Tikka 512 (note the model number) is made in Italy *for* Tikka, not
by Tikka in Finland. And just this week I see another advert by JLS (in
Target Sports) for yet another of these models which, if memory serves,
is not being called either a Valmet nor a Tikka but is still a 512 made
in Italy.
--
Pete
>
<snipped>
> And just this week I see another advert by JLS (in
> Target Sports) for yet another of these models which, if memory serves,
> is not being called either a Valmet nor a Tikka but is still a 512 made
> in Italy.
That's because JLS no longer have the Tikka import franchise in the UK
[Tikka belonging to Sako, Sako belonging to Beretta, Beretta importers
being GMK (or whoever)].
Quite some acrimony I gather. A great pity as JLS have put Tikka where
they are in the UK, and I find myself talking to them first when I want
spares or advice.
I gather there's a similar situation developing with Edgar Bros having
lost the Blount and Federal franchises; reloading bits, Federal factory
rounds and other stuff in the same franchise package currently being in
short supply.
I recall JLS's first ad after having the Tikka business taken away;
there was some very pointed comment (well, I understood it immediately)
about "we can't call these shotguns Tikka/Valmet because we aren't able
to advertise those names" etc.