after reading a few more, it's still interesting, but he seems amazed that ball ammo penetrates, hollow points expand, and frangible rounds....frange...
the dood looks about 50, and has probably been shooting for a week from the way he writes.
interesting, but the lesson here is: if you want to know what various things do, you should use them and test them...duh.
it's a very mythbusters approach that he does. scientific enough to seem credible enough to be entertaining, not much else.
the dood looks about 50, and has probably been shooting for a week from the way he writes.
interesting, but the lesson here is: if you want to know what various things do, you should use them and test them...duh.
it's a very mythbusters approach that he does. scientific enough to seem credible enough to be entertaining, not much else.
Not to be a dick, but what more would you have like from that site? Seemed honest enough to me and I rather enjoyed the experiments. I'd submit that the guy has more than a few rounds down range. The experimental rig seemed to be designed in such a way as to be able to illustrate a measurable difference in each of the rounds he fired through it. That looks like a pretty well developed understanding of what could be expected from the various types of ammunition.
HAHAHA, whenever you have to use the phrase, "not to be a dick," you're probably being a dick!
Anyway, I thought it was a FUN experiment, but it's true; it's not scientific. I liked it and will take it just at face value as entertainment.
not to be a dick, but that was the joke, which was directed at saread
again, I said about 18 times that it was interesting, just not scientific, even though it's presented as scientific-ish, like mythbusters, and is great entertainment, not something to use as a penetration bible
Not to be a dick, I got that it was a joke. :thefinger:
Oh also, I like the phrase, "penetration bible." I might have to use that more often.
Yeah, I been watching too much American Idol. I think Simon is rubbing off on me and I'm becoming a dick. I'd say that the guys stuff was way more scientific than a lot of the crap spewed about what calibers/rounds are more or less effective that I've seen. At least he provided a measurable response in a somewhat controlled environment. Maybe not long on numbers, but you can at least count the sheets of drywall penetrated. Remember, observation is the basis of science. I thought it was pretty illustrative seeing evidence of tumbling bullets or the 45-70 having enough smack to blowup the bricks at the back of the rig. Not science in a Sandia Labs sort of way, but certainly as good as Galileo dropping different size balls from the top of the Pisa Camponile testing gravity. One thing you can hang your hat on from those demonstrations is that if I want to shoot something behind a brick wall, I've got a better chance with a 45-70 than I do with a 9mm. Scientific enough to draw that conclusion.
being a dick is ok.
don't apologize for it.
(I never do)
again, yes, it's good and entertaining. like a coffee table book. but since things like penetration of bullets is has to do with the firearm, the bullet shape, bullet make up, amount of powder, angle, and what you are hitting....
again, it's not scientific, but it's cool.
sorry for expecting scientifically presented info to be scientific....
*was there ever a doubt that a 45-70 would do better at penetrating bricks than a 9mm? srsly?
don't apologize for it.
(I never do)
again, yes, it's good and entertaining. like a coffee table book. but since things like penetration of bullets is has to do with the firearm, the bullet shape, bullet make up, amount of powder, angle, and what you are hitting....
again, it's not scientific, but it's cool.
sorry for expecting scientifically presented info to be scientific....
*was there ever a doubt that a 45-70 would do better at penetrating bricks than a 9mm? srsly?
Not at all. But it was pretty neat to see the demo and get some sense of the magnitude of the difference. Don't mess with buffalo hunters.
