Quote:
Originally Posted by ishootbambi
Now here's a couple guys who understand guns, shooting and ballistics quite well. No crap about, "I'm a guide so I know best" or "One time I failed so it's gotta be the equipment's fault". Just two guys with a heck of a lot of experience behind them that are willing to share it. I have learned a lot from both on this forum...and in fact they are the reason I have NOT tried Barnes bullets. While they have shown plenty of evidence that they will do the job, it's the finicky loading characteristics that don't impress me. While I do hand load, I don't have the patience to be fiddle farting with seating depth and chasing velocity to find perfection. I'm sure I could make em work, but it seems to be a bother I'm not interested in.
|
Dale, I thought you didn't want to engage with me? That's the exact condescending tone I'm talking about. So if you want to insult someone, don't be surprised when it comes back at you.
Did you read the link I posted? None of the experts deny hydrostatic shock exists, it's the degree in which it affects the animal that is in debate. It also has a scientific study which shows damage caused by hydrostatic shock. Furthermore, it's not just hydrostatic shock that plays a role in a ballistic tips killing ability, a much bigger factor is its fragments.
Being that I'm a guide doesn't make me an expert on ballistics, but after nearly 20yrs of doing it, it sure does stack up some experience. I don't consider 45 days hunting whitetail in a year a very high number, it's good for a weekend warrior tho.