Conical and RB penetration?

[paulvallandigham]

I don't find any reference to boat tailed bullet being used before 1900. I prefer you not mis-state my comments by taking them out of context. Of course spitzer shaped bullets were in use before 1900! Both Germany and Japan experimented with such bullets in the early 1890s.

"The spitzer boat-tailed bullet ( Balle "D" ) was first introduced as standard ammunition in a military rifle in 1901, for the French Lebel Mle 1886 service weapon."

Since you know all this, then what was the point of your question? Are you just interested in showing us how much you know?

I don't mind answering rhetorical questions, because the answers can inform other readers who DON'T know this stuff. However, I have better things to do than to play book games with you!

This latest post of yours is very rude, IMHO. If you don't like an answer, consider what you paid to get it. If you already know the answer, then why the question???

And, I do disagree with you about the damage done by the two vaccuum cones. There is no question that the nose of any projectile- even a round nose bullet, or a RB, will create a cone. But its the high speed cone formed at the base of the bullet that " sucks " the blood from tissues as the bullet is burning its way through the primary wound channel. The cone off the nose actually does very little damage beyond the primary wound channel. If you ever do some testing of bullets in ballistics gel, using high speed photography, you can see the difference in the damage being done by the two separate cones as the bullet passes through the transparent gel blocks. When those high speed bullets come down through the sound barrier, the secondary wound channel is NOT created.

 

[GBG]

FWIW, the most comprehensive and understandable(?) single source I have found is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock. The numerous references sited show there are many (often conflicting) views by very knowledgeable people, who have devoted entire careers to and built professional reputations on studying this subject. The reason for my statement that damage occurs "behind" the bullet is: Whether caused by the front or rear "shock" waves or the sudden pressure drop (vacuum) behind them, they all eventually propagate out and behind the point/front area of the bullet like the wake(s) behind a boat. Thats a simple picture but one I'm able to visualize. I can agree with all hunters that at certain speeds bullets cause bloodshot meat, and these speeds are above what traditional BP guns can reach.

 

[longcruise]

I don't find any reference to boat tailed bullet being used before 1900

I didn't use a reference; I pulled the bullets.

Since you know all this, then what was the point of your question?

The question was regarding your source of information supporting your statement that the shock wave following the bullet creates the secondary wound channel. You responded by supporting the existence of the wave behind the bullet.

This latest post of yours is very rude, IMHO. If you don't like an answer, consider what you paid to get it.

Sorry you think it rude! It was a simple question which you chose to answer by going off on a wild tangent regarding modern projectiles. I mentioned the boat tail thing only because of your statement to the effect that:

The .223 caliber bulllet loaded in the AR-16 rifle issued in Vietnam in the 60s, is the first time such a bullet became issued ammo for general use.

I'll comment no further on modern projectiles, etc. Let's stick with ml projectiles. My non-rhetorical question still stands unanswered; What source of information are you referencing that suggests that the shock wave trailing a projectile is the source of the secondary wound channel?