Berger, Ballistic tip, meant bone penetration, accubond control test.

kman300 said:
There were 7 more shuttle missions after that happened so obviously they didn't stop putting shuttles in space after this happened. They also didn't stop putting boats on water after the titanic sank or airplanes in the sky after one crashes. Frankly I'm not sure what these examples have to do with bullet performance but since you brought them up, they illustrate that one "failure" doesn't spell the end of the activity in question all together.
Click to expand...

The examples have to do with your argument that one sample means nothing. Sometimes one sample is very relevant, especially if careful examination reveals a weakness in design. To write off a single sample, simply because it is a single sample, is to make statistical analysis more important than reason.

In the shuttle case, there were no alternative space vehicles. NASA did, however, take many very careful steps to try to prevent another failure. If they had other vehicles at their disposal, I expect they would have seriously considered them at that point. The Titanic changed a whole lot about ocean travel.

One bullet failure doesn't stop all hunting, but one bullet failure makes me look for an alternative that doesn't fail due to the same design flaws. Reports of several examples of the same failure make a compelling case to look elsewhere.
 
rral22 said:
The examples have to do with your argument that one sample means nothing. Sometimes one sample is very relevant, especially if careful examination reveals a weakness in design. To write off a single sample, simply because it is a single sample, is to make statistical analysis more important than reason.

In the shuttle case, there were no alternative space vehicles. NASA did, however, take many very careful steps to try to prevent another failure. If they had other vehicles at their disposal, I expect they would have seriously considered them at that point. The Titanic changed a whole lot about ocean travel.

One bullet failure doesn't stop all hunting, but one bullet failure makes me look for an alternative that doesn't fail due to the same design flaws. Reports of several examples of the same failure make a compelling case to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one that originally brought up the point that one sample means nothing. Other's did that pointing out that just because the 190 didn't blow up, it means nothing as it was only 1 test.

One sample either means something or it doesn't. Your argument that a negative sample of one is meaningful because there are other reports of negative results (how many used bullet outside it's design parameters?) but a positive sample of one is not, even though there are many times more positive reports than negative doesn't make any sense.

Again, you can use any bullet you want for hunting. I am only pointing out that I believe the premise of either endorsing or dismissing a bullet based on 1 sample is either valid or invalid practice in both success or failure scenarios. Not valid in failure and invalid in success scenarios. Logic dictates this. Of course people are often not rational and base decisions on emotions. If you are super pissed you lost the buck of a life time after tracking him for 5 hours through swamps etc you won't use the bullet that caused you to lose him again. Did the bullet hit a twig? Was the shot good? You will never know since you didn't find the animal but you will probably never use that bullet again. Be it a tsx that "penciled" through, the accubomb that exploded or whatever.
 
I have had bullets fail and been witness to other failures by quite a few bullets in my short hunting career.

I have had old hornady softpoints shatter on impact at 200 yards, I have seen ballistic tips separate at the hide at 100 yard impact, I have seen penciling of premium bullets at 100 yards.

All these failures came from shots from magnum calibers pushing bullets past what they where designed to to or right at the design limits.

Because of this I only consider bonded, mono metal, or partitions in my 7mm rem mag now when selecting hunting bullets, and its on the lower end of the magnum spectrum. And still I am aware that no bullet is going to be 100 % fail proof.

Guys shooting more extreme calibers are going to see more extreme results.

However, I do know that even with the failures I have seen we never lost an animal because all the shots were to the boiler room and that gave us the best chance for success.

Some guys figure that they can hoop shoot a moose at 100 yards with their 300 ultra whiz Bangum and think that their gonna get to the vitals but it sometimes don't work that way even when your bullet stays together. Just my 2 cents.
 
kman300 said:
One sample either means something or it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Nope. Life just isn't that simple.

I'm pretty sure that the single sample of the Columbia disintegrating means something. I don't need more trials to have an opinion that is not just superstition. I'm not going to ride any space shuttles that have missing tiles in the future, and I don't think you would either. So, some single samples are not significant, and some are.
 
rral22 said:
Nope. Life just isn't that simple.

I'm pretty sure that the single sample of the Columbia disintegrating means something. I don't need more trials to have an opinion that is not just superstition. I'm not going to ride any space shuttles that have missing tiles in the future, and I don't think you would either. So, some single samples are not significant, and some are.
Click to expand...

Mark sure you check the tiles on your next trip on a shuttle then.
 
A sample of one can depend on what you are trying to prove. Say I want a bullet that never fails, like most people would. To absolutely prove it by success you would have shoot every last one of them.That might be a little impractical .

One failure, all by itself makes the bullet fail the "never fail" test. One failure wouldn't mean much for an "always fails" test.
 
kman300 said:
We are not talking about match bullets in general but the berger hunting vld. SMK's are not designated hunting bullets, Bergers are.
Click to expand...

Berger did in fact NOT design their bullet for hunting. Some guys used it for long range shots on game with what they thought were good results for a match VLD and reported their findings to Berger. It's all on their web site. Some use the AMax for hunting as well, that doesn't mean Hornady designed it for that purpose.
 
bearkilr said:
Berger did in fact NOT design their bullet for hunting. Some guys used it for long range shots on game with what they thought were good results for a match VLD and reported their findings to Berger. It's all on their web site. Some use the AMax for hunting as well, that doesn't mean Hornady designed it for that purpose.
Click to expand...


I said designated. Not designed. Two different words with two different meanings.
 
bearkilr said:
Berger did in fact NOT design their bullet for hunting. Some guys used it for long range shots on game with what they thought were good results for a match VLD and reported their findings to Berger. It's all on their web site. Some use the AMax for hunting as well, that doesn't mean Hornady designed it for that purpose.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what happened. Not by coincidence thats the same time that Berger changed their tune from jamming the lands to jumping being OK. Its hard to sell "hunting" bullets that don't fit in the magazine.

Regarding SMKs, if I had military contracts for a hollow point very accurate bullet I'd say they weren't "Designed" to create grievous wounds too. That's just one of those fluke things that happen when you shoot men with bullets that can take out machinery.
 
Dogleg said:
A sample of one can depend on what you are trying to prove. Say I want a bullet that never fails, like most people would. To absolutely prove it by success you would have shoot every last one of them.That might be a little impractical .

One failure, all by itself makes the bullet fail the "never fail" test. One failure wouldn't mean much for an "always fails" test.
Click to expand...

Is there a bullet that passes the "never fail" test? What constitutes failure? Weight retention? Exit wound? Penetration depth? Blood trail? Distance traveled after the shot? Did you kill and retrieve said animal?

I challenge anyone to define this and have everyone agree. This is of course the reason such discussions exist in the first place.
 
kman300 said:
Is there a bullet that passes the "never fail" test? What constitutes failure? Weight retention? Exit wound? Penetration depth? Blood trail? Distance traveled after the shot? Did you kill and retrieve said animal?

I challenge anyone to define this and have everyone agree. This is of course the reason such discussions exist in the first place.
Click to expand...

OK. Now you are starting to sound like a "fan". Can you say, "Rationalization?"
 
Dogleg said:
A bullet that doesn't reach the vitals on a broadside shot is a total failure.
Click to expand...

Regardless of impact speed and whether or not the bullet was used the way it was intended? I was reading about a fellow not to long ago, that was using a 6-06ai with the 90gr accubond on deer and was having some not so good results. Bad bullets?
 
rral22 said:
OK. Now you are starting to sound like a "fan". Can you say, "Rationalization?"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how asking for a definition of bullet failure makes someone a "fan" of any particular bullet. You will get many different answers from different people on what is, and is not, bullet failure. A perfect example of this is when I just recently posted about a 325gr ftx I used at 2275fps out of my muzzle loader to kill a buck at ~10 yards. The bullet traveled from behind his ear, all the way through the neck bones and was found on his opposite side under his scapula. People said the bullet failed since all I found was the jacket. The fact that it was a point blank shot, went through over a foot of bone and the deer was drt didn't mean squat to the people saying it failed. I think it's a great bullet and will use it again. By my definition it didn't fail. I enjoyed my steaks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom