McGuire Ballistics field and terminal reports

[Ucsdryder]

This thread pretty much sums up the ugly side of rokslide. For as great as this place is, and the vast majority of people, many whom I talk to daily and hunt with now, the way a certain group of people talk to others gets so old. I’m just being direct… no, you’re being an asshole, hiding behind a keyboard. I guess it’s the way of the world nowadays where people type shit on a keyboard rather than have a conversation.

 

[bmart2622]

Because I’ve actually shot animals with them and are very aware of what they’re doing.

Whats wrong with a bullet that tumbles?? Look at how much more impressive the wound channels are because of it

 

[28bang]

Whats wrong with a bullet that tumbles?? Look at how much more impressive the wound channels are because of it

Because that’s not what they’re doing.

 

[bmart2622]

Ok

 

[Back_country_blacktail]

(Back on subject)

7 Prc. 160 single feed out of long action defiance with bdl have yet to experience any tip deformation (bullets have plenty of room). Moving 3075 at the muzzle just over 350 yards steep downhill shot. Hit high shoulder blade. Picture is once I removed shoulder. Bullet continued through shattering opposite front leg bone and exited deer didn't take a step.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

22 Creedmoor
71GR Copper Rose Magazine Feed
328 Yards
Ribs is entry hole. Back of bullet found in opposite sholder.

Any plans to make a heavier .224 in the .5 and up BC range?

 

[SDHNTR]

FWIW, I’m far from a Form disciple. I respect his viewpoints (even though his approach is anything but soft and smooth) but I think for myself. We agree and disagree on many things. For example, while I shoot a .223 regularly (killed a big boar hog 2 days ago with one), I’m not hunting elk or moose with one. I’m also not much of a Tikka fan. But we both love us some CRF M70’s.

Anyway, I only say this to differentiate myself from the group think that is all too common here. I hunt a lot and don’t need the internet to tell me what works and doesn’t. I have my own experience. Yet, at the same time, in this circumstance, I agree with Form. Even though I prefer not to go straight for the jugular and instead will attempt to give a guy a chance, it’s pretty clear to me the important details of ballistic performance are lost on this SMC fellow. Or at least his loose grasp on communication skills gives that unfortunate impression.

I for one, am this guy’s target market. I live in CA, shoot copper almost exclusively (even in other states) and am always looking for better lethality. I personally kill or take part in dozens of big game kills each year. Yet I also appreciate direct and informative responses to technical questions. And because we didn’t get that, quite the opposite, these bullets are no longer a consideration for me.

 

[Formidilosus]

Because that’s not what they’re doing.

The one elk I showed, and most of the pictures posted in this thread are absolutely yawing projectiles. There is nothing wrong with that, but stating they don’t yaw is the exact BS I posted earlier about.

 

[DagOtto]

What does that have to do with anything? The man owns a company that makes a niche product, in an industry (small
machined copper mono companies) that lie, BS’s, repeats nonsense left and right, and avoids engaging in legitimate discussions.

He may be an awesome human- neat. What does that have to do with this thread? This thread isn’t about him or about how hard he works. It’s about the product. A product that when asked questions about it, his responses and lack thereof all give the same feeling as others of the ilk.

You act as if there isn’t constant arguing and nonsense from people about match bullets and smaller caliber performance and suitability- the difference is that group doesn’t have an issue speaking in depth about the technical aspects of terminal ballistics, external ballistics, shooting performance, or anything else.

My take from what is posted on this thread is that McGuire does not know how their bullets actually work- which means they aren’t doing legitimate terminal ballistics testing, and that means that they can’t reliably state the consistency of that performance. They do not know what the BC of their bullets are- which means they do not do their own testing, or they do not do enough testing.


Just the product, not personal.

What I am frustrated with and was trying to express was that we may have lost an opportunity to work with the owner to do exactly what you say, “speak in depth about the technical aspects….”

I agree that it looks like the bullets haven’t been tested by the manufacturer in any scientifically valid way. (Gel or valid BC assessment.) I also agree that the manufacture may not even be aware that their bullet likely is regularly yawing or tumbling.

This isnt an isolated instance as we all know. Indeed, the majority of bullet makers either don't have valid performance data or dont publish it. But this guy gets called a liar and a moron for trying to bring a product to market and trying to share it. And he steps out of the conversation before its really even started.

Have we seen ELD-M or DTACs actual internal testing data? Nope, cause if they have it they wont share with the public. Yet I highly doubt that if David Tubb came on Rokslide and started posting necropsy data he would be attacked like this guy. And if he was, I have no doubt that you and Ryan and others would come to his rescue and defend him. You do that regularly for products you believe in. Rokstock and MRC in the very recent past. Im not saying that is a bad thing. But others are left to be roasted alive. Its my perception that some folks go into attack mode against anyone or any post that doesn’t conform to the group think.

Let me be clear, Im not referring to you. You stated your perception of the facts as best as you could assess them and proceeded to actually test. (Thanks for that.) But others seem out to squelch dissent and protect the order. As someone who believes deeply in fact based analysis and respect for opinions I dont appreciate it. And it seems like a trend. Ive seen it on lots of threads and it bums me out.

I hope this helps clarify what I was trying to say. I dont know Sam or his company and have never met him or purchased any of his bullets. And Id be happy to buy and mail you some of his bullets if you are interested in continuing your field research.

DO

 

[bowrunner81]

What does that have to do with anything? The man owns a company that makes a niche product, in an industry (small
machined copper mono companies) that lie, BS’s, repeats nonsense left and right, and avoids engaging in legitimate discussions.

He may be an awesome human- neat. What does that have to do with this thread? This thread isn’t about him or about how hard he works. It’s about the product. A product that when asked questions about it, his responses and lack thereof all give the same feeling as others of the ilk.

You act as if there isn’t constant arguing and nonsense from people about match bullets and smaller caliber performance and suitability- the difference is that group doesn’t have an issue speaking in depth about the technical aspects of terminal ballistics, external ballistics, shooting performance, or anything else.

My take from what is posted on this thread is that McGuire does not know how their bullets actually work- which means they aren’t doing legitimate terminal ballistics testing, and that means that they can’t reliably state the consistency of that performance. They do not know what the BC of their bullets are- which means they do not do their own testing, or they do not do enough testing.


Just the product, not personal.

I realize the owner did not do a great job explaining his product and supporting his claims. Some people just arnt good communicators. BC numbers seems to be off with some shooters in some bullets and others have reported them spot on…. But I think the terminal performance of copper bullets is really what he is trying to improve on because copper bullets struggle there. This product has shown decent wound channels in the photos provided. Is the hesitation the inconsistency? If they tend to tumble in specific higher velocity ranges and stay forward in slower velocity ranges…would this be acceptable?

 

[SouthPaw]

Any plans to make a heavier .224 in the .5 and up BC range?

That 71g mono is longer than the 88gr ELDM.

 

[The Guide]

@SMC_GUIDE If doppler radar measurement on bullets from as fast as you can shoot them to very subsonic is the industry standard for ballistic coefficient measurement, how can it not be considered a WAG on your BC readings if you are not reporting that information? Where do your BC readings come from other than back calculation from a ballistic calculator which is known to be highly variable depending upon calculator algorithm and environmental inputs. Therefore, an "estimated BC" is truly a WAG until you verify it. A heavy for caliber lead free offering with a good BC and lower minimum terminal velocity would be of high interest to those of us not required to use lead free bullets. Until then, it is just more of the same that is already available.

Jay

 

[DagOtto]

Yet I also appreciate direct and informative responses to technical questions. And because we didn’t get that, quite the opposite, these bullets are no longer a consideration for me.

Maybe Im wrong and the guy is devious and lying. But it seemed pretty clear to me from reading this thread that rather than being deceitful he simply isn't fully aware of what his bullets are doing, and doesn’t have a background or deep understanding of physics or ballistics. Clearly he isnt a marketing pro or a strong communicator either.

I wish he’d been cut a break and given a chance to engage with the Rokslide community in more depth. Id be stoked if his bullet proves to be a yawing, tumbling giant wound channel creator and the best thing this side of DTAC.

 

[Formidilosus]

This product has shown decent wound channels in the photos provided. Is the hesitation the inconsistency?

Yes. And, that this thread seems disingenuous- Only the massive wounds caused by yawing bullets were shown, not the regular monolithic behavior that they also exhibit at times. The thread about them on LRH shows lots of, if not most examples of standard monolithic wounds that are narrow and long. Then when asked about it, it was denied that they are yawing by the owner and others- @28bang is still denying that these massive wounds are from yawing (which is factually and objectively obvious).

If they tend to tumble in specific higher velocity ranges and stay forward in slower velocity ranges…would this be acceptable?

That’s not how it works. It would tend to be opposite of that- high impact velocity gives a higher probability of conventional expansion from the front and maintaining a front forward attitude; low velocity impacts do not upset and the bullets yaw.

Yawing is an exceptional wounding mechanism, and if these bullets consistently and reliably yawed they would be an excellent option. The issue is that the largest source of evidence (thread on LRH) shoes that often enough they do not yaw and you are left with narrow wound channels.
Then the couple of people using them that are posting- one of which is the owner, do not understand what they are seeing or what the bullets are doing. If they do not know that the elongated wounds with one end wide, and one end narrow- almost like a sideways bullet… are from yawing, then the bullets weren’t designed for that, most likely won’t do that reliably, and therefor people should understand not to except 6” wide wounds.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

That 71g mono is longer than the 88gr ELDM.

Was wondering, across the board, if they plan on more/other designs.

 

[bowrunner81]

Yes. And, that this thread seems disingenuous- Only the massive wounds caused by yawing bullets were shown, not the regular monolithic behavior that they also exhibit at times. The thread about them on LRH shows lots of, if not most examples of standard monolithic wounds that are narrow and long. Then when asked about it, it was denied that they are yawing by the owner and others- @28bang is still denying that these massive wounds are from yawing (which is factually and objectively obvious).





That’s not how it works. It would tend to be opposite of that- high impact velocity gives a higher probability of conventional expansion from the front and maintaining a front forward attitude; low velocity impacts do not upset and the bullets yaw.

Yawing is an exceptional wounding mechanism, and if these bullets consistently and reliably yawed they would be an excellent option. The issue is that the largest source of evidence (thread on LRH) shoes that often enough they do not yaw and you are left with narrow wound channels.
Then the couple of people using them that are posting- one of which is the owner, do not understand what they are seeing or what the bullets are doing. If they do not know that the elongated wounds with one end wide, and one end narrow- almost like a sideways bullet… are from yawing, then the bullets weren’t designed for that, most likely won’t do that reliably, and therefor people should understand not to except 6” wide wounds.

I appreciate the explanation.

 

[DagOtto]

The issue is that the largest source of evidence (thread on LRH) shoes that often enough they do not yaw and you are left with narrow wound channels.

Sorry, but can you point me to the thread on LRH? Cant seem to find. Thanks

 

[waspocrew]

Sorry, but can you point me to the thread on LRH? Cant seem to find. Thanks

McGuire Ballistics Feild Reports

300 WSM 178GR CRSF 3000FPS 250 yard exit

www.longrangehunting.com

 

[DagOtto]

McGuire Ballistics Feild Reports

300 WSM 178GR CRSF 3000FPS 250 yard exit

www.longrangehunting.com

Thanks much!

 

[28bang]

The one elk I showed, and most of the pictures posted in this thread are absolutely yawing projectiles. There is nothing wrong with that, but stating they don’t yaw is the exact BS I posted earlier about.

Ok. So you’re saying it went in caliber sized entrance, yawed all the way through and then based on your photo, made a caliber sized exit. Which was the shank by the way, not part of the bullet. If it was yawing as you say, the exit would’ve been larger, would it not?