McGuire Ballistics field and terminal reports

[28bang]

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.

Sam would answer in detail whatever you want I’m sure. Give him a call and he’ll talk to you. It’s that easy.

 

[DagOtto]

Thanks much!

I just flipped through all 13 pages of this thread on LRH and to my very inexperienced eyes I am seeing a LOT of oblong 3-4” holes. Impressive to me (at fast review speed) in comparison after going through every photo on the .243 for big game page over the last few months. And arent those oblong wounds indicitive of yawing and tumbling?

Again, Im new at wound analysis, so maybe these are bad impressions? But very few if any caliber sized holes?

Also, the majority of the posts are direct from Maguire.

So Im thinking this may not be the same thread Form is referring to?

McGuire Ballistics Feild Reports

300 WSM 178GR CRSF 3000FPS 250 yard exit

www.longrangehunting.com

 

[Formidilosus]

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….”

No. Have you read the thread? He was asked multiple questions that he avoided, ignored, of incorrectly answered. If he wanted a technical discussion he had the opportunity.

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.

And the only reason that was made obvious was because people pushed him with questions that he didn’t answer. The very thing that “frustrated” you, is the exact thing that lead you to getting useful information.

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.

No it isn’t isolated, but it is the norm for boutique mono metal companies. The only way it will stop is for manufacturers to get pushed into doing it.

You are incorrect in most companies not measuring and testing their bullets- all of the major manufacturers do legitimate ballistics gel testing, and most are using real BC numbers now.

But this guy gets called a liar and a moron

Please quote where someone called him “a liar and a moron”. If you cannot, then you are doing the exact thing that people are tired of. Posters here did not want cherry picked photos of wounds and pats on the back, they wanted honest answers- I want honest answers.

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.

He stepped out because he can’t or won’t answer questions. I have probably been called more names, cursed at, argued with, and berated than anyone on this forum ever- for only speaking on facts and demonstrable reality. If an owner of a company can’t answer technical questions about his product, that’s on him.

Have we seen ELD-M or DTACs actual internal testing data?
Nope, cause if they have it they wont share with the public.

You mean other than the fact that you can go look at Hornady Gel testing data right now on their website? Or that their BC’s are Doppler verified?

Yet I highly doubt that if David Tubb came on Rokslide and started posting necropsy data he would be attacked like this guy.

First- saying that @SMC_GUIDE was “attacked” is ridiculous. He was asked questions then would not answer them.

Second, you haven’t actually read the posts about DTAC bullets have you? Because if you had, you wouldn’t write what you did.

And if he was, I have no doubt that you and Ryan and others would come to his rescue and defend him.

As above, you haven’t actually read much of what I have written have you? Because- again, if you had it would be obvious that I call out bullshit regardless of who it’s from.

I was the first person to post on the internet to show wounds and performance from NR DTAC’s. I posted every result from every animal that first year- I didn’t cherry pick which wounds to show. Not only that, I was and have been open about the fact that they do not behave the way DTAC claims they do, and that the deep cuts perform better. So either you again haven’t read very much, or you are just gaslighting about this.

You do that regularly for products you believe in. Rokstock and MRC in the very recent past.

Stop. I don’t “believe” in anything. I came to the rescue of MRC? You either either haven’t read the MRC thread- or you are purposely being deceitful. They sent a rifle that was nonfunctional out of the box and I wrote every bit of it in the thread. I also wrote when they fixed things.
The ROKStok is objectively an excellently designed field stock, and yet I have also pointed out the BS with production and QC issues that happened. And I wrote when they have fixed things. Same with NF, Maven, Trijicon, Hornady, Sierra, Tikka, etc, etc.

Im not saying that is a bad thing. But others are left to be roasted alive.

Where’s the roast? Please quote the posts that you believe are “roasting” SMC Guide.

It’s my perception that some folks go into attack mode against anyone or any post that doesn’t conform to the group think.

What group think? Please be specific. And then I am going to ask you to provide the evidence for that “group” think. Because the only group think that actually exists here is still the myth and BS grandpappy said stuff. One could make a case potentially that “evidence based methodology” is becoming a “group think” on RS, but that isn’t actually “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.

Please quote anyone “protecting the order”. It certainly isn’t being done as a normal thing, and not in this thread.

As someone who believes deeply in fact based analysis and respect for opinions I dont appreciate it.

So you respect “fact based analysis” yet have an issue with people asking fact based questions of the owner of a bullet company, and then being skeptical when those questions either don’t get answered, or when the answer is obviously incorrect?

And it seems like a trend. Ive seen it on lots of threads and it bums me out.

Should be easy to quote in context, lots of those posts from those threads.

 

[SMC_GUIDE]

No. Have you read the thread? He was asked multiple questions that he avoided, ignored, of incorrectly answered. If he wanted a technical discussion he had the opportunity.





And the only reason that was made obvious was because people pushed him with questions that he didn’t answer. The very thing that “frustrated” you, is the exact thing that lead you to getting useful information.





No it isn’t isolated, but it is the norm for boutique mono metal companies. The only way it will stop is for manufacturers to get pushed into doing it.

You are incorrect in most companies not measuring and testing their bullets- all of the major manufacturers do legitimate ballistics gel testing, and most are using real BC numbers now.





Please quote where someone called him “a liar and a moron”. If you cannot, then you are doing the exact thing that people are tired of. Posters here did not want cherry picked photos of wounds and pats on the back, they wanted honest answers- I want honest answers.




He stepped out because he can’t or won’t answer questions. I have probably been called more names, cursed at, argued with, and berated than anyone on this forum ever- for only speaking on facts and demonstrable reality. If an owner of a company can’t answer technical questions about his product, that’s on him.





You mean other than the fact that you can go look at Hornady Gel testing data right now on their website? Or that their BC’s are Doppler verified?







First- saying that @SMC_GUIDE was “attacked” is ridiculous. He was asked questions then would not answer them.

Second, you haven’t actually read the posts about DTAC bullets have you? Because if you had, you wouldn’t write what you did.




As above, you haven’t actually read much of what I have written have you? Because- again, if you had it would be obvious that I call out bullshit regardless of who it’s from.

I was the first person to post on the internet to show wounds and performance from NR DTAC’s. I posted every result from every animal that first year- I didn’t cherry pick which wounds to show. Not only that, I was and have been open about the fact that they do not behave the way DTAC claims they do, and that the deep cuts perform better. So either you again haven’t read very much, or you are just gaslighting about this.





Stop. I don’t “believe” in anything. I came to the rescue of MRC? You either either haven’t read the MRC thread- or you are purposely being deceitful. They sent a rifle that was nonfunctional out of the box and I wrote every bit of it in the thread. I also wrote when they fixed things.
The ROKStok is objectively an excellently designed field stock, and yet I have also pointed out the BS with production and QC issues that happened. And I wrote when they have fixed things. Same with NF, Maven, Trijicon, Hornady, Sierra, Tikka, etc, etc.






Where’s the roast? Please quote the posts that you believe are “roasting” SMC Guide.





What group think? Please be specific. And then I am going to ask you to provide the evidence for that “group” think. Because the only group think that actually exists here is still the myth and BS grandpappy said stuff. One could make a case potentially that “evidence based methodology” is becoming a “group think” on RS, but that isn’t actually “group think”.




Please quote anyone “protecting the order”. It certainly isn’t being done as a normal thing, and not in this thread.




So you respect “fact based analysis” yet have an issue with people asking fact based questions of the owner of a bullet company, and then being skeptical when those questions either don’t get answered, or when the answer is obviously incorrect?






Should be easy to quote in context, lots of those posts from those threads.

Hello, I had an hour long conversation with Ryan yesterday and out of respect of what we talked about is why I stepped away. I was of the understanding that he was going to coordinate a conversation between the two of us to cover technical questions with my bullets that I am happy to answer. I am open to that at any time.

 

[Formidilosus]

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?

I’m not sure what you are actually asking, as that is the exact behavior that is common with bullets that yaw. They penetrated a certain distance, they yaw, they at some point partially or fully fragment, and then smaller pieces may exit. Yea, as stated in my post, the price that exited is almost certainly the base- as is to be expected.


A sideways bullet shaped wound, is created by a sideways bullet. Bullets that “expand” and stay point forward do not create sideways bullet shaped wounds, nor do monolithic ones create 6” wide wounds. This is not some mythical magic- it’s terminal ballistics 101 and yawing projectiles and the wounds they create are well known and proven.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hello, I had an hour long conversation with Ryan yesterday and out of respect of what we talked about is why I stepped away. I was of the understanding that he was going to coordinate a conversation between the two of us to cover technical questions with my bullets that I am happy to answer. I am open to that at any time.

You have a thread that you started- why would you not address them here?

 

[Formidilosus]

@SMC_GUIDE

My post above reads harshly, that is not intended. It was a genuine question.

 

[SMC_GUIDE]

@SMC_GUIDE

My post above reads harshly, that is not intended. It was a genuine question.

It was suggested to me and I have no problem with it. Very easy to cover questions over a quick phone call.

 

[28bang]

I’m not sure what you are actually asking, as that is the exact behavior that is common with bullets that yaw. They penetrated a certain distance, they yaw, they at some point partially or fully fragment, and then smaller pieces may exit. Yea, as stated in my post, the price that exited is almost certainly the base- as is to be expected.


A sideways bullet shaped wound, is created by a sideways bullet. Bullets that “expand” and stay point forward do not create sideways bullet shaped wounds, nor do monolithic ones create 6” wide wounds. This is not some mythical magic- it’s terminal ballistics 101 and yawing projectiles and the wounds they create are well known and proven.

So you believe it doesn’t expand, and at some point the tip fragments in the cavity?

 

[Formidilosus]

So you believe it doesn’t expand, and at some point the tip fragments in the cavity?

Where did I state that?

 

[SDHNTR]

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.

I think you are spot on in your first paragraph. But as for your second paragraph, I don’t think anyone coming here to extol the virtues of a product they’re selling deserves to automatically be “cut a break”. Quite the contrary. I think they should be expected to know the technical aspects of their product inside and out.

I have a highly technical profession. And when I am pitching a prospective client on what I do, I fully expect to be taken to task on the details and am uber prepared to answer any and all questions. I expect it. I welcome it. Bring it on. Imo, that’s how sales is supposed to work.

 

[DagOtto]

No. Have you read the thread?

Twice now. Fully.

And the only reason that was made obvious was because people pushed him with questions that he didn’t answer. The very thing that “frustrated” you, is the exact thing that lead you to getting useful information.

It seems that Im not making why I am frustrated by aspects of this thread and how the OP was treated clear. If you re-read the thread you can see others express similar sentiments. So I dont think Im crazy, but also doesnt seem worth our time to belabor this.

I get your point that the detailed questioning is valuable in getting to the bottom of things.

You are incorrect in most companies not measuring and testing their bullets- all of the major manufacturers do legitimate ballistics gel testing, and most are using real BC numbers now.

How can we know this when we discussed in posts a few weeks ago that the extremely limited gel testing data that Hornady Law Enforcement accidentally let out on the internet is the only publicly accessible manufacturer ballistic gel data out there ?

Are you telling me that you know for a certainty that all the big boys fully gel test using FBI protocol for their hunting bullets?If so, why the F would they not share this with us?

And are the inconsistencies noted with Maguire’s BC numbers more dramatic than what you are used to seeing with other small bullet makers?

Please quote where someone called him “a liar and a moron”. If you cannot, then you are doing the exact thing that people are tired of. Posters here did not want cherry picked photos of wounds and pats on the back, they wanted honest answers- I want honest answers.

Okay, Ill apologize for being dramatic with the use of those words. Too strong. Sorry.

But -
First page of posts (21) you accuse him of creating this thread to be “misleading advertising”. In my book while not using the word, thats calling him out as lying. Disagree?

Nobody actually called him a moron.

He stepped out because he can’t or won’t answer questions. I have probably been called more names, cursed at, argued with, and berated than anyone on this forum ever- for only speaking on facts and demonstrable reality. If an owner of a company can’t answer technical questions about his product, that’s on him.

Let me just take a moment here to say that I have read many, many posts where you are treated far less respectfully and with far more anger and spite than Sam has been treated in this thread. I dont know how you are able to keep doing it and I am beyond appreciative of the fact that you continue to do this work and share it.

First- saying that @SMC_GUIDE was “attacked” is ridiculous. He was asked questions then would not answer them.

Re-reading the thread I will stick to my earlier comments that certain posters were only attacking and deriding. Others like you were asking direct questions and expressing frustration at not getting clear answers. I think there is a difference. Dont you notice that when you are being negative or critical in your posts someone will almost always take the opportunity to “pile on” with non substantive content? Probably think they are being funny.

As above, you haven’t actually read much of what I have written have you? Because- again, if you had it would be obvious that I call out bullshit regardless of who it’s from.

I have read a massive amount of your content. And I agree that you call out bullshit from anyone. One of the reasons I read your stuff.

I was the first person to post on the internet to show wounds and performance from NR DTAC’s. I posted every result from every animal that first year- I didn’t cherry pick which wounds to show. Not only that, I was and have been open about the fact that they do not behave the way DTAC claims they do, and that the deep cuts perform better. So either you again haven’t read very much, or you are just gaslighting about this.

Nope, I am not gaslighting and you are miss construing my point entirely and getting defensive for no reason….

Stop. I don’t “believe” in anything. I came to the rescue of MRC? You either either haven’t read the MRC thread- or you are purposely being deceitful. They sent a rifle that was nonfunctional out of the box and I wrote every bit of it in the thread. I also wrote when they fixed things.
The ROKStok is objectively an excellently designed field stock, and yet I have also pointed out the BS with production and QC issues that happened. And I wrote when they have fixed things. Same with NF, Maven, Trijicon, Hornady, Sierra, Tikka, etc, etc.

I know, I know. My point was that when you find a product works and “believe” it is good and functional and worthy of use… not that you “believe” in some kind of blind faith way, you are the first to defend that item or practice when it is accused by others of being less than functional etc.

For the second time, Im not saying this in a negative way at all, just trying to make the very obvious point that those practices or items that have not passed your approval process dont get that defense and are more open to getting slammed by others.

You have a very large impact and influence on this site. If you defend something based on the facts as you see them then many others are likely to support that practice or item on blind faith in you. I know you are not comfortable with this and are constantly telling people to be skeptical and verify on their own. But its the truth.

Where’s the roast? Please quote the posts that you believe are “roasting” SMC Guide.

I believe that every one of the posts listed below is “roasting” Sam without asking any questions or furthering the conversation. Have a re-read and tell me if you think Im crazy.

19,21,26,36,37,62,66,105,123,125,132,138

What group think? Please be specific. And then I am going to ask you to provide the evidence for that “group” think. Because the only group think that actually exists here is still the myth and BS grandpappy said stuff. One could make a case potentially that “evidence based methodology” is becoming a “group think” on RS, but that isn’t actually “group think”.Please quote anyone “protecting the order”. It certainly isn’t being done as a normal thing, and not in this thread.

The ground Im standing on here is pretty soft. (I believe I even indicated as much two posts ago.) After reading your response I want a re-do and hereby rescind any indication that there is a specific attack mechanism aimed at protecting a specific order. It just seems that folks from all sides of a given issue are more willing to be disrespectful and aggressive on these forums than in real life.

So you respect “fact based analysis” yet have an issue with people asking fact based questions of the owner of a bullet company, and then being skeptical when those questions either don’t get answered, or when the answer is obviously incorrect?

No issue with this at all. Its the ancillary shit-throwing that I have a problem with. Re read that list of posts that are above and tell me that any of them provide fact based questions to the conversation. They dont.

 

[DagOtto]

I think you are spot on in your first paragraph. But as for your second paragraph, I don’t think anyone coming here to extol the virtues of a product they’re selling deserves to be “cut a break”. Quite the contrary. I think they should be expected to know the technical aspects of their product inside and out.

I have a highly technical profession. And when I am pitching a prospective client on what I do, I fully expect to be taken to task on the details and am uber prepared to answer any and all questions. I expect it. I welcome it. Bring it on. Imo, that’s how sales is supposed to work.

hey, thanks for this response.

Forms earlier response caused me to re-read this entire thread. I find your posts to be fantastic. Direct, NO BS, but respectful. Its a fine line that you clearly are very proficient at walking.

 

[eoperator]

-Small business owner with a great idea; If I get enough time and sales I will gain the knowledge and resources to properly test and represent my product. But I need to be careful about showing weakness or my product will not sell or will be copied by others.

-Rokslide; if you don't properly doppler radar and gel test all of your product to fbi standards in significant sample size we will not buy your products.


I ordered some of your 6mm bullets looking forward to shooting them.

 

[atmat]

-Small business owner with a great idea

But how do you know it’s a great idea if it hasn’t been tested and/or you can’t/won’t speak to technical details?

This is roughly what people are voicing complaint of.

But for some reason, lots of folks are blindly defending a company.

 

[eoperator]

But how do you know it’s a great idea if it hasn’t been tested

If 100's of impressive on game photos had not been posted already we would not be bickering about this.

EDIT
I do agree with mono bullets reputation for exaggerating bc's.

 

[atmat]

If 100's of impressive on game photos had not been posted already we would not be bickering about this.

EDIT
I do agree with mono bullets reputation for exaggerating bc's.

Are there really hundreds of photos here? Not being a jerk, that just seems like a lot for 216 posts.

Regardless, the photos are predominantly posted by the owner, while reviews on other sites are showing less than stellar photos.

Then you combine it with exaggerated BCs and a general failure of monumental companies historically — and folks have reason to be skeptical.

I would love a good mono metal option. Though I’m not totally sold on the damage that lead bullets do to raptors or the environment (mostly for lack of reading any peer reviewed papers myself), I would happily take a conservative approach and switch to copper if good bullets were available.

 

[bowrunner81]

But how do you know it’s a great idea if it hasn’t been tested and/or you can’t/won’t speak to technical details?

This is roughly what people are voicing complaint of.

But for some reason, lots of folks are blindly defending a company

I dont disagree. People are also voicing a complaint of blindly criticizing and being disrespectful to the owner.

I think all parties can learn from this thread on how to approach niche companies or thoughts/solutions/anything out of the norm, in the future.

 

[eoperator]

I would love a good mono metal option.

New ideas from a small bullet company will survive only with customer support.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

If 100's of impressive on game photos had not been posted already we would not be bickering about this.

Is there a link to these 100s of photos I could check out? There’s only about 45 or so animal/wound/bullet photos in this thread.

I’d love to see more if you could link them please.