McGuire Ballistics field and terminal reports

[Schmo]

Maybe this is only ironic to me....

The OP here, who is selling a product, doesn’t answer all of the questions or provide data (or at least as responsively/sufficiently as is possible). But he’s got defenders (which is of course fine). Meanwhile, in the S2H Podcast thread, Form is getting questioned for imagined or hypothetical conflicts of interest (as if he's secretly selling a product), and because his data hasn't been tabulated in a spreadsheet (that is my characterization - not word for word).

You’re basically correct!

 

[The Guide]

It’s tumbling after penetrating the animal, which is a great thing and the best way to increase wound channel in monos. That’s awesome.

The weirdness was when Sam seemed to indicate that the damage wasn’t from yawing, or that they don’t frequently yaw, etc. I don’t think any of its malicious — it just seems like he doesn’t know how own product.

A good monumental that consistently yaws would be the answer for a lot of us. It’s what people are asking for.

That's what I'm saying! If we could get some actual testing on this design that shows the real BC and at what twist and velocities the bullet yaws and tumbles at consistently (if there is one), these bullets would be excellent for lower velocity rounds that do not have enough velocity at distance for consistent fragmentation. Bullet destabilization has a huge stigma about it. Bullets shouldn't destabilize in air but when hitting a fluid based medium they have already completed their job in flight medium and can start ripping and tearing their way through the object they've hit. Based on their rear weight bias, the slower they hit an object the higher the chance for upset and tumbling to a point of minimum penetration where you would get no pass through or upset.

Jay

 

[DagOtto]

Maybe this is only ironic to me....

The OP here, who is selling a product, doesn’t answer all of the questions or provide data (or at least as responsively/sufficiently as is possible). But he’s got defenders (which is of course fine). Meanwhile, in the S2H Podcast thread, Form is getting questioned for imagined or hypothetical conflicts of interest (as if he's secretly selling a product), and because his data hasn't been tabulated in a spreadsheet (that is my characterization - not word for word).

Agreed. This is why I backed-off of my initial complaint that it seemed like the "Formies" were piling on. I am now thinking that no matter who you are, and no matter what you are selling or not selling, someone on these forums is going to do everything they can to tear you a new one! Form certainly takes an undo amount of unreasonable crap. Even here at Rokslide which has to be considered his safe space!

 

[Wiscgunner]

2 things that come to mind here for me besides the debate on negativity...

1) Not wanting to discuss the tip "design" difference between the Single feed and the magazine feed. Is it perhaps as simple as he anneals the tip of some bullets to soften them for better expansion and labels them as "single Feed" to avoid damaging the softened copper nose?

2) All this talk about tumbling and yawing bullets makes me think of PVA's Cayuga bullets that are intended to break the tip off and tumble and have verified higher BC's. These did not seem to gain traction very much I think because everyone wants that beautiful flower petal expansion and tumbling is a nasty moniker for your bullet.

I would be interested in trying some of the McGuire bullets, not to prove myself disgruntled at the comparison to factory numbers but to compare to others on the market. Hammers are extremely accurate and easy to load but the BC's are 25-30% over exaggerated. Doesn't change their precision but it does limit the use case (distance) for me. I think we are all in search of the perfect bullet that works 100% at all velocities but there really is not such thing. Until there is I certainly don't mind compromising and practice lets me know the limitations of my bullets. Worst case scenario is to have a close range bullet loaded and a long range bullet at the ready. Not 100% ideal situation but the only way I see it to get the same perfect results at 3000fps as I do at 1500fps.

Most of the time I am too lazy or simple minded to change bullets under pressure so when I plan to take only one bullet, I shoot grenades and try to put them in areas of the animal I don't plan to eat. I would rather waste some meat on a quickly dead animal than have all the meat on a slowly suffering animal pumped full of fear and whoremoans.

 

[wyosam]

2 things that come to mind here for me besides the debate on negativity...

1) Not wanting to discuss the tip "design" difference between the Single feed and the magazine feed. Is it perhaps as simple as he anneals the tip of some bullets to soften them for better expansion and labels them as "single Feed" to avoid damaging the softened copper nose?

2) All this talk about tumbling and yawing bullets makes me think of PVA's Cayuga bullets that are intended to break the tip off and tumble and have verified higher BC's. These did not seem to gain traction very much I think because everyone wants that beautiful flower petal expansion and tumbling is a nasty moniker for your bullet.

I would be interested in trying some of the McGuire bullets, not to prove myself disgruntled at the comparison to factory numbers but to compare to others on the market. Hammers are extremely accurate and easy to load but the BC's are 25-30% over exaggerated. Doesn't change their precision but it does limit the use case (distance) for me. I think we are all in search of the perfect bullet that works 100% at all velocities but there really is not such thing. Until there is I certainly don't mind compromising and practice lets me know the limitations of my bullets. Worst case scenario is to have a close range bullet loaded and a long range bullet at the ready. Not 100% ideal situation but the only way I see it to get the same perfect results at 3000fps as I do at 1500fps.

Most of the time I am too lazy or simple minded to change bullets under pressure so when I plan to take only one bullet, I shoot grenades and try to put them in areas of the animal I don't plan to eat. I would rather waste some meat on a quickly dead animal than have all the meat on a slowly suffering animal pumped full of fear and whoremoans.

Not sure how this company lists the source
Of their BC numbers, but when looking at bullets on Hammer’s site they list where they come from. Earlier bullets “calculated from shot drops” was common, mostly “estimated” now. Both should tell you to take them with a big grain of salt. I also wonder if trueing BC is a lot harder on less dense bullets with more complex shapes due to drive bands than sleek bullets much heavier for length. Maybe more variability from velocity, rpm, and maybe even environmentals that existing drag models don’t account for well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ens Entium]

I'd be interested to hear how this is significantly different from other copper monolithic bullets out there (compared to a cutting edge or Badlands for example). While they may have different designs being monolithic it's still copper at the end of the day.

From my understanding something like a TMK and ELD-M the separation of the copper jacket and the more dense ductile lead both lead to significant tissue destruction. This destruction hopefully will lead to less tracking jobs. This is why I am looking forward to testing the DRT with the tungsten core.

 

[Wiscgunner]

Not sure how this company lists the source
Of their BC numbers, but when looking at bullets on Hammer’s site they list where they come from. Earlier bullets “calculated from shot drops” was common, mostly “estimated” now. Both should tell you to take them with a big grain of salt. I also wonder if trueing BC is a lot harder on less dense bullets with more complex shapes due to drive bands than sleek bullets much heavier for length. Maybe more variability from velocity, rpm, and maybe even environmentals that existing drag models don’t account for well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to derail from McGuire bullets but shows how some like PVA provide BC details.

“The bullet designs are all measured via acoustic chronograph and/or Doppler radar ”