Aparently Randy Brooks (Owner of Barnes) had some type of paton infringments of the X bullet. The X and Fail Safe are very similar with the exception of the steel cup and coating. Have no ideas of the mony involved. It happened when fail safes first came out, I belive the early 90's give or take. It was hushed over and an agreement was made. That is all I know.
16 replies [Last post]
Mon, 2006-04-24 00:36#11
Mon, 2006-04-24 05:40#12
If you get Field and Stream, check out this month's issue. David Petzal has a really good article on 3 new bullet designs and he also talks about fail safes some.
In my personal opinion, fail safes are too expensive for the job they do and I can get the same performance with something that doesn't cost a dollar a pop, but if your not concerned with that it's probably one of the best rounds out there, definately the most complicated.
Mon, 2006-04-24 09:08#13
Field and stream you mean that magazine from New York city? (Manhatten)
Yep Very pricey I feel they went a little overboard on construction. My bag of Corlocks seem to be fine on deer. I just liked how well they grouped and I have no fear of fail safe going through both shoulders on a elk. I have 3 boxes of 140 grain and am hoping they last me a long time.
Mon, 2006-04-24 17:31#14
Realize that "in the day" corlocks and silver tips were the "premium" super bullets. They both still very work well.
Sat, 2006-04-29 00:47#15
I think that the Fail Safe and the X bullet's had one big flaw and that was that hollow point. Years ago I did some testing and found that those little hollow points sometimes closed upwithout expanding and the bullets bent. Recently I read a great article on bullet failure by an Aferican PH that was claiming the same thing. In his experience, the X type bullets were remarkable but, they failed more than any other bullets. Once he recovered a bullet under the hid of an animal on the same side it went in on, the bullet shank was bent. He went on to say that the problem went away in large bores.
This year, Winchester and Barnes both have put a poly tip in their bullets, I doubt it's for better B.C. If you stop to concider the normal ranges we generally shoot animals, we don't need all that B.C. What I suspect is that it's to make the bullet open up EVERY time. If your shooting one bullet with a BC of say 375 and another, in the same rifle, of say 425, you'll never really see a practical difference. The 154 gr Hornady RN in .284 has what would appear to be a lousy BC but, out to 250 or so yds it'll give all the trajectory and penetration you need.
Penetration is a product of energy and velocity. To much velocity can actually retard penertation. Ballistic Coefficent and Sectional Density are mearly an indication of a bullets ability to overcome gravity and it's ability to penetrate. Both seem to be awful subjective and hazy as nobody really tells us just what these numbers mean. They are in fact assigned figures more usefull as hype than anything. How would you select what may be the best bullet based only on these figures?
Origonally Ballistic Coefficent's were assigned from fireing tests against the Standard Projectile. It had a radius of ogive of two (2), indicating a round nosed bullet, it had a BC of one (1). I've never heard what it weighed but a 750 gr 50 BMG bullet has a BC of a shade over one (1), and it is a spitzer type.
I think what I'm trying to say here is that we can get carried away in this bullet selection deal. And it's a lot of fun talking about it but, the truth is, 50 cal lead balls from cap locks have killed very big bears and spears have killed elephants. Today we are blessed with the most advanced bullets ever and in the end they don't kill an animal any deader than an old crappy Cor-Lock!
The best bullet out there is the medimum to heavy for caliber bullet that shoots best in your rifle and is strong enough to retain most of its weight.
Thu, 2006-05-18 12:49#16
kinetic energy is velocity squared x 1/2mass. This is one of many formulas used to compare bullets. You have stated that penetration is =the answer (energy) plus half the equation(velocity)
(Penetration is a product of energy and velocity)
Huh? This makes no sense. weight?
If the bullet stays together and is stabalized, show me one example where a bullet (the same bullet) penetrates less if going faster. I have many lbs of balistic gelatin, newspaper wet or dry whatever you choose. I am very willing to learn about this and this would interest me alot. Please tell me more.
also Sectional Density is not that hard. To calculate a bullet's sectional density divide the bullet's weight (in pounds) by its diameter (in inches), squared. Fancy tips mean nothing to SD but they sure do have an effest on terminal ballistics. Shoot a rabbit with a 38 wadcutter than a roundnose hard lead same velocity and weight.
I do agree with you on every thing else most of this stuff is hype to sell something new.