Blended Metal and the worthless, cruel videos that prove nothing.

[mbt2001]

This is pathetic. These jerks are not trying to conduct real tests... They are trying to increase business through scandal...

 

[lamazza]

I thought the idea of skilled hunting was a quick clean kill. If you look past the sickening, sadistic nature of that video, the ammo and the skill of the shooter both stink.

 

[Justin]

Justin,
You are officially an animal rights nutwhack now, sorry!
Actually being against animal cruelty doesn't mean you even favor animal "rights", just humane treatment.

No, I'm not.

Only a sapient creature capable of articulating its rights has them.

That I'm patently against needless cruelty to animals hardly means that I'm in favor of the animal "rights" movement.

 

[NineseveN]

Don't worry, with a grapefruit spoon, sawdust and enough crack cocaine you should be over it soon

 

[KaceCoyote]

They just lost my business.

 

[gunner03]

No. No it isn't. Not even for fancy new bullet technology hogwash... er... sorry about that. But no, animal testing is not necessary in this application. We have enough testing materials and know how to bypass this sort of lowbrow testing. Drugs and other products is one thing... but bullets? Please. That's just being stupid.

This may be, I don't work in a lab and maybe I don't have all the facts. However if in fact it is necessary as a final test,so be it. I would rather see 100 pigs killed this way, than 10 LEO or Soldiers because they trusted an unproven round. I'm not saying this should be a first step, or ''what would happen if '' thing. Last and final only,and the number of animals kept to a minimum. The round must pass all other tests first. I don't like it, but I can live with it. If it was, as someone suggested an advertising video, then it is unnecessary and unacceptable.

 

[CentralTexas]

No, I'm not.

Only a sapient creature capable of articulating its rights has them.

That I'm patently against needless cruelty to animals hardly means that I'm in favor of the animal "rights" movement.

The above was your reply to this post of mine-
"Justin,
You are officially an animal rights nutwhack now, sorry!
Actually being against animal cruelty doesn't mean you even favor animal "rights", just humane treatment."

Justin,
Ease up, God forbid anyone thinks that! Let me walk you through this as I seem to have done a poor job in communicating-

Justin,
You are officially an animal rights nutwhack now, sorry!
Humor & can't believe after the next sentence you thought I was serious.

Actually being against animal cruelty doesn't mean you even favor animal "rights", just humane treatment.

It does seem you don't favor animal rights & are in favor of humane treatment as I wrote above correct???
CT

 

[Hawk]

The round must pass all other tests first.

It didn't.

I did a search and found some of the most creative reasons imaginable for why it wouldn't work in ballistic gelatin and needed living tissue to perform.

Body temperature?

The fact that anyone would even repeat such starry-eyed conjecture in writing is astonishing. The claims defy science and invoke magic.

The naiveté required to believe some of that stuff is truly breathtaking.

I'd boycott the stuff but there wasn't much chance of my buying any in any event.

 

[gunner03]

O.k. I did a short search on goggle and found an article on ArmedForcesJournal.com It makes claims that seem a bit out there.

During a telephone interview last month, Thomas said the bullet he fired struck one of the attackers in the upper left quadrant of the buttocks, killing him immediately. Under most circumstances, a 5.56mm bullet striking a person’s buttocks wouldn’t be expected to create a fatal wound. The shot was made at a distance of about 110 meters, Thomas said, using a standard M4 carbine with a 14.5-inch barrel.

I’ll spare the details, but when Thomas and his colleagues later examined the body they couldn’t believe the destructive effects caused by that 5.56mm round.

I stand by what I've said before, but this case may not be justified. Like I said I don't work in a lab. but some of what they claim don't sound right. Maybe it is and maybe it ain't.

 

[Vex]

In regards to testing live animals in general, not to this specifc video (which I won't download now since I'm at work)...

All kinds of consumer products are tested on animals. Lots of other scientific research is done on animals. I've even heard of dogs being drowned. It's necessary and vital because it saves the lives of people. Testing ammunition on animals is also necessary, as a verification of gel testing. Gel only simulates generic muscle tissue anyway, not bone or any organs which react differently than ballistic gelatin. If you think animals are more important than people, than I find you disgusting. Also, unless you are already opposed to all animal testing, hunting, and are a vegatarian, you'd be a hypocrite if you said it was wrong to test weapon effects on live animals.

Regarding Bulmer, though, that guy is a scam artist. His high-speed techno pseudo-military operator goobldey-gook is pure comedy.

CentralTexas, you can call PETA a terrorist organization, because it and its leadership support terrorism. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare individual members of churchs and the NRA to the senior leadership and unofficial policy of an organization.

It's possible to test the ammunition through general hunting without having to tie a poor, helpless animal to a fence to see how much it squirms around. They could have given some of this ammunition to hunters and checked the corpses of the animals shot during hunting season. This would be acceptable, would give more test subjects (100 rounds to hunters, 100 bodies to test), would be more "humane," and would give more real-world experience for the ammo.

I'm not opposed to ALL anumal testing, I'm a hunter, and I'm not a vegetarian... but I still know when I see something that is morally and ethically WRONG.

 

[Meplat]

First of all, this is a PeTA site. How do we know the video wasn't manipulated?? PeTA often does things to make them seem worse than they are. I do not trust PeTa or any other terrorist group to tell us or show us the truth.

I'd have a hard time believing ANYTHING from PETA's site without corraborating evidence.

Ever hear the term, "running around like a chicken with it's head cut off"?? This dates back to the days when people actually slaughtered their own livestock. When the head is cut off, there are a few minutes that the chicken can still run around. Of course, without the head, it can't "see" anything. After it's all done, it becomes dinner.

You mean as in the "olden days" of twenty years ago in my case? lol.

We raised and slaughtered chickens for sunday dinner, two steers a year and several hogs (we had a big family) and rabbits and quail for table and sale. In all of this, though, the quickest and most humane approach possible was used to dispatch. With the larger critters, it was a .22 to the brain, as my Dad made the best souse you've ever tasted, and the old .22 dropped them outright without ruining any of the head meat. (He also liked scrambled eggs and brains, although I could take them or leave them). Never noticed much of the aforementioned squealing and flopping about with the hogs, as long as a clean brain shot was made. Miss, though, as my big ol' dumb cousin's husband found out, and it's hard to bring them down. Same with steers. Draw a line between the eyes, aim at the halfway point, raise aim an inch and a half, and the most we ever saw was a couple of post mortem kicks and the releasing of the bowels.

Chickens (at least I theorize) fall under a much lower life form. Sort of like beheading a snake (which will twist and turn for hours after losing their heads). Somewhere in between. I think their CNS's are wired differently than larger (and larger brained) creatures. I don't think they suffer any worse for the chopping block, it's just that their bodies seem to operate on a more autonamous level. Rabbits were dispatched with a tap behind the ears from a length of re-bar, and went stiff and then lights out. Out of all the animals we had to slaughter, the rabbits were the only ones that truly bothered me.

That being said, I cannot imagine shooting an animal in a non-CNS location when butchering for the table. He's there, he's not moving, and it is no problem to dispatch as cleanly and efficiently as possible. To shoot one in the body not only wastes meat, it does nothing to "prove" or "disprove" a bullet's performance in the game field. Not too many big game animals are harvested while tethered broadside from a few feet away. Seems like inhumane treatment at the least. I know my Dad woulda skinned MY hiney if I'd ever done anything like that.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

How do you know what the "unofficial" policy of an organization you don't belong to is? How do you know all PETA members support terrorism?

I have seen enough evidence to support my conclusion. And I did not say that all PETA members support terrorism. But enough important ones, and the ones with the money, do support it, so that's why I say the organization supports it. I saw clips from the hbo dog show and I don't see how the fact that one kennel doesn't treat its dogs well is relevent to this discussion.

You can be a realist and know that animals need be killed to provide food and even sometimes used for medical research and still be against things like cosmetics testing, un-needed cruelty and suffering, etc.

No, we don't need to kill them for food, as whey protein is an even better source than real meat. I'd like everyone who is against testing ammo by shooting animals to also declare that they are completely against all sport hunting. It isn't necessary, and many kills aren't clean, even by the best-intentioned hunters. At least be consistent. And would you rather cosmetics be tested on people first?

"Testing ammunition on animals is also necessary, as a verification of gel testing."

No. No it isn't. Not even for fancy new bullet technology hogwash... er... sorry about that. But no, animal testing is not necessary in this application. We have enough testing matterials and know how to bypass this sort of lowbrow testing.

Yes it is. We do not have enough testing materials to bypass what is the most realistic testing possible not involving humans. Are there simulants for bones in gel? What about different organs, like the liver? The liver is damaged by temporary cavity stretch alone, unlike normal muscle. How about gel specific to every other organ? How about measuring specifc blood loss due to hits to the heart--does heart tissue react the same as all other tissue? What about making refinements in gel to make it more accurate, if necessary? What about the effects of temporary stretch on nerves--does it stun them? I think gel testing is good, but there are still a lot of things I'm curious about that I haven't seen answered by it. Considering how the technology is relatively new, I don't see how you can say it's already perfect, the be-all and end-all. Also, animal rights activists make the same arguments you do about testing animals for every other purpose, including medical testing.

 

[PvtPyle]

I have to go with the animal rights freaks for once. While I love the taste of flesh, and will eat meat over anything else on the planet (beef, pork, fish, muscles, shellfish, chicken, you name it) and having no illusions as to where the meat comes from, I think this whole "test" is a load of crap.

If a company wants to test a product, they should be tested in the manner in which they will be used. In other words, shooting these animals was stupid and a waste of time. They should have sent the ammo to theater and had it tested on terrorists. Heck, the Army even has an entire group that is supposed to test new equipment, and they see combat fairly often.

But this was just stupid for them to do, and cruel to match.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

To shoot one in the body not only wastes meat, it does nothing to "prove" or "disprove" a bullet's performance in the game field.

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/1-6600.asp

Roy Weatherby, on an African safari, intentionally gut shot dozens of plains animals with a .257 Wby. Mag. rifle in an attempt to demonstrate this theory. Most (perhaps all) were one shot kills. I understand that he even killed a Cape buffalo with his .257 Magnum.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I have seen enough evidence to support my conclusion. And I did not say that all PETA members support terrorism. But enough important ones, and the ones with the money, do support it, so that's why I say the organization supports it. I saw clips from the hbo dog show and I don't see how the fact that one kennel doesn't treat its dogs well is relevent to this discussion.

No, we don't need to kill them for food, as whey protein is an even better source than real meat. I'd like everyone who is against testing ammo by shooting animals to also declare that they are completely against all sport hunting. It isn't necessary, and many kills aren't clean, even by the best-intentioned hunters. At least be consistent. And would you rather cosmetics be tested on people first?



Yes it is. We do not have enough testing materials to bypass what is the most realistic testing possible not involving humans. Are there simulants for bones in gel? What about different organs, like the liver? The liver is damaged by temporary cavity stretch alone, unlike normal muscle. How about gel specific to every other organ? How about measuring specifc blood loss due to hits to the heart--does heart tissue react the same as all other tissue? What about making refinements in gel to make it more accurate, if necessary? What about the effects of temporary stretch on nerves--does it stun them? I think gel testing is good, but there are still a lot of things I'm curious about that I haven't seen answered by it. Considering how the technology is relatively new, I don't see how you can say it's already perfect, the be-all and end-all. Also, animal rights activists make the same arguments you do about testing animals for every other purpose, including medical testing.

You are obviously just argumentative and not willing to see the reality of this situation. There was no need for this. Nothing you say will change that. Food is a legitimate reason to kill an animal and even then I believe it should be done humanely. Keep using your flawed "all or nothing" arguments all you want. It doesn't make your stance any stronger.

 

[Meplat]

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/1-6600.asp

Perhaps. But African big game guides used to cringe when they saw a client debarking with a Weatherby rifle in it's early days. They knew that the bullets used were not sufficient to reliably function at the velocities they were being pushed to. It took a while for bullet technology to catch up to WM ballistics, and many a wounded game animal was the result of this.

I do, btw, notice that Weatherby attested to (most) of the animals being harvested with one shot, I didn't however, see any indication of how long and protracted their suffering might have been.

I still don't see how this is any proof of anything, unless you advocate deliberately gut shooting game animals with hyper velocity bullets of sub-par quality for that particular animal and at that particular speed.

As for the Cape Buffalo, Finn Aagaard once wrote of his first buff. While sneaking around on his father's ranch looking for an antelope for the table, he ran across a sleeping Cape, placed the muzzle of his rifle very close to the beast's ear, and dropped hammer. He also related of the whaling he took from his Dad for having shot one of the most dangerous game animals alive with a .22 Hornet.

So, it can be done....but should it?

And I certainly hope Mr. Weatherby at least had the common decency to dress his own animals after this particular "feat". I'd hate to think he left the unsavory chore to some poor African who most likely would have had better sense to deliberately gut shoot game animals.

 

[Mad Chemist]

When shooting animals, shot placement is the key, with penetration a close second. It doesn't matter if you use a .50 BMG or a pellet gun, if the bullet perforates the heart, the animal will die quickly. If it hits the brain stem, it will be nearly instant. The only real differences are margin of error in hitting vitals, and slight difference in time to death due to difference in hole size.

Gelatin takes out the infinite, uncontrollable, unknown, immeasurable variables present with animal shootings, and gives you a very definite way of seeing how much damage bullet X does compared to bullet Y. If you measure that X bullet makes 2x as big a hole in gelatin than Y bullet, then you know that under identical circumstances in the field, X bullet will make 2 times as big a hole as Y bullet. But circumstances are never identical. The best you can do is generalize that X bullet is probably better, based on gelatin tests. If you actually went out and shot things with X and Y bullets, you would need to do literally thousands of shootings with each bullet to get anything of statistical importance.

If you flip a coin 10 times, you know what your chances are of it coming up heads 5 times and tails 5 times? It's not 1/2. It's closer to 1/4. Now imagine trying to find a statistical correlation between heads and tails, using a sackfull of coins, which can each only be flipped once. But all the coins have holes randomly drilled in them, some have the same thing on both sides, some are made of lead on one side and aluminum on the other, some have internal voids, some are bent, etc. Every single coin is different from the rest. And every single flip is different from the rest. How many flips would it take before you got the expected half and half? With a data set that screwed up, it might never happen. That's the problem with testing bullets on animals. No two animals are the same, even if you could somehow shoot every animal in exactly the same place every single time.

Exactly right. These types of test provide no reliable data, and do not follow any reasonable experimental controls. They have no research value as far as terminal ballistics are concerned. It's pseudoscientific BS, as well as a perfect demonstration of wastefulness and cruelty.

JH

 

[c_yeager]

I have no problem with animal testing as a rule, even for the purposes of testing balistics, however, testing that serves no purpose other than PR is damn immoral when it comes at the suffering of a living being. I believe that you owe an animal a certain amount of respect for the exchange of it's life, you owe it to the beast to have a good reason for what your doing. The death of an animal becomes immoral when it lacks purpose, and there is no purpose to this.

 

[Mad Chemist]

No, we don't need to kill them for food, as whey protein is an even better source than real meat. I'd like everyone who is against testing ammo by shooting animals to also declare that they are completely against all sport hunting. It isn't necessary, and many kills aren't clean, even by the best-intentioned hunters. At least be consistent. And would you rather cosmetics be tested on people first?

This is a ridiculous statement.

While growing up, my family often relied on elk and venison to feed ourselves. Money was tight and we sure as hell could not afford whey protein shakes at the health food store. :banghead: Hunting is an essential skill for survival.

I'm not sure if your intent is to be inflammatory or if you just enjoy parading your own ignorance.

Yes it is. We do not have enough testing materials to bypass what is the most realistic testing possible not involving humans. Are there simulants for bones in gel? What about different organs, like the liver? The liver is damaged by temporary cavity stretch alone, unlike normal muscle. How about gel specific to every other organ? How about measuring specifc blood loss due to hits to the heart--does heart tissue react the same as all other tissue? What about making refinements in gel to make it more accurate, if necessary? What about the effects of temporary stretch on nerves--does it stun them? I think gel testing is good, but there are still a lot of things I'm curious about that I haven't seen answered by it. Considering how the technology is relatively new, I don't see how you can say it's already perfect, the be-all and end-all. Also, animal rights activists make the same arguments you do about testing animals for every other purpose, including medical testing.

If you really want to put a fine point on it, this ammo IS intended for use on humans. So if ballistic gelatin, digital ballistic modeling, and metallurgical testing, cannot provide data that is analogous to human results, then I doubt that the pig tests would be a close enough approximation either. I guess the only real solution is to test is on people.

JH

 

[PvtPyle]

No, we don't need to kill them for food, as whey protein is an even better source than real meat. I'd like everyone who is against testing ammo by shooting animals to also declare that they are completely against all sport hunting. It isn't necessary, and many kills aren't clean, even by the best-intentioned hunters. At least be consistent. And would you rather cosmetics be tested on people first?

Yes, I do need to kill them for food. I dont eat whey, and I dont like vegatables. I LOVE meat.

And yes, test the cosmetics on people. If they absolutely have to have it, some of them should be willing to take one for the team. Besides, what do you have against pretty animals?

 

[CentralTexas]

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/1-6600.asp
Roy Weatherby, on an African safari, intentionally gut shot dozens of plains animals with a .257 Wby. Mag. rifle in an attempt to demonstrate this theory. Most (perhaps all) were one shot kills. I understand that he even killed a Cape buffalo with his .257 Magnum.

I'd have a hard time believing anyone with a vested interest in anythings conclusions.
CT

 

[Meplat]

This is a ridiculous statement.

While growing up, my family often relied on elk and venison to feed ourselves. Money was tight and we sure as hell could not afford whey protein shakes at the health food store. :banghead: Hunting is an essential skill for survival.

I'm not sure if your intent is to be inflammatory or if you just enjoy parading your own ignorance.

I seem to vaugely recall a long ago week and a half all of...lessee...oh yeah,
it was this past late August/early September - when we ate squirrels, rabbits and such to survive. Woulda had deer, but Katrina had blown over so many trees that getting in the woods and digging them out post surgery was just not practical.

If you really want to put a fine point on it, this ammo IS intended for use on humans. So if ballistic gelatin, digital ballistic modeling, and metallurgical testing, cannot provide data that is analogous to human results, then I doubt that the pig tests would be a close enough approximation either. I guess the only real solution is to test is on people.

No kidding on that one. I don't know how a tethered, unsuspecting dumb animal at close range even remotely approximates an adrenaline charged, fear crazed battlefield opponent. I guess it's because it doesn't. Which makes such experiments cruel, inhumane, and pointless.

Some kind of justification was made earlier (or so it seems) because Roy Weatherby went out and gut shot a bunch of plains game with his .257 WM rifle. I think that if anything, he did that because he knew bullet technology of the time was far behind his velocity curve, and were he to properly place a bullet, it would have the same result that big game guides had been seeing...bullet blow up. It didn't take shooting tethered animals to verify this. Ballistic gel would have (and probably did) bear this out. One thing Weatherby DID do was begin a revolution in bullet design with his high velocity creations, though. Still, the stunt of shooting a Cape Buffalo with a .257 caliber bullet goes a long ways towards shedding some light on this man's mindset. It shows a callous disrespect for the animal in question, and a callous disregard for his PH's and their bearers. The minimum caliber requirement for Cape Buff is .375, and for good reason. Governments generally frown on wounding animals that left in that condition go around trying to find villagers to take their rage out on. Therefore, the PH's are the ones who have to wade into the brush and finish a Cape off...so that three or four Afrcian's don't wind up as paste later.

 

[Justin]

You are officially an animal rights nutwhack now, sorry!
Humor & can't believe after the next sentence you thought I was serious.

Actually being against animal cruelty doesn't mean you even favor animal "rights", just humane treatment.

Honestly, CT, I stopped reading after the first line. You've posted things just as silly as the first line before, with no humor implied.

 

[gunner03]

I did do a small search and found this ammo does not perform in gelatin.They say it takes body heat to activate,that sounds fishy to me. After reading the few things I found on this, it seems as if they are trying to prove something with no scientific base. That puts it into the '' what would happen if '' category which makes it unjustified in this case.

It's possible to test the ammunition through general hunting without having to tie a poor, helpless animal to a fence to see how much it squirms around. They could have given some of this ammunition to hunters and checked the corpses of the animals shot during hunting season. This would be acceptable, would give more test subjects (100 rounds to hunters, 100 bodies to test), would be more "humane," and would give more real-world experience for the ammo.

The only problem I have with this is if the round is faulty or substandard it could lead to allot of wounded,crippled,and un-recovered animals. Every year there are a number lost animals using proven technology, I don't think that's an area we want to try out experimental stuff. At least a penned animal can be
put down if your ''test'' fails. I also fail to see how shooting a deer with a faulty round is more ''humane'' than shooting a pig with the same thing.

 

[CentralTexas]

Honestly, CT, I stopped reading after the first line. You've posted things just as silly as the first line before, with no humor implied.

I don't find my viewpoints "silly", I consider them different than yours (but that's my opinion of course).. It makes no sense to read any part of my post if you won't read it completely. If you really feel that because of your post where you frowned on the pig testing, that I would consider you an animal rights whack job, well, You must think me a total moron, and if that's really the case I wouldn't bother reading what I type.
I don't find what you write silly, I just disagree with some of it.
CT