quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
I don't disagree that a soft point would be preferable for the first shot. But still, a well placed solid brings on quick death, despite what Don Heath writes.

Also, a solid will reach the heart and lungs when the buff is departing after the first shot.

I carried two Woodleigh softs on a separate 2rnd slide on my belt - only solids in the cartridge belt's cartridge loops for fear of a FU and loading a soft for an elephant - with the hopes of trying one on a buff. Somehow, the opportunity has never come up when I had the softs with me or I didn't have time to switch, or maybe forgot. Don't recall the reasons.

JPK

I believe that Don stated that a below 40 cal solid did not kill buff quickly when hit in the heart.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
In my quote in your post, I just noted that the 500 grain Woodleigh 458 solid veered. How did you miss that?

If you consider a spent bullet sliding along the inside of the skin it's last inches of travel rather than piercing it to be veering, I suppose. I don't consider that to be veering.

Even taking that result as a veering bullet, it makes two of about 75 or so veering, totally in contradiction of wet paper prediction.

Compare that with the wet paper prediction that FN's of the shape I used will not veer but yet two did, one in the extreme.

Equally poor prediction, no?

JPK

No I am not, how you got that I do not know. The bullet entered the right should made a hard left turn narrowly missing the heart and lungs (amazingly) and ended in the muscle of the rear. Is this more clearly explained. The bullet veered of course pure and simple. An improper nose shape/profile flat point my and can do the same thing, just as the wet pack tests indicate.

jwp475,

Did the deflected bullet hit one of the shoulder bones?

465H&H

Yes it did, it cracked a main support bone but did not rendere the leg unusable.

From my experience it appears that a solid bullet that hits an elephant's large leg bone with a glancing blow, can either ricochet off of the bone or become unstable and tumble going pretty much straight on after wards. A bullet that hits a large hard bone like an elephant femur or humerus with a glancing blow, slows down more on the side that contacts the bone which causes it to lose stability. It really can't remain stable under those conditions and it really doesn't matter what the nose shape is. You can't argue with basic physics.

465H&H

465H&H

As I posted above no more than a 5 to 10 degree angle, take a round ball peen hammer. Swing it very hard into a heavy steel plate the hammer will glance in one direction or another now try the same with a flat on the end of the ball peen and it only bounces back. Can't argue with physics.

For a straight on blow, you are most likely correct. But we are talking about a glancing blow where only one side of the bullet makes contact with the bone.

465H&H

Seems to me that slowing one side would induce a tumble, but not in the case that I witnessed.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
I don't disagree that a soft point would be preferable for the first shot. But still, a well placed solid brings on quick death, despite what Don Heath writes.

Also, a solid will reach the heart and lungs when the buff is departing after the first shot.

I carried two Woodleigh softs on a separate 2rnd slide on my belt - only solids in the cartridge belt's cartridge loops for fear of a FU and loading a soft for an elephant - with the hopes of trying one on a buff. Somehow, the opportunity has never come up when I had the softs with me or I didn't have time to switch, or maybe forgot. Don't recall the reasons.

JPK

I used to load solids in the magazine under the school of thought that the second shot would be at a straight away departing animal. Its an accepted technique, but is based on an assumption or two.

First it assumes that the buffalo is running straight away and not in whatever direction it was pointed at the time, and not whichever way it thinks is the best escape route, and not whichever way the rest of the herd went. Fact is, it could run in any direction, and most of those directions are better handled with a soft.

Next it assumes that driving a solid into its heart/lungs from the rear is the best or only way to handle the situation. It might work, but breaking the hips with a soft or the solid will also work. So will spineing it. I know this; not from a theory of which way its going to run, or an age old tradition, or the story from the old PH, or the new PH that read the old PHs story but from having done it many dozens of times.

I started with one soft over a mag of solids, and eventually went to two softs, then none. That progression was because of what I'd seen and done, not because of what I initially believed from being told or what I'd read. I still carry solids just to see if the world has changed from the last time, and often use softs that I don't believe are the best for the application but at least think are good enough to try. I don't know of a better way to find out what they will really do.

Yes, spining them as they run away works like a charm, but the spine is a relatively small target on a moving buff.

Best to use a solid so that if you miss the spine the bullet will still reach the brain or heart/lungs.

The solid which broke this bull's spine exited through his boss. The exit whole is visible on the right boss as you look at him. He was dead when he dropped and a spine shot on a departing buff won't do that since it will be too far back to kill him outright. The bullet was a 450gr NF FN solid.

This bull had a scrotum full of maggots from being hooked by another bull. He was very ornery, but he still ran away (down slope) after the initial shot into the chest, which was with a 500gr Woodleigh RN solid - note the copious blood coming out of his nose and mouth. From first shot to death was but a few moments. He wasn't going far even without the spine/brain shot which dropped him.



JPK

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
I don't disagree that a soft point would be preferable for the first shot. But still, a well placed solid brings on quick death, despite what Don Heath writes.

Also, a solid will reach the heart and lungs when the buff is departing after the first shot.

I carried two Woodleigh softs on a separate 2rnd slide on my belt - only solids in the cartridge belt's cartridge loops for fear of a FU and loading a soft for an elephant - with the hopes of trying one on a buff. Somehow, the opportunity has never come up when I had the softs with me or I didn't have time to switch, or maybe forgot. Don't recall the reasons.

JPK

I believe that Don stated that a below 40 cal solid did not kill buff quickly when hit in the heart.

The frontal area of a bullet grows out of proportion to it's growth in diameter. Bigger holes are always better. But death is inevitable when the heart has an entry and an exit whole.

You gotta think Don's trackers must have sucked for him to be concerned about the different death rate produced by a, say, .375" whole through the heart and a .416" whole through the heart.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
Seems to me that slowing one side would induce a tumble, but not in the case that I witnessed.

I have never seen tumbling initiated by a glancing blow, but I have seen glancing, or in the case of one FN, a divot sufficient to induce a curve into the bullet's track, i.e. veering.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
I don't disagree that a soft point would be preferable for the first shot. But still, a well placed solid brings on quick death, despite what Don Heath writes.

Also, a solid will reach the heart and lungs when the buff is departing after the first shot.

I carried two Woodleigh softs on a separate 2rnd slide on my belt - only solids in the cartridge belt's cartridge loops for fear of a FU and loading a soft for an elephant - with the hopes of trying one on a buff. Somehow, the opportunity has never come up when I had the softs with me or I didn't have time to switch, or maybe forgot. Don't recall the reasons.

JPK

I used to load solids in the magazine under the school of thought that the second shot would be at a straight away departing animal. Its an accepted technique, but is based on an assumption or two.

First it assumes that the buffalo is running straight away and not in whatever direction it was pointed at the time, and not whichever way it thinks is the best escape route, and not whichever way the rest of the herd went. Fact is, it could run in any direction, and most of those directions are better handled with a soft.

Next it assumes that driving a solid into its heart/lungs from the rear is the best or only way to handle the situation. It might work, but breaking the hips with a soft or the solid will also work. So will spineing it. I know this; not from a theory of which way its going to run, or an age old tradition, or the story from the old PH, or the new PH that read the old PHs story but from having done it many dozens of times.

I started with one soft over a mag of solids, and eventually went to two softs, then none. That progression was because of what I'd seen and done, not because of what I initially believed from being told or what I'd read. I still carry solids just to see if the world has changed from the last time, and often use softs that I don't believe are the best for the application but at least think are good enough to try. I don't know of a better way to find out what they will really do.

Yes, spining them as they run away works like a charm, but the spine is a relatively small target on a moving buff.

Best to use a solid so that if you miss the spine the bullet will still reach the brain or heart/lungs.

The solid which broke this bull's spine exited through his boss. The exit whole is visible on the right boss as you look at him. He was dead when he dropped and a spine shot on a departing buff won't do that since it will be too far back to kill him outright. The bullet was a 450gr NF FN solid.

This bull had a scrotum full of maggots from being hooked by another bull. He was very ornery, but he still ran away (down slope) after the initial shot into the chest, which was with a 500gr Woodleigh RN solid - note the copious blood coming out of his nose and mouth. From first shot to death was but a few moments. He wasn't going far even without the spine/brain shot which dropped him.



JPK

Nice buffalo.

My first straight away shot on a buffalo was my fourth one. As luck would have it, it was also the first one that I tried 2 softs on top. I was carrying a .375 H&H with 270 grain A-Frames and the initial shot was a straight on frontal. The first shot took him square above the wish-bone. He was visibly staggered and spun in his tracks, presumably to leave. My second shot took him in the hip to the right of the root of the tail, wrecked a couple feet of spine before coming to rest under the hide of the left shoulder. I don't think he made it a body length, and to be honest I don't know if he would have even tried since the two bulls with him never ran.

A .375 and 270 grain A-frames wouldn't have been my first choice for consecutive lengthwise shots on a buffalo, but there was no arguing that two less than optimum scenarios were handled quite well with a little gun and softs. After that I quit worrying about all softs, and went on to shoot 9 buffalo total with that rifle and load before trading it to a friend recently. With full house .458s I don't have a care in the world.

I still haul solids along, partly for science and partly in case something comes up where the last word in penetration is needed. It hasn't happened yet, but you never know. We shot 81 buffalo one day and there wasn't a solid bullet around. Nobody missed them, despite every angle shot you can name being taken. That day a .458 Win, .375 H&H and .378 Weatherby were used with TSXs, Partitions and Woodleighs. The .375 guy switched back and forth between Partitions and TSXs, so although I think he was using Partitions that day I won't swear to it.

I have not had a chance to read all of this thread but will do.

I have only shot 1 Ele and 1 Cape Buff. I used a 416Rigby and Woodliegh Hydro's. The Buff ran about 50mt and droped dead, blood every where. that was a front on shot and the bullet was found 6" from exiting the ham. The Ele was a brain shot and droped to the shot, bullet exited not to be found. Both Hydros traveled in a straight line.

From other calibres and the results I and friends have seen useing the Hydro's in I'll stay with the Hydro's for my solids.

Having read the whole thread, and interesting reading it is, I have come to a conclusion, one I came to long ago.

Bullets, particularly in flesh and bone, do not always act in a manner that is predictable.

Yeah, I know that is old news but still holds true. No matter what tests are conducted or what actual experience shows, there will, at some stage, be an anomaly.

One aspect of terminal balistics that, to me, peole over look, is the effect the spin of the bullet has on the bullet when it hits an obstacle.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:
you are wasting your time, gerard. the faithful are unwilling to listen to your heresy. don't you know the world is flat?

It is my observation that the flat nose solid crowd seems to be far more obtuse and close minded when it comes to alternative views but whatever . . .

True, that...

Perhaps the 'flat nose crowd' have realised that the whole situation can use more consistency and a more reliable terminal result. A result that can be relied upon to be the same more frequently.

This lead them to try more combinations than 'the round nose crowd', widening their base of experience. Perhaps they were also at a place where they thought a particular problem could not be solved but, for some reason, took an additional step. Perhaps this took them down the path where they realised that anomalies can happen but, that the incidence and bad outcome can be reduced.

Now it is a matter of what the 'flat nosed crowd' knows that the 'round nose crowd' does not know. No fault here, it happens in all walks of life where there is a more reliable way to do anything.

Anomalies can happen, that is a given and, if one is happy with the status quo, carry on as usual. When these anomalies cause serious grief and one goes in search of a solution, sometimes that solution comes.

quote:

This lead them to try more combinations than 'the round nose crowd', widening their base of experience.

Shooting into wet paper trophies, plywood trophies, water bucket or bag trophies or any thing other than live or fresh dead game, or elephant heads in the case of that anticipated use, does NOT widen or add to any base of knowledge regarding bullet performance in real game, on real hunts, in the real world.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

This lead them to try more combinations than 'the round nose crowd', widening their base of experience.

Shooting into wet paper trophies, plywood trophies, water bucket or bag trophies or any thing other than live or fresh dead game, or elephant heads in the case of that anticipated use, does NOT widen or add to any base of knowledge regarding bullet performance in real game, on real hunts, in the real world.

JPK

Thats just utter rubbish and show a lack of knowledge of the scientific process.

And for someone that claims to value real world experience--to Dismiss Don Heath's experience is ridiculous.

SSR

It never takes the bullet shills long to show up.

Unable to read 4 pages of horse-feathers
BUT
I did get more than 8 ft penetration ( side to side) on an elephant, mon a shoulder shot.Using GSC flat nose solids out of 505 gibbs at 2200 fps.
regards

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
It never takes the bullet shills long to show up.

Mike

What on earth do I have to do with shilling bullets?

I just hunt with them and like the most effective ones I can find.

Is there a reason you have turned into an asshole?

Another interesting observation: I notice that it is predominantly the 'round nose crowd' who use the argument that the 'flat nose crowd' is hawking product when the 'flat nose crowd' give their input. When some of the 'round nose crowd' give their input, it is regarded as irrevocable truth.

JPK,

GSC has always done preliminary testing in water. We can see what the bullet looks like when it is recovered and from that, how it is likely to react in tissue.

Then we go to field testing on live animals if we are dealing with unknown factors and want to investigate further.

We have learned that a particular result in water will give a particular result in tissue. We do not test in water to see what the water looks like. We use water to stop the bullet so that we can examine the bullet. There is little point in taking a bullet afield that does not react in a certain way in water.

To pre-empt Alf's comment on water: GSC does not use ice or steam for preliminary testing and the water is used purely as a stopping medium for the bullet, so that the bullet can be examined.

A little edification on the definition of a shill, from Webster's:

1

a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)

b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter

I think "or serves as a promoter fits most of the flat nose wet paper trophy crowd.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
A little edification on the definition of a shill, from Webster's:

1

a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)

b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter

I think "or serves as a promoter fits most of the flat nose wet paper trophy crowd.

JPK

Can say the same for the round nose crowd as well.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
A little edification on the definition of a shill, from Webster's:

1

a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)

b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter

I think "or serves as a promoter fits most of the flat nose wet paper trophy crowd.

JPK

Can say the same for the round nose crowd as well.

In a word, no.

pro·mot·er
prəˈmōdər/
a person or company that finances or organizes a sporting event or theatrical production; a person involved in setting up and funding a new company.

How many of the folks that take the time to share their personal experiences using round nose bullets own, are involved with in a commercial sense, or receive free product from round nose bullet manufacturers? To my knowledge, none.

I think common usage of "shill" includes some sort of a compensation for the shill.

All the "flat nose wet paper crowd" gets out of the whole thing is a reliable bullet that works for DG. If anything they pay to use those products rather than getting compensation for use.

Now, you yourself have used FN bullets successfully on game, so I don't understand why you disparage people that prefer to use FN bullets by calling them "flat nose wet paper trophy crowd" when those people also have shot game with those bullets.

With an 11 pound limit on ammo, most people will pick a bullet and stick with it whether it is FN or RN for their choice of solids (not to mention all the load development, sighting in time etc.). FN worked for me on elephants this year, so I'll use it again on an elephant next year.

If recommending something based on a personal experiences makes one a "shill" I guess a lot of companies from Apple to Zappos need to send me some goodies.

quote:

Originally posted by phil ossifer:

I will try and post pictures of the recovered Barnes solids (when I learn how to do this)--the flattening or riveting of the front section is quite apparent and probably hindered further penetration.

I have had a Barnes flat nose solid riveting badly on buffalo when hitting bone. I don't think that it's a matter of shape, rather of material/alloy.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
...
How many of the folks that take the time to share their personal experiences using round nose bullets own, are involved with in a commercial sense, or receive free product from round nose bullet manufacturers? To my knowledge, none.

Are you suggesting that the guys (other than Gerard) recommending FN bullets are involved in "a commercial sense" or "receive free product" from the manufacturer?

You are an attorney, so presumably you know the difference between allegations versus facts.

What do you base your claims on?

I do not recall mentioning anyone by name . . . perhaps Gerard was the only person I was referring to . . .

If you prefer to be called a proponent, that is fine. No need to feel defensive.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
It never takes the bullet shills long to show up.

Mike

What on earth do I have to do with shilling bullets?

I just hunt with them and like the most effective ones I can find.

Is there a reason you have turned into an asshole?

He was always an asshole.

George, does this mean that I will not be getting a signed copy of your book on shooting secrets?

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:
I think common usage of "shill" includes some sort of a compensation for the shill.

All the "flat nose wet paper crowd" gets out of the whole thing is a reliable bullet that works for DG. If anything they pay to use those products rather than getting compensation for use.

Now, you yourself have used FN bullets successfully on game, so I don't understand why you disparage people that prefer to use FN bullets by calling them "flat nose wet paper trophy crowd" when those people also have shot game with those bullets.

With an 11 pound limit on ammo, most people will pick a bullet and stick with it whether it is FN or RN for their choice of solids (not to mention all the load development, sighting in time etc.). FN worked for me on elephants this year, so I'll use it again on an elephant next year.

If recommending something based on a personal experiences makes one a "shill" I guess a lot of companies from Apple to Zappos need to send me some goodies.

As Webster's points out, not necessarily so regarding shill and compensation.

Through use on one of only two reliable testing mediums - live or fresh dead animals or ballistic gel [or live or fresh dead elephant heads for that medium since it connot be replicated,] I have become an advocate for FN solids in some circumstances and for RN solids in others.

As I have written at length in previous posts, sometimes RN solids deliver better performance and sometimes FN solids deliver better performance. A RN solid is never a poor choice, though sometimes a FN will deliver better-for-the-circumstances performance, and vice versa.

I do not disparage the flat nose, wet paper trophy shooting crowd for their choice of bullets, just reply to their ridiculous religious like belief and proselytizing espousal of wet paper trophy shooting as predictive of real bullet performance in real game on real hunts in the real world and for their flat earth denial that the RN solid offers an adequate and often better performance option.

11lbs of ammo is plenty of ammo. I went on a seven week safari killing nine elephants a buff and lots of other non dangerous game with my 458wm double and my 375H&H bolt. All of the elephants, the buff and a baboon stuck in a snare with the double, the rest with the 375. I was carrying several rounds of barrowed ammo at the end, but never used them.

Moreover, with the attributes of a RN and those of a FN, loading even a bolt rifle for always adequate and almost always optimal use would call for, when hunting elephants, a RN up the spout and a magazine full of FN's. Or for everything else, a good soft or maybe two, a RN and then FN's. Pretty simple stuff really.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:


Can say the same for the round nose crowd as well.

In a word, no.

Moreover, those on the RN side of the debate have - to a man - used both RN and FN solids on real DG game on real DG hunts in the real world.

The [lack] of experience, especially with RN solids, on the wet paper trophy side is glaring and almost universal. Ergo, the ignorance is almost universal.

For example, repeating - with utter ignorance and a complete lack of experience - the ignorant claim that one ought to expect a RN solid to veer, exit a DG animal and fail to penetrate adequately. Of course based on wet paper trophy hunts which cannot and do not predict real world performance of real world bullets on real world animals on real world hunts.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

This lead them to try more combinations than 'the round nose crowd', widening their base of experience.

Shooting into wet paper trophies, plywood trophies, water bucket or bag trophies or any thing other than live or fresh dead game, or elephant heads in the case of that anticipated use, does NOT widen or add to any base of knowledge regarding bullet performance in real game, on real hunts, in the real world.

JPK

Thats just utter rubbish and show a lack of knowledge of the scientific process.

And for someone that claims to value real world experience--to Dismiss Don Heath's experience is ridiculous.

SSR

This is perhaps the most contradictory post on all of AR.

There are two mediums for testing bullets, and only one to be relied upon. Those are ballistic gel - for preliminary use only, which I should have mentioned, and real live or fresh dead animals. Or in the case of elephant heads, there is only an elephant head, live or fresh dead, since an elephants skull cannot be replicated.

Wet paper trophy hunting is not testing, is surely not "scientific" testing, is not predictive of actual field results with ANY bullet and is a laughable "substitute" for real testing or real use.

Don Heath, aka Ganyana, bases his advocacy of FN solids - for PH's - on their observed performance and his experience with them on real hunts for real DG animals. [I could not agree more fully, more completely, more whole heartedly with him! And I have written at considerable length and advocated the same for years.]

So the grand contradiction - a poster's advocacy for a bullet based on an unscientific un repeatable, unpredictable phony so called test and the same poster citing an advocate whose advocacy devolves from anything but wet paper trophy shooting.

JPK

Guys,

I have never shot an elephant with anything and can offer no advice on that issue. I have killed but four measly buffalo, all four using solids. My first buff was taken in Chete in Zim using a .470 NE Heym double and BELL RN solids. I recovered one bullet from that bull and it had obviously hit bone as it was bent slightly. The other three were all shot in Tanzania in Masailand, using a custom .458 Lott loaded with my handloads using 450 grain Barnes FN solids at about 2250 fps. I recovered two bullets from one bull that travelled the full length of the body and were recovered in the chest. I could have reloaded either of them and used them again.

In all cases, I used solids as that is what my PH requested me to use. We were mostly hunting in thick jess and he preferred his clients use solids under those circumstances. I complies with his wishes. One of the buffs took but one shot through the lungs, and before I could get a 2nd shot off, he had disappeared in the thick stuff. He did not go ten yards before dying. The other three, I shot as often as they were still standing.

In my very limited experience, both RN and FN solids worked just fine on buffalo. If I ever go after another buff, and my PH doesn't object, I will load a quality soft in my rifle for the first shot, and follow it with solids, most likely the Barnes 450 grain bullets as I have a small supply of them. By the way, Mike indicated that Barnes dropped their FN solid due to its inferior design, or at least that is how I interpreted his comments. That is not the reason I got from Barnes for dropping the FN. What I was told was that they were getting too many complaints from customers having troubles getting the FN to feed properly. Any good riflesmith can have a rifle feeding them like a hot knife through butter. In fact, my Lott fed them so well that I could not feel the new round stripped out of the magazine and into the chamber. I took the rifle back to my 'smith and had him roughen it up just enough that I could feel the new cartridge feeding into the chamber. However, apparently some don't have their African rifles worked over by a competent professional before chasing dangerous game. There was also some mention of the ATF talking about solids and "cop killer" bullets. I don't remember the details of that discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Tsquare2:
By the way, Mike indicated that Barnes dropped their FN solid due to its inferior design, or at least that is how I interpreted his comments. That is not the reason I got from Barnes for dropping the FN. What I was told was that they were getting too many complaints from customers having troubles getting the FN to feed properly.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Amazing, there are actually people that believe that round nose solids are preferable to flat nose solids in certain applications. Who would have thought . . . but again what do the folks at Barnes, Duane Wiebe, Keith Wood and others of "that ilk" really know? Luddites, yes, that is what they are Luddites!

Pass me another cup of Kool-Aid and a graham cracker.

Just so the record is clear Tom. The quote above is from another thread on this same issue. I even included the article from Barnes and the Barnes press release. The issue has debated ad naseum.

Mike,
No skin off my nose, one way or the other. In my very limited experience, I noted no difference in performance between RN and FN solids. As to the reason for dropping the FN by Barnes, I can only report what I was told. But, it came from a source that should know. I wouldn't hesitate to go hunting with either shape. The nits are too small for these old eyes to tell the difference.

Tom, given your comments above on feeding, you might scan the article above. Duane (Wiebe) has some interesting observations on feeding and the implications of making the ramp adjustments necessary to feed the flat nose bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
... Duane (Wiebe) has some interesting observations on feeding and the implications of making the ramp adjustments necessary to feed the flat nose bullets.

I am a bit confused from Duane's comments. He states that if one makes the adjustments to have FN solids feed reliably then that can prevent RN solids from feeding.

Now, I have never used RN solids and most likely will never use them as I am happy with the FNs. However, I do use hollow points, and tipped hollow points (Raptors and tipped Raptors). I have been feeding those reliably as well. Though as far as the outside shape goes there is no difference between Safari Raptors, and Safari solids. The tipped Raptors are a different story though.

So, I am curious to the reasoning that the steeper angle of feeding would impact RN bullets, but not the tipped bullets.

Also, looking at the two types of bullets (Barnes, and Safari Solids) there really is not a heck of a lot of difference in external geometry, so I would not think the modification to the feeding ramp would be that drastic assuming the gun magazine needs adjustment (not all do). My lefty Montana 1999 action needed adjustment, whereas my M70 action was happy as a pig in mud.

Mike,

I did note Duane's feeding comments. I've known Duane far too long to doubt anything he says about rifles, and I can understand that it would be possible to set up a rifle to feed FN solids and screw it up for feeding anything else. I've personally only had the experience with one rifle, the custom .458 Lott built on a pre-64 Model 70 action. Curt Crum worked over the feeding on that rifle and it feeds anything I've fed it with equal ease. When I took the Lott to Tanzania, I took equal numbers of ammo loaded with the 450 grain FN solid and 450 grain TSX soft. There are no feeding issues with either, or any other bullets that I've used in it. I have not run any RN solids through it, but I doubt that would cause any problems. Another big plus for that rifle is that it shoots the FN Barnes solids and the 450 grain Barnes TSX to exactly the same POI. While my DG hunting is most likely behind me, I'll keep that rifle just in case another opportunity arises the future.

Least we forget - Duane said CAN not will.

A "feeding oops" from a knowledgeable gun might be recoverable; a butcher job from a hack likely results in a "new action" required scenario.

Not all RN Solids "caliber to caliber" or "caliber to weight" have the same nose shape from seating groove to tip even within the same manufacture's line of bullets. The same can be said for many brands of FN solids.

My Echols Legend feeds GS Flat nose, Barnes banded solids and North Fork without a problem. However (and I agree) D'Arcy told me to focus on reliability. As I have used succesfully Woodleighs FMJ I do not have a problem with it. One of my last elephant was shot with a 416 Rem Barnes Banded Solid as a first shot and round nose Barens ( Rem Factory ammunition) for the following shots. Clearly I was impressed with the flatnosed Barnes. So in the future I will stay with this routine: a flat nose solid followed by round nose solids or FMJ's. In my rifles maybe not necessary but just to optimize the feeding.

"We have learned that a particular result in water will give a particular result in tissue. We do not test in water to see what the water looks like. We use water to stop the bullet so that we can examine the bullet. There is little point in taking a bullet afield that does not react in a certain way in water."

I could not pass up on this one !

Consider for a moment if you will the gravity of this statement.

Not that water tests are reported as being done or their value , but rather How does GSC actually go about doing water trapping of bullets.

Especially their FN solids ????

How big a volume of water do you need to trap a 45 cal , 416 or 375 FN bullet going full tilt ?

Home swimming pool ? Olympic size pool? Methinks there may be a problem here

If these bullets actually do what is claimed we are talking about penetration distances beyond any simple readily available body of water ! Not only that the container holding the water is going to be of special construction !

Forensic bullet water traps have limitations in that they are capable of trapping commonly used handgun bullets only.

The chamber of the typically used forensic water trap is not large enough to trap high velocity rifle bullets nor strong enough to withstand the pressures generated by firing high velocity bullets into them.

It would be quite something to ventilate a water trap with a FN solid when the trap costs around 20,000 US$ ( the typical cost for one of these tanks) or perhaps your backyard pool

Most high velocity bullets come part in water so so specialized bullet traps that consist of layered foam and composite synthetic batten is used.

To trap a 50 cal machine gun bullet for instance composite trap box typically is almost 30 foot long.


The military's current crop of supercavitating munitions used to kill sea mines, ie penetrate and will kill up to 200 meters (600 ft) in sea water for the larger ( 30mm) caliber The 50 cal will kill a mine at 60m , the 30 at 20 m and the little 223 will do it at 15 meters 50 ft

Imagine to trap a 223 supercavitating bullet you need quite a large body of water way way more than 50 ft.

So again I wonder about GSC trapping bullets in water ? how do they do it ?

Alf,

It is difficult to determine if your post is serious. You have pulled legs before, so I have to ask. I do not read well between the lines at all, so, are you serious?

I am dead serious Gerard:

How much ( in length) ballistic gelatine / ballistic soap or even one of these new green bullet tube "thingies" do you need to stop a well thought out FN bullet ? Or how large a body of water to trap such a bullet ?

If these bullets do what we think they do and i'm not stating this lightly, the operative word is think they do then whatever you are firing the bullet into is in for a whole lot of hurt.

Not to speak of a true super penetrator which incidentally looks nothing like any of our current crop of commercially available FN hunting bullets.

The hydro ballistics labs used to tests these bullets in use tanks that contain millions of gallons of water, they have to because of the distances these projectiles travel in water, many are tested in open water and their behaviour measured indirectly using doppler radar.


Many here bandy the word scientific around as if it's some magic pass to the truth.

The reality is valid science demands rigours way beyond the scope of the simple observations we make and inferences derived from them.

I have seen no and but this I seriously mean no study done where the true nature of the penetration event of our current crop of RN bullets are compared to our current crop of FN bullets.

For one whoever considers such a study is going to have to come up with some serious testing facility and off course funding.

Unless of course it is done by use of scaling. ie scaling the projectiles appropriately ( ie to a valid scaling model) and then performing the tests using lesser calibers requiring smaller volumes of testing media.

Alf's post raises a question in my mind that I have asked before but never really gotten an answer to. It seems that the most often stated benefits of flat nose solids are less deflection and greater penetration. Taking the first element as a given, and focusing on the second element for a minute, if more penetration is good, how much penetration is ideal? Round nose solids are criticized for lacking the penetration of the flat nose solids. But if a round nose solid (assume for an elephant hunt) has sufficient penetration to reach the brain, is that not enough? Does a bullet need to be able to penetrate an animal from stem to stern to be deemed adequate? And if it does penetrate stem to stern, is that necessarily desirable? Do not get me wrong, I understand that penetration, particularly straight line penetration is a good thing, but how much of a good thing is needed and can there be too much of a good thing? If bullet refinements result in new bullets that out penetrate the current flat nose bullets, is that even better or do the current flat nose solids represent the "ideal" in terms of penetration?