Curious what folks opinions may be of these. The cross section is of the new Hornady steel solids (this one is a 500 grain .458). The steel at the tip measures .105 to .110. On the sides it tapers from .080 towards the top to .070 towards the base. How does this compare to other lead core steel solids?

If you section one of the "old" Hornady steel jacketed solids they look the same, except for the flat nose. Can only be better than the old ones, but it's the 458 in your pic, which has the most exaggerated flat nose.

Whether the "flat-ish" nose will have any real effect on peneytration, who knows. The flats on the 416 and 375 solids are tiny in comparison.

I've already written to Hornady to suggest that what I really want is a flat, flat nose solid just for double rifles. When Boddington or Sundra or someone "discovers" the new Hornady flat nose solids for doubles, you'll know where you read it first.

Will

Couldn't you use the GS Custom flat nosed solid. I'm pretty sure the driving band system makes them suitable for use in doubles?

Hi
i have both the old style and the new production solids in 300 gr for 375H&H. the old ones have no steel jacket at all and the new FP solids have steel jacket. which i could test by magnet. I wish somebody made a test of the new solid FP bullets . they look like woodleigh solids.
regards
yes

quote:

Originally posted by yes:
Hi
i have both the old style and the new production solids in 300 gr for 375H&H. the old ones have no steel jacket at all and the new FP solids have steel jacket. which i could test by magnet. I wish somebody made a test of the new solid FP bullets . they look like woodleigh solids.
regards
yes

What you have as "Old" is the intermediate solids that has a brass shell and a lead core. The "real old" solids were steel jacketed!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Will

Couldn't you use the GS Custom flat nosed solid. I'm pretty sure the driving band system makes them suitable for use in doubles?

Steve,

Of course could use the FPS like GS or North Fork. But then they're not as cheap as Hornady's!! At least for practice.

I figure in a bolt 458 WM, just load a GS or NF in the chamber and then regular (Hornady) solids in the magazine. I don't want to worry about those FP solids feeding 100% of the time.

Just as important, how thick is the Copper plating?

Don't want to mess the barells of my rifle with steel against steel!

Will

When I first saw the GSC flat nose, I took one look at it and thought there's no way on God's earth that's gonna feed in my rifle....... when I loaded a few I found out I was wrong..... they feed like butter.

I guess I should have realised that Gerard was gonna get it right!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Will

When I first saw the GSC flat nose, I took one look at it and thought there's no way on God's earth that's gonna feed in my rifle....... when I loaded a few I found out I was wrong..... they feed like butter.

I guess I should have realised that Gerard was gonna get it right!!!!!

That is a function of bolt action and not the bullet. In the few rifles I have tried, the FPS would not feed reliably.

And it depends upon how you define feeding reliably. Slow, fast as you can push the bolt back and forth. Start to load, then stop halfway, and then start again. Withdraw the round halfway and then push it back in.

Not implying it in your case but I am always skeptical of what one means by "feeding slick as snot."

All of my DGRs feed the GS Custom FN solid 110%, but I had to tweek them to do so, but that is something everyone should do, I would not own a DRG that wouldn't feed everything from lead to beer cans, its my arse thats on the line.

That said the Hornadys look very good and the cost is also a factor with some. I don't allow cost to be a factor when hunting DG however, that is not prudent IMO...

Ray,

I was not focused on the cost, it just looked like a good bullet. It is steel (I can pick it up with a magnet), the meplat is flat (not like a GS or NF but not rounded either), the steel thickness on the end looks stout (.105-.110 inches or .25 to .27 cms). Plus in Hornady's Heavy Magnum the .458's are getting upwards of 2200 fps. Not looking to go cheap, but overall the bullet looked good to me but I did not know how it compared to other lead core steel solids in terms of jacket thickness. I am not a huge fan of Hornady's but this one looked pretty good.

i am taking these and the newly designed hornady soft points (DGR) for buff this summer in tanzania. shooting a 458 lott.

It looks like an excellent bullet to me. My only question would be how rough they would be on barrels.

465H&H

I am with Mike. If Hornady has learned their lesson and is making a world class solid, I for one, will be happy to give my money to an old line American company, whose products I have used for years. There is also the greater probability that the product will be easier to acquire domestically, for those of us who like to shoot a lot. I like and used the Woodleighs in my 400 Nitro, but I had to buy them in large lots because they were/are frequently out of stock here in the U.S. When you are getting everything ready for your hunt and making your weekly range sessions, the last thing you want to hear was what I heard from both Midway and Huntingtons, "We expect them in anytime, they may be held up in customs!" I don't care about the price either, nor does Mike or anyone else I know, but if the Hornady works and costs less, it won't break my heart! It seems like some folks believe that you have to pay a big price for a Boutique name bullet or it won't work and that a'int always so. Now if they just get their homework right with their DG softs, They can get all my money! Lee.

I would use them if they would feed in my bolt actioned .458 Lott rifle.

Note that I have not yet tried them, so I don't know if they will feed or not.

But that big, wide, flat meplat is a bit worrisome, so I would sure as shootin' have to find out before facing anything that might bite back.

HI
Long ago when i was young nearly all the ammo makers made ammo in both soft point and solid even 3030 could be find with these two versions . now there are plenty of soft point and monolitic expanding bullets available , but not a single of those good old fashion solids. those old fashion solids were very useful when you wanted the meat for the pot. today even hunters buy their meat from supermarket and very few cares about the venison. I wish hornady makes solid fp bullets even in smaller caliber like . 6,5, 7 mm . 30 too. an solid fp bullet is a good killer. I hope Ray can give us some comments about those old day solids.
regards
YES

Before there is panic in the streets about these solids, they are exactly the same much touted, and highly regarded, Hornady steel jacketed solid of old. Both the old Hornady and Woodleigh solids have the "same" copper clad steel jackets.

The only difference now is the flat nose.

Hey Will, I think the construction may be similar, but it appears that the new Hornadys may have a bit thicker steel jacket. I need to dig out some of the old and section them along with the new to know for sure. I think the new may surpass the old in performance(I Hope)

Yes,
I do remember the old 30-30 solids, we used them on the ranch and a carefully placed flatnose solid in 30-30 killed them pretty well. They sometimes ran 75 to 100 yards, but they do that with softs sometimes..The problem is they don't leave much blood sometimes..

We also used black market GI 30-06 ammo during WW-2, as that was all we could get on ocassion..My dad made a deal with Ft. Bliss (El Paso, Tex.) that let them bury the access stuff they had on hand on our sandhill ranch, that way they used up all that was given to them. If they had excess supplies of any kind, then the powers that be would cut their budget, so they dumped a lot of needed stuff...Dad bought a old used back hoe and dug all of that stuff up including barrels of rationed gasoline, 30-06 ammo, 30 carbine, tea and coffee to name a few things, everything was rationed and you had to have stamps to get it if you recall.. Dad became a black marketeer, a rough around the edges Robin Hood of sorts. He gave all that we didn't use to our neighbors and friends and in those days that was like giving gold away..He could have become a very rich man...

We shot a lot of deer with those Milsurp pointed solids, even a few with tracers..We snipped off the end and exposed the lead. Sometimes they blew up and killed like lightening and sometimes we had a long drawn out tracking job on our hands, but my dad and grandad could track. My grandad was a Texas Ranger assigned to I think Gen. Pershings army to track down Apaches and Mexican horse theives on the Rio Grande and he could flat track, it was almost an out of body experience to watch him track...I gleaned as much as I could absorb from him, but never have been nearly as good.

I sure am glad we have good soft points today, and I like to use a pretty tough bullet as l
I,like you. hate to see bloodshot waste..I could live on venison..A good 220 Gr. bullet in the 06 works pretty good and my 25-35 with a flat nose point soft point works about as well as anything I have used...I still hunt deer with it every year, and in the late 40s they made a few solids for it and that made a good turkey, Javalina load and worked well on a trap line.

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Hey Will, I think the construction may be similar, but it appears that the new Hornadys may have a bit thicker steel jacket. I need to dig out some of the old and section them along with the new to know for sure. I think the new may surpass the old in performance(I Hope)

I sectioned one of the new ones (like the photos above), one of the old ones, and a Woodleigh. Without the calipers, they all look the same. I need to get a photo to post, someday!

Will,

I would love to see that pictures of the Woodleigh and the "old" Hornady. That is what really prompted my question in the first place, trying to see how the "new" version compared to the old.

Would it suffice to say "Buy a copy of my next book"?

I'll post it next week. But old guys tend to forget!

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Would it suffice to say "Buy a copy of my next book"?

I am just glad that you are back to selling books instead of miscellaneous articles of clothing, shoes, half-eaten candy bars and the like. It had me worried. I was about to take up a collection for you but finally realized that it had all been a carefully orchestrated ploy on your part to try and generate sympathy . . . and perhaps a little cash. I was pretty pissed off though that someone beat me to the "I'll take it" punch on the half eaten Butterfinger.

I still have mountains of "stuff" to get rid of if the wife successfully gets me to move to Florida to be by the grandkids.

Butterfingers? That reminds me, I have a couple of half eaten box of crackers around here somewhere. They're yours.

. . . Ritz peanut butter crackers I hope.

Can you feel the crumbs...I mean the love in the room?

quote:

Somehow, I just can't get over my steel-based ammunition prejudice since the use of steel shot in shotguns proved to be such a debacle. Can I be assured that steel solids would be different?

P.S. I realize that there are no magic bullets and that I must place my shots correctly. So let's start from there.

So no ideas at this point? Pity that.
Then I'll just spend my money elsewhere.

quote:

Somehow, I just can't get over my steel-based ammunition prejudice since the use of steel shot in shotguns proved to be such a debacle. Can I be assured that steel solids would be different?

P.S. I realize that there are no magic bullets and that I must place my shots correctly. So let's start from there.



So no ideas at this point? Pity that.
Then I'll just spend my money elsewhere.

Steel jacketed solids have been around forever. Many old doubles were fed nothing but steel jacketd solids. Other than copper clad soft-points that was all that was available. With over a century of use I think any problems would have show up by now.

Jason

quote:

Steel jacketed solids

Aha! I am sometimes hard of hearing in my eyes as well.



Thanks for the correction.