I have a ruger magnum bolt action and it looks like im going to need to go to the woodleigh 500 grain fmj for my .458 becouse of feeding reliablility.. Does anyong think this would be a mistake for big game? the woodliegh .45 500 grain sn shoots very well in this gun first group was 1 7/16 inch at 100 yards with open sights using my hornady 500 grain interlock loads.. .. Do the fmj shoot similar impact etc.?thanks dave

If you are shooting the Hornadys why not thier 500FMJ's and did you consider Barnes TSX in either 500 or 450gr.
Sometimes you may have to load down a grain or two with solids...

My double loves the Hornady 500gr interlocks also... Good shooting...

Mike

The Woodleigh 500 grain 458 solid bullet has an excellent reputation in Africa. Those on here that have used it are most happy with the results.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
The Woodleigh 500 grain 458 solid bullet has an excellent reputation in Africa. Those on here that have used it are most happy with the results.

465H&H

x2

When I look for a solid bullet, I buy exactly that , a solid bullet. Mono metal is my first choice and preferably flat nose to get straight line penetration.

The woodleighs seem to work well 80% of the time from some of the reports on AR, but there were a few that had some serious deviation issues.

Pierre vd Walt wrote a great article for magnum in which he highlighted some of these problems. Do a search on google and you should find it, Called "The Perfect big game solid"
Good luck
Ian

quote:

The Perfect big game solid

So Ian, would the Barnes Banded Solids meet Pierre vd Walt's criteria as well?

Thanks,

Chuck

ffffg, you post does not allude to any specific feeding issues. Have you tried any Barnes Banded Solids, either 500 or 450gr? They hit like the Hammer of Thor and are worth the effort it may take to get them to feed properly.

Before anyone tries to shoot down Woodleigh solids, do a search under 465H&H's name and Woodleigh or round nose solids. On a couple of threads you will find reports on the use of hundreds of Woodleighs. Some reports of distorted recovered bullets, some by me, but NO reports of anything but straight penetration.

Woodleighs do the job. They are my first choice for the first shot on elephants. For second and subsequent shots, if required, I prefer a truncated cone, flat nose mono like North Fork (my personal choice) or GS Custom. Truncated cone solids deliver top end penetration, but Woodleighs do the job.

If your rifle has flat nose feeding issues which you can't get ironed out in time, go with Woodleighs and go with confidence, you will be going with a proven top performer.

JPK

I took three TZ buff last year with my 458 Lott shooting factory Norma PH ammo.
Woodleigh 500 gr softs mushroomed beautifully and typically stopped against the far side hide.
The Woodleigh 500 gr solids typically passed thru like laser beams.
Job well done & no complaints. I want to do this again.

Chuck
I don't know much about the barnes, but as far as the basics go I guess it would conform. You should however always test in your rifle and ensure that the twist rate of your barrel supports the length of the bullet. If the bullet is too long for your twist then you will not have terminal stability and could then too have bullets cutting their own zigzag path through the animal or tumbling.
I use GS Custom FN Solids, I shoot a 450 gr FN in my 458 Lott. As I am not a DG PH I cant say how many times it has saved my ass but guys like Johan Caalitz use only these in their rifles and they seem to know their game.
One more thing to consider with the flat nose is that you may need to get your rifle smoothed out by a good gunsmith to allow it to feed reliably. My 458 was built as a Field Guiding rifle, perfect feeding is a necessity as it is quite likely that in the course of 20 years you would only fire 1 shot in self defense, but that one shot would have to chambered first as we do not carry loaded rifles whilst on trail. That is why drills like the one I posted here a few months back are practiced thousands of times to ensure that it is 100% natural movement when the time comes to react. Three aimed shots in 6 seconds is the passing standard, I am down to 3.8 now but I would be happier with about 2.8. First shot in just over 1.2 seconds.

Getting back to the woodleighs, I dont think they are bad bullets, but I do think they are maybe too easily accepted due to the fact that they were the standard by which others were measured before. In DG scenarios you cant entrust your safety to urban legend, you need to go out and test what works in your rifle first, simple keyhole tests would be a good starting point. I shoot warthogs end to end to see what my rifle is doing.

A great guy to consult on any of this as he has done the testing is Gerhard Schulz of GS custom, read his articles and you will see that the man understands terminal performance of bullets which as the 45-70 crowd will tell you, is where it really counts. Straight line penetration is all that kills an elephant when it is standing above you
Good luck
Ian

ffffg

I am 110% with Vlam concerning this issue. It has been proven over and over again that ANY round nose fmj or solid design CAN and WILL on occasion deviate from straight line penetration. For buffalo or hippo it may not be that big of an issue even if it does, and I have seen it and have heard of round nose designs doing so on this size animal, but normally these bullets have penetrated enough to do the job regardless. Therefore not as much of an issue there.

When concerning elephants it is a different story. Proponents of either Woodleigh FMJ round nose bullets, or any other sort of round nose solid will report REPEATEDLY of a good reputation in Africa, of how they have always worked for them, of how they may tumble or veer off course but that is ok as they always do the job! It is difficult to give up the old days and old ways! Of course there are going to be 1000s of reports of success, these sort of round nose solids have been the standard for a damn century, what else would one expect? Of a 1000 reports most likely 800 of them are going to be good, that would be around the 80% mark that Vlam mentions! And I can promise that round nose solids have been used more than a 1000 times! So the numbers are in favor of just that, a good report! I am more concerned about that other 20% or maybe 10% whatever the number may be.

I can tell you this for fact, in my test work here a round nose fmj or solid from any manufacturer will 100% of the time veer off course, while a flat nose solid will 100% of the time give 100% straight line penetration. For those in the unknown I use a mix of wet news print and magazines, 75% wet news print, 25% catalogs or magazines. This is a tougher mix than wet news print alone. At times I put other obstacles within the mix to test also. Most flat nose bullets pass with flying colors, and a lot of my experience is with Barnes FN Solids, they are superb on every test. There will be the naysayers that will state that this has no bearing, but they are dead wrong as it does. It is a consistent test comparing one bullet to another end of story. Should one bullet pass and another not, then this is a fair comparison of the two. I also find that these tests are much tougher than real life in the field, which is what we are striving to do! We do not want to give any bullet a free ride, it is a test to see at what point a bullet will fail. If a bullet can fail in the tests, while another does not, then that bullet that failed in the test stands a POSSIBILITY of failing in the field, while the bullet that passed all the hard tests is more LIKELY to do very well in the field! That is a very simple concept to understand. And from my very own field experience in such matters it proves out.

No where do I state that in the field the round nose will ALWAYS fail, nor do I state that the flat nose solids will ALWAYS succeed. I state that the possibility of failure is higher with the round nose, and that the probability of success is higher with the flat nose solids. In life there are very very few ABSOLUTES. And in shooting there is hardly any! Before the attacks start from the "Woodleighs never failed me camp", please read and try to at least have some understanding of what I am trying to convey.

The "ROUND NOSE BULLET NEVER FAILED ME CAMP" very conveniently always ignores the deeper subjects, and statements of others of these very failures, always!

Before I go further I want to state that in a very short thread only a couple of weeks ago (not on this subject but another I have already forgotten) our very own Saeed, our gracious host of this entire site, stated that on a brain shot on elephant that he had experienced a failure of a round nose solid bullet to penetrate in a straight line causing him to miss the brain and therefore have one of the hardest hunts of his life thereof!

There are other threads that come to mind some time ago about several Woodleigh FMJ failures, showing deformed bullets, stories of going off track and all sorts of things going wrong with them. These very same individuals the "Woodleighs Never Failed Me Camp" or "Woodleighs have a great Reputation in Africa Camp" were involved in some of these very same threads, yet continue to guide others right down the same path? Some things I do not understand?

However I stand firm in the Flat Nose Solid Camp myself as I have used both extensively in controlled environments, and in the field. I have seen failures of round nose solids in the field and the successes of flat nose solids, in the field.

ffffg, I have some Ruger bolt guns too. None of which will feed and function with a flat nose bullet of any description, yours might with some, might not with any. I have used the Barnes FN Solid and it is superb on every count. Maybe it will feed in your rifle, but I have doubts. I am no gunsmith so I can't say what can and cannot be done. I would speak with an experienced individual in these matters (not the smith at the local shop) send it to a proper smith, spend the money to get it feeding if possible. I shoot Winchesters and have never had one not feed the barnes or other flat nose solids I have worked with, but my rugers will not. I don't take anything but a Winchester to the field anyway so it has no bearing on me, and I have not tried to get my rugers to feed.

Chuck
Yes the Barnes FN will meet with Pierre's criteria well.

415sbaird

I like the Woodleigh soft noses as well--have used them on buff and they are great. Also on buff there should be little issues with the Woodleigh FMJs, I agree.

Vlam

I agree with you 110% and support your statements. They are supported by fact.


But believe me the attacks on this are coming, coming today I suspect! In fact the attacks will without doubt be concerned with how my test work is invalid and means nothing and so forth and so on. So before it starts I will not listen to or deal with "urban legends" and this that or the other. Present facts, science and reasonable conversation or posts, or forget about it.

Thanks

Michael

Michael458,

Awhile back, I asked on a thread here for people to list their field experiences with Woodleigh RN solids going off course. As I remember one person thought one might have gone slightly off course on an elephant head shot. Another reported a GS Custom FN solid going off course also. Since we all want to know the facts of how various shaped solids perform on elephant, perhaps we should try that question again but this time also ask for instances of FN solids going off course. Between JPK and myself, we have shot well over 100 Woodleigh RN solids into elephants and buffalo. Neither of us have ever had one go off course to any measureable degree. If in deed your 80% rule applied we should have seen 20 of them.

465H&H

465H&H

As always I have great respect for your opinions on such matters. If you will please read the entire thread I used the 80% that Vlam suggested. It is not my 80% or 90% or anything. Again that is an example and the true number of field experiences will NEVER be known exactly---Poll or no poll, as there are no absolutes that can come from the field, there are too many variables involved. As you know, I have used round nose solids in the field with success, on buffalo and elephant, and hippo for that matter. Please refer back to my post and the second paragraph of that post "the 80% that Vlam mentions". I also state unequivocally that in the field that a round nose bullet is NOT ALWAYS subject to failure, and that a flat nose solid will NOT ALWAYS succeed! This is where the variables that are encountered in the field come into play.

My stand on the matter is very simply this:

While both round nose and flat nose solids have been and will continue to be successful in the field on live animals, from experience and test work it is my solid opinion (pun intended) that a flat nose solid designed bullet has a better chance of succeeding.

That is not to say the other does not and cannot work. It obviously has done the job, and it has very obviously failed to do the job also.

Now if you would please retract the statement of "Your 80% rule" as it is not mine. If you would please look up to Vlams first post, it is included there. If you would also note just below where I use Vlams 80% mark, I also state that I am more concerned about the 20% or 10% or whatever that number might be. So I make no clear statement whatsoever of where any round nose solid may or may not fail. That would be impossible, even if we took a poll it would mean very little as stated because of the many variables that cannot be confirmed or accounted for. And to be honest "I shot an elephant with a "blank round nose" and never had a problem" does not cut it with me. That proves little to be honest with the exception that it happened! Hell we all know that already! Hell some people kill them with bows and sticks! But what does that prove? Sorry to the bow and stick guys, just an example please.



Thanks

Michael

Literally train loads of animals have been harvested with woodliegh solids. If you have lots and lots of time and want to use it up on the internet listening to pontifications about solids then this is the place to do it. If on the other hand you want to hunt. Load up some woodlieghs, go hunting and be happy

Personally I would rather load up a Barnes FN Solid or NorthFork, or GS or other flat nose design and do the same.

Michael

Michael,

Three things:

1.) Not every report on the success of yet another Woodleigh is based on the obviously good result of a dead ele or buff, many are also based on digging for the bullet and following the track of the bullet, cutting open skulls, etc...

2.) Regardless of the extent of inspection and documentation of the wound channel, depth of penetration, etc, etc... reflected in 465H&H's polls, with the number of Woodleighs used by posters in 465H&H's previous threads, any tendency to veer off course would have come to light in reported failure to penetrate straight. There were none.

(465H&H's recall of one possibility was actually in reference to a flat nose solid veering slightly off course after substantial penetration. Probably the result of the divot in the nose, earned, iirc, by breaking the spine.)

3.) Whatever incidence rate of Woodleigh bullets' failure to penetrate straight that may be observed in any other media but game merely serves to confirms that no other commonly used media successfully imitates game. The predictive value of so called "tests" in media other than elephant heads or buff is zero, since the tests results utterly fail to reflect actual results and performance for the use intended.

On the other hand, as you know, I am an ardent believer in the proposition that any bullet can fail and none are perfect in every respect or for every circumstance.

JPK

I have shot elephants in the head with the following Woodleigh Solids, 286gr 9,3, 400gr .408, and the 480gr .458.

All gave more than adequate penetration.

None veered off course.

Hello Boys! I see the gang is all here now, as expected!

How you doing JPK and NE450?

I hope all is well with you guys!

Great here, been working on some things of late, doing some more test work on various things and having a ball. Shooting sometimes every day!

Thanks for dropping by to chat with me.

Michael

Michael458,

Sorry if I misunderstood you but you did say that you supported Viams statements by 110% because they were supported by facts. I'm just wondering where all those facts lie burried.

465H&H

Michael458,

Neither JPK, 450 No2 or myself are anti-fn solid. In fact we all recognize and appreciate their benefit of increased penetration over RN solids. In fact I will be using some FN solids on my next elephant hunt this fall. What we object to is the saying that RN solids are more likely to tumble or deviate off course than FN solids. We have seen no evidence in our use or field reports from others who have used RN solids (meaning steel jacketed solids such as Woodleighs) on elephants or buffalo. I think all of us want to know the true facts in this regard.

You have stated above that FN solids have a better chance of succeding than Woodleigh solids. I am asking exactly what facts lead you to this opinion? We all would like to know that answer. You state that you do not believe in field reports as there are too many variables to lead to reliable conclusions and that you base your opinion on experience and testing. Are these the facts you are refering to? Please give us your results.

465H&H

quote:

took three TZ buff last year with my 458 Lott shooting factory Norma PH ammo.
Woodleigh 500 gr softs mushroomed beautifully and typically stopped against the far side hide.
The Woodleigh 500 gr solids typically passed thru like laser beams.
Job well done & no complaints. I want to do this again.

X2

I have used both Woodleigh 480 RN Solids and 450gr North Fork Flat Point Solids on elephants, in my 450 No2, on head shots.

The NFFP did give deeper penetration.

But in a Bolt Rifle I place absolute reliability of the RN above the extra penetration of the FP.

465HH

First the 3 of you reject test work of any sort other than shooting elephant heads. So to repeat this is a waste of time. I say and have always stated that it takes both types of test work to make proper judgements, and I do so.

If I state a case where a round nose bullet veered off course in the field then that is overlooked or denied? This is stated above in my post and concerns our very own Saeed, in a short discussion between he and I only a couple weeks ago where he recounted an incident shooting a "round nose" solid that veered off course and missed the brain. This of course you overlook or pretend it never was mentioned?

Exactly what facts lead to my opinion that FN Solids have a better chance of succeeding is in my test work, which the 3 of you disregard. It is a fact that regardless of how I test the FN comes out far ahead each and every time. This is a medium that is consistent and is a comparison between two bullets--as stated many many many times over and over. Obviously there is some sort of "reading comprehension" issue involved.

I am not a "Woodleigh Hater", I only prefer FN Solids over ANY RN Solid, regardless of manufacturer! I have shelves full of Woodleighs in all calibers from 338-358-366-416-458-470-510! Personally I have never used a Woodleigh FMJ in the field, I have shot elephant, buffalo, and hippo with Barnes RN solids, and I never had a problem!!! I have stated this in the past too, but it too is ignored!

I have had round nose bullets veer off course on other animals. Between the test work in the lab and the field work I have had round nose bullets veer off course in animal flesh and the same bullets do the same in the lab. With my own eyes!

Another misquote is that I am with Vlam 110% because they are supported by the facts! I never stated that, not in those terms. Since my test work is denied by you guys then????

It is stated that the test work and field work have no correlation! Over and over. Wrong, it does. I have been testing for years, and can correlate easy between the test work done and field work done. In fact I can give you pretty close results and what you can expect from what I have done. I am still building data from field work to correlate back to test work, and if any of the 3 of you can give me actual data that might even be helpful. Current data concerning solids only suggests that one might expect expect 30% deeper penetration on animal flesh as opposed to my test work. In other words if I test a solid bullet in my mix and get 30 inches of total penetration-then I can expect somewhere around 42-43 inches of total penetration in actual animal flesh. Now do not twist and turn, from what data I have collected this is what it "SUGGESTS". I am not stating that as "FACT". Now if you guys can give me the amount of penetration, in inches is fine, that you have recorded in your field test work then I can correlate that back to test work data, and maybe we all learn something, instead of "this one said that" that one said this" and so forth and so on?

I have a tremendous amount of data for expanding bullets that correlates directly from test work to field work. The percentages of data collected are confirmed many times over. But solids are a different matter, like you up until a couple of years ago I was plenty satisfied that what I was doing was fine, until I had to have proper .500 caliber (NOT .510) for my personal projects, this is when I turned on to the flat nose. So I am very much still involved with the learning process.

I have heard you say from your lips--FN bullets penetrate deeper--Same from JPK and same from NE 450! I have heard JPK state many times his round nose bullets tumble. I believe you yourself have an order for NorthFork FN solids for your .468! Yes, I state that a round nose bullet is more likely to veer off, I will stand by that 100%, no you do not agree with it. This is fine, I believe 100% in the test work I do, it's for me I don't care if you like it or not. I can say unequivocally that every bit of test work I have done and then take it to the field to test on live walking critters has been "Spot On". It it succeeded in the tests then it succeeded in the field on live critters, 100% of the time!!!!!!! That's pretty damn good correlation I would say! And I ain't talking about 1 or 2 times! I am talking 100s of times if not more! Every single time I had a failure in the test work---this same failure would show in the field!!!!!!! WITH BUT 1 EXCEPTION!

NOW GET THIS LOUD AND CLEAR----PLEASE DON"T MISQUOTE THIS BECAUSE YOU SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT!!!!!!!!!!

Some solid bullets in particular 450 and 500 gr ROUND NOSE bullets that will fail 100% of the time in test work--managed to kill a couple of two or three elephants for me, and a few buffalo and a hippo!!! They did not fail for me in the field! Holy Jesus Christ! The world is coming to an end! Now why is this, HOw could it possibly be???? As I have stated all along, each and every step of the way, with 100% consistency, most of the time a round nose will penetrate enough to do the job and MOST of the time, but NOT ALL the time it has already reached the vitals! In Saeeds time it did not! With me it did! But I won't use Round Nose bullets ever ever ever again because in my test work that tells me there is a possibility that it might veer off course before it gets there! So I will be using a flat nose solid that always has a better chance of doing the job! A BETTER CHANCE OF DOING THE JOB! No where do I state that every bullet, any bullet is 100% Fail Safe! A better chance!

Do any of you 3 boys deny or refuse to recognize this statement? Any of you?
Come now, tell me now, do you believe that a Flat Nose solid is more likely to succeed than a round nose bullet?

Surely we must agree. And if we agree, then what is the issue?

Now, please, let's work together now and not against! What I would like much is data. Show me the data that you have collected from the field. This will be of grand importance to all of us.

Oh please let me answer one very important issue--feeding a bolt gun! RELIABILITY IS EVERYTHING. All else is moot! I came from a shooting background that demands reliability, and you have no argument from me at all. All my Winchesters feed and function flat nose solids 100% of the time! I do have rugers that do not!

So now, I am very excited about getting the data from you guys. By joining forces we might stumble upon some truths! Interested in data concerning solids only. Number of inches of penetration, deformed, tumbled, straight whatever. Before getting this I will be happy to go out on a limb myself, just to instill some thought and trust here. As stated, to date my data (which needs more field input) SUGGESTS that there is a gain of 30% in penetration from test work to field work. Critters are not as hard on bullets as my tests, so 30% more should be gained, or in that neighborhood. In general I get somewhere between 28 inches and 36 inches of penetration in the test work with round nose solids before they start to veer off course, at the end of penetration once they have lost stability. This depending on caliber, bullet velocity, and just in general. So I would expect the numbers that you could come back to me with would be between 40-50 inches of total penetration. Oh, and I may point out, that if in fact you are getting that amount of penetration, then I would guess that in most cases it would be more than enough, would it not? But in the same tone, there is always the small percentage that is at the other end of "most cases". In comparison various flat nose solids in 458-500 caliber (NOT .510) are giving from 57 inches to over 64 inches and out the back of my box into the berm! One direct correlation from test to field is my 510 gr FN solid I shoot out of my 18 inch 50 B&M. At 2100 fps it gives a consistent 62-64 inches of penetration, on elephant as close as I can find the bottom end is 84 inches of penetration. The reason I say bottom end is that one of two exited the elephant at 84 inches, a few inches behind that one stayed in. One frontal brain shot went completely thru lost in the body somewhere? So if I can get field data to add to mine from you guys we might be able to learn from it!

So?

Michael

I know, I am always long winded and that might add to confusion, for this I apologize!

Michael

You see lot's of Woodleigh bullets on my self!

Not one of my typical tests, but interesting none the less.

A 4 inch SOLID brick is a pretty tough obstacle after already penetrating 43 inches of wet print. This was wet print, not my mix of catalogs/news print.

An example

]

These are just simply some examples and nothing more. Not meant to prove or disprove anything, just for looking at!

Still if I could add field data from 465-JPK and NE 450 that would add to a data base. Like I said, I am not beyond searching for the truth!

Michael

Michael,

The only bullet that I have ever had veer was a flat nose solid.

Yes, SOME Woodleighs that I have shot have tumbled, but none of even those veered from straight line penetration and the tumbling has always been after considerable and sufficient penetration.

Any inference you draw from your tests regarding any tendency of round nose solids to veer is invalid because your tests fail to predict actual results, the only results which count. Actual results provide no isntances of veering in buff or eles in hundreds of cases. Even including the one instance you pass on regarding Saeed's Woodleigh veering, the incidence of failure to penetrate straight in eles or buff is well, well below 1%.

On the other hand, failure of flat noses to penetrate straight is substantially greater than 1% with just the one incidence that I have had since I cannot think of 100 reportded uses of FN's (But this would be a good poll, eh?) Throw in one case of a flat nose failing to penetrate a zygomatic arch and turning near 90* and that failure rate doubles.

That you have not yet had a bullet succeed in your tests and then fail in the field is no validation of your tests.

Take as an example of bullets that passed another irrelevant test. Lets look at the failed Hornaday encapsulated solids. I am sure beyond doubt that Hornaday tested these bullets in some medium, and probably extensively, but they were a misserable failure in the field.

I also do not agree with your assertion that your test in wet newsprint and catalog material is harder on bullets than elephant head. That just isn't so. Bullets may not penetrate as deeply, but that is utterly irrelevant and your assertion is based on an invallid inference. Just for starters, there is no bone in wet newsprint or catalog.

I absolutely deny that a flat nose solid has the greater potential for success. In fact, for punching through heavy bone, I believe that the round nose Woodleigh solid is the better choice. And that is what I use for the first shot for elephants. I also absolutely believe that truncated cone flat nose solids penetrate further than round nose Woodleighs, on the order of 30-40%. And that is why I choose them for second and subsequent shots on eles, where a shot may require all of the penetration one can muster.

Nice photos of the Barnes and Hornaday, good field report, if I ever feel some strange compulsion to hunt wet newsprint with bricks in it I'll consider the Barnes. Probably shoot those newsprint and brick creatures off of a bench since they are equally common and equally as rellevant in the field.

JPK

YOu know something JPK, John, you are a total waste of time. Do not waste my space any longer.

Michael

JPK

One more waste of time, but I have a question to ask. I see at the bottom of your post it says

"Free 500grains"

Can you explain that please?

Michael

JPK

Once again you are suffering some serious reading comprehension. Please do something about it!

No where do I state that Saeeds bullet was a woodleigh? It was a round nose, he did not elaborate and I did not ask, because it does not matter, it was a round nose, end of story!

Please tell me where I can get the tumbling round nose bullets that continue in a straight line? I would like very much to have some of those, they would cause tremendous damage from tumbling and continue on to penetrate in a straight line, I want some!

Some of your other dribbles I don't understand.

My "irrelevant"test of the Hornady encapsulated solids? You say they were a miserable failure in the field? I am truly asking, they were a failure in the field?

So once again please, 500grains???

Michael

Many of the reported failures of RN solids came from the use of Barnes or A2 RN mono-metal solids. Those do have a reputation for failure to maintain a straight line penetration and I wouldn't use one on a bet. We need to eliminate them from discussion, because I think we can all agree that they are unreliable.

Here is one field report for you. Woodleigh 550 grain 458 diameter bullet from a LOTT at 2,150 fps. Entered head of large cow elephant, penetrated brain, neck and into chest cavity. Exact penetration distance unknown since the bullet was found in the stomach contents. It is at least six feet from the head to the front edge of the stomach.

Check Dan McCarthy article in African Hunter Magazine on his comparisons of FN and RN bullet penetration on elephants. It is the only published test that I know of. You can find it reprinted in Richard Harland's book Ndlovu. On elephant heads the Woodleigh RN solid penetrated further than the GS, or North Fork FN solids. Although statistically there was probably no difference. On soft tissue the FN penetrated further. He gives the kind of penetration data that you are seeking. In his tests penetration was usually determined on frontal brain shots by whether or not the bullet hit the axis or atlas bones. It appears that like tusk sockets few bullets can make it through them.

465H&H

465HH

Never used a A2 RN, but yes on the Barnes RN. Again, I had success with the Barnes RN in the field, but will not use them again, nor any round nose for that matter. In full agreement on them.

Good information on the 550 Woodleigh, more than enough penetration to do the job, but still very difficult to get exact numbers in the field. Very well understood and agreed upon.

Tusk sockets are tough, fortunately never shot thru one.

Exact data from the field in inches, feet, distance, and so forth are rather difficult to get, I cannot get all of mine either, and I too come up short. Sometimes it is an instance of "it works" or "it didn't". In addition, no two shots on flesh are equal, one may hit bone, one may not, so enters the variables.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
JPK

One more waste of time, but I have a question to ask. I see at the bottom of your post it says

"Free 500grains"

Can you explain that please?

Michael

Michael,

500 Grains was a member here who was banned. That was a great loss to AR. He was banned for his participation on the Political Forum, where anything is supposed to go, but apparently not everything is allowed to go. I have inferred, correctly or not, I don't know, that it was some commentary about our new President's family tree. Regardless of one's political beliefs or even whether 500 Grains' comments were distasteful, his banning is a huge loss for AR.

I view 500 Grains as something of a mentor, since he first "talked me into" elephant hunting.

500 Grains real name is Dan McCarthy, see here 465H&H's comment in this thread:

"Check Dan McCarthy article in African Hunter Magazine on his comparisons of FN and RN bullet penetration on elephants. It is the only published test that I know of. You can find it reprinted in Richard Harland's book Ndlovu. On elephant heads the Woodleigh RN solid penetrated further than the GS, or North Fork FN solids. Although statistically there was probably no difference. On soft tissue the FN penetrated further. He gives the kind of penetration data that you are seeking. In his tests penetration was usually determined on frontal brain shots by whether or not the bullet hit the axis or atlas bones. It appears that like tusk sockets few bullets can make it through them.

465H&H"

I do not know if 500 Grains old posts and threads are still stored here, but you would learn alot taking the time to search for them and read them. Topics from bullets to twist, etc etc... Right down your alley - but he remained a fan of Woodleighs, along with FN's like me, 450 NE No2 and 465H&H. Hated Barnes RN solids, which provided the worst performance of ANY bullet tested.

BTW, IIRC, Dan tested, in game, similar weight monos, round and flat nose, vs. similar weight round nose steel cup and lead cores like Woodleighs. My tests, in game, have been 500gr Woodleighs vs. 450gr NF's, which means velocity is improved for the lighter FN even as energy is reduced. Where Dan saw little if any difference in elephant heads and about a 10-15% increase in body shot penetration favoring FN's, I see a reasonably reliable 30-40% advantage for the FN's for both frontal brain shots and body shots. (Truncated cone FN's like velocity, the shape clearly is favored by velocity over energy, otherwise the higher energy RN would outpenetrate the lower energy, but higher velocity TC FN.) Side brain shots are irrelevant because either Woodleighs or NF's will exit most of the time, and when they do not, they are found against the far side zygomatic arch. Shots on buff are also largely irrelevant because both exit on all but end on shots, where the FN's seem to have an "advantage" on exiting, while the Woodleighs remain in the neck, shoulder or lings. A distinction without a difference. If such a thing is possible, FN's penetrate too far for buff. See then the NF cup point, probably the perfect buff bullet.

(Edit: Though TC FN's penetrate more on frontal brain shots in my experience, I do nor believe thay are as relible in penetrating heavier bone, which may be encountered on frontal or side brain shots.)

If you are interested, I can refer you to other boards where Dan is active.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
JPK

Once again you are suffering some serious reading comprehension. Please do something about it!

No where do I state that Saeeds bullet was a woodleigh? It was a round nose, he did not elaborate and I did not ask, because it does not matter, it was a round nose, end of story!

Please tell me where I can get the tumbling round nose bullets that continue in a straight line? I would like very much to have some of those, they would cause tremendous damage from tumbling and continue on to penetrate in a straight line, I want some!

Some of your other dribbles I don't understand.

My "irrelevant"test of the Hornady encapsulated solids? You say they were a miserable failure in the field? I am truly asking, they were a failure in the field?

So once again please, 500grains???

Michael

Michael,

Of a guy you have cited as a waste of your time, you sure seem to be asking a lot of questions, eh?

I presumed Saeed's bullet was a Woodleigh since you brought it up during a serries of recitations by me, 465H&H and 450NE No2 regarding Woodleigh successes, OOPS!

Yes, it make a hell of a substantial difference whether it was a Woodleigh or not! If it was an old style steel jacketed Hornaday, it was also a good bullets, though, imo, not as good as a Woodleigh since the rear of the bullet did not include so generous a turn and had a bigger hole in the base - at least in .458". But the RN Barnes and the RN A2, as pointed out by 465H&H, enjoyed a poor record. See 500 Grains' articles cited by 465H&H, or his old posts if they remain, for supporting data. Lets just say the least penetration and the most trouble...

I'll tell you what I find when I find a confirmed case of tumbling with a Woodleigh: I find three axis tumbling, I find absolutely straght line penetration while tumbling, I find a relatively short distance of penetration after onset of tumbling, I find long, straight penetration prior to tumbling. My conclusion is that the tendency to tumble exist, but only after the bullet had slowed considerably and after sufficient penetration has ocurred. Whether the tendency to tumble is affected by linear velocity or rotational velocity I do not know. Since the bullet is either deformation free or close to it while it travels nose on, I suspect, without confirmation, that rotational velocity continues in target. Either way, tumbling occurs late, tumbling abreviates penetration. I also suspect that the RN tendency to tumble late in its penetration is the leading cause of the FN's penetration advantage over the RN.

Hornaday made successful and highly regarded steel jacketed RN solids. Apparently Hornaday lost their supplier of steel, or went to cut costs, who knows? They then brought out a brass encapsulated, lead core solid - worst of both worlds, no? That bullet proved to be entirely unreliable and even unsafe. Reports of bending, breaking and riveting were common. Hornaday then reintroduced their steel jacket solids, now with a flat nose, possibly the best compromise. I have no experience with the relatively new Hornadays and have hundreds of Woodleighs to use before trying them.

Since I don't believe Hornaday would have risked their reputation and introduce the encapsulated solids without testing, I presume testing. Obviously the testing proved, in the tests, that the bullet was a go, but it failed miserably in the field.

Here is the rest of my previous post which you find a waste of time, it is in direct response to either question posed by you are assertation by you:

Your quote: "Critters are not as hard on bullets as my tests"

My answer: "I also do not agree with your assertion that your test in wet newsprint and catalog material is harder on bullets than elephant head. That just isn't so. Bullets may not penetrate as deeply, but that is utterly irrelevant and your assertion is based on an invallid inference. Just for starters, there is no bone in wet newsprint or catalog."

Your quote: "Come now, tell me now, do you believe that a Flat Nose solid is more likely to succeed than a round nose bullet?"

My answer: "I absolutely deny that a flat nose solid has the greater potential for success. In fact, for punching through heavy bone, I believe that the round nose Woodleigh solid is the better choice. And that is what I use for the first shot for elephants. I also absolutely believe that truncated cone flat nose solids penetrate further than round nose Woodleighs, on the order of 30-40%. And that is why I choose them for second and subsequent shots on eles, where a shot may require all of the penetration one can muster."

I do think we agree that no bullet will ever be 100% successful and that some examples of all bullets will fail. (Have you found the many examples of broken brass solids, including Barnes solids, yet?) But I'll also assert that no solid bullet is ideal for all circumstances. For example, my believe that Woodleigh, and maybe Hornaday, steel jackete solids are the better choice for punching through bone, as is the case with the first shot, which ought to be a brain shot, on eles, but that a truncated cone solid is the better choice for a body shot where max penetration may be required.

JPK

JPK

First I did not bring up Saeeds experience during a series of recitations by you. I brought up Saeeds experience in my first post on this thread, and had nothing to do with you. Ooopps! Of course you Assume/presume much.

I am not on an attack on Woodleigh, I am in general talking about round nose bullets as a group. Some better than others, all inferior to a flat nose solid, as I am concerned.

Of course your Woodleighs are tumbling at the end of penetration. Wow JPK, my test work shows exactly that same thing! Ooopps! All veering off course/tumbling is after these bullets have lost stability at the end of penetration. You think you are telling me something I don't already know? Not hardly.
In addition--as stated many many times by myself, in the field that amount of penetration is plenty enough to do the job. Oopps again! But ignored as normal.

Concerning the Hornady! Testing? But that would be "irrelevant" according to you? What would be the point, since field testing is all that counts? Yes, I too would assume that any reputable bullet manufacturer would test their product. In fact they do. Which leads me to your other assertion, and misquote that you state I said my test mix is tougher than elephant heads. Well I did not say that, I said what you quote just above that statement that "Critters are not as hard on bullets as my tests"----You state "elephant heads".

To begin with I stated for the record and always have from day one nearly a year ago with you.

The tests are a consistent way to compare two bullets in a controlled environment. If you would be so kind please ship me a few elephant heads that you must have stored at your house and I will do the test work on them too! Since I don't have any "elephant heads" stored, then I try to test in a medium that is going to stress the bullet and be consistent so that I can compare designs of different bullets to each other and determine many things from this. With expanding bullets this is much more defined, with solids there is much to learn from every field of study. This is but one.

As for Hornady, I can't speak for how they test, I could find out from JD as he is good friends with Steve. But from what I understand I am told that some of the manufacturers test in ballistic gel of some sort. While good, not good enough as I don't think this puts enough stress on the bullet. But as I said, not sure how Hornady tests. Not really interested, as I test my own and can come to my own conclusions.

Tough as an elephant head? Well maybe, maybe not, but that is a different test medium and irrelevant in this case, as that is not the question. Exactly how would you know this? Exactly how much test work do you do outside of the field? Can you show me some data? I have asked nicely if you have data from the field tests too? Numbers perhaps? Bone can be inserted in the mix very easy to test. However, that is a little messy, but I have done this in days gone by. A little trip to the local butcher solves that. These days I use various scraps of wood or some substance thereof inserted 4-5 inches deep at the beginning of the test box. So that the bullet has to pass thru this material first, engage the wood, reenter the mix for the remainder of penetration. At times I have inserted scrap material at 15 inches in addition to the front too. This does NOT simulate bone, it is an obstacle to the bullet to check it's performance against another bullet! One even better, and tougher than bone is "fiberboard". We built a deck a few years ago out of this stuff, it is dense, far denser than bone, even elephant leg bone or giraffe leg bone (I Have Both in My Lab NOW). In fact you cannot drive a nail thru it, it takes a drill gun to get thru it! I tested my flat nose bullets in the same manner described above thru 2 inches of fiberboard. Then I turned the fiberboard on an extreme angle and tested.

You see I want to put stress on the bullet--I want to see at what point if fails. I desire to learn at what point one bullet will fail, but yet another will succeed. Do you understand this concept? Do you understand why?

If one sets up a test that all bullets fail, then it is truly "irrelevant" at that point. If some bullets succeed and some fail, then it is a "relevant" test. At which point one continues the quest. Now shooting solid steel or concrete is not relevant in my mind for the purposes of the bullets I will be using. If I were testing a 416 Barrett or 50 BMG, then these tests would be 100% relevant to the cause, but that is not the case and not my interest.

It is stated by many "in your camp" so to speak that bolt guns won't feed the flat nose bullets. This is very true in many, if not most cases. I can only attest to two, Winchester M70 and Ruger M77. My Winchesters are 100% reliable with the flat nose bullets I use. The Ruger is 100% NOT reliable and will not feed them. I don't take the Ruger to the field, but if I did and could not get the Ruger to feed flat nose bullets then I would choose one of the round nose designs, possibly even a Woodleigh! Why you say? Well JPK I have done my homework on the test range and what I have learned is that while a round nose bullet will veer off course, tumble and behave badly that MOST-BUT NOT ALL-the time if it can stay on course long enough it has already reached the vitals and although far short of total penetration of a proper flat nose design, it will most likely be enough to accomplish the mission. If you look back up to what I have already stated in this thread alone you will see this, but since you do have some issues working out what I have said, and what I have not said, I will state it again. In my tests with solids only, while field input is far less than I would like (inches of penetration and so forth) my data suggests that total penetration in animal flesh will be in general 30% deeper than what is tested in the test medium. Most round nose designs will penetrate roughly around 30 inches before starting to veer off course or tumbling or behaving badly! If straight line penetration can manage 30 inches in my test mix, then add 30% more to that and we come up with a total penetration of around 42 inches depending upon bullet, caliber, and other variables encountered. Now please, I in no way say this is a FACT or any other such statement. A rule of thumb at best with the data I have in hand, which is short. This is with SOLID bullets only too. So now since I have done my homework on the range, in the test medium, I know that in general I can count on 40+ plus inches of penetration in animal flesh. I have also done my homework with other obstacles, such as the fiberboard and wood scraps, (Since today I am out of my stock of elephant heads I had to come up with something else) and my bullet has succeeded in passing thru these obstacles too I have some idea that most of the time my round nose bullet is going to work. So that is what I use, and really it probably will be fine. Now if I have a choice (and I do) I will not be forced to do so, I will have a rifle that will feed and function a flat nose designed bullet and I will be hunting with that instead!

Do you get it now? You know we have a terrible time, no we don't have a terrible time, it is you that has issues with trying to understand me. Even if I agree with you, you want to argue. So yes it is a waste to deal with you. Oooopps Said that before didn't I? Hey, do you think that I am dealing with you? Not hardly, just setting the record straight for the rest! I know there is not a chance in Hell of getting through to you. I can't even agree with you and get anywhere, how in the hell could I not agree with you and even get a reasonable discussion out of you? LOL

Concerning 500grains, Dan McCarthy. Well I know who 500 is and concerning his knowledge of bullets and so forth he seems like a very knowledgeable individual with much to offer.

You view him as "mentor", a teacher perhaps, an individual that you look up too. This is good, perhaps you can still learn from him.

I have read much of what 500 had to say, and I have no issues with it. I have read where he states that if needed because of reliability sakes to use a Woodleigh FMJ or similar. But in all his "Teachings" he makes it very clear that he much prefer a flat nose solid design.

Now of course I have said the same thing, but that does not matter.. What does matter is what your "Mentor" has to say!

In an old thread titled "Are old type big bore bullets (RN's) really that bad?

You "mentors" first post dated 07 August 2006 08:14

500grains
"Old style bullets? Do you mean Woodleighs? I use them too, but the new generation of bullets such as from GS Custom and North Fork are far superior. And I suppose some guys still use a 450 Martini-Henry too."

500grains (same thread posted 11 August 2006 21:37)
From my limited personal experience, I have noticed that on a missed brain shot on a cow ele, the Bridger FN solid in a .500 Nitro seems to stun the animal better than any other bullet I have tried. The Bridger .500 NE flat nose solid also has the biggest meplat of any bullet that I have tried. And it happens to have produced the data point of greatest penetration of any bullet that I have tried.

A thread or poll started by 500grains titled "Flat Nose Solids-Are you Convinced?"
82% in HIS poll are convinced that fn solid penetrate deeper. WE all agree with that.

500grains 03 August 2005 00:43 A post in the above thread
In addition to greater depth of penetration, when FN solids are used I have also noticed wider wound channels than with RN solids. In particular, I have seen a tearing of flesh, particularly lung tissue, 3-4 inches away from the path of the bullet. The tearing is like the tearing of piece of paper, and completely different from the bloodshot effect that you would see when using a lead core expanding bullet. Also, with an FN solid the entrance and exit holes do not close over easily, so blood trails tend to be easier to follow.

500grains 09 August 2005 20:14 Same thread
Or if the buff gives you a Texas heart shot, a FN solid will make it all the way to the front of the heart (in the right caliber), while a RN solid stops short of that by about a foot. Good enough? Probably. But if you want the best...


500grains 09 August 2005 20:40 Same Thread
I have had very fine performance from Woodleighs also (can't quite say the same for Barnes, but maybe the new ones are better). But I have had better performance from FN solids. To scientifically prove FN solids kill faster would be difficult. But if you go on a hunt and shoot everal animals with RN solids and several with FN solids, the difference in performance is apparent. However, I recognize that is not a practical endeavor for most of us, so we just pick one or the other and go hunting.

500grains 10 August 2005 21:12 Same Thread
I have noted no difference in the effect on cutting through bone between RN and FN. FN do penetrate a bit deeper in bone. Barnes RN seem to penetrate a bit shallower in bone. This is not an issue for side brain shots on elephants. For a frontal brain when the ele has his head held back and you have to go through a few feet of trunk, a FN has the advantage

500grains 07 July 2006 00:03 Same Thread
I totally agree. Theory is fine, but what matters is what we see in the field. And that is what has convinced me that some theories are not correct.

FOOTNOTE: I agree with this statement, although JPK would say I do not. To assist in making my point I include this. I test first-then I take the test to the field to CONFIRM!!!!!!! Which is what I have said all along, but continues to be ignored!

It appears to me that from what I have read from 500grains prior posts that he was in this arena a "gentleman" and even when in disagreement on a point did not attack, but discussed the issue in a manner appropriate for a gentleman. You need not waste your time JPK bringing up this, that, the other. We could do this for a very long time to no avail and no peaceable end I am sure. In all reality I see little disagreement between our two opinions, but you choose to battle me, even when I agree. My best advice for you is for you to continue to learn from your mentor as it seems to me he has a lot to offer you. Maybe you can also learn some manners from him!

Just a suggestion of course.

Now please, there are better things to do than this.

Michael