I belive Woodleigh have brought out a flat nose MONO solid, there going to have them at the gun show here next week, that should solve every bodys problem, those that like RN solids and those that like flat nose will also be happy
Daniel

Michael,

While we agree on some points, amongst the many areas where we disagree this one is paramount:

Your quote:

quote:

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.

Elephant heads are not merely a test medium, they are certainly not irrelevant and they are central to the question.

On the Woodleigh's, there is something that you could learn but continue to refuse to learn, and that is that in the real world they provide straight line penetration.

I am pleased that you find 500 Grains' post and discussions enjoyable, I thought you might find them interesting. Regarding your effort to distinguish 500 Grain's opinions and mine, yes, we differ some. We ought to, our experiences differ; his opinion regarding the efficacy of truncated cone mono flat nose solids punching or cutting through bone is based on some use of Bridger bullets, probably the best by a significant margin when they were availble, and also based on bullet performance almost exclusively on cow eles and not a mix including more bulls.

Lastly, I do not "battle" you, I simply refute your irrelevant but frequently cited test results and your faulty inferences drawn from them by citing real world results. So long as you offer your faulty proclomations regarding expected real world solid bullet performance which you base on tests the results of which do not reflect real world performance, expect the same.

I was unaware that disagreeing with you and refuting irrelevant test result or your groundless proclomations is poor manners. Pardon the hell out of me!

(BTW, there are few who can distill a terse and effective deconstruction of a phony test, opinion or proclomation in so short and concise a response as 500 Grains.)

JPK

JPK

Blah Blah Blah Blah!

I take offense to the terms phony tests, irrelevant tests, and your consistent misquotes, and twisting of what I actually say. Even when I agree with you, you continue. Please continue alone. I am done with this, it is not productive. I make no claims, read more carefully and work harder on your reading comprehension skills. I am not selling my tests to you, nor do I have anything to prove to you. I have nothing for sell, it is not my business. What I do is for my personal use and nothing more. You do as you please.

Michael

Michael,

You bruise too easily.

The quotes taken from your posts are accurate to the word. If you don't like them, don't type them.

Yes, your tests are irrellevant regarding the round nose's supposed tendency to veer, because your test predicts frequent veering while reality reveals little. Seems you have derived a mathamatical adjustment to arrive at expected penetration in game for flat noses based on penetration in your tests though.

My reference to "phony" in my paranthetical regarding 500 Grains was not in reference to you, but in reference to past phonies and blowhards he disassembled. I don't agree with you on may issues, do on a few, and think your tests are irrelevant regarding round nose solids, at least Woodleighs, but I surely do not think you or your tests are phony.

If you can find them, read a couple of 500 Grains post on 45/70 threads for a hoot, and to see what I was referring too. Look for the name "Carmello".

JPK

JPK
Very well then. I disagree, you do not quote exactly, and sometimes twist things a bit. However I can live with that. Nope, sorry don't bruise at all, funny about that.

Your opinion is yours, and I have no issues there. My opinion is not yours, and I can agree to disagree on some points, no problem.

My apology for the "phony" I did not understand that comment. I do appreciate the statement you make about not thinking I am phony, or the other parts of the test work done (terminal ballistics is only a small portion of what I do) being phony, Thank you! In all reality we are very close in our thoughts, somehow we have got off on the wrong foot maybe?

With that said I think I can put this to rest so we can continue to learn, maybe even from each other somehow. So until next time, eh?

Hey remember a few weeks ago we were talking about the photo of the rhinos???? If I can figure it out and load it now.

Michael,

On the quotes, they really, truly are exactly your own words. (perhaps you believe taken out of context?) I use either the quote features availbable here on AR or on any mouse.

Hoping that you do not take the following as an insult or slight in any way, here is how I have quoted you and reproduced your own words, word for word, and how you could do the same for my quotes, your own or anyone else's:

AR: see the bottom right corner of the box any post is contained within and see the folder with the " adjacent, clicking that folder will open a reply within which it will quote the entire post and set it off within a blue line top and bottom - BTW, the other folder with the pencil eraser, which only shows up on one's own posts, allows the original poster of the post to correct or edit his or her own post.

Mouse: find the language you wish to quote, left click and hold at the bigginning and drag over what you want to quote, when you've highlighted what you want to quote, right click and scoll to "copy", left click on "copy" and then insert into a post you have already begun or that you subsequently begin by placing the cursor where you want the quote to go, right clicking, then scrolling to "paste", left clicking on "paste". This will result in a word for word quote, but you will need to put quotation marks around it. - Alternative if you have yet to begin a reply is to highlight a section of another member's post that you want to quote and then clicking on the "reply" icon, this will produce the quote you want while avoiding the nessecity of quoting an entire previous post. This quote will be set off within blue lines.

There must be other means to do multiple AR set off quotes since you see them in some posts, but I have no idea of how to do more than one.

On the "phony", no need to appologize, I can see how what I wrote could have been misunderstood, especially where it was placed in my post. I was actually complimenting 500 Grains' wit and his writing, which I miss and which was a hoot when he was in full charge taking apart a phony here. It might supprise you, but there are some posters here (past for sure, present as well) who are phonies in the most literal sense of the word, with no experience at all, who claim trophies or experience not their own and there are lesser offenders who over exagerate their own real experience. Carmello was one true phony, there are others. I never cease to be amazed at the phonies, why the heck would a grown man lie about something like that for? Why make up stories? As there are those who invent or gin up their field experience, there are those who invent tests to support their baloney, in arrears as well as in advance.

Excellent photo of the rhinos, makes me regret my missed opportunity all the more.

I understand what you seek with your tests, and though I strongly disagree with some of your methodology, media or conclusions, at the same time I agree with, or even learn from, other aspects or conclusions you've drawn. What I seek from tests is much more limited than what you seek, and so when I want to test something, I can go shoot another elephant or two or three.

BTW, you will find better peformance in game from your solids with a truncated cone shape more similar to NF or GS Custom, I think. There is much here from both 500 Grains and Gerard, proprieter of GS Custom Bullets, to search and read if you are interested. Alf too has contributed much, but Alf relies too much on disimilar or irrelevant testing done for the military and others, imo.

You ahve asked for test data, most of my data from my tests, in a notebook, was lost when I moved - along with a remarkable quantity of other possessions given a half mile move, but some is captured here and there in posts and photos. Boiled down it would reveal 500gr Woodleigh round nose penetration on ele heads from the front to be expected to be, within a small range, +/-36" at 2145fps, 450gr NF FN penetration at 2200fps to be expected to be widely variable from 48" to 56". The info on the FN's may be skewed downward because on frontal brain shots, given the height of elephants and so angle of the shot, some FN's exit between the shoulder blades limiting the distance which can be measured, the range of expected penetration would increase as well. On body shots, for broadside shots, there are exits from both bullets, ~50% rate for Woodleighs, near 100% for NF's on cow eles. I believe post shot measurements are meaningless since once on its side the breadth of the ele's chest is distorted. On a relatively fewer front on or quartering away shots into ele bodies, FN penetration has run from about 48" to as much as 72" with some exits, but a high percentage of bullets are lost. No recall on what the Woodleighs did on those shots, but an even higher percentage is lost since they do not leave as distinct a wound trail and, oddly, since there penetration isn't as great they end up more frequently "in the middle" where finding them is a challenge.

BTW, I pay $20/bullet to the trackers and the skinners to find the bullets and observe while they track wound channels or cut meet "downstream" from entries. As you would know, $20 is quite an incentive for those hard working fellows.

I am more than happy to agree to disagree, and without animosity. I also look forward to future spirited debate regarding those areas where we do no agree.

JPK

I will say a few words about 500Grains.

Dan is a good personal friend of mine, I usually see him 2 times a year, sometimes 3 on my way west to Idaho.

I can assure all of you in person he is one very fine fellow.

He is also a very good shot.

It is a shame he was banned.

ffffg

Well, your post has taken on a life of its own for sure.

I do believe that the 450gr North Fork Flat Point Solids, do penetrate deeper in elephants than the 480gr Woodleigh Solids, after using both, for brain shot elephants I have taken with my 450 No2.

Still the bottom line is.

I would not hesitate to take a contract to kill every elephant on the Planet, with the condition that I use Woodleigh Solids.

Use them in your bolt rifle with COMPLETE
CONFIDENCE.

Couldn't agree more with both of 450NE No2's posts.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Couldn't agree more with both of 450NE No2's posts.

JPK

+3

465H&H

Barnes unreliable? I can only give one example; that being the buffalo I shot last December in Zim. He was facing us standing up at 40+/-yds. At 2370MV the old-style single driving band hit him square in the brisket and made a full intake to exhaust wound channel and exited. He reared up backwards and fell over on his left rear quarter.

I have no complaints about the way they worked.

Rich
Buff Killer

Rich!

We were talking about the old hemispherical RN solids (blue colored ones) before they came out with the banded varieties. A2 also made one very similar and it didn't perform well either.

465H&H

quote:

Mouse: find the language you wish to quote, left click and hold at the bigginning and drag over what you want to quote, when you've highlighted what you want to quote, right click and scoll to "copy", left click on "copy" and then insert into a post you have already begun or that you subsequently begin by placing the cursor where you want the quote to go, right clicking, then scrolling to "paste", left clicking on "paste". This will result in a word for word quote, but you will need to put quotation marks around it. - Alternative if you have yet to begin a reply is to highlight a section of another member's post that you want to quote and then clicking on the "reply" icon, this will produce the quote you want while avoiding the nessecity of quoting an entire previous post. This quote will be set off within blue lines.

JPK
Holy Crap! How did I do that! I did as you said, highlighted before the reply and got the above! Thanks! Yeah I could do the copy and paste thing. But be careful don't tell me too much I just learned how to do the photos, if you recall you went thru that with me a long time ago! It takes me awhile, be patient! OK maybe I will get these little things figured out!

As far as the quotes, well I am getting a little old timers, hell I can't remember much past 10 minutes or so ago!

As for the "phonies" no need to explain them, they are the same sorts that walk into the gun shops with amazing stories of some great and wonderful shooting endeavor, which any person in the know, well knows better for lack of better words. I know them well and they are a dime a dozen it seems.

Why do they lie? I don't know, I guess they are trying to make up for some short coming somewhere, or trying to fit in, something like that.

We have been working now for a couple of years getting my solids right for the .500 caliber rifles I am shooting. Right now performance has actually surprised me both in the tests and MOST IMPORTANTLY in the field on elephant HEADS, elphant bodies and buffalo bodies! The two best are the 510 gr bullet from the 50 B&M-Win M70 18 inch barrel 510 Solid at 2100 fps. This 510 went frontal brain shot-Angle was dead between the eyes, not above or below. Centered the brain, exited gone somewhere lost in the body. Second elephant was broadside, the 510 passed thru broadside thru the heart exited the right side and gone. A quick second rear shot entered top of back and exited the front of the chest-that was a full 7 ft dead straight. A quick 3 rd shot entered just behind the second bullet about 1 foot or so. It was found and I have it, but other than it was somewhere in the front I don't know exact measurements. So since I don't know I call it 7 ft of penetration too. Not only good penetration, but to be honest I was very pleased with the performance, and animal reactions, all was actually better than expected! After the two elephants I had 5 buffalo to sort out. After all this I had gone from considering my little 50 "adequate" for the job, to considering it a serious contender as a true stopping rifle! I was very pleased to say the least. Next in line will be the 500 MDM--a bigger version! Anyway, I don't need to get carried away with that.

Next! Let me Copy/Paste

Boiled down it would reveal 500gr Woodleigh round nose penetration on ele heads from the front to be expected to be, within a small range, +/-36" at 2145fps, 450gr NF FN penetration at 2200fps to be expected to be widely variable from 48" to 56"

MAN JPK THIS IS EXCELLENT INFORMATION!!!!!!! Now this I can relate to! VERY VERY EXCELLENT! You AIN'T going to want to hear this, but I believe I can correlate this back directly to my test work! CORRELATE does not mean SIMULATE---this may be were you and I have an issue. My TEST MEDIUM IS NOT AND CANNOT AND NEVER WILL "SIMULATE" animal flesh and bone! No test medium can do that ok. Correlate is not the same. If you look back up to what I have been so unsuccessful about getting across, maybe my fault, maybe we both read and type too fast, maybe we both assume too much. Correlate is merely a means for me to correlate the data I have in the "Lab" so to speak back into some sort of expectation in the field. NOT SIMULATE---but correlate data. Please, this is rather exciting to me, do not take it the wrong way and throw us back in a argument. And I am thinking, and typing out loud right now too.

Recall somewhere above where I state that my field information is very short and but from what little I had I could "CORRELATE" that in general I could count on 30% more penetration on animal flesh than in test medium. The numbers you give me come close to that, but I will retest the 500 Woodleighs at your velocity and see for sure, but damn it looks very very close. Of course the penetration you are getting is plenty adequate. I would say that the NorthFork you are using is probably close, I might would have expected just a tad more--but the big issue is that I have NOT tested or worked with the GS or NorthFork solids, so I can't say for sure. I will try and find some for that project.

JPK---again not trying to simulate-but correlate data into something meaningful we can use, and depend on, that is all. I can do this with excellent precision with expanding bullets, however as we all know, and I have learned, when solids are concerned we enter an entirely different dynamic, that I am not sure any of us have a 100% understanding of. We have lot's of ideas, but 100% there is so much more to this. Expanding is easy compared to solids of any configuration.

I will value your data and will record it in my records for future use, now and future. Also I know how difficult it is to collect data like this from the field, one is lucky as hell to get data from 25% of the shots taken, and that is triple hard on elephants!
I pay $20 for bullets too--exact same amount!

I gotta go--dont' want anything to happen to this post and I will be back to finish later.

Michael

Woodys have worked okay for me, but Barnes banded FNs have worked better, so now I use Barnes.

Would I use Woodys again?

Yes.

They are no longer my first choice, however.

You guys know damn well you can't get rid of me that easy "I'm Back"!

I apologize, I don't know how to be short and concise!

Oh yes, $20 for a bullet is good business, like I said I do the exact same thing, to the same $$ amount! Amazing!

JPK-I really am excited about your data, and will record that in my terminal ballistics reports, and your name will be along side! I keep a fair amount of data, all on computer, all backed up in several places just in case! Thanks, and will be more than happy to get more data like this in the future from you! It's a good start!

ffffg

Your thread has taken a life of it's own as NE450 says! A big part of this is my fault, and my apologies if it took a turn in the wrong direction.

Rich

465 is correct on some of the older reports on some of the Barnes RN solids. I have personally never had a problem and I started using them in the mid 90s. As for the new Barnes banded FN solids, personally I think they are about as good as it gets in 458 caliber. I work with them in various 416s, but my experience in 416s are very limited. Not so in 458 caliber, and they are superb!

mrlexma

X2--as they say!


465-NE450-JPK

Now let's see, how about our load out?

Well mine is now 3 550 gr flat nose solids down in my 500 MDM at 2210 fps!

JPK--I figure a 500 Woodleigh backed by a 450 NorthFork

NE 450--I assume a double with 2 RN Woodleighs?

465-I figure you might be getting ready to make a change? Maybe two FN NorthForks!

Now it ain't gonna be me that counts this up!!!!!

It's been fun guys--Enjoyed these last posts much better than some of the others!

But I am still looking for a count, but I ain't gonna do it!


Michael

quote:

465-NE450-JPK

Now let's see, how about our load out?

Well mine is now 3 450 gr flat nose solids down in my 500 MDM at 2210 fps!

JPK--I figure a 500 Woodleigh backed by a 450 NorthFork

NE 450--I assume a double with 2 RN Woodleighs?

465-I figure you might be getting ready to make a change? Maybe two FN NorthForks!

Now it ain't gonna be me that counts this up!!!!!

It's been fun guys--Enjoyed these last posts much better than some of the others!

But I am still looking for a count, but I ain't gonna do it!

Michael,

A warning regarding the blue line set off quotes, like the one above, they are editable, as are full post quotes. What is quoted can be changed if someone wanted to mislead. For instance, I changed your 550gr bullets above to 450gr to give an example.

You are mistaken regarding both 450NE No2 and 465H&H, both have used Woodleighs as well as FN NF's on prior hunts.

I know 465H&H prefers the 550gr Woodleighs at 2150fps from his Lott. They deliver all of the penetration he requires while providing him increased knock down/out effect over lighter bullets. Heavier than 500gr monos are just too long. But it seems when he is using less rifle, he may prefer the penetration of the FN's. For example, I believe he has chosen a 458wm for his upcoming elephant hunt, and the 458wm cannot accomodate the 550gr Woodleighs at usable velocity. Perhaps he will chime in.

While 500Grains steered me toward NF's, it was 450NE No2, who's testiment to their effectiveness in .458" at velocities I could achieve with them in my double rifle, who got me to try them.

Recall that in my post, following the portion you cut and pasted on penetration, I pointed out that the 450gr NF FN penetration data on frontal brain shots was possibly skewed downward because exit between the shoulder blades for some examples limited measurement. So, for example, if a bullet traveled 54" and exited, I recorded 54", though if there had been "more elephant" to penetrate the bullet would have done so for an unknown distance in excess of 54".

BTW, I have never found any evidence of any Woodleigh tumbling on a frontal brain shot.

My PH got into the act once when I was doing some penetration testing and we shot several of his 470 Woodleighs into elephant heads from the front. He loads his 470 hot for his PH role, running his 500gr .474" Woodleigh solids at ~2250fps. Penetration on the three or four round we tested ran 39"-42" as I recall. All found without evidence of tumbling as well.

JPK

Michael,

I used a 450 Dakota on a 19 year old cow elephant at nine paces (about 20 feet) in November 2005.

Two 465 grain TCCI RN monometals at 2,500 fps penetrated 31-39 inches including pass through the zygomatic arch. One bullet recovered from skin sticking out of skull. Not very good penetration.

Several 450 grain North Fork flat Nose penetrated 60 inches or more on different angles on live and freshly killed elphant.

Velocity 2,550 fps. A real hard test on any monometal or FMJ.

Andy

PS Dan is a freind of mine also and proud to call him one.

My 80% reference was to posts about Woodleighs. I have no facts to say what percentage of bullets failed.
Its hard to tell how much truth is in a statement so I base it loosely on my perception of how many people with experience are voting for or against.
Perhaps I was wrong after having seen this thread I may have thought differently.

That aside, I still believe that due to the increased penetration and the number of PH's switching to them the FN solid is the way to go.
Good luck
Ian

JPK

Concerning your warning, I think we must all strive to read carefully before engaging mouth. I suppose you can do that with the little eraser thing, as it is within your post?

What exactly I am referring to at the end of my prior post is what I would ASSUME that we would "load out" or use if we were going to the field next week. Not anything prior to! 465HH has a order in for some FN Solids from NorthFork, so I was playing with him a bit!

I understand the "skewed down" I did the exact same with my bullets Called the Exit the max, as anything else would have been guessing. But very important to note that.

Thanks for the 470 info, will record that also.

Andy

Hi! I don't think we have talked direct, but I have read much of what you have done as for test work and other things. I appreciate your work in these matters!

I have seen reference to TCCI RN, but not familiar with?

I don't wish to be at odds here, but I hate velocity for this sort of job! It is my belief that at some point the higher the velocity you will reach a point of diminishing returns. As you state, 2550 fps is a difficult test for any solid period, I agree.

This is very good information you have, I will also plug this in.

Andy I would be extremely interested in some of your findings on terminal ballistics? Perhaps a sharing of information and data is in order?

Vlam

Sorry, I am the one who hauled you into a mess, but it does appear that something very much worthwhile is churning up from the depths and working it's way to the light!

Michael

quote:

My PH got into the act once when I was doing some penetration testing and we shot several of his 470 Woodleighs into elephant heads from the front. He loads his 470 hot for his PH role, running his 500gr .474" Woodleigh solids at ~2250fps. Penetration on the three or four round we tested ran 39"-42" as I recall. All found without evidence of tumbling as well

Hey JPK, maybe I am getting the hang of this, but yes I see where it could also be changed should someone wish to do so.

I am glad you brought up the 470 above as it reminds me of an issue I have here. No way I can be brief about this, so I decided a separate post. I have 2 Winchester M70s in 470 Capstick, from the old custom shop. Both are part of a package called the "Big Five" from Winchester. There were 5 rifles 1 for each year, total of 125 of each. Well I knew the folks at the Custom Shop very well, and while they did a creditable job on wood and such, when it come to big bore rifles they didn't have a clue! The other rifles issued in 338 Win--375 H&H (which is the only one of the series I don't have)--416 Rem-458 Win, function and shoot very well without any issues at all. I have taken some of these on some hunts and they performed well.

The 470s are a different story. They have been an issue from day one! First one thing, then another. They did no rail work for the larger diameter case of the 470 so they would not retain cartridges in the magazine, nice single shots and Winchester did not have the expertise to sort that out. When I started dealing with Brian at SSK he had that sorted out in no time. They now feed and function perfectly. Well that is one thing.

I worked up loads and have shot hundreds on top of hundreds of rounds getting data and this that the other. As for paper they seemed accurate enough with most bullets, and one of the main bullets I was shooting with these are the Woodleighs, both solids and softs. Swifts were good too. Barnes, not so good!

Well a couple of years ago when I was started getting serious about testing the solids I was trying to "CORRELATE" some data into something meaningful as to compare with some of my new .500 caliber (not .510) bullets we were working with. So I needed data from what would be considered "Known Performance" right. Ok I knew for a fact that solids from various 458s did the job--so that would be my control. What would equal the 458s would be considered adequate. I threw 416 in the mix, 470 in the mix, and even 510 Wells in the mix to get a base line. While some of these was not known to me-it was well established that certain bullets from these other cartridges had a good rep and would also help serve as a base line.

This is when I started getting some surprises.

As for the 470s performance the Barnes and even the Woodleigh FMJs performance was horrible. Both RN and both would start turning, or veering off course at 19-20 inches and out of the box at 25-26 inches consistently. Damn bullets were flying into the light fixtures breaking them, into the ceiling, into the walls, hell I even thought at one time they might come back at me! I found bullets on the floor, tracked the movement thru the mix, recorded the data! I started looking at the bullets and there was very very little engraving from the rifling on the bullets? Not near enough engraving for sure. I measured the bullets, both Woodleigh and Barnes, they were coming out at .472-.473, The Woodleighs coming in at .4725 and .473---Barnes at .472-.4725?????? Damn boxes say .474!!!!! This is new bullets in the box! Of all the 470s I have in stock the Swift was the only bullet that came out to .474.

So now I had other issues. I suspect the barrels on the Winchesters are probably over sized, who knows what twist rate, and the bullets being somewhat undersized, there is no way they can perform.

I know for a fact that one can use a faster twist rate and allow a ROUND NOSE solid to penetrate dead straight for a minimum of 90% of it's total penetration!!!!!! I have done that with the various .500 cartridges I am working with! Combine a decent barrel that is the proper diameter, twist rate, and proper sized bullets this is easy to achieve and increase the penetration of any round nose. Example in my several generations of getting the right bullet for my .500s, one of these was a 512 gr round nose, nearly exactly a woodleigh profile bullet. With a 1:18 twist this bullet at 2050 fps was only stable about 50% of it's total penetration and off it goes. Switching to a 1:12 twist barrel, same bullet, same everything, it was now stable to 90% of it's total penetration only going off course a few inches at the very end of it's penetration and stayed in the box each and every time. Penetration was also increased by around 35% (as I recall). That is a substantial amount!

Now had I not tested these 470s I would have just assumed that life was great and wonderful and I might have taken these things on a ele hunt and I might have run into some serious issues with bullets not being stable as the main reason for such!!!!! These things have never been to the field.

Now with this knowledge in hand a few things to ponder upon. First I am not a gunsmith, I break more than I fix! I am not an expert and make no claims in nearly anything, I am a shooter looking for answers, nothing more. I don't know the twist rates on most of my big bores, I assume the barrel makers and manufacturers know what they are doing. Standards for 416 and 458 have been established long before I came along! But because of my experiences, limited as it is, it causes me to have questions!!!

Theory!

1. Twist Rates/RN Solids! From my limited experience I believe stability during terminal penetration of RN solids can be enhanced greatly with faster twist rates. While what might be standard twist rates for caliber, might not be enough for round nose solids for "Terminal Penetration". Plenty good for accuracy, but not terminal penetration!

2. Barrel! Although I have not had anyone look at my 470s barrels, slug them for size or anything, I believe they are over sized and who knows what twist rate they are? This combined with bullets that are sized .472-.473 certainly CANNOT ENHANCE terminal performance!

3. Why the undersized bullets in .470? Others in 458-417-.510 are not? How is it possible?

Now put them all together. Like me, probably many guys have gone to the field and had some of the same issues, but didn't know it! Had I not tested the 470s I would not have paid attention to these things. Had I not been very heavy into testing in the .500s I would not have realized that twist rate was so important in round nose solids. I think most shooters, hunters, go to the field without knowing these things, and it may be a cause of some issues or bad reps for bullets and the bullet itself or it's design is not to blame at all! It would fall back on poorly manufactured barrels, and twist rates that are not adequate for the mission at hand!

I think this is something we should consider at least?

I know there is no way I would take those 470s out without doing something different! Sad thing is on them to get them to work proper with any current manufactured solids of any sort the barrels would have to be changed out! The other solution to them is to slug the barrels, find out what the exact diameter is, and CNC some good FN designs to those specs. Which is what I would do before changing barrels out for these rifles. However I will most likely never work with or take these rifles to the field because of the B&M rifles. So they are pretty much retired.

Anyway just some rambling thoughts of mine, sorry if I carry on, but in search of answers for some of our issues! Maybe it is not the bullet at all?????? I do know for a fact that concerning the twist rate issue that a Flat nose bullet negates that. In the .500s a flat nose in the 1:18 twist does just as well as in 1:12? While 1:18 causes real issues with terminal stability with the round nose.

Regardless thereof, anyone have some thoughts on this?

Michael

quote:

a 512 gr round nose, nearly exactly a woodleigh profile bullet. With a 1:18 twist this bullet at 2050 fps was only stable about 50% of it's total penetration and off it goes. Switching to a 1:12 twist barrel, same bullet, same everything, it was now stable to 90% of it's total penetration only going off course a few inches at the very end of it's penetration and stayed in the box each and every time. Penetration was also increased by around 35% (as I recall). That is a substantial amount!

I have to make a correction on my own data! Sorry, I was going off the cuff and not checking my data, so I made a mistake.

1. 50% of it's total penetration and off it goes.

This statement should read 70% of it's total penetration.


2. Penetration was also increased by around 35%

This statement should read 25% not 35%.

Still regardless of my mistake it is still substantial improvements in my book.

Sorry
Michael

Michael,

I'm short time right now and can't go into a long distance answer, but will note a couple of things you may wish to look into with a search here on AR.

1.) In Gerard's opinion (Gerard = proprietor of GS Custom Bullets), twist rate is a significant pedictor of deep, straight penetration in game. To sum up his view in a short and inexact manner which can't do it justice: Twist rate determines stability, "extra" stability at transition between air and flesh is required for flat noses to make the transition positioned, without yaw, etc, so that shoulder stabilization of the TC FN's can be most effective, increasing angle of attack requires additional stability to successfully make the transition. Depending on velocity, Gerard believes that an S/F (stability factor) of 2 is minimum on the slower bullets, 2.5 on the faster bullets and that improvement in straight line penetration caused by increasing S/F does no reduce to insignificance until S/F reaches 3.4 to 4. So, in game, twist rate is significant for FN solids, with more producing better in target results.

Alf and Gerard seem to agree that twist in game is insignificant since flesh is ~1000x denser than air, I do not know enough to agree or disagree but lean toward agreeing. Regardless, twist is significant in so far as it effects the success of the bullet in making transition from air to game.

There is much to read on this, from roughly 2005 through last week. Try a search. Also, take a look at the medium bore forum for the thread 1-12" twist in 30-06" or some thing similar. Discount anything written by Warrior, he is hopelessly confused.

2.) I think what applies to TC FN solids re twist applies more or less to RN solids with regard to transition.

3.) Some report that some Woodleighs, seems maybe those matching historic profiles of old English bullets, have variable diameter with the max diameter just at the base, or perhaps with some parrallel near the base. .458" Woodleighs that I've measured are parrallel sided. Don't recall the measurement, haven't slugged my bores. 470 Woodleighs have a "pointier" profile than the hemisherical .458" version, FYI. Blamed by some as a cause for less consistant straight line performance over the decades - see eg, John Taylor.

If a Woodleigh takes engraving, even lightly, I gotta think it leaves the barrel at full rotation, since I would think that the steel jacket is involved with even light engraving. Examining a fired 470 Woodleigh would reveal overwide and "triangular" engraving at the initial point of engraving if the bullet is failing to properly initiate twist and "skidding" on the rifling.

I'm betting that barrel twist rate is insufficient. (for that irrelevant medium that you use!, but perhaps sufficient for game. BTW, it seems clear as day to me that your test medium requires more twist for "successful bullet performance" than elephant heads or bodies. I also think that it is clear as day that elephant skulls require less twist than elephant or buff bodies for the same "successful bullet performance". For example, no evidence ever of tumbling on frontal brain shots, but some evidence of late stage tumbling in buff or elephant bodies.)

Got to go.

JPK

Michael, JPK,

I didn't bite on your reference to me possibly using FN solids for my upcoming elephant hunt because I knew you were just trying to jerk my chain. But since JPK has brought it up again, I will explain my reasoning. I will have an article published in an upcoming issue of African Hunter magazine on current factory loads for the 458 Win. So I will be taking my 458 with the new Hornady DGS 500 grain bullet to try out. I will also take along my 465 Nitro. I havn't used it lately because it seems that using steel jacketed solids makes the right barrel go out of regulation. Since North Fork has agreed to produce a limited run of FN solids for it I will be using them. Hopefully, their driving band design will put less stress on the barrels and they will stay in regulation. Let me be clear on this, none of this in any way reduces my confidence in the terminal performance of Woodleigh solids for elephant or buffalo.

465H&H

JPK

Yes I have read a lot of Gerard here and on his site too. Most of which I am in agreement with plus or minus and so forth. However I think, not 100% sure, but I think most of the twist and stability issues are with flat nose designs that he is speaking of. I might have easily missed something, but flat nose I believe. I agree 100% that twist rate may not be as big of an issue with flat nose as it is round nose. I have had this happen and seen it first hand. Limited research on my part proves this, but it is limited and not expansive.

Oh my 470 barrels I am sure are oversized as I am getting some skidding and in addition to that the damn barnes I have look like they have been shot out of a shotgun ZERO ENGRAVING. Just some skuff marks on them!!! They can't be stable. I bet the twist rate in them is insufficient too. I would not trust these guns to shoot rats in the field much less anything serious!

Later

Michael

465H&H

Yeah buddy, just monkeying with you about the NorthFork deal. No offense I hope, just seemed like good timing!

Good luck on the article.

Michael

[quote]Gerard believes that an S/F (stability factor) of 2 is minimum on the slower bullets, 2.5 on the faster bullets and that improvement in straight line penetration caused by increasing S/F does no reduce to insignificance until S/F reaches 3.4 to 4. So, in game, twist rate is significant for FN solids, with more producing better in target results.quote]

Michael,

Then compare the above notion for FN bullets with HV bullets (being essentially Spitzer in shape) where the claim is that an SF of 1.4 is needed out to 500 yds. Why shoud there be a difference? And such a difference from 1.4 to 2.0 plus for what is termed "slower bullets" and 2.5 plus for "faster bullets". It is not just this criteria of a bullet being slower or faster, but Gerard also says it is a velocity and meplat thing. So here we see that the size of the meplat also apparently plays a decisive role? And figure now that meplats get bigger as we go up in bore size (caliber). And for the meplat variable, the explanation of differing stagnation pressures are offered. This mysterious link between SF and stagnation pressure needs some explanation.

This needs clarification ..... does the .375 bullet need a higher SF than the 9,3 bullet because it has a bigger MEPLAT AREA and a higher VELOCITY? If so, what is the position with a bigger diameter and heavier bullet (say 500 grains) shot in a 460 Wby Magnum at 2,600 fps? What is the position when the meplat is even bigger, say for example a .510 caliber, but the velocity falls back to what would fit this definition (sic ) of a slower bullet.

I do not buy this, as a 286gr 9,3mm Brass Solid shoots straight through an elephant's head on a side shot, and it has been tested on Hippo's (body shots) as well - the SF value being only 1.39 by virtue of a 1 in 14" twist. Furthermore, if we should shoot a 9,3 FN bullet at a faster velocity in a 9,3 x64 mm, the equivalent of a 375 H&H in velocity, then it fails the test as its SF is still just a fraction over 2.0 and it does not achieve the magical SF of 2.5 plus for "faster bullets" !!! That is why I say the theory breaks down.

If a bullet is stable, it is stable, and so additional spin of the bullet becomes moot. Geometry takes over.

Warrior

Warrior

As I stated I think twist makes much less difference in flat nose. I think it is very important with a round nose.

Michael

Please realize that when you start talking about stability factors and stagnation pressure, I get a big headache. Getting too complicated for my little mind . The standard twist rates given by S.A.M.M.I. for various calibers were originally generated for lead core bullets. That equates to certain bullet lengths. If you exceed or reduce bullet length below their design (twist) parameters, they do not stabilize. Witness what happened when Remington put 1 1/12" twist in the 244 Rem. 100 grain bullets would not stabilize and the cartridge died for all practical purposes. So I have to assume that if you use a bullet of proper weight say 500 grains for the 458 Win. it will stabilize. If you keep the weight the same and make it longer by using a lighter bullet material it may well not stabilize. Hence if you want to keep momentum up by keeping bullet weight the same then you have to increase bullet length when using a mono-metal bullet. It is often recommended here that you should use a faster twist if you want to use a mono of the same weight as a lead core bullet. If meplat size makes a difference in stability independent of weight or length then a flat nosed 500 grain mono-metal bullet from say the Lott should stabilize with a slower twist rate than a RN mono-metal of the same weight. I haven't seen any test data to support that premise. Is there any?

465H&H

quote:

I have seen reference to TCCI RN, but not familiar with?

I don't wish to be at odds here, but I hate velocity for this sort of job! It is my belief that at some point the higher the velocity you will reach a point of diminishing returns. As you state, 2550 fps is a difficult test for any solid period, I agree.

Michael,

The TCCI is the original A-Square. (They made them, and appear to have also designed them, for Alphin).

2,550 fps w the North Fork Flat Nose had more penetration than just about any bullet ever measured on elephant, so I would not be afraid of velocity.

My PH who has seen so many elephant shot, thought the 375 at same velocity had by far the most penetration of any suitable caliber.

Water accurately predicts performance of FMJ RN and La Grange stop box comes within about 90% of penetration of FN but does not predict superiority of FN over RN!!!

After shooting hundreds of 375, 416 and 458 bullets into water tanks and boards I have conlcuded the only appropriate test medium for an elephant skull is an elephant skull.

You can search here for most of my data and articles on this.

Also search for Ron Berrys water soaked Iron Buffalo which has been calibrated to my shots on elephant.

Andy

Hey Warrior,
You have not answered the questions about the crows. We really are curious about them. Come on man, help us out here.

465H&H
I beg to differ based on the GS Custom tests. Bullets stabalise in a set twist based on length of bullet. The weight does not affect stability.
It is the same reason that a 450gr FN is recommended for the 458 Lott over a 500gr as the penetration has been superior in the same twist with the Shorter/Lighter bullet.

Viam,

You may wish to reread 465H&H's post, he is saying what you are saying, and also pointing out that for a heavier mono, one meeting the standard cup and core weight, you would need more twist.

He is also shooting down Warrior's bunk regarding (air) stabilization being influenced by meplat.

JPK

quote:

He is also shooting down Warrior's bunk regarding (air) stabilization being influenced by meplat.

JPK,

This is not my bunk.
I never connected stability with meplat.
Look a bit further .... here is comes:

"Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth."

Guess who said that?

Warrior

About those crows.....

465&JPK
My apologies, I was reading it from the wrong point of view and had everything in reverse.
465 is 100% correct in what he has said.

Ian

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

He is also shooting down Warrior's bunk regarding (air) stabilization being influenced by meplat.

JPK,

This is not my bunk.
I never connected stability with meplat.
Look a bit further .... here is comes:

"Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth."

Guess who said that?

Warrior

Gerard, and he was writing of transition, not air.

JPK

/

quote:

Water penetration ( non compressable fluid) on the other hand causes ogived ( RN's and Spitzers) bullets to tumble, that is an indisputed fact, so shooting balls, cilinders and large meplat FN's into water cannot possibly be compared to shooting ogived bullets into water or for that matter wooden baffles?

Penetration of the 458 TCCI/A Square RN in water was identical ES to elephant skull on three shots each.

The Truncated Cone FN (North Fork) had twice the penetration in water as elephant skull.

Andy

I am not 100% sure but I just might have been one of the first to shoot elephants with North Fork Flat Point Solids.

WARNING - WARRIOR IS CONTINUING A THAT HE STARTED AND LOST ON THIS THREAD. THIS WARNING REMAINS IN PLACE UNTIL CANCELLED

Pontificus Erroneus,
Do you seriously think that making the same repetitive claims here will expose you to a new audience? That other thread, where you displayed your addled thinking to more than 3000 views, are visited by the same people as this one. Get a life.

quote:

Then compare the above notion for FN bullets with HV bullets

This thread is about solids. HV bullets are e-x-p-a-n-d-i-n-g bullets or s-o-f-t-s.

quote:

Why shoud (sic) there be a difference?

It is pitiful that you do not recognise the difference between a soft and a solid.
This is the same question you have been asking for 5 years and for which you have been given the answer numerous times. Give it up. If you have not caught on in 5 years, it is not going to happen. Just accept it as one of those mysteries of life that you will never understand.

quote:

It is not just this criteria of a bullet being slower or faster, but Gerard also says it is a velocity and meplat thing. And figure now that meplats get bigger as we go up in bore size (caliber). And for the meplat variable, the explanation of differing stagnation pressures are offered. This mysterious link between SF and stagnation pressure needs some explanation.

But this was explained by Alf!!?? You believe everything Alf says, dont you - even if someone else said it and Alf differs with the statement and quotes it? You just have to think that Alf said something to agree with it.

quote:

I do not buy this. That is why I say the theory breaks down.

I do not care what you buy or say. You are for amusement value only. Allow me to illustrate at the hand of this statement from you:

quote:

If a bullet is stable, it is stable, and so additional spin of the bullet becomes moot.

You will fail to answer the following very basic question: Is there a difference in tractibility between a stable bullet with a stability factor of 1.3 at the muzzle and a stable bullet with a stability factor of 2.3 at the muzzle?

quote:

This is not my bunk. I never connected stability with meplat.

So true - Five years trying and you are just not getting there. So sad.


Your incorrect use of (sic) is noted. When you copycat others, at least try to do it correctly. See how I used it when I quoted your "shoud" above? Google it for the explanation and read from the top, all the way to the bottom, s-l-o-w-l-y. Then try to use it again. Here is another example of the correct use:

quote:

Look a bit further .... here is (sic) comes:

Every time you crawl out of the woodwork it reminds me of the saying of another member that goes: "Somewhere there are a whole lot of villagers who know they are OK."