Guns and Ammo in a right yp about the bonded DGX has admitted in print that the soft Mike Schobly fires into a buffalo in 2006 cape unglued on the shoulder with fragments doing little damage to the vital.

The result was a long follow and charge where the PH got knocked down, but not crushed or horned.

You can see the hunt on Boddingtob on Buffalo and aired on Tracks.

We all know that soft was a 416 Hornady DGX.

Guns and Ammo nor anyone else said the DGX failed.

Sadly, advertising dollars make the world go round, but there is no way I would not have shown that destroyed bullet. There is no way I would have made the contention as Hornady did that the DGX was just fine. An Engineer from Hornady told me in 2016 when I found out at DSC they were going to bond the DGX that the DGX did not need bonding, but the market thought it did.

I use Hornady bullets. Mostly interlocks in 375. But I do not like this acknowledgment being 11 years late. The article does not actually name this fragmented softs maker and design. Oh well, at least some honesty is better than none.

I was told the same thing by a Hornady rep this year at SCI.

I'm doing some load development now for my .470. I've got some boxes of the old DGX and some boxes of Woodleigh softs.

I think I'm going to use the Woodleigh on game and save the DGX for practice.

Or use the DGX on jack rabbits, they should open up nicely on them. My 570g A-Frames kill them but don't expand reliably

I know a lot of PHs who tell horror stories with that bullet.

Personally, I have had horror stories with the ammo on the range. Rounds that would not fire. Rounds where the primer moved. Inconsistent rim thickness. No way will I ever hunt DG with them ever again.

In this day and age, I would never use any bullet with lead and jacket.

Mono metal all the way.

Second best is those with a solid shank, like the Trophy Bonded Bear Claws etc.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Guns and Ammo in a right yp about the bonded DGX has admitted in print that the soft Mike Schobly fires into a buffalo in 2006 cape unglued on the shoulder with fragments doing little damage to the vital.

The result was a long follow and charge where the PH got knocked down, but not crushed or horned.

You can see the hunt on Boddingtob on Buffalo and aired on Tracks.

We all know that soft was a 416 Hornady DGX.

Guns and Ammo nor anyone else said the DGX failed.

Sadly, advertising dollars make the world go round, but there is no way I would not have shown that destroyed bullet. There is no way I would have made the contention as Hornady did that the DGX was just fine. An Engineer from Hornady told me in 2016 when I found out at DSC they were going to bond the DGX that the DGX did not need bonding, but the market thought it did.

I use Hornady bullets. Mostly interlocks in 375. But I do not like this acknowledgment being 11 years late. The article does not actually name this fragmented softs maker and design. Oh well, at least some honesty is better than none.

Back in 2007, a person who was involved in the testing warned me to never use them. I can’t remember his exact quote, but he felt these bullets were going to get people hurt or worse.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Guns and Ammo in a right yp about the bonded DGX has admitted in print that the soft Mike Schobly fires into a buffalo in 2006 cape unglued on the shoulder with fragments doing little damage to the vital.

The result was a long follow and charge where the PH got knocked down, but not crushed or horned.

You can see the hunt on Boddingtob on Buffalo and aired on Tracks.

We all know that soft was a 416 Hornady DGX.

Guns and Ammo nor anyone else said the DGX failed.

Sadly, advertising dollars make the world go round, but there is no way I would not have shown that destroyed bullet. There is no way I would have made the contention as Hornady did that the DGX was just fine. An Engineer from Hornady told me in 2016 when I found out at DSC they were going to bond the DGX that the DGX did not need bonding, but the market thought it did.

I use Hornady bullets. Mostly interlocks in 375. But I do not like this acknowledgment being 11 years late. The article does not actually name this fragmented softs maker and design. Oh well, at least some honesty is better than none.

Is this in the April edition?

Hornady makes a right adequate practice bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Guns and Ammo in a right yp about the bonded DGX has admitted in print that the soft Mike Schobly fires into a buffalo in 2006 cape unglued on the shoulder with fragments doing little damage to the vital.

The result was a long follow and charge where the PH got knocked down, but not crushed or horned.

You can see the hunt on Boddingtob on Buffalo and aired on Tracks.

We all know that soft was a 416 Hornady DGX.

Guns and Ammo nor anyone else said the DGX failed.

Sadly, advertising dollars make the world go round, but there is no way I would not have shown that destroyed bullet. There is no way I would have made the contention as Hornady did that the DGX was just fine. An Engineer from Hornady told me in 2016 when I found out at DSC they were going to bond the DGX that the DGX did not need bonding, but the market thought it did.

I use Hornady bullets. Mostly interlocks in 375. But I do not like this acknowledgment being 11 years late. The article does not actually name this fragmented softs maker and design. Oh well, at least some honesty is better than none.

Is this in the April edition?

I believe so, read it at my In laws and left it there this morning has a right up on the bonded DGX and Kimbers two Big Bore magazine rifles on the cover. It is the current issue.

I would only use a Hornady bullet on paper and would be nervous at that.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
In this day and age, I would never use any bullet with lead and jacket.

Mono metal all the way.

Second best is those with a solid shank, like the Trophy Bonded Bear Claws etc.

I agree.. I'm completely sold on mono metal these days.. I dont reload anything else anymore..

In full disclosure - Hornady is our / my ammo sponsor, just so there's no mis-representation.

Fact is, I have used Hornady ammo faithfully for the past 5 yrs or so, with great results. I'm guessing of course, but I'd say I've shot 50 plus animals with Hornady ammo, and roughly 20 DG animals with the DGX as well. In all of the hunts I have done with Hornady, I have had only 1 bullet failure. It was on a buffalo in TZ - in 2015. We did find the bull 36 hrs later, and we discovered the issue - it was in fact bullet failure.

My point is, I've had gun failure, scope failure, and my failure too - anything made / created by man has a potential for failure. Overall I have smashed a bunch of DG animals with the DGX with great performance out of my .416 Ruger. For an off-the-shelf bullet / ammo, I think its pretty hard to beat. Any / every bullet is capable of some failure IMO, but the regularity of failure with Hornady ammo is so insignificant IMO - that its not worth considering.

I've certainly not shot as many buff / DG as Saeed, but I have shot more than most. I have full confidence in Hornady's ability, and I don't think that will change.

Respectfully, the issue is not one off failure but faling to report failure in media. Media that is suppose to be reporting what works and what does not.

Even in this article they do not say the failed bullet was a DGX. Instead Mr. Poole just says it was a soft.

We all know it was a DGX. Now, 11 years later Hornady through its partners says yeah our bullet nearly got someone killed because of bullet failure. That is not right by Hornady or Guns and Ammo. Even in Safari Rifles II published in 2007 Craig Bodington, who I like, does not tell us about it even though that buff is pictured in the book. He tells us the DGX is a good buff bullet.

Finally, Hornady’s refusal to acknowledge the issue insisting the bullet was fine, and bonding was just a concession to the market.

quote:

Originally posted by samir:
I would only use a Hornady bullet on paper and would be nervous at that.

i do not understand why anyone would spend twenty thousand dollars on a hunt and use cheap Hornady bullets. I only use them for practice. Use Swift, Barnes, Woodleigh or CEB. I am not wealthy enough to risk trophy fees on animals lost to bullet failure. Not to mention the effect of unnecessary wounding on the game.

Does anyone besides me remember the Hornady Interbond (AKA Interbomb) bullet failures a few years back? Numerous reported failures leading to a redesign of the bullets- they frequently just seemed to blow up on impact. Hornady seems to have a history of this mess.....

The Yugo of dangerous game bullets had a poor reputation when they came out. The Hornady ammunition also rolled out with a dismal reputation for quality control. I am not surprised the marketing side finally caught up. Hornady is not the only manufacturer to be the last to admit what everyone knows.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Respectfully, the issue is not one off failure but faling to report failure in media. Media that is suppose to be reporting what works and what does not.

Even in this article they do not say the failed bullet was a DGX. Instead Mr. Poole just says it was a soft.

We all know it was a DGX. Now, 11 years later Hornady through its partners says yeah our bullet nearly got someone killed because of bullet failure. That is not right by Hornady or Guns and Ammo. Even in Safari Rifles II published in 2007 Craig Bodington, who I like, does not tell us about it even though that buff is pictured in the book. He tells us the DGX is a good buff bullet.

Finally, Hornady’s refusal to acknowledge the issue insisting the bullet was fine, and bonding was just a concession to the market.

A long time ago, I realized that anyone being paid to test any product, is not going to have an open mind about the product he tests.

Now it has got so bad that practically any article about any product is an infomercial!


So buyer beware.

Saeed - yes, indeed. That is one of the very first "commercial" lessons of life.

Thanks to this forum, those who have been paying attention have known about Hornady DGX failures for many years now. The bullets are too brittle and break up all too often.

Still, it's pretty damned disgraceful when publications writing this stuff up won't report the facts.

Especially when not doing so might get some of us killed.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Saeed - yes, indeed. That is one of the very first "commercial" lessons of life.

Thanks to this forum, those who have been paying attention have known about Hornady DGX failures for many years now. The bullets are too brittle and break up all too often.

Still, it's pretty damned disgraceful when publications writing this stuff up won't report the facts.

Especially when not doing so might get some of us killed.

Michael,

We set up AR to address this very problem.

We are not being paid by anyone.

And as has been proven many times in the past, bullshit and bullshit artists do not last very long here.

And it is all due to our members.

We do not have to lift a finger!

My hat is off to all the members who have given their time, efforts and expertise to make sure this is exactly how it is on AR.

What has been the forum's experience with the Hornady DGS solid bullet over the last decade? Any better?

quote:

Originally posted by England:
What has been the forum's experience with the Hornady DGS solid bullet over the last decade? Any better?

I have a couple of hornady solids in .458 recovered from buffalo that look like bananas but think they are the old style Bullets not the DGS.

Face it guys.
This kind of thing is the reason we have such great bullets these days. It takes a lot of years of experimenting to figure this stuff out sometimes.

How many hundreds of thousands elk have been killed with the old CoreLokts? I had one blow up on the surface of a cow elk at 200 yards no less when hit on the ribs just right.

It's not right when this stuff is known and not to report it. Doing so just might save someone from getting chewed or gored.

Heym, thanks for posting this.

George

quote:

Originally posted by England:
What has been the forum's experience with the Hornady DGS solid bullet over the last decade? Any better?

My first successful buff hunt was with the DGS bullet,no problems,I knew going in not to trust the DGX,the DGS worked fine.

Saeed: You are a hundred percent right. But think all parties and customers would have been better servers by being up fonabou I o begin with and fixing he hung 10 years ago.

I would have more respect for Hornady if ey had done so.

DGS worked fine for me on elephant. No complaints there.

And to be fair I do think that Hornady should be commended for making ammunition for doubles like the .450/400, 500 Nitro, 470 Nitro. Etc

Hornady is the only brand of factory ammunition I've every had (1) consistently fail to fire, and (2) exhibit significant over-pressure excursions. And considering I very rarely have occasion to touch off a round of factory ammunition, the instances of Hornady problems have been a very high percentage of all times I've fired a round of Hornady.

Like I say, I rarely use factory ammunition for any purpose, but I now assiduously avoid Hornady.

I know that Ivan Carter has a great reputation as a PH. He is well respected.

He still vouched for the Hornady ammo an claimed that he used it for all his DG work as back up etc.

There was a similar discussion about the DGX failing and Ivan was part of that discussion a couple of years ago.

Rxgremlin; excellent point. It's a BIG deal to me that Hornady is making brass and ammo for real deal DG calibers, and I give them a lot of credit for tooling up to do that.

I tried some of the 500gr DGX bullets in my .458 Lott 6-7 years ago. I expanded a few in wet newspaper. They didn't mushroom much, some of the front came off and about 80-85% of the bullet was left, a fairly straight shank just slightly wider at the front. So I never used them on buffalo, stuck with 500gr TSX, which expanded great in the same test box. Honestly, my feeling was that the DGX was too 'hard!'

I have used the DGS with excellent results:
Follow-up shots on 2 buffalo: First one, just one follow-up as he ran off. Second one, 3 backup shots as he ran.
Hippo on land; four body shots, all solids recovered and 3 look like they could be reloaded again.
Big Tuskless Ele; brain shot with the animal quartering away, bullet penetrated out the front.

So I just load the DGX for practice, but I do use the DGS for hunting with no worries whatsoever. I haven't shot much Hornady factory ammo, so have very little experience there.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I know that Ivan Carter has a great reputation as a PH. He is well respected.

He still vouched for the Hornady ammo an claimed that he used it for all his DG work as back up etc.

There was a similar discussion about the DGX failing and Ivan was part of that discussion a couple of years ago.

No disrespect to Ivan.

But, again, he was paid to say so.

It really got to the stage where I no longer believe much that is written or shown on the media.

Only thing I believe is from sources I can trust.

quote:

Originally posted by England:
What has been the forum's experience with the Hornady DGS solid bullet over the last decade? Any better?

The bullet is better but not great. I will post some pictures if I can find them.

Even if the bullet performed well the risk of a misfire,a primer falling out and/or rims out of tolerance is too great for me. No chance in hell I will use their ammo on DG.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
In full disclosure - Hornady is our / my ammo sponsor, just so there's no mis-representation.

Fact is, I have used Hornady ammo faithfully for the past 5 yrs or so, with great results. I'm guessing of course, but I'd say I've shot 50 plus animals with Hornady ammo, and roughly 20 DG animals with the DGX as well. In all of the hunts I have done with Hornady, I have had only 1 bullet failure. It was on a buffalo in TZ - in 2015. We did find the bull 36 hrs later, and we discovered the issue - it was in fact bullet failure.

My point is, I've had gun failure, scope failure, and my failure too - anything made / created by man has a potential for failure. Overall I have smashed a bunch of DG animals with the DGX with great performance out of my .416 Ruger. For an off-the-shelf bullet / ammo, I think its pretty hard to beat. Any / every bullet is capable of some failure IMO, but the regularity of failure with Hornady ammo is so insignificant IMO - that its not worth considering.

I've certainly not shot as many buff / DG as Saeed, but I have shot more than most. I have full confidence in Hornady's ability, and I don't think that will change.

Aaron,

Did you report on the bullet failure on your show?

How many bullet failures did you have with other brand bullets?

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by England:
What has been the forum's experience with the Hornady DGS solid bullet over the last decade? Any better?

The bullet is better but not great. I will post some pictures if I can find them.

Even if the bullet performed well the risk of a misfire,a primer falling out and/or rims out of tolerance is too great for me. No chance in hell I will use their ammo on DG.

Bloody hell!

I have heard they had major problems with their ammo, but never heard that the primers are falling out or the rims out of tolerance.

If that is the case, how the hell did they manage to do it??

The only consistently bad ammo I have seen before is HERTTENBERGER from Austria.

Every single caliber we have tried is over loaded far too hot.

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
In full disclosure - Hornady is our / my ammo sponsor, just so there's no mis-representation.

Fact is, I have used Hornady ammo faithfully for the past 5 yrs or so, with great results. I'm guessing of course, but I'd say I've shot 50 plus animals with Hornady ammo, and roughly 20 DG animals with the DGX as well. In all of the hunts I have done with Hornady, I have had only 1 bullet failure. It was on a buffalo in TZ - in 2015. We did find the bull 36 hrs later, and we discovered the issue - it was in fact bullet failure.

My point is, I've had gun failure, scope failure, and my failure too - anything made / created by man has a potential for failure. Overall I have smashed a bunch of DG animals with the DGX with great performance out of my .416 Ruger. For an off-the-shelf bullet / ammo, I think its pretty hard to beat. Any / every bullet is capable of some failure IMO, but the regularity of failure with Hornady ammo is so insignificant IMO - that its not worth considering.

I've certainly not shot as many buff / DG as Saeed, but I have shot more than most. I have full confidence in Hornady's ability, and I don't think that will change.

Aaron,

Did you report on the bullet failure on your show?

How many bullet failures did you have with other brand bullets?

Good question! I honestly don't recall if I talked about it or not...but we have so much footage in the "can" that much of that footage hasn't even been used yet. I do remember finding the bull 36 hrs later, and knowing I made a good shot - thus really wondering why the buffalo didn't die immediately? I believe we didn't discover the culprit until back at camp and the skinner cutting him open so I could see what happened?

Heck, we are just now airing some of my 2012 Tanzania hunt on "Tracks", so not everything I hunt / film gets used. Safari Classics has a plethora of filming opportunities, so not everything I film makes the cut.

Yes....of course I have had bullet failures in the past with other rounds, but rarely. I think anything man-made has the potential for failure - but nowadays I think bullet failure is pretty rare across the board.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course....I can only say that my experience with Hornady ammo has been very good. I don't consider one failure, a failure. I've failed many more times than my ammo has.

I have shot several cases of Hornady ammo over the years. None at DG.
But I have never had a misfire nor any other problems with them.
My 1 & only DG experience was with 300gr TSX on buff.
Got almost 4ft of penetration on a frontal shoot.
Bullet performed perfectly.

Used the DGX in my 470 on a lioness last October. Chose that bullet because it has a reputation for being a bit soft, as noted and recommended by my PH. The bullet opened up a lot, lost a fair amount of weight, shot 6 times (4 rather quickly !), and I don't believe any of them exited. Lioness started out at 50 yards and ended at 25. So these were not long range shots. The bullet did what it was supposed to, on relatively soft skinned dangerous game.

I've taken 5 or 6 buffalo with Woodleigh softs and solids, and 1 with a 375 Swift A-Frame. The Woodleigh softs penetrated well, with some exiting. My interpretation is that the Woodleigh is a tougher bullet, though not any more so than the A-Frame. The DGX, however, is not one I would first look to in going after buffalo and the like. For rapid expansion and shock on cats - probably a great bullet. And for me at least, it was !

Ive had failures with Barnes X bullets, Ive seen failures with monolithics and many of them blow all the petals off and become a solid for whatever that might be worth..Ive seen one failure in my life with a Nosler partition, Ive seen one with a Horndady interlock, 3 or 4 with the Barnes X of yesteryear, one with a Woodliegh, a dozen with Hawk bullets on one hunt, several Sierras, a few Speers, and some others...but I have not had but one failure of sorts that was a maybe in the last 30 plus years. Gotta give the bullet makers credit, they have come far pilgrams...

Almost every bullet out there has failed at one time or another and many a bullet has been blamed for a failure when the culprit was poor shooting, bouncing off a rock, breaking a limb or whatever..

Sometimes bullet failure is a flaw in the bullet itself, that passed inspection by careless quality control.

The only way I pass judgment on a bullet is how it performed for me personally..

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I know that Ivan Carter has a great reputation as a PH. He is well respected.

He still vouched for the Hornady ammo an claimed that he used it for all his DG work as back up etc.

There was a similar discussion about the DGX failing and Ivan was part of that discussion a couple of years ago.

No disrespect to Ivan.

But, again, he was paid to say so.

It really got to the stage where I no longer believe much that is written or shown on the media.

Only thing I believe is from sources I can trust.

Now come on Saeed, I am not sure some of your comments are completely fair? I've been totally forth-right with my experiences with Hornady DG ammo, no punches pulled. I've had one failure....out of hundreds.

Ivan would try to sell ice to an eskimo if he could....I'll always tell the "truth" even if its not what the manufacturer wants to hear. When I have an issue with a product I use, I contact the maker and discuss it - I too want the best I can have, as I am paying for these hunts, not the manufacturer.

To all of you homomnetal bullet fans I say this: the failure of copper/brass jacketed lead core bullets that fail is not due to the bullet being b-c/l construction but a failure in the jacket. Several years back Speer engineered the Grand Slam. It had a jacket that was too thin to do the job in extreme circumstances so they put hard lead alloy in the base and soft in the point. It still didn't fix the weak jacket. Jack Carter hoped to solve the problem by bonding the jacket to the core. Having less than desired results with the conventional jacket shape, his third design was virtually a solid shank with lead point.

If the jacket is not up to the task, bonding the core to it only makes matters worse by separating part of the core as it disintegrates with the jacket.

To withstand the forces involved, a bullet jacket needs to be thick enough, I have found that this means about 15% of the bullet diameter, and of material that bends rather than breaks. Historically, this meant a jacket made of soft copper about .05" in diameter. Then if a pure lead core was bonded to the jacket and made with a point of proper design. Then it had the potential of being a good bullet for DG. Also needed was sufficient rotational velocity to keep the bullet point forward as it expanded and moved through the animal.
Homometal bullets are second best in performance when compared to the properly constructed and fired c/l bullet, but they are less involved to make one that performs as desired - being a matter of setting up a CNC machine and feeding metal into it- so feel free to use them.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I know a lot of PHs who tell horror stories with that bullet.

Personally, I have had horror stories with the ammo on the range. Rounds that would not fire. Rounds where the primer moved. Inconsistent rim thickness. No way will I ever hunt DG with them ever again.

I was there. Witnessed it. JJ Peredeu who knows more about double rifles than anyone alive said to me personally that he would NEVER use Hornady ammo on dangerous game.

Jeff

Aaron, perhaps you should ask Ivan what load specifically he has.

His double loads were made by Hornady but were monometal when I was in camp with him back when.

He told me that they were custom loads from them.