I know Ivan Carter has said on post in this forum that Hornady loads custom monos for his 600.

I do not know about his 450.

I would prefer to use lead core bullet all things being equal. Thus, we have Swift. Is there proof of a Swift A Frame failing, there most be.

My issue is with Hornady and Guns and Ammo waiting and half heartedly 11 years to fess up. And Hornady’s continued assurance the DGX was fine and did not need fixed.

If everyone would have been up front about this incident and made whatever changes the bullet needed, I would have been first to give Hornady credit and support for honesty and transparency.

They chose to deny and hush it over. That is not right.

I am hoarding a lot of Barnes Safari bc believe it or not, you can get TSX loaded 500 nitro cheaper thru Natchez than loaded DGX.

quote:

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.

If the referenced article is:
G&A April 2018, Page 59, right hand column, second paragraph:

"In 2006,G&A publisher Mike Schoby was on a hunt in Zimbabwe for Cape Buffalo when a soft bullet shredded after passing through the shoulder."

You are correct-
Nowhere in this article is the brand of that particular "bullet" noted.

I do not believe the 416 DGX was commercially available in 2006 (will contact Hornady)

IF in the "Tracks" episode this particular individual bullet IS identified as a Hornady

might it be is the case this "2006" was a pre-production prototype?

Even it it were to be a"production" DGX-

There is a litany of bullet failures, across the brand spectrum.

Seems much like other singled out topical subjects topics on AR,
Hornady is a favored whipping post.

I am old enough to remember the dearth of bullets/cases/ammunition for DR's and "dangerous game" bolt rifles.

You shot what you could find or make.

I am personally pleased with Hornady;
their effort to promote "our" sport,
their continued development of their products
and the quality of those products.

Today, you can virtually pick from a buffet of projectiles and loaded rounds-

I have used several brands on DG

I have no affiliation with Hornady.

As with much in life -
each to their own-


please resume your standard P&M session

You can watch him load the magazine in the episode and on Bodding on Buffalo II.

It is the DGX. It was proved to be the DGX on this Forum when it happened.

It was the 416 Rigby in Ruger RSMII with DGX. That is a fact and accurate.

There is no excuse between heaven or hell it has taken 11 years for traditional hunting media to admit what happened with that bullet and that buffalo. All the while telling us if it is dangerous load Hornady.

Hornady is lucky no one got injured or killed.

Yes, I admit Hornady loads a cartridge and rifle get built. Great. Thank you Hornady. That does not excuse 11 years of deception concerning this incident.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

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.

Aaron,

Your honesty and Ivan's honesty is not in question here.

I am sure you all stated what actually happened on your hunts.

But, the major factor is that both of you are being paid by Hornady.

And Hornady might have loaded or selected special ammo for both of you to use.

End results are that both you and Ivan are being paid to promote a product, which makes it more of an "infomercial" report rather than an actual field test by an independent party.

I have using Hornady in my .404J for many years and have backed up on a couple of buff with pleasing results.

Maybe it is a case that it is not a bad bullet but there are better out there?

Whilst Hornady is to be applauded for resurrecting some of the old classics, I cannot help but feel that the DGX is a reaaly terrible idea. It is a steel-jacketed soft, and that alone is a terrible idea in cartridges where many, many old rifles with softer barrel steels are still in use. At least one fellow forum member here can attest to the DGX's destructiveness (for lack of a better term) when used in an old rifle.

I have only shot the DGX at a few smallish animals but expansion has been anything but consistent and I do not regard it as a serious hunting bullet.

I stick to either the Swift A-Frame or the Woodleigh for serious hunting applications. They have performed consistently for me on anything up to and including buffalo.

quote:

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.

This almost exact phrase was parroted by Steve Hornady himself on I believe TAA. Total horseshit of course...

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.

Ivan was also pretty explicit his experiences were limited to Hornady solids ONLY

Before our 2012 Zim safari, Vicki and I went to a safari shooting school in Texas. The owner of the school told us that the DGS was a good bullet, but the DGX could get you killed. His opinion was based on his extensive contacts with the PH community. I used a 500gr DGS in my .470 on a tuskless cow, with excellent results, but one animal does not prove anything. My ammo was handloaded with Hornady brass, which did not have problems with primers or rim thickness. Again, a small sample, but just my experience.

Thank you for the feedback on the Hornady DGS. I'm headed to Zim in June and plan to use a .458 Lott on Cape buffalo, but will have some .375 H&H Hornady 300gr DGS for my second rifle.

I've run a couple cases of Hornady's 140gr ELD factory ammo through my 6.5 Creedmoor in a precision rifle class, and the ammo was superb. But I don't have much experience with their DG loads.

I've put this up before, but here it is again. 450 NE, Hornady factory ammo. Junk.

A perfect example why I would never use any bullet with lead as its core for hunting if I had any choice!

I had the same thing happen with Swift A Frames.

Even loosing the lead from the rear partition.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
A perfect example why I would never use any bullet with lead as its core for hunting if I had any choice!

I had the same thing happen with Swift A Frames.

Even loosing the lead from the rear partition.

It is hearsay, but I have no reason to doubt its truth: in 1984-85 I was talking with Bill Steigers (Bitterroot Bullet Co) and he was discussing the need for bullets to be spun fast enough that they maintained their gyroscopic stability as they encountered impediments (muscle-bone). If the bullet did not keep point forward the bullet would encounter forces to the side and rear for which most bullets weren't designed. Bill said he had talked with (I forget his name) the founder of Swift bullets. They discussed the problem of two cores in a partition bullet- that only one end could be bonded (gravity held the molten lead in place while it bonded, and the end open on the bottom would run out. Which is why the front core of the A-Frame is bonded while the rear core is pushed into place. The danger that Bill pointed out to the founder was that if the bullet didn't remain pint forward, and tumbled, the rear portion of the bullet became in essence, a hollow-point and the rear core would be shed. The founder said that occurrence had happened, they had no cure for the problem, hoping that the bullet would remain together long enough that it would have done its job.

About that time Nosler Co was in contact with Bill regarding a possible purchase of rights to produce BBCs. At that time Bill was aware of other cottage industry bullet producers such as HT that were being contacted by Nosler Co regarding the purchase of R&D. The result was Nosler gaining enough information to pursue patents on their own. They learned two facts: it wasn't feasible to mix the partition bullet with bonded cores , and if a portion of the bullet was solid it needed some form of pressure relief (which they had previously learned with the original partition).

In the 30+ years since that conversation there have been a lot of bullets fired and results noted, but the data has only confirmed Bill's criteria for a proper big game bullet.