Were I to return to Africa, I would use the 450 grain A Frame in my 458 Win and the 300 grain A Frame in my .375 H&H. I have never had a bullet fallure from an A Frame in three calibers and they usually kill very quickly, some instantaneously. I see no reason to change.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Since I've never used the Hornady DGX, I asked an African PH how he likes them in his 500NE. He has had perfect results on elephant and buff so far, his double is regulated for them and he doesn't plan on changing anything.

He has had perfect results with the DGX on ELEPHANT?!!! WOW!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Since I've never used the Hornady DGX, I asked an African PH how he likes them in his 500NE. He has had perfect results on elephant and buff so far, his double is regulated for them and he doesn't plan on changing anything.

He has had perfect results with the DGX on ELEPHANT?!!! WOW!

Sorry about the typo, he used solids of course, DGS. TSX, DGX, DGS, TGV (wait, that's the train in France), it's no wonder I get 'em all mixed up.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Since I've never used the Hornady DGX, I asked an African PH how he likes them in his 500NE. He has had perfect results on elephant and buff so far, his double is regulated for them and he doesn't plan on changing anything.

He has had perfect results with the DGX on ELEPHANT?!!! WOW!

Sorry about the typo, he used solids of course, DGS. TSX, DGX, DGS, TGV (wait, that's the train in France), it's no wonder I get 'em all mixed up.

Well that's just great.

Now, how am I supposed to get the Hornady sticker off my rifle?

Well, sorry to buck the trend, but I've seen one, one and only one, not a scientific study by any means here --- TSX deflect seriously on impact. Thankfully it was not on something that could bite back and the animal dropped at the shot. Was seriously overgunned, I might add. The bullet still seriously deflected on impact.

Big fan of Swift A-frames, TBBC, Noslers -- TSX, not so much. I have no experience with Hornaday DGX, but had planned on using Hornaday ammunition for my back-up .458 Lott on a buffalo hunt next March.

Main rifle will likely be my old .416 with one of the aforementioned bullets. Anyone see the need to change plans?

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Since I've never used the Hornady DGX, I asked an African PH how he likes them in his 500NE. He has had perfect results on elephant and buff so far, his double is regulated for them and he doesn't plan on changing anything.

he uses expanding bullets on elephants? that's a "bit" contrary to accepted practice!

I'm new to this site and would love to get involved in this conversation. I used the 500gr DGX on a buffalo in August with Chifuti safaris in Zimbabwe. At 22 yards, out of a .458 Lott, the bullet started to mushroom and then the mushroom sheared off. The second bullet recovered had sheared off at the cannelure, losing most of half of it's weight. As for performance, I killed the buffalo. Took the top of his heart off but the recovered bullets didn't impress me at all. I am going to Swift's or Barnes TSX. I haven't found enough load data on Woodleigh's to go to them. I used a Woodleigh last year on a buffalo in Mozambique and it only lost 14 grains of weight out of my .470 Nitro. Then I chrono'd the load and it was only going 1900 FPS. I'm still talking to Swift on the 500 gr in both the .458 Lott and the .470 Nitro but I think they will get the nod. The Barnes TSX is a wonderful bullet and in the .375, the 270 seems to be inpressing the PH's. I use the 350 gr Barnes TSX in the .416 Rem and it is impressive. 1/2" groups at 100 yards around 2400-2450. More than enough.
By the way, the loads I used in the .458 Lott were Chrono'd at 2460. On one hand, I killed the buffalo, on the other hand, I've seen a lot better bullet performance. Just my .02

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut: I used the 500gr DGX on a buffalo in August with Chifuti safaris in Zimbabwe. At 22 yards, out of a .458 Lott..............
By the way, the loads I used in the .458 Lott were Chrono'd at 2460.

This is the second time this week I read about somebody pushing a 500 grain bullet over 2400 FPS from a Lott. At 2250 am I under loading mine?

Mike I do not think so.
I have killed seveal elephants and cape buff with 480, and 500gr bullets going @2150fps, and with some 450gr North Fork FP Solids at 2200fps.

They have given me perfect performance.

Only once or maybe twice have I had a bullet bounce off the hide.

Mike, I made a mistake on the post. I am pushing the 500 grain out of my Lott at 2260 Not 2450. My mistake. Like I said, I killed the buffalo because of shot placement, but the bullet performance sucked. Sorry

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I think I’d work up a load with the North Fork CPS, so there is no need for a soft point at all! The CPS will expand enough to do some cutting while maintaining a total weight solid for penetration! The North Fork solids both the CPS and FPS are bore riders and are, IMO, safe to use in a properly bored double rifle!

................................................

+1

One of my clients showed up to hunt buffalo, sable plains game etc. with a new .375 Ruger Hawkeye. He had reloads with .300 grain Hornady DGX bullets. I do not know his reload recipe other than he used Winchester powder. His first trophy was a buffalo. His first two shots were broadside at forty to fifty yards. Both shots were softs and hit squarely on the shoulder. The buffalo headed away and his third shot was a solid up the arse. This last shot planted the buffalo. Upon skinning it we found both softs had failed to penetrated the shoulder, completely disintegrating upon hitting the bone. The bullets did shatter the bone but never penetrated into the chest at all. I cannot explain total bullet failure twice in a row but is raises concerns to say the least.

To you guys; I wonder:
Why don`t you use bullets of high quality as A-Frame, TSX instead, you are swimming in the pool full of premium bullets, I would never hazard with the bullet when I hunt, even Plainsgame....

I tryed Hornady bullets on ordinary biggame hunting and the bullet expand in the skin and never penetrate the shoulder, I only use Hornady bullets for practice shooting, never at hunt.

Swift A Frames have never failed me. These are 350 gr. 416 recovered from two different buff.

quote:

Todd I agree that the TSX expanding solids will get the job done in some heavy targets, and your results are typical if the TSX!
However, this does nothing to help Antlers with his 450/400NE double rifle! The solid shank bullets that are not BORE RIDERS are not suited to use in a double rifle! The chance of causing OSR or Rib separation is too high with these bullets in a double rifle! That bullet is good but not worth the risk in a double!

.............................

This sums up my view, too, and since my .450/.400 was regulated with Hornady's ammo, I have a great heap of it and don't reload this calibre, I'll keep using it.

I notice the original complaint was not that the DGX did not kill but that, when one hit a large bone, it broke up. The old Kynoch bullets were thought brittle, too, and yet doubtless killed thousands of critters. Their modern lookalike, the Woodleigh, behaves better but some claim it strains the barrel.
The monos may open up wonderfully but some of us would rather not do delamination tests ourselves.

It may be that nothing is perfect for all purposes, so take your pick and keep a solid in the left barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Todd I agree that the TSX expanding solids will get the job done in some heavy targets, and your results are typical if the TSX!
However, this does nothing to help Antlers with his 450/400NE double rifle! The solid shank bullets that are not BORE RIDERS are not suited to use in a double rifle! The chance of causing OSR or Rib separation is too high with these bullets in a double rifle! That bullet is good but not worth the risk in a double!

.............................

This sums up my view, too, and since my .450/.400 was regulated with Hornady's ammo, I have a great heap of it and don't reload this calibre, I'll keep using it.

I notice the original complaint was not that the DGX did not kill but that, when one hit a large bone, it broke up. The old Kynoch bullets were thought brittle, too, and yet doubtless killed thousands of critters. Their modern lookalike, the Woodleigh, behaves better but some claim it strains the barrel.
The monos may open up wonderfully but some of us would rather not do delamination tests ourselves.

It may be that nothing is perfect for all purposes, so take your pick and keep a solid in the left barrel.

Opinions are great. Informed opinions are better. In the old days, we had to "take your word for it" when it came to what is or isn't safe to be shot in double rifles. But Michael458 and Sam Rose have done some of the most extensive testing to date on what is safe to shoot in double rifles concerning barrel strain.

Take a look at the barrel strain data they have put together on the "Double Rifle Bullet of the Future" thread, currently running 17 pages. They have tested most of the bullets on the market today designed for double rifles. Further, they have tested these bullets in most of the popular calibers. Very extensive objective data.

From the data, the Woodleigh soft, that you refer to in your post, is considered the benchmark safe bullet. Not one that "strains the barrel" as you indicate. The Woodleigh FMJ however, consistently produces the highest barrel strain in every caliber tested. While the TSX barrel strain numbers are above the benchmark Woodleigh Soft, it is significantly lower in barrel strain than either the Hornady DGS or DGX which is the exact bullet used by most modern double manufacturers to regulate their rifles.

Are the Woodleigh FMJ, Hornady DGX and DGS safe to shoot in your double rile? That's up to you to decide but I would say probably yes since they are used for regulation. But what is clear to me is that if these bullets are safe, the TSX is as well as it produces significantly lower barrel strain numbers than these "accepted" bullets. I would be more concerned with possible "delamination" from the DGX, DGS, WL FMJ than the TSX. The numbers are objective and reproducible. We no longer have to rely on "what the expert said" to make up our own minds.

Knowing that the TSX is easier on your barrels and knowing that the TSX produces more consistent and reliable results on animals that have the potential to turn the tables on you, why would you purposefully choose a bullet that is likely to break up on tough shots like point of shoulder impacts AND is measurably harder on your barrels? Additionally, there are other monometal bore rider bullets such as the GS Custom that perform to the same level as the TSX but have even lower barrel strain numbers than the benchmark Woodleigh Soft.

quote:

Why don`t you use bullets of high quality as A-Frame, TSX instead, you are swimming in the pool full of premium bullets, I would never hazard with the bullet when I hunt, even Plainsgame....

This is the same thought on my mind. Cost should not be a factor since the difference per box of TSX or A-frames is minimal compared to the hunt. Aside from a few calibers where the DGX is the only factory ammo for it, penny pinching is the only reason I can think of why someone would choose the DGX over the TSX or A-frames. One of those two bullets has to group well in your rifle.

Now I will admit I used the DGS bullet to back up my softs ( and actually because they were significantly cheaper than the barnes solids, so call me a hypocrit), but I didn't have any doubt of their effectiveness since they don't seem to elicit such long winded threads challenging their effectiveness.

quote:

Originally posted by JBoutfishn:
Swift A Frames have never failed me. These are 350 gr. 416 recovered from two different buff.

The 400gr AFrames from my 10.75 Mauser taken from Moz buff look just like these. I will use the same bullets this year in my .404

Todd,
as you'll remember I've already had my ears burnt off for questioning that impeccable research. I'm satisfied now that it is done with full sincerity, as I'm sure is Barnes's own on the suitability of their bullets for db rifles.

In the scientific world, of course, the benchmark is repeatability, and I will really sit up and take notice when some university duplicates the tests and gets the same results.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Todd,
as you'll remember I've already had my ears burnt off for questioning that impeccable research. I'm satisfied now that it is done with full sincerity, as I'm sure is Barnes's own on the suitability of their bullets for db rifles.

In the scientific world, of course, the benchmark is repeatability, and I will really sit up and take notice when some university duplicates the tests and gets the same results.

Michael and Sam's research may not be University certified but it offers objective data that is better than mere speculation based on opinion. That is the point I was trying to make.

The Hornady bullets are a good example. For those who haven't followed the barrel strain research, most double rifle shooters would pronounce the DGS and DGX as safe to shoot in doubles. They probably are. But how was this opinion formed? I suspect that most determined the bullets to be safe for their double because the manufacturer used it to regulate their rifle. Must be safe then, right? Well, maybe. But I suspect the decision to regulate the rifle with Hornady ammo was due more to the fact that it is the most available and inexpensive factory ammo on the market for double rifles, rather than a determination by the manufacturer that the bullets are safe to shoot in their rifles. Because the manufacturer used it for regulation, it became a de-facto endorsement from the manufacturer that the bullets are safe. Again, maybe they are but the barrel strain research shows them across the board, in every caliber tested, to produce roughly the same relative barrel strain numbers (2nd and 3rd highest) as compared to all the other double rifle bullets on the market.

As far as the terminal performance of the bullets, I don't know why Hornady sticks with the DGX. It doesn't seem to be any great secret as to what construction methods and materials are necessary to produce a reliable DG bullet such as the A-Frame, Woodleigh Soft, or the Mono's. When you look around at all the expanding bullets commonly used on DG today, I can only think of one off hand that has a considerable number of clients and professional hunters with negative reports right up to the point of refusing to use it at all; the DGX. It might work just fine on your shot behind the shoulder buff and it might not work on your shot on the point of the shoulder buff. It might be safe in your double and it might not. But there are other premium bullets that are both safe and more reliable. Why take a chance on either of these two points unless you're not a reloader and are simply stuck with what is available from the factory, at the cheapest price?

Fair enough, Todd, most of that makes sense. I have to admit I have not followed the whole discussion of Michael's research through the forums. Why? Well, life is short and the nailing of his mono colours to the the bottom of every post cruels the hope of impartiality for me.

I just got an e mail from a PH I have hunted with frequently. This was an up date of the season thus far. He had a client that used the DGX in his double (450/400). The results were less than satisfactory. The following are a couple of excerpts:

"XXXX put in a quartering shot with his 450/400 using Hornady bullets. The bullets failed to penetrate. It lost about 40% of its weight, all that was left of the bullet after we recovered the bull was the shank."

"Despite the ammunition betraying us,all ended well thank goodness and we got a really great trophy."

I think I will use something else.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I just got an e mail from a PH I have hunted with frequently. This was an up date of the season thus far. He had a client that used the DGX in his double (450/400). The results were less than satisfactory. The following are a couple of excerpts:

"XXXX put in a quartering shot with his 450/400 using Hornady bullets. The bullets failed to penetrate. It lost about 40% of its weight, all that was left of the bullet after we recovered the bull was the shank."

"Despite the ammunition betraying us,all ended well thank goodness and we got a really great trophy."

I think I will use something else.

It bothers me a little when we hear" All we recovered was the shank of the bullet. But the buffalo was dead." Meaning that somehow because the bullet didn't retain 95% of its weight it failed. The non-con has a very good reputation here so far. You will never recover more than the shank from it. Does that make it a bad bullet?

465H&H

I am not willing to chance it myself.

I should have relayed the giraffe story. Bottom line is two shots from the 450/400 at short range in good places. Followed the giraffe for hours . Came back in the afternoon. Found Another bull. Shot it with a different rifle. Lo and behold, it was the same bull. The 450/400 did not penetrate to the vitals.

I will not risk it.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I just got an e mail from a PH I have hunted with frequently. This was an up date of the season thus far. He had a client that used the DGX in his double (450/400). The results were less than satisfactory. The following are a couple of excerpts:

"XXXX put in a quartering shot with his 450/400 using Hornady bullets. The bullets failed to penetrate. It lost about 40% of its weight, all that was left of the bullet after we recovered the bull was the shank."

"Despite the ammunition betraying us,all ended well thank goodness and we got a really great trophy."

I think I will use something else.

It bothers me a little when we hear" All we recovered was the shank of the bullet. But the buffalo was dead." Meaning that somehow because the bullet didn't retain 95% of its weight it failed. The non-con has a very good reputation here so far. You will never recover more than the shank from it. Does that make it a bad bullet?

465H&H

Bullets (plural) lets hear the story about why the PH didn't like them--perhaps more shots , possibly from other guns were needed?

SSR

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Todd,
as you'll remember I've already had my ears burnt off for questioning that impeccable research. I'm satisfied now that it is done with full sincerity, as I'm sure is Barnes's own on the suitability of their bullets for db rifles.

In the scientific world, of course, the benchmark is repeatability, and I will really sit up and take notice when some university duplicates the tests and gets the same results.

Michael and Sam's research may not be University certified but it offers objective data that is better than mere speculation based on opinion. That is the point I was trying to make.

The Hornady bullets are a good example. For those who haven't followed the barrel strain research, most double rifle shooters would pronounce the DGS and DGX as safe to shoot in doubles. They probably are. But how was this opinion formed? I suspect that most determined the bullets to be safe for their double because the manufacturer used it to regulate their rifle. Must be safe then, right? Well, maybe. But I suspect the decision to regulate the rifle with Hornady ammo was due more to the fact that it is the most available and inexpensive factory ammo on the market for double rifles, rather than a determination by the manufacturer that the bullets are safe to shoot in their rifles. Because the manufacturer used it for regulation, it became a de-facto endorsement from the manufacturer that the bullets are safe. Again, maybe they are but the barrel strain research shows them across the board, in every caliber tested, to produce roughly the same relative barrel strain numbers (2nd and 3rd highest) as compared to all the other double rifle bullets on the market.

As far as the terminal performance of the bullets, I don't know why Hornady sticks with the DGX. It doesn't seem to be any great secret as to what construction methods and materials are necessary to produce a reliable DG bullet such as the A-Frame, Woodleigh Soft, or the Mono's. When you look around at all the expanding bullets commonly used on DG today, I can only think of one off hand that has a considerable number of clients and professional hunters with negative reports right up to the point of refusing to use it at all; the DGX. It might work just fine on your shot behind the shoulder buff and it might not work on your shot on the point of the shoulder buff. It might be safe in your double and it might not. But there are other premium bullets that are both safe and more reliable. Why take a chance on either of these two points unless you're not a reloader and are simply stuck with what is available from the factory, at the cheapest price?

Frankly, I don't know why anyone would try a DGX on an expensive safari with all of the good proven bullet choices (A-Frames, TSX, Woodleigh, North Fork) around, particulary when the first reports were extremely mixed.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I just got an e mail from a PH I have hunted with frequently. This was an up date of the season thus far. He had a client that used the DGX in his double (450/400). The results were less than satisfactory. The following are a couple of excerpts:

"XXXX put in a quartering shot with his 450/400 using Hornady bullets. The bullets failed to penetrate. It lost about 40% of its weight, all that was left of the bullet after we recovered the bull was the shank."

"Despite the ammunition betraying us,all ended well thank goodness and we got a really great trophy."

I think I will use something else.

It bothers me a little when we hear" All we recovered was the shank of the bullet. But the buffalo was dead." Meaning that somehow because the bullet didn't retain 95% of its weight it failed. The non-con has a very good reputation here so far. You will never recover more than the shank from it. Does that make it a bad bullet?

465H&H

The shank on a DGX is different from the shank on a CEB Non-Con. The shank on the CEB is a designed remnant of the original bullet. In other words, it is designed to shear a certain weight and shape of the petals, leaving a designed (shape and weight) shank that will fall within a specified % of the original bullet every time. That remaining shank, being of designed dimensions and shape after the shear, is also designed to remain stable.

The remaining shank on the DGX is completely random and may or may not continue it's disintegration by further separating the lead core from the jacket. The remaining shank cannot be predicted in terms of shape or weight and therefore cannot be designed to remain stable.

This stability issue is the reason we recover fragments of the DGX (not stable after it begins deforming) and seldom recover the shank on the CEB Non-Con (it remains stable and continues to penetrate completely and exit).

Losing the front end of the DGX and CEB Non-Con is really apples and oranges IMO.

Chuck375:

I agree 100%.

I have a bunch of the Hornady's. They are all going to be used on the range . Not worth the risk to me.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I just got an e mail from a PH I have hunted with frequently. This was an up date of the season thus far. He had a client that used the DGX in his double (450/400). The results were less than satisfactory. The following are a couple of excerpts:

"XXXX put in a quartering shot with his 450/400 using Hornady bullets. The bullets failed to penetrate . It lost about 40% of its weight, all that was left of the bullet after we recovered the bull was the shank."
"Despite the ammunition betraying us,all ended well thank goodness and we got a really great trophy."
I think I will use something else.

It bothers me a little when we hear" All we recovered was the shank of the bullet. But the buffalo was dead." Meaning that somehow because the bullet didn't retain 95% of its weight it failed. The non-con has a very good reputation here so far. You will never recover more than the shank from it. Does that make it a bad bullet?

465H&H

465HH, Hi Pal, problem is here that you fail to understand, or refuse to understand that there are GREAT FUNDAMENTAL differences in how a NonCon works as opposed to a lead core bullet, premium or otherwise, Partition or DGX, does not matter. As mentioned before, something like the Partition merely "WIPES" the nose off, there are no secondary projectiles working with the center bullet! I have studied partitions in test medium, and animal tissue--there is no comparison to trauma inflicted, and they DO NOT work in the same manner. I have tested a few DGX, not many, and would not ever take one to the field, not even for rats and such. Back in the day, the big bore Hornady Interlocks were FINE conventional bullets, far better than anything they have gone to from there. The bonded bullets in between the Interlock and DGX were EXACTLY the same as the DGX in performance, and now it appears the DGX does the same. There is a BIG difference in merely "Wiping" the nose off uncontrolled, and unpredictable, than a bullet such as the NonCon that will do it exactly the same, time after time, animal tissue or test medium, and behave the same in either, predictable in the extreme, down to a low end velocity shear of 1600 fps or so, depending on the bullet, and NO UPPER END to velocity performance.

A NonCon works in this manner:

At 1.5-2 inches all 6 blades shear from the main body of the bullet. From Shear point, to around 5-6 inches those 6 blades are still close to the remaining bullet. Blades do not weigh much at all, but they do not penetrate based on their weight--they penetrate based on slicing and dicing their way through tissue. During that short period of time that they are traveling close to the bullet, they are slicing that tissue to pieces that surrounds the center bullet. Tissue normally being "elastic" and would collapse back into the wound channel is now sliced to 6 pieces and does not collapse, but now enlarges the wound channel. As the mass continues to penetrate the 6 blades now start to move further from center and do in fact become secondary projectiles, continuing to slice their way through vital tissues, while the center remaining bullet continues to penetrate, deep and straight. The remaining projectile looks like a broken beer bottle on the ends, and full diameter meplat, penetration is far more than any conventional bullet can possibly achieve. Most exit unless a severe angle is encountered, or frontal shot. Severe and massive trauma is inflicted, severe and major blood loss quickly.

Blades on normal big bore bullets used on buffalo penetrate and destroy vital tissues, but do not reach the chest cavity wall the far side, all bullets I have shot broadside exit buffalo. Blades are caught up in the goo that is left of lungs and vitals. On smaller animals, up to hartebeast size, blades of mediums like 9.3 penetrate the chest cavity completely and become embedded in the far chest cavity wall. Animals that size shot with the bigger bores those blades have been reported to exit. Blades slice and dice, working together with the center bullet for that first part of penetration, then become secondary projectiles working on their own. Fact! Not Fiction!

And no comparison whatsoever to any conventional bullet that merely wipes the nose off, and causes no trauma.

Another point you seem to be missing---LACK OF PENETRATION--Is mentioned in these last few posts. In bold above, "The Bullets Failed To Penetrate"--always a FAILURE if a bullet does not PENETRATE!

Below;

quote:

I should have relayed the giraffe story. Bottom line is two shots from the 450/400 at short range in good places. Followed the giraffe for hours . Came back in the afternoon. Found Another bull. Shot it with a different rifle. Lo and behold, it was the same bull. The 450/400 did not penetrate to the vitals .

quote:

One of my clients showed up to hunt buffalo, sable plains game etc. with a new .375 Ruger Hawkeye. He had reloads with .300 grain Hornady DGX bullets. I do not know his reload recipe other than he used Winchester powder. His first trophy was a buffalo. His first two shots were broadside at forty to fifty yards. Both shots were softs and hit squarely on the shoulder. The buffalo headed away and his third shot was a solid up the arse. This last shot planted the buffalo. Upon skinning it we found both softs had failed to penetrated the shoulder, completely disintegrating upon hitting the bone. The bullets did shatter the bone but never penetrated into the chest at all . I cannot explain total bullet failure twice in a row but is raises concerns to say the least.

Some reports good--some reports not good--Not Consistent. It only takes one failure to ruin your day, or more! Anything can fail in the field, but normally good bullets do not do it often, and I see a trend of failures here. And a trail of inconsistency.

If you want a good premium bullet, and want to work in conventional terms--Visit North Fork. If you want to take a walk on the wild side, look at a BBW#13 NonCon! Either one, you will achieve your goals.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Fair enough, Todd, most of that makes sense. I have to admit I have not followed the whole discussion of Michael's research through the forums. Why? Well, life is short and the nailing of his mono colours to the the bottom of every post cruels the hope of impartiality for me.

As for you, you might go over to that website and learn something as there is a lot of info and test work there on many many things--Then again, you probably can't! Do as you please!

Michael,

I can assure you I fully understand how the non-cons work. My point was that if you have a dead buffalo, the bullet penetrated far enough to do the job. If the bullet doesn't get through the shoulder into the vitals then no doubt it is a bullet failure. If the normal bullet wipes off the front of the bullet and the shank continues to penetrate through the vitals then I can't say that the bullet failed. Partitions do this very well. The non-cons creating more tissue trauma is another matter and from the pics you have posted it certainly seems to be the case. I am satisfied if there is enough tissue trauma to kill the animal quickly. Obviously, more is good but a quick kill is all that is really necessary to say that the bullet didn't fail. My main point was that just because all that is left of a bullet is the shank doesn't necessarily mean that the bullet failed as some on here insinuate. One needs to have more evidence of failure than simply noting that only the shank was left.

465H&H