Folks I posted this a couple of places as I am up against a time deadline. Does anyone you all know of make 416 bullets heavier than 400grn?
Thanks

Not sure why you would want more than 400 grain bullets but Norma makes a bullet they call the 416 PH. They also make a 375 PH that is 350 grain. I used a 416 Rigby loaded with 400 grain bullets on ele's and buffs with no problems. I am not sure the 50 grains would make a difference. The main attribute of the 416 is speed and penetration. You are going to loose a bit of both going with a heavier bullet
Try this website if you are still mind set on heavier bullets www.ammoseek.com

this should get you right to the 416 Rigby page

http://ammoseek.com/?from=resu...noblanks=&sortby=cpr

Norma African PH Centerfire Ammo 11071, 416 Rigby, Full Metal Jacket Woodleigh, 450 GR, 2067 fps, 10 Rd/bx - $116.64 from Cheaper than Dirt $1351/100 from Wholesale Hunter

North Fork and Woodleigh to name a couple. Woodleigh's bullets > 400 gr. recommended for Rigby only. If my memory serves me correctly, I heard the same from a discussion with the folks at North Fork.

Thanks guys. To answer the question of why or what, this is for a 416 wildcat round that can handle the extra weight with no problem.

Mike seems like Rhino may manufacture in 416 but cannot say for sure what the weight is. Have a look at Rhino Today is a public holiday over here so I can follow up tomorrow if you like.

I used their 380 gr 375's with great effect.

Heck, yes. Our standard Woodleighs are 410 grain (as God intended when he designed the .416 Rigby). Woodleigh also make a 450 grain soft (maybe a solid too). I haven't used this latter yet, but have a packet waiting to be loaded.

I don't know what your intended use is, but Hornady makes a 450gr bthp bullet intended for the .416 Barrett.

HTH

Rhino make a 430gr

Cheaper than Dirthttp://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/50024

Huntington's
http://www.huntingtons.com/sto...19961&cat=408&page=2


Graf's http://www.grafs.com/retail/ca...duct/productId/23034

Thanks all. Geez I never knew there were so many choices over 400 grn! And just so you know a full load passes completely through an ele on a side brain shot. Actually have to slow it down a bit! Want all that energy dump to stay in the animal. Looks like my 458 and 375's will soon be up for sale. Just a little more tweaking!
Pieter thanks for the offer but already checked it out, 430grns. Give my regards to everyone. Nice to see you here. Have to bring the speed down about 300 ft/sec to around 3000 and that should do it. However, have not played with all of the heavier bullets yet. This thing has less perceived recoil than my 375. I think it is going to be a keeper.

Thanks also for the ammoseek link. I had not used that one before.

You guys are the best!!! Thank you all!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
And just so you know a full load passes completely through an ele on a side brain shot. Actually have to slow it down a bit! Want all that energy dump to stay in the animal.

This I don't understand! On several levels. Firstly, in speaking of a bullet passing completely through an ele on a side brain shot, you are speaking of solids, correct? If so, "energy dump" isn't part of the equation. Solids penetrate, they don't "energy dump".

Secondly, in speaking of expanding bullets, "energy" in it's own right, doesn't kill. What kills is the bullet's ability to rip, tear, and make big holes in organs and tissue, disrupting the central nervous system and / or causing massive loss of blood and the ability to maintain blood pressure. More energy, in the form of velocity, simply causes the same bullet design "A" to upset quicker and to a greater degree, allowing the bullet to do more of it's work of ripping, tearing, and making big holes. Slowing the "same bullet" down does not cause more energy to dump into the animal, it simply alters the wound channel and makes it smaller in diameter. Just because the bullet does not exit, does not mean more "energy is dumped" into the animal. The bullet started out with less energy to begin with! That is a simplification of course as slowing the same design bullet, will sometimes result in more penetration but less extensive wound channel damage due to less bullet upset.

For argument's sake, and this is a simplification, let's say it takes 2,000ft/lbs of energy to drive a 400gr .416 bullet of design "A" all the way through an animal at a certain shot angle. Slowing the bullet down to a point that it reaches the animal with 1,500ft/lbs of energy, which in this case is insufficient to make the bullet exit, again with this same design "A" bullet of 400grs and .416 caliber at the same shot angle, does not "dump" more energy into the animal. It simply shrinks the wound channel. Personally, I want a wound channel to be as large and long as possible, exiting the animal which assures the bullet will have the best opportunity to do as much damage as possible in the case of less than perfect shot angles.

Now, when you say "energy dump" into the animal, I think what you are really saying is that you want the bullet to transfer its energy by making a wider, more extensive wound channel, thereby ripping, tearing, and making a larger diameter hole in tissue and organs. For that, you don't slow the bullet DOWN, you either speed it up causing more and quicker "upset" to the same bullet design "A" or change to bullet design "B" in the form of a more frangible bullet. Slowing an expanding bullet down often gets you more penetration (to a point). The reason being that slower starting velocity with an expanding bullet generates less of the energy necessary to make the bullet "upset" and expand, thereby sacrificing the diameter of tissue damage along the wound channel and increasing the length of the wound channel by making the expanding bullet behave more like a solid. I don't see how less starting energy (read less velocity) gets you more energy "dumped" into an animal when using the exact same bullet and only varying the initial velocity.

Anyway, that's the way I see it. I know my theory is not universal.

To me a 400 grain solid and a 400 soft point propelled at a given velocity generates the identical amount of energy.
The difference in the 2 bullet designs is intended to do two different end terminal effects.

The solid will give up some of the energy transfer for the sake of penetration, whereas the soft point generally gives up the penetration for the the sake of energy transfer, but if both bullets stop in the animal the energy transfer is the same only difference is what part of that anatomy received the most amount. The wider the frontal part of the bullet the quicker the velocity dissipates ergo the more disruption.
This is why bullet selection for the type of game is critical which also dictates shot placement. For what its worth

quote:

Originally posted by raamw:
To me a 400 grain solid and a 400 soft point propelled at a given velocity generates the identical amount of energy.
The difference in the 2 bullet designs is intended to do two different end terminal effects.

The solid will give up some of the energy transfer for the sake of penetration, whereas the soft point generally gives up the penetration for the the sake of energy transfer, but if both bullets stop in the animal the energy transfer is the same only difference is what part of that anatomy received the most amount. The wider the frontal part of the bullet the quicker the velocity dissipates ergo the more disruption.
This is why bullet selection for the type of game is critical which also dictates shot placement. For what its worth

I agree with those statements 100%. But energy in and of itself doesn't kill the animal. Damage caused by the bullet kills the animal.

In Mike Smith's example above, he stated he wanted to "slow the bullet down so as to dump all the energy into the animal" by preventing it's exit. With an expanding bullet, speeding the same bullet up, and THE SAME BULLET is a critical point in the argument, will result in more energy being transferred to the animal compared to a slower bullet, even if the bullet exits. Taking two bullets of the same design, the bullet traveling faster will upset quicker and more explosively, thereby doing more tissue and organ damage than the slower bullet. The faster bullet may also penetrate less (to a point) due to that more rapid upset and the accompanying additional resistance it encounters as it does more tissue / organ damage, which again is what kills the animal, not "energy dump" for the sake of containing all the bullet's energy in the animal.

There has been some bullet testing that slowing down a soft pointed bullet reduces its expansion rate hence increases penetration. This doesn't take into consideration the devastating effect of Hydraulic shock which occurs when high velocity bullets de-accelerates quickly. Hydraulic shock is very important similar to what a boxer gets with a solid punch, a moment of la la land which affords the follow up shot. The wound channel is important since the deeper you go the more damage you do to flesh and bone. Hydraulic shock is the acceleration of the flesh away from the path of the projectile , blood vessels and nerves can't accelerate that quickly therefore peripheral damage to surrounding tissue occurs and its this damage to surrounding tissue (blood shot meat as it is referred to)is what expedites the bleed out which leads to death. Again with the exception of a brain or spinal cord shot death occurs from loss of blood to the brain.

I might be a dumbarse - quite likely, actually - but isn't energy transfer not really the issue on a buffalo (unless we're talking near misses on the brain or spine)? Isn't it just about tissue damage and its corresponding loss of oil pressure? Isn't it just that a soft will do more tissue damage but for less distance, whereas a solid will do less tissue damage but for more distance?

We mostly use softs in Australia on buffalo (although I have used the others, too). One thing I wonder about when I see footage of buffalo soaking-up seven-plus bullets is A) shot placement and B) were they using solids? Our softs, shot for shot, seem to put a buffalo down quicker.

Never a dumb question, only dumb answers

Some years ago I stumbled upon an interesting read on terminal ballistics, but after several computer crashes and failures I was only able to reconstruct some of the charts. If you study them you should be able to understand what is being said
[URL= ][img]http:

[URL= ][img]http:/

[URL= ][img]htt

[URL= ][img]http://www

[URL= ][img]http://www.hunt101

What you see is penetration of a particular bullet at a specific velocity, the energy dissipation, great at first the reducing do to loss of velocity. Of particular interest is a couple of the test where done with the same bullet but at different velocity...note the difference

Mike,

Not sure which .416 wildcat you're shooting, but in my .416 Hoffman I load a 400 grain Trophy Bonded Bearclaw over 81 grains of Reloader 15. I get 2,510 fps with that load. I'm pretty sure I don't need more of a weight/velo combination than that.

The late Jack Carter of Trophy Bonded Bullets gave me that load. As Jack said "It's one hell of a killing machine".

What kind of velo are you looking for out of a bit heavier bullet?

This wildcat is based on an 8mm case. It is intended to be used with the crap powder we can purchase in Namibia. The idea is to get the most velocity but also as important the most efficiency out of the case. With the powders available in the USA it is a non issue as we have so many choices. Plus the powder there is very heat sensitive compared to ours. Trying to get a rifle that will do everything. Load it up or down. Long or short range. Dangerous or plains game. Culling or anything else I see fit to use it for. So far we have a 257,338 and the 416 based on this same case. This 416 is so impressive it is going to replace both my 375 and my 458. I didn't mean to open a big controversy but I did kind of make things unclear. So you can now see it will using softs and solids. There will also be times we do not want pass through. Already have more than enough velocity. Trying to find the ideal combination of velocity and bullet weight for the various tasks at hand. Does that make it clearer without all the controversy? Guess I need to pick my words better. I want maximum penetration without pass through. Don't want to whack another animal unintentionally.

I got my first big bore a month ago - a CZ550 mag kevlar stock in 416 Rigby.

Michael458 has the terminal performance thread which has some info on 416 bullets at lower velocities.

I currently have 400 gr Hornady RN soft (old interlocked) & 350 TSX. I checked the web for many hors over the last 2 months and there is plenty of 416 bullets available - Nosler, Hronady, Woodleigh, CEB, Hawke, Swift, Northfork etc. make 400 gr in Solids or softs. CEB has a 370 gr HP Non con. Hornady, Speer, Barnes, etc. have 350 gr bullets. Barnes has 325 TSX, Barnes & CEB have 300 gr bullets. The CEB 300 gr is the Raptor with plastic tip. The 300 gr bullet can be driven at 3000+ fps in the Rigby!

The paper stats for versatility of the 416 is incredible!

I use 450gr Woodleigh soft nose and solids in my .416 Rigby and couldn't be happier with their performance. About 2gr less in the soft produces the same POI (at about 2300fps which seems pretty mild). They both group around 30mm at 100m and would likely do better off a proper bench.

I shot 2 Cape buff with very good results last year and will be using the same this year on 2 more buff.

Cheers

DK

quote:

Have to bring the speed down about 300 ft/sec to around 3000 and that should do it.

I am curious about which wildcat .416 cartridge can drive a 430 grain bullet at 3300fps. Based on which 8mm cartridge? The 8mm Mauser??? That Namibian powder must be pretty hot!