The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting .380 gr 375 availableGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| .380 gr 375 available | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Berger, that is GS Custom bullets out of Port Elizabeth...They are a dandy bullet and are actually an expanding solid of sorts in that they come out looking like and cone, flat on the front... Johan CAlitz, Botswana P.H. has been using them on elephants for several years and is a true believer in them on everything in his Searcy doubles... Surprisingly enough they penitrate very close to the other solids, so I will say they penitrate enough for any situation and they penitrate in a dead stright line every time it appears from limited testing by ------------------ | |||
|
one of us |
Berger, Its good to here about 380 grain bullet. Can I please request you for their address? Hamdeni ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
Ray, It's actually a Rhino bullet. Not monometallic it has a long copper shank and a core of lead out front. It's a mean lookin' mutha. Cheers Pete | |||
|
| <Peter V> |
Hi Gents, I have a phone number for Rhino Bullets; (South Africa) +27 43 736 1822 I don't have an email / snail mail address but will call them in the morning and post it here for anyone who may be interested. Regards, ------------------ | ||
|
| one of us |
Pete, You are absolutly correct...GS makes the 380 gr. .411 cal. bullet, I just got a bunch of them in the mail and I had a brain disfunction....A common occurance lately. ------------------ | |||
|
| <R. A. Berry> |
Ray, And I got my 380 grain .416 GS Custom FN solids also. Do they make .411's in that weight too? ------------------ | ||
|
| <Don G> |
Hamdeni, Sorry, I had not seen your request for his address, and I guess Gerard is asleep at the wheel! I like the looks of the flat nose solids from GS, and they shoot less than an inch in my 416. I have not used them on game yet. I have not seen the Rhino. Don | ||
|
| <Pumba> |
Gentlemen, I believe that a 380 grain .375" bullet is too heavy for a 375 H&H size case. Rather than look at a bullet's weight, give some thought to looking at a bullet's sectional density. Sectional density is a much more useful and informative number than weight. The cartridges that you have noted in the past as great dangerous game rounds use bullets with a sectional density of approximately .340. The 500 grain .458", the original 410 grain .416". Do the calculations and you will note that .375" cartridges should have a bullet that weighs 335 grains, the .338" cartridges should have a bullet that weighs 275 grains, and the .474" cartridges should have a bullet that weighs 535 grains, etc. Good Hunting ! [This message has been edited by Pumba (edited 06-13-2001).] | ||
|
| <R. A. Berry> |
Pumba, You are absolutely correct, IMHO. ------------------ | ||
|
| <10point> |
Do they make handgun bullets too?......10 | ||
|
| one of us |
Hi Guys, We are back from holiday today and have some catching up to do. So I am not asleep at the wheel, just havn't been anywhere near the wheel  . I took the three weeks to do some writing for the website and to catch up on reading. Incidentally, one of the articles is about the 375H&H and will go up shortly.------------------ | |||
|
| <R. A. Berry> |
Welcome back Gerard! I will be looking at your website for new articles. I will be taking your FN's to Botswana for buffalo. I don't think anyone could go wrong with that bullet. I'm sure I will have to get into the HV mind set next. You're teasing us with promises of load data for the 375 H&H, in the upcoming article I hope.  ------------------ | ||
|
| one of us |
RAB, I will let you know when the article goes up. It does not have reload data, that I am trying to finish for the reload section on the site. It is tough going with 122 bullets in the range, most can be used in more than one calibre and we are trying to get the SA powders as well as a couple of USA powders up for each calibre. The Euro powders will also have to be done some time this year. That sounds like about 250 extra pages for the site. I went through Duncan MacPhersons book and much light was shed on some topics. There are some problems though. More later. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Gerard (edited 06-11-2001).] | |||
|
| Moderator |
Pumba, Can you elborate on that statement??? I always thought Sectional Density to be the Holy Grail when considering African rounds. Now I can see how a solid can have more SD than is strictly needed at 380grs, but what about a soft?? I would have thought the increased weight/SD and the decreased velocity would make for a more reliable performer???? Pete | |||
|
| <Andy> |
Pete, The high SD is not a guarantee of good performance. I dont hink it is as important as how a bullet is manufactured. Ive shot the old Speer 275 gr .338 hot core quite a bit at american bison and it is nothing special. Not nearly as effective as a 200 or 225 gr Bitterroot (the original and still best bonded bullet), or even a 210 or 250 gr nosler. (This was about 1981). the 275 gr Speer only expanded about as much as a 165 gr Nosler in a 30-06. It had the same weight retention as a 250 nosler without front core. Im sure a Swift or Woodleigh would be dandy in a quick twist which the 338 has (1-10). Problem with the longer bullets is they pitch and yaw which makes expanding bullets expand asymetrically (tipped). the expanded wings work harden on expansion and are quite brittle, so this is how you loose frontal area (and weight retention). This is not theory but somehting Ive actually seen in the feild, stop boxes and even on high speed radiographs. On solids it exposes the weak bearing surface to stress rather than the stronger ogive and they bend or break. So you can "over do it" with SD. With the lower velocity you also loose the large temporary cavity we all recognize when you butcher an animal from high speed or large expanded frontal area. You can stabilize just about anything with a 1-8 twist, even a 160 gr 6.5mm, 240 gr .308, or 300 gr .338. Probably more useful in 1,000 yd target shooting than hunting though. Im not interested in accuracy here, just keeping the bullet point forward once it hits something. Andy | ||
|
one of us |
Guys, Just thought I would let you know about Rhino Bullets web site: http://www.rhinobullets.co.za/index.htm Regards | |||
|
| <Pumba> |
Pete, Thanks for the note. This may take a few paragraphs to explain. Please bear with me. The preponderance of field and test media evidence has shown that medium to large bore rifles shooting solids achieve the best field results with solids that have a sectional density of APPROXIMATELY .340. As I stated in the earlier post that would be a 500 grain bullet for .458 inch bullets, 412 grains for .416 bullets, 335 grain for .375 inch bullets, 275 grains for .338 inch bullets, and 535 grains for .474 inch bullets. All of these bullets MUST have the proper design, materials, construction, and impact velocity, in addition to the preferred sectional density. The early 458 Winchester rounds are examples of a cartridge with the correct sectional density, but with poor impact velocity, poor bullet design, and inadequate bullet materials. Stories and myths abound about 458 Winchester rounds that would not achieve 1,900 fps muzzle velocity. Of how people were injured because of their poor performance on dangerous game, and how the round took a PR hit because of these problems. Those .458 inch problems have been eliminated by adding more velocity (458 Lott and 450 Ackley), better bullet designs (Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer, Speer African Grand Slam, etc.), and better bullet materials (Naval Bronze jackets, Tungsten Carbide cores, etc.). If I were looking for a superior solid I would look for the following properties: - Naval bronze jacket with a flat nose. This would give a hunter a solid whose flat nose promoted a straighter path through the animal. Because of the tungsten carbide rod behind the nose of the bullet, the bullet would be nose heavy and would want to travel nose forward, even if it were deflected by striking a bone, etc. The naval bronze jacket is significantly stiffer than copper jackets and this would help minimumize bending.
- Pure copper solid shank design, with a SMALL nose cavity that was filled with a bonded PURE lead core. This would give a hunter a soft bullet that would expand easily, but to a controlled diameter, which would significantly improve penetration over bullets that expand to 2.0 times original shank diameter. Because of the solid shank the bullet would be nose heavy and would want to travel nose forward as it penetrated an animal. This would not be the situation in bullets that use either pure copper construction, thin jacket, lead core construction, or guilding metal nose, lead core rear construction. With its bonded pure lead core it should retain 90% to 99% of its original weight. The small lead filled, annealed nose cavity would promote consistent expansion over a wide range of impact velocities (1,700 fps to 3,300 fps). The annealed pure copper jacket should bend signifiantly without shearing of petals. Guilding metal jackets which are used for most soft point bullet jackets have zinc added for formability. The zinc causes the jacket to become brittle and petals break off upon impact with a hard object (bone, etc.).
[This message has been edited by Pumba (edited 06-15-2001).] | ||
|
| Moderator |
Pumba, Thanks for that...I can see the logic behind A couple more questions. Assuming (theoreticaly) it retains 100% of its weight, does the SD of soft point decrease as it expands upon impact??? When considering a soft point which fails/comes apart on impact, this would also decrease it's SD as in effect, it is lossing weight???? thanks, Pete | |||
|
| <R. A. Berry> |
Pete E, The term sectional density is an artificially defined concept that can be applied only to a non-deformed bullet. A deformed bullet sectional density (DSD) concept can be created whereby actual bullet weight per cross-sectional area is calculated, but this would involve complex measurements and likely the use of calculus to approximate the cross-sectional area. It would never be as precisely quantifiable as the standard sectional density (SD) for the non-expanded/non-deformed bullet, which is simply the bullet weight in grains divided by (7000)X(bullet diameter squared): SD = W/(7000)D*2 The units of sectional density have no physical reality. It is a simple numeric ratio for comparing the weight of two bullets of the same caliber, or for comparing the similarity of bullet weight per bullet cross-sectional area between two different calibers. It is valid because the cross sectional area is directly proportional to the diameter squared. It is still unitless. It is a simple ratio. However a DSD would be a new beast that could have actual reality regarding pounds per square inch of bullet weight per cross-sectional area of the largest segment of the expanded bullet. The DSD would indeed change with any change in bullet diameter or weight as it deformed/expanded. That said, I tend to agree with Pumba regarding an optimum SD of around 0.341, that of the 500 grain .458, or possibly 0.330, that of the 400 grain .416. However, I think the 0.305 SD of the 300 grain .375 has stood it in good stead, albeit, at slightly higher muzzle/impact velocities. This seems to indicate that lower SD bullets of proper construction at higher velocities can make up for the lower SD somewhat. Duncan MacPherson's tests showed that higher SD bullets will expand better at lower velocity than the lower SD bullets. The really devastating bullet would be the high SD at higher velocity if the bullet were properly constructed to hold together. That is not a surprising statement. There are trade-offs either way. But I think as long as a velocity over 2150 fps and bullet RPM's over 110,000 are attained, the more sectional density the better. In the real world with existing cartridges and the common barrel twist rates in use, the bullet of 0.330 to 0.340 SD may be the one most likely to succeed for the big bore. For special applications, I think a decent bullet begins at SD = 0.270 and goes up to 0.390. This bracket centers around SD = 0.330, a most useful number, IMHO. This specification can also become a corollary to the Bwana Saeed Index, which is a living, growing organism that just won't die, because it is so good. A gun nut thing. ------------------ | ||
|
| one of us |
Recently in Man Magnum or one of the African books there was a very good ariticle about Twist and velocity tearing up bullets and the pluses of big long heavy bullets that are not spinning so very fast and how well they work...some of you guys ought to read that, its worth it.... I have built a slow twist 375 for 350 gr. bullets and it performs to perfection on game with perfect bullet expansion...I have thought for years that the rotational spin of bullets caused more bullet failure than any other factor and particulary with BarnesX bullets as it will tear off the petals..the article was directed to that approach.... ------------------ | |||
|
| <Pumba> |
Ray, Have you done the calculation for the torque on the petals of a bullet as they enter a game animal versus the yield strength of copper or guilding metal? Good Hunting ! | ||
|
| one of us |
Ray....The latest African Hunter has some discussion about rate of twist in the letters to the editor section....the writer also likes slower than what is considered normal rates for the .375. For what it's worth, John Lazzeroni likes slow twist rates also. The one on my 9.53 HellCat is 1:16. | |||
|
| one of us |
Pumba, You say: "Because of the solid shank the bullet would be nose heavy and would want to travel nose forward as it penetrated an animal. This would not be the situation in bullets that use either pure copper construction......" A solid copper boattail that has mushroomed is nose heavy. A solid copper boattail that has lost all the petals is still nose heavy. There are few bullets that are as indestructable as a solid copper hollow point and filling a small front cavity with lead makes expansion unpredictable. If there is going to be a lead filled front cavity, it had better be big. Been there, done that, got a t-shirt. The annular grooves are a dandy idea.... ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
RA, Yes I have some of Gerards 380 gr. .411 bullets...My Jefferys 450-400-3" shoots them into 1" center of target at 50 yds., same as the Woodleigh soft and solid...I was going to pop a Buffalo at Peters (Balla-Balla) this year but the bloody political wogs torpedoed me. I still have a few reservations about shooting monolithic solids in my double but Gerard has assured me they are perfectly safe in my old gun and the sure are accurate and my PH has shot lots of elephants with them and loves them, so I have a 100 loaded and ready to go.... ------------------ | |||
|
| <R. A. Berry> |
Thanks Ray, I was ignorant of the .411 and .423 bullets, since I am stuck on .416, like John S? ------------------ | ||
|
| one of us |
Ray, If you thought slower twist was very important may I ask why your 9.3s have 1:10 twists when the CIP standard is 1:14? Does it take this increase in twist to stabilise 320gr bullets? Not trying to get at you just interested as I'm trying to decide on a bullet for my 1:14 twist 9.3x62. I'm starting to think of 286gr partition because it's accurate in my rifle, will expand well on small stuff and should penetrate an Eland. I don't know if it would be reliable on a buffalo though. Also does anyone do a 286gr conventional solid with a non steel jacket (I'm scared of accelerated barrel wear)? | |||
|
| one of us |
1894, Now that you brought it up I am not sure my 9.3's are 1x10, where did you get that?? I will say that whatever twist I have its obviously the correct one as all three have shot 250 to 320 gr. bullets into an inch or less. They are all Lothar-Walther barrels. I have only played (tinkered) with the 375 and slow twist, but have kept up with articles and others experimentation....I'm still kind of in my embryo stage on this subject but it is interresting... My main concern is that, will the slow twist stabilize bullet and shoot accurately?, probably in the end the word "moderation" will crop up "again" and a compromise will have to be had and that will be somewere in-between and thats where we are now...Soooo lets remake another wheel and go with the 1x10 or what is standard for the caliber in question???? betcha! ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
1894, A quick trip out to the shop sez all my 9.3x62 and 9.3x64's have a 1x14 twist from Lothar-Walther....Obviously a good choice from an accruacy and killing standpoint as they work..... Truth is barrel technology is ALL THEORY and never holds true from barrel to barrel or twist to twist, too many varibles and NOONE knows squat about them.....I've seen shot out trashed barrels shoot all bullets under an inch and I've seen fast twist barrels shoot long heavy bullets and slow twist barrels shoot long heavy bullets and about every other contridiction believable....I know one big barrel maker who told me he picked out a bunch of trashed barrels out of the junk bin and many of them out shot the premiums...oh well. ------------------ | |||
|
| <Pumba> |
Gerard, Thanks for the note. Our empirical and test experiences seem to have us pointed in different directions. My data has shown me that solid copper bullets, i.e. Barnes X are inconsistent when it comes to expansion. Depending on angle - velocity - medium encountered their ability to expand varies greatly. When I state SMALL, I am using the lead filled front cavity's size to limit the expansion ratio. If you look at bullets such as Swift A-Frame, Swift Sirocco, Trophy Bonded Bear Claw, and North Fork Technologies they expand too much for superior penetration. I would design the front cavity so that it achieved the desired expansion ratio. My bullet design experience has shown me that making the petal area of the front cavity very thin, and the cavity size relatively small gives the bullet a quick, easy opening characteristic, and limited expansion, which aids penetration. The front cavity area of the jacket must be heat treated in order to facilitate rapid consistent expansion. If it's not annealed to dead soft, the bullet will show inconsistent expansion characteristics due to the work hardening of the copper during forming. My background also has shown me in penetration tests that bullets such as the Barnes X and the Winchester FailSafe, once deflected by a solid member, lose their nose forward line of penetration easier than a bullet with a lead filled nose cavity and solid copper rear shank. Of the two, the FailSafe will turn more quickly and travel with the lead rear core in the lead. I would like to suggest that you try a penetration box that has six inches of wet phone books, followed by a twelve inch long opening, followed by a 1/4 inch thick rubber member, followed by another 48 inches of wet phone books. I angle the second set of phone books at 30 degrees from the centerline of the box. I also insert sections of cattle leg bones in the twelve inch opening for certain tests. The twelve inch long opening quickly separates non-bonded bullets from bonded bullets. The bonded bullets will shed their cores in the opening. The lead core will continue to penetrate, and in most instances the jacket stops against the rubber. Also, the angling of the second set of phone books will upset the line of penetration of marginally stable bullets. In some cases the bullets will be deflected so they exit out the side of the box. Penetration tests that use a consistent, homogenous media, such as ballistc gelatin or wet phone books end up constraining the bullet so that it will stay together and penetrate in a straighter line than it does in an animal's chest cavity. Good Hunting ! [This message has been edited by Pumba (edited 06-19-2001).] | ||
|
| one of us |
Ray, You posted the 1:10 twist at the end of April in response to my questions. I remember thinking at the time wow that's fast. I agree with you that moderation has been proved time and again. I decided that if the designers thought 286gr was the standard who am I to say different. Any views on the Partition and a suitable solid? [This message has been edited by 1894 (edited 06-19-2001).] | |||
|
| <Berger> |
I'm just back from a week in the free State and catching up on all of the posts. My box of rhino 380's has arrived and I'll be making some loads up this week to try next weekend (any ideas would be appreciated, remember I'm restricted to SA powders). I'll do a wet newspaper test with 2x4's at 2 inches behind the first pack and send you guys digital images of the results. I'll load up some of my barne's and sierra 300gr and shoot those into the same pack so we can compare results. | ||
|
| <Berger> |
I fired my reloads on the new 380gr 375 H&H rhinos yesterday with good results. I loaded S335 at 57, 60 and 63 gr using the min and max loads for the barnes x as my guide. At 57 gr I achieved an average velocity of 2030 over four shots. At 60gr it was 2170 and at 63 it was a whopping 2330 but 63 gr exceeded safe pressures and on my last shot the bullet stuck in the chamber. No problems getting it out but I am happy with the 60 gr load. I fired all of the shots into a wetpack consisting of 2cm wet newspaper then 1/4 inch plywood then 60cm wet newspaper then 1/4 inch plywood then 20cm wet cloth. All of the bullets passed all the way through with no debris left! I fired two barnes x and 2 pmp solids at 300gr and all stuck at about 50cm. I am going to try a larger wetpack next week to see if I can stop one of the 60gr loads and examine bullet performance. nevertheless, I am very happy with these results as for all intents and purposes at 2170 the performance is very nearly that of the 404 Jeffrey or the 416 rigby in 400gr. | ||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |