I am thinking of using a NF cup point solid next time I hunt buff.

The outfitter and lodge for whom I work does not himself use, nor does he permit any staff or clients to use solids on cape buffalo. He, and I justly believe, cites too many instances of solids passing through the buffel with minimal damage. There was a particularly tragic case several years ago where a buffel killed a PH, the father/son client team, and one of the trackers. The first shot, it turns out would have been ultimately fatal, but the buffel had the reserve to absorb another six rounds of solids and wreak carnage. My personal experience, as a former hunter and now staff member and back-up shooter, is that a well-constructed bullet like a Hornady DGX gets the job done with a greater degree of safety for the hunt team.

PHASA Member
SCI Life
NRA Benefactor

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am thinking of using a NF cup point solid next time I hunt buff.

I would seriously look at the Woodleigh Hydros. Not as effective as a good soft point like the Woodleigh SN or AFrames but at least 4 better/more effective than any other solid. However side on shts through the heart or both shoulders will/can result in over penetration.

Rule303,

Out of curiosity what makes the Woodleigh Hydro

quote:

at least 4 better/more effective than any other solid.

than a NF Cup Point solid, especially on buffalo?

Rule 303 those hydorstatic bullets are just a copy design of the North fork cup point. For years now there have been others proposing flat point solids and the large metalplat for straight line penetration. I believe Woodleigh was the last to come on board.
Go and look at the data poated in the big bore forum. All bullets were shot and honest results given whether you would like to hear it or not.
As far as softpoints go they just mash flesh, but Barnes softs open up and tear and cut the flesh making massive bleeding just like hunting arrows.
Now Cutting Edge Bullets look at their results.
But accurate shooting is more important then bullets.
Mike

I still have to get mine but have been in the fortunate position to be first hand witness to a few kills.

Shot placement and bullet construction are paramount. The only two I'd try and stay away from would be Remington and PMP in the brown box.

Seems like the bad bullets have been eliminated from the general market place.

The thread has drifted off slightly from the main question:

In the bolt action class:

From 7mm Rem Mag through various other calibers to include 300, 308, 338, 375, 404, 416 Rem/Rigby.

Ammo used: mainly Nosler Partitions in the earlier days to Bear Claw, TSX and A-Frames in more recent times.

DR Class:

450/400 - 450 - 470 - 500/465 - 500.

Ammo: Mainly KYNOCH (earlier) & WR with Woodleigh softs and the occasional solid.

The KYNOCH brand available then was mostly of old manufacture and had the tendency to "hang-fire" unexpectedly with the occasional one not igniting at all. (Fun times!)

However so, those on the receiving end never lodged any complaint on performance.

Shot placement is the answer to all calibers and any decent type of bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am thinking of using a NF cup point solid next time I hunt buff.

Would not be a bad decision if they work in you rifle.

Woodleigh 400 grn Solid .400
Woodleigh 400 grn Weldecore .400
Barnes X 250 grn 9.3
Barnes TSX 250 9.3
Barnes Solid 250 9.3
RWS H-Mantle 9.3
Combined Technologies 250 .338

All performed well, however this mix has left me with a preference for expanding bullets over solids. Buff went down faster with expanding bullets every time.

To All,

We agree with all that state the shot placement is paramount and is always the first priority. After that comes the bullet and having the confidence in that bullet to perform 100% of the time even at compromised angles.

The Woodleigh Hydro is a strange bullet. The brass does not allow significant expansion nor does it provide any more damage than from a good flat point solid. They have tried many different designs (even with a steel front end) and how have a plastic prophylactic to help feeding. While they penetrate just as well as a solid, we do not see the reason for the design, plus it is quite expensive at $4 per bullet.

The design of the North Fork Cup Point Solid was to bridge the gap in penetration between the bonded soft point and the flat point solid. Working with PHs, we needed something that would provide increased penetration over a soft but one that would also provide a increased wound channel over a traditional solid or even a flat point solid. The second requirement was a reduction in the possibility of a pass-thru. The CPS (Cup Point Solid) was born with these as requirements. We have since changed the designs of our solids (both FPS and CPS) to help the feeding in bolt guns. But the advantage for the CPS is that is works even slightly better now due to nose and cavity changes. Its design allows it to expand 1-1.25X caliber but it still "leans" more towards penetration of a solid. For example (these are bogus number), if a soft penetrates 6' and a FPS 12', then the CPS is more like 10-11'.

Many double rifles guys now just go with the CPS in both barrels and call it good. No reason to have to remember which barrel holds which bullet type. But to each his own, try them all and come to your own conclusion(s).

I hope this clears some questions up. Please note, I did not say the Hydro was a bad bullet, we just don't what its design is trying to accomplish.

Regards,
John

9.3x62 using Barnes 286gr TSX.
One shot broadside through shoulder, heart, lungs and stopped under the far side hide.
Textbook expansion. Buff was down in about 35 yds. One 300gr Hornady solid as insurance.

470 Nitro - 500gr Woodleigh solid, shot straight on through the chest, ran 50 yds and died right away.

416 Hoffman - 400gr Barnes TSX, shot broadside through the chest, ran 100yds took two follow up shots.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
450 Dakota - Swift A-Frames & Barnes Solids
470 NE - Swift A-Frames
416 Rem - Swift A-Frame (I think?)

Yes, Wendell, Swift A Frame. Same gun/load was used on all 8 buffalo I shot.

Eagle one thanks for bringing up the issue of solids. My cousin for a wile believed in first shooting buffalo with .470 or .505 with solids but after a couple of charges, gave up. I once shot a bull through bush with a solid .505 Woodleigh PP at my PHs advice (rightly so since it was close to the bush far side) - it just stood there bleeding with a bullet from stem to stern having exited under the neck and skimming the heart. No hydrostatic bullet effect but good penetration. Bullet probably curved course. Another two solids showed minimal effect. I ve been told the NF Cps by a very experienced expert is now his choice and penetrates from rear through guts and into neck. Sounds like a wise choice I plan to try. I ve seen a similar round do this in an eland. Hoping to hear if somebody has experience of big bore NF CPS comparison with CEB #13 Noncon on buffalo. The advantage of CPS is you potentially don't need to worry as much about bush/grass straws possibly expanding the bullet before penetration or maybe tumbling?

quote:

Hoping to hear if somebody has experience of big bore NF CPS comparison with CEB #13 Noncon on buffalo.

The last two buffalo I shot both dropped to the shot. Not a step. One was a broadside high heart shot at close range with a North Fork Cup Point Solid. The other was shot with a CEB #13 NonCon in the spine. Both from my 470 Nitro.

Both are very good buffalo bullets. Penetration is great and tissue damage substantial.

On another note I shot another big buffalo with a NF CPS from my 470. Single lunged it facing me, took a bunch more to put it down.

9,3x62 and 9,3x74R - FN solids only - NF, Bridger, GS.

Last 5 shots by my hunters on Cape Buffalo using my .375H&H with 200gr GSC HV's .
3 Passed through,
2 recovered.

quote:

Originally posted by KMG Hunting Safaris:
Last 5 shots by my hunters on Cape Buffalo using my .375H&H with 200gr GSC HV's .
3 Passed through,
2 recovered.

Marius, any idea on the velocity you are getting with the 200 grain GSC? I was about to order the 265's but may want to try the 200's given your experience.

Thanks,
Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
Rule303,

Out of curiosity what makes the Woodleigh Hydro

quote:

at least 4 better/more effective than any other solid.

than a NF Cup Point solid, especially on buffalo?

The recoverd NF cup points I have seen have opened and folded back to be the same as a flat nose solid. hence why they don't excite me. The Hydro is -so far - the only projectile where I have seen the results of it passing through small trees and scrub and bones in animals without being deflected, regardless of calibre. That small cup on the nose does seem to help produce a wider temporary wound cavity then conventional solids. The NFCP I can not comement on as have seen very limited number of photos of their work in this regard. I would think because of their design their temporary and permanent wound channels would be greater but shorter - not a bad thing in reducing over penetration.

quote:

Originally posted by retreever:
Rule 303 those hydorstatic bullets are just a copy design of the North fork cup point. For years now there have been others proposing flat point solids and the large metalplat for straight line penetration. I believe Woodleigh was the last to come on board.
Go and look at the data poated in the big bore forum. All bullets were shot and honest results given whether you would like to hear it or not.
As far as softpoints go they just mash flesh, but Barnes softs open up and tear and cut the flesh making massive bleeding just like hunting arrows.
Now Cutting Edge Bullets look at their results.
But accurate shooting is more important then bullets.
Mike

Re shoot placement, agree 100%. I can not agree, with the limited knowledge I have - about the Hydro being a copy of the NFCP, two totaly different designs. One has a massive mouth at the fron t while the other is a basicaly a flat solid with a small raised centre section with a dish in it.

Mike I am not aware of the data you are talking about. Will try and find it. If the test are have been done properly and are relevant why would I not like to hear it. I do not subscribe to the "Not designed here so is no good theory" Barnes have a great rep shame the wont shoot in most of my rifles and are Barnes X not just a copy of bullets produced by GS Custom bullets of South Africa. Cutting egde I have only heard negative to ho hum reports of, so not rushing out to try these. OK I'll start thinking about eating my words about CEB in that I have just read were some people are swearing by them.

Cheers

Greg

Rule 303,

quote:

are Barnes X not just a copy of bullets produced by GS Custom bullets of South Africa.

No they are not. They may look similar but Barnes bullets are grooved and GSC bullets have drive bands. See what is the difference at this link.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Rule 303,

quote:

are Barnes X not just a copy of bullets produced by GS Custom bullets of South Africa.

No they are not. They may look similar but Barnes bullets are grooved and GSC bullets have drive bands. See what is the difference at this link.

To clarafy.The original Barnes mono metal bullets -no bands- were said to of been developed after Barnes had played with the GS bullets on a trip to South Africa. They are certainly closer to each other than a Hydro is to a North Fork cup point solid.

quote:

Originally posted by Rule 303:
Cutting egde I have only heard negative to ho hum reports of, so not rushing out to try these.
Greg

REALLY? Where have you read this? Just asking because I can't remember a single negative report by anyone who has actually used these bullets. In fact, the praise for CEB performance has bordered on embarrassing at times in terms of their effectiveness. The BBW#13 solid's amount of penetration (that is the purpose of using a solid right?) is incredible. For example, on a tuskless cow ele I shot last year with the 750gr in my 577NE, the bullet from my frontal shot was recovered about 10" in front of the base of the elephant's tail!! I don't know ... something like 9 feet of penetration! And the performance of the Non-cons has been nothing short of awe inspiring.

Anyway, just curious as to where these negative reports are found regarding the CEB line.

As to the location of the tests that Mike was referring to, there is a thread here on AR devoted specifically to terminal performance of just about every commercially available bullet on the market. These tests have been run on most calibers and bullet weights available as well. Currently running about 280 pages long and has been made a permanent "sticky" on AR. Look under the Big Bore section of the forum for the thread regarding "Terminals". Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by Rule 303:
Cutting egde I have only heard negative to ho hum reports of, so not rushing out to try these. Greg

This runs counter to everything I have read. In fact, I have yet to see a negative report by anyone who has used them.

I used on two Buff, 375H&H. Ammo was federal 300gr trophy bonded sledgehammer's.

Cheers, Steve

Todd and Witworth. heard this from a South African PH who told me he was not impressed by their performance and a couple of blokes I know in Aussie who used them and were not impressed. All thought the Barnes a better bullet.

Found the thread and wading through it. Michael sent me a PDF file of the solids test. Some interesting reading.

Nothing but A Frames in .423 cal

So during the Pres speech, here is a rough calculation summary of caliber and round totals as reported. Clearly not scientific and no p values. Also likely wounded and needed many shots, wounded and got away, Ph shooting, and large bores, and denominator are not known. Not accurate but probably will create some discussion. Note solids are mostly but not always follow up:
.375 H&H Tsx 59, barnes solid 3, Woodleigh soft 3, Dgx 6, Dgs, Woodleigh solid 3, Tbbc 10, Swift A frame 31, Gsc 2, NF soft 5, NF CPS 5, CEB nc 3,
.375 Wby Nfsoft, Saf, and Ruger Dgs , too few
.400 CEB nc too few
.404 Tsx 5, wood soft 1, Dgx 2, wood solid 1 follow up
.375/404 Saaed used Tsx, Walterhog,
.416 Rem Tsx 6, Barnes solid 3, wood soft 15, Tbbc 20, Saf 19
.416 Ruger or Wby few
.416 Rigby Tsx 13, Barnes solid 2, Hydro 1, Dgs 2, Tbbc 4, Saf 1, CEB nc 1
.423 Saf
.450 barnes solid 1, wood soft 2, Dgx 5, Saf 2, CEB nc
.505 few, Tsx, wood soft or solid
.500 Tsx 2 few,
.577 few CEB nc and solid
.600 wood soft
.9.3 Tsx 5, Barnes solid 1, hydro 1, Wood solid 1, Saf 1, GS 1, NF solid 1
Mentioned but few and not legal in most places were 30-06, 300, 338
Also a number of combos like .375 and .470. Worst was some 18 rounds with .458 and .460 Wby

.470 Barnes solid 2, wood soft 6, wood solid 6, Dgs 2, Tbbc 4, Saf 1, NF CPS 3, CEB nc 3,
.458 Tsx 3, barnes solid 5, wood soft 3, Dgx 4, Dgs 2, wood solid 2, Tbbc 12, Saf 10, Nfsoft 1, NF CPS 4, CEB nc 1,

.475 few,

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Rule 303:
Cutting egde I have only heard negative to ho hum reports of, so not rushing out to try these. Greg

This runs counter to everything I have read. In fact, I have yet to see a negative report by anyone who has used them.

+2

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am thinking of using a NF cup point solid next time I hunt buff.

I was looking at the 250 grain NF bullets for my Elk hunt in the fall. Due to the fact that they do not publish BC for their bullets, I chose to go for Barnes TTSX in 250gr. Now, for Cape buffalo at 50 yards it might not make a difference, but for shots at over 300 yards I'd like to know where my bullet will hit.

I have killed four cape buffalo. Al with the 458wm, all with solids.

Buff #1 at about 35yds, first shot was a frontal shot and then a high shoulder shat after it turned to run. 15yds, maybe 20yds total travel. 500gr Woodleigh solids.

Buff #2 at 40yds, first was a poor broadside shot too far back followed by a second too far forward which trimmed the brisket. This one took some tracking, and we didn't catch up for 3 1/2hrs. This buff died in a four solid volley of bullets from the PH and I when we caught him and his pal at a water hole. My shots were with 500gr Woodleigh solids, the PH's were 500gr Woodleigh solids, but out of a 470NE.

Buff #3 at about 11yds, first was a high shoulder shot, which I believe killed it outright, but was followed by an almost top down heart shot as it tipped over. 0 travel, DRT. 500gr Woodleigh solids.

Buff #4 at about 35yds, a quartering on frontal followed by a quartering away second, followed by a third which was straight away as it was going down hill and which entered the spine about a foot or so above the tail and exited the boss. The first shot was a 500gr Woodleigh solid, the second and third were 450gr NF FN solids. Total travel was about 30yds.


JPK

On buffalo:

375 Swift A frame 300 gr
375 Northfork 300 gr
404 J Swift A frame 400 gr
404 Hornady 400 gr DGX
450/400 Woodleigh 400 gr
458 wm 350 gr. soft (don't do this)
458 wm Winchester 510 gr soft point
458 wm 500 gr. trophy bonded solid
470 500 gr. Woodleigh

I have settled on the 404 J with the A frame as being my favorite.

#1 - (1).375 300gr TBSH
#2 - (1).375 300gr TBSH, (2).458 500gr TBSH, and (2) .470 500gr TBSH
#3 - (1) .375 300gr TSX

In reading the various post it looks like the 375 TSX 300gr outnumbered the rest...but it also appears it is sort of like dogs,everyone likes theirs the best...................

Apx. 35 buffalo...have used .375,.416 Rigby, 500/465, 500/416.
All worked fine, if I did my part.

True that many have used .375 and Tsx but appears that many when using a large caliber they will use a solid. In other words the high speed smaller calibers make big holes by expansion, big bored slow calibers just make a big hole. Which is best? Interesting how many of the solids in big calibers are needed. For my .505 I now have Tsx 525 gr for first shot and North Fork cup points 525gr for second shot but if I need cups first I can quickly eject Tsx for more raking shots. Had to do that on the last buff. Both loaded the same and group nicely at 100 yds.

One thing to keep in mind is that a proficient hunter will rarely have a one shot buff simply because he will be quicker on the reload and second and following shots.

The same applies to some extent on the double rifle shooter. A second shot is available quick enough to hit a buff on his way down from a first CNS shot.

In addition, the more experienced hunter will have gotten over the tendency to admire one's shot and will instead keep shooting until the buff is down, even if the first shot would have been quickly fatal.

And then some PH's will require an insurance shot or two even when it is pretty apparent the buff is down for the count.

I have killed four buff, and not one of them bellowed. Without the bellow you end up putting an extra round or two into a probably already dead buff.

If I count how many rounds were actually required to kill the four buff I have shot vs. the number of rounds they got the number drops by 75% or more.

JPK