I just finished reading it, results were pretty well what I expected, but I do have a couple of questions that perhaps Don Heath or he the author could answer; Test results gave high marks (and rightfully so) to the North Fork products, but I noticed in the penetration chart table the NF Soft point only penetrated 30" as compared to the Swift's 42". Am Ireading that wrong?

Also while I agree the old X had some fouling and lack of expansion issues, I was a bit surprised by the less than great results others have osted about the TSX. Not doubtin the results gentlemen, just some clarification on the penetration issue as well as some of you with TSX experience can expand. Thanks, jorge

Hmmm, maybe I misread but I was under the impression that the TSX results posted here were good. I do not have the report you mentioned Jorge, but I would certainly be interested to see what response you receive to this thread. I fact I am currently working up loads for the 180 and 168 gr. TSXs for my 300WM and 30.06 for my next trip. The Nosler Partitions I used last time were certainly good enough, but I thought the TSXs might be even better!
Peter.

Yep, same here, but I think the article was referring specifically to the bigger bores and what really puzzled me was the penetration delta between the North Fork Soft Point and the Swift A Frame. I just can't believe the A Frame penetrated a whole foot more. jorge

I use Woodleighs and GS Customs for the bigger bores (416 and 450). I did have a good experience with Swift accuracy in my 450 x 3 1/4 though. Waiting for a deal on the Swifts!
Peter.

I've been waiting until I had time to think it over, but I had at least two low-penetration shots from my 416 Rem using the 370 gr NF softs.

One was on a wildebeast where it failed to penetrate completely on a broadside/slightly qaurtering shot that hit only ribs. The bullet went in behind the near foreleg and should have exited in front of the off foreleg. The bullet apparently hit the hide on the far side (hitting no major bones)and bounced/deflected up between the neck muscles about 4". Total penetration (being generous) 20". Retained weight 330 gr.

The other bullet hit the heavy shoulder joint on a Cape Buffalo on entry, then failed to penetrate through the near side chest wall. The shot presentation was quartering to me at about 30 degrees. At that angle the shot should have penetrated through the heart/lungs/liver and stopped in the rumen, or against the hide at the last rib. We looked for that bullet for 30 minutes and never found it. The bull ran a long way on that shoulder, sometimes pumping out meat and bone chips. The shoulder was reduced to blood soup and hamburger. He may have pumped the bullet back out of the wound. All I know for sure is that the chest wall was not penetrated.

Alan Vincent told me Saeed had one of his Walterhogs (a monometal solid) do exactly the same thing, and that I shouldn't let it put me off the softs.

Looking at the entrance holes, it appeared to me that the NF softs were opening on the hide of the wildebeast and the Cape Buffalo. The bullets raised 6" swelling welts under the nearside hide on the buffalo as if they trampolined an area that big before they penetrated.

The entry holes for the Kongoni and warthog looked like 416 caliber.

The Kongoni bullet penetrated from the point of the near shoulder to the offside rear, winding up against the ball joint in the hip. That'd be 40 inches??? Retained weight 332 grains.

The warthog was through-and-through from behind the near fore through the off fore with a 700 caliber exit wound. He dropped in place, kicking.

My rifle is a 1:14 twist, I don't know if that is a contributing factor.

Just curious,has anyone used win.failsafe bullets on big african game? Those penetrated like crazy!

quote:

Originally posted by Don_G:
I've been waiting until I had time to think it over, but I had at least two low-penetration shots from my 416 Rem using the 370 gr NF softs.

One was on a wildebeast where it failed to penetrate completely on a broadside/slightly qaurtering shot that hit only ribs. The bullet went in behind the near foreleg and should have exited in front of the off foreleg. The bullet apparently hit the hide on the far side (hitting no major bones)and bounced/deflected up between the neck muscles about 4". Total penetration (being generous) 20". Retained weight 330 gr.

The other bullet hit the heavy shoulder joint on a Cape Buffalo on entry, then failed to penetrate through the near side chest wall. The shot presentation was quartering to me at about 30 degrees. At that angle the shot should have penetrated through the heart/lungs/liver and stopped in the rumen, or against the hide at the last rib. We looked for that bullet for 30 minutes and never found it. The bull ran a long way on that shoulder, sometimes pumping out meat and bone chips. The shoulder was reduced to blood soup and hamburger. He may have pumped the bullet back out of the wound. All I know for sure is that the chest wall was not penetrated.

Alan Vincent told me Saeed had one of his Walterhogs (a monometal solid) do exactly the same thing, and that I shouldn't let it put me off the softs.

Looking at the entrance holes, it appeared to me that the NF softs were opening on the hide of the wildebeast and the Cape Buffalo. The bullets raised 6" swelling welts under the nearside hide on the buffalo as if they trampolined an area that big before they penetrated.

The entry holes for the Kongoni and warthog looked like 416 caliber.

The Kongoni bullet penetrated from the point of the near shoulder to the offside rear, winding up against the ball joint in the hip. That'd be 40 inches??? Retained weight 332 grains.

The warthog was through-and-through from behind the near fore through the off fore with a 700 caliber exit wound. He dropped in place, kicking.

My rifle is a 1:14 twist, I don't know if that is a contributing factor.

Don,

Just out of curiosity, what speed were the bullets travelling?

I saw this info on the North Fork website:

quote:

One caution, do not intentionally down load this bullet. It was designed and constructed to perform it’s best when driven at the top velocity potential from the currently available cartridges. When used on dangerous game, the bullet will do the greatest damage and penetrate its best when used inside 150 yards. Unless you are sensitive to recoil or you have a carbine length barrel, there is no reason to shoot this bullet slower than 2500fps from a Remington, or 2600 from a Rigby or Weatherby. The penetration increases at the higher velocities. I know this is counter to the accepted practice of slow to moderate velocities giving the best penetration. That method only pertains to conventional, full-length core, bullets. On a conventional bullet, the faster they are driven, the more they expand and the less they penetrate. With North Forks, the mushroom size is at it’s maximum around 2100 fps. Due to its design, when it is driven faster, the mushroom does not grow in size. Therefore, with a constant mushroom size, the faster bullet will have a higher momentum with the same frontal area. The result is greater penetration at the higher impact speeds. At the slower speeds, or at greater distances, the bullet is more likely to stay inside the animal, with the bullet invariably found just under the hide on the offside. Once again gentlemen, this is a sledgehammer. Do not swing it like a fly swatter.

One thought occurred to me reading the article referred to and this post, has anyone ever seen anything bad said about the Swift A-Frames? I used Barnes TSX in Tanzania and they did fine, although one failed to open well on a buffalo (speculation is that the bullet is too long to stablize reliably everytime and that it tumbled). But in thinking about all that I have read in magazines and on this Forum about bullets and bullet performance, I cannot recall anyone ever saying anything bad about a Swift A-Frame. Is there any knock on these bullets that anyone can recall someone mentioning?

Mike

Erik,

My NF softs were travelling at a measured 2575 fps 15 ft from the muzzle. If I remember correctly, Mike Brady of NF recommends 2600 fps, but that was a pretty hot load in my rifle.

The buffalo was at 150 yards, the kongoni 160 the warthog 200 and the wildebeast 260.

QuickLoad uses a BC of .347 for this bullet (I don't know if that is right), and predicts 2200 fps at 150 yards and 1950 fps at 260 yards. If I am right, and the bullet opened on the hide of the wildebeast at 1950 fps, then that pretty much explains the reduced penetration on the wildebeast. I'd forgotten how much velocity the bullet loses downrange.

On the buffalo the bullet must have been deflected by the heavy bone.

I had wanted to use the NF cup points for everything, but both PHs wanted the first shot to always be a soft.

Nope, never heard a single bad report on the A Frsme, but I'd still like Don Heath, Ganyana or any of the other gents from AH magazine who can verify the numbers are correct and not a typo. And of course I'd like Mike from NF to respond as well as other heavy caliber NF users. jorge

Let's keep this interesting thread going, awaiting the heavies, here's an example of good performance by a NorthFork Semispitzer Soft Point:

.423 caliber 380-grain
2526 fps at 15 feet from the muzzle
404 Jeffery, 1:10" twist McGowen rifling

Impact range about 75 yards.
Target: 3.5 year-old bison bull of 1350 tasty pounds.

Entered rib cage behind the left shoulder, creating a larger than caliber entrance wound and causing lung and blood to spray out of the entrance hole as the bull staggered 8 steps and fell over dead.

The bullet broke a rib going in, traversed the chest, lacerating the great vessels from the top of the heart, and passed through the right shoulder joint where it caused breakage of both humerus and scapula. It stopped in the offside shoulder muscle, and did not make it to the offside hide.

Retained weight was 95% IIRC:







I am guessing that any poor results with a North Fork might be dependent on the medium used to catch bullets, if not live game.

The North Fork SP seems to be explosively fast opening at low and high velocity, and hangs together with excellent bonding of the nose, and hammers home well with the solid, grooved shank guaranteeing good retained weight. They are also very accurate and foul little.

Driving them at even higher velocity might fold the petals back a little flatter, or at least they will reach a maximum expansion and have some velocity left to drive deeper, if they start off faster.

I have not seen the tests referred to, but would like to see some more specifics, on the calibers, weights, velocities, and test medium of the North Forks if they are getting poor results.

North Forks put out the drag chutes quickly even at low velocity (doing some impressive wounding in the process), and this drag needs to be overcome with higher velocity. Another new rule.


Here are the wounds referred to above: larger than caliber entrance wound.

I am still wondering about the mechanism.

Hanging 1350 lbs. of young bull: the wound is at the border where the dark body fur becomes blond "mane."


A quarter beside the bullet entrance hole. The coin is about 24 mm diameter, or about 0.95" diameter. I estimate the bullet hole as .51" x .98", or 13 mm x 25 mm. The bullet was .423 caliber, 10.75 mm.

The broken rib beneath the entrance wound, viewed from inside the chest. Does this have something to do with the ragged, big entrance wound?

Rip: Yes, I'd like to indeed keep this thread going. I want to hear from te authors themselves and maybe from the bullet makers. What you described regarding NF performance, exactly duplicates that of an A Frame, and I can certainly attribute a slight difference in penetration to empirical testing, but a whole 12" is way out of the realm of an inexact testing protocol. The Aframes seem to be the standard, and I was also a bit surprised at the TSX comments. jorge

Can you plese expand on the TSX coments

I note that the author of this article, who is our fellow AR member 500grains, concluded his report with a quarter page of caveats, and he is to be commended for doing so.

I hope he will forgive me, however, for pointing out that the caveats are so substantial that they practically undermine the validity of the test results. Still, I think it is fair to say that the data do at least provide indications of which bullets will perform better than others, at least in the 9.3x62mm, which was the only caliber used in the tests.

Whether the margin of error in these tests can account for a 12 inch difference in the penetration of the A-Frame as compared with the NF I do not know.

I note that the A-Frame tested was a 300 grain bullet, whereas the NF was a 286 grain bullet. Longer and heavier bullets generally fare better in penetration tests, as long as they are launched at comparable velocities and are properly stabilized.

For example, these tests indicated that the Woodleigh 320 grain 9.3mm bullet outpenetrated its 286 grain brother from the Woodleigh bullet line by a factor of two. That is remarkable; however, because of the caveats noted in the article, it may be an anomaly resulting from uncontrollable variables in the testing procedure.

Thanks, MR.

Finally those of us ho have not read it have a little bit of info.

Jorge, you started this, so how about a little bit more critical reading and reporting like MR is doing?

What was the test medium used for the soft point bullets? Was it a truly uniform medium from shot to shot? If it was flesh and blood and hide and bone, alive or dead, this would be impossible.

How many shots constituted the sample for each bullet? Were the different weight bullets at the same velocity OR WAS THAT DIFFERENT TOO???

If 500grains is the culprit, surely he owes Mike Brady a little description of the methodology we are gossipping about over the internet backyard fence.

Any discussion here is a waste of time until the article is read and critqued.

465H&H

Regarding my comments on the TSX, first let me say that I am hardly a ballistics expert. What I have been told by others that are ballistics experts is that the 400 grain TSX is too long to reliably stabilize in a .416 Rigby. That you are better off backing down to the 350 grain TSX which is shorter. The consequence of the 400 grain bullet being too long and not stabilizing is that they sometimes tumble on impact. Again, I am not an expert but am simply repeating what I have been told. There is a long string that was started a couple of weeks ago on the TSX bullets and their performance on buffalo -- my buffalo!

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
If 500grains is the culprit, surely he owes Mike Brady a little description of the methodology we are gossipping about over the internet backyard fence.

Mr. Brady has been aware of the data for some time. Test medium was recently expired elephants. There is no way to be sure that the internal resistance that one bullet faced was the same as another. One bullet may get a free ride through a large section of lung, while another may hit a rib on the way in. So take the data for what it is - a report of what I saw the bullets do in dead elephants. The sample is not statistically reliable, so next time the NF may out-penetrate the SAF. Perhaps the next guy going over can run another test and let us know. However, the pics of the recovered bullets are interesting.

Also keep in mind that while we want maximum penetration from a solid, we do not necessarily want that in a soft. A soft should open up in time to be have a nice mushroom when passing through the vitals. That bullet may not penetrate as far as one that only mushrooms after it has left the vitals and is travelling in gut. But it may be more lethal.

Maybe someone can post a .jpg of the data table for those recalcitrant non-subscribers.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
If 500grains is the culprit, surely he owes Mike Brady a little description of the methodology we are gossipping about over the internet backyard fence.

Mr. Brady has been aware of the data for some time. Test medium was recently expired elephants. There is no way to be sure that the internal resistance that one bullet faced was the same as another. One bullet may get a free ride through a large section of lung, while another may hit a rib on the way in. So take the data for what it is - a report of what I saw the bullets do in dead elephants. The sample is not statistically reliable, so next time the NF may out-penetrate the SAF. Perhaps the next guy going over can run another test and let us know. However, the pics of the recovered bullets are interesting.

Also keep in mind that while we want maximum penetration from a solid, we do not necessarily want that in a soft. A soft should open up in time to be have a nice mushroom when passing through the vitals. That bullet may not penetrate as far as one that only mushrooms after it has left the vitals and is travelling in gut. But it may be more lethal.

500grains,
That explains it all, and I totally agree with you on all of those points made.
You are really milking those dead elephants for all they're worth, eh?

465H&H needs to go sit in the corner.

MJines,
Git as close as y'can, to these bullet weights, and then git a little closer:

.375cal 295-grain
.416cal 364-grain
.423cal 376-grain
.458cal 440-grain
.475cal 473-grain
.505cal 536-grain
.510cal 546-grain

In re-reading my post this morning I see that the quartering angle of the buff is not clear. The buffalo was almost broadside - with his centerline turned maybe 30 degrees towards me.

I don't know if that is a 30 degree quartering shot or a 60 degree quartering shot.

Rip: I did not want to proffer my (un)learned opinion before giving the author a chance to weigh in. 500gr's comments were what I was waiting on. MRLexma beat me to the punch and hit the nail right on the head.

As far as the A Frame vs NF goes, they are two different bullets with different velocities and SDs, however on the TSXs, this is not the first time stabilization problems have been reported. Personally if I had to choose between these three excellent bullets, I'd pick the one that shot best in my rifle and go hunt. jorge

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RIP:
465H&H needs to go sit in the corner.

Where is the middle finger Icon when you need it most?

465H&H

Dan
Congratulations on getting your article published. Well done!

/

If you want to know which bullet is good just ask Saeed,he's a hell of alot smarter than all of you!

Alf,
My friend's Winchester Custom Shop "Big Five" .470 Capstick would do that with bullets having diminished bearing surface, like North Fork FP's and GSC FN's. He had a sloppy/oversized barrel, too loose a fit, not enough bullet surface to grab the sloppy rifling, even though it was a 10" twist barrel made by Winchester. It would handle full bearing surface bullets like the Barnes brass RN solids and XLC's to 1.5 MOA accuracy with no keyholing.

Does Sauer make loose barrels? Is the bullet too long for a too slow twist? Does a faster load not keyhole with that bullet?

What type and weight bullet shoots best in that barrel?

/

P/

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
George et al:

Test results gave high marks (and rightfully so) to the North Fork products, but I noticed in the penetration chart table the NF Soft point only penetrated 30" as compared to the Swift's 42". Am I reading that wrong?



Why test things if you guys have pre concieved ideas of what is supposed to get good marks.

Though I have not read the article yet it seems from the content of this thread that there is a bias towards a certain product brand on AR above others no matter what; or am I wrong here?

The Swift out- penetrates the NF and everyone is in a state of shock ?

With the author rightfully stating that the "test" is of no statistical value everything seen and reported seen is actually then totally useless other than interesting reading.

This is then even more puzzeling and seems to me to indictate to some degree some lack of understanding or maybe a deliberate ignorance of the rules to make the test conform to the bias towards the chosen product, in this case the NF.

Not unlike the "tests" on certain FN products it would seem that minds are made up before hand which product is the best and then the tests results are made to fit that mold ( I went back and reread the results of the FN tests on dead elephant and the statistical difference between the penetration various brands of FN bullets used certainly cannot claim that one is significantly better that the other, and in some instances it does not entirely discount old standards either.

Then there is the issue of in- target stability of TSX's??????? Again the following quote seems totally contra intuitive to the whole concept of expanding projectile behaviour.

The consequence of the 400 grain bullet being too long and not stabilizing is that they sometimes tumble on impact. Again, I am not an expert but am simply repeating what I have been told. There is a long string that was started a couple of weeks ago on the TSX bullets and their performance on buffalo -- my buffalo!

We are dealing with Expanding projectiles here and unless the TSX does not expand ( which means then actually means total failure!) it assumes stability with the expansion process unless there was in flight instability and it hit the target side on ! By expandind or losing their petals as monometals do they actually become stable ( untill they reach terminal velocity in target and then there is a upward drift of the bullet from it's path)

Therefore all things equal the projectile that induces the least drag will get the most penetration or vise versa; and, dependent on what the object of the excercise in performance is one should select projectiles based on specific performance criteria for the species hunted, which is logical.

If it Swift outpenetrated the NF and both were of equal mass and velocity ( thus equal potential total energy at impact) then it simply means the NF expended all of it's energy over a shorter distance than the Swift and we can make of that what we can.

Alf,

Why do you believe that penetration depth is the only criteria by which an EXPANDING bullet should be judged? Using only penetration depth as the criteria, we would always use solids.

Also, how many rounds of a particular bullet do you think need to be recovered from game before a statistically reliable sample can be generated? If fewer rounds than that are fired, can we make any definite conclusion about penetration depth?

And from that sample, can we fairly draw conclusions only about the particular bullet and velocity, or can we draw conclusions about all bullets of that design regardless of velocity?

/

Alf,

Here is the quote. You criticize the notion that the NF soft is a good one based only on a difference in penetration depth. Perhaps it would be best if you read the article before going further off on a tangent. But until then, have you performed any statistically reliable tests of bullets in the field so that you can establish facts, rather than anecodtal evidence?

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
George et al:

Test results gave high marks (and rightfully so) to the North Fork products, but I noticed in the penetration chart table the NF Soft point only penetrated 30" as compared to the Swift's 42". Am I reading that wrong?



Why test things if you guys have pre concieved ideas of what is supposed to get good marks.

Though I have not read the article yet it seems from the content of this thread that there is a bias towards a certain product brand on AR above others no matter what; or am I wrong here?

The Swift out- penetrates the NF and everyone is in a state of shock ?

With the author rightfully stating that the "test" is of no statistical value everything seen and reported seen is actually then totally useless other than interesting reading.

This is then even more puzzeling and seems to me to indictate to some degree some lack of understanding or maybe a deliberate ignorance of the rules to make the test conform to the bias towards the chosen product, in this case the NF.

Alf: I'm not smart (or anal) enough to digest your posts and I can never quite figure them out. Suffice to say that a 12" penetration Delta on two bullets that are essentially identical is just not logical, especially when it is not the case with every other caliber tested where the A Frame and North Fork go head-to-head.

Here's the bottom line on those two bullets: Use the one that your particular rifle likes best and go hunting. It's just not that hard! jorge

Posted by 500grains!

"Also, how many rounds of a particular bullet do you think need to be recovered from game before a statistically reliable sample can be generated? If fewer rounds than that are fired, can we make any definite conclusion about penetration depth?"

Perhaps I can help a little on this question. In most scientificaly accepted tests the sample size needed is dependent on two factors. The first is the expected level of precision needed to accept the premise that there is a difference between the two results. In statistical terms it is called a "Significant Difference". Most science requires a 95% level of precision, meaning that, to say that there is a difference there must be a 95% or greater chance that the difference between the results was not due to random chance.

To gain this level of precision the sample size must be large enough to measure differences at that level of precision. The wider the variance between samples for a specific bullet the larger the sample size needs to be to estimate a bullets mean penetration at a 95% confidence level. As an example lets take some data from 500grains test of solid bullets on elephants published in AH magzine.

In most cases the sample sizes are only one, two or three samples for an individual caliber or hit location ( soft tissue, caliber or bullet type). If your sample size is "one" than there is no way that you can make any estimate on what the next bullet will do. In an example take the GS Custom FN solid of 570grs out of the 500 NE om brain shots. We have two samples. One penetrated 31" and was found in the neck vertebrae, the second missed the neck vertebrae and penetrated 74 inches. The mean (average) was 52 inches. The variance on the estimate would be huge because the samples are so far apart. If we look at the 570 gr Woodleigh on frontal brain shots we see only one sample, that penetrated 59 inches and missed the neck vertebrae as the GS Custom that traveled 74 inches. Wih a sample size of one you can not compute a variance (a range of difference in deptth of penetration). So we have no way of estimated what the next one would do.

Statisticaly the best we can say is that one bullet did this (the Woodleigh) and two bullets did this, the GS Custom. To make any more out of it makes no statistical sense. There are mathimatical formulas to compute the needed sample size but unfortunately the sample sizes in this experiment are not large enough to do that let alone compare performance between calibers or bullet types.

This is in no way a negative crirtisism of Dan's experiment but is put forward to help you all better understand what type of decisions can be made on the results.

465H&H

/

Alf,

Better to read the article before you purport to respond to it.

you guys are making things hard to follow

/

silvertips

what in the world is gonna stop a 300g silvertip or a 300g partition? How about a 300g failsafe? I bet that can go through an entire herd of buffalo!I know a 130g failsafe can shoot through a sawn off log about 2ft wide.They are also as accurate as anything.There you go,speaking so that everyone can enjoy.Hell,I might not have been to Africa but I certainly have reduced the size of the leaf river or george river caribou herd.How do you think I've become a shooting ballerina?Another king of a bullet would be the core-loct.There is nothing more true than what it says on the box.That is it has taken more game animals than any other bullet.