What is the advisability or using homogeneous bullets in double barrel rifles w/ solid joining ribs?

I've seen comments advising to avoid bullets such a Barnes-X because they do not swage down in the barrel and actually cause the barrel to expand (?) in passage. This expansion can break to joint (soft solder) holding the barrels together.

I have a 1907 vintage Joseph Lang cal 450/.400 31/4 inch and a 1922 vintage Jeffery cal 9.3x74. I'm using conventional lead core bullets in each pending input on 'usability' of mono-metals.

Any advice will be appreciated.

There is a thread running over on big bores about a burst barrel, which may shed light on your doubts. All barrels expand to some extent. Hard bullets don't help. A PH friend had a barrel burst in his double using Barnes solids, which WR told him was a no-no.

There is nothing wrong with using Woodleighs or any other lead core bullets, so why bother or tempt fate?

You should not shoot any homogenous projectiles through double rifles because the expansion of the barrel is very likely to break the joint with the rib - this is not hearsay because I have personally experienced it in a Chapuis 9.3 x 74R. I didn't know that you couldn't shoot such projectiles, through a double, and so set out to develop loads for Barnes X projectiles in this rifle.

At first I was very successful and developed some loads which shot exceptionally well but then, quite suddenly, I couldn't hit the side of a barn with this rifle and when I sent it back to the factory to be checked that is when I found out what was wrong. Even though it was my fault, to their credit Chapuis repaired the rifle and I understand that they now include a warning, with their doubles, not to shoot any homogenous projectiles through such rifles.

As Will says, why shoot anything other than the accepted projectiles such as Woodleighs - I now shoot the Woodleigh 286gn PP and have had excellent results with this projectile in the 9.3x74R as well as Woodleigh 500gn projectiles in my Chapuis .470NE.

Zim Parks had two .458Win doubles in their inventory until we started using A square monolithics in the '80's Both sprung their barrels within 50 rounds.

Have seen one subsiquently (a .500 Army and Navy) that the owner had foolishly reloaded with brass mono's. It is now lying in the police armory as an exhibit. what a waste

quote:

Originally posted by M Henselman:
What is the advisability or using homogeneous bullets in double barrel rifles w/ solid joining ribs?

I've seen comments advising to avoid bullets such a Barnes-X because they do not swage down in the barrel and actually cause the barrel to expand (?) in passage. This expansion can break to joint (soft solder) holding the barrels together.

I have a 1907 vintage Joseph Lang cal 450/.400 31/4 inch and a 1922 vintage Jeffery cal 9.3x74. I'm using conventional lead core bullets in each pending input on 'usability' of mono-metals.

Any advice will be appreciated.

Unfortunately, all homogenous material bullets get lumped into the same wagon, yet that wagon is carrying apples and oranges. There is no doubt that Barnes, A-Square and TCCI bullets will be hard on your vintage double and may very well ruin it.

However, not all monolithic bullets are bad medicine for doubles. The GS Custom monolithic bullets and the North Fork mono bullets both use a driving band design which is considerably gentler on your rifle barrels than Woodleigh solids. Keep in mind that Woodleigh solids are harder and more difficult to engrave rifling/swage than the historic Kynoch bullets for which your rifle was designed. If I had a vintage double, I would only use GS Custom or North Fork driving band bullets in it since those bullets will impose the least flex on the rifle barrels of any bullets currently made.

500grains and others:

Do you think new Doubles are less prone to have problems with mono-metal or other bullets given the quality of steel, etc?

Have you seen the new Barnes Banded and TSX bullets for the 470? Similar in concept to the Driving Band?...any thoughs on those for use in new or older DR?

The North Forks Cup Points and Barnes Banded are what I plan on using in my new DR...do you see any potential problem with those??

Thanks for your assistance!

I've used the North Fork Cup Points in my DRs and report no problems. Personally, I feel safe in shooting them b/c the bands are so small or rather thin. The barnes seem to have "thicker" bands and look like they don't have enough room in between the bands for the displaced metal to flow... and i have not shot them in my DRs... just my .02.

JJS:

According to Mike, the North Forks are much softer than the Barnes. Try scribing a line on the Barnes bands, then the North Fork. I'd imagine that the NF would be the "easiest" on a double.

JudgeG:

You are correct about the "hardness" North Fork vs Barnes Banded. The NF's being copper while the BB are (I think) Bronze/Copper blend.

For what its worth when loading NF Cup Pt. vs Barnes Banded I have to reduce powder charge by about 2 grains (H4831sc) with the NF to produce similar velocity. The NF (.475+/-) are slightly larger bullet than Barnes (.474+/-). I have more testing to do in the next few days.

JudgeG, if I have any bullets left when down in Texas.. I will give them to you to try in your 470 N.E...if you would like to give them a try?

Thanks, jjs

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
500grains and others:

Do you think new Doubles are less prone to have problems with mono-metal or other bullets given the quality of steel, etc?

Yes, new doubles are more likely to hold up when fired with the less sophisticated monometal bullets such as the Barnes X or Barnes super solid, due to (i) stronger/harder modern steel, and (ii) thicker steel which is generally used for the barrels of modern doubles.

quote:

Have you seen the new Barnes Banded and TSX bullets for the 470? Similar in concept to the Driving Band?...any thoughs on those for use in new or older DR?

Unfortunately, Barnes TSX and banded solids are GROOVED bullets, and do not use a driving band. So it is still quite hard to engrave the rifling on a Barnes TSX or Barnes banded solid. I would NOT (repeat NOT) use them in a vintage double.

As an experiment, take a North Fork solid or a GS Custom solid, and push it through your rifle barrel using a wooden dowel. You can push it through with hand pressure. Try the same with a Barnes bullet or Woodleigh solid and you will find it to be impossible.

quote:

The North Forks Cup Points and Barnes Banded are what I plan on using in my new DR...do you see any potential problem with those??

No problem with the North Forks.

I would only use the Barnes banded solid in a double if the manufacturer recommended them. Searcy doubles are cleared for use with Barnes bullets. Chapuis are not. Barnes should be considered off limits for all vintage doubles.

By the way, if you are hunting everything except elephant, all you need are the North Fork cup points. They offer penetration depth that is right on the heels of the best solids.

For elephant you need a solid, but you will not need any expanding bullets (cup points included).

I don'tknow but ive been using barnex X's in my merkel 470 with no problems, they even regulated to the same point as woodleighs with the same load (91 gr RL15)

500

You might want to look a little closer at those Barnes Banded bullets.

At least the .458. The one I'm holding in my hands appears to have bands that measure .457, while the main body of the bullet measures .448 [.427 in the front "groove" and .442 in #'s2,3,&4]

Look like bands.

Les

The only monolithic I would use in a double rifle of vintage make is the GS Customs bullet as it rides on the grooves, nothing else, but it would probably behoove you to mike the bullets and the bore, which is always a good practice in a English or German double of yesteryear....

I have shot many GS Custom flat nose solids bullets in my Army/Navy 450-400s and had to up my powder charge to reach a velocity that would regulate, in both the 3" and 3.5" versions...

I would shoot any bullet in most monolithic bullets in my Searcy and I do, but if you will take note, a Searcy barrel is made of modern Krieger steel and its a good deal thicker than the older guns...

My favorite bullets in my Searcy double are Northfork cup points and softs, but I only use the cup points these days as they surfice for a soft and a solid IMO....

I have not used the Northforks in a English double so could not say one way or the other...

Bottom line? In your gun use Woodleighs, they are an excellent bullet and will never fail you in that double rifle, especially at those modest velocities....

You may want to try the GS custom flat nose solids, I would, but that is up to you.....I would not shoot Barnes X in any double rifle as they are hard and have full contact with the bore. English doubles are maxed out at 14 tons of pressure IMO....

LHowell,

The problem with the Barnes design is that each of tbe bands is way too deep (along the length of the bullet), so lots of material needs to be displaced to engrave the rifling. Compare with North Fork and GS Custom to see the difference. Barnes did not go with the North Fork or GS Custom implementation because it costs more. But it results in a better bullet. Barnes also makes their bullets out of a relatively hard brass as compared to the much softer copper of GS and NF. Of course compared to Barnes old solid design, the new ones are way ahead. But they are not an optimal design.

Try to think of it like this - as the rifling engraves the bullet, there is bullet material displaced by the rifling. That material must go somewhere. If the drivinb bands of the bullet are very small and the grooves following the bands can accept the displaced material, then little pressure is needed to engrave the rifling on the bullet. This is the case with NF and GS. But in the case of Barnes banded bullets, the bands are quite wide, so obturation of bullet still occurs which places undue stress on the barrels. Woodleigh solids are not especially kind to rifle barrels either, by the way, due to their rigid steel liner under the jacket.

GS Custom:



North Fork cup nose:



North Fork (these are softs)



Barnes:

500

Do I understand correctly that it is the width of each band that causes the problem with the Barnes Banded?

The .458 bullet appears to have about 25% of it's total length in contact with the rifling while the North Fork Cup has less than 12% of it's length in contact.

The North Fork softs in your photos above do not appears to be bands, but rather grooves, they show almost no engraving to these grooves on the fired bullets. Am I looking at them incorrectly or is this different technology than the Cups?

Les

quote:

Originally posted by LHowell:

Do I understand correctly that it is the width of each band that causes the problem with the Barnes Banded?

It is a combination of width of each band, plus the hardness of the material. There is nothing wrong with a hard bullet material per se. But a hard material with a wide band means that the barrel will have to give to let the bullet move down it. The GS and NF designs are an attempt to avoid that.

quote:

The North Fork softs in your photos above do not appears to be bands, but rather grooves, they show almost no engraving to these grooves on the fired bullets. Am I looking at them incorrectly or is this different technology than the Cups?

I am not sure if I would call it different technology, or just a different implementation of the same concept. Also, there does not seem to be any standardization of the terminology at this point, so some of us will say grooved, and another will say banded, when we mean the same thing. I considered the Barnes a grooved bullet because so much material is left in contact with the bore, while I considered the NF cup point a banded bullet, because only a few bands are in contact with the bore.

In the end, what is important is how much force it takes to engrave the rifling. Generally, gentler is better, and gentler also can give higher velocities with the same load.

quote:

The .458 bullet appears to have about 25% of it's total length in contact with the rifling while the North Fork Cup has less than 12% of it's length in contact.

With regard to this point, it is also important to consider if the bullet material displaced by the rifling has anywhere to go. On the GS and NF bullets, the answer is yes. On the Barnes, the bands are so wide that the bullet must obturate or the barrel must expand to make space for the bullet material displaced. This is what is not so good for vintage doubles.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
With regard to this point, it is also important to consider if the bullet material displaced by the rifling has anywhere to go. On the GS and NF bullets, the answer is yes. On the Barnes, the bands are so wide that the bullet must obturate or the barrel must expand to make space for the bullet material displaced. This is what is not so good for vintage doubles.

To quote Rochester the Great, "NOW you said sumpm, boss!"

Getting a good seal using readily displaced metal that has a place to go would seem to be easiest on an older barrel.

The NF and GS Custom bullets are the best I've seen.

Many thanks to all who have offered their knowledge / experience. I'll stick w/ lead core bullets.

The North Fork soft points are grooved, totally different from the banded Cup Point and Flat Point solids, which have very minimal driving bands.

The GSC HV and FN as well as the North Fork CP and FP should be safe in any double, and I would readily use them.

The North Fork Soft Point with its grooved solid shank might be a bit harder on doubles. However, it is the best soft point imaginable for a hunting rifle with a single barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
The North Fork Soft Point with its grooved solid shank might be a bit harder on doubles.

harder on them than a conventional lead-cored bullet?

new_guy,
Hard to say. Since they have a solid copper shank and quite a bit of bearing surface and more engraving resistance compared to the banded North Forks, I wouldn't use them in an antique British double.

I would not hesitate to use them in my Merkel.

RIP and new_guy:

If I remeber correctly, speaking with Mike at North Fork, Mike was somewhat hesitant on using the Soft Points in Double Rifles...I think he was going to do further testing..you may wish to give him a call. I agree with you guys that the North Fork Cup Points and Solid FP should work very well. I am going to use the Cup Points, in my Merkel, for Cape Buff this July..

The Cup Points seem to regulate at higher velocity than other bullets I have tested.

JJS,

I hope you have some cup points on hand as I called Mike yeaterday and he doesn't have any in .475.

He told me he wouldn't be making anymore for 5 weeks probably longer.

Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
The North Fork Soft Point with its grooved solid shank might be a bit harder on doubles.

harder on them than a conventional lead-cored bullet?

Absolutely not. The NF softs have much less bearing surface than a conventional soft, and tend to have a softer jacket as well, making them gentle on barrels. But not quite as gentle as the NF Cup Point, or the GS FN.

Surestrike:

Thankfully, I purchased two boxes of Cup Points in the last run Mike made. One box for load development and the other for my Tanzania hunt. Do you need a few?

Are you using them this year for a hunt?

Thanks,

jjs

Have to agree with Ray on this one. Use Woodleighs in your double. They have performed well for me.

The bullets on the left are 470 Woodleigh solid and soft at 2100 fps ±. The soft retained 78% of original weight. Both were removed from Buff.

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
The Cup Points seem to regulate at higher velocity than other bullets I have tested.

Interesting jjs, my gun was regulated with Woodleighs.

The NF CP at the same velocity as the regulated Woodleighs are fine in my gun vertically, but it shoots two groups about 2" apart. The individual groups have been excellent (some as small as 1" at 50) but still 2" apart.

Is that similar to your experience? I'd be interested in hearing how much more vel (as compared to the regulated laod) it took to bring yours together.

I've also gotten the NF to regulated velocity with about 2% less powder - compared to the woodleighs.

new_guy:

My rifle was originally regulate with the Federal TB Solids. As you probably have seen from my prior post I started out using H4831sc..just did not want to use filler and H4831sc fills case nicely and was a powder that has published data available.

When I obtained my Cup Points, I started loading at lowest powder charge I had prevously tested with the Woodleigh Softs and Barnes Banded Solids and worked up.

What I found, in my rifle, was similar to your findings. The Cup Points group well (with starting loads) but shot to the right of POA. As powder charge was increased POA shifted to the left...worked out great. My velocity was a nominal 2170 fps, 70degrees F temp. The grouping was exceptional. I tested this load at 100 yds and it was better than I could have expected...but those were small samples I will be doing more testing in the next couple of days.

With same powder charges as the Woodleigh Softs and Barnes Banded, the North Fork Cup Points provided increase in velocity greater than 50+fps vs the Barnes and much greater than the Woodleighs...70 to 80 fps..if my memory is correct..I do not have my records with me.

Do you have similar results with difference in velocity with Cup Points??

jjs

Slow loads start like an inverted "V" in my gun (low and far apart) they come closer together as velocity increases (which is just the opposite of what you would think given the X diagram of bullet convergence.)

quote:

Do you have similar results with difference in velocity with Cup Points??

Kinda - but my approach is opposite of yours.. I get the same velocity with less powder.

I stopped adding powder once I hit my target velocity, and that number came in about 2% less than the amount of powder needed to get the Woodleighs up to speed.

I do that for pressures sake, Regardless of the powder charge, I always load to velocity.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
The North Fork Soft Point with its grooved solid shank might be a bit harder on doubles.

harder on them than a conventional lead-cored bullet?

Absolutely not. The NF softs have much less bearing surface than a conventional soft, and tend to have a softer jacket as well, making them gentle on barrels. But not quite as gentle as the NF Cup Point, or the GS FN.

A certain party here should be reminded that the North Fork Soft Point creator knows his own bullets better than that certain party.

That certain party should be reminded that these bullets have no "jacket" in the shank portion under consideration but are solid copper, grooved.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

A certain party here should be reminded that the North Fork Soft Point creator knows his own bullets better than that certain party.

That certain party should be reminded that these bullets have no "jacket" in the shank portion under consideration but are solid copper, grooved.

You two still in a "tiff"?

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
The North Fork Soft Point with its grooved solid shank might be a bit harder on doubles.

harder on them than a conventional lead-cored bullet?

Absolutely not. The NF softs have much less bearing surface than a conventional soft, and tend to have a softer jacket as well, making them gentle on barrels. But not quite as gentle as the NF Cup Point, or the GS FN.

A certain party here should be reminded that the North Fork Soft Point creator knows his own bullets better than that certain party.

That certain party should be reminded that these bullets have no "jacket" in the shank portion under consideration but are solid copper, grooved.

Ron, you gotta give up the demon lemonade.

My post is correct as written. You will notice that the rifling begins to engrave on the jacket portion.

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

A certain party here should be reminded that the North Fork Soft Point creator knows his own bullets better than that certain party.

That certain party should be reminded that these bullets have no "jacket" in the shank portion under consideration but are solid copper, grooved.

You two still in a "tiff"?

The bickering is getting to be a bit tedious...

Tiff? Nah, the blood-feud has been revived by 500lies on another thread.

http://www.northforkbullets.com/bulletcutout.htm

If this bullet engraves any jacket it is into solid shank in a silly millimeter.

Look at the .458 expanded at 1700 fps. The rifling has engraved on the non-grooved portion where a copper jacket surrounds a bonded lead core.

Nonetheless, this bullet will be much gentler on barrels than a Woodleigh soft or solid. I don't know why folks think the Woodleigh solids are so gentle - they are very hard.

new_guy:

Results, in terms of velocity with North Forks, seem to be similar, however, my gun regluated much better with at a slightly higher velocity with the North Forks 2170fps.

I was attempting to target a velocity of 2130fps or so.

Not really any difference in approach as I was also targeting a velocity but possibly difference in terms of what velocity regulated best in different guns...using Cup Points.

In my other rifles (Bolt Guns) that I have tested the Cup Points, I have actually had to increase powder charges to achieve similar velocity vs other bullet types...so go figure.

Possibly I missed it ..but what velocity are you loading at...

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:
Surestrike:

Thankfully, I purchased two boxes of Cup Points in the last run Mike made. One box for load development and the other for my Tanzania hunt. Do you need a few?

Are you using them this year for a hunt?

Thanks,

jjs

jjs,

THANK YOU sir that is a very kind offer. I'll not be needing any this year but thanks again for your offer.

Greg


RIP, 500grs,

While it is startingly obvious that you two hate each other, is there any chance that you two could cut the crap and not defile every FU****G thread on this site with your delequent yet menaingless personal fueds.

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Look at the .458 expanded at 1700 fps. The rifling has engraved on the non-grooved portion where a copper jacket surrounds a bonded lead core.

Nonetheless, this bullet will be much gentler on barrels than a Woodleigh soft or solid. I don't know why folks think the Woodleigh solids are so gentle - they are very hard.

Looking at the picture of the 1700 fps expanded bullet does not show that there is lead core under that part. The engraved part visible is solid shank with no driving bands or grooves on it for a stretch before it gets to the grooved part of the shank. It is a solid copper full diameter plug that must pass the rifling before it gets into the grooved portion of the shank:

http://www.northforkbullets.com/bulletcutout.htm

This (the grooved SP) is not a good bullet for antique double rifles. Period. The banded CP and FP are the low-resistance-to-rifling-easy-on-antiques slugs.

Just don't want 500lies to get too far with this latest prevarication.

I just sectioned one of the North Fork .458/450gr SP bullets. For at least 0.100" above the first groove, the nongrooved portion of the shank is 0.458" diameter, and the nose core of lead starts above this full diameter "plug" section of the shank. There is no "jacketed lead" at all until one gets well into the ogive and sub-bore diameter.

It makes sense. One would not want the controlled expansion area (bonded lead to copper) to be engraved and weakened. This would encourage tearing and fragmentation, which the North Fork does minimally: It mushrooms perfectly and sheds no petals!!!

The North Fork lead nose core and the copper nose "jacket" (which is a cavity machined in the solid shank nose and subsequently formed around the core and bonded) are not engraved by rifling at all. No sir.

The lead core and copper "jacket" in the nose are as closely matched in ductility "as humanly possible," so they flow together and don't shear and fragment. Engraving the copper around the lead would defeat the design.

It is a solid copper shank that takes all of the engraving, Grooved over most of its span though it is, there is still a bulwark of non grooved solid copper bullet that must get through the setting up of engraving before the grooved portion is reached. More shank run is full diameter than is dead space in the groove troughs.

The empty grooves take up less than 50% of the solid shank. It is a bullet that should not be used in antique double rifles.

Best premium soft for single tube rifles, however.

Nipped another lie in the bud.