quote:

Why is it a failure when a Woodleigh solid extrudes a few grains of lead from the rear or has a slight nose deformation but the GS FN solid can deform as shown above and that is perfect performance? Those GS solids behave more like soft points than solids and have way too much deformation for my taste in a solid. Is GS using a softer alloy in their solids? It seems that they held together better in earlier forms.

AMEN

quote:

bullet stability

I do not buy it entirely. Please dont start another "twist rate" agrument...

I have used most solids available today in my .450 Rigby, and GSC and Woodleigh and Rhino in my 9,3 and must tell you, that IMO the jury is still out...
The GSC's do penetrate exceptionally well, most of the time, but they do deform, (which does not inspire confidence with me) and sometimes do not penetrate as I would expect, the Woodleighs do what is expected (penetrate and kill & squeeze lead out the rear, never seen a a real "failure" except when it hit water before the hippo, then it bend almost 90 degrees), Rhino solids - only "failure" was a too long bullet (550 gr monolthic) that did not penetarte as expected. Most monolitics with 70% of calibre meplate or more, will penetarte very well. Even the round nosed designs, which everybody now critize, will give ample penetration in most cases in .458 cailbers and up. IMO there is less of a difference between the excellent solids available today that the various softs available today. So, use whatever your gun likes out of:
GSC
Barnes
Woodleigh
Other monolithic designs. (In no particular order.)

All solids will deform to various extents depending upon what they hit. The flat or flatter nose ones will generally penetrate better than round nose ones because they have a less deflected path.

Shootin' them in the right place is probably most important.

quote:

All solids will deform to various extents depending upon what they hit. The flat or flatter nose ones will generally penetrate better than round nose ones because they have a less deflected path.

Shootin' them in the right place is probably most important.

Will, we seldom agree, but on this one I agree 100%.

I have said on many occasions that shot placement is job number one. Absolutely and without any doubt. Now, when the hunter has done everything right and he has placed the shot correctly what then? If the bullet is not capable of finishing what the hunter has started, it has failed and things go South.

How many times have I heard the lament "I am sure the shot was placed well, but I missed the brain/heart/whatever. I must have been mistaken." When the bullet is recovered, the connection is not made between the otherwise little deformed, but bent, bullet and the missed whatever. Nothing wrong with the shot placement, only the choice of bullet weight/length.

The connection exists and, whether some people want to believe it or not, it has to do with bullet length and twist rate.

quote:

Rhino solids - only "failure" was a too long bullet (550 gr monolthic) that did not penetarte as expected.

I assume that better performance was had from a shorter Rhino bullet. That indicates that there may be a connection?

quote:

The GSC's do penetrate exceptionally well, most of the time, but they do deform, (which does not inspire confidence with me) and sometimes do not penetrate as I would expect,

Those are the 500gr FNs from your 450. GSC recommends the 450gr FN. It is the same logic as with the 550 to 500 step.

FNs deform with a specific purpose. The meplat enlarges, the cg shifts forwards and, altogether, linearity is increased.

The two pictures on the previous page show that a bent bullet, without dart and shoulder stabilistion, tumbles along a curved path and, if the material and construction is not up to it, it breaks.

The two FNs pictured are designed to remain on a straight path after deformation, despite the bend, and retain weight. It would be interesting to know what the two bullets in the picture weigh. Has anyone experienced a tumbling failure with an FN of the correct length of any manufacture. (Truncated cone solid bullets not truncated round nose solids please.)

Think about reports here on AR. 400/410 monos work acceptably in the 416 Rem Mag but failures are reported with the 416 Rigby. Why? Same bullet, slightly less speed but worse performance? In contrast, I have yet to hear of a failure with either 416 and a 380gr FN.

I fail to see why the connection cannot be made.

quote:

The GSC's do penetrate exceptionally well, most of the time, but they do deform, (which does not inspire confidence with me) and sometimes do not penetrate as I would expect,
Those are the 500gr FNs from your 450. GSC recommends the 450gr FN. It is the same logic as with the 550 to 500 step.

Gerhard, where did I state it was the 500gr's out of my .450 Rigby that did not penetarte as expected? I was refering to the 265gr 9.3's that you have send me. I have state it before, and will again, I was very happy with the 500gr bullets, and do believe that if I have used the 450gr, I would not have been so happy. (Mostly due to possible deformation? I cannot really say, as I have not tested it.)

Also, no one says there is no connection between a too long a bullet and poor performance/ penetration. I just think it overpalyed somewhat, once again, I am happy with 500gr bullets, from you or from other monolithic makes. Also, the 550gr Woodleigh does well in my gun, so far exiting on braodside body shots of 3 elephant bulls, and some other elephant and buffalo recoveries has lead me to believe that they do stabilise. The 550gr rhino was in all fairness probaly too long, I have shrten them, and they have worked well afterwards (now weighing a fraction over 500gr.)

quote:

Shootin' them in the right place is probably most important.

Now way. Having enough beer in camp is most important.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Shootin' them in the right place is probably most important.

Now way. Having enough beer in camp is most important.

Beer is never a problem in most camps but when the PH drinks all the Amarula, well that's a problem..

This is a very interesting thread. I have a 505 Gibbs, and recently I did a penetration test on a large wattle tree. I thought I would shoot a 600gn Woodliegh solid into it (from about 15 yards) at about 2300fps, and push a screwdriver in behind it to find out how far in it went. The tree was 33cm in diameter, and it went clean through! Pretty impressive in my limited experience. So here is a question for those with more experience than me:- how does a copper coated steel jacketed solid like the Woodleigh compare the the truncated cone solid copper bullet and the Bronze monolithic solid by Barnes? I would be very interested to read your opinions.

Here is a "before and after" photo of North Fork 450 grain caliber pure copper .458 solid bullets. The one on the left was fired as a "Texas heart shot" into a Cape buffalo which was standing still and dying about 30 or 40 yards away. Muzzle velocity was 2250 fps. It was found "in the shoulder" by the skinner and thus travelled the whole length of the buffalo.

Since I fired two "Texas heart shots" and the second caused the buffalo to immediately fall to the ground, we think that this is probably the second of the two and that it broke the shoulder.