Can not wait until the Nosler e-tip is out!\\That should fix things!!

Getting back to the statement that a 286 gr mono solid is a misapplication in a 9,3x62 mm rifle. I consider my custom turned Solid with its flat meplat better designed that the Barnes RN Solid. However, here is an example of how the 286 gr Barnes Solid performed on a giraffe with is a very large animal. I think the evidence speaks for itself.

That A-frame is a beaut. Thanks.

Cheers,
Canuck

who the hell shoots a giraffe?

...shoots a giraffe? Why Cyndy Boyce of course!

M98
1 in 9" would be the slowest I would use and would work well at longer distances. Expect some tumbles for close work such as in dense bush. 1 in 8" would be the better all rounder out to 400 or so. If you drop in weight to 160 or 150gr, you will lose nothing on performance and will in fact gain better linear penetration and more predictable terminal performance.

quote:

I came across this bullet some time back, but can't remember the story anymore.

What a crock. So you flap your keyboard anyway with a half baked statement. I also do not think that that is a Barnes bullet. Accuracy of observation and reporting is sadly lacking here. Make no mistake, I am glad you have turned your misguided attention to another brand, it just grates me when I see this type of thing.

quote:

Getting back to the statement that a 286 gr mono solid is a misapplication in a 9,3x62 mm rifle.

Answer this if you can: Which will give the better chance of linear penetration if fired from the same rifle and at similar power levels - A long for caliber solid or a shorter solid? You probably do not possess the technical horsepower for a coherent answer, but I have to try.

BTW: Unlike the occasional failures reported with 286gr monos in the 9.3, reports of shorter monos are all about successes like this and this one here. What does that tell us?

The Barnes TSX bullet is long for caliber - 38.86 mm. Perhaps the longest of all bullets in 9,3 caliber. Some believe (and I won't mention names) that it would not stabilize and it is a misapplication to have a mono 286 grainer. Now here is another example, and the performance is as good as can be expected. There are plenty more examples. Enjoy, and I hope to hear cries of joy !!!

I forgot to draw the attention to those beautifully expanded petals. The modest velocity does not over stretch the petals, so they can be as wide as possible rather than bend close to the shank or ripped off in short order due to extreme velocity. We want those expanded petals to go through the heart as wide as possible. This is all the velocity (2,200 fps) that one needs for this type of hunting at practical ranges. There is absolutely no sign of any skewness or tumbling and that leaves us only with straight-line penetration.

So I humbly submit that if 286 gr Monos perform this way, you can confidently take them on a trip and be as happy as Paul du Plessis.

Enough said.
Warrior

Par for the course. Your logic circuits are shorted out again. If you post 50 examples of where 286 grain monos worked well and ignore the four examples (five now) we have of where they failed, where does that leave you? Answer: It leaves you in the situation where you ignore the failures and look only for the successes. Now, if we fail to find any failures with shorter monos and see only successes, where does that leave those who recommend shorter monos? Answer: Assessing the probability of failure of the two products and making the logical choice.

Go ahead and post as many successes as you like, it will not make the failures go away. It only proves your single minded veiwpoint to blindly disagree with anything that does not fall in line with your limited knowledge base. Show us those pictures of stuff YOU have hunted and bullets YOU have recovered from the game YOU shot. Your opinion remains that of someone who has no regard for accuracy of fact and who will lie and deceive to satisfy the craving of every

quote:

Gerard asked:
Answer this if you can: Which will give the better chance of linear penetration if fired from the same rifle and at similar power levels - A long for caliber solid or a shorter solid? You probably do not possess the technical horsepower for a coherent answer, but I have to try.

Gerard,

No one beats you at deceiving. Even if 4 bullets have failed for every 50, then it is a mere 8% - that means the success rate is 92%. I would venture to say the success rate is more like 99%.

Warrior.

This is a Hornady 3031 Spire Point 150gr., 308.cal. Shot from a 30-06, it was also handloaded with 32grs. of Reloader 7. It hit the rib cage of a deer at 130yrs' distance and was found on the off side against the skin. Estimated (guess) velocity at the muzzle aprox. 2300fps. Lyman Reloading handbook.46th.

I'm hoping you can see part of the banana shape of this bullet. If it tumbled, why did it do so? And the non expansion is obvious!!!!

I have always been puzzled by the big( 20in long and 4 inches wide) swats of blood on the ground caused by this bullet wound. I can only think that, the bullet not hitting the heart, hit the lungs and blood was perhaps expelled from the mouth or nostils in very short order. As the bullet never expanded, a lot of damage to the lung was parhaps due to tumbling??? All guesses.

quote:

No one beats you at deceiving.

Says he who deceived his way back onto this forum after being banned and who has been caught in so many deceptions and lies, I have stopped counting.

quote:

Even if 4 bullets have failed for every 50, then it is a mere 8%

This confirms very clearly at what level you put your standards for success. I would be very concerned if there is an 8% failure rate of anything I use. It would be good reason to avoid that product forever.

quote:

I would venture to say the success rate is more like 99%.

Now that you have admitted that there is a failure rate with 286gr mono bullets in the 9.3, it is time to point out that the record of the lighter monos at 250gr and lower is 100%. It brings me to ask again:

quote:

Gerard asked:
Answer this if you can: Which will give the better chance of linear penetration if fired from the same rifle and at similar power levels - A long for caliber solid or a shorter solid? You probably do not possess the technical horsepower for a coherent answer, but I have to try.

Your failure to give a coherent reply confirms the mentioned lack of horsepower and your inability to reason logically.


Exit31
You are right, the bullet tumbled and the assumptions from there on are about right. As to the reason why the bullet tumbled, I would guess that it was on the slow side for good expansion at 130yds. With a MV of around 2300, it will be below 2000fps at 130 and, if little resistance is met, tumbling is what a non-expanded spitser shape will do in tissue. Loaded to a MV of around 2600, the result would have been different, I think.

Gerard,

The fact that the 286 gr Barnes TSX expands when it strikes, and the resultant shortening of the bullet geartly assists in-target stability by virtue of geometry rather than the Gyro effect. Alf has also told you this a million times. As the bullet expands and shortens the bullet becomes heavier at the tip and in so doing the CG point shifts towards the front, preventing tumbling tendencies, unless it strikes bone at an oblique angle when tumbling or changing its course becomes a renewed possibility again or the bullet loses a petal but still go straight.

Remember what you propagated before ... You stated that a close 2.44 does not qualify as we need in EXCESS of 2.5 in a 375 H&H with a FN Solid. The fact is that geometry of the bullet takes over and not the extra SF value of 0.06 that is sitting in the second decimal.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Exit31:

I have always been puzzled by the big( 20in long and 4 inches wide) swats of blood on the ground caused by this bullet wound. I can only think that, the bullet not hitting the heart, hit the lungs and blood was perhaps expelled from the mouth or nostils in very short order.

I shot an elk once, and the bullet tumbled (after expanding minimally). The distance was less than 35 yards, so it was easy to observe the reaction. Upon impact, the blood literally jetted out of the wound in a wide stream. I would say the blood traveled at least 5 feet horizontally, before hitting the ground. The bullet impact was high, slightly above the lungs. If you did not hit the heart, and did hit major arteries, the amount of blood that can come out of an animal through the point of impact in a short time is amazing, even when the bullet doesn't deform. FWIW, Dutch.

I have only shot 180 TSX in 300WM at the range, fed single shot in the VZ24 that I converted.

After reading the 4 pages of this thread, I am now worried that the bullet tips could get peened over from recoil in my magazine in a hunting situation.


Maybe I could mill a few more thousandths out of the mag well and put some material softer than Copper and yet resilient in the front of the inside of the mag well.

But first I will see if I can peen some over at the range.
I'll have to wear to the range a jacket of at least the same compliance that I might wear hunting.

tnekkcc,

Shoot your 300WM from the magazine and see what happens. I shoot a 338 Lapua TRGS for mulies and elk and have had the noses of the TSXs deform enough to hinder feeding. When shooting at the range single shot no problem but even after one shot the rifle won't feed. Always check out feeding after a couple of shots! I'm no gunsmith, and the feeding issue might be resolved with some smithing, but the bullets were affected by recoil. I used to use Nosler Partions and they were affected but to a lesser degree. I'm going to try some polymer tipped bullets next. AND I'm going to have my smith work on the feed ramp. The TSXs are very accurate, but they CAN be deformed from recoil.
My rounds that were subjected to recoil had a "blunted" nose that hung up on the feed ramp.

Chris,

quote:

The fact that the 286 gr Barnes TSX expands when it strikes, etc.........

Your incohereant/irrelevant post is a repeat of things that have been said many times. Everything you repeat above is applicable to shorter monos as well. How does it change the fact that 286gr monos have failed by tumbling in the 9.3 where, so far, no failures through tumbling have been reported with shorter monos in the 9.3? What does the GSC spec on a 375 FN solid have to do with a 286 soft, from another manufacturer, in a 9.3? Talk about creating smoke.

Why do you avoid:

quote:

Gerard asked:
Answer this if you can: Which will give the better chance of linear penetration if fired from the same rifle and at similar power levels - A long for caliber solid or a shorter solid? You probably do not possess the technical horsepower for a coherent answer, but I have to try.

Don't you know or is there this sinking realisation that you have painted yourself into a corner again? You can stop repeating that the 286gr monos work sometimes. We know it by now. Try a fresh answer that contains some logic.

Gerard,

I do not know because I do not shoot nor own rifles. Ask someone else that wants to carry on the never ending saga with you.



Warrior

Once again you avoid owning up to a blunder on your part with the use of some flippant and irrelevant remark. I wonder how many times you have done that? As soon as you are cornered, you run home hollering that you are not playing anymore. Until next time.

The fact that the .366/286 gr Barnes TSX expands when it strikes, and the resultant shortening of the bullet geartly assists in-target stability by virtue of geometry rather than the Gyro effect. In fact when this bullet (38.36 mm) has fully expanded, it is actually shorter than a 265 gr non expanding FN Solid (32.39 mm).



The above picture depicts an expanding bullet that gets shorter, and so the bullet becomes heavier at the tip, which shifts the CG point towards the front, preventing tumbling tendencies.

Warrior

quote:

Gerard asked:
Answer this if you can: Which will give the better chance of linear penetration if fired from the same rifle and at similar power levels - A long for caliber solid or a shorter solid? You probably do not possess the technical horsepower for a coherent answer, but I have to try.

Even I know the difference between a softpoint bullet and a solid but it appears you do not. Bit short on the technical kilowatts hey? If you were an engine I would say you were missing some spark somewhere. Carrying a cylinder as it were. Try to do better next time and maybe even answer the direct question you were asked.

Warrior

quote:

Posted 02 June 2007 19:21 Hide Post
Gerard,

I do not know because I do not shoot nor own rifles. Ask someone else that wants to carry on the never ending saga with you.

THats the stupidest thing I have ever read on a thread here.

So what the are you doing on all these forums preaching on bullet performance. If what you say is true what are you doing here at all.

MarkH,

This is where the humour comes in.
Gerard will feel better that way.
Even though it is not true.

Warrior

I have never had a Barnes bullet fail on game. I've never had a game animal run very far after being hit by a Barnes bullet.

Last year I killed a moose and 3 whitetail deer with a 270 Winchester firing 130 grain bullets. All of them went donw fast, with the fastest being the moose. (Damn Barnes for dropping the 270 130 XLC!)

Some of my rifles would not shoot X bullets, but terminal performance has alway been outstanding.

what about the nosler E-Tip?

I had a TSX 165 gr. .308 fail on a 4x4 Mule Deer two years ago. Monolithic solids will sometimes hit a rib or a round bone and that pinches the hollow point shut, and usually changes the course of the bullet..

I have had about 4 failures with the old standard barnes x bullets, so I don't use them anymore..but I have a lot of good friends that swear by them and I respect their reports of non failure...sooo, maybe s--t happens.

I will add that I have never seen a BarnesX bullet fail on buffalo or any very large animals,only the smaller deer size animals, for whatever that is worth.

quote:

Originally posted by M 98:
GERARD
so what twist would you recommend for a mono proj ...say a 180 gn tsx/in an 06 with a muzzle velocity of 2850 which is what im getting with Norma MRP
Daniel

in a 30-06 a 1:10" twist will stabilize anything you have any buisness loading
in a 30-06. (and even bullets that are heaver than you have any buisness using)

1:10" is the "traditional" twist for the 30-06.

Many purpose made 30cal target rifles use a 1:12" because they are optimizing for the 168gr match bullet, but even a 1:12" twist should be sufficient for the 180gr barnes but nothing heavier or longer.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul from nz:
who the hell shoots a giraffe?

I know someone with a full body mount Giraffe
and I doubt it died of natural causes...

But if you had ever seen a full body mounted giraffe you wouldn't need to ask



AllanD

The heaviest lead core bullet that should be used in a 1:12" twist .30 caliber, according to the Shilen website is 170gr. This assumes that it will be used for distance shooting where the twist requirement is less than what it is for general hunting use.

Given that bullet length is the actual parameter that is implied when weight limits are given by barrel makers, the 180gr TSX or a 180gr GSC HP (about the length of a 210/220gr lead core bullet) will at best deliver marginal stability on impact. In a 1:10" twist Shilen puts a maximum weight limit of 220gr for distance work. The Lilja website gives similar guidelines.

Closer in, where impacts generate higher forces, the bullet must be shorter or the twist must be tighter.

Allen, your advice may hold for lead core bullets for paper punching but will not be optimal for copper mono bullets applied to hunting.