Following the forum interest in the .30cal bullet tests by Rifle Shooter Magazine,

some may also find value in the following results with various bullets fired from the 9,3x62

http://bigfivehq.com/softs.pdf ..

It's a nice surprise to see Dan string so many words together without insulting anyone. I sure miss him here.

Very nice article. Thank you for presenting it to us who do not get that magazine. I need to resubscribe to African Hunter. I shoot the 300 gr. SAF in my 9.3x62, so I was pleased to see the comparisons.

Thanks for posting. Interesting. Did I miss something, or are there a few paragraphs missing? I didn't see the text on the Swift bullets.
Bfly

What was Dan's handle on this forum?

Trax ----- Thanks for posting the results of the bullet testing, the results agree with my experience with North Fork bullets. I have used them in Alaska, Alberta, Colorado, Africa and at home. For some reason the national writers seem to be unaware they exist. Good shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by packrattusnongratus:
What was Dan's handle on this forum?

From memory it was 500grains?

Pity the section about the Nosler BT ends with the Swift A-Frame - methinks a bit of editing or proofreading was lacking.

quote:

From memory it was 500grains?

FREE 500grains!

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

From memory it was 500grains?

FREE 500grains!

With every MacMeal?

A nice cut to the core summary of bullets and pretty well goes along with what I have gone by over the years..I do believe that performance in a dead animal is somewhat different than performance in a live animal and is kinder to bullets. but I also believe the results is the same overall...Nice read. ONe thing I have noticed is the 9.3x62 with a 26 inch barrel and just a bit more veloicity seems to make a better killer and performence out of the 320 gr. Woodleighs, a favorite bullet of mine along with the Swift. The Swift being the toughest of bullets in the 9.3s..but that doesn't mean its the toughest bullet in other calibers, its not in some..That can be said for any bullet in any caliber, change one thing and you just might change everything, a typical example is I love Nosler partitions under "most" all circumstances, but only those of 30 calber or larger. I am not fond of them in smaller calibers as the cross section of expanded small caliber nosler is less than most cup and core bullets..The 400 gr. Nosler partition in .416 Rem is one of my all time favorites, its penetrates like a solid and makes big holes in buffalo and exits..but only since they moved the partition further forward, made a big difference.

Interesting article....thanks for posting.

I'm a big fan of the SAF and have used the North Fork at times....never on dangerous game as it's beyond my pocket book....but much of the same performance criteria also applies to elk, moose, and larger plains game.

It's surely less costly to learn from the experiences of others than one's own....but not nearly as much fun.

There is a lot of information in this article but it is 6 or 7 years old and there have been a couple of changes. GSC no longer uses molybdenum in our coating and we would much rather see the 230gr HV used in a 9.3 than the 260gr HV. I said so at the time but the conventional wisdom dictated the use of the heavier bullet. Thinking has changed somewhat and the 230gr HV has proven to be the bullet of choice.

I just shot the 230 GS at the weekend with exeptional accuracy with RL 15 out of a Sauer 202. I am looking forward to use this speedy bullets for driven boar.

Did I skim too fast or was the barrel length not given?

Interesting stuff. Anyone know if the 183gr Lutz Moller 9.3 bullet can be purchased anywhere in the USA? It would certainly be interesting to see if it could give flat enough trajectory and accuracy for a 400 yd shot.

I have some difficulty understanding what some are calling bullet failures.

a Nosler partition losing the fore core but retaining the hind core is a failure but a CEB Blowing off it's nose ( by design) is a brilliant success ?

Lutz Moller actually has two different models of same theme , where the blown fore section splits off into a few large pieces or another version where the fore core fragments are smaller and more numerous ?

I have also wondered about that ALF. I'm still leaning towards that a hunting bullet that fragments, fails the most.

The GS bullets is great and the Partition is not, both with similar penetration and weight retention? What about the wound cavities?

The important thing is what the speed is at which the bullet will mushroom, at what speed the bullet breaks and what the shape is after the bullet breaks.

We all want a bullet that will mushroom at low speed. When a bullet does not mushroom and pencils through, it is not good.

We all want a bullet that will be predictable and, a bullet that sometimes blows up on a shoulder and sometimes in the chest cavity of the animal, cannot be relied upon.

When a bullet does break, the shape that is left will determine whether it carries on straight or whether it will veer or tumble. The broken shape determines how it displaces tissue and what the wound channel volume will be from that point on.

All these things are important and there is only one manufacturer that will roll all these qualities into one bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
The important thing is what the speed is at which the bullet will mushroom, at what speed the bullet breaks and what the shape is after the bullet breaks.

We all want a bullet that will mushroom at low speed. When a bullet does not mushroom and pencils through, it is not good.

We all want a bullet that will be predictable and, a bullet that sometimes blows up on a shoulder and sometimes in the chest cavity of the animal, cannot be relied upon.

When a bullet does break, the shape that is left will determine whether it carries on straight or whether it will veer or tumble. The broken shape determines how it displaces tissue and what the wound channel volume will be from that point on.

All these things are important and there is only one manufacturer that will roll all these qualities into one bullet.

CEB??

Anyone using a decent hunting bullet within its optimum performance window will think its great.

Know what you shoot.

This is true and some windows open wider than others.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I have some difficulty understanding what some are calling bullet failures.

a Nosler partition losing the fore core but retaining the hind core is a failure
but a CEB Blowing off it's nose ( by design) is a brilliant success ?

Alf, in ref. to claims made in this product marketing statement:

We call them "Non Cons" for a reason, they are totally "Non Conventional".
They work in a different manner from which our conventional expanding bullets work,
Swift A, Woodleigh, Hornady, Nosler, all of our premium and non premium lead core jacketed bullets....

the marketing hype nonsense peddled by some will try and have consumers believe
that the CEB is a revolutionary 'Non-Con'....No doubt it has sucked in the gullible &
some naive types.......However the company conveniently chooses to ignore the fact that,

The mono-CEB and cup core-NP operate around the identical principle, despite being differently constructed.
So theres really nothing revolutionary Non-Con about CEB if we avoid the smoke & mirrors marketing,
and instead apply ones sober undistracted mind toward some proper investigation.

I stated all this a while ago in forum discussion but probably not in the best words... luckily, Alf was
reading at the time and gave a better explanation of what i was trying to convey:...

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

The conventional and its behaviour is constant to a central model.
A soft lead ball fired from a BP gun behaves in exactly the same manner or rather to the same model as your CEB.
The forces acting on the projectile and the projectiles behaviour follows the same physical model.

Specific behaviours may differ based on design but in essence it remains the same physical event.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

Specific behaviours may differ based on design but in essence it remains the same physical event.

Alf, you put your finger on it.

The conundrum appears to be that all bullets kill, so it does not matter that they differ in design. But bullet makers have created different type of bullets and their behaviour is not quite the same, and therein lies the difference. Categorizing bullets with various names may be somewhat difficult today, but we buy what we like for a given application because we recognize that they are not the same. The title of non-con is particularly odd, Raptor is good enough. Another odd way is to refer to bullets being Generation 1 bullets all the way up to Generation 7 bullets, etc. Peregrine has just released their range of bullets in SA with weird names, such as VRG-3 (Bushmaster) and VRG-4 (Plainsmaster) claiming they are velocity insensitive and independent from target medium – that is the spin.

A PMP cup and core bullet is not the same as any of the following, lead-core bonded, partitioned non-bonded, partition bonded, Barnes TSX and GSC HV, CEB Raptor. E.g. – angled deep shots with a PMP bullet is a bad call and a Barnes TSX is a mush better call, etc. There are other differences too – weight retention, expansion, shedding of petals, fragmentation tendencies, etc.

The pics we have seen on CEB raptors is that they mess the meat up, and the question is why should a meat hunter pick such a bullet over say a TSX. CEB claims that their Raptor bullet spreads its petals at more effective angles as shown in gelatine, and that may be where its difference lies to other bullet that also shed petals – it was tested on both cape and water buffalo, and yes they all died too.

Santa Claus

quote:

The conundrum appears to be that all bullets kill, so it does not matter that they differ in design.

I respectfully differ with that point of view. It would be correct to say that some bullets kill most of the time and that some bullets improve on that.

I have seen too many situations where a well placed bullet failed to kill or where a well placed bullet killed, but it took days. This goes to construction and there is a common factor here that was repaired with advancing technology.

I have used the 230 gr. GS Customs bullets in my 9.3x62 for more than a few years, and there is not a better bullet IMO..I also like the Nosler Partition and the Woodleighs..These are the bullets I've come to believe to be the best of the bunch particularly for larger animals..

For deer or animals under 200 pounds, about any bullet will work just fine..I have had good luck with the Win. power points, Horndays, Speers, Sierra, and I really liked the old Corelokts, but someone said the changed the design of the corelokt?? I think that has to be a mistake, but they do have a modern soldered core bullet they call a corelokt and it should work..

One thing I'm sure of this modern generation of bullet makers sure got it right..We don't have many failure these days. I have not had a bullit fail in 40 years, but I remember when failure was pretty much the norm. Bullet failure today is mostly from using the wrong bullet for the intended game and nothing will ever change that, you can't fix stupid.