What animals were these recovered from? They look similar to Woodleigh's I have recovered at the range after firing into a Sand/Dirt mix. None of these examples have the smooth,round edge which usually indicates tissue damage. I realize they went through 8 feet of bone however I would still think there would be some evidence of soft tissue penetration. I would enjoy a photo of the animal that took these chunks of lead.

Dan,

Quote:

---

Are you sure of that muzzle energy figure

---

Here is the math, since you doubted me.



570 gr Woodleigh SP

Chronographed muzzle velocity ~ 2350 fps (minimum)

Bullet mass = 570/7000/32.2/2 = 0.001264418811

Minimum Chronographed Velocity squared = 5522500

Kinetic Energy at the muzzle = 6983 lb-ft. This is the ABSOLUTE minimum muzzle energy that load would produce STATISTICALLY SPEAKING.



Mean Average Chronographed Muzzle Velocity = 2369 fps

Mean Average Chronographed Muzzle Velocity Squared = 5612161

Kinetic Energy at the muzzle = 7096 lb-ft. This is more likely the energy the load developed at the muzzle.



For the 535 gr Woodleigh SP.

Bullet mass = 535/7000/32.2/2 = 0.00118677905945

Minimum Chronographed Muzzle Velocity squared = 5900041

Kinetic Energy at the muzzle = 7002 lb-ft



So Dan, technically speaking I could be exaggerating by 17 lb-ft of muzzle energy when I say the loads ALL had 7000 lb-ft at the muzzle.



The chronograph data represents three 10 shot strings, for each bullet weight, fired over a 6 month time frame. The loads were all from the same lot of IMR4350. They were VERY consistent.



The bullets ALL penetrated some "heavy" bone, actually one slugged it's way through ~ 7" to 8" of bone. That particular bullet is ~ 1/2 gone (missing everything forward of the cannelure except for a "flag" of jacket).



I don't know what to say about these here Woodleigh bullets!



By the way, a hot load generates a muzzle velocity of ~ 2611 fps with the 570 gr Woodleigh. That muzzle energy of 8620 lb-ft!! Could you imagine what that load would do?



ASS_CLOWN

Yes, me too. How about some kill pictures. I'd be very interested in a peek at the dead critters. Did you wash those bullets before you took their pictures? What animals did they kill and where?

Those bullets look like the ones I tested in wood and 5 gal. buckets of sand also.

ROSCOE,

Quote:

---

ASS_HOLE

---

That was very mature.

Quote:

---

next years trip to Africa which by the way will be my 5th

---

Bully for YOU!

What did you shoot in Africa on the last four trips, and I would LOVE to see the kill pictures and the recovered, 416, 458, and 470 bullets!

ASS_CLOWN

Doc & ROSCOE,

Some more pictures for you. I hope you can make out the flow of the lead, that seems to be indicative to you of a soft tissue impact.

A picture of a dummy cartridge is also included.





If you look real close you may even see bits of decayed/dried out animal protein (meat).

ASS_CLOWN

ROSCOE & Doc,

I have never been a big picture taking kinda guy. I can think of MANY MANY better things to carry while hunting than my big bulky Nikon 35mm. Also, until last Christmas I did not own a digital picture, so digital pics are out. Lastly, I think I have a dozen or so rolls of shot 35mm thatn I have never gotten developed (maybe there be some pictures of my now dead race car on them . . . perhaps I should get those rolls developed)! Like I said I ain't into photography!

So, if you haven't figured this our already, I have NO pictures of dead animals which ingested these Woodleigh bullets.

ROSCOE,
That was 7 to 8 INCHES of bone, not feet. Heavy bone tears jacketed bullets up! I am sorry if you feel I a lying sack of shit because the ACTUAL RECOVERED bullets don't look like someone's marketing photographs!

With regard to digging bullets out of backstops. I shoot at a public state range, you aren't allowed to dig bullets out of the backstop. Besides that, it sounds like a heck of alot of work to me. How deep do bullets go into that backstop of your anyway?

Not to sound like a prick or anything, but before you point accusing fingers, perhaps you should try shooting some 2000+ lb critters, through the heaviest bones in their anatomy, with a .510 bore rifle with muzzle energies of ~ 7000 ft-lb and see what he bullets actually look like.

Doc,
I wiped them off. Two of them were run through a parts washer, the lead got a little darker other than that they appeared as they did after being wiped off ie the parts washer did not remove the animal proteins. The bullets are several years old. What that means is the animal proteins are now nearly black. I can take some close-ups, but based upon your comments and those of ROSCOE, I figure it is rather pointless as you or he will undoubtedly say that this matter on the bullets is dirt.

Maybe I'll weigh the bullets tomorrow and report out what their retained weight is.

I would appreciate anyone's comments on these bullet "failures", but understand there ain't no dead animal pictures so don't ask.

ASS_CLOWN