Re: Woodleigh Bullet Failures!!

10 November 2004, 12:55

ASS_CLOWN

CPS,

Those bullets were not dug out of any firing range back stop, you can believe it or not I really don't care.

ROSCOE,

You are a rather dense individual aren't you. I post pictures here of what I wish to and that is it. I have told the truth, regarding both the bullets and the pictures. If you don't want to believe that, that is your problem, not mine.

With regard to the cartridge which propels 570 gr Woodleighs to 2350 fps see the proceeding picture.

The picture is 20 rounds with 570gr Woodleigh SP. A Remington 3" Magnum slug is also in the picture for scale.

By the way, I never really considered any of those five Woodleighs to have been failures. They did a tremendous job punching some bigs holes in some tough old critters. The least penetration of any of them is the bullet on the far right (original posted picture), which went ~ 24". They are the ONLY .510" Woodleighs I have ever recovered, the others having passed on through to parts unknown.

ASS_CLOWN

10 November 2004, 23:24

35Whelen

Butt-Humorist, I've been looking at those pictures and doing some thinking and some questions have arisen in my simple mind.
First, you have yet to tell use exactly what animals, oh, sorry, I mean "critters" you killed with these bullets. What were they?

Second, if they truly passed through 7"-8" of bone, shouldn't you be using some sort of FMJ? I'm no zoologist, but I can't imagine how a single bullet could could pass through 7"-8" of bone unless you're braining an elephant, you managed to hit all four legs in one shot or the bullets passed through three(?) shoulders. I mean it's strange; you say the bullet on the far right traveled 24" in the animal, with 7"-8" of that being bone? I'm trying to visualize that.

Third, if you're firing a rifle whose bullets are over 1/2" in diameter when they leave the barrel, why on earth is bullet expansion even a necessary?

35W

10 November 2004, 22:47

35Whelen

Quote:

The muzzle energy for these bullets was at least 7000 ft-lbs, not even a hot load (muzzle velocity in the 2350 to 2450 fps range depending upon bullet weight)

Just curious....what does muzzle energy have to do with bullet failure, or success for that matter? Were the animals that close when you shot them?

35W

10 November 2004, 11:09

ROSCOE

I think we should move this thread to the Humor forum. More photos from the guy who never carries a camera. This time he includes a photo of some little AR-15 round that shoots a 570g bullet @ 2350fps. I had previously given the guy credit for owning a real rifle capable of such a feat. As for photo's of my hunting, all I have handy is my Dall Sheep from this years Alaska hunt, the rest are at home somewhere on a disk. If anybody can explain how to attach I would be proud to share them with the group. BTW, what is an ASS CLOWN anyway? Sounds like some HOMO term. Are you from France?

10 November 2004, 10:38

CPS

Quote:

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

Scott,
The only decayed/dried out animal protein is between your ears!

Posting photos of bullets you dug out of the backstop at the range won't make anyone take you seriously. Also, that .50 Beowulf round isn't going to be mistaken for a .500 AHR, except in your dreams.

CPS

10 November 2004, 21:34

Rusty Gunn

I sorta wonder if you expect them bullets to be advertisment quality every time, when in fact they actually didn't fail... the animals are dead aren't they? After all, the wanted result is a dead animal, not purty boolits! ~~~Suluuq

14 November 2004, 07:26

ASS_CLOWN

NitroX,

Quote:

Pathelogical liar is the usual reason people get upset with you

I would correct that statement. People get upset with me because they THINK I am a pathological liar!

Quote:

When I shoot Woodleighs into sand like you, they still perform well

I have never shot Woodleighs into "sand". However, at the local range I do shoot Woodleighs into the naturally occurring dirt of Michigan, which seems to be a sand & clay mix. However, I HAVE NEVER EVER recovered ANY bullet from sand or clay, or any mix thereof!

By the way, do you have any proof of my "pathological lying"?

Keep in mind now, that after being accused of not owning or operating firearms, nor hunting, gave in to a few individuals and told them if they actually believed that it must be true. That by NO MEANS with the truth however, it was done simply to SHUT THEM UP! Most posters here seem to KNOW that, why don't you?

If you can provide proof I have NEVER shot, owned, hunted, etc, by all means post it! If you have proof that I dug those bullets out of a back stop, by all means post it.

Here is the phone number for the Pontiac Recreation Area, it is a information number, select the shooting range and ask them if I have ever recovered ANY bullets from the backstop. Heck ask them if they would even ALLOW someone, anyone, to recover bullets from the backstop. (248)666-1020.

ASS_CLOWN

11 November 2004, 02:32

35Whelen

Quote:

It was started because of the many "bullet failures but the animal died quickly" threads that have been running around this forum of late.

If you'll re-read my original post regarding Noslers, you'll see that I lost a bull elk. The bull I did kill would've likely been lost had he made it into timber as the first did.

You still haven't disclosed the type of animal you took with these bullets. If you're them in the skull, I'd have to think they're some sort of buffalo, as in Cape, and again i ask why would you shoot softpoints at the skull of an animal that size? Why would anyone expect a softpoint to travel through 5" of bone? heck after entrance the bullet becomes nothing more than an expensive lead ball (as evidenced by your pictures).
35W

11 November 2004, 20:19

NitroX

I like the bitof gritty sand that is beside one of the bullets in the original photo. That sort of material only has ever resulted in bullets dug out of back stops for me, never the meaty bloody material one usually gets from an animal.

Now which animal has 7-8" of bone???? Even 5"???

A blockhead maybe?

12 November 2004, 05:39

<95yjcoup>

Quote:

NitroX,

Quote:

I like the bitof gritty sand that is beside one of the bullets in the original photo

That is a danger of photography, it is only two dimensional. That isn't "gritty sand" next to a bullet, but a grease/oil stain on the manila envelope.

Here is the manila envelope:

Here is a close-up of the spot on the manila envelope which appears next to a bullet in the original post picture:

If you don't believe that NitroX send me your address and I will mail you the damned envelope so you can see it with your own two eyes in living three dimensions.

I think I pretty well explain in one of my lasts posts how a bullet CAN and WILL penetrate through 5" of bone (in an animals skull).

Why all the questioning anyway? I cannot dig bullets out of the backstop at my range either, don't believe me ask Matt Norman, he shoots at the same range. You and several others seem to be just a tad paranoid.

As I also indicated in previous posts there are NO kill pictures. Sorry, in the future I will take them. That way you can all say that the animals are the results of canned hunts, or I stole the pictures from someone else, or the pictures have been fabricated on a photo editor, etc, etc, etc, etc. Why don't you just admit that you WILL NEVER believe anything I post. Since that is the case you might as well stop replying to my posts as well.

ASS_CLOWN

ASS_CLOWN,

Where would be the fun for you if all who disbelieve your posts stopped responding? Just curious.

12 November 2004, 08:00

ASS_CLOWN

Bill,

Quote:

Where would be the fun for you if all who disbelieve your posts stopped responding

Judging from the number of views on this thread, it would not only be my enjoyment that suffered!

Like I said before, I really don't consider these bullets to have failed. They did a wonderful job of killing, and I couldn't be happier. That said, they have suffered a weight loss which many on AR would say classifies them as "failed" bullets. As I stated, I don't agree.

ASS_CLOWN

11 November 2004, 10:24

ASS_CLOWN

Here is a profile view of four of the five bullets.

The bullet on the far right is the one that penetrated 5" of bone with a total penetration of ~ 24".

ASS_CLOWN

13 November 2004, 12:41

35Whelen

Quote:

please correct me if the above isn't true, but i find it very unethical to shoot an elk, let run off and die somewhere, then shoot another. better stalking, thinking about what might happen after the shot, better shot placement, and better tracking are all alternatives to risking another wounded, and unrecovered elk. perhpas the failure wasn't in the bullet, but in the hunter.

Mr. Holier Than Thou:

First, please read my original post more carefully, i didn't "let" the elk run off and the shot was at about 75 yds. across a small meadow; impossible to get closer, and why? What better conditions could a man want?

Second, I have no doubt about the correct placement of the first shot.

Third, where better to shoot a quartering to animal than where I did?

Fourth, maybe you, as God of Hunting, can track better in a huge aspen grove in early October (read: falling leaves)at dark.

Fifth, please don't judge my judgement whilst sitting at your keyboard; walk a mile in my shoes first. The loss of that elk will haunt me for the rest of my life just as a lost quail, dove, or any other animal does.

35W

11 November 2004, 01:59

ASS_CLOWN

35Whelen,

Quote:

if they truly passed through 7"-8" of bone

I measured the wound channel in the skull and discovered that I had over-estimated (yes exaggerated, SORRY) the length of the bone penetration. The bullet, far right in original picture, traveled through ~5" of solid bone (ie no marrow unlike shoulder and legs bones) to the exit the skull. It was found in the shoulder to neck junction.

The other bullets penetrated ~ 2.5" of bone and were found in the shoulders impacted into the shoulder bones.

Rusty gunn,

I don't consider these bullets to be failures at all. They did a splendid job of killing, what more need they do than that? The title of the thread is a bit of a sarcastic joke, you will notice "grin" for a post icon. It was started because of the many "bullet failures but the animal died quickly" threads that have been running around this forum of late.

ASS_CLOWN

11 November 2004, 06:20

BFaucett

11 November 2004, 06:27

ASS_CLOWN

NitroX,

Quote:

Funny how the story changes each time one looks at the thread.

How did the story change? The ONLY changes, and they are corrections to the facts based upon revisiting the actual data and not relying upon memory, are:

1.) Muzzle energy may have been as low as 6983 ft-lbs (instead of my original stated 7000 ft-lb minimum)

2.) That the bullet (far right in original picture) penetrated ONLY 5" of bone (instead of my erroneous original statement of 7" to 8" of bone).

The corrections do in fact represent MUCH closer the reality of the situation that the bullets endured during their operation. Personally, I don't think either erroneous statement I made in my original post is all that significant.

35 Whelen,

I once lost a bull elk to a 0.308", 180 grain Nosler Partition. I blamed myself more than the bullet. The reason, well for starters, I never got a recovered bullet to tell if the bullet failed to begin with (lost the animal). Reason two, I figured the shot was too long anyway, and I should never had taken it in the first place.

My experience with partitioned bullets has not been what I would consider great. They seem to lose the portion forward of the partition leaving a much less effective light weight, basically non-expanding slug to penetrate to/through the vitals. I haven't been thrilled with the Barnes X bullets either, as they seem to lose their pedals and becoming essentially the same things as the bases of the partitioned bullets do. I think both SUCK, but that is my opinion and need not be agreed to by ANYONE else.

I prefer bonded jacketed bullets. They tear very big holes into their targets, which I find typically don't live too long (the target that is) after their (again the target) introduction to the bonded bullet.

Finally with regard to bullets, I would not personally use any bullet on elk which possessed a section density less than 0.300. This is based upon hard learned lesssons in the field.

With regard to shooting buffalo with soft point bullets, I wouldn't have it any other way. The soft points I use (570 or 600 Woodleigh) will penetrate deep enough to bust any major bone, in any bovine, anywhere in the world. That would include the skull, even if it must cut it's way through the entire length of the bottom of the brain pan, which seems to be ~ 5" in length from measured specimens. The brain is a tricky shot though, as it is a target only about 2.5" high and 4" wide, easy to shoot a little low even with ranges as close as 25 yards. If you want to get one down (because he simply refused to die with the first shot) you need to either take out the CNS or bust down his mobility structure (leg bones, but better is shoulders/hips joints/pelvis). For the record I have switched to the 600 gr Woodleigh PPSP for the heavier critters, loaded to ~ 2210 fps, which yeilds a measely muzzle energy of 6500 ft-lb.

The 570 grain Woodleigh is an AWESOME elk bullet, when loaded to ~ 2335 fps @ the muzzle (my standard hunting load as of 2003 and very accurate 1.5 MOA or better). Elk simply "die on impact" even at nearly 200 yards, with that load. Unfortunately, the bullets punch BIGASS holes all the way through and aren't recovered. I would NOT recommend using one of these with a head-on shot on elk, unless you aren't interested in keeping the meat. The animal would definitely get "gutted" and I assume you know what happens with the stomach contents come in contact with the meat. Waste of good tenderloins. However, that shot placement might turn an elk into an adequate bullet trap for a 570 SP Woodleigh.

BobF,

Excellent and informative post as usual.

Better go tell jeffeosso to chime in.

ASS_CLOWN

10 November 2004, 09:02

ROSCOE

Not to beat a dead horse but I have to throw in a reply. I find it hard to understand that a guy who places a photo of himself on all of his threads and includes a photo of "bullet failures", says that photo's of hunting successes are a wast of time! I am not the type of stirr up the pot however there is a little humor in this thread. As for me I have no experience with 510 caliber rifles however I do have a lot of experience with this bullet in 470,458,and 416 diameters and plan to load it in both 284 and 264 diameters for next years trip to Africa which by the way will be my 5th. ASS_HOLE please not that I did not attack your credentials but simply made a statement about the photos you attached. I know however that many others on this forum would enjoy seeing any successful kill photos from your 510 bore rifle if you ever decide to take the time to carry a camera on your next hunting trip.

Regards,

Roscoe

12 November 2004, 01:53

oneills

ASS_HOLE, there is nothing wrong with the results of your Woodleighs-the cores are still connected to the jackets.Beautifully expanded.

I would like to see what the bulllets actually hit!!!

12 November 2004, 02:07

ASS_CLOWN

NitroX,

Quote:

I like the bitof gritty sand that is beside one of the bullets in the original photo

That is a danger of photography, it is only two dimensional. That isn't "gritty sand" next to a bullet, but a grease/oil stain on the manila envelope.

Here is the manila envelope:

Here is a close-up of the spot on the manila envelope which appears next to a bullet in the original post picture:

If you don't believe that NitroX send me your address and I will mail you the damned envelope so you can see it with your own two eyes in living three dimensions.

I think I pretty well explain in one of my lasts posts how a bullet CAN and WILL penetrate through 5" of bone (in an animals skull).

Why all the questioning anyway? I cannot dig bullets out of the backstop at my range either, don't believe me ask Matt Norman, he shoots at the same range. You and several others seem to be just a tad paranoid.

As I also indicated in previous posts there are NO kill pictures. Sorry, in the future I will take them. That way you can all say that the animals are the results of canned hunts, or I stole the pictures from someone else, or the pictures have been fabricated on a photo editor, etc, etc, etc, etc. Why don't you just admit that you WILL NEVER believe anything I post. Since that is the case you might as well stop replying to my posts as well.

ASS_CLOWN