I thought everything south of the Nueces River had been reclaimed by Mexico?

quote:

Ignored post by MJines posted 14 August 2014 16:58

What a relief this is. I can recommend it highly.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

Ignored post by MJines posted 14 August 2014 16:58

What a relief this is. I can recommend it highly.

I'm crushed. One of the bullet hucksters takes offense at commentary that threatens his bottom line. I bet you are peeking though Gerard.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Texas Killartist:
I wonder why woodleigh came up w/ their new flat nosed solid ? To be part of a fad ? I doubt that.

While you are wondering . . . wonder about why Barnes went from a flat nose solid to a round nose solid in their safari line. To go "retro"? I doubt that.

Randy,
(who is a very close friend of a close friend of mine...they rope together)...I believe told me this was due to ATFE shit about armour penetration...could be wrong...but that is what I remember him saying when I ask a year or so ago.

ledvm,

It has nothing to do with whether the solids are FN or RN. It has to do with the law that specifies armour piercing bullets as brass and used in a handgun. Both Barnes and the ATF give the correct answers and there is no need to wonder or speculate.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/w...ed-Solids-2012-2.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/content/fir...efinition-ammunition

Ignored post by MJines posted 14 August 2014 17:49

Everything South of the Nueces is getting to be all but Mexico.

I think even a cursory view of the Terminal Bullet Performance thread provides substantial information on the matter of FN vs. RN.

RN are not failures, bad or incapable. They have done the job for years. Doing the job for years doesn't preclude or prevent something better from coming along. Cast bullets could also fit the bill as having done well enough for years yet most folks would not use them on a big $$ hunt and are more apt to use a jacketed bullet.

Not every needs or wants a pick-up or a Porsche for that matter. But there are instances were using a Dodge pick-up, for instance, may be a better choice than using that old' Ford Pinto that has gotten you around for years.

Who cares what Barnes did? I rely on my own shooting experience.These are just some cases from which I pulled some bullets from the other day.I had too much ammo lying around.
[URL= ]cases[/URL]

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Can't resist chiming in a little about feeding/reliabiliy.

I just had many hour session with a feeding glitch on a 450 Rigby (That I had built ) Curiously, the big issue was with factory RN's?

Anyway, got it squared away and went through over 100 cycles with randomly chosen RN, FN,...everything I had in no special order, but made sure each different configfuration went through at least one full magazine, slow fast, sideways, upside down.

I am 100% certain of reliable feeding...but still... in the back of my mind...were it me...I'd probably still use only RN's..or at least look at the port upon operating the bolt.

Reliability: After signting in a 375 on a pre 64 M-70, I had time and plenty of ammo and a nice day. The acerage I was on stretched WAY out and the field was dotted with a soft rock, common in the El Dorado County area of CA.

Great targets, each about the size of a football, containing a sort of an abestos, so gave a wonderful visual upon being hit. On the 15th round, the bolt jammed! Turned out the bolt sleeve lock pin had worked forward on recoil.

Another glitch with two other M-70's...the pivot pin for the ejetor worked loose and jammed berween the sear and action.

Both of these potentials can be mitigated, but my point is that you just can't be too sure. Fire your DGR at least 100 times before a hunt would be a pretty safe option

There it is

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Can't resist chiming in a little about feeding/reliabiliy.

I just had many hour session with a feeding glitch on a 450 Rigby (That I had built ) Curiously, the big issue was with factory RN's?

Anyway, got it squared away and went through over 100 cycles with randomly chosen RN, FN,...everything I had in no special order, but made sure each different configfuration went through at least one full magazine, slow fast, sideways, upside down.

I am 100% certain of reliable feeding...but still... in the back of my mind...were it me...I'd probably still use only RN's..or at least look at the port upon operating the bolt.

Reliability: After signting in a 375 on a pre 64 M-70, I had time and plenty of ammo and a nice day. The acerage I was on stretched WAY out and the field was dotted with a soft rock, common in the El Dorado County area of CA.

Great targets, each about the size of a football, containing a sort of an abestos, so gave a wonderful visual upon being hit. On the 15th round, the bolt jammed! Turned out the bolt sleeve lock pin had worked forward on recoil.

Another glitch with two other M-70's...the pivot pin for the ejetor worked loose and jammed berween the sear and action.

Both of these potentials can be mitigated, but my point is that you just can't be too sure. Fire your DGR at least 100 times before a hunt would be a pretty safe option

There it is

And a very good recommendation in bolded sentence above. Also gives the DGR hunter some shoulder time behind the rifle to work on delivering accurate fire with rapid bolt cycling - both should improve after 100 fired rounds.

Assuring reliability of the DGR and the DGH (hunter) is a good thing...

quote:

I just had many hour session with a feeding glitch on a 450 Rigby (That I had built) Curiously, the big issue was with factory RN's?

Anyway, got it squared away and went through over 100 cycles with randomly chosen RN, FN,...everything I had in no special order, but made sure each different configuration went through at least one full magazine, slow fast, sideways, upside down.

I am 100% certain of reliable feeding...but still... in the back of my mind...were it me...I'd probably still use only RN's...or at least look at the port upon operating the bolt.

And this is the crux of the issue when a longtime user of a certain type something changes to a different type something…even when there is zero functional reliability issue with the change...they're still mentally uneasy with they change. For many of us, the older we get the harder it is to “change”…

Jim, you are absolutely correct!
Some folks still think the earth is flat.

What irritates me is that Michael has dedicated thousands of hours, and a hell of a lot of money, testing bullets both in media as well as live game animals all around the globe; and I know damn well that if he found that a RN or any other design does a better job on animals then anything else, he would use them.
He is a no bullshit guy that is not afraid to tell it as he see's it.
I don't see anyone else doing that much testing, shooting, or hunting to be able to talk about it. But they are certainly quick to jump in and crucify the results of endless testing as Michael has done here; for the good of all that take the time to read and learn from his experience.
To me it simply shows how closed minded that some people can be.
Also, maybe I've missed something, but I have not seen where he has told anyone that they must use a Flat nose bullet. I doubt that he personally gives a damn WHAT anyone else uses.
I damn well don't care what bullet anyone uses, but I also am damn sure that a good flatnose with the correct meplat dia. of correct design will penetrate straighter than and do more damage along the way then any RN.
I probably have not taken as many game animals as most here, at my last count just under 450.
But I do think that's enough to make some sort of opinion on this subject.
The only RNs I will use is a soft point. And yes my rifles feed FNs just fine.

I have no dog in this extremely childish banter, but I have shot two of Michael's rifles and can tell you he knows what he's doing, and if it won't work, he won't do it!
To those here that condemn Michael's findings, all I can add is that you should maybe put down your Old dusty books with stories from the great hunters like Harry Selby, or Capstick, get out of you easy chairs and go hunting. Maybe you could learn some new things that's been discovered in the 21st century!

Exactly.

Thursday, The Executive Committee of The Texas Bullet Stabilization Research Uniformity Society, BSRUS met for a working lunch. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Jines. In attendance were Bob Cuyler and my own self.

We had hope to set forth a plan to resolved the troubling question of flat nose/round nose bullet stabilization in the modern era. Unfortunately, topics of recent hunts, families, cigars and Single Malt Whisky and opening of Texas Dove Season along with the good hamburgers at Southwell's, pushed our original topic to the back of the agenda.

Transcripts of the BSRUS Executive Committee meeting might be available through the Texas Freedom of Information Act.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Can't resist chiming in a little about feeding/reliabiliy.

I just had many hour session with a feeding glitch on a 450 Rigby (That I had built ) Curiously, the big issue was with factory RN's?

Anyway, got it squared away and went through over 100 cycles with randomly chosen RN, FN,...everything I had in no special order, but made sure each different configfuration went through at least one full magazine, slow fast, sideways, upside down.

I am 100% certain of reliable feeding...but still... in the back of my mind...were it me...I'd probably still use only RN's..or at least look at the port upon operating the bolt.

Reliability: After signting in a 375 on a pre 64 M-70, I had time and plenty of ammo and a nice day. The acerage I was on stretched WAY out and the field was dotted with a soft rock, common in the El Dorado County area of CA.

Great targets, each about the size of a football, containing a sort of an abestos, so gave a wonderful visual upon being hit. On the 15th round, the bolt jammed! Turned out the bolt sleeve lock pin had worked forward on recoil.

Another glitch with two other M-70's...the pivot pin for the ejetor worked loose and jammed berween the sear and action.

Both of these potentials can be mitigated, but my point is that you just can't be too sure. Fire your DGR at least 100 times before a hunt would be a pretty safe option

I have had the ejector pin break twice on my Remington and the striker spring retaining pin break on my Ruger.I would think the Winchester is built the same way.I am pretty sure that would not happen to a CZ or a quality Mauser or Mauser like CRF.

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
........Michael.........He is a no bullshit guy that is not afraid to tell it as he see's it.

Not to mention just an all around helluva nice guy! Pround to count him amongst my friends.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
ledvm,

It has nothing to do with whether the solids are FN or RN. It has to do with the law that specifies armour piercing bullets as brass and used in a handgun. Both Barnes and the ATF give the correct answers and there is no need to wonder or speculate.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/w...ed-Solids-2012-2.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/content/fir...efinition-ammunition

Ignored post by MJines posted 14 August 2014 17:49

Gerard,
I am sure you are on top of it. I had thought that there were a few cals where the BATFE allowed the round nose version but not the flat????

Hi Lane,

Any shape association is merely co-incidence. It is purely the combination of brass and whether that particular bullet can be used in a handgun, that determines the 'armor piercing' ability and the ban.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Hi Lane,

Any shape association is merely co-incidence. It is purely the combination of brass and whether that particular bullet can be used in a handgun, that determines the 'armor piercing' ability and the ban.