I took this out of the Jan 2007 publication of African Outfitter on page 43.

It depicts the experience of Carl Labuschagne a retired PH from South Africa. Carl is a close friend of Art Alphin of the A-Square Company and can be seen on page 563 of "Any Shot You want" and on page 608 of the same manual Carl is posing with a buffalo bull shot by Art with a .500 A-Square cartridge.

Frangible bullets that lose a large percentage of their weight, and thus its momentum, or even bonded bullets that over expand, even if they were big bullets, will not necessarily guarantee you a clean kill, despite a well placed shot. In fact it is the most inhibiting factor for penetration - i.e. the Mo/Xsa factor. This picture tells the story:



Warrior

yes.. which is why big bore users generally don't like BTs

Yes, Chris.

I've never heard of hunters using soft point bullets on dangerous game. I thought that is why solids are the tool of choice. Oddly enough, while reading your post, an episode of "Myth Busters" was running on the TV. They were assessing the penetration of different projectiles into ballistic gel under water. The point being to determine at what depth would you be safe. The results were you would need at least 8 ft of water to stop a FMJ 9mm Luger and a 12 gauge rifled slug, but only 15 inches for the .30-06 and the 50 BMG. FMJ bullets out of the latter 2 rounds completely disintegrated after a little more than 12 inches of water.

I don't buy that 50bmg fmj rounds only penetrate 15" in water. Spec for M2 ball is penetration of 1" ht steel at 1000 yards. Also premium soft points are the fodder of choice for lion, leopard and for many hunters buffalo. Solids are pretty much only universally used for elephant and for a few unusual situations.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
I've never heard of hunters using soft point bullets on dangerous game. I thought that is why solids are the tool of choice.

Softs are the only type of bullets to use on the big bears, lions and leopards, and it is common pactice to use a soft for the first shot on Cape buffalo.

George

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
I've never heard of hunters using soft point bullets on dangerous game.

You need to listen more carefully.....

quote:

Softs are the only type of bullets to use on the big bears, lions and leopards, and it is common pactice to use a soft for the first shot on Cape buffalo

Harry Shelby apparently didn't know this, as he used "solids" exclusively

bullets come apart in water .. this is why we don't use water for ballastics tests

mythbusters on waterbullets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&playnext=1&index=35

water is incompressable, under our circumstances ... tougher on bullets than sand

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
I don't buy that 50bmg fmj rounds only penetrate 15" in water. Spec for M2 ball is penetration of 1" ht steel at 1000 yards. Also premium soft points are the fodder of choice for lion, leopard and for many hunters buffalo. Solids are pretty much only universally used for elephant and for a few unusual situations.

Testing showed that the 50 BMG was unable to penetrate more than 14 inches of water before depleting all its energy. Mythbusters proved this with the 50 cal and could not reach the ballistic gelatin beyond 14 inches of water. No expanding bullets were used. Water acts much like a solid when hit by that much mass at that velocity.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/...5/50_caliber_sniper/

Best

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
Harry Shelby apparently didn't know this, as he used "solids" exclusively

Harry Selby was the PH; he would use solids (softs could be somewhat unreliable in those halcyon days) to anchor game his clients had already shot. That is far different from what a client needs to do, which is to disrupt the major organs and circulatory system of a beastie with his first shot (thereby reducing the chances that his PH will have to back him up).

George

Of course Harry Shelby by his own accounts used solids for his own hunting right into the modern era of modern bullets

The 458 family of Magnums was actually designed for large dangerous game in Africa, and as such a conventional bullet is actually a mismatch for these powerful calibers. To penetrate deep on large game, a bullet has to stay together rather than to fragment or even disintegrate. Some however do use frangible conventional bullets in these calibers. Here is an example of a thin-jacketed, non bonded, conventional lead-core bullet with an exposed lead tip - a sectioned picture of the .458/510 gr Winchester Super-X SP can be seen here:

http://www.winchester.com/Prod...t/Pages/default.aspx

Hornady's version of the conventional bullet is the 500 gr Interlock Soft Point bullet (still a frail bullet), which has just recently been superseded by a much tougher bullet; the DGX bullet that expands in a controlled way; a wise move by Hornady.


That is why in years gone by, FMJ's and mono-metal bullets iro big bores were actually the only bullets that were used here in Africa. Even the old Kynoch FMJ's were not so strong and most PH's today have migrated to mono-mentals and some still using the tough steel-jacketed Wdl FMJ's mostly in their doubles. And today FN mono-metal Solids rule the roost.

Even bonded bullets bullets can be too soft and can result in over expansion with the consequence of shallow penetration. I have posted pictures of the Claw bonded bullet with only 1mm jacketed walls that over expand. The Woodleigh SP bullet is much better than the Claw bullet in my opinion with its 1.7 mm jacketed walls, and it still appears to over expand, as the expansion is not arrested mid-way like with a Swift A-Frame does. Ken Stewart's Hi-Performance bonded bullet has 2 mm jacketed walls and they fair mush better.



The Wdl'sN has a large exposed lead nose that is exposed and expansion happens fairly rapidly, whereas Wdl's PP opens up a bit slower and can handle higher velocities. Here is another example of a Woodleigh SN bullet that over expanded:



Luckily today we have modern premium grade Soft Nose bullets that are core bonded with thicker and tapered jackets, and in addition some designs have a cross-member construction to arrest expansion at some point, whilst others have solid shanks instead. And so these design features overcome the shortfalls of cheap conventional bullets. Here is a sectioned view of such a bullet - the Swift A-Frame:



Warrior

quote:

If Mythbusters had used a monolithic solid in the 50 BMG they would almost certainly have been spending a considerable amount of money fixing the bottom and or sides of that swimming pool as the big 50 would have undoubtedly busted out chunks of the pool.

Yep

Hey Warrior,
Good point. It is amazing how those cheap Woodleighs fall apart and the Swift Aframes don't. Look at these pictures of how the Swifts stayed together and show no over expansion at all. The ones that were not loaded and fired could be loaded and fired again. Amazing!!!

The most important aspect you remain silent on - give us the impact velocity. I have written many times about the velocity windows. Once you exceed the threshold strength of any bullet you 'abuse' it and so it will come apart, shatter or over expand. I will post a Swift A-frame that were abused by high velocity. You have not brought anything new to the table.

Warrior

quote:

You have not brought anything new to the table.

Nor have you, it is a no brainer that excessive expansion greatly reduces penetration

Hey Warrior,
I do not see what the speed of this Woodleigh was. How bout telling us. Maybe it was abused too??



I can tell you this much. In the picture below, the bullet on the left has 100% retention and has not expanded at all. The second from the left has not expanded either but retains only about 50% weight. The next one was going too fast and the last one was going too slow. I thought I would bring the obvious to the table for you also.

Posted by Rich Elliott on 31 March 2009 20:44 :

"I found this 300 Gr. Swift A-Frame flattened on the shoulder blade of a Nile Buffalo.
It was fired at very close range from a .375 Remington Ultra Mag @ app. 2,760 fps.
No penetration. Too much velocity?"



As opposed to just 230 fps slower:



Warrior

quote:

As opposed to just 230 fps slower:

Nothing new here and as to be expected

Jwp475

Thanks for your contribution.



Warrior

Hey Warrior,
The answer is obvious. All 375RUM rifles and ammo must be loaded down to 375H&H speeds. What do you think of the other obvious idea of using tougher bullets in the faster calibers? Maybe that will work. Or maybe that is too obvious. Or are you saying we must look beyond the obvious? What are you saying here? Except for the obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by VVarrior:
Hey Warrior,
The answer is obvious. All 375RUM rifles and ammo must be loaded down to 375H&H speeds. What do you think of the other obvious idea of using tougher bullets in the faster calibers? Maybe that will work. Or maybe that is too obvious. Or are you saying we must look beyond the obvious? What are you saying here? Except for the obvious.

+1.......

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
bullets come apart in water .. this is why we don't use water for ballastics tests

mythbusters on waterbullets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&playnext=1&index=35

water is incompressable, under our circumstances ... tougher on bullets than sand

True enough, but animals are composed of between 65% to 68% water(as is ballistics gel) so there is some significance. All bullets don't come apart in water. As demonstrated in the Myth Buster episode, the relatively slow 9mm and 12 gauge slug penetrated 8 feet of water and still had enough energy to produce a lethal hit in the ballistics gel. Both slugs remained intact. They would have been stopped quickly in sand. The higher velocity '.06 and 50 BMG disintegrated. The tests showed both ends of the spectrum - penetration and hydraulic shock(as a function of velocity). No doubt 14 inches of penetration and 100 % energy expended in the target would do in most animals whereas just punching a hole through them might not have an immediate effect. As the posted pics show, what you want is a bullet that has a little of both - i.e. deep penetration and controlled expansion with mass retention.

I have found it a combination of Bullet Weight, bullet design, velocity.

In a light bullet (for calibre) at high(er) velocity, yes, over expansion will pull it up
but use a heavier bullet in the same calibre with all else being equal and it will push through.

One of the reasons I use heavy for calibre bullets - gives me an extra margin to take shots from not so perfect angles.

Woodleigh's mushroom well but I have not had it not penetrate because of it although
it will slow it up as it cuts through.

I like ragged petals because it makes a raged wound channel - which I think stays open easier and therefore bleeds easier.

Just my HO.

This was just too LAME!

Our mythbuster guys said they were shooting "600-grain" "armor-piercing" bullets at 3000 fps.

That was ball, a gilding metal jacketed spitzer with a mild steel core (or lead core in some makes, with a mild steel jacket and gilding metal wash), and most likely 645-grain weight like the Speer plinkers or milsurp ball.

It was not the 700-grain Black Tip AP, which would not have done any better, because it is also open at the base!!!!

The spitzer is very unstable in water.
It tumbles immediately, and heavier base goes first, flipping 180 degrees almost as soon as it hits the water, especially when shot at a 23-degree angle as stated.

The open base of the bullet blows wide open and the core is sent tumbling and shattering.

If it had been an FN solid made of proper strength brass with a 65 to 70% meplat and weighed 600 grains, and started off at 3000 fps, it would fly straight at 23-degree entrance,
and flesh would be at risk within 10 feet of the entrance point.

Remember the supercavitating superpenetrators and torpedoes with the little disks on their nose booms that travel at 200 to 300 mph underwater?

Shot straight down, normal or perpendicular to surface of the water, a proper FN monometal solid bullet would bounce off the bottom of a ten-feet-deep pool.

So LAME.

Water is a good medium for stressing a softpoint bullet, seeing what impact velocity starts to expand them, very close to flesh/soft tissue.

It does not stop FN solids with the proper nose shape very well, as long as the impact velocity does not deform the nose shape.

I know that the S&H .395-cal./330-grain brass FN can withstand impact with water at 2800 fps with minimal deformation. They travel over 7 feet in alternating 1" plywood every 10-inches with water in plastic buckets between the boards.

Water resistance rises exponentially with velocity.
As the bullet slows down, the less the resistance of the water, and the proper nose shape and hardness of bullet (stable and nondeforming) can coast a long way under water.
If it does not deform or tumble on entrance, it will slow down to cruising speed and go far.

Totally LAME!!!

quote:

The spitzer is very unstable in water.
It tumbles immediately, and heavier base goes first, flipping 180 degrees almost as soon as it hits the water, especially when shot at a 23-degree angle as stated.

Rip, thanks for making me feel stupid. I could not figure out why those FMJ's were coming apart in the water like that!

Antelope Sniper. You were conned by the playboys! Don't feel bad. They are mesmerizers like Rasputin!

The schoolboyish Mythbusters could have used the consultation services of professional small boy ballistics experts, many such as we have here.
They would look less foolish that way, and would not have risked electrocution, eh?
They could have used the Iron WaterBoard Buffalo without the boards. I can get 9 feet with mine as is. Add 3-foot-long modular sections as needed. Takes a lot of Sterilite 9-quart, flat-sided buckets.

I need to brush up on water physics, but doesn't the mass of one large body of water contained on five sides by cement offer more frontal resistance to the surface area of a projectile than a series of dixie cups filled with water lined up several feet? I thought the mass of the large volume of water itself maintained the resistance against the frontal area of the projectile whereas the individual dixie cups could not being the properties of a dixie cup is such that they would not hold the smaller volume of water in place. Same for a milk jug, as the volume of water within a milk jug is not held in place by the milk jug as it would be if that same volume was within a much larger volume of water such as an Olympic pool. I guess what I'm saying is, shooting a projectile end to end the length of an Olympic pool filled with water, or shooting the same length through a hydraulic cylinder filled with water would be different than shooting end to end through a series of dixie cups filled with water the same length, is it not? Same would be for milk jugs, no?? Also, is the surface tension of a large body of water different than the surface tension of the water in a dixie cup or milk jug???

As to the Mythbusters, I only saw one of the short segments with the 50 BMG, but I thought they were testing the myth of diving under water to prevent from being shot. If that were the case, unless you were shooting down from a cliff or bridge, I think most shots from the banks would be similar to their tests at the pool.

Interesting

Honest to God, I find threads like this baffling.

Man, is it ever time for what we used to call "smelling salts."

Jacket/core separation is mostly responsible for bullet failure with conventional lead-core bullets. The thin jackets offer not much support at high striking velocities. The problem is compounded when the same thin jacket is used on more powerful big bore calibers from the .375 H&H and up. The .375/300 gr PMP SP bullet is breaking up on Impala - Koos Barnard of Man Magnum magazine reported on this matter.

The jacket protects the lead core and controls expansion by letting it peel back in a certain way. Without the necessary protection of controlled expansion the frail lead core becomes vulnerable to fragmentation. Once the core has separated from the protection of the jacket the bullet loses its integrity and so shallow penetration results as there is no longer one single penetrating projectile, but multiple fragments or particles with miniscule momentum attached to them with no driving force. Anyway having the jacket STAY on the core is all about controlled expansion.............if the bullet sheds the jacket, the performance will be entirely outside design parameters.

I got a mere 3.5 inches of penetration in a wetpack test with a 'Gameking' bullet. A friend of mine had a similar bad experience; he wounded a kudu on a shoulder shot with his .308 Win with a 150 gr 'Gameking' bullet. - The kudu ran away and luckily it was shot later the same day as we could see he was limping and bleeding - we saw the same shallow penetration. That cured my friend from using conventional bullets as hunting bullets.

Here is a typical jacket/core separation incidence .... sometimes it is actually worse, as one cannot even retrieve any of the lead core:



Warrior

I agree that to much expansion inhibits penetration. Thats like the E-mail that I wrote.

This is an interesting thread. It is not repetitive at all and the obvious is made so obvious. Warrior started it all by stating "Over expansion inhibits penetration."

By way of explaining the title he explained that "even bonded bullets that over expand........... will not necessarily guarantee you a clean kill".

Jeffe and RIP quickly agreed. After some digression by Bobster, Michaelravy, GeorgeS and others, Warrior brought them back on track by pointing out the obvious with "the DGX bullet that expands in a controlled way" and repeating the obvious "bullets can be too soft and can result in over expansion".

The obvious reason for this, according to Warrior, is "a large exposed lead nose that is exposed and expansion happens fairly rapidly". The part that we all missed is the fact that the large exposed lead nose is exposed. Another obvious reason that we all missed is that "the expansion is not arrested mid-way like with a Swift A-Frame."

To make sure we did not miss the obvious point he is making, he repeats "the expansion is not arrested mid-way like with a Swift A-Frame" and that these "features overcome the shortfalls of cheap conventional bullets." No doubt he is referring to those cheap and fragile Woodleigh bullets he mentioned.

To make sure we understand the obvious, Warrior further says "Once you exceed the threshold strength of any bullet you 'abuse' it and so it will come apart, shatter or over expand."

jwp475 points out that no-one in the universe thinks otherwise and that "excessive expansion greatly reduces penetration". Bobster and 500N also agree, and all on the thread is 100% in agreement.

Once again there is a small digression as the thread has now run its course.

No doubt this agreement, this 100% absence of even one dissenting voice, completely befuddles Warrior. He feels compelled to continue arguing with himself by stating the obvious:
"The jacket protects the lead core and controls expansion by letting it peel back in a certain way."
"Without the necessary protection of controlled expansion the frail lead core becomes vulnerable to fragmentation."
"Once the core has separated from the protection of the jacket the bullet loses its integrity and so shallow penetration results"

He even posts a picture to further emphasise his obvious point of view.

Again his post meets with complete agreement.

At this point, I wonder if one should ask if over expansion could be the cause of shallow penetration? Has the point been proven? It seems there is some doubt about this.

quote:

Originally posted by VVarrior:

The obvious reason for this, according to Warrior, is "a large exposed lead nose that is exposed and expansion happens fairly rapidly". The part that we all missed is the fact that the large exposed lead nose is exposed. Another obvious reason that we all missed is that "the expansion is not arrested mid-way like with a Swift A-Frame."

To make sure we did not miss the obvious point he is making, he repeats "the expansion is not arrested mid-way like with a Swift A-Frame" and that these "features overcome the shortfalls of cheap conventional bullets." No doubt he is referring to those cheap and fragile Woodleigh bullets he mentioned.

I wouldn't call Woodleigh's fragile. If pushed faster than the specified RIV, then of course they will expand more than desired.


Warrior
Re your comment "The jacket protects the lead core and controls expansion by letting it peel back in a certain way. Without the necessary protection of controlled expansion the frail lead core becomes vulnerable to fragmentation."


If the jacket is NOT bonded to the lead core, it might control expansion to an extent but it doesn't stop the lead core at the front from being lost.

Where as on a bonded core, the lead core will tend to stay with the jacket petals - as per Woodleigh's just to use an example.


Re Swifts and the bulged, just a variation of how the bullet performs over say a Woodleigh where the jacket gets thicker towards the base without any cross member inside. I like the way Swift's perform, just not in a DR !!! LOL.



Unless the RIV is shown in a discussion / criticism of bullets of any make,
I tend to take anything said with a pinch of salt. Having fired enough Woodleigh's into animals, both hunting, shooting and testing at a range of velocities (some well over and under the RIV) it's all about matching everything up.

Where a problem has become evident - partly due to more "magnum" cartridges about and that people like to push things faster, then they up the design - ie .416 Mk 11's.

Re the large exposed area of lead, well, if you have this on a bullet, then it opens up faster and IMHO needs to be taken into account when loading. Or go to a PP (Protected Point) type of bullet which does need a bit more oooommmpppphhhh to get expansion.

500N,

We agree.

The conventional lead core bullet is protected in a small way by the the jacket material - only within a small velocity window. The bonded lead core bullet is protected in a wider velocity window as both the lead is pure and jacket is pure copper, being softer and so they flow together much easier and at the same time not as brittle. The idea of a jacket that tapers thicker towards the base obviously is a great help too.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
500N,

We agree.

The conventional lead core bullet is protected in a small way by the the jacket material - only within a small velocity window. The bonded lead core bullet is protected in a wider velocity window as both the lead is pure and jacket is pure copper, being softer and so they flow together much easier and at the same time not as brittle. The idea of a jacket that tapers thicker towards the base obviously is a great help too.

Warrior

"so they flow together much easier"

I would only add that they so "they flow together much easier" because the lead is BONDED in a secure way to the jacket.

The only time I tend to see lead dissapear / be lost from a Woodleigh is high velocity where it almost seems to get "Wiped" off as it passes OR if it hits bone which can wipe / knock chunks of it off.

In the majority of cases, when staying within the RIV envelope, everything works fine.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going back to the thread and this question of over expansion, look at a classic 470 Nitro Woodleigh that tends to mushroom to about / nearly 1 inch in Diameter (I use a 500/465 a lot which is the same bullet). Yet these bullets penetrate easily and I have never had a problem with them getting all the way through (Side to side) on Big Buff and plenty of penetration on Hip shots to stop a runner.

So I will say this. Assumption is normal fired velcoity.

LARGE Expansion is a problem only if the weight of the bullet is COMPROMISED (ie the weight decreases), otherwise the bullet even expanded has the weight to penetrate though. One of the reasons I use heavy for calibre bullets if I get a choice.

So where is the line drawn between LARGE and OVER Expansion ????

Does OVER Expansion mean / include loss of core / bullet weight ?


Any comments on the above ?


BTW, Great discussion / thread.


.

500N,

We are still in agreement.

The question of a large expansion vs over expansion becomes relative, as you say the bullet mass plays an important role if weight is lost, because it affects the ratio of momentum over expanded area (Mo/Xsa).

Generally if expansion goes over 2.5x original caliber penetration begins to drop fast - I believe the drop-off curve in flesh drops off in an exponential fashion.

This is the key .... what I term the velocity window: "In the majority of cases, when staying within the RIV envelope, everything works fine."

Sharing some of my experience with you:

I mentioned in a previous post that bullet design can play havoc with a bullet's performance.
The Claw round nose bullet is an example of when a particular design does not work as intended -
i.e. to provide straight-line penetration, retain most of its weight, does not loose petals and open up
without over-expanding as that would impair penetration. 3 animals were shot with a 375 H&H, using the
Claw 300 gr RN (round nose) bullet. Muzzle velocity was down loaded to 2,250 fps and the distance was
about 60 paces for the Gemsbok and 25 paces for the warthog.

Animal ----- Mass retained --- Expansion

Gemsbok 1 --- 151gr (50%) ----- 2.6 x

Gemsbok 2 --- 227gr (76%) ----- 3.2 x

Warthog ----- 141 gr (47%) ---- 2.0 x

It is clear that opening at the tip of the bullet is too small and the curvature is such that the bullet
flattens instead of opening up and this is aided by the inbuilt weakness of the cannelure as it folds
there, squeezes some lead out there and the folding takes place. The same bullet in semi-spider
form does not do this. Also the momentum is too high for 1-mm walls, but that we do not see it here
because of the bullet not opening up, but it is evident with the spitzer. Thicken the walls up to 2-mm
in the spitzer has provided the right performance, just like I illustrated previously with the 270-gr 9.3
bullet.

Penetration was shallow ( because of over expansion) and the 2 gemsbok had to take multiple shots
each, except for the warthog. The picture shows the following:

Retrieved bullets, from left to right :-

1) 375 Claw - Gemsbok 1 - 50% weight retention

2) 375 Claw - Gemsbok 2 - 76% weight retention

3) 375 Claw - Warthog - 41% weight retention

4) 458 Claw - 500 gr - sectioned view to show 1-mm wall thickness
By comparison Rhino features a 2.8 mm thick wall

5) 458 Rhino - 360 gr - 97.5% weight retention - 1.9 x diameter expansion, shot into
a sand wall at 11 paces with a 45-70 Government @ 1,750 Fps

6) .375 Barnes-X - 300 gr - 90.3% weight retention - 2.0 x diameter expansion shot
into a sand wall at 100 paces - MV = 2, 330 fps, impacting at 2,048 fps.

The lesson here is that expansion must be arrested at some point as overexpansion inhibits
deep penetration (3.2 x ) and a good weight retention alone (76%) is not sufficient to be effective.
Construction is important to ensure that the bullet opens up in a controlled way, progressively it must
become stiffer (to cater for higher impact velocities) and it must retain its petals to cut a long and wide
wound track.



Warrior

500N,
Wasnt me that said Woodleighs are fragile. Warrior said that.

quote:

Here is another example of a Woodleigh SN bullet that over expanded:

Hey Warrior,

quote:

The lesson here is that expansion must be arrested at some point as overexpansion inhibits
deep penetration

So you have said, over and over and over and over and over..............

No one disagrees. Everyone agrees. From the second post down. All say yeah. No naysayers. This is obvious. You can stop now. Call it a day. Throw in the towel. Why do I get the feeling you are going to say it again?



I see that you post these results from one of you highly scientific and controlled comparison tests:

quote:

1) 375 Claw - Gemsbok 1 - 50% weight retention

2) 375 Claw - Gemsbok 2 - 76% weight retention

3) 375 Claw - Warthog - 41% weight retention

4) 458 Claw - 500 gr - sectioned view to show 1-mm wall thickness
By comparison Rhino features a 2.8 mm thick wall

5) 458 Rhino - 360 gr - 97.5% weight retention - 1.9 x diameter expansion, shot into
a sand wall at 11 paces with a 45-70 Government @ 1,750 Fps

6) .375 Barnes-X - 300 gr - 90.3% weight retention - 2.0 x diameter expansion shot
into a sand wall at 100 paces - MV = 2, 330 fps, impacting at 2,048 fps.

Very good. Comparing results of bullets recovered from animals to bullets recovered from a sand wall.

VVarrior

Thanks for your contribution.



Warrior[/QUOTE]

Woodleighs are great at their right velosity.
They aren't for ultra magnums.
Here's a photo of some recovered Woodleighs from game out of my 9.3x62 at 2400 fps.