The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores flat nosed barnes banded solids on elephantGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| One of Us |
Have followed the discussion for many years on flat nosed solids. Have used the 300gr Barnes banded flat nosed solid in my .375H&H a lot. On all body shots on buffalo and other animals(eg departing wildebeast) I have shot they work great with excellent penetration. But when I tried the barnes flat nosed soild for first time on ele (a tuskless cow) the side brain shot failed to exit and neither did the finishing shot(back of skull when on ground). This is in contrast to the 286gr PMP brass solids I have used, which whistle straight through the head of even big bull elephant from most angles--even a low frontal will exit the back of neck.The PMP solid is round nosed brass solid with a slight taper hence the 286gr weight--it was designed by the late Bruce Bryden, senior ranger of the Kruger Park for many years. Both my Barnes and PMP solids are handloaded to about 2550fps I will try and post pictures of the recovered Barnes solids (when I learn how to do this)--the flattening or riveting of the front section is quite apparent and probably hindered further penetration. So for Elephant I have reverted to the PMP solid and with it shot my last big bull, on the Bots border in Zim--shot was angled so entered in front of ear and exited behind opposite ear dead straight. I still use the Barnes for buffalo. A friend of mine ran Tembe elephant park for a while and had to destroy a number of bull ele during his time, Tembe ele are reported to be the biggest ele in the world. He too reported excellent straight line penetration and exits from most angles using the PMP 286gr brass solid in 375(factory loads). Nowadays our Kruger park rangers seem to favour the dzombo brass solid, particularly in 458. Richard Sowry, ranger responsible for Orpen section,has often written about the excellent penetration of this bullet. It has much smaller meplat than I see it is supposed to have! All I read about on this forum is the superiority of the flat nosed solid, which may generally be the case, but I wonder if anyone else has had a similar experience to me on ele head shots? | ||
|
| one of us |
On a side brain shot I'm not sure any 375 bullet will exit if it has to penetrate the offside zygomatic arch, especially if it had to penetrate the onside arch as well. What I have found is very consistent bullet performance from Woodleigh RN steel jacketed solids in elephant heads. An average of about 36" of penetration on frontal shots, with the .458" 500gr bullet at 2135fps mv, range typically 10-15yds. I have found less consistent bullet performance, but generally greater penetration, from NF flat noses in elephant heads, the .458" 450gr bullet at about 2220fps. On the other hand, the flat noses always provide substantially more penetration for body shots. So, when elephant hunting I load my rifle (a double) to take advantage of the best properties of both bullet types, a Woodleigh in the right barrel and a NF in the left since all first shots will be brain shots (or at least attempts at brain shots) and the second and following shots will either be insurance shots on a brained or at least knocked down and/or out elephant or a shot at who knows what angle at a departing, wounded elephant if I missed the brain shot too badly. JPK  Free 500grains | |||
|
One of Us |
Interesting. I am not surprised to see this thread languish since the flat earth/meplat society will not like to hear this. A couple of related observations. As pointed out on other threads, Barnes has stopped making their flat nose solids and gone back to round nose solids. A back to the future move. Also, when you look at the redesigned CEB and Northfork solids you see that the design is evolving to look more and more like the old Barnes flat nose solid. The same design Barnes abandoned and the same design Phil notes above that he has experienced issues with in elephant brain shots. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Mike I hunted for many years with the Merediths when they had Dande North, which I see is one of your favourite hunting grounds. What a magnificent area. The times I had there rank as some of the best in my life. You have no idea the pleasure I get from looking at your hunt reports/videos etc of that area. Stayed at all of the camps except the one in the east which wasnt there at the time. Cheers for now | |||
|
| One of Us |
Phil, On my hunt last October we spent an afternoon in the Merediths' fishing camp on the Zambezi. Apparently they have an annual unofficial fishing tournament between the Zimbos and the South Africans. I believe it was called the Pesce Tournament or something like that. The tournament was going on while we were there. From what I could tell from looking at some photo albums of the event it was simply an excuse for a week of drinking and debauchery.  The thing I remember most was they had a scud sitting out in the sun ripening all day. Apparently the person that catches the smallest fish or fewest fish has to drink the scud that evening. I cannot even imagine such an experience. Dande is a wonderful area. I will back there in February.Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
they don't look anything alike. the meplat on the barnes solid was quite a bit smaller. so how are they similar? Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
Query: Do the new Northfork solids look more like the original Northfork solids or the Barnes flat point solids? Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
One must also remember that because a bullet is solid and it has a flat meplat, it does not stop there. Would you expect the same terminal ballistics from a Swift A-Frame as from a Sierra Match bullet? Both are constructed from a lead core with a copper jacket. | |||
|
| one of us |
The bullet vendors at it again. | |||
|
| one of us |
Who better to give technical data on the product? Unless you want hearsay and technical testing by sledgehammer. | |||
|
| one of us |
I would be interested more in simple reviews by hunters themselves. | |||
|
| one of us |
I would not qualify according to your requirement. I have only personally shot just over 1000 animals and witnessed the shooting of a couple of thousand more. I am sure that your field experience probably exceeds that.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
you are wasting your time, gerard. the faithful are unwilling to listen to your heresy. don't you know the world is flat? Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
It is my observation that the flat nose solid crowd seems to be far more obtuse and close minded when it comes to alternative views but whatever . . . Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
is it your observation? well i guess that settles it then. give me a break. it is you round nosed solid guys that are clinging to the past and an outdated design Bob | |||
|
| one of us |
Hmmm, this coming from a fellow who has hunted ZERO elephant, the only game that requires a solid to the exclusion off any other bullet, directed at MJines and I, and I suspect Phil Ossifer, three fellows who have each used both FN and RN solids on elephants. I don't know the extent of Phil's experience, but in the case of MJines or me it is extensive - with both types. But then to the Flat Earth, err, ... I mean Flat Meplat Society, judging a bullet by it's real performance on real game on real hunts in the real world is passé and irrelevant. After all, they have reams of data from exciting hunts for the great wet telephone book, a well known but not so elusive creature so eagerly sought by arm chair DG hunters throughout the world! JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
One of Us |
I'd submit that the FN bullets have been used successfully on elephants by a number of people. For me, they worked last month in my rifle on two elephants and most likely will work next May when I go hunting again in Zim. Personally, I don't get the animosity. If someone wants to use FN or RN bullets, it is their preference. It also seems to be the same thing as religion or politics neither side is going to make the other side "see the light" especially with hearsay information. | |||
|
| One of Us |
How many of those thousand were dangerous game, or more specifically DG shot with solids? | |||
|
| one of us |
I have used NF flat nose solids on roughly ten elephants, all cows, those all worked well, though one veered in its penetration - but only after traversing the brain. I have also had one deflect off of the zygomatic arch on a bull and fail to penetrate the skull. I have used Woodleighs on about eight elephants, they all worked well. The Woodleighs deliver greater observable effect when the brain shot it imperfect, the FN's penetrate deeper. The Woodleighs are better for the first shot, the FN's are better for the second shot or any subsequent shot, which will either be an insurance shot or a shot at a wounded and likely fleeing elephant. Any animosity you detect is the result of members of the Flat Meplat Society denigrating anyone who, reasonably reviewing more than a century worth of aggregate experience on hundreds of thousands of elephants, and/or their own experience, comes to the conclusion that a RN solid is an eminently suitable bullet for use when a solid is required or preferred, let alone anyone who concludes that for some purposes a RN may be a better choice than a FN. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Clinging to the past . . . an outdated design . . . . which is why Barnes recently went back to the round nose design and the other manufacturers continue to gradually round off their big meplat bullets. To GS's credit, they have at least stuck with their original design. Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Dogleg, I have never shot an elephant, cape buffalo or other type of dangerous game. However, what is the difference between a 6mm FN solid from a 243, slowed down, and impacting on an eland, kudu or blue wildebeest or using a slowed down 223 FN on a gemsbuck, compared to shooting an elephant with a 416 Rig/Rem? Statistically the plains game animal is the more difficult shot and more prone to failure. That is where one learns what works and what does not. That is where one can do a volume of experiments instead of shooting 50 or so elephant or cape buffalo. Once the initial work was done, testing on DG was done for me by 5 PHs and those who worked as PHs for their outfits. Without failure, their feedback supported my testing on much cheaper plainsgame, done with much smaller cartridges. All this was done from 1996 to 2000. One of the PH quotes that carried great value for me has always been this one: "Perfection comes from South Africa, where GS Custom is turning out true wide flatnoses. These bullets are favored by really experienced and knowledgeable professional hunters. The one you see in the picture went the full length of a six-ton bull elephant. - Ross Seyfried in Handloader Magazine, Feb 2004." JPK, I have two questions: 1.) Who is making disparaging comments here? Those who believe in RN or those who believe in FN. 2.) All the GSC testing of a bullet before release is finally done in the field on game. Have I ever indicated anything else or that GSC tests on wetpack? | |||
|
| one of us |
Gerard, I do not lump you into the Flat Meplat/wet paper trophy society. It is a reference to High Priest Michael458, his sycophants, and their irrelevant "testing" on wet paper trophies. I thought that was clear, apologies that it wasn't. They are, without exception, the initiators of every pissing contest on the topic of RN or FN solids, as opposed to participants in discussion, sometimes heated discussion, on the topic. Here in this thread {Errors in the original,} "you are wasting your time, gerard. the faithful are unwilling to listen to your heresy. don't you know the world is flat?" And then following shortly {Errors again in the original,} "is it your observation? well i guess that settles it then. give me a break. it is you round nosed solid guys that are clinging to the past and an outdated design" If you erroneously attribute any disparaging comments to me, then both camps since I am a proponent of both types of solids, each for their own combinations of attributes and shortcomings in different situations. Regarding your testing in game and then the PH field testing, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between flesh and elephant heads. But for my practice of brain shooting my elephants, preferably with a frontal shot, I would use nothing but FN solids. If I were a DG PH, one of whose primary responsibilities - to the client, the public and the concession holder - is to prevent wounded DG from escaping (for that matter, any game escaping,) I would use nothing but FN solids. It is in the unique environment of the elephant skull, only, where RN solids provide a combination of attributes and shortcoming that provide better performance than the combination of attributes and shortcoming of all FN's, imo - and at least better than NF FN's as a matter of fact. When it comes to cape buffalo, I don't think there is much practical difference, though for end on shots the FN's, at least NF FN's, do provide more than sufficient penetration to exit after traversing the length of the buffalo, which is an advantage in the one situation, and a disadvantage in so far as creating the need to ensure the buffalo is clear of other buffalo behind it, which is not necessary with a RN - but then the RN may not reach the heart and lungs from behind either. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
What's the difference? You might know if you'd have done some of it yourself, but you could start at thick skinned and go from there. If someone were to claim that their experience with whitetail and caribou were relevant to buffalo and elephant he would get laughed out of the place. Anyone can talk to 5 PHs or 50. You're lucky if you can get any of them to agree between softs and solids never mind which solids. They do tend to favor whatever is free. Its easier to pick a PH that agrees with you than to decide who to believe. | |||
|
One of Us |
A maker of bullets that are known to work well and is explaining how to correlate test result with field results, is being told he doesn't know what he is doing. Wow, just Wow. The same has been done to others, all bullets go through the test media stage and then on to the field. Not sure how it matters who pulls the trigger. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Do you think shooting antelope is the same as shooting buffalo and elephant? I've killed 135 buffalo and can tell you it is not. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I can see the similarities especialy with the smaller rounds as GSC mentioned. I can also the the differences, can you see both. I think not. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
My game shooting hovers around 1000 animals. I've seen a lot of things, which all tend toward theory and assumptions meaning little compared to results. Similarities: They all make holes. Differences: They make different holes. They make different holes in different animals. They make different holes based on where said animal is hit. Said animals act differently in response to those differing holes and their location. I think you are likely a poor judge of what I can see. | |||
|
| one of us |
Dogleg, Let's see you shoot a gemsbok with a 223Rem and a 45gr FN at 2200fps or an eland with a 243 73gr FN at 2300fps. Do this at a distance between 100 and 200m and tell me again it does not correlate to bigger game. Do you think this exercise has not been thought through? As far as the PHs are concerned, I did not ask them to agree with me, that would be stupid, would it not? I asked for an evaluation and know them well enough to trust them. I am not the type of "client" that has to be kept happy and coddled and told what I want to hear instead of the truth. 135 buffalo? Cape or water? In any case, that is but a drop in the ocean and you do not possess all the ballistic knowledge in the world as a result of that. | |||
|
| One of Us |
About what I thought. Both are flesh and blood with a skeleton structure. Does the bullet track straight or not. Does thebulletsmeplat provide an adequate wound, does the bullet penetrate deeply enough and then some. This can then be upscaled for the larger tougher game. Not rocket science. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Mostly waterbuffalo but some capes too. I don't claim all the ballistic knowledge in the world, but I'll take 135 real buffalo over any amount of theoretical ones. Add a couple of elephants to that. A typical SA PH hasn't shot any. You were very quick to trumpet your experience to the OP, carefully leaving out that you have zero experience on what he is talking about. | |||
|
| one of us |
FWIW, I can see the relevance of "scale model" testing. But only on flesh, meaning only relevant to body shots. An elephant skull's honeycomb structure is unique, cannot be replicated with any other material, flesh included, and cannot be scaled either, since the honeycombs are within a certain size range and whether a bullet is .224" or .243" or .375" or .458" is perhaps critical to it's performance in elephant heads. "Scale model" testing in real flesh is for DAMN sure going to provide a hell of a lot more relevant and accurate predictions of real world performance than shooting into wet paper trophies. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Wet pack testing compares bullets in like conditionsagainst each other, also if bullets do not track straight in wet pack then they are unlikely to track straight in flesh. If bullets perform well in wet pack then it is off to the field to verify results in the real world. Testing is a good place to start, not a final ending. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
If a bullet is constructed of a proper material then it should hold up well to heavy and honeycomb bone. Field testing verifies either way. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'm more interested in whether the animal goes down, how long that took, and how far it travelled if at all. With the variability of animals, and shot placement that can take a lot of shooting on the right animals. Antelope with .223s and a box of paper isn't gong to tell me that. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Really you think not? How do you think all bullet testing starts? Want an animal down fast then shot location is paramount. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Shot placement is the most important, but isn't everything. Even shit bullets got "tested" and some are still around. It matters little where testing starts, only where it ends. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Can you elaborate with examples? Apparently GSC testing wound up with an excellent bullet by all accounts. Instead of attacking Garard why not listen, perhaps he has a clue. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
Dogleg, Did I say that? I do not think I said that. In any case, your implication that I have no experience with solid bullet construction and how they are supposed to work is laughable. Some of the best engine designers and builders in the world never drive the cars that carry the engines they made. They leave the driving to professionals because they are good at making engines but they suck as drivers. Some of the best gunsmiths the world has ever seen, never win any competitions with the guns they build. They are brilliant gunsmiths but ...... you get the idea. | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Try again, that reply was not to the original op, it was directed at Shootaway. A blind man with a stick could feel that one.  | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores flat nosed barnes banded solids on elephant
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia