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 |
This is just a complete load of s--t as has been demonstrated over the last hundred and more years. Wet paper in no way replicates any animal component. The relevance of wet paper tests begins and ends with a bullet's performance on wet paper trophies. JPK  Free 500grains | |||
|
Moderator |
I have to respectfully disagree. Typically if it does well in wetpack, it will do well on animal flesh. It has been proven time and again. JPK, let me ask you this. Have you ever tested in wetpack? I only ask in that when folks take a hard stance on something they have either actually tested to support their position, thereby drawing conclusions or they have not and there is no basis for their hard line. Just asking. "Ignorance you can correct, you can't fix stupid." JWP If stupidity hurt, a lot of people would be walking around screaming. Semper Fidelis "Building Carpal Tunnel one round at a time" | |||
|
| One of Us |
Its still implying experience that you don't have. I didn't think anyone responded to Shootaway. | |||
|
One of Us |
You have tried this, right? You cannot be more wrong. The hardest thing about wet pack is getting each batch to the same consistency, something that Micheal has obviously mastered. My post above is 100 percent correct and has been demonstrated and proven, yet some continue to ignore. _____________________________________________________ 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, FWIW, Gerard was directly responding to Shitaway. It was obvious when Gerard made his post. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
Whitworth and jwp475, In my younger years I tried wet paper trophy hunting. I very quickly determined that bullet performance in wet paper trophies in no manner predicted bullet performance in real, live game in real live hunting and in no way predicted real live game reaction to any bullet. Moreover, every wet paper trophy hunt reported here, Michael's in addition to the others, the "water buffalo" trophy hunts, the full bucket and plywood trophy hunts, the plywood trophy hunts, the pine board trophy hunts, the live tree trophy hunts, even ballistic jell all fail to predict or replicate performance in real live game. Just two examples of the abject failure of all of the so called "tests" include the predicted failure of RN solids, which are highly successful in real, live game, and the predicted failure of lightly constructed soft nose bullets, which, when used appropriately, produce very quick death in game animals. As you ought to know by now, I am a proponent of RN solids for some purposes and FN solids for others. In my pretty extensive experience in the real world with real game animals, one is better than the other in some circumstances. I also know, from experience, that very lightly constructed soft point bullets can be highly effective on real, live game under some circumstances, though I am not an advocate of using them. I point this out merely to convey to you that I am an unbiased judge, and I recognize that every bullet has it's attributes and it's shortcomings, and an attribute in one circumstance can be a shortcoming in others. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Wet pack and ballistics gel (which is messy, costly, and an overall pain in the rear) will without a doubt be a good indicator of a bullet's behavior in a soft solid. The tests are definately not the final word, but are a good indicator that the bullet is worthy of further testing, which is in the field on live game. The creation of all bullets entail testing in some form of media before moving on to field testing. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
Your first paragraph is simply untrue with regard to wet paper in so much as it's comparability or relevence to flesh. Results in wet paper predict only future results in wet paper. It is partially true with regard to ballistic jell, which is, other than dead animals, the only media which is remotely predictive of actual real world bullet performance on live game. I am aware of no media predictive of bullet performance in elephant skulls, except elephant skulls. No doubt that all bullet development requires some form of media testing before, hopefully, "second round" tests on dead animals before field testing. And then, lastly, field testing. My objection with regard to all of proponents of these different non animal media trophy hunts is their near universal belief that the so called tests are predictive in any manner of real world performance on real world animals on real world hunts, and the endless recitation of the non animal media results as "proof" of their belief. Moreover, the ardent proponents need to willfully ignore actual real world field performance to adhere to their belief that their favorite trophy test media is predictive. The century plus history with RN's is one example, it has to be ignored or fantastically explained away to adhere to the belief that wet paper is predictive of real world field performance. Lightly constructed soft points are another example. Test them in wet paper and you would never in good conscious use one on any living creature bigger than a prairie dog. But, used appropriately, they are highly effective in the real world on much larger game. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
My first paragraph is very true. No one and no media will predict actual results on game, that is why the next step is field testing on game. It is very true that it is a good indicator as to wheatear or not the bullet tracks straight, expands without disintegration, etc. I have not seen a bullet that behaved properly in wet pack or ballistics gel and then go squirrely in the field. I have seen bullets go squirrely in the test media (wet pack and/or ballistics gel) go squirrely in the field. This alone makes the tests relevant. This has been demonstrated numerous times. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
This is utter nonsense, patently and obviously false. The RN's again serve the perfect example. The rest is nonsense too in so far as wet paper predicting actual results on animals. The lightly constructed soft points also are another perfect example. What has been demonstrated numerous times is that wet paper results are predictive of only performance in wet paper. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
How can you say this? The wet pack proved conclusively that not all flat points react/penetrate the same and that not all round nose react and penetrate the same. The wet pack also showed that many of the rounds nose solids penetrated enough to more than enough straight line penetration before going of line or tumbling or both. Again the realavant has been demonstrated. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
Take these real world results vs. wet paper predictions: I have never had a RN solid veer in game [with the possible exception, if you call it veering, of one bullet that, shot from a 3/4 stern aspect, entered the buff, traveled about 8-9", penetrated the spine, penetrated another ~8" or so than then rode between the skin and the rib cage and then went end over end over end over end.. for about 8". To have maintained a straight line it would have had to have penetrated the skin and exited, but it simply didn't retain the energy to do so after destroying the spine and so it traveled along the inside of the skin.] I have had one FN solid veer in flesh producing a track in the shape of a banana. The veering began after maybe 12-18" of penetration and the rate of deflection accelerated as the bullet slowed. In addition, I have had one FN glance off of an elephant's zygomatic arch, fail to penetrate and turn 90*. These actual field results - RN solids that do not veer, FN solids that do veer, are not in any way predicted by wet paper. Wet paper only predicts that different solid bullets preform differently in wet paper. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Really, not predicted? The 500 grain Woodleigh solid I saw take a hard left turn and end up in the rear leg on the same side it entered. The bullet entered the right shoulder with the animal at about an 80 to 85 degree angle, I. Order words 5 to 10 degrees from being broad side. The wet pack tests predicted this possibility. Glad that you have not had a problem, but that does not make the tests any less realavant. Most if not all bullets are not 100% bad or good. The wrong nose shape on a flat point solid will produce less than straight line penetration, just as the wet pack has shown. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
Your post goes right to the issue. In roughly 75 field results I have not had a single RN veer, you have had at least one veer. But you ascribe to the wet paper the ability to predict that the RN's are expected to veer. In roughly 75 field results I have had one FN - of a design that the wet paper predicts will not veer - veer and one deflect and to that you ascribe the wrong nose shape. You ignore and fantastically explain away real world results in order to avoid the recognition that real world results contradict the predictions of wet paper trophies. News flash: wet paper is not an accurate predictor of real world performance in real world game. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
In my quote in your post, I just noted that the 500 grain Woodleigh 458 solid veered. How did you miss that? _____________________________________________________ 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 you consider a spent bullet sliding along the inside of the skin it's last inches of travel rather than piercing it to be veering, I suppose. I don't consider that to be veering. Even taking that result as a veering bullet, it makes two of about 75 or so veering, totally in contradiction of wet paper prediction. Compare that with the wet paper prediction that FN's of the shape I used will not veer but yet two did, one in the extreme. Equally poor prediction, no? JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
No I am not, how you got that I do not know. The bullet entered the right should made a hard left turn narrowly missing the heart and lungs (amazingly) and ended in the muscle of the rear. Is this more clearly explained. The bullet veered of course pure and simple. An improper nose shape/profile flat point my and can do the same thing, just as the wet pack tests indicate. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
We are not writing of the same .458" RN veering. See my post where I credit your one experience of veering and my experience of no veering - except the spent bullet under the skin, which I don't consider veering. Got to run to a meeting... Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
jwp475, Did the deflected bullet hit one of the shoulder bones? 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes it did, it cracked a main support bone but did not rendere the leg unusable. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
Does anybody have any field experience with Woodleigh hydrostatic solids? USMC Retired DSC Life Member SCI Life Member NRA Life Member | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have taken two elephant with them from my 470. Penetration in soft tissue was equal to what I would expect from a CEB #13 of NF FN solid. Damage to the bones in the back of the skull was far greater. I was amazed at the amount of damage. Expect a shoot through on broadside body shots. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
From my experience it appears that a solid bullet that hits an elephant's large leg bone with a glancing blow, can either ricochet off of the bone or become unstable and tumble going pretty much straight on after wards. A bullet that hits a large hard bone like an elephant femur or humerus with a glancing blow, slows down more on the side that contacts the bone which causes it to lose stability. It really can't remain stable under those conditions and it really doesn't matter what the nose shape is. You can't argue with basic physics. 465H&H 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Shot some buffalo with them. Went through like a hot knife through butter and are probably still going. Just like other solids, visual indicators of hits were lacking unless solid bone was hit. I still haven't seen a solid that was worth a pinch of coon shit on buffalo. Good for head shooting cripples to conserve the good ammo though. On elephant I don't know. | |||
|
| One of Us |
As I posted above no more than a 5 to 10 degree angle, take a round ball peen hammer. Swing it very hard into a heavy steel plate the hammer will glance in one direction or another now try the same with a flat on the end of the ball peen and it only bounces back. Can't argue with physics. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
There is always the dilemma of who to believe. Whose opinion carries most weight? Who has tried a great variety and has the widest base of experience?
| |||
|
| One of Us |
For a straight on blow, you are most likely correct. But we are talking about a glancing blow where only one side of the bullet makes contact with the bone. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Isn't that just an endorsement of flat-nosed solids over round-nosed? Don Heath has also written endorsing softs and that argument will go on forever. It does come down to who you want to believe, and what parts you want to believe and even then you can still believe someone's observations and question his conclusions. Without your own experiences to draw on, how do you decide who to believe? There are many ways to skin a cat, but the "best" way will remain opinion. | |||
|
| one of us |
"Who has tried a great variety and has the widest base of experience? Hmm, "tried a great variety" and "has the widest base of experience" ... that probably goes to Dogleg (Even though I don't agree with him.) FWIW, I have killed four cape buffalo and have used only solids. Woodeligh solids on three and a Woodleigh and North Fork on one. They die quickly when well hit (with a .458" solid.) JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
While you're quoting Don Heath here's some more from the same esteemed gent. The first one seems to leave very little room for interpretation. "In the twenty-first century, there is no earthly reason to use a solid on a buffalo unless you are using something marginal" "Why am I so strongly opposed to the old advice of solids on buff? Mainly because I have seen how long they can live with a hole through the heart." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Naturally my first thought is that if you had experience with a soft to compare, you would come to a different conclusion. I do understand that you are primarily an elephant hunter, and have equipped yourself accordingly based on your beliefs, observations and priorities. | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't disagree that a soft point would be preferable for the first shot. But still, a well placed solid brings on quick death, despite what Don Heath writes. Also, a solid will reach the heart and lungs when the buff is departing after the first shot. I carried two Woodleigh softs on a separate 2rnd slide on my belt - only solids in the cartridge belt's cartridge loops for fear of a FU and loading a soft for an elephant - with the hopes of trying one on a buff. Somehow, the opportunity has never come up when I had the softs with me or I didn't have time to switch, or maybe forgot. Don't recall the reasons. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
I used to load solids in the magazine under the school of thought that the second shot would be at a straight away departing animal. Its an accepted technique, but is based on an assumption or two. First it assumes that the buffalo is running straight away and not in whatever direction it was pointed at the time, and not whichever way it thinks is the best escape route, and not whichever way the rest of the herd went. Fact is, it could run in any direction, and most of those directions are better handled with a soft. Next it assumes that driving a solid into its heart/lungs from the rear is the best or only way to handle the situation. It might work, but breaking the hips with a soft or the solid will also work. So will spineing it. I know this; not from a theory of which way its going to run, or an age old tradition, or the story from the old PH, or the new PH that read the old PHs story but from having done it many dozens of times. I started with one soft over a mag of solids, and eventually went to two softs, then none. That progression was because of what I'd seen and done, not because of what I initially believed from being told or what I'd read. I still carry solids just to see if the world has changed from the last time, and often use softs that I don't believe are the best for the application but at least think are good enough to try. I don't know of a better way to find out what they will really do. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Was hunting a dagga boy with squirrel meredith in dande north. Followed him all morning eventually caught up with him as he crossed dry river bed on opposite bank. Squirrel told me to take the rear end shot which i did with a woodleigh solid from my 9.3 x62. That bullet penetrated stern to stern we found it in his chest. He died after running no more than 15 meters. That shot would not have been possible with a soft. I think hunting dagga boys in the jesse with solids gives more options . | |||
|
| one of us |
Dogleg, You sure do like quoting selectively as it suits your point of view. Given that the discussion is actually about the different types of solids, you should mention that the very next sentence from Dr. Heath, after your quote was: It is clear that he was mentioning this in the context of using a 375 on buffalo and most will not disagree with that. Winding up his discussion of the 375 and cape buffalo and moving on to hippo, a little later in the same article he says about hippo on land: So what is the bottom line of his advice? Use a good soft if you are a client. Use a solid if you are his PH and an FN is preferable over a RN. The entire article is here. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You chose to play the Ganyana card after I said that I had little use for solids on buffalo and you quoted that statement. You may as well, seeing as you have no cards of your own. | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Add reading comprehension to your list of short comeings. | |||
|
| One of Us |
and your spelling to yours?  Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
Don't let it worry you. | |||
|
| 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
