quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Steel jacketed softs will have lower pressure than Mono-metal solids of the Barnes type. I don't care for the DGX because it is steel jacketed and steel tends to shatter compared to gilding metal jackets that tear and bend.

465H&H

You do understand that Hornady's Dangerous Game Expanding bullet as well as their Dangerous Game Solid bullet have steel jackets, right?

Of course I understand that. What I am refering to is the jacket on the soft point shattering instead of tearing back and forming a mushroom on penetration in animals. I am not concerened about pressure in a double from the steel jackets as they will squeeze down as they enter the rifling. Still driving band solids or cup and core softs will have the least pressure IMO.

465H&H

Barnes uses double rifle to develope the load data and they do not exceed safe pressure for doubles with their data. The concern is if the bullets will swage down easily and not stretch the thin barrels of old vintage doubles. A steel jacketed solid is just as much of a problem in this reguard as is a mono metal bullet with grooves, maybe even more so. The steel jacket is continues and does not have the relief grooves

Pressure is just one issue. Barrel expansion is another matter entirely.

I have a little device to measure barrel expasion at the muzzle. woodleigh and Barnes give the same amount of expansion at a rifles muzzle in both .375 and .458 (sorry haven't tested other cal's yet).

Haven't tried Northforks, did try some other 'copper alloy' bullets from a big maker..02mm less expansion than woodleigh, but I don't think those will be launched commercially unless the US bannes lead or something strange.

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
Pressure is just one issue. Barrel expansion is another matter entirely.

I have a little device to measure barrel expasion at the muzzle. woodleigh and Barnes give the same amount of expansion at a rifles muzzle in both .375 and .458 (sorry haven't tested other cal's yet).

Haven't tried Northforks, did try some other 'copper alloy' bullets from a big maker..02mm less expansion than woodleigh, but I don't think those will be launched commercially unless the US bannes lead or something strange.

This is very good info and Ganyana is spot on about barrel expansion as the bullet passes down the barrel

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
Pressure is just one issue. Barrel expansion is another matter entirely.

I have a little device to measure barrel expasion at the muzzle. woodleigh and Barnes give the same amount of expansion at a rifles muzzle in both .375 and .458 (sorry haven't tested other cal's yet).

Haven't tried Northforks, did try some other 'copper alloy' bullets from a big maker..02mm less expansion than woodleigh, but I don't think those will be launched commercially unless the US bannes lead or something strange.

Great information, Ganyana and very useful!

That is good info! I think M. L. McPherson (Mic Mac) did an nice and simple write up on this...see if I can find it. In his testing he showed little difference between solid shank mono's and cup and core bullets, this was because the soft bullets obturated and caused barrel expansion similar to the solids, but I do believe the solids did swell the barrels more. The factor that he spoke about that was interesting was barrel heating. This is not only important to wear, but also is a good indicator to barrel expansion, stretching and engraving force, though not exacting data to amounts of the previous, it is measurable (easily for him) and precise in it's relivence and ratio.

Ironically...The abridged version anyways.

http://www.longrangehunting.co...ppens-fire-gun-1.php

Here is Butch Searcy's comments on shooting Barnes Banded solids in Double rifles

quote:

Originally posted by Butch Searcy:
I've been listening to this debate for years about the barnes bullets. I still haven't heard anything that would change my mind about the monolithic barnes banded bullets. My personal opinion is that it's all bullshit. Feel free to use the barnes bullets in my rifles, if they have a problem, I'll fix it.
Also in the last 30 yrs. I've never had a problem with the monolithic bullets. I will say that I wouldn't use them in the old English rifles. I worry about the steel in them. This comment is based on experince with them.

quote:

Originally posted by Butch Searcy:
Will it isn't Physics per say. It's the trash steel in the pre war guns. And I did say banded bullets. Also I've rebarreled old English rifles that burst half way down that used the Woodliegh softs. Looked like a tripod. There's no mystery in my mind.

What people who blame the solids has not told you all is that the old English made barrels were not all to spec. as to the bore and groove diameters.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...391024231#9391024231

And Butch is spot on re bore size in English doubles. .375 flanged uses .373 bullets. Stick Barnes .375 bullets through an early one and you are asking for touble (all the later ones I have seen have regular .375 bores but the early ones didn't and the CIP specifications still show the smaller bore size). The .450/400's came in 5 version and 3 bore sizes. .405, .408 and .411. I would hate to stick a .411 Woodleigh or a Barnes through a .405 bore. same story with the .475's etc.

IF you have the correct size bullets for your bore, then I would be very happy shooting Barnes banded solids. NB- I tried some of their very old solid shank .458 bullets in my lott and they gave 0,01mm More expansion than woodleighs.

Ganyana,
I must ask, can that device be placed around the throat area of the barrel? This is where most (95%) of the engraving happens and where the greatest stress occurs. Would be interesting to see the results and differences. Can this device be duplicated here? I would certainly like to build one myself. Thanks.

One more important thing. Yes, you should certainly have the right size bore, and that is why it is so critical to measure/slug your bore before ordering bullets. From a bullet builders perspective, we have to be very careful with sending bullets. If needed, get a custom bullet, but don't take the chance.

Extrimist- If I wasn't such a techological baboon I would post a picture...but have never managed to post a picture yet...so will attempt to describe.

And no- I have not measured expansion at the breech end of the barrel for the simple reason that we have a Oheler strain gague there to help measure pressre (all so Piezio pressure port just ahead of case mouth - and besides, the bet (and money) was on expansion near the muzzel which is where brit doubles typically first start to come appart.

1) A block of steel 1" thick, split and with two screws so that the two halves can be precicely joined together.
2) In the middle (across the split line) Machined a 1" hole. This means that the two halves can be separated and reasebled behind the front sight. If you had only a test barrel with no sights, you wouldn't need to bother being able to split the block.
3) In the top of block a) there is a 5mm hole.
4) There is a slot in block a 5mm into the steel and passing across the bored hole. Below the cut, the hole is polished and exactly sized. Above the slot, the hole is finely threaded.
5) I have a series of pistons that fit 5mm hole.

a) Clamp blocks around barrel.( The blocks re tightly mated but the whole is not tight on the barrel - this is loose and block can turn freely).
b) Insert correct length piston that will take up the space between barrel and slot in top block.
c) Insert polished (and miked) 2mm copper plate into slot so that piston is firmly touhing both barrel and copper plate.
d) drop 5mm ball bearing down threaded porton of hole so that it is resting on top of the copper plate.
e) Tighten machine screw down on top of ball bearing...

This has the effect of holding everything solidly...piston is resting on barrel and pushing on copper plate from below. Ball bearing is held firmly agianst copper plate from above by machine screw - set to whatevre tightness your torque wrench feels right with (ie to hold complete contraption securely on barrel), so long at is is always the same.

Fire a shot.

Barrel will expand...and the softest thing is the copper plate, so the ball bearing creates an indent into the copper plate. It is quite easy to measure the depth of the indent.

In .375 and 9,3 Woodleigh softs and Norma Oryx cause a dent less than 0,01mm in pure copper. Stuart softs, Woodleigh solids and Barnes banded solids cause dents around 0,04mm. Old Barnes around 0.05mm. A square mono's 0,08mm

Took me three hours to make and won me 2k on a bet.

There are several other ways of doing this- known length of copper wire wraped tightly around barrel for say 3 turns, and measure length before and after....

Buying a spare Ohler strain guage for their Model 85....(probably most accurate but would have taken too long for the argument at the time...)

For force on throat, I suspect the Norhtforlk approach of using hydrolic pressure to push a bullet through the barrel will give you the most accurate readings. I just don't have that sort of kit

Lastly in a cartridge with a fast buring powder like the .458 win, you can use a simple velocity per unit pressure (assuming you have some way to measure pressure). By the time the bullet is fully engaged in the rifling with a powder like S321 or Norma 201 the peak pressure is over...Take a simple fps per unit pressure to give you a measure of 'friction' or resistance as the bullet engages the rifling...I can tell you that the old barnes produce no higher pressure spikes than the new 'banded' barnes...Ie the force required to 'start' both bullets into the rifling is the same. the bands do Sweet FA in that regard.

Ganyana,
Thanks. I've heard of a few devices like this, and I am currently using a strain gauge for pressure from RSI (when calibrated it works well) at the breach, but also have a few spares I might just have to attach right at the throat and muzzle. Great idea!

As for engraving force, or force on the throat, hydrolic static pressure is the way to go. Quickload has used this method since it's inception, and GS has been using for more then a decade (quickload files available on the website). It's a good method of determining how much force the bullet puts on the throat of a rifle and outward pressure on the barrel. Issue I see is the dynamics under acceloration, i.e. obturation. Tough mono's like Barnes, S&H, NF and GS obturate less then .0001 in most cases (pun), while cup-n-core bullets and lead can go until something stops them. McPherson tested .44 (.429) bullets in a 45colt (.452) and found decent results, so who knows there. The part of this that interests me the most is, according to the data I have been able to find, mono's like GS and NF produce far less stress on the rifling and throat then do any cup and core bullets; substantially less. Not sure on the muzzle, but I wonder how much of that expansion is created by simple propellent pressures. This is why I am very interested in your testing and recreating your device. Would be good data to debate over here

I would never call Barnes or NF 'hard' mono's...

As for expansion in the throat...well that depands on how much oversize the throat is - and many of the old rifles were 'generous' to put it mildly.

Can tell you that .458 woodleighs bump up to (just) take the rifling on a .475 barrel.

The Brit Webley .455's are an interesting study in this. .455 bullet, going through a .440 throat and then opening out into a .476 barrel- but it worked!!!

I HAVE USED THE BBS IN .416 RIGBY AND ON ELEPHANT , I AM YET TO FIND A MORE DEVASTATING BULLET PENETRATION WISE AND DAMAGE WISE...THE BANDS SET UP A WAVE OF ABOUT 10 INCHES DIAMETER WHICH SHREDS UP TISSUE TO A WET PAPER LIKE CONSISTENCY.IN THE .416 RIGBY AND THE .500 JEFFERY, THE BBS IS WITHOUT EQUAL.THE KEY TO IT IS THE MUZZLE VELOCITY OF OVER 2250 FPS FOR THE 500 JEFFERY AND 2350 FPS FOR THE .416 RIGBY.
WITH REGARDS TO THE 470 NE , ILL TELL YOU A LITTLE STORY.IN JUNE 2007 IN MOZAMBIQUE WE WERE AFTER A VERY CRAFTY CROP RAIDER AND AFTER TRACKING IT FOR OVER 120 MILES OVER 5 DAYS, WE CONFRONTED IT IN AN OVERGROWN ORANGE GROVE AT 20 TO 25 YDS......I PUT A 470 NE BBS FRONTAL SHOT INTO IT AND IT WENT DOWN , ONLY TO GET UP 30 SECONDS LATER.WE CHRONOGRAPHED THE 470 NE BBS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 2150 FPS AND NOT ONE BULLET WAS OVER 2000FPS 1975 FPS;1955 FPS WERE THE READINGS WE GOT.FOR A LONG BULLET LIKE THE BBS THAT WILL NOT HELP BULLET STABILITY ONE BIT. SHOW ME A FACTORY LOADED BULLET AND ILL MOST LIKELY SHOW YOU ANOTHER LYING "LIABILITY CONSCIOUS" BULLET MANUFACTURER.MY ADVICE FOR THE BBS.....416 RIGBY AND 500 JEFFERY BOLT GUNS FINE; FOR DOUBLE RIFLES...WATCH IT AND STICK TO THE WOODLEIGHS AND THE HORNADYS, A SQUARE TYPE BULLETS.
IF YOU DONT GET THE RIGHT MUZZLE VELOCITY, THAT BEAUTIFUL BULLET WILL NOT PERFORM, AND I JUST FEEL THE MV MAY BE A TAD TOO SLOW FOR STABILIZING THAT BULLET FOR DOUBLE RIFLE USERS......I LEARNT A LESSON, THE HARD WAY.THANK GOD IT WASNT A CHARGE ...OR YOU MIGHT BE READING ABOUT ME LIKE YOU READ ABOUT 'BILLY JUDD'.

babaode:

Two questions with respect to the banded solids in your .470.

1. Isn't it at least equally possible that your shot missed the brain?

2. How come you didn't chronograph your ammo until after the hunt?

Seems to me that this is a pretty broad conclusion to be reached after only a single shot and without any physical evidence to support your conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
babaode:

Two questions with respect to the banded solids in your .470.

1. Isn't it at least equally possible that your shot missed the brain?

2. How come you didn't chronograph your ammo until after the hunt?

Seems to me that this is a pretty broad conclusion to be reached after only a single shot and without any physical evidence to support your conclusion.

Third question: Why all capitals?

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
babaode:

Two questions with respect to the banded solids in your .470.

1. Isn't it at least equally possible that your shot missed the brain?

2. How come you didn't chronograph your ammo until after the hunt?

Seems to me that this is a pretty broad conclusion to be reached after only a single shot and without any physical evidence to support your conclusion.

He is definately jumping to conclusions without any evidence as to what acctauly happend.

quote:

Originally posted by babaode:
I HAVE USED THE BBS IN .416 RIGBY AND ON ELEPHANT , I AM YET TO FIND A MORE DEVASTATING BULLET PENETRATION WISE AND DAMAGE WISE...THE BANDS SET UP A WAVE OF ABOUT 10 INCHES DIAMETER WHICH SHREDS UP TISSUE TO A WET PAPER LIKE CONSISTENCY.IN THE .416 RIGBY AND THE .500 JEFFERY, THE BBS IS WITHOUT EQUAL.THE KEY TO IT IS THE MUZZLE VELOCITY OF OVER 2250 FPS FOR THE 500 JEFFERY AND 2350 FPS FOR THE .416 RIGBY.
WITH REGARDS TO THE 470 NE , ILL TELL YOU A LITTLE STORY.IN JUNE 2007 IN MOZAMBIQUE WE WERE AFTER A VERY CRAFTY CROP RAIDER AND AFTER TRACKING IT FOR OVER 120 MILES OVER 5 DAYS, WE CONFRONTED IT IN AN OVERGROWN ORANGE GROVE AT 20 TO 25 YDS......I PUT A 470 NE BBS FRONTAL SHOT INTO IT AND IT WENT DOWN , ONLY TO GET UP 30 SECONDS LATER.WE CHRONOGRAPHED THE 470 NE BBS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 2150 FPS AND NOT ONE BULLET WAS OVER 2000FPS 1975 FPS;1955 FPS WERE THE READINGS WE GOT.FOR A LONG BULLET LIKE THE BBS THAT WILL NOT HELP BULLET STABILITY ONE BIT. SHOW ME A FACTORY LOADED BULLET AND ILL MOST LIKELY SHOW YOU ANOTHER LYING "LIABILITY CONSCIOUS" BULLET MANUFACTURER.MY ADVICE FOR THE BBS.....416 RIGBY AND 500 JEFFERY BOLT GUNS FINE; FOR DOUBLE RIFLES...WATCH IT AND STICK TO THE WOODLEIGHS AND THE HORNADYS, A SQUARE TYPE BULLETS.
IF YOU DONT GET THE RIGHT MUZZLE VELOCITY, THAT BEAUTIFUL BULLET WILL NOT PERFORM, AND I JUST FEEL THE MV MAY BE A TAD TOO SLOW FOR STABILIZING THAT BULLET FOR DOUBLE RIFLE USERS......I LEARNT A LESSON, THE HARD WAY.THANK GOD IT WASNT A CHARGE ...OR YOU MIGHT BE READING ABOUT ME LIKE YOU READ ABOUT 'BILLY JUDD'.

I have to agree with some of what you said,and some I didn't, but i have one question, why are you yelling at us with the upper case print?

For the rest of the thread I don't have to post my take on this subject, because everyone in the world knows what it is.

I'm not sure exactly what you expect a bullet to do on an elephant head. Although I am not a fan of using the BBS in doubles, it seems that this bullet did what I would expect any bullet to do. Obviously, you did not hit the part of the brain that causes instantaneous death. Possibly the bullet travelled close to the brain or may have even hit a portion of the brain that wasn't critical enough to kill it out right. Since it was knocked down for 30 seconds that should have given you plenty of time to put a finisher in it. Don't blame the bullet for your missing the fatal portion of the brain unless you know that it veered off course.

465H&H

The computer I used had a jam on the cap lock.No yelling intended.
As regards your suggestion that the bullet wasnt well placed,The PH saw the impact very well. I will disagree with you on that, If I had used a Woodleigh solid , at 2150 fps , that Elephant would have remained down.I still believe that the longer BBS bullet needs more than 1900fps to stabilize it and promote its straight line of intended penetration.After all if a bullet is not stable, it will fail to penetrate effectively,Nortern Mozambique elephants are big bodied and the Males can be difficult to put down if the bullet is not penetrating effectively.I will not use BBS in a double rifle anymore,I still believe they need a higher mv to stabilize quickly on close frontal head shots because of the increased length.In a .416 Rigby or a .500 Jeffery, I will use them for my first shot, and use the Woodleigh solids as the last magazine load to avoid a jam.

Didn't one of the Barnes type bullets early on have a problem stabilising
due to the length and this became particularly problematic when PH's fired
at close range ?

Just remember some articles on it a while ago.

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
Didn't one of the Barnes type bullets early on have a problem stabilising
due to the length and this became particularly problematic when PH's fired
at close range ?

Just remember some articles on it a while ago.

No those were the Woodleighs fired in my test box you are thinking about

Sorry could not resist being a smarta$$

500N you are getting us to the point....thank you.I wonder if you can find the article you talked about ?.Those BBS need velocity.

quote:

Originally posted by babaode:
500N you are getting us to the point....thank you.I wonder if you can find the article you talked about ?.Those BBS need velocity.

I'll look but it was at lest 5 years ago I read it. I somehow remember it had something to do with the 458 Win Mag as well.

It was when I was doing some testing of Woodleigh's and discussing recoveries
and the subject turned to penetration etc etc and that's when the Barnes subject came up with them having a problem getting the bullets to stabilise quickly so at close range (ie stopping shots) it was a problem.


Mike
Must be the day for sticking it up people LOL

quote:

Originally posted by babaode:
500N you are getting us to the point....thank you.I wonder if you can find the article you talked about ?.Those BBS need velocity.

I am not so sure about that statement. Actually I think its wrong. What they need is twist, fast twist if it`s long for caliber. Look under Michael458`s thread "Terminal Bullet Performance". Even though he downloaded some 500 grs Barnes Banded in .458 caliber (and they are long for caliber) to around 1700-1800 fps impactvel, they penetrated through his 62" test box..

quote:

Originally posted by babaode:
.IN THE .416 RIGBY AND THE .500 JEFFERY, THE BBS IS WITHOUT EQUAL.THE KEY TO IT IS THE MUZZLE VELOCITY OF OVER 2250 FPS FOR THE 500 JEFFERY AND 2350 FPS FOR THE .416 RIGBY.

WITH REGARDS TO THE 470 NE , ILL TELL YOU A LITTLE STORY.IN JUNE 2007 IN MOZAMBIQUE WE WERE AFTER A VERY CRAFTY CROP RAIDER AND AFTER TRACKING IT FOR OVER 120 MILES OVER 5 DAYS, WE CONFRONTED IT IN AN OVERGROWN ORANGE GROVE AT 20 TO 25 YDS......I PUT A 470 NE BBS FRONTAL SHOT INTO IT AND IT WENT DOWN , ONLY TO GET UP 30 SECONDS LATER.WE CHRONOGRAPHED THE 470 NE BBS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 2150 FPS AND NOT ONE BULLET WAS OVER 2000FPS 1975 FPS;1955 FPS WERE THE READINGS WE GOT.FOR A LONG BULLET LIKE THE BBS THAT WILL NOT HELP BULLET STABILITY ONE BIT.

IF YOU DONT GET THE RIGHT MUZZLE VELOCITY, THAT BEAUTIFUL BULLET WILL NOT PERFORM, AND I JUST FEEL THE MV MAY BE A TAD TOO SLOW FOR STABILIZING THAT BULLET FOR DOUBLE RIFLE USERS......I LEARNT A LESSON, THE HARD WAY.THANK GOD IT WASNT A CHARGE ...OR YOU MIGHT BE READING ABOUT ME LIKE YOU READ ABOUT 'BILLY JUDD'.

As regards your suggestion that the bullet wasnt well placed,The PH saw the impact very well. I will disagree with you on that, If I had used a Woodleigh solid , at 2150 fps , that Elephant would have remained down.I still believe that the longer BBS bullet needs more than 1900fps to stabilize it and promote its straight line of intended penetration.After all if a bullet is not stable, it will fail to penetrate effectively,Nortern Mozambique elephants are big bodied and the Males can be difficult to put down if the bullet is not penetrating effectively.I will not use BBS in a double rifle anymore,I still believe they need a higher mv to stabilize quickly on close frontal head shots because of the increased length.In a .416 Rigby or a .500 Jeffery, I will use them for my first shot, and use the Woodleigh solids as the last magazine load to avoid a jam.

babaode

I have a good bit of experience with the Barnes Banded Solids, both test work and field work in various calibers and cartridges. In no way do I dispute your opinion, or experiences at all, it is entirely possible what happened is exactly as you say, it is also entirely possible there are 100 other factors that may have entered into your specific scenario too. I can tell you this for a fact to make a broad statement concerning ALL calibers and weights of any particular bullet will prove one wrong. It is very true that in most cases with the Barnes Banded in various calibers that velocity will increase depth of penetration. To state that lack of velocity is the cause of instability, especially at 1900 fps I suspect that to a great degree. Not that it is not possible, just suspect and that there are many more factors involved that can only be testing in your particular rifle, with that particular ammunition. Twist rates, terminal issues encountered in the one experience, angles, your rifle and many other factors may have been part of the equation, and not just velocity alone.

In just the last few weeks I tested the 500 gr 470s in my 470 Capsticks, the rifling is so loose in those guns the Barnes Banded did not even engrave, no engraving zero, and they were able to "self stabilize" for extremely good penetration, where no other bullet tested could even come close to that. In addition to this I have tested 450 and 500 gr Barnes Banded in 458 caliber at low impact velocities 1700-1800 fps in 1:14 twist rifles and they remained stable the entire length of penetration. It was only when dropped to around 1400 fps (as I recall) that stability became a concern, but it would have with any bullet I suspect. But, very much once again, this was 458 caliber, not 470 caliber, and not your rifle in particular. So I cannot either make a broad statement that you are incorrect, as there are too many other factors to consider.

The only issue I have encountered with stability is in the 416s and all of mine are 1:14 twist rates and any 400 gr solids. Lower velocity on the Barnes Banded does in fact give less stability, but bump the velocity to 2400 fps or more does help stabilize. Dropping to a 350-380 gr bullets stability is not in question with standard 1:14 twist rates. If twist rates in 416s are 1:12 then stability with 400 gr bullets is not a question even at lower velocities.

Again I am not questioning at all your experience, but just pointing out that there are way too many other variables and other factors that might have come into play in your scenario. I would also point out that in the future that you not wait 30 seconds before shooting the hell out of that elephant before he starts to get up again. A couple of extra bullets thru the heart might have been of great comfort and kept him down for the count, pay the insurance you might say.

Michael

quote:

n just the last few weeks I tested the 500 gr 470s in my 470 Capsticks, the rifling is so loose in those guns the Barnes Banded did not even engrave, no engraving zero, and they were able to "self stabilize" for extremely good penetration, where no other bullet tested could even come close to that.

What was that show on TV way back? The Twilight Zone?

Bullets that need no rotation to stabilize.

Better start marketing those fletchless arrows too.

And airplanes without wings. Also, rockets without fins.

Jets that fly on wind power.

Like my unknown daddy used to say, "From an illegitimate love child grows inventions that are outside the box."

Will

Maybe if you would do a little more shooting rifles instead of shooting off at the mouth you would do a little better, sell a few more books! Believe me, I was just as surprised myself at the outcome. I also would not have predicted that. However, had they been stabilized by some twist rate, penetration would have been deeper and straighter I am sure of this.




Michael

For future information, what rate of twist would you suggest for a 470 NE for the 500 G BBS ?. For quick stability....ill pass it on to Simon Clode of WR .At $80,000.00 a pop that would be very cost effective indeed just to shoot BBS.

Fear not, I will continue to shoot off my mouth until I believe this.

Maybe, just maybe, a bullet that is perfectly balanced along its axis could fly in the translational direction for a bit without rotational stabilization but the odds of that are improbable.

With a bore so large as to leave no engraving would have the bullet bouncing around in the barrel and hence leave engraving unless there was no rifling at all. One would seem to doubt that one can have their cake and eat it too.

There is probably some way of proving this or discovering the flaws in the supposition. Make a barrel without rifling and exactly the diameter of the bullet and then see whether this magic bullet will fly straight for 22 yards.

If it does, barrel manufacturing will get a whole lot cheaper. I'll wait for the test results though.

This would have seemed more probable had the penetration material been at one or two feet rather than 22 yards. When does this magic bullet become unstable? 23 yards? 50 yards? 100 yards?

Maybe the BBS has a heavy molecular weight radioactive material front tip so that it doesn't need rotation to fly straight.

I'm open to explanations.

babaode

I am no twist expert, but what is showing up on all our test work with solids and this includes field work too, not just tests on the range or lab, we find that faster twist stabilize during terminal penetration far better and is a very important factor during terminal penetration. Also from the test work we find that meplat size is actually more important than twist rate, or at the least equal to. Twist rate really comes into it's own when trying to stabilize bullets that are close, but meplat size for caliber is somewhat deficient. Currently my opinion is that below 60% meplat for caliber you will need a faster twist to stabilize that bullet during terminal penetration. 65-70% meplat of caliber the meplat will stabilize the bullet for terminals even with marginal optimum twist rates for that caliber.

Most of the Barnes Banded fall in at 65% meplat for caliber, North Forks and GSC are around 70% meplat for caliber. Proven that the North Forks can and do stabilize in a 1:18 twist rate guns, because of meplat size. I think Mike has even tested the North Forks at low velocities and getting perfect dead straight penetration in every test, regardless with 470 500 gr North Forks.

I won't recommend what you need to do with twist rates in an $80'000 rifle. But I will tell you exactly what I would do, and I would request 1:12 Twist rate barrels. I think that Art Alphin established 1:10 twist rates for 470 Capstick and it is supposed to stabilize solids for the best terminal penetration, but I am sure 1:12 would do fine. Of course that is not the traditional twist rate you are used to hearing about.

Now if I already had such a rifle, I would pay very close attention to Mikes test work in his 470 Nitro with 1:18 twist rates and the 500 gr North Fork Solids!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Fear not, I will continue to shoot off my mouth until I believe this.

Maybe, just maybe, a bullet that is perfectly balanced along its axis could fly in the translational direction for a bit without rotational stabilization but the odds of that are improbable.

With a bore so large as to leave no engraving would have the bullet bouncing around in the barrel and hence leave engraving unless there was no rifling at all. One would seem to doubt that one can have their cake and eat it too.

There is probably some way of proving this or discovering the flaws in the supposition. Make a barrel without rifling and exactly the diameter of the bullet and then see whether this magic bullet will fly straight for 22 yards.

If it does, barrel manufacturing will get a whole lot cheaper. I'll wait for the test results though.

This would have seemed more probable had the penetration material been at one or two feet rather than 22 yards. When does this magic bullet become unstable? 23 yards? 50 yards? 100 yards?

Maybe the BBS has a heavy molecular weight radioactive material front tip so that it doesn't need rotation to fly straight.

I'm open to explanations.

Will

Oh I have no fear of you not shooting off the mouth, that seems to be a given and expected regardless. Also, believe whatever you want, it's immaterial to me what you believe. I just show the results, nothing more. You don't hear me saying we don't need rifling anymore, just use a smoothbore! No, not at all.

Improbable? No, not really, it's done so now it's probable, and repeatable with that bullet. I would venture to say the North Forks with a 70% meplat of caliber would do the same. The bullet is not 100% stable, it is in fact unstable as the two bullets did not behave the same, one to 57 inches the other to 60 inches, one veer left and tumbled, one veer just off course to the right. No stability there, or they would have been the same. None the less even then enough penetration to do a job. I would not trust that for sure, and would never take these guns to the field with solids at all! Would not even consider it.

There is rifling in the barrels, they are oversize bores for sure, not sure exactly what the bore is, but it ain't .472 or even .474.

I claim no magic.

Meplat size for caliber being 65% is your explanation. Smaller size meplat will not do that. I did not expect even 65% of caliber to do that and would have and did predict otherwise.






Mike wanted to send me some North Forks for the test in these Capsticks built by the Winchester Custom shop, I refused at the time and told him in these barrels it would be a waste of time and a waste of good bullets as they probably would not engrave and be stable. I was somewhat wrong about the Barnes Banded. A Woodleigh round nose can't make it to 25 inches without tumbling, no engraving on those either.

Believe what you want!

Michael

It is not a matter of believing what I want. I am as prone, if not more so, than anyone making cliche' statements about results because that is what was expected or what was found in the past.

If indeed this bullet will travel 22 yards without rotation and without tumbling, I want to be first in line with patent claims.

Most if not all bullets are tail heavy. Throwing spears are nose heavy and don't need much rotation. Footballs are neutral and need it. Any truncated cone flat point bullet with shallow tail grooves will be tail heavy. Maybe the Barnes are nose heavy. I don't know, but with a bullet and calipers one could calculate it and find out.

If indeed this BBS flew 22 yards without rotation and w/o tumbling, I'd sure like to know why.

"If indeed this BBS flew 22 yards without rotation and w/o tumbling, I'd sure like to know why."


Will,

To paraphrase Joe Dirt's dad

How does the the rearend on a Dodge Work? It just does.

I don't know if this means anyting or not but the Barnes web site suggest a 1:16 twist for the 500 grain .470 banded solids. I was thinking that most vintage .470s had a 1:20 twist but I thought all modern guns had a 1:16 twist. Is that incorrect?

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I won't recommend what you need to do with twist rates in an $80'000 rifle. But I will tell you exactly what I would do, and I would request 1:12 Twist rate barrels. I think that Art Alphin established 1:10 twist rates for 470 Capstick and it is supposed to stabilize solids for the best terminal penetration, but I am sure 1:12 would do fine. Of course that is not the traditional twist rate you are used to hearing about.

Michael

As Michael says, a 1:12" twist rate will work fine...a 1:10" twist rate will work just a bit finer especially at lower velocity!

guys, just a question.

If you are shooting the Barnes banded solids in your .470 at 50 meters and they are punching nice, neat little .474 holes in the target and there is no evidence of "keyholing", doesn't that mean that they are stabilizing for you?

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I won't recommend what you need to do with twist rates in an $80'000 rifle. But I will tell you exactly what I would do, and I would request 1:12 Twist rate barrels. I think that Art Alphin established 1:10 twist rates for 470 Capstick and it is supposed to stabilize solids for the best terminal penetration, but I am sure 1:12 would do fine. Of course that is not the traditional twist rate you are used to hearing about.

Michael

As Michael says, a 1:12" twist rate will work fine...a 1:10" twist rate will work just a bit finer especially at lower velocity!

Capo, do most .470s have a 1:12 twist? I thought it was slower, something like 1:16 or so.

I fear this will go to the archives of "unverified shooting street legend," as many such phenomena on AR, to be quoted for time immemorial.

Nah, it'll never happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
It is not a matter of believing what I want. I am as prone, if not more so, than anyone making cliche' statements about results because that is what was expected or what was found in the past.

If indeed this bullet will travel 22 yards without rotation and without tumbling, I want to be first in line with patent claims.

Most if not all bullets are tail heavy. Throwing spears are nose heavy and don't need much rotation. Footballs are neutral and need it. Any truncated cone flat point bullet with shallow tail grooves will be tail heavy. Maybe the Barnes are nose heavy. I don't know, but with a bullet and calipers one could calculate it and find out.

If indeed this BBS flew 22 yards without rotation and w/o tumbling, I'd sure like to know why.

Will

I have had these two rifles since they were put out by the Custom Shop as part of the Big Five series. They made a 125 of them and have been a hassle from day 1 because Winchester really didn't have a clue as to how to make a 470 Capstick work. First off, the holes for the scope bases were so far out of alignment that I could not get a scope on with enough windage adjustment, both receivers were replaced on both rifles. Second, neither would retain cartridges in the magazine. Load 3 down, snatch the bolt back, all three pop out of the magazine to the ground. That could not be fixed until I found Brian at SSK Industries, he made short work of it and finally sorted that out. Later when testing solids for my .500 caliber rifles (true .500--not .510) I threw the Capsticks in the mix and sure enough no engraving on the bullets and they went flying everywhere. Since that time, about 2007 or so I think, I really have not messed with them, they have been put aside and never have and never will go to the field anyway. I suspect very strongly and RIP an others also suspect that Winchester put the wrong size barrels on for 470 Capstick. That's where we are with those guns.

I did a lot of load development with them when I first got them, honest accuracy is not an issue to 50 yards. I have files full of targets on both guns with many different bullets, none of which I ever recall tumbling even at 50 yds. How? Damn if I know? I don't have a clue as to how they could possibly shoot and most bullets not even engraving? Swift A Frames are actual .474 caliber, and they get some engraving, light, but still get some and they perform fine, but I would never ever trust a solid in these guns, regardless. So how in the world do they shoot with no engraving on them at 22 yds? The bigger question is how do they do it at 50 yds? Answer is this---I don't know?

I have some photos to do after a while, I will take a photo of the files I have on these guns and some of the targets, I am past caring with these guns, and I would be as skeptical as you are too if I did not know better!

The penetration of the BBS I can explain easy enough, but how the bullet can arrive at target nose on, I cannot and do not have an explanation for that.

Michael

Will

Please understand this, I have no vested interest in this, I mentioned this as a fluke thing that happened a few weeks ago during a test. I did not expect it, and was just as surprised about it myself. I don't care about 470 caliber anything, but let me caution your choice of words as I understand them;

""I fear this will go to the archives of "unverified shooting street legend," as many such phenomena on AR, to be quoted for time immemorial.""

You are quickly approaching the edge of calling me a liar, and that I do take great exception to! Now, please correct me if I am taking these words out of context or if I have a misunderstanding of them?

Michael