quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Michael and Paul,

I think the 600 should be driven at around 1950 fps to be realistic with 600 NE velocities. If the non cons open at that velocity they will open at higher velocity in the big bolts guns.

Paul,

When are you getting your 600 double?

Sam

Hey Sam,

Might as well have a full spread from 1,950 up - shouldn't be too difficult to make that happen. The only other reasistic problem might be having enough target media.

As far as the Verney-Carron 600NE double - I haven't had any recent updates on progress but last I was told, February-March 2011.

Still getting up to speed. (I'm at page 74.)

I'm amazed at the attention this page is getting! North Fork! Barnes! And who knows, maybe the ghost of John "Pondoro" Taylor?
There's an enormous amount of insight to be found here, as long as reader does his job and actually read!! (I'm including myself in this because there are a few things I've just skimmed over.)

quote:

I should post the e-mail I get from these goofballs everyday. "I need this ..." or "I'm sending payment for ..." Thinking about charging for the e-mail rather than product, I'd make more money responding to BS.

Macifej, I suppose you could charge some of the more annoying ones an "Electronic Consultation Fee."

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Michael and Paul,

I think the 600 should be driven at around 1950 fps to be realistic with 600 NE velocities. If the non cons open at that velocity they will open at higher velocity in the big bolts guns.

Paul,

When are you getting your 600 double?

Sam

I am sure they will shear even down at impacts of 1200 fps or so. I tested some .458s down to 900 fps impact before they did not shear. With that weight behind them, these .620s will most likely shear at 1000 fps or even slower. Of course, the blades would not have much velocity behind them at that slow impact velocity. 1900 fps muzzle, with 25 yd impact and 50 yd impact would bring it down to as low as maybe 1700 fps impact velocity and they will shear at that.

M

Thats great those bullets will shear at so low a velocity, they sure are better than a standard soft point!

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:
Still getting up to speed. (I'm at page 74.)

I'm amazed at the attention this page is getting! North Fork! Barnes! And who knows, maybe the ghost of John "Pondoro" Taylor?
There's an enormous amount of insight to be found here, as long as reader does his job and actually read!! (I'm including myself in this because there are a few things I've just skimmed over.)

Glenn

Well, I think there is an impact on the issues at hand from this thread. I certainly did not expect that when I started it just around 13 months ago. In 13 months we have traveled a long road of discovery, and some of the things we have discovered have been of great consequence. I can tell you now, it has changed what I take to the field now, and in the future. It has changed my entire outlook on our common, premium bullets! They now seem---"Old Hat" to me! Somewhat, "Antiquated" I would say, compared to what we are seeing with the NonCons. Exactly why I just moved some of those off my shelves to make room for new NonCons, and the fact I doubt I will ever go to the field again with one of them. About the only Conventional Premium that I will remotely consider in the future is some of the North Fork bullets that I am working on in .500 and .474 caliber for the B&M cartridges. Other than those, conventionals are out the door with me. And of course, matched with that BBW #13 solid! WOW, what a combo, and I have to say, where do we go from there??????

I don't know? I think we have reached a pinnacle. I mean, were can one go with the solids, we have really done everything that I know of we can do with a solid, several good designs, North Fork and CEB BBW #13s coming out as good as it gets, we know all the factors involved that a solid needs to be successful, we have identified those, so what is left to do in that arena? I can't see any other nose profile work needed.

NonCons, as for lab testing we are nearly exhausting that, we know what makes copper and brass NonCons work, with both modes of operations, shear and move away from center, shear and stay inside the wound cavity! There is some work left to do here, but we are needed more field work now with these, and that is what we will see and need in the future, more field operations with these, and 2011 is going to be a big year for the NonCons, as far as we are concerned here. But where to from that point? I can't see things getting any better than our current NonCons--oh a little tweaking and playing around here and there, but nothing of GREAT consequence that we don't already have or know.

Other than some very special requests, I can't see myself doing much test work with any conventionals in the near future! We have done most everything in every viable caliber that can be done and needs to be done. I can't see myself doing any test work at all on other solids in the near future. About the only new solids I am going to be testing are some of the new .474s from North Fork designed for the new 475 B&M and 475 B&M Super Shorts, and new CEB BBW #13s in some of the other B&M cartridges, 50 Super Short, 475 Super Short, maybe a 9.3 and 475 B&M as well, along with some noncons to match from both North Fork and CEB. I can't see wasting a lot of time and energy on hardly any conventionals from this point out.

There will be some specialty bullets to work with, like Capos pointy .500 if we can get something moving with that in the near future. I still like playing with a "Lion Bullet", that will still do in a pinch for buffalo! Some of these sorts of things.

Overall I think a good bit of our Lab Test work is going to be slowing down now. We have achieved a great deal, all of us working together, and while the "Fat Lady has Not Finished Singing" it appears she might be on her last Chorus?

Michael

quote:

Other than some very special requests, I can't see myself doing much test work with any conventionals in the near future! We have done most everything in every viable caliber that can be done and needs to be done. I can't see myself doing any test work at all on other solids in the near future.

I can well understand that. Solids seem to be predictable in their performance, which I suppose is a good thing! Your tests have shown repeatedly that flatnose bullets with a meplat of 65% of caliber, or slightly more, win the penetration race virtually every time. Of course, except for that pesky 320-grain Woodleigh in 9.3. A number of you have also reported this kind of performance in the field, which is where it all counts. So I would think that the chapter on solids has been written!

quote:

I think we have reached a pinnacle

That's because we don't know what new questions to ask.

The current explanations, as manifested in the solids and noncon design, answer all our current questions.

Further advances will come when there are new questions which the current explanations don't answer.

That usually occures from observations of what we are calling field trials.

So, those of us who are going to be using the bullets in the field need to be careful observers.

Did the bullet do specifically what was expected?

quote:

That's because we don't know what new questions to ask.

Acutally, some of us still like to have specialty bullets, aka Capoward's "pointy thing".

I am very happy that Barnes has officially announced that in January 2011 they will make available a
350 grain Tipped TSX in .416".
It should have a decent, hunting BC. (My guess would be .400-.450 but they haven't said anything about the BC.)

That should make a wonderful all-purpose antelope bullet, while still more than adequate for buffalo up close. By antelope, I mean hartebeesties, eland, roan, and friends, at anywhere from 200-400 yards.

So there are needs for specialty bullets for those who like to be able to drop alerted animals across some open stretches when a good rest is available for an accurate rifle. Closer shots are great, and common, but I like to be prepared for long, too. It's part of the training and requires extra practice and more shooting, .

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:
Still getting up to speed. (I'm at page 74.)

I'm amazed at the attention this page is getting! North Fork! Barnes! And who knows, maybe the ghost of John "Pondoro" Taylor?
There's an enormous amount of insight to be found here, as long as reader does his job and actually read!! (I'm including myself in this because there are a few things I've just skimmed over.)

quote:

I should post the e-mail I get from these goofballs everyday. "I need this ..." or "I'm sending payment for ..." Thinking about charging for the e-mail rather than product, I'd make more money responding to BS.

Macifej, I suppose you could charge some of the more annoying ones an "Electronic Consultation Fee."

I sent Don the bill and he sent it back to me "denied" with his own bill for bandwidth.

It’ true that not much is left to accomplish in design work; my pointy .500 caliber bullet, your lion bullet, and identifying the proper hole diameter/depth ratio for the HB bullets. Of course these will require lab and T-Rex testing followed by field testing which still hasn’t been accomplished for all calibers of the CEB BBW #13 FN and HP bullets…though I don’t believe that every caliber requires full field testing to know that they’ll work properly.

I am in accord with 416Tanzan- the 416's should have a good 200 yard reach at least so I will be curious about trajectories on some of the new designs. I quite realize Michael,et al designed them for upclose and dirty DG hunting (or combat as Michael prefers) but no need to give away range and I do like to be able to hunt with one gun.


SSR

Non-Cons give away nothing in trajectory -vs- other designs. The first .395" HP SHARRC design fielded was used by Prof242 on an Elk past 200 yards in some extreme conditions. He may be around to recount the scenario but I recall it was an uphill, quartering away shot, in a sub freezing cross wind at 225 yards. Prof242 only has one leg and one eye and he was hunting solo too!

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
Non-Cons give away nothing in trajectory -vs- other designs. The first .395" HP SHARRC design fielded was used by Prof242 on an Elk past 200 yards in some extreme conditions. He may be around to recount the scenario but I recall it was an uphill, quartering away shot, in a sub freezing cross wind at 225 yards. Prof242 only has one leg and one eye and he was hunting solo too!

and his guide was Jim Bridger, outfitter Carson safaris and they were hunting in Colters Hell.


SSR

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
Non-Cons give away nothing in trajectory -vs- other designs. The first .395" HP SHARRC design fielded was used by Prof242 on an Elk past 200 yards in some extreme conditions. He may be around to recount the scenario but I recall it was an uphill, quartering away shot, in a sub freezing cross wind at 225 yards. Prof242 only has one leg and one eye and he was hunting solo too!

and his guide was Jim Bridger, outfitter Carson safaris and they were hunting in Colters Hell.


SSR

Exactly! Except I think he was in Colorado ...

Doubt Jim Bridger ever saw one of these ...

if he had he would have loved it. Those old boys idea of back-up on griz and buffalo was a hunting knife------and they hoped their powder was dry. Tougher than me for damn sure

Max is a pretty tough cat himself. I wouldn't have been where he was shootin' & guttin' elk or on his last gig in Iraqistanigan gettin' shot at.

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:
I am in accord with 416Tanzan- the 416's should have a good 200 yard reach at least so I will be curious about trajectories on some of the new designs. I quite realize Michael,et al designed them for upclose and dirty DG hunting (or combat as Michael prefers) but no need to give away range and I do like to be able to hunt with one gun.


SSR

Lot's of talk about pointy, higher BCs for longer range, and more versatility of our big bore rifles! 1 Rifle does it all! I agree, that has always been my philosophy, to a point. Yes, I like close and dirty, plain simple fact is, I control things the closer they are, I am a better shot at 25 yds than I am at 100, and I am much faster at 25 than I am 100. So I like being within my zone! I have little interest in longer ranges, but does not mean I have not and do not do, with my rifles. I took a 416 Rem to Tanzania in 2005 as my light rifle for antelope, zebra, leopard and what have you, using a 340 Woodleigh at 2550 fps. It worked good, and I shot some antelope out to 300 yds with success. I have used various 458s out to 200 yds and so forth. Don't like to, but have.

Now there are good designs in place for most of the cartridges we use. We can do a NonCon pointy, but depends on the mode of operation of how expensive they start to get--and is it worth it. We can get by with a pointy brass NonCon in various calibers, little more cost than the standard CEB BBW #13 HP, as there are some extra steps involved. This brass bullet will shear, but it will be within wound cavity, like the prototypes that Sam made. Nothing wrong with this mode of operation, and it is devastating. We can add some extra work and get the 6 shearing blades as well, but our expenses just went up a good bit, as that is extra work as well. How good that will shear and move from center??? I don't know? Let's look at some things, and see if it is worth the effort or not?

I can get close BCs most of the time, as I record impact velocity when doing terminals. May or may not be exact, and this is from velocity with the B&Ms as well. Yes, some have bigger cartridges and more velocity, and that will assist in range. But to compare apples I will use what I have with the B&Ms to compare.

Lets start with 416, lets look at a 350 Barnes TSX at 2450 fps. I used the Barnes BC for this one at .345.



Then lets look at the 325 CEB BBW #13 HP at 2543 fps, BC calculated at .290.




Normally I sight all my big bores in at 1 inch high at 50 yds--or close-if it comes in good at 3/4 high I am happy as well and leave it. But, these all are 1 inch high so all is equal.


As we study this take a look at the bottom line at 250 yds

350 Barnes with a BC of .345, yes lower starting velocity and all is 6.9 inches low at 250 yds. Very workable at that range. 200 yds, only 1.8 inches low, hold dead on the money!

The 325 CEB BBW #13, BC .290, yes higher velocity, 6.3 inches low at 250 and 1.4 inches low at 200.

Velocity of the 325 #13 HP is down to 1800 fps at 250 yds, it will still work at that velocity, although penetration will be less than at 50 yd or less, as are most things! But still far more than adequate on what you would use it for at 250 yds!

OK then, lets run the 350 Barnes TSX at the same velocity as the 325 CEB HP--2543 fps.

Now at 250 yds the 350 TSX at .345 BC is 5.5 inches low. .8 inches difference in the CEB at 250 yds. I don't know about the rest of you, I can see .8 inches at 250 yds!

So is it really worth it to get a little more???? Not to me.

More later on some 458 and .500 bullets.

Michael

quote:

As we study this take a look at the bottom line at 250 yds

350 Barnes with a BC of .345, yes lower starting velocity and all is 6.9 inches low at 250 yds. Very workable at that range. 200 yds, only 1.8 inches low, hold dead on the money!

The 325 CEB BBW #13, BC .290, yes higher velocity, 6.3 inches low at 250 and 1.4 inches low at 200.

Velocity of the 325 #13 HP is down to 1800 fps at 250 yds, it will still work at that velocity, although penetration will be less than at 50 yd or less, as are most things! But still far more than adequate on what you would use it for at 250 yds!

OK then, lets run the 350 Barnes TSX at the same velocity as the 325 CEB HP--2543 fps.

Now at 250 yds the 350 TSX at .345 BC is 5.5 inches low. .8 inches difference in the CEB at 250 yds. I don't know about the rest of you, I can see .8 inches at 250 yds!

So is it really worth it to get a little more???? Not to me.

More later on some 458 and .500 bullets.

Michael

OK…so the 325gr CEB BBW #13 HP are running a calculated .290 BC… Hum…

I have a couple of comments here.

1st: I can definitely attest to the accuracy of the 350gr Barnes TSX as well as the 300gr Barnes TSX out of the .416 B&M cartridge/rifle combination out to 325yds. In fact it was my shooting the .416 B&M with multiple spitzer (or semi-spitzer) bullets in Oregon at 325yds that started my brain churning for a .500 caliber monometal spitzer that I could use out to 325yds against non-DG critters on the West Coast.

2nd: I did also shoot the 330gr SST/Lehigh HP at 325yds and there was a noticeable difference in the trajectory – identified by the amount of “hold over” required for hitting the target. I notice today from the Lehigh website that it has a calculated .310 BC…though I thought it originally was about .188 BC calculated.

If the CEB BBW #13 HP truly runs .290 BC then it would be no issue within 250yds and not much after that out to 325yds. Perhaps I need to rethink the .500 caliber spitzer if this is the case. Maybe nothing more than a polymer nose insert in the current CEB BBW #13 HP in order to up the BC slightly for the extra distance…perhaps the insert would also force the nose to separate at lower velocities/longer distances as well. Definately something to think about.

quote:

OK then, lets run the 350 Barnes TSX at the same velocity as the 325 CEB HP--2543 fps.

Now at 250 yds the 350 TSX at .345 BC is 5.5 inches low. .8 inches difference in the CEB at 250 yds. I don't know about the rest of you, I can see .8 inches at 250 yds!

Actually, the Barnes 350 with a BC of .345 is not yet a 'pointy thing', it needed some work to function as a flat antelope bullet. I'm guessing that the blue-tip version will have a BC of around .425.

I like to use a 2" high at 100 yards, and I particularly look at the 300 yard drop, which is the point at which bullets in the 2600-2800 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              2600-2800      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              2600-2800      end_of_the_skype_highlighting fps range start to require accurate distance evaluation to stay on target.

wt. 350 grain, BC .425, vel. 2800fps
dist traj. vel energy
000 -1.5 2800 6092
025 -0.2 2748 5867
050 0.8 2696 5648
075 1.6 2645 5436
100 2.0 2595 5231
125 2.1 2545 5031
150 1.9 2495 4838
175 1.3 2446 4650
200 0.3 2398 4468
207 0.0 2385 4418
225 -1.0 2350 4292
250 -2.7 2303 4121
275 -4.8 2256 3955
300 -7.4 2210 3795
325 -10.4 2164 3640
350 -13.9 2119 3490
375 -17.8 2075 3344
400 -22.3 2031 3204

wt. 325 grain, BC .290, vel. 2800fps
dist traj. vel energy
000 -1.5 2800 5658
025 -0.2 2724 5352
050 0.9 2649 5061
075 1.6 2575 4783
100 2.0 2502 4517
125 2.1 2430 4262
150 1.8 2360 4019
175 1.1 2291 3786
200 -0.1 2223 3565
225 -1.6 2156 3353
250 -3.6 2090 3151
275 -6.1 2025 2959
300 -9.2 1962 2777
325 -12.8 1900 2604
350 -17.0 1839 2440
375 -21.9 1779 2285
400 -27.4 1726 2138

Is the difference huge? No.
Is it significant? Yes.
Just by shaping a little plastic, pointy thing on the end of a bullet, a person can save almost a 2" extra drop at 300 yards 5" at 400 yards, and just as importantly, the velocities stay up over 2000 fps for better shearing. It is part of the search for the best bullets possible.

So is it worthwhile? It depends on the hunter.
I would guess that 5-10% of my shots are over 250 yards, and maybe another 15-20% in the 200-250 range, where distances can already be deceiving. While I am happy to do most of my shooting at 75-150 yards, I personally like to be able to reach out to 300 yards without worrying about trajectory and impact velocity.

Of course, if I go down to 2600 fps (like with a 416 Ruger in 20" barrel) I would give up a wee bit of distance, but I can live with that. It's not that much of a percentage of the hunting that will be effected, and a good BC helps to smooth out the difference between 2800 and 2600.

Anyway, I would recommend working out the optimal shearing designs first, as is being done.
And I wouldn't worry about 'pointy things' in true big bores.
But after the 416 comes up for testing, I would like to see a pointy plastic thing fit to the nose of the finished product.

Can I hunt confidently with a load that drops 9, 10, or 12 inches at 300 yards? Of course. No problem. I can even hunt with Woodleigh 300 grain roundnose softs in 338 with a 14" drop (equals the old Barnes 300 RN softs). The animals I shot with those were all under 100 yards, that I remember, and those bullets were very effective in-close, back in the day. Impressively dumped animals.

But I like flatter if I can get it.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael

And to you and yours--

peace on earth to men of good will

Sean S Russell

Happy new year to every one of you terminally good friends

Yup happy 2011 to ya all!
Will be setting on top of a snowy mountain by about 6 a.m. with a rifle in my hands. . . . . . . . Now, which rifle will it be. . . . . ?

A very Happy New Year to all of you TBP participants and lurkers!!

Dennis your choices are simple…if you're staying on top it’s your 300 WinMag otherwise it’s your .375 Ruger!!! Tis very simple no.

quote:

I sent Don the bill and he sent it back to me "denied" with his own bill for bandwidth.

Big Grin

Wow, now that's a tough customer!
I never thought of using "Denied." Maybe I could tell that to my local bank when they send me a monthly bill for my car payment. Of course, they'd probably write back saying, "Tell 'Denied' to the repo man when he comes for your Audi. He only moonlights as a repo man because his main job is as a police officer!"





I've got a germ of an idea that might turn out to be either a brain storm or a brain fart. I'm not sure which one yet. I'll have to sleep on it.
Until then...


HAPPY NEW YEAR, MICHAEL AND THE GANG!!!!
Let's make 2011 the Year of the Big Bore!!!

For DWright
How does your 375 Ruger handle? Do you have the 20" barrel model?

I've been thinking of ordering a 416 Ruger Alaskan the next time I'm in the US long enough to get one and prepare the loads for it.

(1 week to ship, 10 day Calif legal-wait, then 1-2 weeks load development= 1 month minimum. The laws are getting crazy for the good guys.)

quote:

For DWright
How does your 375 Ruger handle? Do you have the 20" barrel model?

Tan,

I believe Dennis is out hunting today. But having shot his little 375 Ruger it originally had a 20” barrel, but Dennis has cut to the barrel to 17” length and replaced the Hogue stock with the standard Ruger synthetic stock cut to 12 ¾” LOP. The rifle is very handy with its Leupold 2x riflescope and it’s also extremely accurate at 325yds with Dennis’ hand loaded Hornady 300gr RNSP at 2300fps average. Here’s a photo of Dennis and his modified Ruger rifle:


I think you’ll be very happy with the 20” barrel with the 416 Ruger Alaskan. If you don’t like the Hogue stock you can pick up an older “boat paddle” synthetic stock or the newer standard synthetic stock for very little money plus either will make the rifle slightly lighter and much trimmer than the Hogue stock.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

For DWright
How does your 375 Ruger handle? Do you have the 20" barrel model?

Tan,

I believe Dennis is out hunting today. But having shot his little 375 Ruger it originally had a 20” barrel, but Dennis has cut to the barrel to 17” length and replaced the stock with the standard Ruger synthetic stock cut to 12 ¾” LOP. The rifle is very handy with its Leupold 2x riflescope and it’s also extremely accurate at 325yds with Dennis’ hand loaded Hornady 300gr RNSP at 2300fps average. Here’s a photo of Dennis and his modified Ruger rifle:


I think you’ll be very happy with the 20” barrel with the 416 Ruger Alaskan. If you don’t like the Hogue stock you can pick up an older “boat paddle” synthetic stock or the newer standard synthetic stock for very little money plus either will make the rifle slightly lighter and much trimmer than the Hogue stock.

Thanks, Capo, the rifle looks nice. I'll probably be happy with the Hogue stock, too. The whole package is priced around $850, after the govenator and successor take their cut. With a true 2-power Nikon Monarch 2-8, and $400 of brass and dies and bullets, one is on the field, sighted-in, and hunting. $1500 total.

I've heard that the Hogue stock is ergonomic for balacing the handling and recoil of the lightweight rifle. I also prefer longer lengths of pull because in Africa we tend to leave off the overcoats and snow-asundries. I figure the lighter layers of clothing are probably worth about 1/2" in length-of-pull estimations.

quote:

I've heard that the Hogue stock is ergonomic for balacing the handling and recoil of the lightweight rifle. I also prefer longer lengths of pull because in Africa we tend to leave off the overcoats and snow-asundries. I figure the lighter layers of clothing are probably worth about 1/2" in length-of-pull estimations.

Some like the Hogue stock, some don't...it appears to be a “personal” thing. Hot weather in Africas pretty much the same as in the USA...light clothing vis-à-vis cold weather clothing would be minimum of ½” to perhaps 1” difference in LOP. Black synthetic spacers are available in ¼” and ½” thickness so it’s fairly easy to lengthen the LOP on the synthetic stock…but matching the rubbery feel of the Hogue stock may be an issue.

TO ALL OF YOU...HAPPY NEW YEAR !!

@michael458,

send you message about the status of the QL-Up-Date. Keep ya informed.

Best
2RECON

I just have noticed this from page 100

quote:

someoldguy--Special Award for Contributions above and beyond!

Thanks, Michael.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
For DWright
How does your 375 Ruger handle? Do you have the 20" barrel model?

I've been thinking of ordering a 416 Ruger Alaskan the next time I'm in the US long enough to get one and prepare the loads for it.
__________________________________________________
I like it a lot. I do not like the factory open sights on the thing however, so I took them off.
I smoothed up the action a bit with some Brownells compound, so the bolt is butter smooth now and feeds like corn thru a Goose.
I hate the Hogue eraser stock, so installed the little plastic one from Brownells, and a Limbsaver pad.
If I had bigger, meaner, live targets that got all upset when I shot them, I would get one of the .416s for sure.
My 17" barrel is about perfect for the tight brush I hunt with it and the 300 gr. Hornady's I shoot. But if I was shooting those little tiny 270 grain 'rat' bullets, I would want an extra 3" of barrel to keep from blowing snot bubbles every time I touched one off! Man are they loud! Good luck!

Capoward: Ended up taking the Marlin Cowboy in .45 Colt, and my Kimber 1911 .45 acp. Great time in the snow. Lot's of first gear, low lock running.
Cheers all!

quote:

Those two damned Capsticks I have are only good for .477 caliber bullets. The only thing they can be used for with normal .474s is to test Expanding or NonCons, as they will stabilize good enough for those. Not for solids and a barrel strain would be useless on them. Not even sure you would get a reading on barrel strain with those guns.

With the coming of the 475 B&Ms I won't need or desire to mess with the Capsticks anyway regardless. They can just sit and look pretty about all they are good for.

Michael, did you ever try the .476 Westley Richard bullets that someone mentioned? No problem if you didn't, I was just curious.

Sounds like you had fun Dennis.

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

Those two damned Capsticks I have are only good for .477 caliber bullets. The only thing they can be used for with normal .474s is to test Expanding or NonCons, as they will stabilize good enough for those. Not for solids and a barrel strain would be useless on them. Not even sure you would get a reading on barrel strain with those guns.

With the coming of the 475 B&Ms I won't need or desire to mess with the Capsticks anyway regardless. They can just sit and look pretty about all they are good for.

Michael, did you ever try the .476 Westley Richard bullets that someone mentioned? No problem if you didn't, I was just curious.

Glenn

No, I really don't care much about putting an effort into the Capsticks. Rifles are so much bigger than the B&M rifles that I know for a fact I will never take them out to the field, so I won't waste time messing with them. If I ever do I would not waste time, effort, money with inferior bullets that are available and might work, I would have CEB make a run of either .476 or .477 #13s. But I don't see that in my future right now.

M

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:

Capoward: Ended up taking the Marlin Cowboy in .45 Colt, and my Kimber 1911 .45 acp. Great time in the snow. Lot's of first gear, low lock running.
Cheers all!

Dennis

I did a lot of work in 45 Colt for my Win M94, 16 inch gun. Even shot some critters with it in the day! Some pretty hefty loads running some 300s and 335s to over 1600 fps.

Michael

Michael,

Which day do you leave for Dallas?

Wife still isn’t sure if she can go because of other obligations. If she does go then we can’t leave until Saturday so we’ll miss the DSC show, if I’m driving solo I’ll be leaving Wednesday and weather permitting will be there for Friday’s show.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:

Capoward: Ended up taking the Marlin Cowboy in .45 Colt, and my Kimber 1911 .45 acp. Great time in the snow. Lot's of first gear, low lock running.
Cheers all!

Dennis

I did a lot of work in 45 Colt for my Win M94, 16 inch gun. Even shot some critters with it in the day! Some pretty hefty loads running some 300s and 335s to over 1600 fps.

Michael

_____________________________________________

Good deal Michael! I'm getting 1,760 FPS with my 300 gr. LBT WFN hardcast. Fun little rifle.
But. . . . what is "In the day" thing. . . ?

This is 'the day'! Every day. . . . .

Jim

Flying in Thursday.

Big D

Way ahead of me on the 45 Colt. I was a little disappointed in the way it hit things! I suppose at the time I expected too much.

HEH

M