Well the same about a month ago. Again I tried via Midway to order some 500 Acc Rel brass from Quality Cartridge. Once more I was told that it was not possible, because export of bullets and brass in 500 caliber and above was impossible from the US these days..

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
So can you import bullets that are .500 or do they have to be .499 and under?

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:

quote:

Buffalo



#13s end of story!

M

No doubt Doc M...

Just hope that CEB will be able to export in the future, otherwise I have to rely on my US buddies to be able to buy those BBW#13 bullets.. Especially in +.500" caliber cause you have some stupid export limitations on bullets from .500" and upwards..

Ulrik

Huh?? What rule are you referring to?

Well dont know, but Midwaydenmark told me that they were unable to import bullets from .500" and up from the US.. Some months ago (before the BBW#13 were born) I tried to order some .510" and some .585" BBS from Midway. But it was not possible they told me - because of US export laws..

Cant quote the reg number but .50 cal and above was controlled as military muntions because of Browning .50cal. I had understood that regs had changed some for sporting arms but maybe export restictions still apply.

SSR

quote:

Again I tried via Midway to order some 500 Acc Rel brass from Quality Cartridge. Once more I was told that it was not possible, because export of bullets and brass in 500 caliber and above was impossible from the US these days..

Maybe instead you could get some of your American friends to send you some nice "brass chess pieces" for your recreational use. I understand they make some nice ones of about 0.500" size.

Just saying...

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

Again I tried via Midway to order some 500 Acc Rel brass from Quality Cartridge. Once more I was told that it was not possible, because export of bullets and brass in 500 caliber and above was impossible from the US these days..

Maybe instead you could get some of your American friends to send you some nice "brass chess pieces" for your recreational use. I understand they make some nice ones of about 0.500" size.

Just saying...

That is exactly what I intend to do.. But "Brass chess pieces" is new to me.. - good suggestion..

Thanks

Ulrik

Say Michael, any data on the 375 H&H 300gr Swift A Frame and the 270 & 300gr TSXs? thanks! jorge

Buffalo,

Why not make a 499 Buffalo instead of a 500 something?

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Say Michael, any data on the 375 H&H 300gr Swift A Frame and the 270 & 300gr TSXs? thanks! jorge

Jorge

I don't own any 375s so have never tested any. I am sure 300 Swifts are great. We have new 300 CEB BBW#13 Solids and Matching NonCons that will be delivered first of the week however.

Since the "B" company is a traitorous bunch to performance, we no longer test them or have any need for them.



Sam

I see you have returned! Excellent! Tell us about the Show?

M

Michael;

I quizzed Ryan quite a bit... At first he seemed a bit defensive, but finally admitted that he, himself, tried to persuade "officialdom" that they should keep all of the Banded Solids in flat point, but to no avail.

I mentioned the possibility of loosing market share and he said he pressed the same issue. He's also well aware (along with his bosses)of your work and believes what you've contributed is very, very significant. I sensed that it was with deep regret that he couldn't persuade them otherwise... BUT, he did say he wasn't giving up on changing their minds... just yet.

It also appears that the "main" ballistician feels that the RN penetrates well enough anyway, while acknowledging that the flat tip penetrates better. It seems that the chief ballistics guy carries more weight than Ryan. So, their IS an internal struggle going on.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by .458 Only:
Michael;

I quizzed Ryan quite a bit... At first he seemed a bit defensive, but finally admitted that he, himself, tried to persuade "officialdom" that they should keep all of the Banded Solids in flat point, but to no avail.

I mentioned the possibility of loosing market share and he said he pressed the same issue. He's also well aware (along with his bosses)of your work and believes what you've contributed is very, very significant. I sensed that it was with deep regret that he couldn't persuade them otherwise... BUT, he did say he wasn't giving up on changing their minds... just yet.

It also appears that the "main" ballistician feels that the RN penetrates well enough anyway, while acknowledging that the flat tip penetrates better. It seems that the chief ballistics guy carries more weight than Ryan. So, their IS an internal struggle going on.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

What I'd be asking myself if I was one of the C-Level experts at Remglomerate Inc. is: Do serious shooters of medium+ bore rifles think of us (Remington, Barnes, Etc) first or even third when they contemplate a purchase? I think the answer has been and will continue to be definitely not. There's really no innovation going on that the public can see in either organization. The growth through aquisition model has proven terminal with the "other" dinosaur industry in the US, Automobiles.

Michael,

Yes I'm back and show was good. My legs are killing me, I walked more than on an elephant hunt. Met several guys from AR but don't ask me who. I can't remember names very well. Oh I do remember 470Eddy. All were great people and we had good time talking.Met a couple of guys that are going to build an English still double in 470 and they what to regulate it for the BBW#13s. Gave out quite a few BBW#13s and gave some to David Little of Kynamco(Kynoch) He said he would pressure test them for us. Glad I didn't stay any longer, there was a Rigby Rising Bite in 350 that was tempting me too much. Thats a double barrel for those that don't know what I'm talking about. Glad I went and hope those I met will tell me their names again to remind me.

Sam

Sam

Excellent, glad you had a good time. I really enjoyed DSC, lot's of good folks out there, no doubt, many of them right here!

quote:

the "main" ballistician feels that the RN penetrates well enough anyway,

GOOD ENOUGH? GOOD ENOUGH? Well, Maybe? Sometimes? But I am not going to settle for, "GOOD ENOUGH"!

I will let the "CHEIF Of BALLISTICS" settle for "GOOD ENOUGH"---"Good Enough", just ain't "GOOD ENOUGH" for me. Chief can take his "GOOD ENOUGH" and shove it straight up his arse! I am sure the RN will go in easy! And you can tell him I said so!

Good enough! No thanks, sorry "Dick" I don't settle for good enough!

Barnes can be replaced! There are plenty of bullets out there, hell even Woodleigh has a sort of flat nose solid!

Poor Ryan, sounds like he is trying to get water to run uphill! Too bad!


Thanks Bob for the report, I sure hate it about Barnes myself, I have been a big supporter of the banded solid FN--have used them on elephant, buffalo and hippo with great success, but I won't pollute a rifle of mine with one again. Traitors to performance! And traitors to us, but who are we? Who cares, it's "GOOD ENOUGH". My Ass!

M

Seriously Michael,

At some point you need to let us know what you really think about Barnes.



Saving pennies for a 416 B&M

SSR

quote:

I will let the "CHEIF Of BALLISTICS" settle for "GOOD ENOUGH"---"Good Enough", just ain't "GOOD ENOUGH" for me. Chief can take his "GOOD ENOUGH" and shove it straight up his arse! I am sure the RN will go in easy! And you can tell him I said so!

Could it be that the next thing in the Barnes' lineup is round balls? I hear they're awesome!

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:
Seriously Michael,

At some point you need to let us know what you really think about Barnes.



Saving pennies for a 416 B&M

SSR

CrossL

It's a shame eh? I also think a very shortsighted view. The entire world of "solids" is moving towards a flat nose design, as it is clearly superior to any other for straight line performance, and the big "B", with a superb nose profile, and 65% meplat, is moving totally "Ass Backwards". This feeding issue in "CHEAP" rifles could have been addressed with nothing but a simple education. I know this for a fact as "I" had to be educated as well. Once I learned these simple facts, I would change the "Rifle"---not the bullet! Education is the key here, not moving backwards in performance. Oh well, what do I know?


Glenn

It must have been while you were on vacation--we already did the "brass Balls" test work!

HEH

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:
Seriously Michael,

At some point you need to let us know what you really think about Barnes.



Saving pennies for a 416 B&M

SSR

CrossL

It's a shame eh? I also think a very shortsighted view. The entire world of "solids" is moving towards a flat nose design, as it is clearly superior to any other for straight line performance, and the big "B", with a superb nose profile, and 65% meplat, is moving totally "Ass Backwards". This feeding issue in "CHEAP" rifles could have been addressed with nothing but a simple education. I know this for a fact as "I" had to be educated as well. Once I learned these simple facts, I would change the "Rifle"---not the bullet! Education is the key here, not moving backwards in performance. Oh well, what do I know?


Glenn

It must have been while you were on vacation--we already did the "brass Balls" test work!

HEH

Michael

Michael:

I think that I have some of the old style 250 grain .35 caliber Barnes round nose solids that I bought for my .35 Whelen. I don't know what the new round nose bullets will be like but I would be glad to send you a few of these if you would like to test them.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:
Seriously Michael,

At some point you need to let us know what you really think about Barnes.



Saving pennies for a 416 B&M

SSR

CrossL

It's a shame eh? I also think a very shortsighted view. The entire world of "solids" is moving towards a flat nose design, as it is clearly superior to any other for straight line performance, and the big "B", with a superb nose profile, and 65% meplat, is moving totally "Ass Backwards". This feeding issue in "CHEAP" rifles could have been addressed with nothing but a simple education. I know this for a fact as "I" had to be educated as well. Once I learned these simple facts, I would change the "Rifle"---not the bullet! Education is the key here, not moving backwards in performance. Oh well, what do I know?


Glenn

It must have been while you were on vacation--we already did the "brass Balls" test work!

HEH

Michael

Michael,

I haven't read throught all of the fora for posts about the FN BBS failing to feed, but has this been a big problem and for which calibers (assuming you've read of this)? What rifles seem to be the culprits?

I forgot to add that my Weatherby Custom Safari in .416 WBY also feeds the FN BBS with no feeding issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:


CrossL

It's a shame eh? I also think a very shortsighted view. The entire world of "solids" is moving towards a flat nose design, as it is clearly superior to any other for straight line performance, and the big "B", with a superb nose profile, and 65% meplat, is moving totally "Ass Backwards". This feeding issue in "CHEAP" rifles could have been addressed with nothing but a simple education. I know this for a fact as "I" had to be educated as well. Once I learned these simple facts, I would change the "Rifle"---not the bullet! Education is the key here, not moving backwards in performance. Oh well, what do I know?


Glenn

It must have been while you were on vacation--we already did the "brass Balls" test work!

HEH

Michael

Michael:

I think that I have some of the old style 250 grain .35 caliber Barnes round nose solids that I bought for my .35 Whelen. I don't know what the new round nose bullets will be like but I would be glad to send you a few of these if you would like to test them.[/QUOTE]



Dave

I have some old style RN 35s and I think even some old RN 338s, both in 250s and they won't track any straighter than the bigger bores do. It's been some years since I tested those, but all the RN just do too much damage to the boxes and to the range when they escape the box from veering off course. I don't even like to test them anymore, all the same.


Thanks however.
M

Michael,

Was the 416 325gr NF ever tested? It might make a PG bullet to go with the CEB 350 solid and 330 non-con.

Just a thought

SSR

quote:

Michael,

I haven't read throught all of the fora for posts about the FN BBS failing to feed, but has this been a big problem and for which calibers (assuming you've read of this)? What rifles seem to be the culprits?

I forgot to add that my Weatherby Custom Safari in .416 WBY also feeds the FN BBS with no feeding issues.

Doc

I have seen very little on this myself. I know what Rugers I have will not feed them. I think CZs have a problem with them if not worked on. I have never even put one in a remington to see, since I would not have anything to do with a remington anyway.


Good to hear the Weatherbys have no issues.

None of the Winchesters I have ever had in any caliber or cartridge has ever had a problem with them. Slick as can be.

I can't really speak for anything else as I don't know.

The feeding issue was the excuse given to my source when this was "unconfirmed 100%" by a barnes rep at one of the shows.

M

Excuse please--that should be CEB 325 hollowpoint

not 330gr

SSR

Barnes going back to rounds nose sadens me greatly

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:
Michael,

Was the 416 325gr NF ever tested? It might make a PG bullet to go with the CEB 350 solid and 330 non-con.

Just a thought

SSR

CrossL

North Fork 325 Bonded core is an excellent bullet for a conventional, works very well in the 416 B&M, and I bet it would match up with the NonCon and the 350 #13 very well. I have tested these. Excellent plains game. I also have some coming in from North Fork as well. I think I have something like 2-4 boxes ordered, would have to look to confirm it. I have been looking for a photo, but can't seem to find one. Might retest when the new ones come in. Glad you reminded me of them regardless, I would like to run some PT's on them in the 416 B&M while I have wires hooked to one.

M

Now I am not a fan of or a user of Barnes bullets. They have caused more bore fowling than I want and don't shoot as accurately in my rifles as other equal or a better bullets. So I don't use them.

Saying that, it may be well to remember that Barnes is a good capitalistic company whose main goal is to make a profit. I suspect that a major part of, if not the major part of their profit margin is based on bullets sold to ammunition companies that use the bullets in factory ammo. Factory ammo must work in all of the rifles currently out there. A consumer is not going to take his rifle to have the feeding adjusted to feed FN bullets if he can simply go down to the local gun shop and buy a box of RN solids that will feed. We may not like it but those are facts of life. What needs to be done is for rifle manufacturers to adjust their rifles to feed FN solids and then advertise that fact. It just might help their sales somewhat.

465H&H

I have not been near as thorough in my documentation of data as Michael has. If I did it at all.

I have never purchased any of barny's new banded solids, but did discuss(with Michael)making some changes to their bullets--a friend gave me a couple boxes.

Several years ago I bought 4 boxes of the "old style" barnys--round nose 270gr.375 at an estate sale. Out of curiosity I made a crude bullet trap of wet telephone books a few feet long. 3-4 IIRC. I fired 4-5 shots of the round nose stuff and measured where they entered and where they exited and noted they weren't coming out where I wanted them too or where I thought they should. I had also purchased 2 boxes of some other brand factory loads with a "SledgehammerSolid". Didn't shoot them but they gave me an idea. I got out my 3/8 collet with adjustable locking stop and put a meplat on the barnys of approximately the same size. VOILA! Straight line penetration and no feeding issues whatsoever in 3 different rifles-Win, Sako, CZ.

The only thing I can figure is there is a lib in a high position at Rembarnyngton that is determined to destroy the company from the inside out. Probably some schmuck that likes A-Square round nose solids. Or it could be some time-study-bean-counter that determined whether using CNC lathes or CNC screw machines it takes more time/energy=$$$ to make a flat point verses a radius. Disregarding any evidence produced by independant labs pertaining to the performance of FN solids.

I had some feeding issues with my 600 Overkill and FN solids. It was a relatively easy fix after extending the mag box for them to fit. 800gr FNs feed fine now. My next challenge is to purchase enough of them to have fun with.........

I digress.....

Time for the collet chuck again????? NO!

If a company has a good selling product with rave reviews and they suddenly reverse course and go back to their old ways......fuck'em.

There are other companies making better products I will exchange my cash for!



'Squatch

The thing I can't figure out is why did guys like John Taylor rave about the old style copper clad round nose steel bullets (except perhaps for the .470) supplied by Kynoch if they were so bad. They seemed to work for those guys.

Those bullets were much better than a paper patched lead solid. What else did they have?

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
The thing I can't figure out is why did guys like John Taylor rave about the old style copper clad round nose steel bullets (except perhaps for the .470) supplied by Kynoch if they were so bad. They seemed to work for those guys.

Because they were better than what they had used before. We have MUCH better today

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
The thing I can't figure out is why did guys like John Taylor rave about the old style copper clad round nose steel bullets (except perhaps for the .470) supplied by Kynoch if they were so bad. They seemed to work for those guys.

Because they were better than what they had used before. We have MUCH better today

Perhaps because they worked so well they didn't see a need for anything better.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
The thing I can't figure out is why did guys like John Taylor rave about the old style copper clad round nose steel bullets (except perhaps for the .470) supplied by Kynoch if they were so bad. They seemed to work for those guys.

Because they were better than what they had used before. We have MUCH better today

Perhaps because they worked so well they didn't see a need for anything better.

465H&H

Then let's stop at the Bow and Arrow

quote:

Perhaps because they worked so well they didn't see a need for anything better

They got Jack Lott tossed

quote:

What needs to be done is for rifle manufacturers to adjust their rifles to feed FN solids and then advertise that fact. It just might help their sales somewhat.

This is a suggestion that is moving in the right direction. In fact, we want all DG rifle manufacturers to be concerned with getting their flatnose feeding smooth and reliable.

quote:

It must have been while you were on vacation--we already did the "brass Balls" test work!

Yeah, I saw the round ball tests when I was catching up.
I was making a joke at Barnes expense. Since they decided to take a step backwards from FN back to RN bullets, I was wondering what their next step backwards was. To round balls?
Aw, now it's not funny anymore.

I agree that Brand X rifle manufacturers need to improve their actions to accommodate modern ammunition. Especially if they're going to make rifles which people rely on in hunting dangerous game. Otherwise, they need to stick with BB guns. As they say, shit or get off the pot!

quote:

Otherwise, they need to stick with BB guns. As they say, shit or get off the pot!

Absolutely! The world is full of half-assed products and organizations.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

What needs to be done is for rifle manufacturers to adjust their rifles to feed FN solids and then advertise that fact. It just might help their sales somewhat.

This is a suggestion that is moving in the right direction. In fact, we want all DG rifle manufacturers to be concerned with getting their flatnose feeding smooth and reliable.

quote:

I agree that Brand X rifle manufacturers need to improve their actions to accommodate modern ammunition. Especially if they're going to make rifles which people rely on in hunting dangerous game. Otherwise, they need to stick with BB guns. As they say, shit or get off the pot!

110% Spot On!

If you claim to build a DGR---Any rifle chambered in a DGR Ctg would be considered such--Then it should function 100% with DG High Performance Bullets----End Of Story. That should be simple. If it don't--trash it! We as shooters of DGRs should demand it--If it costs a bit extra to do it proper--We should demand it and should accept NOTHING LESS. But, we must be willing to pay the price! We are going to pay it one way or the other regardless!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

Otherwise, they need to stick with BB guns. As they say, shit or get off the pot!

Absolutely! The world is full of half-assed products and organizations.

Once again--This group is on the ball! You have taught me well!

M

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

Perhaps because they worked so well they didn't see a need for anything better.

465H&H

Most just settled for what they could get, or what was available. In those times, that was the accepted norm. They had nothing to choose from better than what they had, nor did they have any concepts of anything that could have been better! Jesus Christ Almighty---look how long it took our dumb asses to catch on, Jack Carter did the SledgeHammer in the 80's right? I don't recall the exact time frame, but it has been a very long time.

Bullet tech seems to be such a SIMPLE thing--I wonder why we are so stupid for so long, myself included.

Remember the barnes X. Most awful accuracy I had ever seen. I could not get them to shoot in any caliber rifle I had. Loved the terminals--Wanted those terminals badly. However I could not count on the accuracy for crap--No Rifle, No cartridge, no accuracy. So I dropped them altogether--still have old ones in several calibers that I tried. A few little grooves and bands solved the entire issue! How simple is that? No rocket science going on here! That took years to come up with.

Get a solid to drive straight, true and deep? Flatten the nose! How stupid simple is that?

Barrel Strain On Double Rifles? Less bearing surface!

Very simple little things, but being simple is the "Genius" of the matter!

What is the "Simple" solution here, as I want my cake and I want to eat it as well, Fix the damned rifles so they feed proper, most efficient, high performance bullets. Problem solved! Simple.

M

Doc M,
USPS tracking says of the "black labs": "Delivered, January 29, 2011, 1:37 pm"

Not bad for Uncle, only 48 hrs and 7 minutes transit time, allowing for crossing from CST to EST.

Have you tried those puppies on yet?

RIP

Yes I received yesterday---Incredibly Nice! I LOVE THEM! Sent an email to you this morning, huge thank you! I will be getting photos of our NEW LAB COATS--AND TECH, this week!

Extreme! Just Extreme!

Thanks so much!

M

Guys:

I don't want to start a fight here but I think we should slow down a bit. Old "Pondoro" himself said that the perfect full-patch bullet should be slightly less round than the printed letter U. I pulled out some of my old .35 caliber Barnes original solids tonight to compare with the current Woodleigh solids I have in various claibers. While the old Barnes solids are completely round, the Woodleigh solids have a bit of a more blunt shape. I am assuming that the copper clad steel solids from Woodleigh are constructed and shaped just exactly like the bullets that came from Rigby oh so many years ago. Over the years thousands of elephants and many more thousands of head of cape buffalo have been taken with Woodleigh bullets. I think that Micheal has shown that the flat nose solids do indeed work better but that does not mean that the Woodleighs are useless. I think Michesl's test media is tougher than game.

Let's see what shape the new Barnes solids are before we judge them to quickly. Who knows, maybe they will be shaped like the Woodleighs. However, I do hope that they keep the flat nose bullets for the traditional double rifle calibers.

Doc M,
I checked email before 5 AM this morn and did not look at it again. Thanks, er, uh, you are welcome.

Dave Bush,
Them, they were giants, and they knew no better than a slightly flattened RN-FMJ "solid."
They could not "hep it," and were just making lemonaid from the lemons life gave them.
So overall, my response to your begging for toleration of RN solids will be this: The farting sound of a "raspberry."
Please, do better!