quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Fouling buildup isn't a factor in Michael's guns. HE NEVER CLEANS THEM!

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Fouling buildup isn't a factor in Michael's guns. HE NEVER CLEANS THEM!

I totally agree with him.
Gun cleaning is highly overrated

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Yes No ?? Different order???

Very repeatable. Will not get the same results--No telling where a bullet might strike after being destabilized?

Order?? Not sure what you mean.

By order I meant doing a test starting with some of the 'bad' and proceding to the good. I know that this shouldn't make a difference, but it would be good to check repeatability. That would rule out things like fouling build-up.

However, it might be that some bullets are more unstable at different muzzle velocities. You have already noted how the POI moves around. That often fluctuates with velocity and powder because of barrel harmonics. What we want to do is to remove the influence of bullets that leave the muzzle 'not yet ready to sleep' vs. bullets that leave at the right harmonic and 'ready to sleep'.

It may take a little work and experience to get a handle on the factors, just like with meplat and 13-degree, rounded edges.

Tan,

Your order request makes sense as that may eliminate some of the naysayers arguments...but those that will complain will still complain. It will however solidify the testing process so would be of value...at least for an initial verification.

Barrel harmonics...with both the thickness and shortness of Michael's barrels this is likely not an issue...though we're they at 24"+ it likely would be an issue. Alternately...by keeping each round to the same loading does eliminate the variable that Michael is cherry picking his loadings.

That said...simply for discussion sake (Michael still has to do the heavy lifting in this process)... An accepted standard is required so would it be "acceptable" to just modify the loading for each bullet so that they shot to the same POI as the CEB BBW# 13 bullets? If not, what would be the standard? And what is to be done regarding the different velocities relating to the different bullets?

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Fouling buildup isn't a factor in Michael's guns. HE NEVER CLEANS THEM!

CLEAN A BIG BORE RIFLE????




What the F**K would you do that for?

OK, here is proper big bore cleaning

If you shoot lead in a big bore, clean it with a jacketed bullet, maybe two or three. Cleaned.

If you get copper running out the muzzle end from shooting too many Barnes TSXs, then shoot 3 Brass BBW#13s--Cleaned.

If you are in Alaska for 3 days and rust is running out the muzzle, don't worry about it, soon as you shoot your animal all the rust will go away. When you get home afterwards, let the rifle sit for 2 months to make sure all the rusting it's going to do is done and then go shoot some Brass BBW#13s--cleaned.

I can't see any reason to do anything else, other than of course one does wipe the crap out of the action so you make sure to feed and function, you can do this about every 500 rounds or so. Good to go!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

By order I meant doing a test starting with some of the 'bad' and proceding to the good. I know that this shouldn't make a difference, but it would be good to check repeatability.

So just repeat the test again? It makes no difference about the order done?

quote:

That would rule out things like fouling build-up.

Go quickly to the medicine cabinet! Hurry along now! Take a pill! Any pill! Just take a pill! You will feel better soon!

quote:

You have already noted how the POI moves around.

POI moves because I am shooting all weights of bullets--450, 500, 425. I measure the deflection from the POI of that bullet, that is why I shoot two of them first so as to get an exact POI. It does not matter where POI is.

Take another pill!

HEH............

Now I must get back to work!

Oh, I have here now, production runs of .257-70 grs, .264-100 grs, .338--200 grs, Raptors! No, you cannot have any of them, they are mine! I did not get any for any of you---You have to get your own, I have mine, how'd you make out?

Waiting on big run of 9.3 210 Raptors, and big run of both 40 and 50 gr 223 Raptors! They are all mine, you will have to get your own!

Michael

I seem to remember asking a simliar question about fouling or was it fowling, Thanks Michael..lol

Fowling? Nah, ain't had no problems with chickens and such getting in the bore yet! If so, just shoot'em outs all! I reckon you would have to put some grease on one to stuff'im in there too!

Those 200 grain 338s are sweet. The new 100 grain 30 cal should be cool too.

quote:

Originally posted by Seasons44:
I seem to remember asking a simliar question about fouling or was it fowling, Thanks Michael..lol

Fowling? Nah, ain't had no problems with chickens and such getting in the bore yet! If so, just shoot'em outs all! I reckon you would have to put some grease on one to stuff'im in there too!

Now that you mention it........Seems I do recall! HEH HEH............



Boomy

quote:

The new 100 grain 30 cal should be cool too.

Got a pile of those coming too!

M

A 100 grain 30 cal bullet @2700 fps from your 30-30 should be great for defense, deer, raccoons and crow. It seems the 130 grain is a bit overkill for deer . Seriously the 100 grain 30 cal is perfect for the 300 Blackout for 200 yard anti personnel lethality.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
A 100 grain 30 cal bullet @2700 fps from your 30-30 should be great for defense, deer, raccoons and crow. It seems the 130 grain is a bit overkill for deer . Seriously the 100 grain 30 cal is perfect for the 300 Blackout for 200 yard anti personnel lethality.

My 30-30s have 16 inch barrels, I don't think it will make 2700. But regardless thereof, the100 Raptor will turn the old 30-30 into a completely different animal than what it is now! That is a fact.

M

With the nominal 22" barrel I would think 2,700 is easily achievable
http://www.leverguns.com/artic...paco/3030varmint.htm

Maybe this load could help you get some good velocity in your short barrel.

quote:

Using the Hornady half jacket soft nose 100 grain plinking bullet over 39 grains of A2015 gives close to the magic 3000 fps...still in 20 inch rifles. This load scares coyotes into deep respect for the far reach of leveraction rifles.....Hornady’s number for this bullet is 3005. With a 3 inch high at 100 yards it is on at 300 yards and down 20 inches at 400 yards...ouch that’s good....and we are still talking a 30-30! With a 1 ½ inch high at 100 yards it is down a measured 11 inches at 300 yards. Brush gun, isn’t that the phrase some use? I think I have mentioned before the adjective I use to describe how I feel about that phrase, and those that refuse to believe the 30-30's real ballistic potentials.

The 100 and 130 grain raptor have revolutionized the 30-30. I would now hunt brown bear, Elk and even varnmits with an accurate modern 30-30 lever action. The 30-30 can now do so much more. I would say 90% of all the Americas hunting could be covered with the thuddy thuddy now. Estimating lethality is difficult but it seems the Raptors have doubled the lethality of some rounds.

The 30-30 is a completly new animal.look foward seeing more field terminals in the future for all the raptors and non-cons

I am gonna have to wait for .430 low velocity non-con..My 44 mag carbine is dreaming of the day, for now 270 deepcurls will be my pig medicne in a few weeks..

There would have to be a copper alloy for the handgun bullets.
I have a few designs up my sleeve for handgun bullets :-)

Why Copper alloy?
Would this be do to lengh restrictions?

Would Brass have a longer overall lengh, and what would the finished weight be around, 180?

Sorry to get off topic this is what engeneering classes will do to your brain along with food writting, Back to brush deflection..

Boomstick!
Hush! Think of all the married men who use the excuse of different game needing a different caliber. You are cutting them off at the knees!

Brass and pistol bullets are a no no.
Considered AP
I am not sure about length but weight is a means and not an end.

quote:

Originally posted by Seasons44:
Why Copper alloy?
Would this be do to lengh restrictions?

Would Brass have a longer overall lengh, and what would the finished weight be around, 180?

Sorry to get off topic this is what engeneering classes will do to your brain along with food writting, Back to brush deflection..

Quick question!

Are these brass bullets any harder on barrels?

Regards
Mark

Probably not any worse than any other bullet. In big bores you will never shoot enough to know. In a match rifle who knows, that would be interesting to see what the round count would be to shoot out a bore.

quote:

Originally posted by Coloradoyaler:
Quick question!

Are these brass bullets any harder on barrels?

Regards
Mark

I don't think they are hard on barrels. I have shot 1000s on top of 1000s of them and I don't have a big bore that won't put 3 in a hole at 50 yds-- IF I DO MY PART--Big If!

I can't say much about small bores, and don't really give care, but I don't believe you will ever in your life shoot enough of them to make a distinction between brass and other.

They give very little barrel strain, that has to mean something along those lines.

Michael

Re: brass bullets

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

They give very little barrel strain, that has to mean something along those lines.

Michael

Brass bullets have much lower "start pressure" in the QuickLOAD simulations, and I expect in real internal ballistics too: Brass monometal is slicker/less friction/greater "lubricity" than copper monometal or jacketed cup&core soft.
That has got to be easier on the barrel.

Nice stick work. What's next?

I think the fact that tere is only engraving on the bands helps with al this. Unlike the old Barnes solids I have which are just plain brass with no bands and have to engrave on the entire surface.

There has been much bashing of "Energy" numbers. Most is warranted I think. Most that is. Newbies are impressed with comparing FPE of a fast bullet. But how does bullet energy translate into "Killing power"? With the advent of the magnum craze thanks to the likes of Weatherby tougher bullets had to be created. But did all that extra energy translate into killing power? The reason I bring this up is my thinking about how "Non Cons" kill. Seeing what a 40 grain Raptor 22 caliber bullet did to a deer at 4,000 fps was shocking. It made me think about how Non Cons deliver energy to the game. Raptors and Non Con DG brass bullets love velocity. The faster the better it seems. The hollow point brass bullets can really translate energy to killing power. The faster they are driven the greater the damage. The hollow point is designed to function down to 1,600 fps but at 3,000 and above impact velocity they just can do some amazing damage it seems. The greater the pressure inside the hollow cavity the more dramatic the affect. This may seem elementary but what other kind of bullet can you say delivers greater killing power at higher speeds. You may get a bit more and maybe more penetration but the brass hollow points blow the rest away it seems. Liken it to an M80 going off at lower velocities and a full stick at high velocity. There are a few reasons why people like high velocity but if you want to turn that energy into something impressive I would want to shoot the Raptors. What say you?

Boomy

As you know, energy numbers are relatively meaningless. Let's say we have two bullets, same caliber, same weight, same velocity, but different construction. Solid vs NonCon. Both at the same velocity--now they have the exact same energy number. Which one will transfer more trauma or energy to target? Both use that energy in different ways, one to drive straight and deep, the other to transfer trauma destroying tissue. While early on I spoke frequently about energy transfer, however I was not speaking of energy number transfer, but a more proper term I believe is transfer of trauma to target, so that has been the way I defined that transfer, Trauma transfer.

True, while the NonCons work extremely well at the lower velocities, the more velocity they have, the more they chew. It seems there is no upper end, not that mere humans can create in our shooting sticks anyway. I will say it again, I have never seen anything like it. I only thought it was incredible when doing the test work and the things it did to the medium, after being in the field it's another story. However I really only got to shoot 1 thin skinned critter with the NonCons on my last trip, I am leaving first of April to do some shooting with the 9.3 B&M and 210 Raptors and a 500 MDM and I think I will have some 400 Raptors, all thin skinned critters. Currently out of the 19 inch 9.3 gun I am getting 2900 + with the 210 Raptor, should be interesting I think.

Michael.

Well I can tell you the NonCons don't really like going through multiple sticks! But neither does any other expanding bullet! I did complete the X3 stick test with all the available to me expanding .474 caliber bullets. None of them really like going through sticks, translates to brush in the field. I venture to say that most would do a decent job if you encounter one small piece of brush and the target not far behind, but going through 3 pieces is very upsetting to all. The best of the expanding type bullets were the North Fork CPS (Cup Points), remember, the ones that North Fork and I designed for the B&Ms in .500 and .474 caliber do expand similar to a conventional expansion, somewhat smaller which drives penetration-which I like and value penetration greatly! Really no surprise they did well, I expected them to. The BBW#13 NonCons are releasing so much trauma transfer that 3 sticks are a bit much and cause them to go unstable. Every shot was like clearing brush, the sticks would totally disappear and a path made to target you could clearly see through. HEH..... Blades went everywhere of course, some blades went completely through 3/4 " plywood. The transfer of trauma was so devastating that even some busted splinters from the sticks became embedded into the plywood!!!!! I must take a photo of that! Incredible.

Here is the data on the expanding bullets and how much they deflected. I used the 475 B&M Super Short for some of the lighter bullets at Super Short Velocities. One stand out was the little 320 BBW#13 NonCon, it did not destabilize and looked great, bigger NonCons did destabilize 2/3.






Also used the Super Short for the two lighter solids, 350 BBW#13 and 375 North Fork. So here is the updated .474 caliber Solid data.

I am actually at odds as to whether to proceed with this test of brush deflection or not? I had planned to take it to 458/500/416. But I think it will be more of the same as what we see here, and wonder if it's a waste of time that might be spent better in other areas? All are going to deflect some, some more than others, and the end lesson is to not shoot through brush, all bullets can and will be affected. We know that already.

What I am thinking that might be of more value is this, instead of conducting the 4 caliber test, all with 3 sticks, solids/expanding or noncons, I am thinking continue with .474 caliber and instead of 3 sticks, take it to TWO sticks and see what happens in comparison to THREE sticks. Then, possibly even down to ONE stick, maybe!

Then instead of repeating the same in .458 and .500, which I don't think will be much different than .474 caliber--take it down to 416 Caliber and conduct the test there. Once again, 3 sticks then two sticks, and maybe throw some terminals in with those that are affected the least.

This would give us one bigger bore, and a smaller bigger bore to see how much caliber makes a difference, and then going to 2 sticks to see how much effect that has as well.

What do you guys think about the change of plan? Should we continue the test at all? Just take the data we have now, and don't shoot through brush? Don't shoot through brush anyway regardless of course, even one stick can effect I am sure.

Michael

Question
Did you try one stick with the Non Con?
Was wondering if all petals sheer on the first stick.

Oh, and while I am not sure some of you paid attention to this on the B&M thread, I mentioned the other day that I had busted yet another Leupold 1.5X5 VX3. True, using the 475 B&M Super Short for the Stick tests with the lighter .474 bullets, the scope exploded inside, or that is what it looks like, actually what happens is the focus explodes above 3X, below 3X focus comes back in and it appears fine. POI did not change that I was able to notice. If so it was maybe 1/2 inch, but that is not confirmed as of yet. Since I am doing some test work, I will continue with the scope below 3X. I doubt the Super Short busted the scope, I don't know where or what that scope was on before the Super Short. It has been on the Super Short from the beginning, probably 300+ rounds at least with the Super Short. Shake, Rattle, and Roll! Nikon is still holding with the 475 B&M. Just FYI. First Leupold of the year!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Question
Did you try one stick with the Non Con?
Was wondering if all petals sheer on the first stick.

I have only done 3 sticks in any test thus far.


Since we turned a page;

OPINIONS on this?

quote:

I am actually at odds as to whether to proceed with this test of brush deflection or not? I had planned to take it to 458/500/416. But I think it will be more of the same as what we see here, and wonder if it's a waste of time that might be spent better in other areas? All are going to deflect some, some more than others, and the end lesson is to not shoot through brush, all bullets can and will be affected. We know that already.

What I am thinking that might be of more value is this, instead of conducting the 4 caliber test, all with 3 sticks, solids/expanding or noncons, I am thinking continue with .474 caliber and instead of 3 sticks, take it to TWO sticks and see what happens in comparison to THREE sticks. Then, possibly even down to ONE stick, maybe!

Then instead of repeating the same in .458 and .500, which I don't think will be much different than .474 caliber--take it down to 416 Caliber and conduct the test there. Once again, 3 sticks then two sticks, and maybe throw some terminals in with those that are affected the least.

This would give us one bigger bore, and a smaller bigger bore to see how much caliber makes a difference, and then going to 2 sticks to see how much effect that has as well.

What do you guys think about the change of plan? Should we continue the test at all? Just take the data we have now, and don't shoot through brush? Don't shoot through brush anyway regardless of course, even one stick can effect I am sure.

Michael

Maybe one stick at an angle ?

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Question
Did you try one stick with the Non Con?
Was wondering if all petals sheer on the first stick.

I have only done 3 sticks in any test thus far.


Since we turned a page;

OPINIONS on this?

quote:

I am actually at odds as to whether to proceed with this test of brush deflection or not? I had planned to take it to 458/500/416. But I think it will be more of the same as what we see here, and wonder if it's a waste of time that might be spent better in other areas? All are going to deflect some, some more than others, and the end lesson is to not shoot through brush, all bullets can and will be affected. We know that already.

What I am thinking that might be of more value is this, instead of conducting the 4 caliber test, all with 3 sticks, solids/expanding or noncons, I am thinking continue with .474 caliber and instead of 3 sticks, take it to TWO sticks and see what happens in comparison to THREE sticks. Then, possibly even down to ONE stick, maybe!

Then instead of repeating the same in .458 and .500, which I don't think will be much different than .474 caliber--take it down to 416 Caliber and conduct the test there. Once again, 3 sticks then two sticks, and maybe throw some terminals in with those that are affected the least.

This would give us one bigger bore, and a smaller bigger bore to see how much caliber makes a difference, and then going to 2 sticks to see how much effect that has as well.

What do you guys think about the change of plan? Should we continue the test at all? Just take the data we have now, and don't shoot through brush? Don't shoot through brush anyway regardless of course, even one stick can effect I am sure.

Michael

I believe that the new plan would be better, the thing that you have learned so far that I see is NOT to shoot threw stick as the results are not predictable.

the revised test would give a good data spread but not be exhausting to no point.

Like you said--Dont shoot threw brush



SSR

Mike,
I concur with cutting back the test. Why not try the next test, though, with only one stick? This may show enough of a difference and cut down your work load.
Boomy's question on opening up of noncons is a valid point. If they open up immediately on brush, they lose out and your statement of not shooting through brush with them is a non-negotiable.
Max

Good points from Boomy and Max. Concur on just the two caliber testing...also concur on the single stick test for each caliber with the NonCons to verify if petals separate with initial impact. Good stuff...good reminders re: shooting through brush.

I think Michael has correctly spelled out the way to handle shooting through brush, just don't do it. Saying that, I can also see the case where it may be necessary and sometimes life saving such as when being charged by a DG animal.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I am actually at odds as to whether to proceed with this test of brush deflection or not? I had planned to take it to 458/500/416. But I think it will be more of the same as what we see here, and wonder if it's a waste of time that might be spent better in other areas? All are going to deflect some, some more than others, and the end lesson is to not shoot through brush, all bullets can and will be affected. We know that already.

What I am thinking that might be of more value is this, instead of conducting the 4 caliber test, all with 3 sticks, solids/expanding or noncons, I am thinking continue with .474 caliber and instead of 3 sticks, take it to TWO sticks and see what happens in comparison to THREE sticks. Then, possibly even down to ONE stick, maybe!

Then instead of repeating the same in .458 and .500, which I don't think will be much different than .474 caliber--take it down to 416 Caliber and conduct the test there. Once again, 3 sticks then two sticks, and maybe throw some terminals in with those that are affected the least.

This would give us one bigger bore, and a smaller bigger bore to see how much caliber makes a difference, and then going to 2 sticks to see how much effect that has as well.

What do you guys think about the change of plan? Should we continue the test at all? Just take the data we have now, and don't shoot through brush? Don't shoot through brush anyway regardless of course, even one stick can effect I am sure.

Michael

Michael,

I actually think it would be very helpful to repeat this same test with larger and smaller calibers. Except I would make the spread of calibers a bit greater. Perhaps Sam's 577NE throwing .585 CEB #13s at 2,050fps as well as whatever other .585s could be scrounged up. You have already disproven the "lack of penetration" disorder brought upon the ultra bores by poor component (i.e. bullet) choice. Now it's time to address "brush bucking" in these behemoths.

Doc,

Not sure there’s any need for smaller than .416 caliber as Michael is already substantiating what has been known for quite some time – ‘don’t shoot through brush unless you absolutely can’t get around it’ – that said, I do believe it would be interesting to see what would happen with a .577/.585 through Michael’s stick box.

Is there a value to this testing? I’d say yes and that place is – as 465H7H pointed out – a close range DG charge where the selection of the ‘right’ bullet just might save your bacon and or that of your guide, hunting partner, or PH!

Michael,
The Expanding Bullet/NonCon’ Stick Testing is most definitely of value! Why? Very simple. What is the probability that the shooter will have an expanding bullet or NonCon in the tube and magazine when that close range DG charge in brush takes place from a toothy animal with claws vis-à-vis shooting solids? I don’t expect the shooter will be using solids against cats and bears. Buffalo? – Who knows – I don’t think it likely these days that a solid will be in the tube but I do know you like to have solids in the magazine to follow up your NonCon against buffalo. Elephant? – Obviously solids in tube and magazine.

So…from 25yds in show us the targets so we’ll have an idea whether the bullet deviations from POI will likely be lethal against those toothy critters with claws!

Anyway that’s my 2¢.

Keep the thoughts and Ideas on this going, I am paying attention, but I am also looking and picking what I think can be done, and what is best to do.

Right now, I am down to the 1 Stick as being a viable test.

In at least some of my Stick Shoots in the field, it has been only one stick--I found some, even brought them home with me on occasion. One was a twig 1/4 inch, it turned a 150 gr 308 that missed POI by at least 2 ft at 10-15 ft. One was a single stick, about 3/4 inch that turned a .500 on a buffalo about 20 ft behind into thankfully a complete miss, I have that stick. Another was about a 3 inch diameter tree that the bullet passed completely thru hitting a moose some 10 + yds behind it. Dead center hit on that, I have that section of tree as well.

So I am back to a 1 stick test. Most likely redo most of the 474 again with one stick.

I can tell you now, 3 sticks will F**K them all! Nothing is immune to 3! But Our BBW#13s and our North Fork Solids did very very good with 3!

Keep on, will make a decision on procedure as the ideas keep coming. But for sure, we drop to one and go again.

M

1" boards 3" apart at a 45 degree angle should be quite telling. How many boards could it go through before becoming unstable.

Big bore Raptors are on the way.

Dan and Crew have been working with, already shooting the 458 Raptors, a 300 and 350. Nathan is shooting the 300 Raptor in his 458 B&M, 71/RL 7, 2650 fps, 18 inch barrel. But seems the 350 might be a bit long for the 458 B&M??? I have both prototypes on the way, we will see how they do. Seems Nathan shot a 3/4-1 inch group at 100 with the 300s right off the bat. This is going to be a hell of a bullet. There won't be a 300 out there to match it's terminal performance! The 350 may be better suited to the larger capacity 458s.

A full production run of .474 caliber 375 gr Raptors and .500 400 gr Raptors have been done and are also on the way here. Not sure if those are not a bit heavy or long for the B&Ms--I suppose we will find out eh!

Along with these, there are 224 40 & 50 Raptors, large order of 9.3 210 Raptors I need for ammo and this upcoming trip, and the 308 100 gr Raptor order all coming in this week.


Right now, with this in mind, and I only have a few weeks before getting on an airplane, then all stick related tests are now on hold. We will be working and testing these Raptors for the foreseeable future, and I will be getting them ready for the field first of April. So hold your thoughts on Sticks for the time being, we will return to sticks later.

Michael

Michael,

When you are doing your testing. Is all the shooting off your shoulder or do you use some mechanical rests like lead sleds?

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Oh, and while I am not sure some of you paid attention to this on the B&M thread, I mentioned the other day that I had busted yet another Leupold 1.5X5 VX3. True, using the 475 B&M Super Short for the Stick tests with the lighter .474 bullets, the scope exploded inside, or that is what it looks like, actually what happens is the focus explodes above 3X, below 3X focus comes back in and it appears fine. POI did not change that I was able to notice. If so it was maybe 1/2 inch, but that is not confirmed as of yet. Since I am doing some test work, I will continue with the scope below 3X. I doubt the Super Short busted the scope, I don't know where or what that scope was on before the Super Short. It has been on the Super Short from the beginning, probably 300+ rounds at least with the Super Short. Shake, Rattle, and Roll! Nikon is still holding with the 475 B&M. Just FYI. First Leupold of the year!

Michael