quote:

Would not being a baboon be held against me if I volunteer?

quote:

Lou Imundo said on Nov 28, 2012 9:08 AM
I just returned from a very successful safari in Zimbabwe. I hunted with my friend Sam Perone and Andrew Schoeman, who, arguably, is the best PH in Africa. I successfully hunted Cape Buffalo, Hippo, Nile Crocodile (13'3"), Baboons, Impala and a Spotted Hyena. I used my .50 B&M on the dangerous game and my Browning 30:06 on the smaller game. I used 500 gr. CEB BBW #13 brass solids and 450 gr. CEB BBW #13 NonCon HP bullets for the dangerous game. Bullet performance was outstanding. The solids passed straight through all animals. The petals on the 450 gr. NonCon HP's sheared off as they are suppossed to do and the wound channels were awesome. The 100 gr. ESP Raptors in my 30:06 were very effective on impala and baboons. I cannot say enough good things about my 50 B&M and CEB bullets. Michael's development work has raised the bar on bullet performance. Lou Imundo November 2012

quote:

More bullet talk, you know I am very enthusiastic about this new 250 gr .458 caliber #13 NoNCon, to say the least! I bothered to check SD at .170 and it is performing incredible--18 inches penetration if you recall, and reported here a few pages back. 18 Inches? Remember, a 500 gr .458 Nosler Partition, at 2250 fps from 458 Lott penetrates to 19 Inches, a 500 gr Woodleigh Soft to 20 inches! So there! If that tells you anything at all.

Right now, I am pissed at .474 caliber anything, including my own 475 B&M. So I don't give a shit about .474 right now! But, I am having SOME interest in .416 and a like bullet, so I ordered a run of 225 gr 416 #13 NonCons, bands forward, flat base, seat deep, use Talon Tips. This should be interesting I think.

That pretty much sums it up, just some Bullet Talk is all.

quote:

Seems to me most "pie" is made and DELIVERED by redneck folk!

quote:

So...the old same length/same bearing surface POI bit you in the hinny...

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

So...the old same length/same bearing surface POI bit you in the hinny...

No, just the opposite. I could not get the 450 Solid and 450 NonCon together. Same Weight, different length/bearing surface.

Same Bearing surface/length in the same hole.

M

Jim
"Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid"
John Wayne

quote:

Originally posted by Esskay:
DocM, Sam, Beibs, Cap, Rusty, RIP, and everyone else

Best Wishes for a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Safe New Year. Long may the tribes prosper!

Warm regards

quote:

michael458
one of us

Posted Dec 28, 2012 7:07 AM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by srose:
Took Michael458's son Mathew hunting today for whitetail. He was using a 458 Super Short that Michael had all set up for him. Had some kind of NON CON TIPPY THINGY of some weight in it. You'll have to get Michael to tell what it was. Well Mathew shot the nice buck quartering away and hit it in the guts right in front of the rear leg, bullet exited the front shoulder. Deer ran 40 yards how I don't know. You meat eaters better not shoot deer with the thing. Exit in the hide was .458 or close to that. Under the hide it was a pure mess with about a 4 inch hole. One petal exited the entry side about 8 inches forward of entry hole. No they can't do that. Mr. WEE WEE. Too much mess to go digging around in. About all else I can say is there was one happy McCourry today and the 458 SS is too much gun for whitetails.

Sam



Matt was excited leaving out yesterday. He dropped by, I sent him with the 458 Super Short and 15 rounds of 250 gr BBW#13 NonCon with tips, being pushed by 55/LilGun, 210 Federal, for 2712 fps in that 16 inch tube!

TOO MUCH GUN? NEVER, you can never have TOO MUCH! You might come up short if you go to the small bores, but never ever TOO MUCH! LOL................ Maybe if you guys can get one in the FRONT HALF of the deer, it won't be such a mess? Why don't you try that!

I really LIKE this 250 #13 in 458, and believe it is THE bullet for everything short of buffalo. If I was running 45/70 or there abouts, this is the only bullet I would look at for it. I was running this at 2300 in one of my Marlins, and that is smoking. Of course, no tip, so velocity drops a lot with it.

In an 18 inch 458 B&M I was at 2850 with it, tip included. Excellent bullet for 458 Win and 458 Lott for light duty work anyway. Lot's of penetration there, at velocity I was getting 16-18 inches of penetration with it at 50 yds. This deer, what 24 inches, exited? Something like that or close.

I had contact with Sam earlier this morning, they are out trying to do another one this morning.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Skip Nantz:
Hey guys! Have 375 raptors on the way for 375 Ruger Alaskan. What velocity do I need to be shooting for? (No pun intended, lol). Intended for large game, brown bear, buff backup (extra gun) . . .
Thank for all input!

Jim
"Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid"
John Wayne

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
What you will see below is a repeat of a recent post I did on the 45/70 penetration thread.
I have some information that I would like to share, but to be honest it really needs to be on a thread unto itself. It is my hope that we can all learn from this, that we can have reasonable, logical, and intelligent conversation and share ideas, concepts and experiences in which we all can maybe learn something concerning terminal performance. It is an area that I have a great deal of interest in because in the end I believe that when it comes down to it, it's not the rifle, the cartridge, it's the bullet that does the work once it strikes the target. But since there may be many of you that have not been involved in the 45/70 penetration thread, I want to set the record straight right up front so that hopefully we avoid wasting time and energy where we do not need to. So those of you that have not seen this post please read, those of you that have can move forward, at least as soon as I can post part two! I apologize for the length of this post, however I want no misunderstandings concerning this thread, and rather just nip some things before they begin. For those few that have seen this post, I apologize again, just skip over!



michael458
one of us
Posted Nov 1, 11:06 AM Hide Post
I make no claims at being any sort of expert at all concerning terminal performance of any bullets, nor terminal ballistics. I do claim to be an "avid" student of terminal ballistics however, and strive to learn as much as possible, either from others that are capable and experienced, or by my own tests and research both in the "lab" as I call it and in the field.

As stated there is no test medium that will exactly duplicate animal flesh. This is true, and rather "common" knowledge. Most hunters never test a bullet or load except by shooting game in the field. Shooting animals in the field is never a satisfactory way to conduct true and proper test work, no two shots can be alike, one may hit bone, another soft tissue, one straight on, one at an angle. This does not mean one cannot learn from field tests, quite the contrary, but this is not the arena in which to begin test work! I do not wish to go to the field "ignorant" of how any of my equipment may or may not perform, I would much prefer to have some prior knowledge of how a bullet may or may not work long before possible costly, and unethical "failures" occur in the field.

Again, for those who cannot comprehend the written word---No Test Medium Exactly Duplicates Animal Tissue! However, proper test medium will give one reasonable comparisons not only between different bullets, but will give us some insight into how a bullet may or may not perform in the field. There are many test mediums that can and have been used, Ductseal, Clay, Wooden Boards, Gelatin, wet news print, water, sand, dirt, and probably other materials I can't think of right now. Many years ago I tried some different mediums but settled on wet news print as it was readily available, reasonably easy to work with, and I believe a reasonable medium in which to put reasonable stress on a bullet for test purposes. I also decided that this would be the only medium that I would test with as I could record and keep data concerning performance, I could see wound channels, measure penetration, retain fired bullets for study. By gathering this data one could later correlate this back to findings in the field on animal tissue. Now one can do this with nearly any reasonable medium, but one has to stay with that medium and collect quite a bit of data over the years to be able to correlate the two. By "reasonable medium" I mean a test medium that will have some relevance to what you intend to accomplish in the field on targets you intend to destroy! For instance, if you are a hunter, then why would you want to test on cold rolled steel test medium??? If your intentions are to test armor piercing ammo, then by all means you need to test on a steel medium.

Being an avid student--not an expert--I have become better over the years at collecting and using my data. Twenty years ago it was enough for me to just shoot a bullet into the mix and see that it did not break up and then go hunting. Wound channels and penetration was looked at, not recorded. Ok it works, lets go to the field. Over the years I developed into recording even the impact velocities most of the time, depth of penetration, retained weight, noted wound channels-not really gathering volume of, and other information I deemed important to know. As much as possible I would also study these same bullets in animal tissue when it was possible to recover and study. There are many that exact depth of penetration, or wound channels could not be gathered, but where I could I did record this information as best as possible, and then correlate the data back to the test work done BEFORE the field tests. Over roughly a 12-15 years of shooting various critters in the field I have been able to study and gather some data that gives me a very reasonable correlation between the test work and the actual field tests on animal tissue.

There are no absolutes in our shooting world. There are far more variables to consider in the field with animal tissue and one would be a fool to say that each and every bullet will perform exactly in the field as it does in the test medium. The test medium gives us consistent medium in which to work with, it does not have bones (although this can be injected into the mix) it does not have many of the various issues that you will run into in the field. There are no absolutes! But, if one is persistent with collecting proper data, then one is able to "predict" how most bullets may or may not perform in the field, if using a reasonable medium that is pertinent to the field tests.

Field work and tests on animal tissue is the number one priority, and is without doubt the most important and the one that counts the most. This is where the metal hits the meat, this is the one that can either give you success or failure. But I can tell you this, I would not go to the field to test or shoot animal tissue with zero knowledge of how a bullet may or may not perform. It is pure ignorant and stupid to do so in my opinion.

There are some people, that believe that no valuable information can be "learned" from doing prior test work in any medium. Those people are "correct"---Those people with that attitude cannot learn anything! In the meantime the rest of us common folks can usually learn a great deal from test work done prior to field trails.

This is true with any sort of bullet, expanding, solid, and non conventional bullets.

I do not have the time nor inclination to test everything there is. I mostly work with bullets that I intend to use in the field. Keep in mind, this is my personal data, I am not testing for you--I am testing for me, I do not wish to go to the field ignorant and stupid, and suffer possible failure in the field due to that. I also do not go to the field (normally) with bullets that have failed or performed less than expected in the test work in wet print medium. I have in my more ignorant youth done this on a few occasions, I did not listen to my test work, and I had those same miserable failures in the field every single time! Fortunately I am a decent student and sometimes I even learn from my mistakes. I take test work pretty seriously, regardless of whether it is simple load data when working up loads, cartridge development, bullet design and development, and of course terminal performance data. After all, it is the bullet that will make you successful or not. It is good to know the operating ranges of different bullets, especially with todays high velocity capable cartridges, and I think even more important with our big bore cartridges, which may be used in somewhat dangerous circumstances.

I shoot mostly big bore cartridges from 416-.500 caliber, and have paid a lot of attention to 458 and my own .500 caliber cartridges over the years. In particular the .500s in which proper dangerous game bullets had to be designed, as there were none available on a commercial basis. I dabble in other calibers from time to time, mostly .338, .358 and recently .366. Very little but some work done in small bore under .338 caliber.

You will see a reasonable variety of bullets available on my shelves.


I have a passion for Winchester M70s as most of you know, but I do love the lever guns, and the single shots, mostly Winchester 1885s and Ruger #1s. All of which are in bigger bore diameters.

I have an outdoor range behind my house with test benches at 50 yds, 100 yds, and 150 yds. Very little work is done there anymore, as I do most of the research and test work on my personal 50 yard indoor range with test benches at 25 yds and 50 yds. I have 3 chronographs set up to collect data at both these points and also one down range should I need to collect impact velocities.



The range is a complete facility set up to do load data and various other types of test work, which does include pressure tests when desired or needed.

I have over the years of doing the test work been fortunate enough to be able to put bullet to animal tissue, and be able to create some "rules of Thumb" to correlate back to the terminal performance tests done with my wet print mix, which for the last 5-6 yrs has consisted of a mix of 65-70% wet news print and 30-35% catalogs/magazine mix. This just happens to coincide with an increase of 30-35% tougher than wet news print alone. The paper of the catalogs/magazines being thicker, glossy, and tougher overall. The following is a "rule of thumb" only, but from bullets recovered from animal tissue I find that one can expect from 80% to 100% more penetration in animal tissue than this wet print mix I use, for expanding bullets. For solid bullets one can expect 30-35% deeper penetration in animal tissue than that of the wet print mix. This data base is continuing to grow each year, as stated I consider it a "rule of thumb" and NOT an absolute! For expanding bullets I have found that a bullet tested in wet print mix expands and reacts very close, very similar, and sometimes indistinguishable from those found in animal tissue. How it expands and performs in the wet print mix is almost identical in every case to what a bullet will look like when recovered from animal tissue. Exceptions being bullets hit by bone. At times I add items that will put some bullets under more stress than normal wet print mix. I do this by adding some pieces of wood about 2-4 inches inside the front of the mix. No, this is not bone, but it does tend to put a particular bullet under more stress than normal to see how it reacts. It might just tell me if a bullet will break up on a 2X4 then it will for sure break up on bone, which is more dense and solid than a normal piece of pine 2X4 or even sometimes a 4X4. I have also stressed some solids with a piece of fiberboard up front (after initial positive tests in wet print mix alone) which is extremely dense, more so than bone, just to see if I could stress the bullet to the point of failure to penetrate properly. If it failed this test--THEN IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE--MIND YOU "POSSIBLE" it could fail in the field. A bullet that could pass all the stress tests, would be very very likely to be successful in the field. However, as stated, there are no absolutes!

I have been able to collect a good many samples to be able to compare wet print bullets with animal tissue bullets;









These are but a few examples, I have many many more in from which to draw, and in nearly every case, correlating data can be drawn between wet print bullets to animal tissue bullets. Factors such as impact velocity in the field needs to be taken into account also.

My experience in the field includes calibers such as 6.5X55, 6.5 WSM, 308 Winchester, 300 WInchester, 300 Dakota, 338 Winchester, 358 STA, 35 Whelen, 38/55, 416 Remington, 416 B&M, 45 ACP, 45 Colt, 45/70, 458 Winchester, 458 B&M, 458 Lott, 50 B&M, 500 MDM. Of these calibers my percentage of animals taken is 8.78% with calibers of .308 and less, 27.03% taken with calibers from .338-.358, and 64.19% taken with .416-.500 caliber. By far the majority of my field experience is with the larger bores. As for my test work although I have tested many different bullets in several calibers, my main interests lie in 338-.500 caliber, and by far leans toward the large bores also. 71% of animals I have taken are with Winchester rifles. Some data to show where my interests are.

It is my hope that I will be able to continue to learn, study, and advance in my studies. Again none of this makes me an expert by any stretch of the imagination. I have done enough to have some fairly reasonable opinions on some matters. I shoot regular, each week. If I am in a serious load data session then I may have several sessions a week, shooting anywhere from 150-250 rounds a week, mostly big bore cartridges. Last year one way I was able to keep up with how many rounds went down range, either in the field, but mostly on the range, I had purchased 5000 Fed 215 primers--90% of which are used in 416 calibers and up, and also 5000 Fed 210 Primers in February of 2008. Those 5000 Fed 215s ran out in July of 2009, and I had fired 3000 of the Fed 210s--which for the most part were in cartridges such as the 50 B&M Super Short and 50 B&M Alaskans, along with some in other minor cartridges. That is 8000 rounds of rifle shooting in 17-18 months roughly. Now I do admit that was a bit much, but I was also doing a tremendous amount of work on my own various cartridges in 416 B&M--458 B&M--50 B&M--50 B&M Alaskan--50 B&M Super Short-and the 500 MDM during this time.

I really do not care if you agree or disagree with my methods, or any of the work I do here. I do not do it for you! I do not do it for $$. I am not in the gun, bullet, cartridge, business in any way, shape, form, nor fashion! I do this for myself, my own curiosity, to further my knowledge, to increase my potential for success in the field, and because I enjoy it most of all! Not for you! For those that are willing to learn, or would like for me to share my information I am more than happy to do so, it is in my nature to help anyone I can if desired. But what I will not stand for is for someone with very little test experience, or none, to attempt to discredit the things I choose to do. If you do not agree, fine, no issues with that, state it and move on. I stand behind the work 100% on the basis as I have stated several times. I have stated many times, see above this post, no test medium is equal to animal tissue, it is a test to compare performance of different bullets, if you do enough of this with nearly any reasonable test medium, then you can correlate data between animal tissue and test medium of your choice. Again, there are no absolutes, but I choose to NOT be ignorant when going to the field, what you choose is up to you, and really I could care less what you choose to do. This is my choice.

I keep complete data records and separate files on every rifle being shot and tested from the first shot to the last on each rifle. All load data is recorded after each range session, or field test and kept on separate spreads sheets per cartridge, divided within that per rifles individual data. These are all on computer, and backed up daily to two other hard drives. In addition books are kept in hard copy and new sheets printed out with each new entry within the cartridge/rifle category. One cannot possibly keep up with such a data base by memory. There are many times I refer to a file folder on a rifle just to see where and what it is sighted in for last. But the info is there and available when I need it.

Also as most of you know SSK Industries (AKA JD Jones & Company) does all my work for my rifles. I have been extremely fortunate to become closer to JD and have learned a great deal from a true master, with experience most of us could only dream about, both in shooting, test work, and field experience. In many ways I think JD has taken me somewhat under his wing and I have to say that it has been a pleasure learning from him too! Without his assistance and that of Brian Alberts with SSK I would be far more ignorant, and many of the great bullets we have designed together for my .500s would be far less effective than they have proven to be. To be associated with such great people as that has been a wonderful and great learning experience for me. I have also had the great pleasure to be able to assist JD when he wanted some samples of other things tested both here at my range and in the field. There have been several occasions I have had this opportunity and it has been a pleasure for me.

Michael