I will start us off tonight light! Talk about fun to shoot.
This is one of the Woodleigh Black Powder bullets.

Picking up the pace some. Penetration was excellent with that amount of expansion!

No surprises here.

These are a couple of bullets that Sam made for the rifle. One being a Flat Nose design the other being a Cup Point, brass, different bands. I had some cup points some of my .500s, not much difference in penetration of those, some less with the Cup Point, but there was a very dramatic difference in the amount of penetration between these two, with the Flat Nose design driving much deeper. Both 100% dead straight penetration. I was surprised at the amount of difference in the penetration of the two bullets, and the only difference the little dip in the nose! Pretty amazing I think! A little more trauma and damage to the wound cavity than any of the solids tested was obtained with the Cup Point. The Cup Point expending energy displacing material in it's path slowed it down far quicker than the Flat Nose, therefore less penetration. Never loosing stability. Yes, I must measure and document the meplat size and percentages, no I have not got to it yet, but will.



Now again (for some I would have to repeat it a 1000 times) I am no double expert, don't own one, and what I know about doubles you can put on the end of a pencil lead! That said, documented, I want to show you these two bullets, the brass mono Sam made for this 577 and the Woodleigh FMJ. Take a look at the bearing surface. Sam certainly is of the opinion that the brass bullet would be easier on the barrels because of this. I don't know, but seem logical to me. Again, no skin off my tail, and while I have an opinion, I don't want anyone to run me off the double forum again because someone might think I am proclaiming myself some sort of expert!

I am suprised the front sites are still on those Doubles, thought you would have cut about 4" of barrel off when Sam was not looking.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
I am suprised the front sites are still on those Doubles, thought you would have cut about 4" of barrel off when Sam was not looking.

MM,
it just CANZT be truthful, that you got more and straighter penetration with a FN solid than an RN solid, and the RN was going faster ... it just can't be true.. i heard it form an unsual source! You are making it up!

OK, now let's move to Sam's 375 B&M and some really old, what we think is some Trophy Bonded, although there were actually two different, but same, bullets in the mix. Sam obtained these in some bulk buy out of stock at some point. Some in this batch actually had a T on the nose, others did not. The performance of these bullets DO NOT REFLECT ON ANY OF THE NEW TROPHY BONDED SLEDGEHAMMERS if in fact some of these are TBS bullets?? Which is somewhat in question? 1:12 Twist rate, so I think any instability has to do with the shape of the meplat, some of these are somewhat rounded as you can see. So while this was good fun, I think it is not indicative of performance of newer bullets or newer manufacture. Of a more interesting note Sam has very easily achieved 2550 fps in his 375 B&M with a 20 inch barrel. I suppose for 375 caliber this is a good goal for a 300? Then take into account the size of the rifle? I will report more on that on the B&M thread later.

Everyone on the DR board should see this.
These pice are worth a 1,000 words x 1,000

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
I am suprised the front sites are still on those Doubles, thought you would have cut about 4" of barrel off when Sam was not looking.

Sam knew better Mike! I was never alone with the rifles long enough to get the hacksaw out. I had it hidden and close by, but he would never leave me and the rifles alone together. He did not even go to the bathroom and leave me with the rifles. I was ready, but opportunity never came.

Man I saw the photos of your rifle, that "Boswell" thingy of yours, I was having visions of 18-20 inch barrels, just think how handy that would be? Just think how much lighter, shorter, faster handling it would be!!!!!!

Why on the 577 alone if you took 4 inches or more off that it would loose about 10 lbs of weight with that alone!


HEH!!!!!!!!!!! YIPPIE KY YAY!!!!!!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
MM,
it just CANZT be truthful, that you got more and straighter penetration with a FN solid than an RN solid, and the RN was going faster ... it just can't be true.. i heard it form an unsual source! You are making it up!

Jeffe

I hate to be them messenger of bad news, as you well know, but on this one that is all I am, SAM MEASURED THIS, all I did was write it down, and post it here. In fact, I can't even be blamed for doing the shooting, Sam shot, measured, dug them out and all I did was direct, and record! That damn Sam is pretty good help, I think I will keep him around!

But to be honest, there was no surprise at all on that, rather typical and certainly predictable.

M

a 20" double barrel would be quite short! about 3 to 4" shorter than a bolt of the same barrel length. Would look like a coach gun.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
a 20" double barrel would be quite short! about 3 to 4" shorter than a bolt of the same barrel length. Would look like a coach gun.

Now that's what I'm talking about!

HEH HEH

OK Sam had some 470 Nitro loaded up with the 500 Hornady DGS and as I recall we pretty much got the same results that Mike got with his. I do have the twist rates on these guns at 1:18. Mike, no appreciable difference in our test. Something about the 500 Hornady in 470 that is not quite there, meplat size and twist rates currently at question in my mind. But, there could be something else,not yet identified. Regardless this is LEAPS and BOUNDS better than some other alternatives as far as I am concerned.

AND NOW MY MOST FAVORITE OF THE DAY>>>>>>>> DRUM ROLL PLEASE.........................


Boys and Girls, I don't know! Meplat small for caliber, I recall 57%. Sam says he is sure the twist is 1;18. This is phenomenal performance at this velocity.

Now we have some things to consider about the Hornady DGS---Unlike many bullets that seem to have some predictability, it seems the DGS in various calibers and weight cannot be predicted at all.

My first tests when the bullet came out was the 458 caliber 480 DGS, it was horrible in the 458 B&M and no more stable than a round nose. Again tried in the 458 Lott at 200-250 fps faster, still no change, terrible performance. I was very wrong in my initial opinion of the Hornady DGS however.

Recently we tested the 458 cal 500 Hornady DGS and it gave some outstanding results, X2 at 60 plus inches 100% dead straight--X1 at 51 inches and lost stability. Even at 51 that would be suitable and far more than enough penetration to accomplish any mission asked of it!

Mikes testing of the 474 cal 500 DGS is in between and a compromise at best in 1:18 twist. I almost would bet big bucks if that twist rate went to 1:12 or so, straight line penetration would increase, as twist would take over any short comings in twist rate. What Sam and I done here yesterday further confirms that.

Now we have the .510 caliber 570 DGS and one could not ask for anything better.

It would seem all Hornady DGS are not created equal?

I will be continuing tests on the Hornady DGS in the coming weeks, it will be my mission to discover more.
I want to give the 458 500 gr a workout in the 458 Lott and the 458 B&M at the different velocities. I will be attempting to test the 474 500 DGS in my Capsticks, can't predict that because of my ??? concerning actual barrel issues in those guns, we will see. Then I have that same .510 570 DGS loaded up in some 510 Wells to give a go at 2300 fps or so.

Have I forgot or left out anything?

Michael

Boomy, I think this picture is the one that the DR group needs to see:

As some of them seem not to fully understand the concept of a bore-ridding driving-band monometal solid having far less bullet material to engrave than the traditional copper-clad steel-jacketed solid.

Perhaps if peterk finally tests the GS Custom, North Fork Technologies, and S&H Super Precision bore-riding driving-band monometal bullets then the DR folks will pay attention…though I believe many will still claim heresy.

One more little play test, it probably means nothing but was fun to do!

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
a 20" double barrel would be quite short! about 3 to 4" shorter than a bolt of the same barrel length. Would look like a coach gun.

Now that's what I'm talking about!

HEH HEH

Michael,

It look like you and Sam had a wonderfully productive time. And Sam was smart to keep his DRs at close hand so that you didn't experiment on shortening one.

Michael... the fatter the bullet the shorter it needs to be to maintain a good SD. Probably one of the reasons the 500 out performed the smaller diameters of the same twist. Shorter = more stable I think.

OK could not help it, I stole this from MopaneMike on his Woodleigh Performance Thread. Interesting.

Of note, I invited MopaneMike here, but have not heard back on that.



MopaneMike
one of us
Posted Apr 27, 8:59 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by srose:
Woodleigh softs are great and Swifts are to. I know from what I saw today with Michael I will never shoot a Woodleigh solid again on game. Yes I have killed buffalo and elephant with them in the past but its a wonder I did. Michael will post all the stuff he and I did today soon.

Sam


Sam,
To tell the truth, that's just the reason why I had a little bit of hesitation.. My first trip to Zambia (Kosonso)PH shot a Buff & I followed him up with my Lott/Swift combo. He used a 458Win w/500grn Woodleigh solid. Upon skinning & in the guts we found his solid bent almost in half and on the off side under the hide was my picture perfect Swift

MopaneMike

Posts: 588 | Location: Southern California USA | Registered: 21 December 2006

Capo

Yeah, Sam and I had a blast for sure. How you feeling? Better I hope!


Boomy

May very well have a point!


M

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Capo

Yeah, Sam and I had a blast for sure. How you feeling? Better I hope!


Boomy

May very well have a point!


M

In some of the in flight stability formulas the length of the bullet is a factor to determine the twist needed to stabilize the bullet in the air. The longer the bullet the faster the twist so I would think the same applies to terminal performance.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Capo

Yeah, Sam and I had a blast for sure. How you feeling? Better I hope!

M

Michael I'm feeling much better and finally made it home. Still short on energy but seem a have a little bit more each day. Saw my GP yesterday and he said I should be close to normal about 4-weeks from the surgery just to take things slowly until then.

Speedy recovery Capo.
Did not know you were under the knife.

Wow, thanks Michael, they do look pretty impressive. You've helped me decide on a good midrange load for my light 458.
Dean

Jim
I feel for you ... last saturday was the first time i fired a big gun 8 months....and it felt GOOD

OK you guys I did do some of the shooting and did all the measuring of the results of those doubles. I saw for my own eyes what Woodleigh round nose solids do. Even the big 577 that is supposed to have unbelieveable penatration started tumbling at what 14 inches! As I said before I won't shoot another animal with a Woodleigh RN solid! Give me a big flat nose any day.

As for Michael taking a hacksaw to my guns, well I've been tempted myself. I like Michael love a short barreled light gun. The neatest double I've handled was a Army Navy 450NE that A friend of mine bought at SCI years ago that had two barrels, one 26 inch and a 20 inch. I let him buy it but I only gave him an hour to make up his mind. Those little shorts barrels were fantastic. Since then I've always wanted a short double. I think I was the one that suggested Demas put 24's on their 577.

Michael you need to take a photo of the base of that 577 Woodleigh to show how much lead pushed out of it. Now tell me thats not stress! The banded bullets make a lot of since. Think of all those big artillary shells that have two bands of copper at the base to drive the shell 25 miles to hit a target.

Sam

Thanks Boom; Yeah I went under the knife on the 14th, but I’m doing much better now though.

Jeff…My sympathies in return...I can totally understand what you’ve been through but at least you were able to participate in the Hoot and Shoot. I feel like what little bit of shoulder and chest muscle I had dropped to the waist during the hospital stint. It’ll take months to get back into any kind of physical shape to handle any kind of heavy weight or rifle recoil.

I have to stay away from the little old folks with their walkers…its downright embarrassing…they walk away from me like I’m standing still!

Wow - quite good perfomance of the 577 with such a low sec.density bullet (675 grs -> SD of .282) at such low velocity (impact 1748 fps).. 54 inches penetration... Better than I would expect..
Guess what my 800 grs .585 GS FN`s would do at lets say 2200-2300 f/s. Or at 2500 fps?

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:
Wow - quite good perfomance of the 577 with such a low sec.density bullet (675 grs -> SD of .282) at such low velocity (impact 1748 fps).. 54 inches penetration... Better than I would expect..
Guess what my 800 grs .585 GS FN`s would do at lets say 2200-2300 f/s. Or at 2500 fps?

Buff

It was impressive, I was impressed. It hit hard too! Wide Gapping hole for about a foot into the mix before settling down to penetrate.

As for your 800 gr bullet I can give a guess, get another box behind it for sure!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
a 20" double barrel would be quite short! about 3 to 4" shorter than a bolt of the same barrel length. Would look like a coach gun.

Now that's what I'm talking about!

HEH HEH

I knew if i looked in here long enough i would find some commen ground.

just for you michael


12 bore rifle allthough it is a smooth bore.
20" barrels and quite lively when shot

best

peter

Peter

Now that looks like me! Short light handy and fast! Common ground for sure!


Welcome to the thread, happy you could join us.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I want to show you these two bullets, the brass mono Sam made for this 577 and the Woodleigh FMJ. Take a look at the bearing surface. Sam certainly is of the opinion that the brass bullet would be easier on the barrels because of this. I don't know, but seem logical to me. Again, no skin off my tail, and while I have an opinion, I don't want anyone to run me off the double forum again because someone might think I am proclaiming myself some sort of expert!

Michael

i like the look of those bullets, where i have a fear point is on the brass bullet just ahead of the driving bandon the ogive that might give some trouble in non conventionel rifling, i would love a design like that but with the bullet head the same dimensions as the inner dia. of the driving bands and half the number of bands.

i will see if i can find a picture for you of henry rifling so you can see why it causes some consern, as you can see in the other tread it is not for lack of energy that i have not tested them yet.

best

peter

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Peter

Now that looks like me! Short light handy and fast! Common ground for sure!


Welcome to the thread, happy you could join us.

Michael

thanks

Peter

I still know crap about the doubles, but with the bullets I see exactly what you are talking about. That is an easy part to sort out. Back in 2006 when I was sorting out proper solids for my .500s (not .510) one of the first runs of test bullets the head or forward portion of the bullet ahead of the bands was engraving. My issue with the bolt guns was not concerns about the barrels of course, but seating depth in the case, I wanted the nose of the bullet in the barrel so to speak, and only the bands of the bullet engraving. That was easy to sort out, and my bullets now do just that. Same bullet, diameter down forward of the bands.

In fact I think very much exactly like the new Barnes Banded. Let me look for some photos of these and get them posted if I have them in just a few minutes, if I don't have them loaded already, I can take some quickly.

But that issue is easy to sort out on the bullet itself, just a slight redesign.

Michael

Peter

Quickly looking through I found some of these and I think would be more in line with what you are saying, correct me if I am wrong please.

These are some superb bullets made by SH Precision, our very own Macifej. As you see very little bearing surface.



Here the typical Barnes banded.



And here one of the bullets I was talking about above that JD and I worked with in my .500s. Fewer bands and more bearing surface, but for bolt guns.

michael

i hope this picture will show the trouble of a oversized mono can cause if pushed down a bore with this configuration


best

peter

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Peter

Quickly looking through I found some of these and I think would be more in line with what you are saying, correct me if I am wrong please.

These are some superb bullets made by SH Precision, our very own Macifej. As you see very little bearing surface.

this one actually looks quite promising, i will have to do some thinking.

thanks

peter

Peter

Again, I am no expert on this matter, and make no claims of it. I doubt I will ever really be "personally" concerned with a double myself (although on my ride to take my daughter to school this morning I am having some visions of a real .500 caliber double) Also, please understand, I am a merely a student of terminal performance of various bullets, I have no one allegiance with any one bullet maker, and I am not a bullet maker. My one and only concern in this matter is to assist anyone that is interested in a choice of bullets for their doubles, and to assist in making what I consider a better choice for certain applications. When it comes to more tech concerns, types of rifling, damage a bullet can cause to a double, then I leave that to other far more qualified experts on the matter.

What I do know to be a fact, many of the custom makers of bullets, SH Precision for example, can make anything one might envision. These are some of the things I work on with my custom maker, David Fricke. I am also working with our Agent J of SH Precision for some nice custom .500 caliber bullets, exactly like the ones I just showed. So bearing surface if need be can be adjusted easy with these guys, actual diameters can be adjusted and any other aspect of a bullet can be done with the technology available and that these guys now have at their fingertips. Being a total novice with doubles, having never even shot one until Tuesday of this week, but I absolutely REFUSE to believe that with this CNC technology that a fellow with a double rifle can't come up with a better bullet than what has been available to YOU in the past!

Now I know you have a thing going with GSC, and I appreciate not bringing that into this discussion, but semi custom makers/manufacturers like GSC or North Fork would seem like good candidates for likely use in doubles.



One thing I notice about all the solid monos is that they are mostly undersized from bore by .001, .474 bore, .473 bullet. And so forth. I find nearly all my Woodleighs that I have in stock for .474 are actually .472 to .4725. Making them horribly unstable in my suspected "Oversized" bore in my Capsticks. I can't even get the Woodleighs to engrave in those guns!

But it is the same with other Woodleighs in .510 also, I have paid little attention to 458 caliber Woodleighs, other than trying to get rid of them. Even though of the entire crowd of round nose bullets I consider the 458 Woodleighs being the best of show from 458 caliber and up. Far better than any 470s or 510s, and it seems in larger bores too, 577 in particular. But still coming up far short of any properly stabilized and designed FN.

As for being safe in a double, that's not for me to decide. I have only the desire to give you poor "LIMITED CHOICE" boys better options than what you have had in the past.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by peterdk:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I want to show you these two bullets, the brass mono Sam made for this 577 and the Woodleigh FMJ. Take a look at the bearing surface. Sam certainly is of the opinion that the brass bullet would be easier on the barrels because of this. I don't know, but seem logical to me. Again, no skin off my tail, and while I have an opinion, I don't want anyone to run me off the double forum again because someone might think I am proclaiming myself some sort of expert!

Michael

i like the look of those bullets, where i have a fear point is on the brass bullet just ahead of the driving bandon the ogive that might give some trouble in non conventionel rifling, i would love a design like that but with the bullet head the same dimensions as the inner dia. of the driving bands and half the number of bands.

i will see if i can find a picture for you of henry rifling so you can see why it causes some consern, as you can see in the other tread it is not for lack of energy that i have not tested them yet.

best

peter

Peter,
When I made these bullets I had the ogive just ahead of the first groove at bore diameter and only the bands are groove diameter. The engraving you see on the ogive is very slight and I doubt that they are more than .001 deep. I don't think this is an issue. I would not fire any mono solid in any gun with Henry Rifling. This rifling is better suited for paper patch and cast bullets. I have a 500 3 inch Greifelt double that has Henry rifling and it was made in 1924 which would make you think it is a full nitro gun. JJ Peradeau at Champlin checked the gun out and felt it was a full nitro gun but after doing much research I'm still not quite sure want it is. I have shot many standard jacketed bullet in it with no ill effects. I do think that Henry rifling is still better for paper patch or cast.

One very interesting thing that I saw when Michael and I were testing is how low the velocity was on the solids compared to the softpoints. It has been standard practice to always reduce the standard load by maybe 2 grains when using a solid. I had never chronographed any of my solid loads because I wanted to put as few as possible through my doubles. I now think that the solid needs more powder to bring the velocity up as the undersize solids aren't building the pressure like a full diameter bullet. More testing on this is needed.

Sam