quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

while they do expand impressively, they also tend to come apart. I have experienced complete core separation in the .458 especially even though we ran really subdued velocities (2,100 fps).

That's kind of what I was afraid of. However, I was wondering if moving up to the .050 or .065 jacket might help.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

while they do expand impressively, they also tend to come apart. I have experienced complete core separation in the .458 especially even though we ran really subdued velocities (2,100 fps).

That's kind of what I was afraid of. However, I was wondering if moving up to the .050 or .065 jacket might help.

Dave

If they are anything like a similar bullet here, yes, moving up in jacket thickness
will make a difference.



I can't see how he can be disapointed in the performance of the .35 jacketed ones at
2100 fps - I would expect them to fall apart.

Colin

I agree with you 100%, a little humor goes a long way! I too could not resist the same or nearly the same comment the other day about those great big balls! FUNNY!

A lead ball or any ball projectile is a bullet, I love bullets! But know little to nothing about "balls". Willing to look at and try some things, if I have the tools to do so. Would require lot's of advice on the subject. I think it would be very interesting to do some test work with them. Especially some hard brass balls like you are talking about, but where does one find such an item? I have never looked for any?

Thanks
Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:

Jeff:

I was wondering.... have you ever tried any Hawks with the heavier .050 or .065 jackets in any of your hunting.

Dave,
Limited experience ... .585 in a 577 NE, .065, .550 700gr .035, .458 in a 450 alaskan, .065 jacket

ALL of them pancake, pretty impressive on a big pig, sable, warthog .. would never use on hippo or buffalo or bison .. they make woody softs look liek solids

You can order brass balls in standard fractional sizes up to .750" from McMaster-Carr(online web catalog). For odd sizes(not standard fractional) they can be ordered through a custom bearing maker, it gets kind of expensive though for custom. The standard sizes are relatively inexpensive though.

Colin

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:

Jeff:

I was wondering.... have you ever tried any Hawks with the heavier .050 or .065 jackets in any of your hunting.

Dave,
Limited experience ... .585 in a 577 NE, .065, .550 700gr .035, .458 in a 450 alaskan, .065 jacket

ALL of them pancake, pretty impressive on a big pig, sable, warthog .. would never use on hippo or buffalo or bison .. they make woody softs look liek solids

Thanks Jeff.

Just for fun I am going to get some Hawks with the thicker jackets for Michael to test.

The Luddite Lapdog Logic was giving me a headache. The brass ball thing makes much more sense!

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:
You can order brass balls in standard fractional sizes up to .750" from McMaster-Carr(online web catalog). For odd sizes(not standard fractional) they can be ordered through a custom bearing maker, it gets kind of expensive though for custom. The standard sizes are relatively inexpensive though.
Colin

Ah, so! Will look for brass balls!
Could be a "back to the future" of shooting sports, a roundball revolution.

Use brass balls in standard rifling at up to 3000 fps ... being of low SD they might not flatten at that impact velocity in elephant flesh ... SD drives expansion!
Then use steel spheres in smoothbores at up to 5000 fps impact.


I would experiment first with brass roundballs of .375 caliber, standard 3/8", in a 1:12" twist.
About 75 grains weight? ... volume of sphere times density of brass ... Will be easy to calculate!

Then move on to a custom .395
Replica of Old Betsy "Presented to David Crockett at Nashville, Tenn. May 5, 1822"

A 40-caliber/.395 roundball Squirrel&Bear Rifle!!!
JackPhantomHuckleberryHoundDog, RIP

Dave

I just done a little more thorough search and all the Hawks I have. In 458 350s and 400s, .025 and .035 jackets. In .500 I have 400s and 450s both .035. I forgot I had some 358s from years ago, 275s and 300s and 1 box of each are .050. I did test them back the early part of this decade sometime, I will take some photos of them.

Everything I have tested in the Hawks they show pretty soft. But, for deer and thin stuff where penetration is not a concern, they would have to hit very hard I would think.


Colin

I will go over and look at the McMaster-Carr, see what is in 458 caliber or maybe .500 or something. What caliber would you recommend say for .458 rifles--.457 if they have that?????

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

Everything I have tested in the Hawks they show pretty soft. But, for deer and thin stuff where penetration is not a concern, they would have to hit very hard I would think.


Michael

That was Jeff's conclusion as well and I think it is the general consensus with respect to the Hawks. I'll see what he has with an .065 jacket and we'll shoot some just for fun

Dave

Sounds fine to me! We can give them a workout!


Guys, went over to the McMaster Carr and see they have some 1/2 brass balls, something about "260"???? Think I can push those down the 50s without a problem??????

Says formable brass alloy 260

????????????

I would think that would be ok--But I don't know everything either!

Michael

1/2" standard "cheap" brass balls sound perfect for a .500 elephant-varmint-combo load, if velocity high enough. might weigh about 150 grains in brass?

Need Macifej to explain the "260" brass alloy properties, hardness, density?

I've never killed anything with round balls...

Used maxi balls when I was a kid to kill my first few deer...

What kind of wound chanel do round balls create???

trophyhunter

Good questions! We are a curious bunch around here, and this is something I don't know anything about. Brass Round Balls? Did not even know or think about such until just a few days ago. Don't know what they would be good for, or even if they are accurate or not? I think I am going to get a hand full, they are pretty cheap, and see what happens!

If nothing else, might be fun!

That place Colin put us on has all sorts of "balls"!
Aluminum Balls
Brass
Buffing
chrome
copper
ceramic
COTTON
Acrylic
Foam
Glass
Steel
Titanium
GUM
Hollow
Hardwood
You name it, they have the "balls"

LOL

Michael

I have a couple of things to share today! No test work, but none the less good stuff, at least to me!

As most know I like .500 caliber, have developed now at least 5 cartridges in .500 caliber to fit nearly every rifle action you can think of. I have tested and worked with a lot of .500 caliber bullets. I have taken the .500s to the field a lot over the last 4 yrs and they have been very successful on every endeavor.

There are a couple of bullets made by our manufacturers Hornady and Sierra, for the 500 S&W that have turned out to be outstanding rifle bullets too. The 400 Sierra and the 500 gr Hornady. While designed for the 500 S&W I have tested and shot animals with these bullets beyond what they are designed for. If one keeps the 400 Sierra to 2000-2100 fps muzzle velocity it will hold together for extreme performance on animals up to the size of wildebeast for sure. The 500 gr Hornady is a very tough bullet, and I have tested it to 2100 fps and it holds together. I have shot game with it, wildebeast, zebra, giraffe and a few other things and it is a hammer. Hit with this if they go at all, they don't go far. The furthest was a zebra and he went 20 yds, giraffe down in 10 yds, wildebeast on the spot. That was at 1900 fps. These are perfect for the 50 B&M Alaskan, in the lever guns, flat lead meplats and perfect performance.

However, in the bolt guns that lead meplat wants to catch on the bottom of the feed ramp. So while a few guns will feed them, sometimes, it is not a sure thing.

As we know Sam visited last week and we did some test work. At some point I must have mentioned something about this to him, but I don't remember it, but he did. So he brought it up, and just said I will make you a form die and round the nose off! Just like that, no big deal! WHAT? Well I sent him home with a hand full and in a few days here come in the mail a form die and some extra parts!

Hmmmm? Well Sam had already told me I would have to use this in a single stage press, which I don't even have anymore, I run 4 Dillon presses and that is it. But I could not wait of course to get my hands on a single stage press, even though it would have only been a couple of days. Patience is not in my vocabulary. So I kinda snuck around and played with the die a little, finally figured it out, sorta and made it work with a Dillon. And I now can run these bullets thru my bolt guns slicker than..........well, you get the idea.

This is a photo Sam sent to me.


So ok, don't be telling Sam this, but this is what I did today with the 500 gr Hornady.



To refresh some memories below is a test I did recently in the 50 B&M AK with these two bullets. Trauma inflicted on test medium was substantial.




OK OK, I know, it took me a little bit to figure it out, but I got there in the end. Man I am like a kid at christmas, new bullets that will work now in my bolt guns! Hammers too!

Michael

I brought up the brass balls because of the RN FN debate. A non deforming sphere does not need twist and will not "tumble". 500" brass balls should be easy to get for testing I think. My intrigue in the test is to see if they penetrate in a straight line and depth of penetration. My guess is the spheres will act like an expanded bullet of half the diameter. Spheres seem to make more sense when you get into big bores and high velocity like the aluminum bullets. What the brass balls would lack in SD they can make up in velocity. A .729" brass sphere I am guessing would be around 400 grains and could fly pretty fast with some of Ed's loads.

McMaster-Carr is a good source for felt for wadding/filler also. They sell it in sheets up to an inch thick.

As for wound channels with round balls, let me first preface my statements by saying that my experience with roundballs is limited to black powder muzzleloaders and black powder shotgun cartridges(12 bore sxs cut down with sights added). Having stated my limited experience I will say that lead/lead alloy roundballs have worked very well on all the game I have shot. Biggest game I have taken with a muzzleloader was a Bull Elk, the shot was broadside at about 45 yards with a .62 cal and the ball passed through and through, busting a rib on its way out. I've never recovered a roundball from anything I have ever shot, from coyotes to elk they have all been through and through, but I have also never taken a shot with a Muzzleloader past 75 yards either. As for brass roundballs, I've only ever tried them in a smoothbore muzzleloader and only ever shot them at paper, so I really don't have any information that would be all that useful.

As for my 12 gauge SxS, I cast .720" wheel weight roundballs(Jeff Tanner Mould) for it, I use Magtech brass and federal primers with 75grs FFg black powder and a lubed felt wad, it shoots 1-1/2" L/R groups at 50 yards and they go through and through Kansas Whitetail every time I have used it. I could load it a little heavier than 75 grains but the regulation starts deteriorating past 80 grains, so I stick with the best groups and don't worry about the velocity.

Colin

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
1/2" standard "cheap" brass balls sound perfect for a .500 elephant-varmint-combo load, if velocity high enough. might weigh about 150 grains in brass?

Need Macifej to explain the "260" brass alloy properties, hardness, density?

260 is cartridge brass. Same stuff cases are drawn from. Not likely you're gonna get it down the pipe unless it's undersized. Patched 52100 steel balls would be tougher and cheaper.

McMaster Carr is probably the most expensive place on the planet to buy anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

JPK

So to prove your point(s) I offer you the same opportunity as 465 ..... you divise the test and I'll supply the bullets. Since the two of you are self-annoited geniuses (having shot a herd of ele between you) in the realm of material science, external ballistics, hydrodynamics, etc. we should see something with well modelled statistical controls. All repeatable of course.

So then, you consider wet paper to be a suitable media for the prediction of terminal performance of solid bullets in elephants?

But not elephants?

Wow, no wonder you don't get it.

Michael458,

Yes, another typical hissy fit from you. Rather than address an argument or theory or facts that are in contention with yours, you have a hissy fit, make personal attacks and do ANYTHING to avoid having to actually answer. That is because you can't answer, other than by repeated reference to your wet paper shooting, as if it were the highest end use of a bullet, as if it actually could predict real world, real hunt, real game terminal bullet performance.

Hissy: From hystera, latin for a woman's womb. Yes, you are having a hissy fit.

Quit whining, quit playing oh poopr, poor Michael, answer with your own rellevant experience, observations, tests. Opps, don't have any, eh?

JPK


Even

Do the bullet nipples stimulate penetration?

quote:

Do the bullet nipples stimulate penetration?

Boom

I knew you would see that! End result not too bad eh? I am quite sure there is no change in the way the bullet performs, but I am going to test it anyway to be sure. Both of those are excellent .500 bullets run at the right velocity. Now that large lead meplat has been reshaped feed through the bolt guns slick!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Do the bullet nipples stimulate penetration?

Very good.

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:
JPK


So to prove your point(s) I offer you the same opportunity as 465 ..... you divise the test and I'll supply the bullets. Since the two of you are self-annoited geniuses (having shot a herd of ele between you) in the realm of material science, external ballistics, hydrodynamics, etc. we should see something with well modelled statistical controls. All repeatable of course.

Check with Michael458. I have already made that offer.

465H&H

Of interesting note going back to last weeks work with Sam. Remember those two nice solids that Sam turned out for the 577 Nitro? I think we briefly mentioned this, but did not cover it proper. One had a flat meplat, the other slightly cupped, very slightly. Before the two were shot side by side I actually told Sam it would not make any difference in penetration. Based on a more severe cup that David wanted to try in some of my .500 caliber solids some time ago. Made no difference in depth of penetration with those. I was very wrong, this ever so slight cup made a huge difference in penetration of this bullet.




Well Sam is pretty sharp, and made the comment about the new Woodleigh Mono and how it has a fairly radical cup point across the top. Again, both being a bit curious about this and Sam being a genius with making things he turned a few samples to see how they do, without the cup point. Now he is going to go nuts because I post this photo. He said to make sure I cleaned them, and I tried, but was not successful with getting them cleaned up proper. So maybe he won't see them. They are .500 caliber.
Since Sam is not a bullet maker and turns these down, there is only one of each, but good enough to get some ideas from.



I still have a couple of samples that Con sent of the 400 gr 458 Woodleigh. It is on the right of this next photo and you can see the cup point well, compared to Sam's bullet on the left.


Now also we must keep in mind how good the 400 Woodleigh did in it's test, dead straight, 50 some odd inches as I recall. Extremely good for a 400 gr bullet. Without a direct comparison between the same bullet with flat meplat against one with the cup it is hard to tell about the Woodleigh, and it the shape of the cup may make a tremendous difference. It does not take hardly any sort of change in that meplat to make huge changes in performance. I think interesting stuff.

That new Woodleigh just might be about the ugliest bullet I have ever seen, but boy does it perform! I have also heard some good things about it from the Australians on buffalo. They will be available from Midway soon in heavier weights, I intend to get a few in different calibers when they arrive.

Michael

The new woodleighs were tested on Australian buffalo extensively
- when the animals played the game and stood end on !!!

I can give you a direct comparison between a 480gn "New" Woodleigh
and a RN SN Woodleigh out of my 500/465 - both tracked exactly the
same across the buffalo (but the SN 2 inches of so lower).

They do work well.

500N

Sounds pretty much like the other report I got on them too. I also understand there is the matter of them hitting hard and causing some trauma?

M

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
500N

Sounds pretty much like the other report I got on them too. I also understand there is the matter of them hitting hard and causing some trauma?

M

Hitting hard - yes - the 2 Big one's I shot definately seemed to "feel" it if you get what I mean.

A bit like how the same animal would react if you shot it with a 470 versus a 500, the effect of this "looked" like it was hit with a 500 - and there IS a difference in the field between sub 50 cal and over 50 cal.


Now the shots were good shots but having a shot a few Buff, I just felt the above. If I ever use them again, it will be interested.


Wound channels - well, my view is that the RN SN Woodleigh's create horrific wound channels anyway but the wound channel of the New Woodleigh was definitely as good / big as any RN SN.

Hope that answers your questions from a sample of 2 !!!! LOL


.

500N

I know exactly what you are saying. Observing how the animal takes a bullet is a very important part of what I have been studying for a couple of years. You observe but there is nothing to record, no data, but observations of this sort I feel are very important. This is why I asked about it. With the cup point, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. It shows up in the tests too. Transfer of trauma. I see the same effect with the 470 HPs out of my 500 MDM when I was down your way. A big reason I got hot on the brass HPs that I had done in 416 and 458 caliber, I want to see that same effect with 458 and 416. I doubt it could be as dramatic an effect as what the 500 exhibited, but it's a start, and I won't know until I give it a go, have not had a chance yet!

Sounds like to me the Woodleighs are doing exactly what they were designed to do. Soon as Midway gets them in..................

Thanks for sharing the info.

Michael

Michael

The only reason I can say that is that I have shot a fair few buff (Big, Small, medium, standing, running, chrging, you name it) with a whole range of calibres
so I have been able to compare.

Geoff (from Woodleigh) always said that the 500's show a big difference
and it wasn't until I whacked a few with my 500's that I noticed the
"ripple effect" of the shock wave moving along the body.

Anyway, it's all good info.

Michael,

Glad you figured it out. If I would have had a Dillion press I would have made you the proper piston for it as I saw you only had Dillions on your bench. You must be smarter than you think you are if you did that on your own.

I'm embarrassed that you didn't clean those bullets up but no worries I should have done that before I sent them to you. I'm interested to see how they compare to the new Woodleigh Hyros. I have a few more ideas and when I get time I'll turn some of them out for you.

Hey if you are going to shoot balls try two at a time. I done this quite alot and makes a mean load. Have shot up to 5 out of a muzzle loader. Tight buckshot pattern out of a rifle. Lead balls flatten like a pancake but brass should penetrate pretty good.

Sam

Sam

Not smarter, just determined and impatient!!!!!

Don't be embarrassed about the bullets, and I did try, I flitzed, I scrubbed, I steel wooled, I tried everything I had, no go!

I ordered two packets of the brass balls, 1/2 inch, they are not cheap, about $.78 each. Just to see what they do.

quote:

260 is cartridge brass. Same stuff cases are drawn from. Not likely you're gonna get it down the pipe unless it's undersized. Patched 52100 steel balls would be tougher and cheaper.

So J you think I should or should not push a couple of these down a .500 barrel????

M

Hi Michael. Will you do more testing of the Hornady .458" DGS solids in 500 grs soon??

Strange with those DGS solids - some perform seemingly very well - others not so convincing..

Hey Buff!

Oh yes, I am on the 458 500 DGS. No doubt. I have one thing lined up before it and that is the 510 Wells and the 570 DGS. Then back to the 458 500.

The DGS is trying. I think I throw out totally the 480 DGS and forget about it now. But the 500 did extremely well with 3, X2 to 60, X1 to 50 and loosing stability for some reason? This prompts another test run of it, the X1!

The .510 570 DGS did extremely well in Sam's double last week, even at 1:18 twist????? Of course sample is too small to be 100% certain. With my 510 Wells and 1;14 (I think) it should really be good. Also in .510 testing the 570 Barnes.

I may have a trick up my sleeve with the 470's and test them again. I totally forgot I have a Ruger #1 in 470 Capstick built by SSK, so I know the barrel is new and good on that one. Just have to set it up to do some tests with it instead of the Winchesters, totally forgot about that gun? Forgot the twist rate too, which is going to be important I think with the 470 DGS. It is trying hard in Mikes rifle, and of course my Winchesters with over bores! Maybe the #1 can do it?

But probably first of next week getting back to the 458 500 DGS. Will be working it in the 458 B&M at 2100 + and then again in the 458 Lott at 2200 or so.

M

Hi Michael,
you have probe the IMPALA bullet on the .416?

Michael,

Whats the trick up you sleeve? You going to paper patch those 470's to fit your oversize bore.

Sam

Hi 10.3X60

Not sure if you mean have I tested the Impala or if I have a problem with the Impala.

Answer is neither, have not tested, don't know much about it, have heard of it, but never seen one. If I had some, would be glad to test it.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Michael,

Whats the trick up you sleeve? You going to paper patch those 470's to fit your oversize bore.

Sam

Well one could paper patch one for sure. But I forgot that I have a Ruger #1 in 470 Capstick that SSK built for me some years ago. You know all those #1s sit in that cabinet and I just forgot about it being there! So all I would have to do is set that rifle up with a scope or something, test with it. I know the barrel is good in that!

M

Its bad when you forget what guns you have isn't it.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

JPK

So to prove your point(s) I offer you the same opportunity as 465 ..... you divise the test and I'll supply the bullets. Since the two of you are self-annoited geniuses (having shot a herd of ele between you) in the realm of material science, external ballistics, hydrodynamics, etc. we should see something with well modelled statistical controls. All repeatable of course.

So then, you consider wet paper to be a suitable media for the prediction of terminal performance of solid bullets in elephants?

But not elephants?

Wow, no wonder you don't get it.

Michael458,


reference to your wet paper shooting, as if it were the highest end use of a bullet, as if it actually could predict real world, real hunt, real game terminal bullet performance.


Quit whining, quit playing oh poopr, poor Michael, answer with your own rellevant experience, observations, tests. Opps, don't have any, eh?

JPK


Even

Testing bullets means that there needs to be a record, of the amount of penetration and wound channel. Media gives this record.

Did you did through the elephants and record such data? Also no 2 shots on game will be the same, but media will duplicate the conditions for each shot

Even in your own words your field reports verify what has been recorded in Michael458's test results

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
465H&H,

FYI, about 50% of my Woodleighs exit on broadside shots on cow elephants. 100% of the NF's. On bulls, the Woodleighs don't exit, and the NF's exit most of the time.

Right now, if I had to pick only one solid, it would have to be the Woodleigh .458", 500gr.

Also, on Quartering away shots, the NF's relibly penetrate into, maybe exiting, the off side shoulder or are found under the skin or to have exited from the front. The Woodleighs do not penetrate to that extent, and so do less damage to the lungs and heart.

The beautiful thing here is that I do not have to select just one bullet, I can select two, and use the one most suitable for the circumstances. A useful feature of double rifles.

JPK

'Twould be interesting to know what twist SSK used on the 470 Capstick.

Sam's 500 NE might have the CIP standard twist of 1:15"???
That is why the 500 NE has such a sterling reputation.

I've been following this thread as an innocent by-stander. I've never shot an Elephant, and probably never will, I really don't care to.

I'm a meat hunter. I shoot to put animal down as fast as possible. Never really considered bullet design either. Although I do have a lot of shooting experience, and have seen what different bullets types are capable of.

From what I've been reading, it appears that a couple of folks here would use a Ball Peen hammer to drive nails. How's that working out?

I'm a North Westerner, never been to Maryland, and didn't know there were Elephants there. It also seems that a lot of them must be running around with nasty bullet wounds.