The reason a RN dumps its energy so fast is because its tumbling end over end.

One thing is for certain, those round nose solids feed well in most rifles. Far better than hydros and similar in a variety of rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Michael,

Stop playing stupid, you can read as well as I can.

JPK

quote:

For example, from my rifle a RN solid on a frontal in an elephant head delivers an average of about 36" of penetration. A FN solid delivers about twice that, maybe more - they penetrate so far that finding them can be difficult, passing through the neck and into the body if the angle permits it. Both start with the same energy, both end with the same energy. The RN dumped all of it's energy into 36", all of it in the head or just beyond the head in the neck, the FN delivered less than half of its energy in the same distance and time. If the shot is true and the elephant is brained there is no difference, but if the shot was off its mark the knock down or impact effect of the RN is observably greater in my experience.

Dumping energy...... I don't buy into dumping energy, I buy into destruction of tissue, the ability to bust through bone, and the ability to penetrate deep, and straight....... But according to you, the deeper penetration of the FN bullet going beyond the head has no effect. What about the additional tissue destroyed by that extra penetration? You say, "Twice as Much Penetration", well that would equate into twice as much destroyed tissues and bones, and it has no effect?
No, I am afraid you need to sell that to someone who does not know any better..........

quote:

but the FN solids definitely do more damage

We are in complete agreement.............

quote:

a cup nose solid like the Northfork cup nose is probably the ideal compromise, and in a big bore all but makes a soft point obsolete. They appear to have adequate penetration for even elephants too. I shot one into the brain of an already dead tuskless cow from the front. It penetrated plenty enough for any brain shot and more than the average of a RN

I would choose a CPS any day of the week over a RN anything, for any mission..... Reason? It inflicts heavy trauma upon said critter....... And can penetrate deep...... Not as deep as a normal solid, but that is the point of a CPS regardless, my CPS that John and I designed are not traditional CPS, but actually expand...... I really have no need for a limited penetration solid, which is what a CPS is, the design that does not expand...... But if what you are after is limited penetration and heavy hitting, then this is it...........

quote:

There are a handful of circumstances where the usually negative characteristics or RN solids are advantages and the usually positive attributes of a FN are disadvantages.

Two that immediately come to mind are brain shots on elephants for the reason previously given and shooting buff or elephants in a herd. A good FN will pass lengthwise though a buff or broadside through and elephant.

So, all you people shooting elephant and buffalo in a herd trust 100% of the time that a RN Solid won't pass through and exit to hit another animal behind it? So without question or concern, you will shoot these animals with said RN Solids and never worry about a pass through??? You are so confident that the RN is going to tumble and or go astray by loosing stability, that it can't possibly exit? In essence you are admitting that the RN has so much of a flaw in design, it makes it safe to use in a herd..........



Well, it took years, but seems we are in full agreement, that a RN Solid is a piss poor design and is so bad that those who still support it can turn around its sorry ass attributes into an "ADVANTAGE"......... That is so funny.......

Loosing the Terminal Performance on every single count to the FN, the RN guys turn these losses into an advantage....

First and foremost, I would never consider attempting to shoot any animal with another animal behind it on the very off chance that my INFERIOR bullet might just find a gap and somehow perform good enough to exit. I would not even do that, and have NOT DONE that with soft points on buffalo, many times,on the off chance it might exit.... A #13 Raptor will exit every time..... To state that one can use an inferior bullet in a herd safely is nothing but folly and an attempt to justify the continued use of said inferior bullet............ Sell that somewhere else too.........

JPK... Thank you For your Visit to us today.........

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Those brass solids and copper solids have a hard time stableizing in big bores compared to jacketed solids.I would shoot the brass solid at 100yds and check if it groups and its POI is OK and not extremely low before I take a chance on them.

Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while. George is absolutely correct. The twist rates in many rifles are insufficient to reliably stabilize monometal solids in many calibers because the bullets are simply too long, e.g., 400 grain monometal solids in a .416 Rigby.

Congratulations George on a germane post.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
No reference to elephants, that I can see.

Here, let me spell it out for you...

Whitworth's relevant and inaccurate comment: "I can't understand the reluctance to accept the fact that flat-nose beats round nose on every front save for feeding."

No, FN solids do not beat RN solids on every front, and one use where a RN solid is a better choice is for a brain shot at an elephant.

There are other circumstances where a RN is better as well. Read my second to last post before this one.

JPK

Well you misspelled it then, because Whitworth is correct in his assessment of the effectiveness of round nose solids VS flat nose solids. Flat nose solids impress the game more leave larger wound channels and give overall greater terminal effect on every head of game that I have seen them used on.

Yet no where did Whitworth mention elephants in his post nor did he refer to them.

Seriously I don`t mind if it goes through it will leave plenty of energy and might be better.I know my 180gr TSX zips through medium game and kills better than anything.The Hornady DGS has a flat nose and I am sure it will zip through.I think it is very important that the bullet flies true and hits very hard like when it is fired out of a tight new bore.

Seems like the tendency is to talk about these issues as if they are black and white issues, the truth is that there are pros and cons to each type of solid bullet, round nose or flat nose. To suggest that choosing one bullet over the other is archaic is a gross oversimplification. If you want to solely focus on penetration and trauma fine, others may choose to focus on ensuring that their bullets reliably feed and stabilize.

Flat Nose Solid Bullets

Pros

- Better straight line penetration
- Greater wound trauma from bullet cavitation
- Driving band flat nose solids typically have lower measured barrel strain

Cons

- Feeding in bolt action rifles
- Potential for pass through incidents
- Expense
- Stability issues in some calibers due to combination of rifle twist and bullet length


Round Nose Solid Bullets

Pros

- Feeding in bolt action rifles
- Reduced potential for pass through incidents
- Generally less expensive
- Easier to stabilize (with lead core, steel jacketed solids) given shorter bullet length

Cons

- Greater chance for deflection
- Lower straight line penetration
- Less cavitation, less trauma
- Lead core, steel jacketed bullets typically have higher measured barrel strain

I reckon we can just add to Mike’s listing – mine are in red.

Flat Nose Solid Bullets

Pros

- Better straight line penetration
- Greater wound trauma from bullet cavitation
- Driving band flat nose solids typically have lower measured barrel strain
- Lighter weight for caliber bullets will meet or exceed the straight line penetration of traditional (lead core, steel jacketed solids) bullets
- Lighter weight for caliber bullets allow higher velocity for greater potential trauma as well as delivery of bullet at longer distance (when required)

Cons

- Feeding in bolt action rifles
- Potential for pass through incidents
- Expense
- Stability issues in some calibers due to combination of rifle twist and bullet length of traditional weight for caliber bullets


Round Nose Solid Bullets

Pros

- Feeding in bolt action rifles
- Reduced potential for pass through incidents
- Generally less expensive
- Easier to stabilize (with lead core, steel jacketed solids) given shorter bullet length of traditional weight for caliber bullets

Cons

- Greater chance for deflection
- Lower straight line penetration
- Less cavitation, less trauma
- Lead core, steel jacketed bullets typically have higher measured barrel strain
- Longer and heavier weight than traditional (lead core, steel jacketed solids) bullets are required to more closely match the penetration depth of monometal bullets.
- Longer and heavier weight (lead core, steel jacketed solids) bullet will result in higher pressure for traditional velocity or lower velocity for traditional pressure
- Monometal RN will have similar twist rate stability issues as same weight FN monometal and the same lower straight line penetration of the traditional (lead core, steel jacketed solids) bullets.

How many times do you want to count penetration and trauma?

how about the pros and cons of carburetion versus fuel injection? good grief, really? we've made strides in bullet design and materials, why not embrace the fact? deeper, straighter penetration with more trauma -- what more does a person want or need?

quote:

How many times do you want to count penetration and trauma?

Only once for like weight bullets...

quote:

Originally posted by Seasons44:

Yep...

I would hunt any large animal including ELE and lion anywhere with a big bore FN (cup point) Copper solid. Very expensive bullets but they expand much more than you'd expect and have enormous straight line penetration. They stay together and don't fragment like brass solids do . I think Michael tested some I made years ago in .620. In my simple testing they are the best. Not looking for a fight just my opinion.-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Seems like the tendency is to talk about these issues as if they are black and white issues, the truth is that there are pros and cons to each type of solid bullet, round nose or flat nose. To suggest that choosing one bullet over the other is archaic is a gross oversimplification. If you want to solely focus on penetration and trauma fine, others may choose to focus on ensuring that their bullets reliably feed and stabilize.

Flat Nose Solid Bullets

Pros

- Better straight line penetration
- Greater wound trauma from bullet cavitation
- Driving band flat nose solids typically have lower measured barrel strain

Cons

- Feeding in bolt action rifles
- Potential for pass through incidents
- Expense
- Stability issues in some calibers due to combination of rifle twist and bullet length


Round Nose Solid Bullets

Pros

- Feeding in bolt action rifles
- Reduced potential for pass through incidents
- Generally less expensive
- Easier to stabilize (with lead core, steel jacketed solids) given shorter bullet length

Cons

- Greater chance for deflection
- Lower straight line penetration
- Less cavitation, less trauma
- Lead core, steel jacketed bullets typically have higher measured barrel strain

Mike,

Of all of the solids that I have shot into elephants or buff, the only two that veered or deflected were NF FN solids. One Woodleigh's path was under the skin of a buff and ran outside the ribs from the spine to about the mid level of the chest, but the bullet had passed through the spine already and had obviously lost much of it's energy. The shot was quartering away and it was a second shot.

Another pro for the RN solids is greater knock down or impact effect on missed brain shots on elephants!

JPK

Michael,

Stop playing stupid, you can read as well as I can.

JPK

My preference for the first shot on plains game is an appropriate expanding bullet.
My usual plains game hunting area is blessed/cursed with an over abundant hippo population and the occasional elephant.

Our normal practise is to load up with solids in the rifle and on the belt and carry only an expanding bullet in the chamber.
Approximately 30% of the plains game I have shot have been with solids bullets on the 1st shot, they all died quickly.
By chance all the animals I have wounded and lost have been with expanding bullets namely 1 waterbuck and 2 impala.
The waterbuck was due to deflection on an unseen twig and the impala poorly executed shots.
I have also used the whole range of solids from military spitzers in .223 to flat nose solids in .510. The flatter the nose the more trauma and the more reliable straight-line penetration.

Time has taught me that I am the weakest link in the rifle, bullet and shooter system. Despite the hole in the muzzle, the fodder fed to the rifle 90% of the results depends on my ability to place the shot.
To summarise I will confidently take on any plains game at any range with a solid bullet of .338 or larger (flat nose please!)if it is within the bullet-rifle-shooter combination's ability to place an accurate shot in the vital area.

My deceased friend and very experienced PH Carl Labuschagne was always adamant they one should never shoot at an animal if there is one behind it despite the supposed inability of your projectile of choice to pass through. He preached that patience always delivered the best shot opportunities.

I don't really care for energy transfer, of all the animals I have shot and human gun shots I have treated the proximity of a permanent wound channel in relationship to the vital organs determined survival. How else does one explain death by .22RF to the femoral artery but survival of chest wounds by 50BMG and unexploded RPG's to the chest or abdomen?

It would be interesting to see a large water jug test between the the RN and a FN with a large frontal surface.Also interesting to see in what direction or in what area on the target does a bullet deposit its energy.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
It would be interesting to see a large water jug test between the the RN and a FN with a large frontal surface.Also interesting to see in what direction or in what area on the target does a bullet deposit its energy.

Isn't there a 299 page thread stickied on top in this forum that has even more exhaustive tests, including performance results from the field?

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
It would be interesting to see a large water jug test between the the RN and a FN with a large frontal surface.Also interesting to see in what direction or in what area on the target does a bullet deposit its energy.

Isn't there a 299 page thread stickied on top in this forum that has even more exhaustive tests, including performance results from the field?

Yes, and you know what is just as interesting? Decades of actual field experience that demonstrate that despite suggestions to the contrary, round nose solids have historically and continue to perform just fine . . . without having to worry about seating them so that they actually fit in a magazine, getting them to feed with neato little plastic tips or worrying about them key holing. If you want to use flat nose solids, have at it. Just don't try to preach that anyone choosing to use a round nose solid is some sort of anachronism.

Which points out two more related cons that we should add to the flat nose solid bullet list. One, to use the largest bullet weights in any caliber you have to either compromise on powder capacity or magazine length since the bullets have to frequently be seated much further out. Two, the length of the bullets requires in many cases using lighter-for-caliber bullets, such as 450 grain bullets instead of 500 grain bullets, in order to allow for adequate powder capacity or standard magazine use.

Barrel strain may be a good thing as it is a sign my bullets are being engraved by the lands.Also the brass material could be very hard on the lands making them lose their sharpness.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

Yes, and you know what is just as interesting? Decades of actual field experience that demonstrate that despite suggestions to the contrary, round nose solids have historically and continue to perform just fine . . . without having to worry about seating them so that they actually fit in a magazine, getting them to feed with neato little plastic tips or worrying about them key holing. If you want to use flat nose solids, have at it. Just don't try to preach that anyone choosing to use a round nose solid is some sort of anachronism.

and you know what? carburetors work fine -- damn fine, but to not acknowledge that they are vastly inferior to fuel injection is disingenuous at best. it's okay to hang on to old tech as long as it works, but we have made strides. why live your life like rip van winkle?

it's quite alright to keep using what has worked well for you for decades, but it's something else entirely to come up with a slew of negatives to fit your narrative and better rationalize your bullet choices.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
It would be interesting to see a large water jug test between the the RN and a FN with a large frontal surface.Also interesting to see in what direction or in what area on the target does a bullet deposit its energy.

Isn't there a 299 page thread stickied on top in this forum that has even more exhaustive tests, including performance results from the field?

Yes, and you know what is just as interesting? Decades of actual field experience that demonstrate that despite suggestions to the contrary, round nose solids have historically and continue to perform just fine . . . without having to worry about seating them so that they actually fit in a magazine, getting them to feed with neato little plastic tips or worrying about them key holing. If you want to use flat nose solids, have at it. Just don't try to preach that anyone choosing to use a round nose solid is some sort of anachronism.

Which points out two more related cons that we should add to the flat nose solid bullet list. One, to use the largest bullet weights in any caliber you have to either compromise on powder capacity or magazine length since the bullets have to frequently be seated much further out. Two, the length of the bullets requires in many cases using lighter-for-caliber bullets, such as 450 grain bullets instead of 500 grain bullets, in order to allow for adequate powder capacity or standard magazine use.

Flat point solids leave larger wound channels and that is a fact. An old style Barnes round nose solid for the 9.3 was lathe turned to a flat point. A deer shot shot with this solid through the rib cage leaving an exit slightly larger than a tennis ball. Certainly larger than a round nose solid in my experience.

Another fact is with the better flat point mono metal solids with the correct nose profile and meplat the old standard weights are not needed, a step down in weight gives up nothing in the penetration department.

Mike,

You're trying to re-use my Pro as a Con. ;-)

With monometal solids there is zero need to use 'traditional weight' bullets to either maintain reliable straight line DEEP penetration or use 'heavier than traditional weight bullets' to enhance that terminal performance. There is no terminal performance downside to using a 450gr monometal solid having a proper meplat size vs using the traditional 500gr FMJ (lead core, copper plated steel jacket) solid. Plus it'll result in slightly less recoil which can only help the occasional DG hunter maintain accurate bullet placement.

I believe the neato little plastic tips are solely used with either Cup Point bullets or Hollow Point bullets, neither of which are FN solids.

And least we forget...
CNC machined monometal bullets can - and depending upon the manufacturer will - have the exact nose profile and meplat size to optimize the bullets terminal performance. This includes there usage in the multitude of NE rifle/cartridge combos.

However, all RN solids are not made the same bullet profile wise. The Rigby designed 410gr solid was likely the best of the traditional RN solid shapes however I've read nothing good about the nose profiles of the traditional weight RN solid bullets used in the 470NE, the 500 Jeffery, or 600 NE. And one can't use even 'optimally shaped' nose profiles in traditional construction (lead core, copper coated steel jacket) bullets without re-throating the chamber of the rifle.

I might add, the bore riding CNC machined FN monometal solids can and are successfully used in these cartridge/rifle combos in 'traditional bullet weights' without the need to alter the rifles factory throating. Guess that'd be a Pro for the FN solid and a Con for the traditional RN solid.


JPK,

You might want to try the new generation of NF solids. I understand NF is very happy with them as the new shape results in greater terminal performance compared to all of the older generation bullets while still easily feeding in bolt guns.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
It would be interesting to see a large water jug test between the the RN and a FN with a large frontal surface.Also interesting to see in what direction or in what area on the target does a bullet deposit its energy.

Isn't there a 299 page thread stickied on top in this forum that has even more exhaustive tests, including performance results from the field?

Yes, and you know what is just as interesting? Decades of actual field experience that demonstrate that despite suggestions to the contrary, round nose solids have historically and continue to perform just fine . . . without having to worry about seating them so that they actually fit in a magazine, getting them to feed with neato little plastic tips or worrying about them key holing. If you want to use flat nose solids, have at it. Just don't try to preach that anyone choosing to use a round nose solid is some sort of anachronism.

Which points out two more related cons that we should add to the flat nose solid bullet list. One, to use the largest bullet weights in any caliber you have to either compromise on powder capacity or magazine length since the bullets have to frequently be seated much further out. Two, the length of the bullets requires in many cases using lighter-for-caliber bullets, such as 450 grain bullets instead of 500 grain bullets, in order to allow for adequate powder capacity or standard magazine use.

Oh, Jines, forgive me for not noticing you.......

Yes, I in fact do know what is interesting, the fact that you and shootaway have done a really good job working together, putting your minds together coming up some more negatives for the evil monolithic flat nose bullets.... For the life of me, I can't figure out what you are afraid of, they are just chunks of metal? Please continue to enlighten us more ignorant shooters with your insight, and I am sure if the two of you put some effort into it you can even come up with more negatives for those flat nose bullets, and even turn all the negatives for the round nose into positive advantages... you two boys keep up the good work now, hear....... Keep adding to that list of yours.....

And, honestly, no joke or pun or evil intent meant, I really am pleased that you personally are using round nose solids, and I hope every day you spend in the field you are loaded with round nose solids..............you are doing a great job..........

quote:

and you know what? carburetors work fine -- damn fine, but to not acknowledge that they are vastly inferior to fuel injection is disingenuous at best. it's okay to hang on to old tech as long as it works, but we have made strides. why live your life like rip van winkle?

it's quite alright to keep using what has worked well for you for decades, but it's something else entirely to come up with a slew of negatives to fit your narrative and better rationalize your bullet choices.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
Mike,

You're trying to re-use my Pro as a Con. ;-)

With monometal solids there is zero need to use 'traditional weight' bullets to either maintain reliable straight line DEEP penetration or use 'heavier than traditional weight bullets' to enhance that terminal performance. There is no terminal performance downside to using a 450gr monometal solid having a proper meplat size vs using the traditional 500gr FMJ (lead core, copper plated steel jacket) solid. Plus it'll result in slightly less recoil which can only help the occasional DG hunter maintain accurate bullet placement.

I believe the neato little plastic tips are solely used with either Cup Point bullets or Hollow Point bullets, neither of which are FN solids.

And least we forget...
CNC machined monometal bullets can - and depending upon the manufacturer will - have the exact nose profile and meplat size to optimize the bullets terminal performance. This includes there usage in the multitude of NE rifle/cartridge combos.

However, all RN solids are not made the same bullet profile wise. The Rigby designed 410gr solid was likely the best of the traditional RN solid shapes however I've read nothing good about the nose profiles of the traditional weight RN solid bullets used in the 470NE, the 500 Jeffery, or 600 NE. And one can't use even 'optimally shaped' nose profiles in traditional construction (lead core, copper coated steel jacket) bullets without re-throating the chamber of the rifle.

I might add, the bore riding CNC machined FN monometal solids can and are successfully used in these cartridge/rifle combos in 'traditional bullet weights' without the need to alter the rifles factory throating. Guess that'd be a Pro for the FN solid and a Con for the traditional RN solid.


JPK,

You might want to try the new generation of NF solids. I understand NF is very happy with them as the new shape results in greater terminal performance compared to all of the older generation bullets while still easily feeding in bolt guns.

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

Yes, and you know what is just as interesting? Decades of actual field experience that demonstrate that despite suggestions to the contrary, round nose solids have historically and continue to perform just fine . . . without having to worry about seating them so that they actually fit in a magazine, getting them to feed with neato little plastic tips or worrying about them key holing. If you want to use flat nose solids, have at it. Just don't try to preach that anyone choosing to use a round nose solid is some sort of anachronism.

and you know what? carburetors work fine -- damn fine, but to not acknowledge that they are vastly inferior to fuel injection is disingenuous at best. it's okay to hang on to old tech as long as it works, but we have made strides. why live your life like rip van winkle?

it's quite alright to keep using what has worked well for you for decades, but it's something else entirely to come up with a slew of negatives to fit your narrative and better rationalize your bullet choices.

In the past you could actually go to the supermarket or restaurant and buy real food to eat-even Macdonalds food was a million times better and tastier.Music was better even with all this new technology.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

Yes, and you know what is just as interesting? Decades of actual field experience that demonstrate that despite suggestions to the contrary, round nose solids have historically and continue to perform just fine . . . without having to worry about seating them so that they actually fit in a magazine, getting them to feed with neato little plastic tips or worrying about them key holing. If you want to use flat nose solids, have at it. Just don't try to preach that anyone choosing to use a round nose solid is some sort of anachronism.

and you know what? carburetors work fine -- damn fine, but to not acknowledge that they are vastly inferior to fuel injection is disingenuous at best. it's okay to hang on to old tech as long as it works, but we have made strides. why live your life like rip van winkle?

it's quite alright to keep using what has worked well for you for decades, but it's something else entirely to come up with a slew of negatives to fit your narrative and better rationalize your bullet choices.

In the past you could actually go to the supermarket or restaurant and buy real food to eat-even Macdonalds food was a million times better and tastier.Music was better even with all this new technology.

I don't eat cardboard or plastic at the restaurants I frequent and the only plastic and cardboard I purchase from a grocery store is that which wraps my fresh cut meat or whole chicken though occasionally the fresh cut meat is wrapped in coated-paper.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

With monometal solids there is zero need to use 'traditional weight' bullets to either maintain reliable straight line DEEP penetration or use 'heavier than traditional weight bullets' to enhance that terminal performance. There is no terminal performance downside to using a 450gr monometal solid having a proper meplat size vs using the traditional 500gr FMJ (lead core, copper plated steel jacket) solid. Plus it'll result in slightly less recoil which can only help the occasional DG hunter maintain accurate bullet placement.

Fact is that the use of lighter bullets with the flat nose solids was not a design enhancement but an accommodation to address the length of such solids using traditional weights and the reality that such lengths will not fit in many magazines, require significant powder compression to seat the bullets, will not stabilize, etc. But I like the effort, to take a deficiency and try to spin it as an advantage or at least a neutral.

While I am in fact concerned that George is in my corner, I take comfort that JPK and 465H&H are too and both have spent more than few days in the field using round nose solids.

In the "old" days of the last century, I have had occasion to shoot pachyderms, both Ele and Hippo, with round nose solids. I have also witnessed round bullet failure on same.

In this new century I have killed a number of Elephant with the CEB #13 Solid. I have done with a variety of calibers and rifles - 458Lott, 458B&M and 500NE. In each case the bullets have performed flawlessly and have had exactly the desired effect. This includes both frontal and side brain shots as well as body shots. I have also witnessed similar performance on Ele (500NE) and Buff (416Rem).

We leave in early September for this years safari in Zim. Our quota includes Ele, Hippo, Lion And Leopard as well as PG bait animals. We will be using two 458B&M rifles and a 500NE DR. All will be shooting CEB bullets of different weights and calibers. Confidence is high for similar bullet performance.

So, based upon my firsthand experience with both round and flat nosed bullet designs over 20 years of African safari, I have no hesitation whatsoever in stating that I will never use round nosed solids again. My bullet of choice in DG rifles, both bolt action and double rifles is clearly of the flat nose design and CEB manufacture. Period!

There is a name for those who refuse to accept new technology and it's been around for over 100 years. We call them Luddites., and if you don't know what that means, look it up!

I have grown out of the whose side are you on kidstuff.I dont take sides with anyone ever.I just speak my feelings and from my experience.It is one of the character traits to be most proud of.I dont feel insecure to need to take a side on any matter and if it is a lonely life it is the best life.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

In the past you could actually go to the supermarket or restaurant and buy real food to eat-even Macdonalds food was a million times better and tastier.Music was better even with all this new technology.

not a very strong argument. are you going to deny technological advancements by citing the case of fast food? would you also argue that medical practices were better four decades ago?

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
In the "old" days of the last century, I have had occasion to shoot pachyderms, both Ele and Hippo, with round nose solids. I have also witnessed round bullet failure on same.

In this new century I have killed a number of Elephant with the CEB #13 Solid. I have done with a variety of calibers and rifles - 458Lott, 458B&M and 500NE. In each case the bullets have performed flawlessly and have had exactly the desired effect. This includes both frontal and side brain shots as well as body shots. I have also witnessed similar performance on Ele (500NE) and Buff (416Rem).

We leave in early September for this years safari in Zim. Our quota includes Ele, Hippo, Lion And Leopard as well as PG bait animals. We will be using two 458B&M rifles and a 500NE DR. All will be shooting CEB bullets of different weights and calibers. Confidence is high for similar bullet performance.

So, based upon my firsthand experience with both round and flat nosed bullet designs over 20 years of African safari, I have no hesitation whatsoever in stating that I will never use round nosed solids again. My bullet of choice in DG rifles, both bolt action and double rifles is clearly of the flat nose design and CEB manufacture. Period!

Great, I am happy for you. Godspeed to you and yours. I am also happy for those that choose for good and valid reasons to shoot round nose solids.

You make my point though. Seems like the flat nose bullet proponents simply cannot accept that others would weigh the pros and cons and make a different choice. Instead they choose to portray the flat nose crowd as enlightened, new school, . . . dare I say progressive.

Obviously I interrupted Flat Point Solid Happy Hour so I best excuse myself. Bartender . . . another round of Koo-laid for everyone on me . . .

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

In the past you could actually go to the supermarket or restaurant and buy real food to eat-even Macdonalds food was a million times better and tastier.Music was better even with all this new technology.

not a very strong argument. are you going to deny technological advancements by citing the case of fast food? would you also argue that medical practices were better four decades ago?

Has there been any high tech applied to shooting elephants? Not that I know of.Was ele hunting much more of an important topic back then-I would say so.Did we here of bullets-RN solids veering of course in any of the literature that has come from back then?Not that I am aware of.
Also,dont't you think that a PH or a safari outfitter would advise against using a certain solid with all the experience they have?

there have been advances in equipment without a doubt. you were the one who made the fast food analogy. in hindsight it was silly, wasn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:
there have been advances in equipment without a doubt. you were the one who made the fast food analogy. in hindsight it was silly, wasn't it?

You need a refill on the Kool-aide.BTW,how was the blueberry pie?

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Barrel strain may be a good thing as it is a sign my bullets are being engraved by the lands.Also the brass material could be very hard on the lands making them lose their sharpness.

Do you have any data that proves this? I think you are clutching straws.

When I was visiting Michael we discussed this, with thousands of test rounds fired from his guns he indicated that there was no extra wear on barrels. Not to mention, no lead fouling .

I'll let him expound on the specifics.

quote:

. another round of Koo-laid for everyone on me . . .

Oh right, if we are waiting on you to serve the Kool-Aid we will all be thirsty.... I've been waiting TWO years on that beer you promised! And, I want my money back!!!! You know, that money I gave you in January to help subsidize your purchase of a decent bullet? Remember? What? You spent it on alcohol and wild women?

So, I can't play on your side? Picking sides like when in elementary school? And you won't let me play!


So sad, I bet I know why! I did not pay you enough attention eh? Yes, that must be it! But I am sure you will understand very well my next few words, as you very well know, I get so busy with my "silly little strain gages" while doing research on barrel strains, and pressure data, and I get so busy on these "silly little terminal tests", and also get tied up on all those "silly little B&M cartridges, and those silly little TOO SHORT rifles with short barrels" that sometimes I just don't pay much attention to some people, and I bet that is why you don't want me to play on your side now................. Oh, and those silly little neato plastic tips, I almost forgot that one..............

I am glad you are in good company, one can tell a lot about people by those they surround themselves with.... I was very serious about the Round Nose Solids, and you have no idea how much it warms my heart to know that you boys are loaded with them........

MJines-

Come on Mike. No need to be so pretentious. This may come as a shock, but you are not always the smartest/experienced guy in the room - or on the thread! Your opinion holds the same importance in this thread as does anyones, including mine.

I never said MJines, or anyone, couldn't shoot round nose bullets if they choose. And frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

You missed the last sentence in my post, but I did add it a few minutes after posting. Just so I am clear, you are also allowed to act like the Luddites of the 19th century. Maybe your legal office staff is still using typewriters and carbon paper? No sense adopting all this new fangled technology, after all. If it was good enough for Henry Ford then the Model T should be good enough for you, right? You are using black powder in your DR, correct?

Re-read the first paragraph in my post, PLEASE! I don't drink Kool-Aid and I have experience with RN solids. I stated my choice based upon actual field experience with both bullet types. Have you even tried the CEB bullets? Oh, wait, I know the answer to that already, so consider it to be a redundant question not requiring a reply.

Have a great day!

quote:

Luddites

Luddite |ˈlədˌīt|
noun
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, esp. in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).
• a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology: a small-minded Luddite resisting progress.


Why Yes, LionHunter, an absolutely perfect description of such..... Very much what I said on an earlier post about "Clouded Minds".......... A Perfect fit I think............

Michael