The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores Using only solids in your big bore?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
One of Us |
Thank you gentlemen for reinforcing my point . . . that point being that anyone that chooses to see the issue differently is considered to be dense, anachronistic, small minded . . . . Now pour yourselves another glass of Kool-Aid and take turns toasting each other . . . . bottoms up. Mike | |||
|
One of Us |
EXACTLY! I always like a man who knows himself!  Since you choose to continue using round nose solids...well, you get the idea.  But I still honestly don't give a damn what you or anyone else shoots. I, unlike you apparently, just think everyone should have all the knowledge currently available so that they can make an informed decision.  Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
One of Us |
Ah Mike, why leave so early in the conversation ‘cause one could say there be Kool-Aid drinkers on both sides. I’ve zero issues with those of you (yourself, JPK & 465H&H, plus any others) who desire to continue using bullets designed (including the FMJ technology utilized) from the early 20th century. I am however happy to note that none of you seem to also supporting the continued use of Cordite power and Berdan primers (both the technology used when your RN FMJ bullets were designed for your DRs) in lieu of using the 21st century’s best of both. But I find a flaw in your supposition that your traditional weight and construction of bullets – you previously noted a 450gr monometal vs a 500gr traditional construction bullet – so why not look to the multitude of British .458 caliber black powder and cordite powder fueled cartridges, many of which were chambered in double rifles. With black powder they progressed from pure lead to copper cupped lead core bullets – the traditional C&C construction – used from the late 19th century through current 21st century. When they advanced to smokeless cordite powder bullet advancement also included the ‘more modern technology’ copper cupped steel cupped lead core bullets which proved to have better bullet integrity for use against heavily boned African dangerous game. And by the mid to later 20th century this tri-metal construction bullet technology advanced to either copper and steel bonded or copper plated steel for the cup construction with the prior lead core for African DG use. Of course the mid-20th century – principally the WWII era – saw the introduction of monometal construction bullets fairly broadly in military weaponry and post WWII this technology moving into the hunting rifle arena and advancing design wise in hunting bullets generally but also specifically for use against African DG.  Yes the military could discontinue utilizing monometal bullets in favor of copper cup steel cup lead core bullets though I reckon they’d lose a bit of ‘hard target’ penetration capability by doing so. Maybe give up helicopters and jet planes also for traditional bi-planes of WWI and early WWII. Naw… Ok…back to the .458 caliber bullets… The black powder cartridges were loaded with differing bullet weights and construction styles dependent upon the era the bullets were constructed, whether they were designed primarily for single barrel or double barrel rifles, and their intended game. And it wasn’t until the adoption of the smokeless cordite powder adoption that the 480gr copper steel lead FMJ bullets were adopted as the Nitro Express double rifle ‘standard bullet’. And until the Brits banned .458 caliber rifles in their Africa and Asia colonies the 480gr FMJ bullet/cordite powder loaded 450 NE was the ‘supreme DG’ cartridge/rifle combination with few seeing the need for anything larger except perhaps by the professional elephant hunter. Why was the 480gr .458 FMJ bullet adopted as the ‘standard’ for the 450 NE cartridge? Very likely – at least that’s my perception from reading multiple African hunting books – due to the fact that the original designer could reach a specific velocity point in a 28” barrel, using the rifling twist specified or generally available, at a specific pressure point using Cordite powder, and the combination gave bullet stability and sufficient terminal performance with the bullet technology of the day without overstressing the bullet. And once that bullet weight and velocity was adopted and the first double rifles rolled off the work bench that was it because changing the bullet weight afterwards would require the re-regulation of all existing DRs to use the new bullet weight. Basically the ‘word of God’ didn’t just tell the designer that a 480gr bullet was the ‘be all to end all’ bullet weight in .458 caliber bullet. It took many trials and errors over a number of years to reach that conclusion. No it’s not easy to just change the bullet weight in your DRs and keep the same POA/POI and ‘at least’ the same depth of within game terminal performance – but one can change the RN traditional FMJ solid with a same weight FN monometal bore riding solid and keep the same POA/POI with a bullet have much greater within game terminal performance... But, drink the Kool-Aid of your choice and go forth and do with the bullet you desire – regardless of the century within which it was designed. Drink up  and have some  Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
wow, is that the best you can do? Bob | |||
|
One of Us |
Well, the reaction to all those test results reminds me of the OJ jury that would not believe the DNA data as it was like "black magic", and hard to comprehend.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
The "bullet nose type" feeding well in my rifle doesn't seem to be a problem at all. I simply break the action open, dump any two old bullets down the two tubes, close it up, no problem.  Flat nose solids are my "choice" for all things solid however.Larry Sellers SCI(International)Life Member Sabatti 'trash' Double Shooter DRSS
| |||
|
One of Us |
"Tradition" "Nostalgia" "Grandpa"........... "Grandpa"...... My simple reference to "Historical Evidence", or "Historical Data"..... Meaning basically, "Grandpa used this and so I am going to use it" "Grandpa Syndrome" perhaps........ History is MADE, by those in charge of either writing the books, or those in charge of editing the book....... Sometimes has very little to do with the truth......... I ask, "What Historical Data or Evidence?"............. Fact of the matter, there is no data, as there is NOTHING TO COMPARE TO........ What Historical Evidence is there that says RN is better than FN? Show me please, I would like to see it... What sort of bullets were compared and used in this so called "Historical Evidence"????? So back 75-100 years ago there is historical evidence that points to the superior terminal qualities of a RN vs FN.......????? Now, honestly, I am not much up on this Historical Evidence thing, I am no expert on this matter. Fact is, I took a look at some of these older books that are mentioned from time to time about elephant hunting and so forth, and they rather bore me, they are so outdated compared to todays tech, they are of little relevance to anything I am interested in at all....... So, I am not an expert on this historical evidence and I can't possibly quote you this or that from any of it, and while you might mention names I recognize, can't really tell you much about it. What I found was mostly hunting type stories and anecdotes of the day. In this Historical Evidence, there was one chap that shot a lot of elephant with 7mm and 6.5 bullets, is this the historical data one should look at? Should our elephant rifles be chambered in 6.5 or 7mm? Our bullets 150 grs? It is in the "Historical Evidence" and did kill a lot of elephants? So it must be so, for those who wish to follow historical evidence or to add that to their list of PROS or Positives......... One cannot just choose the "Historical Evidence" one wishes to follow can they?? You must take it all or none? Historical Evidence....... Hmmmmm......... I wonder what choices these "Historians" had to choose from? Did they have a large variety of bullets, RN, FN, pointy nose, blue nose, red nose or any other kind of nose to choose from? Just how many choices did they have at the time this "Historical Evidence" was gathered? I think, maybe they had pointy and round, and they found at that time round was better! So they used the best they had, at that time, and the round nose solid was it! That is ALL they had to choose from, and they chose the best, at the time............ Much of this so called "Historical Evidence" comes from businessmen, or better known as common poachers, trying to make a living selling ivory. They used what they had, and much of the time, that was not so good. Once they sold some ivory, they would try to improve upon their equipment as I understand it, better rifle, bigger rifle, bigger cartridge, this or that. Sadly, there were little choices in bullet selection I believe..... So they used what they had and what was available to them...... Did they kill elephants? Of course they did, its just ridiculous to think otherwise......... And, no one, not one person I know, has ever said different, very much including myself....... They killed 10s of 1000s of elephants with round nose fmj bullets............. Later Culling is part of the "Historical Evidence"....... And again, just how much of a choice did these guys have? Not much I think, mostly RN FMJ, or that is all I have ever heard of being available to them. Did they kill elephants with them? Yes, of course, and again, 10s of 1000s of them.......... They stacked them up like cordwood many times over.... Now, I ask you this, had there been something available to these men at that time, do you think for one second they would have let "Tradition" "Nostalgia" or "Grandpa Syndrome" get in their way of making MONEY???? For these men at this time in history, "Grandpa Syndrome" would have been for them to use a muzzle loader and 2000 gr lead bullets at 1500 fps to do their work with...... Do you think they would have done this? Of course not, they used the very best they had available at that point in history......... I ask you, would those same men today, with all the known factors involved, would they choose "Grandpa Syndrome" over new tech that is available today? Perhaps I can answer that for you, but I cannot name names or even places right now, as I do not have that right or permission. But I know for a FACT, that in some of the current park situations, that the men in charge of taking care of problem animals, in particular ELEPHANT, are NOT Using RN FMJ BULLETS, and in fact are using with extreme SUCCESS one of our very very well known, very well respected, Flat Nose Solid designs..... And praise their use to high heavens, getting work done never able to have been achieved before, penetration that is extreme, deep, and above ALL RELIABLE.......... Todays FN Solids, will in fact be the "Historical Data" of the future, and do notice I said "Data" and not "EVIDENCE", as there is NO DATA available, to have data, one would have to have a comparison, and there was no choices then to have a comparison.......... Historical Evidence...... Hmm, I doubt that would stand long in any court, when reasonable thinking men give it just the slightest bit of thought............. http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Guys, It's a little disappointing seeing such animosity in the face of a differing in opinion. My take on this , in my limited experience is this; The non cons gave me great difficulty in feeding in my B/A rifles, 416 and 500J, so didn't continue with them, as DG rifles must feed flawlessly in times of a quick reload. If you don't have confidence, then don't use it!!! Secondly, using my double rifle in 500 with Woodleigh solids I have shot 3 tuskless, all frontal brain and all quite dead? In all cases the woodleighs Exited and were not recovered. Distances were between 15 and 20m. I have reloaded som CEB for my 500 but the length of the 570 has dictated a switch to lesser amounts of faster powder and also a filler. I had trouble getting regulation, so haven't spent much more time on this path, though I hope to at a later stage. In my 600 double, through more trial and error I have managed to get a regulation load with the CEB 900 , again using lesser amounts of faster powder plus filler. The CEB loads are running 50 GPS faster than the woodleigh solids load, but shoot to similar POI at 35m I plan on using both loads in a few weeks on my double tuskless hunt in Zim. I have no doubt both will kill the ele , as long as I do my part. I am confident on either load. So what's all the fuss???? No doubt IMO doubles are easier to get regulation using conventional jacketed proj. And a case full of powder. They both will kill , no one can argue this. On ele and head shots, 36" of penetration is plenty from any angle. Body shots, a little different, but when I hunt ele, if I can't get a brain shot , we will back out and try another angle of approach to do this. That's how I want to hunt my ele, others can have a differing opinion, and that's just fine with me! So I guess I may be classed as a heretic here on AR for electing to use the woodleigh on one of my ele!!! So be it, but its ok to be different, isn't it?????? Cheers Nick | |||
|
| One of Us |
I think it was Mark Twain that wrote, “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
In a word, no. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Nick, Don't worry, there's no true animosity between the individuals in this discussion. It's just bantering between guys much as you'd see between friends who support different football (regardless of whether it USA football or ROTW football) teams. Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ha... Contrary to what Mike said, yes you can elect to be different. Just realize though that if you don't stay completely neutral but instead join in the bantering you best expect to catch a few verbal jabs from the other side - whichever side that may be. Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
So how ‘bout some more bantering…
Historical evidence would indicate that the ‘British designers of the day’ in the 1890s moved from black powder to smokeless powder and from pure lead RN cylindrical bullets to a lead core copper encapsulated RN cylindrical bullets and then to a lead core steel encapsulated copper encapsulated RN cylindrical bullets in the early 20th century. They did this because of higher velocity and cleaner burning of the smokeless gun powder and the greater terminal performance of the lead core steel encapsulated copper encapsulated RN cylindrical bullets when used against heavy boned tuff skinned African dangerous game. Why did these British designers select the temperature sensitive long strand Cordite smokeless gun powder over temperature insensitive extruded kernel gun powder? Simple, they didn’t have the option of selecting the temperature insensitive extruded kernel gun powder. Why did these British designers of the late 19th to early 20th century move from pure lead RN cylindrical bullets to a lead core copper encapsulated RN cylindrical bullets to a lead core steel encapsulated copper encapsulated RN cylindrical bullets rather than from pure lead RN cylindrical bullets to machined bore riding FN monometal bullets? Simple, they didn’t have the option of selecting the machined bore riding FN monometal bullet. Based upon the written record of what was actually offered to the African dangerous game British’ hunting population of the day by the manufacturers of the late 19th century to early 20th century, I would say the above paragraphs are absolute fact. Also, the RN cylindrical bullet shape proved more terminally stable than a spitzer-nose cylindrical bullet shape in heavy boned tuff skinned African dangerous game. And with the same game, a longer length RN cylindrical bullet shape proved more terminally stable than did a shorter length RN cylindrical bullet shape. Based upon the written records of the African dangerous game British hunters who tried both commercially available and military surplus cartridges, I would say the above paragraph is fact as well. What say you other banterers? Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
One of Us |
Hi Gang! Although I haven't been here much as of the last few months I'm pleased to see things haven't changed much.  NRA Lifer; DSC Lifer; SCI member; DRSS; AR member since November 9 2003 Don't Save the best for last, the smile for later or the "Thanks" for tomorow | |||
|
| one of us |
Things that I have experienced while shooting my big bore rifles with solids and softs. 1-The longest barrel life and accuracy is with soft pure copper bullets like the a-frame. 2-Although copper monometals are ok with high velocity chamberings they are full of issues in big bores that have a few rounds through them-they have a hard time stableizing. 3-Brass solids are extremely difficult to stableize unless the barrels are new. I would like to sum this up by saying the most important thing I consider in choosing a solid is that it shoots hard and is accurate so I can put it exactly where I want to. Also,in gaining this experience,all the shooting was done by me with my own rifles. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Amazing, there are actually people that believe that round nose solids are preferable to flat nose solids in certain applications. Who would have thought . . . but again what do the folks at Barnes, Duane Wiebe, Keith Wood and others of "that ilk" really know? Luddites, yes, that is what they are Luddites!  Pass me another cup of Kool-Aid and a graham cracker.  Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
a product review. wow, that sure turned the argument in your favor - not Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
Jines..... My buddy.......... Don't you remember covering this exact issue Starting on Jan 24 2012 with both Duane Wiebe and Keith Woods???? Seems Duane may have forgot as well????? This starts on page two here.... http://forums.accuratereloadin...1043/m/843106779/p/2 Let me refresh your memories.................
Funny you forgot all this???? Too bad really....... Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Now let me get back to my "Kool-Aid"................. http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
by the way, may want to think a bit about copyright infringement Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
Sue me.  [Michael, brevity is the soul of wit. Not my saying by the way, Shakespeare's. There are no bonus points for length.] Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
OK, short and sweet..... Jines.......  http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
As Obama would say, don't be a hater . . . have another round.  Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Duane....... There is such a HUGE, and I mean extreme, difference in Terminal Performance, the rifle would either shoot a Properly Designed North Fork or CEB, or you could throw mine in the trash, as I would consider the rifle flawed and totally of zero use, or value.......... Do not think for one second I jest about this.... I would not have a rifle that would not feed either the NEW profile North Fork, or CEB #13........ I currently count 42 big bore bolt rifles from .416-.500 caliber and every single one of them will feed these bullets flawlessly....... Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Duane One thing that keeps getting lost about the mono metal flat nose bullets is that, like a Barnes tsx or a GS Custom bullet,you can drop down in bullet weight. This gives you more powder room which add,s velocity and penetration. Its a win-win when you drop down in bullet weight. Remember these are a new class of bullet, the mono metals make you change the parameters. "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." Mark Twain TANSTAAFL www.savannagems.com A unique way to own a piece of Africa. DSC Life NRA Life | |||
|
| One of Us |
Is that an advantage or an accommodation? Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hope I don’t come across as grumpy, my iPad crapped this post twice so had to dig out PC just to do it! Ok… Duane, This made little sense to me as the NF FPS bullets are designed with the banding at caliber diameter but the shank being sub-bore by a couple of thousands inch… Since I don’t possess a 500gr .458 NF FPS bullets I designed one in QuickDesign using the length drawn from the NF website but using the Ogive to Meplat length from the 450gr .458 CEB Safari Solid (similar shape but slightly different nose angle). Anyway here’s what I can up with… [color:red]450 Rigby has a CIP specification of 0.2362” freebore, a 2º59’38” throat angle, and a 3.750” Cartridge MaxOAL.[/red] 1) Using my ‘dummy’ bullet QD noted collision points at the throat to groove diameter junction. 2) Changing on the throat angle to 1º30’ eliminated all collision points. 3) Keeping the CIP specification throat angle required a freebore increase to 0.435” to eliminate all collision points. I reckon you could run a 1º30’ throating reamer into the barrel and determine if that resolved the issue. That certainly won’t affect velocity or accuracy with factory loaded RN ammunition. If it doesn’t work then you’ll need to increase the freebore which will decrease the factory RN ammunition velocity slightly due to decrease pressure. I don’t believe it will result in a decrease in accuracy with RN bullets – but let me pose a question to the collective. If you own or have shot a 460 Weatherby, “How is/was the accuracy when loaded to 3.750” COAL with Woodleigh RN bullets?” Funny stuff this. Now the original reason I stated this made little sense to me is because all of our rifles RUM, Lapua, and Rigby based wildcat cartridges are spec’d with 1º30’ throat angles and none have suffered a bullet shank/ogive collision point with the barrel rifling when using the CEB Safari Solids, the GSC FN Solids, the NF FP Solids, or the S&K FN Solids. Caveat Here… I intentionally loaded some 500gr .500 CEB Safari Solids (the original equidistant 4-band version) with two bands exposed to assure that monometal solids loaded to 3.58” would correctly feed from the magazine (3.615” internal length) of my M98 commercial FN action that Steve was working on – and yes the upper band did collide with the freebore throat intersection but for the following reasons: 1) the brass was trimmed to w/I 0.001” of the minimum spec for the chamber length (far past the max cartridge length), and 2) I asked Steve to keep the chamber at the absolute minimum that a Go Gauge ‘would go’. So this was a situation with a known dummy cartridge ‘with an intentional chambering issue’ to assure ‘maximum length magazine zero feeding issues’ could be accomplished. Anyway that’s my 2¢ on the issue… Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
Duane..... I guess I am missing something here? I have dozen or more standard M70s in 416 Rem, 458 Win, 458 Lott, several rifles in each cartridge, and I have not run into any FN jamming in the lands???? First, they are bore riders, and cannot do that if done proper anyway? We did nothing special with any of the B&M series cartridges to specifically accommodate any FN or RN bullet, and all work fine, I have never seen this jamming into the lands you are talking about with any of my rifles or cartridges, and any of the standard 416s or 458s????  Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Michael, Read my post just preceding yours. Seems pretty goofy but QuickDESIGN indicates collision in the throat area due to the 450 Rigby's CIP specification 2º59'38" throat angle. Change the throat angle to 1º30' and the throat area collision is eliminated. Definitely funky... Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
Back to Mike… How ‘bout we just discuss .458 caliber. Was it an advantage or an accommodation when the 480gr RN Solid was adopted in the 450 Nitro Express for dangerous game use? Was that the combination of minimal bullet weight (due to the bullet construction technology of the day) to allow a targeted 2150fps MV (with the available powder technology of the day)? Or was that just the ‘be all to end all’ bullet weight in .458 caliber (regardless of bullet construction technology) and the velocity was reached by happenstance? If so is this documented anywhere? Or is it just accepted as so ‘cause that’s what they adopted? The .458 Winchester Magnum using the same 480gr bullet as the 450 NE easily matched the NE MV with a shorter barrel and suffered zero powder issues (with the powder technology of the day). However some factory bozo determined that a 510gr bullet was the ‘be all to end all’ bullet weight for the .458 WinMag and the cartridge fairly quickly suffered powder issues (with the powder technology of the day). And of course 500gr .458 caliber solids were adopted for pretty much all other factory loadings (except the .458 WinMag and the 450 NE). Reason(s) why this is the ‘be all to end all’ bullet weight in .458 caliber? Then some individuals began touting the heavier 550gr .458 caliber Solids for ‘giving unbelievable penetration’. So now is it the ‘be all to end all’ bullet weight in .458 caliber? And of course the 480gr, the 500gr, the 510gr, and the 550gr bullets are all of copper encapsulated steel cupped lead core construction RN style bullets. But which bullet weight is the best ‘be all to end all’? Or are all of them strictly an accommodation to the rifle/cartridge combination to reach a certain (generally unidentified) level of performance. Now we have some Southern dude coming along with light weight short barreled rifles (probably better termed carbines) using a cartridge having the powder capacity of the 458 WinMag but using ‘severely underweight’ 450gr .458 FN monometal solids. The darn thing is that combinations provides greater within mass straight line penetration than the 480gr, the 500gr, and 510gr RN conventional construction solid bullets in their factory chambering’s. (I don’t recollect him testing the 550gr RN conventional construction bullets so perhaps they with their heavier weight and longer length might come closer to the little 450gr FN monometal bullet in terminal performance.) However load that ‘severely underweight’ 450gr FN monometal bullet into a cartridge having greater powder capacity than the 458 WinMag and the terminal performance of the bullet is even greater… So back to your question, “Is that an advantage or an accommodation?” “How can it be an accommodation when the lighter weight 450gr FN monometal bullet offers greater terminal performance than the heavier 500gr conventional construction bullet?” It appears the answer is, “It’s an advantage.” But as they say, "Use what you want to use, but if it's not the 'be all to end all' don't blame me." ;-) Time for a coffee refill ‘cause it’s raining today… Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
After reading all this (and a bit of the excessive terminal performance thread) all I am able to say is that since round nose bullets have been killing game for over a century, they work. Michael and colleagues have proved to me that the flat point does outperform the round nose, but come on guys, how dead is dead? If the RN will kill your buffalo or elephant, and so will your latest greatest, isn't it just another option? I don't need 2700 fps in my .416, I have done just fine with shooting out to 350 yards when needed with a standard velocity 300 grain .375 so I don't need "more" performance out of them. I confess that I use the flat point configuration in my dangerous game rifles, but they also are absolutely reliable in them. I would not hesitate to use a Woodleigh of traditional design if that is what shot best in my given rifle. I kind of think that this is what Mike is trying to get at, but get the "elite" bullet guy's goats... Successfully, I might add. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ah say it isn't so! FN monometal bullets are "elite" bullets? Naugh...Mike's been telling us that Woodleigh RN solids... You tellin me Mike's been pulling our leg! Naugh... I think he actually believes it. Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
One of Us |
Seating a bullet deeper doesn't eat up enough powder capacity to matter in the velocity department. At equal pressure a 10% in crease in powder capacity will yield a 2 1/2% increase in velocity. A 10% decrease in powder capacity will yield a 2 1/2% decrease in velocity. Sedating a bullet a little deeper doesn't decrease powder capacity significantly. The increased terminal performance of flat point solids is well worth the effort to correct any feeding issues. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Most I believe feels that added penetration is an advantage. Don't see the down side, since penetration is why solids are used in the first place. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
CR...... You are correct, in most cases the RN kills "Almost" just as dead as a Properly Designed FN... By the way, and you already know this, but a poorly designed FN Solid, is no better than, and in many cases far worse than a standard RN Solid....... From here on out, and really before this, I always think in terms of Properly Designed, taking into account the 8 Known Factors of Solid Penetration, 5 of which are incorporated into Bullet Design.... Solids are used for many things, and not just elephant heads..... There are many many scenarios that I employ solids, because of the advantages a properly design solid gives me in the field...... These Solids are the absolute best and cheapest insurance policy you can have in the field when things go to crap....... I incorporate solids into any hunt, thin or thick skinned animals, and double especially for dangerous game..... Just like what is common for buffalo, 1st round up trauma inflicting bullet, followed by solids, I have done this on various plains game with success, and even bear in Alaska with success...... While I conducted tests here a couple of years ago to see what bullets busted through sticks and brush and could be relied upon to get to the target and sort a problem out, I have also done this in a serious manner in the field, although not intentional. Seems every year in the field I come into conflict with sticks, trees, and brush, and the most reliable bullet I have found that will go through this sort of material and hit its intending target is the new modern FN Solid...... All are not created equal, and only North Fork and #13s need apply for the job, none of the rest I tested are suitable....... In this case, the RN Woodleighs are at the bottom of the barrel for reliable brush busting abilities........ How Dead is Dead? Zero doubt that the #13s and like are far deader, as they have made it to their target more reliably....... And lets face it, when hunting buffalo many have said the modern softs and even the #13 Raptors are so good, there is no need for a solid anymore..... I don't agree with that at all. I am not talking 1st shots, but second + shots....... On that second shot, your soft/Raptor might not have put him down on the spot, maybe you hit a stick? More than likely its just ole buffs nature to be hateful after taking the first bullet and he normally bucks up and runs, and most cases AWAY, so you are shooting South on a North Bound buff..... What is the best and most reliable bullet that can get you into the vitals? A solid of course. While many have used RN Solids in the past for this, some successful, some NOT, the greatest chance for one to reach vitals from this position is a Properly Designed FN Solid........... And, if buff goes into the thick stuff, then the needle pegs hard over to the Properly Designed FN Solid..... For instance: http://forums.accuratereloadin...=452101374&f=1411043
Naturally it is possible for any bullet to fail in the field..... The field presents scenarios that one could not always imagine......... I personally know of several instances in which various RN Solids have failed their mission to make something dead even a little bit...... One good Friend, 450NE here, was shooting Woodleigh RN Solids on an elephant, first shot frontal bullet entered dead center, took a turn 90 degree to the side, and exited the side of the head, no visible effect, no big knockout value, and this was a 458 caliber Woody RN, a quick second shot on side brain put the elephant in the dirt.... So one bullet, the first one took a 90 degree turn, and the other did its job..... There are other instances and individuals some here on AR, others not, that have had RN Solids veer off course or fail to reach vital areas, including elephant brains, and buffalo vitals........ I have personally seen myself a RN Solid veer 90 degrees off course from the rear end of an eland, and exit out the top of his back hitting a large tree limb above him. This was not a Woodleigh, but a .500 caliber RN Solid we had in 2006....... Other failures are more related to construction and the RN profile...... We have a photo of a 500 gr 458 Hornady FN that veered off course in an elephant body, hit bone and flattened like a pancake, of course it would not have went off course had the design of the meplat been larger to begin with, so it suffered both nose profile and construction deficiencies...... In this same elephant one of the older 458 caliber RN Hornady Solids took a turn and was found some 3 feet off course.......... Some other related failures...... http://forums.accuratereloadin...=643101959&f=1411043 http://forums.accuratereloadin...5461070481&f=1411043 The idea is to present to you that there is little doubt there is a POTENTIAL for a RN design to fail its intended mission... POTENTIAL does not mean it does it every single time...... I personally want to take to the field a bullet, or rifle, boots, or equipment of any sort that has the "LEAST POTENTIAL" to fail me in my mission or my endeavors...... I won't go with second best, not knowingly anyway........... Some folks go to the field with pointy STICKS... But that is just not my game........ And when one talks about many of these smaller tuskless elephants and cows some folks like to hunt or shoot, for the most part as far as I know those RN solids work well on those, they are not very large and do not present too much of an issue for the RN Solids..... That bullet only has to go a 1/2 foot or less in many cases to get to the brain on those elephants. The difference between one of these elephants and a big bull elephant is extreme...... Many here have accused me of many things, bullet peddler, having $$ interests, and other little snide remarks over the years...... Elite has not been one, but I don't take that as snide or too hateful anyway........ I embarked on this discovery of properly designed FN Solids because I NEEDED THEM in .500 caliber for the various .500 B&M Cartridges that I hunt with, and now many more...... There was NO OTHER REASON in the beginning, and I had no other goals or agenda in mind..... I still do not have an agenda, I am not in the bullet business, I own a Forestry/ROW Company, I don't have time to be in the bullet business or gun business and do not want to be honestly, there is not enough money in either to make it worth my efforts, and I would starve to death to boot...... I needed these bullets for my own personal use, and nothing more....... I do enjoy helping fellow shooters/hunters however, and do my best to assist where I can. It is very rewarding to me personally to see you guys be successful in your endeavors, and if I had just a tiny bit to do with that, then even more so...... Some folks can't be helped and that is just dandy too...... And nothing to me...... The Positives here FAR outweighs the Negatives, so much so that the Negative elements are very easily ignored, or just put to the side and are of very little to no consequence. These Negatives will never ever be convinced to go beyond the tradition, nostalgia, Grandpa Syndromes, to attempt to reason with these negatives is equivalent to attempting to deal with Liberals, Anti-Gun or Anti-Hunting types, a complete waste of time...... I do so not for those negatives, but for others that might actually not understand what is really going on........ I get no joy out of short snide remarks that have no real basis, and lord knows I type pretty good, and yes, I do not attempt to make a point or have a discussion with one sentence remarks..... And I realize some folks have a very short attention span, but I do believe in details and doing things the right way.... I don't come up short on keeping my data and other things, I don't come up short in my business, and I don't intend to come up short with you either....... Don't you think you are good enough to get all the facts? While some may not want them, there are far more that do... This discussion has been going on since I joined AR, and far more heated than anything here in this little thread. Get my goat? Yeah, sometimes, and that is their little enjoyment in life, but I am still here, and believe me when I say, once I leave this keyboard, "THEY" are of absolute Zero Consequence to my endeavors. I present what I see as it is, good or bad, and sometimes some folks just can't bear it. I will "Endeavor to Persevere" M http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| one of us |
The ignorance shown by MJines, JPK and shootaway is staggering, given the length of time they have been on AR. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Reliable feeding is "of very little to no consequence"? The discussion of penetration probably seems a bit irrelevant to the poor fellow standing there with a rifle that failed to properly feed on a follow up shot. But I digress, unlike the occasional story of a round nose bullet that failed, there has never been the similar occasional story of a flat nose bullet that failed to properly feed. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
In the nicest possible way I could put it, Positive/Negative is referenced to PEOPLE, not pros or cons as you might suggest or infer........ Positive People....... Negative People....... Or just plain assholes if you rather understand that more readily... No reference to yourself of course, just in general terms.......... I apologize, as I know that post is very long and some folks might have trouble getting through it....
Absolutely correct on all counts...... Do you have a CWP there in Texas? I am a CWP holder, and I would NEVER put a firearm on my person that would not feed or function, FIRST AND FOREMOST at the front of the line......... Neither would I take a Rifle to the field that would not feed or function either....... But neither would I go to the field, or the streets with an inferior bullet or load.... I will and have gone to the street, and to the field with the very best possible solution to solving a problem that I might encounter in said street or field........ Not going with the worst inferior solution. To me, to choose the inferior bullet, over proper mechanics and function is not only the "CHEAP", but also hazardous even with the RN design, or what have you...... Naturally if one looks hard enough you can find a bullet that will not feed, either in a 1911, or bolt gun or perhaps others as well. A well designed, proper designed solid should feed in any "quality" rifle that one would take to the field, with very little effort in MOST cases......... One thing that NorthFork did with their NEW nose profile is go to a 68% meplat, to assist in this endeavor. This is the size meplat that John and I worked with in my M70 rifles in .500 caliber in the beginning some years ago..... The first .500 prototypes had a 72% meplat, which would not feed reliably. We know for a fact from the test work done that a minimum of 65% meplat is required for true terminal stabilization. We also know for a fact, when one goes above 70% meplat, that while dead straight penetration remains true, depth of penetration begins to decrease. Now, other factors do come in play with larger meplat sizes, which hit harder than smaller meplat sizes. The 68% meplat size was chosen as optimum meplat size for stabilization, depth of penetration, and just so happens feeds and functions well in most any quality bolt gun, and if not, very little work is required by a competent gunsmith to make it so. I am quite sure with very little work on a QUALITY rifle, Duane can accomplish this in spades....... I know that Brian Alberts can do this in very short order at SSK....... And I am sure there are many more as well...... If one chooses a cheap ass rifle to begin with..... well, there is little hope for some, and more work required...... The Poor Fellow, as you say, that makes this choice actually has no business in the field anyway, as his choices are poor, and he should be happy that a PH will be there to get his bacon out of the fire when the problem raises its ugly head........ I personally believe that a fellow that intends to spend enough money going on a DG hunt these days (none are cheap) but yet chooses a $500 Rifle, and the cheapest bullet he can purchase based on attempting to feed that $500 rifles has made some poor choices and is in for a hard time, one way or the other, and stands a real chance of putting other people into bad situations......... Why would any reasonable thinking individual support such a decision?????? Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thanks for clearing that up. That was probably about the time I took a break from reading the post to eat breakfast. Michael, what would you guess, if we looked at the issue from a percentage basis, realizing that round nose solids have been around a lot longer than flat nose solids, which of the two bullets would have the higher percentage failure rate in the field comparing failure/difficulty to penetrate versus failure/difficulty to feed? Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
I would say almost none for failure/difficulty to feed. I am going to Africa with FN solids in 36 days. You can bet MY life that I will run every one of the cartridges through the magazines of my guns to make sure they feed properly. Feeding is something we can control. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores Using only solids in your big bore?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia