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 |
That statement is wrong at so many levels I am reluctant to even waste a few sentences to respond . . . I wonder how that stock Winchester will compare accuracy wise, wood-to-metal fit, etc. You seem to be incapable of focusing on more than one attribute of any item at a time. With flat nose solids it is penetration . . . with rifles it is feeding . . . Most folks tend to evaluate an item based on the overall performance of the item in its totality. But if it makes you feel comfortable to focus on one attribute at a time . . . go for it. As O'Reilly would say, you get the last word I am tired of this back and forth. It is like trying to have an informed and reasoned conversation with Harry Reid. Mike | |||
|
One of Us |
And again, look in the mirror........ Shouting? Hardly...... I really don't have the voice to shout, as you should know..... 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 |
Wrong eh? You started this entire conversation about FEEDING FLAT NOSE SOLIDS.......... And now once a box stock Winchester M70 458 Winchester for $1200 feeds and functions 100%, you take the next level.... Wood to metal, accuracy and so forth......... This thread is about Solids in your big bore, you touch off for the last 2+ pages on Feeding FN Solids.... Now I can't focus? I think its you that are out of focus here ole buddy! If you want to talk more about wood to metal finish, and accuracy, other attributes, and how that is more important on a DGR than feeding the cartridges proper then do so, I did not know it was relevant to the subject at hand, and the subject you brought up to begin with? And then bring in Premier Gunsmiths to help make your point on top of it..... Don't know about your rifles, but these box stock 458 Winchesters I have here will shoot one hole at 50 yards, and is far more than adequate for their mission of Dangerous Game, and on top of it, they all feed and function properly.... Yes, I agree with you, and with you playing the role of "Harry"............ 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 |
Oh boy - - - I admit right up front that I’m likely not the most unbiased individual in the discussion but let’s throw a few things on the table that has arisen in this thread and virtually every other thread that discusses RN vs FN anything… 1st – Both RN and FN bullets have failed within the past 10 years to perform as needed/required to accomplish the task. And I might add that numerous individuals from both sides of the discussion have specifically noted when/where the failure took place. This is a fact – just accept it. 2nd – Virtually every bolt action rifle made over the past 120years was designed from the factory, or underwent a design change at the factory, to properly feed Round Nose bullets and Spitzer or Semi-Spitzer bullets from cartridges that the factory chambers. This is a fact – just accept it. 3rd – It is not difficult to modify a factory rifle that feeds RN, Spitzer, and Semi-Spitzer bullets to also properly feed FN bullets. NOT FN bullets that look like trash cans, FN bullets that have a proper Ogive and Meplat. This is a fact – just accept it. 4th – An action that is modified to properly feed a proper FN bullet will not also properly feed a RN bullet. This is just folklore UNTIL it can be proven accurate. If the action will also properly feed Spitzer and Semi-Spitzer bullets why the heck wouldn’t it also RN bullets? 5th – Not all gunmakers or gunsmiths are created equal ‘work accomplishment wise’. This is a fact – just accept it. 6th – Not all gunmakers, gunsmiths, or hunters are reloader’s. Non-reloader’s so will use whatever the factories serve up to them. Reloader’s very often try to ‘optimize’ their cartridge/rifle combination and will run through every bullet, case, powder, and primer combination until they reach their preferred blend. This is a fact – just accept it. 8th – Would Mauser, Rigby, Westley Richards, etc. have manufactured their rifles at the turn of the 20th century to use computerized CNC machines brass or copper FN bullets rather than RN copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core bullets? They had neither computers nor CNC machining equipment so that wasn’t an option for them. They used the best available at the time, not the same as the best available. Until Woodleigh released their Hydrostatically Stabilized© CNC machined cup point monometal bullets their solids consisted of mirroring the bullet designs and composition of the ‘best of the early 20th century’. This is a fact – just accept it. 9th – Some factory manufactured rifles will feed every bullet shape thrown at them, some have trouble feeding more than one shape, and there’s a lot of rifles in between. This is a fact – just accept it. (Refer to #5 when deciding to ‘fix’ your troubled rifle.) 10th – Use a RN solid or a FN solid; just understand regardless of what you select there’ll be those that have had a ‘failure to properly perform’ with your bullet shape selection and will always question why you don’t use the other. This is a fact – just accept it. That’s my 2¢ and it’s time for a refill.  Jim  "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| one of us |
Every rifle,factory or custom, requires to be specially designed to feed FN solids.Even if they have a cone breech,all CF rifles have a flat face interrupting the breech to make room for the claw extractor.This is where pointed and FN bullets jam. If you want to shoot FN bullets you need to let the builder know that this is what you want.I dont believe there are any factory rifles that feed FN bullets.The rifles with M70 actions discussed on this thread are really custom rifles.So,there is special work that needs to be done to feed FN solids and like Wiebe says that could come at a sacrifice to smooth feeding.Also,I dont know if any feeding issues could arise if FN bullets are seated to different depths. | |||
|
One of Us |
He is a custom stock maker that also assembles guns from components, and sells as custom guns. I had never heard of him until I started reading the forums, he does have a following that likes his work. Here is a link to discussion of some of his work. http://forums.accuratereloadin...1019521/m/7881028991 | |||
|
| One of Us |
To the OP; What I've observed of using flat-nosed solids on soft, smaller than elephant game is piss-poor performance. Animals that barely look annoyed. When the solid gurus assure me that RN are even worse, interest drops off even more. | |||
|
| One of Us |
My basically factory M70s will feed anything that I throw at them. | |||
|
| one of us |
Are you talking big bores or pea shooters? Are you talking large and long cartridges like the 458 Lott? | |||
|
One of Us |
My 416's have no trouble feeding flat point solids, one is a CZ and the other a Whitworth. The Whitworth started life as a 375 H&H before being re barreled to416 rem. Neither required any custom work to feed. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
Well I can tell you that all three of my CZ's could not feed either FN 458WM cartridges or FN 458 Lott cartridges.They could only feed RN cartridges.All my sources tell me that it is not easy to get a FN big bore bullet to feed-even by the most experienced gunsmiths and then there is no guarantee that it will never jam even if they are feeding now.Now a short cartridge may be easier..but I am no expert...but I think it would,IMO.Going to a short cartridge like the one in the M70 custom rifles discussed here will require new loading data or powders,different twist rates(with new bullet weight velocity combos)...what else? | |||
|
One of Us |
I don't have a dog in this fight and could really care less what someone else shoots in their rifle. After reading three or four pages of posts, I remembered this short article http://www.fieldandstream.com/...g-tony-sanchez-arino specifically the last paragraph... Lee | |||
|
| One of Us |
Could it be the CZ itself? Some folks are not that happy with CZ period. http://forums.accuratereloadin...1043/m/917106916/p/1 | |||
|
| One of Us |
[/QUOTE]Are you talking big bores or pea shooters? Are you talking large and long cartridges like the 458 Lott?[/QUOTE] .375 and .458 Win. Some would consider those peashooters, but they are factory chamberings and they are factory rifles. I also have several smaller calibers but that doesn't apply. Your experience with the CZs is what it is; but trouble with your CZ doesn't transfer directly to a different make and model from a different continent. For what its worth, I've got a couple 550 Safari Magnums around and they work too. I don't consider the CZ the pinnacle of the gun makers art though. | |||
|
| one of us |
Are you talking big bores or pea shooters? Are you talking large and long cartridges like the 458 Lott?[/QUOTE] .375 and .458 Win. Some would consider those peashooters, but they are factory chamberings and they are factory rifles. I also have several smaller calibers but that doesn't apply. Your experience with the CZs is what it is; but trouble with your CZ doesn't transfer directly to a different make and model from a different continent. For what its worth, I've got a couple 550 Safari Magnums around and they work too. I don't consider the CZ the pinnacle of the gun makers art though.[/QUOTE] Congrats to Win if they made their rifle to feed the 458FN.The 458WM is a short cartridge compared to the rest of the big bores easier to feed.They dont offer much of a choice in chamberings do they? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Why would they bother when they are selling faster than they can make them right now? I'm converting my .458 Win to Lott after my up-coming buffalo culling trip and can let you know how that turns out. I'm not overly concerned though when my STWs and H&Hs feed flawlessly. | |||
|
| One of Us |
a cz I had in 458 lott wouldn't feed round nosed soft points out of the box (this was about 10 years ago). i even sent it back and cz failed to fix it saying it was fine. cz is known for the highest quality considering the price point. they make a great foundation however out of the box i am not very impressed Bob | |||
|
| one of us |
If you had the CZ and got it fixed so it was sound and you practiced with or used it extensively and intensively then one can form an opinion on its quality,however if one is just echoing things that have been posted on internet forums then how valid is that opinion? BTW one has to look at the overall rifle not just the action-the fit and balance,stock quality,barrel quality etc... | |||
|
| One of Us |
what part of my post did you not understand? go back, put your reading glasses on and reread. nothing I read on the internet. this was my rifle that I bought new. I would think most people here would know that cz rifles, out of the box, are not 'top shelf' for lack of a better term too bad that it needed fixing. funny that none of the m70s ive owned ever needed any tweaking Bob | |||
|
| one of us |
If one wants to have a super rifle and can afford to pay a little extra and get there moneys worth I would suggest they contact one of the top smiths and have them locate or supply a top action,get that bedded in a stock that fits,have a Krieger or other top barrel fitted with quality sights....talk to the people who have been there and done it RIGHT(well who come close at least  ) ! | |||
|
| One of Us |
huh? Bob | |||
|
| one of us |
sorry i can't make myself clearer...i hit my head hard on a fridge the other day and my concentration level is low | |||
|
| One of Us |
that's ok, happens to the best of us Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
Cap,  You nailed it! 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thanks H... Jim "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
I don't have a dog in this fight and am therefore reluctant to enter the fray. However, I have an off-the-shelf Winchester(NH,CT) Model 70 Safari Express in the rat bore 375H&H which feeds CEB Solids, Raptors, and Non-Cons just as slick as it feeds Nosler Partitions & Accubonds, Swift A-Frames, NorthFork SS and various round nosed solids. Wood to metal fit......is just fine for the girls I date. Accuracy wise-its fantastic. Regularly making sub 1" groups at 200yds As far as the ORIGINAL POSTERS question about using only solids in my big bores, I do not. I also have a mega bore-.620. Currently building a .458 and a .423. I will not limit myself to solids in those either. I do use unleaded expanding monometals as I believe they have evolved to provide excellent penetration, tissue damage/disruption, and stopping power. Stopping power is what big bores were traditionally used for, right? Solids make sense for that purpose, if that is the only time you reach for your big bore. Then I want a bullet that will punch a straight line and not vary its path. My hunting experiences are limited to North America. Your opinions may vary. I have quite a few extra CEB Non-Cons caliber .375 for those that need a few for feed testing. Andy We Band of Bubbas N.R.A Life Member TDR Cummins Power All The Way Certified member of the Whompers Club | |||
|
One of Us |
Capoward you missed out one from your list, lets just call it: 8a - The professional hunters at the turn of the 2Oth century who used RN copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core bullets, the best available at the time, shot more head of every variety of African game than any later 20th century or 21st century PH or safari hunter ever has or ever will. Some of these hunters individually would have shot more of a single species of dangerous game than any 'modern' PH or safari hunter has or ever will shoot as collective species in their lifetime, and very likely more than the modern PH and hunter would ever shoot as a total of African game animals, game animals in their own country, or game animals from around the rest of the world in a lifetime of hunting - This is a fact - just accept it. We accept that somethings modern have changed the world and the way we do things e.g. air travel, but this is not a hard and fast rule. We will never know if those successful hunters of old would ever had accepted or used any other style of bullet in their short professional hunting lifetimes where game animals were in abundance and they relied on their own skill and experience to keep them alive while amassing the huge tallies of animals they did. In the same vein, we will also never know how the modern hunter with his 'modern' bullets and cartridges would perform if put in the same situation of abundant game animals little or no restrictions on hunting them and no PH or even other hunters to back them up, hunting in the same style as the old timers. Some of the old hunters did report problems with some bullets of their time, but then half this forum wouldn't exist if it wasn't for discussions on the successes and failures of all bullets available to the hunter today. Not necessarily mechanical failure but failure in the hunters expectation to perform on the game animal. Am I biased? Possibly, but when I plonked round nosed solids high in the brisket of a few buffalo and they dropped on the spot and through the shoulders of others standing or running and they also dropped I don't have any reason to look for anything else. Perhaps when I am being trampled under foot by an elephant I might then consider if I was using the 'right' bullet  | |||
|
| one of us |
This is the same reasoning as this. These shooters used front loaders and black powder and killed many millions of bison. The question now is: Would you continue to use the same methods when better methods have evolved? If one is nostalgic or a traditionalist and emulating methods of yore is your thing, I understand that, but using an inkwell and a feather to communicate is not as efficient as a ballpoint pen. | |||
|
| One of Us |
exactly. somehow this point is lost on the nostalgic among us Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
The two examples you have given above are are like comparing apples with oranges. When we compare our tools for hunting dangerous game as it was hunted with smokeless powder and jacketed bullets in the early 19th century, the only thing that is any different is the selection of bullets. We load the same cases with essentially the same primers and powders and shoot in the same rifles, in fact the very same rifles, doubles or bolt actions those earlier hunters used, if we can afford to buy them. They are highly sort after today more so than any modern manufactured equivalent. The thing that has changed is the selection of bullets but of course history tells us in a most convincing manner that those old hunters used the same guns and cartridges at the same performance levels we use today with the bullets they had available to them and which we also have available to use today. History shows us that they were all hugely successful in their careers using those exact same tools we have available today. My point is that nobody today will ever have the opportunity to emulate what they achieved no matter what bullet they choose to use and of course we cannot go back in time to prove that those old hunters would be anymore successful in their careers had they had some of the bullets we have today. If we used pure statistics more game animals would likely have been dispatched in Africa in a couple of years using the same tools as we use today with round nose jacketed lead bullets than what will ever be shot using the so called premium bullets of today in the next 100 years (roughly speaking). My way of thinking is it is really hard to argue a case when you cannot dispute an old one and cannot prove a new one. The bullet debate just comes down to personal choice, what feeds well, what has worked for you, what 'looks' right, what you can afford, what is available and any other reason you may choose. | |||
|
| one of us |
That is where the point is missed. I have personally compared the results, on a large number of live game, between using round nosed solids and flat nosed solids, for two years. Then I asked several PHs to compare various weight FNs to RN bullets for a season of shooting DG. Since then, users have given feedback between what they used to use and using FN solids. This has resulted in a steady stream of information that started in 1996 and continues today. I would venture that, comparing results for 18 years, proves a point. GSC could make RN solids as easily as we make FN solids - Same machining process, same tooling, same raw material, same everything. However, I know that making RN solids would put an inferior product in the hands of those who ask for it or who have not compared a big enough sample. | |||
|
| One of Us |
can you really say this honestly? there is plenty of proof out there. before dismissing the idea of flat-nosed solids, why don't you try them Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
It appears that some are unwilling to accept the proof. It is a fact that flat point solids with a proper nose profile leave larger wound channels and penetrate deeper. This is not disputable. _____________________________________________________ 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 |
it is for the flat-earth society Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
So can Barnes, and they choose to do just the opposite with their safari line. Why do people have such a hard time accepting what was said above, "[t]he bullet debate just comes down to personal choice, what feeds well, what has worked for you, what 'looks' right, what you can afford, what is available and any other reason you may choose." Instead it is always "use whatever you want, however, if choose to use anything other than what I use, you must be lost in a whirl of nostalgia, dumber than a stump . . .". Really is sort of asinine. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
And I am not aware that anyone is disputing either point, I certainly am not. What some have suggested, myself included, is that there are factors others than penetration and trauma that are legitimate considerations in the selection of a bullet, including feeding and energy transfer. Gee, this dialogue long ago reached a point of diminishing returns. Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Manufacturers have their reasons why certain lines are made and others not and often those reasons differ. Clearly the GSC reasons differ from those of Barnes. Notice also that manufacturers do not label users as dumb or retarded for their choices. It is the users who berate other users for their choices. It could be that either group knows something the other does not. We need to find the correct names for the perceptions of 'energy transfer' and 'hydrostatic shock'. They are incorrectly used and it leads the beginners astray. | |||
|
| One of Us |
To build on that a bit: Some are unwilling to accept that softs make even bigger wound channels and in the vast majority of cases penetrate more than deep enough. Debating which solid is better when the soft is superior is somewhat akin to striving for the gold in the special Olympics. It is, however quite entertaining.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
you are comparing watermellons to grapes now. the discussion is about solids, so why introduce expanding bullets? Bob | |||
|
| One of Us |
Say what? Mike | |||
|
| 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