quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:

quote:

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.

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.

you are comparing watermellons to grapes now. the discussion is about solids, so why introduce expanding bullets?

Simple, the OP asked how solids worked on smaller animals. The quick answer to that is they suck. The long, entertaining answer is which one sucks worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
...
Simple, the OP asked how solids worked on smaller animals. ...

However, that was only for the first half of the first page. The remaining 5.5 pages have been spent comparing types of solids.

Don't try to be controversial and try to bring this thread back on topic. .

Yeah, I lost my head for a second.

MJines,

Dumb, retarded and ignorant are vastly different concepts. Dumb and retarded, one can do little about but ignorance can be corrected with education, not so?

Dogleg,

Try using an FN solid for shooting the small five.

Tanks,

The original OP got his answer within 9 posts after the question. In 10, Shootaway changed the subject, several posters got onto that bandwagon and the thread, having been answered, started meandering. That is what threads do.

I've used FN solids. They do have some merit on tiny animals, but I have little interest in those.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:

quote:

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.

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.

Exactly said that for small game the soft was not preferred? No one that I know of. The OP post asked about using solids on smaller game

Gerard, I think the term you are really looking for is disingenuous . . . when someone makes mutually inconsistent statements . . . but I guess ignorant would work too come to think of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
I've used FN solids. They do have some merit on tiny animals, but I have little interest in those.

Why would they not have merit on the largest of animals.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
I've used FN solids. They do have some merit on tiny animals, but I have little interest in those.

Why would they not have merit on the largest of animals.

They have plenty of merit for the largest of animals. The largest as you know being elephants.

Interesting thread for sure.
I've been using flat nose solid bullets for many years here in the states in my handguns for large game. I've also used round nose solids.
The flat meplate bullets always cut a straighter and wider wound channel thru game. ANY GAME!
Round nose bullets 'solids', will not cut out as wide a channel and the meat will usually close over the hole.
I know RNs have been used for a LOT of years and killed a LOT of game. But then again the 'stone axe' was pretty popular for a lot of years too.
Those set in their ways with blinders on are always afraid of change.

A few years back while talking with a quite well known gunsmith here before he passed on about making rifles feed with flatnose bullets. He told me this:
'It can fairly easily be done; but the gunsmith has to know what he's doing'.

I think that about sums it up.

One should not say "Flat nose bullets do not feed properly in my rifle". The correct sentence is "My rifle can't reliably feed ammunition, unless the bullet shape is within a limited and well-defined range".

This is a problem of geometry of the ramp, feed rails, magazine box, etc. Most factories can simply not spend the time needed to shape these properly, and use a geometry and finish that are acceptable for the majority of bullets on the market - i.e. spitzers and round noses - and easy to manufacture.

If they did produce rifles that were perfectly finished, you wouldn't be able to buy them for a thousand dollars...

As for the bullet shape, round nose bullets worked for decades.

Similarly, aircraft flew for decades with reciprocating engines. But you'd have a hard time convincing Boeing and airline pilots that this is a good enough reason for not using jet engines, since they require more expensive technologies for the aircraft they are used on...

Flat nose and cup-point solids perform better than round noses on the animals they are intended for, which are dangerous and large animals.

The trade-off is that the rifle they are used in must go through more work in order to become a reliable instrument.

If you are going after dangerous game, do you think that skimping on the tools needed is a wise idea?

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
One should not say "Flat nose bullets do not feed properly in my rifle". The correct sentence is "My rifle can't reliably feed ammunition, unless the bullet shape is within a limited and well-defined range".

This is a problem of geometry of the ramp, feed rails, magazine box, etc. Most factories can simply not spend the time needed to shape these properly, and use a geometry and finish that are acceptable for the majority of bullets on the market - i.e. spitzers and round noses - and easy to manufacture.

If they did produce rifles that were perfectly finished, you wouldn't be able to buy them for a thousand dollars...

As for the bullet shape, round nose bullets worked for decades.

Similarly, aircraft flew for decades with reciprocating engines. But you'd have a hard time convincing Boeing and airline pilots that this is a good enough reason for not using jet engines, since they require more expensive technologies for the aircraft they are used on...

Flat nose and cup-point solids perform better than round noses on the animals they are intended for, which are dangerous and large animals.

The trade-off is that the rifle they are used in must go through more work in order to become a reliable instrument.

If you are going after dangerous game, do you think that skimping on the tools needed is a wise idea?

Absolutely, 100% spot on..............

+2

Even if I had a gun that would not feed flatnoses I'd put a flat nose in the chamber for the first shot.

All RN Solids are not created Equal..........

There are so many varieties of RN Solids, even within the same bullet manufacturer, the differences may at first go unnoticed, but upon closer examination, and testing, there are extreme differences...
Take Woodleigh for instance, several varieties and nose profiles, the nose profiles of the .47425 caliber (.474) for the various 470 NE is very much different from the 458 caliber Woodleighs. The 470s are notorious for veering off course, in all mediums, animal tissue included. Perhaps of the big bores, the 458 Woodleighs have the best profile, and far better than the 470s, indeed they do drive deeper and straighter, than the 470s, in all aqueous mediums. They will however veer off course and tumble at some point, many times, they have been able to complete their mission before that point of loosing stability..... The 9.3 320 Woodeigh is the best RN bullet I have ever tested here, it drives straight and true and is capable of driving straight and true as any FN Design, even the best of them.... Another is a tiny little 6.5 156 gr I believe that my friend had here. This was loaded in some old military ammo, he pulled the bullets, reloaded them in some of his 6.5s, and this little bullet was phenomenal with its depth of penetration, along with straight line penetration....


Dropping weight in 9.3 to the Woodleigh 286 RN FMJ did not help, it was terribly unstable, and as far as I can tell, the nose is the same as the mighty 320 Woodleigh 9.3.............

The mighty 577 NE.. .LOL, another very poor nose profile by Woodleigh. Poor SRose, he thought he was really going to show me a new trick with his mighty 577 750 RN FMJ Woodleigh.... It made only 14 inches in the test medium before going off course....... From all the stories I have read about the various 577s in hunting situations, it seems it performs as poorly in the field as well....

There are some very good RN FMJ or Monos, there are some OK, and there are some that are just horrible and really dangerous to use in the field......

All FN Solids are not created equal..............

Again, there are so many various FN Solids on the market today, and many are poorly designed.....

These things are very sensitive, even things that you cannot see or imagine effect these bullets, the difference between 65% meplat and 60% meplat are enormous.... That may be only a few thousands difference, and might not even can tell the difference with the naked eye, but start testing and watch the 60% meplat bullet go all to hell.......

A poorly designed FN Solid can be FAR WORSE in the field than some RN Solid....... If said FN solid drops meplat size down to the 50% of caliber range, this bullet is no better, and perhaps even less stable than a RN FMJ........

Barnes in their infinite wisdom some years ago redesigned their 9.3 FN Solids because someone complained that they would not feed in some of the CHEAP ASS FACTORY rifles...... So they took the meplat size down to 47% of caliber...... This was one of the worst bullets I have ever tested here, doing no better than the mighty 577 750 Woodleigh, making 14 inches of test medium before going wildly off course.... Extreme POOR PENETRATION and just no stability at all........

And there are MANY MANY more poor ass FN Solids out there...... Just because it has a FN does not mean it is worth a shit, and there are PLENTY Of failures out there in the real world that backs this up..........



This is nothing new, if you have paid attention you have heard me say these things many times.....
Most do not pay attention, some have attention deficit disorder........

There are 8 Absolute Known Factors for Solid Penetration and are as follows in Order of Importance.....

#1 Meplat Percentage of Caliber
Meplats that attain 65% Meplat of Caliber are terminally stable.... Above 70% Meplat bullets remain stable, however depth of penetration begins to decrease with every step up in meplat size. 70% Meplat or larger does increase trauma to, and destruction of tissue. 70% Meplats start to get difficult to feed, even in Winchester M70s...... From 65% Meplat to 68% Meplat is OPTIMUM for Stability, destruction of tissues, and feed and function in most quality rifles..........

#2 Nose Profile
There are many and varied Nose Profiles of solids on the market today, from the angled Nose Profiles of CEB and North Fork, to the straight nose profile of the older North Forks and GSC, the Barnes/Hornady Profiles (like a RN cut off at the top) to many more... Not all of these are created equal, and some are better performers than others. In recent tests in comparison between the old North Fork Profiles and the Newer North Fork Profiles I was getting 20% deeper penetration with the Newer North Forks than the older, with the same bullet, just difference in Nose Profile is all.... John at North Fork agrees, and in their work there they were getting more along the lines of 25% deeper penetration. One major thing that I noticed here, the stability at the end of penetration was 100% better. In most all tests here the last 2 inches of penetration of the old style North Forks would be unstable. Now this is and was of no consequence at the very end of penetration. The depth of penetration of these older nose profile bullets was always so deep that it had long accomplished its mission before loss of stability right at the very end. This new NOSE PROFILE of North Forks remains DEAD STRAIGHT to the very last of penetration, and always found NOSE FORWARD........

#3 Construction & Material
Construction of a solid is a major part of its ability to penetrate. To deny this is foolish to say the least. Some of our solids out there, lead core, are very very weak in construction and absolutely do not have the ability to bust through heavy bone and reach their intended targets. I have seen and have in hand failures of these bullets from the field..... A shame as well, as some of these bullets are promoted as Dangerous Game Solids, and some of them flatten out like pancakes when hitting some heavy..... Some FMJ Have steel inserts, while this solves a problem in one area, it creates problems in other areas.... Brass is harder than Copper... No surprise there, but I have busted elephant heads with both copper and brass, and never had one distort, but, these solids were of a very STRONG NOSE PROFILE as well........ So you see, combinations of different factors work together to strengthen or weaken other factors..... A good strong Nose Profile, can overcome some material deficiencies and in the case of copper solids this is extremely important, and very true........

#4 Nose Projection
Nose Projection above the top bands was the last factor discovered. There may be more factors, but currently they remain undiscovered at this point in time.... We found that nose projection above the top of the bands of current CNC monolithic bullets is very important to depth of penetration. Some bullets designed to work through lever actin riflers require a SHORT NOSE PROJECTION in front of the bands so that they can be loaded deep enough to work through the actions of these guns... Nose Projection of these same bullets for bolt guns, single shots, and double rifles are longer, from .600 to .700 in front of the top band. The LONGER NOSE PROJECTION solids will penetrate on average 25% deeper than the shorter nose projection. Now, these bullets already have all the other required factors for stability, nose profile, construction and radius, so it is ONLY DEPTH Of penetration that is effected with properly designed bullets.

#5 Radius Edge of Meplat
We found that the radius edge of the meplat made a difference, small, but a difference none the less. A nicely radius edge penetrates about 5% deeper, and has more stability at the end than a sharp edged radius.... No more to go into here, thats it.......

All the Above Factors Deal with Bullet Design........

#6 Velocity
Velocity is a factor, but it also goes hand in hand with Nose Profile and Construction/Material. If we assume that the Meplat is optimum, the nose projection is optimum, and the bullet has a nice radius then velocity becomes a factor in combination with nose profile and construction/materials. Different Nose Profiles react differently with velocity. Some nose profiles at very low velocity cannot maintain stability, but this would be in the extreme, and other factors may come into play with some of this. In essence with some Nose Profiles, added velocity will equate to added depth of penetration, and of course trauma and destruction of tissue. Some nose profiles react better than others, but if properly designed, then all will get some gain from added velocity, UNTIL you reach the point that you get distortion of the meplat by TOO MUCH VELOCITY. Once you begin to distort that meplat, then all sorts of strange things begin to occur. One is depth of penetration will decrease, stability will decrease as well....... Normally you will only get this at extreme velocities at 2700-2800 fps or more, which in our big bore rifles is somewhat extreme.......... Lead core bullets will be effected in a serious manner at extreme velocities, followed by copper, and then brass........ Nose Profile and Construction & Material are very important for Factor #6.........

#7 Barrel Twist Rate
Barrel twist rate really only becomes a factor when Factor #1 is DEFICIENT....... If the meplat of caliber is undersized, less than 65%, then faster twist rates WILL INCREASE the depth of penetration by increasing the stability of terminal penetration. A 65% Meplat of Caliber can stabilize in slower twist rates of 1:18, or even slower...... I have seen 65% Meplat of Caliber stabilize with ZERO TWIST....... I have seen 50% Meplat of Caliber stability increase with faster twist rates, and have documentation to prove it, several times...... If you are using a properly designed Solid, then twist rate becomes less important, and more important if you are not using a proper designed solid. Fast Twist Rates can also increase stability of even RN Solids of decent design, hardly anything can increase stability of a more pointy RN FMJ.......

#8 Sectional Density
Sectional Density will ONLY BE A FACTOR with two bullets that are exactly the same in every other Factor or aspect. Factors #1 and #2 far outweigh Sectional Density in the terminal performance of Solids. We can take a properly designed 458 caliber 325 gr Solid and far out penetrate in depth and stability a poorly designed 550 gr 458 caliber bullet....... My son recently shot a medium sized elephant at 10 yards, perfectly executed side brain shot, with a 350 gr .474 caliber properly designed solid at 2200 fps. This bullet exited the head on the far side and still may be going for all I know. A 350 gr .474 caliber bullet has a sectional density of .223, and I personally would choose this little 350 gr bullet over the Woodleigh 500 gr RN FMJ at .4725 (ones I have here) any and every day for any mission............

These are undeniable facts, and can be proven over and over and over again in all test work, and these factors have been exercised in the field and have proven themselves in the field, many many times over...... These are the 8 Factors of Terminal Penetration of Solid Bullets.................



Personally, I don't care what some people choose to use, and in some RARE cases, it really pleases me that the most vocal of some actually use some bullets that might be described as deficient, my conscious is 100% clean, and I have done my best........

What really gets me, is that in each and every one of these threads since forever, I have pointed out each time that some various RN Solids have a "POTENTIAL" to fail one in the field. I add to these threads PROOF beyond doubt that this POTENTIAL is there, and testimonials by real people that have been there, had failures and proof positive of this failure, but in the end, the most vocal proponents of the old standby RN never ever acknowledge these failures..... Remember, I have always maintained that there is simply the "Potential" to fail, and never ever once have I said they Always Fail in the field... Only the Potential to do so. Yet the next thing from these same folks is "Historical Evidence"... Which I already presented my thought on Historical Evidence in this very thread.... Which was TOO LONG for some of those to be able to comprehend......... I am sure, this post is way too long for those individuals as well....... Deny Deny Deny, and soon it becomes the truth?

There are those proponents that even agree that a FN drives deeper and straighter to everyone in past conversations, but if I say the same thing, then I am a "Bullet Pimp" "Delusional" or begin the attack in some other way....... I wonder what that is all about?
Not that I give a damn.......

When I support going to the field with the very best of equipment, I am then attacked by those of going to get someone killed??? What that is about, I don't have a clue.............

Proponents of the RN fraternity move to rifles won't function with FN Solids... Well this is very true, and I support strongly that anyone going to the field know their rifle well enough to recognize these deficiencies and get them corrected properly. Its what I would do......

Bring in the GUN MECHANICS........ No offense to any premier gun mechanic, but surely a decent gun mechanic can sort this problem out with a rifle? My Gun Mechanics at SSK Industries can do this, and they never ever question why..... JD Jones knows why we want this and require it in the field. You see, JD is not just a "Gun Mechanic" but has been heavily involved in cartridge design and to enhance his own JDJ designs, he is very heavy into "Bullet Design" going back 40+ years............. JD Jones very much understands the importance of bullet design in the field. JD has shot more animals with various bullets doing test work than probably everyone on this thread combined........ We are talking animals in the many 1000s...........Over a period of 40+ years. I know these things to be a fact......... JD in 10 years that I have been getting SSK Industries to do ALL of my work, has never once questioned or asked me why I want that bullet... He has NEVER suggested that I would be better off going to the field with my rifles feeding RN bullets...... Never. Why? Because he actually knows better and has the years of experience in cartridge and bullet design to back it up, and many 1000s upon top of 1000s of animals taken to prove it......... Many times (in my opinion) JD has gone to the field with cartridges that might not be quite up to par with what some, me, many others, might think was required to accomplish the mission he would embark upon. How does one enhance any cartridge? Bullet Design, the bullet does ALL THE HEAVY lifting............ It is mere folly to consider any other outcome...........

Ole Dave Bush, one of our AR Brothers which passed not so long ago, he and I used to have many conversations about these same things, and over the years of this Dave and I came to some good agreements and some disagreements, but one that stands out in my mind, which is related some to the gun mechanics on this thread is this.... Dave had a rifle that just would not feed a flat nose solid, even good one. I told him many times get the damned thing fixed, cost a couple 100 dollars and be done with it. He told me that he was never going to Africa, he would never be able to hunt dangerous game, he did not need to spend the $$ on the rifle, and would just as soon shoot and enjoy his rifle with the old RN bullets. Taken this in to account, I could not agree with him more, and told him he was right, and he did not need that FN solid at all and to continue enjoying shooting his big bore rifle regardless of the bullet he chose........ Dave became a serious FN Proponent in his lever guns, both CEB #13s and Woodleigh Hydros, I miss Dave....... At least he had the capability of an open mind on most things............

Well, that about ends this all TOO LONG a post, hopefully someone gets something out of it, in the end I am sure the RN boys will pounce on it and tell me how wrong I am and so forth and so on....... Deny something long enough, or tell that BS long enough it soon defies logic but I will forever stand firm on the facts and the statements I have made. I can promise you that when I am wrong on something, I will freely admit that I was wrong, but I am not wrong on this............ and can back it all up.....

Enjoy the day gents, I am headed to the range, I have pressure work projects going on and having good fun with some of my projects I have put off for years............. (Do not let this get out in public but I am actually doing some needed work in some "Rat Calibers", but if you let this get out, I will deny it.....HEH HEH)

Michael

Spot on, Michael!

Exactly what we learned with the big bore revolvers!

The best solid ever made.
[URL= ]The King of solids[/URL]

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
Spot on, Michael!

Exactly what we learned with the big bore revolvers!

And the bullet lessons learned from big bore revolvers with their limited powder capacity and 'slowwwwww' twist rates easily transcend to higher capacity faster twist rate rifles. I reckon some folks just don't desire to pay attention.

Very good dissertation Michael, unfortunately it'll be lost on many.

To expand upon the traditional solids a bit...
Sam sent me a Woodleigh 530gr .510 RN and a 570gr .510 RN bullets to measure up when we were working on the proper freebore specification for the 500 AccRel Nyati. 'Twas very interesting in that the Ogive of the 530gr actually started on the shank below the seating groove whereas the 570gr started on the shank above the seating groove before the Ogive. The 530gr very much resembled a slightly rounded semi-Spitzer nose shape whereas the 570gr has a more rounded nose shape with a much shorter Ogive.

I believe what you'll find with the extra heavy for caliber Woodleigh solids is that they're long cylinder shaped from base to the Ogive and the Ogive is very short in with with a very rounded nose shape. It is the combination of the extra rounded nose with very short Ogive length stabilized by the long cylinder shaped shank that gives the extra performance of these bullets.

Inversely had Woodleigh adopted the Ogive length to cylinder shank shape ratio and smaller rounded nose of the 470 NE, the 500 Jeffery, or the 577 NE then these extra heavy for caliber bullets would have very poor penetration reputations as well.

Just as all RN solids aren't designed equally, the small meplat size FN bullet exemplified by the Hornady DGS solids won't provide within mass terminal performance and stability and better than most RN solids. And while the extra large meplat size solids provide extremely stable within mass penetration the extra large meplat size also reduces the depth of penetration as well as severely hampering the feeding ability of the bullets from a staggered-stack magazine.

As you've noted, it's all about identifying the proper nose shape and meplat size to optimize the within mass terminal penetration and stability while also facilitating staggered magazine feeding capability.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
The best solid ever made.
[URL= ]The King of solids[/URL]

Uh Oh........ You know why the meplat is smaller than optimum on the DGS? So they feed in cheap rifles better. The bullet below came up short on two factors, less than optimum meplat causing it to go unstable, and Construction & Materials....

quote:

Originally posted by dave wesbrook:
If not I'll stay with Mike Jines and Duane's advice and stick to RN bullets.
Mike has killed over 30 elephants...

Something in the above statement is either a typo or quite an exaggeration, I believe. Perhaps MJines would like to correct it, although in 7 replies since this was posted back on page 4 he has not chosen to do so.

So, what's the correct count Mike Jines ? Not that I give a rat's ass, but it was stated as some kind of qualification by a poster who you apparently solicited to this thread.

IIRC Robgunbuilder's way to make a gun feed any kind of bullet was to get the rifle to feed empty cases (no bullets) until it would feed without issue. This is the best way I have ever heard to have full confidence in the feeding of a bolt action. I would not want to use a gun that could not feed flat nose bullets. Get yourself a hand full of flat nose bullets and feed them as fast as you can a few hundred times without fail or get it to if your life may depend on that tool.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
The best solid ever made.
[URL= ]The King of solids[/URL]

Uh Oh........ You know why the meplat is smaller than optimum on the DGS? So they feed in cheap rifles better. The bullet below came up short on two factors, less than optimum meplat causing it to go unstable, and Construction & Materials....

I have put bullets to a sledge hammer test and the DGS was one tough bullet.I put a brass FN Barnes Banded solid to that same test and the front broke of.The DGS is one super tough bullet.I would like to see what would have happened to a brass FN solid if it were subjected to the same thing...

quote:

I have put bullets to a sledge hammer test and the DGS was one tough bullet.I put a brass FN Barnes Banded solid to that same test and the front broke of.The DGS is one super tough bullet.I would like to see what would have happened to a brass FN solid if it were subjected to the same thing...

Ask and you shall receive....... This elephant was shot with 458 B&M 18 inch barrel, 450 CEB #13 Solid at 2225 fps, bullet passed through busting both legs/shoulders out from under him, he dropped to the shot.... Please note the odd angles of both legs..... Bullet passed completely through after doing this damage.......... Mind you, in a straight line.........

quote:

I have put bullets to a sledge hammer test and the DGS was one tough bullet.I put a brass FN Barnes Banded solid to that same test and the front broke of.The DGS is one super tough bullet.I would like to see what would have happened to a brass FN solid if it were subjected to the same thing...

Shootaway,

A "sledgehammer test" is not a bullet design test, it's merely a material test. Under stress, brass will break while copper, steel and lead will deform much more before they break.

The failure of the DGS above is not in the materials, but in design: to deform like that, the flattened bullet has tumbled and hit bone sideways. The other one went two feet off...

Just hope I'm not wasting my time...

quote:

I have put bullets to a sledge hammer test and the DGS was one tough bullet.I put a brass FN Barnes Banded solid to that same test and the front broke of.The DGS is one super tough bullet.

Well, hmmmmm....... Sledge hammer testing.... OK, can you tell me the weight of the sledge hammer, and how much pressure or PSI was exerted on each blow? How many hits per bullet at what PSI rating?

Perhaps you and Jines should get together and do some terminal performance tests for us using your "Sledge Hammer Test Methods".... Would be very interesting to note that data...............

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I have put bullets to a sledge hammer test and the DGS was one tough bullet.I put a brass FN Barnes Banded solid to that same test and the front broke of.The DGS is one super tough bullet.I would like to see what would have happened to a brass FN solid if it were subjected to the same thing...

wow. really? shootaway, do you realize just how ridiculous that is?

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:

quote:

Originally posted by dave wesbrook:
If not I'll stay with Mike Jines and Duane's advice and stick to RN bullets.
Mike has killed over 30 elephants...

Something in the above statement is either a typo or quite an exaggeration, I believe. Perhaps MJines would like to correct it, although in 7 replies since this was posted back on page 4 he has not chosen to do so.

So, what's the correct count Mike Jines ? Not that I give a rat's ass, but it was stated as some kind of qualification by a poster who you apparently solicited to this thread.

I don't put much importance on these sort of numbers regardless of how many or how little, and here is why.....

I know a fellow that has shot well over 50 elephants currently. No names, and this fellow is not an AR member that I know of either.... He uses a double rifle 470 Nitro. I say shot, not killed. He kills roughly 20%-25% of his elephants he shoots, the PH does the rest. Some years ago I asked what bullet he was using for all this, to which his answer was "I use only Federal Premium Ammunition". I don't keep up with what is loaded, but this has been some years ago and according to the PH it was Woodleigh FMJ loads. Point is not that it was Woodleigh FMJ, but this guy did not know what the bullet was, I am sure he could look at it and understand it was a FMJ Solid, but more than that, he did not have a clue.......... Here is a fellow that his only goal in life is to shoot elephants, and he knows nothing about the bullet he is using? It is beyond my capabilities to understand this...... In addition to this, he knew nothing about his rifle, sadly I watched him knock an elephant down, but when it started to get up he had no clue as to what to do, he was trying to open the rifle to reload it, but yet he still had one round in the rifle, but not the presence of mind to shoot the one he had, he stumbled around until the elephant got back on its feet and the PH took care of it from there, he never fired the second round and stepped away from the scene....

No, I am sorry, I don't put a lot of importance on these kind of numbers.......... Rather meaningless I believe...... Except to this chap and his Country Club pals.......

I would much prefer to hear from a fellow that shot 1 elephant, he knew his bullet, his load, his ammo and his rifle, and can tell you what the bullet did.........

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I have put bullets to a sledge hammer test and the DGS was one tough bullet.I put a brass FN Barnes Banded solid to that same test and the front broke of.The DGS is one super tough bullet.I would like to see what would have happened to a brass FN solid if it were subjected to the same thing...

wow. really? shootaway, do you realize just how ridiculous that is?

I Know the answer to this question...........

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
The best solid ever made.
[URL= ]The King of solids[/URL]

Uh Oh........ You know why the meplat is smaller than optimum on the DGS? So they feed in cheap rifles better. The bullet below came up short on two factors, less than optimum meplat causing it to go unstable, and Construction & Materials....

I have put bullets to a sledge hammer test and the DGS was one tough bullet.I put a brass FN Barnes Banded solid to that same test and the front broke of.The DGS is one super tough bullet.I would like to see what would have happened to a brass FN solid if it were subjected to the same thing...

I guess the sledge hammer test would have some merit if you were driving the bullet through with a sledge hammer.

How ridiculous can you get? That is the question.

damn, that's funny!

michael, do you have that picture of the round nosed solid that was found poking out of the offside (backwards) of a cape buffalo? I believe kebco posted it originally.

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:
michael, do you have that picture of the round nosed solid that was found poking out of the offside (backwards) of a cape buffalo? I believe kebco posted it originally.

Max.....

Actually I believe that was a Hornady DGS of some sort....... I might be wrong, but pretty sure that is the case........

There you go. That bullet, while still penetrating from one end of the buffalo to the other creates a much larger wound channel due to the tumbling effect. Massive trauma.

For those of you whom perceive that Michael really never tested RN solids, here are the results of one of the RN solid’s performance that he referenced a couple of days ago. Notice the dates/times they were posted in the Terminal Bullet Performance thread, page 45...
Note:
Personally I believe the nose of this military FMJ functions much the same that I’ve read regarding the original Rigby designed 480gr, 410gr and 310gr RN solids (functioning as a RN for feeding purposes and as a FN during terminal performance within thick-boned thick-skinned DG) used respectively in the .450 Nitro Express 3 ¼”, the .416 Rigby, and the 400/350 Rigby Nitro Express cartridges.
To bad Rigby’s RN solid bullet design wasn’t adopted for other Nitro Express and Rimless cartridges designed in the late-19th/early-20th century timeframe; perhaps all would have performed much better than they historically have.
Anyway back to Michael’s testing…

quote:

Originally posted by michael458: posted 07 March 2010 19:58
OK I think I can put this together for you now. BikeRider, Sam and myself had a great day, as stated before, we had lot's of fun, and I think we learned some things about the bullets we were testing and playing with. So I will get started on some of the things we did yesterday.

First I will start with the 156 gr Military FMJ 6.5 caliber bullets that Bike pulled from old military loads from the 1950s as I understand it. Now if I get off course, Bike, straighten me out, as this is more your project and I am just the reporter of and recorder of. If it means anything I did notice these bullets had an "A" stamped into the lead base of the bullet? I suppose the arsenal from whence they came? Who knows, I don't.

I am posting this as having some relevance to what we are doing, this is in Big Bores, I do not consider 6.5 as such obviously. But in the old days, folks and some famous folks did in fact use similar bullets to do heavy work. Even though results are incredible, not something I would recommend. Of course one finds themselves sometimes in the bush with a small caliber rifle with intents of other actions, when in fact one finds themselves confronted with an issue or problem in which they might NOT be prepared for, and their loads and bullets not prepared for a heavy mission! So if a heavy rifle or caliber not available, I suspect it is a good notion to investigate a proper bullet to handle lot's of unpredictable situations, and have a few of those in the back pocket would add to ones confidence in the field. Very much the same thing as Tanzan has brought up concerning the 250 Barnes Banded 338 caliber bullet, while hunting in unpredictable country! Well that need not be limited to a particular caliber or cartridge I think!

Anyway Bike pulled these bullets and reloaded them into two other cartridges, a 6.5X53R Dutch, and a 6.5 Remington Magnum. Not having any experience myself with either cartridge, if anyone has questions concerning these direct them to BikeRider. And of course I would leave that to him to discuss those matters.

First up!


OK I also wish to point out that over time I now only concern myself with STRAIGHT LINE PENETRATION--not total penetration. This is all I can count on for sure is to the point in which any bullet might veer off course. At a low impact velocity of 2177 fps this one did very well at 68 Inches of straight line penetration. That is tremendous with a bullet of this type I think. I would not give two hoots in hell for the nose profile, so everything else must have lined up for this, twist rate, velocity, SD, length of bullet for caliber and the penetration gods looking in?

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458: posted 07 March 2010 20:03
Now moving this bullet to a different format, the 6.5 Remington Mag and it's higher velocity.


We could not tell a particular point in which this bullet began to veer any, but it was not very far off course in the length of 71 inches of penetration, and I don't believe far enough off course to make any real world practical difference. Velocity was right at the beginning of showing itself as you can see the flattened nose.

That is a convertible bullet. A semi conical round nose to a semi flat point. I you look at the recovered bullet you can see the taper to a semi flat point that resembles the profile recipe proven to work so well.

And here’s some more 2010 testing results for the 500 NE double rifle; prototype 570gr FN Copper bullet (a prototype leading to the current 570gr .510 CEB Safari Solid in brass), an original 570gr Kynoch FMJ bullet, and a current 570 Woodleigh FMJ bullet.
Excerpt page 97 Terminal Bullet Performance thread:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458: posted 03 October 2010 19:35
As shooters and hunters we make many choices as we move forward. What rifle? What Cartridge? What apparel do I need for the next hunt? What Powder to use for my loads? How much velocity do I need?

However, all combined it comes down to the "BULLET" we choose that can and "sometimes" does decide whether the entire affair is either a great success, with shared smiles, back slaps, and handshakes, and most important, that Ice Cold Celebration BEER after the grand event--or a miserable, worrisome, thought provoking, failure!

Come now, really, what would you choose?





If you are a double sorta chap, what would you choose?

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
And here’s some more 2010 testing results for the 500 NE double rifle; prototype 570gr FN Copper bullet (a prototype leading to the current 570gr .510 CEB Safari Solid in brass), an original 570gr Kynoch FMJ bullet, and a current 570 Woodleigh FMJ bullet.
Excerpt page 97 Terminal Bullet Performance thread:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458: posted 03 October 2010 19:35
As shooters and hunters we make many choices as we move forward. What rifle? What Cartridge? What apparel do I need for the next hunt? What Powder to use for my loads? How much velocity do I need?

However, all combined it comes down to the "BULLET" we choose that can and "sometimes" does decide whether the entire affair is either a great success, with shared smiles, back slaps, and handshakes, and most important, that Ice Cold Celebration BEER after the grand event--or a miserable, worrisome, thought provoking, failure!

Come now, really, what would you choose?





If you are a double sorta chap, what would you choose?

Michael

So all those thousands of elephants, buffalo, rhino, hippo, lion, and all manner of game animals shot by the early 20th century hunters and professionals using their nitro express cartridges from 6.5 to 600 bore round nose solids failed to die?

Did the box die?