Yes, they failed to die. All the aircraft before jet engined aircraft also failed to fly and any car riding on bias ply tyres, before radial ply tyres were evolved, failed to ride anywhere. All the letters written with feathers and inkwells were not written and any message sent by telegraph was not sent.

Your argument is asinine.

eagle27,

Thousands of these same game animals have died as a result of being shot with arrows and spears; some with metal tips, some with sharpened rock tips, and some were solely sharpened wood at the tip. There is no question that arrows and spears killed these game animals for centuries, perhaps thousands of years. And the game animals were just as dead as later used lead bullets, then copper jacketed lead core solid bullets, then copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core solid bullets, then monometal brass or copper solid bullets, and finally to the FN monometal brass or copper solid bullets.

To deny that there is a difference in the terminal performance of the different calibers and manufacturers of RN traditional solids is to ignore the written history of these bullets’ use against these game animals. It has been extensively written that certain caliber and bullet weights where known for their poor ‘killing performance’ when compared to other caliber and bullet weights. Couldn’t prove it by me ‘cause I’ve not used them – but it’s certainly documented in the numerous books and magazine articles written by professional hunters during the 19th and 20th century that many on the AR Forums like very much to quote or refer to. I have a few of these PH written books myself.

Yes, even the poorest performing RN copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core bullets will typically have sufficient terminal penetration to kill the game animal. That said, those same often quoted PHs preferred to use firearms chambered for certain cartridges because they were delivered with RN copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core bullets having a history of greater terminal penetration performance than others.

Regarding the bullet box, Michael458 has noted many times that he sees somewhere around 30% greater terminal penetration within game than within the bullet box regardless of the construction of the solid bullet.

The various photographs that I posted were done so to 'visually identify' the difference in the nose shape of the various RN solid bullets. And a number of those same photographs may have FN banded monometal solids which – contrary to the cup and core construction FMJ bullets – are cut by computerized CNC machines that hold a very high tolerance both shape and weight wise so that the nose and shank shape amongst that manufacturers are virtually identical. Meaning, when the bullet is machined with the same correct meplat percentage, with the same proper nose shape, with identical metal, and to the same sectional density – then the bullets will perform identically terminal performance wise from caliber to caliber.

RN copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core solid bullets are certainly adequate to kill game animals including the largest elephants.

Properly designed FN monometal solids demonstrate a typical 30% to 50% greater depth of straight line penetration within the bullet box than the typical RN copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core solid bullets. And the properly designed FN monometal solids demonstrate at least an equal depth of straight line penetration within the bullet box than the atypical very best performing RN copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core solid bullets. The properly designed FN monometal solids will demonstrate this level of performance most typically with lower bullet weight; i.e., less sectional density, than the RN copper encapsulated steel jacketed lead core solid bullets having traditional weights.

You may certainly use whatever construction bullets you desire. I personally prefer to use bullets that are more than adequate.

Gerard and cap, okay you have shown us examples of bullets and box testing of bullets and cap what you have said about reported poor killing performance of certain caliber and bullet weights is true, my point is not saying that "properly designed FN monometal solids" are not good, but trying to point out that in many cases with many shooters historical and present, they are not required and their use will not necessarily translate to better performance for many shooters. The round nose solid has provided the level of performance that many shooters have found perfectly adequate.

Yes cap we may all use want ever construction bullets we desire and we do and we will continue to do (unless bullets containing lead are banned) so perhaps I may indulge and show why I hold my perspective on solid bullets.

This 8mm movie clip, acknowledging a sound bite I 'borrowed' from one of Saeed's videos just to give some sound on a silent film clip, shows my 404 using factory Parker Hale ammo with a 400gr solid (loaded by Norma) dropping a buffalo bull with a single high chest shot. The bull did not kick or move after it dropped. Being old movie it is not as clear as our video today but you can see the animal about centre frame.



The following series of photos show more buffalo taken on our hunt; Some shot by our guide, a professional shooter taking meat for his pet meat business and using a 338WM to only shoot from his vehicle. A couple of the animals were taken by my hunting mate with heads shots using his 7mm Mauser and 160gr Noslers, and the majority of the animals taken with my 404 using PH factory ammo or my reloads with 400 gr RWS solids taken on the run or in the scrub and bush. I ended up with a couple of empty Kynoch cases so must have taken a couple with soft nosed ammo which had for pig. Some buffs were knocked down within a few feet of the muzzle as they charged in, not necessarily intentional charges but more likely just in the confusion of shooting and animals dropping, I didn't stop to ask which it was! Our guide who had obviously experienced some close calls when venturing from his vehicle in the past would not leave the vehicle and called out for us to be careful when we hared off into the scrub after the animals.

All the meat was taken each day where after stalking and taking some good bulls we would finish the day shooting some other bulls and cows to make up a load for our guide to take back to his freezers every night. Yes I did my share of skinning field boning out the meat as seen in some photos (I'm the one with the shirt on). My mate seemed to dodge this task and just took photos.

Never did I need to shoot a buffalo more than once, they all dropped to frontal or shoulder shots with the solids, only one of which I recovered after penetrating full length and lodging in the rear hip joint of a bull. I wasn't looking for bullets as it was too hot and vicious biting flies were in abundance so hurriedly got on with the job of taking the meat.

The 'mobbed' animals shown in some photos did not fall like that, we towed them together into the shade with the 4WD to make it a little more pleasant out of the burning sun.









Now tell me I would have performed better with FN monometals or some other 'premium' bullet. Maybe you can appreciate my view point.

Having used both over the years there is no denying that a proper designed flat point solids leaves a larger wound channel and in my experience this is conclusive proof of better performance. No doubt about it, if you still insist on a model T instead of a modern auto that is entirely your decision.

Which FN solids were available in your part of the world when those photos were taken and the 8mm film was shot?

Large animals were killed century's ago by stampeding them off of cliffs. Then with spear and then bows and arrows. I would bet that even back then there were those that were against moving forward with more efficient projectiles and methods of taking game.

I don’t get it... What is all the animosity about? What is even the argument?

People studied bullet shapes and terminal ballistics in depth, spending huge amounts of money and untold amounts of time in the process, with nobody’s help. They increased widely our knowledge of what happens when a bullet hits the target, what works, what does not work, and what works so-so.

The result is improved designs, better performances, and results on live game that are more consistent.

Of course many old bullets did work, but nobody could explain why a particular caliber was performing markedly better than another one, with similar velocities, diameter, SD, and weight.

Nobody could explain why, once in a while, a shot went wrong, an elephant kept coming, a buffalo did not go down, and the odd PH or client got ever so slightly mashed up.

What does the crowd of the “leave good enough alone” have to say? That one should not try and improve things? Then you’re free to pick a rock from my garden, and go and fetch yourself something that can bite. I’ll even give you two rocks, free of charge.

As for myself, I spend forty to seventy days year in, year out, chasing buffalo in elephant and lion country, and the occasional rogue hippo on land at night. I know very well that traditional bullets have worked in most cases over the years, but I also know very well that once in a while they fail miserably - and that people get killed over this.

So, when someone sweats to develop a better mousetrap, and that they succeed in bringing a bullet that reduces the odds that one day my kids will be told that daddy is not coming home, not today, not tomorrow and not even for Christmas, I say thank you.

And I use the darn new bullet, even if that’s not the way things have been done since Noah’s days...

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
I don’t get it... What is all the animosity about? What is even the argument?

People studied bullet shapes and terminal ballistics in depth, spending huge amounts of money and untold amounts of time in the process, with nobody’s help. They increased widely our knowledge of what happens when a bullet hits the target, what works, what does not work, and what works so-so.

The result is improved designs, better performances, and results on live game that are more consistent.

Of course many old bullets did work, but nobody could explain why a particular caliber was performing markedly better than another one, with similar velocities, diameter, SD, and weight.

Nobody could explain why, once in a while, a shot went wrong, an elephant kept coming, a buffalo did not go down, and the odd PH or client got ever so slightly mashed up.

What does the crowd of the “leave good enough alone” have to say? That one should not try and improve things? Then you’re free to pick a rock from my garden, and go and fetch yourself something that can bite. I’ll even give you two rocks, free of charge.

As for myself, I spend forty to seventy days year in, year out, chasing buffalo in elephant and lion country, and the occasional rogue hippo on land at night. I know very well that traditional bullets have worked in most cases over the years, but I also know very well that once in a while they fail miserably - and that people get killed over this.

So, when someone sweats to develop a better mousetrap, and that they succeed in bringing a bullet that reduces the odds that one day my kids will be told that daddy is not coming home, not today, not tomorrow and not even for Christmas, I say thank you.

And I use the darn new bullet, even if that’s not the way things have been done since Noah’s days...

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
I don’t get it... What is all the animosity about? What is even the argument?

People studied bullet shapes and terminal ballistics in depth, spending huge amounts of money and untold amounts of time in the process, with nobody’s help. They increased widely our knowledge of what happens when a bullet hits the target, what works, what does not work, and what works so-so.

The result is improved designs, better performances, and results on live game that are more consistent.

Of course many old bullets did work, but nobody could explain why a particular caliber was performing markedly better than another one, with similar velocities, diameter, SD, and weight.

Nobody could explain why, once in a while, a shot went wrong, an elephant kept coming, a buffalo did not go down, and the odd PH or client got ever so slightly mashed up.

What does the crowd of the “leave good enough alone” have to say? That one should not try and improve things? Then you’re free to pick a rock from my garden, and go and fetch yourself something that can bite. I’ll even give you two rocks, free of charge.

As for myself, I spend forty to seventy days year in, year out, chasing buffalo in elephant and lion country, and the occasional rogue hippo on land at night. I know very well that traditional bullets have worked in most cases over the years, but I also know very well that once in a while they fail miserably - and that people get killed over this.

So, when someone sweats to develop a better mousetrap, and that they succeed in bringing a bullet that reduces the odds that one day my kids will be told that daddy is not coming home, not today, not tomorrow and not even for Christmas, I say thank you.

And I use the darn new bullet, even if that’s not the way things have been done since Noah’s days...

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Which FN solids were available in your part of the world when those photos were taken and the 8mm film was shot?

There was hardly any components around back then for many of the British big bores in this neck of the woods. I imported some RWS RN solid projectiles from Century Arms in Australia, the only place that I was aware off in that country that had limited supplies of ammo and components for the old NE cartridges (at great cost).

I never saw any FN monos being advertised at the time although I recall reading somewhere that if using monometal bullets the leade in a rifle should be opened up a bit to prevent pressure spikes. My Mauser standard length M98 opened up for the 404 cartridge has a lot of freebore, I assume when this was done by whoever re-chambered the rifle probably had monometals in mind.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
Having used both over the years there is no denying that a proper designed flat point solids leaves a larger wound channel and in my experience this is conclusive proof of better performance. No doubt about it, if you still insist on a model T instead of a modern auto that is entirely your decision.

My Model T works pretty good though don't you think

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
There was hardly any components around back then for many of the British big bores in this neck of the woods. I imported some RWS RN solid projectiles from Century Arms in Australia, the only place that I was aware off in that country that had limited supplies of ammo and components for the old NE cartridges (at great cost).

I never saw any FN monos being advertised at the time although I recall reading somewhere that if using monometal bullets the leade in a rifle should be opened up a bit to prevent pressure spikes. My Mauser standard length M98 opened up for the 404 cartridge has a lot of freebore, I assume when this was done by whoever re-chambered the rifle probably had monometals in mind.

Could have been done to accommodate monometal bullets. But more likely was it done during the Weatherby hay day when 'a lot of freebore' was thought to both reduce pressure while increasing velocity...

Philip,

Can you give us a couple of examples of PHs that have maimed or killed because a RN solid bullet misbehaved? Can you also state with any certainty that if a FN solid had been used instead that the out come would have been different?


465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Philip,

Can you give us a couple of examples of PHs that have maimed or killed because a RN solid bullet misbehaved? Can you also state with any certainty that if a FN solid had been used instead that the out come would have been different?


465H&H

465H&H-

You know damn well you can't prove a negative---stop the ridiculous straw man arguments.

465H&H,

"Which bullet did you use?"

I have asked that question hundreds, if not thousands of times when I am told a horror story or a success story. When you ask the question over a decade or more, a lot of anecdotal information comes your way and it is simple to distill that information down to:
1. The animal survived or the animal died.
2. Number of shots fired to get the animal on the ground.
3. The type/make of bullet used.

The rest of the story is unimportant. According to those three criteria, GSC does not make round nosed bullets.

This question has been asked here on AR as well. Collate the answers and then tell me what type of bullet gives the best and most reliable result. Base your opinion on objective numbers instead of subjective 'grandpa's gut feeling'.

eagle27,

quote:

My Model T works pretty good though don't you think

If that is all that one has available, it has to suffice.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Philip,

Can you give us a couple of examples of PHs that have maimed or killed because a RN solid bullet misbehaved? Can you also state with any certainty that if a FN solid had been used instead that the out come would have been different?


465H&H

465H&H-

You know damn well you can't prove a negative---stop the ridiculous straw man arguments.

It is beyond my comprehension that grown men cannot and will not, and continue to refuse to think, believe or admit that the "Potential" exists for their coveted, loved, adored, even worshiped bullet might not possibly be the very best there is for a particular job........ And will go to All Lengths to support an unsupportable position..... One such individual even has to go on an attack in a separate thread, I suppose viewing me as the "Anti-Christ", with their little Pop Quiz thread, utterly ridiculous and demeaning to the originator of the thread more so than the target of the thread, as it clearly shows their personal agenda, but they trudge on through slop and mud to attain some sort of goal whatever that might be. Amazing at the lengths they go through to justify and support their position, far beyond normal behavior I believe......

M

Take heart, the original quiz is done by MJines and the first answer is by Shootaway.


We have a saying in Africa, when important issues are being discussed and someone voices an absurd opinion, he is told: "Sit down and listen, the grown men are looking at their feet and smiling."

Maybe I am too direct but veiled innuendo is not my style. Diplomacy wastes time.

Below was brought to my attention this morning as well... Located upstairs, African Forum, Mark Sullivan Lion hunting....

This entire thread, as far as I quickly blew threw it to this post, there was not one word mentioned about bullets? Bullets are not part of the thread, seems to be all about Mark taking his photo with the clients lion, or some such....... Not a word about bullets, either before or after this post...
But this one individual cannot resist trying to take a poke ......... Seems to me this individual has a personal problem and want to talk about animosity, its rather obvious I think that is has nothing to do with bullets........

quote:

. . . I must have mistakenly logged on to a blog other than AR today. The next thing we will hear is that the lion was killed with a bullet other than a CEB or a NF. The rapture must be at hand.

How petty can it get?

Michael

MJines again....

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Take heart, the original quiz is done by MJines and the first answer is by Shootaway.


We have a saying in Africa, when important issues are being discussed and someone voices an absurd opinion, he is told: "Sit down and listen, the grown men are looking at their feet and smiling."

Maybe I am too direct but veiled innuendo is not my style. Diplomacy wastes time.

Gerard...
I am rather direct myself, but most of the time, maybe slightly more diplomatic than you... HEH..... I think its rather funny how some individuals have taken things beyond the jest of discussion and striving for ludicrous......... No worries here I think most reasonably intelligent folks know better......... Sure shows that the reason for the disagreement actually has nothing to do with bullets at all.... No doubt, another agenda involved........ Neither here nor there, is of note, but of little consequence in the end.....

Michael

I look at it this way.I will not send my troops to an area that I suspect of being full of ambushes or some place they risk being ... If I thought there were no issues then sure but there are.There are feeding issues,stableizing issues,and possibly low energy transfer.The one that bugs me most is the stableizing issues as these brass bullets sprayed out of my rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I look at it this way.I will not send my troops to an area that I suspect of being full of ambushes or some place they risk being ... If I thought there were no issues then sure but there are.There are feeding issues,stableizing issues,and possibly low energy transfer.The one that bugs me most is the stableizing issues as these brass bullets sprayed out of my rifles.

Still talking "energy transfer" something that you know absolutely nothing about. Once again for the "stupid". Ignorance can be corrected, but since I posted this for you once already and you didn't get it, you crossed the line to stupid.



Feeding is correctable. Why let the rifle dictate the ammo?

quote:

Shootaway: I will not send my troops to an area that I suspect of being full of ambushes or some place they risk being ..

That is why you are not in charge of sending troops.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
...The one that bugs me most is the stableizing issues as these brass bullets sprayed out of my rifles.

I thought bullets spraying out of your rifles was your normal method of shooting. So, does it really matter?

Gentlemen,

I am a researcher by background. I was trained to deal in facts and not opinion or conjecture. When someone posts something as fact as Philip did, I would like to see the details as it is from details that we learn. If he had said "In my opinion", I wouldn't have asked for the details. If you post a statement as fact, I reserve the right to ask you to justify that statement and I expect you to do the same to me.
I will also ask those questions no matter which side of the fence in the RN vs FN debate you are on.

I am not sure who Michael was talking about but I have never said that the RN solid was perfect for every use. In fact, quite the opposite is true in that I have said many times that both designs have their advantages and their disadvantages. I have used both and recommend both depending on their intended use.

So please let it be clear that I am neither an exclusive RN or FN person. I will continue to base my decision on which to use based on my past experience of firing over 150 solids of both designs into buff and elephants among other important factors.

One statement that is often made here is that RN solid bullets have a greater potential to veer off coarse that FN bullets. I tend to agree with this statement but how much the potential is and the importance for either is a subject for discussion.

I would like to add a similar statement:
FN bullets have a greater potential to cause feeding problems than RN solids but again how great that difference is and how important it is also a matter for discussion.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Gentlemen,

I am a researcher by background. I was trained to deal in facts and not opinion or conjecture. When someone posts something as fact as Philip did, I would like to see the details as it is from details that we learn. If he had said "In my opinion", I wouldn't have asked for the details. If you post a statement as fact, I reserve the right to ask you to justify that statement and I expect you to do the same to me.
I will also ask those questions no matter which side of the fence in the RN vs FN debate you are on.

I am not sure who Michael was talking about but I have never said that the RN solid was perfect for every use. In fact, quite the opposite is true in that I have said many times that both designs have their advantages and their disadvantages. I have used both and recommend both depending on their intended use.

So please let it be clear that I am neither an exclusive RN or FN person. I will continue to base my decision on which to use based on my past experience of firing over 150 solids of both designs into buff and elephants among other important factors.

One statement that is often made here is that RN solid bullets have a greater potential to veer off coarse that FN bullets. I tend to agree with this statement but how much the potential is and the importance for either is a subject for discussion.

I would like to add a similar statement:
FN bullets have a greater potential to cause feeding problems than RN solids but again how great that difference is and how important it is also a matter for discussion.

465H&H

A Hornady DGS solid is not likely to veer off course,IMO.

H,

I'm pretty sure the comment you reference wasn't directed at you.

Discussions are always enjoyable when both sides converse without animosity. Unfortunately it rarely lasts very long.

"Discussions are always enjoyable when both sides converse without animosity. Unfortunately it rarely lasts very long."

Very sad but also very true!

465H&H

It is really important that you have the most accurate ammo for your rifle also that it shoots POI bulls eye and that is not that easy to accomplish especially with doubles.If you have such reloads and you have power like in a 500NE and you have tough solids like the DGS(or Woodleigh) and 570 grains talking then you have the right medicine.

to help our little bun-fight along-

Does the coned breech on Winchesters make them easier to get to feed conical solids?

I am not a gunsmith but IMO,it depends on how it is fitted with the barrel.I think Winchester is not the only one with a coned breech.

Feeding is a gunsmithing issue not a bullet issue. Maybe this thread should be moved to the gunsmithing forum. People love the 500 Jeffery even though it seems to takes a good smith to get it to feed reliably. Would you take a 500 Jeffery on safari that did not feed properly? If people use pistols, bows and spears to hunt buff I see no reason you can't use RN bullets even though it would not be my choice. People will use RN bullets as long as a manufacturer will produce them but I think there is a better mouse trap.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Feeding is a gunsmithing issue not a bullet issue. Maybe this thread should be moved to the gunsmithing forum. People love the 500 Jeffery even though it seems to takes a good smith to get it to feed reliably. Would you take a 500 Jeffery on safari that did not feed properly? If people use pistols, bows and spears to hunt buff I see no reason you can't use RN bullets even though it would not be my choice. People will use RN bullets as long as a manufacturer will produce them but I think there is a better mouse trap.

People who are very serious about their rifles and hunting with them don`t choose bullets based on nostalgia or availability.They make their choices based on their own experiments and experience.If they choose RN over FN there is a reason and it is not because they dont like you or him or whoever.Many dont seem to understand this.Do the people who choose FN have enough shooting experience to suggest that FN is superior? I dont think so.IMO,they waste most of their time trying to be an expert on too many things hunting related and have not spend enough time shooting their own rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:
to help our little bun-fight along-

Does the coned breech on Winchesters make them easier to get to feed conical solids?

Most likely not. The coned breech was done to eliminate the extractor cut ala M98 Mauser - simply a cost saving measure.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:
to help our little bun-fight along-

Does the coned breech on Winchesters make them easier to get to feed conical solids?

Most likely not. The coned breech was done to eliminate the extractor cut ala M98 Mauser - simply a cost saving measure.

??????

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Feeding is a gunsmithing issue not a bullet issue. Maybe this thread should be moved to the gunsmithing forum. People love the 500 Jeffery even though it seems to takes a good smith to get it to feed reliably. Would you take a 500 Jeffery on safari that did not feed properly? If people use pistols, bows and spears to hunt buff I see no reason you can't use RN bullets even though it would not be my choice. People will use RN bullets as long as a manufacturer will produce them but I think there is a better mouse trap.

Boom,

Unfortunately folks have gone on Safari, or hunting elsewhere, with rifles having feeding or ejecting issues or in the case of DRs a broken spring for one barrel/trigger. When no replacement is available the hunter can continue using their rifle as a single shot.

Pistol hunters used RN bullets and were the first to adopt FN bullets for the penetration and trauma that the bullets inflict.

9mm pistol= 350 ftlbs energy

500NE rifle=6000 ftlbs energy

two different things

Can someone answer this question for me....

What individual made this statement concerning CEB #13 Solids?

quote:

Another thing that surprised me about the bullets was how well they feed. Having used Barnes banded solids and North Forks before I was expecting to experience feeding issues given the large flat meplat. Not so. They feed just like a round nose solid. Couple that with penetration like a flat nose bullet, what's not to like?

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Can someone answer this question for me....

What individual made this statement concerning CEB #13 Solids?

quote:

Another thing that surprised me about the bullets was how well they feed. Having used Barnes banded solids and North Forks before I was expecting to experience feeding issues given the large flat meplat. Not so. They feed just like a round nose solid. Couple that with penetration like a flat nose bullet, what's not to like?

Might have been the same person that said:

quote:

The Barnes feed fine in my .404J Parker Hale. The CEBs are too long to fit in the magazine for the Parker Hale. The dummies I am sending you are loaded with Barnes Banded Solids.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

How petty can it get?

. . . apparently we are going to be shown.